Lost in translation - Miguel Guanipa
Lost in translation
By Miguel Guanipa (03/27/2006)
On a statement issued recently by the Democratic National Committee Communications Director Karen Finney, she described the president's press conference on the war on Iraq as an effort to offer "the same divisiveness and distortions" and the same "rosy rhetoric and continued commitment to a failed strategy". She also assured the American public of the Democrat's "commitment to aggressively (fight) the war on terror and ensure America’s security".
On another front, a group called “Progressive Democrats of America” sponsored a protest in Market Square a few days ago which called for an end of the Iraq occupation. Cyndi Sheehan brought cheers from the audience of about 200 of the faithful after she recommended that the day be devoted to the “brave and wonderful young people who have had their lives stolen by George W. Bush”.
At the same rally U.S. Rep. Jim Moran (D-8) quoted Tacitus analogically referring to the war when he said “They gave us a desert and called it peace”
Critics of the war continue to contend that Bush initiated a war by using lies and misinformation. Others prominent democrats have called it a “debauched crusade against terror” and questioned whether anyone can be called a democrat who does not oppose the occupation of Iraq. This relentless criticism has continued unabated since the day George W. Bush notified Saddam Hussein that he had 48 hours to vacate his country. One of the crucial justifications under attack by opponents of the war has been the alleged terrorist connection between Iraq and the terrorist group headed by Osama Bin Laden named al Qaeda.
On 2003 former senator Max Cleland, D-GA told the United Press International that “the administration sold the connection (between Iraq and al-Qaeda) to scare the pants off the American people and justify the war”. In a March 21, 2004 interview, former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke declared that there was “no evidence that Iraq was supporting Al Qaeda, ever”. On August 7, 2003 Former Vice President Al Gore claimed that “The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama Bin Laden at all, much less give him weapons of mass destruction”. He has also stated that the president used a “mixture of documents that turned out to be forged and blatantly false assertions that Saddam was in league with al Qaeda” to convince the country that Iraq was a threat to the United States. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said that the claims of an Iraq-al Qaeda links showed some “evidence of exaggeration”. Jane Hartman, a Democrat in the House select committee on Intelligence concluded that the evidence on the al Qaeda links with Iraq was “sketchy”. Senator Dianne Feinstein believed that “..The al Qaeda connection was hyped and exaggerated”.
Space does not permit the quoting of more recent untoward characterizations of the Bush administration’s alleged Iraq-al Qaeda connection by many other high ranking democrats, but suffice it to say they are legion. And they have been willingly joined in their assessments by an all too compliant media.
The links between Iraq and Al Qaeda were labeled a “myth” by the editor of the Los Angeles Times”. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman declared that there was no smoking gun when it came to the alleged evidence of an Al Qaeda-Iraq connection. Jason Zengerly, a senior editor at the New Republic called the alleged connection “quackery”. Not to be outdone, William O. Beeman of the Pacific News Service called the Al Qaeda-Iraq connection “tenuous at best” and argued that Secretary Colin Powell’s testimony before the United Nations was based on a “specious argument” and “deceptive rhetoric”. He also called the Iraqi violation of U.N. resolutions “so petty…it is hard to imagine sending 200,000 troops into Iraq to correct them”. Even funny anchor man John Steward parodied once that the link the president claimed existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda was supported by the fact that both words contained the letter Q.
Sited claims of a link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden have been called from totally ridiculous to ideologically incompatible. Saddam himself once cried that he would not be ashamed to admit a relationship with al Qaeda, but there was simply no reason to develop such a relationship. Recent Iraqi intelligence documents released by the U.S. government prove this is only one of the many lies he asked the world community to believe.
Here are some of the facts.
On February 18, 1998, ten months before operation Desert Fox in which the Clinton administration launched missile strikes against Iraq, an intelligence memo detailing upcoming meetings with a bin Laden representative traveling to Baghdad was found in a building that had been bombed during that conflict. Four days later a fatwa was issued by bin Laden in which he accused the United States of “occupying the lands of Islam…plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors and turning its bases into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples” Therefore he urged his followers to “ …kill all Americans and their allies--civilians and military--(which) is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it”. Soon afterwards, Saddam Hussein paid $300,000 to Ayman al-Zawahiri, one of bin Laden’s top deputies who also serves as his physician and is presently wanted by the F.B.I. for his alleged role in the August 7, 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi,Kenya.
In a speech that month, Clinton declared that “We have to defend our future from these predators on the 21st century…..They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them”, and that “There (was) no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein”. Seldom has he been more accurate in his assessment of the threat posed by the unholy alliance between al Qaeda and Iraq which democrats have tried so hard to belittle in their desire to score political points.
Given the recent release of declassified intelligence briefs documenting the clear connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, it is shocking to think that the media and democrats privy to most of this information chose to put partisan politics above the security of this country.
Yet past liaisons between the executive branch of power and the media have not always been this hostile.
Newsweek magazine ran an article In January 11, 1999, which stated that “Saddam Hussein….. (was) reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama Bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two embassies in Africa last summer” ABC reported On January 15, 1999 that “Intelligence sources say Bin Laden’s long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan’s fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire WMD’s”. This information was corroborated by three separate intelligence agencies.
The Washington Post ran an Associated Press dispatch in February 1999, that declared unambiguously that “The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (had) offered asylum to Bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against Western powers”.
On the same year the Congressional Research Service published a report in which is stated that “If Iraq’s Saddam Hussein decide(s) to use terrorists to attack the continental United States (he) would likely turn to bin Laden’s al Qaeda” and that “Al Qaeda poses the most serious terrorist threat to U.S. security interests, for al Qaeda’s well trained terrorists are engaged in a terrorist jihad against U.S. interests world wide”.
Bear in mind, most of this “unbiased “reporting was conducted during Bill Clinton’s term. It was also the Clinton Administration that indicted Osama Bin Laden in the spring of 1998, prior to the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa, citing Al Qaeda’s agreement to collaborate with Iraq on weapons of mass destruction. The indictment read as follows: “Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that (regarding) particular projects, specifically including weapons developments, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq“.
Pre-war Iraqi documents released by U.S. intelligence services indicate that on February 19, 1995 after direct official approval by Saddam Hussein one of his government representatives met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan. The purpose of this meeting as stated in the documents was to foster “development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what is open based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation”. Other meetings personally approved by Saddam Hussein between Bin Laden and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995 are also made mention of in the 9/11 commission report.
According to Iraqi Intelligence documents obtained by the Iraq Survey Group after the war began, Osama bin Laden met with Intelligence officials in Syria in the spring of 1992. An undated internal memo in the same group of documents also discussed strategy for an upcoming meeting between Iraqi Intelligence, Bin Laden and a representative of the Taliban. The posted agenda for the meeting was “attacking American targets”.
On October 7, 2002, CIA director George J. Tenet wrote a letter to Senate intelligence chairman Bob Graham in which he detailed the CIA’s reporting on weapons of mass destruction and Iraq’s link to al Qaeda. In it he described “solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade” and that credible information indicated that Iraq and al Qaeda had discussed “safe heaven an reciprocal non-aggression”. The letter also offered reports of al Qaeda members seeking contacts with Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities.
This type of information has been repeatedly corroborated by Iraqi defectors who have claimed that Saddam’s regime trained “non-Iraqi Arab terrorists” for years at a camp in Salman Pak, located in the southern region of Baghdad. The existence of this camp was confirmed by U.N inspectors. In it they found training facilities for terrorists which included a Boeing 707 in which defectors claimed terrorists were trained to assassinate, kidnap or hijack their enemies. It was also confirmed by these defectors that this type of training was mostly directed towards American targets and interests.
It is not that journalists and politicians have not been exposed to these facts in the past, but that they have chosen, in their juvenile animosity against the current administration, to not only distort them, but to ignore certain critical parts of this reality because full disclosure would support the president’s decision of going to war with Iraq; a decision they have furiously opposed from the very beginning.
While the truth often carries with it very uncomfortable realities, it is supposed to be the job of the media to report these realities in an objective and impartial manner. But the principle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend did not only appeal to people like Saddam when he planned an alliance with Bin Laden, who bore an equal animosity towards a common nemesis, but also to the Democrats and the liberal media here at home, who saw the potential of using what they though to be a tenuous link at best as a political weapon against the one they deride as an illegitimate president.
Sadly the media assumed the dignified role of whistle-blower and fancied itself forced to embellish stories and concoct far fetched conspiracies, not unlike they did with Cheney’s hunting accident. These constructs naturally tended to reflect their ideological leaning. In the end this proved detrimental to us as information consumers.
There are many Iraqi Intelligence documents that are yet to be fully translated by the U.S. government. Thus far the ones that have been translated yield a picture of a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden that appears to extend far beyond what the 9/11 Commission Report euphemistically dubbed a “collaborative relationship”. One may say this presents a golden opportunity for the media to reclaim its role as the impartial messenger it should be and for democrats to rally around a common cause and work together with their republican peers in making the safety of our country a primary concern.
But it is unlikely that democrats and the left leaning media, who are more interested in engaging in adolescent snipping at the president, will be convinced that such a relationship between the sinister duo ever existed unless nothing short of a picture of Osama and Saddam French kissing on a park bench in Fallujah square is produced. And even then it’s hard to say that they will be persuaded.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Sunday, March 19, 2006
William O. Beeman--U.S. And Iran Agree to Historic Talks Thanks to an Iraqi Mediator--New American Media
William O. Beeman--U.S. and Iran Agree to Historic Talks Thanks to an Iraqi Mediator--New America Media
U.S. and Iran Agree to Historic Talks Thanks to an Iraqi Mediator
New America Media, News Analysis, William O. Beeman, Mar 17, 2006
Editor’s Note: On Mar. 16 Iran and the United States agreed to break the almost three decade-long silence between the two countries. The breakthrough, ironically, has come from the violence in Iraq says William O. Beeman, Professor of Anthropology and Middle East Studies at Brown University. Beeman has conducted research on Iran for more than 30 years. He is the author of “The ‘Great Satan’ vs. the ‘Mad Mullahs’: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other”; and the forthcoming “Iraq: State in Search of a Nation.”
The United States and Iran will be holding direct talks for the first time in 27 years. The talks are about a matter of intense importance to both parties: stabilization of the volatile situation in Iraq. This breakthrough has a good chance of success because for the first time it has been structured in a culturally appropriate way.
Iran and the United States’ unprecedented estrangement has a cultural complement in Iran that can be described as “qahr.” Qahr, a cultural institution in Iran, is not a permanent disagreement but cannot be resolved by the estranged parties without irreparable loss of honor. The resolution, or “aashti,” must be mediated by a party whom both sides respect. During this period -- which can last for years -- the parties remain emotionally connected to each other, though their relationship is cold and hostile. This perfectly describes the U.S.-Iranian relationship.
In this current situation, the "trigger" for the breakthrough was a request to Iran that they enter into talks with the United States from Shi'a cleric Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).
Mr. Al-Hakim is a near-perfect mediator, respected by both the United States and Iran. He was a member of the U.S.-appointed Iraq Interim Governing Council and served as its president in December 2003. He replaced his brother, the revered Shi’a leader Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim, as leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq when the latter was assassinated in August 2003 in Najaf. He was also the first candidate listed for the United Iraqi Coalition during the first Iraqi legislative election of January 2005. Perhaps most importantly, he is a close ally of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has arguably become the most influential Shi'a leader in the world, revered both in Iran and Iraq.
The talks were facilitated by the authorization given by the U.S. government to its Iraqi ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad some months ago to enter into conversation with Iran specifically on the Iraqi situation -- a prospect that the Iranians rejected at the time.
In fact, Iranians have been looking for a mediator in their dispute with the United States for years. Their hopes that Europeans could serve in that role were dashed as France, Germany and Great Britain capitulated to U.S. pressure by actively lobbying for Iran to limit its nuclear energy program.
The long estrangement between Iran and the United States has a solid basis. Each nation has done things that are seen as insulting and damaging to the other. The United States' support of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, including the CIA supported coup in 1953 that restored him to power after he was ousted in a popular movement, lies at the core of Iranian discontent with the United States. American support of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, economic sanctions and rhetorical excesses such as President Bush’s inclusion of Iran in the “Axis of Evil,” and the U.S. position on Iran's nuclear energy program only fueled Iranian anger.
From the U.S. standpoint, the hostage crisis of 1979-80, when U.S. diplomatic personnel were held by Iranian revolutionaries for 444 days is Iran's principal transgression. Iran’s hostility toward the "Zionist regime" in Israel, its support of the Hezbollah in Lebanon and its frequent identification of the United States as the "Great Satan" keep American hostility toward Iran alive.
But Iran and the United States both need to see violence and disorder in Iraq come to an end. A stable, functioning Iraq will alleviate the major political liability for the Bush administration. Iran does not want to inherit responsibility for a perpetual civil war on its borders.
The primary obstacle to this salutary potential cooperation is Iran’s nuclear energy program. President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have in the past week both identified Iran as the United States' "most serious security threat" based on the fear that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons. Iran feels that it is being unfairly targeted for what it claims is a peaceful energy program that has conformed to all the provisions of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to which Iran (unlike India, Pakistan and Israel) is a signatory.
No timeline has been set for the talks yet. But if both the United States and Iran can reach agreement on a common cooperative strategy for Iraq, the chances are hopeful that other differences between the two nations can eventually also be mediated. To make this work, both sides must show respect for the other, avoiding the invective of the past 27 years.
Iranians, like Americans, are always relieved at a resolution of tension. A successful resolution of a qahr situation frequently results in the estranged parties being better friends than ever from that point onward. Let us hope both that a productive strategy for dealing with Iraq can be reached, and that this will create further good will and greater trust.
User Comments
Maureen Stapler Crowell on Mar 18, 2006 at 09:53:21 said:
A major step toward peace. May it succeed.
It also might be helpful for countries to work together to develop healthy peaceful energy programs -- solar, wind, hydro, geo.
Abdnour on Mar 17, 2006 at 19:11:12 said:
This a great news.It is a breakthrough.I become very emotional after reading this article.I am amazed to read it.This Iraki official seem to me that he is an angelsent by God to bring peace on this Earth that is so needed.I do beleive strongly in this.The world
prayers of all faiths are started tobe answered.I have and I had faith that this world can live in peace and harmony.God has been watching and listening for a long time.Because of his eternal love and compassion,he wouldn't let further damages to happen to the mankind.He wanted to put an end to unproductive differences.Saint Augustine said once:"The Divine Word."lightens every Man on this world.Let hope follow its course and the bells of peace ring allover the world.Thank you GOD!This world will regain then love,trust,and espect that have been lost for a long long time.
Bo Campbell on Mar 17, 2006 at 18:28:59 said:
Excellent analysis. The irony of this (if Bush escapes the Iraq debacle) is just too rich.
Rick stanich on Mar 17, 2006 at 18:25:23 said:
If the U.S. enters into this "emotional realationship,which can last for years", it would offer the Iranian leadership more courage to continue it's clandestine nuclear program.America would be decieved into a false sense of hope, and would allow the Iranian regime , as predicated in the koran "a time to sharpen your swords"Resolve the nuclear issue first.Then talk about Iraq.
Time is not on the side of the Iranian regime,but the smoke and mirror "talks" about Iraq would certainly ease the pressure,and quite possibly give them time to sharpen their nukes
Post Your Comments
First/Last Name
Your Email Address
Your Comments
Disclaimer: New America Media will put up as many of your comments as possible but we cannot guarantee that all e-mails will be published. NAM reserves the right to edit comments that are published.
Just Posted
The Price of “Diamonds are Forever” Too Often Misery for Africa
Mar 19, 2006
Who Needs America?
Mar 18, 2006
Custom of Black Funerals Part of New Orleans Fabric
Mar 18, 2006
Mix Tape Hustlin' -- The Demolition Men Slang CD's To The Masses
Mar 17, 2006
Sex Selection Alive and Well in South Asian Immigrant Communities in the U.S.
Mar 17, 2006
Funeral Directors Face Life After Katrina
Mar 17, 2006
U.S. Scores Philippines Poorly on Human Rights Abuses
Mar 17, 2006
U.S. and Iran Agree to Historic Talks Thanks to an Iraqi Mediator
Mar 17, 2006
NAM Coverage
International Affairs
U.S. and Iran Agree to Historic Talks Thanks to an Iraqi Mediator
Mar 17, 2006
Israel and India - New Best Friends in an Age of Terror?
Mar 13, 2006
Professor Believes FBI Grilled Him for His Political Beliefs
Mar 09, 2006
Colombia: Gypsy Candidate Discusses Concerns of Ethnic Minorities
Mar 07, 2006
Has Al Qaeda Left Iraq? Has U.S. Strategy Changed?
Mar 02, 2006
Advertisements
Advertisements on our website do not necessarily reflect the views or mission of New America Media, our affiliates or our funders.
New America Media is a project of Pacific News Service
Copyright © Pacific News Service
Engine Powered by DW Alliance
The United States and Iran will be holding direct talks for the first time in 27 years. The talks are about a matter of intense importance to both parties: stabilization of the volatile situation in Iraq. This breakthrough has a good chance of success because for the first time it has been structured in a culturally appropriate way.
Iran and the United States’ unprecedented estrangement has a cultural complement in Iran that can be described as “qahr.” Qahr, a cultural institution in Iran, is not a permanent disagreement but cannot be resolved by the estranged parties without irreparable loss of honor. The resolution, or “aashti,” must be mediated by a party whom both sides respect. During this period -- which can last for years -- the parties remain emotionally connected to each other, though their relationship is cold and hostile. This perfectly describes the U.S.-Iranian relationship.
In this current situation, the "trigger" for the breakthrough was a request to Iran that they enter into talks with the United States from Shi'a cleric Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).
Mr. Al-Hakim is a near-perfect mediator, respected by both the United States and Iran. He was a member of the U.S.-appointed Iraq Interim Governing Council and served as its president in December 2003. He replaced his brother, the revered Shi’a leader Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim, as leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq when the latter was assassinated in August 2003 in Najaf. He was also the first candidate listed for the United Iraqi Coalition during the first Iraqi legislative election of January 2005. Perhaps most importantly, he is a close ally of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has arguably become the most influential Shi'a leader in the world, revered both in Iran and Iraq.
The talks were facilitated by the authorization given by the U.S. government to its Iraqi ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad some months ago to enter into conversation with Iran specifically on the Iraqi situation -- a prospect that the Iranians rejected at the time.
In fact, Iranians have been looking for a mediator in their dispute with the United States for years. Their hopes that Europeans could serve in that role were dashed as France, Germany and Great Britain capitulated to U.S. pressure by actively lobbying for Iran to limit its nuclear energy program.
The long estrangement between Iran and the United States has a solid basis. Each nation has done things that are seen as insulting and damaging to the other. The United States' support of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, including the CIA supported coup in 1953 that restored him to power after he was ousted in a popular movement, lies at the core of Iranian discontent with the United States. American support of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, economic sanctions and rhetorical excesses such as President Bush’s inclusion of Iran in the “Axis of Evil,” and the U.S. position on Iran's nuclear energy program only fueled Iranian anger.
From the U.S. standpoint, the hostage crisis of 1979-80, when U.S. diplomatic personnel were held by Iranian revolutionaries for 444 days is Iran's principal transgression. Iran’s hostility toward the "Zionist regime" in Israel, its support of the Hezbollah in Lebanon and its frequent identification of the United States as the "Great Satan" keep American hostility toward Iran alive.
But Iran and the United States both need to see violence and disorder in Iraq come to an end. A stable, functioning Iraq will alleviate the major political liability for the Bush administration. Iran does not want to inherit responsibility for a perpetual civil war on its borders.
The primary obstacle to this salutary potential cooperation is Iran’s nuclear energy program. President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have in the past week both identified Iran as the United States' "most serious security threat" based on the fear that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons. Iran feels that it is being unfairly targeted for what it claims is a peaceful energy program that has conformed to all the provisions of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to which Iran (unlike India, Pakistan and Israel) is a signatory.
No timeline has been set for the talks yet. But if both the United States and Iran can reach agreement on a common cooperative strategy for Iraq, the chances are hopeful that other differences between the two nations can eventually also be mediated. To make this work, both sides must show respect for the other, avoiding the invective of the past 27 years.
Iranians, like Americans, are always relieved at a resolution of tension. A successful resolution of a qahr situation frequently results in the estranged parties being better friends than ever from that point onward. Let us hope both that a productive strategy for dealing with Iraq can be reached, and that this will create further good will and greater trust.
User Comments
Maureen Stapler Crowell on Mar 18, 2006 at 09:53:21 said:
A major step toward peace. May it succeed.
It also might be helpful for countries to work together to develop healthy peaceful energy programs -- solar, wind, hydro, geo.
Abdnour on Mar 17, 2006 at 19:11:12 said:
This a great news.It is a breakthrough.I become very emotional after reading this article.I am amazed to read it.This Iraki official seem to me that he is an angelsent by God to bring peace on this Earth that is so needed.I do beleive strongly in this.The world
prayers of all faiths are started tobe answered.I have and I had faith that this world can live in peace and harmony.God has been watching and listening for a long time.Because of his eternal love and compassion,he wouldn't let further damages to happen to the mankind.He wanted to put an end to unproductive differences.Saint Augustine said once:"The Divine Word."lightens every Man on this world.Let hope follow its course and the bells of peace ring allover the world.Thank you GOD!This world will regain then love,trust,and espect that have been lost for a long long time.
Bo Campbell on Mar 17, 2006 at 18:28:59 said:
Excellent analysis. The irony of this (if Bush escapes the Iraq debacle) is just too rich.
Rick stanich on Mar 17, 2006 at 18:25:23 said:
If the U.S. enters into this "emotional realationship,which can last for years", it would offer the Iranian leadership more courage to continue it's clandestine nuclear program.America would be decieved into a false sense of hope, and would allow the Iranian regime , as predicated in the koran "a time to sharpen your swords"Resolve the nuclear issue first.Then talk about Iraq.
Time is not on the side of the Iranian regime,but the smoke and mirror "talks" about Iraq would certainly ease the pressure,and quite possibly give them time to sharpen their nukes
Post Your Comments
First/Last Name
Your Email Address
Your Comments
Disclaimer: New America Media will put up as many of your comments as possible but we cannot guarantee that all e-mails will be published. NAM reserves the right to edit comments that are published.
Just Posted
The Price of “Diamonds are Forever” Too Often Misery for Africa
Mar 19, 2006
Who Needs America?
Mar 18, 2006
Custom of Black Funerals Part of New Orleans Fabric
Mar 18, 2006
Mix Tape Hustlin' -- The Demolition Men Slang CD's To The Masses
Mar 17, 2006
Sex Selection Alive and Well in South Asian Immigrant Communities in the U.S.
Mar 17, 2006
Funeral Directors Face Life After Katrina
Mar 17, 2006
U.S. Scores Philippines Poorly on Human Rights Abuses
Mar 17, 2006
U.S. and Iran Agree to Historic Talks Thanks to an Iraqi Mediator
Mar 17, 2006
NAM Coverage
International Affairs
U.S. and Iran Agree to Historic Talks Thanks to an Iraqi Mediator
Mar 17, 2006
Israel and India - New Best Friends in an Age of Terror?
Mar 13, 2006
Professor Believes FBI Grilled Him for His Political Beliefs
Mar 09, 2006
Colombia: Gypsy Candidate Discusses Concerns of Ethnic Minorities
Mar 07, 2006
Has Al Qaeda Left Iraq? Has U.S. Strategy Changed?
Mar 02, 2006
Advertisements
Advertisements on our website do not necessarily reflect the views or mission of New America Media, our affiliates or our funders.
New America Media is a project of Pacific News Service
Copyright © Pacific News Service
Engine Powered by DW Alliance
U.S. and Iran Agree to Historic Talks Thanks to an Iraqi Mediator
New America Media, News Analysis, William O. Beeman, Mar 17, 2006
Editor’s Note: On Mar. 16 Iran and the United States agreed to break the almost three decade-long silence between the two countries. The breakthrough, ironically, has come from the violence in Iraq says William O. Beeman, Professor of Anthropology and Middle East Studies at Brown University. Beeman has conducted research on Iran for more than 30 years. He is the author of “The ‘Great Satan’ vs. the ‘Mad Mullahs’: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other”; and the forthcoming “Iraq: State in Search of a Nation.”
The United States and Iran will be holding direct talks for the first time in 27 years. The talks are about a matter of intense importance to both parties: stabilization of the volatile situation in Iraq. This breakthrough has a good chance of success because for the first time it has been structured in a culturally appropriate way.
Iran and the United States’ unprecedented estrangement has a cultural complement in Iran that can be described as “qahr.” Qahr, a cultural institution in Iran, is not a permanent disagreement but cannot be resolved by the estranged parties without irreparable loss of honor. The resolution, or “aashti,” must be mediated by a party whom both sides respect. During this period -- which can last for years -- the parties remain emotionally connected to each other, though their relationship is cold and hostile. This perfectly describes the U.S.-Iranian relationship.
In this current situation, the "trigger" for the breakthrough was a request to Iran that they enter into talks with the United States from Shi'a cleric Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).
Mr. Al-Hakim is a near-perfect mediator, respected by both the United States and Iran. He was a member of the U.S.-appointed Iraq Interim Governing Council and served as its president in December 2003. He replaced his brother, the revered Shi’a leader Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim, as leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq when the latter was assassinated in August 2003 in Najaf. He was also the first candidate listed for the United Iraqi Coalition during the first Iraqi legislative election of January 2005. Perhaps most importantly, he is a close ally of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has arguably become the most influential Shi'a leader in the world, revered both in Iran and Iraq.
The talks were facilitated by the authorization given by the U.S. government to its Iraqi ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad some months ago to enter into conversation with Iran specifically on the Iraqi situation -- a prospect that the Iranians rejected at the time.
In fact, Iranians have been looking for a mediator in their dispute with the United States for years. Their hopes that Europeans could serve in that role were dashed as France, Germany and Great Britain capitulated to U.S. pressure by actively lobbying for Iran to limit its nuclear energy program.
The long estrangement between Iran and the United States has a solid basis. Each nation has done things that are seen as insulting and damaging to the other. The United States' support of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, including the CIA supported coup in 1953 that restored him to power after he was ousted in a popular movement, lies at the core of Iranian discontent with the United States. American support of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, economic sanctions and rhetorical excesses such as President Bush’s inclusion of Iran in the “Axis of Evil,” and the U.S. position on Iran's nuclear energy program only fueled Iranian anger.
From the U.S. standpoint, the hostage crisis of 1979-80, when U.S. diplomatic personnel were held by Iranian revolutionaries for 444 days is Iran's principal transgression. Iran’s hostility toward the "Zionist regime" in Israel, its support of the Hezbollah in Lebanon and its frequent identification of the United States as the "Great Satan" keep American hostility toward Iran alive.
But Iran and the United States both need to see violence and disorder in Iraq come to an end. A stable, functioning Iraq will alleviate the major political liability for the Bush administration. Iran does not want to inherit responsibility for a perpetual civil war on its borders.
The primary obstacle to this salutary potential cooperation is Iran’s nuclear energy program. President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have in the past week both identified Iran as the United States' "most serious security threat" based on the fear that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons. Iran feels that it is being unfairly targeted for what it claims is a peaceful energy program that has conformed to all the provisions of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to which Iran (unlike India, Pakistan and Israel) is a signatory.
No timeline has been set for the talks yet. But if both the United States and Iran can reach agreement on a common cooperative strategy for Iraq, the chances are hopeful that other differences between the two nations can eventually also be mediated. To make this work, both sides must show respect for the other, avoiding the invective of the past 27 years.
Iranians, like Americans, are always relieved at a resolution of tension. A successful resolution of a qahr situation frequently results in the estranged parties being better friends than ever from that point onward. Let us hope both that a productive strategy for dealing with Iraq can be reached, and that this will create further good will and greater trust.
User Comments
Maureen Stapler Crowell on Mar 18, 2006 at 09:53:21 said:
A major step toward peace. May it succeed.
It also might be helpful for countries to work together to develop healthy peaceful energy programs -- solar, wind, hydro, geo.
Abdnour on Mar 17, 2006 at 19:11:12 said:
This a great news.It is a breakthrough.I become very emotional after reading this article.I am amazed to read it.This Iraki official seem to me that he is an angelsent by God to bring peace on this Earth that is so needed.I do beleive strongly in this.The world
prayers of all faiths are started tobe answered.I have and I had faith that this world can live in peace and harmony.God has been watching and listening for a long time.Because of his eternal love and compassion,he wouldn't let further damages to happen to the mankind.He wanted to put an end to unproductive differences.Saint Augustine said once:"The Divine Word."lightens every Man on this world.Let hope follow its course and the bells of peace ring allover the world.Thank you GOD!This world will regain then love,trust,and espect that have been lost for a long long time.
Bo Campbell on Mar 17, 2006 at 18:28:59 said:
Excellent analysis. The irony of this (if Bush escapes the Iraq debacle) is just too rich.
Rick stanich on Mar 17, 2006 at 18:25:23 said:
If the U.S. enters into this "emotional realationship,which can last for years", it would offer the Iranian leadership more courage to continue it's clandestine nuclear program.America would be decieved into a false sense of hope, and would allow the Iranian regime , as predicated in the koran "a time to sharpen your swords"Resolve the nuclear issue first.Then talk about Iraq.
Time is not on the side of the Iranian regime,but the smoke and mirror "talks" about Iraq would certainly ease the pressure,and quite possibly give them time to sharpen their nukes
Post Your Comments
First/Last Name
Your Email Address
Your Comments
Disclaimer: New America Media will put up as many of your comments as possible but we cannot guarantee that all e-mails will be published. NAM reserves the right to edit comments that are published.
Just Posted
The Price of “Diamonds are Forever” Too Often Misery for Africa
Mar 19, 2006
Who Needs America?
Mar 18, 2006
Custom of Black Funerals Part of New Orleans Fabric
Mar 18, 2006
Mix Tape Hustlin' -- The Demolition Men Slang CD's To The Masses
Mar 17, 2006
Sex Selection Alive and Well in South Asian Immigrant Communities in the U.S.
Mar 17, 2006
Funeral Directors Face Life After Katrina
Mar 17, 2006
U.S. Scores Philippines Poorly on Human Rights Abuses
Mar 17, 2006
U.S. and Iran Agree to Historic Talks Thanks to an Iraqi Mediator
Mar 17, 2006
NAM Coverage
International Affairs
U.S. and Iran Agree to Historic Talks Thanks to an Iraqi Mediator
Mar 17, 2006
Israel and India - New Best Friends in an Age of Terror?
Mar 13, 2006
Professor Believes FBI Grilled Him for His Political Beliefs
Mar 09, 2006
Colombia: Gypsy Candidate Discusses Concerns of Ethnic Minorities
Mar 07, 2006
Has Al Qaeda Left Iraq? Has U.S. Strategy Changed?
Mar 02, 2006
Advertisements
Advertisements on our website do not necessarily reflect the views or mission of New America Media, our affiliates or our funders.
New America Media is a project of Pacific News Service
Copyright © Pacific News Service
Engine Powered by DW Alliance
The United States and Iran will be holding direct talks for the first time in 27 years. The talks are about a matter of intense importance to both parties: stabilization of the volatile situation in Iraq. This breakthrough has a good chance of success because for the first time it has been structured in a culturally appropriate way.
Iran and the United States’ unprecedented estrangement has a cultural complement in Iran that can be described as “qahr.” Qahr, a cultural institution in Iran, is not a permanent disagreement but cannot be resolved by the estranged parties without irreparable loss of honor. The resolution, or “aashti,” must be mediated by a party whom both sides respect. During this period -- which can last for years -- the parties remain emotionally connected to each other, though their relationship is cold and hostile. This perfectly describes the U.S.-Iranian relationship.
In this current situation, the "trigger" for the breakthrough was a request to Iran that they enter into talks with the United States from Shi'a cleric Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).
Mr. Al-Hakim is a near-perfect mediator, respected by both the United States and Iran. He was a member of the U.S.-appointed Iraq Interim Governing Council and served as its president in December 2003. He replaced his brother, the revered Shi’a leader Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim, as leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq when the latter was assassinated in August 2003 in Najaf. He was also the first candidate listed for the United Iraqi Coalition during the first Iraqi legislative election of January 2005. Perhaps most importantly, he is a close ally of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has arguably become the most influential Shi'a leader in the world, revered both in Iran and Iraq.
The talks were facilitated by the authorization given by the U.S. government to its Iraqi ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad some months ago to enter into conversation with Iran specifically on the Iraqi situation -- a prospect that the Iranians rejected at the time.
In fact, Iranians have been looking for a mediator in their dispute with the United States for years. Their hopes that Europeans could serve in that role were dashed as France, Germany and Great Britain capitulated to U.S. pressure by actively lobbying for Iran to limit its nuclear energy program.
The long estrangement between Iran and the United States has a solid basis. Each nation has done things that are seen as insulting and damaging to the other. The United States' support of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, including the CIA supported coup in 1953 that restored him to power after he was ousted in a popular movement, lies at the core of Iranian discontent with the United States. American support of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, economic sanctions and rhetorical excesses such as President Bush’s inclusion of Iran in the “Axis of Evil,” and the U.S. position on Iran's nuclear energy program only fueled Iranian anger.
From the U.S. standpoint, the hostage crisis of 1979-80, when U.S. diplomatic personnel were held by Iranian revolutionaries for 444 days is Iran's principal transgression. Iran’s hostility toward the "Zionist regime" in Israel, its support of the Hezbollah in Lebanon and its frequent identification of the United States as the "Great Satan" keep American hostility toward Iran alive.
But Iran and the United States both need to see violence and disorder in Iraq come to an end. A stable, functioning Iraq will alleviate the major political liability for the Bush administration. Iran does not want to inherit responsibility for a perpetual civil war on its borders.
The primary obstacle to this salutary potential cooperation is Iran’s nuclear energy program. President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have in the past week both identified Iran as the United States' "most serious security threat" based on the fear that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons. Iran feels that it is being unfairly targeted for what it claims is a peaceful energy program that has conformed to all the provisions of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to which Iran (unlike India, Pakistan and Israel) is a signatory.
No timeline has been set for the talks yet. But if both the United States and Iran can reach agreement on a common cooperative strategy for Iraq, the chances are hopeful that other differences between the two nations can eventually also be mediated. To make this work, both sides must show respect for the other, avoiding the invective of the past 27 years.
Iranians, like Americans, are always relieved at a resolution of tension. A successful resolution of a qahr situation frequently results in the estranged parties being better friends than ever from that point onward. Let us hope both that a productive strategy for dealing with Iraq can be reached, and that this will create further good will and greater trust.
User Comments
Maureen Stapler Crowell on Mar 18, 2006 at 09:53:21 said:
A major step toward peace. May it succeed.
It also might be helpful for countries to work together to develop healthy peaceful energy programs -- solar, wind, hydro, geo.
Abdnour on Mar 17, 2006 at 19:11:12 said:
This a great news.It is a breakthrough.I become very emotional after reading this article.I am amazed to read it.This Iraki official seem to me that he is an angelsent by God to bring peace on this Earth that is so needed.I do beleive strongly in this.The world
prayers of all faiths are started tobe answered.I have and I had faith that this world can live in peace and harmony.God has been watching and listening for a long time.Because of his eternal love and compassion,he wouldn't let further damages to happen to the mankind.He wanted to put an end to unproductive differences.Saint Augustine said once:"The Divine Word."lightens every Man on this world.Let hope follow its course and the bells of peace ring allover the world.Thank you GOD!This world will regain then love,trust,and espect that have been lost for a long long time.
Bo Campbell on Mar 17, 2006 at 18:28:59 said:
Excellent analysis. The irony of this (if Bush escapes the Iraq debacle) is just too rich.
Rick stanich on Mar 17, 2006 at 18:25:23 said:
If the U.S. enters into this "emotional realationship,which can last for years", it would offer the Iranian leadership more courage to continue it's clandestine nuclear program.America would be decieved into a false sense of hope, and would allow the Iranian regime , as predicated in the koran "a time to sharpen your swords"Resolve the nuclear issue first.Then talk about Iraq.
Time is not on the side of the Iranian regime,but the smoke and mirror "talks" about Iraq would certainly ease the pressure,and quite possibly give them time to sharpen their nukes
Post Your Comments
First/Last Name
Your Email Address
Your Comments
Disclaimer: New America Media will put up as many of your comments as possible but we cannot guarantee that all e-mails will be published. NAM reserves the right to edit comments that are published.
Just Posted
The Price of “Diamonds are Forever” Too Often Misery for Africa
Mar 19, 2006
Who Needs America?
Mar 18, 2006
Custom of Black Funerals Part of New Orleans Fabric
Mar 18, 2006
Mix Tape Hustlin' -- The Demolition Men Slang CD's To The Masses
Mar 17, 2006
Sex Selection Alive and Well in South Asian Immigrant Communities in the U.S.
Mar 17, 2006
Funeral Directors Face Life After Katrina
Mar 17, 2006
U.S. Scores Philippines Poorly on Human Rights Abuses
Mar 17, 2006
U.S. and Iran Agree to Historic Talks Thanks to an Iraqi Mediator
Mar 17, 2006
NAM Coverage
International Affairs
U.S. and Iran Agree to Historic Talks Thanks to an Iraqi Mediator
Mar 17, 2006
Israel and India - New Best Friends in an Age of Terror?
Mar 13, 2006
Professor Believes FBI Grilled Him for His Political Beliefs
Mar 09, 2006
Colombia: Gypsy Candidate Discusses Concerns of Ethnic Minorities
Mar 07, 2006
Has Al Qaeda Left Iraq? Has U.S. Strategy Changed?
Mar 02, 2006
Advertisements
Advertisements on our website do not necessarily reflect the views or mission of New America Media, our affiliates or our funders.
New America Media is a project of Pacific News Service
Copyright © Pacific News Service
Engine Powered by DW Alliance
TheStar.com - Fallout from Tehran's nuclear program
TheStar.com - Fallout from Tehran's nuclear program
Fallout from Tehran's nuclear program
analysis | Experts weigh the chances of a pre-emptive U.S. attack and consider the ramifications of an `Islamic bomb.' By Olivia Ward
Mar. 19, 2006. 01:00 AM
OLIVIA WARD
FEATURE WRITER
Remember "Shock and awe"?
As the standoff over Iran's nuclear ambitions continues, the rhetoric between Tehran and Washington is ratcheting up.
Iran's insistence on its right to pursue a nuclear program it calls peaceful, and the U.S. demand that it cease and desist, have brought the world closer to a confrontation that some fear could be a replay of the invasion of Iraq.
On Thursday, U.S. President George W. Bush reaffirmed his pre-emptive war doctrine, accusing Iran of supporting terrorism. The strategy paper said: "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran."
Iranian nuclear sites are reportedly marked off as targets in a Pentagon war room. John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has warned that the United States would use "all the tools at our disposal" to block Iran's nuclear program. He said the U.S. is "beefing up defensive measures" for retaliation — a hint that Washington may not rule out a pre-emptive strike using nuclear weapons.
But how likely is an attack on Iran? And in a worst-case scenario, if Tehran were able to secretly develop a bomb, would it open the way to atomic Armageddon?
"Our military is spread very thin in Iraq and Afghanistan," says Philip Coyle, a senior adviser to the Washington-based Center for Defense Information and former U.S. assistant secretary of defence. "That's the kind of situation in which defence planners will turn to nuclear weapons."
But others take a much different view.
Pre-emptive strikes have been Bush's national security strategy since 2002, notes American military expert and author William Arkin. Two years later, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved a top-secret "interim global strike alert order," putting the military on alert to attack countries that are developing weapons of mass destruction.
The order is especially aimed at Iran and North Korea, but the kind of planning that would go into a full-scale bombing campaign to end the threat of an Iranian attack — by wiping out dozens of Iranian command-and-control centres, nuclear sites and missile-launching areas — takes years rather than months.
"I reject the media swirl that says an attack is imminent," says Arkin.
"Getting to the point where the military would have an order from the president to hit Iran next week requires enormous amounts of preparation, organization and a worked-out plan for what fighting a nuclear war would mean. The military knows it is not ready for that."
He adds, though, that "this administration is committed to a course of action that it will use force to prevent others from gaining weapons of mass destruction. It has made it very clear they aren't waiting for the mushroom cloud."
But is Iran bent on developing nuclear weapons — putting hard-line clerics in control of what some fear could be an "Islamic bomb?"
In the West, opinion is divided. For some, Washington's misleading allegations about Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program have discredited more recent ones that Tehran is moving its nuclear program along a military path.
For others, Iran's refusal to answer key questions posed by the International Atomic Energy Agency is proof that the claims are correct.
Former IAEA weapons inspector David Albright says Iran has "crossed a well-established red line" by breaking the watchdog agency's seals on some of its nuclear sites and announcing plans to resume uranium enrichment-related activities that would provide the quality of fuel needed for power reactors or nuclear weapons.
But Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, says even if Iran decided to develop deadly weapons, "it won't happen tomorrow. If they began right away with an enrichment plant operating, it would be at least three years away. And there could be problems we don't even know about."
Experts point out that bomb-building on a national scale requires good luck as well as good engineering. Centrifuges used to spin energy-producing uranium 235 away from its heavier and more common variety, U-238, are notoriously breakdown-prone. The IAEA recorded that, in 2004, fewer than half of Iran's 1,140 centrifuges were functional. Iran plans to install some 50,000 in its main enrichment plant at Natanz.
The political motivation for Iran to build a nuclear bomb is powerful, however painstaking the process.
"As long as the U.S. makes it clear they're interested in regime change, it's in the interest of Iran to pursue its own deterrent," says Trita Parsi, a Middle East expert at Johns Hopkins University.
"They may be trying to get the technology and master the fuel cycle because they want the option of weaponizing if the situation deteriorates."
The IAEA continues to call for monitoring of Iran's nuclear program and inspections of its sites and scientific documents, while the U.S. and other Western countries urge putting it on the agenda of the UN Security Council. That could result in sanctions or military action if monitoring were not vetoed by historically reluctant China and Russia.
But, says Houchang Hassan-Yari of the Royal Military College in Kingston, "first we have to establish that Iran is really looking for a nuclear bomb. Many times in the past, the IAEA has said they couldn't find anything incriminating. The whole issue isn't a legal or technical one, it's become political."
Iran has repeatedly denied it is interested in developing nuclear weapons. And, Hassan-Yari points out, it has signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty — unlike India, which was recently rewarded by a nuclear deal with Washington
But fear of an "Islamic bomb" has been fuelled by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's bellicose rhetoric, his denial of the Holocaust and his rabid statements against Israel, urging that it be "wiped off the map."
"The question of the nuclear issue wouldn't be an issue at all if the U.S. hadn't decided to pursue it," argues William Beeman, a professor of anthropology and Middle Eastern Studies at Brown University in Rhode Island, and author of The "Great Satan" vs. the "Mad Mullahs:" How the U.S. and Iran Demonize Each Other.
"The U.S. was the instigator of the nuclear program in the 1970s when it sold Iran its technology. The program has continued since then, so it's disingenuous to suddenly declare it a danger."
Alarm bells have been sounded in the past, but less loudly. In the mid-1990s former secretary of state Warren Christopher declared that "based on a wide variety of data, we know that since the mid-1980s, Iran has had an organized structure dedicated to acquiring and developing nuclear weapons."
But, says Beeman, who has studied Iran for three decades, "there is no weapons program. There is nothing that could threaten the U.S. The main fear is that Iran would want to drop a nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv. That is so far beyond possibility as to make the whole scenario ludicrous."
Arguments against allowing Iran to develop an atomic bomb are legion, and all of them frightening: it would destabilize the Middle East; tip the balance against Muslim moderates and toward extremists; provide "dirty bombs" for Hezbollah and anti-Western militants; entrench Iranian hardliners in power; and pose enormous danger if the country fell into political unrest and revolution.
But some observers point out that Iran may see some justification for developing a bomb.
"The American presence surrounding Iran has not improved security, but rather has put a dagger to Iran's front and back," writes non-proliferation expert George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "If ever a country needs nuclear weapons to deter a stronger adversary it is Iran."
Leon Hadar, author of Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East and a research fellow at the Washington-based Cato Institute, says the fear of an Iranian bomb is overblown.
And, he adds, looking at the question historically, there may be points in its favour.
"If you go back to when China exploded its first bomb, the reactions in the American press looked like the end of the world had come.
"China was ruled at that time by ideological fanatics who were every day reiterating their plans to destroy the West. But in the end it created a triangle of relationships that contained the Soviet Union, which was already armed with nuclear weapons."
When Pakistan set off five nuclear tests in 1998, it was also greeted with horror.
However, Pakistan's relations with its nuclear rival, India, thawed in the aftermath of the blast, and there was new agreement over the territorial issue of Kashmir. The two countries pulled back from the brink of war.
That, says Hadar, is the stabilizing effect of nuclear parity.
"I don't advocate nuclear weapons. But in the case of Iran one can see that if there were an Iranian bomb, Israel and Iran would be forced to communicate, to avoid what used to be called `mutual assured destruction.'"
And, he adds, "if Iran had a bomb, there would be a new balance of power in the Middle East, and the U.S. would be marginalized. Iran would be suicidal to think of dropping a bomb on Israel, and Israel would rethink its policy of not admitting it has nuclear weapons. It would also mean that Iran would not risk giving Hezbollah the green light to attack Israel (from Lebanon) because it would know there could be a nuclear response."
Non-proliferation advocates argue that the only solution to the escalation dilemma, ultimately, is world disarmament and a nuclear-free Middle East. Disarmament has been rejected by the U.S., which has reduced its deadly weapons but continues to advocate the development of new nuclear arms. A nuclear-free region was rejected by Israel, which like India and Pakistan has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty but is widely understood to possess nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Russia and China are showing no sign of eliminating their nuclear arsenals.
While most observers look at the possibility of an Iranian bomb with dismay, a few are beginning to argue that it could be the "shock therapy" that would jolt the Middle East toward eventual nuclear disarmament, and to peace.
"Can we live with a nuclear Iran?" asks Hadar. "Probably. Whether you are a hawk or a dove, you must prepare for a worst-case scenario. Thinking the unthinkable doesn't mean you want it to happen."
Fallout from Tehran's nuclear program
analysis | Experts weigh the chances of a pre-emptive U.S. attack and consider the ramifications of an `Islamic bomb.' By Olivia Ward
Mar. 19, 2006. 01:00 AM
OLIVIA WARD
FEATURE WRITER
Remember "Shock and awe"?
As the standoff over Iran's nuclear ambitions continues, the rhetoric between Tehran and Washington is ratcheting up.
Iran's insistence on its right to pursue a nuclear program it calls peaceful, and the U.S. demand that it cease and desist, have brought the world closer to a confrontation that some fear could be a replay of the invasion of Iraq.
On Thursday, U.S. President George W. Bush reaffirmed his pre-emptive war doctrine, accusing Iran of supporting terrorism. The strategy paper said: "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran."
Iranian nuclear sites are reportedly marked off as targets in a Pentagon war room. John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has warned that the United States would use "all the tools at our disposal" to block Iran's nuclear program. He said the U.S. is "beefing up defensive measures" for retaliation — a hint that Washington may not rule out a pre-emptive strike using nuclear weapons.
But how likely is an attack on Iran? And in a worst-case scenario, if Tehran were able to secretly develop a bomb, would it open the way to atomic Armageddon?
"Our military is spread very thin in Iraq and Afghanistan," says Philip Coyle, a senior adviser to the Washington-based Center for Defense Information and former U.S. assistant secretary of defence. "That's the kind of situation in which defence planners will turn to nuclear weapons."
But others take a much different view.
Pre-emptive strikes have been Bush's national security strategy since 2002, notes American military expert and author William Arkin. Two years later, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved a top-secret "interim global strike alert order," putting the military on alert to attack countries that are developing weapons of mass destruction.
The order is especially aimed at Iran and North Korea, but the kind of planning that would go into a full-scale bombing campaign to end the threat of an Iranian attack — by wiping out dozens of Iranian command-and-control centres, nuclear sites and missile-launching areas — takes years rather than months.
"I reject the media swirl that says an attack is imminent," says Arkin.
"Getting to the point where the military would have an order from the president to hit Iran next week requires enormous amounts of preparation, organization and a worked-out plan for what fighting a nuclear war would mean. The military knows it is not ready for that."
He adds, though, that "this administration is committed to a course of action that it will use force to prevent others from gaining weapons of mass destruction. It has made it very clear they aren't waiting for the mushroom cloud."
But is Iran bent on developing nuclear weapons — putting hard-line clerics in control of what some fear could be an "Islamic bomb?"
In the West, opinion is divided. For some, Washington's misleading allegations about Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program have discredited more recent ones that Tehran is moving its nuclear program along a military path.
For others, Iran's refusal to answer key questions posed by the International Atomic Energy Agency is proof that the claims are correct.
Former IAEA weapons inspector David Albright says Iran has "crossed a well-established red line" by breaking the watchdog agency's seals on some of its nuclear sites and announcing plans to resume uranium enrichment-related activities that would provide the quality of fuel needed for power reactors or nuclear weapons.
But Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, says even if Iran decided to develop deadly weapons, "it won't happen tomorrow. If they began right away with an enrichment plant operating, it would be at least three years away. And there could be problems we don't even know about."
Experts point out that bomb-building on a national scale requires good luck as well as good engineering. Centrifuges used to spin energy-producing uranium 235 away from its heavier and more common variety, U-238, are notoriously breakdown-prone. The IAEA recorded that, in 2004, fewer than half of Iran's 1,140 centrifuges were functional. Iran plans to install some 50,000 in its main enrichment plant at Natanz.
The political motivation for Iran to build a nuclear bomb is powerful, however painstaking the process.
"As long as the U.S. makes it clear they're interested in regime change, it's in the interest of Iran to pursue its own deterrent," says Trita Parsi, a Middle East expert at Johns Hopkins University.
"They may be trying to get the technology and master the fuel cycle because they want the option of weaponizing if the situation deteriorates."
The IAEA continues to call for monitoring of Iran's nuclear program and inspections of its sites and scientific documents, while the U.S. and other Western countries urge putting it on the agenda of the UN Security Council. That could result in sanctions or military action if monitoring were not vetoed by historically reluctant China and Russia.
But, says Houchang Hassan-Yari of the Royal Military College in Kingston, "first we have to establish that Iran is really looking for a nuclear bomb. Many times in the past, the IAEA has said they couldn't find anything incriminating. The whole issue isn't a legal or technical one, it's become political."
Iran has repeatedly denied it is interested in developing nuclear weapons. And, Hassan-Yari points out, it has signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty — unlike India, which was recently rewarded by a nuclear deal with Washington
But fear of an "Islamic bomb" has been fuelled by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's bellicose rhetoric, his denial of the Holocaust and his rabid statements against Israel, urging that it be "wiped off the map."
"The question of the nuclear issue wouldn't be an issue at all if the U.S. hadn't decided to pursue it," argues William Beeman, a professor of anthropology and Middle Eastern Studies at Brown University in Rhode Island, and author of The "Great Satan" vs. the "Mad Mullahs:" How the U.S. and Iran Demonize Each Other.
"The U.S. was the instigator of the nuclear program in the 1970s when it sold Iran its technology. The program has continued since then, so it's disingenuous to suddenly declare it a danger."
Alarm bells have been sounded in the past, but less loudly. In the mid-1990s former secretary of state Warren Christopher declared that "based on a wide variety of data, we know that since the mid-1980s, Iran has had an organized structure dedicated to acquiring and developing nuclear weapons."
But, says Beeman, who has studied Iran for three decades, "there is no weapons program. There is nothing that could threaten the U.S. The main fear is that Iran would want to drop a nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv. That is so far beyond possibility as to make the whole scenario ludicrous."
Arguments against allowing Iran to develop an atomic bomb are legion, and all of them frightening: it would destabilize the Middle East; tip the balance against Muslim moderates and toward extremists; provide "dirty bombs" for Hezbollah and anti-Western militants; entrench Iranian hardliners in power; and pose enormous danger if the country fell into political unrest and revolution.
But some observers point out that Iran may see some justification for developing a bomb.
"The American presence surrounding Iran has not improved security, but rather has put a dagger to Iran's front and back," writes non-proliferation expert George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "If ever a country needs nuclear weapons to deter a stronger adversary it is Iran."
Leon Hadar, author of Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East and a research fellow at the Washington-based Cato Institute, says the fear of an Iranian bomb is overblown.
And, he adds, looking at the question historically, there may be points in its favour.
"If you go back to when China exploded its first bomb, the reactions in the American press looked like the end of the world had come.
"China was ruled at that time by ideological fanatics who were every day reiterating their plans to destroy the West. But in the end it created a triangle of relationships that contained the Soviet Union, which was already armed with nuclear weapons."
When Pakistan set off five nuclear tests in 1998, it was also greeted with horror.
However, Pakistan's relations with its nuclear rival, India, thawed in the aftermath of the blast, and there was new agreement over the territorial issue of Kashmir. The two countries pulled back from the brink of war.
That, says Hadar, is the stabilizing effect of nuclear parity.
"I don't advocate nuclear weapons. But in the case of Iran one can see that if there were an Iranian bomb, Israel and Iran would be forced to communicate, to avoid what used to be called `mutual assured destruction.'"
And, he adds, "if Iran had a bomb, there would be a new balance of power in the Middle East, and the U.S. would be marginalized. Iran would be suicidal to think of dropping a bomb on Israel, and Israel would rethink its policy of not admitting it has nuclear weapons. It would also mean that Iran would not risk giving Hezbollah the green light to attack Israel (from Lebanon) because it would know there could be a nuclear response."
Non-proliferation advocates argue that the only solution to the escalation dilemma, ultimately, is world disarmament and a nuclear-free Middle East. Disarmament has been rejected by the U.S., which has reduced its deadly weapons but continues to advocate the development of new nuclear arms. A nuclear-free region was rejected by Israel, which like India and Pakistan has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty but is widely understood to possess nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Russia and China are showing no sign of eliminating their nuclear arsenals.
While most observers look at the possibility of an Iranian bomb with dismay, a few are beginning to argue that it could be the "shock therapy" that would jolt the Middle East toward eventual nuclear disarmament, and to peace.
"Can we live with a nuclear Iran?" asks Hadar. "Probably. Whether you are a hawk or a dove, you must prepare for a worst-case scenario. Thinking the unthinkable doesn't mean you want it to happen."
Saturday, March 11, 2006
O'Reilly: Mass Murder is the "Sane Thing to Do" :: from www.uruknet.info :: news from occupied Iraq - ch
O'Reilly: Mass Murder is the "Sane Thing to Do" :: from www.uruknet.info :: news from occupied Iraq - ch: "March 10, 2006
March 10, 2006
by Kurt Nimmo
It is now obvious—Fox News loud-mouth Bill O’Reilly is a dangerous sociopath. He should be removed immediately from both television and radio.
"You know, in a sane world, every country would unite against Iran and blow it off the face of the earth. That would be the sane thing to do, just go in and remove the government, because this is a terrorist state," said Bill on his radio program a couple days ago. In Bushzarro world, it is sane to kill hundreds of thousands of people, it is normal to invade countries predicated on nothing more than lies, dissimulation, and fabrication.
Because Fox News (and the rest of the corporate media) tell us over and over (ad nauseam) Iran has nukes, this does not make it so—in fact, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency and its director general Mohamed ElBaradei, there is "no evidence" that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.
It is well-known—for those who pay attention—that the whole Iranian nuke ruse began with accusations made by Alireza Jafarzadeh, spokesman for the cultish and Marxist Mujahedin-e-Khalq, officially listed by the State Department as a terrorist group. O’Reilly may even have Jafarzadeh’s name and number in his rolodex because Jafarzadeh works as an "independent" Iran analyst for Fox News.
On August 14, 2002, Jafarzadeh told the world about the existence of a uranium enrichment facility in Natanz and a heavy water facility in Arak.
As it turns out, the plant at Natanz was idle as a result of Russia canceling a deal to sell a turn-key gas-centrifuge plant, and the Arak heavy water facility is more or less useless. In fact, these facilities are not violations of the NPT and Iran is fully within its right to have them. Moreover, Iran’s uranium enrichment program is not a violation of the NPT, although in Bushzarro world the very mention of "Iran" and "uranium enrichment" in the same sentence means the evil mullahs are about to nuke Israel—or school kids in Poughkeepsie.
For Iran, it’s all a matter of national pride.
According to William O. Beeman, Brown University’s Middle East Studies program professor, Iran wants "to be known and seen as a modern, developing state with a modern, developing industrial base. The history of relations between Iran and the West for the last hundred years has included Iran’s developing various kinds of industrial and technological advances to prove to themselves—and to attempt to prove to the world—that they are, in fact, that kind of country…. When Iranians talk about it, and talk about the United States, they say, 'The United States is trying to repress us; they’re trying to keep us down and keep us backward, make us a second-class nation. And we have the ability to develop a nuclear industry, and we’re being told we’re not good enough, or we can’t.’ And this makes people furious—not just the clerical establishment, but this makes the person on the street, even 16- and 17-year-olds, absolutely boil with anger. It is such an emotional issue that absolutely no politician could ever back down on this question."
More than likely, the oafish Bill O’Reilly knows nothing about Iran or its national pride.
For O’Reilly and millions of his seriously deluded listeners and viewers, Iran is an amorphous blob ruled by evil mullahs. He does not think about what the result would be if the United States bombed Iran "off the face of the earth," he apparently does not care that such an action would result in thousands of dead people—a few mullahs, but mostly innocent men, women, and children.
O’Reilly has not thought through the consequences—more depleted uranium released into the atmosphere, resulting in more cancer and birth defects—or maybe he has thought through the consequences and simply does not give a damn. Maybe his reptilian brain has the best of him. In fact, I’d bet on it.
Bill O’Reilly is a dangerous sociopath.
If O’Reilly wasn’t on television and the radio, spreading his misanthropic hate-mongering, demonstrating his fear of those outside the scope of his understanding, it wouldn’t be a big deal—there are plenty of sociopaths loose in the world and they usually only harm a small number of people. But O’Reilly has access to millions of people, as does another dangerous sociopath, Michael "Savage" Weiner. Both ooze hatred and the desire to make people suffer. Remarkably, both are popular here in Bushzarro world, millions of people tune in and nod their heads in agreement.
In America, we like our hate-mongering sociopaths so much we allowed a bunch of them to take over the government.
It’s going to be difficult as hell to get them out of there.
:: Article nr. 21427 sent on 11-mar-2006 04:43 ECT
:: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=21427
:: The incoming address of this article is :
kurtnimmo.com/?p=281
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .
March 10, 2006
by Kurt Nimmo
It is now obvious—Fox News loud-mouth Bill O’Reilly is a dangerous sociopath. He should be removed immediately from both television and radio.
"You know, in a sane world, every country would unite against Iran and blow it off the face of the earth. That would be the sane thing to do, just go in and remove the government, because this is a terrorist state," said Bill on his radio program a couple days ago. In Bushzarro world, it is sane to kill hundreds of thousands of people, it is normal to invade countries predicated on nothing more than lies, dissimulation, and fabrication.
Because Fox News (and the rest of the corporate media) tell us over and over (ad nauseam) Iran has nukes, this does not make it so—in fact, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency and its director general Mohamed ElBaradei, there is "no evidence" that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.
It is well-known—for those who pay attention—that the whole Iranian nuke ruse began with accusations made by Alireza Jafarzadeh, spokesman for the cultish and Marxist Mujahedin-e-Khalq, officially listed by the State Department as a terrorist group. O’Reilly may even have Jafarzadeh’s name and number in his rolodex because Jafarzadeh works as an "independent" Iran analyst for Fox News.
On August 14, 2002, Jafarzadeh told the world about the existence of a uranium enrichment facility in Natanz and a heavy water facility in Arak.
As it turns out, the plant at Natanz was idle as a result of Russia canceling a deal to sell a turn-key gas-centrifuge plant, and the Arak heavy water facility is more or less useless. In fact, these facilities are not violations of the NPT and Iran is fully within its right to have them. Moreover, Iran’s uranium enrichment program is not a violation of the NPT, although in Bushzarro world the very mention of "Iran" and "uranium enrichment" in the same sentence means the evil mullahs are about to nuke Israel—or school kids in Poughkeepsie.
For Iran, it’s all a matter of national pride.
According to William O. Beeman, Brown University’s Middle East Studies program professor, Iran wants "to be known and seen as a modern, developing state with a modern, developing industrial base. The history of relations between Iran and the West for the last hundred years has included Iran’s developing various kinds of industrial and technological advances to prove to themselves—and to attempt to prove to the world—that they are, in fact, that kind of country…. When Iranians talk about it, and talk about the United States, they say, 'The United States is trying to repress us; they’re trying to keep us down and keep us backward, make us a second-class nation. And we have the ability to develop a nuclear industry, and we’re being told we’re not good enough, or we can’t.’ And this makes people furious—not just the clerical establishment, but this makes the person on the street, even 16- and 17-year-olds, absolutely boil with anger. It is such an emotional issue that absolutely no politician could ever back down on this question."
More than likely, the oafish Bill O’Reilly knows nothing about Iran or its national pride.
For O’Reilly and millions of his seriously deluded listeners and viewers, Iran is an amorphous blob ruled by evil mullahs. He does not think about what the result would be if the United States bombed Iran "off the face of the earth," he apparently does not care that such an action would result in thousands of dead people—a few mullahs, but mostly innocent men, women, and children.
O’Reilly has not thought through the consequences—more depleted uranium released into the atmosphere, resulting in more cancer and birth defects—or maybe he has thought through the consequences and simply does not give a damn. Maybe his reptilian brain has the best of him. In fact, I’d bet on it.
Bill O’Reilly is a dangerous sociopath.
If O’Reilly wasn’t on television and the radio, spreading his misanthropic hate-mongering, demonstrating his fear of those outside the scope of his understanding, it wouldn’t be a big deal—there are plenty of sociopaths loose in the world and they usually only harm a small number of people. But O’Reilly has access to millions of people, as does another dangerous sociopath, Michael "Savage" Weiner. Both ooze hatred and the desire to make people suffer. Remarkably, both are popular here in Bushzarro world, millions of people tune in and nod their heads in agreement.
In America, we like our hate-mongering sociopaths so much we allowed a bunch of them to take over the government.
It’s going to be difficult as hell to get them out of there.
:: Article nr. 21427 sent on 11-mar-2006 04:43 ECT
:: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=21427
:: The incoming address of this article is :
kurtnimmo.com/?p=281
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
