United for Peace of Pierce County, WA - We nonviolently oppose the reliance on unilateral military actions rather than cooperative diplomacy.

In a Friday post on the American Conservative web site, former CIA officer Philip Giraldi spoke with some confidence about a tentative NSC decision "to proceed with plans to attack an Iranian al-Qods-run camp that is believed to be training Iraqi militants" as an "unambiguous signal" to the Iranian leadership.[1] -- The camp to be attacked is "one of several located near Tehran," he said. -- Accordig to Giraldi, Secretary of Defense Gates was the only senior official in favor of delaying offensive action, but added that "The decision to proceed with plans for an attack is not final. The President will still have to give the order to launch after all preparations are made." -- Giraldi has predicted attacks on Iran that have failed to materialize before, it should be noted. -- The London Telegraph noted on Tuesday that Iran hawk and former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton is openly promoting such an attack.[2] -- On Monday, U.S. News & World Report posted a piece that seemed designed to provide a justification for such an attack by asserting that "U.S. military officials in Iraq are publicly pointing to an alleged Iranian role in the training of radical Iraqi Shiites, escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran that reports suggest could lead to a military conflict. In effect, the United States is blaming Iran for providing not only weapons but also training and encouragement for Iraqi Shiite extremists to kill American soldiers in Iraq. -- On Monday, a U.S. military spokesman charged that Iraqi Shiite extremists are being trained by members of the Lebanese militant Shiite group Hezbollah in camps near Tehran."[3] -- The speculation that the U.S. might be close to attacking Iran was a significant factor in driving up the price of oil this week; AFP said that "Andew Busch, analyst at BMO Capital Markets, cited 'rumors of U.S. action against Iran circulating in the markets' that affected oil and the dollar."[4] -- Reviewing the situation, Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com asked: "No one wants another war — so why does it seem inevitable?"[5] -- He said the attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon is "plainly meant as a provocation" and warned: "The second chapter in the Great Middle Eastern War is being written, and its authors in Washington have in mind an even more dramatic plot-line than we witnessed in chapter one, which was, of course, the invasion of Iraq. . . . we are being treated to a propaganda campaign that blames Iran for the failure of the 'surge,' ignoring the inherent impossibility of subduing an occupied people. . . . With U.S. casualties up in the last month and the situation on the ground steadily worsening, the War Party is seizing the opportunity to target Tehran, positioning itself to launch Operation Iranian Freedom under the guise of 'defending' our troops in Iraq. But first comes the provocation, the catalyzing incident that creates a 'crisis' atmosphere and inspires our warmongers — and theirs — to act." ...

There is considerable speculation and buzz in Washington today suggesting that the National Security Council has agreed in principle to proceed with plans to attack an Iranian al-Qods-run camp that is believed to be training Iraqi militants. The camp that will be targeted is one of several located near Tehran. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was the only senior official urging delay in taking any offensive action. The decision to go ahead with plans to attack Iran is the direct result of concerns being expressed over the deteriorating situation in Lebanon, where Iranian ally Hezbollah appears to have gained the upper hand against government forces and might be able to dominate the fractious political situation. The White House contacted the Iranian government directly yesterday through a channel provided by the leadership of the Kurdish region in Iraq, which has traditionally had close ties to Tehran. The U.S. demanded that Iran admit that it has been interfering in Iraq and also commit itself to taking steps to end the support of various militant groups. There was also a warning about interfering in Lebanon. The Iranian government reportedly responded quickly, restating its position that it would not discuss the matter until the U.S. ceases its own meddling employing Iranian dissident groups. The perceived Iranian intransigence coupled with the Lebanese situation convinced the White House that some sort of unambiguous signal has to be sent to the Iranian leadership, presumably in the form of cruise missiles. It is to be presumed that the attack will be as “pinpoint” and limited as possible, intended to target only al-Qods and avoid civilian casualties. The decision to proceed with plans for an attack is not final. The President will still have to give the order to launch after all preparations are made.

John Bolton, America’s ex-ambassador to the United Nations, has called for U.S. air strikes on Iranian camps where insurgents are trained for war in Iraq.

Mr. Bolton said that striking Iran would represent a major step towards victory in Iraq. While he acknowledged that the risk of a hostile Iranian response harming American’s overseas interests existed, he said the damage inflicted by Tehran would be “far higher” if Washington took no action.

“This is a case where the use of military force against a training camp to show the Iranians we’re not going to tolerate this is really the most prudent thing to do,” he said. “Then the ball would be in Iran’s court to draw the appropriate lesson to stop harming our troops.”

Mr. Bolton, an influential former member of President George W. Bush’s inner circle, dismissed as “dead wrong” reported British intelligence conclusions that the U.S. military had overstated the support that Iran was providing to Iraqi fighters.

A U.S. military spokesman revealed last week that the elite Quds Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards had drafted in personnel from Lebanon’s Hezbollah to train fighters from Iraq’s Shia militias.

Colonel Donald Bacon, a spokesman for the coalition in Baghdad, said captured fighters had told interrogators that thousands of Iraqi fighters were undergoing training in the Islamic Republic.

The main camp is located near the town of Jalil Azad, near Tehran, according to coalition officials.

The capture of Qais Khazali, a major figure in the Shia insurgency alongside Ali Mussa Daqduq, a senior Lebanese Hezbollah guerilla, last year yielded a treasure trove of information on Hezbollah’s activities in Iraq.

“Ali Mussa Daqduq confirmed Lebanese Hezbollah were providing training to Iraqi Special Group members in Iran and that his role was to assess the quality of training and make recommendations on how the training could be improved,” said Col. Bacon. “In this role, he travelled to Iraq on four occasions and was captured on his fourth trip.”

Five Britons kidnapped in Iraq are believed to have been put under the control of Quds Force agents after failed attempts to barter the men for Khazali and Daqduq’s freedom.

The importance of the Quds Force to stability in Iraq was demonstrated last week when a five-member Iraqi delegation was sent to Tehran to meet with its commander, General Ghassem Soleimani. The delegation was despatched by the Iraqi government to plead for an end to Iranian meddling in its enfeebled neighbor.

U.S. military officials in Iraq are publicly pointing to an alleged Iranian role in the training of radical Iraqi Shiites, escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran that reports suggest could lead to a military conflict. In effect, the United States is blaming Iran for providing not only weapons but also training and encouragement for Iraqi Shiite extremists to kill American soldiers in Iraq.

On Monday, a U.S. military spokesman charged that Iraqi Shiite extremists are being trained by members of the Lebanese militant Shiite group Hezbollah in camps near Tehran. Hezbollah itself gets funding, arms, and training from Iran's Quds Force, an élite unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Iraqis are receiving the training at camps operated by the Quds Force, Air Force Col. Donald Bacon told the Associated Press. "We have multiple detainees who state Lebanese Hezbollah are providing training to Iraqis in Iranian IRGC-QF training camps near Tehran," said Bacon, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad. (The Quds Force is also known as the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps-Quds Force, or IRGC-QF. Al-Quds is the Arabic name for Jerusalem.)

The Sunday Times of London, citing Western intelligence sources, reported that the United States is drawing up plans for a "surgical strike" against an insurgent training camp inside Iran if Republican Guards continue with attempts to destabilize Iraq. CBS News reported last week that the Pentagon ordered military commanders to develop new options for attacking Iran.

While military officials publicly downplay that prospect, U.S. officials are laying the rhetorical groundwork for exercising a military option. For instance, Central Intelligence Agency Director Michael Hayden last week bluntly accused Iranian leaders of policies to "facilitate the killing of Americans in Iraq."

U.S. military officials and some analysts have cited Iran's involvement for some time. Military officials say that the United States will soon make public more evidence that Iran continues to send weapons into Iraq, including the armor-piercing munitions that have proven particularly deadly for American forces. Complicating matters, though, a top Iraqi official said Sunday that there was no conclusive evidence that Shiite extremists have been directly supplied with Iranian arms as alleged by the United States. Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Iraq does not want trouble with any country, "especially Iran." Asked about reports that some rockets made in 2007 or 2008 and seized in raids against militias were directly supplied by Iran, al-Dabbagh replied: "There is no conclusive evidence."

On Monday, Iran said it would not hold a new round of talks with the United States on security in Iraq until U.S. forces end their current assault against Shiite militias. U.S. and Iraqi forces have been battling supporters of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who receives support from Iran. "We believe the talks will not be held given the current situation [in Iraq]," Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told reporters during his weekly press briefing Monday.

Iran and the United States have held three rounds of ambassador-level talks on security in Iraq since last May.

NEW YORK -- Oil prices spiked to new highs Tuesday in the latest frenzied trade driven by concerns over violence in key producer Nigeria and the weak U.S. currency.

New York's main oil futures contract, light sweet crude for June delivery, leapt as high as 122.73 dollars per barrel, an all-time intraday high, before settling to a closing record high of 121.84 dollars, up 1.87 dollars.

London's Brent North Sea crude for June also reached an all-time high at 120.99 dollars a barrel, before slipping back to settle at a new high of 120.31 dollars for a gain of 2.32 dollars.

Runaway oil prices have almost doubled in the past year and have surged by more than 20 dollars since the start of 2008.

"Market headlines are dominated by the impact of currency fluctuations, geopolitics in the form of actual and potential threats to supply in Nigeria, Iraq, and Iran, plus better-than-expected recent U.S. economic data," said Barclays Capital analyst Kevin Norrish.

"Of these three drivers, we think it is supply losses that are the key driver at present."

Nigerian militants attacked an oil ship off the coast of the west African country and took two people hostage over the weekend.

Nigeria, Africa's largest oil producer, has seen an upsurge in violent attacks on its oil industry in the past two years.

Events surrounding Iran, the world's fourth biggest oil producer, gave added support to prices on Tuesday.

Andew Busch, analyst at BMO Capital Markets, cited "rumors of U.S. action against Iran circulating in the markets" that affected oil and the dollar.

Iran said Monday it would reject any offer that violates its right to master the full nuclear fuel cycle after world powers said they had prepared a new package to end the atomic crisis.

Iran denies it wants to do this and insists it has a right to enrich and make nuclear fuel as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Record-breaking oil prices have sparked widespread international concern among consumer nations.

Kuwaiti Oil Minister Mohammad al-Olaim last week said that OPEC may hold an extraordinary meeting on oil prices before a scheduled conference in September and did not appear to rule out higher production.

However, Libya's acting oil minister Chukri Ghanem recently indicated that the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries could not pump more crude.

On Tuesday, the Indonesian government said it was considering withdrawing from OPEC, which produces about 40 percent of the world's oil.

Indonesia is the only Southeast Asian member of the oil cartel but declining production levels have turned it into a net importer.

The first shots of what appears to be a renewed Lebanese civil war rang out three days ago as the U.S.-backed government cracked down on Hezbollah, the main opposition party, with a ban on the group's private telecommunications network and the attempted ouster of an alleged sympathizer, Brig. Gen. Wafiq Shuqeir, as overseer of the Beirut airport. This is plainly meant as a provocation: Hezbollah, which fought off the Israelis during the 2006 war, is not about to give up its communications infrastructure. After all, it was Hezbollah, not the Lebanese army, that resisted the Israelis when they rained bombs down on Lebanese civilians, killing and maiming thousands, destroying homes, factories, and houses of worship. The army stayed in its barracks while Hezbollah fought for Lebanon. But no matter. The Lebanese government -- with the Americans and the Israelis behind it -- clearly wants a fight.

That fight is part of a brewing regional battle that would leave the Middle East a cauldron of flame and blood. This dire prospect doesn't deter the War Party: they have been waiting for this moment for years. It is their moment of triumph.

As we ordinary folk go about our lives -- paying bills, raising children, attending to the mundane and increasingly difficult everyday affairs that dominate our lives -- our betters are planning a surprise. You might call it an October Surprise, although it may take place much sooner -- rumor has it as early as summer.

The second chapter in the Great Middle Eastern War is being written, and its authors in Washington have in mind an even more dramatic plot-line than we witnessed in chapter one, which was, of course, the invasion of Iraq. In the run-up to that conflict, we were told Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, links to al-Qaeda, and was getting ready to wreak havoc on our allies in the region -- and even attack the United States. None of it turned out to be true, as we now know, but, as John McCain says, "we're there now," "we're in it to win it" -- and winning it apparently means extending the war to Iran.

In a rerun of the cherry-picked "intelligence"-mongering of the pre-Iraq war years, we are being treated to a propaganda campaign that blames Iran for the failure of the "surge," ignoring the inherent impossibility of subduing an occupied people. Ever since Judy Miller, the New York Times has been the neocons' favorite venue for war propaganda, and now we have a new report from the Old Gray Lady that asserts Hezbollah is training Iraqi militias on the outskirts of Tehran.

Here we have an all-inclusive stew that includes practically all the "bad guys": Hezbollah, the Iraqi militias, and the Iranians. If we hear tomorrow that Osama bin Laden himself is personally instructing the attendees of this "training camp" and plotting another 9/11 with their assistance, no one wil be the least bit surprised. It's Halloween in springtime: all the ghouls and goblins are out, haunting and gibbering and howling at the moon.

With U.S. casualties up in the last month and the situation on the ground steadily worsening, the War Party is seizing the opportunity to target Tehran, positioning itself to launch Operation Iranian Freedom under the guise of "defending" our troops in Iraq. But first comes the provocation, the catalyzing incident that creates a "crisis" atmosphere and inspires our warmongers -- and theirs -- to act.

Lebanon is a tinderbox, the Balkans of the Middle East, and the "government" -- which is not quite a government, since it lacks a president -- has lit the fuse. For 17 months, the two sides have been locked in a confrontation with little prospect for a peaceful resolution, and foreign hands -- the Americans, the Israelis, the Iranians, the Syrians, the Saudis -- are stirring the pot.

Amid all this tumult and drama, as armed factions engage in street battles and a country that was once the jewel of the Middle East is blackened in the flames of war, what is the American interest? What does the United States have to gain by starting World War III?

The answer is clearly nothing. War with Iran would put our troops in Iraq at risk and plunge the entire region into chaos: the economic consequences of this alone should be enough to deter us. Rumors of oil at $200 a barrel already have the markets roiling. Wait until you see what happens to prices when the Persian Gulf is impassable.

Who benefits from such a war? Not the Lebanese, who have suffered enough over the years and want only to live in peace. Not the Iranians, either, who are stumbling under the weight of economic sanctions imposed at the instigation of the Western powers. And surely not the war-weary American people, who want out of Iraq and have no desire to "liberate" another unwilling candidate for "democratic" emancipation.

Israel's lobby in the U.S. has been calling for confrontation with Iran ever since "Mission Accomplished." AIPAC, the powerhouse lobby for the Jewish state, has made the Iranian "threat" the centerpiece of its legislative and "educational" agenda. The Lobby's neoconservative allies have been clamoring for a fresh conflict, using their key positions as columnists, publicists, think-tank gurus, and television talking heads to beat the drums for war. And those neocons still in positions of power in the government, centered in the office of the vice president, have been making the case inside the administration, with some success.

The people of Israel will also be big losers if -- or, rather, when -- war comes. The governing elites, on the other hand, have plenty to gain. In both Israel and the U.S., where pressing economic problems and continuing scandals threaten their grip on power, the elites will have a welcome respite from having to explain their failures, and a new "enemy" to pin the blame on. The rulers of both countries desperately want to change the subject, diverting the rising tide of anger away from themselves by conjuring up an external "threat." Both regimes are in the midst of a political crisis and could use a good old-fashioned war to channel the frustrations and pent up hostility of their long-suffering citizens in a convenient direction. It's the oldest trick in the book -- and it's working.

We are in the midst of a presidential campaign season, yet not a single major candidate has pointed with alarm to the rather obvious fact that we are on the brink of a major military conflict. Indeed, two of them have welcomed this prospect, while the third -- the Democratic front-runner, who owes his status to his antiwar credentials -- has addressed the subject only indirectly.

It's like one of those dreams where you scream and no sound comes out, so that none can hear your cries for help. Peace advocates might as well be living ghosts, whose hands pass through solid matter and whose voices merge with the sighing of the wind. We are invisible and unheard: the Silenced Majority.