The New Great Game Given Russia's moves on Georgia, it's time
for the United States to rethink its policy toward Iran.
Remember Iran, the greatest threat to Western civilization
since, well, Iraq? The posturing conservatives who dominated
America's foreign policy for most of the last seven years
pretended the only approach that ever could or should be
pursued toward the mullahs would be isolation, confrontation
and, what the hell, annihilation. Who can forget the
oft-repeated campaign mantra of Sen. John McCain that the
only thing worse than going to war with Iran would be a
nuclear-armed Iran?
Well, it turns out that a lot of things are worse. It's
funny how.The New Great Game..
Big Three Block Iran Attack
by William O. Beeman
The United States is in a huge foreign policy
muddle in the Middle East. It wants to dominate and control
Iran, but it requires the support of the world community to
accomplish its aims. Diplomacy and sanctions require only a
low level of support. On the other hand, to launch a
military attack or green-light one by Israel, the United
States needs far more backing.
This support does not appear to exist, and recent U.S.
foreign policy actions are eroding that support even
further. The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported on Aug. 13
that the United States refused to give the go-ahead to
Israeli attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities in talks
between Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Israeli
Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Could it be that the Bush
administration finally knows when it is licked?
Israeli officials acknowledge that it would be difficult to
launch such an attack without approval from Russia, China,
and India, something that the United States would have to
lobby those nations to achieve. The chances at present are
extremely slim that any of the three will acquiesce.
Big Three Block Iran Attack
Iran gambles over Georgia's
crisis
Iran, itself under threat of military action
by the United States and or Israel, has remained
conspicuously silent over Russia's offensive in Georgia.
Tehran shares Moscow's fears over the expansion of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization and the US's plans for
anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe. But the Irananians
may have blundered by not criticizing Moscow, and the "Iran
Six" diplomacy over Iran's nuclear program is now in
jeopardy. - Kaveh L Afrasiabi
(Aug 15, '08Iran gambles over Georgia's crisis
How anti-Iran policy contributed to war in
the Caucasus by Muhammad Sahimi August 15, 2008
Much has been written about the war between
Russia and Georgia. Neoconservatives, as Justin Raimondo
pointed out, have suddenly discovered the "democratic"
republic of Georgia, which has been a historical "victim" of
the Russian "empire." Never mind that not only was Georgia
not a democracy before it was devoured by the Soviet Union
in 1921, but also that the war, started by Georgia's forces,
was a strategic blunder by Georgia's president, the
confrontational, demagogic, American-trained lawyer Mikheil
Saakashvili, who dared foolishly to take on his giant
neighbor, thinking naively that NATO would rush to help him.
William Kristol, the "little Lenin" of the neoconservatives,
who now has another outlet in the op-ed page of the New York
Times, opines that the U.S. must not only give aid to
Georgia, but must also help it become a member of the
"League of Democracies" that John McCain has proposed. Never
mind that in the Georgian "democracy" Saakashvili used
police brutality to stop huge demonstrations after hotly
disputed elections and shut down opposition publications,
and never mind that when democratic elections in Palestine
and Lebanon yielded results deemed undesirable by the U.S.
(and people like Kristol), they were not only dismissed, but
the voters were also punished by U.S. sanctions.How anti-Iran
policy contributed to war in the Caucasus
Nothing Behind US Allegations Against Iran- by Omid Memarian
UNITED NATIONS - While the United States has
repeatedly accused Iran of providing lethal weapons to
Shi'ite militias, last week, U.S. officials once again
failed to provide solid evidence for this charge, raising
questions about the actual level of Iran's meddling in Iraq.
Last Wednesday, Alejandro Daniel Wolff, deputy permanent
U.S. representative to the UN, accused Tehran of funneling
lethal weapons into Iraq. "During the recent operations in
Basra, Sadr City, and Maysan, Iraqi troops uncovered
convincing evidence that Iranian lethal aid has continued to
flow into Iraq," he said.Nothing
Behind US Allegations Against Iran-
The Battle over Enrichment The US pushes for a deal with India, who
already has nuclear weapons, and supports Israel, who is
hiding theirs, but fights to deny Iran the right to make its
own fuel, says Tim Buchholz.
Tensions appeared to be easing between the
United States and Iran. The US has hinted at creating an
embassy in Iran, the first since the 1979 hostage crisis.
According to an article by Ewen MacAskill from July 18th in
the Sydney Morning Herald, "The US plans to establish a
diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 28 years
as part of a remarkable turnaround in policy by the
President, George Bush." Anderson Cooper of CNN says in his
"Morning Buzz" report from July 17th, "Washington would open
a US interests section in the Iranian capital, not a FULL
Embassy, but a halfway house to setting up a full embassy."
And Ewen MacAskill goes on to say, "Iran's President,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, indicated earlier this week that he was
not against the opening of a US mission."The Battle over
Enrichment
A Not-So-Diplomatic Turn The continuing frailty of US-Iran relations and the
possibility of war
by Sadegh Kabeer
Last week Iran responded to the latest
European proposal regarding its controversial nuclear
program. The so-called Iran Six, however, were neither
amused nor heartened by the proposal's apparent "ambiguity"
regarding the demand that Iran cease it enrichment
activities.
Such ambiguity has not been received in the spirit of
Kissingerian "constructive ambiguity," whereby intractable
sticking points are glossed over in a bid to further
diplomatic progress and make negotiators' lives slightly
easier, but instead as effrontery and a fundamental lack of
will on the Iranian side. Tehran thus far has been
noncommittal regarding the offer of a six-week
"freeze-for-freeze" deal in which Iran would temporarily
halt its nuclear program while negotiations putatively
ensued with the aim of finding a lasting solution to the
nuclear dispute. As a quid pro quo, Western states led by
the U.S. would hold off on pressing for a fourth round of
sanctions.
A Not-So-Diplomatic Turn
An Israeli Strike on Iran, a Plan That Just
Doesn't Fly
By Bernard Avishai and Reza Aslan
Sunday, August 10, 2008; B03
The Bush administration seems less and less
likely to launch a parting strike on Iran's nuclear
installations -- but Israel isn't sounding nearly so
tranquil. The talk from Jerusalem will almost certainly grow
more strident as the competition to replace the country's
scandal-plagued prime minister, Ehud Olmert, intensifies.
Former Israeli defense minister Shaul Mofaz is running hard
against the less hawkish Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to
succeed Olmert as leader of the governing Kadima Party; he
recently told Israel's dominant daily newspaper, Yediot
Ahronot, that an attack on Iran was "unavoidable." And
Binyamin Netanyahu, the right-wing opposition leader who
might well beat either Livni or Mofaz in a general election,
is also likely to think seriously about a preventive Israeli
raid.An
Israeli Strike on Iran, a Plan That Just Doesn't Fly
The Iranian Chess Game Continues
by William O. Beeman August 8, 2008
Diplomacy between Iran and the United States
has entered the opening gambit stage, and Iran appears to be
winning at this point.
The game began on July 19, when Iranian nuclear negotiator
Saeed Jalili met with European negotiators with an American
diplomat, Undersecretary of State William J. Burns, present
for the first time at such a meeting since the Iranian
hostage crisis.
The presence of Burns riled many anti-Iranian forces,
resulting in a flurry of pronouncements and articles about
American "capitulation" to Iran. The recriminations
continued. On Aug. 5, former UN Ambassador John Bolton, a
notorious anti-Iran detractor, wrote a fulminating article
in the Wall Street Journal titled "While Diplomats Dither,
Iran Builds Nukes."
The Iranian Chess Game Continues
Why the Pentagon Thinks Attacking Iran is a
Bad Idea No one wants a nuclear Iran, but U.S. military leaders
worry about the risks and strains of a third war
By Anna Mulrine Posted August 7, 2008
The forthrightness on the part of the top two
American defense officials has fed speculation that this is
pushback against those within the Bush administration—Vice
President Dick Cheney's name often comes up here—who might
be inclined to open up a third front for U.S. forces with a
strike against Iran. In light of the Iraq experience,
"generals are more willing to push back against things they
think are stupid, and Gates is more willing to listen," says
Andrew Bacevich, professor of international relations at
Boston University. "Mullen isn't just saying these things
for our benefit—I think it is a real effort to communicate
with the civilian leadership."
Or the Pentagon brass is simply stating the obvious, as some
senior officials contend, mindful that the final word comes
from the White House. "There are lots of opinions about
where we're headed with Iran and a lot of healthy
discussion" in the administration, says the senior military
official. "But to set the debate along the lines of 'to bomb
or not to bomb' isn't a fair characterization." Says
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell, "The views the secretary
has expressed on this issue are entirely his own, and they
are entirely consistent with his colleagues in the
administration."Why
the Pentagon Thinks Attacking Iran is a Bad Idea
The Coming War with Iran:
It's About the Oil, Stupid
World civilization is based on oil. The world
is running out of oil. The oil companies and governments are
not telling the truth about how close we are to the end.
Dick Cheney knew about peak oil back in 1999 when he spoke
to the London Petroleum Institute as Halliburton CEO. He
predicted it would come in 2010. After that it's just a
matter of years before it runs out. Whoever controls the
remaining oil determines who lives and who dies.
Sixty percent of this oil is in fields within a triangular
area of the Middle East the size of Kansas. In that speech
Cheney said: "The Middle East with two thirds of the world's
oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately
lies."
The Coming War with Iran: It's About the Oil, Stupid
Does Iran's Ahmadinejad Suffer from A
Napoleon Complex?
Brian Williams' recent interview with Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was broadcast on national TV.
Ahmadinejad, tie-less, but wearing his signature sport
jacket and his perpetual grimace, Ahmadinejad pre-empted his
interviewer by calling for the return of the twelfth Imam to
cure all the ills of the world including "poverty,"
"injustice," "egotism," "greed" and "famine," thereby
implicitly signaling the viewers that they are at the
presence of a global leader, one whose concerns are not only
for his own nation, but for the entire "human societies."Does
Iran's Ahmadinejad Suffer from A Napoleon Complex?
Iran Executes Journalist Convicted Of
Terrorism
CAIRO, Egypt — An Iranian journalist
sentenced to death on terrorism charges has been executed in
what a human rights group on Tuesday called a
"state-sanctioned murder" carried out after a secret trial.
Yaghoob Mirnehad was executed Monday in the city of Zahedan
after being convicted and sentenced to death earlier this
year, said Iran's judiciary spokesman, Ali Reza Jamshidi.
Iran accused Mirnehad of being involved in the armed
Jundallah group, which operates along the Iranian-Pakistani
border. Authorities said he set up a group to "cooperate"
with Jundallah.
A New York-based rights group, the International Campaign
for Human Rights in Iran, said Iranian prosecutors held a
secret trial and provided no evidence of Mirnehad's links
with Jundallah or involvement in any armed attacks.Iran
Executes Journalist Convicted Of Terrorism
Preparing for War Through
Negotiations?
by Babak Rahimi August 5, 2008
The latest series of test missiles launched
by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in the northern part of
the Persian Gulf and the eastern Hormuz Strait has fueled
new concerns over a military conflict in the region. Despite
apparent diplomatic progress between Tehran and six world
powers in recent weeks, the report of missile tests has
added a renewed sense of uneasiness over the fate of
negotiations about Iran's controversial nuclear program. A
specter of conflict now haunts the region, with the Iranian,
Israeli, and American militaries making serious preparations
for a possible military conflict.
The military strategy behind the display of high-tech
missiles by Tehran is the same as it has been in the past:
to exhibit the regime's progress in producing advanced
conventional military technology as a way to deter what it
perceives as American aggression. But the recent spectacle
also shows Tehran's immediate readiness for military
confrontation. As a response to recent reports of Israeli
naval training missions over the Mediterranean and planned
U.S.-led war games in the Persian Gulf, the Revolutionary
Guard is eager to demonstrate its determination to strike
back at American forces and Israel, with Haifa as one of the
targets of the newly improved Shahab missiles.
Preparing for War Through Negotiations?
Iran heartened by India's nuclear vote
The United States-India nuclear agreement,
which has been endorsed by the International Atomic Energy
Agency, represents a timely diplomatic boon for Iran, which
can now point at the US's flexible application of its
nuclear policies with regard to Delhi as a reference point
in Tehran's nuclear negotiations. - Kaveh L Afrasiabi
(Aug 4, '08)Iran
heartened by India's nuclear vote
To Prevent War With Iran,a Paradigm Shift Is Needed by Muhammad Sahimi August 4, 2008
There is no evidence that Iran has the
necessary materials or is in a position to successfully make
them and take all the above steps in a short time, even if
it has every intention of doing so. The 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program stated that
Iran is unlikely to be able to make a nuclear weapon before
2013.
But this has not stopped the neoconservatives and their
allies in the Israel lobby, as well as the government of
Israel, from issuing dire warnings about how close Iran is
to making a nuclear weapon. John R. Bolton, former U.S.
ambassador to the United Nations, and Michael Rubin of the
American Enterprise Institute both published articles in the
Wall Street Journal urging military attacks on Iran. Benny
Morris, the supposedly moderate Israeli historian, published
an op-ed in the New York Times about the possibility of
Israel attacking Iran with nuclear warheads (neither
newspaper has published an op-ed that refutes the claims
made in those articles). Patrick Clawson and Michael
Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy
published a "manifesto" claiming that Iran will not be able
to respond effectively to any military attacks, hence
encouraging such attacks. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud
Barak and Israeli Defense Force Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gaby
Ashkenazi also visited Washington.To Prevent
War With Iran,a Paradigm Shift Is
Needed
The Last Word
Counting the Cost of War With Iran
By: William F. JasperAugust
4, 2008
Will we be seeing $10-$12/gallon gasoline and
a lot more body bags before the end of the year? That
depends on the answers to a couple other important
questions, such as: will the Bush-Cheney war hawks launch a
war against Iran before the November elections, as they have
been aching to do for the past several years? Or will they
encourage/sanction an attack on Iran by Israel that will end
up drawing us into the fray? Either way, we certainly seem
to be headed needlessly on that disastrous collision course.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert seems confident that the
course is set. “We reached agreement on the need to take
care of the Iranian threat,” Olmert said after his June 4
meeting with President Bush. “I left with a lot less
question marks [than I had entered with] regarding the
means, the timetable restrictions and America’s resoluteness
to deal with the problem,” he said. According to Olmert,
“George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat
and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on the
matter before the end of his term in the White House.”Counting the Cost of War With
Iran
