Cease fire! ...

Cease fire! ... pause ... consider accounts ... then move toward truce or regroup and trounce?

by Craig Rowley

Tonight seems to be the eve of the hoped for ceasefire in the conflict in southern Lebanon and northern Israel. If all falls into place tomorrow there is a real opportunity to make a play for a greater peace, if only the pause in hostilities can be translated into something longer lasting and further reaching. Will all those involved in the immediate conflict, and more importantly the war by proxy behind it, just give peace a chance? Or is hope in what is possible only false promise and do we face the prospect that, more probably, the parties will be taking us to the brink again before the year is out?

Comment on the recent post by Professor Jeffrey Sachs - The Middle East's Military Delusions - has prompted me to look back over Should Iran be attacked? a post by Professor Joseph S Nye we published in May.

Professor Nye's post commenced with the question that reports had suggested was being explored by President George W Bush and his administration, and it becomes clear on reading the post that he sees how costly use of force against Iran would be (and he's not just talking about financial costs). Professor Nye concluded his post by offering some points to think about on policy alternatives the U.S. could take up and in the early part of our conversation thread we started exploring what could be done instead of attack, what the application of some clear thinking could come up with, and what might make up the steps on a better path to dealing with the potential threat represented by Iran's nuclear program.

Despite the promising start we didn't really build on the momentum. (It would be good if we could now, particularly as the translation of a ceasefire into truce can only come from new thinking by the parties involved.) I felt that in both the thread following Nye's post and that following Sachs' we didn't really bring the shift in U.S. foreign policy positions on Iran into focus and, from the basis of a better understanding of why such a shift occurred, develop ideas about how it could be shifted again to a position with better prospects for bringing about a little more peace.

That shift in U.S. foreign policy positions I speak of is evident in these quotes:

"...President Clinton and I welcomed the new Iranian President's call for a dialogue between our people.... Now we have concluded the time is right to broaden our perspective even further."

Madeleine K. Albright
Remarks Before the American-Iranian Council
March, 2000

"Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom ... States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world ... "

President George W. Bush
The President's State of the Union Address
January, 2002

"I think it's best I just leave it that all options should be on the table, and the last option is the military option."

President George W. Bush
on CBS's "Face the Nation" program
January 2006

Now we can debate whether the shift has been substantial or otherwise. Some take the 'last option' emphasis to signify that U.S. policy toward Iran has not shifted to a totally militaristic stance. Some see a shift from a policy prescription based on the premise that a dialogue could be opened and diplomacy would work, to one where plans to attack are being (or have been) worked up.

I understand that at the beginning of George W. Bush's presidency there were two groups in the administration waging an intense struggle over policy on Iran. The U.S. government went month after month without an official policy at that time.

Then the attack on America on September 11, 2001 created an entirely new strategic context for U.S. relations with other nations and certainly this was true with respect to its approach to Iran. There was a choice to make and official U.S. policy on Iran had to be determined. Within the broader response to September 11 - the global war on terrorism - there were (and there continues to be) a variety of strategic options, various opportunities.

One was the choice of immediate response focus and the Bush administration decided on destroying the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the al-Qaeda network it had harboured. When you think about it selection of this option opened a choice about how to deal with Iran. Washington could begin a period of extraordinary strategic cooperation between America and Iran in order to support the action to be taken in Afghanistan, it could select a status quo strategy leaving Iran on the sidelines to wonder whether it would be drawn in at some stage, or it could plot the point when Iran would become the priority in prosecuting the long war on terrorism and start preparing for it.

Gareth Porter, a historian and journalist who writes regularly on U.S. policy in Iran and Iraq for Inter Press Service, has reported that as America began preparing for the military operation in Afghanistan, the then Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ryan Crocker held a series of meetings with Iranian officials in Geneva. Iran offered search-and-rescue help, humanitarian assistance, and even advice on which targets to bomb in Afghanistan. The Iranians, who had been working for years with the main anti-Taliban coalition, the Northern Alliance, also advised the Americans about how to negotiate the major ethnic and political fault lines in the country.

By November 2001, the U.S. Office of Policy Planning had written a paper arguing that there was “a real opportunity” to work more closely with Iran on al-Qaeda. This would have been a smart strategy to take up if your interests were in genuinely separating terrorist organisations from the sponsorship of states. You aim to gain the cooperation of states considered sponsors of terrorism and say, ‘We will take you off the state-sponsors-of-terrorism list if you do the following.’”

What happened instead was that a State of the Union Address was being prepared for President George W. Bush to deliver in January 2002 that included Iran in the “axis of evil”. In the weighing up of the carrot and stick balancing act some wanted the U.S. to come on strong with the stick.

In the weeks after 11 September 2001, President Bush had been sent this letter supporting a "broad and sustained campaign" of military action by the US. How much influence the authors of that letter from the Project for a New American Century actually had on the President's decision-making is a matter of speculation. It may have had more to do with a President going gaga over reports that Iran was the source of an arms cache intercepted on route to Gaza. Whatever the case, it is clear that President Bush, the Commander-in-Chief, champion of the Coalition of the Willing and leader of the free world, decided that to engage with any of those on the state-sponsors-of-terrorism list was a concession to terrorism, a reward for bad behaviour. There would be no deals done with naughty boys. U.S. policy would be that Iran could never be treated as a sovereign equal on any issue. Iran was in the "axis of evil".

President Bush’s axis-of-evil speech was followed by talk of Iran deliberately “harbouring” al-Qaeda cadres who had fled from Afghanistan and signals came from the Bush administration discrediting the promising prospect of cooperation between Tehran and Washington as a means for Iran to obtain U.S. concessions. By May 2002, the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei denounced the idea of negotiations with the United States as useless.

From the perspective of some the "real opportunity", ripe for the taking, was left to wither. From the perspective of others, Bush administration saying no to negotiations and taking a hardline with Tehran was the right thing to do. By September 2002, the U.S. was set on a security framework that shifted its foreign policy away from decades of deterrence and containment toward a more aggressive stance of attacking enemies before they attack America. With momentum building for military action against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, with the White House setting out the Doctrine of Preemptive War, and saying it would never negotiate with terrorists (nowadays at term that seems all inclusive of organisations such as al-Qaeda and all nations on the state-sponsors-of-terrorism list), what other conclusion would Iran come to than that the path ahead might lead to more than the invasion of the neighbour it had even less love for than Afghanistan?

As the tension mounted amongst those searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq where they weren't located, the only other member of the "axis of evil" without the bomb was feeling tense too. What would the Iranians have made of President Bush telling the American people on 16 October 2002 that: "I have not ordered the use of force. I hope that the use of force will not become necessary"? What would they then have made of what happened on 19 March 2003 when they witnessed the 'shock and awe' of the invasion of Iraq? If they made haste in making the bomb, then perhaps it shows all the more what waste junking the "real opportunity" was.

Not everyone saw the "real opportunity" as totally wasted. The two contending camps within U.S. foreign policy setting circles struggled again in 2003 over a proposal by realists, like Colin Powell and Richard Armitage, to reopen the Geneva channel with Iran that had been used successfully on Afghanistan in 2001-2002. It would not have been easy given that by June that year a number of 'experts' were saying Iran would have nuclear weapons by 2006, but somehow Richard Armitage was able by October to say in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

"Iran is a country in the midst of a tremendous transformation, and I believe American policy can affect the direction Iran will take ... United States policy is, therefore, to support the Iranian people in their aspirations for a democratic, prosperous country that is a trusted member of the international community ... As President Bush noted when talking about Iran last week, not every policy issue needs to be dealt with by force."

Though it was not really clear whether the American policy that would 'affect the direction Iran would take' included any carrot or just a thumping big "evil" regime changing stick. And by the end of 2003, Howard Dean (at that time the Democrat presidential frontrunner), was saying U.S. President George Bush has a "schizophrenic foreign policy" regarding Iran:

"Earlier this year, Bush said Iran was part of the Axis of Evil, now we're shipping food, medicine and other supplies to alleviate the suffering of ordinary Iranians. There seems to be a chronic disconnect in the Bush administration between the Iranian people and the actions of the Iranian government. The president needs to make up his mind -- is Iran evil or not?"

In January 2004, more of those shipments of food, medicine and other supplies would be much needed in Iran. Bush may not have made up his mind to use force to beat the bad guys and win out against "evil", but then Bam felt the brutal forces of nature that northern winter and the suffering people of Iran where to be in the Bush administration's thoughts and prayers. By the end of 2004, thoughts and prayers had once again turned to thoughts of bringing to bear that big stick. A new, more aggressive policy on Iran was said to have the backing of then secretary of state-designate Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser.

At the start of 2005, Dick Cheney had placed Iran at the top of Washington’s list of world trouble spots and said that he feared that Israel might strike Tehran in order to eliminate its nuclear threat. “We don’t want a war in the Middle East if we can avoid it,” said Mr Cheney in January 2005.

A month later Senate Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid, was renewing criticism that Iran had been left on what he called 'a back burner' during the Bush administration. "Our policy on Iran has been a non-policy," he said. "The negotiating regarding the nuclear facilities in Iran have [sic] been conducted by other countries. We have not been a player in that, and I think that is too bad. As important as Iran is to a settlement of the problems we have in the Middle East the president should personally be involved. Certainly we shouldn't leave this to other countries." California Democrat Bob Filner was echoing Howard Dean calling U.S. policy on Iran contradictory. "We have been going on this schizophrenic policy of preparing for war perhaps, which I think is a dangerous situation, just in a military fashion we seem to be overstrained to our limits just with Iraq and Afghanistan, and to try an even more problematic situation would be difficult for our nation," he said.

At about the same time, John Bolton, the State Department's top international security official, was echoing Dick Cheney saying publicly that Israel might attack Iran's nuclear sites because the Jewish state has "a history" of such actions (referring to Israel's 1981 bombing raid on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor).

President George W. Bush would later make 'clear' in his 2005 State of the Union address that he wanted a peaceful solution to the dispute over Iran's nuclear program. In the UK, Tony Blair would echo Bush saying "I don't know of anybody planning military action against Iran", news of which would break on the same day as Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said his government 'has no intention' of launching a strike against Iranian nuclear installations and two days after U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he had never authorised sending reconnaissance planes over Iran to spy on it.

By April 2005, state delegations of Iranian-Americans across the U.S. had come together for the first ever National Convention for a Democratic, Secular Republic in Iran was held in Washington. They declared their resounding support for democratic change in Iran and called for "third option" in policy toward Tehran, first introduced by Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, at the time the president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. The third option: 'No to Appeasement, No to War, Yes to Democratic Change by the Iranian People'.

By June 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hard-line mayor of Tehran who had invoked Iran's 1979 revolution and expressed doubts about rapprochement with the United States in his campaign to become President, was 'elected' under circumstances seen by the U.S. and most of the democratic world as far more controversial than a hanging chad ever could be. A month later, outgoing President Mohammad Khatami said the prospect of dialogue resuming between the United States and Iran was more distant. "We are further from it (a resumption of dialogue) today than we have been for some years," he said. He couldn't see a "real opportunity" for dialogue arising again.

By the end of 2005, influential Republican congresswoman, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, a Bush loyalist who chairs a House of Representatives subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, expressed frustration over President Bush's approach to Iran. She wasn't just saying pressure was building for a tougher U.S. policy. Ros-Lehtinen said she did not believe the administration had a clear idea of "what they want to do there and what is the end game". Get out the big stick in other words.

At the beginning of this year Iran’s new hard-line President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said the Islamic Republic’s 1979 Islamic revolution was a great movement and a stepping stone to a final “great event” in the world. And you can understand why those who dismissed the "real opportunity" would now want that big stick so bad. By June a growing chorus of critics on the American right were saying the Bush administration is being soft on Iran and other so-called "enemies of freedom." Events of the past month give them all the more reason to raise the volume. But if there were a way to get back to what were once "real opportunities", if a way could be found, a firm and fair way, to have Iran take those steps needed for it to be taken off the state-sponsors-of-terrorism list without anyone being wiped of any map, would they tune in?

[ category:

]

We must stop Bush bombing Iran, and stop Iran getting the bomb

Submitted by Craig Rowley on February 8, 2007 - 12:17pm.

Timothy Garton Ash on commentisfree.guardian.co.uk runs through the options:

We should not bomb Iran to prevent Iran getting the bomb. The consequences would be disastrous.

But ...

Joining with wiser heads in Washington to prevent George Bush making a final gung-ho blunder is only a preliminary to the real business. Anyone who, after a bracing afternoon walk chanting "stop the war" and "stop Bush", goes home thinking they have made the world a safer place needs to think some more.

And although ...

If we don't bomb Iran, Iran is quite likely to get the bomb. If Iran gets the bomb, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others in the Middle East will be tempted to follow. The last barriers to nuclear proliferation, already breached by North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel, could rapidly break - in the most volatile region in the world.

The available evidence suggests ...

... that Ayatollah Khameini, the supreme leader of the revolutionary regime, has not made a decision to go for nuclear weapons, and it would take a number of years to get there even if he had.

But ...

Iran has been doing a number of things that are not explicable simply by a desire to have the civilian nuclear energy to which it is entitled under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

So ...

The real question is therefore how, without the use of force, you can stop Iran going down this path. This requires pressure as well as incentives.

As Timothy points, later this month we hit the 60-day deadline for the UN to review whether Iran has complied with Resolution 1737.

The real question will remain how, without the use of force, you can stop Iran going down this path, and that is the question I'd like to maintain focus on in my next article for Webdiary.

And to close this thread I'd like to say thank you to those who have provided some constructive answers to that question amongst the 1,369 comments on this thread. We can pick up the conversation again soon.

Vote early and vote often

Submitted by Jay White on February 7, 2007 - 3:38pm.

Angela Ryan, my oh my, where do I start?

Angela Ryan: "Electronic voting is the present challenge to real democracy in the US. We must help find reasons to make the war a very bad event for all political leaders and power groups, then it may not happen."

The United States does not have a national election commission such as Australia. The voting process is decided upon individually by each State. Most state governors are Democrat. A good start would be writing to one of these people.

Unfortunately for Bush the "rort" must not have been working during the latest Congressional elections?

Actually attacking the American electorial system is nothing new. It used to rely on the fact that only around 40% of people bother to vote. Much of the attacks are to somehow make it okay that a lot of other nation's peoples do not even have the chance to go through the process. The US does not "really" have democracy so it is okay we don't vote. That sort of thing.

And no it does not make it right that nations such as Cuba do not have democracy. If they could vote they would have kicked Castro out forty years ago. Because for the average Cuban it is a crap government making it a crap place to live. Hence the need to get a boat to Florida.

Angela Ryan: "The Bush/Cheney cabal must go immediately. Their reasons for the decision suggest factors not available for public perusal and hence a danger."

Actually not how the system of democracy works. They have been voted in to serve a term. And they will be allowed to serve that term. Opposition will get their chance at the next election. As democracy demands they do. Lucky for the anti-Bush crowd it is not Cuba, huh?

Angela Ryan: "And yes, Jay I agree Gore is a stooge, imagine anyone running on a ticket with Lieberman (whose re-election as a senator by the way, certainly deserves a recount, by logical analysis)."

Lieberman was a mile ahead on every poll leading into the election. He got the support of Republicans and the centrist Democrats. If they had a recount, the "recounters" may sue for the mental damage of calling "Lieberman" over and over again.

Angela Ryan: "Heads in the sand or shout now for stopping it. Doing nothing, being lulled, will let it happen again but worse for all our friends. How's ya Chinese?"

Pretty good actually. Looking at the Australian work culture not sure how a couple of sections would fare under a Chinese boss. They will learn the value of every dollar they earn though.

Now "think tanks" and how much influence they have? Likely they have some, but no more then many other special interest groups and probably, in the case of a few, a lot less. Money does in the end speak all languages. And everybody will get their chance to get their point across, including oil companies (who would not mind being in Iran). They certainly do not want it at war and destroyed. Maybe you could write to your friendly Exxon rep or something?

Iran is on a hiding to nothing. No future President has any chance of giving in to their demands. Personally, I think they should just let Iran go bust. And you might find all that weaponry could be there just in case Iran were to get a "funny idea" of disrupting the flow of the beautiful black stuff to lands far and wide. Every dollar drop in crude is another nail in the debt ridden Iranian economy and that of its President's political coffin.

Marxist pledge to stand by Iran "under any condition"

Submitted by C Parsons on February 7, 2007 - 3:18pm.

Craig Rowley: "How do the neocon hawks in Washington "know" this [The aim is to isolate the USA for propaganda purposes, not seek solutions to diplomatic and political problems]. Sure they assume it, but how do they "know" it?

There's no logical reason otherwise for Iran and North Korea to keep insisting on bilateral talks with the USA. North Korea's successes with the Clinton administration in extracting material and political concessions by brandishing its nuclear threat was the benchmark that Iran and North Korea sought to pursue also with Bush. So, it is to the Bush administration's credit that it has steadfastly resisted such a transparent ploy and insisted on discussions within a multi-national framework. There's nothing for Iran and North Korea to lose in such a setting - except propaganda advantage.

And if anyone doubts the reality of a "pinkoslamic conspiracy" in this respect, I need not only remind you that North Korea, a Marxist regime, is a close political ally of the Islamic Republic of Iran, but that Marxist buffoon Hugo Chavez is the recipient of the Islamic Republic's highest formal state award and has repeatedly described himself and Ayranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as "kindred spirits" and insists he would "stay by Iran at any time and under any condition". They're his words, Craig. Why do you go on denying this plain, widely documented feature of contemporary political life?

And don't even get me started on China's relationship with Iran. Oh, that's right. We have to pretend the People's Republic of China isn't "really" a socialist state these days, don't we, so proud of it we have become.

And if there's no problem with multilateral discussions with Iran, why do you keep going on and on and on demanding that Jay and everyone else justify such a thing?

The great chasm has begun

Submitted by Jay White on February 7, 2007 - 2:11pm.

Let's just say the attempt to stir up public reaction by using the misleading impending attack on Iran is the first attempt for one half of the "anti-Bush" crowd to keep the momentum going. If I were a Hilary supporter I would be getting a little jumpy at the tone of attack aimed directly toward her.

One group is just starting to discover that some (political crowd) have morals that stretch as far as getting the keys to the kingdom. The other crowd are just starting to work out that a large section (anti-US crowd) has served their purpose and now could mean big problems. When they are ditched (and Bill was a expert at doing it) they are not going to take to it kindly.

My, oh my, things are going to be very interesting by next year.

Now how do we transfer? Any ideas?

Submitted by Jay White on February 7, 2007 - 2:02pm.

This passage comes for the first Bob Wall link:

Look at the leaders emerging amid this crisis. The two major Republican presidential contenders are John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, the most aggressive internationalists in a party that used to have an isolationist wing.

The Democrats, meanwhile, campaigned for Congress in 2006 by promising to increase the size of the military. The presidential front-runner, Hillary Clinton, is the leader of the party’s hawkish wing and recently called for a surge of U.S. troops into Afghanistan. John Edwards, the most “leftward” major presidential contender, just delivered a bare-knuckled speech in which he castigated the Bush administration for not being tough enough with Iran. “To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table,” Edwards warned.

I ask that people read that article carefully. For this is something I have predicted happening. And it will become more pronounced as the election and retirement of Bush draws closer.

What you have with Bush's end is the end of the "unifying effect". See, the opposition to Bush works stictly down two lines. On side is strictly political, the other strictly anti-American and a few other things.

Now on the "possible" election of a Democrat or at least the certain election of someone more moderate than Bush, the chasm will become unbridgable. Once the political needs are meet for one side that becomes the end of the issue. For the other though, the anti-American rhetoric and feelings merely transfers as it always has.

Let's just say the anti-American wing has had a chance to "come in from the cold". And they are enjoying the warmth they have found. On the election of say Hilary a big swag of the anti-Bush crowd will be wanting to send them back there as quickly as possible (the great break up). For they have taken many undesirables under the umbrella of "my enemy's enemy is my friend". And this will cause problems.

For center-right people, such as myself, this leaves the spectacle of a lot of good sport. When leftists attack, so to speak.

doom and gloom

Submitted by Jay White on February 7, 2007 - 1:40pm.

Craig Rowley: "Has US policy set by the neocon hawks in the Bush administration been to come to the table in multilateral UN-brokered discussions with Iran? No, they insisted that they would not participate except through the EU3 piggy in the middle."

And that is why it has gone before the UN and sanctions have been applied. And if Iran keeps going down this crazy path more sanctions should be applied.

Iran, even if it gains a nuclear weapon, will still not be able to reach the US. The USA however can obliterate Iran at any time of its choosing. If Iran wishes to send itself into economic ruin over proving a pointless point there is little I, nor anyone else, can do about it.

The big three should take a stand though. Lest it be Taiwan, Japan, a Baltic state, etc, next. Living on an island or in North America does have its advantages.

Daniel Smythe: "The only other key is held jointly by the other nations of the world (Australia and Britain excluded). It is up to these nations to unite quickly then stand up to America if they want to stop the Neocon madness from reaching the point of no return."

Would you like to make a prediction when this "point of no return" will be reached? I am thinking along the lines of a point in time.

Now some people may see honour in the approach of Iran, North Korea and that Latin American country. They may even delude themselves into believing it is the end of world capatilism or some such nonsense.

If this is the case I would advise trying to pick the lead from something more then a couple of broke nations with a couple of offbeat dingbat leaders in charge of the direction. But if the people pushing it had the smarts to work this out, capatilism would already be dead. And is what I think they call a dilemma.

Broke Dingbat - you mean Bush!

Submitted by Daniel Smythe on February 7, 2007 - 3:44pm.

Hey, Jay! You couldn't get a bigger dingbat than Bush. Check out any book that lists Bushisms, hundreds and hundreds of nonsensical statements that he had made over the last six years to say nothing of the Iraq and Afghanistan fiascos. In fact, to call him a dingbat is to insult all dingbats. As a species they are far more intelligent than George.

And broke! Do you know how much debt America has incurred during Bush's follies? It seems that China owns most of America now.

And put a date on it? Would it really make a scrap of difference if the nukes fell on Iran on the 20/2/2007 or the 15/4/2007? If so, what is it?

What is important is that WW3 will have begun and, Jay, surely most right-minded folk would agree that that must be stopped at all costs.

Why don't you use your commenting to help achieve that worthy goal?

Cheers!

Pandering and polls.

Submitted by Bob Wall on February 7, 2007 - 12:27pm.

G'day Craig, this article might be of interest as it relates to influence and pandering and the claims about who supports what was debated earlier in regard to opinion polls. Internal links are worth following as well.

US attack on Iran "imminent". Again.

Submitted by C Parsons on February 7, 2007 - 8:40am.

Jay White: "I would not talk one on one with Iran. I would send it to the UN. And that is exactly what the US has quiet rightly done."

This alone accounts for the automatic "Left" insistence that the USA is doing something "wrong" by seeking multilateral, UN based discussions with Iran, in which the USA would participate as a permanent Security Council member in any case. For example...

Craig Rowley: "Now, back to talking about solutions. Why do you think direct talks would be a mistake?..."

The aim is to isolate the USA for propaganda purposes, not seek solutions to diplomatic and political problems. This has been Iran's (and North Korea's) combined joint strategy all along, as the USA knows too well.

"Iran has followed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent letter to President Bush with explicit requests for direct talks on its nuclear program, according to U.S. officials, Iranian analysts and foreign diplomats." - Washington Post, Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Craig Rowley: "Where has anyone on Webdiary, apart from the untenable straw man erected by C Parsons (and now by implication Jay White), actually objected to 'that'?"

Well, Craig, you raised the topic. I'm just responding to your comment. You've been going on about it for months. For example:

"Ummm ... whatca reckon about this statement on Israel's stance on talks:

"Unlike other American allies, Israel supports America's unilateralism, which is in fact in tune with its own defense doctrine that stresses self-reliance and is skeptical of the effectiveness of multilateral action."

Isn't that like saying: "Multilateral talks (or action) bad. Unilateral strikes good." - Craig Rowley, October 9, 2006 - 12:39pm.

It's the USA that wants multilateral talks, Craig. Not Iran. And there's no indication of any impending strike on Iran. Though you have been insisting on this for months too....

Craig Rowley: "I'll make a different prediction, Michael. That cranky conga-line of neocons will be busily finding ways right now to justify their mad, destabilising foreign policy position. 'What Saddam could and would have bought and built with the help of North Korea and A. Q. Kahn,' they'll cry, 'That's why we woz right!' 'And the mad Mullahs have contracts and actual plans,' they'll stress, 'That's why we must take action.' - October 9, 2006 - 8:35pm.

Here you are warning of an American attack on Iran's nuclear facilities citing Israeli sources...

Today the Israeli DEBKAfile crew say: "our military and Washington sources read as preparatory justification the Syrian ruler Bashar Asad’s statement Saturday, Oct. 7, that he expects an Israeli attack." - Craig Rowley on October 8, 2006 - 12:31pm.

Anyway, the blather about "direct talks", as I pointed out on October 9, 2006 - 10:44am in my comment "The new mantra - Isolate the Great Satan" is intended to serve several purposes:

Convince us that Iran and North Korea are global powers on a standing with the United States
Characterise both the President of Iran and his ally Kim II, the hereditary monarch of North Korea, as stand-out champions against the Great Satan Infidel and Zionist Imperialism
Provide a platform outside the United Nations and its agencies for direct bargaining for concessions with the USA (along the lines of Hitler's bargaining with the UK in the 1930s and his withdrawl from the League of Nations)
Ensure there are no conflicting accounts of what was said when Iran and North Korea backflip on their undertakings later
And go ahead and build their bombs and missiles anyway
Signal the right slogans to the Western "intelligentsia" for the purposes of massaging the spin in the democracies

It's nothing personal, Craig. You simply have no choice but to repeat the mantra.

C Parsons misrepresents again

Submitted by Craig Rowley on February 7, 2007 - 12:59pm.

C Parsons: "This alone accounts for the automatic "Left" insistence ..."

Ahhh ... an example of the automatic construction of the pinkoslamic conspiracy theory straw man, once again.

Has anyone on Webdiary insisted that the USA would be doing something "wrong" if it sought multilateral, UN based discussions with Iran? No, you'll find no-one has.

Has US policy set by the neocon hawks in the Bush administration been to come to the table in multilateral UN-brokered discussions with Iran? No, they insisted that they would not participate except through the EU3 piggy in the middle.

CP: "The aim is to isolate the USA for propaganda purposes, not seek solutions to diplomatic and political problems. This has been Iran's (and North Korea's) combined joint strategy all along, as the USA knows too well."

How do the neocon hawks in Washington "know" this? Sure they assume it, but how do they "know" it?

CP: "It's the USA that wants multilateral talks, Craig."

Do they? When did the Bush administration say it had agreed to all parties sitting down in something like a regional conference and talking through their differences as per the path laid out in Articles 33 to 38 of the UN Charter?

CP: "Here you are warning of an American attack on Iran's nuclear facilities citing Israeli sources..."

That is a misrepresentation. Read the comment I made in full and you'll see I was not "warning of an American attack". The Israeli source, DEBKA, was warning of a Syrian attack.

C Parsons, please respect Webdiary Ethics and retract your misstatement of fact.

Iranian economy

Submitted by Will Howard on February 7, 2007 - 11:18am.

One counterweight to Iranian influence in the Mideast is Saudi Arabia, where In Public View, Saudis Counter Iran in Region, according to the New York Times. I think using the Saudis as a counter-influence has its own dangers, and the West should be wary of the moral and political problems posed by having the Saudi royal family as allies. One weapon in the fight is the price of oil, and the story notes "Some even say that the recent Saudi commitment to temper the price of oil is aimed at undermining Iran’s economy, although officials here deny that."

Predictions

Submitted by Will Howard on February 7, 2007 - 9:49am.

"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." - Niels Bohr

I think anyone who "predicts" that the US is going to attack Iran should provide a date by which the attack is going to occur, so it can be on record. "Impending," "planned," and such qualifications make these predictions trivial (i.e. impossible to rule out).

What I find incongruous is the characterisation of the US statements about Iran as "alarming," whereas truly belligerent rhetoric from Iran is dismissed as 1) mistranslation, 2) selective quoting "out of context," 3) political bluster for Iranian domestic consumption. Or all the above.

It seems the Iranian economy is whatever you want it to be

Submitted by Jay White on February 7, 2007 - 1:23am.

Angela Ryan: "Hi Jay , you obviously didnt read the the Editor of New Yorker nor heard him speak on his tour here about American "democracy" and how the elecronic voting machines have perverted such especially in the just passed Ohio count. A great democracy does not have two stolen presidential elections that are both on record to the US shame."

I really do not go much into this nonsense these days. I expect it all to run out of steam if a Democrat is elected next time around. Pure fantasy based down political lines. The Bush election team did a superb job both elections (people should give credit where it is due).

Gore (as kooky as they come) lost the 2000 election due to Nader in Florida and because of his own poor campaign style. And Kerry was probably the worst candidate I have seen since McGovern. The only time I would have questioned the result was if Kerry had of won. Now that I would have found hard to believe.

Angela Ryan: "And Jay, do you have any real evidence that Iran is in any worse economic state than the US?"

The USA is the world's largest economy by a long way. It is also the world's leading economy. Iran is a nation bordering on third world with a disgracfully mismanged economy. Structural flaws abound. I have posted a view links (I don't like doing it) so here is the final one.

Iran's civil society is experiencing major breakdowns, the country's reformist press and Web loggers are reporting. Signs of growing economic instability include high inflation, rising prices, food shortages, and long lines at gas stations.

Now I would suggest spending huge somes on proxy wars and paying top dollar for somebody to supply nuclear weapons is not wise. That the country cannot put together this rather (old) technology themselves should be a concern in itself.

Now you seem to be of the belief this place is some sort of economic paradise and the USA verges on collapse. Well, fair enough, if you have a particular question or thought I would be happy to read and post what I think about it.

The USA is not running out of money. That statement is absurd. There are certain technical issues I think could do with some improvement. And I also think the military budget needs to be addressed. On present projections they should be back in surplus by 2010. Though there is much scope for them to raise taxes or at least cut back on the Bush cuts. The next President will have to decide on that.

Angela Ryan: "While the present course may save the elite in power fromthe ever encroaching legal attacks and impeachments, it is devastating for the people of the USA as it means eventual conflict with Russia and China."

Why? And who says the present course is written in slate anyway? A new president will have different ideas and he/she will face different sets of problems.

Many powerful and wealthy Russians and Chinese own property and invest in the United States. Why would they wish to go to war with it? As a matter of fact, corporate America is the largest investor in China. It is not a fluke that China has undergone a rapid period of growth during a time of trade liberalisation. Due to the end of the Cold War.

Angela Ryan: "Oh and Jay, about the Shell/ Spanish oil Iran investment (not settled until 12months) the fact that the Spanish side also heavily invested in Argentina just before that country's economy was crashed may partly explain the action.

I have no idea what this means? I was in Argentina leading up to the crash. In simple terms they had their currency artifically pegged to the US dollar. It started out as a sensible measure to halt hyper inflation. Unfortunately due to politics (isn't always) this situation was never addressed. And just like the inevitable crash of the Iranian economy (unless quickly addressed) so too was the collapse of the Argentinian Peso. One cannot escape that mathematics is a certainty.

Projection of the mad bad US, anyone still believe this?

Submitted by Jay White on February 6, 2007 - 7:08pm.

Bob Wall's Guardian link screams "Attacking Iran would be a disaster". They may as well made a survey of what people think of attacking China. For it has the same amount of chance of happening.

Nobody is saying they will be attacking Iran. It is a delusional construct to suit the politics of the day. The projection that the US is insane. A lot of these leftist hill billies are probably unintentionally helping the US anyway with their nonsense.

Ronald Reagan was portrayed as a lunatic with his finger hovering over the "button". At the same time unknowingly to the left (who traditionally cannot read basic signs) the USSR was economically crumbling. Caught in a continual and unwinnable arms race it eventually all came crashing down.

Iran is struggling badly economically. They with nuclear weapons or not cannot win a arms race. Continually urged on by prophets of doom in some quarters in the west. Their leader is unpopular and things are likely not to improve. His time is running out. Tick tock tick tock......

The US should wait it out and then pick up the pieces without firing one shot in anger.

So which "viewpoint" do you hold more of?

Submitted by Jay White on February 6, 2007 - 6:45pm.

Craig Rowley: "Where has anyone on Webdiary, apart from the untenable straw man erected by C Parsons (and now by implication Jay White), actually objected to 'that'?"

Well I certainly do not object to it. And you now apparently have two opposing solutions held at the same time. On the one hand you wish for US-Iran direct talks on the other UN directed talks.

I would not talk one on one with Iran. I would send it to the UN. And that is exactly what the US has quiet rightly done.

Either/Or? Both/And?

Submitted by Craig Rowley on February 6, 2007 - 7:35pm.

"And you now apparently have two opposing solutions held at the same time. On the one hand you wish for US-Iran direct talks on the other UN directed talks."

"Two opposing solutions", Jay? Never considered the logical possibility that they can have both direct talks with Iran about Iraq and multilateral talks (with both US and Iranian representatives at the table) about Iran's nuclear program?

Having it all

Submitted by Will Howard on February 7, 2007 - 9:38am.

No reason both multilateral and bilateral negotiations can't occur at once. I just thought the big criticism of the US was that it acts unilaterally, and "should" act within the context of international organisations, treaties, etc. Isn't this what the US is doing now with respect to Iran? So we should be welcoming the Bush Administration's approach, no?

The untenable situation

Submitted by Jay White on February 6, 2007 - 5:08pm.

C Parsons: "Given that the United States is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Iran would be able to address its concerns both directly to the USA while the USA could excercise its options within the collective security framework of the United Nations. Iran would get what it purports to want, and the collective security framework of the United Nations would be preserved. Why would anyone, apart from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, object to that?"

And it is exactly this contradiction running throughout this whole discussion that makes it illogical. The sands forever shifting for many of these people to suit the politics of the day. An untenable situation.

The actual situation

Submitted by Craig Rowley on February 6, 2007 - 5:44pm.

"Why would anyone, apart from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, object to that?"

Where has anyone on Webdiary, apart from the untenable straw man erected by C Parsons (and now by implication Jay White), actually objected to "that"?

Treaty? What treaty?

Submitted by Bob Wall on February 6, 2007 - 5:05pm.

G'day Craig, and I thank you again for another good Plesch article. The NPT is becoming a case of more honoured in the breach for some and there is a need to refocus efforts in reducing the arsenals and halting proliferation. The review should be such an opportunity.

It would be unfortunate if some did walk away and helpful if others walked in.

On the matter of finding a solution for the US/Iran issue, there is this report.

There is time and there is the need.

Is the "most important multilateral agreement" a mistake?

Submitted by C Parsons on February 6, 2007 - 12:45pm.

Craig Rowley: "Now, back to talking about solutions. Why do you think direct talks would be a mistake? Dick Cheney once said "We don't negotiate with evil; we defeat it." Do you agree with him?"

Well here's your answer....

Craig Rowley quoting Dan Plesch:

“The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is our indispensable basis for addressing the dangers of nuclear proliferation. .....This is a popular bargain; the Non-Proliferation Treaty has more signatories than any international treaty other than the UN Charter. This fundamental bargain must not be allowed to erode."

Should not this "most popular and most important multilateral agreement" then be the basis for discussions with Iran over that nation's violations of the Treaty on a multilateral basis as opposed to mere bi-lateral discussions between Iran and the United States outside the framework of the United Nations?

Given that the United States is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Iran would be able to address its concerns both directly to the USA while the USA could excercise its options within the collective security framework of the United Nations. Iran would get what it purports to want, and the collective security framework of the United Nations would be preserved. Why would anyone, apart from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, object to that?

More to mulll over.

Submitted by Bob Wall on February 6, 2007 - 10:54am.

G'day Craig, have some more material for people to ponder. The first is one that is the vein you have pursued, it is Newton Garver Decider vs Negotiator. An extract:

It is entirely right to understand the contrast between the Negotiator and the Decider as one form of the contrast between pragmatism and idealism, as well as one of perception. So manners and style are a crucial aspect of the contrast.

With respect to style, the Negotiator works through apparent differences to a consensus on which all can agree. In the process he normally hides his own deepest fears and aspirations, so that in representing the group he becomes a spokesperson rather than a decision-maker. Baker did this brilliantly in hammering out a unanimous report from the ISG. The style of the Negotiator requires careful listening to other viewpoints and incorporating them - - perhaps not in their original formulation - - in the final negotiated agreement. The handbook on negotiation, Getting to Yes (Fisher, Ury, and Patton; Penguin 1991), lays stress on distinguishing between positions and interests, insisting that a serious negotiator always looks behind conflicting positions fo convergent interests. Such, indeed is the style of the report of the ISG. The report notes that it is in the interest of both Iran and Syria, as well as Turkey, that Iraq not erupt into such chaos that refugees flee into neighboring countries. This interest might well be convergent with US interests, however much current rhetoric suggests that the parties are mired in incompatible positions.

The style of the Decider is to dismiss and denigrate divergent positions rather to work through differences. This has been apparent since the first notes of tension and disagreement emerged from the Beltway, with the departure of the first Treasury Secretary, the denigration of various arms-control experts, and the exposure of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent following her husband's candid report on alleged uranium shipments from Niger to Iraq. There can be no such thing as honorable disagreement with the Decider. That is part of what is meant by Bush being the Decider: disagreement is betrayal, just because disagreement refuses to acknowledge the decisions the Decider has made. It is not a shade of gray but jet black. Therefore the Decider is undermined by negotiators as much as by dissidents.

Next, Craig Unger in Vanity Fair, on the processes and people who got from there to here, ie., the Iran confrontation.

Eric Margolis on the familiar fight.

While the Bush/Cheney administration seems hell-bent on provoking war with Iran, Americans appear far more alarmed by the dangers of global warming. Many of them must regret not voting for "Ecological Al" Gore in 2000.

While icebergs melt, the U.S.-Iran confrontation is getting very dangerous. The heaviest concentration of U.S. naval strike forces since the 2003 war against Iraq is concentrating off Iran.

In a disturbing replay of that conflict, CIA drones and U.S. Air Force recon aircraft -- along with U.S. and British Special Forces -- are overflying Iran and probing its nuclear and military installations. CIA and Britain's MI6 are stirring unrest among Iran's Kurds and Azerbaijanis, and arming Iranian Marxist and royalist exiles.

A belligerent President George Bush ordered U.S. forces in Iraq to "kill" Iranian agents or diplomats who appear threatening.

U.S. troops in northern Iraq broke into an Iranian liaison office and arrested its military staff. Bush unblushingly warns Iran, not to "meddle" in neighbouring Iraq.

Skewed priorities and that lack of a sense of irony again.

We have read and heard much from the Bush Administration about the alleged meddling and yet the dossier that was supposed to prove it was not deemed solid enough. Here are a couple of pieces on the intel - from Gareth Porter.

After promising that the Bush administration would publish a document this week detailing the evidence for its charge that Iranians in Iraq are providing arms and advice to Shiite militias to kill American troops, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack suggested Wednesday that no such document would be forthcoming any time soon. Paul Richter of The Los Angeles Times reported that some officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, had resisted the release of the dossier, because they believed the assertions contained in it would have so little credibility that it would backfire politically. As Richter wrote, "They want to avoid repeating the embarrassment that followed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, when it became clear that information the administration cited to justify the war was incorrect…"

Indeed, the new campaign hyping Iranian meddling, like the 2002-2003 propaganda campaign leading up to the invasion of Iraq, emphasizes a single, highly emotional theme. Instead of the “mushroom cloud” invoked by Condoleezza Rice in September 2002, the administration now conjures up the image of Iranian agents lurking in Iraq for the purpose of killing Americans. And although the White House has decided against the release of any documentation of these allegations for now, the campaign proceeds apace.

As it did in 2002 and 2003 regarding the Iraqi threat, the Bush administration claims to have “intelligence” to support its central theme of Iranian agents fomenting Shiite violence. But a careful investigation of some specific statements that have been made on the alleged Iranian role in sending weapons to Iraqi Shiite militias reveals a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

Read on.

From Keith Olbermann - Ignoring the intelligence. Video.

Same old, same old. Time for a change.

And more to mull over

Submitted by Craig Rowley on February 6, 2007 - 11:19am.

“The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is our indispensable basis for addressing the dangers of nuclear proliferation. By signing up to the NPT, the international community struck a major bargain: non-nuclear-weapon states renounced the acquisition and possession of nuclear weapons in return for the nuclear-weapon states' commitment to nuclear disarmament. This commitment is unequivocal. This is a popular bargain; the Non-Proliferation Treaty has more signatories than any international treaty other than the UN Charter. This fundamental bargain must not be allowed to erode. Non-proliferation and disarmament are complementary, not separate, goals."

G'day Bob. I recall your thanks for an earlier Dan Plesch article I'd pointed out. That’s Dan above noting the nature of a most popular and most important multilateral agreement to deal with the menace of mass destruction (as described by the German and Norwegian foreign ministers) in his New Statesman article titled “How to start an arms race”.

The NPT comes up for review this year and with it a chance to change the deal. But will it change for the better or for the worse is the question? It’ll be interesting to watch which States decide to start shaping up to flex their muscles and impose their will upon all signatories. More interesting still to see who'll decide to unilaterally walk away from it.

If at first something fails - put all your eggs in one basket.

Submitted by C Parsons on February 6, 2007 - 8:38am.

Craig Rowley: "Here's the logic. If you sink squillions into the investment in a shield system like Star Wars, then you're not counting on a good ROI from your non-proliferation efforts, particularly your disarmament efforts. Alternatively expressed: If you work on non-proliferation and disarmament, then you don't need a very expensive shield system."

You could do both. Diplomacy and defense preparedness. I mean, you may as well ask why spend squillions on any defense programme if you have a diplomatic corps? Because you are not expecting a good return from your peaceful diplomatic initiatives? Or because you'd be foolish to rely entirely on them?

Why would Iran spend squillions developing "peaceful nuclear energy" if it is sitting on top of one of the world's most gigantic oil and gas reserves? Why would China develop a missile system capable of blowing up an orbiting satellite if it wasn't planning to actually shoot down other countries' satellites?

Craig's argument essentially rests on the tried and failed doctrine of unilateralism - not to mention the old 'one basket with all the eggs in it' theory. The unilateral disarmament doctrine that was such an integral element of Labour Left and other Socialist dogma in Western (though strangely not Eastern) Europe during the rise of Nazism and which was at the core of the '70s and '80s peace movement which helped prolong the life of the Soviet Empire. Golly, it failed miserably then. So why not give it another try now that the dogma of Iranian Supremacist IslamoFascism, the most malignant political doctrine in at least 75 years, is beginning its climb.

I'm not saying the Iranian Supremacists are in the same league as Nazi Germany - they're not as well educated or as cultured for starters - but they have aspirations, don't they? And the utterly malignant Communist dictatorship in China, while generally quite pragmatic in its oppressive tyranny, will sooner or later start to crumble under the effects of the economic liberalism it illogically hopes will prop up its illiberal political system. At that point, it will start thrashing around. Looking for legs. And as the Red Chinese Empire collapses, like the Soviet Empire, its proxies and puppets and presumed possessions, like North Korea or Taiwan, will get restless and adventurous and desperate. Just as Saddam got loose from the USSR as it went down and then started attacking his neighbours left and right, a schmuk like Kim Jong Il will get on the loose. No sir. When the Reds in China go down, you are going to be glad for a missile defense system of some sort. Especially if you live in some place like Tokyo or Honolulu. Because relying on Condi Rice's or Hilary Clinton's powers of persuasion to save you might not be enough.

No logic

Submitted by Jay White on February 6, 2007 - 1:47am.

And this is exactly what I love about the internet. Your statement has no logic if one has followed your argument. None whatsoever. I have no doubt you could find 80% of people to agree with you. My question in life would be why?

Dipolmacy (or talking) would cost nothing. Or at least it would be neglible. Yet you are willing to wear the entire cost (life or death) of a "bet" on hope? Why for example is it impossible to do both? Work diplomatically yet have a back up in case (and the odds say it will happen) somebody does not agree?

Seriously, you look to departmentalise all problems. Yet when there is a problem you look to head office to solve it. Actually you expect this happen. Yet you do not want them involved. Then, that depends on whether there is a problem or not. Then you claim it should be left to the department. And around it goes. Making decisions a problem by any chance?

Craig Rowley: "I think this "blackmail" line is key. It is more than the clichéd notion of a supervillain threatening world leaders with a nuclear device. I think it is related to the strict father model, the core metaphor of conservative politics. More on the logic to that later."

I can hardly wait.

Craig Rowley: "Interestingly, part of the assumption that Bush and his supporters put forward before striking and invading Iraq was that if Saddam Hussein developed nuclear weapons, “We would have been in a position of blackmail.” That's logical - imagine WMD; imagine blackmail."

Has nothing to do with Iran. Like reading last weeks paper and telling somebody about today.

An initiative.

Submitted by Bob Wall on February 5, 2007 - 6:52pm.

G'day Craig, perhaps there is a need for a first step to start the move to resolving the situation in the ME. Referring back to the idea of a nuclear free ME, perhaps if Israel opened up its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspections then that would be a show of good intentions. Then, perhaps, an offer to dismantle its nuclear weapons arsenal in exchange for concessions from Iran. This type of bold initiative might just break the impasse; after all, it would remove the need for other states to compete with Israel in respect of nuclear weapons arsenals.

Might make Israel look less hypocritical as well.

Yeah? So?

Submitted by Jay White on February 5, 2007 - 3:49pm.

Craig Rowley: "That's a fair base to work with and turn votes against a proponent of something like Star Wars."

Why? This is actually not logical. Star Wars is not a nuclear weapon. It is designed to destroy nuclear weapons. There has been no Star Wars and nuclear weapons have are now in a multitude of nations. No doubt the numbers will continue to rise.

Craig Rowley: "And we are talking about Madam Speaker these days."

So what is your point? We are not talking about Madam President. Bush was elected to be the President up until 2009. His policy on election was not secret. Democracy and the American system of it demand that he has the right to make these decisions until that special date.

Craig Rowley: "Now, back to talking about solutions. Why do you think direct talks would be a mistake? Dick Cheney once said "We don't negotiate with evil; we defeat it." Do you agree with him?"

It would be a mistake because you are effectively giving in to blackmail. And once a blackmailer finds his target he never gives up. It will also lead to more nations attempting the same trick. Why not? It has been successful. Robert Mugabe next anyone? Chavez perhaps?

I do not even know what context that quote was given in. Or what question it answered. Maybe I agree with it. Maybe I don't.

Jay White - not actually logical?

Submitted by Craig Rowley on February 5, 2007 - 9:25pm.

Jay White: "This is actually not logical."

Here's the logic. If you sink squillions into the investment in a shield system like Star Wars, then you're not counting on a good ROI from your non-proliferation efforts, particularly your disarmament efforts. Alternatively expressed: If you work on non-proliferation and disarmament, then you don't need a very expensive shield system.

Jay: "His policy on election was not secret."

Where's the link to the "Axis of Evil" policy statement that he must have logically put out during his 2000 campaign? How about the "Invasion of Iraq" policy?

Jay: "It would be a mistake because you are effectively giving in to blackmail."

I think this "blackmail" line is key. It is more than the clichéd notion of a supervillain threatening world leaders with a nuclear device. I think it is related to the strict father model, the core metaphor of conservative politics. More on the logic to that later.

Interestingly, part of the assumption that Bush and his supporters put forward before striking and invading Iraq was that if Saddam Hussein developed nuclear weapons, “We would have been in a position of blackmail.” That's logical - imagine WMD; imagine blackmail.

Going nuclear ballistic

Submitted by C Parsons on February 5, 2007 - 2:30pm.

Craig Rowley: "What it shows is that 79% of the Americans surveyed want the governments of the United States and Iran to have direct talks on issues of mutual concern."

For starters, we want to wind down tensions between Iran and the USA. And what better way to do this than pit them one-on-one in a nuclear showdown neither of them could afford politically to back away from. Up there for dancing.

It's a real bind, isn't it? The very same thing happened when North Korea tried to characterise its own nuclear weapons development and testing program as some kind of heavyweight contest between Kim Jong Il and the Great Satan, continually insisting on bi-lateral discussions and negotiations with the USA. And nobody else.

But bugger me if North Korea going nuclear ballistic wasn't also of major concern to those countries actually sharing borders with the crackpot Socialist Experimental Psycho-state - minor league players like Russia, China, Japan and South Korea and so forth. Constantly putting their sticky-bibs into something that was 'really' between their geographical neighbour North Korea (and actual ally in China's case) - and the United States, thousands of miles over the Pacific there in North America. Of all places.

Methodically, and rather predictably, everyone who'd been so insistent that the USA should only ever exercise its sovreignty through the sacred portals of the United Nations when it came to Iraq suddenly backflipped and insisted on bi-lateralism in the hope of elevating Kim Jong Il to the status of Global Statesperson. Unfortunately, the USA refused to budge from the six-party formula and peace broke out over the Far East. Boo hoo. The insistence that North Korea's bombs were of principal concern to the USA alternated, you may recall, with repeated assurances that it all had nothing to do with the USA because it was merely Western media hysteria that suggested North Korea's missiles could even reach Hawaii let alone San Francisco. So, butt out America. Er, butt in, I mean. I think.

The comparable assumption that Iran's flagrant violations of its international obligations under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and various other UN conventions and treaties may also be of interest to the world community is just plain silly. Particularly in the case of Israel, whom the regime in Tehran has threatened to "wipe from the pages of history" (or "remodel according to democratic principles" if you prefer). And Iraq, say, whom Tehran is trying to annex. Or Russia, which is the big cranky bit just behind Turkmenistan on Iran's north eastern border. Silly.

The survey and the strange things people have them about

Submitted by Jay White on February 5, 2007 - 1:19pm.

Craig Rowley: "What it shows is that 79% of the Americans surveyed want the governments of the United States and Iran to have direct talks on issues of mutual concern. Plus 72% of the Americans surveyed favour greater cultural, educational, and sporting exchanges with Iran, 68% favour more access for each other's journalists, 65% favour greater trade with Iran, and 51% would like to see more Americans and Iranian visit each other’s countries as tourists."

These surveys amaze me. They never seem to turn into votes. If they did we would be talking about President Kerry. These people should find a candidate that best suits their feelings and vote. Lucky for them they live in a democracy and that option is available to them.

I am also amazed at the amount of world wide surveys undertaken on Bush's popularity etc. If these people are from another country I would hazard a guess that:

1. They have not been lucky enough to be born in the greatest democracy on earth.

2. They are not lucky enough to yet be a citizen.

3. Not being a dual or natural citizen they would not have any voting rights. So effectively their opinion means zilch to a US politician anyway.

The English seem obsessed with these sorts of surveys. Just bloody weird if you ask me. Ask a US citizen about England and they most likely would say they have a high opinion of the place except they play soccer.

Iran time pressure? Rubbish , it is the USA that is failing

Submitted by Angela Ryan on February 6, 2007 - 10:30pm.

Hi Jay, you obviously didn't read the the Editor of New Yorker nor heard him speak on his tour here about American "democracy" and how the electronic voting machines have perverted such, especially in the just passed Ohio count. A great democracy does not have two stolen presidential elections that are both on record to the US shame.

There is something very wrong in The States at the moment, or is it the access to unfiltered news items that allows us to now actually see the Emperor's New clothes of our blighted friend?

Jefferson's warnings, Eisenhower's warnings, many wise words from Statesmen (such as these on the coming war) have all failed to protect what could indeed have been be the best example of a working democracy and freedom for the people etc. ... were it not for its failings in both.

We are heading the same way with the Australia card, to be used in electronic voting and tracking our lives.

As for the coming war, I think the Brezninski warning is the most potent warning so far. For him to even speak out shows the machinations are indeed percieved to be in action by the insiders. "Ex-national security adviser warns that Bush is seeking a pretext to attack Iran" ... hmmm ... certainly a rather dramatic headline. Draw your own conclusions.

It certainly is an interesting example of MSM failing to cover such a statement from such an eminent person regarding the Iran attack planned. Perhaps it is too damaging to the Bush regime. it is useful to remember that before Christmas we were thinking of the Daddy Bush Baker group and the advice to talk and deal with Iran and Syria rather than military solutions, while it was the Kagan groups who predicted a military and aggressive manner was the choice to take. Funny the Neocons win again. Heck, they brought us the Iraq deception and lies to start that war and have not been held to legal account, so why not start what ever wars they wish?

As Breznisnski muses, I wonder what the excuse will be, and whether it will be manufactured, as he muses, by Bush/Cheney et al (again).

The thing to remember is that it is a win-win for Bush if Israel and Iran go head-to-head with mutual destruction. Personally, I cannot see why there are nuke subs in the Persian gulf at all, with so much other floating hardware. Then again, they are so good at covert launches.

Let us hope sanity prevails as Jay seems to feel so sure of it doing so in Bush/Cheney power plays. I would prefer hoping justice prevails.

And Jay, do you have any real evidence that Iran is in any worse economic state than the US? I said before that I think they have assets in the bank most western powers would covet (and do), whereas it is the US for whom time is running out, time and money and everything else. Look at the financial and military state now of China and Russia etc (both invested in Iran) and look at the US debt and property bubble with the bleeding continuing in Iraq. It is the US that weakens by the minute, not anyone else. It is the US that may push for action, while others are better to wait and watch "from the Grandstand". It is the US who has just been shown how easy their stats are to wipe out.

While the present course may save the elite in power from the ever encroaching legal attacks and impeachments, it is devastating for the people of the USA as it means eventual conflict with Russia and China.

Oh and Jay, about the Shell/Spanish oil Iran investment (not settled until 12 months), the fact that the Spanish side also heavily invested in Argentina just before that country's economy was crashed may partly explain the action.

Win-Win in MAD-MAD? Please explain.

Submitted by Will Howard on February 7, 2007 - 4:15pm.

Angela Ryan, this statement of yours, which just happened to catch my eye, has me intrigued:

"The thing to remember is that it is a win-win for Bush if Israel and Iran go head-to-head with mutual destruction."

How so? How would Bush "win" from a nuclear exchange like that? Perhaps you could run us through your reasoning here.

Angela, don't waste your time!

Submitted by Daniel Smythe on February 7, 2007 - 8:57am.

Angela, in theory the America people hold one of the two keys that might stop Bush/Olmert attacking Iran with nukes but they appear unable or unwilling to stop the madness.

The only other key is held jointly by the other nations of the world (Australia and Britain excluded). It is up to these nations to unite quickly then stand up to America if they want to stop the Neocon madness from reaching the point of no return.

Arguing with Jay or others like him is not going to change the direction of world history. Better to direct your efforts towards the American public or to the leaders of other nations, the places where the keys are held.

Cheers!

impeachment or war, a guess like Jays petrol prices

Submitted by Angela Ryan on February 7, 2007 - 2:41pm.

Hi Bob, cheers. Hi Daniel, true. But not the way power works really methinks. It is the back room where the deals are made. Don't worry folks, move along nothing to see here, we are all told who are concerned about a looming strike upon Iran (Syria too?).

Now is the time to worry and act but how, how to stop it? First and foremost is to counter the disinformation and hate spin. That is from warmongers, ID them now.

But little people cannot talk to world leaders. World leaders do.

Imagine that recent tarmak stop in Moskva, Bush doesn't even get out (well it was winter) and Vlad hops in "Gidday mate, vant to make vun think clear, the codes go to Armi if any Russkie techi gets a sigggnal hair of head sinjed. Got it Chimp? Dosvidanja vranchropovcih. " And out he hops with a blackbelt lithe leg chop and neck tilt with appropriate cracking sounds.

Can we do that? hmm.

My Russian and Jujitsu is extremely rusty now and I much prefer slivovitch to Wodka, so I, unlike George who is incapable of using what has been destroyed long ago, shall use my frontal lobe and decline to discuss world power politics and dropping nukes upon nations with Vlad Vladovich and Huey, and other like powerful leaders of nations who are not likely to listen to my concerns.

Alas, Daniel, we cannot do that. We are left with spilling beans and discussing with the fellow plebs and countering shills their reasons for wanting and working towards nuclear oblivion of other peoples. As long as the internet is running there is the opportunity to challenge the misinformation of the MSM.

Electronic voting is the present challenge to real democracy in the US. We must help find reasons to make the war a very bad event for all political leaders and power groups, then it may not happen. It is a shame the cabal that brought us the Iraq war were not held to Nuremberg justice or that may have given some cause to think twice now about nuking Iran. Perhaps that is indeed a line to agressively take and rapidly.

I must say, it gave me a little satisfactory jolt when my aunt came up to me the other day and said "you were right". Lot of good it did at the time...her rels are big in the Carter Peace Group and I had discussed the Iraq build-up at the time with them and they dismissed my fears of war looming with Iraq as too much worry. Sanity will prevail they said. Well, history it all is now, to learn from or be doomed to repeat. There seems to be plenty of fools around willing to see it repeated.

There is no coincidence in the similarity with that buildup and the current with Iran. Again they will (and have) tried for concensus and again will go alone if cannot get it.

The power behind this plan is seen when Daddy Bush's Baker Iraq fact-finding group has their report and recomendations completely ignored by Bush Junior, and yet Kagan et al are those whose direction is followed. The huge Gorilla in the Room is WHY? Why is this so?

The Bush/Cheney cabal must go immediately. Their reasons for the decision suggest factors not available for public perusal and hence a danger.

The curent military hardware situation is fraught with danger. There is no reason for subs in the busy region with so much above surface build-up present unless there is covert deed planned. The Tomahawk missile codes/plans were compromised so one hopes they have been changed. In the heat of rapid nuclear response, how would anyone know what really happened? Both sides need to stand down immediately to avoid even accidental triggering or a covert false flag triggering. But no, instead we await further escalation with another "fleet "arriving anytime.

One should consider that if the Iran threat is accurate, and there is heavily loaded SS missiles facing the gulf, the ships/US last vestiges of firepower, are all sitting ducks, bit like Pearl Harbour without Poppov (with Angela instead :) ). Only this time, the best is there.

It is little wonder the nuclear war clock is the closest to midnight it has ever been, even more than the Cuban Crisis.

There will certainly be changes in world power should it happen.

What a revenge for the Afghanstan trap this must be for the former Soviet warriors. Amazing that the same ploy should work so well. What does one expect with such a blackmailable fool in office? This is such a tragic time for what should be the greatest democracy and bastion of freedom in the world, now lead by nefarious, corrupt traitors and protected by compliant media and PR stooges.

And I am not talking about Aussie.

And yes Jay, there is plenty of documentation of the Presidential elections being fraudulent. Have a look at the data on the Diebold machines and Black Box voting fraud.

And yes, Jay I agree Gore is a stooge, imagine anyone running on a ticket with Lieberman (whose re-election as a senator by the way, certainly deserves a recount, by logical analysis).

Heads in the sand or shout now for stopping it. Doing nothing, being lulled, will let it happen again but worse for all our friends. How's ya Chinese?

Stand down now, we should demand, and impeach the traitors.

Cheers

PS As good ole Chevron Queen herself warned to James Baker about another event , don't travel near Purim, methinks.

Amazing insights

Submitted by Craig Rowley on February 5, 2007 - 3:33pm.

Yes Jay there are some amazing insights in the surveys on that website you pointed out the other day.

For example, that survey we've been talking about shows that 82% of the American respondents favour the goal of eventually eliminating all nuclear weapons, as is stated in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). That's a fair base to work with and turn votes against a proponent of something like Star Wars.

You really think the results of polls like this aren't reflected in votes? Consider the timing of the survey you've been amazed by today. It was conducted between November 2006 and January 2007. So it's more likely that the American responses reflect the way votes went in the recent Congressional elections. And we are talking about Madam Speaker these days.

Now, back to talking about solutions. Why do you think direct talks would be a mistake? Dick Cheney once said "We don't negotiate with evil; we defeat it." Do you agree with him?

There are surveys and there are opinions

Submitted by Jay White on February 5, 2007 - 1:02pm.

Craig Rowley, well no matter what surveys say, and that can be argued back and forth forever, I have my own opinion. I do not favour direct talks at this current point in time. I think it would be a mistake.

The Iranian President's approval is on the slide at home. Along with the Iranian economy. His time may well be limited. Bush should wait it out. Another President may opt for a different course, however when that person is in the position to make the call so be it. Until then Bush is the boss.

Less the hostility less the price of crude. More the problems of the Iranian economy exacerbate. Less the popularity of the Iranian President. Less chance of him being around. More chance of fundamental change.

We all have a place in the world and so do nations. Iran is not the Soviet Union and it is highly unlikely it will ever be in that postion in the future. The United States should not be running around after a reasonably smallish (in power terms) nation. By doing so it will only give others ideas above their station. It will solve nothing and give risk to solving future unrelated problems. The US should set the standard.

Nuclear weapons technology is old technology. The day of third world nations gaining it has been likely since the time it was discovered. The world either decides it does not want proliferation of the technology (in that case it will make a stand) or it does not (in that case it will do nothing and accept proliferation).

The issue is bigger than the US and the world should not expect the US to solve the issue alone. For that is not possible.

Craig Rowley: "Republican presidential runner Mitt Romney tried to derail the Khatami visit to Harvard for example. Do you think Romney's actions helped or hindered the cause of ordinary Iranians?"

I would not vote for Mr Romney. And I would not call him a GOP front runner either. He has his views and he is entitled under a democracy to voice them. It obviously did not "hinder" anything. Khatami visited Harvard, no?

Iranian media pledges destruction of UN over Holocaust 'myth'

Submitted by C Parsons on February 5, 2007 - 10:42am.

Craig Rowley: "President Bush and other US officials have upped the anti-Iranian rhetoric alarmingly recently, though I agree that it is fair to ask whether the US has as yet gone beyond rhetoric."

You should see the anti-American rhetoric from the regime in Iran. It's absolutely mindsnapping and is pretty well continuous 24/7 all year round. By the way, the state controlled media in Iran have predicted now the destruction now of the United Nations because of the recent UN resolution denouncing Holocaust Denial. Here's a sample of the balanced, responsible handling of the issue by the Kayhan Daily newspaper:

"The Holocaust, or the slaughter of Jews during of WWII by German Nazis, is a myth and a contrived story. Up until now, many well-known European and American historians have denied that it occurred, by presenting irrefutable historical documents and records...."

"The myth of the Holocaust is an excuse [used by] West to establish the illegal Zionist regime, and denial of it is an irrefutable attestation - in addition to many other attestations - that clearly testify to the illegality of the existence of the Zionist regime."

This is written by a close political supporter of the Ayranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. [Hey? Does anyone know the German for 'Supreme Leader'?]

By the way, how did you measure the "alarming" level of US anti-Iranian rhetoric? Is there a formula?

Arise Sir Rudy

Submitted by Jay White on February 5, 2007 - 9:56am.

Bob Wall: "Do we expect a surprise new GOP candidate for the 2008 presidential race?"

Yep, and you better start getting use to writing President Rudy. The other part is just too hard to spell. The Rudy is the Clinton worst nightmare.

I can hardly wait for the big Arnie speeches. Remember where you heard it first. All aboard the Rudy train!

The 500,000 dead Iraqi babies - there was whisky galore

Submitted by C Parsons on February 5, 2007 - 9:35am.

Will Howard: "One way to avoid the challenge of empirical evidence is to write in self-referential looped allusions that insinuate much but actually say nothing...."

Which reminds me of another little gem from 'Good Intentions Corrupted: The Oil for Food Scandal and the threat to the UN' by Jeffrey Meyer and Mark G Califano.

Do you all remember the "500,000 dead Iraqi babies" who were the victims of the "US led" UN Sanctions on Iraq?

The parents of these babies, whose alleged fate was first mentioned in one of Saddam's official propaganda agency media releases, and was subsequently proclaimed endlessly by such Lickspittle Nation luminaries as George "Cash for Comment" Galloway, John "Tell me no lies" Pilger and countless of their imitators and fellow "resistance" supporters, probably were not the beneficiaries of the $11 billion worth of goods smuggled into Iraq from Jordan in defiance of the sanctions.

Here's sample of what did come through the checkpoints, though;

"Hence between 1995 and 2000, (UN inspection contractors)* released to Iraq more than 4 million cigarettes, nearly 2,500 metric tons of tobacco, more than 1.5 million litres of beer, more than 185,000 bottles of wine, more than 300,000 litres of vodka, and more than 700,000 bottles of whisky."

* Lloyd’s Register

Excellent.

Opinion polls mean many things to many people

Submitted by Jay White on February 5, 2007 - 9:34am.

Craig Rowley: "Hey Jay, I just looked up one of the most recently published polls on that website you gave us the link to. It says that despite mutual antagonism, half of Iranians and most Americans favour direct US-Iran talks and more exchanges along the lines of the Track II and III diplomacy I mentioned earlier."

I don't know that it said they favoured talks along the track II and III models you mentioned. Most were asked if they favoured direct talks, no? Perhaps they do but the situations under which the talks should take place were not spelt out to them. A little like asking a person if they favour world peace.

Craig Rowley: "Thought you might be interested in checking out the detailed findings and then sharing your opinion on the value of Track II and III diplomacy efforts."

What do I think of Track II etc diplomacy efforts? Like all theoretical models that are not universially understood it might work and it might not work. Largely this depends on the situation at any one time. How do you know Track II efforts are not already being made?

Last year you had the ex-President of Iran visiting the USA. You have James Baker out and about visiting the Middle East and asking for talks with Iran. You also have a Anglo identified company such as Shell signing a nice contract with Iran.

I have nothing against diplomacy and or making agreements. It is though wise before going to any bargaining table to know one's position and spell out the areas that are not up for negotiation. Lest the other party enter with the wrong impression.

Helping or hindering?

Submitted by Craig Rowley on February 5, 2007 - 11:40am.

Jay White: "Most were asked if they favoured direct talks, no?"

No. All were asked that question Jay. The full survey is available as a .pdf file here.

What it shows is that 79% of the Americans surveyed want the governments of the United States and Iran to have direct talks on issues of mutual concern. Plus 72% of the Americans surveyed favour greater cultural, educational, and sporting exchanges with Iran, 68% favour more access for each other's journalists, 65% favour greater trade with Iran, and 51% would like to see more Americans and Iranian visit each other’s countries as tourists.

There are some really interesting other results detailed in this survey. Take this question for example: "How likely do you think it is that the US will take military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities in the next year or two?"

49% of the Americans and 48% of the Iranians surveyed think it is likely. (More Americans than Iranians think it is very likely).

45% of both the Americans and the Iranians surveyed think it is not likely. And 7% of the Americans and the Iranian surveyed didn't answer the question or said they didn't know if US military action against Iran is likely in the next year or two.

Jay: "Like all theoretical models ..."

We're not just talking about theoretical models, we're talking "on the ground" practices. Even so, you are quite right to say these efforts might work or might not. It'll depend on how well the efforts are supported, yes?

Jay: "How do you know Track II efforts are not already being made?"

I didn't say they weren't. However, there is some evidence of some American politicians doing their best to derail such efforts. Republican presidential runner Mitt Romney tried to derail the Khatami visit to Harvard for example. Do you think Romney's actions helped or hindered the cause of ordinary Iranians?

Re: Helping or Hindering?

Submitted by Will Howard on February 5, 2007 - 4:01pm.

Craig, you must be referring to then-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's refusal to allow Khatami to have a Mass. State Police escort. Romney "ordered all Massachusetts state government agencies to decline support, if asked, for former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami’s September 10 visit to the Boston area, where he is scheduled to speak at Harvard University.

'State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel,' said Romney."

I think this was a mistake on the part of Romney, though emotionally and morally I share his revulsion towards Khatami and the current leadership in Iran.

It's important to let the (current and former) members of the Iranian regime say what they have to say. Let everyone hear it. Let him have a state police escort. Then remind people of what leaders like Khatami are really all about, by publicising what they say "out of context" i.e. when they don't think Westerners are listening.

This would send two messages:

1) In America, even Khatami is entitled to have his say without fear of any harm coming to him.

2) We are under no illusions about what he and current members of the Iranian regime are saying, and we will not allow Khatami's statements to go unchallenged and unconfronted. That too is part of American democracy.

I believe this kind of strategy is the best way to help the Iranian people. So I think Romney's actions do not help, but rather hinder the Iranian people.

Bill Z. Bubb for president!

Submitted by Bob Wall on February 5, 2007 - 9:25am.

G'day Craig, I'll post more later but as you have linked some polls I thought this one deserved a view. Short video.

Do we expect a surprise new GOP candidate for the 2008 presidential race?

Surprise candidate?

Submitted by Will Howard on February 5, 2007 - 11:14am.

"Do we expect a surprise new GOP candidate for the 2008 presidential race?"

I'm generally a Democrat in my US voting patterns, but right now GOP Senator Chuck "If You Want a Safe Job Go Sell Shoes" Hagel is looking pretty good to me. Has Hagel actually declared candidacy yet? I keep hearing him talked about as a "possible" candidate for the Republican nomination.

Meanwhile, the signals from Iran are not clear (to me). The UK Independent's headline says: Iran steps up production of weapons-grade uranium. But the text of the story is not really news: it repeats the report that Iran is about install 3000 centrifuges at Natanz. This would mean they could produce weapons-grade fuel, but doesn't necessarily mean they will do so.

I'd say it's a good Time to Talk .

Thanks Alan

Submitted by Roger Earl on February 5, 2007 - 7:55am.

Thanks Alan for your considerations, I find nothing to disagree with, but one has to at least try to do their little bit. It’s good for the soul, if nothing else. I'let you know if I get any responses, cheers mate.

Recent polls looking good

Submitted by Craig Rowley on February 4, 2007 - 7:35pm.

Hey Jay, I just looked up one of the most recently published polls on that website you gave us the link to. It says that despite mutual antagonism, half of Iranians and most Americans favour direct US-Iran talks and more exchanges along the lines of the Track II and III diplomacy I mentioned earlier. That's good, isn't it. Thought you might be interested in checking out the detailed findings and then sharing your opinion on the value of Track II and III diplomacy efforts.

Alan - of course

Submitted by Roger Earl on February 4, 2007 - 7:02pm.

Alan Curran, not only that, an unashamed political stunt I would say, I’m sure you would agree. And also a sincere attempt to shame the PM into doing something. I made that clear to the PM. Why not try to play on against the other; they do it to us all the time.

I’m sure if the powers that be had the will, then the logistics concerning the drugs and equipment would see most of them in the hands of the hospitals and doctors. I do, however, agree that under the current circumstances, with the gross corruption of the American contractors, it may be hard, but not impossible.

Having said that, the health system in Iraq prior the war was in far better shape than it is now in spite of sanctions that barred many essential drugs because of the possibility that they could be used in weaponry.

Sadly when I look at this Iraqi thing I see the Right falling into the same traps as the Left, with respect to how readily those of the Left championed such tyrants as Mao Zedong. Only last week I was speaking to a Chinese national who stated Mao was a good man and did a lot for China. I gently pointed out that Mao was responsible for the deaths of millions of his fellow nationals. “Maybe” she said “but Mao did a lot of good.’ How a mass murderer and the term good can coexist intrigues me.

Sadly the Right who championed this war in Iraq (for “noble reasons”) also turn a blind eye to the disgusting war profiteering that is going on in Iraq and the lies and deceit that got us into this mess in the first place. I have already brought this up a number of times (on this thread), yet any comments relating to my posts regarding same have been intriguingly ignored, but expected.

Seems to me whether Right or Left we find it extremely hard to face the reality that our leaders are simply slime bags.

As far as the rest of your comment goes I do not see it is relevant to my letter to our Prime Minister. I do, however, agree that NSW hospitals need more help and like you I have my own horror stories. I would venture a guess that no matter Liberal or Labor there will be plenty of horror stories for us to tell in the years ahead.

Anyway I’m off now, must contact George Pell and Peter Jensen about my suggestion and what their noble establishments have done, or will do, to help their fellow man. The Church has a shit load of cash, with beautiful cathedrals, luxurious residences and lots and lots of property. Will I play one against the other? Silly question hey, Allan.

S*** load of cash

Submitted by Alan Curran on February 4, 2007 - 7:46pm.

Roger Earl, I think you are wasting your time contacting George Pell and Peter Jensen as these people do not live in the real world. You could ask George what it is going to cost the taxpayers of NSW to bring the Pope out here next year, and would not that money be better spent on the "homeless" people. By the way I have no difficulty in realising that our leaders either right or left are all slime bags, always have been and always will be. All you or I can do is work hard and invest wisely, that way we can fireproof ourselves against anything these clowns throw at us. From a personal point of view it does not make any difference who is in power in Canberra, I just feel sorry for the "battlers" if Labor win.

Dear Prime Minister

Submitted by Roger Earl on February 4, 2007 - 4:02pm.

Craig Rowley: “Would you like to talk about how the Iranian people might be helped?”

Craig, I know your question relates to the Iranian people but at this point in time I feel the Iraqi people need our immediate help.

Dear Prime Minister,

After watching a recent SBS documentary on the plight of Iraqi doctors to save lives I was somewhat disheartened to see that after nearly four years of occupation Iraqi hospitals are still without the most basic drugs and medical equipment. As such there are many unnecessary deaths.

It is a moral travesty that this is the case when by comparison American companies and private contactors are robbing the American taxpayer and Iraqi people blind. It is quite hypocritical of our so called compassionate Christian western democracies to allow this to happen for we engaged in this war supposedly for “noble” reasons. For God’s sake why do we allow this to continue?

As we cannot undo what has already been done, nor can we mitigate the gross corruption in Iraq today, at least we could do something to truly assist the doctors of Iraq in their quest to save innocent lives. How hard would it be to spend a few hundred million dollars or so on supplying Iraqi hospitals with the drugs and equipment so desperately needed to save the lives of innocent children, women and men who have had this tragedy imposed on them in the name of freedom and democracy?

This open letter to you is not to chastise you on your reasons for going to war, rather an attempt to embarrass you into mobilising our wealthy nation in showing the rest of the world that we are serious when you say we are the friends of the Iraqi people.

If you are serious about wanting to be friends with the ordinary Iraqis then I am quite prepared for you to spend my contributions to consolidated revenue on mobilising our recourses to provide Iraqi doctors and hospitals with the basics we take for granted. Surely this is the very least we can do for them.

I would like to know what our country has done (up to date) to provide for the medical needs of those who have been injured during the occupation.

I would like to know what plans you have for the future medical requirements of Iraqi people taking into account that this war has a long way to run.

I’m sure that if your wife or children we injured and needed medical help you would move mountains to ensure they received the best medical treatment we have, yet common drugs such as antibiotics and painkillers are almost non existent in the hospitals of Iraq today.

It pains me to see Iraqi babies die on television when they could be saved, I’m sure you feel likewise; so let’s do something “noble” so that we can at least salvage something decent from an adventure that has gone terribly wrong.

Should you decide that we should spend some of our (ample) wealth on the above then please contact me if you think I could be of assistance.

Yours sincerely

Roger Earl.

PS. I am in the process of forwarding this letter to all Federal politicians, religious leaders and drug companies. This is also an election year and I’m sure if you were to promote (our) desire to assist the good doctors of Iraq then the electorate would view you as a truly compassionate human being.

What say you Kevin Rudd?

Dear ????????

Submitted by Alan Curran on February 4, 2007 - 6:01pm.

Roger Earl, a well written letter and we should all take notice of the contents and do what ever we can for the Iraqi people caught up in their Civil War. However it is not till the end of the letter did I come to realise it is another political stunt when you added:

"What say you Kevin Rudd?"

Assuming we shipped in millions of dollars worth of drugs to Iraq to help the struggling doctors, how many would reach where they were needed. With the corruption that has gone on for countless years in Iraq I fear they would end up in the wrong hands. If they keep on blowing themselves up the way they are doing (this weekend alone 150 killed and over 500 injured) in this crazy sectarian war, there is nothing you or I can do except look on in horror.

Perhaps you would be better off directing your letters to Premier Iemma asking him about the state of Public Health in NSW. On Australia Day a friend of my son was hit on the head at Bondi Beach by a full can of beer, we called an ambulance and after 45 minutes of trying to stem the blood (and no ambulance came) we rushed him to Randwick hospital. After waiting almost 3 hours he was eventually seen by a doctor and had 9 stitches inserted, in the meantime there was an endless line of drug addicts brought in by the police who were seen before him. I spoke to 3 policemen who were disgusted at the state of events.

Navigation

The Issues

Cease fire! ...

Cease fire! ... pause ... consider accounts ... then move toward truce or regroup and trounce?

Comment viewing options

Comment viewing options

Recent Comments