Category Archives: Iran deal

NEWS: Petraeus pumps up the Iran-threat rhetoric

U.S. calls Iranian official part of elite force
By Paul von Zeilbauer, New York Times, October 8 , 2007

On several occasions American military commanders have said the elite Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guard in Iran was responsible for supplying anti-American militia forces here with particularly lethal bombs that have been used to kill American troops. The Bush administration has been considering whether to classify the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group.

But Sunday appeared to be the first instance in which the Americans had publicly asserted that Iran’s top diplomat in Iraq was himself a member of the Revolutionary Guard.

The accusation was made by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American military commander, who made the remarks to CNN while he was traveling with a small group of reporters to a military base on the Iranian border. He said, “We have absolute assurance” that a number of Iranians detained by the Americans in Iraq were members of the Quds Force.

“The Quds Force controls the policy for Iraq; there should be no confusion about that either,” General Petraeus said. “The ambassador is a Quds Force member. Now he has diplomatic immunity and therefore he is obviously not subject — and he is acting as a diplomat.”

General Petraeus did not provide details on how he knew that the ambassador, Hassan Kazemi-Qomi, who has held talks with the American ambassador, Ryan C. Crocker, belonged to the Quds Force. Iranian Embassy officials could not be reached Sunday night to comment on the general’s assertions. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS: The campaign against Iran – support from outside; dissent within

The man who stands between US and new war
The Sunday Telegraph, October 7, 2007

Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, has taken charge of the forces in the American government opposed to a US military attack on Iran, writes Tim Shipman.

Pentagon and State Department officials say Mr Gates has set himself up as chief rival to Dick Cheney in a bid to thwart the vice?president’s desire to bomb the Islamic state.

Those familiar with internal battles in the Bush administration say Mr Gates has eclipsed Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, as the chief opponent of air strikes and is the main reason President George W.Bush has yet to resort to military action.

Pentagon sources say Mr Gates is waging a subtle campaign to undermine the Cheney camp by encouraging the army’s senior officers to speak frankly about the overstretch of forces, and the difficulty of fighting another war. [complete article]

Britain ‘on board’ for US strikes on Iran
By Tim Shipman, The Sunday Telegraph, October 7, 2007

British defence officials have held talks with their Pentagon counterparts about how they could help out if America chose to bomb Iran.

Washington sources say that America has shelved plans for an all-out assault, drawn up to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities and take out the Islamist regime.

The Sunday Telegraph has learned that President Bush’s White House national security council is discussing instead a plan to launch pinpoint attacks on bases operated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds force, blamed for training Iraqi militants.

Pentagon officials have revealed that President Bush won an understanding with Gordon Brown in July that Britain would support air strikes if they could be justified as a counter-terrorist operation. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

OPINION: Upholding the Constitution

How Congress forgot its own strength
By Mario Cuomo, New York Times, October 7, 2007

Senators Jim Webb of Virginia and Hillary Clinton of New York are right to demand that the president go before Congress to ask for a “declaration of war” before proceeding with an attack against Iran or any other nation. But there is no need for this demand to be put into law, as the two Democrats and their colleagues are seeking to do, any more than there is need for legislation to guarantee our right of free speech or anything else protected by the Constitution. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

OPINION: A U.S. attack on Iran would be a “fatal mistake”

The fallout from an attack on Iran would be devastating
By Seumas Milne, The Guardian, October 5, 2007

It seems almost incredible after the catastrophe of the Iraq war, but the signs are growing that the Bush administration wants to do it all over again – this time to Iran. Just as in the runup to the invasion of Iraq, the Washington air is thick with unsubstantiated claims about weapons of mass destruction; demonisation of the country’s president has reached bizarre proportions; intelligence leaks about links with al-Qaida and attacks on US and British targets are now routine; demands for war from the administration’s neoconservative outriders are becoming increasingly strident; the pronouncements of George Bush and his vice-president, Dick Cheney, are turning ever more belligerent – and administration sources claim that the British government is privately ready to play ball. [complete article]

Editor’s Comment — In an NPR interview today, Iraq’s National Security Adviser Dr. Mowaffak al-Rubaie echoes the US claim that Iran is “muddling” in Iraq but he warns that a US attack on Iran would be “a fatal mistake.”

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS: Syria’s air defense; Israel’s military installations

Report: Iran worried over Syrian air defense failure in IAF strike
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz, October 5, 2007

Iran is concerned over the failure of Syria’s air defense systems to detect the Israel Air Force non-stealth aircraft that reportedly carried out an attack inside Syria last month, the American weekly Aviation Week reported on its Web site on Wednesday.

According to the report, Israel was able to disrupt Syria’s radar and air defense systems and render them ineffective during the IAF strike. The Web site reported that Israel used an electronic device, installed in a plane that circled the area, to disrupt Syria’s defenses.

The weekly maintained that Iran is especially concerned over the failure of Syria’s Russian-made radar systems. Iran has used similar systems in the past, and is slated to purchase more radar equipment in a future deal worth $750 million. This equipment is apparently designated to protect Iran’s nuclear facilities against attacks from the air. [complete article]

Google Earth zooms in on Israel military sites
Conflict Blotter, October 5, 2007

Sensitive installations, Air Force bases with their planes and helicopters, missile bases and even the nuclear reactor in Dimona have never been photographed better. A recent Google Earth update shows satellite pictures that make it possible to see clear, sharp pictures of military and civilian targets all across Israel. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS & ANALYSIS: Iran and the mirage of dictatorship

Iran terror label bites deep
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi, Asia Times, October 4, 2007

In the aftermath of the US House of Representatives’ recent resolution branding the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as terrorist, the White House is reportedly poised to formally place it on the terrorist list of the US State Department, with ramifications to follow, such as a freeze on the IRGC’s assets wherever the US can get its hands on them.

This is considered a small victory by anti-Iran hawks, who know the important side-effects of this initiative in inching the US closer to war against Iran. Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, meanwhile, has written about a “policy shift” in Washington. This involves a thirst for confrontation with Iran less on the grounds of Iran’s nuclear program and more as a result of the situation in Iraq, where Iran has gained substantial influence, to the detriment of US-led coalition forces.

Justifying the anti-IRGC resolution in the name of an attempt to protect US soldiers, various lawmakers, such as Senator Joe Lieberman and Congresman Tom Lantos have accused the IRGC of supporting terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Israeli-occupied territories. They dismiss the small yet loud dissent by fellow legislators, such as Senator Chuck Hagel and Congressman Dennis Kucinich, that this is a misguided initiative that could increase the possibility of war with Iran. [complete article]

See also, Iran says US too tied up to fight (BBC).

The myth of the all-powerful Ahmadinejad
By Philip Giraldi, National Interest, October 3, 2007

In the wake of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s much-publicized visit to New York, we are hearing renewed calls for a “tough on Iran” agenda. But before Washington makes policy on the basis of his bizarre and often offensive statements, they should consider one important fact: his actual authority as Iranian president is very limited. Contrary to the assertions of Columbia President Lee Bollinger last week, Ahmadinejad is no “petty and cruel dictator.” He is an elected president with very little power, frequently at odds with the country’s religious leadership and its parliament. Even if Iran had a nuclear arsenal, which it does not, his finger would not be on the trigger. Ahmadinejad is extremely unpopular for a variety of reasons; if he runs for president again in 2009, he will almost certainly be defeated. He does not command the Iranian armed forces and he does not determine Iranian foreign policy. Far from being a belligerent expansionistic power, the last time Iran attacked a neighbor was in the seventeenth century. [complete article]

Four myths government and media use to scare us about ‘dictators’
By Larry Beinhart, AlterNet, October 2, 2007

We have a basic mythology: Appeasement of dictators leads to war. The historical basis for this narrative is the “appeasement” of Hitler at Munich. It encouraged him to believe the democracies — and the Soviets — were weak and would not oppose him. That led him to attempt more conquests and engulfed us all in the Second World War.

If the other countries had stood up to him right away, the theory goes, he would have backed down. If he hadn’t, they would have gone to war and nipped him in the bud, thereby preventing WWII, the Holocaust, the deaths of 60 million and all the rest of the horrors.

Now we are floating the story that Mahmoud Ahmenajad is a dictator (the new, new Hitler, after Saddam Hussein). If we “appease” him, it will only encourage him and that will engulf us in World War Three.

If we accept the myth as a gospel truth that should guide our political and military lives, and accept that description as true, it makes good sense — it is even necessary — to start another preventive war, like the one in Iraq, to stop him now! Let us examine the facts. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS & EDITOR’S COMMENT: The Israeli attack on Syria. Revealed: nothing

Israeli army begins to release details on Syrian air raid
AP, October 2, 2007

Israel on Tuesday eased a strict news blackout on an airstrike in Syria last month, allowing the first publication of reports it struck an unspecified “military target” deep inside Syrian territory.

Israel’s military censor had imposed a total blackout on coverage of the Sept. 6 airstrike. But Tuesday, the office allowed preliminary details to be published after Syria’s president, Bashar Assad, confirmed the airstrike in a televised interview.

“Israeli air force planes attacked a military target deep inside Syria on Sept. 6, the military censor allowed for publication today,” Israel’s Army Radio reported. The headline on the web site of the Maariv newspaper was, “Now it can be revealed: Israel attacked in Syria,” while the Haaretz newspaper led with the military’s permission to publish “the fact” of Israel’s attack. [complete article]

Editor’s Comment — The AP ready-made headline for this piece is, “Israel Releases Details on Syrian Raid.” The IHT editor inserted the small qualification “begins to.” Either way, the truth is that now that the veil of censorship has been lifted, it has revealed nothing. Not one detail. To speak of an unspecified military target deep inside Syria is to announce that there is nothing to announce. And to place that informational empty space under a headline referring to the release of details is Orwellian.

Facebooktwittermail

OPINION & EDITOR’S COMMENT: Prevent a future war with Iran

Iraq will have to wait
By Scott Ritter, Truthdig, September 27, 2007

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. [complete article]

See also, Richardson says war with Iran is unwise (AP).

Editor’s Comment — A Democratic-led Congress has already demonstrated how ineffectual it is when it comes to challenging this administration on its Iraq policy. There seems even less reason to imagine that Congress will prevent military action against Iran. To do that, Congress would have to defy the Israel lobby — that simply won’t happen. Just look at how obediently 76 senators clicked their heals as they passed the Kyle-Lieberman amendment just a week ago.

Above all, this is an administration that has persistently shown how little interest it has in the views of its critics. The president and vice-president are apparently not even concerned how much damage they will do to the GOP. As Seymour Hersh quotes a former senior intelligence official saying, “Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.” Nevertheless, none of this makes war inevitable.

Three men (and maybe others) can pull the plug on this operation: Defense Secretary Gates, incoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, and Centcom commander, Admiral William Fallon. The fact that two naval commanders now hold pivotal positions in the Pentagon has been interpreted by some as an indication that preparations are already underway for a naval-led attack on Iran. But these were Gates’ choices — not Bush and Cheney’s — and I seriously doubt that any of them accepted their positions in order to help rescue the president or vice-president.

It is worth recalling an exchange from Secretary Gates’ confirmation hearings when he was being questioned by South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham:

GRAHAM: Do you believe the Iranians would consider using that nuclear weapons capability against the nation of Israel?

GATES: I don’t know that they would do that, Senator. I think that the risks for them, obviously, are enormously high. I think that they see value.

GRAHAM: If I may?

GATES: Yes, sir.

GRAHAM: The president of Iran has publicly disavowed the existence of the Holocaust, has publicly stated that he would like to wipe Israel off the map. Do you think he’s kidding?

GATES: No, I don’t think he’s kidding, but I think there are, in fact, higher powers in Iran than he, than the president. And I think that, while they are certainly pressing, in my opinion, for nuclear capability, I think that they would see it in the first instance as a deterrent.

They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons: Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west and us in the Persian Gulf.

Clearly, Gates had no interest in pandering to a Congressional panel who themselves wanted to please their donors by regurgitating bilge meant to imply that Iran is a suicidal and genocidal nation.

As for the incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, this is how he was recently described:

Mullen, a tough-minded and hard-nosed conservative, is known for his scoffing (if private) dismissal of Washington’s neo-conservatives, though sometimes he can barely keep it under wraps. During a recent Washington reception, he was asked by a reporter whether he would oppose an attack on Iran: “It’s your job to convince the politicians just how stupid that would be,” he said, “not mine.”

Gates, Mullen, and Fallon, may all serve at the pleasure of the president, but if they witness that the press is failing to convince the administration how stupid a war with Iran would be, they must then consider exercising their own veto power: they should be willing to resign.

If preventing a war with Iran depends on the education of America, the resuscitation of the Fourth Estate, and courageous action from Congress, I’m less than optimistic about the outcome. But if it simply depends on the willingness of three men to act in accordance with their conscience and do what they believe is right for their country, then maybe there’s a chance that after the unmitigated folly of a war in Iraq, America will not soon stumble into a much larger disaster.

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS: Group seeks $200 million to sell war on Iran

Big coffers and a rising voice lift a new conservative group
By Don Van Natta Jr., New York Times, September 30, 2007

Freedom’s Watch, a deep-pocketed conservative group led by two former senior White House officials, made an audacious debut in late August when it began a $15 million advertising campaign designed to maintain Congressional support for President Bush’s troop increase in Iraq.

Founded this summer by a dozen wealthy conservatives, the nonprofit group is set apart from most advocacy groups by the immense wealth of its core group of benefactors, its intention to far outspend its rivals and its ambition to pursue a wide-ranging agenda. Its next target: Iran policy.

Next month, Freedom’s Watch will sponsor a private forum of 20 experts on radical Islam that is expected to make the case that Iran poses a direct threat to the security of the United States, according to several benefactors of the group. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

OPINION: How to make Iraq look like whipped cream

So what about Iran?
By Uri Avnery, Counterpunch, September 29, 2007

A respected American paper posted a scoop this week: Vice-President Dick Cheney, the King of Hawks, has thought up a Machiavellian scheme for an attack on Iran. Its main point: Israel will start by bombing an Iranian nuclear installation, Iran will respond by launching missiles at Israel, and this will serve as a pretext for an American attack on Iran.

Far-fetched? Not really. It is rather like what happened in 1956. Then France, Israel and Britain secretly planned to attack Egypt in order to topple Gamal Abd-al-Nasser (“regime change” in today’s lingo.) It was agreed that Israeli paratroops would be dropped near the Suez Canal, and that the resulting conflict would serve as a pretext for the French and British to occupy the canal area in order to “secure” the waterway. This plan was implemented (and failed miserably).

What would happen to us if we agreed to Cheney’s plan? Our pilots would risk their lives to bomb the heavily defended Iranian installations. Then, Iranian missiles would rain down on our cities. Hundreds, perhaps thousands would be killed. All this in order to supply the Americans with a pretext to go to war. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

FEATURE & EDITOR’S COMMENT: The Administration’s plan for Iran

Shifting targets
By Seymour M. Hersh, The New Yorker, October 8, 2007

In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran. “Shia extremists, backed by Iran, are training Iraqis to carry out attacks on our forces and the Iraqi people,” Bush told the national convention of the American Legion in August. “The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased. . . . The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And, until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops.” He then concluded, to applause, “I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities.”

The President’s position, and its corollary—that, if many of America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians—have taken firm hold in the Administration. This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.

The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq. [complete article]

Editor’s Comment — Zbigniew Brzezinski says, “This time, unlike the attack in Iraq, we’re going to play the victim. The name of our game seems to be to get the Iranians to overplay their hand.” And more graphically, a retired American four-star general says, “It’s got to be ten dead American soldiers and four burned trucks.”

But time is on Iran’s side. All they have to do is patiently refuse to rise to every bait and then in just over a year the baiters will be out of office.

This is what makes the Israelis and the neocons nervous. They claim that the “point of no return” they fear comes when Iran acquires the capability to produce nuclear weapons, yet what appears to be a more immediate fear is of Cheney’s point of no return. This, more than anything else, is what makes 2008 a critical year.

And even though one would expect that the Pentagon would be chastened by the disaster in Iraq, Hersh reports increasing support for the new strategy for attacking Iran:

The revised bombing plan for a possible attack, with its tightened focus on counterterrorism, is gathering support among generals and admirals in the Pentagon. The strategy calls for the use of sea-launched cruise missiles and more precisely targeted ground attacks and bombing strikes, including plans to destroy the most important Revolutionary Guard training camps, supply depots, and command and control facilities.

“Cheney’s option is now for a fast in and out—for surgical strikes,” the former senior American intelligence official told me. The Joint Chiefs have turned to the Navy, he said, which had been chafing over its role in the Air Force-dominated air war in Iraq. “The Navy’s planes, ships, and cruise missiles are in place in the Gulf and operating daily. They’ve got everything they need—even AWACS are in place and the targets in Iran have been programmed. The Navy is flying FA-18 missions every day in the Gulf.” There are also plans to hit Iran’s anti-aircraft surface-to-air missile sites. “We’ve got to get a path in and a path out,” the former official said.

A Pentagon consultant on counterterrorism told me that, if the bombing campaign took place, it would be accompanied by a series of what he called “short, sharp incursions” by American Special Forces units into suspected Iranian training sites. He said, “Cheney is devoted to this, no question.”

A limited bombing attack of this sort “only makes sense if the intelligence is good,” the consultant said. If the targets are not clearly defined, the bombing “will start as limited, but then there will be an ‘escalation special.’ Planners will say that we have to deal with Hezbollah here and Syria there. The goal will be to hit the cue ball one time and have all the balls go in the pocket. But add-ons are always there in strike planning.”

No doubt the allure of a surgical strike has been reinforced by the legendary success Israel just had in striking Syria with impunity. Yet are memories so short that everyone has forgotten the lessons from a year ago? Israel’s effort to bomb southern Lebanon “back to the stone ages” left tens of thousands of civilians homeless but it didn’t halt Katyusha rockets raining down on northern Israel.

Now Iran, apparently willing to gamble on harnessing America’s fear of al Qaeda, is reviving memories of the USS Cole. Hersh quotes a State Department adviser saying, “They are bragging that they have spray-painted an American warship—to signal the Americans that they can get close to them.” Hersh goes on to explain, “I was told by the former senior intelligence official that there was an unexplained incident, this spring, in which an American warship was spray-painted with a bull’s-eye while docked in Qatar, which may have been the source of the boasts.”

In all of this, what seems extraordinary is the administration’s resilient belief that simply by changing the narrative you can change the outcome. The US describes its attack on Iran as an act of retaliation, then Iran becomes all contrite, eats humble pie and says, “we learned our lesson”? I don’t think so.

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS: Neocons push U.S. closer to war with Iran

Neocons seek to justify action against Teheran
By Tim Shipman, Sunday Telegraph, September 30, 2007

American diplomats have been ordered to compile a dossier detailing Iran’s violations of international law that some fear could be used to justify military strikes against the Islamic republic’s nuclear programme.

Members of the US secretariat in the United Nations were asked earlier this month to begin “searching for things that Iran has done wrong”, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

Some US diplomats believe the exercise — reminiscent of attempts by vice-president Dick Cheney and the former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld to build the case against Saddam Hussein before the Iraq war — will boost calls for military action by neo-conservatives inside and outside the administration. [complete article]

Neocon ‘godfather’ Norman Podhoretz tells Bush: bomb Iran
By Sarah Baxter, The Sunday Times, September 30, 2007

[Describing a late spring private meeting with President Bush, Norman Podhoretz, neocon godfather and now senior foreign policy adviser in the Giuliani presidential campaign, said] “I laid out the worst-case scenario – bombing Iran – versus the worst-case consequences of allowing the Iranians to get the bomb.”

He also told Bush: “You have the awesome responsibility to prevent another holocaust. You’re the only one with the guts to do it.” The president looked very solemn, Podhoretz said.

For the most part Bush simply listened, although he and Rove both laughed when Podhoretz mentioned giving “futility its chance”, a phrase used by his fellow neoconservative, Robert Kagan, about the usefulness of pursuing United Nations sanctions against Iran.

“He gave not the slightest indication of whether he agreed with me, but he listened very intently,” Podhoretz said.

He is convinced, however, that “George Bush will not leave office with Iran having acquired a nuclear weapon or having passed the point of no return” – a reference to the Iranians’ acquisition of sufficient technical capability to produce a nuclear weapon.

“The president has said several times that he will be in the historical dock if he allows Iran to get the bomb. He believes that if we wait for threats to fully materialise, we’ll have waited too long – something I agree with 100%,” Podhoretz said [complete article]

See also, Tougher sanctions on Iran delayed (LAT).

Facebooktwittermail

OPINION: Stumbling into another war

Iran: Chronicle of a war foretold?
By Tony Karon, Rootless Cosmopolitan, September , 2007

… the Israeli domestic political equation is worrying: Olmert has seen his own approval ratings climb out of the toilet as a result of having bombed something in Syria a couple of weeks ago. Nobody knows what he bombed, but his numbers have climbed from about 3% a few months ago to over 35% today. That’s why the scoundrels to the left and right of him, Ehud Barak and Bibi Netanyahu, have been scrambling to claim some paternity over the mysterious Syria raid.

The Israeli electorate likes the flexing of military muscle, particularly after last summer’s humiliation in Lebanon, and even more so in the face of a steady stream of hysterical nonsense about a new Hitler on the march in the east.

The danger of Israel’s leaders’ own rhetoric painting themselves into a corner where military action becomes inevitable is reinforced by reports that Dick Cheney’s neocon jihadists have actually been planning to goad Israel into doing something this stupid, precisely in order to set off an Iranian response that would force the U.S. into a war with Iran. (Talk about a scorched-earth presidency!) [complete article]

See also, Key nations agree to delay Iran action (AP).

Facebooktwittermail

OPINION & EDITOR’S COMMENT: Israel and the world can live with a nuclear Iran

The world can live with a nuclear Iran
By Martin van Creveld, The Forward, September 24, 2007

In case Bush does decide to attack Iran, it is questionable whether Iran’s large, well-dispersed and well-camouflaged nuclear program can really be knocked out. This is all the more doubtful because, in contrast to the Israeli attacks on Iraq back in 1981 and on Syria three weeks ago, the element of surprise will be lacking. And even if it can be done, whether doing so will serve a useful purpose is also questionable.

Since 1945 hardly one year has gone by in which some voices — mainly American ones concerned about preserving Washington’s monopoly over nuclear weapons to the greatest extent possible — did not decry the terrible consequences that would follow if additional countries went nuclear. So far, not one of those warnings has come true. To the contrary: in every place where nuclear weapons were introduced, large-scale wars between their owners have disappeared.

General John Abizaid, the former commander of United States Central Command, is only the latest in a long list of experts to argue that the world can live with a nuclear Iran. Their views deserve to be carefully considered, lest Ahmadinejad’s fear-driven posturing cause anybody to do something stupid. [complete article]

Editor’s Comment — Martin van Creveld, a world-renowned professor of military history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has a habit of being bluntly truthful. This is what he said in an interview earlier this year:

“We are in no danger at all of having an Iranian nuclear weapon dropped on us. We cannot say so too openly, however, because we have a history of using any threat in order to get weapons … thanks to the Iranian threat, we are getting weapons from the U.S. and Germany.”

“Our armed forces are not the 30th strongest in the world, but rather the second or third… We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets that can launch them at targets in all directions. Most European capitals are targets of our air force … We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that this will happen before Israel goes under.”

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS & ANALYSIS: Iran – an enemy of convenience

Senate urges Bush to declare Iran Guard a terrorist group
By David M. Herszenhorn, New York Times, September 27, 2007

The Senate approved a resolution on Wednesday urging the Bush administration to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization, and lawmakers briefly set aside partisan differences to approve a measure calling for stepped-up diplomacy to forge a political solution in Iraq.

Since last month, the White House has been weighing whether to declare the Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist group or to take a narrower step focusing on only the Guard’s elite Quds Force. Either approach would signal a more confrontational posture by declaring a part of the Iranian military a terrorist operation. [complete article]

The secret dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States
Trita Parsi interviewed on Democracy Now, September 25, 2007

TRITA PARSI: Israel has for a very long time been a critical factor in America’s formulation of a policy vis-à-vis Iran. But what’s really interesting is that the influence of Israel has gone in completely different directions, if we just go back fifteen years. During the 1980s, in spite of the Iranian Revolution, in spite of Ayatollah Khomeini’s many, many harsh remarks about Israel, far, far worse than what anything Ahmadinejad has said so far, Israel at the time was the country that was lobbying the United States to open up talks with Iran to try to rebuild the US-Iran relations, because of strategic imperatives that Israel had. Israel needed Iran, because it was fearing the Arab world and a potential war with the Arabs.

After 1991, ’92, that’s when you see the real shift in Israeli-Iranian relations, because that’s when the entire geopolitical map of the Middle East is redrawn. The Soviet Union collapses. The last standing army of the Arabs, that of Saddam Hussein, is defeated in the Persian Gulf War. And you have an entirely new security environment in the Middle East, in which the two factors, the Soviets and the Arabs, that had pushed Iran and Israel closer together suddenly evaporate. But as their security environment improves, they also start to realize that they may be ending up in a situation in which they can become potential threats to each other. And that’s when you see how the Israelis shift 180 degrees. Now the Israeli argument was that the United States should not talk to Iran, because there is no such thing as Iranian moderates.

And ever since, the Israelis and the pro-Israel interest in the United States have lobbied to make sure that there is no dialogue or there’s no rapprochement between the United States and Iran. And the Iranians have done similar things. They have undermined every US foreign policy initiative in the Middle East that they feared would be beneficial to Israel. So the real shift in Israeli-Iranian relations come after the Cold War, not with the revolution in 1979. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

RUMOR: The world’s best-circulated rumor

The world according to John Bolton
Foreign Policy, September, 2007

FOREIGN POLICY: It’s been a tense week on the nuclear front, with Syria accusing Israel of invading its airspace, and then North Korea blasting Israel for doing so. You’ve been one of the only people who have spoken openly about the likelihood that Israel bombed nuclear facilities in Syria. If that were the case, why do you think Israel wouldn’t announce it had done so?

JOHN BOLTON: Well, I don’t think we really know what the target of the Israeli raid was. There seems to be a lot of indication that there was a North Korean-Syrian project in the nuclear field, although obviously the details of that are not known. And what that suggests is that we need very clear answers from the North Koreans in the context of the six-party talks [as to] whether indeed they are proliferating nuclear technology, whether they’re outsourcing their program—or just exactly what it is they’re doing.

Now, what the Israeli raid actually hit, I don’t think people know. I was certainly reacting against the notion that it was an attack on a shipment of missiles bound from Iran to Hezbollah, because I don’t think the Israelis would take the risks inherent in an attack on Syrian territory against a target like that. To me, it suggests that it was a higher-value target, and a nuclear facility of some kind would definitely qualify. But what exactly the target is, I don’t know myself, and I’m not sure that there’s anything but speculation out there at this point. [complete article]

Congress throws covert Israeli attack on Syria out into the open
By Nathan Guttman, The Forward, September 26, 2007

As Israel and the United States struggle to maintain a veil of ambiguity over Israel’s alleged air strike against Syria earlier this month, Congress is bringing the issue out into the open and giving American sanction to an event that now seems all but confirmed.

Democrat Robert Wexler from Florida introduced a resolution this week supporting Israel’s covert operation and backing the country’s right to defend itself “in the face of an imminent nuclear or military threat from Syria.”

“This is the world’s worst-kept secret,” Wexler told the Forward this week, stressing that his proposed resolution did not reveal anything that wasn’t already reported in the world press. [complete article]

Hillary Clinton says she supports ‘apparent’ IAF action in Syria
Haaretz, September 27, 2007

New York Senator Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday evening that she supports what she said was the Israel Air Force’s “apparent” action against a nuclear facility in Syria.

Clinton spoke during a televised debate for the leading candidates vying for the Democratic nomination for U.S. president.

The candidates largely evaded questions on the incident, on which foreign media has speculated but Israel remains quiet. The moderator of the debate, Tim Russert of NBC, raised the issue of Syria when asking whether the candidates would support an Israeli strike on Iran, should it acquire nuclear capabilities. [complete article]

Editor’s Comment — Clinton and Congress don’t need to know what happened in Syria before they voice their support. Fat chance they’ll be counseling restraint when it comes to Iran.

Facebooktwittermail

OPINION & NEWS: Listening to Iran

Ganji: “difficult days” for Iranian democracy activists
By Akbar Ganji, Scott MacLeod’s Time blog, September 24, 2007

Far from helping the development of democracy, US policy over the past 50 years has consistently been to the detriment of the proponents of freedom and democracy in Iran. The 1953 coup against the nationalist government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq and the unwavering support for the despotic regime of the Shah, who acted as America’s gendarme in the Persian Gulf, are just two examples of these flawed policies. More recently the confrontation between various US Administrations and the Iranian state over the past three decades has made internal conditions very difficult for the proponents of freedom and human rights in Iran. Exploiting the danger posed by the US, the Iranian regime has put military-security forces in charge of the government, shut down all independent domestic media, and is imprisoning human rights activists on the pretext that they are all agents of a foreign enemy. The Bush Administration, for its part, by approving a fund for democracy assistance in Iran, which has in fact being largely spent on official institutions and media affiliated with the US government, has made it easy for the Iranian regime to describe its opponents as mercenaries of the US and to crush them with impunity. At the same time, even speaking about “the possibility” of a military attack on Iran makes things extremely difficult for human rights and pro-democracy activists in Iran. No Iranian wants to see what happened to Iraq or Afghanistan repeated in Iran. Iranian democrats also watch with deep concern the support in some American circles for separatist movements in Iran. Preserving Iran’s territorial integrity is important to all those who struggle for democracy and human rights in Iran. We want democracy for Iran and for all Iranians. We also believe that the dismemberment of Middle Eastern countries will fuel widespread and prolonged conflict in the region. In order to help the process of democratization in the Middle East, the US can best help by promoting a just peace between the Palestinians and Israelis, and pave the way for the creation of a truly independent Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel. A just resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the establishment of a Palestinian state would inflict the heaviest blow on the forces of fundamentalism and terrorism in the Middle East. [complete article]

U.S. focus on Ahmadinejad puzzles Iranians
By Michael Slackman, New York Times, September 24, 2007

In demonizing Mr. Ahmadinejad, the West has served him well, elevating his status at home and in the region at a time when he is increasingly isolated politically because of his go-it-alone style and ineffective economic policies, according to Iranian politicians, officials and political experts.

Political analysts here say they are surprised at the degree to which the West focuses on their president, saying that it reflects a general misunderstanding of their system.

Unlike in the United States, in Iran the president is not the head of state nor the commander in chief. That status is held by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, whose role combines civil and religious authority. At the moment, this president’s power comes from two sources, they say: the unqualified support of the supreme leader, and the international condemnation he manages to generate when he speaks up.

“The United States pays too much attention to Ahmadinejad,” said an Iranian political scientist who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. “He is not that consequential.” [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

INTERVIEW: The IAEA’s Mohamed ElBaradei

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei says Iran is not a ‘clear and present danger’
Mohamed ElBaradei interviewed by Christopher Dickey, Newsweek, September , 2007

DICKEY: The Israeli airstrike on Syria may have targeted a nuclear facility supplied by North Korea. What do you have on that?

ELBARADEI: We have zilch on that. We would be happy to investigate it if anybody has any information that is nuclear related, but today we have nothing.

Is the speculation about impending military action against Iran hurting or helping efforts at a negotiated settlement?
We still have issues that we need to clarify in Iran. But I don’t see Iran, today, to be a clear and present danger. And our conclusion here is supported by every intelligence assessment I’ve seen that even if Iran has ambitions to develop nuclear weapons [which it denies], it’s still three to eight years away from that. We need to continue to do robust verification. But we do not need to hype the issue. What we need right now is to encourage the moderates in Iran. [complete article]

See also, Iran doesn’t need bomb, leader says (LAT).

Facebooktwittermail