'Inad Khairallah
THE "second liberation of Baghdad" — that is what seems to be happening in the Iraqi capital, with American soldiers and Shiite militiamen who have joined government security forces carrying out what is intended to be elimination of not only jihadist insurgents but also others deemed sympathetic to the insurgency, mainly from the Sunni community.
The term "second liberation of Baghdad" was coined by the US military and cited in a recent report appearing in London's Sunday Times.
"The battle for Baghdad is expected to entail a 'carrot-and-stick' approach, offering the beleaguered population protection from sectarian violence in exchange for rooting out insurgent groups and Al Qaeda," said the report filed by Sarah Baxter from Washington.
The paper quoted sources as saying Iraqi forces would take the lead in the operation, supported by American air power, special operations, intelligence, embedded officers and back-up troops.
While the Sunday Times report said the "second liberation" was to come after a new government was installed in Baghdad, reports from the ground in the Iraqi capital indicate that the operation could be already under way.
News agencies have reported that "insurgents" were mounting attacks on Iraqi security forces in the Adhamiya neighbourhood of Baghdad and this had led to open street battles. Most of these reported quoted US military statements as their sources.
A news agency reported on Tuesday: "A US military spokesman said 50 insurgents attacked Iraqi forces in a seven-hour battle early on
Tuesday that killed five rebels and wounded an Iraqi soldier.
"Fighting was so fierce that US reinforcements were brought in to the northern district, home to some of Iraq's most hard-core Sunni guerrillas and the Abu Hanifa mosque, near where Saddam Hussein was last seen in public before going into hiding."
The report quoted masked Sunni Arab insurgents as saying that they were gearing up for "another open street battle with pro-government Shiite militiamen."
Dahr Jamail, an independent journalist who writes exclusive reports for web sites, provided a clearer picture of what is actually happening, and his version shows that the operation is undertaken jointly by the US military and Iraqi security forces — Shiite militiamen of the Badr Brigade who dominate the ministry of interior fighting force as well as members of the Mahdi Army of firebrand Shiite leader Motqada Sadr.
It is not a matter of "insurgents" attacking government security forces, according to Jamail, but a concerted campaign of assault mounted by Shiite militiamen in the Sunni area and supported by American soldiers.
In an article appearing on truthout.com, Jamail, who writes that there had been clashes every day for four days leading to Monday night's huge clash in the Adhamiya district of Baghdad.
Jamail quotes his sources in Baghdad as saying that fighters from the Badr Brigade and Sadr's Mehdi Army have been launching ongoing attacks against Sunnis in Adhamiya and the local residents were resisting the assaults.
According to the sources, residents of Adhamiya close access roads every night with tyres, trunks of date palm trees, and other objects to prevent "kidnappers and Shiite death squads" from entering the area.
Monday night's attack was "different from the other nights in quantity and quality; it was truly like the hell which I haven't seen even in the battles of the war between Iraq and Iran during the eighties," says the source.
Those mounting the attack wore uniforms representing special forces from the ministry of interior, the account said.
"When the uniformed forces entered the neighbourhood, the National Guards that are usually patrolling the streets left," Jamail quotes a resident as saying. "Young armed men from the neighbourhood fought side by side with mujahedeen against the attacking forces to protect Al Adhamiya. Several residents have been killed in the streets, but there are currently no figures available. US troops also entered the neighbourhood At first, they only stood by and watched; later on they, too, fired at the locals, who tried to repel the attacks. Later in the day, rumours circulated that another fierce attack of Al Adhamiya is planned on Wednesday, but … couldn't confirm this information."
The US military would only say that "gunmen clashed with residents in Baghdad's Adhamiya district."
The area remained sealed off on Wednesday.
Western reporters speculated on Wednesday that the resistance put up by Adhamiya residents against the militiamen — who are nicknamed "death squads" because they kidnap, torture and murder Sunnis — was an indication of their growing support for the insurgency.
Few reporters seem to bother to consider that the residents of the area are fighting for their life. The intruders' goal is clear: They want to kidnap prominent Sunnis from the area and murder them and dump their bodies somewhere. Therefore, it is natural that the Sunnis would put up the toughest of resistance.
At the same time, the reported role of the US military in the assault, if proved accurate, suggests that it could indeed be part of the "second liberation" of Baghdad.
The Sunday Times quotes Daniel Gouré, a Pentagon adviser and vice-president of the Lexington Institute, a military think tank, as referring to the formation of a new Iraqi government as a “second liberation of Baghdad,”
“The new government will be able to claim it is taking back the streets," he says.
According to the Sunday Times report, US and Iraqi forces will be moving from one neighbourhood to the other, leaving behind Sweat teams — "sewage, water, electricity and trash” — to work on upgrading clinics, schools, rubbish collection, water and electricity supplies.
The first target for the campaign will be what the US military describes as Sunni insurgent strongholds — Al Adhamiya could now be qualified to be described as such — moving later on to the Shiite armed groups, including Sadr's Mahdi Army and Badr Brigade.
The contradiction here is the reported alliance involving the US military, the Sadr forces and the Badr Brigade.
One thing is clear: The US military cannot afford to have the Mahdi Army and Badr Brigade running amok in Baghdad or anywhere else in Iraq. They have a record of targeting Sunnis and, given Washington's avowed concern to restore "national unity" to Iraq, the US military could not be seen as supporting the groups in assaults against the Sunnis.
At the same time, it is indeed a priority of the US to show that the American force in Iraq is in control and this requires a massive "house-to-house and area-to-area" cleansing. The US military does not have even a quarter of the number of soldiers required for an efficient and effective "cleansing" present in Iraq.
Perhaps, the US strategy is to let the Shiite forces take the lead and offer support for them from the periphery before turning against the Shiites themselves.
Well, by then, however, the US military would find out that they have created a monster whom they could not fight no matter how many rounds of "liberation" they are willing to undertake, whether in Baghdad or other towns of post-war Iraq
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
April 26 Israel's game
'Inad Khairallah
ISRAEL and its supporters want the US to wage war in order to serve Israeli interests and help advance the Jewish state's quest for regional supremacy and expansionism, but they do not want the US government to state it publicly because it could damage Israel's "strategic relationship" with the US.
There is no longer any ambiguity over the reality that one of the key reasons that the US invaded and occupied Iraq was to eliminate the Saddam Hussein regime as a potential threat to the Jewish state and to advance Israel's strategic objectives in the region. Similarly, any action that the US might take against Iran would also have a strong Israeli element.
As reports from Washington indicate, the pro-Israeli camp, many of whose members are leaders of the neoconservative movement, has been beating the drums of war against Iran despite reservations voiced by military strategists who fear a fierce backlash, directly or indirectly or both, if the US were to launch military strikes against Iran.
The American society at large could not but be aware that more than 2,300 American soldiers have died and more than 18,000 others have been crippled — most of them rendered invalid for life — in the Iraq war.
That awareness, coupled with the realisation that the Iraq war was waged in the name of non-existent threats to American national security, is fuelling American public anger and raising serious questions about why the US had to wage war against Iraq.
Simply put, there are increasing voices in the US that the invasion of Iraq was an Israeli war fought by the US military and that the Bush administration is being prodded into taking military action against Iran by the pro-Israeli camp.
It is almost certain that the backlash from military strikes against Iran would be in terms of American lives as well as oil prices (imagine $6 a gallon of petrol at fuel stations in the US). On both counts, the American public would react forcefully, and one of the targets would be the American-Israeli relationship.
Obviously, Israel and its powerful lobby in the US know that the relationship would not stand public scrutiny. Their best option is to avoid focus on the reality that Washington's approach to the Middle East is aimed at serving Israeli interests more than that of the US itself. The more the awareness of the truth the greater the opposition to the almost unlimited political, military, financial and diplomatic support that the US extends to Israel, and this could have serious, long-term implications for the dominating influence the pro-Israeli lobby exercises in the corridors of power politics in Washington.
Israel and its supporters fear a popular backlash at the Bush administration first and then at the "strategic relationship" between the US and Israel if President George Bush were to cite Israel as his top rationale for possible US military conflict with Iran and other moves in the region.
Instead of playing down the Israeli link but going ahead with considering military options anyway, Bush, by oversight, design or coincidence, has been repeatedly mentioning that Iran's nuclear programme was a threat primarily to Israel rather than international stability.
Indeed, Bush seemed to have been prompted into referring to the Israeli link by the rhetoric coming from Iranian President Ahmedinejad, who has said that Israel should be "wiped off the map" and described the Holocaust as a myth.
“Now that I’m on Iran … the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel," Bush told a recent gathering in Cleveland. "It’s a threat to world peace; it’s a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I’ll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel.”
Among the first to take note of the "danger and risk" inherent in the Bush administration's proclamations was Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations. “The linkage to Israel is not a good idea, because then the Iranians say, you see, it’s the Zionists driving this," he said. “As much as we appreciate it, the question is whether it’s beneficial to tie this to Israel” (www.thejewishweek.com).
The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations functions as the Jewish community’s official umbrella group in the US for speaking out on foreign policy issues.
Indeed, the Jewish lobby in Washington has already been rattled.
A study published by two respected academicians and analysts, John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, has triggered a new debate on the US-Israeli relationship.
The study states that the "Israel Lobby" has exerted such a disproportionate influence that it has consistently steered the US away from pursuing its national interest. The study cites specific evidence of the lobby's influence on US policymakers. It also highlights how the lobby pre-empts any free and open discussion on US-Israel relations by attaching an "anti-Semitic" label on anyone who dares question the relationship.
While the authors have come under bitter attack from the pro-Israeli camp, the point they made has not been lost on many Americans, particularly that the US has placed Israel's interests above its own and that the Bush administration led the country into a disastrous misadventure in Iraq and made itself the object of Arab and Muslim anger and the target of terrorism.
They affirm that there is no practical, moral or strategic ground to justify the support that the US is extending to Israel.
Add to that the more than $300 billion that the US has spent on the various fronts of its self-proclaimed war against terror which includes the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. It is estimated that every American child and adult has spent $1,250 (tax payments not included) in the war against terror that was launched after the Sept.11, 2001 attacks.
Even the Israeli media are playing down the Bush administration's pointed reference to the Israeli link in the confrontation with Iran over Tehran's nuclear programmes. They must indeed be aware that it is counter-productive to US-Israeli relations even in the short term.
One of the measures adopted by the pro-Israelis in the US to fight off the damaging argument is to declare that the US has to strike at Iran in order to pre-empt Israeli action against the Iranians. That is propagated by Vice-President Dick Cheney.
“One of the concerns people have is that Israel might (attack Iran) without being asked,” said Cheney in February 2005, “that if, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.”
However, whatever way the cookie crumbles, the US-Israeli relationship could be facing the worse mess ever in the aftermath of American military action against Iran, that could present the best opportunity yet for the Arab and Muslim world to correct their media-distorted picture with the people of the United States.
ISRAEL and its supporters want the US to wage war in order to serve Israeli interests and help advance the Jewish state's quest for regional supremacy and expansionism, but they do not want the US government to state it publicly because it could damage Israel's "strategic relationship" with the US.
There is no longer any ambiguity over the reality that one of the key reasons that the US invaded and occupied Iraq was to eliminate the Saddam Hussein regime as a potential threat to the Jewish state and to advance Israel's strategic objectives in the region. Similarly, any action that the US might take against Iran would also have a strong Israeli element.
As reports from Washington indicate, the pro-Israeli camp, many of whose members are leaders of the neoconservative movement, has been beating the drums of war against Iran despite reservations voiced by military strategists who fear a fierce backlash, directly or indirectly or both, if the US were to launch military strikes against Iran.
The American society at large could not but be aware that more than 2,300 American soldiers have died and more than 18,000 others have been crippled — most of them rendered invalid for life — in the Iraq war.
That awareness, coupled with the realisation that the Iraq war was waged in the name of non-existent threats to American national security, is fuelling American public anger and raising serious questions about why the US had to wage war against Iraq.
Simply put, there are increasing voices in the US that the invasion of Iraq was an Israeli war fought by the US military and that the Bush administration is being prodded into taking military action against Iran by the pro-Israeli camp.
It is almost certain that the backlash from military strikes against Iran would be in terms of American lives as well as oil prices (imagine $6 a gallon of petrol at fuel stations in the US). On both counts, the American public would react forcefully, and one of the targets would be the American-Israeli relationship.
Obviously, Israel and its powerful lobby in the US know that the relationship would not stand public scrutiny. Their best option is to avoid focus on the reality that Washington's approach to the Middle East is aimed at serving Israeli interests more than that of the US itself. The more the awareness of the truth the greater the opposition to the almost unlimited political, military, financial and diplomatic support that the US extends to Israel, and this could have serious, long-term implications for the dominating influence the pro-Israeli lobby exercises in the corridors of power politics in Washington.
Israel and its supporters fear a popular backlash at the Bush administration first and then at the "strategic relationship" between the US and Israel if President George Bush were to cite Israel as his top rationale for possible US military conflict with Iran and other moves in the region.
Instead of playing down the Israeli link but going ahead with considering military options anyway, Bush, by oversight, design or coincidence, has been repeatedly mentioning that Iran's nuclear programme was a threat primarily to Israel rather than international stability.
Indeed, Bush seemed to have been prompted into referring to the Israeli link by the rhetoric coming from Iranian President Ahmedinejad, who has said that Israel should be "wiped off the map" and described the Holocaust as a myth.
“Now that I’m on Iran … the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel," Bush told a recent gathering in Cleveland. "It’s a threat to world peace; it’s a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I’ll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel.”
Among the first to take note of the "danger and risk" inherent in the Bush administration's proclamations was Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations. “The linkage to Israel is not a good idea, because then the Iranians say, you see, it’s the Zionists driving this," he said. “As much as we appreciate it, the question is whether it’s beneficial to tie this to Israel” (www.thejewishweek.com).
The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations functions as the Jewish community’s official umbrella group in the US for speaking out on foreign policy issues.
Indeed, the Jewish lobby in Washington has already been rattled.
A study published by two respected academicians and analysts, John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, has triggered a new debate on the US-Israeli relationship.
The study states that the "Israel Lobby" has exerted such a disproportionate influence that it has consistently steered the US away from pursuing its national interest. The study cites specific evidence of the lobby's influence on US policymakers. It also highlights how the lobby pre-empts any free and open discussion on US-Israel relations by attaching an "anti-Semitic" label on anyone who dares question the relationship.
While the authors have come under bitter attack from the pro-Israeli camp, the point they made has not been lost on many Americans, particularly that the US has placed Israel's interests above its own and that the Bush administration led the country into a disastrous misadventure in Iraq and made itself the object of Arab and Muslim anger and the target of terrorism.
They affirm that there is no practical, moral or strategic ground to justify the support that the US is extending to Israel.
Add to that the more than $300 billion that the US has spent on the various fronts of its self-proclaimed war against terror which includes the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. It is estimated that every American child and adult has spent $1,250 (tax payments not included) in the war against terror that was launched after the Sept.11, 2001 attacks.
Even the Israeli media are playing down the Bush administration's pointed reference to the Israeli link in the confrontation with Iran over Tehran's nuclear programmes. They must indeed be aware that it is counter-productive to US-Israeli relations even in the short term.
One of the measures adopted by the pro-Israelis in the US to fight off the damaging argument is to declare that the US has to strike at Iran in order to pre-empt Israeli action against the Iranians. That is propagated by Vice-President Dick Cheney.
“One of the concerns people have is that Israel might (attack Iran) without being asked,” said Cheney in February 2005, “that if, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.”
However, whatever way the cookie crumbles, the US-Israeli relationship could be facing the worse mess ever in the aftermath of American military action against Iran, that could present the best opportunity yet for the Arab and Muslim world to correct their media-distorted picture with the people of the United States.
April 17 Ball in US court
The ball is in Washington
EVERYONE in Palestine is issuing warning and threats. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has publicly warned the Hamas group that he has the authority to bring down their government and urged it to renounce armed resistance, recognise Israel and accept the agreements that the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) has signed with the Jewish state so that he could seek to relaunch peace talks.
Hamas responded that it would "not leave in silence" and that it reserved the option to call off a truce with Israel that Abbas brokered in February 2005. The group also warned that it would not "recognise "the Palestinian political regime," and would not participate in any new election.
On its part, Israel has warned that it would step up military action against Palestinians firing rockets at Israeli towns from across the Gaza border. It said it could not be bothered with any Hamas talk about the February 2005 truce because, as Israeli officials claimed, the group did not recognise it in the first place. That was indeed sidestepping the truth that Hamas has largely respected the truce and has not involved itself in any suicide bombings since February last year.
Each party involved in the round of warnings and threats has own considerations.
Abbas is frustrated that Hamas is continuing to hold out against meeting the minimum requirements for resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiation (not that there is any guarantee that the exercise would produce results that would be positive for the Palestinians). He is also worried that the cash crisis facing the PNA is creating more and more resentment and anger among the Palestinian people and this could lead to breeding more radicalism in the occupied territories.
Hamas is speaking from a position of strength. It believes that the impressive victory it secured in the January elections has made it the legitimate representative of a majority of the Palestinian people as opposed to Abbas's Fatah or even the broader Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).
Israel also believes it is speaking from a position of strength. Hamas continuing in power suits Israel's short-term interests because Israel could plead to the world that it does not have a negotiating partner for peace and press ahead with its unilateral plans to set its "final borders" without Palestinian involvement.
In the meantime, Israel could always retaliate for rocket attacks by lobbing missiles at Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. It is not concerned whether the attacks kill Palestinian civilians since it could always cite self-defence for any action it undertakes.
Against these ground realities, the only course of events is towards a worsening of the situation, and the only party which could make a difference is the US. We could only hope that Washington strategists realise that it would be against US interests if the Middle East region slips further into instability and act before it is too late to correct their approach to the region.
EVERYONE in Palestine is issuing warning and threats. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has publicly warned the Hamas group that he has the authority to bring down their government and urged it to renounce armed resistance, recognise Israel and accept the agreements that the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) has signed with the Jewish state so that he could seek to relaunch peace talks.
Hamas responded that it would "not leave in silence" and that it reserved the option to call off a truce with Israel that Abbas brokered in February 2005. The group also warned that it would not "recognise "the Palestinian political regime," and would not participate in any new election.
On its part, Israel has warned that it would step up military action against Palestinians firing rockets at Israeli towns from across the Gaza border. It said it could not be bothered with any Hamas talk about the February 2005 truce because, as Israeli officials claimed, the group did not recognise it in the first place. That was indeed sidestepping the truth that Hamas has largely respected the truce and has not involved itself in any suicide bombings since February last year.
Each party involved in the round of warnings and threats has own considerations.
Abbas is frustrated that Hamas is continuing to hold out against meeting the minimum requirements for resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiation (not that there is any guarantee that the exercise would produce results that would be positive for the Palestinians). He is also worried that the cash crisis facing the PNA is creating more and more resentment and anger among the Palestinian people and this could lead to breeding more radicalism in the occupied territories.
Hamas is speaking from a position of strength. It believes that the impressive victory it secured in the January elections has made it the legitimate representative of a majority of the Palestinian people as opposed to Abbas's Fatah or even the broader Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).
Israel also believes it is speaking from a position of strength. Hamas continuing in power suits Israel's short-term interests because Israel could plead to the world that it does not have a negotiating partner for peace and press ahead with its unilateral plans to set its "final borders" without Palestinian involvement.
In the meantime, Israel could always retaliate for rocket attacks by lobbing missiles at Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. It is not concerned whether the attacks kill Palestinian civilians since it could always cite self-defence for any action it undertakes.
Against these ground realities, the only course of events is towards a worsening of the situation, and the only party which could make a difference is the US. We could only hope that Washington strategists realise that it would be against US interests if the Middle East region slips further into instability and act before it is too late to correct their approach to the region.
April 15 Afghan crisis
Firing under pressure
THE DEATH of Afghan civilians and policemen in operations carried out by the US military in the countryside — some of them in "friendly fire" incidents — highlight a new dimension to American activities in Afghanistan. There seems to be a frenzy for the US military to prove to show results of their operations in the country as the Pentagon has come under bitter criticism, with demands mounting for the resignation of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld has drawn fire for what his critics see as major shortcoming in planning the wars against Afghanistan as well as Iraq. In both cases, the US is far from realising its strategic and military goals , and it does not look like it would get any closer to the objectives in the short term.
In Afghanistan, the US military is combing areas near the border with Pakistan hunting for Al Qaeda guerrillas and allied Taliban fighters who melted away into the countryside by the time American soldiers could claim having taken over the country in late 2001. Strategic prizes of the invasion, Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar, eluded the wide American net along with close lieutenants.
Now they seem to be staging a comeback, with the frequency of their operations increasing every day in a deadly catch-me-if-you-can game.
In response, up to 2,500 US, British and Afghan forces last week launched Operation Mountain Lion aimed at flushing out Taleban-led militants assumed to be behind the recent upsurge in attacks. It is described as s the biggest joint operation since the Taleban were driven from power in 2001.
As the coalition forces battle it out in Afghanistan, the US is also finding itself getting more and more dragged into the crisis in Iraq, which is showing no signs of being contained. If anything, it is worsening and reports clearly indicate that it is all but a civil conflict in name in the beleaguered country, as military experts and analysts argue.
On Friday, according to reports, "friendly fire" killed six Afghan policemen in southern Kandahar province during a battle between US soldiers and militants.
On Saturday, seven civilians died during a battle with insurgents in the eastern province of Kunar when US airplanes and artillery carried out a blanket bombing of a militant-infected area.
Both incidents are under investigation. The details of who fired what, how and when are expected to be uncovered by the time the inquiries are over. What might not be made known to the public would be the fact that so much pressure was brought to bear upon the American commanders and soldiers that they were prompted into firing first and asking questions later because they had to produce physical results of their operations in Afghanistan. The pressure would only get more intense in the days and weeks ahead as Washington seeks to counter mounting criticism, and that would mean stepped-up search-and-kill operations that would inevitably lead to more "friendly fire" incidents and civilian deaths.
THE DEATH of Afghan civilians and policemen in operations carried out by the US military in the countryside — some of them in "friendly fire" incidents — highlight a new dimension to American activities in Afghanistan. There seems to be a frenzy for the US military to prove to show results of their operations in the country as the Pentagon has come under bitter criticism, with demands mounting for the resignation of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld has drawn fire for what his critics see as major shortcoming in planning the wars against Afghanistan as well as Iraq. In both cases, the US is far from realising its strategic and military goals , and it does not look like it would get any closer to the objectives in the short term.
In Afghanistan, the US military is combing areas near the border with Pakistan hunting for Al Qaeda guerrillas and allied Taliban fighters who melted away into the countryside by the time American soldiers could claim having taken over the country in late 2001. Strategic prizes of the invasion, Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar, eluded the wide American net along with close lieutenants.
Now they seem to be staging a comeback, with the frequency of their operations increasing every day in a deadly catch-me-if-you-can game.
In response, up to 2,500 US, British and Afghan forces last week launched Operation Mountain Lion aimed at flushing out Taleban-led militants assumed to be behind the recent upsurge in attacks. It is described as s the biggest joint operation since the Taleban were driven from power in 2001.
As the coalition forces battle it out in Afghanistan, the US is also finding itself getting more and more dragged into the crisis in Iraq, which is showing no signs of being contained. If anything, it is worsening and reports clearly indicate that it is all but a civil conflict in name in the beleaguered country, as military experts and analysts argue.
On Friday, according to reports, "friendly fire" killed six Afghan policemen in southern Kandahar province during a battle between US soldiers and militants.
On Saturday, seven civilians died during a battle with insurgents in the eastern province of Kunar when US airplanes and artillery carried out a blanket bombing of a militant-infected area.
Both incidents are under investigation. The details of who fired what, how and when are expected to be uncovered by the time the inquiries are over. What might not be made known to the public would be the fact that so much pressure was brought to bear upon the American commanders and soldiers that they were prompted into firing first and asking questions later because they had to produce physical results of their operations in Afghanistan. The pressure would only get more intense in the days and weeks ahead as Washington seeks to counter mounting criticism, and that would mean stepped-up search-and-kill operations that would inevitably lead to more "friendly fire" incidents and civilian deaths.
Iraq militias a big US headache
Inad Khairallah
THE biggest challenge facing the US in Iraq today is how to dismantle the militia network that exists within the beleaguered country's security forces.
It might indeed be too late, for the militiamen have dug too deep into to the system to be rooted out. They represent the majority Shiite community and most of them belong to the Badr Brigade, the military arm of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). The brigade was supposed to have been dismantled and incorporated into post-war Iraq's security forces. Indeed, they have been incorporated into the security system, but not dismantled. They continue to take orders from the commander of the Badr Brigade. They dominate the interior ministry, and are said to be behind the daily abductions and killings of Sunnis.
Many see it as the Shiite way of exacting revenge from the Sunnis for the decades of oppression they suffered under the Saddam Hussein regime. Eliminating leading members of the Sunni community also serves the purpose depriving the sect of an effective voice in the country's politics.
Wearing interior ministry uniforms, they storm Sunni homes and take away men, whose bodies turn up somewhere the next day with clear signs that they were tortured before being killed.
The US military is unable to check the militiamen, for they represent the authority of the state.
Short of an open confrontation, the US military has no option to address the worsening situation, and taking on the Shiites is the last thing that Washington wants to do at this point in time.
The interior minister argues that the regular ministry force has nothing to do with the abductions and killings and blames "rogue" gunmen for the violence. The US military has no means to challenge the assertion. But both sides know it is a lie and that the other knows it to be so.
The situation is all the more alarming since the militiamen are headed by pro-Iranians, and this constrains the US options while dealing with Iran in the wider regional scene.
A US Defence Department report drawn up in February conceded that the security forces "may be more loyal to their political support organisation than to the central Iraqi government."
Apart from the Badr militiamen, the two other major armed groups in the country are Moqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Kurdish Peshmerga.
Sadr's militiamen are in charge of security in and around the sprawling slums of Sadr City in Baghdad. They are also present in many parts of southern Iraq, including Najaf where they are in charge of protecting the senior-most Shiite leader in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani.
Moqtada Sadr, who is calling for an end to the US military presence in Iraq, is also a staunch pro-Iranian, but he is at odds with the SCIRI leadership.
Paul Bremer, who headed the US administration of Iraq shortly after the fall of Baghdad in 2003, had sensed the danger inherent in the militias. He had ordered the dismantling of all militias in the country and offered them an option of joining the post-war army.
However, caught in the middle of the security and political chaos that followed the invasion of Iraq, Bremer was unable to enforce the order, and today the US is facing an impossible situation.
It was yet another monumental mistake that the US committed in Iraq after the disbanding of the Sunni-dominated Iraqi army. Many former army soldiers are now believed to be actively engaged in the raging insurgency there. They have formed their own area units in order to protect the community from the Shiite militiamen.
Caught in the middle of the confrontation are ordinary Iraqis, both Shiites and Sunnis.
Thousands of families have been displaced from their villages. They had no choice to pack whatever belongings they had and leave their ancestral homes in the face of ultimatums served by local militiamen.
The displacement poses a major humanitarian crisis for the community as well as the government and voluntary relief agencies.
Many of the displaced are now housed in mosques in Baghdad and the capital's outskirts, and they live in a perpetual fear of being targeted for attack despite the sanctity of the mosque they live in.
The US strategists are now pinning hopes that a proposed joint committee made up of top officials from the interior ministry (headed by a Shiite) and the defence ministry (led by a Sunni) could be mandated with reining in the militiamen.
However, it would seem to be a pipedream because there is no compelling reason for anyone to sign on to the proposal.
Simply put, the majority Shiites are basking in their newfound domination of the Iraqi society and they would not be dissuaded by the US military or any other force except their political leadership.
The Sunnis are feeling the heat and they are determined to put up as much resistance as possible against efforts to impose fait accomplis on them. They may or may not accept American assurance of good faith, but they know that they could not expect the US military to protect them from the marauding militiamen.
The American hope of restoring order in Baghdad is pinned on formation of a government after months of political haggling following elections in December. However, there is no guarantee that the new government would be able to create enough confidence among Iraqis in the midst of continued abductions and killings.
Some suggest that a civil war is already under way. Others believe the worse is yet to come, and predict a disintegration of the country. Yet some others are convinced that Iraq could be put back on its feet if the US plays its cards right with its Iraqi and regional allies.
On the ground, however, the US faces the formidable task of removing the militiamen from the scene if it were to hope for pacifying the Sunnis. In the meantime, the country is slipping deeper and deeper into an abyss.
THE biggest challenge facing the US in Iraq today is how to dismantle the militia network that exists within the beleaguered country's security forces.
It might indeed be too late, for the militiamen have dug too deep into to the system to be rooted out. They represent the majority Shiite community and most of them belong to the Badr Brigade, the military arm of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). The brigade was supposed to have been dismantled and incorporated into post-war Iraq's security forces. Indeed, they have been incorporated into the security system, but not dismantled. They continue to take orders from the commander of the Badr Brigade. They dominate the interior ministry, and are said to be behind the daily abductions and killings of Sunnis.
Many see it as the Shiite way of exacting revenge from the Sunnis for the decades of oppression they suffered under the Saddam Hussein regime. Eliminating leading members of the Sunni community also serves the purpose depriving the sect of an effective voice in the country's politics.
Wearing interior ministry uniforms, they storm Sunni homes and take away men, whose bodies turn up somewhere the next day with clear signs that they were tortured before being killed.
The US military is unable to check the militiamen, for they represent the authority of the state.
Short of an open confrontation, the US military has no option to address the worsening situation, and taking on the Shiites is the last thing that Washington wants to do at this point in time.
The interior minister argues that the regular ministry force has nothing to do with the abductions and killings and blames "rogue" gunmen for the violence. The US military has no means to challenge the assertion. But both sides know it is a lie and that the other knows it to be so.
The situation is all the more alarming since the militiamen are headed by pro-Iranians, and this constrains the US options while dealing with Iran in the wider regional scene.
A US Defence Department report drawn up in February conceded that the security forces "may be more loyal to their political support organisation than to the central Iraqi government."
Apart from the Badr militiamen, the two other major armed groups in the country are Moqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Kurdish Peshmerga.
Sadr's militiamen are in charge of security in and around the sprawling slums of Sadr City in Baghdad. They are also present in many parts of southern Iraq, including Najaf where they are in charge of protecting the senior-most Shiite leader in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani.
Moqtada Sadr, who is calling for an end to the US military presence in Iraq, is also a staunch pro-Iranian, but he is at odds with the SCIRI leadership.
Paul Bremer, who headed the US administration of Iraq shortly after the fall of Baghdad in 2003, had sensed the danger inherent in the militias. He had ordered the dismantling of all militias in the country and offered them an option of joining the post-war army.
However, caught in the middle of the security and political chaos that followed the invasion of Iraq, Bremer was unable to enforce the order, and today the US is facing an impossible situation.
It was yet another monumental mistake that the US committed in Iraq after the disbanding of the Sunni-dominated Iraqi army. Many former army soldiers are now believed to be actively engaged in the raging insurgency there. They have formed their own area units in order to protect the community from the Shiite militiamen.
Caught in the middle of the confrontation are ordinary Iraqis, both Shiites and Sunnis.
Thousands of families have been displaced from their villages. They had no choice to pack whatever belongings they had and leave their ancestral homes in the face of ultimatums served by local militiamen.
The displacement poses a major humanitarian crisis for the community as well as the government and voluntary relief agencies.
Many of the displaced are now housed in mosques in Baghdad and the capital's outskirts, and they live in a perpetual fear of being targeted for attack despite the sanctity of the mosque they live in.
The US strategists are now pinning hopes that a proposed joint committee made up of top officials from the interior ministry (headed by a Shiite) and the defence ministry (led by a Sunni) could be mandated with reining in the militiamen.
However, it would seem to be a pipedream because there is no compelling reason for anyone to sign on to the proposal.
Simply put, the majority Shiites are basking in their newfound domination of the Iraqi society and they would not be dissuaded by the US military or any other force except their political leadership.
The Sunnis are feeling the heat and they are determined to put up as much resistance as possible against efforts to impose fait accomplis on them. They may or may not accept American assurance of good faith, but they know that they could not expect the US military to protect them from the marauding militiamen.
The American hope of restoring order in Baghdad is pinned on formation of a government after months of political haggling following elections in December. However, there is no guarantee that the new government would be able to create enough confidence among Iraqis in the midst of continued abductions and killings.
Some suggest that a civil war is already under way. Others believe the worse is yet to come, and predict a disintegration of the country. Yet some others are convinced that Iraq could be put back on its feet if the US plays its cards right with its Iraqi and regional allies.
On the ground, however, the US faces the formidable task of removing the militiamen from the scene if it were to hope for pacifying the Sunnis. In the meantime, the country is slipping deeper and deeper into an abyss.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
US-Libya ties under threat
FAMILIES of 13 of the 20 people killed during an attempted hijacking of an American plane in Karachi, Pakistan in 1986 has filed a $10 billion case against Libya at a court in Washington, and this could have serious impact on Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi's efforts to rehabilitate himself and become a staunch ally of the US.
The attempted hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73 in Karachi on Sept,5, 1986, was blamed on the Palestinian group led by the notorious Abu Nidal (real name Sabri Al Banna). The five hijackers were captured and sentenced to jail terms in Pakistan.
Pakistan released one of the five, identified as Zaid Hassan Safarini, a Jordanian of Palestinian origin, in late 2003, and, according to reports, US agents caught him after his release and took him to the US. In May 2004 he was sentenced again in the US to three consecutive life terms in prison under US law because American nationals were among those killed during the attempted hijack.
During his trial in the US, Safarini implicated Libya as the sponsor of the foiled hijack.
Among the evidence in the case was Bulgarian handgrenades in possession of the Karachi would-be hijackers were identified as having come from the same batch and source as handgrenades that Turkish police seized from four Libyans arrested in Ankara in 1985. Similar handgrenades were also found to have been used in the December 1985 attacks on El Al ticket counters at the Rome and Vienna airports. The attacks were claimed by the Abu Nidal group.
Again, yet another "evidence" cited in the case, filed by law firm Crowell & Moring representing the plaintiffs in the Washington case, is a statement made by an Abu Nidal guerrilla named Ali Rezaq, who was among the hijackers of an Egyptian airline in November 1985.
The hijack was particularly brutal since the hijackers shot five passengers in the head and dumped their bodies on the tarmac during that affair. Two of the five survived.
In his statement, Ali Rezaq said that a Libyan official had held meetings with him on two separate occasions regarding the planned hijacking. "The second meeting took place in a location where access was permitted only for diplomats . . . Only because of what the Libyan government official said and did was it possible for the hijacking to take place," according to Ali Rezaq.
A summary report prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) states that Libya provided "substantial material support for the Abu Nidal Organisation, assisting with funds, facilities, apartments, airline tickets, free entry and exit of members of the Abu Nidal Organisation, use of its 'diplomatic pouch' and diplomatic freight privileges, official documents of all kinds, and actual operational assistance in pre-positioning of people and supplies for the conduct of operations.”
The case comes at a highly sensitive point in US-Libyan relations. The Bush administration would not have wanted the lawsuit after having jailed Safarini to 160 years (three life terms (35 years each) plus 25 years). It has promised to help Libya, a one-time enemy, rehabilitate itself. However, it might not have a choice.
Libya, long an avowed enemy of the US, co-operated with the US after the invasion of Iraq and ouster of Saddam Hussein in 2003 and gave up its programmes of WMD and also paid compensation to the families of the 270 victims of the 1988 downing of another American airplane over Scotland. US-Libyan relations have improved considerably, and now Libya wants itself to be removed by the US State Department's list of "sponsors of state terrorism."
An American of Indian origin, Prabhat Krishnaswamy of Columbus, Ohio, was on the jet and whose father, Seetharamiah, was killed, is one of the lead plaintiffs in the Washington case.
The other four hijackers are still in Pakistani jails. The lawsuit seeks $10 billion in compensatory damages, as well as unspecified punitive damages, from Libya, Muammar Qadhafi, and the five hijackers.
FOLLOWING IS THE BACKGROUND OF THE FOILED KARACHI HIJACK:
The hijackers had intended to fly the jumbo jet to Israel and crash it into the city of Tel Aviv. However, the pilots were alerted to the attack by the crew, and were able to escape by climbing out of the cockpit using emergency ropes. Without pilots, the hijackers could not get the aircraft off the ground.
The result was a 16-hour drama of killings and torture. The hijackers demanded that all passengers produce their passports, several crew members hid the passports of the Americans to protect those passengers who were the immediate targets. During the tense hours inside the large aircraft, the hijackerd shot and killed American/Indian Surendra Patel, and trhough his body out of the plane's door onto the tarmac, and threatened to kill another passenger every ten minutes if their demands were not met. As the aircraft's power failed and the lights went out, the hijackers recited a martyrdom prayer, opened fire on the passengers with automatic weapons at point blank range, and threw hand grenades into the tightly packed group. In addition to the 20 passengers and crew who were killed, including Krishanaswamy, many more were severely maimed, blinded, or disfigured by bullets, grenades, and shrapnel. Several victims broke their legs and arms when they hit the tarmac after jumping from the doors to escape the bullets and explosives.
The five hijackers were convicted by the Pakistani courts for their roles in the attack. The leader of the hijackers on the plane, Zaid Safarini, was captured by the FBI when he was released from prison in Pakistan, and was brought to the United States for trial. On December 16, 2003, Safarini entered a guilty plea in Washington, D.C. federal district court and was sentenced to three consecutive life sentences plus 25 years, which he is serving in a Colorado federal prison. The four other hijackers remain in Pakistani jails, and the United States has attempted to extradite them for prosecution in Washington.
The attempted hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73 in Karachi on Sept,5, 1986, was blamed on the Palestinian group led by the notorious Abu Nidal (real name Sabri Al Banna). The five hijackers were captured and sentenced to jail terms in Pakistan.
Pakistan released one of the five, identified as Zaid Hassan Safarini, a Jordanian of Palestinian origin, in late 2003, and, according to reports, US agents caught him after his release and took him to the US. In May 2004 he was sentenced again in the US to three consecutive life terms in prison under US law because American nationals were among those killed during the attempted hijack.
During his trial in the US, Safarini implicated Libya as the sponsor of the foiled hijack.
Among the evidence in the case was Bulgarian handgrenades in possession of the Karachi would-be hijackers were identified as having come from the same batch and source as handgrenades that Turkish police seized from four Libyans arrested in Ankara in 1985. Similar handgrenades were also found to have been used in the December 1985 attacks on El Al ticket counters at the Rome and Vienna airports. The attacks were claimed by the Abu Nidal group.
Again, yet another "evidence" cited in the case, filed by law firm Crowell & Moring representing the plaintiffs in the Washington case, is a statement made by an Abu Nidal guerrilla named Ali Rezaq, who was among the hijackers of an Egyptian airline in November 1985.
The hijack was particularly brutal since the hijackers shot five passengers in the head and dumped their bodies on the tarmac during that affair. Two of the five survived.
In his statement, Ali Rezaq said that a Libyan official had held meetings with him on two separate occasions regarding the planned hijacking. "The second meeting took place in a location where access was permitted only for diplomats . . . Only because of what the Libyan government official said and did was it possible for the hijacking to take place," according to Ali Rezaq.
A summary report prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) states that Libya provided "substantial material support for the Abu Nidal Organisation, assisting with funds, facilities, apartments, airline tickets, free entry and exit of members of the Abu Nidal Organisation, use of its 'diplomatic pouch' and diplomatic freight privileges, official documents of all kinds, and actual operational assistance in pre-positioning of people and supplies for the conduct of operations.”
The case comes at a highly sensitive point in US-Libyan relations. The Bush administration would not have wanted the lawsuit after having jailed Safarini to 160 years (three life terms (35 years each) plus 25 years). It has promised to help Libya, a one-time enemy, rehabilitate itself. However, it might not have a choice.
Libya, long an avowed enemy of the US, co-operated with the US after the invasion of Iraq and ouster of Saddam Hussein in 2003 and gave up its programmes of WMD and also paid compensation to the families of the 270 victims of the 1988 downing of another American airplane over Scotland. US-Libyan relations have improved considerably, and now Libya wants itself to be removed by the US State Department's list of "sponsors of state terrorism."
An American of Indian origin, Prabhat Krishnaswamy of Columbus, Ohio, was on the jet and whose father, Seetharamiah, was killed, is one of the lead plaintiffs in the Washington case.
The other four hijackers are still in Pakistani jails. The lawsuit seeks $10 billion in compensatory damages, as well as unspecified punitive damages, from Libya, Muammar Qadhafi, and the five hijackers.
FOLLOWING IS THE BACKGROUND OF THE FOILED KARACHI HIJACK:
The hijackers had intended to fly the jumbo jet to Israel and crash it into the city of Tel Aviv. However, the pilots were alerted to the attack by the crew, and were able to escape by climbing out of the cockpit using emergency ropes. Without pilots, the hijackers could not get the aircraft off the ground.
The result was a 16-hour drama of killings and torture. The hijackers demanded that all passengers produce their passports, several crew members hid the passports of the Americans to protect those passengers who were the immediate targets. During the tense hours inside the large aircraft, the hijackerd shot and killed American/Indian Surendra Patel, and trhough his body out of the plane's door onto the tarmac, and threatened to kill another passenger every ten minutes if their demands were not met. As the aircraft's power failed and the lights went out, the hijackers recited a martyrdom prayer, opened fire on the passengers with automatic weapons at point blank range, and threw hand grenades into the tightly packed group. In addition to the 20 passengers and crew who were killed, including Krishanaswamy, many more were severely maimed, blinded, or disfigured by bullets, grenades, and shrapnel. Several victims broke their legs and arms when they hit the tarmac after jumping from the doors to escape the bullets and explosives.
The five hijackers were convicted by the Pakistani courts for their roles in the attack. The leader of the hijackers on the plane, Zaid Safarini, was captured by the FBI when he was released from prison in Pakistan, and was brought to the United States for trial. On December 16, 2003, Safarini entered a guilty plea in Washington, D.C. federal district court and was sentenced to three consecutive life sentences plus 25 years, which he is serving in a Colorado federal prison. The four other hijackers remain in Pakistani jails, and the United States has attempted to extradite them for prosecution in Washington.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
No easy way out
April 4, 2006
No easy way out
THE US and Britain seem to believe that the creation of a "national unity" government in Iraq would set the beleaguered country on the track to recovery from the wounds it received from the March 2003 invasion and occupation and the ill-effects of nearly 13 years of international sanctions. They are impatient and furious that internal political bickering is holding up the formation of such a government, particularly that more and more blood is shed in the country every day.
That was what was behind the joint mission to Baghdad this week of US Secretary of State Condaleezza Rice and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
Under the US-British scenario, the Iraqis will be happy to have a "responsibile" government committed to improving their lot, starting with serious work on ensuring that they get enough water and power, health and education services and employment opportunities in an atmosphere of safety and security for everyone. That in turn will lead to eventual elimination of support for the insurgency in the country, and the US and Britain would be able to press ahead with the next phase of their plans for Iraq and the broader Middle East region.
They could only wish it was as easy as that. The realities on the ground in Iraq paint a different story where militiamen with a sectarian agenda are in charge of fiefdoms they have carved out for themselves. The US military gives them a wide berth if only because they belong to the majority Shiites, who, at this point in time, are American allies.
Then there are the Sunni militias. They might have little to do with the insurgency and have mobilised their power in order to defend themselves.
Then there are the Kurds, the relative newcomers to Baghdad, who have their own agenda in the Iraqi capital.
Then there are the international anti-US forces led by people like Abu Musab Al Zarqawi who have found it too good to be true to have American targets for attacks right in the Middle Eastern neighourhood. Now they don't need US visas or training in flight schools to carry out their anti-American agenda.
Adding to the US woe is the deadlock over premiership in the new government. However, even if Ibrahim Al Jaafari steps down as prime minister to end the political deadlock and clear the way for the sought-for "national unity government," it would not offer a solution.
The undercurrents of politics in post-war Iraq run too deep for an easy way out of the crisis. Agreement would be elusive for some time on a replacement for Jaafari because the issue is divisive within the Shiite alliance, and this means a paralysed leadership while sectarian violence will rage on. By the time the Shiite alliance comes up with a compromise name, the schism among the various factions would have gone too wide to patch up, and that is where the ongoing consolidation of militia fiefdoms would prove to be relevant.
No easy way out
THE US and Britain seem to believe that the creation of a "national unity" government in Iraq would set the beleaguered country on the track to recovery from the wounds it received from the March 2003 invasion and occupation and the ill-effects of nearly 13 years of international sanctions. They are impatient and furious that internal political bickering is holding up the formation of such a government, particularly that more and more blood is shed in the country every day.
That was what was behind the joint mission to Baghdad this week of US Secretary of State Condaleezza Rice and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
Under the US-British scenario, the Iraqis will be happy to have a "responsibile" government committed to improving their lot, starting with serious work on ensuring that they get enough water and power, health and education services and employment opportunities in an atmosphere of safety and security for everyone. That in turn will lead to eventual elimination of support for the insurgency in the country, and the US and Britain would be able to press ahead with the next phase of their plans for Iraq and the broader Middle East region.
They could only wish it was as easy as that. The realities on the ground in Iraq paint a different story where militiamen with a sectarian agenda are in charge of fiefdoms they have carved out for themselves. The US military gives them a wide berth if only because they belong to the majority Shiites, who, at this point in time, are American allies.
Then there are the Sunni militias. They might have little to do with the insurgency and have mobilised their power in order to defend themselves.
Then there are the Kurds, the relative newcomers to Baghdad, who have their own agenda in the Iraqi capital.
Then there are the international anti-US forces led by people like Abu Musab Al Zarqawi who have found it too good to be true to have American targets for attacks right in the Middle Eastern neighourhood. Now they don't need US visas or training in flight schools to carry out their anti-American agenda.
Adding to the US woe is the deadlock over premiership in the new government. However, even if Ibrahim Al Jaafari steps down as prime minister to end the political deadlock and clear the way for the sought-for "national unity government," it would not offer a solution.
The undercurrents of politics in post-war Iraq run too deep for an easy way out of the crisis. Agreement would be elusive for some time on a replacement for Jaafari because the issue is divisive within the Shiite alliance, and this means a paralysed leadership while sectarian violence will rage on. By the time the Shiite alliance comes up with a compromise name, the schism among the various factions would have gone too wide to patch up, and that is where the ongoing consolidation of militia fiefdoms would prove to be relevant.
Profits of war
March 16, 2006
THE US has spent at least $250 billion in the invasion and occupation of Iraq since March 2003. This figure does not include about $18 billion allocated for a $35 billion fund for reconstruction of the country. Another $20 billion in proceeds from Iraqi oil sales have also been spent, but with little to show in terms of improvement of basis services for the people of Iraq. Today, the lot of the people of Iraq is much worse than the pre-war conditions. US officials continue to insist that there is indeed tangible improvement in services, but what they actually mean is that some Iraqis get four hours of interrupted power supply (never mind that they had more than interrupted 12 hours of supply prior to the war).
Where did the money that was supposed to have been spent on reconstructing Iraq disappear? No one seems to have a clear answer except that there was a gross misuse of funds and that there is a dark area while determining how much of Iraqi money was "spent" on projects (most of them only on paper) and how much came from US-allocated funds. However, one thing is abundantly clear: American corporates with close links to the powerful politicians in Washington have made a killing in Iraq, not only from American funds but also from Iraqi money. Some of the billion-dollar contracts handed down to US giants are seen tailor-made to suit the contractors' interests, and several instances of overcharging have been reported, but these were only scratches on the surface, given the massive amounts already been handed out.
FIGURES on how much money the US has spent on the Iraq war keep changing. The only figure one could go by is based on recorded allocations that the US Congress has made (these do not include independent Pentagon spending), but the actual costs are deemed to be much higher than the official figures.
In October 2005, a report published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded that $251 billion had been obligated or appropriated for the Iraq war by March 31, 2006.
Compare that figure with independent estimates that the US would have spent or committed itself to spending about $2 trillion by the end of 2007. This figure includes long-term costs such as insurance and heath-care expenses for wounded veterans.
The $251 billion figure does not include soldiers' regular pay, but combat pay is included.
From the day the US went to war against Iraq in early 2003, critics have been pointing out that the administration of President George W Bush was not only serving the "strategic geopolitical interests" of the US and Israel but also catering to the greedy paws of American corporates, particularly those close to the Republican camp.
Now three years later, it is widely reported that American corporates made and are continuing to make a lot of money from the war, but no one seems to know how much.
By definition and nature, details of defence and military contracts are supposed to be kept confidential and unrestricted access to the figures is limited to a handful of people.
One of the main features of some contracts is that they are negotiated deals, more often than not on the basis of cost plus. This means that the designated contractor supplies the goods and services as requisitioned by the US military and sends an invoice to the Pentagon certifying that the amount involved was the "actual cost" and does not include any "margin" for the contractor.
The Pentagon asks no questions and pays the contractor the invoice amount plus a seven-to-12 per cent, depending on the nature of the goods and services.
An example is the cost of a "regular military meal" supplied to the US soldiers in Iraq. The contractor charges $65 per meal delivered to US military bases in Iraq, and then collects a margin over that amount.
The price goes down to $45 per meal when cooked and supplied within a military camp without involving "transport" costs.
Says investigative journalist Pratap Chatterjee, who keeps a watch on corporate misconduct, around the world: "Private contractors work on what’s known as a 'cost-plus' basis, getting paid for costs plus a small profit. On top of that they can receive a bonus based on a per cent of the contract’s total value. The more a company spends, the more it makes, which creates a natural incentive to overcharge. Private contractors aren’t being held accountable for either their spending or their work quality. They can’t be court-martialed, obviously, nor has any company yet been prosecuted—only a few individuals for really blatant fraud."
As allegations fly that someone, somewhere siphoned off $1 billion that were supposed to have been spent on building Iraq's security forces, the reality is also emerging that someone, someone had also channelled away billions of dollars of Iraqi oil money that should have been spent on rebuilding the shattered country.
As looting erupted in Baghdad and cities and towns elsewhere in the country following the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime in April 2003, the favourite term used to describe the looters was "Ali Baba," the Arabian tales character who stole from the loot of a gang of thieves. Few gave a second thought that the name was perhaps misused since Ali Baba could not be described as a thief in a broader sense.
US officials have confirmed that key rebuilding projects in Iraq have ground to a halt because American money is running out and security has diverted funds intended for electricity, water and sanitation.
As a result, according US bureaucrats, projects to rebuild the country's infrastructure have been downsized, postponed or abandoned because the $24 billion budget approved by Congress has been dwarfed by the scale of the task.
The website CorpWatch reported in April 2005 that the US cut the funding for water projects in Iraq from $4.3 billion to $2.3 billion—“with further cuts planned for the future.” Those “further cuts” were another $1.1 billion.
The reconstruction of water facilities is vital in delivering clean water to the 80 per cent of families in rural areas that use unsafe drinking water. The postwar sewage systems must also be reconstructed, which according to a UN report, “seeps to the ground and contaminates drinking water systems.”
The UN development agency conducted a study, entitled Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004. The study found that 23 percent of children in Iraq suffer from chronic malnutrition, while nine per cent of Iraqi children experienced diarrhea, a leading “childhood killer,” in the two weeks prior to the survey.
With the insurgency showing all signs of gathering strength, it is apparent that the US has little interest in focusing seriously on rebuilding Iraq since the belief has set in that the battle for the hearts and minds of Iraqi has already been lost.
The net sum of conclusions emerging from various auditing reports, official and unofficial, about the American funds spent, both for continuing the war and to rebuild Iraq, is that there had been a systematic pattern of spending that benefited none other than private American companies which are given no-bid contracts.
It was reported as far back as October 2003 that basic reconstruction in Iraq would cost less than half the amount requested by the Bush administration from the US Congress.
A joint report prepared by the United Nations and World Bank estimated that $9 billion were needed for reconstruction in Iraq in 2004 where as the amount that the US government had sought from Congress was $18.6 billion.
Beyond that, the Bush administration had estimated that $55 billion will be needed for Iraqi reconstruction between 2004 and 2007. While there was no comparable UN/World Bank estimate, independent think-tanks estimated the requirement at less than half that amount.
Where did the money disappear?
Today, very few people actually seem to know how much was actually spent in reconstructing Iraq although there is little sign of any reconstruction. Iraqis continue to suffer from water and power shortages and there is little in the way of employment opportunities except perhaps in the high-risk security forces.
The pattern of mismanagement of funds was established in the audit reports of the accounts of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) that was disbanded on June 28, 2004.
But that was not American money. It was Iraqi money, and no one seems to be bothered anymore to hold to account those who misappropriated it.
Paul Bremer, who headed the CPA, left behind what turned out to be a gross misuse of proceeds of Iraqi oil exports to benefit American contractors, with the major beneficiary being Halliburton, the company which was once headed by US Vice-President Dick Cheney.
There were three sources of funding for the war and occupation of Iraq. The first was $65 billion directly allocated as military spending by the US Congress and administered by the US Defence Department. It was American taxpayer's money.
The second was $18.4 billion, also approved by the US Congress, but administered by the CPA. Again, it was American taxpayer's money and supposed to be spent on reconstruction of Iraq along with $16 billion or so pledged by other countries.
The third was the Development Fund for Iraq, which represented proceeds from Iraq's oil exports and leftover money from the oil-for-food programme that the UN ran in co-ordination with the Saddam Hussein regime. The fund handled about $20 billion by the time the CPA was disbanded when the US handed over "sovereignty" to the interim government in June 2004.
The first war chest was further replenished by another $87 billion, but the bulk of it was earmarked for direct military spending.
From the $18.4 billion allocation for reconstructing Iraq, the CPA spent only two per cent since allocating American funds for reconstruction projects in Iraq had many riders and it was easier to dipping into the Development of Iraq Fund — which was strictly Iraqi money.
Halliburton has admitted to overcharging on some of its contracts. It drew up invoices and got paid for meals that were never eaten and never cooked.
According to Time reporter Jyoti Thottam, “Why would a company like Halliburton, which, after all, runs a successful oil-field-services business far removed from Iraq, agree to stay there? Profits. Iraq contracts have added $5.7 billion to Halliburton’s revenues since January 2003, accounting for almost all the company’s growth at a time when it was struggling with $4 billion in asbestos claims. The fact is, war is one of Halliburton’s specialties.”
Halliburton, which already has contracts worth $17 billion in Iraq, is one of five large US corporations - the others are the Bechtel Group, Fluor Corp, Parsons Corp, and the Louis Berger Group vying for contracts in the war-torn country. None of the other companies has been cited in an Iraq scandal yet.
Top among the American companies having Iraq-related contracts are:
Aegis Defence Services, BearingPoint, Inc., Bechtel, BKSH and Associates , CACI International and Titan Corporation, Custer Battles, Halliburton Lockheed Martin, Loral Satellite and Qualcomm
Bechtel has contracts worth about $2 billion in Iraq. They include rehabilitation of Iraq’s power, water and sewage systems that were destroyed in the war, rehabilitation of airports, and the dredging of the Umm Qasr port, repair and reconstruction of hospitals, schools, government buildings and irrigation and transportation systems.
San Francisco-based Bechtel had been given tens of millions to repair Iraq's schools. Yet many schools remain untouched, and several schools that Bechtel claims to have repaired are in shambles. One "repaired" school was overflowing with unflushed sewage; a teacher at the school also reported that "the American contractors took away our Japanese fans and replaced them with Syrian fans that don't work" — billing the US government for the work (The Centre for Media and Democracy).
"A handful of well-connected corporations are making a killing off the devastation in Iraq," observes Chris Kromm, publisher of Southern Exposure, a report about war profiteering in Iraq. "The politics and process behind these deals have always been questionable. Now we have first-hand evidence that they're not even doing their jobs."
Halliburton received $1.6 billion in Iraqi oil proceeds under a contract to import fuel and repair oil fields. According to US auditors, Halliburton's overcharges under this contract are more than $218 million.
A security firm, Custer Battles, received over $11 million in Iraqi funds, including over $4 million in cash. The company has been barred from receiving federal contracts and faces a False Claims Act lawsuit for multiple fraudulent billings.
A federal jury on March 9 this year ordered Custer Battles to pay nearly $10 million in damages and penalties for defrauding the government on its work in Iraq.
"Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq," said Alan Grayson, the lead attorney for two whistle-blowers who brought the civil suit on behalf of the government. "Companies like Custer Battles go there with the idea of stuffing their pockets with cash. This jury of eight people heard the evidence and were repelled by it."
Custer Battles was accused used fake invoices, forgery and shell companies in the Cayman Islands to run up millions of dollars in profits.
Another misuse of funds came to light when it was found that over $600 million in cash was shipped from Baghdad to four regions in Iraq to allow commanders flexibility to fund local reconstruction projects. An audit of one of the four regions found more than 80 per cent of the funds could not be properly accounted for and that over $7 million in cash was missing.
CPA officials gave over $8 billion in cash to Iraqi ministries. Auditors have found significant funds paid to "ghost employees" and billion-dollar discrepancies in some expenditures.
"These problems evince a lack of concern for people in Iraq," says Brian J. Foley, a professor at Florida Coastal School of Law. "They and their land are being treated as a profit centre for businesses well-connected to our government."
Transparency International stated in its Global Corruption Report 2005 that foreign contractors should abide by anti-corruption laws and that the revenues streaming in from Iraq oil “needed to be much more transparent and accountable.”
Transparency International’s chairman Peter Eigen said: “Corruption doesn't just line the pockets of political and business elites, it leaves ordinary people without essential services and deprives them of access to sanitation and housing,
Transparency International directly criticised the US for awarding companies contracts in a process that was “secretive and favoured a small number of firms.” As this corruption became more commonplace, the resistance towards the occupation surged.
Remi Kanazi writes on sccop.co.nz:
"Instead of starting a massive campaign to empower and employ the Iraqi people, the Bush administration protected US corporate interests, including close administration allies such as Halliburton and Bechtel. Figures of unemployment in Iraq reach as high as 60 per cent. If the US heavily integrated Iraqi companies and workers from the outset, the reconstruction process would have stimulated the Iraqi economy. Nearly 60 percent of Iraqis rely on food handouts. The average Iraqi income in 2004 was $800 compared with $3,000 in the 1980s. In the 1990s, the UN sanctions severely weakened the Iraqi economy only to then have the US invasion exacerbate the dilemma."
The net picture that emerges from Iraq today is: The US is unwilling to accept it is fighting a war it cannot win and is determined to stay on, and is spending billions of dollars to the benefit of American corporates. Meanwhile, the suffering and uncertainties of the people of Iraq are mounting every day.
THE US has spent at least $250 billion in the invasion and occupation of Iraq since March 2003. This figure does not include about $18 billion allocated for a $35 billion fund for reconstruction of the country. Another $20 billion in proceeds from Iraqi oil sales have also been spent, but with little to show in terms of improvement of basis services for the people of Iraq. Today, the lot of the people of Iraq is much worse than the pre-war conditions. US officials continue to insist that there is indeed tangible improvement in services, but what they actually mean is that some Iraqis get four hours of interrupted power supply (never mind that they had more than interrupted 12 hours of supply prior to the war).
Where did the money that was supposed to have been spent on reconstructing Iraq disappear? No one seems to have a clear answer except that there was a gross misuse of funds and that there is a dark area while determining how much of Iraqi money was "spent" on projects (most of them only on paper) and how much came from US-allocated funds. However, one thing is abundantly clear: American corporates with close links to the powerful politicians in Washington have made a killing in Iraq, not only from American funds but also from Iraqi money. Some of the billion-dollar contracts handed down to US giants are seen tailor-made to suit the contractors' interests, and several instances of overcharging have been reported, but these were only scratches on the surface, given the massive amounts already been handed out.
FIGURES on how much money the US has spent on the Iraq war keep changing. The only figure one could go by is based on recorded allocations that the US Congress has made (these do not include independent Pentagon spending), but the actual costs are deemed to be much higher than the official figures.
In October 2005, a report published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded that $251 billion had been obligated or appropriated for the Iraq war by March 31, 2006.
Compare that figure with independent estimates that the US would have spent or committed itself to spending about $2 trillion by the end of 2007. This figure includes long-term costs such as insurance and heath-care expenses for wounded veterans.
The $251 billion figure does not include soldiers' regular pay, but combat pay is included.
From the day the US went to war against Iraq in early 2003, critics have been pointing out that the administration of President George W Bush was not only serving the "strategic geopolitical interests" of the US and Israel but also catering to the greedy paws of American corporates, particularly those close to the Republican camp.
Now three years later, it is widely reported that American corporates made and are continuing to make a lot of money from the war, but no one seems to know how much.
By definition and nature, details of defence and military contracts are supposed to be kept confidential and unrestricted access to the figures is limited to a handful of people.
One of the main features of some contracts is that they are negotiated deals, more often than not on the basis of cost plus. This means that the designated contractor supplies the goods and services as requisitioned by the US military and sends an invoice to the Pentagon certifying that the amount involved was the "actual cost" and does not include any "margin" for the contractor.
The Pentagon asks no questions and pays the contractor the invoice amount plus a seven-to-12 per cent, depending on the nature of the goods and services.
An example is the cost of a "regular military meal" supplied to the US soldiers in Iraq. The contractor charges $65 per meal delivered to US military bases in Iraq, and then collects a margin over that amount.
The price goes down to $45 per meal when cooked and supplied within a military camp without involving "transport" costs.
Says investigative journalist Pratap Chatterjee, who keeps a watch on corporate misconduct, around the world: "Private contractors work on what’s known as a 'cost-plus' basis, getting paid for costs plus a small profit. On top of that they can receive a bonus based on a per cent of the contract’s total value. The more a company spends, the more it makes, which creates a natural incentive to overcharge. Private contractors aren’t being held accountable for either their spending or their work quality. They can’t be court-martialed, obviously, nor has any company yet been prosecuted—only a few individuals for really blatant fraud."
As allegations fly that someone, somewhere siphoned off $1 billion that were supposed to have been spent on building Iraq's security forces, the reality is also emerging that someone, someone had also channelled away billions of dollars of Iraqi oil money that should have been spent on rebuilding the shattered country.
As looting erupted in Baghdad and cities and towns elsewhere in the country following the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime in April 2003, the favourite term used to describe the looters was "Ali Baba," the Arabian tales character who stole from the loot of a gang of thieves. Few gave a second thought that the name was perhaps misused since Ali Baba could not be described as a thief in a broader sense.
US officials have confirmed that key rebuilding projects in Iraq have ground to a halt because American money is running out and security has diverted funds intended for electricity, water and sanitation.
As a result, according US bureaucrats, projects to rebuild the country's infrastructure have been downsized, postponed or abandoned because the $24 billion budget approved by Congress has been dwarfed by the scale of the task.
The website CorpWatch reported in April 2005 that the US cut the funding for water projects in Iraq from $4.3 billion to $2.3 billion—“with further cuts planned for the future.” Those “further cuts” were another $1.1 billion.
The reconstruction of water facilities is vital in delivering clean water to the 80 per cent of families in rural areas that use unsafe drinking water. The postwar sewage systems must also be reconstructed, which according to a UN report, “seeps to the ground and contaminates drinking water systems.”
The UN development agency conducted a study, entitled Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004. The study found that 23 percent of children in Iraq suffer from chronic malnutrition, while nine per cent of Iraqi children experienced diarrhea, a leading “childhood killer,” in the two weeks prior to the survey.
With the insurgency showing all signs of gathering strength, it is apparent that the US has little interest in focusing seriously on rebuilding Iraq since the belief has set in that the battle for the hearts and minds of Iraqi has already been lost.
The net sum of conclusions emerging from various auditing reports, official and unofficial, about the American funds spent, both for continuing the war and to rebuild Iraq, is that there had been a systematic pattern of spending that benefited none other than private American companies which are given no-bid contracts.
It was reported as far back as October 2003 that basic reconstruction in Iraq would cost less than half the amount requested by the Bush administration from the US Congress.
A joint report prepared by the United Nations and World Bank estimated that $9 billion were needed for reconstruction in Iraq in 2004 where as the amount that the US government had sought from Congress was $18.6 billion.
Beyond that, the Bush administration had estimated that $55 billion will be needed for Iraqi reconstruction between 2004 and 2007. While there was no comparable UN/World Bank estimate, independent think-tanks estimated the requirement at less than half that amount.
Where did the money disappear?
Today, very few people actually seem to know how much was actually spent in reconstructing Iraq although there is little sign of any reconstruction. Iraqis continue to suffer from water and power shortages and there is little in the way of employment opportunities except perhaps in the high-risk security forces.
The pattern of mismanagement of funds was established in the audit reports of the accounts of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) that was disbanded on June 28, 2004.
But that was not American money. It was Iraqi money, and no one seems to be bothered anymore to hold to account those who misappropriated it.
Paul Bremer, who headed the CPA, left behind what turned out to be a gross misuse of proceeds of Iraqi oil exports to benefit American contractors, with the major beneficiary being Halliburton, the company which was once headed by US Vice-President Dick Cheney.
There were three sources of funding for the war and occupation of Iraq. The first was $65 billion directly allocated as military spending by the US Congress and administered by the US Defence Department. It was American taxpayer's money.
The second was $18.4 billion, also approved by the US Congress, but administered by the CPA. Again, it was American taxpayer's money and supposed to be spent on reconstruction of Iraq along with $16 billion or so pledged by other countries.
The third was the Development Fund for Iraq, which represented proceeds from Iraq's oil exports and leftover money from the oil-for-food programme that the UN ran in co-ordination with the Saddam Hussein regime. The fund handled about $20 billion by the time the CPA was disbanded when the US handed over "sovereignty" to the interim government in June 2004.
The first war chest was further replenished by another $87 billion, but the bulk of it was earmarked for direct military spending.
From the $18.4 billion allocation for reconstructing Iraq, the CPA spent only two per cent since allocating American funds for reconstruction projects in Iraq had many riders and it was easier to dipping into the Development of Iraq Fund — which was strictly Iraqi money.
Halliburton has admitted to overcharging on some of its contracts. It drew up invoices and got paid for meals that were never eaten and never cooked.
According to Time reporter Jyoti Thottam, “Why would a company like Halliburton, which, after all, runs a successful oil-field-services business far removed from Iraq, agree to stay there? Profits. Iraq contracts have added $5.7 billion to Halliburton’s revenues since January 2003, accounting for almost all the company’s growth at a time when it was struggling with $4 billion in asbestos claims. The fact is, war is one of Halliburton’s specialties.”
Halliburton, which already has contracts worth $17 billion in Iraq, is one of five large US corporations - the others are the Bechtel Group, Fluor Corp, Parsons Corp, and the Louis Berger Group vying for contracts in the war-torn country. None of the other companies has been cited in an Iraq scandal yet.
Top among the American companies having Iraq-related contracts are:
Aegis Defence Services, BearingPoint, Inc., Bechtel, BKSH and Associates , CACI International and Titan Corporation, Custer Battles, Halliburton Lockheed Martin, Loral Satellite and Qualcomm
Bechtel has contracts worth about $2 billion in Iraq. They include rehabilitation of Iraq’s power, water and sewage systems that were destroyed in the war, rehabilitation of airports, and the dredging of the Umm Qasr port, repair and reconstruction of hospitals, schools, government buildings and irrigation and transportation systems.
San Francisco-based Bechtel had been given tens of millions to repair Iraq's schools. Yet many schools remain untouched, and several schools that Bechtel claims to have repaired are in shambles. One "repaired" school was overflowing with unflushed sewage; a teacher at the school also reported that "the American contractors took away our Japanese fans and replaced them with Syrian fans that don't work" — billing the US government for the work (The Centre for Media and Democracy).
"A handful of well-connected corporations are making a killing off the devastation in Iraq," observes Chris Kromm, publisher of Southern Exposure, a report about war profiteering in Iraq. "The politics and process behind these deals have always been questionable. Now we have first-hand evidence that they're not even doing their jobs."
Halliburton received $1.6 billion in Iraqi oil proceeds under a contract to import fuel and repair oil fields. According to US auditors, Halliburton's overcharges under this contract are more than $218 million.
A security firm, Custer Battles, received over $11 million in Iraqi funds, including over $4 million in cash. The company has been barred from receiving federal contracts and faces a False Claims Act lawsuit for multiple fraudulent billings.
A federal jury on March 9 this year ordered Custer Battles to pay nearly $10 million in damages and penalties for defrauding the government on its work in Iraq.
"Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq," said Alan Grayson, the lead attorney for two whistle-blowers who brought the civil suit on behalf of the government. "Companies like Custer Battles go there with the idea of stuffing their pockets with cash. This jury of eight people heard the evidence and were repelled by it."
Custer Battles was accused used fake invoices, forgery and shell companies in the Cayman Islands to run up millions of dollars in profits.
Another misuse of funds came to light when it was found that over $600 million in cash was shipped from Baghdad to four regions in Iraq to allow commanders flexibility to fund local reconstruction projects. An audit of one of the four regions found more than 80 per cent of the funds could not be properly accounted for and that over $7 million in cash was missing.
CPA officials gave over $8 billion in cash to Iraqi ministries. Auditors have found significant funds paid to "ghost employees" and billion-dollar discrepancies in some expenditures.
"These problems evince a lack of concern for people in Iraq," says Brian J. Foley, a professor at Florida Coastal School of Law. "They and their land are being treated as a profit centre for businesses well-connected to our government."
Transparency International stated in its Global Corruption Report 2005 that foreign contractors should abide by anti-corruption laws and that the revenues streaming in from Iraq oil “needed to be much more transparent and accountable.”
Transparency International’s chairman Peter Eigen said: “Corruption doesn't just line the pockets of political and business elites, it leaves ordinary people without essential services and deprives them of access to sanitation and housing,
Transparency International directly criticised the US for awarding companies contracts in a process that was “secretive and favoured a small number of firms.” As this corruption became more commonplace, the resistance towards the occupation surged.
Remi Kanazi writes on sccop.co.nz:
"Instead of starting a massive campaign to empower and employ the Iraqi people, the Bush administration protected US corporate interests, including close administration allies such as Halliburton and Bechtel. Figures of unemployment in Iraq reach as high as 60 per cent. If the US heavily integrated Iraqi companies and workers from the outset, the reconstruction process would have stimulated the Iraqi economy. Nearly 60 percent of Iraqis rely on food handouts. The average Iraqi income in 2004 was $800 compared with $3,000 in the 1980s. In the 1990s, the UN sanctions severely weakened the Iraqi economy only to then have the US invasion exacerbate the dilemma."
The net picture that emerges from Iraq today is: The US is unwilling to accept it is fighting a war it cannot win and is determined to stay on, and is spending billions of dollars to the benefit of American corporates. Meanwhile, the suffering and uncertainties of the people of Iraq are mounting every day.
From nuclear to biological?
The US could be planning to accuse Iran of releasing "deliberately mutated" H5N1 virus carried by migrating wild birds and thus justify military action against Iran citing a "biological" threat posed by Tehran. That action , which will target alleged biological laboratories and facilities in Iran, will inevitably lead to broader action since the Iranians would retaliate for the US attack and the Americans would hit back.
The key words here are "could be," mind you.
When could this happen? As early as before the end of April; that is if one is inclined to believe Dr Jeorge Hirsch, professor of physics at University of California San Diego and a researcher who has written numerous articles on the US approach to the Middle East.
In an article appearing on www.antiwar.com, Hirsch, a strong critic of the Bush administration who maintains that the US is targeting Iran for a nuclear strike, presents a compelling case.
According to Hirsch, the US administration has already set the "legal" ground for military action against Iran. He refers to the White House's National Security Strategy of March 16, 2006.
The strategy document states that "the US faces no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran."
The document accuses Iran of sponsoring terrorism, threatening Israel, seeking to thwart Middle East peace, distrupting democracy in Iraq and denying the "aspirations of its people for freedom."
Citing the government's duty to protect the "American people and interests," the document states that "there are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD."
It goes on to say: "To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act pre-emptively.
"When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialise.
"Biological weapons also pose a grave WMD threat because of the risks of contagion that would spread disease across large populations and around the globe."
"Countering the spread of biological weapons .... will also enhance our nation's ability to respond to pandemic public health threats, such as avian influenza," it says.
Were the words "avian influenza" deliberately included in the document or was it a passing reference?
Well, Hirsch seems to think it was deliberate.
He argues that the declarations in the strategy document have to be seen in tandem with a 2005 US State Department "finding" that "based on all available information, Iran has an offensive biological weapons programme in violation of the BWC (biological weapons convention)."
The scenario emerging from the strategy document and the State Department "finding" is that the US would use the perceived biological weapons threat to militarily strike at Iran.
"The most likely biological threat to be invoked, because it has a natural time element associated with it, is the threat of a bird flu pandemic caused by a deliberately mutated H5N1 virus carried by migrating wild birds," he writes.
He also points out that the March 16 document contains a provision for the US to use use nuclear weapons against Iran when it states that the US could employ "all elements of national power..."
"Safe, credible, and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a critical role," states the document. "We are strengthening deterrence by developing a New Triad composed of offensive strike systems (both nuclear and improved conventional capabilities)."
The recently released "National Military Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction" also that states "offensive operations may include kinetic (both conventional and nuclear) and/or non-kinetic options (e.g. information operations) to deter or defeat a WMD threat or subsequent use of WMD."
Hirsch also refers to the ongoing dispute over Iran's nuclear programme.
"There is of course also the claim that Iran is a threat because it intends to develop nuclear weapons," he states. "The sole purpose of that claim, which flies in the face of all available evidence, is to generate a diplomatic stalemate at the UN that will allow Bush to state that other nations share the US concern but not the resolve to act. However, the actual trigger for the bombing to begin will not be the long-term and by now discredited nuclear threat, rather it is likely to be the threat of an imminent biological attack."
According to Hirsch, the US has resorted to deception when it assured Russia and China that the recently approved UN Security Council statement does not automatically mean military action against Iran after 30 days.
"True to its promise, the US will attack before the 30-day deadline imposedby the UNSC for Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment activity, ie. before the end of April. The 'justification' is likely to be an alleged threat of imminent biological attack with Iran's involvement," asserts Hirsch.
The key words here are "could be," mind you.
When could this happen? As early as before the end of April; that is if one is inclined to believe Dr Jeorge Hirsch, professor of physics at University of California San Diego and a researcher who has written numerous articles on the US approach to the Middle East.
In an article appearing on www.antiwar.com, Hirsch, a strong critic of the Bush administration who maintains that the US is targeting Iran for a nuclear strike, presents a compelling case.
According to Hirsch, the US administration has already set the "legal" ground for military action against Iran. He refers to the White House's National Security Strategy of March 16, 2006.
The strategy document states that "the US faces no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran."
The document accuses Iran of sponsoring terrorism, threatening Israel, seeking to thwart Middle East peace, distrupting democracy in Iraq and denying the "aspirations of its people for freedom."
Citing the government's duty to protect the "American people and interests," the document states that "there are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD."
It goes on to say: "To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act pre-emptively.
"When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialise.
"Biological weapons also pose a grave WMD threat because of the risks of contagion that would spread disease across large populations and around the globe."
"Countering the spread of biological weapons .... will also enhance our nation's ability to respond to pandemic public health threats, such as avian influenza," it says.
Were the words "avian influenza" deliberately included in the document or was it a passing reference?
Well, Hirsch seems to think it was deliberate.
He argues that the declarations in the strategy document have to be seen in tandem with a 2005 US State Department "finding" that "based on all available information, Iran has an offensive biological weapons programme in violation of the BWC (biological weapons convention)."
The scenario emerging from the strategy document and the State Department "finding" is that the US would use the perceived biological weapons threat to militarily strike at Iran.
"The most likely biological threat to be invoked, because it has a natural time element associated with it, is the threat of a bird flu pandemic caused by a deliberately mutated H5N1 virus carried by migrating wild birds," he writes.
He also points out that the March 16 document contains a provision for the US to use use nuclear weapons against Iran when it states that the US could employ "all elements of national power..."
"Safe, credible, and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a critical role," states the document. "We are strengthening deterrence by developing a New Triad composed of offensive strike systems (both nuclear and improved conventional capabilities)."
The recently released "National Military Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction" also that states "offensive operations may include kinetic (both conventional and nuclear) and/or non-kinetic options (e.g. information operations) to deter or defeat a WMD threat or subsequent use of WMD."
Hirsch also refers to the ongoing dispute over Iran's nuclear programme.
"There is of course also the claim that Iran is a threat because it intends to develop nuclear weapons," he states. "The sole purpose of that claim, which flies in the face of all available evidence, is to generate a diplomatic stalemate at the UN that will allow Bush to state that other nations share the US concern but not the resolve to act. However, the actual trigger for the bombing to begin will not be the long-term and by now discredited nuclear threat, rather it is likely to be the threat of an imminent biological attack."
According to Hirsch, the US has resorted to deception when it assured Russia and China that the recently approved UN Security Council statement does not automatically mean military action against Iran after 30 days.
"True to its promise, the US will attack before the 30-day deadline imposedby the UNSC for Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment activity, ie. before the end of April. The 'justification' is likely to be an alleged threat of imminent biological attack with Iran's involvement," asserts Hirsch.
Zeevi killing and Jericho raid
CHARGES are being heard that the March 14 raid of a Palestinian National Authority (PNA) prison in Jericho was aimed at suppressing the behind-the-scene role Israeli security agents played in the 2001 murder of Rehavam Zeevi, an Israeli cabinet minister. The murder itself was part of a broader conspiracy linked to the survival of the Israeli coalition government in power at that time, according to those levelling the charge.
It was speculated that the raid, during which all prisoners in the jail were snatched and moved to an Israeli prison, was designed to give a boost to the chances of Ehud Olmert's Kadima Party in the March 28 elections. The operation was also seen as pre-empting a possible release by Hamas of five prisoners who were found to have been involved in the Zeevi killing. It was also deemed to be aimed at satisfying the Israeli demand that the five be tried by an Israeli court.
The five were kept in the PNA prison in a multi-party deal under which American and British observers were posted there to ensure that the PNA did not release them. Very conveniently, the observers abandoned their posts citing "security" concerns shortly before an Israeli army team arrived at the site and stormed the jail and took away the prisoners.
It was argued that Hamas, which was poised to take over the PNA after winning the Jan.25 elections, would have released the prisoners as resistance heroes, and hence the move to take them into Israeli custody.
Israel has vowed to put the five, headed by Ahmed Sadaat, an activist of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), on trial.
In public statements, Israel says that the prison was raided in order to prevent a Hamas-run PNA from freeing Sadaat.
"But, it may just as well have been to prevent Sadaat from disclosing any collusion with the Israelis in the elimination of the pesky and outspoken Zeevi," who objected to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's move to evacuate occupied Palestinian territory, says a report appearing on www.conspiracyarchive.com written by Barry Chamish, an Israeli journalist.
Chamish, author of several books, including Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin, Israel Betrayed, The Last Days Of Israel and Save Israel!, says that in early October 2001, Zeevi objected to Shimon Peres, who was then foreign minister in the Sharon cabinet, engaging in secret diplomacy with Yasser Arafat, the late Palestinian leader. (Arafat himself said in a television interview after the killing that Israeli security agents had played a major role in the Zeevi murder.)
Chamish claims that Peres was working on a plan for Israel to withdraw to the 1948 lines — the borders of Israel as defined in the UN Security Council resolution which partitioned Palestine.
The plan had the support of a group of American strategists including former US ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk as well as the Vatican, which, according to Chamish, was promised control of Jerusalem in the overall post-withdrawal scenario.
Hard-liners like Zeevi saw such proposals as disastrous for Israel and "disintegration" of the Jewish state.
Sharon was aware of the secret contacts — which were launched in the late-90s — and Zeevi confronted the prime minister over the issue, according to Chamish.
Zeevi "threatened Sharon," says Chamish. "If Peres did not stop his secret diplomacy, he would publicly reveal what it involved. Sharon acquiesced and had a letter drawn promising that he would order Peres to cancel a planned meeting with Arafat in Greece. A week before his murder, Zeevi displayed the letter at a party caucus meeting."
"Sharon's appeasement did not succeed for long. On Oct. 13, 2001 Zeevi handed Sharon his final ultimatum: Peres is removed from the cabinet or he will resign from the government and take two parties with him; Yisrael B'aliyah and the National Party. Sharon was given a choice between Peres and suicidal withdrawal, or his coalition.
"Sharon went with Peres and withdrawal. On Oct. 17, 2001, four hours before Zeevi was to give his resignation speech to the Knesset, explaining who Peres was and why he couldn't sit in the same government as him, he was shot dead outside his hotel room in Jerusalem. Arabs may have been the triggermen, but the order came from within the Israeli government."
Chamish says that Israeli security forces had put Zeevi in an insecure hotel location and withdrawn his guards so the attackers could get to him.
Zeevi was shot dead in the hotel corridor by a lone gunman, who jumped out of a balcony and fled and the scene on a motor bike. While having food at the hotel restaurant shortly before he was shot, Zeevi had noticed that someone was keeping a watch on him and he had mentioned it to his wife.
Chamish is questioning why Zeevi's official bodyguards did not escort him back to the room and did not post an armed guard in the corridor.
As long as he remained a minister, Zeevi had no say in his own security affairs, meaning that he could not have ordered that the guards leave him alone.
A close reading between the lines of what Chamish says would lead to the theory that Israeli agents had infiltrated PFLP ranks and they helped Sadaat plot and carry out the Zeevi killing without the PFLP man being aware that he was being used as a tool to serve Israeli political purposes.
Chamish argues that those behind the storming of the Jericho jail feared that a free Sadaat and his associates could talk about the killing and expose that Israeli security had not only been deliberately lapse in order to allow the murder to be carried out but also been a party involved in plotting it.
In any event, the "revelations" by Chamish are yet another affirmation of Israel's false-flag operations. It would not be the first or last time either.
It was speculated that the raid, during which all prisoners in the jail were snatched and moved to an Israeli prison, was designed to give a boost to the chances of Ehud Olmert's Kadima Party in the March 28 elections. The operation was also seen as pre-empting a possible release by Hamas of five prisoners who were found to have been involved in the Zeevi killing. It was also deemed to be aimed at satisfying the Israeli demand that the five be tried by an Israeli court.
The five were kept in the PNA prison in a multi-party deal under which American and British observers were posted there to ensure that the PNA did not release them. Very conveniently, the observers abandoned their posts citing "security" concerns shortly before an Israeli army team arrived at the site and stormed the jail and took away the prisoners.
It was argued that Hamas, which was poised to take over the PNA after winning the Jan.25 elections, would have released the prisoners as resistance heroes, and hence the move to take them into Israeli custody.
Israel has vowed to put the five, headed by Ahmed Sadaat, an activist of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), on trial.
In public statements, Israel says that the prison was raided in order to prevent a Hamas-run PNA from freeing Sadaat.
"But, it may just as well have been to prevent Sadaat from disclosing any collusion with the Israelis in the elimination of the pesky and outspoken Zeevi," who objected to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's move to evacuate occupied Palestinian territory, says a report appearing on www.conspiracyarchive.com written by Barry Chamish, an Israeli journalist.
Chamish, author of several books, including Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin, Israel Betrayed, The Last Days Of Israel and Save Israel!, says that in early October 2001, Zeevi objected to Shimon Peres, who was then foreign minister in the Sharon cabinet, engaging in secret diplomacy with Yasser Arafat, the late Palestinian leader. (Arafat himself said in a television interview after the killing that Israeli security agents had played a major role in the Zeevi murder.)
Chamish claims that Peres was working on a plan for Israel to withdraw to the 1948 lines — the borders of Israel as defined in the UN Security Council resolution which partitioned Palestine.
The plan had the support of a group of American strategists including former US ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk as well as the Vatican, which, according to Chamish, was promised control of Jerusalem in the overall post-withdrawal scenario.
Hard-liners like Zeevi saw such proposals as disastrous for Israel and "disintegration" of the Jewish state.
Sharon was aware of the secret contacts — which were launched in the late-90s — and Zeevi confronted the prime minister over the issue, according to Chamish.
Zeevi "threatened Sharon," says Chamish. "If Peres did not stop his secret diplomacy, he would publicly reveal what it involved. Sharon acquiesced and had a letter drawn promising that he would order Peres to cancel a planned meeting with Arafat in Greece. A week before his murder, Zeevi displayed the letter at a party caucus meeting."
"Sharon's appeasement did not succeed for long. On Oct. 13, 2001 Zeevi handed Sharon his final ultimatum: Peres is removed from the cabinet or he will resign from the government and take two parties with him; Yisrael B'aliyah and the National Party. Sharon was given a choice between Peres and suicidal withdrawal, or his coalition.
"Sharon went with Peres and withdrawal. On Oct. 17, 2001, four hours before Zeevi was to give his resignation speech to the Knesset, explaining who Peres was and why he couldn't sit in the same government as him, he was shot dead outside his hotel room in Jerusalem. Arabs may have been the triggermen, but the order came from within the Israeli government."
Chamish says that Israeli security forces had put Zeevi in an insecure hotel location and withdrawn his guards so the attackers could get to him.
Zeevi was shot dead in the hotel corridor by a lone gunman, who jumped out of a balcony and fled and the scene on a motor bike. While having food at the hotel restaurant shortly before he was shot, Zeevi had noticed that someone was keeping a watch on him and he had mentioned it to his wife.
Chamish is questioning why Zeevi's official bodyguards did not escort him back to the room and did not post an armed guard in the corridor.
As long as he remained a minister, Zeevi had no say in his own security affairs, meaning that he could not have ordered that the guards leave him alone.
A close reading between the lines of what Chamish says would lead to the theory that Israeli agents had infiltrated PFLP ranks and they helped Sadaat plot and carry out the Zeevi killing without the PFLP man being aware that he was being used as a tool to serve Israeli political purposes.
Chamish argues that those behind the storming of the Jericho jail feared that a free Sadaat and his associates could talk about the killing and expose that Israeli security had not only been deliberately lapse in order to allow the murder to be carried out but also been a party involved in plotting it.
In any event, the "revelations" by Chamish are yet another affirmation of Israel's false-flag operations. It would not be the first or last time either.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
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?
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.
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.
Friday, February 10, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
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."
'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.
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.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![Iraq counter](http://a href="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html" img src="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/images/iraqdeaths.gif" alt="Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator" width="150" height="150" border="0" /a){kind=link}