| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 5:33 pm Post subject: |
| FALSE POSITIVE: BUSHÂ’S DEADLY ODOR OF MENDACITY
By Chris Floyd
Empire Burlesque
August 8, 2007
http://www.chris-floyd.com/Articles/Articles/False_Positive%3A_Bush%27s_Deadly_O\
dor_of_Mendacity/
President Bush's many media sycophants tell us over and over that he is
not the dribbling idiot of popular imagination. As Hugh Hewitt and other
genuflectors who are ushered routinely into the great man's presence
insist, George W. Bush is an intelligent, focused, purposeful leader, with
a firm grasp on the complexities of modern statecraft.
Let us grant the truth of this assertion. (Indeed, I have already granted
it, in two previous pieces: here and here.) What this means, of course,
is that when Bush makes a statement in public, he is very much aware of
what he is saying, and fully cognizant of the implications of his words.
Therefore, when the intelligent, focused and purposeful Mr. Bush declared
Monday -- at a highly publicized meeting with Afghan President Hamid
Karzai -- that the Iranian government "has proclaimed its desire to build
a nuclear weapon," we must assume that he knew full well that he was
telling a barefaced lie, and that he told this lie for some specific
purpose. That purpose is obvious: to further prepare the PR ground for
inducing the public to go along with a future military strike against
Iran.
This is precisely the same kind of focused and purposeful lie that Bush
told when he declared, on national television, that there was "no doubt
that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most
lethal weapons ever devised," and that Saddam Hussein had "aided, trained
and harbored terrorists, including operative of al Qaeda." In fact, the
new lie is even more brazen, for it involves only the public statements of
Iranian leaders, not cherry-picked and falsified nuggets of murky
intelligence data buried from all public view. Anyone with a computer --
or a memory -- can readily determine that Iran's government leaders have
insistently proclaimed their adamant opposition to building a nuclear
weapon; the nation's theocratic leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, has even
declared such a weapons program to be against the will of God.
The veracity of such statements might be controversial, of course. After
all, there is no particular reason to believe that the government leaders
in Iran are any more honest than, say, American presidents (or American
clerics) have proven to be down through the years. But it is simply,
literally, indisputably an outright lie to declare that the Iranian
government has "proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon." The
very opposite is true.
Bush knew he was lying -- and he was lying with a purpose. He was trying
to inject this poisonous falsehood into the public debate, and he
succeeded. The remark went largely unnoticed by the corporate media,
which focused on other themes in the joint press conference. The U.S.
media's flagship, the *New York Times*, did not even mention Bush's
falsehood, much less point out the inaccuracy of the remark. As it does
so often, the *Times* smoothed over Bush's actual words with a bland
paraphrase, saying only that Bush "is deeply suspicious of [Iran's]
nuclear ambitions, a view he reiterated Monday." (That is a further lie
in aid of the original lie. Bush did not say he was "deeply suspicious"
of Iran's nuclear ambitions; he said outright that Iran has declared its
desire for nuclear weapons. There was no "suspicion" about the statement
at all; Bush retailed it as an established fact.)
Some outlets, such as the *Washington Post*, did report Bush's remark --
and even went on to note, at the very bottom of the story, that "Iran
actually has not proclaimed a desire to build a nuclear weapon." But
instead of asking why Bush would tell such a glaring, provocative lie, the
Post merely, and meekly, allowed an Administration spokesman to explain
away the remark with a non sequitur: Iran had once kept its nuclear
energy program a secret and was now resisting some of the extra
inspections demanded of them outside the the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty that they have signed and followed for years. The spokesman did
not explain how any of this constituted a "proclamation" of the desire to
build nuclear weapons. And the *Post* obviously did not press him on it.
Still, in this degraded age of journalism, I suppose we must give a gold
star to the *Post* for even mentioning the discrepancy between Bush's
statement and the truth.
(However, full marks must go to AFP for writing a whole story
(http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/6558/) on the lie: Bush levels dubious
Iran nuclear arms charge. But they're just a bunch of foreigners anyway,
so they don't count. Only the echo chamber of the Homeland media is
important in the new warmongering campaign.)
Bush's deliberate lie ratchets that campaign up to another level. We have
already had months of stories asserting Iranian involvement in the killing
of American soldiers in Iran and Afghanistan -- stories rooted, like the
WMD canards, in the murk of unsourced, unverifiable "intelligence data"
passed along by Bush's military minions to credulous reporters. Now the
Bush Regime is moving on to fantastical falsehoods, based on nothing but a
bold perversion of facts available to anyone. And again, as with Iraq,
the main war drum remains centered on that ole debbil "mushroom cloud"
rising over an American city. (And why not? The Money Power militarists
have made mountains of hay (and silos of cash) with that threat for nigh
on 60 years now.)
But before the "debate" about striking Iran slips away entirely into the
realm of fantasy, it might be useful to look at Iran's nuclear program in
context -- provided here by Abbas Edalat and Mehrnaz Shahabi in their
Guardian article, “Prospects of Armageddon”: “[T]he calamity of Iraq has
failed to dampen the belligerent clique within the White House. The
arrival of an IAEA team in Tehran yesterday to discuss inspections is
equally unlikely to dissuade advocates of a strike, nuclear or
conventional. Such an assault would be in flagrant breach of the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty, but it would hardly be the first time the U.S.
has disregarded the 1968 accord.
“The treaty obliges nuclear states to pursue negotiations in good faith
towards cessation of the nuclear arms race and on to disarmament. It also
guarantees non-nuclear states help with and access to peaceful nuclear
know-how and technology. All five original nuclear states are in
violation of the treaty for failing to take effective action towards
disarmament. The U.S. systematically contravened the treaty in the 1980s
and 1990s by successfully bringing pressure to bear on Western governments
and companies, as well as China and Russia, not to enter nuclear
collaborations with Iran -- which, as a signatory of the treaty, has been
entitled since 1970 to receive material, technology, and information for
the peaceful use of nuclear power. This eventually drove Iran, after the
bombing of Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant by Israel in 1981, on to the black
market in order to pursue its nuclear program. The subsequent partial
concealment of Iran's nuclear activities gave rise to Western suspicion of
its nuclear ambitions, but rarely does the media characterization make
reference to the context in which the recourse to the black market took
place. It is rare, too, to see mention made of the fact that the IAEA has
found no evidence of a weapons program after over 2,200 hours of snap
inspections of Iranian nuclear plants.
“In marked contrast to Western suspicion of Iran, the real nuclear program
in Israel has been eagerly sponsored by the governments of France,
Britain, and the U.S. They have actively supported Israel's development
of an arsenal estimated to include more than 200 warheads. It is a
weapons program Tel Aviv is determined to shroud in secrecy. Mordechai
Vanunu served an 18-year prison sentence, including 12 years in solitary
confinement, after speaking publicly of Israel's possession of nuclear
weapons in 1986. Last month he was sentenced to a further six months in
prison for speaking to foreigners.
“Even as Iran discusses renewed inspections with the IAEA, the risk of a
military attack on its nuclear facilities remains high. Israel's threat
to deploy nuclear bunker busters to destroy Iran's weapons potential is in
line with the U.S.'s national security strategy of 2006 and the Pentagon's
doctrine for joint nuclear operations which justifies use of tactical
nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states as a ‘deterrent.’ The
ultimate irony is that the leading violator of the treaty, the U.S., and
the region's sole nuclear power and non-signatory, Israel, are
contemplating nuclear strikes on the pretext of nuclear limitation.”
But this is nothing new. The National Security State that essentially
replaced the American republic in 1947 has always relied on "scaring the
hell out of the American people," as we noted here earlier this year, when
writing of Bush's brutal regime change by proxy in Somalia: “It's clear
that no nation on earth will be allowed to organize its own society as it
wishes, or work out its own internal conflicts, if the American élite
decides they have some financial or strategic interest in the matter. The
only nations immune to this power-mad interventionist philosophy are those
who can strike back hard enough to upset the élite's apple cart. And thus
we have Bush's "war on terror" -- which is, as we've often noted, simply
an escalation of the long-running, bipartisan foreign policy of the
‘National Security State’ that has ruled America for 60 years.”
This year marks the anniversary of this coup d'état: the 1947 "National
Security Act." Writing on the 50th anniversary of this supplanting of the
Republic, Gore Vidal wrote: “Fifty years ago, Harry Truman replaced the
old republic with a national-security state whose sole purpose is to wage
perpetual wars, hot, cold, and tepid. Exact date of replacement?
February 27, 1947. Place: The White House Cabinet Room. Cast: Truman,
Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson, a handful of congressional leaders.
Republican senator Arthur Vandenberg told Truman that he could have his
militarized economy only IF he first "scared the hell out of the American
people" that the Russians were coming. Truman obliged. The perpetual war
began. Representative government of, by, and for the people is now a
faded memory. Only corporate America enjoys representation by the
Congress and presidents that it pays for in an arrangement where no one is
entirely accountable because those who have bought the government also own
the media. Now, with the revolt of the Praetorian Guard at the Pentagon,
we are entering a new and dangerous phase. Although we regularly
stigmatize other societies as rogue states, we ourselves have become the
largest rogue state of all. We honor no treaties. We spurn international
courts. We strike unilaterally wherever we choose. We give orders to the
United Nations but do not pay our dues . . . we bomb, invade, subvert
other states. Although We the People of the United States are the sole
source of legitimate authority in this land, we are no longer represented
in Congress Assembled. Our Congress has been hijacked by corporate
America and its enforcer, the imperial military machine . . ."
Obviously, the situation that Vidal describes didn't begin with the
illegal implantation of the Bush Regime by the rightwing faction of the
Supreme Court (two of whom had family members profiting from the Bush
campaign) in December 2000. It has gone on for decades, under "liberal"
Democrats and "conservative" Republicans. But it has reached a new pitch
of intensity, audacity, and recklessness today.
That audacity was on vivid display in the latest war-stoking lie to issue
from the presidential mouth: a lie rank with the smell of corpse-flesh --
past, present, and future -- that mingles with Bush's every breath. | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 8:15 pm Post subject: |
| Analysis: Preparing for peace and war
By CLAUDE SALHANI
UPI Contributing Editor
WASHINGTON, Aug. 8 (UPI) -- The Middle East has seen a flurry of intense diplomatic activity over the past few weeks with the U.S. secretaries of state and defense visiting the region in preparation for a peace conference called for by President Bush. Or is the visit of the two high-ranking U.S. officials to America’s allies intended to muster support for a possible military strike against Iran?
From the ancient Romans to the ancient Chinese (and to the modern-day Israelis) one can find the dictum counseling rulers, “If you wish for peace, prepare for war.” And now one can include the United States on that list. Indeed, alongside preparations being put in place for next fall’s attempts at peacemaking in the Middle East by the White House, so are preparations for the eventuality of a new war proceeding -- this one involving Iran.
The motives for going to war against Iran are the same that were given for the invasion of Iraq; that the country was trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction -- until that excuse fell off the radar screens and the front pages of most newspapers. This was replaced by the search for al-Qaida and its sympathizers, who abounded in Iraq, but only after the U.S.-led invasion.
The major difference between Iraq and Iran is in Iran’s case Western intelligence services have detailed knowledge of the Islamic republic’s alleged nuclear facilities. The United States has at its disposal meticulous information of Iran’s nuclear processing plants given to them courtesy of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq. The MeK, which remains on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations, has been trying hard to have its status changed.
In Iraq’s case, almost five years since the start of the war, WMDs remain to be found. Chances are they never will be. And regarding the terrorist connection no links have been established between Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers. Furthermore, prior to the invasion of Iraq, terrorist attacks in Iraq were unheard of, unlike today, where hardly a day goes by without dozens of attacks on Iraqi civilians and U.S. forces claiming scores of innocent lives. That, however, is not to say that Saddam had not supported terrorist groups in the past, especially when it suited his political ends.
Iran, on the other hand, has been repeatedly accused by the United States and by other Western powers of supporting international terrorist organizations.
So, what kind of reception would the U.S. secretaries of state and defense have faced during their recent Middle East tour? Regarding Bush’s peace initiative, chances are that feedback from Middle East rulers was positive. No one really wants to see another war. Of the so-called frontline states, Egypt and Jordan have already signed peace deals and established diplomatic relations with Israel. In the Palestinian territories, President Mahmoud Abbas, greatly weakened by the loss of the Gaza Strip to Hamas, seems to have had the wind taken out of him and his Fatah faction. Abbas is ready to talk peace with Israel.
The giant Saudi Arabia is ready for peace, too. A giant due to the political clout it carries over many of the Arab world’s leaders, thanks to its enormous financial means, and due to the prestigious position the Saudi king holds as the guardian of the two holy mosques in Mecca and Medina, giving him sway over many of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims.
While discreet, Saudi Arabia has been very active in trying to broker an agreement between Israel and the Arabs. There have been several high-level meetings between Israeli and Saudi officials, prompting one Israeli official to say the day of a photo-op between Israeli and Saudi officials is not far off. However, a very well-informed Saudi journalist told this reporter that though the Saudis are working toward a rapprochement with Israel, do not expect to see a handshake make the front pages just yet.
That leaves Syria, the last of the frontline states, along with Lebanon, to remain in a state of belligerency toward Israel. Syria and Israel are trapped in a Catch-22 situation. Syria wants the Golan Heights, which was captured by Israel in 1967, before it makes peace with Israel. Israel wants a peace treaty with Syria before it contemplates even thinking about handing the strategic Heights back to Syria, which is still in a state of war with Israel and allied with Iran, whose president keeps calling for the destruction of Israel.
Strange how one way or another, the ball keeps coming back into Iran’s court.
--
(Claude Salhani is editor of the Middle East Times.)
--
(e-mail: Claude@METimes.com) | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 3:17 am Post subject: |
| America’s illusory strategy in Iraq
By David Gardner
Published: August 9 2007 19:27 | Last updated: August 9 2007 19:27
Future historians of how Iraq was lost will, of course, alight on the memoirs and the memos of those who drove the policy, measuring declaration against execution, ambition against outcome. They will savour the solipsism of a Paul Bremer, the US viceroy whose disbandment of the Iraqi army left 400,000 men destitute and bitter, but armed, trained and prey to the insurgency then taking shape – but whose memoir paints him as a MacArthur of Mesopotamia.
They will be awed by the arrogance and fecklessness of a Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary and theorist of known unknowns, who summed up the descent into anarchy and looting in the hours after Baghdad fell (when, very possibly, Iraq was lost) – “Stuff happens”.
But their research will be greatly assisted by the diligence of the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of the US Congress, which keeps on unearthing the bottomless depths of incompetence behind the Bush administration’s misconceived adventure in Iraq.
This week, the GAO reported that the Pentagon cannot account for 110,000 AK-47 assault rifles and 80,000 pistols supposedly supplied to Iraqi security forces – adding to well-founded suspicions that insurgents are using US-supplied arms to attack American and British troops.
This discovery might be considered the mother of all known unknowns, were it not that in March this year the GAO published a drily damning report on the coalition’s failure to secure scores upon scores of arms dumps abandoned by the Iraqi army after the 2003 invasion – and that by October last year it had still failed to secure this giant toolbox that keeps the daily slaughter going in Iraq.
That carnage continues, barely moderated by the “surge” of troops that this week raised US forces to their peak level in Iraq of 162,000 – a last heave that looks destined to be the prelude to withdrawal.
As a policy it is hard to see how any surge can fix an Iraq so traumatised by tyranny and war and then broken by invasion and occupation. It takes place as an already indecipherable ethnic and sectarian patchwork is being pulled bloodily to pieces. Iraq has reached advanced societal breakdown. Ethnic cleansing proceeds regionally, through neighbourhoods, even street by street.
There has been a mass exodus of teachers and doctors, civil servants and entrepreneurs, a haemorrhage of Iraq’s future. Nearly 4m Iraqis have been uprooted by this cataclysm. Instead of bringing democracy to Iraq and the Arabs, the 2003 invasion has scattered Iraqis across the Middle East – as well as creating laboratory conditions for the urban warfare urged on jihadis by Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s strategist. The time to have surged is long since past.
Politically, there are no institutions, there is no national narrative. Ministries are sectarian booty and factional bastions. The interior ministry, headquarters for several death squads, is, according to the Los Angeles Times, partitioned into factional fiefs on each of its 11 floors – with the seventh floor split between the armed wings of two US-allied groups.
Two ostensibly benign by-products of the US invading Iraq were: the empowerment of the Shia majority there, giving the sect, a dispossessed minority within Islam, rights denied for centuries; and the welcome panic of an ossified Sunni Arab order based on a toxic mix of despotism and social inequity that incubated extremism. But Iraq’s Shia politicians seem unwilling to put state above sect. Such is the Sunni, jihadi-abetted backlash, and the intra-Shia fight over the spoils, that the Shia have not so much come into their inheritance as entered a new circle of hell.
The Shia-led government of prime minister Nouri al-Maliki has ceased to pursue even a communalist agenda, preferring the narrower sectarian interest of his faction of the Da’wa party. With the withdrawal of 17 of 38 members of Mr Maliki’s cabinet – including all the Sunnis and two big Shia factions – government has for most practical purposes ceased.
To believe any policy might work in these circumstances – let alone a slow-motion surge – requires heroic optimism. Some of that was placed in Gen David Petraeus, US commander in Iraq. At least until this week.
It turns out those Kalashnikovs went missing on his previous watch, as trainer-in-chief of the still barely existent Iraqi army. Gen Petraeus, a student of counterinsurgency with a PhD from Princeton and a gift for PR, had been lionised for his command of the 101st Airborne division in 2003-04, and especially his “hearts and minds” campaign in the north. After his withdrawal, however, two-thirds of Mosul’s security forces defected to the insurgency and the rest went down like fairground ducks. His forces appear not to have noticed, moreover, that Saudi-inspired jihadis had established a bridgehead in Mosul before the war had even started.
But US commanders seem to have no trouble detecting the hand of Tehran everywhere. This largely evidence-free blaming of serial setbacks on Iranian forces is a bad case of denial. First, the insurgency is overwhelmingly Iraqi and Sunni, built around a new generation of jihadis created by the US invasion. Second, to the extent foreign fighters are involved these have come mostly from US-allied and Sunni Saudi Arabia, not Shia Iran. Third, the lethal roadside bombs with shaped charges that US officials have coated with a spurious veneer of sophistication to prove Iranian provenance are mostly made by Iraqi army-trained engineers – from high explosive looted from those unsecured arms dumps.
Shia Iran has backed a lot of horses in Iraq. If it wished to bring what remains of the country down around US ears it could. It has not done so. The plain fact is that Tehran’s main clients in Iraq are the same as Washington’s: Mr Maliki’s Da’wa and the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq led by Abdelaziz al-Hakim. Iran has bet less on the unpredictable Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army, which has, in any case, largely stood aside during the present troop surge.
So, in sum. Having upturned the Sunni order in Iraq and the Arab world, and hugely enlarged the Shia Islamist power emanating from Iran, the US finds itself dependent on Tehran-aligned forces in Baghdad, yet unable to dismantle the Sunni jihadistan it has created in central and western Iraq. Ignoring its Iraqi allies it is arming Sunni insurgents to fight al-Qaeda. And, by selling them arms rather than settling Palestine it is trying to put together an Arab Sunni alliance (Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) with Israel against Iran. All clear? How can anyone keep a straight face and call this a strategy?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/a2347bd0-46a4-11dc-a3be-0000779fd2ac.html | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 10:23 pm Post subject: U.S., Iran do Persian Gulf Squeeze |
| The 'JINSA crowd' in charge of the Pentagon wants to provoke a confrontation with Iran:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-stennis11jul11,0,4317741,full.story
From the Los Angeles Times
U.S., Iran do Persian Gulf squeeze
The stakes are big and the waterway is small, so communication between the two sides is a must to keep a lid on tensions.
By Borzou Daragahi
Times Staff Writer
July 11, 2007
ABOARD THE USS JOHN C. STENNIS — Iran and the United States remain so far apart on so many issues that they refuse to talk about them.
But in the cramped sea routes of the Persian Gulf, U.S. and Iranian warship sailors and fighter pilots speak to each other daily.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR THE RECORD:
U.S. warship: A photo caption accompanying an article in Wednesday's Section A about U.S. and Iranian warships in the Persian Gulf said a fighter jet was lifting off from the U.S. nuclear-powered carrier John C. Stennis. The plane, a French naval jet, was flying over the warship. The photo was taken in April, when the carrier was participating in exercises with a French carrier in the Indian Ocean. —
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They have to. They're practically jostling one another in courteous games of surveillance, counter-surveillance and geopolitical posturing.
"We are operating very close to their territorial waters in a very confined space with a tremendous amount of traffic, be it the small dhows, be it the supertankers going up to the oil platforms," said U.S. Navy Capt. Sterling Gilliam Jr., commander of air operations for this nuclear-powered supercarrier and its associated ships.
"The margin of error is smaller in that the space is more confined. That would be the case even if anyone was your ally, just because of the sheer small size of the Arabian Gulf," Gilliam said, using an alternative name for the body of water.
Even mundane changes of direction require chitchat with Iranian counterparts. When sedate gulf winds fade to a whisper, for example, this 100,000-ton carrier whips up to the 25 knots required to hurl jets into flight from the 1,092-foot flight deck.
But first the vessel alerts nearby forces of Iran's Revolutionary Guard and the organization's navy.
"We would do the standard international maritime measures," said Capt. Bradley Johanson, commanding officer of the aircraft carrier.
"We would call them on their radio and say, 'Sir, I just wanted to let you know that we're going to be turning to port and be coming to this course so that we're into the wind in support of our flight operation."
The Iranians respond professionally and courteously, Johanson said: " 'Thank you very much for the information. We will move off to the starboard position. We very much appreciate the heads-up.' "
Nearly half of the U.S. Navy's 277 warships are stationed close to Iran, alongside most of Tehran's estimated 140 naval surface ships and six submarines, according to GlobalSecurity.org. More than five dozen aircraft are aboard the Stennis, along with dozens more aboard the Nimitz, another U.S. aircraft carrier in the gulf.
--
Multiple roles
Crew members on the Stennis say they are here to provide aircraft for peacekeeping and counterinsurgency missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia.
But few doubt they are also here to send a message to Iran, which the U.S. accuses of pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program and supporting anti-American militants from Lebanon to Afghanistan.
"My feeling here is we're here to show our resolve, and to protect our friends," said Cmdr. Marcus Hitchcock, the Stennis' executive officer.
A flotilla of nine U.S. warships steamed through the Strait of Hormuz two months after the United Nations Security Council passed the last round of sanctions against Iran for continuing with its uranium enrichment program and Iranians seized 15 British sailors and marines in disputed waters off Iraq.
Positioning two aircraft carrier groups in the gulf gives the United States the capability to operate 24 hours a day and potentially conduct about 180 daily bombing and surveillance operations over Iran.
It also means the United States may be deploying nuclear weapons, believed to be aboard some of the ships in the aircraft carrier groups, within 10 miles of Iran's shores.
--
Big targets
But the aircraft carriers, each accompanied by four or five other ships, could become big targets for Iran in the event of a war.
"It's going to be very hard to defend U.S. ships against small ships and volleys of missiles in the confines of the Persian Gulf," said Joseph Cirincione, a security analyst at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank.
"This is not an ideal situation for the Navy."
Tensions between Iran and the U.S. lie barely beneath the surface of the delicate maritime protocol. Both Iran and the U.S. regularly dispatch spy planes to watch each other. A photograph of an Iranian T-12 reconnaissance plane is posted outside the intelligence office of the Stennis. "Image of the day," says the caption.
"We would take a picture of an Iranian navy warship to see if they've made any changes," said Vice Adm. Kevin J. Cosgriff, commander of the Bahrain-based U.S. 5th Fleet. "They do it too. We pay attention and want to know where they are. Is their action routine or are they getting ready for an exercise?"
Each country accuses the other of bad behavior. Iran says the U.S. plays a disruptive role in the gulf and destabilizes the region. U.S. officials say the Iranians behave like bullies, sometimes getting on the radio to order Americans to leave what the Iranians claim as territorial waters.
Americans also complain that Iranians don't do enough to clear sea lanes before conducting missile tests in international waters and that their aircraft fly too close to U.S. planes.
"They're overt about it," Cosgriff said. "They're communicating."
Operating an aircraft carrier is a task that requires precision and stamina even in the most spacious waters.
Stumbling into a hot conflict with the Iranians remains a constant concern in the overcrowded gulf, where nearby oil wells glow orange in the steamy night, and wooden dhows, steel-hull freighters and warships navigate the waterway by day.
On the ship's computer maps, a thick black line delineates Iranian coastal waters from the rest of the gulf. Shades of gray mark the waters off Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, allies of the United States. U.S. pilots are told to stay well away from Iranian airspace.
"We do worry about miscalculations," Cosgriff said. "That's one of the reasons we want to be transparent on the radio and be talking to them a lot."
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
daragahi@latimes.com | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 1:43 am Post subject: Cheney's Secret Escalation Plan? |
| Cheney's Secret Escalation Plan?
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/08/10/BL2007081001161_pf.html
Friday, August 10, 2007; 1:44 PM
At yesterday's press conference, President Bush announced that he had put Iran on notice: "One of the main reasons that I asked [U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan] Crocker to meet with Iranians inside Iraq was to send the message that there will be consequences for people transporting, delivering EFPs, highly sophisticated IEDs [improvised explosive devices] that kill Americans in Iraq."
Describing Iran as "a very troubling nation right now," largely because of its nuclear program, Bush warned its leaders that "when we catch you playing a non-constructive role [in Iraq] there will be a price to pay."
So what price is Bush prepared to exact? Is this saber-rattling a harbinger of war? And perhaps most to the point: What is Vice President Cheney up to?
Warren P. Strobel, John Walcott and Nancy A. Youssef write for McClatchy Newspapers today that "the president's top aides have been engaged in an intense internal debate over how to respond to Iran's support for Shiite Muslim groups in Iraq and its nuclear program. Vice President Dick Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iraq run by the Quds force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy. . . .
"Cheney, who's long been skeptical of diplomacy with Iran, argued for military action if hard new evidence emerges of Iran's complicity in supporting anti-American forces in Iraq; for example, catching a truckload of fighters or weapons crossing into Iraq from Iran, one official said.
"The two officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk publicly about internal government deliberations. . . .
"Lea Anne McBride, a Cheney spokeswoman, said only that 'the vice president is right where the president is' on Iran policy."
As the McClatchy reporters point out: "The debate has been accompanied by a growing drumbeat of allegations about Iranian meddling in Iraq from U.S. military officers, administration officials and administration allies outside government and in the news media. It isn't clear whether the media campaign is intended to build support for limited military action against Iran, to pressure the Iranians to curb their support for Shiite groups in Iraq or both.
"Nor is it clear from the evidence the administration has presented whether Iran, which has long-standing ties to several Iraqi Shiite groups, including the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr and the Badr Organization, which is allied with the U.S.-backed government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, is a major cause of the anti-American and sectarian violence in Iraq or merely one of many. At other times, administration officials have blamed the Sunni Muslim group al Qaida in Iraq for much of the violence."
Robin Wright wrote in yesterday's Washington Post about the neoconservative push for military action: "Fourteen months after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice offered to talk to Iran, the failure of carrot-and-stick diplomacy to block Tehran's nuclear and regional ambitions is producing a new drumbeat for bolder action, including the possible use of force," she wrote.
Among the drum-beating neoconservatives she cited: " Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute, who writes that diplomacy with Iran is a "mirage," and Norman Podhoretz, who argues the "Case for Bombing Iran" in Commentary.
Provocation Watch
While bombing training camps inside Iraq would not be nearly as provocative as launching an attack within Iran's borders, there are two things to keep in mind: 1) The only camps where the U.S. military thus far has alleged Iranians are training Iraqi insurgents are inside Iran; and 2) Cheney has long been said to be looking for some way to maneuver Bush into having no choice but to launch a full-scale attack against Iran.
Joshua Partlow wrote in The Washington Post last month that Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner, the new U.S. military spokesman who is fresh from a stint at the White House, asserted that Iran's elite al-Quds Force was training Iraqi militiamen inside Iran -- at three camps near Tehran.
And there is evidence that Cheney is trying to undermine Rice's diplomatic efforts in the Middle East in favor of a more aggressive and militaristic approach. (See my June 4 column.)
Reports about Cheney's plans first surfaced on May 24 when Steve Clemons wrote in his influential blog, The Washington Note: "Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's national security team has been . . . explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.
"This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an 'end run strategy' around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument. . . .
"According to this official, Cheney believes that Bush can not be counted on to make the 'right decision' when it comes to dealing with Iran and thus Cheney believes that he must tie the President's hands.'"
Helene Cooper wrote in the New York Times on June 2 that "people who have spoken with Mr. Cheney's staff have confirmed the broad outlines of the reports."
Michael Hirsh and Mark Hosenball wrote for Newsweek on June 7: "A Newsweek investigation shows that Cheney's national-security team has been actively challenging Rice's Iran strategy in recent months."
Non-neoconservatives are generally in agreement that attacking Iran would be a disastrous move for the United States, potentially emboldening its enemies in Iran and elsewhere and increasing the risk of terror attacks.
But Cheney generally gets his way with this president. And that prospect worries even traditionally unflappable champions of bipartisanship. As I noted yesterday, Anne-Marie Slaughter, the dean of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University, recently wrote on the TPM Cafe Web site: "Here is my nightmare. The Cheneyites succeed in creating a situation in which Bush does decide to bomb Iran. Iran retaliates, as they openly threaten to do, with terrorist attacks against us on U.S. soil. That tilts the election."
How About Demanding Some Proof?
For several months now, the Bush administration has been engaged in what appears to be a coordinated campaign to blame attacks on U.S. forces on Iran.
But as I wrote in my Feb. 12 column: "The administration finally unveiled its case this weekend, first in coordinated and anonymous leaks to a trusting New York Times reporter, then in an extraordinarily secretive military briefing at which no one would speak on the record, journalists weren't allowed to photograph the so-called evidence, and nothing even remotely like proof of direct Iranian government involvement was presented."
Since then, possibly the most dramatic charge against Iran has been that it was involved in planning a particularly deadly operation against U.S. forces in Karbala last January.
As Gareth Porter writes for the American Prospect: "On July 2 and 3, The New York Times and the Associated Press, among other media outlets, came out with sensational stories saying that either Iranians or Iranian agents had played an important role in planning the operation in Karbala, Iraq last January that resulted in the deaths of five American soldiers. Michael R. Gordon and John F. Burns of The New York Times wrote that 'agents of Iran' had been identified by the military spokesman as having 'helped plan a January raid in the Shiite holy city of Karbala in Iraq in which five American soldiers were killed by Islamic militants. . . . ' Lee Keath of the Associated Press wrote an even more lurid lead, asserting that U.S. military spokesman Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner had accused 'Iran's elite Quds force' of having 'helped militants carry out a January attack in Karbala that killed five Americans.'
"The story was a big break for the war-with-Iran faction in Washington. . . .
"No one questioned the authenticity of the story at the time. But the official source -- Brig. Gen. Bergner -- offered no real evidence of Iranian involvement in planning the January attack in his press briefing on July 2. Even more remarkably, Bergner never even explicitly claimed such direct Iranian involvement in the planning. Instead, he used carefully ambiguous language that implied but did not state such an Iranian role.
"It was not Bergner, in fact, but New York Times military reporter Michael Gordon who articulated the narrative of an Iranian-inspired attack on Americans."
Here's the transcript of the briefing.
Porter notes that the top commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, had denied in April that there was any evidence of Iranian involvement in the Karbala operation. " Porter writes: "The revival of the charge of Iranian involvement in the Karbala attack, despite the earlier Petraeus denial, has the all the hallmarks of a White House decision."
Iran's Friendly Neighbors
Ironically, Bush was saber-rattling just as U.S.-supported Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was making a friendly visit to Tehran. That came up at the press conference.
Olivier Knox reports for AFP: "Bush sternly warned Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki Thursday against cozying up to Iran, amid what Washington sees as unsettling signs of warming Baghdad-Tehran relations. . . .
"'[I]f the signal is that Iran is constructive, I will have to have a heart-to-heart with my friend, the prime minister, because I don't believe they are constructive,' said Bush, who called Iran 'a very troubling nation.'"
Paul Richter writes in the Los Angeles Times: "The growing intimacy of Baghdad and Tehran was on display late Wednesday, when Maliki met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other top officials. In a joint appearance, Maliki told Ahmadinejad that Iran has a 'positive and constructive' role in improving security in Iraq, the official IRNA news agency reported. . . .
"U.S. officials believe that Maliki's government shares their concern about weapons allegedly supplied by Iran, but they also acknowledge anxiety about the fundamentalist Tehran regime's increasing trade with and aid to Iraq, as well as the close personal ties its officials enjoy with counterparts throughout the Baghdad government."
Earlier this week, Bush's harsh words about Iran were similarly undercut by another important ally in the region: President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, who characterized Iran as "a helper" in a CNN interview. At a joint appearance with Karzai the next day, Bush said he strongly disagreed.
Getting It All Wrong?
David Gardner writes for the Financial Times: "US commanders seem to have no trouble detecting the hand of Tehran everywhere. This largely evidence-free blaming of serial setbacks on Iranian forces is a bad case of denial. First, the insurgency is overwhelmingly Iraqi and Sunni, built around a new generation of jihadis created by the US invasion. Second, to the extent foreign fighters are involved these have come mostly from US-allied and Sunni Saudi Arabia, not Shia Iran. Third, the lethal roadside bombs with shaped charges that US officials have coated with a spurious veneer of sophistication to prove Iranian provenance are mostly made by Iraqi army-trained engineers -- from high explosive looted from . . . unsecured arms dumps.
"Shia Iran has backed a lot of horses in Iraq. If it wished to bring what remains of the country down around US ears it could. It has not done so. The plain fact is that Tehran's main clients in Iraq are the same as Washington's: Mr Maliki's Da'wa and the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq led by Abdelaziz al-Hakim. . . .
"So, in sum. Having upturned the Sunni order in Iraq and the Arab world, and hugely enlarged the Shia Islamist power emanating from Iran, the US finds itself dependent on Tehran-aligned forces in Baghdad, yet unable to dismantle the Sunni jihadistan it has created in central and western Iraq. Ignoring its Iraqi allies it is arming Sunni insurgents to fight al-Qaeda. And, by selling them arms rather than settling Palestine it is trying to put together an Arab Sunni alliance (Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) with Israel against Iran. All clear? How can anyone keep a straight face and call this a strategy?"
The Value of Bush's Reassurances
Mark Silva writes in the Chicago Tribune: "Facing an economy beset by volatile stocks, troubled mortgages, a struggling housing market and questions about the stability of the nation's infrastructure, President Bush sought Thursday to reassure Americans that the economy is strong and that his policies will ensure it stays that way.
"But the stock market at least remained beyond Bush's reach, as the Dow Jones industrials dropped more than 200 points within minutes of the opening bell and plummeted a total of 387.18 points by day's end."
Paul Krugman writes in his New York Times opinion column (subscription required): "Yesterday, President Bush, showing off his M.B.A. vocabulary . . . tried to reassure the markets. But Mr. Bush is, let's say, a bit lacking in credibility."
Steven Pearlstein writes in his Washington Post opinion column: "Hint to White House economic team: You might not want to have had the president repeat that numbskull prediction about a 'soft landing' for housing at precisely the moment central banks were pumping $150 billion into the financial system to prevent a market meltdown over anxieties about mortgage-backed securities. Brings back memories of 'Mission Accomplished.'"
Provoking the Democrats
Peter Baker writes for The Washington Post: "President Bush yesterday rejected a gasoline tax increase to repair thousands of structurally deficient bridges such as the one that collapsed in Minneapolis, pointing the finger instead at Congress for what he called misguided spending policies that have neglected high priorities in favor of pork politics.
"The president's broadside triggered a furious reaction from congressional Democrats, who said he is in no position to lecture anyone on priorities. The heated exchange suggested the issue of infrastructure safety, dramatized as cars plunged into the Mississippi River last week, has become one more front in a broader battle between the White House and Congress over national goals. . . .
"Bush appeared unmoved by criticism and unbothered by political troubles. At one point, he lightheartedly raised his fists to imitate a boxer -- ' Okay, put up your dukes' -- and, indeed, he seemed eager to mix it up with Congress in a variety of areas, scorning lawmakers for focusing on scandal rather than passing laws."
Jim Rutenberg writes in the New York Times that Bush criticized Democrats generally, "questioning their priorities and motives on topics like economic policy and their perjury accusations against Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. . . .
"Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate Democratic leader, issued a statement criticizing Mr. Bush's agenda.
"'Whether it is privatizing Social Security, giving massive tax breaks to oil companies while consumers pay more at the pump or letting Osama bin Laden roam free while we keep our troops mired in an open-ended Iraqi civil war, America has had just about enough of President Bush's misguided priorities,' Mr. Reid said.
"The exchange between Mr. Bush and the Democrats augurs more fighting when they return from their vacations and when they will likely wrangle over Iraq and the d increase in troop levels as part of a 'surge' strategy."
Kathy Kiely points out in USA Today that in opposing a gas tax hike, Bush was actually "spurning the suggestion of a senior congressman from his own party.
"Rep. Don Young, the former House transportation committee chairman, raised the possibility of a gas tax after saying there are 500 bridges across the country similar to the one that collapsed in Minneapolis last week."
Trashing Michael Gerson
Ana Marie Cox blogs for Time: "Some of the buzz in the air in Washington today stems from this essay in The Atlantic by former Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully, in which he unloads a powerful round of behind-the-scenes anecdotage to cut the ground out from underneath his WH colleague, Michael Gerson. Scully neatly deconstructs Gerson's manipulation of the press and of office politics in the service of building his own reputation and exaggerating his accomplishments."
It's a fascinating, if disturbingly vengeful piece. It's also behind a subscription firewall.
Gerson stepped down as Bush's chief speechwriter and policy adviser last year. He now writes a column for The Washington Post.
Writes Scully: "The narrative that Mike Gerson presented to the world is a story of extravagant falsehood. He has been held up for us in six years' worth of coddling profiles as the great, inspiring, and idealistic exception of the Bush White House. In reality, Mike's conduct is just the most familiar and depressing of Washington stories -- a history of self-seeking and media manipulation that is only more distasteful for being cast in such lofty terms. . . .
"People have a way of disappearing in Mike's stories. The artful shaping of narrative and editing out of inconvenient detail was never confined to the speechwriting. (The phrase pulling a Gerson, as I recently heard it used around the West Wing, does not refer to graceful writing.)"
Scully mocks any number of reporters who have written gushing stories about Gerson. "Harder to explain than one man's foolish vanity is the gullibility of those who indulged him," Scully writes.
One of the more disturbing anecdotes: "Education speeches in particular -- with their endlessly complicated programs and slightly puffed-up theories, none of which we could ever explain quite to the satisfaction of our policy people -- were always good for a laugh. As John observed in late 2003, around draft 20 in the typically chaotic revising of an education speech, 'We've taken the country to war with less hassle than this.'"
One of the funniest: "When White House staff secretary Harriet Miers decreed in 2003 that we were using too many contractions in speeches -- getting just a little too informal and 'unpresidential' -- Mike forwarded the e-mail to John McConnell and me with a note saying that if we ever again quoted Todd Beamer, one of the heroes of Flight 93, be sure to make it: 'Let us roll.'"
Scully was always a bit of a fish out of water at the White House. As Shankar Vedantam wrote in a Washington Post profile of Scully in May 2004: "He wants increased government regulations of corporations that mass-produce animals for slaughter. He is against 'free-market' techniques of conservation, in which some animals are killed or captured in order to raise money to protect others. He wants the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the Safari Club, a powerful hunting advocacy group.
"Scully may sound like a liberal, but he is a conservative with impeccable credentials: He works in the White House as a speechwriter for President Bush.
"He has also emerged as a potent voice for animal welfare in what is widely regarded as a red-meat White House. Groups fighting animal cruelty consider him a powerful advocate, and Scully is helping to advance their issues."
Not long after that piece ran, Scully and the White House parted ways. (He later wrote a book about the treatment of animals.) Nevertheless, in February 2005, Scully wrote a New York Times op-ed that only subtly made the point that Gerson alone wasn't responsible for Bush's words. "Mike Gerson and another senior writer, John McConnell, have together given us some of the most memorable words of the Bush presidency, including their recent collaboration on the second inaugural address," he wrote. "In the case of the State of the Union, Mike Gerson could always be counted on to go off into the wilderness, and return with some intricate outline to vary the structure, and a fresh batch of big themes to carry us forward. Thanks in part to these visions, the president's major addresses present a running argument, each carrying forward the themes of the last."
FISA Watch
Joseph Galloway writes in his McClatchy opinion column: "Why . . . would the ruling Democrats join the usual Republican suspects on Capitol Hill in approving such a breathtaking expansion of the government's right to spy on its own citizens without court approval? The answer, in a word, is fear, which may be the last tool left in President Bush's box.
"Congressional leaders have been thoroughly briefed on supposed indications of a pending terrorist attack on American targets, a la 9/11 -- increased 'chatter' on terror networks.
"Put simply, our courageous representatives on the Hill were afraid to leave town without passing the extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) on the off chance that the administration's drum-beating might actually be correct and not merely another example of fear-mongering for political purposes."
E. J. Dionne Jr. writes in his Washington Post opinion column: "The episode was the culmination of a shameful era in which serious issues related to national security and civil liberties were debated in a climate of fear and intimidation, saturated by political calculation and the quest for short-term electoral advantage. . . .
"The Democrats got trapped, and they punted. The Republicans have never met a national security issue they're not willing to politicize. This is no way to run a superpower."
Law professor/blogger Orin Kerr describes his interview with a "senior White House official" who denied that the new legislation will result in the government keeping tabs on people in the U.S. so long as they are talking to people abroad.
Fellow law professor/blogger Marty Lederman isn't satisfied and asks: "Why the anonymity? More than likely so that they can't be held to anything they say."
Iraq Watch
The USA Today editorial board writes: "Iraq is descending into a civil war that pits different sects and tribes against one another, and against the United States.
"To listen to President Bush, however, it's easy to come away with the impression that the major source of anti-U.S. violence in Iraq is al-Qaeda, the perpetrators of 9/11. . . .
"The reality is that Iraq is a patchwork of rival groups and tribes. The Shiites divide in many ways: secular and religious, pro- and anti-Iranian. That poses dangers and opportunities. As with Sunnis in Anbar province, U.S. alliances might work with some. But forging them requires a recognition that U.S. forces are not just fighting al-Qaeda but are in the midst of complex sectarian warfare.
"How to prevent a full-blown civil war is not obvious. It might not be possible. Even so, Americans deserve a more honest picture than the 'us against the terrorists' one drawn by the White House."
(For the real story, read Sudarsan Raghavan's gripping article in The Washington Post: "On the unruly outer fringes of the Sunni area south of Baghdad known as the Triangle of Death, American soldiers navigate more than a dozen battle zones straddling the fault lines of sect and tribe. Al-Qaeda in Iraq -- identified by President Bush and his generals as the main U.S. enemy -- is just one of myriad armed groups competing here for influence and authority. This arid region nourished by the Euphrates River is a microcosm of the many often-overlapping conflicts that have erupted across the new Iraq.")
Eugene Robinson writes in his Washington Post opinion column: "You might have thought that now isn't the most opportune time for the elected leaders of both the United States and Iraq to pack up and head to the beach, ranch or villa for a nice long vacation. Silly you. . . .
"What you failed to take into account is that none of this really matters, because the war in Iraq is on autopilot.
"If you listened to Bush at his news conference yesterday, you heard a man who's not about to let something as petty as objective reality change his mind -- and who's not going to pay attention to what the Iraqi government or even his own government might say or do. . . .
"At least now maybe people will understand what I've been saying for months, which is that Bush doesn't care what anybody else thinks. He doesn't care that the Iraqi government has failed to meet its political benchmarks. He doesn't care that Maliki is getting so cozy with the mullahs in Tehran. He doesn't care that Republicans in Washington are getting so nervous about having to face an election with the war still raging and no end in sight."
Immigration Watch
Robert Pear writes in the New York Times: "The Bush administration plans to announce numerous steps on Friday to secure the border with Mexico, speed the expulsion of illegal immigrants and step up enforcement of immigration laws, administration officials say.
"The effort stems, in part, from White House frustration with the failure of Congress to approve President Bush's proposals to overhaul the nation's immigration laws and grant legal status to most of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. In debate on that legislation, many Republicans said Mr. Bush should first enforce existing laws more aggressively."
The New York Times editorial board writes: "The path the country has set on since the defeat of immigration reform in the Senate in June enshrines enforcement and punishment above all else. It is narrow, shortsighted, disruptive and self-defeating. On top of that, it won't work.
"What it will do is unleash a flood of misery upon millions of illegal immigrants. For the ideologues who have pushed the nation into this position, that is more than enough reason to plunge ahead. . . .
"The American people cherish lawfulness but resist cruelty, and have supported reform that includes a reasonable path to earned citizenship. Their leaders have given them immigration reform as pest control."
Cheney's Surprise
Amanda H. Miller writes in the Jackson Hole News and Guide: "A group planning to protest the Iraq war and Vice President Dick Cheney on Saturday will have some surprises in store.
"Jim Stanford, one of the event organizers, said there will be a special piece of artwork unveiled in Cheney's honor at the protest. All he would say about the work is that it's not a phallus, as has been rumored, and it's in a 'secure, undisclosed location.'"
Late Night Humor
Jon Stewart presents: "President Bush in His Own Words." Stewart in particular seems to resent Bush's use the phrase "in other words" to, as Stewart puts it, "bring the complexities of higher thought down to the masses. . . what with all of us being so dumb."
But Stewart explains: "The look on our faces isn't confusion. It's disbelief."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.truthout .org/docs_ 2006/081007K. shtml
Cheney Urging Military Strikes on Iran
By Warren P. Strobel, John Walcott and Nancy A. Youssef
McClatchy Newspapers
Thursday 09 August 2007
Washington - President Bush charged Thursday that Iran continues to arm and train insurgents who are killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and he threatened action if that continues.
At a news conference Thursday, Bush said Iran had been warned of unspecified consequences if it continued its alleged support for anti-American forces in Iraq. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had conveyed the warning in meetings with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad, the president said.
Bush wasn't specific, and a State Department official refused to elaborate on the warning.
Behind the scenes, however, the president's top aides have been engaged in an intensive internal debate over how to respond to Iran's support for Shiite Muslim groups in Iraq and its nuclear program. Vice President Dick Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iraq run by the Quds force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy.
The debate has been accompanied by a growing drumbeat of allegations about Iranian meddling in Iraq from U.S. military officers, administration officials and administration allies outside government and in the news media. It isn't clear whether the media campaign is intended to build support for limited military action against Iran, to pressure the Iranians to curb their support for Shiite groups in Iraq or both.
Nor is it clear from the evidence the administration has presented whether Iran, which has long-standing ties to several Iraqi Shiite groups, including the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr and the Badr Organization, which is allied with the U.S.-backed government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, is a major cause of the anti-American and sectarian violence in Iraq or merely one of many. At other times, administration officials have blamed the Sunni Muslim group al Qaida in Iraq for much of the violence.
For now, however, the president appears to have settled on a policy of stepped-up military operations in Iraq aimed at the suspected Iranian networks there, combined with direct American-Iranian talks in Baghdad to try to persuade Tehran to halt its alleged meddling.
The U.S. military launched one such raid Wednesday in Baghdad's predominantly Shiite Sadr City district.
But so far that course has failed to halt what American military officials say is a flow of sophisticated roadside bombs, known as explosively formed penetrators, into Iraq. Last month they accounted for a third of the combat deaths among U.S.-led forces, according to the military.
Cheney, who's long been skeptical of diplomacy with Iran, argued for military action if hard new evidence emerges of Iran's complicity in supporting anti-American forces in Iraq; for example, catching a truckload of fighters or weapons crossing into Iraq from Iran, one official said.
The two officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk publicly about internal government deliberations.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice opposes this idea, the officials said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has stated publicly that "we think we can handle this inside the borders of Iraq."
Lea Anne McBride, a Cheney spokeswoman, said only that "the vice president is right where the president is" on Iran policy.
Bush left no doubt at his news conference that he intended to get tough with Iran.
"One of the main reasons that I asked Ambassador Crocker to meet with Iranians inside Iraq was to send the message that there will be consequences for . . . people transporting, delivering EFPs, highly sophisticated IEDs (improvised explosive devices), that kill Americans in Iraq," he said.
He also appeared to call on the Iranian people to change their government.
"My message to the Iranian people is, you can do better than this current government," he said. "You don't have to be isolated. You don't have to be in a position where you can't realize your full economic potential."
The Bush administration has launched what appears to be a coordinated campaign to pin more of Iraq's security troubles on Iran.
Last week, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the No. 2 U.S. military commander in Iraq, said Shiite militiamen had launched 73 percent of the attacks that had killed or wounded American troops in July. U.S. officials think that majority Shiite Iran is providing militiamen with EFPs, which pierce armored vehicles and explode once inside.
Last month, Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, a multinational force spokesman, said members of the Quds force had helped plan a January attack in the holy Shiite city of Karbala, which lead to the deaths of five American soldiers. Bergner said the military had evidence that some of the attackers had trained at Quds camps near Tehran.
Bush's efforts to pressure Iran are complicated by the fact that the leaders of U.S.-supported governments in Iraq and Afghanistan have a more nuanced view of their neighbor.
Maliki is on a three-day visit to Tehran, during which he was photographed Wednesday hand in hand with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Unconfirmed media reports said Maliki had told Iranian officials they'd played a constructive role in the region.
Asked about that, Bush said he hadn't been briefed on the meeting. "Now if the signal is that Iran is constructive, I will have to have a heart-to-heart with my friend the prime minister, because I don't believe they are constructive. I don't think he in his heart of hearts thinks they're constructive either," he said.
Bush and Afghan President Hamid Karzai differed on Iran's role when they met last weekend, with Karzai saying in a TV interview that Iran was "a helper" and Bush challenging that view.
The toughening U.S. position on Iran puts Karzai and Iraqi leaders such as Maliki in a difficult spot between Iran, their longtime ally, and the United States, which is spending lives and treasure to secure their newly formed government.
A senior Iraqi official in Baghdad said the Iraqi government received regular intelligence briefings from the United States about suspected Iranian activities. He refused to discuss details, but said the American position worried him.
The United States is "becoming more focused on Iranian influence inside Iraq," said the official, who requested anonymity to discuss private talks with the Americans. "And we don't want Iraq to become a zone of conflict between Iran and the U.S."
Proposals to use force against Iran over its actions in Iraq mark a new phase in the Bush administration' s long internal war over Iran policy.
Until now, some hawks within the administration - including Cheney - are said to have favored military strikes to stop Iran from furthering its suspected ambitions for nuclear weapons.
Rice has championed a diplomatic strategy, but that, too, has failed to deter Iran so far.
Patrick Clawson, an Iran specialist at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said a strike on the Quds camps in Iran could make the nuclear diplomacy more difficult.
Before launching such a strike, "We better be prepared to go public with very detailed and very convincing intelligence," Clawson said. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:45 am Post subject: Iranian Unit to Be Labeled 'Terrorist' |
| The following seems to be laying the foundation for the coming war with Iran which will be for Israel as well just as Iraq has been:
Iranian Unit to Be Labeled 'Terrorist'
U.S. Moving Against Revolutionary Guard
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401662_pf.html
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 15, 2007; A01
The United States has decided to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist," according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group's business operations and finances.
The Bush administration has chosen to move against the Revolutionary Guard Corps because of what U.S. officials have described as its growing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its support for extremists throughout the Middle East, the sources said. The decision follows congressional pressure on the administration to toughen its stance against Tehran, as well as U.S. frustration with the ineffectiveness of U.N. resolutions against Iran's nuclear program, officials said.
The designation of the Revolutionary Guard will be made under Executive Order 13224, which President Bush signed two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to obstruct terrorist funding. It authorizes the United States to identify individuals, businesses, charities and extremist groups engaged in terrorist activities. The Revolutionary Guard would be the first national military branch included on the list, U.S. officials said -- a highly unusual move because it is part of a government, rather than a typical non-state terrorist organization.
The order allows the United States to block the assets of terrorists and to disrupt operations by foreign businesses that "provide support, services or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists."
The move reflects escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran over issues including Iraq and Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran has been on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1984, but in May the two countries began their first formal one-on-one dialogue in 28 years with a meeting of diplomats in Baghdad.
The main goal of the new designation is to clamp down on the Revolutionary Guard's vast business network, as well as on foreign companies conducting business linked to the military unit and its personnel. The administration plans to list many of the Revolutionary Guard's financial operations.
"Anyone doing business with these people will have to reevaluate their actions immediately," said a U.S. official familiar with the plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the decision has not been announced. "It increases the risks of people who have until now ignored the growing list of sanctions against the Iranians. It makes clear to everyone who the IRGC and their related businesses really are. It removes the excuses for doing business with these people."
For weeks, the Bush administration has been debating whether to target the Revolutionary Guard Corps in full, or only its Quds Force wing, which U.S. officials have linked to the growing flow of explosives, roadside bombs, rockets and other arms to Shiite militias in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Quds Force also lends support to Shiite allies such as Lebanon's Hezbollah and to Sunni movements such as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Although administration discussions continue, the initial decision is to target the entire Guard Corps, U.S. officials said. The administration has not yet decided when to announce the new measure, but officials said they would prefer to do so before the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly next month, when the United States intends to increase international pressure against Iran.
Formed in 1979 and originally tasked with protecting the world's only modern theocracy, the Revolutionary Guard took the lead in battling Iraq during the bloody Iran-Iraq war waged from 1980 to 1988. The Guard, also known as the Pasdaran, has since become a powerful political and economic force in Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rose through the ranks of the Revolutionary Guard and came to power with support from its network of veterans. Its leaders are linked to many mainstream businesses in Iran.
"They are heavily involved in everything from pharmaceuticals to telecommunications and pipelines -- even the new Imam Khomeini Airport and a great deal of smuggling," said Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations. "Many of the front companies engaged in procuring nuclear technology are owned and run by the Revolutionary Guards. They're developing along the lines of the Chinese military, which is involved in many business enterprises. It's a huge business conglomeration."
The Revolutionary Guard Corps -- with its own navy, air force, ground forces and special forces units -- is a rival to Iran's conventional troops. Its naval forces abducted 15 British sailors and marines this spring, sparking an international crisis, and its special forces armed Lebanon's Hezbollah with missiles used against Israel in the 2006 war. The corps also plays a key role in Iran's military industries, including the attempted acquisition of nuclear weapons and surface-to-surface missiles, according to Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The United States took punitive action against Iran after the November 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, including the breaking of diplomatic ties and the freezing of Iranian assets in the United States. More recently, dozens of international banks and financial institutions reduced or eliminated their business with Iran after a quiet campaign by the Treasury Department and State Department aimed at limiting Tehran's access to the international financial system. Over the past year, two U.N. resolutions have targeted the assets and movements of 28 people -- including some Revolutionary Guard members -- linked to Iran's nuclear program.
The key obstacle to stronger international pressure against Tehran has been China, Iran's largest trading partner. After the Iranian government refused to comply with two U.N. Security Council resolutions dealing with its nuclear program, Beijing balked at a U.S. proposal for a resolution that would have sanctioned the Revolutionary Guard, U.S. officials said.
China's actions reverse a cycle during which Russia was the most reluctant among the veto-wielding members of the Security Council. "China used to hide behind Russia, but Russia is now hiding behind China," said a U.S. official familiar with negotiations.
The administration's move comes amid growing support in Congress for the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which was introduced in the Senate by Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) and in the House by Tom Lantos (D-Calif.). The bill already has the support of 323 House members.
The administration's move could hurt diplomatic efforts, some analysts said. "It would greatly complicate our efforts to solve the nuclear issue," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center for American Progress. "It would tie an end to Iran's nuclear program to an end to its support of allies in Hezbollah and Hamas. The only way you could get a nuclear deal is as part of a grand bargain, which at this point is completely out of reach."
Such sanctions can work only alongside diplomatic efforts, Cirincione added.
"Sanctions can serve as a prod, but they have very rarely forced a country to capitulate or collapse," he said. "All of us want to back Iran into a corner, but we want to give them a way out, too. [The designation] will convince many in Iran's elite that there's no point in talking with us and that the only thing that will satisfy us is regime change."
Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:53 am Post subject: As U.S. Steps Up Pressure on Iran, Aftereffects Worry Allies |
| As U.S. Steps Up Pressure on Iran, Aftereffects Worry Allies
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/15/AR2007081502199_pf.html
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 16, 2007; A09
America's allies are increasingly concerned about the Bush administration's plans to unilaterally escalate pressure on Iran, fearing that an evolving strategy may also set in motion a process that could lead to military action if Iran does not back down, according to diplomats and officials of foreign countries.
Although they share deep concern about Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions, European and Arab governments are particularly alarmed about new U.S. moves, including plans to cite Iran's entire Revolutionary Guard Corps as a "specially designated global terrorist." The move would block the elite unit's assets and pressure foreign companies doing business with its vast commercial network.
Allies are less concerned about that step than they are about the new momentum behind it, and the potential for spillover in a region reeling with multiple conflicts. "If the region is strewn with crises, then there's potential for real disaster. There's a fear that they will all merge into a super-emergency bigger than any one country can deal with," a leading Arab envoy said.
Language from the State Department yesterday triggered further alarm. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters: "We are confronting Iranian behavior across a variety of different fronts on a number of different 'battlefields,' if you will. We are confronting Iran's behavior in arming and providing material support to those groups that are going after our troops. We confront them on the ground in Iraq. Our military is doing that. We are confronting Iran diplomatically in the international arena with respect to their nuclear program."
European envoys expressed alarm at the use of "battlefield" in describing policy on Iran.
It was a two-way street, however. Yahya Rahim Safavi, commander of the Revolutionary Guard, said yesterday that Iranian missiles can hit warships anywhere in the Persian Gulf. The United States has a carrier battle group in the Gulf.
At home, even lawmakers supportive of tougher sanctions on Iran pointedly urged the administration not to stray beyond diplomacy. Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and sponsor of the pending Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, welcomed the move and said foreign banks will think twice about dealing with enterprises linked to the 125,000-strong Revolutionary Guard Corps.
But Lantos also said that the United States is "far from having exhausted all the peaceful options for putting Tehran's leadership on the right path." He added: "Any talk of military intervention is unwise and unsupported by Congress and the American people."
U.S. specialists on Iran also warned about the unintended consequences of designating a state's military force a terrorist group.
"While this step can deal a blow to efforts to utilize diplomacy with Iran to stabilize Iraq, the long-term effects can be even more decisive by further entrenching U.S.-Iran relations in a paradigm of enmity," said Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council.
George Percovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said that unilaterally sanctioning the Revolutionary Guard's corporate interests makes sense if it avoids the prospect of not doing so in a new U.N. resolution. But he expressed concern about the political costs. "You have to show that there is a way out, and that the U.S. doesn't have an unending set of demands and isn't going to continue to press on for either military action or regime change, which many other countries think is the real U.S. objective," he said.
Geoffrey Kemp, who worked on the National Security Council staff in the Reagan administration, said that the United States should instead be pressuring Europe to adopt U.S. sanctions dating to 1995 to cut off investment in any Iranian businesses and industry. "That would have a far more significant impact on the debate inside Iran over its nuclear policy," he said.
Michael McFaul of Stanford University also urged more carrots. "If you want democratic regime change and to destabilize the regime, the best thing you could do is to make an offer about massive negotiations about everything -- human rights and state sponsorship in terrorism, as well as lifting [U.S.] sanctions and opening an embassy," he said. "Politically, this step doesn't help the administration undermine the regime -- it helps to consolidate the regime." | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:41 pm Post subject: |
| Forwarded:
Assume you've seen how the bushies are changing the
Nomenclature on Iran's Revolutionary Guards to Terrorist Organization which justifies bombing starting against their bases and Tehran headquarters -- without
Congressional approval as war on terror already authorized | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:11 pm Post subject: |
| EXCLUSIVE-US envoy says Iraq report will sound warning on Iran
16 Aug 2007 17:36:21 GMT
Source: Reuters
Background
Iraq in turmoil
More
By Ross Colvin
BAGHDAD, Aug 16 (Reuters) - Washington's envoy to Iraq warned Americans on Thursday that pulling U.S. troops out of the country could open the door to a "major Iranian advance" that would threaten U.S. interests in the region.
Ambassador Ryan Crocker also accused Tehran of seeking to weaken the Shi'ite-led Iraqi government so that it could "by one means or another control it". Iran has denied U.S. charges that it is arming and training Shi'ite militias in Iraq.
Crocker and the top U.S. general in Iraq, General David Petraeus are due to present a pivotal report to Congress in September on progress on the military and political fronts and make recommendations on the way forward.
Opinion polls suggest most Americans have turned against the four-year war and Democrats in Congress want President George W. Bush to start pulling out U.S. troops as soon as possible. Bush, however, has resisted such calls.
"If the leadership wants to go a different way, I have an obligation to talk a little bit about what the consequences of pulling in a different direction would be," Crocker told Reuters in an interview in his office in Baghdad's Green Zone.
"One area of clear concern is Iran. The Iranians aren't going anywhere. I have significant concerns that a coalition withdrawal would lead to a major Iranian advance. And we need to consider what the consequences of that would be."
The two long-time foes are locked in a stand-off over Iran's nuclear programme. Iran denies it is seeking nuclear weapons.
Crocker has met his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad three times to discuss U.S. concerns that Iran is fuelling violence in Iraq, despite Tehran's public support for Iraq's government.
"Based on what I see on the ground, I think they are seeking a state that they can, by one means or another, control, weakened to the point that Tehran can set its agenda," he said.
Tehran was seeking "greater influence, greater pressure on the government", said the veteran diplomat, a fluent Arabic speaker who has spent most of his career in the Middle East.
MOVIE REEL
Bush sent 30,000 extra troops to Iraq earlier this year to try to halt sectarian violence between majority Shi'ite Muslims and minority Sunni Arabs and buy time for Iraq's divided political leaders to agree a real power-sharing deal.
While Petraeus will look at the success of the U.S. military build-up, Crocker has the arguably more difficult task of reporting on the almost negligible political progress that has been made towards reconciling Iraq's warring groups.
With the Bush administration often accused of not giving much thought about what do in Iraq after it invaded in 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein, Crocker said he was anxious to spell out the consequences of pulling out U.S. troops.
"If we decide that we tried, we're tired, we want to bring the troops home, then what? The movie does not stop the day that coalition forces leave Iraq. It keeps on running. We need to consider what reels two, three, four and five might look like."
Crocker said he was in daily contact with Petraeus but had not yet begun to draft his report, which is due to be presented on Sept. 15 and is seen by many as a watershed moment in the war that could trigger a change in U.S. policy.
"I have come to find here in Iraq that a month is a long span of time," he said.
He said the U.S. military buildup, which has succeeded in reducing sectarian violence, and new alliances formed with Sunni Arab sheikhs that have pacified volatile Anbar province had brought Maliki's government to a cross-roads.
"This is the best chance they have had since the beginning of 2006. It is an opportunity to really start turning things around in this country. But they are going to have to move in a decisive, considered and comprehensive way."
Iraq's leaders have been meeting this week to try to find common ground and break the political logjam that has paralysed decision-making, lost him nearly a score of ministers, and stalled agreement on key laws that Washington sees as crucial to national reconciliation. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:49 pm Post subject: |
| http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/16/1416230
Iran Rejects U.S. “Terror” Label
Iran is brushing off the Bush administration’s vow to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a “terrorist” group. A Revolutionary Guards spokesperson said the Iranian force will continue to grow in size and prepare to retaliate in the event of a U.S. strike. The Washington Post reports European and Arab allies are expressing alarm at the administration’s new policy. Critics inside Iran have long claimed unilateral U.S. actions are strengthening the Iranian government’s control while isolating pro-democracy activists. But State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack said the move is justified.
State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack: "They now have tentacles into a range of different activities, into business activities, banking activities, we all know about their support for those groups going after our troops in Iraq, we've also talked about the supplying of arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan and there have also been reports about their linkages to Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations." | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
