Peace Not Near on Middle East's 'Time Horizon' by Leon Hadar July 31, 2008
But despite all the recent progress in the Middle East,
there is no real reason to think that peace is anywhere near
at hand. The important common denominator of all these
diplomatic openings in the Middle East has been the Bush
administration's strong resistance to them, based on the
principle that the United States and its allies don't
negotiate or make deals with what Bush might describe as
"Hitler equivalents" – members of the axis of evil,
terrorist groups, or rogue states. Hence, talking with Iran
and its partners – Hezbollah, Syria, Hamas – equals
appeasement, while setting a timetable for withdrawal of
U.S. troops from Iraq is tantamount to defeatism. That
Israel was engaging in this kind of behavior was remarkable,
but that Bush administration officials have been pursuing
the same kind of policies that the president decried is
nothing short of startling.
Indeed, pundits in Washington are also intrigued by the fact
that these officials were pursuing diplomacy with Iran and
discussing dates for troop withdrawal from Iraq in the same
week that Obama, whose support for such approaches was
decried by both Bush and McCain, was visiting the Middle
East. Some pundits suggested that the views of the two
presidential candidates on Iraq and Iran were converging in
the form of a consensus on the need to start withdrawing
U.S. forces from Iraq and deal diplomatically with Iran.Peace Not Near on
Middle East's 'Time Horizon'
Why Are Neocons Attacking Turkey? by Avni Dogru July 31, 2008
Some neoconservatives in Washington are
obsessed with attacking Iran before President Bush leaves
office at the end of this year. Hence, they have been
pushing the Bush administration for increased economic and
political isolation of Iran in order to weaken its current
regime. Crucial to this plan is the support of Turkey, a
traditional U.S. ally and an increasingly critical player in
the region.
But to the enormous frustration of the neoconservatives,
such an attack does not align with Turkey's interests given
its newly enhanced regional ties, maturing democracy, and
new foreign policy. Instead, Turkey plays the negotiator
role and favors diplomacy and direct talks to resolve the
dispute over Iran's nuclear program.
With neoconservatives pressing for an attack on Iran and
Turkey maneuvering to play a mediating role, which way will
U.S. policy swing?
Why Are Neocons Attacking Turkey?
Iran seeks entry to the lion's den
The United Nations Security Council has imposed three rounds
of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, which
President Mahmud Ahmadinejad has dismissed as "worthless
papers". Now Tehran has launched a campaign for inclusion as
a non-permanent member of the council, with Ahmadinejad
reaching out first to the Non-Aligned Movement. Iran might
not get the seat it wants, but in the process it could
unblock the nuclear stalemate. - Kaveh L Afrasiabi (Jul 30, '08)Iran
seeks entry to the lion's den
Scott Ritter's Columns
Acts of War By Scott RitterPosted on
Jul 29, 2008
The war between the United States and Iran is
on. American taxpayer dollars are being used, with the
permission of Congress, to fund activities that result in
Iranians being killed and wounded, and Iranian property
destroyed. This wanton violation of a nation’s sovereignty
would not be tolerated if the tables were turned and
Americans were being subjected to Iranian-funded covert
actions that took the lives of Americans, on American soil,
and destroyed American property and livelihood. Many
Americans remain unaware of what is transpiring abroad in
their name. Many of those who are cognizant of these
activities are supportive of them, an outgrowth of misguided
sentiment which holds Iran accountable for a list of
grievances used by the U.S. government to justify the
ongoing global war on terror. Iran, we are told, is not just
a nation pursuing nuclear weapons, but is the largest state
sponsor of terror in the world today.
Acts of War
No Flip-Flopper: Obama Has Always Been
Belligerent on Iran by Richard Lightner July 30, 2008
John Pilger and Joshua Frank have written on
Obama's centrist positions and I would like to add my
supporting views. Senator Obama's views of late toward Iran
and the Arab-Israeli conflict are not shifts to the center
or flip-flopping in his policies. The senator has always
viewed Iran as a threat to world peace and has always
supported Israel and current Israeli policy toward the
Palestinians of the Gaza Strip. Now, he merely expands on
his already expressed beliefs that somehow were ignored or
forgotten by his die-hard supporters. He is also on track
with the Democratic Party leadership in Congress.
Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published two
articles in the New Yorker magazine which laid out the
collusion of both Democratic and Republican leaders in the
House and the Senate, and the fact that they are aware of
current military action against Iran.No
Flip-Flopper: Obama Has Always Been Belligerent on Iran
The Father of Lies Philip Giraldi July 30, 2008
The first historian, the Ionian Greek
Herodotus, known as the "father of history," has also been
called the "father of lies" because of his reluctance to
spoil a good story with the truth. Today the
neoconservatives twist history to fit their political
agenda. The National Review's house historian and Dick
Cheney favorite Victor Davis Hanson has left academia and
launched a new career as a pundit able to modify any
historical event to accommodate the contemporary war on
Islam and democracy promotion a.k.a. regime change. His
muddle of the Peloponnesian War, in which he likens an
"all-powerful" Athens to modern day America while
conveniently forgetting that Athenian hubris lost the war to
the unpleasant Spartans, is downright humorous. The Kagan
brothers likewise wrap their support of the endless
engagement in Iraq and a bellicose policy towards Iran into
a historical framework, as if being able to name Napoleon's
chief of staff while praising General David Petraeus somehow
elevates the latter.The Father
of Lies
Snub for Iran eases nuclear
crisis
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization,
dominated by China and Russia, has ended Iran's hopes of
joining the regional grouping. This comes at a critical
turning point when issues of peace and war hang by a thread.
Yet the setback may be a blessing in disguise for Tehran,
which, through its new interlocutor for communicating with
Washington - Turkey - can now take fresh steps to resolve
the crisis over its nuclear program. - M K Bhadrakumar
(Jul 28, '08)Snub for Iran eases nuclear crisis
Tehran seeks a new alignment
When the Non-Aligned Movement meets in Tehran
this week it will be under pressure to endorse Iran's quest
to join the United Nations Security Council. In return, Iran
will be expected to show tangible signs of flexibility in
resolving the standoff over its nuclear program. - Kaveh
L Afrasiabi (Jul
28, '08)Tehran seeks
a new alignment
The War Party's Credo: Power Before Profits
Why the left's analysis of imperialism is
inadequate
by Justin Raimondo July 28, 2008
The increased likelihood of war with Iran has raised a
chorus of speculation and genuine shock: how can it be that
our leaders don't recognize the potentially crippling
consequences of such a course? The economic blowback alone
would be enough to send the world economy – already knocked
off-kilter – into a tailspin. There has been a lot of
discussion over this, especially in the precincts of the
antiwar movement. Writing in the online edition of
Counterpunch, historian and scholar Gary Leupp expresses the
bewilderment and confusion of much of the left in the face
of a new war's rising prospects:
"Commentators whom I respect are saying, with conviction,
that there's no way the U.S. is going to attack Iran.
Alexander Cockburn, Jim Lobe and Tom Engelhardt, for
example, say no. Others whom I equally respect predict the
opposite. Gordon Prather, Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter and
Justin Raimondo say yes, it's going to happen."
A clarification: I have never written that war is a
certainty for the simple reason that we cannot predict the
future. No one can. What we can do, however, is analyze the
facts in light of past experience, and, on that basis,
project what we think may occur.
Given that caveat, then, I can safely brush aside the
reasoning Leupp attributes to Messrs. Cockburn, Lobe, and
Engelhardt, which points to the objective constraints placed
on the War Party at this point: the over-extension of US
forces currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the
much-touted recent successes (or, rather, alleged successes)
of the "realist" faction within the administration and the
national security bureaucracy, and the apparent "rage" of
the neocons directed at the Bush White House coming from
such quarters as the Weekly Standard. I can dismiss them so
readily because, in one form or another, we have seen their
like before, specifically during the run-up to the invasion
of Iraq, and we all know how that turned out.
The
War Party's Credo: Power Before Profits
Pull the Plug on the War State by Charley Reese July 26, 2008
Hopefully, the next president, whoever he is,
will have sense enough to realize that an anti-missile site
in Eastern Europe is not worth rekindling the Cold War with
Russia.
Though the press pays little attention to it, the Bush
administration has already practically wrecked relations
with Russia by insisting on adding the Eastern European
countries to NATO and siting his anti-missile system in the
Czech Republic and in Poland. The Russians are right that it
represents a threat to their security.
President Bush's lame excuse that the system is designed to
protect Europe from Iranian missiles is no doubt another
deliberate lie. I can't think of any reason whatsoever for
Iran to attack Europe, and I'm sure the Iranians can't,
either. Iran hasn't attacked anybody for more than 100
years. They would have absolutely nothing to gain by firing
a few missiles at Europe. It doesn't make any sense at all.
Nor does it make any sense to add the small countries of
Eastern Europe to NATO. This was a war-fighting alliance set
up at the end of World War II specifically to deter and, if
necessary, go to war with the Red Army. The Soviet Union set
up its own alliance, the Warsaw Pact.Pull
the Plug on the War State
Resolution 362: A Grave Mistake to Avert
by Reza Nasri
Last month, Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and
Mike Pence (R-IN) introduced a new resolution to Congress,
demanding the President to initiate an international effort
to impose a land, sea, and air blockade on Iran to prevent
it from importing refined petroleum products and to subject
all cargo entering or leaving Iran to "stringent inspection
requirements."
Aside from the evident inflationary impact that such radical
measures would have on the already exorbitant price of oil,
it is important for the American constituent to realize that
this resolution (H.Con.Res.362) contains a significant
number of factual fallacies, wrong assumptions and unfounded
assertions that could lead the country down another
destructive path in the
Resolution 362: A Grave Mistake to Avert
A Turkish
theater for World War III
Turkey has been sold to the Saudis at a
bargain price for Riyadh's assistance to the George W Bush
administration in pushing down the price of oil ahead of the
United States presidential elections this year. The path
chosen is the same as that used to turn Pakistan into a
breeding ground for terrorists, with an accelerated
timetable in keeping with a preset script. Around the
corner, a civilizational war beckons.
(Jul 24, '08)A Turkish
theater for World War III
For Iran, respect above all else
Iranian leaders have placed clear emphasis on
the importance of the respect displayed by representatives
of the countries dealing with Tehran's nuclear portfolio,
including the United States. This goes to the heart of the
difficulties in dealing with Iran, and offers a path that
could lead to unexpected breakthroughs, including Tehran's
ties with Israel. - Kaveh L Afrasiabi
(Jul 24, '08)For Iran,
respect above all else
Avoiding Brinksmanship with Iran
by Frida Berrigan
Foreign Policy in Focus
Meanwhile on the campaign trail, candidates
are rehashing their long-held positions. Democratic
contender Barack Obama has repeatedly said he would engage
in "tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without
preconditions." But, at the same time he told supporters
that Iran's nuclear ambitions represent a "serious threat to
the United States, to our ally Israel and to international
security." When not adapting popular song lyrics, Republican
hopeful John McCain calls an Iran with nuclear weapons an
"unacceptable risk" to regional and global stability, and
has repeatedly asserted that there is "only one thing worse
than military action, and that is a nuclear armed Iran."
Neither candidate has addressed the dangerous game of
brinksmanship now being played by leaders in Tehran, Tel
Aviv, and Washington. There is a course toward security for
all three nations and the region. Bold alternatives to
brinksmanship begin with the recognition that Washington's
policy of quietly green-lighting Israel's clandestine
nuclear weapons program on the one hand while thwarting
Iran's still-unrealized nuclear ambitions on the other has
undermined its ability to offer acceptable carrots or
sticks. A series of interlocking confidence-building
measures that support steady and careful negotiations marked
by mutual compromise does not grab headlines the way
fear-mongering and hyperbole do. But, before we head into a
mess of nuclear proportions, it is well worth an honest try.
Avoiding Brinksmanship with Iran
Is Obama the 'Antiwar Candidate'? Two words of advice for the antiwar voter: Caveat emptor
by Justin Raimondo
Now that Barack Obama has pulled the rug out
from under John McCain's "victory or death" campaign theme,
with the invaluable assistance of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki, he's preparing the way for a surge of his own: an
Afghan surge, to be precise. Averring that we need to put
more troops in Afghanistan, whose U.S.-supported "president"
functions as little more than the mayor of Kabul, Obama is
posing earnestly next to as many uniforms as he can, hoping
to establish his credentials as a plausible wartime
president.
So, you thought we'd be rid of the endless "war on
terrorism" once we got George W. Bush out of the White
House, and ensconced a Democrat in his place? Well, think
again, and get ready for an escalation of the Other War –
the one in Afghanistan, a much tougher and more intractable
prospect than Iraq by a longshot.
Is
Obama the 'Antiwar Candidate'?
Iran Isolation Attempts Backfire
by Hannes Artens
In its attempts to destabilize Iran and
disrupt the possible route of the pipeline, the United
States is allegedly supporting Jundallah. This militant
insurgency in the Iranian Sistan and Balochistan province
has suspected links to the Taliban and the Baloch Liberation
Army (BLA), which has been fighting a guerilla war against
the Pakistani army since 2000. This clandestine Baloch
connection – recently exposed by Seymour Hersh in The New
Yorker – undermines America's fragile,
always-on-the-brink-of-a-coup ally Pakistan. Washington is
also pushing for the alternative of a
Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI), the
construction bids for which, as a side benefit, would go to
U.S. companies. This alternative scheme is strikingly
similar to the pipeline deal Unocal struck with the Taliban
in 1996.
U.S. obstruction is not the only problem facing the IPI
project. Iran is asking for a lot of money; India and
Pakistan have notorious difficulty cooperating. But this
cluster of American threats and coercion proved until
recently to be pivotal in preventing the project from
getting off the ground. Former Undersecretary of State
Nicholas Burns cited preventing IPI as one of his greatest
accomplishments at a conference at Harvard University in
March.
Iran Isolation Attempts Backfire
Playing Games With Iran
by William O. Beeman
By now the structure of the U.S. game with
Iran is clear. In the first move, the United States and Iran
make some small progress toward improved relations. In the
counter move, hardliners in the United States and Israel
launch attacks against Iran in order to sabotage these
improving relations.
In the latest iteration of this game, the U.S. State
Department has made an interesting gambit. It announced that
Undersecretary of State William Burns would sit at the table
on July 20 as members of the European Union entered into
talks with Iran over its nuclear program. At the same time,
the United States has been reported to be considering
opening a formal American interests section in Tehran. These
two actions will be the first serious public diplomatic
activities between the two nations in nearly three decades.
(Three earlier meetings in Baghdad between U.S. Iraqi Envoy
Ryan Crocker and Iranian Ambassador to Iraq Hassan
Kazemi-Qomi focused on security in Iraq).
Playing Games With Iran
An Uncomfortable Conversation About Nukes
by Conn Hallinan
Foreign Policy in Focus
Enter Kissinger, Nunn, Perry, and Shultz.
Nuclear weapons were fine with them when the Big Five and
Israel held a monopoly on the devices. But India and
Pakistan have joined the club, and several others are
waiting in the wings. However, if the "Big Five plus three"
proliferation dam has cracks in it, they are wholly
self-inflicted.
When 181 nations signed the 1968 NPT, they thought they were
taking the first step toward the abolition of nuclear
weapons. In short, they took the treaty seriously. Article
VI of the NPT, for instance, states: "Each of the parties to
the treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith
on effective measure relating to cessation of the nuclear
arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and
on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict
and effective international controls."
This is the heart of the NPT. The smaller countries agreed
to forgo nuclear weapons only because the nuclear powers
agreed to scrap theirs and, further, disarm their
conventional forces. Instead, the Big Five increased the
number of warheads in their arsenals and raised their
military budgets. Finally, when they threatened non-nuclear
countries with nuclear weapons, they were violating a 1978
addendum to the NPT (which was reaffirmed in 1995).
An Uncomfortable Conversation About Nukes
Turkey in the
throes of revolution?
A perfect storm of enmity has come down on
beleaguered Turkish secularists, leading to speculation that
an Islamic putsch is possible, after the fashion of the 1979
revolution in Iran. The United States views this Islamic
drift favorably, seeing Turkey as a leader of a regional
bloc with the short-term aim of calming Iraq and a
longer-term objective of fostering a Sunni alliance against
Iran. This is a big mistake. (Jul 21, '08)Turkey in the
throes of revolution?
Iran talks doomed to 'small talk'
The expectations were high of progress being
made at the weekend's talks between Iran and the six nations
handling its nuclear file, especially as the US State
Department had sent its third-ranking official. All that
happened was "small talk" - which was exactly what some in
the George W Bush administration had wanted. - Gareth
Porter (Jul 21,
'08)Iran talks
doomed to 'small talk'
A Brazen Evil Benny Morris argues for nuclear genocide
against Iran
by Justin Raimondo July 21, 2008
Evil usually hides its face, because the sight of it
repulses all but the depraved. However, in the case of Benny
Morris, writing in Friday's New York Times, we see something
new: a proud evil, glorying in pure malevolence. His piece
is a cold, calculated attempt to simultaneously shock and
intimidate, one that succeeds at the former but fails
miserably at the latter.
Here's the shocker, really a double jolt: "Israel," he
avers, "will almost surely attack Iran's nuclear sites in
the next four to seven months." Either that, he writes, or
else Israel will eventually have to launch "a preemptive
nuclear strike." His message to the West: take out Iran, or
we'll nuke 'em!
The Israelis have been threatening to strike for the past
six months, so nothing new there, except for the tone of
certainty. Morris is no fringe nut-job flailing away on his
obscure blog; he's a prominent Israeli historian writing on
the most noted opinion page of them all, a veritable
bulletin board for governing elites worldwide. As such, he
is almost certainly speaking with some insight into Israeli
government plans. It is, in any case, almost inconceivable
that he wrote his piece without the foreknowledge and
consent of Israeli government officials.
A
Brazen Evil
An Opening to Iran?
by Alan Bock
There seem to be two possibilities, according
to several experts and sources I talked to last week, to
explain the fact that the United States decided to have
Undersecretary of State William Burns, the third-ranking
person in the State Department, sit in the same room with
Iranian nuclear envoy Saeed Jalili and high-ranking
diplomats from five other countries in Geneva on Saturday.
Well, maybe there's a third possibility.An Opening to Iran?
I say Bomb Eye-ran! by Aurangzeb Qureshi
Attempting to disarm Iran's nuclear
enrichment program diplomatically has proven futile. Even
with the noose tightening around its neck through sanctions,
and joint American-Israeli military exercises combined with
covert CIA operations being conducted close to its border,
Iran still has the sheer audacity to tell America that it
will defend itself in the case of an invasion. How dare this
3000-year-old civilization threaten the world's declining
60-year hegemonic superpower? How dare this country stand up
for itself after watching America slaughter thousands in
neighboring Iraq? It is time to bomb these people into
oblivion so the West can once again overthrow its regime and
replace it with one that will conform, abide by, and slave
to its master. It's time these people got with the times. It
is upon America and the rest of the "civilized world" to
prevent another 9/11.
I say Bomb Eye-ran!
I say Bomb Eye-ran!
Russia's energy drive leaves US
reeling
President Dmitry Medvedev is pursuing
Russia's energy diplomacy with a vengeance. As a former head
of Gazprom he is balancing the energy giant's oil export
strategy between Europe and Asia-Pacific, and,
significantly, has secured the right for Gazprom to handle
the entire output of Libya's gas, oil and liquefied natural
gas. Medvedev has also revived with Iran the idea of a "gas
cartel". Ferocious rivalries over energy security will rock
the foundations of overall United States-Russia relations. -
M K Bhadrakumar (Jul 18, '08)
Russia's energy drive leaves US reeling
Flexibility points to Iran breakthrough
The chances are good that the Geneva meeting
this weekend will bring about an interim result in the
crisis over Iran's nuclear program as both Tehran and
Washington have compelling reasons for compromising. Iran,
in particular, faces an energy crisis. - Kaveh L
Afrasiabi (Jul 18,
'08)Flexibility
points to Iran breakthrough
A reality check on Iran
Iran is not ripe for regime change as any
attack on the country would rally people around the
government, not alienate them, an influential new report in
the United States finds. These conclusions run counter to
the neo-conservative argument, but fit with the George W
Bush administration's newfound engagement, albeit limited,
of Tehran. - David Isenberg
(Jul 18, '08)
A reality check on Iran
Coercive 'Diplomacy' –
Prelude to War Don't be fooled by Washington's diplomatic
overtures to Tehran
by Justin Raimondo
The conventional wisdom is that the US
government is taking a new tack when it comes to confronting
the Iranians. As a recent piece on Breitbart.com – and
dutifully posted by Matt Drudge – put it:
"The Bush administration is changing course on Iran in its
final months. The hope is that engagement can jolt a
stagnant effort to resolve concerns about Tehran's disputed
nuclear program where war drums could not."
This is flat out wrong. The war drums are still belting out
a martial ditty, albeit accompanied by a "diplomatic"
chorus. To get closer to the truth about what is really
happening on the front lines of our latest Middle Eastern
crusade, take a look at this Washington Post report on the
same "diplomatic" dog-and-pony show:
"With negotiations now a real possibility, the Bush
administration, which had largely subcontracted the nuclear
diplomacy with Iran to its European partners, also appears
intent on making sure that Iran hears its voice directly,
rather than having it filtered by other interlocutors. …
U.S. officials wanted to ensure that the preliminary talks
did not veer off course and lose sight of the suspension
demand."
The Europeans, who tend to resent Washington's unbridled
arrogance, don't want a war that would wreck the world
economy. They can't be trusted to deliver our intended
message to Tehran: surrender or die. This is just foreplay –
if such a thing can be said of an intended rape – and White
House spokeswoman Dana Perino didn't try very hard to put a
good face on it:
"The substance remains the same, but this is a new tactic.
What this does show is how serious we are when we say that
we want to try to solve this diplomatically."
The Bush administration is interested only in appearing to
be serious about resolving this peacefully, when in
actuality this diplomatic "surge" is merely a new tactic
aimed at their real goal, which is regime-change in Iran.
Coercive 'Diplomacy' – Prelude to War
Wising Up on Iran
At a hearing before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee last week, Undersecretary of State Bill
Burns gave unusually nuanced testimony about Iran. Committee
chairman Joe Biden of Delaware praised Burns, a veteran
Foreign Service officer, but added wistfully, “I wish we had
heard this in 2003, four, five, six or seven.”
As news broke last night that Burns is headed for Geneva
this weekend, to take part in multilateral discussions with
Iranian nuclear negotiators, Biden’s words resonated. With
less than six months to go before it leaves office, the Bush
administration is finally easing its precondition for
high-level contacts with Iran. The question is why this is
happening now and whether it comes too late.Wising Up on
Iran
US lends Iran a listening ear
The decision by the George W Bush
administration to send a high-level official to join talks
on Iran's nuclear program as a "listener" marks a
significant shift, but in line with Washington's engagement
of North Korea. The move on Iran brings the possibility of a
"freeze-for-freeze" - a simultaneous suspension of
international sanctions and uranium enrichment - a step
closer. Hardliners in the United States, though, will not
give up without a fight. - Jim Lobe
(Jul 17, '08)US lends Iran
a listening ear
Tehran open to US Interests
The government of President Mahmud
Ahmadinejad has responded positively to a proposal by
Washington that it open a US Interests Section in Tehran.
Hooshang Amirahmadi, president of the American Iranian
Council and currently in Iran, also welcomes the initiative,
pointing out that Ahmadinejad is always ready to talk.
(Jul 17, '08)Tehran open
to US Interests
Killing Iranian Civilians Isn't Hilarious,
Senator McCain
Senator McCain has famously said, "Only a fool or a fraud
talks tough or romantically about war."
How, then, should we describe a clearly unbalanced
presidential candidate who jokes about killing innocent
civilians as part of a larger war-mongering foreign policy?
"A fool or a fraud" barely cracks the surface. There are a
few other f-words that might suffice, but in lieu of those,
might I suggest "unhinged maniac" or "tasteless hack" or
"creepy, twitchy, psychotic hoople without any internal
monologue who shouldn't be allowed within a hundred square
miles of the nuclear launch codes"?Killing
Iranian Civilians Isn't Hilarious, Senator McCain
Iran + Iraq = Ironic Jeff Huber | July 15, 2008
"As this law [of extremes] begins to lose its force and as
this determination wanes, the political aim will reassert
itself."
-- Carl von Clausewitz
Young Mr. Bush has managed to irretrievably lose his Iraq
misadventure, saving his successor the trouble of trying to
put off defeat indefinitely.
Last week, at a meeting with ambassadors from the United
Arab Emirates, Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki proposed a
short-term memorandum of understanding on the presence of
U.S. forces in Iraq that includes a formula for American
troop withdrawal.
The Bush administration bull feather merchants accelerated
to full pluck. According to White House spokesman Tony
Fratto, Maliki's statement was consistent with the goals of
the Bush administration. "The prime minister is reflecting a
shared goal that we have," Fratto said, "which is that as
the Iraqi forces become a more self-reliant force, we'll see
reductions in U.S. forces.”
Gordon Jondroe, another Bush spell caster, said,
"Negotiations and discussions are ongoing every day. It is
important to understand that these are not talks on a hard
date for withdrawal."
Nice try, fellows. What Maliki actually said was, "We are
looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence
on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty," and that the
goal of Jondroe's aforementioned negotations was to reach an
agreement on "the departure of the forces" or "a timetable
on their withdrawal."Iran + Iraq =
Ironic
An Iranian Dissident’s Experience Provides
Lessons for Americans by Jacob G. Hornberger
Last Sunday, the New York Times carried an article about a
31-year-old Iranian dissident, Ahmad Batebi, who
successfully escaped imprisonment in Iran, where he was
being tortured. Making his way through Iraq and ultimately
arriving in Washington, D.C., Batebi taunted his former
captors with a photograph of himself in front of the U.S.
Capitol.
Batebi’s story has three important lessons for Americans:
1. Torture.
The brutal regime in Iran tortures people, just like the
U.S. government does. Isn’t it a shame that our nation,
which has historically stood against cruel and unusual
punishments, now engages in the same wrongful conduct as
brutal foreign regimes?
2. Immigration.
While U.S. immigration controls could have been used to
prevent Batebi from entering the United States, U.S.
officials decided to permit him to enter our country “out of
concern for his safety.”
3. Foreign Policy.
The third lesson has to do with U.S. governmental meddling
in Iran. U.S. officials think that a U.S. regime-change
operation would be welcomed by the Iranian people, just as
they thought that they would be welcomed by the Iraqi people
when they invaded Iraq for the purpose of regime change.An Iranian Dissident’s
Experience Provides Lessons for Americans
Using One Tragedy toCreate Another by Rep. Ron Paul
As one who is most consistently opposed to
war and violence, I join my colleagues in condemning the
brutal and unjustified attack on a Jewish community center
in Argentina 14 years ago. I do not support this resolution,
however, as it misuses a tragedy 14 years ago in a foreign
country to push for U.S. war against Iran today.
Although this resolution clearly blames Iran and Hezbollah
for the bombing, in fact the investigation is ongoing and
far from conclusive. In an article titled "U.S. Uses Probe
to Pressure Iran," the Wall Street Journal earlier this year
suggested that renewed U.S. interest in this 14-year-old
case is more related to politics than a genuine desire for
justice. Reported the Journal,
"As tensions between the U.S. and Iran persist, Washington
and its allies are using an investigation into a 1994
terrorist attack in Argentina to maintain pressure on the
Iranian regime.Using One Tragedy toCreate Another
Iran-US: A study in misperceptions
The failure of United States-Iran
rapprochement is invariably blamed on Washington's
insistence on a suspension of Iran's uranium-enrichment
program and on Tehran's intransigence on the same. The
deeper reason is that neither side even tries to understand
the other, and that suitable people who could help bridge
the gap are not utilized. - Hossein
Askari (Jul 15, '08)Iran-US: A
study in misperceptions
Karzai nods to US, winks to Iran
Afghan President Hamid Karzai uses
cautious language to give praise equally to the United
States and Iran for their roles in his embattled nation.
Even with US officials pointing to Iranian-made weapons
bound for Taliban militants, Karzai says "both countries
have helped us in our reconstruction" and vows his
government does not want its "soil to be used" in any
conflict between other countries.
(Jul 15, '08)Karzai nods to
US, winks to Iran
A Phony Crisis –
and a Real One
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Last week, the front pages of the world press blossomed with
photos of four Iranian rockets, fired in salvo, heading
skyward.
The image was powerful, and the message reinforced by the
head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Should Israel
attack Iran, said Ali Shira, Tel Aviv will be "set on fire."
A
Phony Crisis –and a Real One
Conservative Confusion on Iran Philip Giraldi
The process whereby the neoconservatives were able to hijack
the Republican Party's foreign policy has been dissected and
analyzed frequently over the past two years. Perhaps more
disturbing in the long term, however, is their success at
hijacking the label "conservative." When broadcast
journalists Brian Williams and Katie Couric describe someone
as a conservative Republican, they are frequently actually
referring to a neoconservative. When a Sunday morning talk
show has a "conservative" on a panel to provide "balance,"
he is more often than not a neoconservative. This access to
the media as the purported standard-bearers of conservatism
has proven useful, as it enables the neocons to continue to
have a major voice on policy in spite of being wrong on
every major issue. It also empowers them to constantly spin
and refine their story, exonerating themselves while
fear-mongering that there are new dangers that have to be
dealt with, more dragons to slay.
Conservative Confusion on Iran
What's NOT in the
IAEA Iran Reports by Peter Casey
Peter Zimmerman carries august credentials. He is a nuclear
physicist. He has degrees from Stanford in experimental
nuclear and particle physics. He was the top scientist for
arms control at the State Department for a number of years.
He later served as chief scientist for the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. He has written scores of papers on
nuclear arms and arms control. He is currently emeritus
professor of science and security at King's College in
London. All in all, he sounds like someone who knows about
nuclear technology, including nuclear weapons, and has the
time to think carefully about anything he might write on the
subject.
Or so you would think. But on July 6, 2008, Zimmerman
published an opinion piece in the Boston Globe entitled
"Time for Iran to Face More Sanctions," a screed that badly
misuses the International Atomic Energy Agency's May 2008
report on its monitoring of Iran's nuclear power activities.
In his piece, which was later republished in the
International Herald Tribune, Zimmerman blatantly tries to
terrify Americans about an Iranian nuclear menace that does
not exist, may never exist, and poses no realistic threat
whatsoever to the United States in any case. His commentary
is also solid evidence that the New York Times, which owns
both the Globe and the Tribune, is intent on once again
disseminating the same sort of nonsense that facilitated a
"case" for the Iraq invasion.What's NOT in
theIAEA Iran Reports
Iran Shows Its Cards By Scott Ritter
There can no longer be any doubt about the
consequences of any U.S. and/or Israeli military action
against Iran. Armchair warriors, pundits and blustering
politicians alike have been advocating a pre-emptive
military strike against Iran for the purpose of neutralizing
its nuclear-related infrastructure, as well as retarding
Iran’s ability to train and equip “terrorist” forces on
Iranian soil before dispatching them to Iraq or parts
unknown. Some, including me, have warned of the folly of
such action, and now Iran itself has demonstrated why an
attack would be insane
I’ve always pointed out that no plan survives initial
contact with the enemy,
