Bob,  I am registered with NYT so will look it up. Meanwhile you might be interested in this piece on Truthdig by Chris Hedges:

Excerpt: But the president and the few generals willing to swallow their pride and probably their integrity to support him have failed to explain or grasp the realities of occupation.  The presence of more troops on the streets of Baghdad, troops who only understand how to impose their will by force, will fuel the rage most Iraqis feel toward their American occupiers.  It will heighten the tension and increase the strikes on American forces, which, tied down, will be more easily targeted.

The insurgents—Shiite and Sunni—have done what we failed to do.  They have built a vast and effective support network within their communities, communities we were never able to reach from Humvees or the fortified walls of the Green Zone.  Most of the insurgents are Iraqi.  They speak Arabic.  They worship in the mosques.  They buy vegetables in the local markets.  They love their country.  And many have paid a terrible price for their patriotism and their faith.  These neighborhoods are secure.  They are just not secure for us.  They will never be.  And sending in new batches of Americans from Texas or Ohio or New York to patrol these streets will not make Iraq or America safer.  It will ensure that even more mothers and fathers, American and Iraqi, will be ushered by George W. Bush into the long night of bitterness and grief.

I know I am repeating myself but you simply cannot win a war of occupation in the modern age and the greatest military force in the world will never defeat the resistance of a nation fighting for its survival. What astonishes me is how people can believe otherwise when history is littered of the truth of this..... modern history that is. In other times of course you could win a war of Occupation ..... it was called genocide.

G'day Roslyn, it is a very complex situation with possibly dire consequences. And they could arise, as I pointed out earlier, due to miscalculation or misunderstanding.

Here is another article on the matter - NYTimes - need to be registered to get full access.

Monday's New York Times reports that "newly revealed orders issued by President Bush" show that, along with fighting insurgents and "tamping down sectarian warfare" in Iraq, "a third front has opened — against Iran."

"Administration officials say the goal is limited to preventing Iranians from aiding in attacks on American and Iraqi forces inside Iraq," David E. Sanger writes. "But in recent interviews and public statements, senior members of the Bush administration have made it clear that their agenda goes significantly further, toward foiling Iran’s dream of emerging as the greatest power in the Middle East."

For a view of the role of the US military, Tom Engelhardt presents Part 1 of an article by Michael T. Klare.

I note continued preoccupation by some with the possible actions of one state rather than the historical record of another. Perhaps someone might contribute material on the dangers posed by Israel. But on the former point, one sort of admires the determination with which some lobby for their cause. However, in some cases the method does leave a lot to be desired.

Roslyn Ross: "Warnings of such attacks have been going on for a long time but then so did warnings of the attack on Iraq go on for a long time before it actually happened."

The difference is it was the Americans who were giving the warnings to Saddam. Indeed, there couldn't have been a more telegraphed invasion in the history of military conflict. In the case of Iran, however, it's only people like you and Bob who are "warning" of an attack on Iran.

This on the Iranian agents captured in Arbil:

Americans should immediately release the five Iranians and pay compensation for the damages they caused to our office in Arbil," a Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, said yesterday, adding that the five were "involved in consulate affairs". A US Army spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Christopher Garver, said the building in Arbil where the men were found was not an accredited Iranian consulate and the men did not identify themselves as diplomats or have diplomatic credentials.

Say? Remember the Iranian hostage crisis? I think the American diplomats, who were actually accredited, were held captive for 444 days? And there were 53 of them, no? And the Embassy is still used for the ritual defacing of American symbols, isn't that right? Was there ever compensation paid for the damage to the office?

Bob Wall recycling the Arab Times:

 

KUWAIT CITY: Washington will launch a military strike on Iran before April 2007, say sources. The attack will be launched from the sea and Patriot missiles will guard all oil-producing countries in the region, they add.

Wow, Bob. Before April? Twelve weeks from now? That's awesome.(Expect a lot more of this from OPEC spokespersons as the cost of a barrel of oil slides closer towards $50US.)

Meanwhile, theist psychopath Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is visiting Venezuela for more talks with marxo-nostalgist laughing boy Hugo Chavez:

"Welcome, fighter for just causes," Mr Chavez said in a speech on Saturday before the National Assembly, describing Mr Ahmadinejad as a "revolutionary" and a "brother".

He should have mentioned "And fellow racist paranoiac", but somehow that got left out. It's all going to be so funny watching the mung-bean and soy latté set deny all this a few years from now, isn't it?  Jot it all down for future reference, is my tip.

The two countries said they would use a $US2 billion ($2.6 billion) investment fund to finance projects in Iran, Venezuela and other countries.  They have signed an array of agreements in recent months, pledging to work together in oil exploration, building low-income housing and assembling tractors and bicycles, among dozens of other Venezuela-based ventures.

My guess is that indeed bicycles, along with ox carts and peddle radios, are all going to be really, really big in Venezuela in a couple of years. Here's another "revolutionary brother":

The Venezuelan leader has been on a trip that included a visit to Belarus, where he met with authoritarian President Alexander Lukashenko, who is dubbed "Europe's last dictator" by Washington and shares Chavez's strong anti-US views.

In other words, the scum of the earth are being recruited for another go at ushering in the Millennium. Now that Fidel is dead, and his crack-pot economic theories are being foisted on Venezuela, we could soon see the start of a fascinating reversal of trends  - people swimming from the mainland to Cuba! This will happen when Cuba's population returns from Miami to get the Fossil State's economy re-started again for the first time since the 1959 revolution. That should be before April 2007. Or thereabouts.

At least there'll be a big sigh of relief at Green Left Weekly that Chavez is stepping up to the plate. I mean, somebody's got to pay the light bill and salaries over there.

"We are in an existential moment of Venezuelan life," Mr Chavez said in a televised address on Monday. "We are heading towards socialism, and nothing and no one can prevent it."

My tip. As Venezuelan poverty worsens under Socialism, Chavez will overturn the democratic gains made since 1958 and there will be considerable scapegoating. There's already been a crackdown on journalists, with eager little pinkos all over the English speaking world anxious to explain why this is "necessary". As the economy fails, sometime before April 2007, "enemies of the revolution" will begin to be identified everywhere.  "Yanqui capitalist tricks" will be blamed for subverting the Socialist triumph. Again. Despite this, the newly state acquired enterprises will report ever-soaring production data and over-fulfilled quotas. None of which will actually end up in the slums of Caracas. Here's where they'll go:

In Qatar on Friday, Chavez said it meant Venezuela could eventually export guns and ammunition to Bolivia and other allies once it opens a factory to make Russian-developed Kalashnikov rifles under licence.

There you go. A chicken in every pot. Unfortunately, for Hugo, capital punishment was long ago abolished in Venezuela, so there'll have to be a lot of "airplane crashes" and "falls from office windows" when it comes to "wreckers" and "plotters". Here's a phrase to look out for down the track: "Oh, no. Chavez wasn't really a socialist, heavens no. I never supported him."

Paul Walter Nonetheless a surprising mellow comment from Jay White. 

Um, actually no.

You really do not know what the "Christian right" is about, do you?

Um, they actually want the entire middle east to have nuclear weapons. Not for defence mind you. They need somebody to kick start the destruction. I suspect they are banking on Iran.

Now I do not believe in these sorts of things, but they will play a role in certain things being accepted. Hence the prediction.

G'day Craig, the Arab Times has an answer to your "why?"

KUWAIT CITY: Washington will launch a military strike on Iran before April 2007, say sources. The attack will be launched from the sea and Patriot missiles will guard all oil-producing countries in the region, they add. Recent statements emanating from the United States indicate the Bush administration’s new strategy for Iraq doesn’t include any proposal to make a compromise or negotiate with Syria or Iran. A reliable source said President Bush recently held a meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice and other assistants in the White House where they discussed the plan to attack Iran in minute detail.

According to the source, Vice President Dick Cheney highlighted the threat posed by Iran to not only Saudi Arabia but the whole region. “Tehran is not playing politics. Iranian leaders are using their country’s religious influence to support the aggressive regime’s ambition to expand,” the source quoted Dick Cheney as saying. Indicating participants of the meeting agreed to impose restrictions on the ambitions of Iranian regime before April 2007 without exposing other countries in the region to any danger, the source said “they have chosen April as British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said it will be the last month in office for him. The United States has to take action against Iran and Syria before April 2007.”

Presidential candidate, Dennis Kucinich has a warning for Bush. 

Rep Ron Paul in the House. 

On the matter of capturing Iranians in Iraq, in response to an earlier incident, you questioned the US claims.  Now ....

Whatever is planned to happen or not in re Iran, sometimes these things take on a momentum of their own - a miscalculation here, a misunderstanding there ....

G'day Roslyn, I do have a long list of sites I check regularly - but there are always others to be found. Sometimes they are brought to my attention by fellow 'Diarists, such as the Arts and Letters Daily, thanks, I'll have a look.

As to the MSM, don't forget Judy Miller at the NYTimes for an example of the media failing in its duty.

Antiwar.com provides pertinent quotations and this weekend have managed on coincidental to our discussion here. It is Edward R Murrow:

We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.

Someone who is useful is Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post who provides a roundup press coverage. This column deals with Iraq and Iran.

G'day Craig, given section on Iraq in the above and other material such as this, indeed, what game are they playing?

Bob: Yes, Olberman on MSNBC is refreshing and heartening too. We are fortunate in that there is a lot of material out there in the alternative sources. This is even more important given the trivialization of news by much of the major press and the bias inherent in a lot of it.

There are of course decent newspapers out there like SMH, The Age, Fin Review, The Guardian, The Independent, the New York Times and Washington Post, to name a few.

But the alternative news source list is long and growing and I suspect you know them all:

Truthout, Common Dreams, Information Clearing House, Opendemocracy, New Matilda, Towards a Counter Movement, TPM Muckraker, Counterpunch, Truthdig, The Smoking Gun and Slate Magazine.

And then there is The Diplomat, produced in Oz but you can access it online and that has excellent articles. As does The Spectator, Der Spiegel, Atlantic Monthly, The New Yorker and on some issues, The Economist and the Lowy Institute.

There are also things like Mother Jones, Another Day in the Empire and Informed Comment.

Have you come across the Arts and Letters Daily? It is a quaint thing but links to some very interesting articles.

If there are any I have mentioned which you have not accessed them just type the name in on a search. If you have any problems let me know and I will link it.

The ability to source information across a wide spectrum gives me heart when confronted with the high levels of propaganda disseminated by governments and the press these days.

There's a wealth of information which can only serve to protect us. 

A Patriot Missle air defense unit from Fort Bliss has been ordered to deploy to the Middle East as part of President Bush's troop surge in Iraq. They'll be headed somewhere there in six weeks time.

Why?

In stark contrast to the usual propaganda that Iran is on the verge of building a nuclear weapon, Fox News reports that there are only two small pilot enrichment plants running at Natanz and there has been no move to increase the scale of the operation there.

[extract]

IAEA inspectors arrived at Natanz on Wednesday for a routine round of monitoring. But one of the diplomats said they were unlikely to find anything but the status quo -- two small pilot plants assembled in 164-centrifuge "cascades" but working only sporadically to produce small quantities of non-weapons grade enriched uranium and other individual centrifuges undergoing mechanical testing. That has essentially been the situation at Natanz since late November, he said.

There have been no signs of any activity linked to plans to assemble 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz and move them into an underground facility as the start of an ambitious program foreseeing more than 50,000 centrifuges producing enriched material, said the diplomats.

[snip]

Still, one of the diplomats said such a project is immensely complicated and would take months to complete even for countries with a developed enrichment program. While the underground facility at Natanz appears ready, not even preliminary assembly work has started there, they said.

Iran will never have a nuclear weapon capability. Never. This is something that will not happen. Surely you must understand this fact, even if the Iranians are too deluded or stupid to understand it.

When I wrote that, it honestly did not occur to me that anyone would be capable of cherrypicking that paragraph out of its context and deliberately misconstruing it to portray me as a racist, in some cheap schoolyard rhetorical stunt.  I have a poor opinion of a few of the commenters here, something I have never kept secret, but we may be in the presence of something approaching a new low.

How many times have I attacked the ruling clique of Iran? Described it as fascist and dangerous and that it, among others,  enslaves and threatens the Iranian people? How many time have I had something unpleasant to say about the murder gangs and tyrants that exploit and control the people of Syria, the Palestinian terrorities and increasingly Lebanon? I challenge anyone to come up with anything I have ever said that amounts to describing  "any national, ethnic or religious group" as" too deluded or stupid to understand" something or characterised their aspirations as "ultimately irrelevant"  or is "obviously racist spew".

And if all you can come up with is my clear obvious reference to the Iranian ruling gang then you have lost.

And yet Marek Bage feels comfortable saying this:

Had someone like Roslyn Ross spoken about Israelis as being too deluded or stupid to understand something and characterised their aspirations as ultimately irrelevant, I suspect there would have being a maelstrom of rightful condemnation of such obviously racist spew. Yet, Mr.Pahoff says the same about Iran and the silence is pronounced. Curiouser still

I should have seen the warning signs. Afterall Marek Bage had said earlier, referring to me:

We can have no doubt that he would accept, and indeed applaud, the use of mini nukes on suspect Iranian facilities. His justification would be the obvious threat of Israel being wiped from the pages... annihilated. The logic being that a few pre-emptive strikes with nuclear weapons on Iran is by no means worse than Iran's stated intentions towards Israel. In fact, taking out the entire city of Tehran would be quantitatively less evil than Iran's stated intentions towards Israel. The logical conclusion of this argument is that anything up to and including annihilating Iran is justified as a defensive response to Iran's stated intentions toward Israel.

A work entirely of Marek Bage's fevered imagination. And I'm now an Israel-loving racist as well. I said here over a year ago that one of the rules of debate about the ME is it is impossible to have such a discussion without someone whinging that no one can criticise Israel without being called an antisemite. Crap of course but this whine is ubiquitous. I also said that another rule is that no one could defend Israel against even its most virulent and bigoted critics without sooner or later being condemned as a racist.

I rest my case.

G'day Roslyn, I am glad you have discovered Keith Olbermann, such a refreshing voice in the US MSM. The failures of much of that media have been  a recurring subject of attention on Irises and when KO began doing his Special Comments I was glad to link them. Yes, the contemporary Ed Murrow and that is a grand label to be given.

On to matters pertinent to the US/Iran situation and John Pike of Globalsecurity suspects action is possible as early as next month. Video and text.

An article on why the US woes in Iraq can be used by Iran.

And, other tactics being employed.

We do live in interesting times.

In the style of Ed Murrow, excellent journalism. There are women online saying I want his babies, a friend tells me!

There's hope for America yet. The conscience of the nation can be aroused, sanity will prevail. I had always hoped as much but this is very reassuring.

This is a must.

Mr. Pahoff: "Gotcha white sheet and burning torch yet Marek? If not, I reckon I could organise these wholesale, just for you."

I'm sure you could.

It's amazing that I've been 'outed' as a Klansman by a person who thinks it's alright to publicly call Persians stupid, deluded and irrelevant. If somebody like that feels comfortable as an accuser, then I must be the worst of the worst. However, I've never said anything that could be construed as being disrespectful of any national, ethnic or religious group. Funny that. Still, Mr. Pahoff is happy to say to me: "the problem with you is far worse than I had at one stage hoped."

Well, Mr. Pahoff, your hopes are irrelevant to me.

[pejorative comment removed after publication following upheld complaint from another Webdiarist] You feel that by being a staunch and righteous advocate of Israel, you can do no wrong. Unfortunately, your love for Israel has blinded you to your hate for those that don't share your intensity of devotion.

Fiona: Marek Bage, I have published this edited version of your comment after due consideration and consultation, as it seems only fair that you should exercise your right of reply to Geoff Pahoff.

I remind all ‘Diarists of Webdiary’s Editorial Policy, especially with respect to personal abuse. My New Year’s Resolution as a moderator is to clamp down on abusive comments.

Bob Wall: "So diplomacy is out. Some might become suspicious about what is happening or planned to happen. Rumours are circulating in DC that they already are."

So, Bob. You won't mind if I remind you of this in, say, six months?

And just a point, diplomacy has been "out" between the USA and Iran since the 1979 Tehran Embassy hostage crisis, remember?

George Bush is now ' working' for Al Qaeda it seems, one presumes unwittingly, or at least maintaining his incompetence level.

Paul Rogers writes:

Excerpt: What all this means is that the Bush administration's decision to surge the forces in Iraq is good news for al-Qaida. Moreover, the US military has now re-engaged in Somalia, not with ground troops in a stabilisation role but using air power and highly destructive area-impact munitions with inevitable civilian casualties (see Harun Hassan, "Somalia at the crossroads", 10 January 2007). If this continues, then the prospect is there for a progressive radicalisation of Islamic opinion in the Horn of Africa. With the Iraq and Somalia decisions coming in the first ten days of January, the year 2007 could turn out to be a very good year for the al-Qaida movement.

He also says:

Diyala, Haifa Street and Force Protection Inc all, in their different ways, illuminate the problems that the Bush administration now faces, primarily in Iraq but increasingly in Afghanistan.

Diyala is a specific reminder of the consistent failure to train Iraqi forces that, from an American perspective, are reliable.

Haifa Street means that the US forces are now going to be engaging much more in precisely the form of urban counter-guerrilla combat that they sought to avoid in the first weeks of the war (March-April 2003)

the Force Protection deal is a formidable reminder of how the world's most powerful military is being held down by crude and very low-cost forms of asymmetric warfare.

In this light, the "surge" announcement is just the latest in a series of changes in policy in Iraq that date right back to the sacking of the first "viceroy", General Jay M Garner, within weeks of the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime in April 2003.

Marek, the 'gang' is not balanced in regard to what offends them. Israel and America are sacred and no criticism of them can be tolerated. Anyone else is fair game.

I also think, as someone else said, that what gets them truly hysterical is when a woman speaks. There are indications that this little lot are probably a tad sexist in their view of the world.

So, it is easy to avoid their wrath and spittleflecked outrages..... do not criticise America or Israel ever, ever, ever, no matter how valid the criticism nor how substantiated and either change sex or pretend to be male when posting.

I refuse to be censored by anyone and have been 'outed' from the start so there's little hope that any of this lot are ever going to react to what I post with maturity let alone objectivity.

Marek Bage, I also think with the "scary" neocon out of the way we will return to the good old days. The days the US fought wars through others. Forget the spread of democracy (lefties never really took to the idea) and let others do your dirty work. A lot cleaner that way. Hint: Somalia.

G'day Marek, some interesting items in respect of US/Iran relations have appeared, including from the Commander's surge speech.

Also, a raid on and arrests in an Iranian representative's office in Iraq.

So diplomacy is out. Some might become suspicious about what is happening or planned to happen. Rumours are circulating in DC that they already are.

OK, rumours, but as the article points out:

Any time there is serious speculation by ordinarily sober people that the President has launched a secret war against one -- or two! -- countries, well, those are not good times either.

I note your comments on inconsistency. A lot of it going around,. such as I noted in an earlier post about attitudes to what one state might do as opposed to what another has done and is doing.

Marek Bage well Mr Pahoff and my good self disagree on some future predictions it would seem. I can only tell it the way I see it. It does not make it right that Iran get these weapons it just makes it so.

I try and keep my personal feelings out of it when asked what "I think will happen". Given as I have no relationship with any person in that region, it does make it somewhat easier. If the shoe was on the other foot who knows.

A nuclear arms race in this region will not be a good thing. And it will not make Iran even slightly safer. It will actually make them a much, much bigger target.

Jay White, you wrote: "Iran will get nuclear weapons and the world will accept it."

You haven't been paying attention have you? Let me refresh your memory:

"Let me be as clear as I can about this. Read my lips. Please try to understand what I am about to say, for everybody's sake. It is important. Very important. Too important to run the risk of confused or mixed messages.

 

Iran will never have a nuclear weapon capability. Never. This is something that will not happen. Surely you must understand this fact, even if the Iranians are too deluded or stupid to understand it.

No Iranian nukes. Never. What they think is ultimately irrelevant. Get it?

Would you like me to repeat that?"

Submitted by Geoff Pahoff on January 7, 2007 - 3:02pm.

It really isn't a good idea for you to be so blatantly contradicting the pronouncements of such an highly regarded contributor to Webdiary. You may end up with your knuckles rapped!

While I'm here, I have two quick observations.

1/. The above diatribe from Mr. Pahoff came a mere two hours after I posted a comment questioning Iran's weapons capabilities. Mr. White's comment, however, has been up for over two days without a hint of bile directed his way. Curious that.

2/. Had someone like Roslyn Ross spoken about Israelis as being too deluded or stupid to understand something and characterised their aspirations as ultimately irrelevant, I suspect there would have being a maelstrom of rightful condemnation of such obviously racist spew. Yet, Mr.Pahoff says the same about Iran and the silence is pronounced. Curiouser still.

Michael Coleman: "Iran's atomic energy industry will remove some of the internal demand for hydrocarbons and enable them to maximise their exports of oil and gas. The Iranians have massive, undeveloped gas reserves and these will become very lucrative over the next decade or two."

That would barely make sense if Iran's internal consumption of hydrocarbons represented a major proportion of their total non-nuclear energy reserves. But as you yourself have just pointed out, the Iranians have "massive, undeveloped gas reserves."

And if these become very lucrative over the next decade or two, price elasticities will also ensure that substitute commodities - such as uranium - will also become more lucrative and more expensive.

So, that argument makes no sense, either. And since Iran has a comparative (and probably absolute) advantage in petrocarbon fuels, there's no economic logic to it having a nuclear power industry under any circumstances.

It is for weapons development.

Michael Coleman: "I suspect that the US and Europe fear that Russia will gain significant access to Iran's gas reserves and incorporate them into the Gazprom distribution network. The Russians have already established a powerful hold on Europe's energy supplies. "

This would equally apply if the Iranian regime didn't develop nuclear energy. So, that's irrelevant to the argument about Iran's nuclear development programme, too.

Michael Coleman: "I believe that the US and Israel seek nothing less than regime change in Iran."

Who doesn't? Including growing numbers of Iranians.

Michael, have you ever studied economics? I recommend it to anyone, but especially those interested in politics.

G'day Bob Wall and thanks for the link.

Iran's atomic energy industry will remove some of the internal demand for hydrocarbons and enable them to maximise their exports of oil and gas. The Iranians have massive, undeveloped gas reserves and these will become very lucrative over the next decade or two.

I suspect that the US and Europe fear that Russia will gain significant access to Iran's gas reserves and incorporate them into the Gazprom distribution network. The Russians have already established a powerful hold on Europe's energy supplies.

I believe that the US and Israel seek nothing less than regime change in Iran. Ideally, this would allow the development of Iran's hydrocarbon reserves by multinational companies, further weakening OPEC and limiting Russia's influence. I believe this was the primary objective driving the attack on Iraq.

I don't believe they can achieve this objective and any attempt to do it with military force would be a total disaster. What troubles me is that the Bush administration is sufficiently stupid and arrogant to try it.

Here's why "we have no choice but to support the resistance":

The day after Saddam's execution, residents in Baghdad's Haifa Street reported that three minibuses had roared into the street. Gunmen pulled blindfolded prisoners out of the buses, shooting any who tried to resist. They then threw ropes over streetlight poles, put nooses round the necks of the remaining hostages and suspended them. "We watched as all these blindfolded men were hung up and some were shot in the head," said a supermarket worker, Imad Atwan.

An Interior Ministry spokesman said 102 bodies of Shiites had been discovered. "We believe 90 per cent of them were taken hostage for Saddam Hussein's execution," he said.

We cannot afford to be choosy.....

Michael Coleman: “I can't see sanctions stopping Iran and the Israeli government has repeatedly said it will act if Iran does not give up its nuclear programme. If you predict no military action, how do you see the conflict resolving?”

It won't resolve. It will continue on has it has since the cold war.

Iran will get nuclear weapons and the world will accept it. This will lead to other nations such as Egypt and Saudi getting exactly the same thing. Let’s face it, nuclear technology is hardly cutting edge. It really has always only been a matter of time.

Nations such as Japan (unlike Iran) could easily build their own weapons and weapons much more likely on par with the US for that matter. Frankly you could add a few Asian nations to that list. As a matter of fact Australia would not do such a bad job if that was something they desired.

What it will do, though, is give programs like star wars much more importance. Not to mention a big kick along with funding and a couple of nations (aka Israel) becoming a lot more willing to throw cash into the hat. Personally I cannot see any other alternative.

Them’s the breaks and that’s the world of weapons. Those that sell them seem to win every which way, huh?

G'day Michael Coleman, a while back I linked an article on Iran's oil situation, here's more. This is from The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

The U.S. case against Iran is based on Iran's deceptions regarding nuclear weapons development. This case is buttressed by assertions that a state so petroleum-rich cannot need nuclear power to preserve exports, as Iran claims. The U.S. infers, therefore, that Iran's entire nuclear technology program must pertain to weapons development. However, some industry analysts project an Irani oil export decline [e.g., Clark JR (2005) Oil Gas J 103(18):34–39]. If such a decline is occurring, Iran's claim to need nuclear power could be genuine. Because Iran's government relies on monopoly proceeds from oil exports for most revenue, it could become politically vulnerable if exports decline. Here, we survey the political economy of Irani petroleum for evidence of this decline. We define Iran's export decline rate (edr) as its summed rates of depletion and domestic demand growth, which we find equals 10–12%. We estimate marginal cost per barrel for additions to Irani production capacity, from which we derive the "standstill" investment required to offset edr. We then compare the standstill investment to actual investment, which has been inadequate to offset edr. Even if a relatively optimistic schedule of future capacity addition is met, the ratio of 2011 to 2006 exports will be only 0.40–0.52. A more probable scenario is that, absent some change in Irani policy, this ratio will be 0.33–0.46 with exports declining to zero by 2014–2015. Energy subsidies, hostility to foreign investment, and inefficiencies of its state-planned economy underlie Iran's problem, which has no relation to "peak oil." 

That's the abstract, the full article makes interesting reading, not least the section "What's Wrong with Alternative Policies". I advise some who read this to do so very carefully, we would not like them to see things that are not there.

Bob Wall: "G'day Angela and Marek, Robert Parry provides his view of the game being played over Iran. Worth a read and is in English."

Finding out Robert Parry is tipping a Iranian invasion, I am now 100% certain there is no hope of this happening.

Ole Robert with an unusual fixation about "Moonies" secretly running the world. Drug rings and all that. Makes a pleasent change from the usual conspiracy nut theories, I will say that.

He does have poor old Jimmy Carter being robbed in the 1980 election. Must have never heard of the "misery index". Jimmy was and is a lot of things. A good President is not one of those things. His time Immortilised in the opening scenes of Scarface .

I never really forgave him for boycotting the 1980 Olympics. Disliking commies is one thing, nobody can blame a man for that, but sport and commies, never the two should mix in my book. Mal Fraser was right behind that decision in the day. So much for a caring sharing world. About that time he was making all friendly like with his good mate Robert Mugabe.

Re-invention, re-invention, re-invention. And that was the year it was.

OK, Jay White, you used the word invasion in your prediction. Are you also prepared to predict that there will be no pre-emptive bombing campaign against Iran by either Israel or the USA in the next twelve months? That's the scenario the whackos over at the American Enterprise Institute are advocating. Just like Iraq, those who seek a pre-emptive attack have no idea how the conflict would unfold.

I can't see sanctions stopping Iran and the Israeli government has repeatedly said it will act if Iran does not give up its nuclear programme. If you predict no military action, how do you see the conflict resolving? 

I would be greatly relieved to see this year pass without a military attack on Iran. For starters, I think the blow-back could conceivably include the scenario that people like Will Howard most fear. I haven't read any plausible analysis of post-strike consequences that ends in anything other than disaster for everyone. If such a thing exists, please, someone point it out for me.

I am greatly troubled by any talk of the first-strike use of nuclear weapons of any sort. Attempts to, somehow, legitimise the use of these weapons is extremely dangerous. IMHO, this is a slippery slide we must utterly reject.

The Bush administration have failed so many major challenges and made so many stupid decisions, I cannot trust them to manage a complex, delicate and dangerous situation like this stand-off with Iran. Can you? 

Thank you so very much Will for the "Jesus feces" link. It has changed my entire life's outlook.

"If you touch the Sacred Stool," Thomas Taylor, a bishop of the United Methodist Church and one of the first to examine the relic, said, "you get a staph infection. But touch it again and the staph infection goes away. It's truly miraculous."

Sounds like going into a hospital in NSW (Re: staph). Talk to the health department and miraculously all problems become no problem.

Could Morris Dilemma be the son of God's son?

Jay, let's hope you are right about Iran. Those who fear an attack are also those who hope it will not happen.

As I recall, the 'talk' about the invasion of Iraq went on for a long time before it happened and there were quite a few missed dates before that disaster actually took place.

As I said, nothing would please me more than to have you saying in 2009, I told you so!

However, whether you turn out to be right or wrong the reality is that there are many worrying 'signs' about a possible attack. And who knows, as much as you decry those who fear the worst, perhaps it is because people fear the worst and talk about it that it does not happen.

As to 'paranoia' being involved in those who point out evidence for concern then it would seem there are a lot of 'paranoid' people in the world including world leaders, politicians, intelligence analysts, diplomats, journalists and writers, not to mention ordinary people who have enough capacity for objective thought to see danger signs where and when they exist.

If that amounts to paranoia then there should be more of it. Of course it doesn't. It amounts to reason, and common sense, both things which those who live in denial cannot afford to countenance.

I predicted throughout 2006 there would be no invasion of Iran. Was slated and directed to a multitude of sites (people that know more then me) suggesting there would be.

Did it happen? Nope. Will one happen in 2007? Nope.

Oil now around $55 a barrel. Expect a "misquote" by the Iranian Pres at any time.

C Parsons: "Also, anti-Western, especially anti-American rhetoric, is a unifying principle and favourite mode of discourse among failed demagogues ranging from Robert Mugabe to Kim Jong Il to Fidel Castro (may he rest in peace) to George Galloway to Basha al Asad."

Yep. And the only thing of interest is watching how some will turn the rhetoric on others now we are seeing the decline of the neo con. Of course it was never about America ......

Believe that one and one will end up as silly as those saying it.

Roslyn Ross quoting Paul Craig Roberts: "The Israeli/neoconservative plan, of which Bush may be a part or simply be a manipulated element, is to provoke a crisis with Iran in which the US Congress will have to support Israel."

See my comment below on January 8, 2007 - 9:19am: "The impetus to downplay Ahmadinejad's rantings, and to characterise Israeli concerns over his nuclear development program and his regime's continual threats against Israel itself as its very reverse - as threats by Israel against Iran - is a logical outcome of fashionable paranoid hostility towards Jews generally and Israel in particular."

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review and he has this to say about the 'real and present danger' from Israel in regard to Iran:

Excerpt: The Israeli/neoconservative plan, of which Bush may be a part or simply be a manipulated element, is to provoke a crisis with Iran in which the US Congress will have to support Israel. Both the Israeli government and the American neoconservatives are fanatical. It is a mistake to believe that either will be guided by reason or any appreciation of the potentially catastrophic consequences of an attack on Iran.

The US media is totally unreliable. It cannot go against Israel, and it will wrap itself in the flag just as it did for the invasion of Iraq. The American public has been deceived (again) and believes that Iran is on the verge of possessing nuclear armaments to be used to wipe Israel off the map. The fact that Americans are such saps for propaganda makes effective opposition to the neoconsevatives’ plan for WW IV practically impossible.

Even the London Times is in the grip of Israeli propaganda. In its report of Israel’s plan to attack Iran with nuclear weapons, the Times says that Iranian president “Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared that ‘Israel must be wiped off the map.’” It has been shown by a number of credible experts that this quote is a made-up concoction taken completely out of context. Ahmadinejad said no such thing.

In a world ruled by propaganda, lies become truths. The power of the Israel Lobby is so great that it has turned former President Jimmy Carter, probably the most decent man ever to occupy the Oval Office and certainly the president who did the most in behalf of peace in the Middle East, into an anti-semite, an enemy of Israel. The American media, from its “conservative” end to its “liberal” end did its best to turn Carter into a pariah for telling a few truths about Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians in his book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.

G'day Angela and Marek, Robert Parry provides his view of the game being played over Iran. Worth a read and is in English.

All this brouhaha over rhetoric - actual or "interpretations" of what was allegedly said - in relation to Iran yet allegations of past and ongoing actions are ignored by some. Iran is described a threat because of its rhetoric and that it might develop nuclear weapons - despite having signed on to the NPT and being subject to IAEA oversight - the latter finding no evidence of a nuclear weapons program. Evidence for this has been provided on numerous occasions on numerous threads.

On the other hand, Israel has developed nuclear weapons in secret and without signing the NPT and being subject to IAEA oversight. It also is an illegal occupier and coloniser and has a record of aggression. Allegations against Israel extend to ethnic cleansing and forms of genocide.

Just a bit of perspective on the issue although one expects howls of outrage from a certain element. It's what they do.

Angela Ryan: "One really has to ask why the US would want Iran as an enemy, when as a friend and ally there is so much to gain."

Something to do with the Tehran Hostage Crisis and Jimmy Carter giving refuge to the deposed Shah who was at the time starting treatment for cancer in an American hospital.

You might also ask the Ayatollahs why Iran would want the USA as an enemy.

Well, as you know, the Great Satan and Global Zionism provide an excellent pretext for strangling your domestic critics to death in public market-places or machine-gunning lesbians when they upset your political backers down at the local mosque.

Especially as the bread queues lengthen and the electricity goes off again for the umpteenth time.

Also, anti-Western, especially anti-American rhetoric, is a unifying principle and favourite mode of discourse among failed demagogues ranging from Robert Mugabe to Kim Jong Il to Fidel Castro (may he rest in peace) to George Galloway to Basha al Asad.

And not just tribalist Islamist patriarchal reactionaries with megalomaniacal nihilist delusions. Enveloped in a miasma of divine light.

Also, just think of the last sexually frustrated first-year fine-arts undergrad you saw trying to impress the dewy-eyed girls in his PPE elective.

What does he do practically every time to draw attention to himself?

Hmmmm?

Will Howard: "So what does the Disproportionate Response Brigade have to say about the war of words Iran has started against Israel, versus the Israeli response to this verbal aggression?"

Well I have no idea what the official position of the DRB is on this question, but I can offer my opinion.

From what I can tell, the essential question is; Are the Iranians saying much worse things about Israel than Israel is about the Iranians? The answer is yes. Those Iranians are well out of order and the Israelis are behaving like true gentlemen. Are we happy now, Mr. Howard?

Are there any other persecution junkies out there that need a cuddle because those mean people are saying terrible things about your friends? No? Good. Let's get back to grown up things?

A few facts;

• Iran, along with Iraq and North Korea, was named as being on Bush's "axis of evil" hit list. Iraq is now the "Catastrophuck of the Century" and Iran is the next cab off the rank.
• As a result of the Iraqi example, Iran sought 'security guarantees' from the US before beginning negotiations concerning their nuclear programme. These were denied.
• Even though the most hawkish site that I could find places Iran's weapons capabilities at least 4 years away, everybody is saying that we 'must act' now.
• Israel is officially leaking then denying that they are packing heat and not afraid to use it
• The Yanks and Poms are sending battleships, aircraft and attack submarines into the Gulf.
• The new commander of Central Command is Admiral William 'Fox' Fallon. Fox Fallon has bugger all experience when it comes to guerrilla ground wars, like they have in Iraq and Afghanistan, but is a deft hand with battleships, aircraft and attack subs. Now where would they come in handy, I wonder?

So, we have all this happening around Iran based on tough talk that everybody knows can't be backed up, and you're asking about proportionality? You should be asking about false pretenses for war. You should be asking about Iraq version 2. It's all f***ng happening again and you're looking the other way. Well done, champion.