[wvns] Iran Sanctions Talks Delayed Until November

Russia says new sanctions on Iran must await IAEA probe

Six key nations agree to delay talks on Iran sanctions until November
By Reuters

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/907981.html

Six key nations agreed Friday to delay until November a new United
Nations resolution that would toughen sanctions against Iran in
efforts to prevent the Islamic republic from enriching uranium.

A joint statement from the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and
Germany said they would finalize the new resolution and bring it to a
vote unless reports in November from the chief UN nuclear official and
the European Union's foreign policy chief show a positive outcome of
their efforts.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told reporters after foreign
ministers of the six countries met Friday morning that "we have to
wait to take into account the two reports."

Before the meeting Friday morning, Russia's foreign minister made
clear that Moscow demands to see a report from the UN nuclear agency
on Tehran's past suspicious nuclear work before considering new
sanctions.

Sergey Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice exchanged
sharp words at a luncheon Wednesday when Rice pushed for tough new
sanctions to pressure Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, and Lavrov
said Moscow wanted to give nuclear inspectors time to do their job,
according to the Russian minister and U.S. and European officials
present.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said Thursday that Russia and
China refuse to discuss possible new sanctions against Iran until the
UN nuclear agency reports on Tehran's disclosure of its past
activities at the end of the year.

He said he did not think the council would be able to take up a new
sanctions resolution until after December when the International
Atomic Energy Agency's report is due.

"I think that it would be very difficult to convince the Russians and
the Chinese before," Kouchner told international reporters at a
breakfast meeting.

"We'll do our best to convince them, but honestly, the position was
difficult to tackle."

Lavrov refused to comment on Kouchner's assessment but told reporters
Thursday night that the IAEA's progress with Iran is obvious, and
Moscow wants to see the IAEA report on Iran's nuclear program.

"Any Security Council measures must be proportionate and commensurate
with what Iran is actually doing - and as long as Iran is doing
something which satisfies part of the demands of the Security Council,
I believe we have to caliber our action in the Security Council and
elsewhere," he said.

Lavrov's comments to ITAR-TASS and RIA-Novosti earlier Thursday were
stronger.

"Interference by means of any sanctions would undermine the
International Atomic Energy Agency's efforts," Lavrov was quoted as
saying. The UN Security Council measures on Iran should be balanced
and respond to the steps taken by Tehran itself that obliged to answer
all questions.

While Rice and her top aides want to capitalize on international
frustration with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for declaring
on Tuesday that the nuclear issue is closed and vowing to defy any
Security Council move for more sanctions, Lavrov was adamant in his
support for the International Atomic Energy Agency.

We want to get this information, professional assessment by the
inspectors, Lavrov told reporters Thursday night.

Lavrov told The Associated Press that he had strong words with Rice
about whether the time was right for new sanctions when the IAEA has
struck an agreement with Iran about its past activities.

Lavrov said the United States wanted to ignore the IAEA - as it has in
the past - but we want to rely on IAEA expertise.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei and Iranian officials agreed in July that
Tehran would answer questions from agency experts by December on more
than two decades of nuclear activity - most of it secret until
revealed more than four years ago.

IAEA technical officials returned to Tehran this week to start probing
outstanding questions, some with possible weapons applications.

Earlier this month, ElBaradei urged nations critical of the pact to
hold their horses until the end of the year - when the deadline for
Iran to provide answers runs out.

Two U.N. resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran have failed to
persuade the country to suspend uranium enrichment. Tehran insists the
program is aimed at producing energy for civilian use, but the U.S.,
its European allies and many others fear the program's real aim is to
produce nuclear weapons.

Kouchner said sanctions are not working and tougher measures are
needed to pressure Iran to suspend its enrichment program, amid
growing international concerns that Tehran was working to produce a
nuclear bomb.

The French minister said that when he used the word war recently, it
was to prevent not to impose war over Iran's nuclear program.

This is life and death, Kouchner said, explaining that if Iran gets
nuclear weapons it will be the start of proliferation in the region,
and that is absolutely dangerous, more than dangerous.

The U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Zalmay Khalilzad, on Thursday used
similar language, telling reporters that the agreement with the IAEA
cannot be used as a shield to protect Iran from its violation, lack of
cooperation, lack of implementation of the demands of the Security
Council on the nuclear issue.

Khalilzad said that Iran's ability to enrich uranium to a level usable
for weapons is a threat to international security and stability. It is
one of the most important, perhaps one of the defining issues of our
time.

A united diplomatic front, he said, increases the chances that
diplomacy will succeed. Those who will not cooperate on the diplomacy
of this, with regard to pressure on Iran, sanctions on Iran, bear some
responsibility should diplomacy, God forbid, fail.

===

Iraq Will Have to Wait
By Scott Ritter
Thursday 27 September 2007
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/092707C.shtml

The long-awaited "progress report" of Gen. David Petraeus and
Ambassador Ryan Crocker on the status of the occupation of Iraq has
been made, providing Americans, via the compliant media, with the
spectacle of loyal Bush yes men offering faith-based analysis in lieu
of fact-based assessment. In the days and weeks that have since
passed, two things have become clear: Neither Congress nor the
American people (including the antiwar movement) have a plan or the
gumption to confront President Bush in anything more than cosmetic
fashion over the war in Iraq, and while those charged with oversight
mill about looking to score cheap political points and/or save face,
the administration continues its march toward conflict with Iran
unimpeded.

Bush responded to the Petraeus report by indicating that he would
be inclined to start reducing the level of U.S. forces in Iraq
sometime soon (maybe December, maybe the spring of 2008). But the
bottom line is that the troop levels in Iraq keep expanding, as does
the infrastructure of perpetual occupation. The Democrats in Congress
are focused on winning the White House in 2008, not stopping a failed
war, and as such they not only refuse to decisively confront the
president on Iraq, they are trying to out-posture him over who would
be the tougher opponent of an expansionist Iran.

Here's the danger: While the antiwar movement focuses its limited
resources on trying to leverage real congressional opposition to the
war in Iraq, which simply will not happen before the 2008 election,
the Bush administration and its Democratic opponents will outflank the
antiwar movement on the issue of Iran, pushing forward an aggressive
agenda in the face of light or nonexistent opposition.

Of the two problems (the reality of Iraq, the potential of Iran),
Iran is by far the more important. The war in Iraq isn't going to
expand tenfold overnight. By simply doing nothing, the Democrats can
rest assured that Bush's bad policy will simply keep failing. War with
Iran, on the other hand, can still be prevented. We are talking about
the potential for conflict at this time, not the reality of war. But
time is not on the side of peace.

Three story lines unfolded earlier this month which underscore
just how easily manipulated the American people, via the media, are
when it comes to the issues of Iran and weapons of mass destruction.
In the first, Rear Adm. Mark Fox, a spokesperson for the U.S. military
in Iraq, let it be known that U.S. forces had captured a "known
operative" of the "Ramazan Corps," the ostensible branch of the Quds
Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard command responsible for all
Iranian operations inside Iraq. This "operative," one Mahmudi Farhadi,
was, according to Fox, the "linchpin" behind the smuggling of
"sophisticated weapons" into Iraq by the Quds Force.

We've heard this story before. In January of this year a similar
raid by U.S. forces in Irbil netted six Iranians, five of whom are
still in U.S. custody. Senior American officials let it be known that
these Iranians were likewise members of the Quds Force, and included
that organization's operations director. All were tied to the
(unspecified) transfer of arms and munitions into Iraq from Iran. The
Iranian government claimed, and the Iraqi government confirmed, that
the detained Iranians were all attached to a trade mission in Irbil,
where they oversaw legitimate commerce between Iran and Iraq along the
Kurdish frontier.

The United States continues to hold the Iranians prisoner,
undoubtedly subjecting them to "special treatment" in order to elicit
some sort of confession, if our handling of other Iranian diplomats
previously captured in Iraq is any guide. Their release any time soon
is unlikely, given the impact a de facto admission that the Bush
administration got it wrong would have on the overall case against
Iran it is trying to build. The fate of Farhadi is likewise up in the
air. None other than Kurdish President Jalal Talabani, a staunch
pro-American, condemned the detention of Farhadi by U.S. military
forces, noting that the Iranian was a well-known businessman who was
in Iraq as part of an official trade delegation. The Iranians have
threatened to close down cross-border trade in Talabani's sector of
Iraqi Kurdistan, shutting down a key income stream for the Patriotic
Union of Kurdistan, the Iraqi Kurdish faction Talabani heads. Such is
the reality of modern Iraq.

But this reality is nowhere to be found in the White House. The
president himself has led the charge, as recently as this past August,
when in a speech to the American Legion's national convention in Reno,
Nev., Bush threw down the gauntlet against Iran, declaring, "I have
authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's
murderous activities ... the Iranian regime must halt these actions."
His remarks were built on assertions he first set forth in February
2007 when he highlighted his assessment of Iranian involvement inside
Iraq. At that time the president declared, "I can say with certainty
that the Quds Force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided
these sophisticated IEDs [improvised explosive devices] that have
harmed our troops." Bush avoided direct implication of the Iranian
regime, stating, " ... I do not know whether or not the Quds Force was
ordered from the top echelons of the government. But my point is,
what's worse - them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering
it and it happening?" I might suggest that the American president
putting the weight of the United States behind unsubstantiated
speculation in order to build a case for war might, in fact, be worse,
but since he got away with it regarding Iraqi WMD, why stop now?

In March 2007 the U.S. military paraded yet another
general-cum-spokesperson before the assembled media, where it was
announced that the United States had captured Qais Khazali, the head
of the mysteriously named "Khazali network," together with one Ali
Musa Daqduq, an alleged Lebanese Hizbollah mastermind who helped plan
and facilitate the actions of the Khazali network, including, it
seems, an attack on U.S. forces in Karbala in January 2007 which left
five American soldiers dead. This attack, in which insurgents dressed
in U.S. military uniforms, drove vehicles similar to those used by the
U.S. military and sported U.S. identification documents and weapons,
has been linked to Iran by many in the U.S., citing nothing more than
the level of sophistication involved as proof.

The golden nugget in this story was Ali Musa Daqduq. According to
the U.S. military, he was a 24-year member of the Lebanese Hizbollah
Party possessing extensive contacts with the Iranian Quds Force. The
U.S. military referred to Daqduq as a proxy or surrogate of the Quds
Force in Iraq. An alleged "special forces commander" and bodyguard to
none other than Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hizbollah in Lebanon,
Daqduq was alleged to have been ordered to Iraq in 2005 for the
purpose of coordinating training and operations on behalf of the
Iranian Revolutionary Guard command. Daqduq supposedly helped the
Iranians by training, together with the Quds Force and the Lebanese
Hizbollah operatives, teams of 20 to 60 Iraqi insurgents at secret
bases just outside Tehran.

With this plethora of specificity, however, comes only one item
sourced directly from Ali Musa Daqduq himself - that the Iraqi
insurgents responsible for the January attack on American forces in
Karbala could not have conducted such a complex operation without the
support and direction of the Iranian Quds Force. Daqduq wasn't quoted
as saying the Iranian Quds Force was in fact involved, but simply
that, in his opinion, such an operation could not have been conducted
without the knowledge of the Quds Force. This, of course, brings us
back full circle to the immediate period after the attack in Karbala,
when U.S. military sources speculated that such an attack had to have
been planned by Iran given its complexity. Nothing else is directly
attributed to Daqduq, leaving open the question of sourcing and
authenticity of the information being cited by the U.S. military.

From speculation to speculation, the case against the Quds Force
by the Bush administration continues to lack anything in the way of
substance. And yet the mythological Daqduq has become a launching
platform for even graver speculation, fed by the media themselves,
that the highest levels of leadership in Iran were aware of the
activities of Daqduq and the Quds Force, and are thus somehow
complicit in the violence. Not one shred of evidence was produced to
sustain such serious accusations, and yet national media outlets such
as The New York Times and The Washington Post both ran stories
repeating these accusations. Politicians are formulating policy based
upon such baseless accusations, and the American public continues to
be manipulated into a predisposition for war with Iran largely because
of such speculation. No one seems to pay attention to the fact that
the U.S. military itself has subsequently contradicted its own
briefings, noting in July 2007 that no persons had been captured by
the United States that can provide a direct link between insurgents in
Iraq and Iran. Again, in August of 2007, the U.S. military stated that
it had yet to catch anyone smuggling weapons into Iraq from Iran.

And what of Daqduq himself? It seems that his Iraqi sponsor, Qais
Khazali, had fallen out of favor with Muqtada al-Sadr over the
strategic direction being taken, and sometime in 2006 split away from
Sadr's Mehdi Army, taking some 3,000 fighters with him. In the lawless
wild-West environment which dominates Iraq in the post-Saddam era, the
formation of splinter militias of this sort is an everyday occurrence.
Radical adventurers have historically been drawn to places of
conflict, which would explain the presence of Daqduq. And it would not
surprise me to find that Qais Khazali had secured funding from
extremist elements inside Iran which operate outside the mandate of
government, including some from within the Iranian Revolutionary Guard
itself. But the notion of Iran and Hizbollah aligning themselves
directly with a splinter element like the "Khazali network" is highly
unlikely, to say the least.

But fiction often mirrors reality, and in the case of Iran's Quds
Force, the model drawn upon by the U.S. military seems to be none
other than America's own support of anti-Iranian forces, namely the
Mujahedin el-Khalk (MEK) operating out of U.S.-controlled bases inside
Iraq, and Jundallah, a Baluchi separatist group operating out of
Pakistan that the CIA openly acknowledges supporting. Unlike the lack
of evidence brought to bear by the U.S. to sustain its claims of
Iranian involvement inside Iraq, the Iranian government has captured
scores of MEK and Jundallah operatives, along with supporting
documents, which substantiate that which the U.S. openly admits: The
United States is waging a proxy war against Iran, inside Iran. This
mirror imaging of its own terror campaign against Iran to manufacture
the perception of a similar effort being waged by Iran inside Iraq
against the U.S. has been very effective at negating any Iranian
effort to draw attention to the escalation of war-like activities
inside its borders. After all, who would believe the Iranians? They
are only trying to divert attention away from their own actions inside
Iraq, or so the story goes.

The second story line demonstrates, apparently, that Iranian
perfidy knows no bounds. Just this month, the Iranian government tried
to organize a visit to Ground Zero in Manhattan by its president,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who wanted to present a wreath of condolence over
the tragedy that occurred there on Sept. 11, 2001. The Iranian
president's proposed actions were consistent with the overall approach
the Islamic Republic of Iran has taken concerning the 9/11 attack on
America. Iran was one of the first Muslim nations to openly condemn
the attack, expressing its condolences to those who lost their lives
and calling for a worldwide mobilization against terrorism. But why
let facts get in the way of fiction. Israel's ambassador to the United
Nations, Dan Gillerman, set the standard for intellectual discourse on
the matter when he told the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish
Organization that a visit by President Ahmadinejad to Ground Zero
would be "similar to a visit by a resurrected Hitler to Auschwitz."
Sen. John McCain continued in this vein, stating that allowing
Ahmadinejad to visit the site "would be an affront not only to America
but to the families of our loved ones who perished there in an
unprecedented act of terror." Both remarks clearly attempted to link
the Iranian president, and by extension Iran, to events that they had
nothing whatsoever to do with, and which they openly condemned.

9/11 linkage strategies have worked in the past, regardless of
factual merit. One only need recall Saddam Hussein and Iraq to
understand how easily the American public, courtesy of war-minded
politicians and their co-conspirators in the mainstream media, can be
so easily led down the path of holding one party accountable for the
actions of another. Saddam had nothing to do with the events of 9/11,
and we now occupy Iraq. Similarly, Iran had nothing to do with 9/11,
and yet due in part to the distortion of fact taking place concerning
allegations of Iranian "terror" activity inside Iraq, the link is
clear, at least in the minds of many Americans. President Bush calls
Iran a "state sponsor of terror." The military claims Iran is carrying
out terror attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq. The Iranian president
wanted to visit Ground Zero and was widely condemned by those who plot
regime change in Iran. The Americans, bombarded with these false
connections, then conclude Iran was part of the 9/11 plot. The logic
is so simple, so flawed and yet so dangerously accessible to the minds
of an American people fundamentally ignorant of the true situation in
Iran and the Middle East today.

Which leads us to the third, and final, story line of the month:
Don't believe the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran does
have a nuclear weapons program! For weeks now, the cornerstone for the
justification of American military intervention in Iran has been
crumbling away, the layers and layers of fear-based fiction crafted by
the Bush administration meticulously peeled away by Dr. Mohamed
ElBaradei and his team of inspectors from the IAEA. After treading
water for years in a sea of political intrigue, ElBaradei and his
experts have finally assembled enough data to enable them to close the
books on the Iranian nuclear program, noting that all substantive
questions have been answered and that contrary to the speculative
assessments put forward by the Bush administration it appears that
Iran's nuclear program is, in fact, dedicated to permitted
energy-related activities.

Not so fast. In recent days, Israeli military aircraft, in
coordination with special operations forces on the ground, launched a
preemptive raid on a suspected "nuclear" target in northeast Syria.
According to Israeli and U.S. intelligence sources, this site was
jointly developed by Syria and North Korea for the purposes of
transferring North Korea's proscribed nuclear weapons program to
Syrian control. Worse, we are told by none other than former U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton that this Syrian-North
Korean project was being done at the behest of none other than Iran.
The Syrian site, an established agriculture research center, was
linked to a shipment from North Korea invoiced as cement. Israel
apparently believed different. Israel has been monitoring any activity
taking place inside Syria which could be linked to nuclear activity.
Syria had, in the past, conducted exploratory investigation into
whether phosphate deposits in Syria were viable for the manufacture of
uranium for use in a nuclear energy program. Whether this activity,
which has been suspended since the 1980s, was being resurrected, and
whether the target bombed by Israel had anything to do with such a
resurrection, is unknown at this time. What is obvious to anyone with
any understanding of nuclear activities is that Syria was not pursuing
a nuclear weapons program and North Korea was not supplying Syria with
the components of such a program, either for Syrian use or as a proxy
for Iran.

But this sort of fact-based reasoning is irrelevant, especially in
the secretive circles of power that make the life-or-death decisions
regarding war. The Syrian raid by Israel seems to represent a sort of
"proof of capability" drill, instilling a sense of confidence in an
Israeli military badly shaken from its debacle in Lebanon during the
summer of 2006. The planning for the Syrian raid was a closely held
secret, limited to a small cabal of right-leaning politicians in
Israel and, surprisingly, the United States. The American end of the
deal centered on the office of the vice president, Dick Cheney, who
gave final approval to attack the Syrian target only after being
rebuffed in his effort to get the Israelis to bomb the Natanz nuclear
facility in Iran. Cheney, it seems, is desperate for any action that
might trigger an expanded conflict with Iran. Even though the Syrian
adventure did not succeed in producing such a trigger, it did wipe off
the front pages of American newspapers uncomfortable story lines from
the IAEA, contending as they did that Iran had no nuclear weapons
program. Now, thanks to the Israeli action against Syria, which had no
nuclear weapons program, the American public is in the process of
being fooled into speculating that one does in fact exist not only in
Syria but in Iran.

Continued war in Iraq is a tragedy. Having the conflict spread to
Iran would be a disaster. No one can claim to possess a crystal ball
showing the future. There are many who, when confronted with the
potential for conflict with Iran, choose to brush these warnings
aside, noting that such a conflict would be madness, and that the
United States currently lacks the resources to fight a war with Iran.
Such wishful thinking borders on irresponsible foolishness. If the
headlines from this month tell us anything, it is that war with Iran
is very much a possibility. The Bush administration has been actively
planning war with Iran since the fall of 2004. Since that time,
several windows of opportunity have presented themselves (most
recently in spring 2007), but the Bush administration found itself
unable to pull the trigger for one reason or another (the Navy's
rejection of the presence of a third carrier battle group in the
Persian Gulf scuttled the spring 2007 plans).

The administration always heeded the justifications for aborting
an attack, primarily because there was time still left on the clock,
so to speak. But time is running out. Israel has drawn a red line
across the calendar, indicating that if Iran has not pulled back from
its nuclear ambitions by the end of 2007, military action in early
spring 2008 will be inevitable. The attack on Syria by Israel sent a
clear message that attacks are feasible. The continued emphasis by the
Bush administration on Iran as a terror state, combined with the fact
that the administration seems inclined to blame its continuing
problems in Iraq on Iran, and not failed policy, means that there is
no shortage of fuel to stoke the fire of public opinion regarding war
with Iran. Add in the "reality" of weapons of mass destruction, and
war becomes inevitable, regardless of the veracity of the "reality"
being presented.

The antiwar movement in America must make a strategic decision,
and soon: Contain the war in Iraq, and stop a war from breaking out in
Iran. The war in Iraq can be contained simply by letting war be war.
There is no genuine good news coming out of Iraq. There won't be as
long as the United States is there. As callous as it sounds, let the
war establish the news cycle, and let the reality of war serve to
contain it. The surge has failed. Congress may not act decisively to
bring the troops home, but it is highly unlikely that Congress will
idly approve any massive expansion of an unpopular war that continues
to fail so publicly.

Iran, however, is a different matter. Congress has already
provided legal authority for the president to wage war in Iran through
its existing war powers authority (one resolution passed in 2001, the
other in 2002). Likewise, Congress has allowed the Bush administration
to forward deploy the infrastructure of war deep into the Middle East
and neighboring regions, all in the name of the "global war on
terror." The startup costs for a military strike against Iran would
therefore be greatly diminished. Sustaining such a conflict is a
different matter, but given current congressional reticence to stand
up to a war-time president, it is highly unlikely any meaningful
action would be taken to stop an Iranian war once the bombs start
falling. And we should never forget that Iran has a vote in how this
would end; once it is attacked, Iran will respond in ways that are
unpredictable, and as such set in motion a string of cause-effect
military actions with the United States and others that spins any
future conflict out of control.

The highest priority for the antiwar movement in America today
must be the prevention of a war with Iran. The strategic objectives
should include getting Congress to repeal the war-powers authorities
currently on the books, thereby forcing the president to seek new
congressional approval for any new war. Likewise, a concerted effort
must be undertaken to counter the disinformation being spread by the
Bush administration and others about the nature of the Iranian threat.
Every action undertaken by the antiwar movement must be connected to
one or both of these strategic objectives. This is not the time for
one-off sophomoric newspaper advertisements, but rather for sustained
action focused on generating congressional hearings and public debate
across the entire spectrum of American society. From the colleges and
universities to the churches and on to the public square of small-town
America, public information talks, presentations and panels must be
held. Communities should flood local media outlets with requests for
coverage and appeal to regional media to run stories. Mainstream media
will follow. Demonstrations, if useful at all, must be focused events
linked to an overall campaign designed to facilitate a strategic
objective.

We all should remember the fall of 2002. Many felt that there was
no chance for a war with Iraq, especially once U.N. inspectors made
their return. In March 2003, everyone who thought so was proved wrong.
The fall of 2007 is no different. There is a sense of complacency when
one speaks of the potential for a war with Iran. But time is not on
the side of those who oppose conflict. If nothing is done to change
the political situation inside America regarding Iran, there is an all
too real possibility for a war to break out in the spring of 2008.

Sadly, there really is no alternative for the antiwar movement:
Put opposition to the war in Iraq on the back burner and make
preventing a war with Iran the No. 1 priority, at least until the
national election cycle kicks in during the summer of 2008. If a war
with Iran hasn't happened by then, it probably won't. And the national
debate on Iraq won't be engaged until that time, anyway. A war with
Iran would make the current conflict in Iraq pale by comparison, and
would detrimentally impact the whole of America, not just certain
demographics. As such, it is critical that we all put aside our
ideological and political differences and focus on the one issue
which, if left unheeded, will have devastating consequences for the
immediate future of us all: Prevent a future war with Iran.

----------

A former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served under Gen.
H. Norman Schwarzkopf during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Scott Ritter
worked as a chief inspector for the United Nations Special Commission
in Iraq from 1991 until 1998, helping lead the effort to disarm Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction. He is the author of several books,
including "Iraq Confidential" (2005, Nation Books), "Target Iran"
(2006, Nation Books) and "Waging Peace" (2007, Nation Books). "Target
Iran," with a new afterword by the author, has just been released in
paperback by Nation Books.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@yahoo.com for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/join

(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:wvns-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:wvns-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/