The New Yorker
Preparing the Battlefield: The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran
By Seymour M. Hersh
July 7, 2008
Excerpt:
Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.
Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of “high-value targets” in the President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature.
Under federal law, a Presidential Finding, which is highly classified, must be issued when a covert intelligence operation gets under way and, at a minimum, must be made known to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and the Senate and to the ranking members of their respective intelligence committees—the so-called Gang of Eight. Money for the operation can then be reprogrammed from previous appropriations, as needed, by the relevant congressional committees, which also can be briefed.
“The Finding was focussed on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,” a person familiar with its contents said, and involved “working with opposition groups and passing money.” The Finding provided for a whole new range of activities in southern Iran and in the areas, in the east, where Baluchi political opposition is strong, he said.
Although some legislators were troubled by aspects of the Finding, and “there was a significant amount of high-level discussion” about it, according to the source familiar with it, the funding for the escalation was approved. In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy.
The request for funding came in the same period in which the Administration was coming to terms with a National Intelligence Estimate, released in December, that concluded that Iran had halted its work on nuclear weapons in 2003. The Administration downplayed the significance of the N.I.E., and, while saying that it was committed to diplomacy, continued to emphasize that urgent action was essential to counter the Iranian nuclear threat. President Bush questioned the N.I.E.’s conclusions, and senior national-security officials, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, made similar statements. (So did Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee.) Meanwhile, the Administration also revived charges that the Iranian leadership has been involved in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq: both directly, by dispatching commando units into Iraq, and indirectly, by supplying materials used for roadside bombs and other lethal goods. (There have been questions about the accuracy of the claims; the Times, among others, has reported that “significant uncertainties remain about the extent of that involvement.”)
Military and civilian leaders in the Pentagon share the White House’s concern about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but there is disagreement about whether a military strike is the right solution. Some Pentagon officials believe, as they have let Congress and the media know, that bombing Iran is not a viable response to the nuclear-proliferation issue, and that more diplomacy is necessary.
A Democratic senator told me that, late last year, in an off-the-record lunch meeting, Secretary of Defense Gates met with the Democratic caucus in the Senate. (Such meetings are held regularly.) Gates warned of the consequences if the Bush Administration staged a preëmptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, “We’ll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America.” Gates’s comments stunned the Democrats at the lunch, and another senator asked whether Gates was speaking for Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. Gates’s answer, the senator told me, was “Let’s just say that I’m here speaking for myself.” (A spokesman for Gates confirmed that he discussed the consequences of a strike at the meeting, but would not address what he said, other than to dispute the senator’s characterization.)
The Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose chairman is Admiral Mike Mullen, were “pushing back very hard” against White House pressure to undertake a military strike against Iran, the person familiar with the Finding told me. Similarly, a Pentagon consultant who is involved in the war on terror said that “at least ten senior flag and general officers, including combatant commanders”—the four-star officers who direct military operations around the world—“have weighed in on that issue.”
The most outspoken of those officers is Admiral William Fallon, who until recently was the head of U.S. Central Command, and thus in charge of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In March, Fallon resigned under pressure, after giving a series of interviews stating his reservations about an armed attack on Iran. For example, late last year he told the Financial Times that the “real objective” of U.S. policy was to change the Iranians’ behavior, and that “attacking them as a means to get to that spot strikes me as being not the first choice.”
Admiral Fallon acknowledged, when I spoke to him in June, that he had heard that there were people in the White House who were upset by his public statements. “Too many people believe you have to be either for or against the Iranians,” he told me. “Let’s get serious. Eighty million people live there, and everyone’s an individual. The idea that they’re only one way or another is nonsense.”
When it came to the Iraq war, Fallon said, “Did I bitch about some of the things that were being proposed? You bet. Some of them were very stupid.”
The Democratic leadership’s agreement to commit hundreds of millions of dollars for more secret operations in Iran was remarkable, given the general concerns of officials like Gates, Fallon, and many others. “The oversight process has not kept pace—it’s been coöpted” by the Administration, the person familiar with the contents of the Finding said. “The process is broken, and this is dangerous stuff we’re authorizing.”
Read the Full Article Here >>
Monday, June 30, 2008
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Orientalism and Racism
First of all thanks to the Fanonite for putting me on to this documentary/Edward W. Said interview.
This documentary takes its bearings from an interview with distinguished scholar, public intellectual and political activist, Edward W. Said (1935-2003), branching out into a broader discussion of his work, which can above all be interpreted as a sustained effort to undermine, challenge and unmask the distorted, one-sided and outright bigoted portrayal of so-called ‘Orientals’, Middle Easterners, Muslims, Iranians, Arabs etc..., in the standard repertoire of much Western mainstream media coverage of the region.
From Fox News, to 24 and even Disney’s Aladdin, a self-consistent set of vague generalizations about the Middle East and the peoples who inhabit the region have become normalized to the point whereby racist stereotypes and pervasive discrimination against peoples of Middle Eastern origin is virtually ‘officially sanctioned’. Said’s work is an attempt to unveil how this regulated system of knowledge production vis-à-vis the Orient, integral to European imperialism in the 19th and 20th centuries, attempts to obscure vested political and socio-economic interests by presenting itself as an ‘impartial’ and ‘objective’ body of knowledge.
To this day Orientalist discourse remains deeply entrenched within the way politicians, movies, and the media represent and discuss the region. The recent alliance between some anthropologists of the Middle East and the US military establishment is no accident, because the latter demands (as did Napoleon upon his invasion of Egypt in 1798) a set of principles, ideas and concepts upon which to draw, so they are better equipped to subjugate and control the indigenous population. It is in this way that imperialism and faux-science have come to mutually reinforce and support one another.
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
Documentary: Gore Vidal
Gore Vidal has long been a lone voice of reason and blistering wit in a ocean of mediocrity and officially sanctioned propaganda. This documentary provides an overview of Vidal's life, times and work and makes interesting viewing. At 82 this great man of letters is still going strong and continues to draw the world's attention to the crimes committed by this administration, which couldn't wait a moment longer to jump over the precipice and ensure the 'death of the republic' by means of the steady dismemberment of Magna Carta and thus the rule of law, due process and many other fundamental civil liberties that have simply been chewed up and spat out over the last 8 years.
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
Part 5:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
Part 5:
Iran War Resolution May Be Passed Next Week: Please Contact Your Local Representatives
CALLING ALL CARS:
This Action alert has been put out by Antiwar.com and details two resolutions which are due to be pass in Congress that will in effect give the Bush administration the right to initiate a casus belli against Iran and all the terrible repercussions that will inevitably result therefrom. Please contact and lobby your local representatives to prevent this Administration from launching yet another foreign policy and human disaster.
Antiwar.com Action Alert
Iran War Resolution May Be Passed Next Week
Quick Links
H. Con. Res. 362 S. Res. 580 Newsletter Take Action Donate Introduced less than a month ago, Resolution 362, also known as the Iran War Resolution, could be passed by the House as early as next week. The bill is the chief legislative priority of AIPAC. On its Web site, AIPAC endorses the resolutions as a way to ''Stop Iran's Nuclear Program" and tells readers to lobby Congress to pass the bill. In the Senate, a sister resolution, Resolution 580, has gained co-sponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. It has since gained 19 co-sponsors. The bill's key section "demands that the president initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program." "Imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran" can be read to mean that the president should initiate a naval blockade of Iran. A unilateral naval blockade without UN sanction is an act of war. Resolution 362 has already gained 170 co-sponsors, or nearly 40 percent of the House. It has been referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee, which has 49 members, 24 of whom, including the ranking Republican, are co-sponsors. The Iran Nuclear Watch Web site writes, "According to the House leadership, this resolution is going to 'pass like a hot knife through butter' before the end of June on what is called suspension - meaning no amendments can be introduced during the 20-minute maximum debate. It also means it is assumed the bill will pass by a 2/3 majority and is non-controversial." Our national legislators deem it non-controversial to recommend to a president known for his recklessness and bad judgment that he consider engaging in an act of war against Iran. Those of you who consider this issue controversial can go to the Just Foreign Policy Web site and tell your representative to oppose this resolution.
For more information about this action item, media requests, donations or other information, please contact Angela Keaton at 310-729-3760 or akeaton@antiwar.com.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
MSNBC: Ahmadinejad's 'Mystical Populism'
This brief profile on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't original, but is interesting insofar as it draws attention to Ahmadinejad's populism, so often neglected in Western coverage of the man and his political outlook. This populist dimension was obvious from the outset, and always the basis of his 2005 presidential election victory i.e. his pledge to combat corruption, redistribute wealth and alleviate the plight and woeful state of Iran's economic underclass. Ahmadinejad's total failure on all counts, however, is a question we'll have to put aside for another time. The vaunted position that foreign policy and Iran's nuclear program were to take, were never really part of the bargain in the domestic debate which led to his election. Professor Ali Ansari, author of Confronting Iran: The Failure of American Foreign Policy and the Roots of Mistrust and Iran, Islam, and Democracy: The Politics of Managing Change, makes some interesting points of which all followers of Iranian politics should be apprised.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Al-Jazeera: Interview with Noam Chomsky
Little new here, but it's always a pleasure to hear the man speak...
Part 1:
Part 2:
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Perspiration Devoid of Inspiration: Wither the Dream of a Palestinian State?
The objective of forging a lasting peace to the Israel-Palestine conflict has, at least on the surface, acted as a kind of Holy Grail for a number of American presidents – Kennedy, Carter and Clinton all made gestures toward peace and all failed on the count of co-birthing a Palestinian state. A myriad of promises have been made, and broken, thousands of pages and buckets of ink have been spent on documents and memoranda, whose stated objective was to bring peace to a troubled, turbulent and relatively small stretch of land deemed ‘holy’ by Christians, Jews and Muslims.
A broad consensus that cuts across party, religious, ethnic and national lines concedes that peace in the Middle East is inconceivable and to a large extent dependent on a just and equitable solution to the Palestinian issue. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security advisor to the Carter administration, generally seen as a staunch ‘realist’ in foreign policy circles wrote in 2004 that:
‘The U.S. inclination, in the spring of 2002, to embrace even the more extreme forms of Israeli suppression of the Palestinians as part of the struggle against terrorism…The unwillingness to recognize a historical connection between the rise of anti-American terrorism and America’s involvement in the Middle East makes the formulation of an effective strategic response to terrorism that much more difficult.’[i]
Brzezinski elucidates a point which is approaching self-evidence to those in the region and the overwhelming majority without: that the Israel-Palestine conflict is the biggest and most enduring impediment to peace in the Middle East. Moreover, the United States unwavering support for Israel despite the latter’s complete disregard for international law and tens of UN Resolutions, is an all-too-real source of resentment and discontent in the Arab and Islamic worlds, fuelling anti-American sentiment and forestalling Israel’s full integration into the region. This is not a revolutionary idea by any means, and has been put forward by countless politicians, journalist, intellectuals, and concerned citizens. For example, Stephen Walt of Harvard University and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago in their recent book, The Israel Lobby contend just that.[ii] And just last week, King Abdullah of Jordan reiterated in an interview with The Washington Post that the tapering off of the peace process is the most significant threat to peace in the region.[iii]
This dusty and time-worn argument has been echoed throughout the decades since the creation of the Jewish state and the concomitant issue of Palestinian refugees in 1948. This conviction has only intensified since the Six Day War in 1967 when Israel attacked Egypt, Jordan and Syria, and annexed the Sinai Peninsula, Golan Heights, and the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.
Despite the prevailing consensus, which advocates a two-state solution and that Israel withdraw to its pre-June 1967 borders, a peace initiative in which a viable Palestinian state will emerge and stand alongside its Israeli neighbor remains a distant, if not farfetched prospect. Amongst both Palestinians and Israelis it appears that a severe bout of apathy has set in and is amongst the most significant factors stalling the realization of the much feted two-state solution promised to both peoples, whose leaders have rarely failed to disappoint. The prime source of such disappointment: the abject failure of the Oslo Accords, which were flawed from the very outset, and yet at the time of their announcement couldn’t receive enough praise. Why were the Oslo Accords doomed to fail?: they never mentioned statehood or independence. They did not define boundaries or the fate of Jerusalem, and they did absolutely nothing to arrest the ‘settlement enterprise’.[iv] In fact, the rate of settlement construction continued to increase in the aftermath of Oslo and precipitously so under the supposedly ‘dovish’ Prime Minister, and present Minister of Defense Ehud Barak;[v] even by comparison with the notoriously hawkish former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Apathy but also the Bush administration’s pre-occupation with Afghanistan, Iraq and the possibility of a looming war with Iran have all forced the Arab-Israeli conflict onto the back burner.
Last week saw the announcement of a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip between Palestinian armed groups, including the ruling party Hamas and Israeli authorities. Only days since its announcement this fragile and precarious ceasefire already appears to be in jeopardy as the Israeli army shot dead two Palestinians in the West Bank, which was returned with rocket fire from the militant group Islamic Jihad, and the fear is that the violence may well spread to Gaza.
When the dominant trend has been once of attacks, followed by retaliation and counter-retaliation it’s hardly a surprise that Israelis and Palestinians are skeptical about whether this most recent ceasefire shows signs of longevity or will turn out to be just another exercise in futility and wishful thinking. While Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev claims that this latest ceasefire could engender ‘a new reality’,[vi] few see this as anything more than a band-aid solution, greeted to the extent that it will temporarily quell the violence which has claimed the lives of over 560 Palestinians and 14 Israelis, since Hamas took control of Gaza at the expense of Muhammad Dahlan’s militia in June 2007. Dahlan’s militia receives funding from the US and some European countries, such as Britain, and some commentators opine that he’s currently being groomed as the next ‘strong man’ to accede to the presidency and restore Fatah to power.[vii]
If peace is to be realized it’s clear that Hamas cannot be excluded from the process as the International Quartet have pressed President Abbas to. President Carter in his most recent visit to the region frankly acknowledged just as much. Not only do they have deep communal ties inside the occupied territories, providing numerous social, welfare and health services to a population forsaken by the international community, and at the mercy of the IDF and Israeli policy makers. The extra-judicial assassinations of key Hamas figures and the international blockade of Gaza which has reduced Gazans to a new low in their long-established destitution has only gone to buttress support for the Hamas government elected in the January 2006 parliamentary elections with a majority of 74 out of 132 seats. In addition, its acceptance of the two-state solution as a basis for negotiations, not only bespeaks an ideological moderation since its inception in the 1987, but also its tacit recognition that Israel is here to stay. Hamas is going through the same process of maturation as the PLO had done previously. Though by no means ideal, it’s certainly a step in the right direction.
The pressure brought to bear by the International Quartet has further been viewed as an ultimatum to Gazans that they overthrow their own elected government or suffer the consequences. Abbas was urged not to yield security control to the government and its Interior Ministry, as stipulated in the constitution. The Quartet also demanded that he quickly reclaim powers from the new government and incorporate them into the executive branch: financial responsibilities would be removed from the Ministry of Finance; the salaries of government officials would be paid by the president’s office and finally, all key policy decisions would be enacted by presidential decree.
The international community’s economic blockade of Gaza, rather than initiating Hamas’ downfall has strengthened the resolve of Palestinians, who refuse to be cowed. The actions of the Quartet have only reinforced many Palestinians profound sense of isolation and further entrenched the perception of Western double-standards. Palestinians democratically elected a government in free and fair elections and were punished for having done so. For critics of the Bush administration’s policy vis-à-vis the Israel/Palestine impasse, ample evidence has been provided that the US will only accept a democratically elected government if the democratically elected government in question is one of which the administration approves. A similar trend is deemed to be present in the analogous cases in Algeria, Egypt and Iraq.
Despite the hollow and evermore distant prospect of a Palestinian state, President Bush has said repeatedly that it might be realized before he leaves office. A crucial omission however, is that the Bush administration has entirely undercut the pre-existing international consensus, i.e. that Israel should withdraw to the pre-June 1967 border in exchange for peace. When Bush gave a letter to the then Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, whereby he committed his government to recognition of the de facto legitimacy of the settlement blocks inside the West Bank, he lent credence to Israel’s transformation of any future Palestinian state into a series of non-contiguous cantons, without meaningful sovereignty in any sense of the word i.e. control of its airspace, borders, trade and armed forces.[viii] The consequence: in March 2006 Olmert, announced a unilateral program of withdrawal, postulating that Israel intended to keep 36.5% of the West Bank, not including East Jerusalem and the Jordan valley that represents almost half of the 22% of the post-1949 Palestine upon which many Palestinians had dreamt of building their very own state.[ix]
The settlement enterprise continues unabated as we speak, while armed settlers, protected by the Israeli army travel back and forth to Tel Aviv on modern roads strictly for the use of Israeli Jews, from which Palestinians are barred. Israeli settlers are furthermore permitted to harass, maim and kill Palestinians with impunity; and it is exactly because Jimmy Carter has underscored the presence of parallel legal and lived worlds predicated on race and religion in his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, that he has created such a stir inside the American mainstream.
Finally of course there is the issue of the Israeli ‘security wall’. The illegality of the wall was unequivocally condemned by the International Court of Justice in July 2004, since it violates the Fourth Geneva Convention, which forbids any occupying power from transferring part of its civilian population into territories seized by military force. The wall is projected to be at least three and a half times as long as Israel's internationally recognized border and cuts directly through Palestinian villages, breaking up families and dividing farmland. Some 375,000 Palestinians have been included on the 'Israeli' side of the wall. Moreover, the wall completely encircles the Palestinian city of Qalqiliya and its 45,000 inhabitants, with the overwhelming majority of their land and one third of their water supply seized unlawfully by the Israelis.[x] Scores of communities have been bulldozed. The concrete and electrified fencing materials are supplemented by two-meter-deep trenches, roads for patrol vehicles, electronic ground and fence sensors, thermal imaging and video cameras, sniper towers and razor wire, all of which have been erected on Palestinian land.
Both Israelis and Palestinians have become attached to the idea of having their own states, and Israelis have had just that going on 60 years. A solution has long been supported by international law and more recently the March 2002 Arab Peace Initiative which affirmed the basic principle of ‘land for peace’. The overwhelming majority of both Israelis (62% of which favor direct talks with Hamas) and Palestinians desire peace: the only question which remains is when their tired, weary and uninspired leaders will finally deliver on a promise which has been a long time in coming and whose solution we continue to ignore at our own peril?
[i] The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic Books, 2004, p31
[ii] The Israel Lobby, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, Allen Lane, 2007
[iii] A Conversation with King Abdullah of Jordan, Lally Weymouth, The Washington Post,
[iv] Into the Lion’s Den, Robert Malley & Hussein Agha, The New York Review of Books, Volume 55, Number 7, May 1, 2008
[v] Siegman: After Arafat, Key Question Is Whether U.S. and Israel Will Resume Peace Talks with Palestinians, November 9, 2004, http://www.cfr.org/publication/7500/siegman.html
[vi] Hamas Ceasefire Could Bring ‘New Reality’ to Gaza, Donald Macintyre, The Independent, June 18, 2008
[vii] Our Second Biggest Mistake in the Middle East, Alistair Cooke, London Review of Books, July 5, 2007
[viii] Israelis Claim Secret Agreement with U.S., Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post, April 24, 2008
[ix] What Hamas Wants: The Sunni Islamists’ Changing Agendas, Paul Delmotte, Le Monde Diplomatique, January 2007
[x] Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Jimmy Carter, Simon and Shuster, 2007, 190-193
©Sadegh Kabeer
A broad consensus that cuts across party, religious, ethnic and national lines concedes that peace in the Middle East is inconceivable and to a large extent dependent on a just and equitable solution to the Palestinian issue. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security advisor to the Carter administration, generally seen as a staunch ‘realist’ in foreign policy circles wrote in 2004 that:
‘The U.S. inclination, in the spring of 2002, to embrace even the more extreme forms of Israeli suppression of the Palestinians as part of the struggle against terrorism…The unwillingness to recognize a historical connection between the rise of anti-American terrorism and America’s involvement in the Middle East makes the formulation of an effective strategic response to terrorism that much more difficult.’[i]
Brzezinski elucidates a point which is approaching self-evidence to those in the region and the overwhelming majority without: that the Israel-Palestine conflict is the biggest and most enduring impediment to peace in the Middle East. Moreover, the United States unwavering support for Israel despite the latter’s complete disregard for international law and tens of UN Resolutions, is an all-too-real source of resentment and discontent in the Arab and Islamic worlds, fuelling anti-American sentiment and forestalling Israel’s full integration into the region. This is not a revolutionary idea by any means, and has been put forward by countless politicians, journalist, intellectuals, and concerned citizens. For example, Stephen Walt of Harvard University and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago in their recent book, The Israel Lobby contend just that.[ii] And just last week, King Abdullah of Jordan reiterated in an interview with The Washington Post that the tapering off of the peace process is the most significant threat to peace in the region.[iii]
This dusty and time-worn argument has been echoed throughout the decades since the creation of the Jewish state and the concomitant issue of Palestinian refugees in 1948. This conviction has only intensified since the Six Day War in 1967 when Israel attacked Egypt, Jordan and Syria, and annexed the Sinai Peninsula, Golan Heights, and the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.
Despite the prevailing consensus, which advocates a two-state solution and that Israel withdraw to its pre-June 1967 borders, a peace initiative in which a viable Palestinian state will emerge and stand alongside its Israeli neighbor remains a distant, if not farfetched prospect. Amongst both Palestinians and Israelis it appears that a severe bout of apathy has set in and is amongst the most significant factors stalling the realization of the much feted two-state solution promised to both peoples, whose leaders have rarely failed to disappoint. The prime source of such disappointment: the abject failure of the Oslo Accords, which were flawed from the very outset, and yet at the time of their announcement couldn’t receive enough praise. Why were the Oslo Accords doomed to fail?: they never mentioned statehood or independence. They did not define boundaries or the fate of Jerusalem, and they did absolutely nothing to arrest the ‘settlement enterprise’.[iv] In fact, the rate of settlement construction continued to increase in the aftermath of Oslo and precipitously so under the supposedly ‘dovish’ Prime Minister, and present Minister of Defense Ehud Barak;[v] even by comparison with the notoriously hawkish former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Apathy but also the Bush administration’s pre-occupation with Afghanistan, Iraq and the possibility of a looming war with Iran have all forced the Arab-Israeli conflict onto the back burner.
Last week saw the announcement of a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip between Palestinian armed groups, including the ruling party Hamas and Israeli authorities. Only days since its announcement this fragile and precarious ceasefire already appears to be in jeopardy as the Israeli army shot dead two Palestinians in the West Bank, which was returned with rocket fire from the militant group Islamic Jihad, and the fear is that the violence may well spread to Gaza.
When the dominant trend has been once of attacks, followed by retaliation and counter-retaliation it’s hardly a surprise that Israelis and Palestinians are skeptical about whether this most recent ceasefire shows signs of longevity or will turn out to be just another exercise in futility and wishful thinking. While Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev claims that this latest ceasefire could engender ‘a new reality’,[vi] few see this as anything more than a band-aid solution, greeted to the extent that it will temporarily quell the violence which has claimed the lives of over 560 Palestinians and 14 Israelis, since Hamas took control of Gaza at the expense of Muhammad Dahlan’s militia in June 2007. Dahlan’s militia receives funding from the US and some European countries, such as Britain, and some commentators opine that he’s currently being groomed as the next ‘strong man’ to accede to the presidency and restore Fatah to power.[vii]
If peace is to be realized it’s clear that Hamas cannot be excluded from the process as the International Quartet have pressed President Abbas to. President Carter in his most recent visit to the region frankly acknowledged just as much. Not only do they have deep communal ties inside the occupied territories, providing numerous social, welfare and health services to a population forsaken by the international community, and at the mercy of the IDF and Israeli policy makers. The extra-judicial assassinations of key Hamas figures and the international blockade of Gaza which has reduced Gazans to a new low in their long-established destitution has only gone to buttress support for the Hamas government elected in the January 2006 parliamentary elections with a majority of 74 out of 132 seats. In addition, its acceptance of the two-state solution as a basis for negotiations, not only bespeaks an ideological moderation since its inception in the 1987, but also its tacit recognition that Israel is here to stay. Hamas is going through the same process of maturation as the PLO had done previously. Though by no means ideal, it’s certainly a step in the right direction.
The pressure brought to bear by the International Quartet has further been viewed as an ultimatum to Gazans that they overthrow their own elected government or suffer the consequences. Abbas was urged not to yield security control to the government and its Interior Ministry, as stipulated in the constitution. The Quartet also demanded that he quickly reclaim powers from the new government and incorporate them into the executive branch: financial responsibilities would be removed from the Ministry of Finance; the salaries of government officials would be paid by the president’s office and finally, all key policy decisions would be enacted by presidential decree.
The international community’s economic blockade of Gaza, rather than initiating Hamas’ downfall has strengthened the resolve of Palestinians, who refuse to be cowed. The actions of the Quartet have only reinforced many Palestinians profound sense of isolation and further entrenched the perception of Western double-standards. Palestinians democratically elected a government in free and fair elections and were punished for having done so. For critics of the Bush administration’s policy vis-à-vis the Israel/Palestine impasse, ample evidence has been provided that the US will only accept a democratically elected government if the democratically elected government in question is one of which the administration approves. A similar trend is deemed to be present in the analogous cases in Algeria, Egypt and Iraq.
Despite the hollow and evermore distant prospect of a Palestinian state, President Bush has said repeatedly that it might be realized before he leaves office. A crucial omission however, is that the Bush administration has entirely undercut the pre-existing international consensus, i.e. that Israel should withdraw to the pre-June 1967 border in exchange for peace. When Bush gave a letter to the then Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, whereby he committed his government to recognition of the de facto legitimacy of the settlement blocks inside the West Bank, he lent credence to Israel’s transformation of any future Palestinian state into a series of non-contiguous cantons, without meaningful sovereignty in any sense of the word i.e. control of its airspace, borders, trade and armed forces.[viii] The consequence: in March 2006 Olmert, announced a unilateral program of withdrawal, postulating that Israel intended to keep 36.5% of the West Bank, not including East Jerusalem and the Jordan valley that represents almost half of the 22% of the post-1949 Palestine upon which many Palestinians had dreamt of building their very own state.[ix]
The settlement enterprise continues unabated as we speak, while armed settlers, protected by the Israeli army travel back and forth to Tel Aviv on modern roads strictly for the use of Israeli Jews, from which Palestinians are barred. Israeli settlers are furthermore permitted to harass, maim and kill Palestinians with impunity; and it is exactly because Jimmy Carter has underscored the presence of parallel legal and lived worlds predicated on race and religion in his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, that he has created such a stir inside the American mainstream.
Finally of course there is the issue of the Israeli ‘security wall’. The illegality of the wall was unequivocally condemned by the International Court of Justice in July 2004, since it violates the Fourth Geneva Convention, which forbids any occupying power from transferring part of its civilian population into territories seized by military force. The wall is projected to be at least three and a half times as long as Israel's internationally recognized border and cuts directly through Palestinian villages, breaking up families and dividing farmland. Some 375,000 Palestinians have been included on the 'Israeli' side of the wall. Moreover, the wall completely encircles the Palestinian city of Qalqiliya and its 45,000 inhabitants, with the overwhelming majority of their land and one third of their water supply seized unlawfully by the Israelis.[x] Scores of communities have been bulldozed. The concrete and electrified fencing materials are supplemented by two-meter-deep trenches, roads for patrol vehicles, electronic ground and fence sensors, thermal imaging and video cameras, sniper towers and razor wire, all of which have been erected on Palestinian land.
Both Israelis and Palestinians have become attached to the idea of having their own states, and Israelis have had just that going on 60 years. A solution has long been supported by international law and more recently the March 2002 Arab Peace Initiative which affirmed the basic principle of ‘land for peace’. The overwhelming majority of both Israelis (62% of which favor direct talks with Hamas) and Palestinians desire peace: the only question which remains is when their tired, weary and uninspired leaders will finally deliver on a promise which has been a long time in coming and whose solution we continue to ignore at our own peril?
[i] The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic Books, 2004, p31
[ii] The Israel Lobby, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, Allen Lane, 2007
[iii] A Conversation with King Abdullah of Jordan, Lally Weymouth, The Washington Post,
[iv] Into the Lion’s Den, Robert Malley & Hussein Agha, The New York Review of Books, Volume 55, Number 7, May 1, 2008
[v] Siegman: After Arafat, Key Question Is Whether U.S. and Israel Will Resume Peace Talks with Palestinians, November 9, 2004, http://www.cfr.org/publication/7500/siegman.html
[vi] Hamas Ceasefire Could Bring ‘New Reality’ to Gaza, Donald Macintyre, The Independent, June 18, 2008
[vii] Our Second Biggest Mistake in the Middle East, Alistair Cooke, London Review of Books, July 5, 2007
[viii] Israelis Claim Secret Agreement with U.S., Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post, April 24, 2008
[ix] What Hamas Wants: The Sunni Islamists’ Changing Agendas, Paul Delmotte, Le Monde Diplomatique, January 2007
[x] Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Jimmy Carter, Simon and Shuster, 2007, 190-193
©Sadegh Kabeer
Is a Military Strike Against Iran On the Cards?
While political scientist and fierce critic of Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories, Norman G. Finkelstein discounts the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran as posturing (see his interview with Press TV here), it seems that the hawkish brute John Bolton begs to differ in a recent interview with The Daily Telegraph and regards it as a near certainty, before Bush leaves office in the fall. Unwavering neocon, Bill Kristol has even claimed that Bush is more likely to launch a strike himself if it looks like Obama is next in line to be Commander-in-Chief.
Bolton's prediction is, at least in part, consonant with those of Seymour Hersh in his New Yorker series on the administration's plans to attack Iran, spearheaded by the vice-president, Dick Cheney's office. Former UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter's pronouncements also seem to side with the conviction that the Bush administration is staunchly committed to an attack on Iran before the end of the president's term, irrespective of its repercussions for the region, Iranian civilians (obviously), American troops based in Iraq and Afghanistan, oil prices and the global economy. The only question remaining, is whether it will be Israel or the United States that carries out the dastardly deed.
Scott Ritter and Seymour Hersh on Iran and the possibility of a US or Israeli attack: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3777614199046042311&hl=en
The obvious key difference which separates Bolton from Hersh and Ritter, is that the former has for some time been vociferously calling for an attack on Iran on Fox News and other sympathetic venues and railing against the administration's lack of 'resolve' when it comes to Iran. While at present, it's undeniable that a storm is brewing and pressure has intensified on Iran as the two presidential nominees square off and the twilight of Bush’s presidency lies on the horizon.
Though predominantly anecdotal (there are some articles which I've linked below), I've been told by numerous individuals, friends and relatives who regularly conduct business transactions internationally from inside of Iran, that the present sanctions are seriously hampering Iran's economic health, prospects etc... and have had a terrible impact far beyond Iran's nuclear activities or the personnel associated with it. I don't know of any full-length study which has been undertaken to demonstrate the wider effects of the current sanctions regime on the Iranian economy, so if anyone knows of one, please let me know.
The UAE has thus far acted like an economic lifeline, and much trade is first 'laundered' via the UAE before reaching Iran; but the Americans are bringing serious pressure to bear on the Emirati authorities to curb 'illicit trade' with Iranian companies. This week the European Union passed a new series of sanctions targeting Iranian financial institutions and most importantly Iran's Bank-e-Melli. What is being undertaken on all fronts by the so-called 'international community' i.e. the US and its European cheerleader squad, is nothing less than an asymmetrical effort to buttress the economic stranglehold on the Iranian economy in the hope of coercing Iran into divesting itself of the right to enrich uranium, guaranteed by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. No wonder that some are exclaiming that sanctions are merely warfare by other means. Clausewitz would have undoubtedly seen the parallel with his own dictum that 'war is a continuation of politics by other means' very quickly, although in this case it's a matter of economic warfare waged by means of sanctions, psychological warfare through the ceaseless threat of military force and even 'obliteration', and finally the very real and tangible threat of coercion in the form of military maneuvers, by both American warships in the Gulf and Israeli F-16s over the Mediterranean.
The choice we face is whether we are going to voice our opposition to yet another foreign policy and morally bankrupt disaster or applaud while the bombs fall and innocents are torn limb from limb. If and when a strike does occur, we can be sure Bolton will applaud, do a little dance and throw in a couple of 'hell yeahs', all in the name of 'liberty', 'justice' and 'security' for Israel...errr...I mean the world...
Telegraph.co.uk:
Israel 'will attack Iran' before new US president sworn in, John Bolton predicts
By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last updated: 9:50 AM BST 24/06/2008
John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, has predicted that Israel could attack Iran after the November presidential election but before George W Bush's successor is sworn in.
The Arab world would be "pleased" by Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, he said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.
"It [the reaction] will be positive privately. I think there'll be public denunciations but no action," he said.
Mr Bolton, an unflinching hawk who proposes military action to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons, bemoaned what he sees as a lack of will by the Bush administration to itself contemplate military strikes.
"It's clear that the administration has essentially given up that possibility," he said. "I don't think it's serious any more. If you had asked me a year ago I would have said I thought it was a real possibility. I just don't think it's in the cards."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/2182070/Israel-%27will-attack-Iran%27-before-new-US-president-sworn-in%2C-John-Bolton-predicts.html
Bolton's prediction is, at least in part, consonant with those of Seymour Hersh in his New Yorker series on the administration's plans to attack Iran, spearheaded by the vice-president, Dick Cheney's office. Former UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter's pronouncements also seem to side with the conviction that the Bush administration is staunchly committed to an attack on Iran before the end of the president's term, irrespective of its repercussions for the region, Iranian civilians (obviously), American troops based in Iraq and Afghanistan, oil prices and the global economy. The only question remaining, is whether it will be Israel or the United States that carries out the dastardly deed.
Scott Ritter and Seymour Hersh on Iran and the possibility of a US or Israeli attack: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3777614199046042311&hl=en
The obvious key difference which separates Bolton from Hersh and Ritter, is that the former has for some time been vociferously calling for an attack on Iran on Fox News and other sympathetic venues and railing against the administration's lack of 'resolve' when it comes to Iran. While at present, it's undeniable that a storm is brewing and pressure has intensified on Iran as the two presidential nominees square off and the twilight of Bush’s presidency lies on the horizon.
Though predominantly anecdotal (there are some articles which I've linked below), I've been told by numerous individuals, friends and relatives who regularly conduct business transactions internationally from inside of Iran, that the present sanctions are seriously hampering Iran's economic health, prospects etc... and have had a terrible impact far beyond Iran's nuclear activities or the personnel associated with it. I don't know of any full-length study which has been undertaken to demonstrate the wider effects of the current sanctions regime on the Iranian economy, so if anyone knows of one, please let me know.
The UAE has thus far acted like an economic lifeline, and much trade is first 'laundered' via the UAE before reaching Iran; but the Americans are bringing serious pressure to bear on the Emirati authorities to curb 'illicit trade' with Iranian companies. This week the European Union passed a new series of sanctions targeting Iranian financial institutions and most importantly Iran's Bank-e-Melli. What is being undertaken on all fronts by the so-called 'international community' i.e. the US and its European cheerleader squad, is nothing less than an asymmetrical effort to buttress the economic stranglehold on the Iranian economy in the hope of coercing Iran into divesting itself of the right to enrich uranium, guaranteed by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. No wonder that some are exclaiming that sanctions are merely warfare by other means. Clausewitz would have undoubtedly seen the parallel with his own dictum that 'war is a continuation of politics by other means' very quickly, although in this case it's a matter of economic warfare waged by means of sanctions, psychological warfare through the ceaseless threat of military force and even 'obliteration', and finally the very real and tangible threat of coercion in the form of military maneuvers, by both American warships in the Gulf and Israeli F-16s over the Mediterranean.
The choice we face is whether we are going to voice our opposition to yet another foreign policy and morally bankrupt disaster or applaud while the bombs fall and innocents are torn limb from limb. If and when a strike does occur, we can be sure Bolton will applaud, do a little dance and throw in a couple of 'hell yeahs', all in the name of 'liberty', 'justice' and 'security' for Israel...errr...I mean the world...
Telegraph.co.uk:
Israel 'will attack Iran' before new US president sworn in, John Bolton predicts
By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last updated: 9:50 AM BST 24/06/2008
John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, has predicted that Israel could attack Iran after the November presidential election but before George W Bush's successor is sworn in.
The Arab world would be "pleased" by Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, he said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.
"It [the reaction] will be positive privately. I think there'll be public denunciations but no action," he said.
Mr Bolton, an unflinching hawk who proposes military action to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons, bemoaned what he sees as a lack of will by the Bush administration to itself contemplate military strikes.
"It's clear that the administration has essentially given up that possibility," he said. "I don't think it's serious any more. If you had asked me a year ago I would have said I thought it was a real possibility. I just don't think it's in the cards."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/2182070/Israel-%27will-attack-Iran%27-before-new-US-president-sworn-in%2C-John-Bolton-predicts.html
Empire or Humanity? What the Classroom Didn't Teach Me about the American Empire by Howard Zinn
Narrated by Lord of the Rings star, Viggo Mortenson, this video retells in the first-person, world-renown American historian, political commentator and activist, Howard Zinn's political awakening and steady realization that the United States had before his very eyes, ceased to resemble its national mythology founded on the principles of liberty, freedom and justice for all, he had read about in his history books as a young man. By contrast, he witnessed the disingenuous denials that his nation had been transformed into a predatory Empire in the course of the Cold War, and later the brazen promotion and projection of American power, obfuscated and sold to the American people in the name of 'humanitarian intervention' and 'democracy promotion'. The animation is great too...
Narrated by Viggo Mortensen. Art by Mike Konopacki. Video editing by Eric Wold. The video is based on Howard Zinn, Mike Konopacki, and Paul Buhle, A People's History of American Empire (Metropolitan Books, 2008).
Narrated by Viggo Mortensen. Art by Mike Konopacki. Video editing by Eric Wold. The video is based on Howard Zinn, Mike Konopacki, and Paul Buhle, A People's History of American Empire (Metropolitan Books, 2008).
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Explosively False Propaganda by Muhammad Sahimi
Make sure you read Muhammad Sahimi's excellent and highly flammable article on Antiwar.com in which he documents country by country, through Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran and Lebanon, the Bush administrations failures and depredations across the Middle East and South Asia.
June 24, 2008
Explosively False Propaganda Bush's Middle East legacy
by Muhammad Sahimi
"No part of the world, not even the United States, has been more deeply affected by George W. Bush's presidency than the Middle East. From the lofty goals of starting a "democratic revolution," making a "new Middle East," and helping the Palestinians to have their own independent state, to the bogus "war on terror," invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and meddling in Lebanon, Bush's Middle East policy has been simply one disaster after another."
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/sahimi.php?articleid=13036
June 24, 2008
Explosively False Propaganda Bush's Middle East legacy
by Muhammad Sahimi
"No part of the world, not even the United States, has been more deeply affected by George W. Bush's presidency than the Middle East. From the lofty goals of starting a "democratic revolution," making a "new Middle East," and helping the Palestinians to have their own independent state, to the bogus "war on terror," invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and meddling in Lebanon, Bush's Middle East policy has been simply one disaster after another."
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/sahimi.php?articleid=13036
Democracy Now: Is Israel Preparing to Bomb Iran?
Amy Goodman speaks to Helena Cobban of 'Just World News' on the preparations and repercussions of an attack on Iran. There is a considerable lacuna however. The interview doesn't address the internal politics and reactions of Iran to the recent revelation that an Israeli strike with the US's blessing might be in the offing, except for the usual blustering, which claimed such an attack would be 'impossible'.
Of course this is merely a rhetorical front and we can be assured that some serious discussions are already underway (and have long been present), in terms of both defensive and retaliatory measures. The so-called conservative pragmatists inside Iran led by figures such as Larijani and Qalibaf may also attempt to exert some pressure for Khamene'i to nudge Ahamdi-Nejad's government to accept the latest offer presented to the Iranian leadership by EU envoy Javier Solana earlier this month. Though a possibility, such an outcome seems highly unlikely.
As is usually the case, much will depend of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamane'i, who may decide that an exercise in brinkmanship is necessary, if Iran's nuclear energy program is to remain intact (i.e. without US veto power over whether Iran is able to continue its nuclear program or not). A miscalculation could prove disastrous; one only has to look at what happened to the Egyptian president Nasser, who believed he could score a symbolic victory by closing the Straits of Tiran, which provided the pretext for the Six Day War in which the Israelis inflicted a devastating defeat upon the Arab world from it is yet to fully recover.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/23/is_israel_preparing_to_bomb_iran
Of course this is merely a rhetorical front and we can be assured that some serious discussions are already underway (and have long been present), in terms of both defensive and retaliatory measures. The so-called conservative pragmatists inside Iran led by figures such as Larijani and Qalibaf may also attempt to exert some pressure for Khamene'i to nudge Ahamdi-Nejad's government to accept the latest offer presented to the Iranian leadership by EU envoy Javier Solana earlier this month. Though a possibility, such an outcome seems highly unlikely.
As is usually the case, much will depend of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamane'i, who may decide that an exercise in brinkmanship is necessary, if Iran's nuclear energy program is to remain intact (i.e. without US veto power over whether Iran is able to continue its nuclear program or not). A miscalculation could prove disastrous; one only has to look at what happened to the Egyptian president Nasser, who believed he could score a symbolic victory by closing the Straits of Tiran, which provided the pretext for the Six Day War in which the Israelis inflicted a devastating defeat upon the Arab world from it is yet to fully recover.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/23/is_israel_preparing_to_bomb_iran
Monday, June 23, 2008
Norman Finkelstein on Israeli War Games and Iran
Norman G. Finkelstein: "it is inconceivable, it's impossible that Israel would attack without the green light from the United States"
Video: http://www.politube.org/show/744
Video: http://www.politube.org/show/744
New EU Sanctions to Target Bank Melli
They warned us this was coming folks. Though only anecdotal, I've been told by numerous individuals who regularly conduct business transactions inside and outside of Iran that the present sanctions are seriously hampering Iran's economic prospects and have had a terrible impact beyond Iran's nuclear activities or the personnel associated with it. I don't know of any study which has been undertaken to demonstrate the wider effects of the current sanctions regime on the Iranian economy, so if anyone knows of one, please contact me. The UAE has thus far acted like an economic lifeline, and much trade is first 'laundered' via the UAE before reaching Iran; but the Americans are bringing serious pressure to bear on the Emirati authorities to curb 'illicit trade' with Iran. What is being undertaken on all fronts by the so-called 'international community' i.e. the US and its lackeys, is nothing less than an asymmetrical effort to buttress the economic stranglehold on the Iranian economy in the hope of coercing Iran into divesting itself of the right to enrich uranium as guaranteed by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. No wonder that some are exclaiming that sanctions are warfare by other means. Clausewitz would have seen the parallel with his own dictum very quickly.
Al-Jazeera English:
European Union nations are ready to impose new sanctions against Iran that specifically target its financial institutions, especially the large Bank Mellli, diplomatic sources say.
The measures, which will stop the European operations of the bank in London, Hamburg and Paris, are to be approved during a meeting on Monday and Tuesday in Luxembourg.
The new sanctions also add more names of people and organisations to the EU's visa-ban and assets-freeze lists.
The EU move is aimed at persuading Tehran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities, which the international community fears are part of a nuclear weapons building programme.
Tehran, which has had a number of UN sanctions imposed against it since 2006, insists it wants atomic energy only for a growing population whose fossil fuels will eventually run out.
Al-Jazeera English:
European Union nations are ready to impose new sanctions against Iran that specifically target its financial institutions, especially the large Bank Mellli, diplomatic sources say.
The measures, which will stop the European operations of the bank in London, Hamburg and Paris, are to be approved during a meeting on Monday and Tuesday in Luxembourg.
The new sanctions also add more names of people and organisations to the EU's visa-ban and assets-freeze lists.
The EU move is aimed at persuading Tehran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities, which the international community fears are part of a nuclear weapons building programme.
Tehran, which has had a number of UN sanctions imposed against it since 2006, insists it wants atomic energy only for a growing population whose fossil fuels will eventually run out.
Big Oil to Return to Iraq (We All Knew it Was Coming)
We all knew it, but it's nevertheless unsettling when it's spelt out in such brazen terms.
New York Times:
By Andrew E. Kramer
June 19, 2008
"Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.
Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.
The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.
The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.
There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq’s Oil Ministry."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html
New York Times:
By Andrew E. Kramer
June 19, 2008
"Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.
Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.
The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.
The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.
There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq’s Oil Ministry."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Who's the Real Aggressor? Israeli War Games and Iran
Let's just take a brief moment to assess which nation in the Middle East is the most belligerent and prone to dismiss diplomatic solutions in favor of unilateral military aggression. The Israelis have been ethnically cleansing and brutalizing the Palestinians for the last 60 years, in cahoots with the imperial powers of France and Britain invaded Nasser's Egypt in '56 simply because he has the audacity to nationalize the Suez Canal, unilaterally invaded and bombed Egypt, Jordan and Syria in '67 (and and to this day continues to occupy the Syrian Golan Heights, and the West Bank and East Jerusalem in defiance of international law, the Israelis have also turned Gaza into the world's largest prison), invaded Lebanon in '78 and '82 killing thousands, bombed Iraq in '81, Lebanon again in the summer of 2006 killing over one thousand civilians, bombed Syria in 2007 under the most opaque of circumstances, and are now gearing up to attack Iran.
The Israelis have attacked virtually everyone in the region and Iran has not attacked another state since the reign of Nader Shah in the 18th century. There is no denying that hostile rhetoric has been emanating from Tehran since the ascendancy of Ahmadi-Nejad (though of course, it has long been present since the '78-'79 revolution, even if its intensity fluctuated from government to government, which the Israelis only too well know, but that never stopped them from surreptitiously dealing with the Islamic Republic - remember Iran-Contra? Also check out this useful link vis-a-vis that debacle), but in terms of tangible actions and their disastrous repercussions the Israeli war machine's record speaks for itself.
US officials: Israeli military exercise was preparation for attack on Iran's nuke plant
The Christian Science Monitor:
By Arthur Bright
June 21, 2008 at 10:20 am EDT
"US military officials say that a major Israeli military exercise conducted two weeks ago appeared to be a rehearsal for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, according to a New York Times report.
The Times writes that the exercise took place during the first week of June, and was so large as to be nearly guaranteed to be detected by US and other foreign observers, including Iran itself.
More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said.
The exercise also included Israeli helicopters that could be used to rescue downed pilots. The helicopters and refueling tankers flew more than 900 miles, which is about the same distance between Israel and Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, American officials said.
A Pentagon official, speaking anonymously due to the sensitivity of the issue, told the Times that the high profile of the exercise was not an accident. Rather, it was one of Israel's two intended goals for undergoing the rehearsal.
One Israeli goal, the Pentagon official said, was to practice flight tactics, aerial refueling and all other details of a possible strike against Iran's nuclear installations and its long-range conventional missiles.
A second, the official said, was to send a clear message to the United States and other countries that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter.
"They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know," the Pentagon official said. "There's a lot of signaling going on at different levels."
The Times notes that Iran appears to be "beefing up its air defenses" recently in response, and has been buying Russian radar systems and surface-to-air missiles to better protect its nuclear facilities."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0621/p99s01-duts.html
By Arthur Bright
June 21, 2008 at 10:20 am EDT
"US military officials say that a major Israeli military exercise conducted two weeks ago appeared to be a rehearsal for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, according to a New York Times report.
The Times writes that the exercise took place during the first week of June, and was so large as to be nearly guaranteed to be detected by US and other foreign observers, including Iran itself.
More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said.
The exercise also included Israeli helicopters that could be used to rescue downed pilots. The helicopters and refueling tankers flew more than 900 miles, which is about the same distance between Israel and Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, American officials said.
A Pentagon official, speaking anonymously due to the sensitivity of the issue, told the Times that the high profile of the exercise was not an accident. Rather, it was one of Israel's two intended goals for undergoing the rehearsal.
One Israeli goal, the Pentagon official said, was to practice flight tactics, aerial refueling and all other details of a possible strike against Iran's nuclear installations and its long-range conventional missiles.
A second, the official said, was to send a clear message to the United States and other countries that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter.
"They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know," the Pentagon official said. "There's a lot of signaling going on at different levels."
The Times notes that Iran appears to be "beefing up its air defenses" recently in response, and has been buying Russian radar systems and surface-to-air missiles to better protect its nuclear facilities."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0621/p99s01-duts.html
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Iraqi Shiite cleric opposes US 'eternal slavery' pact
Fri Jun 20, 12:53 PM ET / Agence France-Presse
"An Iraqi Shiite cleric on Friday denounced as "eternal slavery" a proposed security deal between Baghdad and Washington that outlines the long-term military presence of American forces in the country.
"The suspect pact would be an eternal slavery for Iraq. It is against the constitution," said Sheikh Asad al-Nasri, a member of the movement led by radical anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
"The government has no right to sign the pact which has been rejected by every political party," he told worshippers at prayer in the holy town of Kufa, adding that the no Iraqi would be able to agree to it.
US President George W. Bush and Iraqi premier Nuri al-Maliki agreed in principle last November to sign a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by the end of July.
Last week, Maliki warned that talks on the agreement, which would spell out the rules for Iraq-based US military operations, had hit an impasse over Iraqi concerns about national sovereignty.
Maliki's comments were later contradicted by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, who expressed optimism for striking a bargain before July 31."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080620/wl_mideast_afp/iraqunrestusmilitary
"An Iraqi Shiite cleric on Friday denounced as "eternal slavery" a proposed security deal between Baghdad and Washington that outlines the long-term military presence of American forces in the country.
"The suspect pact would be an eternal slavery for Iraq. It is against the constitution," said Sheikh Asad al-Nasri, a member of the movement led by radical anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
"The government has no right to sign the pact which has been rejected by every political party," he told worshippers at prayer in the holy town of Kufa, adding that the no Iraqi would be able to agree to it.
US President George W. Bush and Iraqi premier Nuri al-Maliki agreed in principle last November to sign a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by the end of July.
Last week, Maliki warned that talks on the agreement, which would spell out the rules for Iraq-based US military operations, had hit an impasse over Iraqi concerns about national sovereignty.
Maliki's comments were later contradicted by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, who expressed optimism for striking a bargain before July 31."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080620/wl_mideast_afp/iraqunrestusmilitary
Iran dismisses Israeli threat to nuclear facilities
Ewen MacAskill in Washington, Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem and agencies
guardian.co.uk, Saturday June 21, 2008
"Tehran today denounced Israel as a "threat to global peace" after Israel held a large military exercise in an apparent dress rehearsal for a potential attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.
An Iranian government spokesman, Gholam-Hossein Elham, dismissed suggestions of an attack by Israel as "impossible", the official IRNA news agency reported.
He said "the threats and the claims of [the] Zionist regime" proved Iran's view that Israel was "dangerous and a threat to the global peace and security".
Elham's remarks came after Pentagon officials confirmed US media reports of a large military exercise by Israel earlier this month to show Iran that it had the capacity to strike at its nuclear facilities.
More than 100 Israeli F-16s and F-15s flew more than 900 miles in the Mediterranean, roughly the distance from Israel to Iran's Natanz nuclear plant. They were accompanied by refuelling planes and helicopters for rescuing any downed crews.
A source in Washington described the exercise as "sabre-rattling" and said he did not think an attack was imminent.
"If the Israelis were serious about it, no one would know about it until after it has happened," he said."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/21/israelandthepalestinians.iran1?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
guardian.co.uk, Saturday June 21, 2008
"Tehran today denounced Israel as a "threat to global peace" after Israel held a large military exercise in an apparent dress rehearsal for a potential attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.
An Iranian government spokesman, Gholam-Hossein Elham, dismissed suggestions of an attack by Israel as "impossible", the official IRNA news agency reported.
He said "the threats and the claims of [the] Zionist regime" proved Iran's view that Israel was "dangerous and a threat to the global peace and security".
Elham's remarks came after Pentagon officials confirmed US media reports of a large military exercise by Israel earlier this month to show Iran that it had the capacity to strike at its nuclear facilities.
More than 100 Israeli F-16s and F-15s flew more than 900 miles in the Mediterranean, roughly the distance from Israel to Iran's Natanz nuclear plant. They were accompanied by refuelling planes and helicopters for rescuing any downed crews.
A source in Washington described the exercise as "sabre-rattling" and said he did not think an attack was imminent.
"If the Israelis were serious about it, no one would know about it until after it has happened," he said."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/21/israelandthepalestinians.iran1?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
IRAN: Stop nukes by bombing oil wells, neocons suggest (LA Times)
Raed Rafei:
"Why attack Iran's nuclear facilities when striking their oil infrastructure would be much more effective in the scope of a US-led preventive war? Sure, oil prices might skyrocket and the world economy might collapse. But, hey, that's the price you pay for security.
Such a scenario is not a nightmare or an outtake from a remake of Stanley Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove," but part of a serious recommendation made by two neoconservatives in case sanctions fail to persuade Iran to abandon its enrichment of uranium, a process that can be used to make nuclear weapons or fuel for peaceful energy production.
In a July report titled "The Last Resort: Consequences of Preventive Military Action Against Iran," and published by the neoconservative Washington Institute for Near East Studies, scholars Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt advocate military strategies that would ultimately discourage Tehran from pursuing any future non-civilian nuclear activities:
Because the ultimate goal of prevention is to influence Tehran to change course, effective strikes against Iran's nuclear infrastructure may play an important role in affecting Iran's decision calculus. Strikes that flatten its nuclear infrastructure could have a demoralizing effect, and could influence Tehran's assessment of the cost of rebuilding. But the most effective strikes may not necessarily be against nuclear facilities. Iran is extraordinarily vulnerable to attacks on its oil export infrastructure.... The political shock of losing the oil income could cause Iran to rethink its nuclear stance—in ways that attacks on its nuclear infrastructure might not.
And if an attack on the oil facilities of a country with some of the world's largest reserves leads to a huge spike in oil prices, sends gas prices up to 10 bucks a gallon and brings economic ruin in the rest of the world, the report continues, well, so be it:
To be sure, in a tight world oil market, attacking Iran's oil infrastructure carries an obvious risk of causing world oil prices to soar and hurting consumers in the United States and other oil-importing countries.... If the choice is between higher oil prices and a Middle East with several nuclear powers, higher oil prices and reduced economic growth are not clearly the greater evil."
http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/itsonlyfair/latimesblog08.html
"Why attack Iran's nuclear facilities when striking their oil infrastructure would be much more effective in the scope of a US-led preventive war? Sure, oil prices might skyrocket and the world economy might collapse. But, hey, that's the price you pay for security.
Such a scenario is not a nightmare or an outtake from a remake of Stanley Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove," but part of a serious recommendation made by two neoconservatives in case sanctions fail to persuade Iran to abandon its enrichment of uranium, a process that can be used to make nuclear weapons or fuel for peaceful energy production.
In a July report titled "The Last Resort: Consequences of Preventive Military Action Against Iran," and published by the neoconservative Washington Institute for Near East Studies, scholars Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt advocate military strategies that would ultimately discourage Tehran from pursuing any future non-civilian nuclear activities:
Because the ultimate goal of prevention is to influence Tehran to change course, effective strikes against Iran's nuclear infrastructure may play an important role in affecting Iran's decision calculus. Strikes that flatten its nuclear infrastructure could have a demoralizing effect, and could influence Tehran's assessment of the cost of rebuilding. But the most effective strikes may not necessarily be against nuclear facilities. Iran is extraordinarily vulnerable to attacks on its oil export infrastructure.... The political shock of losing the oil income could cause Iran to rethink its nuclear stance—in ways that attacks on its nuclear infrastructure might not.
And if an attack on the oil facilities of a country with some of the world's largest reserves leads to a huge spike in oil prices, sends gas prices up to 10 bucks a gallon and brings economic ruin in the rest of the world, the report continues, well, so be it:
To be sure, in a tight world oil market, attacking Iran's oil infrastructure carries an obvious risk of causing world oil prices to soar and hurting consumers in the United States and other oil-importing countries.... If the choice is between higher oil prices and a Middle East with several nuclear powers, higher oil prices and reduced economic growth are not clearly the greater evil."
http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/itsonlyfair/latimesblog08.html
Sunni rebel group kills two Iranian policemen
Le Monde Diplomatique's editor Alain Gresh has for some time been saying that the CIA has been funding the Jundollah. The veracity of the claim that they have ties to al-Qaeda should be carefully scrutinized. It's certainly not beyond the Islamic republic to brand its enemies and opponents with any label that happens to be politically expedient. Still, given the Bush administration's past and continuing malfeasance it would be no surprise if the objective of the covert ops were to spark some sort of 'temporary' or 'controllable' balkanization of Iran. This is of course a grand delusion, much like the idea that the occupying forces would be greeted by Iraqis as ‘liberators’ with flowers and candy.
REUTERS
Reuters North American News Service
Jun 20, 2008 07:33 EST
"DUBAI, June 20 (Reuters) - A Sunni Muslim rebel group said on Friday it had killed two Iranian policemen and threatened to kill 14 others it kidnapped last week in a volatile area near the border with Pakistan.
Al Arabiya television showed a video of two blindfolded men kneeling on the ground but said it would not broadcast the full footage of the killings to avoid disturbing viewers.
The rebel group, Jundollah, had threatened on Thursday to kill 16 policemen it was holding unless Tehran met its demands, including the release of jailed comrades, the Arab network said.
A Jundollah spokesman identified as Abdul-Raouf told the satellite channel by telephone that the group had decided to kill the men after the Iranian government executed two Sunni Muslims in its custody.
"If the government does not free 200 detainees of Jundollah in Zahadan, we will execute the 14 others," he said, referring to the city of Zahadan near the Pakistani border.
"There are also some Sunni clerics, five or six, in Iranian jails and we have called on the Iranian government and call on it again to release them."
Jundollah, which predominantly Shi'ite Iran has linked to al Qaeda, set a deadline of June 27 for its demands to be met."
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=220551
REUTERS
Reuters North American News Service
Jun 20, 2008 07:33 EST
"DUBAI, June 20 (Reuters) - A Sunni Muslim rebel group said on Friday it had killed two Iranian policemen and threatened to kill 14 others it kidnapped last week in a volatile area near the border with Pakistan.
Al Arabiya television showed a video of two blindfolded men kneeling on the ground but said it would not broadcast the full footage of the killings to avoid disturbing viewers.
The rebel group, Jundollah, had threatened on Thursday to kill 16 policemen it was holding unless Tehran met its demands, including the release of jailed comrades, the Arab network said.
A Jundollah spokesman identified as Abdul-Raouf told the satellite channel by telephone that the group had decided to kill the men after the Iranian government executed two Sunni Muslims in its custody.
"If the government does not free 200 detainees of Jundollah in Zahadan, we will execute the 14 others," he said, referring to the city of Zahadan near the Pakistani border.
"There are also some Sunni clerics, five or six, in Iranian jails and we have called on the Iranian government and call on it again to release them."
Jundollah, which predominantly Shi'ite Iran has linked to al Qaeda, set a deadline of June 27 for its demands to be met."
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=220551
Oil rebounds on word Israel practiced Iran attack
JOHN WILEN
AP News
Jun 20, 2008 09:17 EST
"Oil futures rebounded Friday as Pentagon officials said a large scale Israeli military exercise in the eastern Mediterranean early this month was intended in part as a demonstration of Jerusalem's ability to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.
Prices also rose as investors reconsidered whether Thursday's sharp declines, which were based on an announced fuel price hike in China, were merited.
At the pump, gas prices rose slightly.
Light, sweet crude for July delivery rose $3.59 to $135.52 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, recovering much of the $4.75 that the contract lost Thursday after China announced it was raising fuel prices.""
AP News
Jun 20, 2008 09:17 EST
"Oil futures rebounded Friday as Pentagon officials said a large scale Israeli military exercise in the eastern Mediterranean early this month was intended in part as a demonstration of Jerusalem's ability to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.
Prices also rose as investors reconsidered whether Thursday's sharp declines, which were based on an announced fuel price hike in China, were merited.
At the pump, gas prices rose slightly.
Light, sweet crude for July delivery rose $3.59 to $135.52 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, recovering much of the $4.75 that the contract lost Thursday after China announced it was raising fuel prices.""