Brace Yourselves!!!

Iranian Unit to Be Labeled 'Terrorist'
U.S. Moving Against Revolutionary Guard
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 15, 2007

The United States has decided to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist," according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group's business operations and finances.

The Bush administration has chosen to move against the Revolutionary Guard Corps because of what U.S. officials have described as its growing involvement in Iraq (more evidence) and Afghanistan as well as its support for extremists throughout the Middle East, the sources said. The decision follows congressional pressure on the administration to toughen its stance against Tehran, as well as U.S. frustration with the ineffectiveness of U.N. resolutions against Iran’s nuclear program, officials said.

The designation of the Revolutionary Guard will be made under Executive Order 13224, which President Bush signed two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to obstruct terrorist funding. It authorizes the United States to identify individuals, businesses, charities and extremist groups engaged in terrorist activities. The Revolutionary Guard would be the first national military branch included on the list, U.S. officials said -- a highly unusual move because it is part of a government, rather than a typical non-state terrorist organization.

The order allows the United States to block the assets of terrorists and to disrupt operations by foreign businesses that "provide support, services or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists."

The move reflects escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran over issues including Iraq and Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran has been on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1984, but in May the two countries began their first formal one-on-one dialogue in 28 years with a meeting of diplomats in Baghdad.

The main goal of the new designation is to clamp down on the Revolutionary Guard's vast business network, as well as on foreign companies conducting business linked to the military unit and its personnel. The administration plans to list many of the Revolutionary Guard's financial operations.

"Anyone doing business with these people will have to reevaluate their actions immediately," said a U.S. official familiar with the plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the decision has not been announced. "It increases the risks of people who have until now ignored the growing list of sanctions against the Iranians. It makes clear to everyone who the IRGC and their related businesses really are. It removes the excuses for doing business with these people."

For weeks, the Bush administration has been debating whether to target the Revolutionary Guard Corps in full, or only its Quds Force wing, which U.S. officials have linked to the growing flow of explosives, roadside bombs, rockets and other arms to Shiite militias in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Quds Force also lends support to Shiite allies such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah and to Sunni movements such as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Although administration discussions continue, the initial decision is to target the entire Guard Corps, U.S. officials said. The administration has not yet decided when to announce the new measure, but officials said they would prefer to do so before the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly next month, when the United States intends to increase international pressure against Iran.

Formed in 1979 and originally tasked with protecting the world's only modern theocracy, the Revolutionary Guard took the lead in battling Iraq during the bloody Iran-Iraq war waged from 1980 to 1988. The Guard, also known as the Pasdaran, has since become a powerful political and economic force in Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rose through the ranks of the Revolutionary Guard and came to power with support from its network of veterans. Its leaders are linked to many mainstream businesses in Iran.

"They are heavily involved in everything from pharmaceuticals to telecommunications and pipelines -- even the new Imam Khomeini Airport and a great deal of smuggling," said Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations. "Many of the front companies engaged in procuring nuclear technology are owned and run by the Revolutionary Guards. They're developing along the lines of the Chinese military, which is involved in many business enterprises. It's a huge business conglomeration."

The Revolutionary Guard Corps -- with its own navy, air force, ground forces and special forces units -- is a rival to Iran's conventional troops. Its naval forces abducted 15 British sailors and marines this spring, sparking an international crisis, and its special forces armed Lebanon's Hezbollah with missiles used against Israel in the 2006 war. The corps also plays a key role in Iran's military industries, including the attempted acquisition of nuclear weapons and surface-to-surface missiles, according to Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center For Strategic and International Studies.

The United States took punitive action against Iran after the November 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, including the breaking of diplomatic ties and the freezing of Iranian assets in the United States. More recently, dozens of international banks and financial institutions reduced or eliminated their business with Iran after a quiet campaign by the Treasury Department and State Department aimed at limiting Tehran's access to the international financial system. Over the past year, two U.N. resolutions have targeted the assets and movements of 28 people -- including some Revolutionary Guard members -- linked to Iran's nuclear program.

The key obstacle to stronger international pressure against Tehran has been China, Iran's largest trading partner. After the Iranian government refused to comply with two U.N. Security Council resolutions dealing with its nuclear program, Beijing balked at a U.S. proposal for a resolution that would have sanctioned the Revolutionary Guard, U.S. officials said.

China's actions reverse a cycle during which Russia was the most reluctant among the veto-wielding members of the Security Council. "China used to hide behind Russia, but Russia is now hiding behind China," said a U.S. official familiar with negotiations.

The administration's move comes amid growing support in Congress for the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which was introduced in the Senate by Gordon Smith (R-Ore) and in the House by Tom Lantos (D-CA).The bill already has the support of 323 House members.

The administration's move could hurt diplomatic efforts, some analysts said. "It would greatly complicate our efforts to solve the nuclear issue," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center For American Progress. "It would tie an end to Iran's nuclear program to an end to its support of allies in Hezbollah and Hamas. The only way you could get a nuclear deal is as part of a grand bargain, which at this point is completely out of reach."

Such sanctions can work only alongside diplomatic efforts, Cirincione added.

"Sanctions can serve as a prod, but they have very rarely forced a country to capitulate or collapse," he said. "All of us want to back Iran into a corner, but we want to give them a way out, too. [The designation] will convince many in Iran's elite that there's no point in talking with us and that the only thing that will satisfy us is regime change."

Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

SOURCE

After reading this article, something occurred to me. What occurred to me is that the Bush Administration is willing to do whatever it takes to achieve the ends they desire. Knowing that lies were told and fabrications rendered in order to embark upon an unjust and technically illegal war of aggression against Iraq, they have now begun beating the drums of war against yet another Middle Eastern nation. At first, the Bush Administration lobbied for sanctions against Iran because of their uranium enrichment program. Iran maintained and continues to maintain that the enrichment program is for nuclear fuel purposes only. The Bush Administration had, what they believed to be, legitimate concern over Iran’s nuclear activities because they believed that Iran was a threat, both to the United States and Israel (I’ll get to the Israeli part in this equation in a few minutes). Iran has even bent so far over backwards recently as to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect their reactor and enrichment sites in an effort to prove their intentions, despite the fact that Iran is legally entitled to pursue nuclear technology for fuel purposes under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) that both they and the United States signed in 1968. At this point, there are 2 nuclear powers out of 8 (India and Pakistan) who have not signed this treaty. So, in essence, since the Bush Administration cannot manufacture the evidence needed to invade Iran, they are going to simply declare Iran’s military to be a “terrorist organization”. I honestly have no clue as to how they can be ambulatory with testicles that size.

There is another nuclear power, although they refuse to deny or confirm that they possess nuclear weapons capability. They also appear to have a knack for slipping just under the radar of the mainstream media. That power would be Israel. In recent statements, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was quoted as saying: “Can you say that this is the same level, when they [Iran] are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?". A former Israeli nuclear technician at Negev Nuclear Research Center, Mordechai Vanunu, exposed Israel’s nuclear program at Negev in 1986. Subsequently, he was branded a traitor to Israel and arrested. I find it interesting that the Israeli government is yelling and screaming about Iran’s nuclear capabilities while secretly possessing their own. What are they afraid of, exactly?

Now I’d like to address the Israel issue. In my estimation, it appears that our own government has effectively been infiltrated by a foreign body. The uninhibited greed of our politicians has been exploited as a weakness and we have been surreptitiously taken over. Who is this political body snatcher, you ask? The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)! What makes me so certain that this is the case, you may be asking? I am certain because I can document it, and will attempt to do so over the course of the next few paragraphs.
A long-standing complaint amongst the American people has been the effect of special interest lobbying groups on Capitol Hill. This type of corruption is true. I call it corrupt because, while technically legal, it is morally and ethically suspect. It is also detrimental to the welfare of the American people, as their lives are adversely affected by the actions of these special interest groups. This is not true in every case, however. I wish to remain fair and state, for the record, that there are some legitimate and worthwhile special interest groups such as the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), American Coalition of Fathers & Children (ACFC), Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (A.N.S.W.E.R.) and Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW). These ar but a few of the lobbying groups who actually have an interest in the welfare of Americans. On the other, less ethical side of that coin, we have special interest groups that represent corporations such as: United Health Group Incorporated PAC (a health maintenance organization), United Technologies Corporation PAC (which is a government defense contractor that builds airplane engines) and Bristol Myers-Squibb Employees PAC (which is an extension of the pharmaceutical company). I see the last 3 as less than ethical because they have the distinct ability to influence policy-making decisions toward their favor, which generally ends up hurting those who do not stand in a position to make a profit from these decisions.

This brings me to two people specifically mentioned within the context of the news item I posted here. The first would be Senator Gordon Smith. Senator Smith is connected to FLIR Systems, which is a defense contractor that designs and manufactures thermal imaging systems for the U.S. Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, through PAC contributions. He is also connected to various energy companies (oil and natural gas) through PAC contributions to the tune of some $30,000+ in the 2005-2006 election cycle alone. The icing on this extraordinarily rich cake is that he is also connected to AIPAC to the tune of $68,089 as of 2002 . While we are on the subject, someone REALLY needs to take a look at his PAC contributions from HMOs and insurance companies because this guy is seriously compromised when it comes to health care reform, but that is another blog entirely.

Now, on to the other co-sponsor of this bill, Tom Lantos. Representative Lantos is connected to the Boeing Company, Lockheed Martin and United Technologies, which are ALL hold defense contracts. He is also connected to PG&E, which is an energy company that deals in natural gas and electricity. In addition to these, he is also connected to Gilead Sciences, which had none other than former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at their helm just before he became Secretary of Defense. To add a bit of pepper to my forthcoming statements regarding AIPAC, Rep. Lantos has accepted a whopping career total of $107,250 as of 2004 from them!

Given that these two “men” obviously have the vested interests of defense contractors at heart, doesn’t it stand to reason that they would do everything that they can to provoke yet another war that benefits these campaign contributors, short of actually declaring war? Let us also recognize that both Iran and Iraq have something that American energy companies covet... MASSIVE OIL AND NATURAL GAS RESERVES!

The influence of AIPAC reaches far and wide within the halls of Federal government. AIPAC holds conferences every now and again that are attended and, sometimes, even addressed by high-ranking politicians. Here are a few who have attended these conferences: George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Vice President Dick Cheney, Senators John McCain, Evan Bayh, Susan Collins, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Former Senator John Edwards, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, House Minority Leader John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. House Republican Whip Roy Blunt, former speakers of the House Dennis Hastert and Newt Gingrich, former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Senator Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer. AIPAC contributed approximately $39,532,465 to 1,897 candidates between 1978 and 2004 . That’s an average of $20,839 per candidate. They have also lobbied successfully for securing aid to Israel to the tune of $2.52 BILLION! (As a side note: how on Earth can we give $2.52 billion in aid when we are in TRILLIONS of dollars in debt ourselves?) AIPAC claims that they are working to strengthen relations between the U.S. and Israel. It appears to me that they are actually working FOR Israeli interests alone. How can an organization that obviously works for a foreign government be allowed to hold any sway whatsoever over OUR government and have access to OUR tax dollars? Why is this allowed to happen?

Here’s why: HUBRIS. Hubris is defined as tragic flaw, ie, excessive pride or arrogance that harms other people and brings about the downfall of the person with the flaw. This happened to David Steiner. David Steiner was once the President of AIPAC. However, he became a bit too confident and full of that word hubris and he ended up losing his job. Here is a part of the telephone conversation he had that did him in:

“I got, besides the $3 billion, you know they're looking for the Jewish votes, and I'll tell him whatever he wants to hear. . . Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees which was a fabulous thing, $3 billion in foreign, in military aid, and I got almost a billion dollars in other goodies that people don't even know about. . . I have friends on the Clinton campaign, close associates. . . . I've known Bill for seven, eight years from the National Governors Association. I know him on a personal basis. . . One of my friends is Hillary Clinton's scheduler, one of my officer's daughters works there. We gave two employees from AIPAC leave of absence to work on the campaign. I mean, we have a dozen people in the campaign, in the headquarters, in Little Rock, and they're all going to get big jobs. . . I also work with a think tank, the Washington Institute. I have Michael Mandelbaum and Martin Indyk being foreign policy advisers. . . Steve Spiegel. . . We have Bill Clinton's ear. I talked to Bill Clinton. He's going to be very good for us. . . A girl who worked for me at AIPAC stood up for them at their wedding. Hillary lived with her. I mean we have those relationships. . . Susan Thomases, who's in there, worked with me on the Bradley campaign. We worked together for 13 years. She's in there with the family. They stay with her when they come to New York. One of my officers, Monte Friedkin, is one of the biggest fund-raisers for them. I mean, I have people like that all over the country. . . He's said he's going to help us. He's got something in his heart for the Jews, he has Jewish friends. . . Clinton is the best guy for us. . . We're just negotiating. We're more interested right now in the secretary of state and the secretary of National Security Agency. . . I've got a list. But I really can't go through it. I'm not allowed to talk about it. . . We'll have access.”

I posit that this proposal to hurt Iran is actually a demand from the Israeli government. It is reminiscent of the demands that were made to invade Iraq. I think this because of several statements that I have read from Israeli leaders (Shimon Peres, Ehud Olmert, Ariel Sharon, Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and AIPAC itself). I also have reason to believe that nothing will really change with that situation as long as we have people like Rudolph Giuliani, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton around, lining up for the AIPAC money train.