Monday, April 02, 2007

In search of a caucus belli?

April 4 2007

In search of a caucus belli?

It is known that the hawks in Washington are looking for a caucus belli to justify US military action against Iran, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair seems to be bent upon fetching it for them. Blair is seeking to turn the row over Iran's detention of 15 British sailors and marines into a territorial dispute even though it has not been established that this was indeed the case and experts disagree with him.
Blair Ñ and US President George Bush for that matter ÑÊhave no doubts in their mind that the Iranians caught the Britons in Iraqi territorial waters and thus the action was in violation of international law. However, Commodore Nick Lambert, the Royal Navy commander of the operation on which the Britons were captured, is not so sure. Lambert says: "There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally, the Iranians may well claim that they were in their territorial waters. The extent and definition of territorial waters in this part of the world is very complicated."
Lambert's comments have to be seen against the reality that Iran and Iraq never drew up a map of their maritime boundary, and such a boundary shown on the British government map does not exist.
In strictly technical terms, the British map would have no relevance to either Iran or Iraq because only Terhan and Baghdad could agree on their bilateral boundary, and they have never done this in the Gulf. They have drawn their boundary only inside the Shatt Al Arab waterway ÑÊin the middle of it, to be precise ÑÊand it also represents their land borders.
What Blair is trying to do is to impose the British-drawn Iraq-Iran maritime boundary on the two countries with a view to escalating the crisis in a manner that suits the Washington hawks.
Bush has thrown his weight behind Blair describing Iran's capture of the Britons as "inexcusable" and demanding that Tehran "give back the hostages" immediately and unconditionally.
The US president says he supports Blair's efforts to find a diplomatic resolution to the crisis, but his critics accuse him of playing a game designed to justify military action against Iran.
A report highlighted in the Israeli media says that Russian intelligence the US will be ready to launch a missile attack on Iran's nuclear facilities as soon as early this month, perhaps "from 4am until 4pm on April 6."
The source of the report is Russia's RIA Novosti news agency, which quoted a security official as saying, "Russian intelligence has information that the US Armed Forces stationed in the ... Gulf have nearly completed preparations for a missile strike against Iranian territory." At the same time, the way the Israeli media played up the report underlines the Jewish state's anxiety to have the US wage an Israeli war against Iran to the last American soldier.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a US group, has issued a clear warning:" The increasingly heavy investment of 'face' in the UK Marine capture situation is unquestionably adding to the danger of an inadvertent outbreak of open hostilities. One side or the other is going to be forced to surrender some of its pride if a more deadly confrontation is going to be averted. And there is no indication that the Bush administration is doing anything other than encouraging British recalcitrance.
"Unless one's basic intention is to provoke a hostile action to which the US and UK could 'retaliate,' getting involved in a tit-for-tat contest with the Iranians is a foolish and reckless game, for it may not prove possible to avoid escalation and loss of control. And we seem to be well on our way there. If one calls Iran 'evil,' arrests its diplomats, accuses it of promoting terrorism and unlawful capture, one can be certain that the Iranians will retaliate and raise the stakes in the process."
It is an uneasy situation at best in the region today as tension remains high whether the US/Israel would exploit the situation to launch military strikes against Iran. Conventional wisdom says military action against Iran would be disasterous but then the hawks in Washington, nudged by their Israeli counterparts, are not exactly known for applying conventional wisdom in their narrow, Israel-specific actions and that is what is worrying the region. And the defiant Iranian position is not helping ease the tension either.

Sunday, April 01, 2007

Yet another denial of truth

April 1 2007

Yet another denial of truth



IF you are sincere when you say you are open for a diplomatic solution to a crisis, then why should you object to an approach to dialogue that could possibly help open new avenues for a solution? That is the key question that the Bush administration should answer following its criticism of plans by US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi to visit Syria and possibly meet President Bashar Al Assad.
It is yet again denial by the Bush administration, which is not ready to recognise that Syria, like other Arabs in the region, has a genuine cause: Liberation of its Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.
Dealing with Syria as a sovereign country entitled to all rights of a UN member state means applying logic, reason and international legitimacy to assess its position. If the Bush administration opted to do that, then it would be alienating its "strategic partner" in the region — Israel.
As such, the White House does not want anything to do with Syria. It has steadfastly refused to open a dialogue with Syria with a view to securing Syrian help in containing the insurgeny in Iraq in return for launching a sincere effort to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Dialogue with Syria was recommended by the Iraq Study Group headed by veteran diplomat James Baker, but the White House ruled that out even before Baker formally released his report.
A team of Republican and Democratic members of Congress visited Damascus and met President Assad in December against the backdrop of the Baker report.
The mission was condemned by the White House.
Now, the White House says it is not a good idea for Pelosi to visit Syria and hold talks with President Assad.
"We don't think it's a good idea," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. "This is a country that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the Siniora government in Lebanon and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq from its borders."
Let us take the US charges on their face value. Then it becomes all the more puzzling to see how the Bush administration intends to go about if it genuinely wants Syria help to end what it calls "state-sponsored terrorism," find a solution to the political crisis in Lebanon and check the insurgency in Iraq.
Syria has repeatedly affirmed that it is ready for an all-embracing dialogue with the US with a view to addressing the fundamental differences with them.
The Syrian position, coupled with Baker's expert recommendation, offers a perfect setting for Pelosi to launch a new initiative. Her office has acknowledged it.
Indeed, the White House, already in trouble with the Democrats dominating the US legislature, might not want to offer Pelosi any opening to score political points.
The White House is deliberately playing down the Syrian offer of dialogue by ridiculing President Assad. It is evident in the words of spokeswoman Perino: "I know that Assad probably really loves people to come and have a photo opportunity and have tea with him and have discussions about where they're coming from."
Well, by maintaining its stubborn refusal to acknowledge ground realities and accept the course of logic, reason and diplomacy in dealing with Syria, the Bush administration is wasting yet another opportunity to help advance the cause of peace in the Middle East.