Now I understand why the US and others boycotted the UN conference on racism. Pondering this issue, I watched the TV news tonight to get my head around the narrative we are supposed to suck up unquestioningly.
As expected, on both TVNZ and TV3, we got a big "I told you so!" from the countries who boycotted the conference after the Iranian President reportedly had a go at Israel in his speech. From the reports, we have no idea what he actually said, but I did get the very clear message that whatever it was, it more than justified boycotting the conference....if you buy the argument that what a single leader *might* say about another country is reason enough for your country to boycott a major conference on an important issue. I don't buy it. That Canada felt the need to announce the boycott over a year ago makes it even more odd.
I've seen this kind of pantomime before and know very well there is a lot more going on here than some countries getting upset about insults in Israel's direction. That's why the reasons given made no sense to me.
As is too often the case, I had to use the Internet to find out what's REALLY going on. (Amended sentence follows) The major wires services (AP and Reuters) and NZ's TV news and most newspapers, too often are either lazily purveying some government's (country of origin) propaganda as news or actively participating in misleading us. It hardly matters which as the result is the same: we aren't told why things are really happening.
Guess what I found out in about 15 seconds?
Iran is having elections on June 12th (less than 8 weeks from now) and they include the presidency. Conservative incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, hate-doll of the US and Israel, is standing against two reformers, pormer PM Mir-Hossein Mousavi and former speaker of the Majlis (legislature), Mehdi Karroubi. Both are reformers.
Now the boycott and theatre around it make sense....right down to the silly rainbow wig of the "protester" (I wonder who he really was?) thrown out of the conference venue during Ahmadinejad's speech. The US and others have a very real interest in making it very clear to Iranian voters that a vote for Ahmadinejad is a vote for more of the same lack of engagement with Iran and continued banking sanctions against Iran. The US and its allies (including NZ) want to see a reformer elected.
The Wikipedia article reports a poll taken in late March showing Mr. Mousavi on 52% and President Ahmadinejad on 36%.
It may well be that Ahmadinejad, running behind in the polls, had every intention of using his speech at the conference to play to a populist, America / Israel-hating home crowd and show he is able to stand up for Iran in before the world. Maybe this was the Iranian version of Bush's "Bring it on". A play to patriotism to win votes.
I don't like Ahmadinejad. He is divisive and negative. I hope he loses. But what a shame the 8 countries who didn't turn up at the UN Conference on Racism saw it as disposable in their wider game. Racism isn't a trivial issue and everyone could have sat quietly through Ahmadinejad's rant and got on with real, important work. That they chose not to is revealing by itself.
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Rice sounding out an "ally" about Iran?
Timing is everything. Why was US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, in Australia and New Zealand this week? Why did she use the term "ally" (NBR) about our country when the US has not used this term for 20 years?
Placed in a wider context, mindful of the US and Israel's apparent build up to some sort of conflict with Iran in a window opening in the next weeks and running through the rest of Bush's term, it may be that Rice was sounding out our government about where New Zealand might stand should the US and / or Israel initiate a conflict with Iran in the near future.
"The talks with Miss Clark had been a "very strategic discussion about the global challenges", including the Middle East and nuclear proliferation, she said.It's all very vague and one can't hope for anything more than vagueries, but in the wider context of US threats against Iran and the meeting with the Iranians in Europe last week, the use of the term "ally" may be more laden with meaning than might otherwise be the case. Sure, it may represent more an invitation than a reality. I can't see Helen Clark and Labour aligning themselves with the Bush Administration at this late stage.
New Zealand's defence role in Afghanistan and its leadership in the Pacific were both highlighted as being important to America by Dr Rice.
When asked when joint military exercises would resume between the countries, a question asked earlier during her press conference with Mr Peters, Dr Rice again side-stepped the issue.
"New Zealand is certainly seen as a friend and an ally."
Maybe all they wanted was support for further sanctions against Iran....based on the unproven claims by the US and Israel that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
You know.....the "WMD" thing. We've been there before. The US under Bush can't be trusted. The record makes that more than very clear.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Mid-week miscellaneous: Buses, Food, Iran
The 973 and 974 buses were full yet again today, so people seem to be sticking with public transport. Bouquets to Birkenhead Transport for stepping up with enough buses to make sure everyone gets on one sooner rather than later.
It rained every 15 minutes in Albany, all day long.....I swear. I bought an umbrella.
Went to Valentines near Wairau Valley for dinner with the family. Fourth time in my life I've ever been to a Valentines, and never the same one twice. As it happened, it was "Curry night" and I'm a sucker for chicken korma, butter chicken, chicken tika masala....etc....etc. Keep'em coming. Today I eat. Tomorrow I....don't. 
Read in the news that US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, has gone all warm and fuzzy toward Iran. She has even given Iran two more weeks to stop enriching uranium or they will face the consequences. As an incentive to comply within the two weeks, Rice promised Iran would not face any MORE sanctions if they do. This struck me as weirdly aligned with domestic bullies who promise not to beat their victims any harder or more often than usual if they do as they are told.
Rice's offer seems guaranteed to fail and that appears to be the US's intention. They tried for a whole week to be nice to the Iranians....even promising not to punish them any more than they already are (for things no one has proven they did).....and they got nowhere. What a bunch of charlies. So the US is now back to the previously scheduled build-up to war. The whole 'play nice' thing was apparently nothing more than a stunt, a rush PR job to declare diplomacy a failure.
Let's not forget that the US has never presented any proof at all that Iran actually has a nuclear weapons program.
The US's apparent timetable, commented on by me in several posts in recent months, for some sort of conflict (US or Israel, or both) with Iran in August or shortly after, appears to be back on track. Just in time to get in the way of the US elections.
Oh yeah...and Happy Birthday to me.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Arthur or Martha? Bush and Israel on Iran
Another day dawns. Confusion reigns.
Will Iran be attacked by Israel the US or both? Is the escalation of tensions with Iran being driven by US and Israeli domestic political considerations? Will we ever actually see any proof of the claims the US and Israel make about an Iranian nuclear weapons program? So far, there is none at all.
The Sunday Times in the UK makes it look like an Israeli attack on Iran prior to the US elections in November is all but a done deal.
The hawkish Jerusalem Post looks at how the US and Israel are more or less agreed on what they believe may have to be done, but increasingly out of sync as to what actions should be taken and when. The Israelis appear to have talked themselves into a corner with respect to attacking Iran while overlooking the lack of any proof Iran is working on a bomb.
US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, said this week:
We have seen no proof at all. None.
The US and UK media - yet again - appear to be dropping the ball spectacularly. No one is asking why we have not seen any proof of US and Israeli claims regarding an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Our own media simply carry the wire stories and features from overseas without apparent thought or comment. Of the few who have mentioned it, like Fran O'Sullivan in the Herald, there is no recognition whatever that the claims against Iran remain completely unproven.
After the lies told to sell the invasion of Iraq, such one-sided and persistent blindness by most of the media to the lack of proof of claims about Iran can only be deliberate. There can be no more excuses for not rigorously testing a US or Israeli case for war after the way the US and UK-based media we source our news from almost completely ignored the lack of proof of any WMD in Iraq...and effectively enabled a war based on lies they refused to question.
Our own journalists and politicians should be asking tough questions instead of swallowing whole unproven claims being used to justify more war.
Will Iran be attacked by Israel the US or both? Is the escalation of tensions with Iran being driven by US and Israeli domestic political considerations? Will we ever actually see any proof of the claims the US and Israel make about an Iranian nuclear weapons program? So far, there is none at all.
The Sunday Times in the UK makes it look like an Israeli attack on Iran prior to the US elections in November is all but a done deal.
President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.On the other hand, a dispassionate analysis of pros and cons by the BBC makes an attack on Iran seem very unlikely, with tough talk in Tel Aviv being driven by the Kadima Party's leadership vote in September.
Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an “amber light” to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.
Politicians, of course, have to talk tough wherever they come from, and here Israel's leaders need no lessons from outside.Israeli media are saying Olmert is toast.
Everything now is influenced by domestic politics.
The weakness of Israel's embattled Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, beset by allegations of financial irregularity, means that the battle to replace him has already been joined.
The hawkish Jerusalem Post looks at how the US and Israel are more or less agreed on what they believe may have to be done, but increasingly out of sync as to what actions should be taken and when. The Israelis appear to have talked themselves into a corner with respect to attacking Iran while overlooking the lack of any proof Iran is working on a bomb.
US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, said this week:
"There is a lot of signaling going on," he said. "But I think everybody recognizes what the consequences of any kind of a conflict would be. And I will tell you that this government is working hard to make sure that the diplomatic and economic approach to dealing with Iran, and trying to get the Iranian government to change its policies is the strategy and is the approach that continues to dominate."The Washington Post carries a column by Lamis Andoni, a Middle East consultant for Al Jazeera, may have the best overall analysis of what we are seeing now:
Israel has been openly and aggressively inciting war against Iran – with the complicity of the Pentagon.What I notice above all else in reading report after report, is the near complete lack of any questioning of the so far unproven claim by the US and Israel that Iran is working to make nuclear weapons.
According the Israeli Yediot Ahranot, the news about Israeli military exercises for war with Iran was deliberately leaked by the Pentagon, in coordination with Israel, to prepare the atmosphere for war against Iran.
I think that the Bush Administration is determined to plant the seeds for war before it leaves, but the question remains if that means an overt strike or a covert action against Iran. It could be an Israeli strike or a covert – yet huge – act of sabotage on Iran that could set the wheels of war turning.
In other words, the administration will not go quietly without starting another explosion.
We have seen no proof at all. None.
The US and UK media - yet again - appear to be dropping the ball spectacularly. No one is asking why we have not seen any proof of US and Israeli claims regarding an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Our own media simply carry the wire stories and features from overseas without apparent thought or comment. Of the few who have mentioned it, like Fran O'Sullivan in the Herald, there is no recognition whatever that the claims against Iran remain completely unproven.
After the lies told to sell the invasion of Iraq, such one-sided and persistent blindness by most of the media to the lack of proof of claims about Iran can only be deliberate. There can be no more excuses for not rigorously testing a US or Israeli case for war after the way the US and UK-based media we source our news from almost completely ignored the lack of proof of any WMD in Iraq...and effectively enabled a war based on lies they refused to question.
Our own journalists and politicians should be asking tough questions instead of swallowing whole unproven claims being used to justify more war.
Friday, July 11, 2008
"Israel ready to act" over Iran
As Iran conducts its second day of missile tests, the BBC reports Israel is ready to act over Iran "if it feels threatened".
As in past conflicts, Israel has effectively provoked the current tensions by steadily ratcheting up the rhetoric until the target responds in a provocative way. Israel then uses this response as evidence of the threat.
I've had the same thing happen to me in the playground at school when someone wanted to pick a fight. They would harrass and needle until you finally had a go at them....only to find them then playing the victim and you end up looking like the bully. No one is interested in your protestations to the contrary.....especially the influential friends of the harrasser.
We've been seeing the same thing with respect to Israel and Iran for some years now (roughly since Bush got into the White House) and Iran has typically responded in a reasonably measured way to the ongoing threats from the US and Israel to unilaterally nuke Iran.
Why Iran now appears to have taken the bait is worth speculating on. Is it simply bad judgement based on hubris? Or is Iran bluffing? Or is Iran taking a "Make my day...." stance with respect to the usual Israeli threats of attack for some other purpose?
Certainly by keeping tensions high, Israel, the US and Iran are all doing their best to keep the price of oil high, which keeps the economic pressure on everyone who uses oil. That ties in with Iranian President Ahmedinejad's view that the US is "on the threshold of bankruptcy — from political to economic".
From the perspective of the Bush Administration and the Kadima-lead conservative government in Israel, a tensions, or perhaps even conflict, with Iran may help John McCain take the White House or, failing that, make it all but impossible for a more moderate Barak Obama to adopt a more conciliatory stance with respect to Iran. The current governments in Israel and the US do not want this situation to be resolved. That is made evident by their fresh threats each time things calm down.
The best way to undertstand why these tensions have arisen is too look at who gains by them: the groups currently in power in the US and Israel. Their respective political constituencies are held together by fear as much as any other thing. So fear it is.
There is no benefit for Iran in any of this.
It's worth remembering we have not yet seen any evidence that Iran is actually working on nuclear weapons. The attempts to create panic about Iran appear to be designed to stop anyone from bothering to ask for such proof.
As in past conflicts, Israel has effectively provoked the current tensions by steadily ratcheting up the rhetoric until the target responds in a provocative way. Israel then uses this response as evidence of the threat.
I've had the same thing happen to me in the playground at school when someone wanted to pick a fight. They would harrass and needle until you finally had a go at them....only to find them then playing the victim and you end up looking like the bully. No one is interested in your protestations to the contrary.....especially the influential friends of the harrasser.
We've been seeing the same thing with respect to Israel and Iran for some years now (roughly since Bush got into the White House) and Iran has typically responded in a reasonably measured way to the ongoing threats from the US and Israel to unilaterally nuke Iran.
Why Iran now appears to have taken the bait is worth speculating on. Is it simply bad judgement based on hubris? Or is Iran bluffing? Or is Iran taking a "Make my day...." stance with respect to the usual Israeli threats of attack for some other purpose?
Certainly by keeping tensions high, Israel, the US and Iran are all doing their best to keep the price of oil high, which keeps the economic pressure on everyone who uses oil. That ties in with Iranian President Ahmedinejad's view that the US is "on the threshold of bankruptcy — from political to economic".
From the perspective of the Bush Administration and the Kadima-lead conservative government in Israel, a tensions, or perhaps even conflict, with Iran may help John McCain take the White House or, failing that, make it all but impossible for a more moderate Barak Obama to adopt a more conciliatory stance with respect to Iran. The current governments in Israel and the US do not want this situation to be resolved. That is made evident by their fresh threats each time things calm down.
The best way to undertstand why these tensions have arisen is too look at who gains by them: the groups currently in power in the US and Israel. Their respective political constituencies are held together by fear as much as any other thing. So fear it is.
There is no benefit for Iran in any of this.
It's worth remembering we have not yet seen any evidence that Iran is actually working on nuclear weapons. The attempts to create panic about Iran appear to be designed to stop anyone from bothering to ask for such proof.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
How can anyone trust anything they say?
As in past cycles, Iran has responded to months of escalating threats from the US and Israel by demonstrating its intention (NZ Herald) to defend itself if attacked.
The story in the print version of the Herald Wednesday morning included this hilarious, presumably straight-faced, lie:
This quote is not included on the online version of the Herald's report, which will be seen by fewer people than the print version.
The story in the print version of the Herald Wednesday morning included this hilarious, presumably straight-faced, lie:
"Israel does not threaten Iran, but the Iranian nuclear programme combined with their aggressive ballistic missile programme is a matter of grave concern", Mark Regev, spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said after the testsIn fact, Israel is on record in the past several weeks alone overtly threatening Iran with attack and has been threatening Iran overtly with nuclear attack over the past 5 years at least.
This quote is not included on the online version of the Herald's report, which will be seen by fewer people than the print version.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Neo-Con O'Sullivan frames the Israel / Iran situation
The Weekend Herald included a fascinating column by Fran O'Sullivan. She says we should listen to Alexander Downer on the subject of Iran and Israel.
Downer was Australia's foreign minister in John Howard's Liberal government when that country decided to join the United States invasion of Iraq. In "staying the course" on that disastrous decision, Downer was clearly among those deceived by the US Bush Administration's bogus case for war. To my mind, that would make him an excellent person to NOT listen to where the lives of innocent people are at stake. He was a key part of a government that signed Australia up to kill and be killed based on lies Iraq had weapons it did not have.
Fast forward to July 2008.
Since at least 2003, conservative governments in both Israel and the United States have been claiming Iran is making a nuclear bomb. They have never provided proof to support these claims.
Despite that, many media outlets and journalists treat these unproven claims as fact, just as they did prior to the invasion of Iraq. Some people never learn. Fran O'Sullivan would appear to be one of them.
Iran has responded to these threats to attack it by saying it was not making a bomb and that anyone who attacked it would be very sorry. In 2005, it was claimed in the world's media that Iran had said it would wipe Israel off the map. This claim was false, but the true story was never verified and the error never corrected.
This erroneous claim has since then been a prominent propaganda tool used by conservatives everywhere to build popular support for Israel and any measures taken against Iran, including attacking it with nuclear weapons.
Fran O'Sullivan, arguably the NZ Herald's most doctrinaire neo-conservative columnist in political matters and neo-liberal columnist in economic matters, starts her column by saying:
O'Sullivan then proceeds to repeat the same propaganda referred to above:
Given she has not verified the claims she has signed up for, her advice to take note of anything Alexander Downer says should be ignored. He went to war without verifying Bush's claims in 2003. They have a lethal (for others) credulity in common.
In this case, their misconception is based on a very one-sided view of the situation in the Middle East that holds the Israeli government can do no wrong and never has. The consequences of past actions of the Israeli government are thus translated into aggression unconnected to the cause. Evil.
It's a view that gives the Israeli government a free pass to continue its slow-motion ethnic cleansing in Palestine and use any level of violence against people who dare resist the never ending encroachment of Israeli settlements into Palestinian lands.
Meanwhile, Israel's government continues to threaten Iran with nuclear attack while people like Fran O'Sullivan and Alexander Downer pretend that Iran is the aggressor for claiming the right to defend itself if attacked as both the US and Israel have threatened to do.
Is Fran O'Sullivan merely misguided? Or is she a propagandist with a job to do?
Downer was Australia's foreign minister in John Howard's Liberal government when that country decided to join the United States invasion of Iraq. In "staying the course" on that disastrous decision, Downer was clearly among those deceived by the US Bush Administration's bogus case for war. To my mind, that would make him an excellent person to NOT listen to where the lives of innocent people are at stake. He was a key part of a government that signed Australia up to kill and be killed based on lies Iraq had weapons it did not have.
Fast forward to July 2008.
Since at least 2003, conservative governments in both Israel and the United States have been claiming Iran is making a nuclear bomb. They have never provided proof to support these claims.
Despite that, many media outlets and journalists treat these unproven claims as fact, just as they did prior to the invasion of Iraq. Some people never learn. Fran O'Sullivan would appear to be one of them.
Iran has responded to these threats to attack it by saying it was not making a bomb and that anyone who attacked it would be very sorry. In 2005, it was claimed in the world's media that Iran had said it would wipe Israel off the map. This claim was false, but the true story was never verified and the error never corrected.
This erroneous claim has since then been a prominent propaganda tool used by conservatives everywhere to build popular support for Israel and any measures taken against Iran, including attacking it with nuclear weapons.
Fran O'Sullivan, arguably the NZ Herald's most doctrinaire neo-conservative columnist in political matters and neo-liberal columnist in economic matters, starts her column by saying:
"Australia's longest serving foreign minister, Alexander Downer, has ignited a behind-scenes debate here over just what position Western democracies should take to Israel's right to defend itself against Iranian threats."This is an interesting way to frame what is happening right now between Israel and Iran. By any objective measure, Israel's government and military establishment have been making the threats while Iran's official response has been firm but measured.
O'Sullivan then proceeds to repeat the same propaganda referred to above:
"While the Western world debates what steps should be taken to deter Iran from carrying out threats to wipe Israel from the earth, New Zealand's foreign affairs triumvirate - Helen Clark, Phil Goff and Winston Peters - remain relatively silent."Fran O'Sullivan has clearly bought into the Bush / Olmert narrative without apparently attempting to verify any of it. Is she just lazy or sloppy? You'd think a senior journalist like O'Sullivan would be skeptical of claims made by proven liars like George W. Bush and Israeli PM, Ehud Olmert, but apparently not.
Given she has not verified the claims she has signed up for, her advice to take note of anything Alexander Downer says should be ignored. He went to war without verifying Bush's claims in 2003. They have a lethal (for others) credulity in common.
In this case, their misconception is based on a very one-sided view of the situation in the Middle East that holds the Israeli government can do no wrong and never has. The consequences of past actions of the Israeli government are thus translated into aggression unconnected to the cause. Evil.
It's a view that gives the Israeli government a free pass to continue its slow-motion ethnic cleansing in Palestine and use any level of violence against people who dare resist the never ending encroachment of Israeli settlements into Palestinian lands.
Meanwhile, Israel's government continues to threaten Iran with nuclear attack while people like Fran O'Sullivan and Alexander Downer pretend that Iran is the aggressor for claiming the right to defend itself if attacked as both the US and Israel have threatened to do.
Is Fran O'Sullivan merely misguided? Or is she a propagandist with a job to do?
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Oil over US$144 / barrel amid Iran attack fears
You have to give George W Bush credit. The one thing this oil president has been wildly successful at is increasing the price of oil steadily and hugely.
Today, amid rising fears of an attack on Iran by Israel, the US or both, oil markets bid the price of light crude up to over $144 / barrel.
Iran's response to the rising threat can only be described as measured:
The US says it won't allow Iran to close the Straits of Hormuz. Let's hope the US isn't stupid enough to create the situation where they get to find out if they can.
Today, amid rising fears of an attack on Iran by Israel, the US or both, oil markets bid the price of light crude up to over $144 / barrel.
Iran's response to the rising threat can only be described as measured:
Iran’s oil minister warned today that an attack on his country would provoke a fierce response, but said Tehran would not cut oil deliveries and would continue supplying the market even if struck."Craziness" is a good word for it. That may well be the term that historians and voters come to use when referring to George W Bush's two terms in office....and the fact that enough voters supported him to allow him to get close enough to winning to make cheating possible.
In New York, however, Iran’s foreign minister did not rule the possibility that Iran could try to restrict oil traffic in the strait if the country was attacked.
"In Iran we must defend our national security, our country and our revolutionary system and we will continue to do so," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in an interview with The Associated Press.
Mottaki said he does not believe Israel or the United States will attack, however, calling the prospect of another war in the Middle East "craziness."
The US says it won't allow Iran to close the Straits of Hormuz. Let's hope the US isn't stupid enough to create the situation where they get to find out if they can.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Gore Vidal on Iran & Power
There is a load of excellent analysis and commentary about current events relating to Iran out there. You just have to go look for it and it is everywhere - except the mainstream media.
Vidal: "We are no longer a country. We are a framework for crooks."
Afshin Rattansi and Gore Vidal on Iran & Power June 27, 2008
Vidal: "We are no longer a country. We are a framework for crooks."
Afshin Rattansi and Gore Vidal on Iran & Power June 27, 2008
Iran responds to US / Israeli threats of attack
Iran appears to be taking the US and Israeli threats of attack seriously, moving long rang missiles into defensive positions.
I keep using Al Jazeera clips because for depth of coverage of ALL sides, they are leaving everyone else I can see in the shade. (I can't see any BBC coverage). The US broadcast media I have seen do not question the completely unproven Bush Administration claims that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. I'm not saying no one is questioning it. Just no one I've seen.
Inside Story - Iran/Israel tensions - 29 Jun 08 - Part 1
Inside Story - Iran/Israel tensions - 29 Jun 08 - Part 2
I keep using Al Jazeera clips because for depth of coverage of ALL sides, they are leaving everyone else I can see in the shade. (I can't see any BBC coverage). The US broadcast media I have seen do not question the completely unproven Bush Administration claims that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. I'm not saying no one is questioning it. Just no one I've seen.
Inside Story - Iran/Israel tensions - 29 Jun 08 - Part 1
Inside Story - Iran/Israel tensions - 29 Jun 08 - Part 2
Seymour Hersh on US escalation against Iran
Seymour Hersh, author of an article in the New Yorker that I posted about yesterday, talks on Al-Jazeera about the US escalation against Iran.
I was going to add the "stupid people" label, but G W Bush is already among the labels.
I was going to add the "stupid people" label, but G W Bush is already among the labels.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Terrorism's other names: "Bush" and "covert ops"
Seymour Hersh reports in the The New Yorker magazine that last year the US Congress authorised US President Bush's $400M dollars for covert operations in Iran aimed at destabilising the country and undermining the current regime.
That may explain why car bombs have started going off in Tehran. This mosque exploding in April, killing 9, was probably just one more covert op directed at regime change.
US Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker uses weasel words to deny the report:
As with Iraq, President Bush has ignored a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) - the conclusion of diverse US intelligence agencies:
Note that they have not proven any of their claims about a nuclear programme in Iran, just as their claims about iraqi WMD were found to be fabrications. Bush and the US Congress have ignored their own intelligences agencies who advised them there is no Iranian nuclear weapons programme.
Yet they persist, funding bombings in Iran and killing innocent people. If that isn't terrorism, the word has no meaning at all.
"scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded."
That may explain why car bombs have started going off in Tehran. This mosque exploding in April, killing 9, was probably just one more covert op directed at regime change.
US Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker uses weasel words to deny the report:
However, US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker on Sunday flatly refuted the allegation in The New Yorker that Washington is conducting cross-border operations from Iraq into Iran.So US soldiers aren't blowing up cars and mosques. The US is funding OTHER people to do it for them.
"I can tell you flatly that US forces are not operating across the Iraqi border into Iran," he told CNN television.
As with Iraq, President Bush has ignored a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) - the conclusion of diverse US intelligence agencies:
The Bush administration's request for funding came around the same time as the December 2007 release of the National Intelligence Estimate, which said the Iran halted nuclear weapons work in 2003.US President Bush is obviously a terrorist leading a global web of terrorist organisations. He has admitted as much to the US Congress and they have approved funding for it. He and they should ultimately be treated by the global community as terrorists.
Note that they have not proven any of their claims about a nuclear programme in Iran, just as their claims about iraqi WMD were found to be fabrications. Bush and the US Congress have ignored their own intelligences agencies who advised them there is no Iranian nuclear weapons programme.
Yet they persist, funding bombings in Iran and killing innocent people. If that isn't terrorism, the word has no meaning at all.
Dear Mr. Key
Dear Mr. Key
Re: "Drumbeats of War", NZ Herald, Monday, June 30, 2008, pA13
Can you please inform me what, if any, view the National Party might have of a possible attack on Iran by Israel, the United States, or any other nation?
I am aware that claims have been made by the US and Israel that Iran is attempting to make nuclear weapons.
I am aware they have so far presented no credible evidence to support these claims.
I am aware that the IAEA has found no evidence of any nuclear weapons programme in Iran.
I am aware Iran, an Islamic theocracy, denies any such programme and has declared that nuclear weapons are un-Islamic and contrary to the will of Allah.
I am aware Iran asserts that electronic documents from US and Israeli intelligence services are forgeries. These documents purport to show a link between the civilian nuclear program and the Iranian military. The US and Israel have refused to allow Iran, or anyone other than the IAEA, to examine the subset of (electronic) documents they claim as solid proof.
As Israeli rhetoric has recently shifted from "if" there will be an attack to "when" there will be an attack, I think it important and urgent that the New Zealand government express a view on any such attack that makes it very clear any unprovoked attack on Iran is unjustifiable and that an attack without authorisation from the UN Security Council, based on clear ,unequivocal evidence, would be a war crime. I would hope your party would support such action.
The current campaign against Iran is very similar to the one against Iraq in 2002 and 2003: a rising tide of unsupported claims and aggressive rhetoric and propaganda. Then comes the attack.
Your answer to this question is particularly important as your party, had it been in government in 2003, made it very clear you would have joined those invading Iraq despite the then obvious lack, to me and millions of others, of any credible proof of the claims being made by the Bush Administration against Iraq. We now know President Bush lied to start that war and it has seen disastrous and unnecessary loss of life and the squandering of trillions of dollars.
I hope the National Party would learn from the lessons of the very recent past and object in the strongest possible terms to any such attack should it occur. I hope you would urge the Government to also refuse to join in any subsequent escalation of any conflict arising from the aftermath of such an attack.
Yours sincerely, ......etc
Re: "Drumbeats of War", NZ Herald, Monday, June 30, 2008, pA13
Can you please inform me what, if any, view the National Party might have of a possible attack on Iran by Israel, the United States, or any other nation?
I am aware that claims have been made by the US and Israel that Iran is attempting to make nuclear weapons.
I am aware they have so far presented no credible evidence to support these claims.
I am aware that the IAEA has found no evidence of any nuclear weapons programme in Iran.
I am aware Iran, an Islamic theocracy, denies any such programme and has declared that nuclear weapons are un-Islamic and contrary to the will of Allah.
I am aware Iran asserts that electronic documents from US and Israeli intelligence services are forgeries. These documents purport to show a link between the civilian nuclear program and the Iranian military. The US and Israel have refused to allow Iran, or anyone other than the IAEA, to examine the subset of (electronic) documents they claim as solid proof.
As Israeli rhetoric has recently shifted from "if" there will be an attack to "when" there will be an attack, I think it important and urgent that the New Zealand government express a view on any such attack that makes it very clear any unprovoked attack on Iran is unjustifiable and that an attack without authorisation from the UN Security Council, based on clear ,unequivocal evidence, would be a war crime. I would hope your party would support such action.
The current campaign against Iran is very similar to the one against Iraq in 2002 and 2003: a rising tide of unsupported claims and aggressive rhetoric and propaganda. Then comes the attack.
Your answer to this question is particularly important as your party, had it been in government in 2003, made it very clear you would have joined those invading Iraq despite the then obvious lack, to me and millions of others, of any credible proof of the claims being made by the Bush Administration against Iraq. We now know President Bush lied to start that war and it has seen disastrous and unnecessary loss of life and the squandering of trillions of dollars.
I hope the National Party would learn from the lessons of the very recent past and object in the strongest possible terms to any such attack should it occur. I hope you would urge the Government to also refuse to join in any subsequent escalation of any conflict arising from the aftermath of such an attack.
Yours sincerely, ......etc
Dear Mr. Peters
Dear Mr. Peters
Re: "Drumbeats of War", NZ Herald, Monday, June 30, 2008, pA13
Can you please inform me what, if any, view the Government might have of a possible attack on Iran by Israel, the United States, or any other nation?
I am aware that claims have been made by the US and Israel that Iran is attempting to make nuclear weapons.
I am aware they have so far presented no credible evidence to support these claims.
I am aware that the IAEA has found no evidence of any nuclear weapons programme in Iran.
I am aware Iran denies any such programme and has declared that nuclear weapons are un-Islamic and contrary to the will of Allah.
I am aware Iran asserts that electronic documents from US and Israeli intelligence services are forgeries. These documents purport to show a link between the civilian nuclear program and the Iranian military. The US and israel have refused to allow Iran, or anyone other than the IAEA, to examine the subset of documents they claim as solid proof.
As Israeli rhetoric has recently shifted from "if" there will be an attack to to "when" there will be an attack, I think it important and urgent that the New Zealand government express a view on any such attack that makes it very clear any unprovoked attack on Iran is unjustifiable and that an attack without authorisation from the UN Security Council, based on clear ,unequivocal evidence, would be a war crime.
This current campaign against Iran is very similar to the one against Iraq: a rising tide of claims and aggressive rhetoric and propaganda, unsupported by evidence. Then come the attacks.
I hope the New Zealand government would object in the strongest possible terms to any such attack should it occur. We should also refuse to join in any subsequent escalation of conflict arising from the after math of such an attack.
Yours sincerely.......etc.
Re: "Drumbeats of War", NZ Herald, Monday, June 30, 2008, pA13
Can you please inform me what, if any, view the Government might have of a possible attack on Iran by Israel, the United States, or any other nation?
I am aware that claims have been made by the US and Israel that Iran is attempting to make nuclear weapons.
I am aware they have so far presented no credible evidence to support these claims.
I am aware that the IAEA has found no evidence of any nuclear weapons programme in Iran.
I am aware Iran denies any such programme and has declared that nuclear weapons are un-Islamic and contrary to the will of Allah.
I am aware Iran asserts that electronic documents from US and Israeli intelligence services are forgeries. These documents purport to show a link between the civilian nuclear program and the Iranian military. The US and israel have refused to allow Iran, or anyone other than the IAEA, to examine the subset of documents they claim as solid proof.
As Israeli rhetoric has recently shifted from "if" there will be an attack to to "when" there will be an attack, I think it important and urgent that the New Zealand government express a view on any such attack that makes it very clear any unprovoked attack on Iran is unjustifiable and that an attack without authorisation from the UN Security Council, based on clear ,unequivocal evidence, would be a war crime.
This current campaign against Iran is very similar to the one against Iraq: a rising tide of claims and aggressive rhetoric and propaganda, unsupported by evidence. Then come the attacks.
I hope the New Zealand government would object in the strongest possible terms to any such attack should it occur. We should also refuse to join in any subsequent escalation of conflict arising from the after math of such an attack.
Yours sincerely.......etc.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Israel wants US to attack Iran
Israel recently conducted a long-range rehearsal for an air attack on Iran. The 100 aircraft, 900 mile / 1400km mission around the Mediterranean was intended to train Israeli pilots for a long range air attack. Each leg requires the aircraft to refuel three times.
Since then, Israel has stepped up the rhetoric and made it clear that it wants Bush to attack Iran before he leaves office. Other reports suggest the Israeli air force is not ready to launch such a complex air mission over such a distance.
Iran, understandably, has taken a dim view of threats to attack it.
Head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, said an attack would turn the region into a "fireball". He also said he would resign if there were a military strike. The IAEA is charged with monitoring Iran's compliance with the Nuclar Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran is signatory to. The most recent Board report from the IAEA in early June found nothing amiss, but did ask Iran to respond to allegations made by the US and Israel about its nuclear programme.
The news of the Israeli attack training was leaked to the New York Times by the Pentagon. Oil prices immediately went up. Maybe that was the aim: monster Iran for added oil profits. Time will tell.
Interestingly, the CBS News reports linked to here do not make it clear that no one has presented any proof that Iran is working on nuclear weapons. CBS viewers are told Iran has a nuclear weapons program as though it were established fact. These claims by the US and Israel are not questioned or described as allegations, which is what they are.
You would think American media might have learned from the build up to the attack on Iraq to question more deeply, but apparently not. CBS is still parroting the White House and Pentagon line, unquestioned, in their primary news bulletins. This may be understandable as CBS's parent company, Westinghouse, is one of the largest weapons contractors in the United States.
War, or threat of war, is their bread and butter.
*
Since then, Israel has stepped up the rhetoric and made it clear that it wants Bush to attack Iran before he leaves office. Other reports suggest the Israeli air force is not ready to launch such a complex air mission over such a distance.
Iran, understandably, has taken a dim view of threats to attack it.
Head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, said an attack would turn the region into a "fireball". He also said he would resign if there were a military strike. The IAEA is charged with monitoring Iran's compliance with the Nuclar Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran is signatory to. The most recent Board report from the IAEA in early June found nothing amiss, but did ask Iran to respond to allegations made by the US and Israel about its nuclear programme.
The news of the Israeli attack training was leaked to the New York Times by the Pentagon. Oil prices immediately went up. Maybe that was the aim: monster Iran for added oil profits. Time will tell.
Interestingly, the CBS News reports linked to here do not make it clear that no one has presented any proof that Iran is working on nuclear weapons. CBS viewers are told Iran has a nuclear weapons program as though it were established fact. These claims by the US and Israel are not questioned or described as allegations, which is what they are.
You would think American media might have learned from the build up to the attack on Iraq to question more deeply, but apparently not. CBS is still parroting the White House and Pentagon line, unquestioned, in their primary news bulletins. This may be understandable as CBS's parent company, Westinghouse, is one of the largest weapons contractors in the United States.
War, or threat of war, is their bread and butter.
*
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
US attack on Iran imminent?
Probably not. But the profound stupidity of US President Bush and Vice-President Cheney means we can't rule it out entirely. All the tell-tale signs of an escalating campaign to justify such an attack are there and growing. Based on what we are seeing now, an attack after the end of July could be plausible. Here's why:
The United States and Israel have been steadily escalating the rhetoric against Iran. The program being followed is eerily similar to the one used prior to the invasion of Iraq.
1. Talk for years, over and over, about the "certainty" of Iranian nukes. Try to create an environment where your unsubstantiated claims are taken as being givens by voters and the media.
2. Move to the next phase, involving the IAEA and the international community. Make lots of claims no person can prove or disprove - including and especially the Iranians. As with Saddam's "WMD" the Iranians can no more prove they DON'T have any than Saddam could. It's like proving the tooth fairy doesn't exist.
3. Accelerate the rate of accusations and bury your intended victim in a blizzard of "evidence" and accusations they can't refute fast enough. No one is really paying close attention anyway - especially the media. They can be relied upon to simply report uncritically whatever your latest claim is. It's what they did in Iraq and this will be no different.
4. Quietly line up your military ducks. Sign and agreement with Iraq allowing you to operate military bass there. Call it an "alliance", so there is no Congressional oversight. but don't say what you're allied against. With any luck, you can get this agreement signed without anyone eve knowing. If they do find out, the Iraqi government can say it is an agreement "regulating" your occupation of their country after the UN agreement expires. Call the bases "Iraqi bases" because there will be a couple of tents housing Iraqi soldiers off in one corner. Bush's law applies. No one else's. US law can be invoked if Bush approves. He rarely does: eg. Guantanamo.
5. Attack Iran. Hang your Iraqi "allies" out to dry when you and / or Israel launch your air attacks from those "Iraqi" bases against Iranian sites. The Iraqi's are either with you or against you. You can depose them and replace them with some willing Iraqi general anyway. Job done.
Side benefits: Sure as hell got that darned Obama guy out of the news!
This summary and overview of the US-Iraq "agreement" by Al-Jazeera sums up the current state of play as of today well, though the role of Israel in any plan to bomb Iran is not addressed. If you haven't watched any of it, Al Jazeera is providing consistently balanced reports on what it does cover and many reports on things that the Western media do not cover at all. It is becoming a valuable news source in its own right.
US-Iran security deal - 08 June 08 - Part 1
US-Iran security deal - 08 June 08 - Part 2
The United States and Israel have been steadily escalating the rhetoric against Iran. The program being followed is eerily similar to the one used prior to the invasion of Iraq.
1. Talk for years, over and over, about the "certainty" of Iranian nukes. Try to create an environment where your unsubstantiated claims are taken as being givens by voters and the media.
2. Move to the next phase, involving the IAEA and the international community. Make lots of claims no person can prove or disprove - including and especially the Iranians. As with Saddam's "WMD" the Iranians can no more prove they DON'T have any than Saddam could. It's like proving the tooth fairy doesn't exist.
3. Accelerate the rate of accusations and bury your intended victim in a blizzard of "evidence" and accusations they can't refute fast enough. No one is really paying close attention anyway - especially the media. They can be relied upon to simply report uncritically whatever your latest claim is. It's what they did in Iraq and this will be no different.
4. Quietly line up your military ducks. Sign and agreement with Iraq allowing you to operate military bass there. Call it an "alliance", so there is no Congressional oversight. but don't say what you're allied against. With any luck, you can get this agreement signed without anyone eve knowing. If they do find out, the Iraqi government can say it is an agreement "regulating" your occupation of their country after the UN agreement expires. Call the bases "Iraqi bases" because there will be a couple of tents housing Iraqi soldiers off in one corner. Bush's law applies. No one else's. US law can be invoked if Bush approves. He rarely does: eg. Guantanamo.
5. Attack Iran. Hang your Iraqi "allies" out to dry when you and / or Israel launch your air attacks from those "Iraqi" bases against Iranian sites. The Iraqi's are either with you or against you. You can depose them and replace them with some willing Iraqi general anyway. Job done.
Side benefits: Sure as hell got that darned Obama guy out of the news!
This summary and overview of the US-Iraq "agreement" by Al-Jazeera sums up the current state of play as of today well, though the role of Israel in any plan to bomb Iran is not addressed. If you haven't watched any of it, Al Jazeera is providing consistently balanced reports on what it does cover and many reports on things that the Western media do not cover at all. It is becoming a valuable news source in its own right.
US-Iran security deal - 08 June 08 - Part 1
US-Iran security deal - 08 June 08 - Part 2
Monday, June 9, 2008
Iraq II: Iran in the frame?
I won't beat around the Bush (so to speak). I don't claim to know either way whether Iran is making nukes or not. How could I?
I am suspicious, but not just about Iran.
The escalating rhetoric and allegations about weapons of mass destruction (Nukes! Nukes!) being made by the United States and Israel against Iran is looking more and more like a re-run of the same claims made against Iraq in 2002.
Then, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was fed essentially false and é or misleading (dis)information by the United States and others and was (ab)used by the United States and others to front a steadily escalating propaganda campaign against Iraq.
Last week, the IAEA released a Board Report (PDF) that essentially verified Iran's compliance on all material matters, but at the same time asked Iran to respond to allegations that it was progressing tasks that would see a nuclear weapon eventuate.
Iran has responded in detail. As with Iraq in 2002, each time the Iranians respond to allegations, refuting them, still more allegations are made, effectively preventing the process from arriving at a conclusion. Like Iraq, in 2002, it looks like this is running to a time table with some conclusion in mind. Perhaps an attack on Iran in the near future. (I will detail the converging indications of such an attack in a post later today or tomorrow.)
Reading the report, were from unspecified sources as they are not named in the report. They are based on documents provided to the IAEA only in electronic form. The IAEA was not allowed - or able to - provide some of these documents to Iran for a response. Iran's response to those documents it was shown appears to be credible - at least as credible as the documents that raised the allegations. The key paragraphs are 17-24 of the report. Read them for yourself (in the report) and see if you don't think this doesn't look, smell and sound like an "Iraq II" WMD smear job.
The media globally are lapping it up with most US-based media reporting it - explicitly or implicitly - as though it is a given that Iran is making nukes.
Iran says the documents are fakes and that it dos not have a nuclear weapons program. They say the electronic documents provided contain inconsistencies that reveal they are forgeries. Iran says it cannot respond to the documents that it has not been allowed to examine. In all cases, the documents were in electronic format and Iran says they could have easily been manipulated.
Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, the Majlis, Ali Larijani said:
Summarising, we have essentially anonymous allegations based on documents provided in a form that can easily be manipulated or forged, some of which can't be released in any form to Iran or anyone else. As detailed in the report, the documents that have been released have alternative, non-nuclear explanations. The documents that have not been released purport to show an administrative connection between the ambiguous activities and the nuclear energy program. Yet these most crucial documents are the least visible.
The United States and Israel have been making accusations against Iran repeatedly. Both countries have been threatening to unilaterally attack Iran. These threats have often explicitly refrred to the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons. Here is a small representative sample of US and Israeli military threats against Iran, with just one example from each of the past 5 years: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008.
For the last 3 years, as those links show, Israel has been threatening unilateral strikes, using nuclear weapons, against Iranian sites it deems to be in need of destroying.
Iran's response throughout this period has been to co-operate with the IAEA and to state repeatedly that it does not threaten anyone and will not attack any country, though it will defend itself against any attacks. Iran says it is not developing nuclear weapons as they are un-islamic.
As Iran is a (somewhat democratic) Islamic theocracy, the fatwah issued by head cleric, Ayotollah Khamenei, declaring
If anyone does attack Iran, its leaders have made it clear there will be dire consequences. The Iranian reaction to American and Israeli threats of pre-emtive attacks have been widely portrayed as aggressive anti-semitic attacks.
It boils down to whether or not the allegations against Iran by anonymous accusers (the US and Israel) are credible. Neither country has an impressive track record for telling the truth. In particular, the US President has already lied to start a war in Iraq. As we now know, the allegations against Iraq were supported by faked documents, bogus interpretations of mundane satellite imagery and other misleading "evidence". They were found, in the end, to be false. But not before they had been successfully used to justify a military adventure that is still underway 5 years later.
Prior to the Iraqi conflict, the IAEA was fed forged documents purporting to show the Iraqis attempting to procure nuclear materials from Niger. It was difficult then for Iraq to respond because the matters contained in the documents were mythical. It's not easy to prove something doesn't exist.
Today, we are seeing the same thing again. The critical piece in the `case` against Iran is the connection between the military and the nuclear energy program, but it is precisely this connection that is most vague and ill-defined. The documents purporting to demonstrate it can`t be seen by anyone..including the Iranians.
On this basis, it looks like the case against Iran is simply not credible. It is being made by countries with a proven track record of using deception - including out right lies and forgery - to justify military adventure.
I hope the New Zealand government looks long and hard at any case against Iran before taking sides. So far, the case doesn't come close to stacking up.
I am suspicious, but not just about Iran.
The escalating rhetoric and allegations about weapons of mass destruction (Nukes! Nukes!) being made by the United States and Israel against Iran is looking more and more like a re-run of the same claims made against Iraq in 2002.
Then, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was fed essentially false and é or misleading (dis)information by the United States and others and was (ab)used by the United States and others to front a steadily escalating propaganda campaign against Iraq.
Last week, the IAEA released a Board Report (PDF) that essentially verified Iran's compliance on all material matters, but at the same time asked Iran to respond to allegations that it was progressing tasks that would see a nuclear weapon eventuate.
Iran has responded in detail. As with Iraq in 2002, each time the Iranians respond to allegations, refuting them, still more allegations are made, effectively preventing the process from arriving at a conclusion. Like Iraq, in 2002, it looks like this is running to a time table with some conclusion in mind. Perhaps an attack on Iran in the near future. (I will detail the converging indications of such an attack in a post later today or tomorrow.)
Reading the report, were from unspecified sources as they are not named in the report. They are based on documents provided to the IAEA only in electronic form. The IAEA was not allowed - or able to - provide some of these documents to Iran for a response. Iran's response to those documents it was shown appears to be credible - at least as credible as the documents that raised the allegations. The key paragraphs are 17-24 of the report. Read them for yourself (in the report) and see if you don't think this doesn't look, smell and sound like an "Iraq II" WMD smear job.
The media globally are lapping it up with most US-based media reporting it - explicitly or implicitly - as though it is a given that Iran is making nukes.
Iran says the documents are fakes and that it dos not have a nuclear weapons program. They say the electronic documents provided contain inconsistencies that reveal they are forgeries. Iran says it cannot respond to the documents that it has not been allowed to examine. In all cases, the documents were in electronic format and Iran says they could have easily been manipulated.
Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, the Majlis, Ali Larijani said:
Larijani said last week that certain aspects of the IAEA report suggested that, "services of some countries are trying to mislead the agency".
Speaking after Sunday's parliamentary session, Larijani said that "this active misleading of the agency will harm both Iran and the IAEA".
He said that Iran has been warning the IAEA inspectors about the false feeding of information by US and Israeli intelligent services, "but they kept getting the wrong information and we used to clarify everything according to the law."
"Iran does not like this happen and will devise another solution," he added.
Summarising, we have essentially anonymous allegations based on documents provided in a form that can easily be manipulated or forged, some of which can't be released in any form to Iran or anyone else. As detailed in the report, the documents that have been released have alternative, non-nuclear explanations. The documents that have not been released purport to show an administrative connection between the ambiguous activities and the nuclear energy program. Yet these most crucial documents are the least visible.
The United States and Israel have been making accusations against Iran repeatedly. Both countries have been threatening to unilaterally attack Iran. These threats have often explicitly refrred to the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons. Here is a small representative sample of US and Israeli military threats against Iran, with just one example from each of the past 5 years: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008.
For the last 3 years, as those links show, Israel has been threatening unilateral strikes, using nuclear weapons, against Iranian sites it deems to be in need of destroying.
Iran's response throughout this period has been to co-operate with the IAEA and to state repeatedly that it does not threaten anyone and will not attack any country, though it will defend itself against any attacks. Iran says it is not developing nuclear weapons as they are un-islamic.
As Iran is a (somewhat democratic) Islamic theocracy, the fatwah issued by head cleric, Ayotollah Khamenei, declaring
"developing, producing, or stockpiling nuclear weapons is forbidden under Islam"can't be lightly disregarded.
If anyone does attack Iran, its leaders have made it clear there will be dire consequences. The Iranian reaction to American and Israeli threats of pre-emtive attacks have been widely portrayed as aggressive anti-semitic attacks.
It boils down to whether or not the allegations against Iran by anonymous accusers (the US and Israel) are credible. Neither country has an impressive track record for telling the truth. In particular, the US President has already lied to start a war in Iraq. As we now know, the allegations against Iraq were supported by faked documents, bogus interpretations of mundane satellite imagery and other misleading "evidence". They were found, in the end, to be false. But not before they had been successfully used to justify a military adventure that is still underway 5 years later.
Prior to the Iraqi conflict, the IAEA was fed forged documents purporting to show the Iraqis attempting to procure nuclear materials from Niger. It was difficult then for Iraq to respond because the matters contained in the documents were mythical. It's not easy to prove something doesn't exist.
Today, we are seeing the same thing again. The critical piece in the `case` against Iran is the connection between the military and the nuclear energy program, but it is precisely this connection that is most vague and ill-defined. The documents purporting to demonstrate it can`t be seen by anyone..including the Iranians.
On this basis, it looks like the case against Iran is simply not credible. It is being made by countries with a proven track record of using deception - including out right lies and forgery - to justify military adventure.
I hope the New Zealand government looks long and hard at any case against Iran before taking sides. So far, the case doesn't come close to stacking up.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
US to attack Iran by August?
On May 28th, the Asia Times carried an article (Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August') by Muhammad Cohen, claiming US President Bush intends to bomb Iran "by August".
The air attacks would be directed at the headquarters of the elite "Quds force" of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The Quds Force stated mission is to spread Iran's revolution of 1979 throughout the region. It is claimed Quds has been assisting the Iraqi insurgency.
The report claims that two US Senators who have been briefed on the mission will be making their opposition to it public in the near future.
There is no way to tell whether this is true until we see corroboration from the two so far anonymous senators or someone else in the know.
Certainly, the Bush Administration rhetoric against Iran has been heating up over recent months and the organisation named in this report was last year designated by the US Senate as a terrorist organisation. It is unusual for a part of a country's military to be designated as a banned terrorist organisation.
There does appear to be reason for concern. There is already a campaign underway to put political pressure on the White House to abandon any such plans. The consequences of any such attack are incalculable. In my opinion, the Bush Administration has a record of consistently underestimating the negative consequences of it's actions. I hope this won't be yet another example.
The air attacks would be directed at the headquarters of the elite "Quds force" of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The Quds Force stated mission is to spread Iran's revolution of 1979 throughout the region. It is claimed Quds has been assisting the Iraqi insurgency.
The report claims that two US Senators who have been briefed on the mission will be making their opposition to it public in the near future.
There is no way to tell whether this is true until we see corroboration from the two so far anonymous senators or someone else in the know.
Certainly, the Bush Administration rhetoric against Iran has been heating up over recent months and the organisation named in this report was last year designated by the US Senate as a terrorist organisation. It is unusual for a part of a country's military to be designated as a banned terrorist organisation.
There does appear to be reason for concern. There is already a campaign underway to put political pressure on the White House to abandon any such plans. The consequences of any such attack are incalculable. In my opinion, the Bush Administration has a record of consistently underestimating the negative consequences of it's actions. I hope this won't be yet another example.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
