Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Craig Rowley, oh sorry I can think of one situation options went of the table. The time poor ole Neville Chamberlain stood out on the tarmac waving that bit of paper. Only a few years later the nation he took options off the table with was unrecognisable. Even to this day they still play the footage. Imagine how he must of felt watching it before he died in 1940? His kids must have had a life of such enjoyment.

Craig Rowley What does "all options on the table" really mean? 

All options are on the table.

I would be interested to know if China, Russia, England or even Australia have taken options of the table. Has this ever happened in the history of mankind?

What does "all options on the table" really mean?  Prime Minister Howard's spin doctors put this out through Murdoch's papers today:

"I think his remarks indicate the obvious, and that is that if you are dealing with a difficult country like Iran you leave every option on the table, and that is all he's done," Mr Howard said.

So "Honest" John thinks Cheney's remarks in Sydney "indicate the obvious".  But why do Cheney and Bush feel the need to indicate the obvious so often?  If it's really obvious, then obviously it doesn't need to be said so often.

And it's obviously ridiculous to suggest that it's somehow a sensible approach to say to someone "Look, let's sort this out by sitting down to talk ... no, not with you of course ... I meant with my loyal allies ... and see I've got my stealth bombers at the ready ... my allies will stand firm ... but we want to sit down and work out a solution ... no, we'll tell you what it's going to be ... but it'll be a solution ... and see I've got my big stick on the table ... but obviously I've always got my big stick on the table ..." 

Some of America’s most senior military commanders must think all this talk about "all options on the table" obviously signals something other than what our PM says is obvious. Why else would they say now that they are prepared to resign if the Bush/Cheney White House orders a military strike against Iran?

And despite the Bush administration's obvious insistence it has no plans to go to war with Iran, a Pentagon panel has been created to plan a bombing attack that could be implemented within 24 hours of getting the go-ahead from President George W. Bush, according to Seymour Hersh in the latest issue of The New Yorker magazine.

I wonder how President Bush would respond to a direct question from the press: Is a bombing attack on Iran within 24 hours of your say-so on the table?

Thanks Angela, I appreciate the feedback. When you say there is no oil crisis yet, I have to disagree. There is an oil crisis in exactly the same way there is a climate change crisis. We are stuck on a trajectory that leads to big trouble in both cases. We needed at least ten years of determined, project-status effort to prepare for endemic oil shortages and I don't believe we now have enough time to avoid real hardship.

Evolutionary forces appear to have shaped our stone-age brains to discount future reward massively compared with instant gratification. Behaviour that was appropriate for hunter-gatherer survival just doesn't cut the mustard now that we wield incredibly powerful technologies.

What I find particularly ironic about the current debacle in the Middle East is that, at best, it will only delay the inevitable energy crunch for our industrial civilisation. At worst, it will make the job of adapting to the post fossil-fuel era exponentially more difficult due to the devastation of nuclear war.

Jay White, I have to wonder how you can write two consecutive posts to this thread with such contradictory arguments. In the first post you admit that Middle East oil is a matter of national security and the economic welfare of our population depends on us maintaining control of their oil. You speculate that prices of up to $300 per barrel could result if the supply is not secured and that our children's futures are at stake. You say it's so important that the majority would be prepared to renounce the basic tenets against coveting and stealing to have it.

In your very next post, you launch into an extraordinary diatribe about "peak oil theory" and "its idiotic, economic illiterate conclusions". No credible opinion I know of disputes that there will be a peak in global, conventional oil production. The only meaningful debate is about the timing of the peak and the consequences after it occurs.

What happened, pray tell, to price elasticity, to price sensitive exploration, to technological advances and the substitution of alternative fuels? Why wouldn't these factors save us from an uncooperative Middle East?

Would you care to explain why a political decision by Middle East countries to withhold supply from us permanently would be devastating whereas a geologically enforced, ever-increasing shortfall in global production would not?

G'day Craig, nice point about Iraqi democracy - perhaps it is limited to ground level. Or by the existence of the occupiers. On other points you have made, Iraq redux? Yes, it has been noted that there is a resonance between the Iran rhetoric etc and pre-Iraq invasion lie-fest that through considered examination of the matter a curveball. Due to the exposure of the lies the Iran spiel has been met with more scepticism. As to whether a deal has been made with the cunning runt signing up, be it under the table or through the back door, we can but await developments. But one can be reasonably sure that the runt will be opposed to any premature pulling out.

A zugzwang? Very possibly.

As to the air space permission story - hard to tell who is right, not the sort of story a government is likely to confirm. It follows previous stories of Israeli plans and the desire for Iran's nuclear facilities to be attacked is not new for Israeli governments. And they do still have much to say about Iran.

As do others.

Now, from the other side of the hill.

Or, if the shoe was on the other foot.

Inhibitions and limitations.

Caution - there is always the "crazy" factor. And a reality of their own making.

There are reports that Israel is requesting permission from the United States to fly through Iraqi airspace in case Jerusalem should decide to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.  Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh denies the reports and says any talk of an Israeli offensive against Iran was speculative alone.

Fair enough. Talk of attack is, at this stage, just as speculative as talk of the Iranian nuclear program being a weapons program.

But the part of the story reported that no-one seems to speculate on is that the US controls Iraqi airspace. And that's really odd, isn't it?  I thought I'd heard our Prime Minister and his men echoing President Bush and his men in constantly referring to how they've been successful in bringing democracy to Iraq.

So why don't the Iraqi people, through their elected government, get to control their own airspace?

Craig Rowley: "The question mark above is necessary, because if you remember correctly, "Honest" John didn't tell us, the Australian people, that he'd committed troops to some pre-emptive combat in the pre-invasion phase of the Iraq War. What if he's made a deal under the table, yet again?"

What to invade Iran? The up-coming war that nobody is saying will happen, but might happen? The up-coming war that will be because the US has not broken with world history and taken all options of the table? Though, of course, nobody is saying it will happen. Just could happen. That war?

I will though break with Webdiary history and say one thing. No chance of happening. The only person that it suits talking it up is the Iranian President. And of course those that will (when it does not come to pass) claim it was because of their constant vigilance.

Iran (it seems likely) will gain these weapons and the world will accept it, if not a little regretfully. Saudi and Egypt will follow suit. That, though, will be problems the next generation will have to deal with. Possibly even advantages in some circumstances. The same way all of us were left problems and advantages from a previous generation. In the end it is down to the world community to deal with how they would like to envisage the future world. This problem is bigger and always has been bigger than just the US. They are absolutely 100% correct in sending it to the UN and making the world deal with it one way or the other. Future Americans do not deserve to carry the can for the whole world's actions or in this case, perhaps lack of them.

There is simply not one advantage to the United States in talking to these people directly about this issue. Craig Rowley seems to love the idea of gabfests. I think the US should be talking to Russia and China rather than Iran. I would be explaining why it would be in their best interests not to help this mob along. God knows that many Middle Eastern nations histories is a lot like left wing leadership. One day they are on this side. The next on that side. The day after that back to the original side and so on. Personally I would not trust half these places with a jerrycan of petrol and a box of matches let alone building nuclear war heads for them. Hopefully the Russian and Chinese sense of logic and pragmatism built through at least a thousand years of harsh lessons learnt sees the point.

One can but hope.

Zugzwang? What's that? A nickname for some colonial aka Schultz? Nah.

Mahmoud Sabit, writing for PostGlobal, explains:

In the late 1990s Russia attempted to make inroads with Europe but was rebuffed; it felt excluded from the golden circle of the industrialized West. Since then, Russia has been quietly building alliances where it can. Historically enthusiastic chess players, Russians look several moves ahead. And they apply realpolitik in their political dealings.

They see that the ‘War on Terror’ has reached its climax, and is becoming overshadowed by global realities. U.S. policies have not been successful, despite the flexing of military might in the Middle East. Russia is in a region that has been driven to strategic imbalance by U.S. policies. Its southern borders with Muslim majority populations could become unstable.

...

Russia is courting Europe rather than threatening it. As such, worries about a new Cold War are unfounded. It is the U.S. which may be facing a political and diplomatic checkmate. America should be concerned. In the chess analogy they may be facing a ‘zugzwang’  -- a position in which any move will not improve their position.

Much of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by American spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, according to diplomatic sources in Vienna ...

... but "all options are still on the table", Dick Cheney reminds us. Yet again. 

"But I have made the point, and the president (George W Bush) has made the point, that all options are still on the table," Cheney said, this time with John Howard by his side.

"They have made some fairly inflammatory statements. They appear to be pursuing the development of nuclear weapons."

Demonisation of the enemy (this time with the 'map meme') + dodgy 'WMD' intel + Deputy Sheriff "Honest" John to join you at the hip = Iraq redux?

The question mark above is necessary, because if you remember correctly, "Honest" John didn't tell us, the Australian people, that he'd committed troops to some pre-emptive combat in the pre-invasion phase of the Iraq War. What if he's made a deal under the table, yet again?

Divine Strake is dead!

Those who've followed this thread and Cease fire! would recall that Trevor Kerr (G'day) pointed out the US Defense Department plan to detonate 700 tons of non-nuclear explosives at the Nevada Test Site as part of the military's effort to design "bunker-busting" explosives.

That proposed explosion generated a huge outcry in Utah where people still resent the nuclear testing conducted decades ago. They still resent it because they still suffer from it.

Unfortunately it's only one destructive military program stopped by the people. The Pentagon say they will continue to figure out the best way to attack an underground enemy bunker, and will find alternate means. (Does this imply testing somewhere else, say somewhere between Eşfahān and Kashan?)

And there's a whole list of other "divine" military destruction projects on which to focus people power. Time to stop Divine Buffalo, Divine Invader, Divine Helcat, Divine Kingfisher, Divine Umpire, Divine Zorro, Divine Warhawk, Divine Albatross, and can you believe it - Divine Hates.

Michael Coleman: "Politics aside, geology will play the decisive, disruptive role in energy supplies over the next few years."

Perhaps it will and perhaps it will not. A lot depends on world politics and situations.

BTW my concern about realiable oil flow is for the short to mid term. This is a long way from even entertaining the notion of peak oil and its idiotic, economic illiterate conclusions. Oil is a price elastic commodity. Over time people will begin as Michael says to "wean" themselves of the product. Price and the relative competitiveness of alternatives will dictate this.

Speaking of existing oil fields and the "crash of production" makes a fatal economic error. It supposes (wrongly) that those fields are all that exist. This is of course unadulterated nonsense made to suit a certain economic argument. Older readers may well be aware of the end of oil predictions by '79? In real terms oil prices have not reached the highs of 1980.

Peak oil theory is a conspiracy of nonsense spouted by irrational economic dupes pushed by self-serving alternative energy industries (yep nuclear is probably amongst them) and a self-serving oil research industry. It does not take into account either rapidly advancement of technology nor the oil price correlation with research, development and investment.

Finally it takes no account of constantly changing geo politically situations unless it is to push a certain point. In peak oil theory you do indeed find a little bit for everyone.

This is not to say people should not be concerned about oil shortage (especially in the short term) and I have made my reasons why. And it is not to say people and governments should not plan for future changes. Such as nuclear energy, people attaining LPG equipment for cars, etc.

I do say people should be very wary of complete irrational fear and the economic and political charlatons who gain from it by pushing it. Just my advice and that is the best I can do.

There are a number of other factors more complicated that go much more into detail of debunking this whole panic merchant crap which I won't bother going into. Frankly I could not be arsed.

Michael Coleman: "Good to see you beginning to address the elephant in the room, Jay. As I see it, the people of the Middle East have the absolute right to husband their precious hydrocarbon resources and use them in whatever way they see fit. Those resources don't belong to us."

Oil has a part to play in the argument of troops being there. It is one slice, not the sole slice, of the cake. It belongs to "us" when we buy it. And for national security reasons along with the economic well being reasons of a number of nations it is in our interest to make sure this cannot be artificially tampered with. People are mature enough to work this out when it is explained to them in a truthful manner.

Now "whatever way they see fit" may sound good in principle. I contend that principle will not hold up for very long when people actually understand "whatever way they see fit" could be costing them their living, house and indeed children's future. A lot of the reason for lack of support for the battle from the public is that the public does not understand they are very much involved in the battle. They have as much at stake in this as any one else at the moment. Actually for most a lot more then me. They just do not understand it, yet.

Michael Coleman: "The Coalition of Resource Thieves (CoRT) are determined to maintain the occupation of Iraq in an attempt to make it safe enough for Big Oil to exploit the reserves."

And indeed they will maintain a presence. At least in the north of the country. No present administration, nor future one, will ever give this up. And neither can they afford to either morally or politically.

Michael Coleman: "The prospect of a state owned oil industry in Iraq is frightening to the USA for the reasons you describe. Without occupation troops on the ground, Iraqis are likely, in concert with Iran, to punish the USA with the energy weapon for the abominable mess they have made of Iraq. And who could blame the Iraqis if they did? Isn't it us jumping their back fence to steal considerably more than the holiday money?"

And this is where, Mr Coleman, your argument falls to pieces. And the reason it does is through a mixture of bias, historical ignorance due to bias and an intense and unrealistic need to see victory to the perceived under dog. And indeed, this sentiment is why I have argued that the centre right in politics has failed by not addressing the "real" issues (oil is but one) and using idiotic meaningless slogans. Therefore attempting (and losing by the way) of fighting a certain element on the ever shifting sands of irrelevent moral arguments.

1. "State owned" does not mean "state owned" in the way you would wish to see it. It actually means cartel owned. Which means a very limited amount of individuals gets the lot. And indeed Mr Coleman not for a minute believe that every "limited individual" is of Arab extraction. Big oil, money guys in London and New York, a Russkie or two, etc, will all get theirs. Don't believe me? Refer to the '70s and the golden age of Arab oil profits. Not a lot of progress made for the common man in this region was there?

Now there may well have been more then one Shiek with a fleet of Rolls and a private road. The general population could hardly be called winners though, could they? And let's face it, these massive profits were hardly put into the righting of the so-called Israeli wrongs or anything like that, were they? And just to keep it close to home for you; guess which big notch got taught a lesson? One Whitlam socialist government comes to mind. In fact, I would say the rampant inflation and economic doom was the number one cause to finish socialism and the idea of it, at least in my lifetime, in Australia for good. The socialist Labor Wilson and Callaghan governments in England also come to mind.

So do not think for a moment it was ever about "punishing" the USA. And even if it was, that was not how it turned out, was it? And in a world much more globalised it will be even less so just "punishing" the USA in the future. Sure it might be nice to see the "under dog" get up. The problem is, in the event of what you seem so excited about happening actually happening, it will not be the case. The ones that did, and will be in the future, getting it in the neck are the average working mum and dads with the one house and two cars and hope that their children get up there in life. In Australia, the now so-called "Howard battler". And the "Howard battler" lives all over the western world.

So on closing, yes I indeed agree that there should be more truth and less meaningless slogan involved in the whole Iraq (Middle East) debate. And I as a centre right person would like to see nothing more than people with your ideas (at least unlike most you have some and are honest about them) get a lot more access to putting them out there in the public sphere. I would like nothing more then watching a Howard or Bush looking directly down the pipe and explaining, with possibly the help of your friendly economist, exactly what $100, $200 or even $300 oil exactly means to your average viewer.

My prediction (and mostly I get it right) is, rather than a cheersquad for the "they can do with it as the fit" crowd, we will be seeing a lot more of the onward "pragmatic soldier" crowd. You might be surprised how much the truth and the realisation that you really are involved whether through choice or not makes a difference.

I agree with finding alternatives also. And if you believe in it as much as you say you would be pushing most strongly for Australia to move ahead with its nuclear industry. And I know we have the cheersquads on here for the Chinese way of doing things and they are cheering us along with India the most. The reason and this may not have ever crossed your mind (the US getting theirs and all that) is because they themselves can see the same things causing us problems will end up causing them just as much if not a lot more problems.

Nobody, Mr Coleman, wants to live in mud huts and on the poverty merry-go-round. Outside of hill billies and Greenies.

Jay White: "I would use the 70's as an example of what can happen when a disruptive Middle East decides on certain courses of action. I am not sure how your population member would go with oil well over the hundred or possibly two hundred mark. In the end we all love everyone until that everyone starts jumping over the back fence and steals the holiday money."

Good to see you beginning to address the elephant in the room, Jay. As I see it, the people of the Middle East have the absolute right to husband their precious hydrocarbon resources and use them in whatever way they see fit. Those resources don't belong to us.

The Coalition of Resource Thieves (CoRT) are determined to maintain the occupation of Iraq in an attempt to make it safe enough for Big Oil to exploit the reserves. The prospect of a state owned oil industry in Iraq is frightening to the USA for the reasons you describe. Without occupation troops on the ground, Iraqis are likely, in concert with Iran, to punish the USA with the energy weapon for the abominable mess they have made of Iraq. And who could blame the Iraqis if they did? Isn't it us jumping their back fence to steal considerably more than the holiday money?

IMHO, the only option to avoid catastrophe is for the CoRT to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible and for the USA in particular to rapidly wean itself of its enormous appetite for imported oil. The fact that the government of 3% of the world's population believe they have the right to secure access to 25% or more of the world's oil supply with military force is the political problem of our times.

Meanwhile, the Al Hakims and their Badr organisation have heavily infiltrated the Intelligence Services and the Interior Ministry of the Iraqi government. These guys spent years in Iran developing close ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Some of them fought against fellow Iraqis during the Iran-Iraq war. The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) hold many of the seats in the Iraqi parliament and are naturally aligned with the Iranian regime rather than the US government. Iran's influence in Iraq is not going away any time soon, and that influence is obviously hostile to the occupation.

How can the Bush administration realistically expect an independent Iraq to act in the interests of the USA and against the interests of their next-door neighbours in Iran? There is no more likely outcome than war with Iran so long as the CoRT attempts to maintain the occupation of Iraq and control of the oil. The onus is on those who advocate the current strategy to explain how further conflict can be avoided in the circumstances.

Politics aside, geology will play the decisive, disruptive role in energy supplies over the next few years. The last of the planet's known supergiant, conventional oil fields are now in terminal decline. There has been a sharp crash in Mexican oil production, particularly from the giant Cantarell field and China's oil reserves are rapidly depleting. Unless there is a significant global recession, the evidence suggests demand for oil will outstrip supply before the end of the decade and triple digit oil prices are a given in the near future. Global production of conventional oil reached a maximum in May 2005 and despite much higher prices a year later, those daily production rates have not been exceeded since.

This is how it works?

Ahmadinejad is not really the leader of Iran. The Iranian Constitution dictates this.

* Except when it comes to direct talks with the President of the United States. The most powerful man in the world should then play host to a person (not even the leader) of a middle to lowly ranked nation.

Ahmadinejad is constantly misquoted. The words and that get all mixed up in translation.

* Except when he says things like America should disarm in aid of world peace. His words seemingly become crystal clear as if spoken in the Queens English.

Hamas has a Constitution seeking the destruction of Israel.

* Except now a Constitution does not really mean that much, and cannot be read literally.

Ahmadinejad gives speeches at home for domestic consumption.

*Bush gives speeches in Congress for world domination.

The US wishes to run the world through its military.

* Except when people need the military to help aka Bosnia, Rwanda and a whole host of others.

The Iraqi situation is a problem for the US. They broke it they fix it.

* Will the impending Zimbabwe problem be a problem for Europe? I mean they broke Africa they should fix it, no? How about future Balkan problems? They broke they fix?

Europe wishes to have world peace and they can show the way.

*Except of course when it comes to putting their own people’s lives and money at risk. Then America becomes the great and good and should be world policeman.

Israel should not exist.

*Except when it comes to where do the Israeli's actually go to? Then it is okay for them to be there.

The entire left wing cause is a Colonial Shultz outfit. They know it all except when action is required then nothing is known. People would not buy used cars from them. A straight answer cannot be given. They should not trust them running anything.

Until they can give a definite view of the world and how that view will be achieved they are not to be trusted. All I can say is that by trusting charlatans and snake oil salesmen it will cost. Each and every person should be wary when they next vote.

It will be costing you in more ways then you can even imagine!

Most of what parades itself as educated debate is nothing but old school politically correct drivel coming from people who have led nothing. Their theories are as confused as their lives.

Don't believe me? Ask one for a definitive answer yourselves. If you are Australian, start with Kevin Rudd.

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."

So why should the Americans, of all people, negotiate directly with Ahmadinejad about anything? Since if by negotiating with Ahmadinejad, you are merely addressing the Supreme Leader and the other obscure paladins of the Council of Guardians indirectly? Isn't that a compelling proof that that the calls by Ahmadinejad for direct negotiations with the Americans are precisely the window dressing the regime requires to camouflage its clear determination to proceed with its nuclear weapons development programme regardless.

So are any of our local lovable peaceniks willing to step up to the plate and answer:

1. What agreement Hamas will settle with, and why it will be successful?

2. What agreement Iran will settle with, and why it would be successful?

3. What will happen with a non-existing Israel?

4. What is so good about an entire region of dictators getting together to control an entire region, dividing the world down the middle?

It possible putting the world through energy at the mercy of such people.

5. And lastly what benefit will this be to your average Australian and American citizen?

Now if people want an alternative in life they have to explain the alternative. Blaming previous errors on others is just not enough. That is not a condition of leadership.

Craig Rowley: "And if you are quick, you can also watch the interview again."

Thanks Craig, I'm touched. I now encourage everyone to watch Fisk in action - and to see the whole of the interview. It's great.

So, anyway, whom do you think are the "much more serious people, perhaps more sinister" people "actually" in command of Iran's armies and field missiles that Fisk is alluding to?  And should they be having "direct talks" with the USA, instead?  And if not, why should the Americans - or anyone else for that matter - be talking to  Ahmadinejad? Seeing as he's "not really" in charge of things over there.  Should we tell his ally hugo Chavez? Or indeed is Hugo himself the sinister mastermind stroking the fluffy white kitten behind the big desk at Schemrsh headquarters in Tehran?

Craig Rowley: "The answer is no; the current governments of Russia and France have not alarmed many people around the world with repeated talk of pre-emption and the "axis of evil".

Though they did spend the greater part of the last 100 years themselves trying to impose their decadent, failed political and economic systems on the rest of the world. Including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and North Korea - and not to mention Tibet, Chechnya, India, Poland, Cambodia, Hungry, Vietnam, the former Yugoslavia, Cuba, the former Czechoslovakia, Mongolia, Romania, Taiwan, Lithuania, the Philippines, Finland, Spain, on each other, and on everyone else.   Spain. Man, did they take out the big stick there or what!

Angela Ryan: "Would not be surprised after US sanctions against any multinational company doing business (except KBR it seems and perhaps Monument Oil investors)) since, was it since the Revolution and Shah's deposing in 1979?"

This is also the standard excuse for the failed Cuban economy, a complete nonsense since Cuba trades with over 170 other countries:

"Cuba has an open economy due to its dependence on foreign trade. It annually trades on the average with 170 countries."

- and elsewhere brags about the supposedly great results it achieves in every area of life.

Iran trades with Russia, China, and other very large markets. Just like those fine examples of Marxist economic theory in practice, North Korea and Zimbabwe, who officially compete for the title of 'Worst country on earth'. I'd say Zimbabwe, with 80 per cent unemployment and 1600 per cent annual inflation is doubtless the winner. See the item on SBS last night about Robert Mugabe's lavish 83rd birthday celebrations - while the last of Zimbabwe's hospitals closed?

Robert Fisk, temporarily on loan from the Syrian government to SBS World News last night, was worth watching. Anchor Stan Grant did his best to get a question in edgeways as Fisk rapid-fired his standard repertoire (the stupeeed Americains, the insidious Israelis, the Iranians only want a bomb because "we" gassed them in the '80s and anyway the Shah started it all, etc, etc).

Still, a couple of gems popped out. My two favourite bits:

• Insisting that the Americans have no control over Iraq whatsoever, he qualified that with a smirking reference to the "exception" of the Kurds "up North" whom he dismissed with the backward flip of a hand.
• Peddling the now standard Left apologist line that Iran's President  Ahmadinejad "has no real power" despite being the head of Iran's national government, Fisk still felt impelled to state nonetheless that the people "behind" Ahmadinejad were far "more sinister" than their President.

How reassuring.  And there's no doubt, is there? If the likes of Fisk and his backers see the day that Iraq is "liberated" from its "occupiers" and "Vichy-like government" (actually John Pilger's term), then the Kurds are going to get massacred all over again, aren't they?

I’m sure that many Webdiarists believe their own bullshit, Mike. I certainly half-believe mine.

I can say this over and over again without flinching. And I am 100% correct. The decision made by Bush and Co to stand up to tyrants will be proven the right decision in the future. I have little doubt about that. Leaders stand up to people and follow through with what is right even if not always popular. Giving in never wins respect.

And to offer a carrot, any carrot, is "giving in" according to that particular supporter of the neocon position." 

A interesting attack, Craig Rowley, a pity you are so wrong. Unfortunately for you I have never been a neocon. Was once a staunch anti communist and would have identified with old school Democrats. The Jim Webb variety. With the end to communism this realigned itself in later years. I would identify more with James Baker than I would most others.

I am not and never have been against a deal being struck with Iran. What I am against is the wrong deal being struck. Any such deal must be in the interests of the US or no dice. And as we are at the moment, nobody even knows what Iran is looking for. They are not telling, apart from some vauge notion that both Iran and the US should solve a problem relating to unrelated two separate nations (Israel, Palestine).

The centre right has lost its way somewhat in the last year. Becoming involved in abstract arguments about morals and views on world ethics (like arseholes everyone as one) is not their strong point. Centre right people should rely on rational and logical debate, explaining in a truthful manner where a person's interest really lies.

Example 1. The US should make Israel a separate argument from Middle Eastern discussion. The continuing linking to Israel on all policy only muddies the waters and plays into others hands.

Example 2. Point out the fact that even if Iran obtains nuclear missiles they will not be reaching the US. They will, though, be a lot closer to China and Russia along with the Mid East neighbours. And governments can change at any moment. Imagine if the US had of been successful in giving the Shah these weapons?

Example 3. The US and indeed a few other technologically advanced nations would be forced to take certain steps in any worldwide arms race. I wonder what Russia would think of Germany doing this? Or China of Japan etc?

Example 4. Point out to Europe that if Iran does indeed gain these weapons there is little the US can do about it. It will, though, begin a race for them in the region. This in turn will make Israel a lot less safe. I would expect in a situation like that a mass migration. And where to, I wonder? Sure, the US will be a big destination but what is stop number two? Give them the heads up is all I am saying. Europe often defends against antisemitism charges in the not to distant future they may get their chance to show it for real.

Example 5. If Israel is to be lost (worst case) or traded away I would point out to much of Europe's christian population the difficulty in guaranteeing the rights and even the safeguard of certain sites. I would especially point this fact out to a certain church that even to this day holds much sway and much power over a great deal of European politicans and their voters.

Example 6. I would use the 70's as an example of what can happen when a disruptive Middle East decides on certain courses of action. I am not sure how your population member would go with oil well over the hundered or possibly two hundred mark. In the end we all love everyone until that everyone starts jumping over the back fence and steals the holiday money.

Example 7. And Howard should do this: point out just how much the US military subs Australian taxpayers. Now if that money has to be found elsewhere it comes directly from things like hospitals, education, infrastructure etc. Australia does quite well out of big brother being top dog.

Example 8. A world split down religious and ethnic lines does neither the Australian people nor the US peoples much good. Both nations do quite well out of this age of globalisation. And believe me more then one person down at Balmain "free lancing" for that multinational may well end up with a forced life changing downsizing if the hated globalisation was to cease.

Example 9. I am not so sure China enjoying a surging growth rate would enjoy seeing the evaporation of its greatest customer. Isolationism leads to nationalism and nationalism leads to a realignment in one's priorities. A newly self helping isolated US may not have China in its plans. Stranger things have happened.

Example 10. Indeed a fracturing of the world into "parts" could well see a totally different outlook on the world. New trading blocs, new friendships, old ones coming closer together etc. Not something a world competetive and successful Australia particularly would like to see at this point.

I am sure I could think of many more examples. The world is much more interlinked then many would like to imagine. People love to feel good and love to feel moral. Hence the need to feel it is not "our" war, even if it is not based in reality. Imagine if a person was docked a week's pay for every time they felt this. I wonder how long the good feelings would really last. And a troubled world split down the middle is indeed many docked pay cheques for many Australians.

Until left politics comes up with a viable alternative that can actually work for every problem they find, people should be very wary of them and the snake oil they are selling. Often the cure is much worse then the disease. And centre right parties such as the Libs in Australia and the Republicans in America should be pointing this out every single day.

The plain hard bitten truth of life will work better then a meaningless rambling slogan every single time. And that is the truth the centre right needs to rediscover more now then any time I can think of.

So Craig Rowley, until you show me the "carrots" that Iran is after I would advise that it would be a mistake for the US to talk outside the UN. There is no value for them to make it a US problem when it is in fact a world problem. If the world does not want the US as the world police it is now time to take up the challenge themselves.

Frankly, the US has wasted far too much effort and money getting the world out of problems when it could be helping both itself and its friends. And I think deep down that was what Jimmy Baker was trying to get at.

Craig Rowley: "Bush replied, "All options are on the table".

Have any parties to the dispute specifically excluded any foreign policy options. For example, Russia or France? Actually excluded particular foreign policy options in the event of Iran failing to comply with its treaty obligations? How about the UN?

G'day Angela and thanks for both your kind words and your efforts to look deeper. And the "others" and most especially to Craig (G'day) for his determination and his grasp of the issue. I agree that there are many who are not as easily taken in now as before the Iraq war of aggression was launched and this is reflected in at least some of the MSM. The spin has been exposed as evidenced by the scorecard link I previously provided as well as other material. Still, there are those who persist in running the same old hackneyed and disputed or discredited lines.

Sometimes people say things they should not have - Newsweek reports that at that Baghdad briefing that caused so much fuss, the briefer exceeded his brief.

Feb. 21, 2007 - An anonymous U.S. official, assigned to provide a recent “background” briefing to the news media in Baghdad, strayed from his script and overstated evidence linking Iranian leaders to weapons found in Iraq, according to four U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the matter.

The White House is still trying to recover from the stumble, which happened during a much- anticipated Feb. 11 briefing. U.S. officials had hoped to use the event to ratchet up pressure on the Tehran regime. But instead of focusing public and congressional attention on the role of Iranian government agents in stoking violence in Iraq, the briefing wound up raising new questions about whether the Bush administration is hyping intelligence about Iran in much the same way it did about Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq four years ago.

Here is an article on Iran for consideration. More to it than just the price of tomatoes.

Craig - linkages - here is an article by Leon Hadar on the changing US role in the ME.

More on claims of who's doing what to whom and plans for more. Audio, video and transcript.

The second thing about identifying a nuclear program is even more concerning and probably the one we ought to worry about. We have to remember that the President has said Iran can't be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. But he has always -- or not always -- mostly adds a phrase beyond that, which says, “or the knowledge to produce nuclear weapons.” That's a very important follow-on statement, consistent with what Israel has said. The way that is generally interpreted is that if Iran can put together 3,000 centrifuges for enrichment, they then will have the capability or the knowledge to produce a nuclear weapon. That event, according to the head of the IAEA yesterday, could occur within the next six months, so that if you take the President at his word, and if you take the estimate from the International Atomic Energy Agency, we will cross the US red line within the next six months, and presumably we can't stand that. And when we say that, that means we conduct a military operation against the Iranians.

I note your latest Craig (thumbs up), and the reference to the time available to sort this out. Could be modified drastically if we take, as Col. Gardiner points out, Bush's word on the prohibition on knowledge of let alone acquiring nuclear weapons. "Do not eat of the fruit of ..." sort of Biblical. And remember, the Commander has said he answers to a Higher Father. Perhaps that is his equivalent to a Divine Light. The rogue factor in the equation, perhaps.

To Mike Lyvers, "I think the default position is that we should accept what political and religious leaders say as what they believe, as we have nothing else to go on."

So if the Commander ever gets the opportunity to have anal sex with Osama bin Laden, as he has stated he desires to (see my previous post), do you think it should be taped and sold at adult stores?

Craig Rowley: "For some reason the supporters of the neocon position believe that if their heroes offered a sanctions/carrot combo it would be the worst imaginable humiliation."

Could you give us an example of someone proposing the "sanctions/threat-of-a-big-stick combo"? Perhaps some person's statement to that effect?

On Monday the Financial Times asked IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei:  "What hopes do you have that the Iran nuclear dispute will be resolved in a reasonable time period?"

ElBaradei answered:

I´m still quite hopeful because I don´t see any other option, quite frankly. How long will it take to convince all the parties to go back to the negotiating table is a matter of speculation. I know however for sure that even if you go for a year or two for retaliation and counter-retaliation and more sanctions it will get worse for everybody, Iran of course, but also all other parts of the international community, specifically, in the Middle East which simply cannot afford an additional escalation which would lead to militancy and increase terrorism. So if we can avoid going through this painful process, knowing that it can never resolve the issue, and try to resolve the process going back to negotiation, that´s obviously in the interest of everybody. Both sides understand that. Both sides understand that there´s no other way except than to go to negotiation. It´s just a question of how to get both sides to the negotiating table while saving face. It really is about saving face...

There´s a lot of efforts by everybody trying to do that right now, a lot of it is really, more [of a] drafting process, more how to present a package in a balanced way and whereby the Iranians would feel that they have not lost face and the international community would feel that their requirements had been satisfied. I came up with this idea of double, simultaneous suspension, a time out.

ElBaradei knows what is at the heart of this issue. "Really the whole thing is about confidence-building," he said. He doesn't believe sanctions alone will work, let alone tougher sanctions on their own:

I have major concerns about relying on sanctions alone. Our experience without exception is that sanctions alone do not work and in most cases radicalise the regime and hurt the people who are not supposed to be hurt. So I have a major concern not about sanctions per se but sanctions alone. And sanctions have to be coupled at all time with incentives and a real search for a compromise based on face saving, based on respect.

I mean we always forget this word respect. A lot of the problems we face, fifty per cent at least if not more, is psychological. Substance is important, but fifty per cent of it is how you approach it, how you reach out to people, how you understand where they´re coming from. So I will continue to say: "Yes, it is your prerogative to apply sanctions but sanctions alone will not do it and you need to invest as much in trying to find a solution through negotiation."

And the basic difference in approach is that some want tough sanctions backed by tough talk about military options being on the table, and others want suitable sanctions combined with suitable carrots as incentives to come to the negotiating table and work out a reasonable solution.  I'm with those seeking a sanctions/carrots combo rather than a sanctions/threat-of-a-big-stick combo. 

For some reason the supporters of the neocon position believe that if their heroes offered a sanctions/carrot combo it would be the worst imaginable humiliation.  They want to look strong, to point to the big stick, to show they can strike a blow. They think that is what will get them 'respect'. And that's the psychological issue that most needs to be addressed.

It's easy enough to unpack this psychological issue, to uncover the underlying pathologies of the Strict Father Model:

• Excessive discipline
• Authoritarian behaviour
• Neglect
• Selfishness

In short, Strict Father morality comes from a basis of psychological insecurity, is expressed through aggression, and "allows" you to hurt people (and think you're morally strong in doing so).  The bully thinks they're going to get 'respect'.

So that's the essence of the problem, how can it be remedied in a reasonable time period? 

Iran's official news agency today:

Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani said here talks about Iran's nuclear program must be only in the framework of IAEA and upon a joint paradigm.....

...Larijani concluded, naturally, Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), IAEA's charter and regulation are the main principles of the joint paradigm.

So, what "direct talks" with the USA, hmmm?

Jay Somasundaram: "Ahmadinejad – doesn’t believe the bullshit he spouts."

Jay S, why do you say that?

I'm thinking here specifically Ahmadinejad's claim to have been enveloped in a divine light while addressing the UN General Assembly. That would be a bizarre claim to make if he didn't personally believe in it or at least imagine others would do so. Either way, that's some sick puppy.

Angela Ryan, Iran is doing poorly economically. Their President is also highly unpopular. He has approval ratings around the 30% mark, strangely closely aligned to those of George Bush.

The Russians only yesterday were complaining about lack of payment issues slowing down the search for all things nuclear. And the complaint about domestic oil issues is not put out by anti Iranian sources. It is the actual excuse used by Iran for needing nuclear power.

The poor state of the Iranian economy should be good news for those not wishing to see a war. It is the exact reason I would use to argue against a war. I believe the Iranian people are close to at the end of the line with the current lunatic. The only thing keeping him there is the excuse of an impending American attack.

When there is none left to blame, one must finally take stock of one’s self. And looking at the current state of the Iranian nation it does not set a pretty picture.

Iran has a state planned economy suffering endemic corruption. It also has high levels of youth unemployment (the largest per capita of people under 30 in the world) and society problems such as rampant drug use. It surely is not all roses.

Religious leaders are for praying and accountants for counting money. The two just don't mix. State planned economies always fail. It can be no other way. History and maths tell us this.

Jay Somasundaram: "They know as well as we do that for every dollar they make from a bucket of oil, our government rakes in four."

Actually quite a lot more (if you mean the Western world). The oil is used to produce ETMs (elaborately transformed manufactures) which we gracefully sell back at reasonable mark-ups (taking into account the price of oil).

Not to mention, because of Middle Eastern dependency on one industry, scientific discovery has not been motoring along. So yep, pharmaceuticals and the like are a good earn also. You could probably add in the not to distant future technology such as nuclear. Which, if Iran gains it, will have to be equally shared and sold to all its neighbouring countries. To keep everybody honest you understand.

I also am led to believe the home shopping network is very popular in middle class Iranian households. As opposed to the President.

For all the rhetoric about oil many Middle Eastern countries have achieved little in the last century. Compare, for example, the Middle East to the Asian region over fifty years. The progress of one against the other is quiet staggering.

Jay Somasundaram, I would add Rudd does not believe the bullshit he is spouting.

Jay you seem a fairly reasonable chap. There is no way that Rudd could believe up and leaving Iraq now would be in Australia's interest. It is populist bullshit that could well come back to do him very serious political damage. Irrespective of the next American administration leaving the US in the lurch will not be admired. They are in difficulty in Iraq at the moment and kicking a friend when he is down, does not win you many.

The US will always need a presence in the Middle East. And I have great difficulty believing any future administration will be giving this up quite that easily. The tactics of presence may well change, however a presence there will be and there is no doubt about that.

In the last six or so months Bush has been poor at getting any type of message across. I think it way past time that he start talking in a truthful fashion about what is really at stake. It would also be a good idea to get across to the American people how advantageous it would be to have a friendly and stable Iraq.

A pullout and any sense of defeat will be doing no favours for the next President. Whether Republican or Democrat. In fact, it could be downright harmful to that next administration. There is only so much mileage a government can get out of blaming the previous one. And then it is down to what the current administration is doing.

A defeat in Iraq will see a very less stable world. It could also hasten moves against globalisation and moves into isolationism down ethnic and religious lines the world over. This could well force a future Australian government into having to pick a side. And if any are aware of the balancing act that Australia has been quiet successful in getting away with in regards to the US and China it is not a position Australia would wish to be placed in. Australia has done very well indeed with the one super power and John Howard is quiet right to be fearful of this changing. It would hurt Australia.

Mike, I don’t think any Webdiarist is naïve enough to trust any major politician. In my opinion, the crucial difference between the politicians we are talking about are:

• Hitler – believed the bullshit he was spouting;
• Ahmadinejad – doesn’t believe the bullshit he spouts;
• Bush – believes the bullshit he spouts;
• Howard – doesn’t believe the bullshit he spouts.

I feel safer with politicians who don’t believe their own bullshit, which is probably why I have some preference for Howard and Ahmadinejad over the other two (and which may be sadly why I am unlikely to chose the Greens over the Liberals).

My comment that we shouldn’t preach to Ahmadinejad wasn’t to suggest that he was morally superior, but that he simply can’t be conned by our bullshit about Democracy, Terrorism and the American Way of Life. We have carried that old bucket to the Middle East to carry back oil for a century. They know as well as we do that for every dollar they make from a bucket of oil, our government rakes in four.

The Guardian:

"Attaining the peaceful use of nuclear technology will push our nation 50 years along the path of progress," Mr Ahmadinejad said. "To reach nuclear technology, it is worth stopping 10 years worth of the other development projects in the country."

Such a sad situation on so many levels. Giving up ten years of development to attain this sixty plus year old technology. I feel for the average Iranian just looking to a job and live a normal life.

Imagine if Mr Ahmadinejad set out on a path to cure cancer? If rather than invite to Iran the bottom of the barrel, such as racist and hate mongers like David Duke, he invited the world's leading scientists? Even outsiders wishing to take on the monopoly of drug companies?

Two days ago Mr Ahmadinejad closed down a blog critical of both him and his government. In the West they sing his praise.

I will not lose any sleep when it all falls apart at the seams. How will the Left relieve the guilt? Find another tyrant of course. As long as he is anti-American.

Richard Tonkin: "Perhaps Blair doesn't want to be involved in a war with Iran?"

What war with Iran?