Cheney - the man after Iran's blood

June 12, 2006

Cheney - the man after Iran's blood


By PV Vivekanand

Vice-President Dick Cheney had manoeuvred the US into considering
miilitary action against Iran in mid-2007 but was thwarted by Pentagon officials who stood firm against the idea citing the unpredictable consequences of such action, according to new revelations.
Cheney, one of the key architects of the neo-con inspired US invasion and occupation of Iraq, suggested "limited" military action against the Iranians but it was perceived that he was using it as a ploy to provoke Iranian retaliation that could used to justify a strategic attack on Iran, including possibly involving the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
However, that does not mean that Cheney has failed in his drive against Iran. He could still swing things around in the final months of the Bush administration, experts argue.
What has not been established beyond question yet is how far President George W Bush was and is ready to order military action against Iran. Surely, someone somewhere in the White House would definitely talk and offer more insights after Bush bows out next year. However, it is generally perceived that Bush does not need much persuasion to order military strikes against Iran.
What we do know is that in and around mid-2007, there was an air of expectation that US military action against Iran was immiment, with "leaked" information that senior commanders had already received orders to be ready to go into action at short notice. A strong US naval force was in the region, with reports suggesting that Iran would be subjected to mainly sea- and air-based strikes but there would not be an invasion by land.
Israel, the key proponent of military strikes against Iran, was keeping stepped-up pressure insisting that the Iranians were almost on the verge of a nuclear breakthrough and it was high time the country's "suspect" atomic processing facilities were bombed out.
There was a frenzy among European countries to find a negotiated end to the nuclear dispute with Iran. Perhaps, their intelligence agencies knew that Cheney and other Washington hawks were pushing for strikes against Iran, starting with Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) whom he accused of producing and supplying the highly lethal explosively formed projectiles (EFPs) and training to Iraqi guerrillas waging the anti-US war in Iraq.
According to the Interpress news agency (IPS), Cheney used his alliance with the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, to advance his "EFP case" against Iran after Petraeus assumed his post in Iraq in early 2007.
IPS says that Cheney used Petraeus "to do an end run about the Washington national security bureaucracy to establish the propaganda line that Iran was manufacturing EFPs and shipping them to the Mahdi Army militiamen.

Inability to call a spade a spade

June 12, 2008

Inability to call a spade a spade

Hostility towards the US is at record levels around the world not because of any rejection of US values but because of US government policies such as the war in Iraq, and Washington's apparent hypocrisy in abiding by its own democratic values. This is the finding of the House of Representatives the Subcommittee on International Organisations, Human Rights and Oversight.
The report, based on expert testimony and polling data, reveals US approval ratings have fallen to record lows across the world since 2002, particularly in the Islamic World and Latin America.
The congressional panel puts the finger right on the pulse when it says that the problem arises not from a rejection of US culture, values and power but primarily from its Washington's policies that run counter to its officially declared policy of promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
"Our physical strength has come to be seen not as a solace but as a threat, not as a guarantee of stability and order but as a source of intimidation, violence and torture," says Democrat Bill Delahunt, chairman of the panel.
The report affirms that specific policies are to blame for falling approval ratings and cites the 2003 invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq, support for some repressive governments around the world, and the torture and abuse of prisoners.
The report finds that "disappointment and bitterness" have grown from the impression that "proclaimed US values of democracy, human rights and rule of law have been selectively ignored by successive administrations" for national security or economic ends.
It also says that unilateralism, particularly in military action, has led to "anger and a fear of attack that are transforming disagreements with US policy into a broadening and deepening anti-Americanism." 
These factors, as well as various US visa and immigration issues, have helped to create a "growing belief in the Islamic world that the United States is using the 'war on terror' as a cover for its attempts to destroy Islam," the report concludes.
Indeed, the report is an unusually frank and honest assessment of the US standing as the "leader of the free world" since it acknowledges the realities and is in stark contradiction to the usual line that the rest of the world hates the US because of envy for the "strength of the US economy, high standard of living and strong liberal values."
While we would like to tell the panel members that they have done an excellent job, we would also like to point out a glaring shortcoming in the report that is very typical and indeed a strong reason for the US to fall from grace in the Middle East. The shortcoming is that the report takes a low-key approach when it comes to the US approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict as a reason for its loss of credibility in the Middle East. As could be expected, the congressmen involved in preparing the report are not willing to call a spade a spade. Instead, they dare only to refer a "perception" of bias in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a reason for the drop in approval rating of the US.
That is so typical in US politics. Anything and everything is fine except the slightest hint that could be perceived as implicit criticism of the almost unlimited political, diplomatic, military, financial and moral support that the US extends to Israel. And that is indeed at the root of any even-handed effort to solve the Middle East conflict and thus a perennial source of "anti-Americanism."