Gates says Iran seeks to cause chaos

So does the U.S. government. The Bush M.O. is management by chaos.

The world is being taken over by a segment of the corporate elite by using the The Shock Doctrine.

Sources:

Associated Press, Gates says Iran seeks to cause chaos, LOLITA C. BALDOR, December 8, 2007.

Remember this News Story

According to a reporter with Reuters, The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and it remains on hold.

Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005.

Will this news story be forgotten by the Corporate media if Bush presses to attack Iran sometime in the future? Not if we hold them accountable.

CLICK to Contact The Media and tell them you'll be watching them in the future if Bush tries to play the mushroom cloud card to justify attacking Iran.

Sources:

Reuters, Report contradicts Bush on Iran nuclear program, Matt Spetalnick, December 3, 2007.

The British Pull Out of Basra and Talk of Blitzing Iran

What does the British pull out of Basra tell us?

I'd like to think that public opinion has finally turned the tide in Britain. A friend explained it's about economics, not public pressure. He's been following "The Economist" magazine, based in London. For those not following the on-going financial crisis, we're in the middle of a big one. It's been coming for a few years now. Britain saw it coming, and their withdrawal reflects their economic concerns. They cannot afford to go deeper into debt for things that don't have a return, like this quagmire called the Iraq War.

So, the British withdrawal from Basra tells us the Iraq war is a quagmire. If it were not, Britain would stick it out until they could leave as part of a made-for-TV withdrawal by the flag-waving, victorious members of the Coalition of the Willing. The British pull out tells us that ain't gonna happen for quite a while.

It also seems to be an unintentional experiment. The Associated Press reports on the British pulling back to the Basra airport, leaving their last post in downtown Basra, a former Saddam Hussein place:

The Basra palace had come under near daily rocket and mortar fire from Shiite militias until the British released about 30 gunmen a few months ago and spread the word that they would soon leave.

Since then it has been relatively quite at the Palace. Is this the calm before a storm of an inter-Shia power struggle, or is it evidence that if the occupiers leave, Iraq might be able to find stability on its own? We all know the answer to that (it's none of our business), but this is still a real-world experiment on withdrawal that's worth watching (Bush's laboratory). The prediction of the think-tank Security & Defense Agenda is ugly (Bush's fault).

Perhaps a hint:

People on the streets of Basra cheered the departure of the British.

"We are pleased that the Iraqi army are now taking over the situation. We as an Iraqi people reject occupation. We reject colonialism. We want our freedom," resident Rudha Muter told AP Television News.

But there is another thing to watch in Basra:

U.S. officials have been concerned about the prospect of British troops handing over control of a city where armed militias hold sway. Basra controls a key land supply line from Kuwait to Baghdad and farther north, and is also near important oil fields.

My sense is the Democrats are not ready to call for a pullout from Iraq. They're concerned about being blamed for leaving a power vacuum that would naturally be filled by Iran (this isn't a criticism of Iran.. they can't leave a power vacuum on their boarder).

Unfortunately, the more timely question we need to be asking is whether or not the Democrats will go along with a Pentagon plan for a "Three-Day Blitz" on Iran. So, when you write Congress asking them to withdraw from Iraq, don't forget to also say "no" to bombing Iran.

Sources:

Associated Press, Britain pulls out of downtown Basra base, DAVID RISING, September 2, 2007.

The Sunday Times, Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran, Sarah Baxter, September 2, 2007.

Rice: No Plans for War in Iran

The Associated Press reports that

The U.S. is not preparing for war against Iran and Vice President Dick Cheney supports that policy, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says, taking a swipe at a U.N. official who says he's worried about "crazies" who want to start bombing.

Actually, the US is already at war with Iran, as described below.

The AP reporting makes it sound more like Rice is taking a swipe at Cheney. The fact that Rice needs to single out Cheney exposes the Vice President as a major source of the administratin's lack of credibility. In Rice's words:

The president of the United States has made very clear what our policy is. That policy is supported by all the members of his Cabinet and by the vice president of the United States.

Of course, this isn't the first time the President has said, according to Rice, "The president has made clear that we are on a diplomatic course," regarding Iran. He said the same thing about Iraq, yet had already decided to initiate a war of aggression on Iraq. This is documented in the Downing Street memo of July 23, 2002. It also shows the US gave little thought to post-invasion Iraq:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

Yet Bush regularly gave the American public the false impression that he was following a "diplomatic course" well aftr July 23, 2002, as documented in the Mother Jones Timeline. For example:

December 1, 2001: According to Bob Woodward, Rumsfeld orders [General] Franks to begin work on an Iraq war plan. Bush will meet with military leaders regarding the plan on a regular basis starting late December, despite public assurances that the administration is seeking a diplomatic solution to its showdown with Saddam.

We know there's a plan to attack Iran, because it has been exposed by Seymour Hersh through the establishment media, and of course stated more clearly in the alternative non-establishment media. According to Hersh [1]:

This is not wild speculation. It's simply a fact that the planning has gone beyond the contingency stage, and it’s gone into what they call the operational stage, sort of an increment higher. And it's very serious planning, of course. And it's all being directed at the wish of the President of the United States.

The Washington Post also reported that the "U.S. has drawn up plans for launching tactical nuclear strikes against Iran." [2] According to Hersh, US military leaders have since forced the Bush administration to take this option off the table. It has not, however, necessarily been taken off of Israel's table of military options.

But the "planning" debate is a distraction. According to Retired Colonel Sam Gardiner, US military operations have already been initiated against Iran:

The issue is not whether the military option would be used, but [rather] who approved the start of operations already?.... It's a very serious question about the constitutional framework under which we are now conducting military operations in Iran. [2]

In other words, the US is already conducting military actions against Iran. This is substantiated, in part, by the proxy "terrorist" military actions led by the CIA against Iran. ABC News reports [3]:

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has hired a Pakistani terrorist group that has carried out a series of deadly terrorist attacks inside Iran, ABC News has reported on Wednesday (April 3, 2007).

It is also consistent with advanced military "spikes" in advance of the "official" war of agression against Iraq. The Downing Street memo of July 23, 2002, demonstrates this fact, and the fact that the timing of the Iraq war was planned with electoral politics in mind:

The [British] Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the [Iraqi] regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

So, the establishment media story is that US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, is assuring the World that the delusional Dick Cheney is on board with a "diplomatic" approach to Iran. However, this little smoke screen can't hide the fact that the US is already conducting military actions against Iran.

Contact The Media (LINK):

Tell the media you want more coverage of what's really happening in Iran. Ask them to interview Sam Gardiner and Seymour Hersh.

Sources:

1. DemocracyNow, April 12, 2006 Seymour Hersh: Bush Administration Planning Possible Major Air Attack on Iranmo.

2. DemocracyNow, April 17, 2006, Retired Colonel Sam Gardiner on Iran War Plans: "The Issue is Not Whether the Military Option Would Be Used But Who Approved the Start of Operations Already."

3. Downing Street Memo, To: DAVID MANNING, From: Matthew Rycroft, Subject: IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY, Date: July 23, 2002, as originally reported in the The Sunday Times, May 1, 2005.

ABC News on CIA in Iran

Why the ABC story now on the CIA's "non-lethal" covert plan to destabilize Iran? ABC's Brian Ross reported on May 22, 2007:

Intelligence officials describe the CIA’s Iranian plan as non-lethal, involving a coordinated campaign of propaganda broadcasts, placement of negative newspaper articles, and the manipulation of Iran's currency and international banking transactions...

This story, coming out in May 2006, is very convenient, because the establishment media's buzz about non-lethal CIA operations in Iran masks their lethal ones. However, the beauty of the Internet is that it remembers the ABC story from April 4, 2007.


It opens as follows:

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has hired a Pakistani terrorist group that has carried out a series of deadly terrorist attacks inside Iran, ABC News has reported on Wednesday (April 3, 2007).

It later notes,

The group, called Jundullah, has carried out raids, resulting in the deaths or kidnapping of ordinary Iranian people as well as soldiers and officials.

The group claimed responsibility for an attack in February that killed at least 11 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard riding on a bus in the Iranian city of Zahedan.

ABC cited Pakistani government sources as saying the secret campaign against Iran was on the agenda when Vice President Dick Cheney met with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in February.

Sources:

Payvand News CIA hires terrorist group to operate inside Iran: ABC News, April 4, 2007.

ABC News, The Blotter, ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran, April 3, 2007 .

Think Thrice about Attacking Iran

Our foreign policy needs to be founded on basic principles. Do those principles include imperialism, in which we use aggressive force to exploit other people's natural resources?

If the answer is "no, we are not imperialists," then we need to get out of Iraq. That should be the moral compass upon which policy and actions are founded.

Unfortunately, Bush Inc. has created "facts on the ground," which are hard to ignore. The most challenging is Shia dominated political power in Iraq. If the US leaves Iraq, Iran will fill the vacuum. This is the real reason US is now unwilling to leave for Republican and Democrat alike. Even the Democrats never talk about 100% withdrawal, with the exception of presidential candidate Richardson who is defining this as an issue.

So, the US strategy options that are unfolding are 1) maintain a presence in Iraq for ever, or 2) attack and weaken Iran before leaving Iraq.

Last summer (2006) the US and Israel conducted a military experiment in Lebanon. They tried to route Hezbollah and failed. That should be a lesson about the risks of attacking Iran, who helped Hezbollah prepare for such an attack.

Arc of Southwest Asian War

The latest in a string of bombings in Pakistan sent a message: "Those who spy for America will face this same fate." It might be premature to say that Pakistan is unraveling, but when the mainstream media talks about "further instability" and "another sign" of the Afghan war spilling over into Pakistan, you can deduce the situation is probably worse.

And it is worse, when you consider Southwest Asia as a region, stretching from Pakistan to the horn of Africa (Somalia). The US is conducting overt war in Somalia (with illegal proxy assistance from Ethiopia), Iraq, and Afghanistan. The US is conducting covert warfare in Iran and Pakistan. In addition, the US has taken sides with Israel in the war of occupation against the Palestinians, employing divide-and-conquer techniques by arming the corrupt Fatah against Hamas. The US backed Israel in Lebanon last summer in the war on Hezbollah, supplying fuel and weapons (including cluster bombs).


So, what next? The monarchy of Saudi Arabia is composed of the oil barrons (the royalty and their court) and the fundamentalist Wahabbists (the ones who were actually involed in 9/11 if you believe that version of the story). The phrase "further instability" applies to Saudi Arabia too. The American colonies revolted against their monarchy, and the natural drive for liberty will play out in Saudi Arabia too.

Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski made a now-famous statement that bounced around the blogosphere back in February. Here it is again:

A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks [that is, Bush's surge fails]; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Add Saudi Arabia and Somalia to that list and you might as well call it a World War, as depicted in the map above. We're not quite there yet, but Brzezinski has laid out a formula for getting there, and the Democrats seem to be (unwittingly?) playing into it with their blame-the-Iraqi benchmark approach to Iraq.

Will the World Sit by and Watch if the US Attacks Iran?

In July 2006, the world sat by and watched Israel destroy much of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure including roads and bridges, water systems, electric power plants telecommunications towers, government buildings and thousands of businesses and residential homes.

Fast forward to Iran. According to a recent, well documented article by By Michel Chossudovsky [1]:

... the planned air strikes are by no means limited to Iran's nuclear facilities. Central Command Headquarters in Florida (CENTCOM) has already selected a comprehensive list of military and civilian targets. Industrial sites, civilian infrastructure including roads, water systems, bridges, electric power plants telecommunications towers, government buildings are part of the assumptions underlying the Blitzkrieg. "A single raid could result in 10,000 targets being hit with warplanes flying from the US and Diego Garcia."[2]

In retrospect, the 2006 US/Israel assault on Lebanon's civilian infrastructure looks like a practice run for the pending attack on Iran. Will the world sit by and watch it done to Iran?

Iran, itself, is likely to respond. According to Chussudovsky, Iran could respond "in the form of targeted strikes on US military facilities in the Iraq and the Gulf States," and Israel. Iran also has intelligence assets around the world who could take action. Deeper assessments of the Iranian response are provided in a 2004 paper by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies [5], and an article by Wayne White. [6]

But, will the rest of the world sit by and just watch? Maybe. However, several reactions are conceivable.

First, Israel could be drawn into the conflict, that is, if they are not involved from the beginning.

Second, united by American aggression against the predominantly Shia Iran, many Shia factions in Iraq might not sit by and watch. Even if the Iraqi Shia don't rediscover common cause with the predominantly Sunni Iraqi insurgency, they could find common cause with Iran. In the past, there were signs of a growing unified Shia/Sunni resistance to US occupation. Many believe the US promoted sectarian violence in Iraq to "divide and conquer" this growing unity between Shia and Sunni. However, even without renewed unity, the Shia connections to Iran are strong, and Shia resistance to the US is a real possability as described at length in the CNS paper [5].

Third, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, founded by Russia, China and several "stan" nations, is considered to be a counter balance to NATO. Although SCO claims it isn't a military bloc, it does have a security cooperation component. Iran is an observer nation to SCO. The SCO nations might not sit by watching. China and Russia held joint military exercises in 2005, and both have significant economic and military sales relationships with Iran. [3] (Asia Times Link). Finally, Russia does have a military alliance with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan under the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, (CSTO). They conducted war games on August 24, 2006.

These war games, officially tagged as part of a counter terrorism program, are in direct response to US military threats in the region including the planned attacks against Iran. [4]

Fourth, global terrorist attacks could be conducted by those who sympathize with Iran, or simply want to use the US attack as a pretext.

Fifth, the world economy might not "sit by and watch." Oil corporations will, yet again, reap windfall profits as oil prices soar. However, businesses that are sensitive to oil prices, like trucking and airlines, will be shocked. Other businesses and consumers will feel the impacts. Whether or not a systemic chain reaction will undermine the global economy must always be a concern.

Sixth, although my faith in Senator Joe Biden is thin, he has promised a "constitutional confrontation" if Bush attacks Iran. My understanding of the constitution, based on the Supreme Court decision in Campbell vs Clinton, is that Congress has to pass an explicit law before it even has standing for a "constitutional confrontation."

They must, pursuant to Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, preclude any additional deployment of United States Armed Forces to the operations in Iran. Congress must explicitly refused to authorize or appropriate the use of funds for an operation on Iran. This is necessary to establish an actual confrontation between the legislative and executive branches sufficient to confer standing to Congress in the U.S. Supreme Court should the President disobey their directive and should they seek intervention of the judicial branch. (Campbell vs Clinton).

So, in the end, we can expect protests in the US and other countries, an initial US military "success," dutifully portrayed by the corporate media, followed by a replay of the Iraq unraveling on a regional scale. Zbigniew Brzezinski recently told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that, if Bush continues on his current path, we can anticipate

military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Sources:

1. "Theater Iran Near Term" (TIRANNT), Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, February 21, 2007. (Updated February 23, 2007).

2. Gulf News, February 21, 2007.

3. Asia Times, June 4, 2005, "The ties that bind China, Russia and Iran," Jephraim P Gundzik.

4. Russia and Central Asian Allies Conduct War Games in Response to US Threats Michel Chossudovsky, Global Resarch, August 24, 2006.

5. "A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences," Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Sammy Salama and Karen Ruster, August 12, 2004.

6. "U.S. attack on Iran would be huge mistake," February 11, 2007, Wayne White, former deputy director of the State Department’s Intelligence and Research Office, focusing on Middle East issues, especially Iraq and Iran.
~

Pandering Edwards Showing True Colors?

A little while back I did a broad side on John Edward's speech to a conference in Herzliya, Israel. (Before that, I was heaping praise).

Maybe he's just a politician playing both sides, but I found this of interest. But this tid bit is making its rounds on the blogosphere, from Peter Bart's Variety column January 19, 2007. Writing about Hollywood politics, Bart describes an encounter John Edwards had at a recption hosed by "Adam Venit, a honcho at Endeavor":

The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word -- Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.

If the event is described fairly, it says as much about the crowd as it does Edwards. We should be concerned about an Israeli attack, and Iranian potential response. According to Zbigniew Brzezinski's testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Februray 1, 2007, Edwards is right:

A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks [that is, Bush's surge fails]; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Brzezinski: Bush Steering US Toward War with Islam

The bloggers at Pedestrian Infidel (PI) have bought into what Zbigniew Brzezinski recently called, "A mythical historical narrative," or maybe they're just trying to sell it. In a February 8, 2007 post to their site, PI proposes an amendment to the US constitution. Following nine whereas statements that argue Islam is social and political ideology, is intolerant of other religions, seeks to supplant all other religions across the world, they conclude Therefore:

Islam is not a religion, but a political ideology more akin to Fascism and totally in opposition to the ideals of freedom as described in the United States Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

They continue with a series of proposed constitutional amendements that begin with a change to Article I:

The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.

The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.

One might dismiss this as, "just another blogger doing his or her thing", or in this case just another group of bloggers.

Which brings us back to Zbigniew Brzezinski's testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Februray 1, 2007. Rather than ignore the kind of thinking reflected by the Pedestrian Infidel, Brzezinski invests a signigicant portion of his short testimony to exposing it's fraudulence. The set-up is his statement that:

A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks [that is, Bush's surge fails]; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

This statement is followed immediately by Brzezinski's exposure of the messianic, fear mongering calls for a crusade against Islam:

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD’s in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the “decisive ideological struggle” of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America’s involvement in World War II.

This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration; most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state; while Iran—though gaining in regional influence—is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In no uncertain terms, Brzezinski is saying that he believes the Bush Administration is intentionally steering the Nation into a huge war with Islam, which will make the war in Iraq pale by comparison.

Deplorably, the Administration’s foreign policy in the Middle East region has lately relied almost entirely on such sloganeering. Vague and inflammatory talk about “a new strategic context” which is based on “clarity” and which prompts “the birth pangs of a new Middle East” is breeding intensifying anti-Americanism and is increasing the danger of a long-term collision between the United States and the Islamic world. Those in charge of U.S. diplomacy have also adopted a posture of moralistic self-ostracism toward Iran strongly reminiscent of John Foster Dulles’s attitude of the early 1950’s toward Chinese Communist leaders (resulting among other things in the well-known episode of the refused handshake). It took some two decades and a half before another Republican president was finally able to undo that legacy.

Brzezinski closes his brief testimony with four steps in the "quest for a political solution for the growing chaos in Iraq."
~

Brzezinski: Four Steps Out of Iraq

In his February 1, 2007 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Zbigniew Brzezinski laid out four steps in the "quest for a political solution for the growing chaos in Iraq." It's basically an excerpt of the diplomatic elements of the Iraq Study Group recommendations, including attention to the Palestinian-Israeli situation, and a recomendation for the US to state clear intentions of prompt military withdrawl from Iraq.

1.
The United States should reaffirm explicitly and unambiguously its determination to leave Iraq in a reasonably short period of time. Ambiguity regarding the duration of the occupation in fact encourages unwillingness to compromise and intensifies the on-going civil strife. Moreover, such a public declaration is needed to allay fears in the Middle East of a new and enduring American imperial hegemony.
Right or wrong, many view the establishment of such a hegemony as the primary reason for the American intervention in a region only recently free of colonial domination. That perception should be discredited from the highest U.S. level. Perhaps the U.S. Congress could do so by a joint resolution.

2.
The United States should announce that it is undertaking talks with the Iraqi leaders to jointly set with them a date by which U.S. military disengagement should be completed, and the resulting setting of such a date should be announced as a joint decision. In the meantime, the U.S. should avoid military escalation.

It is necessary to engage all Iraqi leaders—including those who do not reside within “the Green Zone”—in a serious discussion regarding the proposed and jointly defined date for U.S. military disengagement because the very dialogue itself will help identify the authentic Iraqi leaders with the self-confidence and capacity to stand on their own legs without U.S. military protection. Only Iraqi leaders who can exercise real power beyond “the Green Zone” can eventually reach a genuine Iraqi accommodation. The painful reality is that much of the current Iraqi regime, characterized by the Bush administration as “representative of the Iraqi people,” defines itself largely by its physical location: the 4 sq. miles-large U.S. fortress within Baghdad, protected by a wall in places 15 feet thick, manned by heavily armed U.S. military, popularly known as “the Green Zone.”

3.
The United States should issue jointly with appropriate Iraqi leaders, or perhaps let the Iraqi leaders issue, an invitation to all neighbors of Iraq (and perhaps some other Muslim countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, and Pakistan) to engage in a dialogue regarding how best to enhance stability in Iraq in conjunction with U.S. military disengagement and to participate eventually in a conference regarding
regional stability.

The United States and the Iraqi leadership need to engage Iraq’s neighbors in serious discussion regarding the region’s security problems, but such discussions cannot be undertaken while the U.S. is perceived as an occupier for an indefinite duration. Iran and Syria have no reason to help the United States consolidate a permanent regional hegemony. It is ironic, however, that both Iran and Syria
have lately called for a regional dialogue, exploiting thereby the self-defeating character of the largely passive – and mainly sloganeering – U.S. diplomacy.

A serious regional dialogue, promoted directly or indirectly by the U.S., could be buttressed at some point by a wider circle of consultations involving other powers with a stake in the region’sstability, such as the EU, China, Japan, India, and Russia. Members of this Committee might consider exploring informally with the states mentioned their potential interest in such a wider dialogue.

4.
Concurrently, the United States should activate a credible and energetic effort to finally reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace, making it clear in the process as to what the basic parameters of such a final accommodation ought to involve.

The United States needs to convince the region that the U.S. is committed both to Israel’s enduring security and to fairness for the Palestinians who have waited for more than forty years now for their own separate state. Only an external and activist intervention can promote the long-delayed settlement for the record shows that the Israelis and the Palestinians will never do so on their own. Without such a settlement, both nationalist and fundamentalist passions in the region will in the longer run doom any Arab regime which is perceived as supportive of U.S. regional hegemony.

~

Murtha Seeks to Stop War in Iran

The buzz is that the Bush administration is considering an imminent attack on Iran, the word I hear is "Spring." Spring begins March 21, 2007.

President Bush believes he has the authority from Congress to launch an assault on Iran. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi believes Bush doesn't have the authority to invade Iran.

Obviously, John Murtha isn't taking any chances with a president who flouts the law. So, John Murtha is attempting to assert Congress's authority to prevent the Executive Branch from committing an act of aggression against Iran without explicit consent from the Legislative Branch. The Breaking Story

24 minute video of Murtha interviewed by MoveCongress.Org
~

Mini US Military Coup Slows Rush to Attack Iran

On February 13, 2007, the US experienced a mini military coup.

On February 11, 2007, the White House engineered a press briefing in Baghdad to announce that Iran was supplying sophisticated armor piercing explosives being used against US soldiers in Iraq.

On the 13th, Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace under cut the White House's now-famous Baghdad briefing. Pace effectively said, yes, weapons made in Iran are entering Iraq. But he said that he was unaware of any evidence that the Iranian government leaders made decisions to provide those weapons. This military statement contradicted the civilian White House message in Baghdad, and thus was a mini military coup.

Since then, the Pentagon has muddied the waters on this subject to give General Pace plausible deniablity in staging a mini coup. Pace's statement had its desired effect, and the coup was successful. The media started saying the White House was "back tracking", and the White House had to move into damage control mode, spinning the briefing to say that the anonymous military briefers had overstated the case. That spin is not credible, because the White House had crafted the briefing, going as far as to delay it:

The briefing was being carefully monitored by the White House -- which had postponed it twice previously. National security adviser Stephen Hadley told reporters on February 2: "The truth is, quite frankly, we thought the briefing overstated. And we sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts."

In short, the military has learned it cannot trust the White House. It's a frightening time when the stability of the United States depends on military coups because the civilian leaders are out of control.
~

Reasons for Attacking Iran

The drum beat of war with Iran is unmistakable. A synopsis of that would be it's own topic. We're facing a "Boy who cried wolf moment," but I'm not buying the drum beat; don't worry George. You won't be eaten.

The Bush administration is demonizing Iran, with occasional foot-in-mouth assistance from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and compliance of the corporate mass media. But the Iranian constitution gives Ahmadinejad little power, so ignore the man who dresses like Obama behind the curtain.

Most of the drum beats are just propaganda excuses. For example, "Iranian's have refused some IAEA inspectors, and inspections." This is an excuse that the US engineered by securing special inspections through obscure actions of the UN Security Council, which the US knew Iran could not accept. The US was then able to point to "Iran's refusal to allow IAEA inspections", thereby making Iran look unreasonable, like they're hiding something. But, just as in Iraq, Bush must have underlying motives, or reasons, for war with Iran, right?

The Reasons for Attacking Iran:

These are the reasons that I think are motivating the Bush administration.

1) Controlling Iran has always been part of the neo-con master plan that Bush has bought into. Controlling Iran, like Iraq, entails the benefits of control over natural resources, if only to create predicatability, not necessarily stealing the wealth. Control also entails brining Iran into the corporate globalization free market world view. I find it hard to believe Bush thinks they can achieve "regime change," nevertheless, control is a long-term motivation.

2) Nearer-term, Bush needs to weaken Iran. He must first have chaos in Iran before he can have control. This goal is more urgent, because of the way things have gone badly Iraq. The logic is simple:

The US can't continue to occupy Iraq, because US soldiers are getting chewed up, it's too costly, and the US public is getting restless.

The US can't leave Iraq, because Iraq is now run by Shia political parties that are friendly to Iran, and leaving now would yeild too much regional influence to Iran.

Solution? First attack and weaken Iran, THEN pull back from Iraq (leaving behind US military bases, of course). Call it "The Third Way" to resolving the Iraq problem.

3) Israel Wants It. I confess. I've bought into the perspective that, "What Israel wants, the US wants." Just look at the way Hillary Clinton and John Edwards pander to the Israeli lobby? As far as Iran goes, the message to the Israeli vote is that "Everything is on the Table." Does Israel have any reasons? That doesn't really matter, but in general, they want control too.

4) Potential Nuclear Weapons in Iran. Even if Iran is ten years away from having a nuclear weapon, that's too soon. If an attack could make that twenty years, that's a good thing. Attack them in another ten years, and reset the clock again. Keep doing this, and.... we'll, you get the idea. Preventive war is now a formal part of American miliatry strategic policy, so we might as well make use of it, right? Who's going to stop us?

The recent propaganda about Iranians providing weapons to the Iraqi insurgency is being floated as a trial balloon in this reagard. But the logic falls a little flat; Iran's Shia allys are basically in power in Iraq, and thus don't need weapons to fight the US, and Iran's enemies are the Sunni "Saddam dead ender insurgency" fighting the US. This ties into number 2) above. That is, the US doesn't want Iran to gain influence in the region. Even if Iran isn't giving weapons to the insurgency, the US doesn't want Iran currying favor with the Shia-dominated Iraqi government.

Other Thoughts on the Topic:

The Provoked Response: This is no more a "reason" than the Tonkin Gulf incident was a reason for escalation in Vietnam. That is, the US will try to provoke a response from Iran, and use that as a pretext for attacking (As if nukes ain't good enough you say). This reason hasn't yet materialized, but it will. It will be bolstered by the drum beat of demonization that provides a fertile foundation for the unsuspecting American TV watchers (I hope I'm wrong about this). It helps that they're religious fundamentalists and we're, ah'hem, not. The Iranian Supreme Leader, a title to which Bush and Cheney aspire, has offered predictions to this end: terrorism or human rights violations. So has Zbigniew Brzezinski.

I think five reasons are enough. I suppose the benefits to the defense industry lobby might be another "good reason", but I don't want to be accused of being too cynical. Testing new bunker busters is another good reason, but that's probably considered a mere side-benefit to the inside-crowd who are taking us to war in Iran. Then, there is also the mesianic reason, against which former National Security Advisor, Zignew Brzezinski, spoke out against in his February 1, 2007 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It's hard to tell whether this later "reason" is actually motivating the Bush people or is just part of the Bush propaganda drum beat, in this case designed to rally his radical base of christian crusaders.

Scott Ritter offers another reason. The big bully has gotten beat in Iraq. It's time for the deafeated bully to vent elsewhere.... like Iran. To this many people might say say, "We can't go into Iran. We're already stretched too thin in Iraq." We're not "going in to Iran." We're just going to bomb the bajeebers out of 'em. We've got three aircraft carrier groups over there. CNN viewers will get to see more Clintonesque cruise missile launches. No, this isn't a wag-the-dog rationale... OK, maybe that's a "side-benefit."

There are other reasons being given, some of them, while intended to be humorous, have a sickening grain of truth to them.
~

Is Anything Keeping Bush from Attacking Iran?

One thing keeping Bush from attacking Iran might be joint chiefs chairman General Peter Pace. It was a mini military coup when Pace contradicted the White House line, saying there is no direct link to Iranian leaders. Pace spoke out while traveling in Indonesia.

There is, however, plenty of buzz that an attack is brewing. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former NSC Director in the Carter administration, delivered this warning to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Feb. 1:

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

There's also practical consideration of Iran's potential response to an attack that might give Bush pause: Iran has said they will retaliate around the world if attacked, and they have the assets to do it. Also, Iran could make life for US soldiers in Iraq even more dangerous if the US were to attack.

Brzezinski did not conceal his opinion about the genesis of Bush's Iraq war. His opening sentence was a slam:

Your hearings come at a critical juncture in the U.S. war of choice in Iraq, and I commend you and Senator Lugar for scheduling them.

Brzezinski and General Pace are doing their part to counter Bush's drive to war with Iran, and perhaps war with Islam. The other thing that could help keep Bush from attacking Iran is intense public pressure. To that end, we can begin by voicing our views with Congress and with the corporate mass media.

Contacts:

Write the US House of Representatives
Write the US Senate
Write the Major Media Outlets
~

Is the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq Politicized?

That's the question the Democratic Congress must answer. They must call hearings, examine the process and actors who had editorial control, and also interview lower level staff to determine whether there is any political spin in the assessment.

There is ample evidence that politicization occured in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq that was developed prior to the 2003 US invasion. For example, Robert Dryfus, and others, exposed the Pentagon's system of short-circuiting the formal chain of intelligence designed to inform the President (The Lie Factory). John Negroponte, who served as the first Director of National Intelligence while this NIE was under development, is a netorious political operator who effectively led America's dirty wars involving death squads in Cenral America during the 1980s.

Current Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who could have influenced the final touches on the NIE, also has a history of bending to political will during his tenure as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). In 1985 Gates was both deputy director of CIA, and chairman of the National Inelligence Committee (NIC) that drafted the Iran NIE. Having a political director position serve as chair creates the opportunity for politicization. Jennifer Glaudemans, A former CIA analyst on the 1985 Iran NIE, said that, "Now, not since he held that position has anyone ever yet again held a conflict of interest position of holding those two jobs." She also said, "...the CIA never took a footnote to an estimate, could not dissent to an estimate, as long as Mr. Gates was also the chairman of the NIC." [1]

Glaudemans explains, "What happened in the Third World Activities Division [of the CIA] was analytical judgments were put out as [intelligence] community view in estimates or as CIA view, for which there was no evidence. The Iran estimate in 1985 is just a classic example of that, and one I was personally involved with. There was no evidence to support the key judgment about the Soviets in that Iranian estimate. There was a ton of evidence that contradicted that. So it’s not a question of a young junior analyst not getting her view taken, it was a question of evidence versus no evidence." [1]

According to Glaudemans, "there was an Inspector General investigation. Many analysts, not just myself, many managers -- I think everyone in the Office of Soviet Analysis was interviewed. And one of the judgments of that IG report was that the perception of politicization of analysis was pervasive." This isn't directed solely at Gates, but is another demonstration that intelligence findings are subject to politicization.

Given the track record of the current administration, it is highly likely the current Iraq NIE is politicized. Given the high stakes, the Democratic Congress must investigate that question.

You can help make that happen by contacting Congress and by raising the question with media outlets.

Write the US House of Representatives
Write the US Senate
Write the Major Media Outlets

Sources:

[1] DemocracyNow! December 5, 2006. Interview of Jennifer Glaudemans and Ray McGovern

Stop the Iran War

OK. We can see this one coming from miles away. I know we're already in a covert war with Iran, but we should be able to stop an overt war with them, right?

Maybe this blog entry should be entitled, "Testing Democracy 1... 2... 3..."

Some day Robert Naiman might be cited as one of many voices that "had it right" about Iran before Bush took us to war there. Hopefully, I'm wrong about this. One way to help ensure that I'm wrong is to step up to our democratic responsibility to stop the Iran war.

Naiman provides two courses of action:

1) Ask your Representative to Co-Sponsor the DeFazio (D) "Iran War Powers" Resolution.

2) Ask your Representative to Co-Sponsor the Jones (R) "Iran War Powers" Resolution.

These resolutions re-affirm that President Bush cannot attack Iran without Congressional authorization.

Here's a LINK that Makes it Easy.

Mark This Page

Here are three important links for future use.

Write the US House of Representatives
Write the US Senate
Write the Major Media Outlets

We're Heading for Surge and Iran Unless the Public Speaks Out

Last night as I watched the president's address, I took a couple notes.

Seek out networks in Iran and Syria

Limited diplomacy surge with Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, omitting Iran and Syria.

Glen Greenwald was struck by the same point. He urges everyone to pay close attention to Bush's intentions toward Iran in the days and months ahead. Aside from Bush's argument of "disrupting networks" and pre-empting potential Iranian nuclear ambitions, there is pressure to attack Iran.

In short, Busch can't continue occupying Iraq, because it incites unacceptable violent resistance. Bush can't leave, because his failed mission would increase Iran's power in the region with great influence over a Shia-dominated Iraq. So, where does this leave him? It leaves him with the option of attacking Iran to weaken that nation before leaving Iraq. Unfortunately, the Democrats face the same reality.

Another point struck me:

Bush committed 4,000 more troops to Anbar Province.

My count was 20,000 in Baghdad and 4,000, but today's papers cited 21,500. I had expected Bush to focus solely on Baghdad, but he at least has the "sense" to recognize the troubles extend beyond Baghdad.

Another point struck me:

Capital investment funding for jobs

Bush been one step behind at every turn of this war. He commits more troops, when it's too late. He adopts a socialist job-creation policy, when it's too late. It's too late for reconstruction projects because it has become too dangerous to do the work. How long will it be until we hear "A bomb blast ripped through a line of people applying for jobs....." "The Iraqis were killed by small arms fire while working on a....." "A mini bus with eight Iraqi reconstruction workers was riddled with gun fire...." as if this isn't already happening.

Another political reality is that the Democrats have nothing to gain from withdrawing support for a troop surge. If Democrats withdraw funds and authority for troops, they can be blamed for what ever happens there after. Thus, it's in their political interest to let Bush have enough surge-rope with which to hang himself.

Given these "realities," the US is almost certain to surge the troops, and attack Iran, beyond the covert military operations already underway in Iran.

The only way to avoid this is for the US public to demonstrate a historically high amplitude of opposition to these two acts. The first step is for everyone concerned to immediately write and call their elected officials. I've done it, and it feels good to talk to a human. Ask them if they're receiving similar calls. If so, ask from which side of the issue they're receiving more calls.

Congressional Contacts:

Write the US House of Representatives
Write the US Senate

Then, voice the same opinion to local and national media outlets.

Media Contacts:

Write the Major Media Outlets
.

Bush Leading the Nation into Another Trap: Iran

A picture is worth... a hell of a lot when you're contemplating a war-of-choice on Iran. See how big Iran is compared to Iraq, where Stratfor's George Friedman has proclaimed that the US military has lost the war? Web LINK

See tiny Lebanon, where Israel used Covert Commandos, a Navel Blockade, surgical airstrikes consisting of about 7,000 bombs, and boots on the ground? Israel failed, but not after sullying its reputation by managing to kill civilians at a ratio of about 75% with a child-kill ratio of about 33%. Israel has also placed itself at risk of war crimes and having to pay to rebuild the infrastructure of Lebanon. See: Hezbollah Clearly the Winner.



Read FauxNews' military experts and you would think that using a couple of the available military option on Iran is a good idea. Fox: Military Options The options sound familiar: Use Covert Commandos, a Naval Blockade, surgical strikes. Even the FauxNews military experts shy away from the "boots-on-the-ground" option, because, "The U.S. military is already stretched thin with its commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq."

In other words, the FauxNews proposal is to attack Iran using at most three of the four options used unsuccessfully by Israel in teeny weeny Lebanon, against an irregular militia of 2,500.

Remember during the first 2004 debate, Bush admitted we fell into a trap, "we thought we'd whip more of them going in. But because Tommy Franks did such a great job in planning the operation, we moved rapidly, and a lot of the Baathists and Saddam loyalists laid down their arms and disappeared. I thought they would stay and fight, but they didn't. And now we're fighting them now. And it's hard work."

Bush led the Nation into a trap in Iraq. Look at the map, and the size of Iran. Bush and FauxNews are leading the Nation into another trap in Iran.