US-baiting - a dangerous game

by pv vivekanand

FROM the word go, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's provocative statements calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, denying the Holocaust, and thumping his chest about his country's determination to pursue a nuclear programme were perplexing. It was as if he was offering, wittingly or otherwise, the perfect pretext that Israel and the US were waiting for in order to launch their plans for military action against Iraq.
That perception was further strengthened when Iran postponed "indefinitey" Feb.16 talks with Russia on a compromise offer over the nuclear crisis and then hastily rescheduled it for Feb.20 amid conflicting hints and "clarifications" from Tehran over Iran's basic commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The country has already suspended certain aspects of its co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and resumed small-scale enrichment of uranium after the IAEA board decided to report Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.
In the ongoing war of words, Iranian leaders and spokesman are hitting back with strength at every point as if there is an implicit agreement among them not to back no matter what.
Well, if Tehran is baiting the US, then the immediate question is why should Ahmadinejad might be doing it, knowing perfectly well that he could be inviting military action against his country.
Given that "regime change" in Tehran is listed among the agenda of the second-term Bush administration, US-led military action against Iran would not be limited to preventing Tehran from pursuing its nuclear plans: It would be all-out action aimed at bringing about a complete change in Iranian politics through toppling the theocratic regime and installing an "American-friendly" government in Tehran.
Indeed, the US is unlikely to opt for an Iraq-style invasion and occupation of Iran since such a course of events is not tenable and would only drag the Americans into a never-win situation. Iran has four times the size of Iraq and has three times the population of Iraq.
The obvious conclusion is that any US action for "regime change" would primarily hinge on Washington's reliance on internal unrest in Iran that would bring out Iranian dissidents to the fore who would work in tandem with the Americans in order to topple the theocrats from power.
In the short term, it is speculated that the US and/or Israel might strike at Iran's nuclear plants in order to cripple them and set back Tehran's nuclear programmes by years as Israel did to Iraq when it bombed the Osirak plant near Baghdad in 1981.


'Not an option'

However, a London-based think tank which specialises in arms control and non-proliferation issues has warned that a US/Israeli air assault on Iranian nuclear and military facilities would likely kill thousands of people, spark a long-lasting war and push Iran to speed up its nuclear programme.
According to the Oxford Research Group, military action against Iran, "either by the United States or Israel, is not an option that should be considered under any circumstances."
A report prepared by the group said a US attack would likely consist of simultaneous air strikes on more than 20 key nuclear and military facilities, designed to disable Iran's nuclear and air-defence capabilities.
Such strikes would probably kill several thousand people, including troops, nuclear programme staff and "many hundreds" of civilians.
The report said a military attack would spur Iran to withdraw from the NPT, accelerate its nuclear programmes and step up support to insurgents in Iraq and Hizbollah in Lebanon, and would fuel anti-American sentiment around the world.
Escalating military confrontation would draw in other states in the region, it warned, making "a protracted and highly unstable conflict virtually certain."
"A state of war stretching over years would be in prospect," the group warned.
It said an attack by Israeli forces, while on a smaller scale than a US strike, also would have negative consequences.
"Alternative ways must be found of defusing current tensions and avoiding an exceptionally dangerous confrontation, however difficult it might be," said the group's director, John Sloboda.
The risk of nuclear radiation is an equally strong possibility, according to experts. Apart from provoking a war, they say, any attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could also unleash clouds of radiation far beyond the targets and the borders of Iran.
Some believe that Iran would try to retaliate by hitting Israel’s Dimona nuclear complex, although military experts discount this possiblity.
At the same time, writes columnist Eric Margolis in the Toronto Sun, Europeans “are fretting over the risk of radiation releases from Dimona and, more likely, Iran’s bombed nuclear plants."
Philip Giraldi, a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analyst, believes that the US might arrange an "act of terrorism" that could somehow be linked to Iran and then using that to justify military action against that country.
Giraldi says: “The response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior air force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing — that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack — but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.”


Two explanations

Obviously, Ahmadinejad and Iranian strategists and intelligence chiefs could not but be aware of these facts.
Therefore, there could only be two explanations to Ahmadinejad's posture: Either he is convinced that the US, bogged down as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan and being mindful of the chaos in the international oil market that would result from any military strike against Iran, would not undertake an immediate military adventure against the Iranians. By extension, the US would also dissuade Israel from launching any unilateral action.
The second explanation that the Iranian leader is simply goading the US, backed by its protégé Israel, into attacking his country. Iran would then fight a defensive war that could mess up the international oil market, bring down the Bush administration, and create a new regional and international situation where the US would lose its status as the leader of the "modern world."
Weighed against geopolitical equations, the balance would tilt in favour of the second explanation.
Obviously, the Iranians are convinced that they would never be able to have a friendly working relationship with the US in the foreseeable future — unless Washington has (an almost impossible) dramatic change of mind and adopts a 180-degree turn in the Middle East and its overall approach to the Arab and Muslim worlds.
Therefore, it would seem, Ahmadinejad is counting on the US to allow itself to be baited into using military force against Iran and the Iranian hitting back in their own way that would be so damaging to the US in so many ways, both domestically and externally, that it would be deprived of its self-assumed status as the sole unchallenged world power.
This hypothesis also means Israel would be deprived of its guardian angel and left vulnerable to pressure from the Muslim and Arab worlds and the international community at large into abandoning its ambitions for dominance of the Middle East region and impose its will on the Arabs and Muslims. However, handling Israel could wait, since the US has to be taken care of first, under the perceived Iranian mindset.

Working out the plan

Now, how would Ahmadinejad expect to work this out?
While Iran cannot wage a successful offensive war against the US (or Israel), it is highly capable of mounting a defensive posture that could not only inflict heavy casualties among American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also create havoc in the international oil market and lead to a collapse of the world economy as we know it today. It would also have serious regional repercussions.
Iran could use its naval force, which include at least two submarines, that could deal a severe blow to shipping in the Gulf and the US Navy.
The Iranian navy might not be worth much when a comparison is made with the US might on the seas (as anywhere else indeed). However, it could wreak havoc for the US before being decimated.
Imagine a few, well co-ordinated and simultaneous USS Cole-style attacks.
The tens of thousands of Iranians who have enlisted themselves as suicide squads could be let loose against the American forces present in Iraq and Afghanistan. Add to that the human resources that Iran could muster through pro-Iranian Shiite groups in southern Iraq, including organisations such as the (nominally disbanded) Badr Brigade, whose members dominate Iraqi security forces working with the Americans and allied forces in Iraq, and the Mahdi Army of Moqtada Sadr (remember Sadr's repeated pledges that his forces would "defend" Iran under any circumstances?)
Gary Sick, professor of Middle East studies at Columbia University and former National Security Council adviser in the Jimmy Carter administration, told a congressional committee in February 2005 that if the US and Israel attack Iran, US troops in Iraq "will have hell to pay, especially in the Shiite south of the country."
Iranian retaliation “would surely start with attempts to mobilise Shiite partisans in Iraq to try to turn the Iraqi south into an extension of the insurgency in the Sunni triangle” in central Iraq.
Iran could also close the Strait of Hormuz and block the flow of Gulf oil to the outside world and that would mean cutting off nearly 25 per cent of the international supply.
According to a report prepared by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies,, within “minutes of any attack, Iran’s air and sea forces could threaten oil shipments in the Gulf as well as the Gulf of Oman. Iran controls the northern coast of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which oil tankers must navigate, and could sink ships, mine sea routes or bomb oil platforms.”
Iran could also employ its "suicide volunteers" against American and allied interests around the world, including American oil installations in the US heartland and cripple the availability of domestic oil to Americans themselves.
The combined effect of such an approach would shoot up international prices of oil by three or four times.
While Iranian officals assert that oil prices could hit even $400 a barrel, others are more conservative.
According to global investor George Soros, “Iran is on a collision course and I have a difficulty seeing how such a collision can be avoided” and this collision might jack oil prices up to $262 per barrel.
This would mean oil importers having to dig into their foreign exchange reserves in American dollars to pay for the difference. If the high prices could be sustained, it would in turn erode the worth of the American currency to a level below that of the paper it is printed.
How would the world community react to that eventuality?
How would the American people react to it?

American opinion

A recent opinion poll showed that Americans are deeply worried about the possibility that Iran will develop nuclear weapons and use them against the US, but they also fear that the Bush administration will be too quick to order military action.
The fear of Iranian nuclear weapons being used against the US is largely unfounded, experts say. They point out that Iran is years away from even conducting a nuclear weapon-grade test if indeed Tehran's plans including developing nuclear bombs.
Beyond that, however, is the impact of the repeated statements by senior US officials, widely carried in the media, that have created an impression among many that Iran is simply marking time before staging attacks against the US.
In more ways than one, the American domestic scenario is being played out along the same lines as the build-up to the Iraq war.
Iran has not threatened the US with military attacks, and it is no position to do so either. Secondly, Iran continues to insist that it has no plan to develop nuclear weapons and that it is only asserting its right, as enshrined in the NPT and other relevant conventions, to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes.
Therefore, on the surface, there is no obvious and immediate reason for the American people to fear an Iranian attack against them. However, that is not the way things are working out.
According to the USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll, seven of 10 of those surveyed over the weekend said they feared Iranian attacks against them and their government might not do enough to stop Tehran from acquiring a nuclear arsenal.
An equal number were concerned that the Bush administration would move prematurely to use force.
"People see no easy answers ... and the limits of our power," USA Today quoted Richard Eichenberg, a political scientist at Tufts University, as saying. "The Muslim World is in an uproar over the Danish cartoons, Iran is quite vocal in challenging us, and Iraq continues to be a drip-drip-drip of daily violence."
Among those polled, 55 per cent said they lacked confidence in the administration's ability to handle the situation in Iran.
Bush's approval rating has dipped to 39 per cent, the first time below 40 per cent since November, according to the poll.

Eventualities

Commentators point out that a majority of Americans react with force only when they feel that their way of life is something threatened; like losing jobs, prices shooting up, natural or manmade disasters and crippling of basic services.
In the event of an Iranian-engineered shortage of oil in the market that would shoot up prices, including the US domestic market, and facing the domino effect of such an increase, commentators say, the Americans would definitely react violently.
There would be riots that would jeopardise the security of the US, leaving the administration with the option of shooting down its own people, as some commentators lay out the eventualities.
The scenario described here might sound like exaggeration, since, as many tend to believe, Ahmadinejad could not be plotting his moves based on the conviction that these would be the outcome.
However, then one has to consider that the Iranian that he is indeed, Ahmadinejad might be willing to stake not only his future but also that of his country and people in a world that is dominated by a power which shares little in common with him and his people.
Where does that leave the US?
Washington strategists would definitely take into consideration the reality that the situation could get out of hand the moment the first US missile or bomb lands in Iran. They would also know that the US would lose control if the Iranians were allowed to retaliate. That means essentially eliminating all Iranian military capabilities to strike back in any manner at American targets and US-friendly countries in the region. The only means to ensure that is to "nuke" Iran and leave the country in a situation similar to that of Japan after the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is the relevancy of reports that US Vice-President Dick Cheney has ordered the United States Strategic Command to prepare up a “contingency plan” that “includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.”
Is that the scenario that is about to unfold?

Last chance for Iran?

THE Feb.20 meeting between Russia and Iran on a compromise proposal to solve the crisis over Tehran's nuclear programme is seen by most as the last chance for the Iranians to avert international sanctions. The UN Security Council is expected to take up a report made to it on the Iranian programme by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) next month. While sanctions might not be imposed in a hurry — given the reservations expressed by some members of the council — but it seems to be a definite eventuality if the Russian proposal fails to produce agreement.
That is indeed on the diplomatic track. On a parallel track is the possibility of US/Israeli military action against Iran's nuclear installations. Observers in the US and Europe are almost unanimous that the US-Israel alliance does have a contingency plan to ensure that Iran does not proceed with its nuclear programme whether peaceful or for military purposes. There are even those who argue that the US and Israel are determined to remove by force any possibility of Iran gaining access to nuclear technology and material even for peaceful purposes and the stage is being set for use of military force to prevent the Iranians from pursuing their programme.
A London-based think tank has warned that air attacks on Iranian installation should not be an option for the US or Israel since there would be heavy casualties and it could trigger a war that would spill out of Iran's borders.
Against that backdrop, Iran is continuing its brinkmanship, vowing not to step back from its plans and defying the US and its allies. It is not as much as Iran's quest to use nuclear power for whatever purposes as it is a question of Tehran's sense of indignation that it is being denied the right to use nuclear energy as any other sovereign country. The situation turns worse when the leader of the opposition camp is the US, which has viewed Iran through hostile glasses since the 1979 revolution toppled the Iranian monarchy and brought theocrats to the seat of power in Tehran . There is no trust lost between Iran and the US and the equation is a perfect recipe for conflict and confrontation.
The only way out — a stopgap measure as indeed it might turn out to be — is Iranian-Russian agreement on the compromise proposal, which, in essence, would ensure that Iran would not have access to spent nuclear fuel that is central to any atomic weapons programme. The Middle East region — with the exemption of Israel of course — is hoping against hopes that Tehran and Moscow would be able to come up with a working arrangement and face-saving formula for all so that the prospect of conflict is warded away. At the same time, the world is fully conscious that it would only be putting off and not reversing the move towards confrontation. However, that is the only realistic expectation at this juncture in time.

Real test coming up

FEARS were running high in Lebanon in the latter half of January that the country was edging towards renewed civil strife after five Shiite ministers representing the pro-Syrian Hizbollah and Amal Movement stayed away from the cabinet insisting that Hizbollah be recognised as national resistance. The implication was that Hizbollah, if deemed as national resistance and not defined as a militia, need not be disarmed under a UN Security Council resolution. The problem was ended in early February when the anti-Syrian Lebanese government reaffirmed that Hizbollah was part of national resistance, and the Shiite ministers returned to work. However, the crisis brought out the real colours of the politics of Lebanon and sparked fears of armed confrontation between rival groups. Those fears were further fuelled when a mob attacked the Danish consulate in protest against cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed last week and also targeted a Christian church in the area. The situation was defused with the timely intervention of Muslim leaders.
Then came the bang, but of a peaceful nature, the next day. Christian leader and former army general Michel Aoun, an avowed anti-Syrian, and Hizbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah met and announced a de facto alliance that also signalled that Aoun was breaking away from the anti-Syrian camp. The Aoun-Hizbollah alliance is now deemed to have the potential to be more influential and powerful than the so-called March 14 anti-Syrian alliance that is now leading the government.
The question now raised by many is: Can the Aoun-Hizbollah alliance stand the test of time, particularly given that it has been forged just ahead of a by-election for a parliament seat?
A close reading between the lines of a 10-point joint statement Aoun and Nasrallah issued after their ground-breaking meeting and their subsequent comments clearly shows that the alliance would hold. After all, Aoun is aspiring to be the next president of Lebanon and Nasrallah has pledged him Hizbollah support in the bid, and the Shiite leader needs Aoun to defend and protect, among other things, the group's status as national resistance and its right to keep its arms by virtue of that definition.
In any event, fears of renewed civil strife are fading, and Lebanese politics have come out with a different hue. However, the real test will pose itself when the US steps up pressure as it pursues its effort to disarm Hizbollah in order to serve the broader American strategy in the Middle East and to remove the group as a source of potential threat to Israel, the staunchest American ally in the region.

Regime change or nuclear setback?

US-Iran tug of war
'Regime change' or nuclear setback?


AMIDST the intense diplomatic activities purportedly aimed at defusing the Iranian nuclear crisis with the West and reports that the US-Israeli combine has already planned and even set a timeframe for military action against Iran, the key question that comes up is: Does the US simply want to set back Iran's nuclear ambitions by decades through military action or is Washington determined to bring about a "regime change" in Iran? The course of events will depend on that. It is known that US President George W Bush has made a commitment to his hawkish neoconservative camp that a "regime change" in Tehran would be one of his priorities in the second term at the White House. However, under the present situation — in terms of both domestic considerations and the geopolitical and military equation in the Middle East, Bush might it tough to deliver on that promise. PV Vivekanand takes a close look.



THERE IS indeed a superficiality in the spiralling crisis between the West and Iran over Tehran's nuclear programme with the Middle East region being aware that it would have to bear the brunt of the fallout of the crisis either way. If Tehran defies the US-led Western effort to pressure it into abandoning its nuclear programme and goes ahead with resuming sensitive fuel cycle work and blocking international inspections, then a "military option" is indeed in the cards, as the US has clearly stated. On the other hand, if a compromise — although unlikely — is worked out for the time being, then the Middle East has to worry out the consequences of having nuclear plants in full steam in the neighbourhood.
One thing is clear: The crisis is not as much about Iran possessing nuclear weapons as it is about the US quest to remove all possibilities of any country posing a challenge to its global supremacy. In Iran's case, Washington has an added incentive: Pre-empting an Iranian-engineered nuclear balance in the region that would set back Israel's grand designs.
Bush on Wednesday his commitment to Israelby vowing that the US would defend Israel militarily if needed against Iran and denounced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for "menacing talk" against Israel.
"I am concerned about a person that, one, tries to rewrite the history of the Holocaust, and two, has made it clear that his intentions are to destroy Israel," Bush said.
"Israel is a solid ally of the United States, we will rise to Israel's defense if need be. So this kind of menacing talk is disturbing. It's not only disturbing to the United States, it's disturbing for other countries in the world as well," he added. Asked if he meant the United States would rise to Israel's defecse militarily, Bush said: "You bet, we'll defend Israel."

Time for climbdowns

NOTWITHSTANDING the diplomatic action that the US and allied European countries are following in order to pre-empt an Iranian nuclear bomb, there is little the world community could actually do to prevent Tehran from going ahead with its plans.
There is little doubt that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would report Iran to the UN Security Council as asked for by the US-led coalition. This could be followed by Security Council sanctions against Iran, but only after IAEA Director-General Mohammed Al Baradei presents his final report in March.
In the meantime, the only prospect of a compromise is contained in a Russian proposal under which Tehran would be allowed the use of nuclear energy to produce power on condition that the spent weapon-grade fuel would be taken away to another country.
Iran seem to keeping that option open and has said it has found the Russian compromise interesting.
Failure to work out a solution has far-reaching consequences, including the worry that oil prices could shoot up immediately in the event of UN sanctions against Iran.
However, these concerns move to the secondary slot in the broader perspective of failure of diplomacy and the US and its ally Israel choosing to exercise the "military option."
The world could not and brush aside the steady flow of reports from various quarters that the US and Israel have already decided to launch military action against Iran. Israel is said to have set a March date for unilateral action against Iran, with or without the US going along with it. However, it would be the US which would bear the brunt of Iranian retaliation just as the US military is waging an Israeli war in Iraq.
The key to solving the crisis lies in acceptance of certain realities on both sides. There is little prospect of the US and Iran becoming good friends. The Americans do not trust the Iranians and vice-versa. Period.
At the same time, Iran is not posing a military threat to the US, and Washington should also realise that Tehran is only rattling its sabres when it issues warnings to Israel.
Instead of allowing the crisis to fester through a continued war of words, all sides involved in the crisis should come up with something beyond the Russian proposal — a common ground where the genuine concerns of the key parties could be addressed. It requires heavy climbdowns from the high horses that they occupy and an acceptance of the reality that while Israel and Iran could not be expected to send each other Christmas cakes or new year flowers, they could be persuaded not to go for each other's jugular at the first given opportunity. That responsibility rests with the US and European powers.

Truth nothing but truth

T WAS a very interesting observation by US Senator John McCain that members of the US Congress should take a page from Britain's parliamentary book to inject some life into their political system.
Most notable in McCain's comments in an interview with the Times of London on Friday was that the US Congress should consider an American version of Prime Minister's Question Time.
British democracy, the oldest in the world, is rich not only in traditions but also in checks and balances on the government. There is indeed a lot that world democracies have adopted from Britain. Living up to the norms and code of conduct practised by the British parliament has given new life to most of them. After all, it is all a question of government's accountability to the people through their elected representatives.
That is the central pillar of democracy and Britain could indeed be proud that it had spawned a system of governance and monitoring that have withstood the test of time.
That is not to say that British democracy has always lived up to the expectations attached to it by its founding principles. Many recent surveys on public opinion have come up with the finding that many Britons have lost faith in their parliament and they event want amendments to the rules of the game, particularly after the Blair government hitched itself to the American war wagon and went to Iraq.
Nonetheless, in Britain, we have seen prime ministers and ministers squirming under uncomfortable and probing questions during the PMQs. More often than not, their answers open up avenues for the media to pursue and come up with surprising revelations and tear the veil away from facts that the government might have wanted to hide from the public. It is also an opportunity for the people — wherever proceedings are televised — to get a first-hand view of how answers are offered and to make their own assessment of how their representatives and ministers handle themselves under pressure. That is only one aspect of democratic life.
The most sacred rule, as indeed is the case is with all democracies around the world, is that lying to the elected representatives of the people is unpardonable under any circumstances. The executive authority have no leeway there; it has to come clean with truth and nothing but truth under questioning in parliament.
Imagine, a US president, say like George W Bush, and top administration officials being put through a similar experience in the US Congress.
Of course, the differences in parliamentary proceedings between Britain and the US are too wide, but the concept of governments being held accountable for their actions is universal.
What would indeed be interesting to watch is whether Senator McCain would actually follow up on is observations and gather like-minded members of congress around him for a concerted campaign in Washington introduce PQs in the American legislature — President's Question Time.

The brighter side

THE FOCUS of speculation today is how Hamas, the Palestinian group which roots itself in armed resistance to Israel's occupation of Palestine, would behave once it enters the Palestinian cabinet in a coalition agreement with Fatah following the Jan.25 legislative elections.
Opinions are divided. Some believe that Hamas would never change its colours and would only work from within the government to undermine the Fatah leadership's efforts to work out a peace agreement with Israel. Others are convinced that Hamas leaders are pragmatic enough to accept realities and that there is no solution to the conflict except through negotiations with Israel.
Overlooked in the din of arguments and counter-arguments is an equally important aspect of Palestinian life in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. For more than a decade now, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), the de facto Palestinian government, has not really been able to address some of the key preoccupation of the people it governs.
Granted that the choking Israeli siege of the people living under its military occupation could be easily blamed for the daily suffering of the people of Palestine. However, the PNA also bears part of the responsibility, given the abundant evidence of corruption, nepotism and favouritism in the ranks of Fatah. The Fatah-led PNA has not been able to make a real difference to the quality of life of its people. If anything, the lot of the Palestinians under occupation in terms of daily life is worse than it was before the Oslo agreement was signed in September 1993.
That is where the strong showing of Hamas in the Palestinian legislative elections comes into relevance. Its victory could only be partly attributed to the chaos that reigned in the PNA. The other part is the success with which the group had been running schools, schools and social welfare organisations in a systematic and most effective manner within the confinements attached to the situation under occupation.
It clear that Hamas wants to pursue and strengthen its approach to the Palestinian society at large. The group is among the most disciplined and organised movements in Palestine and its commitment and seriousness to addressing the problems of grassroot Palestinians could not be questioned. There is little doubt that Hamas would not only insist on taking over the health, education and social welfare portfolios in the Palestinian cabinet but would also make a success of its endeavours by shouldering the task with responsibility and dedication.
That should indeed be the brightest spot at this point in time for the Palestinian people facing the dark uncertainties of their struggle for freedom and statehood in view of the arrogant and stubborn positions adopted by Israel that holds out only the promise of on-again, off-again negotiations which could be run off the track at any point in time.

Iran on gunsights

INTERNATIONAL speculation is rife over when the US and Israel or either on its own would strike at Iran's nuclear facilities. It is no longer a question of whether such action is planned but of the right timing and conditions for the planned strikes, which could include the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
That is the net picture that emerges from behind-the-scenes in the US, Israel and Europe as well as some parts of the Middle East even as the international community is watching the diplomatic drama being played out in the name of UN Security Council action against Iran for insisting on pursuing its nuclear programme, writes PV Vivekanand.

Many analysts, in the Middle East, Europe and the US, see it as a two-track process. On the first track, the US and Israel are already far ahead in planning military action against Iran and are waiting for movement on the second track, which is preparing the ground and justification for such action. The US and Israel would move in with the planned action as soon as they perceive that there are enough points to be argued against Iran and enough "evidence" is produced to insist that the Iranians pose a threat to the region and international community.
Seasoned observers are convinced that military action is coming, and they cite the Iraq example. "It would not be an exaggeration that there is little the Iranian leadership could do to avert military action just as Saddam Hussein did not have any option at all since it was decided that Iraq should be hit no matter what," asserts an Arab analyst.
Others agree with the view that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's rejection on Wednesday of suggestions about a possible resumption of negotiations with Iran on its nuclear programme supports this theory.
"Of course Iran could deflate the American/Israeli war machine by meeting all demands and complying with all International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) demands linked to its nuclear programme through one compromise or nother," adds the analyst. "However, even that deflation — humiliating as it indeed would be for Iran — would be shortlived since there is no way that Israel and the US would trust the Iranians to give up their nuclear programme."
Therefore, the argument goes, the only solution acceptable to the US and Israel is to reshape Iran itself through destabilising the country and eventually installing an American-friendly regime in Tehran, a la Baghdad.
That means confronting Iran with demands that are designed in a way that Tehran would never be able to meet, and thus continuing the "diplomatic" build-up to military action.

Timed for March?

Certain reports have suggested that Israel — with backing from the US —  has set a March deadline for military strikes against Iranian nuclear installations as well as attacks on Iranian military facilities and equipment which could be used for retaliation against American forces deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The American Conservative magazine reported in August last year that Vice-President Dick Cheney, the most prominent figure in the Bush administration in orchestrating the invasion and occupation of Iraq, had already ordered the US Air Force to begin preparing plans for a full-scale air war against Iran's "suspected" nuclear weapons sites.
"The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-programme development sites," according to former military intelligence and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) counter-terrorism officer Philip Giraldi. "Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option."
It means, according to experts, that the US would use nuclear weapons of much a smaller scale that those used in the strikes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The weapons would plunge themselves into the earth and explode from within, thus, hopefully, limiting the attack's impact to the target and reducing human casualties.
Military manuals certify that this new generation of nuclear weapons are "safe" for use in the battlefield. "They are no longer a weapon of last resort. There are no impediments or political obstacles to their use. In this context, Senator Edward Kennedy has accused the Bush Administration for having developed a generation of more useable nuclear weapons," says Michel Chossudovsky in an article headlined Nuclear War against Iran  and appearing on www.GlobalResearch.ca.

Missed door or new window?

The stroke that hit Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and put him out of political circulation early this month and ahead of Palestinian and Israeli elections has also spooked the wheels of regional politics in the short term. Sharon was deemed as the only Israeli leader who could adopt and push through difficult and bold decisions in order to make even an Israeli version of peace with the Palestinians based on relinquishing part of the territories occupied since 1967. However, regardless of fresh strategies and policies and whoever emerges as Sharon's successor, the core picture has not changed much and is unlikely to change either because of the uncompromising positions of the two sides, writes PV Vivekanand.

Some see Sharon's demise from the political scene as a missed opportunity for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. Some interpret it as a major setback for the Bush administration's hopes of resolving the Palestinian problem and removing one of major causes of anti-US sentiments in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Others see it as blessing in disguise because Sharon's vision of peace with the Palestinians would only have aggravated the conflict and his departure from the scene clears the way for more pragmatic Israeli forces to work for a more equitable solution than Sharon envisaged. Yet some others believe that uncompromising hardliners would take over the Israeli political scene in Sharon's absence and damage all prospects for fair and just peace.
One thing is abundantly clear: Uncertainty is the only certainty in the post-Sharon political equation in the run-up to the March elections in Israel. Any meaningful movement in the so-called peace process would remain frozen, and the result of Palestinian legislative elections this month would emerge as a key factor that would influence the course of all efforts for an Israeli-Palestinian solution.
Until Tuesday, it was assumed that Sharon's health crisis could only worsen and thus threaten the chances of his new party, Kadima, securing a dominating number of seats in the March elections to the Knesset (parliament) without a charismatic leader able to keep its ranks of leftists and rightists together. However, doctors declared on Tuesday that Sharon was out of immediate danger and could improve in the weeks ahead although a physical return to active politics ahead of the elections has been ruled out. The extent of the damage his brain suffered also remains to be assessed.
The assertion that he is out of danger meant that he would remain a father figure — a newly created image following the massive stroke he suffered on Jan.4 — and his party could do well as expected in the polls.
Surveys have showed that Kadima has even boosted its public approval ratings despite Sharon's collapse.
The party leads the list of expected winners in the elections, followed by the Labour party led by trade union leader Amir Peretz, and Sharon's former right-wing Likud chaired by Benjamin Netanyahu.
According to two recent surveys, Kadima, which is free to forge an alliance with the Labour, would win 44 and 45 seats in the 120-member parliament, Labour 16 to 18, and Likud between 13 and 15.
Before Sharon collapsed, polls showed that Kadima could bag 40 seats.

Leadership vacuum

In real terms, Sharon has left a leadership vacuum that is unlikely to be filled by any other Israeli leader with matching political acumen and strength.
Ehud Olmert, who inherited Sharon's mantle only because he happened to be deputy prime minister and thus the legal interim successor for 100 days, is not seen to possess what it takes to lead Israel. He does not have the stature and authority to make the kind of bold decisions for which Sharon acquired fame and also became notorious as "Mr Bulldozer" during his military and political careers since the 1960s.
Elderly statesman Shimon Peres of the Labour Party, who has served as prime minister in the past, has aligned himself with Kadima but he has affirmed that he has no prime ministerial ambitions. In any event, he is no longer leader of his party, which in any case is not expected to take a dominating position in the elections.
With Olmert deemed as too weak for a prime minister, and given that Israelis elect their prime minister through direct voting parallel to the parliamentary elections, the room is wider for Netanyahu, Sharon's arch-rival who quit the government in protest against the prime minister's decision to end Israel's occupation of the Gaza Strip last year.
Netanyahu's departure from the cabinet was largely a political gimmick aimed at challenging Sharon in the Likud bloc, the party to which both belonged before the latter quit and set up Kadima. Sharon is also one of the founders of Likud, which was formed 30 years ago.
During the mid-90s, after Israel handed over most of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians and allowed the late Yasser Arafat to set up his base there under the interim 1993 Oslo agreements, Netanyahu had always insisted that he would have nothing to do with the Mediterranean coastal strip and would gladly give up the entire territory to the Palestinians. He pledged to retain the West Bank at whatever the cost and argued that continued occupation of the Gaza Strip was too costly and a source of continued trouble for Israel.
His opposition to Sharon's move to quit Gaza was a dramatic reversal of that position, a fact that went largely unnoticed in the media.
The switch was obviously aimed at currying political favour with Jewish settlers in the occupied territories.
Netanyahu could consolidate his position by appealing to the "security" mindset of the Israelis as well as claiming to represent Israel "nationalism" that rules out the creation of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank.
On the other hand, analysts say that Sharon, by evacuating the Gaza Strip and making bold statements, has prepared his people to accept that it is not in the country's interest to hang on to the occupied territories and that some compromises have to be made.
According to political analyst Bary Rubin, Sharon "embodied a new national consensus, accepted by at least two-thirds of the population, that reflects deep-seated changes in the country and its situation."
"From the left comes the idea that, in return for full peace, Israel is ready to withdraw from most of the territory captured in 1967 and accept a Palestinian state. From the right, the consensus acknowledges that currently there is no Palestinian partner for real peace.
"The left's advocacy of territorial withdrawal gained currency as a result of a general recognition that holding onto land, especially Palestinian-populated areas, is not in the national interest. Israel does not intend to claim this land in the future, never derived any economic benefit from it, and now regards staying there as a security problem rather than an asset. With the cold war over, the USSR gone, and the Arab world weakened, a conventional war with the armies of Arab states is no longer likely, rendering obsolete the strategic considerations underlying Israel's occupation of this territory."
That is Sharon's legacy, Rubin argues, adding that "it was Sharon who sensed a sea change in Israeli sentiment and acted upon it. But Sharon was the messenger, not the message. The era of Israeli pragmatism that he opened will not end with his departure."
Well, not many are sure how far the perceived pragmatism would go.

Recipe for trouble

The compromises advocated by Sharon could only lead to creating more troubles on both sides.
It was leaked out in late December that Sharon's vision of peace with the Palestinians was based on further unilateral moves: withdrawal from certain selected areas of the West Bank, and allowing for a temporary Palestinian state in part of the West Bank and in Gaza.
That was seen as a perfect recipe for trouble since evacuating parts of the West Bank without consulting the Palestinians would not address the core issues such as the status of Arab East Jerusalem and the right of return of Palestinian refugees, and this means setting a fertile ground for not only fomenting Palestinian unrest and armed resistance but also for extremist groups like Al Qaeda and others to grow roots in Palestine.
Unilateral withdrawals would be touted by armed groups as their victory.
That is a prospect that is worrying the Americans, and that explains the intense contacts between US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and this week's arrival in the Middle East of two American troubleshooters, Assistant Secretary of State David Welch and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams.
Effectively, Sharon had engineered the US into a position where Washington relied on him to take initiatives towards a settlement with the Palestinians, and his absence from the scene has left the Bush administration wondering what direction it should take to keep the so-called peace process alive and kicking.
Sharon had skillfully nudged President George W Bush into endorsing the Israeli position that the Jewish state would retain the bulk of the illegal settlements it has built in the West Bank and that the Palestinian refugees' right of return was not an issue that would be entertained.
For most people in the Middle East, it was shocking and surprising to hear Bush describe Sharon "as a man of peace," given the Israeli prime minister's consistent record of obvious hostility towards the Palestinians and his proven role in the 1982 massacre of Palestinian refugees in two Beirut camps as well as his approval of heavy-handed military action against Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Sharon also gathered notoriety by professing that Jordan was the "alternative homeland" for the Palestinians and advocated the expulsion of Arab Israelis and Palestinians across the River Jordan.
Indeed, Bush is now worried that without Sharon in the scene he may have lost the one chance he will get to realise his declared goal of seeing two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace before his term ends in 2007.
"Bush has a stance but not a strategy" for the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, says William Quandt, who as a senior White House advisor during the Carter administration helped negotiate the Camp David accords. "He supported Sharon," Quandt told the Los Angeles Times recently.
Meaningful progress towards an Israeli-Palestinian settlement would help Bush on several fronts: It would tone down criticism from the Europeans, a diversion from the crisis in Iraq and perhaps dilution in the enthusiasm of Arab volunteers to fight the US forces there, and strengthening his hand in dealing with Iran, whose nuclear programmes are a source of concern for Israel and thus also to the US.
The immediate American priority — as represented in the Welsh-Abrams mission — is to shore up the agreements made with Sharon linked to the withdrawal from Gaza and prevent any small incident from spinning out of control in the new climate of uncertainty and in the absence of strong leadership.

Palestinian view

The Palestinians loath Sharon for his record of actions against them.
A Palestinian group, the Popular Resistance Committees, issued a statement hailing "the downfall of Dracula."
Sharon will remain forever associated with the 1982 massacres in Beirut where he, as Israeli defence minister, invaded Lebanon to rout the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and allowed allied Lebanese militiamen to slaughter hundreds of Palestinians, including women and children, in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps of the Lebanese capital.
The Palestinian sentiment has only been intensified by his project of building a 700-kilometre "separation" wall crisscrossing the West Bank that would eventually be the "border" between Israel and Palestinian areas, but would take in large swaths of Palestinian territory in the name of "security" for Israelis — Jewish settlers living in the illegal colonies built on occupied territory.
Abbas, the Palestinian president who is maintaining a platform of non-violence as the ground for a negotiated settlement with Israel, has expressed his concerns over Sharon's status to Israeli leaders. Some of his associates, including Deputy Prime Minister Nabil Shaath and Saeb Erakat, a negotiator, fear that the vacuum left behind by Sharon would only spell trouble for the Palestinians.
"Sharon's absence could turn things upside down," according to Erekat, who is fearful that as Israeli political factions competed to fill the void, the Israeli military might step up its offensive against Palestinian resistance groups.
"There is a lot of uncertainty about how and where the Israelis will go with the end of the Sharon era," says Shaath.
Palestinians acknowledge that Sharon had the ability to take and implement bold decisions that no other Israeli leader would dare to take let alone implement, but that is no consolation for them.
According to Hani Al Masri, a Palestinian political analyst, Sharon had already done massive damage to the Palestinian cause by erasing the issues of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees from the centrestage with Washington's support and his departure from active politics would be no loss for the Palestinians.
"In the short term, the situation will be worse for the Palestinians because of the confusion and power vacuum that Sharon's absence will leave, just like what happened when Arafat died" in 2004, said Masri. "But in the long term, it will be better for the Palestinians because Israel will not have the strong leader it just lost."
Masri also feels that Israeli power politics dictate that Sharon's successor might be tempted to take an even harder line against the Palestinians in order to consolidate domestic support.
Helping any Sharon successor would be the financial straits of the PNA, which is struggling with a cash crunch to pay staff salaries. Donor countries are applying pressure for more transparency and accountability, but the changes are too slow if only because of the perceived need to keep fractional leaders satisfied. The PNA has been accused of rampant corruption, and the donors are firm that Abbas remove graft from the authority's corridors.
The net sum of the situation is that the PNA could not afford to hang on to "hardline" demands and would come under intense pressure make Israeli-dictated compromises sooner or later on the fundamental issues. It would then depend on Sharon's successor to make the best of the situation and seek to impose an Israeli-tailored version of peace on the Palestinians.

American concern

The US is anxious to ensure that the Palestinians do indeed vote on Jan.25 as scheduled because Washington knows that delays would only mean strengthening of groups like Hamas as opposed to Abbas's mainstream Fatah.
Rice said last week that there was no reason to delay the elections as Palestinian leaders have threatened.
"It's our view that they ought to be held and that people ought to campaign and put themselves on the line and try to convince the population that they will do better," Rice said. At the same time, the US also wants to make sure that the elections do not produce Hamas as the winner.
A Hamas victory of a sizable number of seats — around 40 per cent according to opinion poll predictions  —  in the Palestinian legislative assembly is enough to sound the death bell for the all-too-important "road map for peace" — a proposal drafted and endorsed by the US, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia. The Palestinians have also accepted it, and Israel says that it also accepts it but with reservations, and hence the only blueprint on the table.
The proposal demands that the Palestinian National Authority disarm all militants, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which is affiliated with Abbas's Fatah itself.
The three groups are not ready to disarm and this in itself is a non-starter for any movement on the road map.
The Palestinians seem to be unsure of how to take Sharon's indisposition, but they know that they could not expect some of their key demands to be met in a potential agreement if it were to be negotiated with him.
On the two key issues, Jerusalem and refugees' right of return, Sharon is known to be adamant that he would not accept the Palestinian demands.
Kadima's platform calls for the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, but it is the perceived shape of the new state that is worrisome.
It has been reported that Sharon was pushing the US to pressure the Palestinians into accepting more West Bank territory instead of Arab East Jerusalem. However, no Palestinian leader would be able to accept such a proposal, just as no Israeli leader would be ready to give up Arab East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state. Again, a non-starter.
Predictably, hardline groups such as Hamas and others see Sharon's political demise as inconsequential since they believe that no Israeli leader would ever make a fair and just peace agreement with the Palestinians. Indeed, Hamas's platform is based on a call that the state of Israel be dismantled, with all Jews who migrated there return to their places of origin, leaving pre-1948 Palestine where an Islamic state should be created.
So, where is the "missed opportunity"?

Malayalees in the Gulf - life has to go on

January 2006

Malayalees in the Gulf - life has to go on


AS the old joke goes, the first astronaut to land on the moon found a Malayalee thattukada there. The joke symbolises the adventerous spirit of the Malayalees in going places in search of a livelihood. In real life, it is nowhere truly visible as it is in the oil-rich Gulf area, where more than two million Keralites live today. For them, the Gulf once represented the land of dreams where they could make their fortunes. Today, the dreams remain dreams for an overwhelming majority of them, making just enough to lead a moderate life. Many simply scrape through and have to keep tight reins on themselves in order to make sure his or her family gets the monthy cheque of a few thousand rupees.
For many, dreams have turned to nightmares if only for the smallest miscalculation and in other cases for no fault of their own.
Indeed, a small percentage of them have made it big in business, beginning with traditional trading, clothing, gold and food. A slightly larger number are running groceries, thattukads and service agencies (tailoring, hairdressing etc). The majority are employed, and they are the one who represent the overall picture of an average Gulf Malayalee.
Gulf Malayalees are generally respected for their commitment to work and general principles in life. That is something they have retained throughout the decades despite the off-and-on cases involving illegal activities such as sale of liquor and prostitution as well as cheating.
Oldtimers who landed in the Gulf shores during the early part of the "migration wave" in the early 70s — many of them smuggled themselves aboard motor launches which disgorged them off the coast under the cover of darkness — say they were lucky. At that time, the local residents welcomed them with open hands and employed them, and they managed to legalise their status as years went by.
It was then normal for the employers — who were beginning to experience the oil wealth that poured dollars into their coffers — to plan expanding their business and activities. Again, naturally, they sought help from their employees to recruit more staff. And this led to a swelling of the ranks of Malayalees (and indeed other Indians and non-Indians) in the Gulf countries. And the multiplication continued for many years, and is still continuing. But there is a marked difference.
During the first few years of the oil boom, an employee was trusted so much to the extent that the employer, or "sponsor," would sign on any paper presented to him. No one would think twice before securing hundreds of employment visas and entrusting their Malayalee employees to get the new employees.
But then, many Malayalee employees — and of course others too — abused the privilege and made money out of the so-called "visa business." And they taught the "locals" that there was money to be made from selling visas.
Soon, the scene became so corrupt that many Arab employers themselves were corrupted into making money from offering employment, today many of them ask how much they could get in return for using their status as a "local" to "sponsor" businesses or secure "job visas" for sale.
In the Gulf scene today, hundreds of Malayalees are paying and are ready to pay tens of thousands of rupees — the last I heard was that it cost Rs150,000 in India for a "job visa" in the UAE — in return for employment in the Gulf. For them, the Gulf still remains the "land of gold, milk and honey." They don't realise that they are walking to a life of misery because of diminishing salaries and rising cost of living and bitter competition in the employment market.
It does not need an empirical survey to determine that more than half of Keralites living in the Gulf make less than Rs12,000 per month. The lucky among them have company "accommodation" — like six or eight to a room and one toilet for 40 or 50 people — and the luckier minority would even have "company food."
The unanswered question is: How and when would they be able to make up for the Rs150,000 they paid their "agents."
With the real estate boom shooting up, there is a high demand for skilled and unskilled construction workers, but not many Malayalees are among the unskilled; that is a sector dominated by people from other states of India like Andhra Pradesh and northern areas.
In the UAE, rents have shot up and cost of living has also skyrockets as a result of a nearly 40 per cent increase in the prices fuel in the last two years. This mostly affects the average Malayalee family, whose combined income (husband and wife) is, say, less than 4,000 dirhams (around Rs50,000). They would be lucky to set aside 500 dirhams as saving or to be sent home to the family every month. And if they have schoolgoing children, then there is nothing left to save at the end of the month.
There is no way out for many of them except to continue to live here, hoping a miracle would happen and save them from their life of misery.
Then there is the ever-present trap of debts — bank loans and credit cards. There are thousands of Malayalees in the Gulf who are paying a good part of their income to settle their bank loans and credit cards. It is a never-ending process and most of them could not even think of ever returning home for good because of their liabilities in the Gulf.
There are of course Malayalees who occupy key positions in major business corporations, banks, insurance companies and other commercial entities. It is no exaggeration that they represent the backbone of the companies they work for. Their employers would find it difficult to replace them. They are also "active members" of the community, and, they, supported by family members, cousins and relatives as well as friends, are the ones who take the lead in organising "Onam" festivals in the Gulf.
In fact, occasions like Onam, Vishu and Christmans, and the daily Iftar meals during the holy month of Ramadan and of course the Eid festivals represent a forum and platform for Keralites from all walks of life to get together, to get to know each other and interact with each other. And hence the relevance of those "exciting" occasions and festivities in the Gulf.
Then there is the rising number of Malayalee women who are lured into the Gulf with employment promises only to be forced into the flesh trade. Dozens of cases are reported every month in the UAE alone, with some of them involving torture and brutality of a level that surpasses the worst place for it all — Mumbai. And who are behind the racket? None other than Malayalees themselves.
They are the rotten eggs in the basket, but their stink has not really affected the majority of Malayalees in the Gulf.
Despite the downturn in the attractions of life in the Gulf, not many Malayalees are ready to pack up and go home if only because they face a bleak future there in terms of employment. They have no option but to continue to live here with hopes that something would happen to turn their life around and set it on the "right track."
Life has to continue, no matter what. Isn't it?

US-Iran move: More than meets the eye

More than meets the eye


BY PV VIVEKANAND

PRESIDENT George W. Bush's move to establish direct contacts with Iran and seek Tehran's help in containing the insurgency in Iraq is indeed an acknowledgement of the reality that regional stability and security depends to a large extent on Iranian behaviour.
However, given the imcompabilities in the ideological, political and military postures maintained by the US and Iran, any assessment of the move has to go beyond conventional wisdom.
Answers to questions like whether the US sees it as a strategic imperative to make friends with Iran or whether it is short-term ploy would give an insight to the moves, but not the real answer.
The real answer, or the key if you will, rests with Israel, and it would be the Israelis and their powerful friends in Washington's corridors of power who would decide when and where to draw a line in American moves to enlist Iran's help.

High-level contact

US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad confirmed on Sunday that the president had assigned him to reach out to Iran in the first high-level US contact with Tehran in decades.
No doubt, the Bush administration is feeling the heat over the war in Iraq, given the surge in pressure even from the Republican camp to check the negativism surrounding the party itself as a result of the growing crisis in that country.
It would have been unthinkable a few months for Washington even to establish direct contact with Tehran, let alone seek Iranian help to check the insurgency in Iraq. The reality has always been there on the ground: Iran is a regional player and it could not be waived away in whatever regional equation the US seeks to cook up in the Middle East.
Iran has its own interests in Iraq. The Iranians are uneasy over the US presence in their neighbour since they are aware that they have been targeted for "regime change" in the second Bush term at the White House.
Theorists assert that Iran could not be expected to be an enthusiastic partner in any move to contain the insurgency in Iraq as long as the US military maintains presence in that country. For the Iranians, the US military presence in Iraq is a constant reminder that they could find themselves in American gunsights when the US military digs its feet deep into Iraq and firms up its foothold.
The US military presence in Afghanistan, justified in the name of the continuing hunt for Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar and their Al Qaeda and Taliban followers, fuels the Iranian uneasiness.
Add to that persistent reports that the US and Israel are one tick away from launching military action against Iran's nuclear facilities, but are holding back only because the operation has to be well-planned and all-embracing to be successful.
Another account says that the US might indeed stage a "false-flag" operation that would justify full-fledged military action against Iran.
In July of this year, a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative, Philip Giraldi, commented on the American Conservative:
"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice-President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons."
This assertion sounds credible because a short spurt of action against some of Iran's nuclear facilities could result in deeper trouble for the US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tehran has clearly stated that it would hold the US responsible even if Israelis attacked its nuclear facilities. Holding the US responsible translates into Iranian retaliation against the American forces present in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as US installations elsewhere in the region. Whether the Iranians would retaliate in such a manner is subject to debate and speculation, but the seriousness of that possibility could not be underplayed.
Therefore, any American military action against Iraq has to be full-fledged and no punches could be pulled, according to expert thinking.
Jorge Hirsch, a respected professor whose authoritative comments on nuclear issues have drawn international acclaim, says that Washington has put together all the elements it needs to justify military action against Iran.
"Unlike in the case of Iraq, it will happen without warning, and most of the justifications will be issued after the fact," he says. "We will wake up one day to learn that facilities in Iran have been bombed in a joint US-Israeli attack. It may even take another couple of days for the revelation that some of the US bombs were nuclear."
If this assertion is accurate, then how could the American decision to establish direct contacts with Iran be analysed?
The obvious answer is that given the imbroglio the US faces in Iraq and the mounting criticism at home, the Bush administration appeared to have reached the decision that making friends with Iran is the most desirable course of action in its efforts to contain the Iraq insurgency.
At the same time, it could only be seen as a short-term strategy even in the hypothesis that Tehran extends its full co-operation to the US to put out the guerrilla war in Iraq. The reason is simple: Israel, the only nuclear-armed country in the region, would not rest until Iran is deprived of all means and abilities to produce a nuclear weapon in the foreseeable future.
By its own words and deeds, Washington has clearly established that it could not be expected to work against what Israel considers as its own strategic interests. We have seen and are continuing to see that concept at work in Iraq and Washington's steady moves to trap Syria in an international deadlock as the prelude to regime change in Damascus.
Clearly there is something more than that meets the eye in the American move towards Iran. Hopefully, the days ahead would reveal what it is, even if in fragments.

The European impetus

PV Vivekanand
THE ELEMENTS that a British Foreign Office docucment highlighted in the systematic Israeli move to deny the Palestinian people their rights in Arab East Jerusalem were always known. The only new element, highly significant indeed it is, is that they found their way into
a document compiled by the British government in its capacity as president of the European Union and placed for consideration before the bloc.
While the unusual British move is welcomed, the Arab World would have also liked to see an honest British assessment of the realistic possibilities of Israeli-Palestinian peace encompassing the future of the West Bank and the fate of Palestinian refugees in the diaspora.
As it is, the "confidential" Foreign Office report presents the European Union (EU) with an opportunity to guage the prospect of Israeli-Palestinian peace
The document, according to the Guardian newspaper, says Israel is seeking to annexe Arab East Jerusalem through a series of systematic moves, including using illegal Jewish settlement construction and the West Bank "separation" barrier.
What we would like to add to the document is the other measures that Israel had been following and is continuing to follow in Arab East Jersualem, which it occupied in the 1967 war. These include a blanket denial of permission for Palestinians to construct new building or even carry out repair or expansion work at existing structures, demolition of Palestinian-owned buildings at the slightest pretext and refusal to allow the return of Arab East Jerusalem residents if they had stayed outside for a certain period time — earlier it used to be seven years and this has been cut down to two years now. Add to that direct and indirect encouragement for Jewish purchase of Palestinian-owned land in Arab East Jerusalem. *
Jerusalem Palestinians who acquired foreign passports and entering Palestine, either through the crossings from Jordan or Israeli ports, face particular trouble gaining entry. Refusal of entry is always a possibility.
Palestinians living elsewhere in the occupied West Bank are not allowed to enter Arab East Jerusalem, except, in principle, without a prior permission which is hard to obtain (Taxi-drivers who carry anyone without such permission from the West Bank to Jersalem face fines of up to several hundred dollars per each passenger).
In 2001, Israel closed down Orient House, the Palestinian headquarters in Arab East Jerusalem, claiming that papers found there showed that the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), which was headquartered in the building, was suppporting "terrorist" actions.
The overall thrust of the Israeli measures is creating facts on the ground that would pre-empt a peace agreement by trying to put the future of Arab East Jerusalem beyond negotiation so that it would never become a Palestinian capital. Significantly, the approach risks driving Palestinians living in the city into hardlinel groups, as the Guardian puts it.
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw presented the Foreign Office document to an EU council of ministers meeting last week with recommendations to counter the Israeli policy, but the council put off debate on it under pressure from Italy, the Guardian reported.
One of the recommendations is recognition of Palestinian political activities in Arab East Jerusalem. This would mean EU officials holding meetings with Palestinian National Authority (PNA) officials in Arab East Jerusalem.
Indeed, this was the case until a few years ago when most visiting foreign dignitaries used to meet PNA officials at Orient House despite fierce Israeli protests. No such meeting has taken place since 2001 when Israeli took over the building.
The details in the British Foreign Office report do not matter as much as whether the EU clearly understands Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's sinister plans to grab as much as possible of West Bank territory and leave the Palestinians with truncated chunks of land that would render unviable a Palestinian state with geographical continuity in an agreement he would like to call a peace accord.
The "separation," "security" or "apartheid" wall that Israel is building along the West Bank is clearly the Jewish state's version of border between Israeli-populated areas (settlements and plus some) of the territory and Palestinian majority parts.
The Foreign Office takes note that the vast concrete barrier, is being used to expropriate Arab land in and around Arab East Jerusalem. "This de facto annexation of Palestinian land will be irreversible without very large-scale forced evacuations of settlers and the re-routing of the barrier," it says.
"When the barrier is completed, Israel will control all access to East Jerusalem, cutting off its Palestinian satellite cities of Bethlehem and Ramallah, and the West Bank beyond. This will have serious ... consequences for the Palestinians," it says.
"Israel's main motivation is almost certainly demographic ... the Jerusalem master plan has an explicit goal to keep the proportion of Palestinian Jerusalemites at no more than 30 per cent of the total."
This would make a two-state solution impossible because a core demand of the Palestinians is for sovereignty over Arab East Jersusalem.
The report should be the catalyst for the European Union to step out of the shadows and assert itself as an influential player in the effort for peace in the Middle East.
It is not that the Europeans have not tried. Indeed, the bloc is one of the four powers behind the "roadmap" for peace in the Middle East along with the US, Russia and the United Nations. However, all past EU efforts to assert its rightful role were thwarted by the US, which always confined the Europeans to the role of bankrollers of Middle Eastern peace agreements and denied them any political role.
The British paper, which clearly documents Israel's concerted campaign to usurp one of the central pillars of any peace accord — Arab East Jerusalem — should open European eyes to the reality on the ground that the Jewish state is bent upon imposing its conditions on the Palestinians and therefore there is little sense in pursuing peace in the present direction.
The Europeans have the clout — after all they are Israel's largest export market — to pressure the Jewish state, and it is a factor often mentioned by member of European Parliament sympathetic to the Palestinian case if only because they know from close quarters the realities of the conflict. The question is: How far the European would shake themselves out of their lethargic attitude towards the Middle Eastern conflict and whether they would stand up and resist American pressure to keep out of the equation.

Americans are angry

  Panorama

Americans are angry: White House in crisis


The people of America are furious over the course their government is taking them and they are speaking up in unprecedented terms and language
Revelations that imply an administration in disarray and a see-through game of shifting blames in Washington but yet retaining the central theme of keeping the truth away from the public have added fuel to the fury.
Charges that whoever is questioning the administration's policy is dishonest and unpatriotic seem to have been the proverbial straw and given rise to a flurry of indignant and angry responses from the American people.
The mainstream corporate media would not give them a platform to air their grievances and vent their anger at the policies of their government. They have to confine themselves to the cyberspace, but their voice is now being heard. And it is only a matter of time before the corporate media would be forced to remove their self-imposed veils and try to do what they were supposed to do in the first place: Speak the truth and be objective. If they don't, then they would be out and haunted for having been party to one of the grossest deception which has come to be called the "lie of the century." (www.whatreallyhappened.com).
At this given point in time, the Bush administration is reeling back from pointed accusations that include:
The administration lied to American people and Congress into accepting that Iraq was linked to the Sept.11, 2001 attacks and had weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to American national security. When it was proved that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden had no links (and thus no Iraq/Sept.11 link either) and Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, the war was justified as aimed at "liberating" the people of Iraq and leading them into democracy. And the "liberated" people -- or at least some of them -- are hitting back and killing Americans, and Iraq is termed as the den of international terrorism, "liberation" or no liberation.
(That the administration knew that there was little substance to the charge that Iraq had no links with 9/11 has come out in a recently declassified Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) document (DITSUM 044-02).
Robert Scheer observes in The Nation: "This smoking-gun document proves the Bush administration's key evidence for the apocryphal Osama Bin Laden-Saddam Hussein alliance, said by Bush to involve training in the use of weapons of mass destruction, was built upon the testimony of a prisoner who, according to the DIA, was probably 'intentionally misleading the debriefers'.")
The administration has yet to provide a clear answer to the American people why the US military went to war against Iraq.
Another grave charge is that the administration prevented the "truth" of the 9/11 attacks from the American people and deliberately suppressed information citing national security and imperatives of intelligence gathering.
The administration resorted to aggressive vendetta against anyone who spoke up against the war and questioned Washington's motivations in invading and occupying Iraq. That is the net scenario emerging from the Valerie Plame affair, where people as high as Vice-President Robert Cheney and even the president himself could be implicated for having been party, directly or indirectly, to outing a secret operative of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), one of the very same people the administration was supposed to protect and defend.
The administration has no compassion for American lives and could not care less about the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq and elsewhere as long as they are kept away from American television screens and newspapers.
These are the key points being raised by commentators, analysts and observers as well as honest-to-God American people without any political agenda.
Hit from many sides with such accusations, the Bush administration is fighting back, but the arguments it makes are deemed by most critics to be steering away from the core issue of American national interests.
The administration is not dissuaded. It is continuing to follow an aggressive approach by trying to discredit and silence critics.

Patriotism and criticism

A simple but clear reflection of the seething American anger over these issues -- not to mention the administration's handling of hurricane Katrina and Rita and the economic problems within the US -- could be seen in a comment written by Doug Thompson on www.capitolhillblue.com.
Thompson, publisher of the site, is credited with 46 years of work in various capacities, including some years in the corridors of power in Capitol Hill, but mostly as a writer and journalist.
In his latest article, Thompson gives vent to his anger at Cheney for criticising Republican Senator John Murtha for calling on the administration to withdraw the US military from Iraq.
Asserting that Cheney himself avoided serving the military during the Vietnam War by "multiple deferments," while Murtha served the US Marines for 37 years and had won several military honours, Thompson delivers a broadside salvo at the vice-president and other politicians:
"American politics is cursed with chicken-hawk politicians who do everything in their power to avoid serving their country and then vote to send other Americans to fight and die for their questionable wars. Bill Clinton used falsified documents to secure and keep his student deferments in place. Congress is littered with false patriots, Republican and Democrat alike, who avoided military service. And the biggest warmonger of them all, George W. Bush, needed daddy's connections to ride out the war at home in the safety of the Texas Air National Guard and couldn't even complete that service."
"It's bad enough when Bush uses Veterans Day, a holiday where we are supposed to honour those who serve our country, to spread his Iraq invasion propaganda and criticise those who dare question his failed policies. As Americans we have the freedom to agree or disagree with war but it is our duty to serve her when she calls. Draft dodgers are the worst kind of traitors to our country. They avoided the call and are nothing but despicable."
Another posting (www.uruknet.com/ ?p=18002&hd =0&size=1&l=x) delves into the same subject and asserts:
"The only people buying this Bush/Cheney tent show are the never-say-die entrenched Republicans and those suffering from Alzheimer's. What a charade, both of them feigning indignity and charging that the Iraq war critics are irresponsible and unpatriotic for questioning their claims that the 'neocon' Bush gang was only honestly mistaken when they spoon fed bogus prewar intelligence to Congress and the American people. In truth, it is irresponsible and unpatriotic to not question these men who are benefiting by this war and who have not convincingly proven a need for this war, which has cost the lives of two thousand and counting of our bravest men and women as well as the maiming of tens of thousand more."

'Truth of 9/11'

It is not simply the deceptive war against Iraq and the American lives lost there and the more than $200 billion spent on war that is bothering the Americans. They have seen a policy pattern, decisions and statements which they interpret as designed to deceive them and keep them in the dark in the name of national security.
Even more intriguing is the theory that the Sept.11 attacks were an "inside job."

Here is an interesting web posting: www.indybay.org/news/ 2005/11/1784820.php)
"What does questioning 9/11 mean? I think everyone is open to questions about what the US knew about Al Qaeda before 9/11 and what the US had done in earlier years to aid it. There is probably also room for doubt as to whether Al Qaeda really carried out 9/11 to the same extent as there is room for doubt about the London bombings; Al Qaeda never really existed as a centralised organisation with a clear hierarchy of command and control even in the official version of things so asking whether Al Qaeda did something doesn't even have a clear yes/no answer.
"There is also clear room for doubt about USA motives behind Afghanistan since (Osama) Bin Laden was never caught and the US still dropped troop levels and started to focus on Iraq (which everyone knows had no links to 9/11). If you bring up questions like these you will get an overwhelmingly positive response from most on the left and not get dismissed.
"There are other questions that seem legitimate but probably won't get clear responses since the technical nature of concern makes them sound conspiratorial even though everyone knows they are open questions. "What was the names of all those who carried out the 9/11 attacks?

"Did all the hijackers know it was a suicide mission?

"How exactly did they take over a plane with box cutters?

"How did cellphones work from within one of the airplanes?

"How did the WTC towers fall?

"How much was due to fire and how much to the impact?"

Why are such allegations and questions being given a sudden boost?

Sidney Blumenthal writes on Salon.com: "The Senate's decision last week to launch an investigation into the administration's role in prewar disinformation, after the Democrats forced the issue in a rare secret session, has provoked a furious presidential reaction.
"The Senate Intelligence Committee, under Republican leadership, connived with the White House to prevent a promised investigation into the administration's involvement in prewar intelligence. Its revival by Democrats is precisely the proximate cause that has triggered Bush's paroxysm of revenge."
Richard Cohen, a columnist, writes on New York Daily News (www.nydailynews.com/news/col/story/366489p-311821c.html):
At the moment, no one can have confidence in the Bush administration. Almost three years into the war, the world is not safer, the Middle East is less stable and Americans and others die for a mission that is not what it once was called: A fight for democracy. It would be nice, as well as important, to know how we got into this mess -- nice for us, important for the president. It wasn't that he had the wrong facts. It was that the right ones didn't matter."

Media manipulation

Manipulation of the media's yet another charge against the administration. It has emerged that some of the mainstream newspapers, which were until recently considered as highly credible, are known to have carried misleading reports in the build-up to the war against Iraq and ignoring key questions that any respectable media institutions should have asked and demanded answers.
These reports played a key role in convincing the Americans that there was indeed a case against Iraq. Little did they know that many of the reports originated within the administration and neoconservative camp and were cycled through several channels before ending up with the newspapers.
Additionally, according to www.commondreams.org, the Bush administration was behind "bogus and deceptive" news items.
Says www.commondreams.org: Under Bush administration directives, at least 20 federal agencies have produced and distributed scores, perhaps hundreds, of "video news segments" out of a $254 million slush fund. These bogus and deceptive stories have been broadcast on television stations nationwide without any acknowledgment that they were prepared by the government rather than local journalists. The segments- -- which trumpet Administration "successes" -- promote its controversial line on issues like Medicare reform and feature Americans "thanking" Bush -- have been labelled "covert propaganda" by the Government Accountability Office.

'Rigged' elections?

Then there is the charge that the Republican-led neoconservatives rigged the 2004 presidential elections.
Analysts who closely studied the pattern of voting are questioning how Bush won the election despite trailing in most state and national polls.
They note that he won despite an approval rating of less than 50 per cent, "usually the death knell for an incumbent presidential candidate" (TIA), a poster on DemocraticUnderground.Com).
The posting notes that Bush won despite trailing in the three national exit polls three timelines on election day from 4pmto 12:22am (13,047 respondents) by a steady 48 to 52 per cent, "miraculously winning the final exit poll (with only 613 additional respondents, totaling 13,660)."
TIA, using various elements of the national and state exit polls and other data sources, produces results that are thorough, detailed, sober and compelling. He shows all data and calculations, while encouraging others to check his math. Only once did he make a minor math error, after asking DUers to check his calculation of probability that at least 16 states would deviate beyond their exit poll margin of error and go for Bush. The answer turned out to be one in 19 trillion.
Will Pitt, who has done extensive analysis on election numbers, says "To believe Bush won the election, you must also believe...." and he lists 35 points that are worth serious consideration (organikrecords.com/corporatenewslies/tobelievetrifold.pdf).

Defiant administration

The final picture that emerges is that of an angry American public and a defiant administration influenced by neoconservatives who refuse to acknowledge that they went wrong not only in plotting and executing the war against Iraq but also have taken the American people for granted. They continue to spoon feed information, but people in cyberspace are not willing to buy it.
To a large extent, most Americans are relying more on the Internet for information, commentaries and analysis than the corporate media. No doubt, the arguments cited here have reached millions of Americans and they are demanding answers.
No doubt, there would be more "revelations" in the days and weeks ahead that would add to the questions being raised, piling up pressure on the administration and contributing to the growing fear among the ranks of the neocons that they could be held to account. Indeed, not many of them might stampede, but there is already enough heat in Washington to make them restless and perhaps deprive them of sleep.
Members of Congress from within Bush's Republican camp are also growing increasingly anxious that the present state of affairs does not bode well for the party in next year's mid-term elections to the legislature.
The Republicans also seem to have realised that it is no longer a matter of critics giving vent to their hostility through hard-hitting commentaries in the media or bloggsites. They should know that it is the people of America who are demanding answers to key questions like whether their president lied to them in order to build a case against Iraq and whether similar action is being planned against Syria and Iran if only to serve Israel's interests.
Beset with such crises, the neocons, who have proved that they would stop at nothing to achieve their goal of American domination of the globe among other things (including giving priority to Israeli interests rather those of the US), are more likely to orchestrate an action that they would hope would take American public attention away from the crises in Washington.
However, the questions of the American public could not be waived away. They are here to stay until they are answered, honestly and truthfully, but such answers, as and when offered, would spell doom for the Bush administration.



with inputs from web sources

Attention!!!! Diversion ahead!!!!

THERE IS a widespread belief among American as well as international political observers, commentators and analysts that the hawks in the Bush administration might be tempted to stage a false-flag operation, either in the US or outside, in order to create a diversion of attention from the mounting crises Washington is facing today.
In fact, many are of the opinion that the crises are so serious that they represent a situation graver than that faced by Richard Nixon shortly before his resigned in the wake of the Watergate sandal.
President George W Bush himself and people close to him, including Vice-President Richard Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfled, are putting up a brave front against scathing criticism in the American media and the equally important blogsites. However, reports quoting "sources" in the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon paint a different picture that shows an administration in disarray.
Bush himself has confined access to himself to a handful of people and White House meetings end up without conclusion, according to the reports. The president is said to lose his temper more often than not, he lapses into broodings, forcing his chief of staff Andrew Card to step in and speak up for the president, say the reports, which also suggest that Card himself might resign from his job soon.
It will be an understatement that the Bush administration officials are worried.
Former Cheney associate Lewis Libby has been indicted for perjury in a case that has deep ramifications for the administration's credibility and public confidence in the White House. More indictments are expected. Congress is expected soon to issue a report on whether pre-war intelligence was manipulated to suit the hardliners' quest to wage war against Iraq. The report need not indict the administration (after all Congress is dominated by the Republicans), but those preparing it have to take into consideration the growing voices within the electorate demanding truth and oblige them with a minimum level of credibility.
There seems to be a growing feeling that the neoconservative structure could collpase like a house of cards, bringing down even innocent administration officials. As a result, more "leaks" of what actually took place in the build-up to the war could be expected in the days ahead. These leaks could come from administration bureaucrats who had no choice but to follow orders from up, hoping that they would not be held to account if they volunteered information and thus establish, off-the-record at this point perhaps, that they were not party to planning anything and that they were simply obeying instructions from their bosses.
Definitely, the hawkish neoconservatives, who orchestrated the invasion of Iraq and continued occupation of that country, should be closely watching from the lines. They should be simply dumb not to recognise that things are coming to a head-on clash within the administration and in American political circles and soon it would be time for reckoning.
Members of Congress from within Bush's Republican camp are also growing increasingly restless that the present state of affairs does not bode well for the party in next year's mid-term elections to the legislature.
The Republicans also seem to have realised that it is no longer a matter of critics giving vent to their hostility through hard-hitting commentaries in the media or blogsites. They should know that it is the people of America who are demanding answers to key questions like whether their president lied to them in order to build a case against Iraq and whether similar action is being planned against Syria and Iran if only to serve Israel's interests.
Beset with such crises, the neocons, who have proved that they would stop at nothing to achieve their goal of American domination of the globe among other things (they are accused even of rigging Bush's re-election in some states), are more likely to orchestrate an action that would take American public attention away from the crises in Washington. It could come in the form of a major crisis with Syria or Iran and somewhere else. The neocons' objective will be to create a situation of national emergency that would also provide a platform for the president to reassert that he remains committed to protecting American national security and national interests, whether in terms of domestic policies or external intervention. That is the net conclusion of many seasoned analysts who are familar with the way the neocons function.
For many observers, it is only a question of whether any American agency or clandestine group would be involved in staging the operation, whatever it might be, or the neocons would call upon the services of their protege — or shall we say master — Israel.
Israeli intelligence reports have been suggesting that Lebanon's Hizbollah was being prepared for action against Israel across the border, particularly at the occupied Shebaa Farms area, at the behest of Syria.
On Monday, it was reported that Hizbollah fighters launched an intense bombardment of Israeli positions on the volatile area.
Israel said its forces killed five Hizbollah fighters while Hizbollah's Al Manar television said one person had been killed and two wounded.
The question remained open on Monday whether this flare-up, which occurred on the eve of Lebanon's independence day, would trigger a chain of events leading to a major military escalation that could pose the pretext for any neocon-engineered diversionary action.
Israel could easily argue that it was provoked into expanding the stand-off becasuse of Hizbollah attacks prompted by Syrian pressure. However, it is routine that Hizbollah does something across the border on every Lebanese independence day, and therefore the "advance" intelligence warning implicating Syria could be the just the ruse the Israeli could be seeking.
In the meantime, Syria remains under intense pressure over the UN investigating panel's finding that some top Syrian intelligence officers were involved in February bombing that killed Lebanon's former prime minister Rafiq Hariri in Beirut. Syria is also accused of "not doing enough" to stop the alleged infiltration of insurgents across the Syrian border into Iraq to fight the US-led coalition forces there.
It was reported last month that one of the options entertained by the US hawks was to bomb a few Syrian border villages saying they were sheltering anti-US insurgents bound for Iraq. At that time, the option was reportedly shelved at the behest of Rice, who wanted to give diplomacy and UN sanctions a chance and a little more time to work against Syria.
However, the possibility remains alive that those who proposed the border bombings might prevail this time around, particularly given the gravity of the political crises plaguing Washington.
Also being cooked in Washington is action against Iran in the name of Tehran's nuclear programmes. Many fear that Israel, for whom it is unacceptable that anyone in the Middle Eastern neighbourhood going nuclear, whether for peaceful purposes or otherwise, might carry out an attack against Iran's nuclear installations. Such an operation has to be major since, according to experts, it would take more than 300 substained bombings to deprive Iran of the ability to resume its nuclear work.
If that happens, it is a sure bet that Iran would hit back but the targets would be the American forces across the border in Iraq as well as Afghanistan who are sitting ducks for Iran's short- and medium-range missiles.
It is anyone's guess what could happen as and when Iran retaliates against the American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.
These are hypotheses and what could actually happen could be anything anywhere. The only certainty is that the neocons, who, by definition and nature, refuse to accept that their policies have been going wrong for American interests, will opt for a false-flag operation sooner than later.

Ex-insiders speak out, It ain't flattering

PV Vivekanand

PEOPLE who once served the administration of George W Bush Junior have started talking, strengthening the argument of critics that something is seriously wrong in American policy-making and implementation, and things are going wholesale wrong in Washington.
That revelation is not exactly new to us in the Middle East, but the significance here is that the American people are being told by former American officials — rather than officials and media from the Arab and Muslim world (supposedly having an anti-US with an agenda) — that their country is being steered in the wrong direction that would take them nowhere but to a major catastrophe.
We know that things had been and are going wrong in Washington. Otherwise, we would not have seen the world's sole superpower being led by the nose by Israel and its powerful lobbyists in Washington. We would not have seen the US government building a false case for war and invading and occupying Iraq based on falsified intelligence reports and baseless justifications.
Effectively, the Bush administration is telling the international community that the US is determined to implement an agenda for global domination based on its military might.
It matters the least whether the world, including the people of the United States, likes it or otherwise.
Isn't it enough that it was people close to the US vice president and indeed the national security adviser himself who (allegedly) exposed an undercover Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative if only to punish her husband for daring to question the administration's deception in setting the ground for the war against Iraq?
Well, that shows the one-track mind of the neoconservatives in Washington who would stop at nothing while pursuing their extremist agenda.
The neoconservatives are a group of hard-liners who believe that the US should become the new Roman empire because they think the US has the military clout to do so and the rest of the world should pledge allegiance to it. Those who refuse to stand aside for the US need to be eliminated, they argue.
That is bad news indeed. But the worst is that the neoconservatives themselves appear to owe allegiance to Israel rather than the US.
Now, people who served with the Bush administration during the first term and some who left mid-way have begun to speak out, among them former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, who says that he had advised the president that an American occupation of Iraq would be politically and militarily untenable.
Beyond that, however, was Scowcroft's firm opposition to the neoconservatives' wheeling and dealings in Washington.
The neoconservatives believe in the export of democracy, by violence if that is required, Scowcroft said in a recent interview with the New Yorker.. "How do the neocons bring democracy to Iraq? You invade, you threaten and pressure, you evangelise." And now, Scowcroft said, the US is suffering from the consequences of what he calls "that brand of revolutionary utopianism. "This was said to be part of the war on terror, but Iraq feeds terrorism," he said.
Notably, Scowcroft spoke the same thing even before the war.
In August of 2002, seven months before the US invaded Iraq, Scowcroft upset wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. under the headline "Don't attack Saddam."
He argued that an invasion of Iraq would deflect American attention from the war on terrorism, and that it would do nothing to solve the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, which he has long believed is the primary source of unhappiness in the Middle East.
The reason Scowcroft opted for the media as a platform to express his idea was also clear: There was no one in the White House who was in a mood to listen to him. They were so much engrossed in preparing for war that they could not even stand anyone advising against it.
Unlike the current Bush administration, which is unambiguously pro-Israel, Scowcroft, James Baker, and others associated of George Bush Senior — the 41st president of the US — believe that Israel's settlement policies provoke Arab anger, and that American foreign policy should reflect the fact that there are far more Arabs than Israelis in the world.
Scowcroft had always warned that President Bush was getting too close to Israel .
In October 2004, he said in an interview with London's Financial Times that the Bush administration was "mesmerised" by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
"Sharon just has him (Bush) wrapped around his little finger," Scowcroft said. "I think the president is mesmerised."
"When there is a suicide attack (followed by a reprisal) Sharon calls the president and says, 'I'm on the front line of terrorism', and the president says, 'Yes, you are...' He (Sharon)) has been nothing but trouble," Scowcroft told the Financial Times.

'Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal'

Another former administration official who has spoken out is Lawrence Wilkerson, who served Collin Powell as his chief of staff at the State Department from 2001 to early 2005.
Wilkerson pins the blame on Vice-President Richard Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
According to Wilkerson, the Bush administration's foreign policy had been hijacked by the "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal."
"What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made," he said.
According to Wilkerson, as a result of the "cabal's" actions, Bush has exposed the US to more dangers and more vulnerable, not less, to future crises than the case was when he entered the White House in January 2001.
Wilkerson has also disclosed that the administration was beset by secrecy, arrogance and internal feuding.
The net result was a weakened government unable to handle serious crises.
"I would say that we have courted disaster, in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran, generally with regard to domestic crises like Katrina, Rita - and I could go on back," he said. "We haven't done very well on anything like that in a long time."