Pacific News Service > News > Iran and U.S. Locked Into Spiral Conflict -- Last Refuge of Weak Leaders
Iran and U.S. Locked Into Spiral Conflict -- Last Refuge of Weak Leaders
Commentary/Analysis, William O. Beeman,
New America Media, Apr 13, 2006
Editor's Note: The venomous rhetoric between the U.S. and Iran is largely a drama staged by weak leaders looking for a political boost -- which doesn't make it any less dangerous. New America Media contributor William O. Beeman is professor of anthropology and Middle East studies at Brown University. He is author of "The 'Great Satan' vs. the 'Mad Mullahs': How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other."
PROVIDENCE, R.I.--Just when it seemed impossible for relations between the United States and Iran to get any worse, they have deteriorated once again. The rhetoric and counter-rhetoric over Iran's nuclear program sounds serious and substantive. However, a little reflection reveals this situation for what it is: a continuing piece of high-stakes political theatre that principally benefits the leaders of both nations by shoring up their lagging political fortunes.
It would be easy to dismiss this absurd scenario if the consequences were not potentially so ominous.
Both the Bush administration and the Iranian clerical regime are reeling from historic low support figures from their constituent populations. United States politicians know that attacking Iran is a sure-fire political winner with the American public. Iran has become America's all-purpose bogeyman. Foolish declarations, such as the State Department assertion that Iran is America's "greatest security threat" are received uncritically by voters throughout the nation. Similarly in Iran, the United States can be freely demonized without serious question. The leaders of the Islamic republic regularly blame the United States for their own failings in managing economic development, border control and corruption.
The issue the two sides have seized upon for the last three years is Iran's nuclear development program. For U.S. politicians, nothing gets the attention of the American public more reliably than the threat of nuclear weapons being deployed against the United States. This frightening prospect was effective in convincing the nation to support the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Merely suggesting that Iran poses a nuclear danger is enough to convince many Americans that the suggestion is based on fact.
For Iran, the fact that the United States has led an international campaign to halt its 35-year-old nuclear energy development program -- a program started with American blessing -- is an affront to national pride. Indeed, the specter of violent military attacks on Iran from the United States or Israel if Iran does not stop uranium enrichment is met by defiance from Iran, where the enrichment program continues unabated. As Iran's U.N. ambassador, Javad Zarif declared before the United Nations Security Council on March 29, "Pressures and threats do not work for Iran. Iran is allergic to pressure and threats and intimidation." Consistent reports from Iran state that even Iranians who are opposed to their own government support continued nuclear energy development.
The ominous rhetoric from both sides masks the weakness of both nations' positions.
U.S. and British officials when pressed admit there is no hard evidence that an Iranian nuclear weapons development program exists. They also admit that Iran's nuclear energy development program is their right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran (but not Israel, Pakistan or India) is a signatory. Moreover, Seymour Hersh, writing in the New Yorker about U.S. plans for military strikes against Iran, emphasizes that high-raking U.S. military advisors oppose the idea of any kind of military action against Iran's widespread nuclear development laboratories as impractical, ineffective and likely to create a greater problem than it would solve.
Iran's posturing, which included an amusing set of festivities on April 11 with folkloric performers dancing while hoisting vials of enriched uranium against the backdrop of hundreds of flying white doves, conceals the fact that Iran is years away from producing enough nuclear fuel to power a generator, much less in the quantity and purity level that would allow it to construct a nuclear weapon. However, that has not stopped Iran from showing off a new set of conventional weapons designed to counter an American attack.
This makes American and Iranian assertions and counter-assertions appear rather ridiculous. Indeed, the danger in this situation could be dismissed if there were other leaders in power. However, in both nations the leadership needs this conflict. President Bush and the Republican party face defeat in November without an issue to galvanize the voting public behind their assertion that they are best able to protect the United States from attack -- the only point on which they have outscored Democrats in recent polls. President Ahmadinejad also needs public support for his domestic political agenda -- an agenda that is paradoxically opposed by a large number of the ruling clerics in Iran. Every time he makes a defiant assertion against the United States, the public rallies behind him.
This creates what political scientist Richard Cottam termed a "spiral conflict" in which both parties escalate each other's extreme positions to new heights. It is entirely possible that Iran could goad President Bush into a disastrous military action, and that action would result in an equally disastrous Iranian reaction.
The resulting conflagration would likely engulf the region, and then the world.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Monday, March 27, 2006
Lost in translation - Miguel Guanipa
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.
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.
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 .
Sunday, February 19, 2006
MercuryNews.com | 02/19/2006 | No easy way out of dangerous face-off: Iran decided long ago on nucler future
MercuryNews.com | 02/19/2006 | No easy way out of dangerous face-off: Iran decided long ago on nucler future
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/editorial/13911354.htm
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS
Sun, Feb. 19, 2006, page 1P (Perspective)
WARNING SIGNS
No easy way out of dangerous face-off: Iran decided long ago on nucler future
By William O. Beeman
Despite the Bush administration's apparent success in reporting the question of Iran's nuclear program to the United Nations Security Council, few believe that this action alone will deter Iran from continuing its pursuit of nuclear development.
Military options against Iran, meanwhile, may not be ``off the table'' but are proving increasingly impractical, in part, because our troops are bogged down in Iraq. So the Bush administration appears to be trying a new tack: If force won't work, perhaps persuasion will.
The administration's idea appears to be to convince the Iranian people that their nation would be better off without a nuclear program, peaceful or not. Iranian citizens would presumably persuade their leaders that international good will is more important than nuclear development, or better yet from a Washington perspective, change their leadership altogether.
Wednesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked the Senate to allocate tens of millions of dollars to help promote political change inside Iran by subsidizing dissident groups and reformers who the administration surely hopes would be more easily convinced to drop their country's nuclear program.
Here's the rub. Many Iranians view their nuclear program -- which they believe to be for peaceful energy purposes -- as a source of great national pride and of future economic growth.
Behind American concern about Iran's nuclear program is the belief that Iran is developing nuclear weapons to attack Israel. Pronouncements by Iran's newly elected president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have added to these concerns.
Ahmadinejad's calls for the elimination of the ``Zionist regime,'' and his declarations that European powers should have been responsible for rectifying the Holocaust rather than ``making Palestinians pay the price'' for that cataclysm, have sounded alarms throughout the world. His inflammatory rhetoric no doubt helped persuade France, Germany and Britain to finally agree with the longtime U.S. request to report Iran's case to the United Nations even as Russia continues to try to work out a compromise.
Rhetorical excesses
Iranians are still in the process of assessing their new president. Their principal concerns have to do with his rhetorical excesses, which thoughtful Iranians see as having damaged Iran's international reputation.
However, they are quite clear in what they think about his support for their nation's nuclear program. Although there is no accurate polling data, my interviews with Iranian citizens of all economic and social strata over two decades verify that they think the program is good for their country -- a feeling that is echoed in numerous recent international press reports from Iran.
In fact, Iranian public support for the nuclear energy program goes beyond merely thinking it is a good idea; the program has deep symbolic significance for them. Iranians view the development of nuclear energy as a hallmark of modernization and national pride. It is the latest development in a long history of industrialization efforts starting in the 19th century designed to demonstrate to the world that Iran is a progressive and capable society, able to keep pace with the most advanced nations on earth.
Iranians point out that nuclear energy makes profound economic sense for their nation. The nuclear energy program aims to use the nation's own uranium resources.
More important, nuclear energy development would allow Iran to husband its natural gas resources that are currently being exhausted for electricity generation, but that could much more profitably be exported to growing industrial markets such as China and India.
Indeed, the United States supported Iran's switching over to nuclear energy under our ally Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in good part so that Iran's oil and natural gas would be preserved.
Iranians, annoyed that that history is being ignored, correctly note that ``nuclear technology transfer'' was encouraged by both American government and American industry in the 1970s. President Gerald Ford offered Iran a full nuclear fuel cycle in 1976, and American nuclear plant manufacturers touted their wares at exhibitions and trade fares in Tehran.
The Iranian people also look with a jaundiced eye at the United States' motivations for pressing the world community to curtail Iran's nuclear energy development at this time and believe it to be the Bush administration's excuse to continue its promotion of ``regime change'' in the Middle East.
U.S. officials' opposition to Iran's nuclear development is seen by Iranians as a convenient pretext designed to frighten the world into a pre-emptive attack against the Islamic Republic.
Of all the reasons for pressing on with a nuclear program, the importance of the development of nuclear energy as an emanation of national pride and strength is the most powerful for the Iranian population.
Engineering and medicine are the premier professions in Iran. The best and brightest of Iranian youth dream of studying at the superb technological universities in the country.
And the development of nuclear energy would arguably be the premier accomplishment of Iranian engineers. It would prove that they can function, without help, on an international scale in advancing their country's technological and industrial base.
Along with the desire to achieve technological excellence, Iranians are also seething with ambition to achieve technological independence from the Western world. The industrial revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries brought about Western dominance of the Middle East.
In the 20th century, the two great world wars combined with internal political strife to cripple the Iranian government at crucial junctures, throwing the nation even further into dependency on the West.
The reign of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi brought enormous, though short-lived, prosperity to the nation, but that prosperity was based on the sale of oil to the industrialized world and was superficial. The shah's government was profoundly unsuccessful in using that money to create other sources of wealth needed to transform Iran into the great world power desired by its people.
One of the reasons for this failure was the flawed partnership between the shah's government and the West. European and American industry was happy to cooperate with Iran in industrialization schemes, but these programs never provided Iran with the capacity for basic manufacturing. Industrial operations were largely turnkey assembly facilities designed to supply goods for internal Iranian consumption, with no possibility for export.
For this reason, Tehran's leaders began working with the Soviet Union and Japan in the 1970s to develop the basic industries they felt Iran needed to be a successful state. They developed a steel mill with the Soviet Union in Isfahan at enormous public cost and a petroleum refinery with Mitsui.
That history helps explain why Tehran is resisting a plan, suggested by Britain, Germany and France, that would allow Iran to have nuclear plants if Russia conducts the process to provide the enriched uranium to run the reactors and then repossesses the spent fuel rods.
That would alleviate outside fears that Iran would misuse its energy program to create nuclear weapons, but it smacks of the neo-colonial ``assembly industry'' so despised by the revolutionary forces in 1978-79.
Moreover, the insistence on the part of the West that Iran abandon full control of the fuel process is seen as a reneging on promises made by the United States and Europe to Iran's pre-revolutionary leaders.
Although Americans may see Iran as a different place after the revolution, Iranians see their civilization as a continuum. Pre-revolution or post-revolution, nuclear energy is seen as a matter of both pride and of benefit for the Iranian people.
The one nuclear power plant likely to be in operation soon is a tribute to this pride. The facility at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf Coast was developed with the Soviet Union, and later, with Russia.
It was conceived and started in the 1970s with the blessing of the United States. It was specifically designed to produce energy only, with no practical possibility for the production of weapons-grade nuclear material.
The plutonium isotope plutonium-239 is required for nuclear weapons manufacturing. A ``light water'' reactor, the Bushehr plant produces the isotopes plutonium-240, plutonium-241 and plutonium-242. Although these isotopes could theoretically be weaponized, the process is complicated, and more important, untried.
Behind nuclear fears
What worries nuclear experts more than a nuclear power plant itself is Iran's ability to make weapons-grade materials if it has full control over a nuclear power program.
There are two ways for Iran to get that material:
• One is to have what appears to be a peaceful uranium-enrichment program to make fuel for reactors, but that same program can be used to produce highly enriched uranium which is weapons-grade material.
• The second way is to build reactors that, unlike the one at Bushehr, produce a byproduct in fuel rods which, if processed, becomes weapons-grade plutonium.
Although some International Atomic Energy Agency evidence appears to indicate Iran is intent on using its nuclear program to make bombs, experts disagree about how definitive that evidence is.
That lack of clarity and Iran's history should give U.S. and European policy makers pause as they consider options to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons, if that is truly the country's intent despite its statements to the contrary.
Economic sanctions against Iran, which could be imposed by the United Nations, would almost surely strengthen Iranian resolve to move forward with the nuclear program. And a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities -- a plan that both the United States and Israel have considered -- is unlikely to make the world safer.
Attacking the Bushehr plant would do nothing to prevent nuclear weapons development, since the plant is unlikely to produce weapons fuel. And U.S. military experts agree that an attack on Iran's other facilities would have little prospect of completely destroying Iran's nuclear bomb-making potential. While the world knows where some of Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities are, the fear is that integral parts of the program have been hidden.
The most certain outcome of an American or Israeli attack against Iran will be the white-hot fury of the Iranian people -- a fury that will be echoed throughout the region.
Iranians have a keen sense of honor, gheirat, and when national honor and pride are attacked, particularly when they believe the attack is unjustified, an explosive, angry reaction is culturally required.
Americans have seen angry Iranians before, to the detriment of the United States; but they have not seen anything as vitriolic as the probable Iranian reaction to an American assault on their soil.
________________________________________
WILLIAM O. BEEMAN is professor of anthropology and Middle East studies at Brown University. He is author of ``The `Great Satan' vs. the `Mad Mullahs': How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other.'' He wrote this article for Perspective.
________________________________________
© 2006 MercuryNews.com and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.mercurynews.com
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/editorial/13911354.htm
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS
Sun, Feb. 19, 2006, page 1P (Perspective)
WARNING SIGNS
No easy way out of dangerous face-off: Iran decided long ago on nucler future
By William O. Beeman
Despite the Bush administration's apparent success in reporting the question of Iran's nuclear program to the United Nations Security Council, few believe that this action alone will deter Iran from continuing its pursuit of nuclear development.
Military options against Iran, meanwhile, may not be ``off the table'' but are proving increasingly impractical, in part, because our troops are bogged down in Iraq. So the Bush administration appears to be trying a new tack: If force won't work, perhaps persuasion will.
The administration's idea appears to be to convince the Iranian people that their nation would be better off without a nuclear program, peaceful or not. Iranian citizens would presumably persuade their leaders that international good will is more important than nuclear development, or better yet from a Washington perspective, change their leadership altogether.
Wednesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked the Senate to allocate tens of millions of dollars to help promote political change inside Iran by subsidizing dissident groups and reformers who the administration surely hopes would be more easily convinced to drop their country's nuclear program.
Here's the rub. Many Iranians view their nuclear program -- which they believe to be for peaceful energy purposes -- as a source of great national pride and of future economic growth.
Behind American concern about Iran's nuclear program is the belief that Iran is developing nuclear weapons to attack Israel. Pronouncements by Iran's newly elected president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have added to these concerns.
Ahmadinejad's calls for the elimination of the ``Zionist regime,'' and his declarations that European powers should have been responsible for rectifying the Holocaust rather than ``making Palestinians pay the price'' for that cataclysm, have sounded alarms throughout the world. His inflammatory rhetoric no doubt helped persuade France, Germany and Britain to finally agree with the longtime U.S. request to report Iran's case to the United Nations even as Russia continues to try to work out a compromise.
Rhetorical excesses
Iranians are still in the process of assessing their new president. Their principal concerns have to do with his rhetorical excesses, which thoughtful Iranians see as having damaged Iran's international reputation.
However, they are quite clear in what they think about his support for their nation's nuclear program. Although there is no accurate polling data, my interviews with Iranian citizens of all economic and social strata over two decades verify that they think the program is good for their country -- a feeling that is echoed in numerous recent international press reports from Iran.
In fact, Iranian public support for the nuclear energy program goes beyond merely thinking it is a good idea; the program has deep symbolic significance for them. Iranians view the development of nuclear energy as a hallmark of modernization and national pride. It is the latest development in a long history of industrialization efforts starting in the 19th century designed to demonstrate to the world that Iran is a progressive and capable society, able to keep pace with the most advanced nations on earth.
Iranians point out that nuclear energy makes profound economic sense for their nation. The nuclear energy program aims to use the nation's own uranium resources.
More important, nuclear energy development would allow Iran to husband its natural gas resources that are currently being exhausted for electricity generation, but that could much more profitably be exported to growing industrial markets such as China and India.
Indeed, the United States supported Iran's switching over to nuclear energy under our ally Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in good part so that Iran's oil and natural gas would be preserved.
Iranians, annoyed that that history is being ignored, correctly note that ``nuclear technology transfer'' was encouraged by both American government and American industry in the 1970s. President Gerald Ford offered Iran a full nuclear fuel cycle in 1976, and American nuclear plant manufacturers touted their wares at exhibitions and trade fares in Tehran.
The Iranian people also look with a jaundiced eye at the United States' motivations for pressing the world community to curtail Iran's nuclear energy development at this time and believe it to be the Bush administration's excuse to continue its promotion of ``regime change'' in the Middle East.
U.S. officials' opposition to Iran's nuclear development is seen by Iranians as a convenient pretext designed to frighten the world into a pre-emptive attack against the Islamic Republic.
Of all the reasons for pressing on with a nuclear program, the importance of the development of nuclear energy as an emanation of national pride and strength is the most powerful for the Iranian population.
Engineering and medicine are the premier professions in Iran. The best and brightest of Iranian youth dream of studying at the superb technological universities in the country.
And the development of nuclear energy would arguably be the premier accomplishment of Iranian engineers. It would prove that they can function, without help, on an international scale in advancing their country's technological and industrial base.
Along with the desire to achieve technological excellence, Iranians are also seething with ambition to achieve technological independence from the Western world. The industrial revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries brought about Western dominance of the Middle East.
In the 20th century, the two great world wars combined with internal political strife to cripple the Iranian government at crucial junctures, throwing the nation even further into dependency on the West.
The reign of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi brought enormous, though short-lived, prosperity to the nation, but that prosperity was based on the sale of oil to the industrialized world and was superficial. The shah's government was profoundly unsuccessful in using that money to create other sources of wealth needed to transform Iran into the great world power desired by its people.
One of the reasons for this failure was the flawed partnership between the shah's government and the West. European and American industry was happy to cooperate with Iran in industrialization schemes, but these programs never provided Iran with the capacity for basic manufacturing. Industrial operations were largely turnkey assembly facilities designed to supply goods for internal Iranian consumption, with no possibility for export.
For this reason, Tehran's leaders began working with the Soviet Union and Japan in the 1970s to develop the basic industries they felt Iran needed to be a successful state. They developed a steel mill with the Soviet Union in Isfahan at enormous public cost and a petroleum refinery with Mitsui.
That history helps explain why Tehran is resisting a plan, suggested by Britain, Germany and France, that would allow Iran to have nuclear plants if Russia conducts the process to provide the enriched uranium to run the reactors and then repossesses the spent fuel rods.
That would alleviate outside fears that Iran would misuse its energy program to create nuclear weapons, but it smacks of the neo-colonial ``assembly industry'' so despised by the revolutionary forces in 1978-79.
Moreover, the insistence on the part of the West that Iran abandon full control of the fuel process is seen as a reneging on promises made by the United States and Europe to Iran's pre-revolutionary leaders.
Although Americans may see Iran as a different place after the revolution, Iranians see their civilization as a continuum. Pre-revolution or post-revolution, nuclear energy is seen as a matter of both pride and of benefit for the Iranian people.
The one nuclear power plant likely to be in operation soon is a tribute to this pride. The facility at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf Coast was developed with the Soviet Union, and later, with Russia.
It was conceived and started in the 1970s with the blessing of the United States. It was specifically designed to produce energy only, with no practical possibility for the production of weapons-grade nuclear material.
The plutonium isotope plutonium-239 is required for nuclear weapons manufacturing. A ``light water'' reactor, the Bushehr plant produces the isotopes plutonium-240, plutonium-241 and plutonium-242. Although these isotopes could theoretically be weaponized, the process is complicated, and more important, untried.
Behind nuclear fears
What worries nuclear experts more than a nuclear power plant itself is Iran's ability to make weapons-grade materials if it has full control over a nuclear power program.
There are two ways for Iran to get that material:
• One is to have what appears to be a peaceful uranium-enrichment program to make fuel for reactors, but that same program can be used to produce highly enriched uranium which is weapons-grade material.
• The second way is to build reactors that, unlike the one at Bushehr, produce a byproduct in fuel rods which, if processed, becomes weapons-grade plutonium.
Although some International Atomic Energy Agency evidence appears to indicate Iran is intent on using its nuclear program to make bombs, experts disagree about how definitive that evidence is.
That lack of clarity and Iran's history should give U.S. and European policy makers pause as they consider options to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons, if that is truly the country's intent despite its statements to the contrary.
Economic sanctions against Iran, which could be imposed by the United Nations, would almost surely strengthen Iranian resolve to move forward with the nuclear program. And a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities -- a plan that both the United States and Israel have considered -- is unlikely to make the world safer.
Attacking the Bushehr plant would do nothing to prevent nuclear weapons development, since the plant is unlikely to produce weapons fuel. And U.S. military experts agree that an attack on Iran's other facilities would have little prospect of completely destroying Iran's nuclear bomb-making potential. While the world knows where some of Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities are, the fear is that integral parts of the program have been hidden.
The most certain outcome of an American or Israeli attack against Iran will be the white-hot fury of the Iranian people -- a fury that will be echoed throughout the region.
Iranians have a keen sense of honor, gheirat, and when national honor and pride are attacked, particularly when they believe the attack is unjustified, an explosive, angry reaction is culturally required.
Americans have seen angry Iranians before, to the detriment of the United States; but they have not seen anything as vitriolic as the probable Iranian reaction to an American assault on their soil.
________________________________________
WILLIAM O. BEEMAN is professor of anthropology and Middle East studies at Brown University. He is author of ``The `Great Satan' vs. the `Mad Mullahs': How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other.'' He wrote this article for Perspective.
________________________________________
© 2006 MercuryNews.com and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.mercurynews.com
Friday, February 17, 2006
Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs
Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs
Funding regime change
By Iason Athanasiadis
TEHRAN - Washington's latest policy of putting more pressure on Iran through securing additional funding for "democracy-promoting" activities inside Iran has been greeted with official and popular rejection, even open derision, in Tehran.
"I think the Americans have no idea of what they're talking about," said Mamak Nourbaksh, a teacher of English literature. "No one is going to touch them [the funds], no one will work with them."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's request for extra funds marks a nearly eightfold increase in the US government's current
expenditure on Iran and signals the beginning of a new period of concerted diplomatic pressure by the United States against Iran, a country that President George W Bush included in his infamous "axis of evil" speech in 2002.
In seeking an additional US$75 million from the US Congress to fund Iranian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that promote democracy, human rights and trade unionism, Rice is broadening the range of non-military options at Washington's disposal to weaken from within Tehran's clerical regime.
Of the new outlay, $50 million will go toward Farsi radio broadcasts; another $15 million is earmarked for increasing participation in the political process, including measures such as expanded Internet access. The Bush administration hopes to spend $5 million to fund scholarships and fellowships for young Iranians, and the State Department said $5 million "would go to public diplomacy efforts aimed at Iran, including its Persian-language website".
"The United States will actively confront the aggressive policies of the Iranian regime," Rice said. "At the same time, we will work to support the aspirations of the Iranian people for freedom and democracy in their country."
Such pronouncements are greeted with open skepticism by ordinary Iranians who have seen the infrastructure of neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan sustain significant blows by US invasions, after which they have lagged far behind the touted recovery schedules. Iranians also have not forgotten the support offered by Washington to their arch-enemy Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.
One of the militantly anti-clerical-regime groups that could stand to benefit from the new windfall is the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), a Marxist-Islamist organization that is hated within Iran because it sided with the Iraqi dictator against Iran during the eight-year Iran-Iraq War.
The MEK has been registered by the State Department as a terrorist organization for the past 10 years, but now neo-conservative factions of the Bush administration are lobbying hard to remove it from the list. Should the MEK end up benefiting from US pro-democracy largesse, it would send a clear message to people inside Iran that Washington funds groups that engage in terrorist activity. Some reports quote unidentified US officials as saying that the MEK would not receive any of the new funds.
"Most of the groups which will be suckling from this new taxpayer teat include designated terrorist organizations such as the MEK and ancien regime agonists, all with their own agendas which are not limited to outreach to Iranians, as these groups have little if any traction or credibility in Iran today," said Donald Weadon, an international lawyer specializing in Iran.
As much as $50 million of the planned allocation is directed at media planning, with the stated intention of extending the government-run Voice of America's Farsi service from a few hours a day to around-the-clock coverage. But the idea that Iranians would turn more pro-US if only they had access to free media belies the reality that, unlike Saddam-era Iraq, in Iran the people already have relatively unrestricted access to satellite stations and news on the Internet.
"If the Danish cartoons and most recent Abu Ghraib pictures are timed to promote another war in the Mideast and inculcate the 'clash of civilizations' mindset in the public," said Cyrus Safdari, an independent Iranian analyst, "then Madame Rice has a really bad sense of timing in seeking to 'reach out to the people of Iran' - who don't need $75 million to watch ... 'a few bad apples' from the US torturing people in Abu Ghraib."
Nevertheless, the announcement comes at a time when an increasing amount of evidence points toward the fact that the Iranian government is cracking down on access to information. The British Broadcasting Corp's popular Persian-language service has been blocked after the Iranian government accused the British Foreign Ministry-funded medium of being anti-Iranian. And many Farsi dailies have switched to a more nationalistic, less critical coverage of the government after the Danish-cartoon protests and the concomitant polarization.
"If the money goes to improve and expand VOA's Persian service, this would also be money well spent," said Professor William Beeman, an Iran specialist at Brown University. "However, Sam Brownback's $3 million [1] appears to have been sucked up by private parties with no possibility of public oversight.
"As a taxpayer, I would certainly object to more money being spent in this way - particularly if it goes to private commercial broadcasters where there is no open accountability as to operational activities or content. This would be a deeply irresponsible use of US public funds," Beeman said.
The US has a history of covert operations aimed at destabilizing the Tehran regime that went awry. In 1980, eight US commandos were killed at the beginning of an operation to rescue American diplomatic hostages held by the new revolutionary regime in the US Embassy in Tehran. After a US airplane and helicopter crashed, it was decided to call off the mission, but not before holding hostage for three hours 44 Iranians whose bus had stumbled on the scene.
More recently, in 1996, an $18 million covert action aimed at unseating the government of then-president Hashemi Rafsanjani had its secret cover blown even before it started. Washington insiders, concerned at the potentially disastrous effects it would have, leaked the story to the mainstream press, prompting a furious backlash from the authorities in Tehran, which authorized a $20 million counteroffensive.
Washington's new initiative might end up backfiring and contribute to the further stifling of civil society in Iran, if experience can be trusted. NGOs are regarded suspiciously by the Iranian government and are often accused of being agents of foreign influence.
Rice failed to make clear how the funds would be disbursed to groups inside Iran, given that Washington has lacked a direct diplomatic presence in Tehran for the past 26 years.
Some American analysts have also reacted with skepticism at the initiative, pointing out that it may be a case of too little too late. "One suspects there are no shortage of potential Iranian Chalabis [2] ready to set themselves up in a nice apartment in London's West End with some copiers and fax machines and the requisite bank accounts to reap the windfall," said James Russell, a senior lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate School's department of national security affairs.
Despite other secret efforts the US Central Intelligence Agency has mounted in recent years, including a $2 million campaign in 1995 based largely on radio broadcasts denouncing the clerical regime, the CIA's analysts see little hope of creating a new generation of pro-Washington leaders for Iran.
Notes
1. Senator Sam Brownback, as chairman of a US Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee, successfully campaigned for a $3 million appropriation for 2005, mandated by Congress, to help pro-democracy activists inside Iran. This was in addition to the approximately $10 million annually allocated for such activities.
2. Ahmad Chalabi, an Iraqi exile, received millions of dollars from the US while being courted as a possible successor to Saddam Hussein.
Iason Athanasiadis is an Iran-based correspondent.
(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing .)
Funding regime change
By Iason Athanasiadis
TEHRAN - Washington's latest policy of putting more pressure on Iran through securing additional funding for "democracy-promoting" activities inside Iran has been greeted with official and popular rejection, even open derision, in Tehran.
"I think the Americans have no idea of what they're talking about," said Mamak Nourbaksh, a teacher of English literature. "No one is going to touch them [the funds], no one will work with them."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's request for extra funds marks a nearly eightfold increase in the US government's current
expenditure on Iran and signals the beginning of a new period of concerted diplomatic pressure by the United States against Iran, a country that President George W Bush included in his infamous "axis of evil" speech in 2002.
In seeking an additional US$75 million from the US Congress to fund Iranian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that promote democracy, human rights and trade unionism, Rice is broadening the range of non-military options at Washington's disposal to weaken from within Tehran's clerical regime.
Of the new outlay, $50 million will go toward Farsi radio broadcasts; another $15 million is earmarked for increasing participation in the political process, including measures such as expanded Internet access. The Bush administration hopes to spend $5 million to fund scholarships and fellowships for young Iranians, and the State Department said $5 million "would go to public diplomacy efforts aimed at Iran, including its Persian-language website".
"The United States will actively confront the aggressive policies of the Iranian regime," Rice said. "At the same time, we will work to support the aspirations of the Iranian people for freedom and democracy in their country."
Such pronouncements are greeted with open skepticism by ordinary Iranians who have seen the infrastructure of neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan sustain significant blows by US invasions, after which they have lagged far behind the touted recovery schedules. Iranians also have not forgotten the support offered by Washington to their arch-enemy Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.
One of the militantly anti-clerical-regime groups that could stand to benefit from the new windfall is the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), a Marxist-Islamist organization that is hated within Iran because it sided with the Iraqi dictator against Iran during the eight-year Iran-Iraq War.
The MEK has been registered by the State Department as a terrorist organization for the past 10 years, but now neo-conservative factions of the Bush administration are lobbying hard to remove it from the list. Should the MEK end up benefiting from US pro-democracy largesse, it would send a clear message to people inside Iran that Washington funds groups that engage in terrorist activity. Some reports quote unidentified US officials as saying that the MEK would not receive any of the new funds.
"Most of the groups which will be suckling from this new taxpayer teat include designated terrorist organizations such as the MEK and ancien regime agonists, all with their own agendas which are not limited to outreach to Iranians, as these groups have little if any traction or credibility in Iran today," said Donald Weadon, an international lawyer specializing in Iran.
As much as $50 million of the planned allocation is directed at media planning, with the stated intention of extending the government-run Voice of America's Farsi service from a few hours a day to around-the-clock coverage. But the idea that Iranians would turn more pro-US if only they had access to free media belies the reality that, unlike Saddam-era Iraq, in Iran the people already have relatively unrestricted access to satellite stations and news on the Internet.
"If the Danish cartoons and most recent Abu Ghraib pictures are timed to promote another war in the Mideast and inculcate the 'clash of civilizations' mindset in the public," said Cyrus Safdari, an independent Iranian analyst, "then Madame Rice has a really bad sense of timing in seeking to 'reach out to the people of Iran' - who don't need $75 million to watch ... 'a few bad apples' from the US torturing people in Abu Ghraib."
Nevertheless, the announcement comes at a time when an increasing amount of evidence points toward the fact that the Iranian government is cracking down on access to information. The British Broadcasting Corp's popular Persian-language service has been blocked after the Iranian government accused the British Foreign Ministry-funded medium of being anti-Iranian. And many Farsi dailies have switched to a more nationalistic, less critical coverage of the government after the Danish-cartoon protests and the concomitant polarization.
"If the money goes to improve and expand VOA's Persian service, this would also be money well spent," said Professor William Beeman, an Iran specialist at Brown University. "However, Sam Brownback's $3 million [1] appears to have been sucked up by private parties with no possibility of public oversight.
"As a taxpayer, I would certainly object to more money being spent in this way - particularly if it goes to private commercial broadcasters where there is no open accountability as to operational activities or content. This would be a deeply irresponsible use of US public funds," Beeman said.
The US has a history of covert operations aimed at destabilizing the Tehran regime that went awry. In 1980, eight US commandos were killed at the beginning of an operation to rescue American diplomatic hostages held by the new revolutionary regime in the US Embassy in Tehran. After a US airplane and helicopter crashed, it was decided to call off the mission, but not before holding hostage for three hours 44 Iranians whose bus had stumbled on the scene.
More recently, in 1996, an $18 million covert action aimed at unseating the government of then-president Hashemi Rafsanjani had its secret cover blown even before it started. Washington insiders, concerned at the potentially disastrous effects it would have, leaked the story to the mainstream press, prompting a furious backlash from the authorities in Tehran, which authorized a $20 million counteroffensive.
Washington's new initiative might end up backfiring and contribute to the further stifling of civil society in Iran, if experience can be trusted. NGOs are regarded suspiciously by the Iranian government and are often accused of being agents of foreign influence.
Rice failed to make clear how the funds would be disbursed to groups inside Iran, given that Washington has lacked a direct diplomatic presence in Tehran for the past 26 years.
Some American analysts have also reacted with skepticism at the initiative, pointing out that it may be a case of too little too late. "One suspects there are no shortage of potential Iranian Chalabis [2] ready to set themselves up in a nice apartment in London's West End with some copiers and fax machines and the requisite bank accounts to reap the windfall," said James Russell, a senior lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate School's department of national security affairs.
Despite other secret efforts the US Central Intelligence Agency has mounted in recent years, including a $2 million campaign in 1995 based largely on radio broadcasts denouncing the clerical regime, the CIA's analysts see little hope of creating a new generation of pro-Washington leaders for Iran.
Notes
1. Senator Sam Brownback, as chairman of a US Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee, successfully campaigned for a $3 million appropriation for 2005, mandated by Congress, to help pro-democracy activists inside Iran. This was in addition to the approximately $10 million annually allocated for such activities.
2. Ahmad Chalabi, an Iraqi exile, received millions of dollars from the US while being courted as a possible successor to Saddam Hussein.
Iason Athanasiadis is an Iran-based correspondent.
(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing .)
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Scoop: Petrodollars and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation
Scoop: Petrodollars and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0602/S00157.htm
Petrodollars and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation
Wednesday, 15 February 2006, 11:57 am
Opinion: Michael Keefer
Petrodollars and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation: Understanding the Planned Assault on Iran
By Michael Keefer
February 10, 2006
From... GlobalResearch.ca
Iran has been in the gun-sights of George W. Bush and his entourage from the moment that he was parachuted into the presidency in November 2000 by his father’s Supreme Court.
A year ago there were signs, duly reported by Seymour Hersh and others, that the United States and Israel were working out the targeting details of an aerial attack on Iran that it was anticipated would occur in June 2005 (see Hersh, Gush Shalom, Jensen). But as Michel Chossudovsky wrote in May 2005, widespread reports that George W. Bush had “signed off on” an attack on Iran did not signify that the attack would necessarily occur during the summer of 2005: what the ‘signing off’ suggested was rather “that the US and Israel [were] ‘in a state of readiness’ and [were] prepared to launch an attack by June or at a later date. In other words, the decision to launch the attack [had] not been made” (Chossudovsky: May 2005).
Since December 2005, however, there have been much firmer indications both that the planned attack will go ahead in late March 2006, and also that the Cheney-Bush administration intends it to involve the use of nuclear weapons.
It is important to understand the nature and scale of the war crimes that are being planned—and no less important to recognize that, as in the case of the Bush regime’s assault on Iraq, the pretexts being advanced to legitimize this intended aggression are entirely fraudulent. Unless the lurid fantasies of people like former Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security and now Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton count as evidence—and Bolton’s pronouncements on the weaponry supposedly possessed by Iraq, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela show him to be less acquainted with truth than Jean Harlow was with chastity—there is no evidence that Iran has or has ever had any nuclear weapons development program. Claims to the contrary, however loudly they may have been trumpeted by Fox News, CNN, or The New York Times, are demonstrably false.
Nor does there appear to be the remotest possibility, whatever desperate measures the Iranian government might be frightened into by American and Israeli threats of pre-emptive attacks, that Iran would be able to produce nuclear weapons in the near future. On August 2, 2005, The Washington Post reported that according to the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which represents a consensus arrived at among U.S. intelligence agencies, “Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years” (Linzer, quoted by Clark, 28 Jan. 2006).
The coming attack on Iran has nothing whatsoever to do with concerns about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Its primary motive, as oil analyst William Clark has argued, is rather a determination to ensure that the U.S. dollar remains the sole world currency for oil trading. Iran plans in March 2006 to open a Teheran Oil Bourse in which all trading will be carried out in Euros. This poses a direct threat to the status of the U.S. dollar as the principal world reserve currency—and hence also to a trading system in which massive U.S. trade deficits are paid for with paper money whose accepted value resides, as Krassimir Petrov notes, in its being the currency in which international oil trades are denominated. (U.S. dollars are effectively exchangeable for oil in somewhat the same way that, prior to 1971, they were at least in theory exchangeable for gold.)
But not only is this planned aggression unconnected to any actual concern over Iranian nuclear weapons. There is in fact some reason to think that the preparations for it have involved deliberate violations by the Bush neo-conservatives of anti-proliferation protocols (and also, necessarily, of U.S. law), and that their long-term planning, in which Turkey’s consent to the aggression is a necessary part, has involved a deliberate transfer of nuclear weapons technology to Turkey as a part of the pay-off.
Prior to her public exposure by Karl Rove, Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, and other senior administration officials in July 2003, CIA agent Valerie Plame was reportedly involved in undercover anti-proliferation work focused on transfers of nuclear technology to Turkey that were being carried out by a network of crooked businessmen, arms dealers, and ‘rogue’ officials within the U.S. government. The leaking of Plame’s identity as a CIA agent was undoubtedly an act of revenge for her husband Joseph Wilson’s public revelation that one of the key claims used to legitimize the invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein’s supposed acquisition of uranium ore from Niger, was known by the Bush regime to be groundless. But Plame’s exposure also conveniently put an end to her investigative work. Some of the senior administration officials responsible for that crime of state have long-term diplomatic and military connections to Turkey, and all of them have been employed in what might be called (with a nod to ex-White House speechwriter David Frum) the Cheney-Bolton Axis of Aggression. Thanks to the courage and integrity of former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, there is evidence dating from 2002 of high-level involvement in the subversion of FBI investigations into arms trafficking with Turkey. The leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA agent may therefore have been not merely an act of revenge for her husband’s contribution to the delegitimizing of one war of aggression, but also a tactical maneuver in preparation for the next one.
George W. Bush made clear his aggressive intentions in relation to Iran in his 2002 State of the Union address; and his regime’s record on issues of nuclear proliferation has been, to put it mildly, equivocal. If, as seems plausible, Bush’s diplomats had been secretly arranging that Turkey’s reward for connivance in an attack on Iran should include its future admission into the charmed circle of nuclear powers, then the meddling interference of servants of the state who, like Plame and Edmonds, were putting themselves or at least their careers at risk in the cause of preventing nuclear weapons proliferation, was not to be tolerated.
The ironies are glaring. The U.S. government is contemplating an unprovoked attack upon Iran that will involve “pre-emptive” use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear-weapons-holding state. Although the pretext is that this is necessary to forestall nuclear weapons proliferation, there is evidence to suggest that planning for the attack has involved, very precisely, nuclear weapons proliferation by the United States.
It would appear that this sinister complex of criminality involves one further twist. There have been indications that the planned attack may be immediately preceded (and of course ‘legitimized’) by another 9/11-type event within the U.S.
Let us review these issues in sequence.
Plans for a conventional and ‘tactical’ nuclear attack on Iran
On August 1, 2005 Philip Giraldi, an ex-CIA agent and associate of Vincent Cannistraro (the former head of the CIA’s counter-intelligence operations and former intelligence director at the National Security Council), published an article entitled “Deep Background” in The American Conservative. The first section of this article carried the following headline: “In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran.” I quote the first section of Giraldi’s article in its entirety:
“The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.”
The implications of this report are breathtaking. First, it indicates on the part of the ruling Cheney faction within the American state a frank in-house acknowledgment that their often-repeated public claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein’s regime and the 9/11 attacks are the rubbish that informed people have long known them to be.
At a deeper level, it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks” are recognized in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system. (Though the implicit acknowledgment is shocking, the fact itself should come as no surprise, since recent research has shown that the Bush administration was deeply implicated not merely in permitting the attacks of September 11, 2001 to happen, but in actually organizing them: see Chossudovsky 2002: 51-63, 144-56; Chossudovsky 2005: 51-62, 135-46, 237-61; Griffin 2004: 127-46, 169-201; Griffin 2005: 115-35, 277-91; Marrs 134-37; and Ruppert 309-436.)
And finally, Giraldi’s report suggests that the recent U.S. development of comparatively low-yield nuclear weapons specifically designed to destroy hardened underground facilities, and the recent re-orientation of U.S. nuclear policy to include first-strike or pre-emptive nuclear attacks on non-nuclear powers, were both part of long-range planning for a war on Iran.
Articles published by William Arkin in the Washington Post in May and October 2005 reported on what the U.S. military’s STRATCOM calls CONPLAN 8022, a global plan for bombing and missile attacks involving “a nuclear option” anywhere in the world that was tested in an exercise that began on November 1, 2005; the scenario for this exercise scripted a dirty-bomb attack on Mobile, Alabama to which STRATCOM responded with nuclear and conventional strikes on an unnamed east-Asian country that was transparently meant for North Korea.
Jorge Hirsch has outlined the deployment of key administrative personnel and of ideological legitimations in preparation for a nuclear attack on Iran (Hirsch, 16 Dec. 2005). And Michel Chossudovsky has described the command structure that has been set up to implement STRATCOM’s current plans for preemptive ‘theatre’ nuclear warfare (see Chossudovsky 2006). But it must be emphasized that these plans, as tested in November 2005 in the exercise referred to by Arkin, involve the creation of an impression of what theorists of nuclear war call “proportionality.” An attack on Iran, which would presumably involve the use of significant numbers of extremely ‘dirty’ earth-penetrating nuclear bombs, might well be made to follow a dirty-bomb attack on the United States, which would be represented in the media as having been carried out by Iranian agents.
Yet as Giraldi indicates, although the bombing of Iran would follow and be represented as a response to “another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States,” the planned pattern involves a cynical separation of appearance from reality: “the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in [this] act of terrorism….”
Earth-Penetrator ‘dirty bombs
Talk about “low-yield” nuclear weapons, by the way, means simply that the most recent U.S. nuclear weapons can be set to detonate with much less than their maximum explosive force. The maximum power of the B61-11 earth-penetrating “bunker-buster” bomb ranges, by different accounts, from 300 to 340 or 400 kilotons (see Nelson; Hirsch, 9 Jan. 2006). (By way of comparison, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in August, 1945, killing some 80,000 people outright, and a further 60,000 over the next several months due to radiation poisoning and other injuries, had a yield of 15 kilotons.) The lowest-yield setting of the BL61-11 is reportedly 0.3 kilotons—equivalent, that is to say, to the detonation of 300 tons of TNT.
But since these new weapons are designed as earth-penetrating “bunker-buster” rather than air-burst bombs, each one can be expected to produce large volumes of very ‘dirty’ radioactive fallout. Robert Nelson of the Federation of American Scientists writes that even at the low end of the B61-11 bomb’s yield range, “the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area.” The very intense local fallout will include both “radioactivity from the fission products” and also “large amounts of dirt and debris [that] has been exposed to the intense neutron flux from the nuclear detonation”; the blast cloud produced by such a bomb “typically consists of a narrow column and a broad base surge of air filled with radioactive dust which expands to a radius of over a mile for a 5 kiloton explosion.”
Yet wouldn’t the “tactical” and “low-yield” nature of these weapons mean that civilian casualties could be kept to a minimum? A study published in 2005 by the National Research Council on the Effects of Nuclear Earth-Penetrator and Other Weapons offers estimates of the casualties that could be caused by these weapons. According to Conclusion 6 of this report, an attack in or near a densely populated urban area could be expected, depending on the B61-11’s yield setting, to kill from several thousand to over a million people. An attack in a remote, lightly populated area might kill as few as several hundred people—or, with a high-yield setting and unfavourable winds, hundreds of thousands.
But what kinds of yield settings might the U.S. military want to use? Conclusion 5 of the NRC report might seem to suggest that genuinely low-yield settings might be possible: the yield required “to destroy a hard and deeply buried target is reduced by a factor of 15 to 25 by enhanced ground-shock coupling if the weapon is detonated a few meters below the surface.” Conclusion 2, however, is more sobering. To have a high probability of destroying a facility 200 metres underground, an earth-penetrating weapon with a yield of 300 kilotons would be required—that is to say, a weapon with twenty times the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb. Extrapolating from the information the report provides, one might guess that a weapon in the 7-8 kiloton range—with half the power of the Hiroshima bomb—could be deployed against a facility like Natanz, the sensitive parts of which are buried 18 metres underground and protected by reinforced concrete (Beeston). A similar or smaller weapon might be used against the uranium fuel enrichment facility at Esfahan—a city of two million people which is also, by the way, a UNESCO World Heritage City.
The NRC report, it should be noted, was written by a committee, and one that on the issue of civilian casualties seems to have had some difficulty in making up its collective mind. Conclusion 4 of the report informs us that “For the same yield and weather conditions, the number of casualties from an earth-penetrator weapon detonated at a few meters depth is, for all practical purposes, equal to that from a surface burst of the same weapon yield.” But Conclusion 7 tells a different story: “For urban targets, civilian casualties from nuclear earth-penetrator weapons are reduced by a factor of 2 to 10 compared with those from a surface burst having 25 times the yield.”
The most charitable interpretation I can give to Conclusion 7 is that it was composed for a readership of arithmetical illiterates—who the authors assume will be unable to deduce that what is actually being said (assuming a linear relation between yield and casualties) is that an earth-penetrating weapon will cause from 2.5 to 12.5 times more casualties than a surface-burst weapon of the same explosive power.
In light of the fact that the NRC report was commissioned by the United States Congress, we can ourselves conclude that the U.S. government is contemplating, open-eyed, a war of aggression that American planners are fully aware will kill—at the very least—many tens of thousands, and perhaps many hundreds of thousands of civilians.
The pretexts
The principal reason being advanced for an attack upon Iran is the claim that Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear threat with the capacity and presumably the intention of launching nuclear ballistic-missile attacks upon Israel and even western Europe and the United States.
Iran does possess ballistic missiles, including the Shahab-3, which with a range of 1300 kilometers is capable of striking Israel, as well as U.S. forces throughout the Middle East. (Why Iran would dream of initiating military aggression against the U.S. or against Israel, which possesses an arsenal of some 200 nuclear warheads, together with multiple means of delivering them, including ballistic missiles, is not explained.)
A fear-mongering article published by The Guardian on January 4, 2006, included the information that the next generation of the Shahab missile “should be capable of reaching Austria and Italy.” The leading sentence of this same article declares that “The Iranian government has been successfully scouring Europe for the sophisticated equipment needed to develop a nuclear bomb, according to the latest western assessment of the country’s weapons programmes” (Cobain and Traynor). But neither this article nor a companion piece (Traynor and Cobain) published the same day provides any evidence that Iran actually has a nuclear weapons program, even though both articles were based upon a “report from a leading EU intelligence service,” a “55-page intelligence assessment, dated July 1 2005, [that] draws upon material gathered by British, French, German and Belgian agencies.”
There is in fact very good evidence, in the form of exhaustive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency since 2003, that Iran does not have and has never had any such program. As the physicist Gordon Prather wrote in September 2005, “after two years of go-anywhere, see-anything inspections, [the IAEA] has found no indication that any special nuclear materials or activities involving them are being—or have been—used in furtherance of a military purpose” (Prather, 27 Sept. 2005).
But what about intentions? The Guardian journalists inform us that “western leaders … have long refused to believe Tehran’s insistence that it is not interested in developing nuclear weapons and is only trying to develop nuclear power for electricity” (Cobain and Traynor). Perhaps it is time these “western leaders”—George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and whatever rag-tag and bob-tail of lesser luminaries they are dragging after them—began to attend to the facts.
A good place to start might be with William Beeman’s and Thomas Stauffer’s assessment of the physical evidence for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. (Stauffer, by the way, is a former nuclear engineer and specialist in Middle Eastern energy economics; Beeman directs Brown University’s Middle East Studies program; both have conducted research on Iran for three decades.) Beeman and Stauffer note that Iran has three principal nuclear facilities.
Of the first two, a uranium enrichment plant in Natanz and a deuterium research facility in Arak, they remark that “Neither is in operation. The only question of interest is whether these facilities offer a plausible route to the manufacture of plutonium-based nuclear bombs, and the short answer is: They do not.”
Beeman and Stauffer compare the third facility, the PWR pressurized “light-water” reactor under construction at Bushehr, with Israel’s heavy-water graphite-moderated plant at Dimona. The Bushehr reactor is designed to maximize power output through long fuel cycles of 30 to 40 months; it will produce plutonium isotopes (PU240, 241 and 242) that are “almost impossible to use in making bombs”; and “the entire reactor will have to shut down—a step that cannot be concealed from satellites, airplanes and other sources—in order to permit the extraction of even a single fuel pin.” Israel’s Dimona plant, in contrast, produces the bomb-making isotope PU239; moreover, it “can be re-fueled ‘on line,’ without shutting down. Thus, high-grade plutonium can be obtained covertly and continuously.”
Claims emanating from the U.S. State Department to the effect that Iran possesses uranium-enrichment centrifuges or covert plutonium-extraction facilities are dismissed by Beeman and Stauffer as implausible, since “the sources are either unidentified or are the same channels which disseminated the stories about Iraq’s non-conventional weapons or the so-called chemical and biological weapons plant in Khartoum.”
As Michael T. Klare remarks, the U.S. government’s “claim that an attack on Iran would be justified because of its alleged nuclear potential should invite widespread skepticism.” But skeptical intelligence appears to be the last thing one can expect from the corporate media, whose organs report without blinking Condoleezza Rice’s threat that “The world will not stand by if Iran continues on the path to a nuclear weapons capability” (see [Rice]), and George W. Bush’s equally inane declaration, following the IAEA’s vote to refer Iran to the UN Security Council, that “This important step sends a clear message to the regime in Iran that the world will not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons” (see [Bush]).
There is much to be said about the sorry process of propagandizing, diplomatic bullying, and behind-the-scenes blackmail and arm-twisting within the IAEA and in other forums—all of it strongly reminiscent of the maneuverings of late 2002 and early 2003—that has led to the present situation, where in early March the Security Council will be called upon, as in the case of Iraq three years ago, to accept and legitimize the falsehoods on which the new war of aggression is to be based. The early stages of this process were lucidly analyzed by Siddharth Varadarajan in three fine articles in September 2005. Its more recent phases have been assessed by Gordon Prather in a series of articles published since mid-September 2005, and also, with equal scrupulousness and ethical urgency, by another well-informed physicist, Jorge Hirsch, who has been publishing essays on the subject since mid-October. I will not repeat here the analyses developed in their articles (the titles of which are included in the list of sources which follows this text). But Varadarajan’s recent summary judgment of the diplomatic process is worth quoting: “Each time it appeases Washington’s relentless pressure on Iran, the international community is being made to climb higher and higher up a ladder whose final rungs can only be sanctions and war. This is precisely the route the U.S. followed against Iraq in its quest to effect regime change there” (Varadarajan, 1 Feb. 2006).
It is also worth saying something, however briefly, about the media campaign that has accompanied the diplomatic preparations for war. This has included, since mid-2005, accusations that that Iran was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11, some of whose perpetrators are alleged (by members of the wholly discredited Kean Commission of inquiry into the events of 9/11) to have passed through Iran on their way to the U.S. (see Coman; Hirsch, 28 Dec. 2005; and also, if you believe The 9/11 Commission Report to have any credibility, Griffin 2005).
A more relevant accusation surfaced in November 2005, when the New York Times reported that senior U.S. intelligence officials had briefed IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei and his senior staff on information gleaned from a “stolen Iranian laptop computer” which they said demonstrated that Iran had developed nuclear weapons compact enough to fit onto its Shahab missiles. But as Gordon Prather wrote, “‘sources close to the IAEA’ said what they had been briefed on appeared to be aerodynamic design work for a ballistic missile reentry vehicle, which certainly couldn’t contain a nuke if the Iranians didn’t have any. Furthermore, according to David Albright, a sometime consultant to the IAEA, who has actually had access to the ‘stolen Iranian laptop,’ the information on it is all about reentry vehicles and ‘does not contain words such [as] ‘nuclear’ and ‘nuclear warhead’” (Prather, 23 Nov. 2005).
Sorry, boys: no biscuit.
And yet the object of the exercise was evidently not to persuade the IAEA people, who are not idiots, but rather to get the story into the amplification system of that Mighty Wurlitzer, the corporate media.
This strategy has evidently worked. The New York Times, for example, may have parted company with Judith Miller, the ‘star’ reporter whose sordid job was to serve as a conduit for Bush regime misinformation during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, but in Elaine Sciolino they have a reporter who is no less skilled in passing off neocon propaganda as fact (see Prather, 7 Jan. 2006). The New York Times also gave front-page space in mid-January to an article by Richard Bernstein and Stephen Weisman proposing “that Iran has restarted ‘research that could give it technology to create nuclear weapons’” (quoted by Whitney, 17 Jan. 2006). “Perhaps,” Mike Whitney suggests, “the NY Times knows something that the IAEA inspectors don’t? If so, they should step forward and reveal the facts.”
The key facts, as Whitney wrote on January 17, are that there is no evidence that Iran has either a nuclear weapons program or centrifuges with which to enrich uranium to weapons-grade concentration. “These are the two issues which should be given greatest consideration in determining whether or not Iran poses a real danger to its neighbors, and yet these are precisely the facts that are absent from the nearly 2,500 articles written on the topic in the last few days.” Add to these the further fact, noted above, that the August 2005 National Intelligence Estimate doubled the time American agencies thought Iran would need to manufacture “the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon” from the previous estimate of five years to a full decade.
Why then is the American public being incited to ever greater anxiety in the face of a weapons program which—on the paranoid and unproven assumption that it actually exists—is if anything a receding rather than a gathering threat?
Fox News has led the way among the non-print media in drum-beating and misinformation—to the extent, as Paul Craig Roberts observes, that a Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll can plausibly report “that 60% of Republicans, 41% of Independents, and 36% of Democrats support using air strikes and ground troops against Iran in order to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.” Worse yet, an LA Times/Bloomberg poll apparently finds that 57% of the respondents “favor military intervention if Iran’s government pursues a program that would enable it to build nuclear arms.” Any civilian nuclear power program opens up this possibility (Canada, had it so desired, could have become a nuclear-weapons power forty years ago)—but the function of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is precisely to open the way to peaceful nuclear power generation while preventing the further dissemination of nuclear weapons. What the LA Times/Bloomberg poll therefore means, Roberts says, is that “if Iran exercises its rights under the non-proliferation treaty, 57% of Americans support a US military attack on Iran!”
Numbers like these suggest that George W. Bush will indeed get the new war he so desires. And it appears that he will get it soon. As Newt Gingrich declared on Fox News in late January, the matter is so urgent that the attack must happen within the next few months. “According to Gingrich, Iran not only cannot be trusted with nuclear technology, but also Iranians ‘cannot be trusted with their oil’” (Roberts).
The Euro-denominated Tehran Oil Bourse
Gingrich’s wording may sound faintly ludicrous. However, it would appear to be a slanting allusion to the fact that the Iranian government has announced plans to open an Iranian Oil Bourse in March 2006. This Bourse will be in direct competition with the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE)—and unlike them will do business not in U.S. dollars, but in euros. What Gingrich evidently means is that the Iranians cannot be trusted to market their oil and natural gas in a manner that continues to benefit the United States.
Peter Phillips and his colleagues in Project Censored explained very clearly in 2003 how the current U.S. dollar-denominated system of oil and gas marketing provides the U.S. with a highly advantageous system of exchange. In 1971, “President Nixon removed U.S. currency from the gold standard”:
“Since then, the world’s supply of oil has been traded in U.S. fiat dollars, making the dollar the dominant world reserve currency. Countries must provide the United States with goods and services for dollars—which the United States can freely print. To purchase energy and pay off any IMF debts, countries must hold vast dollar reserves. The world is attached to a currency that one country can produce at will. This means that in addition to controlling world trade, the United States is importing substantial quantities of goods and services for very low relative costs.” (Phillips)
As Krassimir Petrov has observed, this amounts to an indirect form of imperial taxation. Unlike previous empires, which extracted direct taxes from their subject-nations, the American empire has “distributed instead its own fiat currency, the U.S. Dollar, to other nations in exchange for goods with the intended consequence of inflating and devaluing those dollars and paying back later each dollar with less economic goods—the difference capturing the U.S. imperial tax.”
Oil, backed by military power, has provided the rest of the world with a reason for accepting depreciating U.S. dollars and holding ever-increasing amounts of them in reserve. Petrov remarks that in 1972-73 the U.S. made “an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the power of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars for its oil. The rest of OPEC was to follow suit and accept only dollars. Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil. [….] Even though dollars could no longer be exchanged for gold, they were now exchangeable for oil” (Petrov).
But as Phillips notes, the economic reasons alone for switching to the euro as a reserve currency have been becoming steadily more persuasive: “Because of huge trade deficits, it is estimated that the dollar is currently [in late 2003] overvalued by at least 40 percent. Conversely, the euro-zone does not run huge deficits, uses higher interest rates, and has an increasingly larger share of world trade. As the euro establishes its durability and comes into wider use, the dollar will no longer be the world’s only option.” The result will be to make it “easier for other nations to exercise financial leverage against the United States without damaging themselves or the global financial system as a whole.”
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, several analysts suggested that one very obvious motive for that war was the fact that, beginning in November 2000, Iraq had insisted on payment in euros, not dollars, for its oil. In mid-2003, by which time the U.S. had made clear the intended terms of its occupation of Iraq, one such analyst, Coilin Nunan, remarked that it remained “just a theory” that American threats against Iraq had been made on behalf of the petro-dollar system—“but a theory that subsequent U.S. actions have done little to dispel: the U.S. has invaded Iraq and installed its own authority to rule the country, and as soon as Iraqi oil became available to sell on the world market, it was announced that payment would be in dollars only” (Phillips). William Clark writes, more directly, that the invasion was principally about “gaining strategic control over Iraq’s hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintain[ing] the US$ as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market” (Clark, 28 Jan. 2006).
There is currently some debate over the extent to which U.S. war preparations against Iran are motivated by concern for the continued hegemony of the petrodollar (see Nunan). I find the analyses of William Clark and Krassimir Petrov persuasive.
Clark notes that an important obstacle to any major shift in the oil marketing system has been “the lack of a euro-denominated oil pricing standard, or oil ‘marker’ as it is referred to in the industry.” (The current “oil markers,” in relation to which other internationally traded oil is priced, are Norway Brent crude, West Texas Intermediate crude [WTI], and United Arab Emirates [UAE] Dubai crude—all of them U.S. dollar denominated.) In his opinion, “it is logical to assume the proposed Iranian bourse will usher in a fourth crude oil marker—denominated in the euro currency,” and will thus “remove the main technical obstacle for a broad-based petro-euro system for international oil trades.” This will have the effect of introducing “petrodollar versus petroeuro currency hedging, and fundamentally new dynamics to the biggest market in the world—global oil and gas trades. In essence, the US will no longer be able to effortlessly expand credit via US Treasury bills, and the US$’s demand/liquidity value will fall” (Clark, 28 Jan. 2006).
An even partial loss of the U.S. dollar’s position as the dominant reserve currency for global energy trading would, as Petrov suggests, lead to a sharp decline in its value and an ensuing acceleration of inflation and upward pressure on interest rates, with unpleasant consequences. “At this point, the Fed will find itself between Scylla and Charybdis—between deflation and hyperinflation—it will be forced fast either to take its ‘classical medicine’ by deflating, whereby it raises interest rates, thus inducing a major economic depression, a collapse in real estate, and an implosion in bond, stock, and derivative markets […], or alternatively, to take the Weimar way out by inflating, […] drown[ing] the financial system in liquidity […] and hyperinflating the economy.”
Any attempt, on the other hand, to preserve what Mike Whitney calls the “perfect pyramid-scheme” of America’s currency monopoly (Whitney, 23 Jan. 2006) by means of military aggression against Iran is likely to result in equal or greater disruptions to the world economy. American military aggression, which might conceivably include attempts to occupy Iran’s oil-producing Khuzestan province and the coastline along the Straits of Hormuz (see Pilger), will not just have appalling consequences for civilians throughout the region; it may also place American forces into situations still more closely analogous than the present stage of Iraqi resistance to the situation produced in Lebanon by Israel’s invasion of that country—which ended in 2000 with Israel’s first military defeat (see Salama and Ruster).
The involvement of Turkey
One significant difference between the warnings of a coming war circulating in early 2005 and those which have appeared in recent months is the current evidence of feverish diplomatic activity between Washington and Ankara. The NATO powers have evidently been co-opted into Washington’s war plans: the so-called EU-3 (France, Germany, and Britain) presented Iran with a negotiating position on the nuclear fuel cycle for Iran’s power plants that seemed designed to produce an indignant refusal. (As Aijaz Ahmad writes, the European group “was not negotiating; it was relaying to Iran, and to all and sundry, what the U.S. was demanding and threatening to report Iran to the Security Council if the latter did not comply. Everyone knows that Iran had closed its Isphahan facility voluntarily, as a confidence-building measure, expecting some reciprocity, and then re-opened it, in retaliation, after having waited for reciprocity for many months and not getting it—indeed, receiving only escalated demands.”)
But according to the well-connected Jürgen Gottslich, writing in Der Spiegel in late December, Iran was not discussed during the new German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung’s recent visit to Washington. Gottslich wrote that “the speculation surrounding an American strike against Iran centers more on developments in Turkey. There has been a definite surge in visits to Ankara by high-ranking National Security personnel from the U.S. and by NATO officials. Within the space of just a few days, FBI Director Robert Mueller, [CIA] Director [Porter] Goss and then NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer visited Turkey.” Condoleezza Rice also flew to Turkey immediately after her December trip to Berlin.
The aim of these visits has quite obviously been to bring Turkey into line with a planned attack on Iran. As Gottslich writes, “On his Istanbul visit, Goss is alleged to have given Turkish security services three dossiers that prove Iranian cooperation with al-Qaeda. In addition, there was a fourth dossier focusing on the current state of Iran’s nuclear weapons program.”
But why, beyond the obvious fact of Turkey’s shared border with Iran, should Turkey be such an important factor in American war plans? The answer is suggested by an article published by an American academic, Robert Olson, in the June 2002 issue of Middle East Policy. According to Noam Chomsky, Olson “reports that 12 percent of Israel’s offensive aircraft are to be ‘permanently stationed in Turkey’ and have been ‘flying reconnaissance flights along Iran’s border,’ signaling to Iran ‘that it would soon be challenged elsewhere by Turkey and its Israeli and American allies’” (Chomsky 159). These Israeli aircraft would evidently take part in any American and Israeli aerial attack on Iran, and Turkish consent would no doubt be necessary for their use in such an act.
What advantages might Turkey hope to gain from its consent? The collaboration of Britain, France and Germany in the cranking up of diplomatic pressure on Iran might suggest that Turkey’s much-desired admission to the European Union could have been held out as one carrot—possibly with the argument that participation in an attack on a fundamentalist Islamic state could be one way of calming European fears over the entry of a Muslim nation into the Union. An equally persuasive advantage may have been a secret promise of future admission to the select group of nuclear powers.
Christopher Deliso has assembled evidence both of Turkey’s persistent involvement in the smuggling and production of nuclear weapons technology, including centrifuge components and triggering devices (Deliso, 21 Nov. 2005)—and also of the very interesting fact that the key administration officials involved in the outing of Valerie Plame, who was investigating these murky operations, included people, among them Marc Grossman, former U.S. ambassador to Turkey, who give every appearance of having been centrally involved in the very network of nuclear arms proliferation that the CIA was working to uncover (Deliso, 24 Nov. 2005). Even when supplemented by Sibel Edmonds’ indications of high-level collaboration in the frustration by Turkish agents of the FBI’s parallel investigations of what appears to be the same network, the evidence remains at best suppositious. And yet despite the inaccessibility of details—which will no doubt remain inaccessible for as long as Dick Cheney, John Bolton and the rest retain the power to frustrate investigations into the activities of their close associates and subordinates—the larger pattern is, to say the least, intriguing. The same highly-placed neoconservatives who have been crying wolf over Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons appear to have been deeply—and lucratively—involved in the trafficking of restricted and forbidden weapons technology into Turkey.
Should this pattern turn out indeed to involve corruption, hypocrisy, and treachery on the grand scale that Deliso’s investigative reporting would suggest, is there any reason one should be surprised?
What else, to be frank, would you expect from people such as these?
*************
Global Research Contributing Editor Michael Keefer is Associate Professor of English at the University of Guelph. He is a former President of the Association of Canadian College and University Teachers of English. His recent writings include a series of articles on electoral fraud in the 2004 US presidential election published by the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Sources
Ahmad, Aijaz. “Iran: Imperialism’s second strike.” Frontline (India); available at the Centre for Research on Globalization (29 January 2006), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20AH20060129&articleid=1844
Arkin, William. “Not Just A Last Resort? A Global Strike Plan, With a Nuclear Option.” The Washington Post (15 May 2005): B1, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051400071.html
----. “Nuclear War in … Alabama.” The Washington Post (21 October 2005), http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2005/10/nuclear_war_in_.html
Beerman, William O., and Thomas Stauffer. “Is Iran Building Nukes? An Analysis. The physical evidence for a nuclear weapons program in Iran simply does not exist.” Pacific News Service; available at the Centre for Research on Globalization (2 February 2006), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BEE20060202&articleid=1877
Beeston, Richard. “Hawks have warplanes ready if the nuclear diplomacy fails.” Timesonline (7 February 2006), http://www.timeonline.co.uk/article/0,3-2027979,00.html
Bolton, John R. “Preventing Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons.” Remarks to the Hudson Institute, Washington DC (17 August 2004). Available at http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/iran1.htm
[Bush, George W.] “World won’t permit Iran to have nukes: Bush.” Yahoo! News (5 February 2006), http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060205/pl_afp/irannuclearpoliticsus
Chomsky, Noam. Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2003.
Chossudovsky, Michel. War and Globalisation: The Truth Behind September 11. Shanty Bay, Ontario: Global Outlook, 2002.
----. America’s “War on Terrorism.” Pincourt, Québec: Global Research, 2005.
----. “Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran.” Centre for Research on Globalization (1 May 2005), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20050501&articleid=66
----. “Nuclear War Against Iran.” Centre for Research on Globalization (3 January 2006), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20060103&articleid=1714
Christison, Bill, and Kathleen Christison. “Let’s Stop a US/Israeli War on Iran: It’s More Important than Slowing Nuclear Proliferation.” Counterpunch (29 December 2005), http://www.counterpunch.org/christison12292005.html
Clark, William R. “The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target: The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Market.” Centre for Research on Globalization (27 September 2004), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CLA20050927&articleid=199
----. “Iran’s euro-denominated oil bourse to open in March; US$ crash imminent!” Vheadline.com (28 January 2006), http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=47790
Cobain, Ian, and Ian Traynor. “Secret services say Iran is trying to assemble a nuclear missile.” The Guardian (4 January 2006), http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1677542,00.html
Coman, Julian. “Now America accuses Iran of complicity in World Trade Center attack.” The Telegraph (18 July 2004), http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wiran18.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/07/18/ixportaltop.html
Deliso, Christopher. “Plame, Pakistan, a Nuclear Turkey, and the Neocons.” Antiwar.com (21 November 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=8091
----. “Lesser Neocons of L’Affaire Plame.” Antiwar.com (24 November 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=8137
Edmonds, Sibel. “Gagged, but Still Going Strong.” Antiwar.com (16 May 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/edmonds/?articleid=5954
----, and John M. Cole. “FBI Penetrated: Again!” Antiwar.com (8 October 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/edmonds/?articleid=7558
Giraldi, Philip. “Deep Background.” The American Conservative (2 August 2005), http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html. The first section of this article is also available as “Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War.” Centre for Research on Globalization (2 August 2005), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050802&articleid=791
Gottslich, Jürgen. “U.S. Reportedly Planning 2006 Attack on Iran.” Trans. Carl Bergquist. Der Spiegel (23 December 2005), http://www.watchingamerica.com/derspiegel1000006.shtml
Griffin, David Ray. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11. 2nd ed. Northampton, Massachusetts: Olive Branch Press, 2004.
----. The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. Northampton, Massachusetts: Olive Branch Press, 2005.
Gush Shalom. “The US wants to ‘set Israel loose’ to attack Iran.” Centre for Research on Globalization (20 February 2005), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050219&articleid=436
Hersh, Seymour. “The Coming Wars.” The New Yorker (24-31 January 2005, posted 17 January), http://www,newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact
Hirsch, Jorge. “How to Stop the Planned Nuking of Iran: Congress should enact emergency legislation.” Antiwar.com (9 January 2006), http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8359
----. “Nuking Iran With the UN’s Blessing: Only the American people can stop it.” Antiwar.com (28 December 2005), http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8312
----. “Nuclear Deployment for an Attack on Iran.” Antiwar.com (16 December 2005), http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8263
----. “Nuking Iran Without the Dachshund: The meaning of the Philip Giraldi story.” Antiwar.com (26 November 2005), http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8153
----. “Can a Nuclear Strike on Iran be Prevented? Or will the world allow it to happen?” Antiwar.com (21 November 2005), http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8089
----. “A ‘Legal’ US Nuclear Attack Against Iran: The real reason for the IAEA Iran resolution.” Antiwar.com (12 November 2005), http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8007
----. “The Real Reason for Nuking Iran: Why a nuclear attack is on the neocon agenda.” Antiwar.com (1 November 2005), http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=7861
----. “Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come.” Antiwar.com (17 October 2005), http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=7649
Jensen, Mark. “Scott Ritter Says US Attack on Iran Planned for June.” Centre for Research on Globalization (20 February 2005), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050220&articleid=438
Klare, Michael T. “Oil. Geopolitics, and the Coming War with Iran.” TomDispatch.com (11 April 2005), http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=2312
Linzer, Dafina. “Iran is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb: U.S. Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements.” The Washngton Post (2 August 2005): A1.
Marrs, Jim. Inside Job: Unmasking the 9/11 Conspirators. San Rafael, California: Origin Press, 2004.
Media, Mike. “Ex-FBI translator’s case may reveal Plame’s crucial CIA role.” Online Journal (16 December 2005), http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_340.shtml
National Research Council. Effects of Nuclear Earth-Penetrator and Other Weapons. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press (www.nap.edu), 2005. Conclusions linked by Hirsch, 9 Jan. 2006, and available at http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11282.html
Nelson, Robert W. “Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons.” FAS Public Interest Report 54.1 (Jan./Feb. 2001), http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm
Nimmo, Kurt. “Head of CIA Tells Turks to Prepare for Attack on Iran.” Centre for Research on Globalization (21 December 2005), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20051221&articleid=1578
Nunan, Coilin. “Energy Bulletin (Coilin Nunan): Trading oil in euros—does it matter?” Vheadline.com (1 February 2006), http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=48101
Petras, James. “Iran in the Crosshairs: Israel’s War Deadline.” Counterpunch (24/25 December 2005), http://www.counterpunch.org/petras12242005.html
Petrov, Krassimir. “The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse.” Information Clearing House (19 January 2006), http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm
Phillips, Peter, and Project Censored. “U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro: Another Reason for the Invasion of Iraq.” (With Updates by William Clark and Coilin Nunan.) In Censored 2004: The Top 25 Censored Stories. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2003. 94-97.
Pilger, John. “Iran: the Next War.” The New Statesman (9 February 2006), available at The Centre for Research on Globalization (9 February 2006), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=PIL20060209&articleid=1929
Prather, Gordon. “Neocrazies Foiled.” Antiwar.com (17 September 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=7300
----. “Weapons of Mass Murder.” Antiwar.com (20 September 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=7320
----. “Such a Blot.” Antiwar.com (24 September 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=7374
----. “Case Closed, Condi.” Antiwar.com (27 September 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=7404
----. “US-Israeli Diplomatic Triumph Over Iran.” Antiwar.com (1 October 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=7462
----. “Pleading Incompetence.” Antiwar.com (4 October 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=7502
----. “Saving Face.” Antiwar.com (8 October 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=7555
----. “Doing Bush’s Bidding.” Antiwar.com (11 October 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=7574
----. “Bolton the Peacemaker.” Antiwar.com (15 October 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=7643
----. “Stifling Neo-Crazy Media Sycophants.” Antiwar.com (22 October 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=7728
----. “Other Parties? Whoops!” Antiwar.com (15 November 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8034
----. “Without Discrimination.” Antiwar.com (19 November 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8087
----. “Iran Has Nuke Warheads! Not.” Antiwar.com (23 November 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8121
----. “Outing Brewster Jennings.” Antiwar.com (26 November 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8156
----. “Dirty Bomb Redux.” Antiwar.com (29 November 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8168
----. “Neo-Crazies Already Planning Beyond Iran.” Antiwar.com (3 December 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8204
----. “Total Transparency.” Antiwar.com (6 December 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8210
----. “Referring Nuke-Threats to Security Council.” Antiwar.com (10 December 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8239
----. “Nuclear Threats, Real and Imagined.” Antiwar.com (13 December 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8245
----. “Those Crazy Mullahs.” Antiwar.com (17 December 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8268
----. “Lump of Coal for Condi.” Antiwar.com (24 December 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8304
----. “ElBaradei Isn’t Perfect.” Antiwar.com (27 December 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8308
----. “Diplomatic Rout.” Antiwar.com (31 December 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8327
----. “Nuclear Back-Scratching.” Antiwar.com (3 January 2006), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8336
----. “On Another Planet.” Antiwar.com (7 January 2006), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8357
----. “Stuff and Nonsense.” Antiwar.com (10 January 2006), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8365
----. “Planting Evidence.” Antiwar.com (14 January 2006), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8388
----. “What Noncompliance?” Antiwar.com (17 January 2006), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8397
[Rice, Condoleezza.] “Rice to Iran: Heed this clear message.” Yahoo! News (4 February 2006), http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060204/pl_afp/irannuclearpoliticsus_060204202223
Roberts, Paul Craig. “The Coming War on Iran: Fox News Fans the Hysteria.” Counterpunch (30 January 2006), http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01302006.html
Ruppe, David. “Preemptive Nuclear War in a State of Readiness: U.S. Command Declares Global Strike Capability.” Global Security Newswire (2 December 2005); available at the Centre for Research on Globalization (2 January 2006), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=RUP20060102&articleid=1705
Ruppert, Michael C. Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil. Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society, 2004.
Salama, Sammy, and Karen Ruster. “A Preemptive Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences.” CNS (Center for Nonproliferation Studies) (12 August 2004, updated 9 September 2004), http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm
Sale, Richard. “State told Libby of agent’s identity: State Department phone call gave key aide name of CIA officer.” Sic Semper Tyrannis 2005 (27 October 2005), http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2005/10/state_told_libb.html
Traynor, Ian, and Ian Cobain. “Intelligence report claims nuclear market thriving.” The Guardian (4 January 2006), http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,167754,00.html
Varadarajan, Siddharth. “Iran and the Invention of a Nuclear Crisis: Part I of a Three Part Series.” Centre for Research on Globalization (23 September 2005), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=VAR20050923&articleid=987
----. “What the IAEA really found in Iran. The Persian Puzzle: Part II.” Centre for Research on Globalization (23 September 2005), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=VAR20050923&articleide=986
----. “The world must stand firm on diplomacy: The ‘nuclear crisis’ is the product of 15 years of US hostility towards Iran. Persian Puzzle: Part III.” Centre for Research on Globalization (27 September 2005), http://www.globalresearch.ca.index.php?context=viewArticle&code=VAR20050927&articleid=1009
----. “Messy Compromise on Iran.” The Hindu; available at ZNet (1 February 2006), http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=9642
Walker, Martin. “German media: U.S. prepares Iran strike.” UPI (30 December 2005), http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051230-112208-8968r
Whitney, Mike. “The countdown to war with Iran.” Online Journal (17 January 2006), http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_425,shtml
----. “Iran’s Oil Exchange threatens the Greenback.” OpEdNews.com (23 January 2006), http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_060123_iran_92s_oil_exchange_.htm
*************
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to the original CRG article must be indicated. The author's copyright note must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global Research's News and Discussion Forum
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Michael Keefer, GlobalResearch.ca, 2006
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0602/S00157.htm
Petrodollars and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation
Wednesday, 15 February 2006, 11:57 am
Opinion: Michael Keefer
Petrodollars and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation: Understanding the Planned Assault on Iran
By Michael Keefer
February 10, 2006
From... GlobalResearch.ca
Iran has been in the gun-sights of George W. Bush and his entourage from the moment that he was parachuted into the presidency in November 2000 by his father’s Supreme Court.
A year ago there were signs, duly reported by Seymour Hersh and others, that the United States and Israel were working out the targeting details of an aerial attack on Iran that it was anticipated would occur in June 2005 (see Hersh, Gush Shalom, Jensen). But as Michel Chossudovsky wrote in May 2005, widespread reports that George W. Bush had “signed off on” an attack on Iran did not signify that the attack would necessarily occur during the summer of 2005: what the ‘signing off’ suggested was rather “that the US and Israel [were] ‘in a state of readiness’ and [were] prepared to launch an attack by June or at a later date. In other words, the decision to launch the attack [had] not been made” (Chossudovsky: May 2005).
Since December 2005, however, there have been much firmer indications both that the planned attack will go ahead in late March 2006, and also that the Cheney-Bush administration intends it to involve the use of nuclear weapons.
It is important to understand the nature and scale of the war crimes that are being planned—and no less important to recognize that, as in the case of the Bush regime’s assault on Iraq, the pretexts being advanced to legitimize this intended aggression are entirely fraudulent. Unless the lurid fantasies of people like former Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security and now Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton count as evidence—and Bolton’s pronouncements on the weaponry supposedly possessed by Iraq, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela show him to be less acquainted with truth than Jean Harlow was with chastity—there is no evidence that Iran has or has ever had any nuclear weapons development program. Claims to the contrary, however loudly they may have been trumpeted by Fox News, CNN, or The New York Times, are demonstrably false.
Nor does there appear to be the remotest possibility, whatever desperate measures the Iranian government might be frightened into by American and Israeli threats of pre-emptive attacks, that Iran would be able to produce nuclear weapons in the near future. On August 2, 2005, The Washington Post reported that according to the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which represents a consensus arrived at among U.S. intelligence agencies, “Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years” (Linzer, quoted by Clark, 28 Jan. 2006).
The coming attack on Iran has nothing whatsoever to do with concerns about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Its primary motive, as oil analyst William Clark has argued, is rather a determination to ensure that the U.S. dollar remains the sole world currency for oil trading. Iran plans in March 2006 to open a Teheran Oil Bourse in which all trading will be carried out in Euros. This poses a direct threat to the status of the U.S. dollar as the principal world reserve currency—and hence also to a trading system in which massive U.S. trade deficits are paid for with paper money whose accepted value resides, as Krassimir Petrov notes, in its being the currency in which international oil trades are denominated. (U.S. dollars are effectively exchangeable for oil in somewhat the same way that, prior to 1971, they were at least in theory exchangeable for gold.)
But not only is this planned aggression unconnected to any actual concern over Iranian nuclear weapons. There is in fact some reason to think that the preparations for it have involved deliberate violations by the Bush neo-conservatives of anti-proliferation protocols (and also, necessarily, of U.S. law), and that their long-term planning, in which Turkey’s consent to the aggression is a necessary part, has involved a deliberate transfer of nuclear weapons technology to Turkey as a part of the pay-off.
Prior to her public exposure by Karl Rove, Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, and other senior administration officials in July 2003, CIA agent Valerie Plame was reportedly involved in undercover anti-proliferation work focused on transfers of nuclear technology to Turkey that were being carried out by a network of crooked businessmen, arms dealers, and ‘rogue’ officials within the U.S. government. The leaking of Plame’s identity as a CIA agent was undoubtedly an act of revenge for her husband Joseph Wilson’s public revelation that one of the key claims used to legitimize the invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein’s supposed acquisition of uranium ore from Niger, was known by the Bush regime to be groundless. But Plame’s exposure also conveniently put an end to her investigative work. Some of the senior administration officials responsible for that crime of state have long-term diplomatic and military connections to Turkey, and all of them have been employed in what might be called (with a nod to ex-White House speechwriter David Frum) the Cheney-Bolton Axis of Aggression. Thanks to the courage and integrity of former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, there is evidence dating from 2002 of high-level involvement in the subversion of FBI investigations into arms trafficking with Turkey. The leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA agent may therefore have been not merely an act of revenge for her husband’s contribution to the delegitimizing of one war of aggression, but also a tactical maneuver in preparation for the next one.
George W. Bush made clear his aggressive intentions in relation to Iran in his 2002 State of the Union address; and his regime’s record on issues of nuclear proliferation has been, to put it mildly, equivocal. If, as seems plausible, Bush’s diplomats had been secretly arranging that Turkey’s reward for connivance in an attack on Iran should include its future admission into the charmed circle of nuclear powers, then the meddling interference of servants of the state who, like Plame and Edmonds, were putting themselves or at least their careers at risk in the cause of preventing nuclear weapons proliferation, was not to be tolerated.
The ironies are glaring. The U.S. government is contemplating an unprovoked attack upon Iran that will involve “pre-emptive” use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear-weapons-holding state. Although the pretext is that this is necessary to forestall nuclear weapons proliferation, there is evidence to suggest that planning for the attack has involved, very precisely, nuclear weapons proliferation by the United States.
It would appear that this sinister complex of criminality involves one further twist. There have been indications that the planned attack may be immediately preceded (and of course ‘legitimized’) by another 9/11-type event within the U.S.
Let us review these issues in sequence.
Plans for a conventional and ‘tactical’ nuclear attack on Iran
On August 1, 2005 Philip Giraldi, an ex-CIA agent and associate of Vincent Cannistraro (the former head of the CIA’s counter-intelligence operations and former intelligence director at the National Security Council), published an article entitled “Deep Background” in The American Conservative. The first section of this article carried the following headline: “In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran.” I quote the first section of Giraldi’s article in its entirety:
“The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.”
The implications of this report are breathtaking. First, it indicates on the part of the ruling Cheney faction within the American state a frank in-house acknowledgment that their often-repeated public claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein’s regime and the 9/11 attacks are the rubbish that informed people have long known them to be.
At a deeper level, it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks” are recognized in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system. (Though the implicit acknowledgment is shocking, the fact itself should come as no surprise, since recent research has shown that the Bush administration was deeply implicated not merely in permitting the attacks of September 11, 2001 to happen, but in actually organizing them: see Chossudovsky 2002: 51-63, 144-56; Chossudovsky 2005: 51-62, 135-46, 237-61; Griffin 2004: 127-46, 169-201; Griffin 2005: 115-35, 277-91; Marrs 134-37; and Ruppert 309-436.)
And finally, Giraldi’s report suggests that the recent U.S. development of comparatively low-yield nuclear weapons specifically designed to destroy hardened underground facilities, and the recent re-orientation of U.S. nuclear policy to include first-strike or pre-emptive nuclear attacks on non-nuclear powers, were both part of long-range planning for a war on Iran.
Articles published by William Arkin in the Washington Post in May and October 2005 reported on what the U.S. military’s STRATCOM calls CONPLAN 8022, a global plan for bombing and missile attacks involving “a nuclear option” anywhere in the world that was tested in an exercise that began on November 1, 2005; the scenario for this exercise scripted a dirty-bomb attack on Mobile, Alabama to which STRATCOM responded with nuclear and conventional strikes on an unnamed east-Asian country that was transparently meant for North Korea.
Jorge Hirsch has outlined the deployment of key administrative personnel and of ideological legitimations in preparation for a nuclear attack on Iran (Hirsch, 16 Dec. 2005). And Michel Chossudovsky has described the command structure that has been set up to implement STRATCOM’s current plans for preemptive ‘theatre’ nuclear warfare (see Chossudovsky 2006). But it must be emphasized that these plans, as tested in November 2005 in the exercise referred to by Arkin, involve the creation of an impression of what theorists of nuclear war call “proportionality.” An attack on Iran, which would presumably involve the use of significant numbers of extremely ‘dirty’ earth-penetrating nuclear bombs, might well be made to follow a dirty-bomb attack on the United States, which would be represented in the media as having been carried out by Iranian agents.
Yet as Giraldi indicates, although the bombing of Iran would follow and be represented as a response to “another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States,” the planned pattern involves a cynical separation of appearance from reality: “the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in [this] act of terrorism….”
Earth-Penetrator ‘dirty bombs
Talk about “low-yield” nuclear weapons, by the way, means simply that the most recent U.S. nuclear weapons can be set to detonate with much less than their maximum explosive force. The maximum power of the B61-11 earth-penetrating “bunker-buster” bomb ranges, by different accounts, from 300 to 340 or 400 kilotons (see Nelson; Hirsch, 9 Jan. 2006). (By way of comparison, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in August, 1945, killing some 80,000 people outright, and a further 60,000 over the next several months due to radiation poisoning and other injuries, had a yield of 15 kilotons.) The lowest-yield setting of the BL61-11 is reportedly 0.3 kilotons—equivalent, that is to say, to the detonation of 300 tons of TNT.
But since these new weapons are designed as earth-penetrating “bunker-buster” rather than air-burst bombs, each one can be expected to produce large volumes of very ‘dirty’ radioactive fallout. Robert Nelson of the Federation of American Scientists writes that even at the low end of the B61-11 bomb’s yield range, “the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area.” The very intense local fallout will include both “radioactivity from the fission products” and also “large amounts of dirt and debris [that] has been exposed to the intense neutron flux from the nuclear detonation”; the blast cloud produced by such a bomb “typically consists of a narrow column and a broad base surge of air filled with radioactive dust which expands to a radius of over a mile for a 5 kiloton explosion.”
Yet wouldn’t the “tactical” and “low-yield” nature of these weapons mean that civilian casualties could be kept to a minimum? A study published in 2005 by the National Research Council on the Effects of Nuclear Earth-Penetrator and Other Weapons offers estimates of the casualties that could be caused by these weapons. According to Conclusion 6 of this report, an attack in or near a densely populated urban area could be expected, depending on the B61-11’s yield setting, to kill from several thousand to over a million people. An attack in a remote, lightly populated area might kill as few as several hundred people—or, with a high-yield setting and unfavourable winds, hundreds of thousands.
But what kinds of yield settings might the U.S. military want to use? Conclusion 5 of the NRC report might seem to suggest that genuinely low-yield settings might be possible: the yield required “to destroy a hard and deeply buried target is reduced by a factor of 15 to 25 by enhanced ground-shock coupling if the weapon is detonated a few meters below the surface.” Conclusion 2, however, is more sobering. To have a high probability of destroying a facility 200 metres underground, an earth-penetrating weapon with a yield of 300 kilotons would be required—that is to say, a weapon with twenty times the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb. Extrapolating from the information the report provides, one might guess that a weapon in the 7-8 kiloton range—with half the power of the Hiroshima bomb—could be deployed against a facility like Natanz, the sensitive parts of which are buried 18 metres underground and protected by reinforced concrete (Beeston). A similar or smaller weapon might be used against the uranium fuel enrichment facility at Esfahan—a city of two million people which is also, by the way, a UNESCO World Heritage City.
The NRC report, it should be noted, was written by a committee, and one that on the issue of civilian casualties seems to have had some difficulty in making up its collective mind. Conclusion 4 of the report informs us that “For the same yield and weather conditions, the number of casualties from an earth-penetrator weapon detonated at a few meters depth is, for all practical purposes, equal to that from a surface burst of the same weapon yield.” But Conclusion 7 tells a different story: “For urban targets, civilian casualties from nuclear earth-penetrator weapons are reduced by a factor of 2 to 10 compared with those from a surface burst having 25 times the yield.”
The most charitable interpretation I can give to Conclusion 7 is that it was composed for a readership of arithmetical illiterates—who the authors assume will be unable to deduce that what is actually being said (assuming a linear relation between yield and casualties) is that an earth-penetrating weapon will cause from 2.5 to 12.5 times more casualties than a surface-burst weapon of the same explosive power.
In light of the fact that the NRC report was commissioned by the United States Congress, we can ourselves conclude that the U.S. government is contemplating, open-eyed, a war of aggression that American planners are fully aware will kill—at the very least—many tens of thousands, and perhaps many hundreds of thousands of civilians.
The pretexts
The principal reason being advanced for an attack upon Iran is the claim that Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear threat with the capacity and presumably the intention of launching nuclear ballistic-missile attacks upon Israel and even western Europe and the United States.
Iran does possess ballistic missiles, including the Shahab-3, which with a range of 1300 kilometers is capable of striking Israel, as well as U.S. forces throughout the Middle East. (Why Iran would dream of initiating military aggression against the U.S. or against Israel, which possesses an arsenal of some 200 nuclear warheads, together with multiple means of delivering them, including ballistic missiles, is not explained.)
A fear-mongering article published by The Guardian on January 4, 2006, included the information that the next generation of the Shahab missile “should be capable of reaching Austria and Italy.” The leading sentence of this same article declares that “The Iranian government has been successfully scouring Europe for the sophisticated equipment needed to develop a nuclear bomb, according to the latest western assessment of the country’s weapons programmes” (Cobain and Traynor). But neither this article nor a companion piece (Traynor and Cobain) published the same day provides any evidence that Iran actually has a nuclear weapons program, even though both articles were based upon a “report from a leading EU intelligence service,” a “55-page intelligence assessment, dated July 1 2005, [that] draws upon material gathered by British, French, German and Belgian agencies.”
There is in fact very good evidence, in the form of exhaustive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency since 2003, that Iran does not have and has never had any such program. As the physicist Gordon Prather wrote in September 2005, “after two years of go-anywhere, see-anything inspections, [the IAEA] has found no indication that any special nuclear materials or activities involving them are being—or have been—used in furtherance of a military purpose” (Prather, 27 Sept. 2005).
But what about intentions? The Guardian journalists inform us that “western leaders … have long refused to believe Tehran’s insistence that it is not interested in developing nuclear weapons and is only trying to develop nuclear power for electricity” (Cobain and Traynor). Perhaps it is time these “western leaders”—George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and whatever rag-tag and bob-tail of lesser luminaries they are dragging after them—began to attend to the facts.
A good place to start might be with William Beeman’s and Thomas Stauffer’s assessment of the physical evidence for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. (Stauffer, by the way, is a former nuclear engineer and specialist in Middle Eastern energy economics; Beeman directs Brown University’s Middle East Studies program; both have conducted research on Iran for three decades.) Beeman and Stauffer note that Iran has three principal nuclear facilities.
Of the first two, a uranium enrichment plant in Natanz and a deuterium research facility in Arak, they remark that “Neither is in operation. The only question of interest is whether these facilities offer a plausible route to the manufacture of plutonium-based nuclear bombs, and the short answer is: They do not.”
Beeman and Stauffer compare the third facility, the PWR pressurized “light-water” reactor under construction at Bushehr, with Israel’s heavy-water graphite-moderated plant at Dimona. The Bushehr reactor is designed to maximize power output through long fuel cycles of 30 to 40 months; it will produce plutonium isotopes (PU240, 241 and 242) that are “almost impossible to use in making bombs”; and “the entire reactor will have to shut down—a step that cannot be concealed from satellites, airplanes and other sources—in order to permit the extraction of even a single fuel pin.” Israel’s Dimona plant, in contrast, produces the bomb-making isotope PU239; moreover, it “can be re-fueled ‘on line,’ without shutting down. Thus, high-grade plutonium can be obtained covertly and continuously.”
Claims emanating from the U.S. State Department to the effect that Iran possesses uranium-enrichment centrifuges or covert plutonium-extraction facilities are dismissed by Beeman and Stauffer as implausible, since “the sources are either unidentified or are the same channels which disseminated the stories about Iraq’s non-conventional weapons or the so-called chemical and biological weapons plant in Khartoum.”
As Michael T. Klare remarks, the U.S. government’s “claim that an attack on Iran would be justified because of its alleged nuclear potential should invite widespread skepticism.” But skeptical intelligence appears to be the last thing one can expect from the corporate media, whose organs report without blinking Condoleezza Rice’s threat that “The world will not stand by if Iran continues on the path to a nuclear weapons capability” (see [Rice]), and George W. Bush’s equally inane declaration, following the IAEA’s vote to refer Iran to the UN Security Council, that “This important step sends a clear message to the regime in Iran that the world will not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons” (see [Bush]).
There is much to be said about the sorry process of propagandizing, diplomatic bullying, and behind-the-scenes blackmail and arm-twisting within the IAEA and in other forums—all of it strongly reminiscent of the maneuverings of late 2002 and early 2003—that has led to the present situation, where in early March the Security Council will be called upon, as in the case of Iraq three years ago, to accept and legitimize the falsehoods on which the new war of aggression is to be based. The early stages of this process were lucidly analyzed by Siddharth Varadarajan in three fine articles in September 2005. Its more recent phases have been assessed by Gordon Prather in a series of articles published since mid-September 2005, and also, with equal scrupulousness and ethical urgency, by another well-informed physicist, Jorge Hirsch, who has been publishing essays on the subject since mid-October. I will not repeat here the analyses developed in their articles (the titles of which are included in the list of sources which follows this text). But Varadarajan’s recent summary judgment of the diplomatic process is worth quoting: “Each time it appeases Washington’s relentless pressure on Iran, the international community is being made to climb higher and higher up a ladder whose final rungs can only be sanctions and war. This is precisely the route the U.S. followed against Iraq in its quest to effect regime change there” (Varadarajan, 1 Feb. 2006).
It is also worth saying something, however briefly, about the media campaign that has accompanied the diplomatic preparations for war. This has included, since mid-2005, accusations that that Iran was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11, some of whose perpetrators are alleged (by members of the wholly discredited Kean Commission of inquiry into the events of 9/11) to have passed through Iran on their way to the U.S. (see Coman; Hirsch, 28 Dec. 2005; and also, if you believe The 9/11 Commission Report to have any credibility, Griffin 2005).
A more relevant accusation surfaced in November 2005, when the New York Times reported that senior U.S. intelligence officials had briefed IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei and his senior staff on information gleaned from a “stolen Iranian laptop computer” which they said demonstrated that Iran had developed nuclear weapons compact enough to fit onto its Shahab missiles. But as Gordon Prather wrote, “‘sources close to the IAEA’ said what they had been briefed on appeared to be aerodynamic design work for a ballistic missile reentry vehicle, which certainly couldn’t contain a nuke if the Iranians didn’t have any. Furthermore, according to David Albright, a sometime consultant to the IAEA, who has actually had access to the ‘stolen Iranian laptop,’ the information on it is all about reentry vehicles and ‘does not contain words such [as] ‘nuclear’ and ‘nuclear warhead’” (Prather, 23 Nov. 2005).
Sorry, boys: no biscuit.
And yet the object of the exercise was evidently not to persuade the IAEA people, who are not idiots, but rather to get the story into the amplification system of that Mighty Wurlitzer, the corporate media.
This strategy has evidently worked. The New York Times, for example, may have parted company with Judith Miller, the ‘star’ reporter whose sordid job was to serve as a conduit for Bush regime misinformation during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, but in Elaine Sciolino they have a reporter who is no less skilled in passing off neocon propaganda as fact (see Prather, 7 Jan. 2006). The New York Times also gave front-page space in mid-January to an article by Richard Bernstein and Stephen Weisman proposing “that Iran has restarted ‘research that could give it technology to create nuclear weapons’” (quoted by Whitney, 17 Jan. 2006). “Perhaps,” Mike Whitney suggests, “the NY Times knows something that the IAEA inspectors don’t? If so, they should step forward and reveal the facts.”
The key facts, as Whitney wrote on January 17, are that there is no evidence that Iran has either a nuclear weapons program or centrifuges with which to enrich uranium to weapons-grade concentration. “These are the two issues which should be given greatest consideration in determining whether or not Iran poses a real danger to its neighbors, and yet these are precisely the facts that are absent from the nearly 2,500 articles written on the topic in the last few days.” Add to these the further fact, noted above, that the August 2005 National Intelligence Estimate doubled the time American agencies thought Iran would need to manufacture “the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon” from the previous estimate of five years to a full decade.
Why then is the American public being incited to ever greater anxiety in the face of a weapons program which—on the paranoid and unproven assumption that it actually exists—is if anything a receding rather than a gathering threat?
Fox News has led the way among the non-print media in drum-beating and misinformation—to the extent, as Paul Craig Roberts observes, that a Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll can plausibly report “that 60% of Republicans, 41% of Independents, and 36% of Democrats support using air strikes and ground troops against Iran in order to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.” Worse yet, an LA Times/Bloomberg poll apparently finds that 57% of the respondents “favor military intervention if Iran’s government pursues a program that would enable it to build nuclear arms.” Any civilian nuclear power program opens up this possibility (Canada, had it so desired, could have become a nuclear-weapons power forty years ago)—but the function of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is precisely to open the way to peaceful nuclear power generation while preventing the further dissemination of nuclear weapons. What the LA Times/Bloomberg poll therefore means, Roberts says, is that “if Iran exercises its rights under the non-proliferation treaty, 57% of Americans support a US military attack on Iran!”
Numbers like these suggest that George W. Bush will indeed get the new war he so desires. And it appears that he will get it soon. As Newt Gingrich declared on Fox News in late January, the matter is so urgent that the attack must happen within the next few months. “According to Gingrich, Iran not only cannot be trusted with nuclear technology, but also Iranians ‘cannot be trusted with their oil’” (Roberts).
The Euro-denominated Tehran Oil Bourse
Gingrich’s wording may sound faintly ludicrous. However, it would appear to be a slanting allusion to the fact that the Iranian government has announced plans to open an Iranian Oil Bourse in March 2006. This Bourse will be in direct competition with the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE)—and unlike them will do business not in U.S. dollars, but in euros. What Gingrich evidently means is that the Iranians cannot be trusted to market their oil and natural gas in a manner that continues to benefit the United States.
Peter Phillips and his colleagues in Project Censored explained very clearly in 2003 how the current U.S. dollar-denominated system of oil and gas marketing provides the U.S. with a highly advantageous system of exchange. In 1971, “President Nixon removed U.S. currency from the gold standard”:
“Since then, the world’s supply of oil has been traded in U.S. fiat dollars, making the dollar the dominant world reserve currency. Countries must provide the United States with goods and services for dollars—which the United States can freely print. To purchase energy and pay off any IMF debts, countries must hold vast dollar reserves. The world is attached to a currency that one country can produce at will. This means that in addition to controlling world trade, the United States is importing substantial quantities of goods and services for very low relative costs.” (Phillips)
As Krassimir Petrov has observed, this amounts to an indirect form of imperial taxation. Unlike previous empires, which extracted direct taxes from their subject-nations, the American empire has “distributed instead its own fiat currency, the U.S. Dollar, to other nations in exchange for goods with the intended consequence of inflating and devaluing those dollars and paying back later each dollar with less economic goods—the difference capturing the U.S. imperial tax.”
Oil, backed by military power, has provided the rest of the world with a reason for accepting depreciating U.S. dollars and holding ever-increasing amounts of them in reserve. Petrov remarks that in 1972-73 the U.S. made “an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the power of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars for its oil. The rest of OPEC was to follow suit and accept only dollars. Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil. [….] Even though dollars could no longer be exchanged for gold, they were now exchangeable for oil” (Petrov).
But as Phillips notes, the economic reasons alone for switching to the euro as a reserve currency have been becoming steadily more persuasive: “Because of huge trade deficits, it is estimated that the dollar is currently [in late 2003] overvalued by at least 40 percent. Conversely, the euro-zone does not run huge deficits, uses higher interest rates, and has an increasingly larger share of world trade. As the euro establishes its durability and comes into wider use, the dollar will no longer be the world’s only option.” The result will be to make it “easier for other nations to exercise financial leverage against the United States without damaging themselves or the global financial system as a whole.”
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, several analysts suggested that one very obvious motive for that war was the fact that, beginning in November 2000, Iraq had insisted on payment in euros, not dollars, for its oil. In mid-2003, by which time the U.S. had made clear the intended terms of its occupation of Iraq, one such analyst, Coilin Nunan, remarked that it remained “just a theory” that American threats against Iraq had been made on behalf of the petro-dollar system—“but a theory that subsequent U.S. actions have done little to dispel: the U.S. has invaded Iraq and installed its own authority to rule the country, and as soon as Iraqi oil became available to sell on the world market, it was announced that payment would be in dollars only” (Phillips). William Clark writes, more directly, that the invasion was principally about “gaining strategic control over Iraq’s hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintain[ing] the US$ as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market” (Clark, 28 Jan. 2006).
There is currently some debate over the extent to which U.S. war preparations against Iran are motivated by concern for the continued hegemony of the petrodollar (see Nunan). I find the analyses of William Clark and Krassimir Petrov persuasive.
Clark notes that an important obstacle to any major shift in the oil marketing system has been “the lack of a euro-denominated oil pricing standard, or oil ‘marker’ as it is referred to in the industry.” (The current “oil markers,” in relation to which other internationally traded oil is priced, are Norway Brent crude, West Texas Intermediate crude [WTI], and United Arab Emirates [UAE] Dubai crude—all of them U.S. dollar denominated.) In his opinion, “it is logical to assume the proposed Iranian bourse will usher in a fourth crude oil marker—denominated in the euro currency,” and will thus “remove the main technical obstacle for a broad-based petro-euro system for international oil trades.” This will have the effect of introducing “petrodollar versus petroeuro currency hedging, and fundamentally new dynamics to the biggest market in the world—global oil and gas trades. In essence, the US will no longer be able to effortlessly expand credit via US Treasury bills, and the US$’s demand/liquidity value will fall” (Clark, 28 Jan. 2006).
An even partial loss of the U.S. dollar’s position as the dominant reserve currency for global energy trading would, as Petrov suggests, lead to a sharp decline in its value and an ensuing acceleration of inflation and upward pressure on interest rates, with unpleasant consequences. “At this point, the Fed will find itself between Scylla and Charybdis—between deflation and hyperinflation—it will be forced fast either to take its ‘classical medicine’ by deflating, whereby it raises interest rates, thus inducing a major economic depression, a collapse in real estate, and an implosion in bond, stock, and derivative markets […], or alternatively, to take the Weimar way out by inflating, […] drown[ing] the financial system in liquidity […] and hyperinflating the economy.”
Any attempt, on the other hand, to preserve what Mike Whitney calls the “perfect pyramid-scheme” of America’s currency monopoly (Whitney, 23 Jan. 2006) by means of military aggression against Iran is likely to result in equal or greater disruptions to the world economy. American military aggression, which might conceivably include attempts to occupy Iran’s oil-producing Khuzestan province and the coastline along the Straits of Hormuz (see Pilger), will not just have appalling consequences for civilians throughout the region; it may also place American forces into situations still more closely analogous than the present stage of Iraqi resistance to the situation produced in Lebanon by Israel’s invasion of that country—which ended in 2000 with Israel’s first military defeat (see Salama and Ruster).
The involvement of Turkey
One significant difference between the warnings of a coming war circulating in early 2005 and those which have appeared in recent months is the current evidence of feverish diplomatic activity between Washington and Ankara. The NATO powers have evidently been co-opted into Washington’s war plans: the so-called EU-3 (France, Germany, and Britain) presented Iran with a negotiating position on the nuclear fuel cycle for Iran’s power plants that seemed designed to produce an indignant refusal. (As Aijaz Ahmad writes, the European group “was not negotiating; it was relaying to Iran, and to all and sundry, what the U.S. was demanding and threatening to report Iran to the Security Council if the latter did not comply. Everyone knows that Iran had closed its Isphahan facility voluntarily, as a confidence-building measure, expecting some reciprocity, and then re-opened it, in retaliation, after having waited for reciprocity for many months and not getting it—indeed, receiving only escalated demands.”)
But according to the well-connected Jürgen Gottslich, writing in Der Spiegel in late December, Iran was not discussed during the new German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung’s recent visit to Washington. Gottslich wrote that “the speculation surrounding an American strike against Iran centers more on developments in Turkey. There has been a definite surge in visits to Ankara by high-ranking National Security personnel from the U.S. and by NATO officials. Within the space of just a few days, FBI Director Robert Mueller, [CIA] Director [Porter] Goss and then NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer visited Turkey.” Condoleezza Rice also flew to Turkey immediately after her December trip to Berlin.
The aim of these visits has quite obviously been to bring Turkey into line with a planned attack on Iran. As Gottslich writes, “On his Istanbul visit, Goss is alleged to have given Turkish security services three dossiers that prove Iranian cooperation with al-Qaeda. In addition, there was a fourth dossier focusing on the current state of Iran’s nuclear weapons program.”
But why, beyond the obvious fact of Turkey’s shared border with Iran, should Turkey be such an important factor in American war plans? The answer is suggested by an article published by an American academic, Robert Olson, in the June 2002 issue of Middle East Policy. According to Noam Chomsky, Olson “reports that 12 percent of Israel’s offensive aircraft are to be ‘permanently stationed in Turkey’ and have been ‘flying reconnaissance flights along Iran’s border,’ signaling to Iran ‘that it would soon be challenged elsewhere by Turkey and its Israeli and American allies’” (Chomsky 159). These Israeli aircraft would evidently take part in any American and Israeli aerial attack on Iran, and Turkish consent would no doubt be necessary for their use in such an act.
What advantages might Turkey hope to gain from its consent? The collaboration of Britain, France and Germany in the cranking up of diplomatic pressure on Iran might suggest that Turkey’s much-desired admission to the European Union could have been held out as one carrot—possibly with the argument that participation in an attack on a fundamentalist Islamic state could be one way of calming European fears over the entry of a Muslim nation into the Union. An equally persuasive advantage may have been a secret promise of future admission to the select group of nuclear powers.
Christopher Deliso has assembled evidence both of Turkey’s persistent involvement in the smuggling and production of nuclear weapons technology, including centrifuge components and triggering devices (Deliso, 21 Nov. 2005)—and also of the very interesting fact that the key administration officials involved in the outing of Valerie Plame, who was investigating these murky operations, included people, among them Marc Grossman, former U.S. ambassador to Turkey, who give every appearance of having been centrally involved in the very network of nuclear arms proliferation that the CIA was working to uncover (Deliso, 24 Nov. 2005). Even when supplemented by Sibel Edmonds’ indications of high-level collaboration in the frustration by Turkish agents of the FBI’s parallel investigations of what appears to be the same network, the evidence remains at best suppositious. And yet despite the inaccessibility of details—which will no doubt remain inaccessible for as long as Dick Cheney, John Bolton and the rest retain the power to frustrate investigations into the activities of their close associates and subordinates—the larger pattern is, to say the least, intriguing. The same highly-placed neoconservatives who have been crying wolf over Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons appear to have been deeply—and lucratively—involved in the trafficking of restricted and forbidden weapons technology into Turkey.
Should this pattern turn out indeed to involve corruption, hypocrisy, and treachery on the grand scale that Deliso’s investigative reporting would suggest, is there any reason one should be surprised?
What else, to be frank, would you expect from people such as these?
*************
Global Research Contributing Editor Michael Keefer is Associate Professor of English at the University of Guelph. He is a former President of the Association of Canadian College and University Teachers of English. His recent writings include a series of articles on electoral fraud in the 2004 US presidential election published by the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Sources
Ahmad, Aijaz. “Iran: Imperialism’s second strike.” Frontline (India); available at the Centre for Research on Globalization (29 January 2006), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20AH20060129&articleid=1844
Arkin, William. “Not Just A Last Resort? A Global Strike Plan, With a Nuclear Option.” The Washington Post (15 May 2005): B1, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051400071.html
----. “Nuclear War in … Alabama.” The Washington Post (21 October 2005), http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2005/10/nuclear_war_in_.html
Beerman, William O., and Thomas Stauffer. “Is Iran Building Nukes? An Analysis. The physical evidence for a nuclear weapons program in Iran simply does not exist.” Pacific News Service; available at the Centre for Research on Globalization (2 February 2006), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BEE20060202&articleid=1877
Beeston, Richard. “Hawks have warplanes ready if the nuclear diplomacy fails.” Timesonline (7 February 2006), http://www.timeonline.co.uk/article/0,3-2027979,00.html
Bolton, John R. “Preventing Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons.” Remarks to the Hudson Institute, Washington DC (17 August 2004). Available at http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/iran1.htm
[Bush, George W.] “World won’t permit Iran to have nukes: Bush.” Yahoo! News (5 February 2006), http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060205/pl_afp/irannuclearpoliticsus
Chomsky, Noam. Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2003.
Chossudovsky, Michel. War and Globalisation: The Truth Behind September 11. Shanty Bay, Ontario: Global Outlook, 2002.
----. America’s “War on Terrorism.” Pincourt, Québec: Global Research, 2005.
----. “Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran.” Centre for Research on Globalization (1 May 2005), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20050501&articleid=66
----. “Nuclear War Against Iran.” Centre for Research on Globalization (3 January 2006), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20060103&articleid=1714
Christison, Bill, and Kathleen Christison. “Let’s Stop a US/Israeli War on Iran: It’s More Important than Slowing Nuclear Proliferation.” Counterpunch (29 December 2005), http://www.counterpunch.org/christison12292005.html
Clark, William R. “The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target: The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Market.” Centre for Research on Globalization (27 September 2004), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CLA20050927&articleid=199
----. “Iran’s euro-denominated oil bourse to open in March; US$ crash imminent!” Vheadline.com (28 January 2006), http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=47790
Cobain, Ian, and Ian Traynor. “Secret services say Iran is trying to assemble a nuclear missile.” The Guardian (4 January 2006), http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1677542,00.html
Coman, Julian. “Now America accuses Iran of complicity in World Trade Center attack.” The Telegraph (18 July 2004), http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wiran18.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/07/18/ixportaltop.html
Deliso, Christopher. “Plame, Pakistan, a Nuclear Turkey, and the Neocons.” Antiwar.com (21 November 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=8091
----. “Lesser Neocons of L’Affaire Plame.” Antiwar.com (24 November 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=8137
Edmonds, Sibel. “Gagged, but Still Going Strong.” Antiwar.com (16 May 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/edmonds/?articleid=5954
----, and John M. Cole. “FBI Penetrated: Again!” Antiwar.com (8 October 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/edmonds/?articleid=7558
Giraldi, Philip. “Deep Background.” The American Conservative (2 August 2005), http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html. The first section of this article is also available as “Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War.” Centre for Research on Globalization (2 August 2005), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050802&articleid=791
Gottslich, Jürgen. “U.S. Reportedly Planning 2006 Attack on Iran.” Trans. Carl Bergquist. Der Spiegel (23 December 2005), http://www.watchingamerica.com/derspiegel1000006.shtml
Griffin, David Ray. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11. 2nd ed. Northampton, Massachusetts: Olive Branch Press, 2004.
----. The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. Northampton, Massachusetts: Olive Branch Press, 2005.
Gush Shalom. “The US wants to ‘set Israel loose’ to attack Iran.” Centre for Research on Globalization (20 February 2005), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050219&articleid=436
Hersh, Seymour. “The Coming Wars.” The New Yorker (24-31 January 2005, posted 17 January), http://www,newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact
Hirsch, Jorge. “How to Stop the Planned Nuking of Iran: Congress should enact emergency legislation.” Antiwar.com (9 January 2006), http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8359
----. “Nuking Iran With the UN’s Blessing: Only the American people can stop it.” Antiwar.com (28 December 2005), http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8312
----. “Nuclear Deployment for an Attack on Iran.” Antiwar.com (16 December 2005), http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8263
----. “Nuking Iran Without the Dachshund: The meaning of the Philip Giraldi story.” Antiwar.com (26 November 2005), http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8153
----. “Can a Nuclear Strike on Iran be Prevented? Or will the world allow it to happen?” Antiwar.com (21 November 2005), http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8089
----. “A ‘Legal’ US Nuclear Attack Against Iran: The real reason for the IAEA Iran resolution.” Antiwar.com (12 November 2005), http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8007
----. “The Real Reason for Nuking Iran: Why a nuclear attack is on the neocon agenda.” Antiwar.com (1 November 2005), http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=7861
----. “Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come.” Antiwar.com (17 October 2005), http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=7649
Jensen, Mark. “Scott Ritter Says US Attack on Iran Planned for June.” Centre for Research on Globalization (20 February 2005), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050220&articleid=438
Klare, Michael T. “Oil. Geopolitics, and the Coming War with Iran.” TomDispatch.com (11 April 2005), http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=2312
Linzer, Dafina. “Iran is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb: U.S. Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements.” The Washngton Post (2 August 2005): A1.
Marrs, Jim. Inside Job: Unmasking the 9/11 Conspirators. San Rafael, California: Origin Press, 2004.
Media, Mike. “Ex-FBI translator’s case may reveal Plame’s crucial CIA role.” Online Journal (16 December 2005), http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_340.shtml
National Research Council. Effects of Nuclear Earth-Penetrator and Other Weapons. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press (www.nap.edu), 2005. Conclusions linked by Hirsch, 9 Jan. 2006, and available at http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11282.html
Nelson, Robert W. “Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons.” FAS Public Interest Report 54.1 (Jan./Feb. 2001), http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm
Nimmo, Kurt. “Head of CIA Tells Turks to Prepare for Attack on Iran.” Centre for Research on Globalization (21 December 2005), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20051221&articleid=1578
Nunan, Coilin. “Energy Bulletin (Coilin Nunan): Trading oil in euros—does it matter?” Vheadline.com (1 February 2006), http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=48101
Petras, James. “Iran in the Crosshairs: Israel’s War Deadline.” Counterpunch (24/25 December 2005), http://www.counterpunch.org/petras12242005.html
Petrov, Krassimir. “The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse.” Information Clearing House (19 January 2006), http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm
Phillips, Peter, and Project Censored. “U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro: Another Reason for the Invasion of Iraq.” (With Updates by William Clark and Coilin Nunan.) In Censored 2004: The Top 25 Censored Stories. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2003. 94-97.
Pilger, John. “Iran: the Next War.” The New Statesman (9 February 2006), available at The Centre for Research on Globalization (9 February 2006), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=PIL20060209&articleid=1929
Prather, Gordon. “Neocrazies Foiled.” Antiwar.com (17 September 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=7300
----. “Weapons of Mass Murder.” Antiwar.com (20 September 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=7320
----. “Such a Blot.” Antiwar.com (24 September 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=7374
----. “Case Closed, Condi.” Antiwar.com (27 September 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=7404
----. “US-Israeli Diplomatic Triumph Over Iran.” Antiwar.com (1 October 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=7462
----. “Pleading Incompetence.” Antiwar.com (4 October 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=7502
----. “Saving Face.” Antiwar.com (8 October 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=7555
----. “Doing Bush’s Bidding.” Antiwar.com (11 October 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=7574
----. “Bolton the Peacemaker.” Antiwar.com (15 October 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=7643
----. “Stifling Neo-Crazy Media Sycophants.” Antiwar.com (22 October 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=7728
----. “Other Parties? Whoops!” Antiwar.com (15 November 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8034
----. “Without Discrimination.” Antiwar.com (19 November 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8087
----. “Iran Has Nuke Warheads! Not.” Antiwar.com (23 November 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8121
----. “Outing Brewster Jennings.” Antiwar.com (26 November 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8156
----. “Dirty Bomb Redux.” Antiwar.com (29 November 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8168
----. “Neo-Crazies Already Planning Beyond Iran.” Antiwar.com (3 December 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8204
----. “Total Transparency.” Antiwar.com (6 December 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8210
----. “Referring Nuke-Threats to Security Council.” Antiwar.com (10 December 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8239
----. “Nuclear Threats, Real and Imagined.” Antiwar.com (13 December 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8245
----. “Those Crazy Mullahs.” Antiwar.com (17 December 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8268
----. “Lump of Coal for Condi.” Antiwar.com (24 December 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8304
----. “ElBaradei Isn’t Perfect.” Antiwar.com (27 December 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8308
----. “Diplomatic Rout.” Antiwar.com (31 December 2005), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8327
----. “Nuclear Back-Scratching.” Antiwar.com (3 January 2006), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8336
----. “On Another Planet.” Antiwar.com (7 January 2006), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8357
----. “Stuff and Nonsense.” Antiwar.com (10 January 2006), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8365
----. “Planting Evidence.” Antiwar.com (14 January 2006), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8388
----. “What Noncompliance?” Antiwar.com (17 January 2006), http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8397
[Rice, Condoleezza.] “Rice to Iran: Heed this clear message.” Yahoo! News (4 February 2006), http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060204/pl_afp/irannuclearpoliticsus_060204202223
Roberts, Paul Craig. “The Coming War on Iran: Fox News Fans the Hysteria.” Counterpunch (30 January 2006), http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01302006.html
Ruppe, David. “Preemptive Nuclear War in a State of Readiness: U.S. Command Declares Global Strike Capability.” Global Security Newswire (2 December 2005); available at the Centre for Research on Globalization (2 January 2006), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=RUP20060102&articleid=1705
Ruppert, Michael C. Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil. Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society, 2004.
Salama, Sammy, and Karen Ruster. “A Preemptive Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences.” CNS (Center for Nonproliferation Studies) (12 August 2004, updated 9 September 2004), http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm
Sale, Richard. “State told Libby of agent’s identity: State Department phone call gave key aide name of CIA officer.” Sic Semper Tyrannis 2005 (27 October 2005), http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2005/10/state_told_libb.html
Traynor, Ian, and Ian Cobain. “Intelligence report claims nuclear market thriving.” The Guardian (4 January 2006), http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,167754,00.html
Varadarajan, Siddharth. “Iran and the Invention of a Nuclear Crisis: Part I of a Three Part Series.” Centre for Research on Globalization (23 September 2005), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=VAR20050923&articleid=987
----. “What the IAEA really found in Iran. The Persian Puzzle: Part II.” Centre for Research on Globalization (23 September 2005), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=VAR20050923&articleide=986
----. “The world must stand firm on diplomacy: The ‘nuclear crisis’ is the product of 15 years of US hostility towards Iran. Persian Puzzle: Part III.” Centre for Research on Globalization (27 September 2005), http://www.globalresearch.ca.index.php?context=viewArticle&code=VAR20050927&articleid=1009
----. “Messy Compromise on Iran.” The Hindu; available at ZNet (1 February 2006), http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=9642
Walker, Martin. “German media: U.S. prepares Iran strike.” UPI (30 December 2005), http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051230-112208-8968r
Whitney, Mike. “The countdown to war with Iran.” Online Journal (17 January 2006), http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_425,shtml
----. “Iran’s Oil Exchange threatens the Greenback.” OpEdNews.com (23 January 2006), http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_060123_iran_92s_oil_exchange_.htm
*************
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to the original CRG article must be indicated. The author's copyright note must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global Research's News and Discussion Forum
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Michael Keefer, GlobalResearch.ca, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
