U.S. RESPONSIBLE FOR ASCENDENCY OF IRAN

"Four years after the United States invaded Iraq, in part to transform the Middle East, Iran is ascendant, many in the region view the Americans in retreat, and Arab countries... are awash in sharpening sectarian currents that many blame the United States for exacerbating...

"There is one thing important about the ascendance of Iran here. It does not reflect a real change in Iranian capabilities, economic or political. It's more a reflection of the failures on the part of the U.S. and its Arab allies in the region..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012902090.html

IRAN HAS LEGAL RIGHT TO URANIUM ENRICHMENT

"... the United Nations Security Council's demand, reflected in Resolutions 1696 and 1737, for a halt to the enrichment activities... refer to the IAEA resolutions that requested these suspensions as a "non-legally binding" and "voluntary" measure. In other words, no matter how insistent the United States and its European allies are on a permanent suspension (of uranium enrichment), there is nothing in either the UN resolutions and/or the IAEA resolutions that would endorse (the U.S.'s) unreasonable demand, which lacks a legal basis..."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IA25Ak03.html

USS STENNIS STRIKE GROUP DEPLOYS FOR IRAN

"The USS Stennis carrier with thousands of troops and 80 warplanes aboard is heading for Persian Gulf... the ship picked up 2,500 troops at San Diego. The Stennis Strike Group has still to collect two ships at Hawaii before heading east with a complement of 6,500 US soldiers."
--DEBKAfile (Israel), January 21, 2007
http://www.debka.com/index.php

NO EVIDENCE OF IRANIAN I.E.D. INVOLVEMENT

"... US... officials suggested that Iranian government involvement in the use by Sunni insurgents or Shi'ite militias of "shaped charges" that can penetrate US armored vehicles was the only logical conclusion that could be drawn from the facts. But when asked point blank, they admitted that they had no evidence.

"... The US command admitted at first that the Sunnis were making the shaped charges themselves... (then) the Bush administration made a decision to start blaming its new problem in Iraq on Tehran... But the US administration had a major credibility problem with that story. It could not explain why Iran would want to assist the Sunnis, enemies of the militant Shi'ite parties in Iraq that are aligned with Iran... (recently) Bush apparently gave orders that the US military should seize any Iranians in the country in an effort to get some kind of evidence to use in support of its propaganda theme... trying to substantiate an anti-Iran line for which the Bush administration has no credible evidence..."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IA18Ak02.html

CHENEY REBUFFED IRANIAN OFFER OF COOPERATION

"An Iranian offer to help the United States stabilize Iraq and end its military support for Hezbollah and Hamas was rejected by Vice-President Dick Cheney in 2003...The State Department was open to the offer, which came in an unsigned letter sent shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq... But... Cheney vetoed the deal..."
--Lawrence Wilkerson, former secretary of state Colin Powell's chief of staff
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070119.WORLDREPORT19-1/TPStory/TPInternational/Africa/

BUSH HOPING TO GOAD IRAN INTO WAR

"... on Iran, the president spelled out a plan that appears to be aimed at goading Iran into war with the U.S... recent developments and statements indicate that the administration is ever more seriously eyeing war with Iran. On Wednesday, Bush made the starkest accusations yet against the rulers in Tehran, alleging that the clerics were "providing material support for attacks on American troops"...

"The next move may be Iran's. Tehran has likely sniffed the trap and will sit idly by for now and deprive the Bush administration of a pretext for escalation. But continued provocations from the U.S. through additional raids of Iranian consulates and offices will likely lead to an intentional or unintentional response, after which escalation and war may become reality..."

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36152

3 ASSAULT SHIPS DEPLOY FOR PERSIAN GULF


"Three US Norfolk-based amphibious assault ships set out for Persian Gulf... they are part of the USS Bataan Strike group carrying 2,000 Marines and equipped to insert forces ashore by helicopter, landing craft and amphibious vehicles. The Baatan is equipped with helicopters and fast hovercraft capable of landing thousands of Marines on beaches and providing the landing with cover. The Shreveport, known as the Super Gator, combines the logistical-intelligence support of a command ship with the assault capabilities of combat loaded marines. It is designed for extended amphibious operations. The USS Oak Hill is designed to assist distressed vessels.

DEBKAfile’s military sources add that another three warships are due to sail out of Norfolk for the Gulf this week with marine personnel aboard. This will bring to more than 20,000 the complement of sailors, marines and pilots either heading for the Gulf region like the USS John C. Stennis strike group, or already present like the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and the USS Boxer.

The deployment of the USS John C. Stennis strike group, announced last week, was billed as “a warning to Syria and Iran.”

--DEBKAfile (Israel), January 7, 2007
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3705