This is really Unbelievable!!
زیبایی های فوق العاده قطب شمال/ ویدیو
2 hours ago
Friday, 2 October 2009
Thursday, 24 September 2009
Sunday, 6 September 2009
Friday, 4 September 2009
Tuesday, 1 September 2009
Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Monday, 17 August 2009
Friday, 14 August 2009
Thursday, 13 August 2009
Sunday, 9 August 2009
Sunday, 2 August 2009
Saturday, 1 August 2009
Friday, 31 July 2009
Thursday, 30 July 2009
Monday, 27 July 2009
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Tuesday, 21 July 2009
Sunday, 19 July 2009
Saturday, 18 July 2009
Thursday, 16 July 2009
Iranian Uprising
Hundreds may have died in Iranian clashes after poll, say human rights campaigners.
Woman claims to have seen piles of corpses, as tension rises in Tehran over Rafsanjani speech.
Read More...
Woman claims to have seen piles of corpses, as tension rises in Tehran over Rafsanjani speech.
Read More...
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
Absolute Power
Revolutionaries often end up adopting to the habits and methods of those they once opposed. In Iran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has overseen a transformation back to absolute monarchy -- the difference being that this time, a cleric has control, not a dynasty.Read...
Monday, 13 July 2009
Sunday, 12 July 2009
Saturday, 11 July 2009
Rise of Sultans
This article was written by Akbar Ganji in Foreign Affairs.
The clerical regime's tampering with the election was nothing less than an attempt to completely take over all aspects of the Iranian state. Read More...
The clerical regime's tampering with the election was nothing less than an attempt to completely take over all aspects of the Iranian state. Read More...
Friday, 10 July 2009
Thursday, 9 July 2009
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
Monday, 6 July 2009
Sunday, 5 July 2009
Saturday, 4 July 2009
Thursday, 2 July 2009
Wednesday, 1 July 2009
Tuesday, 30 June 2009
Monday, 29 June 2009
Sunday, 28 June 2009
Thursday, 25 June 2009
Saturday, 18 October 2008
Iran 2 - North Korea 1
This is the first goal scored by Mehdi Mahdavikia.
And this is the second goal by Javad Nekoonam. (Brazillian Style)
And this is the second goal by Javad Nekoonam. (Brazillian Style)
Wednesday, 24 September 2008
Bail Out!
Let me get this straight. The Congress is meeting with the Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson this week. Mr. Paulson, who serves at the pleasure of the White House, says he has a plan to save the US economy. That plan involves bailing out the same companies that got the economy into the mess it is in today. The money for the bailout plan is going to come from the people who are already paying for two pointless, brutal and expensive occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan–the US taxpayers. More precisely, the US taxpayers who make between $25, 000 and $150,000 a year–the people the government likes to call the middle class. These people are already making less in real wages than they were ten years ago and many of them are facing foreclosures and other financial problems of their own.
If I recall correctly, the very same US Congress that is considering bailing out the big financial corporations that got the economy into its current mess because of their greed and the government’s willingness to forgo any regulation of their doings (and the doings of their sister companies in the energy sector) made it almost impossible for individual working people in the US to declare bankruptcy. Yet, they are enabling these giants of the Wall Street economy to get out of their financial catastrophes by making us foot the bill. Furthermore, they have the nerve to tell us it is for the good of the country. Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t think I can honestly recall the last time the White House, Congress or Wall Street did anything for the good of the country that I know.
Sure, they started a war against Afghanistan under the pretense that they were going to chase down and capture the guys who organized those planes flying into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That’s gone real well. I mean, look at Afghanistan now. The Pentagon is sending more troops and the White House and Congress are giving the okay. Dozens of civilians are dying in US air strikes as the occupiers fight a growing guerrilla army. They also started a war in Iraq that has done nothing but brought greater misery to that country and its people. It has also caused over 30,000 US casualties, with over 4000 of those casualties being dead men and women whose families are still not sure what they died for. Oh yeh, the price of fuel at the pump has increased by almost four dollars in some places across this land and the number of jobs has decreased steadily. That is, of course, unless you look at the military. Those job openings continue to grow.
But somebody must have benefited from this, right? And we all know who they are. The energy industry has raked in historically huge profits, all the while claiming that they deserve them while insisting that they get further tax breaks. Tax breaks which Congress willingly grants. The war industry has also made a bundle. Some companies, like General Dynamics, have doubled their net earnings just in the past four years. Others, like Haliburton, have used their insider connections to capture dozens, if not hundreds, of no-bid contracts that involve several documented cases of outright fraud and corruption. Yet, they continue to obtain the contracts and avoid prosecution. Then, there are those so-called security contractors, whose employees murder Iraqi citizens, media workers, and even Iraqi employees of the US-installed regime in Baghdad and face no penalties. Meanwhile, the contractor corporations themselves reap huge profits while also selling their services to agencies stateside that are involved with immigration and disaster management. So, uniformed thugs who answer to no one are now performing police duties here in the US. It’s like the Pinkertons of old in the employ of the Rockefellers, Carnegies and the government they ran back then.
Anyhow, back to that financial bailout and the arrogance assumed by those who are proposing it and those who will vote for it. Every time I hear about a CEO of some corporation that fails getting a multimillion dollar compensation package I can’t help but wonder: why is it that these guys get paid for doing their job so poorly that the company they manage fails? I know that in every job I have ever had that if I don’t do my job correctly than I get fired, plain and simple. If I’m lucky I might get a small unemployment check for a few months, but usually when a worker gets fired there is no compensation whatsoever. So, it pisses me off that these guys, from Lee Iacocca to the folks who ran Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the sewer not only get what the rich people call a parachute, but that they genuinely think they deserve one. I say push them out of th plane and let them try to fly. That’s what happens when people who work for a living lose their jobs.
The government isn’t any better, either. What could arguably be called the worst presidential administration in history will be leaving Washington next January. Yet, when those men and women hop on their chartered planes and head out of town, will they have to wonder where their next meal is coming from? Of course not. Almost every single one of them will fetch a nice retirement check for the rest of their lives. In addition, many of them will continue to receive the best health care in the world and hand us the bill. Others will go directly back into the business they were in before they joined the government. Naturally, those businesses will most certainly be better off than when these men and women left them to work in what I loosely term public service. After all, I’m not convinced that there is much servicing the public going on in DC any more. It’s more like servicing the wealthy and their bank accounts. As for Congress, these folks can spend two years in DC kissing corporate ass and hanging out in K Street offices and then go back to their other life with a lifetime pension and that same health care referred to previously. Bet the average reader can’t depend on a package like that.
It’s time Wall Street and Washington DC start practicing for itself what it preaches to the rest of us. No more bailouts and no more fat no-bid contracts. No more wars fought by other people’s kids for the war industry’s profits and the politicians’ egos. No more pay raises and no more free health care. No more taxpayer-funded travel and no more free gas. No more compensation packages unless they do a good job. Either that, or share the wealth and make health care universal, wars illegal, and fuel affordable.
It’s time we tell these folks: Bail your own selves out. Or, if you can’t, then start swimming. That’s what you expect us regular folks to do.
If I recall correctly, the very same US Congress that is considering bailing out the big financial corporations that got the economy into its current mess because of their greed and the government’s willingness to forgo any regulation of their doings (and the doings of their sister companies in the energy sector) made it almost impossible for individual working people in the US to declare bankruptcy. Yet, they are enabling these giants of the Wall Street economy to get out of their financial catastrophes by making us foot the bill. Furthermore, they have the nerve to tell us it is for the good of the country. Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t think I can honestly recall the last time the White House, Congress or Wall Street did anything for the good of the country that I know.
Sure, they started a war against Afghanistan under the pretense that they were going to chase down and capture the guys who organized those planes flying into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That’s gone real well. I mean, look at Afghanistan now. The Pentagon is sending more troops and the White House and Congress are giving the okay. Dozens of civilians are dying in US air strikes as the occupiers fight a growing guerrilla army. They also started a war in Iraq that has done nothing but brought greater misery to that country and its people. It has also caused over 30,000 US casualties, with over 4000 of those casualties being dead men and women whose families are still not sure what they died for. Oh yeh, the price of fuel at the pump has increased by almost four dollars in some places across this land and the number of jobs has decreased steadily. That is, of course, unless you look at the military. Those job openings continue to grow.
But somebody must have benefited from this, right? And we all know who they are. The energy industry has raked in historically huge profits, all the while claiming that they deserve them while insisting that they get further tax breaks. Tax breaks which Congress willingly grants. The war industry has also made a bundle. Some companies, like General Dynamics, have doubled their net earnings just in the past four years. Others, like Haliburton, have used their insider connections to capture dozens, if not hundreds, of no-bid contracts that involve several documented cases of outright fraud and corruption. Yet, they continue to obtain the contracts and avoid prosecution. Then, there are those so-called security contractors, whose employees murder Iraqi citizens, media workers, and even Iraqi employees of the US-installed regime in Baghdad and face no penalties. Meanwhile, the contractor corporations themselves reap huge profits while also selling their services to agencies stateside that are involved with immigration and disaster management. So, uniformed thugs who answer to no one are now performing police duties here in the US. It’s like the Pinkertons of old in the employ of the Rockefellers, Carnegies and the government they ran back then.
Anyhow, back to that financial bailout and the arrogance assumed by those who are proposing it and those who will vote for it. Every time I hear about a CEO of some corporation that fails getting a multimillion dollar compensation package I can’t help but wonder: why is it that these guys get paid for doing their job so poorly that the company they manage fails? I know that in every job I have ever had that if I don’t do my job correctly than I get fired, plain and simple. If I’m lucky I might get a small unemployment check for a few months, but usually when a worker gets fired there is no compensation whatsoever. So, it pisses me off that these guys, from Lee Iacocca to the folks who ran Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the sewer not only get what the rich people call a parachute, but that they genuinely think they deserve one. I say push them out of th plane and let them try to fly. That’s what happens when people who work for a living lose their jobs.
The government isn’t any better, either. What could arguably be called the worst presidential administration in history will be leaving Washington next January. Yet, when those men and women hop on their chartered planes and head out of town, will they have to wonder where their next meal is coming from? Of course not. Almost every single one of them will fetch a nice retirement check for the rest of their lives. In addition, many of them will continue to receive the best health care in the world and hand us the bill. Others will go directly back into the business they were in before they joined the government. Naturally, those businesses will most certainly be better off than when these men and women left them to work in what I loosely term public service. After all, I’m not convinced that there is much servicing the public going on in DC any more. It’s more like servicing the wealthy and their bank accounts. As for Congress, these folks can spend two years in DC kissing corporate ass and hanging out in K Street offices and then go back to their other life with a lifetime pension and that same health care referred to previously. Bet the average reader can’t depend on a package like that.
It’s time Wall Street and Washington DC start practicing for itself what it preaches to the rest of us. No more bailouts and no more fat no-bid contracts. No more wars fought by other people’s kids for the war industry’s profits and the politicians’ egos. No more pay raises and no more free health care. No more taxpayer-funded travel and no more free gas. No more compensation packages unless they do a good job. Either that, or share the wealth and make health care universal, wars illegal, and fuel affordable.
It’s time we tell these folks: Bail your own selves out. Or, if you can’t, then start swimming. That’s what you expect us regular folks to do.
Saturday, 20 September 2008
Iran
The IAEA’s latest report on Iran’s nuclear program was circulated to the Board of Governors this week. It has not been released to the general public, but it is widely being hailed as a damning condemnation of Iran by the mainstream media.
The Washington Post headline read, “U.N. Agency at ‘Dead End’ as Iran Rejects Queries on Nuclear Research.” The article states, “The apparent standoff was detailed in a report that also described substantial gains by Tehran in its efforts to make enriched uranium, the fuel used in commercial nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons.” The Post fails to point out that the IAEA has also confirmed that Iran has produced only low-enriched uranium, not the highly-enriched uranium required for nuclear weapons.
The Post quotes Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA, as saying, “After numerous inspections there was no evidence on diversion of nuclear activities and materials for military objectives.” But it fails to point out that this is not only attributable to Iranian denials, but to the IAEA report itself, which states that the IAEA “has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran.”
That line is taken verbatim from the IAEA’s previous report last May. Just before issuing that report, IAEA Secretary General noted, “We haven’t seen indications or any concrete evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and I’ve been saying that consistently for the last five years.”
A CBS News headline declared, “IAEA: Iran To Upgrade Missile For Nuke Use,” falsely suggesting that this is a conclusion drawn by the agency. The subtitle more accurately notes, “U.N. Agency Presents Report Allegedly Showing Iran’s Plans To Redesign Weapons.”
The U.S. Is known to have been the principle nation responsible for supplying the reports to the IAEA, although it is reported that other Western intelligence agencies have also been involved. Iran insists that the documents have been fabricated.
The documents, which have come to be known as the “alleged studies” by the IAEA, have become a key obstacle to the IAEA’s efforts to verify the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program. The report in May noted significant progress in other areas, leaving the “alleged studies” the key remaining outstanding issue. That report also emphasized “that the Agency has not detected the actual use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies.”
After the latest report, IAEA officials who have talked to the press have been widely quoted anonymously as describing the agency’s efforts in Iran as being at a “dead end”. One unnamed official said, “Iran has so far not been forthcoming in replying to our questions and we seem to be at a dead end there.” Another press account quotes an unnamed official saying, “We seem to have reached a dead end … Gridlock.”
The report itself said that the IAEA “regrettably has not been able to make any substantive progress on the alleged studies and other associated key remaining issues which remain of serious concern.”
Iran has not even been allowed to see the documents upon which the allegations accusing it of seeking a nuclear weapon are founded. Despite this, the IAEA has apparently insisted on being allowed access beyond that required of Iran under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT).
Alaeddin Borujerdi, head of the Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Affairs Committee, said, “We are against offering the agency an open door once more and that they expect Iran to respond to any claim.” He also added, “We do not think there should be an open forum so America can bring up a new claim every day and pass it on to the agency, expecting Iran to address any claim.”
Iran’s envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said, “We continue cooperating with the IAEA but they should not expect us to apply the additional protocol.”
Iran had previously voluntarily allowed inspectors a greater level of access despite not having agreed to the additional protocol and hence having no legal obligation to provide more access. In response to the U.S. Referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council in 2006, resulting in sanctions, Iran predictably stopped its voluntary effort to allow inspectors greater access than mandated under the NPT.
Soltanieh also said, “No country would give information about its conventional military activities.”
“I said in this briefing,” Soltaniah explained, “‘Who in the world would believe there are a series of top secret documents U.S. Intelligence found in a laptop regarding a Manhattan Project-type nuclear (bomb programme) in Iran and none of these documents bore seals of ‘high confidential’ or ’secret’? This is simply unbelievable. This matter is over, as far as we are concerned.”
The threat that the U.S. or Israel might engage in a targeted airstrikes against Iran has continued to escalate. Israel earlier this year conducted military exercises involving just such a strike in what was widely interpreted as a warning to Iran.
USA Today reported this week that “The Pentagon is expanding its arsenal of bunker-busting bombs to knock out suspected programs to make weapons of mass destruction, such as Iran’s, interviews and military planning documents show.”
In addition, Israel has ordered 1,000 GBU-39 bunker-busting smart bombs from Boeing in a deal announced by the U.S. Department of Defense last Friday. At the same time, the U.S. is bolstering Israel’s defenses, including by updating its arsenal of Patriot missile interceptors and deploying a new radar installation on what will be “the first American base on Israeli territory,” as the Israeli paper Haaretz noted.
Haaretz also reported last week that Israel had asked the U.S. for authorization to use Iraqi airspace for an attack on Iran. The U.S., for now, appears to be drawing the line short of this, and reportedly responded by telling the Israelis to coordinate with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
If true, the statement could be interpreted as a clear, “no.” Maliki has assured Iran that Iraq would not be used for such an attack, and the U.S. is unlikely to threaten its relations with Iraq by undermining its sovereignty in such a blatant demonstration of U.S. hegemony over the country under the ongoing military occupation.
The European Jewish Congress in Brussels held a panel on the Iran issue that concluded, “Only military action can stop Iran, or else Iran will acquire nuclear weapons to the great detriment of regional and even global stability.”
The Congress, meanwhile, is debating two resolutions this week that seek to “increase economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities” and call for “stringent inspection requirements” of all goods into and out of Iran, which would effectively amount to a naval blockade of the country — an action which would be widely considered an act of war.
The U.S. also has increased its military presence in the Persian Gulf. Two carrier groups are there and a third is on its way.
Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman claims in a new book, The Secret War with Iran, that the U.S. and Israel have been engaged in clandestine operations to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program.
Another interpretation might be that the U.S. is seeking rather, or at least simultaneously, to sabotage the IAEA’s effort to verify the peaceful nature of Iran’s program.
When the U.N. inspections teams in Iraq threatened to be near to declaring that Iraq had been disarmed, the Clinton administration intervened, launching a bombing campaign that forced the inspectors to withdraw from the country and ensured that they would not be allowed back. The U.N. inspections had also been further undermined with revelations that U.S. intelligence was “piggybacking” inspections.
Iraq allowed inspectors into the country once again in 2002. By March, 2003, the U.N. was once again threatening to find Iraq verifiably disarmed, prompting the U.S. to intervene once again with its military invasion to prevent this from happening and to implement by force the official policy of “regime change” that would be undermined were weapons inspectors to declare Iraq disarmed.
U.S. policy towards Iran has taken a similar course as it had towards Iraq prior to the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Meanwhile, further escalating the tensions by demonizing the country, the claim that Iran has been arming the Taliban has been resurrected yet again. A BBC headline this week stated, “Iran ’sending weapons to Taleban.’” While the headline suggests a policy of the Iranian government, the report itself merely suggests that the Taliban might be receiving Iranian-made arms on the black market. The BBC cites Taliban members who say they “had received Iranian-made arms from elements in the Iranian state and from smugglers”. The report does not clarify whether “elements” within “the Iranian state” is meant to refer to elements of the Iranian government or not, despite the obvious intention to imply just that.
Iran denied the claim that its government has supported the Taliban, saying that it supported the government of Aghanistan under Hamid Karzai. Iran has historically opposed the Taliban, instead supporting the Northern Alliance, while U.S. allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia had been the Taliban’s largest benefactors.
The Washington Post headline read, “U.N. Agency at ‘Dead End’ as Iran Rejects Queries on Nuclear Research.” The article states, “The apparent standoff was detailed in a report that also described substantial gains by Tehran in its efforts to make enriched uranium, the fuel used in commercial nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons.” The Post fails to point out that the IAEA has also confirmed that Iran has produced only low-enriched uranium, not the highly-enriched uranium required for nuclear weapons.
The Post quotes Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA, as saying, “After numerous inspections there was no evidence on diversion of nuclear activities and materials for military objectives.” But it fails to point out that this is not only attributable to Iranian denials, but to the IAEA report itself, which states that the IAEA “has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran.”
That line is taken verbatim from the IAEA’s previous report last May. Just before issuing that report, IAEA Secretary General noted, “We haven’t seen indications or any concrete evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and I’ve been saying that consistently for the last five years.”
A CBS News headline declared, “IAEA: Iran To Upgrade Missile For Nuke Use,” falsely suggesting that this is a conclusion drawn by the agency. The subtitle more accurately notes, “U.N. Agency Presents Report Allegedly Showing Iran’s Plans To Redesign Weapons.”
The U.S. Is known to have been the principle nation responsible for supplying the reports to the IAEA, although it is reported that other Western intelligence agencies have also been involved. Iran insists that the documents have been fabricated.
The documents, which have come to be known as the “alleged studies” by the IAEA, have become a key obstacle to the IAEA’s efforts to verify the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program. The report in May noted significant progress in other areas, leaving the “alleged studies” the key remaining outstanding issue. That report also emphasized “that the Agency has not detected the actual use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies.”
After the latest report, IAEA officials who have talked to the press have been widely quoted anonymously as describing the agency’s efforts in Iran as being at a “dead end”. One unnamed official said, “Iran has so far not been forthcoming in replying to our questions and we seem to be at a dead end there.” Another press account quotes an unnamed official saying, “We seem to have reached a dead end … Gridlock.”
The report itself said that the IAEA “regrettably has not been able to make any substantive progress on the alleged studies and other associated key remaining issues which remain of serious concern.”
Iran has not even been allowed to see the documents upon which the allegations accusing it of seeking a nuclear weapon are founded. Despite this, the IAEA has apparently insisted on being allowed access beyond that required of Iran under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT).
Alaeddin Borujerdi, head of the Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Affairs Committee, said, “We are against offering the agency an open door once more and that they expect Iran to respond to any claim.” He also added, “We do not think there should be an open forum so America can bring up a new claim every day and pass it on to the agency, expecting Iran to address any claim.”
Iran’s envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said, “We continue cooperating with the IAEA but they should not expect us to apply the additional protocol.”
Iran had previously voluntarily allowed inspectors a greater level of access despite not having agreed to the additional protocol and hence having no legal obligation to provide more access. In response to the U.S. Referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council in 2006, resulting in sanctions, Iran predictably stopped its voluntary effort to allow inspectors greater access than mandated under the NPT.
Soltanieh also said, “No country would give information about its conventional military activities.”
“I said in this briefing,” Soltaniah explained, “‘Who in the world would believe there are a series of top secret documents U.S. Intelligence found in a laptop regarding a Manhattan Project-type nuclear (bomb programme) in Iran and none of these documents bore seals of ‘high confidential’ or ’secret’? This is simply unbelievable. This matter is over, as far as we are concerned.”
The threat that the U.S. or Israel might engage in a targeted airstrikes against Iran has continued to escalate. Israel earlier this year conducted military exercises involving just such a strike in what was widely interpreted as a warning to Iran.
USA Today reported this week that “The Pentagon is expanding its arsenal of bunker-busting bombs to knock out suspected programs to make weapons of mass destruction, such as Iran’s, interviews and military planning documents show.”
In addition, Israel has ordered 1,000 GBU-39 bunker-busting smart bombs from Boeing in a deal announced by the U.S. Department of Defense last Friday. At the same time, the U.S. is bolstering Israel’s defenses, including by updating its arsenal of Patriot missile interceptors and deploying a new radar installation on what will be “the first American base on Israeli territory,” as the Israeli paper Haaretz noted.
Haaretz also reported last week that Israel had asked the U.S. for authorization to use Iraqi airspace for an attack on Iran. The U.S., for now, appears to be drawing the line short of this, and reportedly responded by telling the Israelis to coordinate with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
If true, the statement could be interpreted as a clear, “no.” Maliki has assured Iran that Iraq would not be used for such an attack, and the U.S. is unlikely to threaten its relations with Iraq by undermining its sovereignty in such a blatant demonstration of U.S. hegemony over the country under the ongoing military occupation.
The European Jewish Congress in Brussels held a panel on the Iran issue that concluded, “Only military action can stop Iran, or else Iran will acquire nuclear weapons to the great detriment of regional and even global stability.”
The Congress, meanwhile, is debating two resolutions this week that seek to “increase economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities” and call for “stringent inspection requirements” of all goods into and out of Iran, which would effectively amount to a naval blockade of the country — an action which would be widely considered an act of war.
The U.S. also has increased its military presence in the Persian Gulf. Two carrier groups are there and a third is on its way.
Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman claims in a new book, The Secret War with Iran, that the U.S. and Israel have been engaged in clandestine operations to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program.
Another interpretation might be that the U.S. is seeking rather, or at least simultaneously, to sabotage the IAEA’s effort to verify the peaceful nature of Iran’s program.
When the U.N. inspections teams in Iraq threatened to be near to declaring that Iraq had been disarmed, the Clinton administration intervened, launching a bombing campaign that forced the inspectors to withdraw from the country and ensured that they would not be allowed back. The U.N. inspections had also been further undermined with revelations that U.S. intelligence was “piggybacking” inspections.
Iraq allowed inspectors into the country once again in 2002. By March, 2003, the U.N. was once again threatening to find Iraq verifiably disarmed, prompting the U.S. to intervene once again with its military invasion to prevent this from happening and to implement by force the official policy of “regime change” that would be undermined were weapons inspectors to declare Iraq disarmed.
U.S. policy towards Iran has taken a similar course as it had towards Iraq prior to the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Meanwhile, further escalating the tensions by demonizing the country, the claim that Iran has been arming the Taliban has been resurrected yet again. A BBC headline this week stated, “Iran ’sending weapons to Taleban.’” While the headline suggests a policy of the Iranian government, the report itself merely suggests that the Taliban might be receiving Iranian-made arms on the black market. The BBC cites Taliban members who say they “had received Iranian-made arms from elements in the Iranian state and from smugglers”. The report does not clarify whether “elements” within “the Iranian state” is meant to refer to elements of the Iranian government or not, despite the obvious intention to imply just that.
Iran denied the claim that its government has supported the Taliban, saying that it supported the government of Aghanistan under Hamid Karzai. Iran has historically opposed the Taliban, instead supporting the Northern Alliance, while U.S. allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia had been the Taliban’s largest benefactors.
Iran
The IAEA’s latest report on Iran’s nuclear program was circulated to the Board of Governors this week. It has not been released to the general public, but it is widely being hailed as a damning condemnation of Iran by the mainstream media.
The Washington Post headline read, “U.N. Agency at ‘Dead End’ as Iran Rejects Queries on Nuclear Research.” The article states, “The apparent standoff was detailed in a report that also described substantial gains by Tehran in its efforts to make enriched uranium, the fuel used in commercial nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons.” The Post fails to point out that the IAEA has also confirmed that Iran has produced only low-enriched uranium, not the highly-enriched uranium required for nuclear weapons.
The Post quotes Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA, as saying, “After numerous inspections there was no evidence on diversion of nuclear activities and materials for military objectives.” But it fails to point out that this is not only attributable to Iranian denials, but to the IAEA report itself, which states that the IAEA “has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran.”
That line is taken verbatim from the IAEA’s previous report last May. Just before issuing that report, IAEA Secretary General noted, “We haven’t seen indications or any concrete evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and I’ve been saying that consistently for the last five years.”
A CBS News headline declared, “IAEA: Iran To Upgrade Missile For Nuke Use,” falsely suggesting that this is a conclusion drawn by the agency. The subtitle more accurately notes, “U.N. Agency Presents Report Allegedly Showing Iran’s Plans To Redesign Weapons.”
The U.S. Is known to have been the principle nation responsible for supplying the reports to the IAEA, although it is reported that other Western intelligence agencies have also been involved. Iran insists that the documents have been fabricated.
The documents, which have come to be known as the “alleged studies” by the IAEA, have become a key obstacle to the IAEA’s efforts to verify the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program. The report in May noted significant progress in other areas, leaving the “alleged studies” the key remaining outstanding issue. That report also emphasized “that the Agency has not detected the actual use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies.”
After the latest report, IAEA officials who have talked to the press have been widely quoted anonymously as describing the agency’s efforts in Iran as being at a “dead end”. One unnamed official said, “Iran has so far not been forthcoming in replying to our questions and we seem to be at a dead end there.” Another press account quotes an unnamed official saying, “We seem to have reached a dead end … Gridlock.”
The report itself said that the IAEA “regrettably has not been able to make any substantive progress on the alleged studies and other associated key remaining issues which remain of serious concern.”
Iran has not even been allowed to see the documents upon which the allegations accusing it of seeking a nuclear weapon are founded. Despite this, the IAEA has apparently insisted on being allowed access beyond that required of Iran under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT).
Alaeddin Borujerdi, head of the Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Affairs Committee, said, “We are against offering the agency an open door once more and that they expect Iran to respond to any claim.” He also added, “We do not think there should be an open forum so America can bring up a new claim every day and pass it on to the agency, expecting Iran to address any claim.”
Iran’s envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said, “We continue cooperating with the IAEA but they should not expect us to apply the additional protocol.”
Iran had previously voluntarily allowed inspectors a greater level of access despite not having agreed to the additional protocol and hence having no legal obligation to provide more access. In response to the U.S. Referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council in 2006, resulting in sanctions, Iran predictably stopped its voluntary effort to allow inspectors greater access than mandated under the NPT.
Soltanieh also said, “No country would give information about its conventional military activities.”
“I said in this briefing,” Soltaniah explained, “‘Who in the world would believe there are a series of top secret documents U.S. Intelligence found in a laptop regarding a Manhattan Project-type nuclear (bomb programme) in Iran and none of these documents bore seals of ‘high confidential’ or ’secret’? This is simply unbelievable. This matter is over, as far as we are concerned.”
The threat that the U.S. or Israel might engage in a targeted airstrikes against Iran has continued to escalate. Israel earlier this year conducted military exercises involving just such a strike in what was widely interpreted as a warning to Iran.
USA Today reported this week that “The Pentagon is expanding its arsenal of bunker-busting bombs to knock out suspected programs to make weapons of mass destruction, such as Iran’s, interviews and military planning documents show.”
In addition, Israel has ordered 1,000 GBU-39 bunker-busting smart bombs from Boeing in a deal announced by the U.S. Department of Defense last Friday. At the same time, the U.S. is bolstering Israel’s defenses, including by updating its arsenal of Patriot missile interceptors and deploying a new radar installation on what will be “the first American base on Israeli territory,” as the Israeli paper Haaretz noted.
Haaretz also reported last week that Israel had asked the U.S. for authorization to use Iraqi airspace for an attack on Iran. The U.S., for now, appears to be drawing the line short of this, and reportedly responded by telling the Israelis to coordinate with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
If true, the statement could be interpreted as a clear, “no.” Maliki has assured Iran that Iraq would not be used for such an attack, and the U.S. is unlikely to threaten its relations with Iraq by undermining its sovereignty in such a blatant demonstration of U.S. hegemony over the country under the ongoing military occupation.
The European Jewish Congress in Brussels held a panel on the Iran issue that concluded, “Only military action can stop Iran, or else Iran will acquire nuclear weapons to the great detriment of regional and even global stability.”
The Congress, meanwhile, is debating two resolutions this week that seek to “increase economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities” and call for “stringent inspection requirements” of all goods into and out of Iran, which would effectively amount to a naval blockade of the country — an action which would be widely considered an act of war.
The U.S. also has increased its military presence in the Persian Gulf. Two carrier groups are there and a third is on its way.
Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman claims in a new book, The Secret War with Iran, that the U.S. and Israel have been engaged in clandestine operations to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program.
Another interpretation might be that the U.S. is seeking rather, or at least simultaneously, to sabotage the IAEA’s effort to verify the peaceful nature of Iran’s program.
When the U.N. inspections teams in Iraq threatened to be near to declaring that Iraq had been disarmed, the Clinton administration intervened, launching a bombing campaign that forced the inspectors to withdraw from the country and ensured that they would not be allowed back. The U.N. inspections had also been further undermined with revelations that U.S. intelligence was “piggybacking” inspections.
Iraq allowed inspectors into the country once again in 2002. By March, 2003, the U.N. was once again threatening to find Iraq verifiably disarmed, prompting the U.S. to intervene once again with its military invasion to prevent this from happening and to implement by force the official policy of “regime change” that would be undermined were weapons inspectors to declare Iraq disarmed.
U.S. policy towards Iran has taken a similar course as it had towards Iraq prior to the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Meanwhile, further escalating the tensions by demonizing the country, the claim that Iran has been arming the Taliban has been resurrected yet again. A BBC headline this week stated, “Iran ’sending weapons to Taleban.’” While the headline suggests a policy of the Iranian government, the report itself merely suggests that the Taliban might be receiving Iranian-made arms on the black market. The BBC cites Taliban members who say they “had received Iranian-made arms from elements in the Iranian state and from smugglers”. The report does not clarify whether “elements” within “the Iranian state” is meant to refer to elements of the Iranian government or not, despite the obvious intention to imply just that.
Iran denied the claim that its government has supported the Taliban, saying that it supported the government of Aghanistan under Hamid Karzai. Iran has historically opposed the Taliban, instead supporting the Northern Alliance, while U.S. allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia had been the Taliban’s largest benefactors.
The Washington Post headline read, “U.N. Agency at ‘Dead End’ as Iran Rejects Queries on Nuclear Research.” The article states, “The apparent standoff was detailed in a report that also described substantial gains by Tehran in its efforts to make enriched uranium, the fuel used in commercial nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons.” The Post fails to point out that the IAEA has also confirmed that Iran has produced only low-enriched uranium, not the highly-enriched uranium required for nuclear weapons.
The Post quotes Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA, as saying, “After numerous inspections there was no evidence on diversion of nuclear activities and materials for military objectives.” But it fails to point out that this is not only attributable to Iranian denials, but to the IAEA report itself, which states that the IAEA “has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran.”
That line is taken verbatim from the IAEA’s previous report last May. Just before issuing that report, IAEA Secretary General noted, “We haven’t seen indications or any concrete evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and I’ve been saying that consistently for the last five years.”
A CBS News headline declared, “IAEA: Iran To Upgrade Missile For Nuke Use,” falsely suggesting that this is a conclusion drawn by the agency. The subtitle more accurately notes, “U.N. Agency Presents Report Allegedly Showing Iran’s Plans To Redesign Weapons.”
The U.S. Is known to have been the principle nation responsible for supplying the reports to the IAEA, although it is reported that other Western intelligence agencies have also been involved. Iran insists that the documents have been fabricated.
The documents, which have come to be known as the “alleged studies” by the IAEA, have become a key obstacle to the IAEA’s efforts to verify the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program. The report in May noted significant progress in other areas, leaving the “alleged studies” the key remaining outstanding issue. That report also emphasized “that the Agency has not detected the actual use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies.”
After the latest report, IAEA officials who have talked to the press have been widely quoted anonymously as describing the agency’s efforts in Iran as being at a “dead end”. One unnamed official said, “Iran has so far not been forthcoming in replying to our questions and we seem to be at a dead end there.” Another press account quotes an unnamed official saying, “We seem to have reached a dead end … Gridlock.”
The report itself said that the IAEA “regrettably has not been able to make any substantive progress on the alleged studies and other associated key remaining issues which remain of serious concern.”
Iran has not even been allowed to see the documents upon which the allegations accusing it of seeking a nuclear weapon are founded. Despite this, the IAEA has apparently insisted on being allowed access beyond that required of Iran under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT).
Alaeddin Borujerdi, head of the Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Affairs Committee, said, “We are against offering the agency an open door once more and that they expect Iran to respond to any claim.” He also added, “We do not think there should be an open forum so America can bring up a new claim every day and pass it on to the agency, expecting Iran to address any claim.”
Iran’s envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said, “We continue cooperating with the IAEA but they should not expect us to apply the additional protocol.”
Iran had previously voluntarily allowed inspectors a greater level of access despite not having agreed to the additional protocol and hence having no legal obligation to provide more access. In response to the U.S. Referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council in 2006, resulting in sanctions, Iran predictably stopped its voluntary effort to allow inspectors greater access than mandated under the NPT.
Soltanieh also said, “No country would give information about its conventional military activities.”
“I said in this briefing,” Soltaniah explained, “‘Who in the world would believe there are a series of top secret documents U.S. Intelligence found in a laptop regarding a Manhattan Project-type nuclear (bomb programme) in Iran and none of these documents bore seals of ‘high confidential’ or ’secret’? This is simply unbelievable. This matter is over, as far as we are concerned.”
The threat that the U.S. or Israel might engage in a targeted airstrikes against Iran has continued to escalate. Israel earlier this year conducted military exercises involving just such a strike in what was widely interpreted as a warning to Iran.
USA Today reported this week that “The Pentagon is expanding its arsenal of bunker-busting bombs to knock out suspected programs to make weapons of mass destruction, such as Iran’s, interviews and military planning documents show.”
In addition, Israel has ordered 1,000 GBU-39 bunker-busting smart bombs from Boeing in a deal announced by the U.S. Department of Defense last Friday. At the same time, the U.S. is bolstering Israel’s defenses, including by updating its arsenal of Patriot missile interceptors and deploying a new radar installation on what will be “the first American base on Israeli territory,” as the Israeli paper Haaretz noted.
Haaretz also reported last week that Israel had asked the U.S. for authorization to use Iraqi airspace for an attack on Iran. The U.S., for now, appears to be drawing the line short of this, and reportedly responded by telling the Israelis to coordinate with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
If true, the statement could be interpreted as a clear, “no.” Maliki has assured Iran that Iraq would not be used for such an attack, and the U.S. is unlikely to threaten its relations with Iraq by undermining its sovereignty in such a blatant demonstration of U.S. hegemony over the country under the ongoing military occupation.
The European Jewish Congress in Brussels held a panel on the Iran issue that concluded, “Only military action can stop Iran, or else Iran will acquire nuclear weapons to the great detriment of regional and even global stability.”
The Congress, meanwhile, is debating two resolutions this week that seek to “increase economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities” and call for “stringent inspection requirements” of all goods into and out of Iran, which would effectively amount to a naval blockade of the country — an action which would be widely considered an act of war.
The U.S. also has increased its military presence in the Persian Gulf. Two carrier groups are there and a third is on its way.
Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman claims in a new book, The Secret War with Iran, that the U.S. and Israel have been engaged in clandestine operations to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program.
Another interpretation might be that the U.S. is seeking rather, or at least simultaneously, to sabotage the IAEA’s effort to verify the peaceful nature of Iran’s program.
When the U.N. inspections teams in Iraq threatened to be near to declaring that Iraq had been disarmed, the Clinton administration intervened, launching a bombing campaign that forced the inspectors to withdraw from the country and ensured that they would not be allowed back. The U.N. inspections had also been further undermined with revelations that U.S. intelligence was “piggybacking” inspections.
Iraq allowed inspectors into the country once again in 2002. By March, 2003, the U.N. was once again threatening to find Iraq verifiably disarmed, prompting the U.S. to intervene once again with its military invasion to prevent this from happening and to implement by force the official policy of “regime change” that would be undermined were weapons inspectors to declare Iraq disarmed.
U.S. policy towards Iran has taken a similar course as it had towards Iraq prior to the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Meanwhile, further escalating the tensions by demonizing the country, the claim that Iran has been arming the Taliban has been resurrected yet again. A BBC headline this week stated, “Iran ’sending weapons to Taleban.’” While the headline suggests a policy of the Iranian government, the report itself merely suggests that the Taliban might be receiving Iranian-made arms on the black market. The BBC cites Taliban members who say they “had received Iranian-made arms from elements in the Iranian state and from smugglers”. The report does not clarify whether “elements” within “the Iranian state” is meant to refer to elements of the Iranian government or not, despite the obvious intention to imply just that.
Iran denied the claim that its government has supported the Taliban, saying that it supported the government of Aghanistan under Hamid Karzai. Iran has historically opposed the Taliban, instead supporting the Northern Alliance, while U.S. allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia had been the Taliban’s largest benefactors.
Sunday, 7 September 2008
Tuesday, 19 August 2008
Sunday, 17 August 2008
Iran - US Relations
In an article on Counterpunch (May 11, 2006), Tariq Ali argued succinctly that Iran had been nothing but helpful to the American colonial ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. So, why would the U.S. attack Iran and turn a big helping asset in the region into a colossal hostility, which would in turn make Americans’ presence in the region far more hellish?
A lot of Iranian socialists, liberals, radical democrats and plenty of people in the clerical and merchant classes, as well as millions of ordinary citizens know that the ruling classes in the U.S., divided as they are over attacking Iran militarily, are united in preferring an Islamic Republic, rather than a secular republic, in Iran. The American rulers know, or at least calculate, that any other political formation in Iran will definitely be socially to the left of the current set up. The Mullahs also know that the Americans know this. So, both are clear on this.
Those of us who grew up under Shah’s dictatorship used to think that he was the limit, but of course leave it up to the clergymen, the ideological singing birds of the ruling classes in Iran for the past one thousand years and more, to come up with an infinitely improved dictatorship, something the Pahlavi ‘dynasty’ could only dream about (the ‘dynasty’ was a mere two kings long; both took power through Western-supported coups; I’d call it ‘foreign investment’, not ‘dynasty’).
In terms of a sufficiently thorough dictatorial set up, then, beneficial to anybody wishing to do business (wink) with Iran, Western imperialists cannot have it any better than the regime that exists there now; they don’t want this regime to disappear. So, if and when talking regime change, they mean merely a change of behavior. The major differences between the American and the Iranian regimes revolve around the terms and conditions under which the Islamic Republic will continue to rule.
Over the recent years of the verbal back and forth between the ugly duckling Uncle Sam and bad, bad Ayatollahs, I have noticed a curious side-correlation. The rise in the level of belligerent talk directed at Iran coming out of Washington has usually accompanied a rise of violence in Iraq. Every time the Americans experience intensified resistance from the Iraqis, there is a surge of accusations regarding Iranian nuclear ambitions and ‘meddling in Iraq’.
So, one can imagine that what the U.S. administration is really saying is that the Iranian regime and their capable military and paramilitary presence, in terms of personnel and influence in Iraq, are not doing enough to keep the violence under an acceptable level; ‘acceptable’ meaning here, a level which can still be spun somehow positively in the establishment mass media in the west, particularly in the U.S.
For example, right now, due to Iranian exertion of influence, as thoroughly reported by Patrick Cockburn, Sadr’s militia’s have been given stand-down orders. This has partly been responsible for the ‘relative success’ of the so-called surge of American military forces into the Baghdad area. In such a context, a death rate of more than 550 per month in Iraq, can be presented in the American mass media as a ’success’. In order for this death rate to be presented as progress, the Iranian regime has done its fare share. No wonder then that, diplomatically, the Iranians act like the Americans owe them something; which they indeed do!
Mixed in with the nuclear-related accusations, when attacking Iran undiplomatically, has been the issue of Iranian military involvement in Iraq. Since at least 2004, we have heard accusations of ‘Iranian meddling’ by U.S. military and political leaders. That these accusations of ‘foreign meddling’ are forwarded by a mercenary army of more than 350,000 (including the contractors) who flew or sailed thousands of miles to get to Iraq is of course totally beside the point.
The factual truth, however, is different. The Americans knew from the very start of the invasion’s planning stages that the Iranians would be there; in fact, during the aerial bombardments and the initial land invasion of Iraq in 2003, American military was coordinating with the Iranian-based Badr brigades, which meant coordinating with the Iranian military.
So far as Iranian ‘meddling’ goes, then, the Americans were relying on it to achieve their own politico-military objectives in Iraq. So, to now turn their presence in Iraq into an excuse to attack Iran is not just outrageous, it is in fact insane. Would the U.S. not intervene in Mexico if, say, a European country or, who’s kidding who, even if Belize invaded Mexico?
A broken Afghanistan and a broken Iraq along with a huge American military presence on two of its borders with enormously destabilizing effects — all these have brought lots of problems for the Iranian government. Yet, the plus side has outpaced the negative by strides. In short, the Iranian regime does not have an unambiguous anti-imperialist stance vis-à-vis the U.S; in fact, at key junctures it has moved quite pro-imperialistically.
As relates to the U.S. side, Zbigniew Brzezinski is as well an established heavy weight as there has ever been in the contemporary political life of American capitalism. His share in the architectural design of late twentieth century posture of the U.S. imperialism vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, and in particular his role in militarization and destabilization of Afghanistan starting in late 1970s, is well known. As well, he was and is a big supporter of the ‘adventures’ in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Most recently, Brzezinski has reiterated that the Iranian regime must be engaged with diplomatically by the U.S. and not belligerently, while talking like a bully. This stance is consistent with his pronouncement back in the late 1970s that Ayatollah Khomeini was a man the U.S. could consider a strategic ally. Remember his ‘Green Belt’ strategy? Well, the late Ayatollah fit right in the buckle of the belt.
Western imperialists plan ahead and do have enormous resources to employ as they adapt to changed situations. Chance does favor those better prepared; especially when those chances are created by the better prepared.
Iran may talk big about anti-imperialism but has cooperated with the U.S. at strategic junctures. The Ayatollahs helped the Afghan mujaheddin from their early days (cooperating with the U.S.); they helped Reagan administration get money for the Contra army to harass and terrorize a truly revolutionary government in Nicaragua; later still, they facilitated the U.S. invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Iranian government, like most other states, knows that there are limits to the U.S. power and that the U.S. rulers need cooperative regional client states. And the American policy makers know well the price for a successful-looking reorganization of Iraq; with the helpful hand of the Iranians, they can make a show case of the ’success’ of the U.S.’s power projections, military and otherwise, oh so beneficial for the ’stability’ of the region and for its future prospects for economic development — all of it privatized, securitized and stashed away in fat western banks.
The fact is, as Gary Leupp among others has explained, the U.S. ruling class is divided over whether or not to militarily push the mullahs a bit further, so as to extract the concessions they are seeking. Likewise, the regime in Iran is very much divided over how to approach the Americans. However, the Iranian theocrats have a unique problem when it comes to this one particular issue.
If there is one bit of legitimacy that holds the Islamic Republic as something unique — compared to the Pahlavi regime, which the people overthrew — it is their ‘anti-imperialist’, or more specifically anti-American-imperialist, stance (they do lots of economic and other dealings with many European powers).
In terms of lack of democracy and the presence of violently repressive measures taken by the state to maintain control, the mullahs are far more effective than anything the Shah could put together. Additionally, in terms of economic mismanagement, they have done thousands of times worse than the Shah, who at least could deliver an economic ‘development plan’ that froze the inflation rate to lower single digits for some twenty years.
The mullahs, on the other hand, have produced inflation rates in the hundreds of percents per year, for decades; poverty rate is above 50%; class A drug addiction, in a country of 68 million, is crippling the lives and aspirations of some eight million (a conservative estimate); meanwhile, the clerical and merchant ruling classes, who are not by any measure of imagination productive and purely speculative in their economic activities, are building giant mansions on choice real estate around Iran, and luxury villas and houses around the world, while padding their Swiss bank accounts.
So, if they were to give up their Anti-Americanism, their last shred of a fig leaf, what else would they have that shows any improvement on the previous regime, to prove their legitimacy?
Still, there is a very strong ‘realist’ faction (sure, we have them too) within the regime that has wanted for a long time to ditch all pretense of anti-American posturing, and get on with the business of doing business. This faction includes big establishment figureheads such as Hashemi Rafsenjani and Khatami, and has a strong social appeal among swaths of the middle classes and professionals ideologically aligned with the regime, among the ideologically neutral, and the support runs even as deep as mid-ranking Revolutionary Guards officers.
The Americans know this, as do the Europeans. If this were not the case, there would not be any backdoor negotiations (always the prelude to overt ones), nor would there be any overtures such as sending undersecretary William Burns to the nuclear negotiations between Iran and the European powers underway in Geneva, on July 19.
So, in short, the Americans as well as the Europeans do not want a complete regime change in Iran (at least not for a while), but merely a change of behavior of the Iranian regime.
All of this leads one to conclude that if a military attack takes place, it is because the U.S. administration of George Bush (or McCain or Obama) has reached the conclusion that the only way to force the ‘behavior change’ is by splitting the Iranian regime through a military shock, thus nudging the pro-American faction to take more decisive actions in the fog of the chaos. Any military attack by the U.S. would be done in the spirit of splitting the Iranian regime and forcing a regime self-adjustment or fine-tuning.
A final point is to pay attention to what is entailed in ‘normalization’. To a lot of people, normalization has a soothing diplomatic sound to it. It forms the artificial antonym of ‘attacking’. An ‘attack’ on Iran is strictly defined to be something that can happen only militarily. The economic attacks, meanwhile, are not even registered on the liberals’ and most leftists’ radars. Yet, the economic interests are the real motivation driving the aggressive diplomatic postures as well as the threats or actual uses of military harassment.
When discussing ‘normalization’ of relations, what are we really talking about? We are talking about allowing a certain market to be penetrated by certain western economic interests. The economic interests should be self-evident, and the recent announcements by Iranian government regarding new laws allowing unlimited foreign ownership rights in Iranian firms and resources is a clear enough indication that the current regime is willing and able to accommodate all western needs. Last month, Iran’s deputy minister of commerce, Gazanfari, declared to a South Korean delegation that, “The volume of foreign investment in Iran is not subject to any limitation.”
The second plank of the ‘normalization’, in the particular case of the U.S., is the restoration of full diplomatic relations, with embassies and the works. This means the return of American spies to Iran, under a full legal protection, which, according to knowledgeable sources, is usually a precondition for relational normalization with Uncle Sam.
Understandably, professional spooks are impatiently lining the corridors of the American intelligent and foreign services, ready to be deployed to their posts of choice in any of the very desirable locations around Iran. These days, besides the beautiful geography, a wide range of habitats, great people and great food, these professionals can even enjoy the added delights of temporary sigheh brides,1 should they wish to partake.
These professionals are actively for ‘normalization’ — as is Sen. Biden, as is Brzezinski and the entire ‘realist’ wing of the American imperialism — as are some ‘leftist’ organizations such as CASMII who, consciously or unconsciously, have become unofficial lobbyists for a theocratic dictatorship, the Islamic Republic — all of whom, and their NGO brothers and sisters, must surely toast their drinks and clink their glasses to the soon-please-come-quick detente that would bring them back to Iran, pockets full of grant money from CIA, NSA, State Dept., or whatever, salivating all over the scene, padding resumes, telling us how to dig holes and plant things we have planted for thousands of years.
*****
Iranian people, free from imperialist interference, will change their regime, as they have been trying to do peacefully for some time now. Iranians are not deeply religious (in the strict, establishmentarian sense of the term), though the current regime does have a sizeable, and clearly well organized (since they have the state), minority of religious supporters. But this support, according to regime’s own men (e.g., Hashemi Rafsanjani), adds up to at most 15% of the population. The 85% of the population not actively with the regime is the unknown, and therefore the variable, factor.
Iranians have in fact a deep-rooted tradition of skepticism toward religious thought, something that has been aesthetically best expressed by our great poets historically. Further, we have a strong tendency toward an egalitarian society. Long before Saint Simon, Proudhon, Robert Owen, or Babeuf, and long before Marx, Engels or Lenin, we had Mazdak (died c. 524 A.D.), a popular figure in our historical consciousness, who stood against the corrupt established clerical hierarchy of his own day, and advocated public ownership of all resources as well as for the eradication of classes.
Our history and our egalitarian natural inclinations are known to both the Iranian regime as well as to westerners, and they know that any opening of the gates will unleash a situation, the outcome of which can be a big loss to big business and a huge setback to imperialists’ strategic designs for our country. So they will try their best to keep the gates closed by keeping the current regime in power, with certain adjustments, which will be extracted one way or another.
Socialists worldwide, and particularly in the Middle East and Iran, must persist on a line of thinking and action that demands the independence of all the countries in the region, including Iran, from western imperialism in all its forms; socialists must consistently demand freedom from threats of military attacks and freedom from a ‘normalization’ that enslaves the people of Iran or any other country to western economic interests.
A lot of Iranian socialists, liberals, radical democrats and plenty of people in the clerical and merchant classes, as well as millions of ordinary citizens know that the ruling classes in the U.S., divided as they are over attacking Iran militarily, are united in preferring an Islamic Republic, rather than a secular republic, in Iran. The American rulers know, or at least calculate, that any other political formation in Iran will definitely be socially to the left of the current set up. The Mullahs also know that the Americans know this. So, both are clear on this.
Those of us who grew up under Shah’s dictatorship used to think that he was the limit, but of course leave it up to the clergymen, the ideological singing birds of the ruling classes in Iran for the past one thousand years and more, to come up with an infinitely improved dictatorship, something the Pahlavi ‘dynasty’ could only dream about (the ‘dynasty’ was a mere two kings long; both took power through Western-supported coups; I’d call it ‘foreign investment’, not ‘dynasty’).
In terms of a sufficiently thorough dictatorial set up, then, beneficial to anybody wishing to do business (wink) with Iran, Western imperialists cannot have it any better than the regime that exists there now; they don’t want this regime to disappear. So, if and when talking regime change, they mean merely a change of behavior. The major differences between the American and the Iranian regimes revolve around the terms and conditions under which the Islamic Republic will continue to rule.
Over the recent years of the verbal back and forth between the ugly duckling Uncle Sam and bad, bad Ayatollahs, I have noticed a curious side-correlation. The rise in the level of belligerent talk directed at Iran coming out of Washington has usually accompanied a rise of violence in Iraq. Every time the Americans experience intensified resistance from the Iraqis, there is a surge of accusations regarding Iranian nuclear ambitions and ‘meddling in Iraq’.
So, one can imagine that what the U.S. administration is really saying is that the Iranian regime and their capable military and paramilitary presence, in terms of personnel and influence in Iraq, are not doing enough to keep the violence under an acceptable level; ‘acceptable’ meaning here, a level which can still be spun somehow positively in the establishment mass media in the west, particularly in the U.S.
For example, right now, due to Iranian exertion of influence, as thoroughly reported by Patrick Cockburn, Sadr’s militia’s have been given stand-down orders. This has partly been responsible for the ‘relative success’ of the so-called surge of American military forces into the Baghdad area. In such a context, a death rate of more than 550 per month in Iraq, can be presented in the American mass media as a ’success’. In order for this death rate to be presented as progress, the Iranian regime has done its fare share. No wonder then that, diplomatically, the Iranians act like the Americans owe them something; which they indeed do!
Mixed in with the nuclear-related accusations, when attacking Iran undiplomatically, has been the issue of Iranian military involvement in Iraq. Since at least 2004, we have heard accusations of ‘Iranian meddling’ by U.S. military and political leaders. That these accusations of ‘foreign meddling’ are forwarded by a mercenary army of more than 350,000 (including the contractors) who flew or sailed thousands of miles to get to Iraq is of course totally beside the point.
The factual truth, however, is different. The Americans knew from the very start of the invasion’s planning stages that the Iranians would be there; in fact, during the aerial bombardments and the initial land invasion of Iraq in 2003, American military was coordinating with the Iranian-based Badr brigades, which meant coordinating with the Iranian military.
So far as Iranian ‘meddling’ goes, then, the Americans were relying on it to achieve their own politico-military objectives in Iraq. So, to now turn their presence in Iraq into an excuse to attack Iran is not just outrageous, it is in fact insane. Would the U.S. not intervene in Mexico if, say, a European country or, who’s kidding who, even if Belize invaded Mexico?
A broken Afghanistan and a broken Iraq along with a huge American military presence on two of its borders with enormously destabilizing effects — all these have brought lots of problems for the Iranian government. Yet, the plus side has outpaced the negative by strides. In short, the Iranian regime does not have an unambiguous anti-imperialist stance vis-à-vis the U.S; in fact, at key junctures it has moved quite pro-imperialistically.
As relates to the U.S. side, Zbigniew Brzezinski is as well an established heavy weight as there has ever been in the contemporary political life of American capitalism. His share in the architectural design of late twentieth century posture of the U.S. imperialism vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, and in particular his role in militarization and destabilization of Afghanistan starting in late 1970s, is well known. As well, he was and is a big supporter of the ‘adventures’ in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Most recently, Brzezinski has reiterated that the Iranian regime must be engaged with diplomatically by the U.S. and not belligerently, while talking like a bully. This stance is consistent with his pronouncement back in the late 1970s that Ayatollah Khomeini was a man the U.S. could consider a strategic ally. Remember his ‘Green Belt’ strategy? Well, the late Ayatollah fit right in the buckle of the belt.
Western imperialists plan ahead and do have enormous resources to employ as they adapt to changed situations. Chance does favor those better prepared; especially when those chances are created by the better prepared.
Iran may talk big about anti-imperialism but has cooperated with the U.S. at strategic junctures. The Ayatollahs helped the Afghan mujaheddin from their early days (cooperating with the U.S.); they helped Reagan administration get money for the Contra army to harass and terrorize a truly revolutionary government in Nicaragua; later still, they facilitated the U.S. invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Iranian government, like most other states, knows that there are limits to the U.S. power and that the U.S. rulers need cooperative regional client states. And the American policy makers know well the price for a successful-looking reorganization of Iraq; with the helpful hand of the Iranians, they can make a show case of the ’success’ of the U.S.’s power projections, military and otherwise, oh so beneficial for the ’stability’ of the region and for its future prospects for economic development — all of it privatized, securitized and stashed away in fat western banks.
The fact is, as Gary Leupp among others has explained, the U.S. ruling class is divided over whether or not to militarily push the mullahs a bit further, so as to extract the concessions they are seeking. Likewise, the regime in Iran is very much divided over how to approach the Americans. However, the Iranian theocrats have a unique problem when it comes to this one particular issue.
If there is one bit of legitimacy that holds the Islamic Republic as something unique — compared to the Pahlavi regime, which the people overthrew — it is their ‘anti-imperialist’, or more specifically anti-American-imperialist, stance (they do lots of economic and other dealings with many European powers).
In terms of lack of democracy and the presence of violently repressive measures taken by the state to maintain control, the mullahs are far more effective than anything the Shah could put together. Additionally, in terms of economic mismanagement, they have done thousands of times worse than the Shah, who at least could deliver an economic ‘development plan’ that froze the inflation rate to lower single digits for some twenty years.
The mullahs, on the other hand, have produced inflation rates in the hundreds of percents per year, for decades; poverty rate is above 50%; class A drug addiction, in a country of 68 million, is crippling the lives and aspirations of some eight million (a conservative estimate); meanwhile, the clerical and merchant ruling classes, who are not by any measure of imagination productive and purely speculative in their economic activities, are building giant mansions on choice real estate around Iran, and luxury villas and houses around the world, while padding their Swiss bank accounts.
So, if they were to give up their Anti-Americanism, their last shred of a fig leaf, what else would they have that shows any improvement on the previous regime, to prove their legitimacy?
Still, there is a very strong ‘realist’ faction (sure, we have them too) within the regime that has wanted for a long time to ditch all pretense of anti-American posturing, and get on with the business of doing business. This faction includes big establishment figureheads such as Hashemi Rafsenjani and Khatami, and has a strong social appeal among swaths of the middle classes and professionals ideologically aligned with the regime, among the ideologically neutral, and the support runs even as deep as mid-ranking Revolutionary Guards officers.
The Americans know this, as do the Europeans. If this were not the case, there would not be any backdoor negotiations (always the prelude to overt ones), nor would there be any overtures such as sending undersecretary William Burns to the nuclear negotiations between Iran and the European powers underway in Geneva, on July 19.
So, in short, the Americans as well as the Europeans do not want a complete regime change in Iran (at least not for a while), but merely a change of behavior of the Iranian regime.
All of this leads one to conclude that if a military attack takes place, it is because the U.S. administration of George Bush (or McCain or Obama) has reached the conclusion that the only way to force the ‘behavior change’ is by splitting the Iranian regime through a military shock, thus nudging the pro-American faction to take more decisive actions in the fog of the chaos. Any military attack by the U.S. would be done in the spirit of splitting the Iranian regime and forcing a regime self-adjustment or fine-tuning.
A final point is to pay attention to what is entailed in ‘normalization’. To a lot of people, normalization has a soothing diplomatic sound to it. It forms the artificial antonym of ‘attacking’. An ‘attack’ on Iran is strictly defined to be something that can happen only militarily. The economic attacks, meanwhile, are not even registered on the liberals’ and most leftists’ radars. Yet, the economic interests are the real motivation driving the aggressive diplomatic postures as well as the threats or actual uses of military harassment.
When discussing ‘normalization’ of relations, what are we really talking about? We are talking about allowing a certain market to be penetrated by certain western economic interests. The economic interests should be self-evident, and the recent announcements by Iranian government regarding new laws allowing unlimited foreign ownership rights in Iranian firms and resources is a clear enough indication that the current regime is willing and able to accommodate all western needs. Last month, Iran’s deputy minister of commerce, Gazanfari, declared to a South Korean delegation that, “The volume of foreign investment in Iran is not subject to any limitation.”
The second plank of the ‘normalization’, in the particular case of the U.S., is the restoration of full diplomatic relations, with embassies and the works. This means the return of American spies to Iran, under a full legal protection, which, according to knowledgeable sources, is usually a precondition for relational normalization with Uncle Sam.
Understandably, professional spooks are impatiently lining the corridors of the American intelligent and foreign services, ready to be deployed to their posts of choice in any of the very desirable locations around Iran. These days, besides the beautiful geography, a wide range of habitats, great people and great food, these professionals can even enjoy the added delights of temporary sigheh brides,1 should they wish to partake.
These professionals are actively for ‘normalization’ — as is Sen. Biden, as is Brzezinski and the entire ‘realist’ wing of the American imperialism — as are some ‘leftist’ organizations such as CASMII who, consciously or unconsciously, have become unofficial lobbyists for a theocratic dictatorship, the Islamic Republic — all of whom, and their NGO brothers and sisters, must surely toast their drinks and clink their glasses to the soon-please-come-quick detente that would bring them back to Iran, pockets full of grant money from CIA, NSA, State Dept., or whatever, salivating all over the scene, padding resumes, telling us how to dig holes and plant things we have planted for thousands of years.
*****
Iranian people, free from imperialist interference, will change their regime, as they have been trying to do peacefully for some time now. Iranians are not deeply religious (in the strict, establishmentarian sense of the term), though the current regime does have a sizeable, and clearly well organized (since they have the state), minority of religious supporters. But this support, according to regime’s own men (e.g., Hashemi Rafsanjani), adds up to at most 15% of the population. The 85% of the population not actively with the regime is the unknown, and therefore the variable, factor.
Iranians have in fact a deep-rooted tradition of skepticism toward religious thought, something that has been aesthetically best expressed by our great poets historically. Further, we have a strong tendency toward an egalitarian society. Long before Saint Simon, Proudhon, Robert Owen, or Babeuf, and long before Marx, Engels or Lenin, we had Mazdak (died c. 524 A.D.), a popular figure in our historical consciousness, who stood against the corrupt established clerical hierarchy of his own day, and advocated public ownership of all resources as well as for the eradication of classes.
Our history and our egalitarian natural inclinations are known to both the Iranian regime as well as to westerners, and they know that any opening of the gates will unleash a situation, the outcome of which can be a big loss to big business and a huge setback to imperialists’ strategic designs for our country. So they will try their best to keep the gates closed by keeping the current regime in power, with certain adjustments, which will be extracted one way or another.
Socialists worldwide, and particularly in the Middle East and Iran, must persist on a line of thinking and action that demands the independence of all the countries in the region, including Iran, from western imperialism in all its forms; socialists must consistently demand freedom from threats of military attacks and freedom from a ‘normalization’ that enslaves the people of Iran or any other country to western economic interests.
Wednesday, 23 July 2008
Old and Wise
As far as my eyes can see
There are shadows approaching me
And to those I left behind
I wanted you to know
You've always shared my deepest thoughts
You follow where I go
And oh when I'm old and wise
Bitter words mean little to me
Autumn winds will blow right through me
And someday in the mist of time
When they asked me if I knew you
I'd smile and say you were a friend of mine
And the sadness would be lifted from my eyes
Oh when I'm old and wise
As far as my eyes can see
There are shadows surrounding me
And to those I leave behind
I want you all to know
You've always shared my darkest hours
I'll miss you when I go
And oh, when I'm old and wise
Heavy words that tossed and blew me
Like autumn winds will blow right through me
And someday in the mist of time
When they ask you if you knew me
Remember that you were a friend of mine
As the final curtain falls before my eyes
Oh when I'm old and wise
As far as my eyes can see
There are shadows approaching me
And to those I left behind
I wanted you to know
You've always shared my deepest thoughts
You follow where I go
And oh when I'm old and wise
Bitter words mean little to me
Autumn winds will blow right through me
And someday in the mist of time
When they asked me if I knew you
I'd smile and say you were a friend of mine
And the sadness would be lifted from my eyes
Oh when I'm old and wise
As far as my eyes can see
There are shadows surrounding me
And to those I leave behind
I want you all to know
You've always shared my darkest hours
I'll miss you when I go
And oh, when I'm old and wise
Heavy words that tossed and blew me
Like autumn winds will blow right through me
And someday in the mist of time
When they ask you if you knew me
Remember that you were a friend of mine
As the final curtain falls before my eyes
Oh when I'm old and wise
As far as my eyes can see
Saturday, 19 July 2008
Saturday, 5 July 2008
Sunday, 29 June 2008
Radio Baghdad
Suffer not
Your neighbor's affliction
Suffer not
Your neighbor's paralysis
But extend your hand
Extend your hand
Lest you vanish in the city
And be but a trace
Just a vanished ghost
And your legacy
All the things you knew
Science, mathematics, thought
Severely weakened
Like irrigation systems
In the tired veins forming
From the Tigris and Euphrates
In the realm of peace
All the world revolved
All the world revolved
Around a perfect circle
City of Baghdad
City of scholars
Empirical humble
Center of the world
City in ashes
City of Baghdad
City of Baghdad
Abrasive aloof
Oh, in Mesopotamia
Aloofness ran deep
Deep in the veins of
the great rivers
That form the base
Of Eden
And the tree
The tree of knowledge
Held up its arms
To the sky
All the branches of knowledge
All the branches of knowledge
Cradling
Cradling
Civilization
In the realm of peace
All the world revolved
Around a perfect circle
Oh Baghdad
Center of the world
City of ashes
With its great mosques
Erupting from the mouth of god
Rising from the ashes like
a speckled bird
Splayed against the mosaic sky
Oh, clouds around
We created the zero
But we mean nothing to you
You would believe
That we are just some mystical tale
We are just a swollen belly
That gave birth to Sinbad, Scheherazade
We gave birth
Oh, oh, to the zero
The perfect number
We invented the zero
And we mean nothing to you
Our children run through
the streets
And you sent your flames
Your shooting stars
Shock and awe
Shock and awe
Like some, some
Imagined warrior production
Twenty-first century
No chivalry involved
No Bushido
Oh, the code of the West
Long gone
Never been
Where does it lie?
You came, you came
Through the west
Annihilated a people
And you come to us
But we are older than you
You come you wanna
You wanna come and
rob the cradle
Of civilization
And you read yet you read
You read Genesis
You read of the tree
You read of the tree
Beget by god
That raised its branches into the sky
Every branch of knowledge
Of the cradle of civilization
Of the banks of the Tigris
and the Euphrates
Oh, in Mesopotamia
Aloofness ran deep
The face of Eve turning
What sky did she see
What garden beneath her feet
The one you drill
You drill
Pulling the blood of the earth
Little droplets of oil for bracelets
Little jewels
Sapphires
You make bracelets
Round your own world
We are weeping tears
Rubies
We offer them to you
We are just
Your Arabian nightmare
We invented the zero
But we mean nothing to you
Your Arabian nightmare
City of stars
City of scholarship
Science
City of ideas
City of light
City
City of ashes
That the great Caliph
Walked through
His naked feet formed a circle
And they built a city
A perfect city of Baghdad
In the realm of peace
And all the world revolved
And they invented
And they mean nothing to you
Nothing to you
Nothing
Go to sleep
Go to sleep my child
Go to sleep
And I'll sing you a lullaby
A lullaby for our city
A lullaby of Baghdad
Go to sleep
Sleep my child
Sleep
Sleep
Sleep
Run
Run
Run
Run
You sent your lights
Your bombs
You sent them down on our city
Shock and awe
Like some crazy t.v. show
They're robbing the cradle
of civilization
They're robbing the cradle
of civilization
They're robbing the cradle
of civilization
Suffer not
The paralysis of your neighbor
Suffer not
But extend your hand
Your neighbor's affliction
Suffer not
Your neighbor's paralysis
But extend your hand
Extend your hand
Lest you vanish in the city
And be but a trace
Just a vanished ghost
And your legacy
All the things you knew
Science, mathematics, thought
Severely weakened
Like irrigation systems
In the tired veins forming
From the Tigris and Euphrates
In the realm of peace
All the world revolved
All the world revolved
Around a perfect circle
City of Baghdad
City of scholars
Empirical humble
Center of the world
City in ashes
City of Baghdad
City of Baghdad
Abrasive aloof
Oh, in Mesopotamia
Aloofness ran deep
Deep in the veins of
the great rivers
That form the base
Of Eden
And the tree
The tree of knowledge
Held up its arms
To the sky
All the branches of knowledge
All the branches of knowledge
Cradling
Cradling
Civilization
In the realm of peace
All the world revolved
Around a perfect circle
Oh Baghdad
Center of the world
City of ashes
With its great mosques
Erupting from the mouth of god
Rising from the ashes like
a speckled bird
Splayed against the mosaic sky
Oh, clouds around
We created the zero
But we mean nothing to you
You would believe
That we are just some mystical tale
We are just a swollen belly
That gave birth to Sinbad, Scheherazade
We gave birth
Oh, oh, to the zero
The perfect number
We invented the zero
And we mean nothing to you
Our children run through
the streets
And you sent your flames
Your shooting stars
Shock and awe
Shock and awe
Like some, some
Imagined warrior production
Twenty-first century
No chivalry involved
No Bushido
Oh, the code of the West
Long gone
Never been
Where does it lie?
You came, you came
Through the west
Annihilated a people
And you come to us
But we are older than you
You come you wanna
You wanna come and
rob the cradle
Of civilization
And you read yet you read
You read Genesis
You read of the tree
You read of the tree
Beget by god
That raised its branches into the sky
Every branch of knowledge
Of the cradle of civilization
Of the banks of the Tigris
and the Euphrates
Oh, in Mesopotamia
Aloofness ran deep
The face of Eve turning
What sky did she see
What garden beneath her feet
The one you drill
You drill
Pulling the blood of the earth
Little droplets of oil for bracelets
Little jewels
Sapphires
You make bracelets
Round your own world
We are weeping tears
Rubies
We offer them to you
We are just
Your Arabian nightmare
We invented the zero
But we mean nothing to you
Your Arabian nightmare
City of stars
City of scholarship
Science
City of ideas
City of light
City
City of ashes
That the great Caliph
Walked through
His naked feet formed a circle
And they built a city
A perfect city of Baghdad
In the realm of peace
And all the world revolved
And they invented
And they mean nothing to you
Nothing to you
Nothing
Go to sleep
Go to sleep my child
Go to sleep
And I'll sing you a lullaby
A lullaby for our city
A lullaby of Baghdad
Go to sleep
Sleep my child
Sleep
Sleep
Sleep
Run
Run
Run
Run
You sent your lights
Your bombs
You sent them down on our city
Shock and awe
Like some crazy t.v. show
They're robbing the cradle
of civilization
They're robbing the cradle
of civilization
They're robbing the cradle
of civilization
Suffer not
The paralysis of your neighbor
Suffer not
But extend your hand
Monday, 23 June 2008
Saturday, 21 June 2008
Thursday, 22 May 2008
Sunday, 6 April 2008
Saturday, 22 March 2008
Five Years On
The following article was first published in the Independent on 19/03/2008 which was written by Robert Fisk.
Five years on, and still we have not learnt. With each anniversary, the steps crumble beneath our feet, the stones ever more cracked, the sand ever finer. Five years of catastrophe in Iraq and I think of Churchill, who in the end called Palestine a "hell-disaster".
But we have used these parallels before and they have drifted away in the Tigris breeze. Iraq is swamped in blood. Yet what is the state of our remorse? Why, we will have a public inquiry – but not yet! If only inadequacy was our only sin.
Today, we are engaged in a fruitless debate. What went wrong? How did the people – the senatus populusque Romanus of our modern world – not rise up in rebellion when told the lies about weapons of mass destruction, about Saddam's links with Osama bin Laden and 11 September? How did we let it happen? And how come we didn't plan for the aftermath of war?
Oh, the British tried to get the Americans to listen, Downing Street now tells us. We really, honestly did try, before we absolutely and completely knew it was right to embark on this illegal war. There is now a vast literature on the Iraq debacle and there are precedents for post-war planning – of which more later – but this is not the point. Our predicament in Iraq is on an infinitely more terrible scale.
As the Americans came storming up Iraq in 2003, their cruise missiles hissing through the sandstorm towards a hundred Iraqi towns and cities, I would sit in my filthy room in the Baghdad Palestine Hotel, unable to sleep for the thunder of explosions, and root through the books I'd brought to fill the dark, dangerous hours. Tolstoy's War and Peace reminded me how conflict can be described with sensitivity and grace and horror – I recommend the Battle of Borodino – along with a file of newspaper clippings. In this little folder, there was a long rant by Pat Buchanan, written five months earlier; and still, today I feel its power and its prescience and its absolute historical honesty: "With our MacArthur Regency in Baghdad, Pax Americana will reach apogee. But then the tide recedes, for the one endeavour at which Islamic people excel is expelling imperial powers by terror or guerrilla war.
"They drove the Brits out of Palestine and Aden, the French out of Algeria, the Russians out of Afghanistan, the Americans out of Somalia and Beirut, the Israelis out of Lebanon. We have started up the road to empire and over the next hill we will meet those who went before. The only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn from history."
How easily the little men took us into the inferno, with no knowledge or, at least, interest in history. None of them read of the 1920 Iraqi insurgency against British occupation, nor of Churchill's brusque and brutal settlement of Iraq the following year.
On our historical radars, not even Crassus appeared, the wealthiest Roman general of all, who demanded an emperorship after conquering Macedonia – "Mission Accomplished" – and vengefully set forth to destroy Mesopotamia. At a spot in the desert near the Euphrates river, the Parthians – ancestors of present day Iraqi insurgents – annihilated the legions, chopped off Crassus's head and sent it back to Rome filled with gold. Today, they would have videotaped his beheading.
To their monumental hubris, these little men who took us to war five years ago now prove that they have learnt nothing. Anthony Blair – as we should always have called this small town lawyer – should be facing trial for his mendacity. Instead, he now presumes to bring peace to an Arab-Israeli conflict which he has done so much to exacerbate. And now we have the man who changed his mind on the legality of war – and did so on a single sheet of A4 paper – daring to suggest that we should test immigrants for British citizenship. Question 1, I contend, should be: Which blood-soaked British attorney general helped to send 176 British soldiers to their deaths for a lie? Question 2: How did he get away with it?
But in a sense, the facile, dumbo nature of Lord Goldsmith's proposal is a clue to the whole transitory, cardboard structure of our decision-making. The great issues that face us – be they Iraq or Afghanistan, the US economy or global warming, planned invasions or "terrorism" – are discussed not according to serious political timetables but around television schedules and press conferences.
Will the first air raids on Iraq hit prime-time television in the States? Mercifully, yes. Will the first US troops in Baghdad appear on the breakfast shows? Of course. Will Saddam's capture be announced by Bush and Blair simultaneously?.
But this is all part of the problem. True, Churchill and Roosevelt argued about the timing of the announcement that war in Europe had ended. And it was the Russians who pipped them to the post. But we told the truth. When the British were retreating to Dunkirk, Churchill announced that the Germans had "penetrated deeply and spread alarm and confusion in their tracks".
Why didn't Bush or Blair tell us this when the Iraqi insurgents began to assault the Western occupation forces? Well, they were too busy telling us that things were getting better, that the rebels were mere "dead-enders".
On 17 June 1940, Churchill told the people of Britain: "The news from France is very bad and I grieve for the gallant French people who have fallen into this terrible misfortune." Why didn't Blair or Bush tell us that the news from Iraq was very bad and that they grieved – even just a few tears for a minute or so – for the Iraqis?
For these were the men who had the temerity, the sheer, unadulterated gall, to dress themselves up as Churchill, heroes who would stage a rerun of the Second World War, the BBC dutifully calling the invaders "the Allies" – they did, by the way – and painting Saddam's regime as the Third Reich.
Of course, when I was at school, our leaders – Attlee, Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, or Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy in the United States – had real experience of real war. Not a single Western leader today has any first-hand experience of conflict. When the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq began, the most prominent European opponent of the war was Jacques Chirac, who fought in the Algerian conflict. But he has now gone. So has Colin Powell, a Vietnam veteran but himself duped by Rumsfeld and the CIA.
Yet one of the terrible ironies of our times is that the most bloodthirsty of American statesmen – Bush and Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfovitz – have either never heard a shot fired in anger or have ensured they did not have to fight for their country when they had the chance to do so. No wonder Hollywood titles like "Shock and Awe" appeal to the White House. Movies are their only experience of human conflict; the same goes for Blair and Brown.
Churchill had to account for the loss of Singapore before a packed House. Brown won't even account for Iraq until the war is over.
It is a grotesque truism that today – after all the posturing of our political midgets five years ago – we might at last be permitted a valid seance with the ghosts of the Second World War. Statistics are the medium, and the room would have to be dark. But it is a fact that the total of US dead in Iraq (3,978) is well over the number of American casualties suffered in the initial D-Day landings at Normandy (3,384 killed and missing) on 6 June, 1944, or more than three times the total British casualties at Arnhem the same year (1,200).
They count for just over a third of the total fatalities (11,014) of the entire British Expeditionary Force from the German invasion of Belgium to the final evacuation at Dunkirk in June 1940. The number of British dead in Iraq – 176 – is almost equal to the total of UK forces lost at the Battle of the Bulge in 1944-45 (just over 200). The number of US wounded in Iraq – 29,395 – is more than nine times the number of Americans injured on 6 June (3,184) and more than a quarter of the tally for US wounded in the entire 1950-53 Korean war (103,284).
Iraqi casualties allow an even closer comparison to the Second World War. Even if we accept the lowest of fatality statistics for civilian dead – they range from 350,000 up to a million – these long ago dwarfed the number of British civilian dead in the flying-bomb blitz on London in 1944-45 (6,000) and now far outnumber the total figure for civilians killed in bombing raids across the United Kingdom – 60,595 dead, 86,182 seriously wounded – from 1940 to 1945.
Indeed, the Iraqi civilian death toll since our invasion is now greater than the total number of British military fatalities in the Second World War, which came to an astounding 265,000 dead (some histories give this figure as 300,000) and 277,000 wounded. Minimum estimates for Iraqi dead mean that the civilians of Mesopotamia have suffered six or seven Dresdens or – more terrible still – two Hiroshimas.
Yet in a sense, all this is a distraction from the awful truth in Buchanan's warning. We have dispatched our armies into the land of Islam. We have done so with the sole encouragement of Israel, whose own false intelligence over Iraq has been discreetly forgotten by our masters, while weeping crocodile tears for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died.
America's massive military prestige has been irreparably diminished. And if there are, as I now calculate, 22 times as many Western troops in the Muslim world as there were at the time of the 11th and 12th century Crusades, we must ask what we are doing. Are we there for oil? For democracy? For Israel? For fear of weapons of mass destruction? Or for fear of Islam?
We blithely connect Afghanistan to Iraq. If only Washington had not become distracted by Iraq, so the narrative now goes, the Taliban could not have re-established themselves. But al-Qa'ida and the nebulous Osama bin Laden were not distracted. Which is why they expanded their operations into Iraq and then used this experience to assault the West in Afghanistan with the hitherto – in Afghanistan – unheard of suicide bomber.
And I will hazard a terrible guess: that we have lost Afghanistan as surely as we have lost Iraq and as surely as we are going to "lose" Pakistan. It is our presence, our power, our arrogance, our refusal to learn from history and our terror – yes, our terror – of Islam that is leading us into the abyss. And until we learn to leave these Muslim peoples alone, our catastrophe in the Middle East will only become graver. There is no connection between Islam and "terror". But there is a connection between our occupation of Muslim lands and "terror". It's not too complicated an equation. And we don't need a public inquiry to get it right.
Five years on, and still we have not learnt. With each anniversary, the steps crumble beneath our feet, the stones ever more cracked, the sand ever finer. Five years of catastrophe in Iraq and I think of Churchill, who in the end called Palestine a "hell-disaster".
But we have used these parallels before and they have drifted away in the Tigris breeze. Iraq is swamped in blood. Yet what is the state of our remorse? Why, we will have a public inquiry – but not yet! If only inadequacy was our only sin.
Today, we are engaged in a fruitless debate. What went wrong? How did the people – the senatus populusque Romanus of our modern world – not rise up in rebellion when told the lies about weapons of mass destruction, about Saddam's links with Osama bin Laden and 11 September? How did we let it happen? And how come we didn't plan for the aftermath of war?
Oh, the British tried to get the Americans to listen, Downing Street now tells us. We really, honestly did try, before we absolutely and completely knew it was right to embark on this illegal war. There is now a vast literature on the Iraq debacle and there are precedents for post-war planning – of which more later – but this is not the point. Our predicament in Iraq is on an infinitely more terrible scale.
As the Americans came storming up Iraq in 2003, their cruise missiles hissing through the sandstorm towards a hundred Iraqi towns and cities, I would sit in my filthy room in the Baghdad Palestine Hotel, unable to sleep for the thunder of explosions, and root through the books I'd brought to fill the dark, dangerous hours. Tolstoy's War and Peace reminded me how conflict can be described with sensitivity and grace and horror – I recommend the Battle of Borodino – along with a file of newspaper clippings. In this little folder, there was a long rant by Pat Buchanan, written five months earlier; and still, today I feel its power and its prescience and its absolute historical honesty: "With our MacArthur Regency in Baghdad, Pax Americana will reach apogee. But then the tide recedes, for the one endeavour at which Islamic people excel is expelling imperial powers by terror or guerrilla war.
"They drove the Brits out of Palestine and Aden, the French out of Algeria, the Russians out of Afghanistan, the Americans out of Somalia and Beirut, the Israelis out of Lebanon. We have started up the road to empire and over the next hill we will meet those who went before. The only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn from history."
How easily the little men took us into the inferno, with no knowledge or, at least, interest in history. None of them read of the 1920 Iraqi insurgency against British occupation, nor of Churchill's brusque and brutal settlement of Iraq the following year.
On our historical radars, not even Crassus appeared, the wealthiest Roman general of all, who demanded an emperorship after conquering Macedonia – "Mission Accomplished" – and vengefully set forth to destroy Mesopotamia. At a spot in the desert near the Euphrates river, the Parthians – ancestors of present day Iraqi insurgents – annihilated the legions, chopped off Crassus's head and sent it back to Rome filled with gold. Today, they would have videotaped his beheading.
To their monumental hubris, these little men who took us to war five years ago now prove that they have learnt nothing. Anthony Blair – as we should always have called this small town lawyer – should be facing trial for his mendacity. Instead, he now presumes to bring peace to an Arab-Israeli conflict which he has done so much to exacerbate. And now we have the man who changed his mind on the legality of war – and did so on a single sheet of A4 paper – daring to suggest that we should test immigrants for British citizenship. Question 1, I contend, should be: Which blood-soaked British attorney general helped to send 176 British soldiers to their deaths for a lie? Question 2: How did he get away with it?
But in a sense, the facile, dumbo nature of Lord Goldsmith's proposal is a clue to the whole transitory, cardboard structure of our decision-making. The great issues that face us – be they Iraq or Afghanistan, the US economy or global warming, planned invasions or "terrorism" – are discussed not according to serious political timetables but around television schedules and press conferences.
Will the first air raids on Iraq hit prime-time television in the States? Mercifully, yes. Will the first US troops in Baghdad appear on the breakfast shows? Of course. Will Saddam's capture be announced by Bush and Blair simultaneously?.
But this is all part of the problem. True, Churchill and Roosevelt argued about the timing of the announcement that war in Europe had ended. And it was the Russians who pipped them to the post. But we told the truth. When the British were retreating to Dunkirk, Churchill announced that the Germans had "penetrated deeply and spread alarm and confusion in their tracks".
Why didn't Bush or Blair tell us this when the Iraqi insurgents began to assault the Western occupation forces? Well, they were too busy telling us that things were getting better, that the rebels were mere "dead-enders".
On 17 June 1940, Churchill told the people of Britain: "The news from France is very bad and I grieve for the gallant French people who have fallen into this terrible misfortune." Why didn't Blair or Bush tell us that the news from Iraq was very bad and that they grieved – even just a few tears for a minute or so – for the Iraqis?
For these were the men who had the temerity, the sheer, unadulterated gall, to dress themselves up as Churchill, heroes who would stage a rerun of the Second World War, the BBC dutifully calling the invaders "the Allies" – they did, by the way – and painting Saddam's regime as the Third Reich.
Of course, when I was at school, our leaders – Attlee, Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, or Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy in the United States – had real experience of real war. Not a single Western leader today has any first-hand experience of conflict. When the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq began, the most prominent European opponent of the war was Jacques Chirac, who fought in the Algerian conflict. But he has now gone. So has Colin Powell, a Vietnam veteran but himself duped by Rumsfeld and the CIA.
Yet one of the terrible ironies of our times is that the most bloodthirsty of American statesmen – Bush and Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfovitz – have either never heard a shot fired in anger or have ensured they did not have to fight for their country when they had the chance to do so. No wonder Hollywood titles like "Shock and Awe" appeal to the White House. Movies are their only experience of human conflict; the same goes for Blair and Brown.
Churchill had to account for the loss of Singapore before a packed House. Brown won't even account for Iraq until the war is over.
It is a grotesque truism that today – after all the posturing of our political midgets five years ago – we might at last be permitted a valid seance with the ghosts of the Second World War. Statistics are the medium, and the room would have to be dark. But it is a fact that the total of US dead in Iraq (3,978) is well over the number of American casualties suffered in the initial D-Day landings at Normandy (3,384 killed and missing) on 6 June, 1944, or more than three times the total British casualties at Arnhem the same year (1,200).
They count for just over a third of the total fatalities (11,014) of the entire British Expeditionary Force from the German invasion of Belgium to the final evacuation at Dunkirk in June 1940. The number of British dead in Iraq – 176 – is almost equal to the total of UK forces lost at the Battle of the Bulge in 1944-45 (just over 200). The number of US wounded in Iraq – 29,395 – is more than nine times the number of Americans injured on 6 June (3,184) and more than a quarter of the tally for US wounded in the entire 1950-53 Korean war (103,284).
Iraqi casualties allow an even closer comparison to the Second World War. Even if we accept the lowest of fatality statistics for civilian dead – they range from 350,000 up to a million – these long ago dwarfed the number of British civilian dead in the flying-bomb blitz on London in 1944-45 (6,000) and now far outnumber the total figure for civilians killed in bombing raids across the United Kingdom – 60,595 dead, 86,182 seriously wounded – from 1940 to 1945.
Indeed, the Iraqi civilian death toll since our invasion is now greater than the total number of British military fatalities in the Second World War, which came to an astounding 265,000 dead (some histories give this figure as 300,000) and 277,000 wounded. Minimum estimates for Iraqi dead mean that the civilians of Mesopotamia have suffered six or seven Dresdens or – more terrible still – two Hiroshimas.
Yet in a sense, all this is a distraction from the awful truth in Buchanan's warning. We have dispatched our armies into the land of Islam. We have done so with the sole encouragement of Israel, whose own false intelligence over Iraq has been discreetly forgotten by our masters, while weeping crocodile tears for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died.
America's massive military prestige has been irreparably diminished. And if there are, as I now calculate, 22 times as many Western troops in the Muslim world as there were at the time of the 11th and 12th century Crusades, we must ask what we are doing. Are we there for oil? For democracy? For Israel? For fear of weapons of mass destruction? Or for fear of Islam?
We blithely connect Afghanistan to Iraq. If only Washington had not become distracted by Iraq, so the narrative now goes, the Taliban could not have re-established themselves. But al-Qa'ida and the nebulous Osama bin Laden were not distracted. Which is why they expanded their operations into Iraq and then used this experience to assault the West in Afghanistan with the hitherto – in Afghanistan – unheard of suicide bomber.
And I will hazard a terrible guess: that we have lost Afghanistan as surely as we have lost Iraq and as surely as we are going to "lose" Pakistan. It is our presence, our power, our arrogance, our refusal to learn from history and our terror – yes, our terror – of Islam that is leading us into the abyss. And until we learn to leave these Muslim peoples alone, our catastrophe in the Middle East will only become graver. There is no connection between Islam and "terror". But there is a connection between our occupation of Muslim lands and "terror". It's not too complicated an equation. And we don't need a public inquiry to get it right.
Sunday, 16 March 2008
Questions & Answers about I/P
1. There seems to be a massive upsurge in violence in Gaza these past few days; what is happening?
It is important to recognize that the violence is mostly one-sided. On the one side, Israel is conducting a major military operation into the Northern Gaza Strip that includes ground forces, air-strikes and missile-strikes in crowded residential neighborhoods. It has also fired upon ambulances and destroyed many civilian homes. On Saturday (March 1), Israeli operations killed over 60 Palestinians, some of them were reported to be armed fighters but at least half of them were civilians, including 10 children and three women. Since last Wednesday (February 27) the Israeli assault has killed over 100 Palestinians and injured over 200. Israel claims this is only the first phase of the operation; the next phase will involve more ground troops.
On the other side, Palestinian rocket fire on Israel from Gaza killed one Israeli last Wednesday (February 27) and Palestinian fighters killed two Israeli soldiers in this operation.
2. How did this start?
This latest round of violence started when Israel air-strikes assassinated five high-level Hamas militants in southern Gaza early on Wednesday (February 27) and Hamas responded with a rocket barrage on the Israeli town of Sderot, killing one man, the first Israeli victim of rocket fire in nine months, and then fired longer range rockets on the large Israeli town of Ashkelon. Israel then responded with air-strikes on Gaza, including destroying the Hamas government interior ministry building, and then launched this major new operation it is calling “Operation Warm Winter,” the largest inside Gaza in the past few years. Reports in the Israeli press suggest that Israel had been preparing for a major operation in Gaza over the past month.
3. Israel claims that its actions are defensive and necessary to end Palestinian rocket fire into Israel that kills Israeli civilians. Doesn’t Israel have the right to defend itself?
Palestinian rocket attacks from Gaza have killed 14 Israelis and wounded hundreds more since 2001. These rocket attacks contravene international law and should stop immediately.
However, there are many ways a country can defend itself and Israel’s current military operation is unjustified for two main reasons.
First, Israel’s actions themselves are war-crimes. Attacks on residential areas (Gaza is one of the most crowded areas in the world) and the targeting of civilians, including homes and medical teams, represent war crimes according to the provisions of international humanitarian law. The use of disproportionate and lethal force against a civilian population even in response to the unlawful rocket attacks carried out by Palestinian armed groups is a blatant violation of the laws of war, enshrined in customary international humanitarian law and the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Second, if Israel’s goal is to end rocket attacks from Gaza, the most logical step it could take would be to respond positively to Hamas’ repeated cease-fire proposals for a complete end to rocket fire on Israel, most recently on February 23rd, when Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said that Hamas will consider any initiative that will bring about a ceasefire. Hamas claims it has secured the agreement of all factions to halt rocket fire and promised to impose the cease-fire provided that Israel reciprocates. Israel’s Prime Miniser Ehud Olmert immediately rejected the cease-fire offer, even though a growing number of Israeli politicians and security officials are calling for Israel to accept a cease-fire. Israel’s current operations are clearly about much more than securing Israeli civilians lives. Israel could easily end the rocket fire by accepting a cease-fire.
4. What would a cease-fire include?
Hamas has proposed a cease-fire many times and has been clear that it would have to include a cessation of all hostilities: Hamas would cease and impose a halt to all rockets and mortar shells from Gaza provided Israel would end its “targeted liquidations,” military incursions and its siege of Gaza. The negotiations should be conducted by Egypt, particularly since it would have to open the border between the Gaza Strip and Sinai to end the siege of Gaza and give it back its freedom of communication with the world by land, sea and air.
5. But how can one reach a cease-fire settlement with a violent organization that declares that it will never recognize Israel?
Israel’s demand that it cannot negotiate a cease-fire because Hamas does not “recognize Israel’s right to exist” is nothing more than a pretext for avoiding an end to violence on anything other than Israel’s terms. Even though Hamas has been responsible for many reprehensible and violent attacks on Israel, it is the main power in Gaza and has a track record of living up to its agreements. The claim about recognition is faulty for the following reasons:
First, the lack of recognition has never stopped states from negotiating with its adversaries; history is replete with negotiations between sworn enemies.
Second, such recognition is traditionally reciprocal; in order for Israel to receive recognition it would have to simultaneously recognize the state of Palestine and define its own borders, which it refuses to do.
Third, and most importantly, in practical terms, if one state or group makes an agreement with another state, then it has recognized that state. So if Hamas were to agree to a cease-fire with Israel, it is meaningless whether or not it has formally recognized Israel because in fact, it has.
6. What then are the political reasons why the Israeli government rejects a cease-fire and chooses massive military invasions and violence in Gaza as its preferred policy?
The immediate reason is that the current Israeli government is under severe domestic pressure to take major actions to stop Palestinian rocket attacks, and since it will not accept a cease-fire and knows it cannot completely reoccupy the Gaza strip without major casualties, it is choosing to unleash intense violence upon the area where rocket attacks come from and upon Palestinians–both fighters and civilians — in order to pressure Hamas to halt rocket attacks. This is a form of collective punishment; it has never worked in the past and contravenes international law.
The deeper reason Israel chooses violence over a cease-fire is that Israel wants to avoid negotiations with a united Palestinian government that holds firm to basic Palestinian rights to a full and sovereign Palestinian state in the lands occupied by Israel in 1967. It wants to impose an agreement upon a weakened and divided Palestinian people who could be pushed to accept a deal that allows for Palestinian rule in truncated territorial enclaves under complete Israeli control, with most of the Israeli settlements remaining on Palestinian land. Dividing Hamas-ruled Gaza from the West Bank and refusing to negotiate any deal with Hamas helps it do this.
7. But do all Israelis oppose a Cease-Fire?
No. According to a recent poll, a majority of the Israeli public (64%) support direct talks with Hamas to achieve a mutual ceasefire. Moreover, Knesset Member Yossi Beilin and other high level politicians have called for an agreed ceasefire with Hamas and the former head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, Efraim Halevy, calls for Israel and the US to negotiate a ceasefire with Hamas.
It is important to recognize that the violence is mostly one-sided. On the one side, Israel is conducting a major military operation into the Northern Gaza Strip that includes ground forces, air-strikes and missile-strikes in crowded residential neighborhoods. It has also fired upon ambulances and destroyed many civilian homes. On Saturday (March 1), Israeli operations killed over 60 Palestinians, some of them were reported to be armed fighters but at least half of them were civilians, including 10 children and three women. Since last Wednesday (February 27) the Israeli assault has killed over 100 Palestinians and injured over 200. Israel claims this is only the first phase of the operation; the next phase will involve more ground troops.
On the other side, Palestinian rocket fire on Israel from Gaza killed one Israeli last Wednesday (February 27) and Palestinian fighters killed two Israeli soldiers in this operation.
2. How did this start?
This latest round of violence started when Israel air-strikes assassinated five high-level Hamas militants in southern Gaza early on Wednesday (February 27) and Hamas responded with a rocket barrage on the Israeli town of Sderot, killing one man, the first Israeli victim of rocket fire in nine months, and then fired longer range rockets on the large Israeli town of Ashkelon. Israel then responded with air-strikes on Gaza, including destroying the Hamas government interior ministry building, and then launched this major new operation it is calling “Operation Warm Winter,” the largest inside Gaza in the past few years. Reports in the Israeli press suggest that Israel had been preparing for a major operation in Gaza over the past month.
3. Israel claims that its actions are defensive and necessary to end Palestinian rocket fire into Israel that kills Israeli civilians. Doesn’t Israel have the right to defend itself?
Palestinian rocket attacks from Gaza have killed 14 Israelis and wounded hundreds more since 2001. These rocket attacks contravene international law and should stop immediately.
However, there are many ways a country can defend itself and Israel’s current military operation is unjustified for two main reasons.
First, Israel’s actions themselves are war-crimes. Attacks on residential areas (Gaza is one of the most crowded areas in the world) and the targeting of civilians, including homes and medical teams, represent war crimes according to the provisions of international humanitarian law. The use of disproportionate and lethal force against a civilian population even in response to the unlawful rocket attacks carried out by Palestinian armed groups is a blatant violation of the laws of war, enshrined in customary international humanitarian law and the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Second, if Israel’s goal is to end rocket attacks from Gaza, the most logical step it could take would be to respond positively to Hamas’ repeated cease-fire proposals for a complete end to rocket fire on Israel, most recently on February 23rd, when Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said that Hamas will consider any initiative that will bring about a ceasefire. Hamas claims it has secured the agreement of all factions to halt rocket fire and promised to impose the cease-fire provided that Israel reciprocates. Israel’s Prime Miniser Ehud Olmert immediately rejected the cease-fire offer, even though a growing number of Israeli politicians and security officials are calling for Israel to accept a cease-fire. Israel’s current operations are clearly about much more than securing Israeli civilians lives. Israel could easily end the rocket fire by accepting a cease-fire.
4. What would a cease-fire include?
Hamas has proposed a cease-fire many times and has been clear that it would have to include a cessation of all hostilities: Hamas would cease and impose a halt to all rockets and mortar shells from Gaza provided Israel would end its “targeted liquidations,” military incursions and its siege of Gaza. The negotiations should be conducted by Egypt, particularly since it would have to open the border between the Gaza Strip and Sinai to end the siege of Gaza and give it back its freedom of communication with the world by land, sea and air.
5. But how can one reach a cease-fire settlement with a violent organization that declares that it will never recognize Israel?
Israel’s demand that it cannot negotiate a cease-fire because Hamas does not “recognize Israel’s right to exist” is nothing more than a pretext for avoiding an end to violence on anything other than Israel’s terms. Even though Hamas has been responsible for many reprehensible and violent attacks on Israel, it is the main power in Gaza and has a track record of living up to its agreements. The claim about recognition is faulty for the following reasons:
First, the lack of recognition has never stopped states from negotiating with its adversaries; history is replete with negotiations between sworn enemies.
Second, such recognition is traditionally reciprocal; in order for Israel to receive recognition it would have to simultaneously recognize the state of Palestine and define its own borders, which it refuses to do.
Third, and most importantly, in practical terms, if one state or group makes an agreement with another state, then it has recognized that state. So if Hamas were to agree to a cease-fire with Israel, it is meaningless whether or not it has formally recognized Israel because in fact, it has.
6. What then are the political reasons why the Israeli government rejects a cease-fire and chooses massive military invasions and violence in Gaza as its preferred policy?
The immediate reason is that the current Israeli government is under severe domestic pressure to take major actions to stop Palestinian rocket attacks, and since it will not accept a cease-fire and knows it cannot completely reoccupy the Gaza strip without major casualties, it is choosing to unleash intense violence upon the area where rocket attacks come from and upon Palestinians–both fighters and civilians — in order to pressure Hamas to halt rocket attacks. This is a form of collective punishment; it has never worked in the past and contravenes international law.
The deeper reason Israel chooses violence over a cease-fire is that Israel wants to avoid negotiations with a united Palestinian government that holds firm to basic Palestinian rights to a full and sovereign Palestinian state in the lands occupied by Israel in 1967. It wants to impose an agreement upon a weakened and divided Palestinian people who could be pushed to accept a deal that allows for Palestinian rule in truncated territorial enclaves under complete Israeli control, with most of the Israeli settlements remaining on Palestinian land. Dividing Hamas-ruled Gaza from the West Bank and refusing to negotiate any deal with Hamas helps it do this.
7. But do all Israelis oppose a Cease-Fire?
No. According to a recent poll, a majority of the Israeli public (64%) support direct talks with Hamas to achieve a mutual ceasefire. Moreover, Knesset Member Yossi Beilin and other high level politicians have called for an agreed ceasefire with Hamas and the former head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, Efraim Halevy, calls for Israel and the US to negotiate a ceasefire with Hamas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
