Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Craig Rowley: "As long as 'all options are on the table' and that includes the Bush/Cheney conception of a pre-emptive strike option, then there will be a need to act to stop war with Iran."

Why should the US take any option off the table is no other nation is willing to? And of course you know no other future President is willing either.

Why do you keep attempting to talk up war with Iran when every thinking person understands this is not possible? Why are you not talking about the positives of talking with Iran over Iraq? What do you really hope to gain?

A war or even a suggestion of such only helps the Iranian President who is very unpopular at home. So why would you make it your number one focus?

G'day Jay White.

Jay: "Every single possible future President has refused to state options should be taken off the table. Not one candidate has said this in fact all have said all options should be on the table."

Me: Hmmm; there was an article that Bob Wall (g'day) posted, did you read it Jay? I'll help:

... on the administration's preparations for a nuclear war against Iran, President Bush held a news conference. He was asked, "Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?"

He replied, "All options are on the table."

The President never actually said the forbidden words "nuclear war," but he appeared to tacitly acknowledge the preparations - without further discussion.

[Lakoff/The Words None Dare Say: Nuclear War]

How about that, Jay? Your man 'tacitly acknowledges' that the US is not just threatening Iran but is indeed threatening Iran with nuclear war. But that's not all:

Then, there is the scale of the proposed attack. Military reports leaking out suggest a huge (mostly or entirely non-nuclear) airstrike on as many as 10,000 targets - a "shock and awe" attack that would destroy Iran's infrastructure the way the US bombing destroyed Iraq's.

[ibid]

More, Jay? OK:

That is what was attacked in Iraq: the "critical infrastructure." It is not just military in the traditional sense. It leaves a nation in rubble, and leads to death, maiming, disease, joblessness, impoverishment, starvation, mass refugees, lawlessness, rape, and incalculable pain and suffering. That is what the options appear to be "on the table."

[ibid]

Hmmm, 'not just military,' eh? And how it leaves a nation! That really ort'a be enough, don'cha reckon Jay? But there's just one more tidbit from Lakoff I'd like to 'share,' he calls the probable result of the proposed strike (a possible nuclear war; recall "all options") on Iran nation destruction - just like what happened in Iraq.

-=*=-

Jay: "Bush therefore is simply following on with run of the mill past and now certain future US policy. No big deal. The USA should not have a one-on-one level discussion with Iran about the nuclear issue. It is a world issue. The world will either put a stop to it or it will not."

Me: Hmmm; that Bush might be a follower (i.e. he 'leads' from the rear) will get no argument from me. I've recently said elsewhere (more on that in a minute), that our 'opposition' parties do not effectively oppose, but note: a 'bipartisan stand' removes the sheople®'s choice on that issue. A bit undemocratic, eh? That US aggression towards Iraq and Iran is bipartisan is proved by the two Clintons, both going and (possibly) coming. No discussion with Iran, eh Jay? Either they cave in or get bombed? Recall here "all options:" nuclear war leading to national destruction.

Still game for more, Jay? OK, here's from another one of Bob's:

The same thing is taking place today. Iran has given the IAEA inspectors extraordinary access to facilities throughout Iran. They have explained things. They have provided documents. They have done above and beyond what is required by the Nonproliferation Treaty and have demonstrated that their nuclear energy program is a program that is consistent with that which is permitted by the law. But thanks to the United States, the IAEA has corrupted the integrity of the process: by insisting that Iran comply with things that it is not required to do; by creating a wall of mistrust; by buying along with the notion that somewhere in Iran - we don't know where, no one knows where, somehow we don't know how, nobody knows how - Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. And they just throw that out there without any evidence to back it up. It's just a given. We are told that the President of the United States and others in the administration have said there can be no doubt Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

[Ritter/Regime Change Is the Reason, Disarmament the Excuse]

Yeah, I know it's a lot, jay; but life wasn't meant to be easy, eh? The keyword of interest above is "corrupted." If the IAEA process has been corrupted, there goes any chance of Jay's suggested 'world issue' fix, and of course, one then has to ask how the process might'a got corrupted? "...thanks to the United States..."

Further from Ritter: "The United States is an extremely corrupt superpower." [ibid]

Sooo, getting back to what I recently said elsewhere, I addressed you over at my that's not cricket Jay, concluding thusly:

Sorry (but not sorry) Jay, your 'champion' is a bankrupt, murdering criminal. Think "sociopathic plutocracy."

Well, Jay? How do you respond? To be perfectly honest, Jay, I don't give a hoot - if you reply or not, that is. I don't even expect you to read Bob's references either. But just as Bob gave a 'teaser' from Lakoff:

"We have learned from Iraq what lack of public scrutiny does"

I'll give one from Ritter:

"That's why I tell Americans, pick a city."

No madman's options (i.e. B, B & H's), neither staying the course (Iraq) nor extending the same 'regime-change' craziness (Iran) should be on anyone's table.

G'day Craig, here is a letter to Congress opposing war with Iran.

Don Williams in a follow up to Sy Hersh. 

 It all gets very complicated and some think it is unraveling.

Not helped by faulty (or limited) intelligence.

And here.

Thanks for the link to the opinion on the Bush Doctrine. It could helpful to some if they download and read the document. The abstract itself has a pertinent point that escapes some:

If the U.S. is successful in promoting this exclusive right to preemptive self-defense, then the fundamental principle of sovereign equality of States will be overthrown.

Some claim to be more equal than others.  The sort of discussion that might be held at the trough.

"Military force against Iran is not the solution ... War is not the answer." - Wes Clark

As long as "all options are on the table" and that includes the Bush/Cheney conception of a pre-emptive strike option, then there will be a need to act to stop war with Iran.

NATO’s former Supreme Allied Commander - Europe, General Wes Clark has set up StopIranWar.com:

All Americans want to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and interfering on the ground inside Iraq. Yet President Bush’s saber rattling gives the US little additional leverage to engage and dissuade Iran, and, more than likely, simply accelerates a dangerous slide into war. The United States can do better than this.

Whatever the pace of Iran’s nuclear efforts, in the give and take of the Administration’s rhetoric and accusations, we are approaching the last moments to head off looming conflict.

Cannot the world’s most powerful nation deign to speak to the resentful and scheming regional power that is Iran? Can we not speak of the interests of others, work to establish a sustained dialogue, and seek to benefit the people of Iran and the region? Could not such a dialogue, properly conducted, begin a process that could, over time, help realign hardened attitudes and polarizing views within the region? And isn’t it easier to undertake such a dialogue now, before more die, and more martyrs are created to feed extremist passions?

Every single possible future President has refused to state options should be taken off the table. Not one candidate has said this in fact all have said all options should be on the table. Bush therefore is simply following on with run of the mill past and now certain future US policy. No big deal.

The USA should not have a one-on-one level discussion with Iran about the nuclear issue. It is a world issue. The world will either put a stop to it or it will not. The US, Iraq, Iran and Israel are all different issues and should be treated in isolation from one another. Exactly what I hope the US will continue to do.

The US should continue to push ahead with its star wars program that hopefully one day will give protection to both it and it's allies.

John McCain made a comment something along the lines of neither Presidents, Generals or anyone else wins or loses wars. Nations do. And if the American nation loses in Iraq it will be something they will have to deal with as a nation. The Vietnam war is not spoken about as the lost war of either Johnson or Nixon it is the spoken about as the war America lost.

And this is something the present Congress should think long and hard about before even thinking about cutting funding. And losing this one will leave more than one or two future problems.

Craig,  excellent piece!   There are many similar views about.   The problem is that those who think that they are in control will not entertain them.  

Perhaps it is because in a more rational world the opportunity for obscene profits is  greatly restricted?

G'day Craig, yes I see the similarity in your approach and the JAIPAC one. A commendable one at that.

As to the possibilities of the US negotiating, seems there might be differences of opinion within the Administration. The WH has ruled out talks:

European allies and dom­estic critics have broadly welcomed the announcement by Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, that the US would take part in the conference alongside Iran and Syria. She also noted that such a diplomatic initiative had been recommended by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group last year.

Ms Rice’s statement at a Senate hearing on Tuesday prompted reports in the US media of a dramatic shift in policy. It was fuelled in part by the State Department, which pointedly declined to rule out the possibility of bilateral talks between Ms Rice and Iranian officials at a follow-up conference on Iraq to be held in April.

But on Wednesday the White House stepped in to “clarify” the situation and explicitly ruled out such a move.

“There will not be bilateral talks between the United States and Iran or the United States and Syria, within the context of these meetings,” said Tony Snow, the White House spokesman. The US precondition re-mained unchanged, he said, that Iran first suspend its uranium enrichment programme as called for by the United Nations Security Council.

“We want to make sure those waters don’t get muddied,” he said.

Or are there games being played?:

Some analysts interpreted the mixed signals as evidence that the Bush administration was more interested in using the appearance of diplomacy to appease domestic critics and get its supplemental Iraq war budget through Congress, rather than adopt one of the key findings of the Iraq Study Group, which was to engage Iran and Syria directly. However, other analysts believed that Ms Rice was in fact trying to shift the US position in the direction of engagement with Iran, as has happened in recent weeks with North Korea, culminating with the nuc­lear freeze agreement reached in Beijing last month.

Iran wants talks, as do others and the call for tougher sanctions is likely to be resisted.

Here is an article on how to prepare the public, a source of the push for action and the tactics that are used. All recognisable.

"What if our mainstream MSM reported some of the content of this letter?" The last sentence of the above article is:

We have learned from Iraq what lack of public scrutiny does.

I agree with what is said in this 'respectful open letter' from JAIPAC to AIPAC and others on the dangers of war with Iran. It sums up my views on the standoff almost perfectly. I also think it lays out the kind of approach Einstein had in mind when he wrote about the menace of mass destruction:

We are writing to you out of our deep concern about your potential participation in a war against Iran, and to warn you about the catastrophic consequences that would result. We are Jewish professionals devoted to developing strategies for reducing tension, preventing violence, and transforming conflict. We work in the areas of political science, international relations, conflict analysis and resolution, psychology, history, Middle East studies, and other fields engaged in observation, research and practice in relevant bodies of knowledge. Many of us have family, friends, and colleagues in Israel. We are all committed to the survival and security of Israel and the elimination of anti-Semitism around the world.

Most of us accurately predicted the consequences of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and warned politicians and the public about predictable, preventable unintended consequences. We are unanimous now in predicting the dangers for Jews, Israel, the U.S., and efforts to reduce global terrorism that would be triggered by any military action against Iran.  Many military analysts, politicians and other thoughtful observers have made similar predictions.

Spirals of Violence

We are aware of your deep distrust of the Iranian regime and of the belief that military action will make Israel more secure. Our training and experience inform us that attacking Iran puts Israel and other nations in far greater danger. Short-term thinking, using violence to physically eliminate threats, fails to correct underlying causes of conflict, including unsatisfied human needs and desires for recognition. It provokes deeper, wider, more enduring problems that are more difficult to resolve. There exist more mature strategies capable of producing enduring security.

Desires for a success after a failure and memories of past victories can lead to overconfidence about the potential for success and denial of the potential for catastrophe. Decisive actions of the past, such as the destruction of Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981, are not replicable in today's world, and have no chance of making Israel safer. Globalization, media, technology, lethality, non-state actors, environmental risks, and high civilian death tolls, have completely changed the nature of warfare. In the recent Lebanon war, as the Iraq war, the "quick fix" of military action left everyone traumatized and more vulnerable. 

Unintentionally, such tactics too often serve to:
* escalate instability and cycles of violence     
* increase the popularity of those attacked    
* undermine popular movements for peace, democracy, and acceptance of Israel in the Muslim world    
* increase incentives for nuclear weapons development
* increase trauma, fear, humiliation, despair, and rage
* provoke desires for revenge,  motivation and rationales for recruitment and increased terrorism
* alienate Israel from its neighbors and make it more dependent upon the U.S.
* cause irreversible environmental catastrophe and health crises from radiation and oil fires
* desensitize people to the taking of human life on all sides

Most experts predict that an assault on Iran will produce immediate retaliation against U.S. and British troops in the region, attacks on shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, sharp increases in the worldwide prices of oil and gas, and an explosion of violence against Israel, Jews, and United States interests around the globe. Israel could be subject to missile attacks by Iran or Hezbollah, and the war could become regional, spiraling out of control.  The continuing toll of innocent life will play into extremists' hands, creating another generation of anti-American, anti-Israel terrorists, motivating attacks here and abroad. 

If either Israel or the U.S. are reckless enough to use tactical nuclear weapons (bunker busters) in the planned attack, Israel's fate might be sealed we suspect.  If the U.S. does so, it is likely to provoke world wide outrage and attacks against the U.S., impeachment proceedings against the President, and charges brought in the Hague against the President for war crimes.

Fear Based Decision-making

Still, some believe that the only way to prevent a nuclear Iran is to attack now, and that not to do so would be more dangerous. As Otto von Bismarck said,  "Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death." Acting out of fear, we make unintelligent decisions that backfire and play into the hands of extremists.

Many politicians assume they must "leave the military option on the table." Threatening war to prevent war is likely to provoke war. Actions taken out of existential fear, "in self defense" trigger existential fear in those threatened, creating a self-fulfilling paranoia. Actors are most dangerous when afraid and most violent when attacked, humiliated, and despairing. Paradoxically, the way to be more secure is to make your enemy more secure. We have such strategies in our tool kits.

Exaggerated Enemy Images

People are driven to war by enemy images that are exaggerated, simplified, one-sided and distorted in predictable ways. Notwithstanding President Ahmadiejad's provocative statements about Israel and the Holocaust, he is portrayed as far more dangerous than he actually is. He has offended many Iranians, suffered a significant defeat in the last election, and may well be removed from office - unless, of course, we unite his people behind him by attacking their homeland.

Few Americans realize that one million Iranians held a candlelight vigil in Teheran in support of the United States on September 12, 2001.  Iran's leaders subsequently helped us by providing intelligence about Al Qaeda, and in 2003, they approached the U.S. with an offer to improve relations, recognize Israel and the two-state solution, to demilitarize Hezbollah, and to discourage violence against Israel. The offer was spurned by the Bush administration. Still, Ahmadinejad  offered peace talks with the U.S., and Iran's deputy Oil Minister, Iran's OPEC representative, offered one billion barrels of oil after Katrina. The Bush administration responded with demonization, humiliation, and refusal.

Paradigm Shift

What possibilities exist for addressing this conflict? According to old thinking we have three limiting options; 1- coercive diplomacy (an oxymoron) - control by threats, ultimata, sanctions, carrots and sticks, which can be humiliating, provocative, and likely (or intended) to backfire, 2 - negotiation and diplomacy -considered impossible with a dehumanized enemy, or 3 - military action, considered a last resort, which unleashes catastrophic consequences. In this paradigm, beliefs, premises and assumptions often drive parties towards violence.

Fortunately, there is another category of responses, which are just now becoming known outside of academia. It is based on a different set of premises, tested through research and practice. Rather than focusing on controlling symptoms and behavior, the new paradigm employs techniques that address root causes, underlying vital needs and fears, and transforms the nature of the relationship to create a new reality. The old paradigm, in efforts to eliminate enemies, in fact creates more. The new paradigm is designed to eliminate enmity. These methods may seem counterintuitive, or impossible, but they have been demonstrated to offer a way out of cycles of violence.

Some Principles for Reversing Cycles of Violence

Psychological Intelligence for Intended Consequences -Violence escalates through "natural" automatic processes. Reversing spirals of violence is more challenging, requiring more intelligence, effort, maturity, uncommon sense and conscious intention to create a best-case scenario. In the words of Carl Jung, this is a "work against nature."

Tension reduction, a basic organizing principle, reduces volatility in the system and allows for healthier interactions and more creative strategies. Rhetoric and behavior that increase tension increase volatility in the system and potential for violence.

Political Heisenberg Principle - Our behavior creates relationship dynamics that affect those engaged with us. We cannot judge our adversary's behavior independently from our effect on them. With asymmetrical power, the dominant party has more power to change the dynamics for better or worse. When parties lose perspective, trained facilitators can be helpful.  If we view adversaries as inherently, unchangeably evil (which is how they see us) and if we treat them with threats, rejection, and humiliation, we can provoke violence in a self-fulfilling prophecy. Security assurances, recognition, and satisfying vital human needs, reduce fear and make it safe for others to be less violent. We have evidence of Iranians' desire to improve our relationship, and we have the ability to transform our relationship.

Mutually Assured Survival  - Effective measures aimed at satisfying the Iranian people's needs for identity, dignity, security, autonomy, and development will remove the fundamental causes of Iranian hostility toward Israel and the West and can initiate a new era of peaceful cooperation. Either everybody wins or everybody loses. Win-win strategies replace zero sum approaches.

Some Conflict Transformation Strategies

What are some measures we can use now to avert a catastrophe?  Many can be imagined, but they may include the following:

* The U.S., as the most powerful actor, is in the best position to create an atmosphere for success by taking the initiative to reduce tension quickly by offering security assurances that we will not attack and initiating a series of de-escalatory, confidence-building measures designed to create an atmosphere conducive to further dialogue.

* The U.S. can dramatically reduce tension by recalling the carrier groups recently dispatched to the Persian Gulf.  To reciprocate, Iran can redeploy its missiles and weapons now positioned to threaten warships and shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. This would initiate a cycle of reciprocated de-escalation.

* Influential members of the U.S. and Iranian communities enter into confidential "track two" dialogues, assisted by non-partisan facilitators to define the major underlying issues alienating our nations and to envision methods of solving those problems.  This is neither a threatening "negotiation from strength," which inflames deep-rooted conflicts, nor a naive idealistic "let's be friends" procedure. This type of process has helped resolve or prevent violent conflicts in dozens of locales since 1960, including Northern Ireland, South Africa, Macedonia, Mozambique, Indonesia, Peru, etc.

* Work to transform U.S.- Iranian relations and to reconcile two nations alienated by recent and historical wounds.  Recognize positive Iranian attitudes toward Jews and Israel in the past and overtures to the US and Israel in 2003. Establish people-to-people and group-to-group connections between American, Israeli and Iranian citizen and institutions. Use popular media to show images, such as the million Iranian 9/12/01 vigil.

* Convene a series of regional conferences to discuss outstanding current issues affecting the relations between Persian Gulf/Middle East nations and the industrialized states. The nations of the region may decide to form a multi-state association, like the European Union, to represent their collective interests.  Conferences can explore the guarantee of local ownership and control of regional oil resources while recognizing the industrialized states' need for access to oil on reasonable terms, the recognition of the State of Israel and normalization of relations, and the issue of nuclear proliferation in a regional context.               

* Convene a series of academic conferences involving American, European, Israeli, and Arab and Persian scholars to discuss historical issues affecting the relations between the nations of the region. Conferences might deal with the effects of colonization on the region; the historicity and effects of the European Holocaust, and the healing of the historic clash between Palestinian nationalism and Zionism.

Once the war trend is reversed, there will be many opportunities to restore strained or severed relations.  Traditional inter-state negotiation is better than war -- but to make peace between seriously estranged nations, more imaginative and transformative processes are needed.  The technology of peacemaking exists. It is up to us to employ it.   

The New Pro Israel: Mutually Assured Survival

"For more than half a century, AIPAC has worked to help make Israel more secure by ensuring that American support remains strong." (AIPAC website). In light of 21st century warfare and new security realities, we must rethink the deepest meaning of  "unwavering support" for Israel. Collaboration between the US and Israel against Iran, encouraging, enabling, and even using Israel to engage in military ventures is the greatest existential threat to Israel - physically, morally and spiritually. War is no longer a "last resort" it is an unnecessary resort, and in today's world it is the "worst resort." It would invite retaliation, increase global anti-Semitism and threaten American security. Israel and the US would be the world's pariah states, living in infamy.

As Americans, Jews, and conflict analysts, we are appealing to you to think through the catastrophic consequences and consider the potential for effective strategies to dramatically improve Israel's short and long-term security, role, and image in the region and the world. Surely we can draw upon our collective intelligence, resources, and tradition of social justice to turn this around.

The "New Pro Israel" requires helping Israel find ways to live cooperatively and productively within a Middle East Community. It can only be based on a policy of Mutually Assured Survival, which is in everyone's best interest. This approach reflects our Jewish prophetic moral vision.

We offer our expertise and advice on wise, mature, effective strategies that can help produce conditions that will reduce tension, prevent violence, and create a new reality so that Israel can live in peace, stability and prosperous cooperation with its neighbors.

Jewish Analysts Investigating Peace and Conflict

What if our MSM actually reported some of the content of this open letter?

G'day Craig, have some weighty material for people to ponder. First up, Scott Horton interviews Scott Ritter.

DemocracyNow! interview with Sy Hersh. Audio, video and (at time of posting) partial transcript.

Ray McGovern.

Nicola Nasser.

Should give people plenty to think about. Not to say that everyone will. 

Craig Rowley: "There are many sore points in the relationship (between Iran and Israel) that need to be overcome.  We could talk once more about the Palestinian issue, but there is one sore point that is more directly linked to the current US standoff with Iran."

We could also talk about the persecution of Jews inside Iran and the threat by Iran to, well, you know, "remove Israel from the pages of history".

Craig Rowley: "Do you think Israel would move toward signing the NPT as a first step toward repairing its relationship with Iran?"

Perhaps if Iran agreed to abide by the treaty, having already signed it?

G'day Craig, thought you (and others) might enjoy Keith Olbermann commenting on Condi Rice's grasp of history and tendency to draw erroneous comparisons. Not the only member of the Administration to get a mention.  Video and transcript.

Unfortunately it seems too many people use the Rice approach as an example and not an object on what not to do.

Craig Rowley I support the role of the UN in theory. Always have. Unfortunately the current set up does not work. Well, for the most part. Hopefully this is improving.

There will always be a form of the UN whether through the current one or a group of alliances. So yes I support the UN. My problem has always been with the operations of the current one.

And if it does not show improvement we should indeed look elsewhere.

Craig Rowley: "First I find Jay White well and truly locked into the position against support of any US involvement in an attack on Iran (and even  supporting the role of the United Nations)." 

I have always supported the role of the UN. The US was merely backing up the UN resolutions when it came to Iraq. This probably will not be the case in future. I think the UN will have to find its own way. Good luck Sudan.

The US has a right and will continue to look after its national interests. And I totally agree with this course.

Craig Rowley: "And then the US says it will sit down and talk ... with Syria ... and with Iran."

If they start giving concessions to Iran they will be making a mistake. The way they made a mistake with North Korea. This will leave future problems to a future administration. Peace at all costs will never be a realistic working part of the world we live in.

Now about framing. Do you know what the greatest frame of them all is? It is the linking of Israel with every US policy. And it is a constant when anything turns up that does not run to the beaten drum of anti-American preacher. Apart from being wrong it brings 'em all along (more than a few of very low repute). And that Craig Rowley is how framing really works.

The present Australian government and indeed the present US government would be wise to avoid this trap. All these issues should be dealt with in isolation and dealt with one situation at a time. And this should be made clear every step of the way. See how long it takes Iran to bring up the Palestinian issue. That will be the acid test of just how serious they really are.

What a great day ...

First I find Jay White well and truly locked into the position against support of any US involvement in an attack on Iran (and even  supporting the role of the United Nations). 

Imagine if we had that before the invasion of Iraq!

And then the US says it will sit down and talk ... with Syria ... and with Iran.

The Israeli DEBKAfile report: 

In a sharp policy reversal, the US joins Iraq in a new initiative to invite Iran and Syria to a “neighbors meeting” in Baghdad next month

US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday, Feb. 27: “We hope that all governments seize this opportunity to improve their relations with Iraq and to work for peace and stability in the region.”

Until now, the Bush administration had resisted calls to include Iran and Syria in diplomatic efforts to stabilize Iraq.

In Baghdad, the Iraqi government announced the meeting would take place in mid-March with the participation of members of the Arab League and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Rice said it would be held at sub-ministerial level, to be followed perhaps in April by a full ministerial-level meeting of the same countries, plus G-8 Group members.

The NYT coverage says this:

The announcement today that the United States will take part in two sets of talks between Iraq and its neighbors, including Iran and Syria, represents a major shift in President Bush’s foreign policy, which has eschewed direct, high-level contact between Washington, Damascus and Tehran.

While these talks are to focus on stabilizing Iraq, they crack open a door to a diplomatic channel, which has long been sought by administration critics who say that Washington should do more to engage Iran and Syria to help stem the violence in Iraq.

Welcome developments!

Craig Rowley: "Aside from one line, Jay, this latest essay to your "Liberal friends" was a complete red herring diversion from the subject of the US/Iran standoff."

Well it is an Australian blog, no? I would think that many Australians have opinions. And I would also think that political parties would have opinions on a great deal of subjects. I think they should be getting these opinions out there for the public to decide on. And why would that be a diversion?

There is no standoff because it is at the UN.

Craig Rowley: "Do you really believe that framing Iran as a naughty child, threatening to use your big stick on it and try to force it to behave the way you want it to (strict father style) is the right way to go about things?"

Framing? How interesting. I thought Iran was a dictatorship. Do you disagree with this?

And who is threatening it? I certainly am not. I do not think an attack will nor should happen. And in the UN it is not just the US voting for sanctions, is it? The UN is after all a world body. And one large complaint in the last few years is that the US does not respect it enough. So now is their chance to make a decision. Nothing wrong with that and the US is quite right to respect the process.

I have said time and again there will not be an attack on Iran. I have said time and again I would not support an attack on Iran. The US government has also said time and again they are not planning on attacking Iran. The only people claiming there will be are a desperate low rating extreme right wing Iranian President and the Western left.

If the US is the strict father what is Iran and its Western leftist friends?The spoilt kid looking for an undeserved pat on the head, maybe?

Angela Ryan shows exactly why the centre right should not fight on this level. It is impossible. Every action is a conspiracy and every reaction is a planned conspiracy following on from the last.

Bush has always had a habit of driving a certain element insane. This goes way back to the days he beat big mouth Ann Richards out for Governor of Texas. Bush in the run up to his first election was actually accused by the left of being anti Israel. Anti Semitic even. But like all things in this long running saga this changed to suit the times. A big criticism of Bush in the lead up to that election was also his isolationist stance on many world issues.

He actually used the case of Australia dealing with East Timor alone, as an example of how nations needed to take individual action. At the time the US was just finished with saving the arses of its European friends in the Balkans. The Europeans were aghast that the US was thinking about no longer being the world policeman. All now converiently forgotten.

Gore lost the election because the extreme left of America ran a vicious attack against him. They led by Ralph Nader and Michael Moore were two that proclaimed a Bush victory would be a good thing. They got their wish and all the history has since been continually re-written.

So yes Gore should have probably been the President. And he was favoured at the time for the job. He will one day when the current nonsense dies down, no doubt be truthful about his plight. And no doubt cheating and rorted elections will not be a part of it. Probably the stab in the back he received by those "apparent friends" has a lot to do with his decision not to run this time around.

So conservatives suffer from something called a "strict father syndrome"? How interesting. My opinion is our Bolly drinking bolshy friends suffer from another syndrome. The entitlement syndrome. And it works its way through the invisible hand of some type of grading system. Manifesting itself in a compulsive need to control those seen as below them and a intense jealousy and need for distrust of those that for all intents and purposes have no need to listen to them (through circumstances in life).

It works on two levels. The intense compulsion to control one group of people (so called working class, McMansions I think they call them now) by making them do "what is good for them". And the second level directly ties in to achieving this by bringing the other level down to earth. Therefore our bolshie friends find their true and "fully deserved" place in life. The silly and boring political correctness of the '90s was meant in some way to achieve this.

It is not about improving in life more then it is about bringing one down to ones own level. Hence Bush didn't deserve to be President yet Clinton did. Iran deserves to be treated like the US even though it is a dictatorship etc etc etc. It manifests itself in all politics on all issues.

The centre right key is rather then tell people what is good for them, ask them. And before asking explain all the possible outcomes and options. In Australia things like IR, nuclear power and indeed Iraq need to be discussed in a truthful manner. And giving people choice and explaining options has always been Howard's strength. And that is where the Labor party has always been weak and will always be weak. The refugee issue was a prime example.

Back to basics my Liberal friends.

Craig Rowley: "Talking about roles in creating a war situation: The UK have been matching the US naval build-up in the Persian Gulf."

And here are the annoying bits...

"Navy commanders insist the build-up in the Gulf has not been ordered by London in direct response to Tehran's alleged pursuit of an atomic weapons program in defiance of a United Nations Security Council resolution. But there are hopes that additional vessels will put pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear activities."

"Commodore Winstanley, who is deputy commander of coalition maritime operations for US Central Command, said British trade and strategic interests required a sustained commitment to patrol the seas around the Middle East."

And this other bit...

"The United States says it is committed to finding a non-military answer to the problem of Iran's nuclear ambitions."

So, Craig, should Iran negotiate directly with Israel?

C Parsons sings his silly songs and then quotes Dr Lilly Hamourtziadou of the Iraq Body Count organisation (but as usual fails to check, let alone provide, the full context of her statement). 

Here is Lilly's piece on the IBC website from which the quote used by C Parsons is cut. 

Note the title - "Success?"  The question mark shows that Lilly isn't celebrating the crackdown as the unqualified success some have been saying it is.  Lilly knows the death rate in Iraq is still seriously sickening.

And then look at how Lilly concludes her article:

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, meanwhile, announced this week that Britain will withdraw around 1,600 troops from Iraq in the coming months, and aims to further cut its 7,100-strong contingent by late summer, if Iraqi forces can secure the country’s south. This was by no means an admission of culpability or guilt, but more of an assumption of success in Basra.

During his announcement of the withdrawal plans in the House of Commons on Wednesday, Tony Blair came under attack for refusing to accept responsibility for the violence in Iraq. ‘Do you still not understand that the ability of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations to use Iraq as a battleground was only possible because of the decision that you took and President Bush took to invade that country?’ he was asked by Sir Malcolm Rifkind, former Foreign Secretary.

‘We did not cause the terrorism,’ snapped Mr Blair, ‘the terrorists caused the terrorism’ (Times, 22 February 2007).

Yes, but who ‘caused’ the terrorists?

Perhaps Tony Blair believes terrorists are born this way, in the Middle East. Unless he and President Bush accept their own role in creating a war situation in Iraq, continuing long after the war officially ended nearly four years ago, and take action to repair some of the damage done and prevent more killings, not through the use of guns by through the removal of their weapons, soldiers and control, there can never be any lasting success.

However they wish to see themselves, they are still the occupiers of a country that has no hope of success in anything as long as it remains under occupation.

Lilly is an eyewitness to real impact of bloody war. The fact that the "occupiers" caused a situation were any large number of innocent Iraqi civilians are killed per day, while doubtless gratifying to the "neocons" and their collaborators and apologists who've played their role in creating the situation, is indeed nothing to cheer about.

Talking about roles in creating a war situation: The UK has been matching the US naval build-up in the Persian Gulf.

Craig Rowley: "Given your arguments about the need for a hard and fast declaration of war before you'll entertain the idea one might come, please show us the declaration of a nuclear weapons program from any Iranian source."

And you constantly talk about "strawmen". I have no need for declarations of war. In fact I have said time and time again there will be no American attack. This course of action has limited support and I would not be a person supporting it.

This should be dealt with by the UN. And the US is correct to allow the UN to deal with it. This problem is bigger than the US and is in fact a world problem. The world should collectively deal with it.

Craig Rowley: "If you've got that evidence then, and only then, will you look credible standing up "to proclaim guilt with pride", waving your finger at us like a strict father, and banging on about moral strength."

Guilt with pride has to do with the not allowing the curtailing of free speech. That a condition of Iran sitting down is that the US must not exercise its constitutional right and be critical of a dictatorship is too high a price to pay. In fact, it is absolute front even asking for such a undertaking. The US you must remember is not even talking to them. It is a UN problem and if Iran have any problems they should take it up with them.

G'day Craig, first a nod to Angela (G'day) for her post bringing Jenny (G'day) up to speed. A darn fine crack at it.

On negotiations and DemocracyNow! features an interview with Trita Parsi on the 2003 offer and what happened to it and how it might impact possible future negotiations. Audio, video and transcript.

TRITA PARSI: Well, I think part of the reason why the Secretary of State currently is using the terminology of saying that she doesn't recall seeing it may be because the Bush administration senses that it may be forced to negotiate with Iran down the road, particularly if this surge policy is a failure, which a lot of people predict that it will be. And as a result, they don't want the negotiations, the potential future negotiations, with Iran to be compared to what they could have achieved with Iran back in 2003, because clearly the United States is in a much weaker position today than it was back then. And I think it would look bad for the administration to come to a deal with Iran now that would be substantially worse than the deal they could have achieved back in 2003. And I think they want to avoid that type of a comparison.

And:

TRITA PARSI: Well, according to many people that I have interviewed in the Bush administration, they did have a discussion about this at the highest level in the Bush administration, and basically the hard line of the Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld basically ensured that they would not proceed with the negotiations. In fact, they actually reprimanded the Swiss ambassador for having delivered it.

Oh, the Father Model. Much, as you would be aware, has been conjectured about the relationship of Bush 1 and 2. There have been psychological profiles provided. Here is some further material on what a range of people think the Commander is about.

It matters. Lots.

...Persia is happy and gay!

Hans Blix:

So, should Iran negotiate directly with Israel?

The Supreme Leader is causing a Fuhrer
He's got those Zionists on the run
You gotta love that wacky Farsi!

The Supreme Leader is causing a Fuhrer
They can't say "no" to his demands
They're freaking out in foreign lands
He's got the whole world in his hands

The Supreme Leader is causing a Fuhrer

Don't be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the Farsi party!

Craig Rowley: "So let's jeer when we hear news that some people choose to celebrate a crackdown leading to "a reduction" in civilians killed in Iraq when, in fact, the civilian body count is still running at a rate three times greater than it was 6 months ago."

Well, you might indeed jeer if you are supporting the "resistance", because as Doctor Lilly Hamourtziadou of the Iraq Body Count organisation states quite clearly there's been a significant reduction in the number of deaths in Baghdad since the launch of a U-S and Iraqi security operation.

"If you compare the first half of February to the second half of February, after the launch of the security plan there was 122 civilians killed everyday on average in the first half. If you compare that to the 74 during the second half, well, it's not 50 per cent, but it's around 40 per cent reduction" Doctor Hamourtziadou said.

The fact that the "resistance" are still killing about 74 innocent Iraqi civilians a day, and while doubtless gratifying to the "resistance" and its collaborators and apologists, it is indeed nothing to cheer about. 

G'day Craig and Michael, to the latter your comment that quality analyses such as Sahimi's being absent from the MSM is a core issue. We are too often fed material that has a limited perspective and it is necessary to look further and deeper and behind the curtain of spin to gain a better understanding of issues. I am pleased that Sahimi's analyses and proposal has met with some positive responses here, at least. For further material in that vein we have more from Hans Blix:

Blix criticized the demand first by the Europeans, then the U.S., and now by the Security Council, that first Iran must suspend enrichment and then there will be talks where "they will explain what the Iranians will be given."

"This is in a way like telling a child, first you will behave and thereafter you will be given your rewards," Blix said. "And this, I think, is humiliating. The Iranians have resisted all the time saying, no, we are willing to talk, we are willing to talk about the suspension of enrichment, but we are not for suspension before the talks."

"I would be surprised if a poker player would toss away his trump card before he sits down at the table. Who does that?" he asked.

Now to coercive diplomacy - Gareth Porter on the  Dems Me-Tooism and the possible negative outcome of coercion.

An example of coercion at work. 

So the result is sanctions against a state which has the legal right to do what it is doing with a lack of reliable evidence it is doing anything illegal. Then the media (and others) trumpet Iran's defiance of of the UNSC and the world community. Unfair at best and can be considered an unhealthy warping of the international system.

A wise move from Britain:

Downing Street yesterday confirmed it had asked the US to consider Britain as a possible launching pad for US missile interceptors as part of the Bush administration's proposed "son of Star Wars" anti-ballistic defence scheme.

I think the thing predicted many years back has come to pass. Whether it be Iran, or some other some other place run by a crazy tinpot dictator, the cat is out of the bag. Nuclear arms are now a part of the world. Not just super power world.

Best start planning for possible future problems. All of the future generations will thank us for it.

The arguments surrounding Iran just prove how difficult it is now to stop. I would expect a number of technologically advanced and wealthy nations will soon want on board also.

Mark Sergeant: "I don't think they will use the Bomb, but there's hope as well as judgement in that. It is, more or less explicitly, one of the options on the table. Whether or not Angela, or anyone, finds a quote threatening use, you won't find a quote at the top level of the US administration disavowing use of the nuclear option. We just have to hope they're not as crazy as all the evidence suggests."

And certainly this type of argument is doing John Howard major damage at the moment. The fact is that no matter which why Bush goes he will be portrayed as insane. And a helpful world media seems to be helping the situation along. Something that all future American Presidents should be quiet concerned about. It really is an extreme level of anti-American sentiment. And like it or not John Howard is unfairly being placed in a similar situation by the local media.

The shinning light is though Australians quite like their relationship with America. And the truth is there is no reason not to. Australia does very well from it. And Australians do very well from it.

The centre right must get away from this pointless slogan arguments. And it must begin to explain the current less then ideal situation in a rational manner. The US, Israel, Iran and Iraq are all separate issues. Though some issues go across lines most issues are separate. The invoking of the Anzac spirit by Nelson (though fairly correct) was ill advised. And it is not something Australians need to hear to get about doing a job.

I thought Downer's point about backing your mates was a fair one. I would like to see them go further and explain just how it is in the interests of Australians to back this particular mate. The American- Australian relationship is an extremely good one. One that has great benefit to Australia. Perhaps it is time to hear from those that think it does not and just exactly what they think. And not only where they think Australia is headed but just how it is going to get there minus the evil America.

The time is right to get away from meaningless slogans. Australians have very good bullshit detectors and expect the nuts and bolts. Now is the time to give it to them, the good the bad and the ugly. They are back to the wall people and with pragmatic truth cannot only except tough situations but fight back hard from them. A rabble in the Middle East is extremely harmful to Australia. And just exactly why, should be explained in a no nonsense robust way. In the end they will make their minds up through the democratic process. And we all will have to respect that decision. There is nothing to fear from a solid debate on this issue along with all issues.

Rudd has not at this point in time answered the hard questions. And frankly aided by a friendly media wishing for an election contest this is short changing people. Enough of the fairy floss and let's start getting into the real issues. Rather then Nelson giving speeches about Australia he should be asking Rudd just exactly how intends to handle the situation if a number of very possible situations play out.

Just up and leaving Iraq and the US on their own and just hoping for a good outcome is not really a way to address something. And it certainly is not how a real leader should approach very real situations.

Lest they fall into the Debnam trap. The man rocks up with little to no policy except hope. And sacking 20 000 public servants (yawn). Actually makes one reasonable policy announcement (water) and it is portrayed in possibly the most devious political fashion I have ever seen as selling shit to people for drinking. Frankly that a mob is so desperate to cling on to power and throw every basic moral out the window even if totally destructive to their place of government leaves me in a "dilemma". I do not know whether to be totally disgusted or respect the absolute life and death selfish need to cling on to what they have?

The State Liberals should never have been in this position. This is the worst government Australia has ever known. That Debnam is out splashing around a river whilst the entire ship is sinking is an indictment on them all. This should be a lesson to the entire Federal party. This mob (Labor) will do and say and I mean do and say anything to get power. And the only way to defeat it is through truth and explaining to people just exactly what it means for Australia under seven Labor governments.

God, I am dreading being in NSW in the next three years.

Ask a person to honestly tell you if they can name a Labor government they actually did well out of? There endith the fairy floss.

Craig Rowley, how interesting that you left this part out:

At the same time, though, internal opposition to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is becoming increasingly louder, as Iranians are recognizing the danger in his rhetoric, particularly with regards to Israel and the Holocaust, and his failure to improve Iran's economy. University students recently forced him to stop his speech by shouting "death to the dictator." Iran's parliament, where Mr. Ahmadinejad's supporters are supposed to have a large majority, has severely criticized him. In recent municipal elections, candidates backed by Mr. Ahmadinejad received only 4 percent of the votes.

Effectively you are saying that although the dictator has very little support his policies on nuclear weapons do. And that might well be the case. However handing him a diplomatic victory is not very wise is it? Oh ye Iranians of little faith.

And the next part is where the deep left show their constant lack of morals and judgement when it comes to democracy. What concession should the US give?

As the concession for Iran's temporary suspension of its uranium enrichment program, the U.S. should declare that it still abides by the Algiers Accord that it signed with Iran in 1980 to end the hostage crisis. Point I, paragraph 1 of the Accord stated, "the United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs." This simple reiteration of the already existing U.S. legal obligations toward Iran, backed by concrete steps, such as putting an end to the rhetoric against Iran for its alleged meddling in Iraq, would be a powerful expression of support for Iran's national dignity and respect for its people's desire for nonintervention in their nation's internal affairs. It should also put an end to the talk of regime change, address Iran's most important concern, namely, its national security, and energize the opposition in their confrontation with Mr. Ahmadinejad.

How scary. Giving up an American right of free speech against a dictatorship that is "despised" by ones own people. Imagine if a government was asked not to speak out against the apartheid regime of South Africa? How utterly undemocratic, insulting and against the very essence of the American way of life. And this never even speaking about something will "energize" the opposition?

The ones that have vanished maybe. The left has always had a natural antipathy toward democracy and free speech. Much of the same rhetoric is a direct descendent from the Cold War. Political correctness of the '90s was merely a softer extension of it.

The US should not have dealt with North Korea. They were blackmailed. The way the Clinton administration was blackmailed. This will merely transfer to the next administration. A blackmailer never gives up the mark. The US should deal with this in the UN. Sanctions should be asked for and hopefully granted.

This problem is bigger than just America and Iran. It is a world problem. It is up to the world to decide how they see the future. America cannot win in a one-on-one discussion with this current regime. They should not even bother trying.

Like all democratically minded people I am with the average Iranian. I hope that one day they find the decent government they deserve. Outside of that there is not much else I nor anyone can do. Giving up democratic ideals of free speech is not a length (in hope) I nor any government should go to. Even asking for such a thing is undemocratic and totally shameful.

If this what must be done to expunge America of its guilt in the eyes of certain people. With all should stand up together to proclaim guilty with pride!

The following is worth reading for those who are intersted in knowing what is going on.

[extract]

Torture Is Finally on Trial
By Naomi Klein, The Guardian. Posted February 26, 2007.

America has deliberately driven hundreds, perhaps thousands, of prisoners insane. Now it is being held to account in a Miami court.

These standard mind-breaking techniques have never faced scrutiny in an American court because the prisoners in the jails are foreigners and have been stripped of the right of habeas corpus -- a denial that, scandalously, was just upheld by a federal appeals court in Washington DC. There is only one reason Padilla's case is different -- he is a US citizen. The administration did not originally intend to bring Padilla to trial, but when his status as an enemy combatant faced a supreme court challenge, the administration abruptly changed course, charging Padilla and transferring him to civilian custody. That makes Padilla's case unique -- he is the only victim of the post-9/11 legal netherworld to face an ordinary US trial.

Craig,  if you still have an interest in  petitions, this may be of interest to you.  Very organised, they take out advertisements in major newspapers, and get tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of signatures. They simply email you when they are running a campaign.

G'day Bob. Isn't it a crying shame that this kind of high quality, factual analysis of the enrichment issues can't be found in today's mainstream media? IMO, Sahimi has done a great job.

As you pointed out, Craig, others have voiced similar approaches (such as ElBaradei) and provided an insight into how Iranians feel about the issue (Shirin Ebadi). Much else besides. It is wise to put you in the other person's shoes to try to understand issues from their perspective. Equally it is important to acknowledge the errors and failings of your own side, if you choose to take one. Although if you follow these steps you might well be less likely to take a side.

The complexities of ME politics have been examined - the Hersh article I linked earlier is one example, which, with its material about aid  from the US being passed on to al-Qaeda, shows the ironies that exist in much of the debate and dealings surrounding the subject. Outright hypocrisies have also been exposed. We have looked at the players and promoters. Much is hidden by deceit or lack of a flies on convenient walls. We seek for whatever can be revealed or surmised.

To your question as to how Bush would answer - an unknown and signs, so far, have not been positive. So we hope that reality can make its presence felt and this constructive approach is adopted.

G'day Craig & Angela, I suggest this approach has much to recommend it. We can hope others see the sense in it.

Michael Coleman: "Jay White, I have to wonder how you can write two consecutive posts to this thread with such contradictory arguments."

The problem is they are not. You just wish to see it that way.

A reliable flow of oil centres around a very real concern in the short term of the creation of an artificial market which goes very much against the interest of the world. A monopoly, if you like, built to suit a very select group of people. This has nothing to do with peak oil. It is not peak oil to be selling or not selling a product at extremely hostile prices.

And in the event of this happening as was the case in the '70s the average man on the street should be extremely worried. For it is he that will be most adversely effected. And I think this should be explained and the options that are available should also be explained.

Energy is a issue that will be dealt with over time. However a sudden massive shock to the short term system would be a huge economic step back. You do not save the village by burning it down. 

C Parsons asks "... why should the Americans negotiate with "President" Ahmadinejad ...?"

But who is saying anything about Ahmadinejad needing to be directly involved in any negotiations with Iran?  That is who besides C Parsons and others ignoring the reality of the Iranian political system and power structure and the existence of Ali Larijani (Khamenei's man). 

Why should there be negotiation with Iran? 

I believe there should be negotiation with Iran for the same reason as given by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

"We're leaving open the track of negotiations, because the best way to resolve this would be to have Iran come to the table," she said yesterday at a summit meeting in London.

Condi is correct on this; negotiation is the best way to resolve the standoff.

And it's time to start negotiating the preconditions her President has put on coming to the table.  I know he prefers to make his opponents weaker before negotiating with them, but sometime or other he's just gotta get real.

I wonder what C Parsons' prefers.  Does he really prefer one of the other "options on the table", perhaps the military options Bush and Cheney feel compelled to keep constantly calling attention to?

Craig Rowley: "I wonder if C Parsons noticed that the quote he used from the International Herald Times was from a story published in September 2006?"

Gotcha. Oh, golly, look - here's the story that I claimed that the ABC suppressed  (You have to do these things from time to time)....

The British based organisation, Iraq Body Count, says there's been a significant reduction in the number of deaths in Baghdad since the launch of a U-S and Iraqi security operation. The Iraqi Prime Minister also says in the 10 days since the security crackdown began the number of sectarian killings in the capital has fallen dramatically.  A spokeswoman for Iraq Body Count, Doctor Lilly Hamourtziadou says the latest figures support the Prime Minister's claims.

"If you compare the first half of February to the second half of February, after the launch of the security plan there was 122 civilians killed everyday on average in the first half. If you compare that to the 74 during the second half, well, it's not 50 per cent, but it's around 40 per cent reduction" Doctor Hamourtziadou said.

- but it's good to know, Craig, you are actually reading my questions.

So, why should the Americans negotiate with "President" Ahmadinejad seeing as, according to you, he has no significant role in Iranian foreign or defense policy?

Now, here's something you won't read in Counterpunch or Green Left Used Small Bills In A Brown Paper Bag Left At The Usual Place..

TEHRAN: Iran has played down the possibility of US military action against its nuclear program after a veiled threat from the US Vice-President, Dick Cheney, but said it was prepared for all possible scenarios.

"We do not see that the United States is in a position to impose another crisis in the region on its taxpayers," the Iranian Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said on Saturday.

Obviously, Mottaki is a neocon running dog.

Craig Rowley: "As for Ahmadinejad, well while he's got (thanks to the 'map meme' promoters) a high public profile, it's actually the Supreme Leader - Khamenei - who dictates all matters of foreign policy and domestic security."

In that case, why should the Americans or anyone else be negotiating with the Supreme Lunatic, "President" Ahmadinejad? To keep up his "profile", I suppose. Also, it's rather a moot point who anyone 'negotiates' with when the regime makes utterances like this:

Meanwhile, Iranian President Mahmood Ahmadinejad has compared his country's nuclear program to a runaway train without any breaks. He added that he had thrown away the train's reverse gear.

So, let's negotiate! Especially when things like this happen:

The deputy head of Iran's aerospace research centre has told a local news agency that it is not true that Iran has fired a rocket into space. He says it was only a sounding rocket that takes measurements in the atmosphere for research purposes. But the head of the same aerospace research centre earlier told state television that Iran had fired a rocket into space. And on Saturday, Iran's Defence Minister spoke of plans to build a satellite launcher and join what he called the space club.

Yeah, right. In other words, the deputy head of Iran's aerospace research centre "mis-spoke" when he excitedly announced the good news about how the long range missile test went, because that's supposed to be top secret until the nuclear attack on Tel Aviv and Eilat is underway.  Either that, or one part of the Islamic Republic of Ga Ga thinks it has an ICBM program, and the other part thinks it's really a glorified weather balloon.  So, which bit does Planet Sane "negotiate" with about that?

I appreciate that while President Ahmadinejad plays no significant role in these or other of Iran's foreign or other policies, and perhaps doesn't even really exist when viewed from a Marxist perspective, it's still a tad unnerving when he and others say such things.

This was an interesting news item, by the way...

Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards have killed 17 rebels described as "mercenary elements" opposing the Islamic republic in clashes in the north-west of the country.

Probably caught red-handed playing chess or went outside without their putting their chador on, or something.

Now, talking about mysterious disappearances, this item was reported on the ABC radio news on Saturday - but by today has, strangely enough, been removed from the website:

Violent deaths among civilians in Iraq may have fallen by a quarter last month, statistics indicated on Friday, despite a bloody last week in August that ended with 70 dead in a series of explosions Thursday in Baghdad.  The partial data, provided by the Iraqi Interior Ministry and based on figures from the Health Ministry, tend to confirm U.S. military confidence that a crackdown in the capital had slowed the bloodletting, but the figures also showed that dozens were still dying every day.

Well, we don't want to upset people telling them stuff like that. It might draw attention to the excellent work being done by the "resistance". And take this anti-American "protest" whipped up by Iranian agents angry over the the detention of their colleague Ammar Hakim.....

Mr Hakim was arrested and held for several hours because of what were said to be questions about his passport as he crossed into Iraq from Iran. He said soldiers stopped him without good reason, treated him rudely and roughly, and appeared to have kept seven AK-47s, 14 pistols and more than $US6000 ($7500) in US and Iraqi currency taken from him and his bodyguards.

Seven AK-47s, 14 pistols?  "No officer, these are strictly for personal use. Trust me, I am a man of God."

G'day Craig, Angela & Michael, have something to get the grey matter working - Sy Hersh on US redirection of its policy toward the tangled web of ME politics.

From Tom Engelhardt - Michael T Klare - Bush's Future Iran War Speech.

Follow up to Craig's mention of the dodgy intelligence about Iran's nuclear program - the LATimes on the matter.

But we don't have Rummy around to say "We know where they are ...." but weren't.

Iraqi Security Adviser on Iran's activities in Iraq. Brief video plus summary.

"Well, there were some evidence that they were supporting some group, some militia group, Shia group, in Iraq, and there is no doubt in my mind and there are so many evidence for this that they recently in the last few weeks, they have changed their position, and they stopped a lot of their tactics and a lot of intervention or interference in the Iraqi internal affairs," answered al-Rubaie. "They have also advised some of their allies in the Iraqi political arena to change their position on supporting the government."

Watch the video for what he thinks Iran would not mind happening.

Angela Ryan: "Well, Jay, that is an interesting statement. Do you consider there is no role for diplomatic action / discussion of differences and seeking compromise and reducing misunderstandings?"

Not for this subject and not with the current Iranian President there is not. There is nothing for the US to gain from talking one on one. The only possible outcome is loss. Iran is looking for and needing "misunderstanding". If the world is so concerned the world will work it out. The US is totally correct to deal with this in the UN.

Angela Ryan: "But do you trust Israel with nuclear warheads, about 200 or so, plus second strike capable nuclear armed subs?"

Yes. Apparently, they, according to some, wish for a greater Israel. My question would be why did they not go finding it twenty years ago when well on top? Obviously with the latter day thinking they must be looking to even up the field or perhaps the latter day thinking is just crap. I am guessing the same things were said twenty years ago.

Angela Ryan: "Are you, Jay, willing then to also call for the nuclear disarmament of Israel and for the US to sustain its legal commitment not to support such nuclear armed states?" 

No. I have never said I was against being armed. I have only said Iran being armed with nuclear weapons is not advisable.

Angela Ryan: "After all, that legality is probably the reason why Israel has been so coy all these years about admitting officially what everyone in the region knows, since the 1973 war apparently."

Well people say they have these weapons. I imagine if they wanted or needed them today they could quiet easily find them.

I tell you though Angela, It would be very ironic to discover they never had them. Ole Ghengis Khan had a trick of getting all his captives (double or triple his army) plus his very small (in real terms) army of marching on the one spot in time. Gave the impression of a much larger force then was. Found the local panic merchant and rumourmonger from the previous town and sent him ahead. The give up rate without a fight was over fifty per cent.

If it turned out Israel was getting off on the cheap all these years I would clap my hands and be extremely impressed. The information getting out always seemed a little too detailed for such a militarily secretive place. Though I suppose with satellites the way they are these days the game will be up one way or the other. Though they could say they never lied. Have they got nuclear weapons? Who knows?

Best let others do the talking for them.

Angela Ryan: "All the same Jay, you sound an awful lot like a neocon with your support of pragmatic use of military force/pre-emptive actions when needed for oil security for the US and Israel. Straight out of an AIPAC/AEI/PNAC lecture. Or do you not support such?" 

I am not a neocon. I am a pragmatic centre right person. I do not believe in monopolies. They should be broken up through law or force. Oil and a reliable flow of it is important to the modern world and its progress. There is no need to hide this fact. It is not in the interests of the modern world to be held to ransom by a very small number of individuals.

People are quite mature and will accept this if the "real facts" are explained in a truthful manner. And the up side of coalition forces being in this region is that it will make it very difficult for Iran to use their nuclear weapons. It is just not that easy bombing your next-door neighbour with conventional nuclear weapons without bombing yourself.  The irony of life, huh?