Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Craig Rowley: "In reality, the Bush administration has for years insisted on not engaging with Iran as part of "multi-party" discussion."

That's an interesting view, Craig. Look at this...

"The administration repeatedly has rejected [direct] talks, saying Iran must negotiate with the three European powers that have led nuclear diplomacy since the Iranian nuclear program became public in 2002." - Washington Post, 24 May 2006

Elsewhere, the same article notes:

"You know, two months ago nobody would believe that Mr. Khamenei and Mr. Ahmadinejad together would be trying to get George W. Bush to begin negotiations," said Saeed Laylaz, a former government official and prominent analyst in Tehran. "This is a sign of changing strategy. They realize the situation is dangerous and they should not waste time, that they should reach out."

This is a "changing strategy" because it was the current regime in Iran that orchestrated the occupation of the US Embassy in Tehran, holding US citizens hostage for over a year, that caused the end of diplomatic relations between the two countries in the first place. Iran has been ranting and raving about the Great Satan ever since. President Ahmadinejad actually took a personal role in the hostage taking, being famously photographed on one occasion leading away a blindfolded US embassy staffer.

The push has been for the USA to hold 'direct' talks with Iran - but in the context of a transparent stunt by Tehran calculated to advance the interests and prestige of the Ayranian regime. Even as those who advocate such a tack admit, "Among [Iran's]regional neighbours Israel, Pakistan, India and Russia all possess [nuclear] weapons."

Iran's security is a matter for collective, multinational discussion - not some triumphalist grandstanding one-on-one with the Great Satan. It was Iran which severed relations with the USA. Only now does it want them back.

The radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr is said to have fled Iraq and sought shelter in Iran ahead of a US crackdown aimed at ending the violence in the country.

Although, of course, with much of the anti American mindless spruiking that passes for discussion on most of these pages, this would be seen as nothing serious. No, of course, Iran has no involvement in Iraq blah, blah, blah ...

I hope this final effort for peace and stability succeeds. And make no mistake this is the final throw of the dice. Bush has already made that quiet clear. The ramifications of an American defeat in Iraq are extremely dire. For this region and indeed the entire world. It is a complicated situation and probably too complicated for these pages. A withdrawal at this point in time will allow Iraq to descend into total lawlessness and chaos. The region will not recover for many years to come. This situation is not politics, or even life and death. It is more important than that.

People's Daily reports Switzerland, Iran hold informal talks on nuclear issue. 

This glimmer of hope seems to have been almost ignored in the Anglo media, but in this hot DEBKAfile Exclusive: Switzerland submits to Tehran a proposal for solving crisis over Iran’s nuclear program - over Washington’s objections:

Bush administration officials suspect that the outgoing French president Jacques Chirac is quietly sponsoring the Bern government’s initiative.

G'day Angela and Craig, thanks to the former for her comments - I do like to look behind the curtain on these matters and try to discover what is really happening. Craig mentioned the Bush interview where he spoke with absolute certainty yet those claims have been challenged and he has form. As he has been described as a congenital and pathological liar it is unwise to take his - or his Administration's words at face value. Although they might be certainties to Bush - see psych assessments for possible explanations on top of political reasons - reality has been shown to be different. On the latest theme of Iran allegedly supplying weapons, here is Keith Olbermann interviewing Juan Cole. Video.

As well as the "absolute certainty" aspect of the interview there was also the "lack of a sense of irony" aspect. Hard to miss.

Here is an article that is in the vein I try to follow. I draw particular attention to the conclusion.

On Murdoch - a far too powerful and unhelpful player.

To Vladimir Putin, Craig earlier drew attention to Putin criticizing US foreign policy, here is an edited version of the speech Craig referred to.

I agree with Craig's reading of the EU report and the use of it for further coercive diplomacy. Hence my comment on the attempt to replace Mohamed ElBaradei. Which brings us to the matter of pressures and possible responses and a big player - Russia, which has a key role to play in the Iran issue and it has interests in Iran and, as I mentioned in my earlier post, might see the opportunity to increase its influence in the ME. So how will Russia respond to any pressure for harsher sanctions?

And, as Angela mentioned, China. We have noted for some time new blocs being formed to counter US hegemony - waning as it is. We see the signs of others seeking to fill the void being created. The question is how will it play out? Will stand be made over further pressure on Iran?

We will know soon. Let us hope it involves more honesty and sanity than has been seen in some quarters.

Angela Ryan: "Kagan and the neocon institutes said, not so. His arguments are facile. "Iran is a threat" boogabooga-duhhh. Anyone is if you make them an enemy. Bush and Cheney need to explain to the US people why they have chosen this path of aggression and nuclear threat as a policy, condemned as it is by the best of analysts."

Angela Ryan: "An attack / retaliatory action against Iran / Syria is fraught with negative benefit for the USA. Why are they doing it?"

Aggression and nuclear threat as a policy? In relation to Iran? An attack / retaliatory action against Iran? The USA? Have they?

I thought the problem was the USA insisted on engaging Iran as part of multi-party discussions through the United Nations when as "everyone knows" the right thing to do is bi-party dialogue - both with Iran and North Korea.

When has the USA made a "nuclear threat" against Iran? And haven't they repeatedly said they have no intention of attacking Iran? Any more than attacking North Korea?

G'day Bob,  there has indeed been a divergent path or two followed, but as you say some serve to remind us of the path that lead to the US (and allies including Australia) invading Iraq without UN approval.  Reflection on the problems we now see as an outcome of going down that disastrous path is a good way of highlighting the danger of taking a similar path in future.

That “reflection paper” published by the Financial Times, said to be compiled by the staff of EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, is likely to be seized on by advocates of military action.  It doesn't have to be read that way, but in all likelihood it will.  When you read the full text you find it is just a reinforcement of the coercive diplomacy line (the two track approach), but it's likely that those wanting more coercion and less diplomacy will use it to advocate "strong" action when progress on resolution 1737 is considered in a few week's time.

Did you see on Lateline the footage of George W on C-Span? Notice that he said that Iran has nuclear weapons as if it were an absolute certainty. 

Remember what Dick Cheney said of Saddam Hussein on NBC's Meet the Press on 8 September 2002?  He said:

"We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon."

Was that 'absolute certainty' reflected in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate? No.

Was the 'absolute certainty' ever reflected in reality? No.

Is President Bush's current 'absolute certainty' that Iran has nuclear weapons reflected in the most recent National Intelligence Estimate? No.

Is President Bush's current 'absolute certainty' that Iran has nuclear weapons reflected in reality?

Bob Wall, thank you for your link to Lateline last night; featuring Mark Fitzpatrick. Note this:

"MARK FITZPATRICK: Sure. Well, the very first step is that the US treasury has to unfreeze some of the $24 million in North Korean accounts at a Macau bank, Banco Delta Asia, within 30 days and then within 60 days, North Korea will suspend the reactor and then the United States will provide - not the United States, the other parties will provide 50,000 tonnes of fuel oil. And then in the next stage they will be working toward this permanent disabling. How exactly that will be done will have to be worked out in some working group discussions among experts."

This volte face - "not the United States, the other parties will provide 50,000 tonnes of fuel oil" - signals the complete and utter failure of the North Korean strategy. They got nothing from the USA and now must dismantle at least one of their reactors.

The thugs in Tehran have doubtless already noted that, though their dupes in the West will go on prating the "direct talks" mantra for a while. And this of course doesn't mean that the North Korean creeps won't go back on their word.  Of course they will, their word being completely worthless and that of their greedy, corrupt ally not much better.

But it is a complete demonstration that China is the key component in any strategy dealing with North Korea - because they could squeeze that pimple Kim Jong Il right out of existence any time they wanted.

Angela Ryan: "Yep. NK [North Korea] now are nuclear armed. Nice US foreign policy failure there. Spectacular."

North Korea has agreed to shut down its Yongbyon nuclear facility within 60 days. In return it will receive 50,000 tonnes of fuel oil or economic aid of equal value.

According to the conventional "wisdom" amongst the annointed, this cannot have happened because, after all, the "neo-cons" are primarily concerned with regime change by force. When clearly this outcome, if not reneged on by the North Koreans, will result in more breathing space for their failed and brutal regime.

It is in China's interest to keep the Korean peninsula divided and North Korea as a buttress against the economic power of South Korea and the American presence there. If primary responsibility for North Korea's behaviour can be attributed to any foreign state, then surely it's great Socialist ally and principal supporter, Communist China, must bear the main responsibility.

North Korea needed to employ its weapons development programme as a bargaining chip to stave off starvation and cold because the talents of its people have been relentlessly ground into the dust by the application of scientific Marxist principles over a 60 year period. China could have at any time provided, and now is providing economic assistance to its ally to make this recent crisis unneccessary.

John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN and former head of the State Department's arms control division, told CNN the reported draft was "a very bad deal" that rewarded the North for only partially dismantling its nuclear program. "It sends exactly the wrong signal to would-be proliferators around the world," Mr Bolton said. "I'm hoping that the President [George Bush] has not been fully briefed on it and still has time to reject it." Perhaps he should.

Perhaps Iran should take note. And perhaps we can now all stop the nonsense about "bi-lateral talks".

G'day Craig, since you suggested we get back to the real and immediate issues we been on quite a wide-ranging journey. Sort of anything but ... Not to say some of those paths have not been interesting and in the case of Ian's (G'day) reminder of past events, helpful in understanding attitudes.

To the immediate - an interesting segment on Lateline last night; featuring Mark Fitzpatrick on the NK deal and possible flow on effects in re Iran. A shift in approach?

Not so helpful is this report for the EU. Has a link in the first para to the full document.

The EU has some thinking to do. Vladimir Putin has been doing more than thinking.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and King Abdullah II of Jordan have held talks in Amman on ways of reviving the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

They also discussed the recent agreement between Palestinian factions to form a national unity government.

The tensions over Iran's nuclear programme and the violence in Iraq were also on the agenda for discussions.

Mr Putin, on the last leg of a Mid-East tour, was also to meet Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in Amman.

President Putin was greeted by King Abdullah at Amman's hilltop Basman Palace and inspected a guard of honour.

Mr Putin said Russia wanted to play its part in the peace process.

"We are constantly in contact, exchanging views on the developments in the region and, obviously, on the most acute problem of the Palestinian-Israeli settlement," he said.

Mr Putin arrived in Jordan after visiting Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Analysts say his visit comes amid signs that Russia is seeking to reinvigorate its contacts in the Middle East.

Seeing an opportunity? Remember as well that Russia has various involvements with in Iran. More Russian surface-to-air missiles are on their way there, a nice little earner - I saw a report that had the latest sale worth $700 million - and interests to protect.

DemocracyNow! has an interview with Craig Unger. Audio, video and transcript.

A couple of extracts:

CRAIG UNGER: Well, in 1999, actually, Richard Perle started meeting with then-candidate George Bush, and this has really not been reported much at all, but he came away with that meeting saying that Bush had agreed that if he were to be president, he would help overthrow Saddam. So, that, to me, is the first time I know that Bush seemed to have signed off on that. If you talk to the neocons today, a lot of them will say, “Well, yes, it’s a mess in Iraq, but that’s because we’ve just begun. We haven’t really started. This should be a regional war, that Iran is the real focus.”

A reminder of the plan. Now a reminder of the rejection:

AMY GOODMAN: We now know about the Iranian peace offer in May of 2003 that was rejected by the Bush administration. Can you talk about this?

CRAIG UNGER: Well, it was sort of known as the grand bargain, because it put almost all of the issues of the Middle East on the table. That included the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it included Iran's nuclear program, and it included Iran's security issues. Back then, we were in an extraordinarily strong position vis-à-vis Iran. That is, we went into first to Afghanistan and took care of Iran's number two enemy, the Taliban. Then we were just going into Iraq and taking care of their number one enemy. The Bush administration, it seems to me, could have gotten something out of this. This was a point at which the United States had extraordinary leverage over Iran, and in many ways we had shared interests vis-à-vis both Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran had enormous security issues. They’re surrounded by nuclear powers, if you think about it; Israel and Pakistan are very close to them. So they had very real security concerns, and there are -- it’s very tough to trust them, but this was an opening, and we did not even respond to it. In fact, the administration rebuked the Swiss ambassador, Timothy Guldimann, for even bringing up the subject with us?

Some material to mull over.

We have seen pressure applied in the past so we can expect more in re the next stages of this issue. A positive is that Mohammed ElBaradei still head of the IAEA and was not replaced as the Bush Administration wanted. O Lawdy, the very thought of who they wanted in his stead sends shivers down my spine.

There are other measures that should be taken if the issue with Iran is to be dealt with honestly and consistently, but they will not be taken without a drastic change of course by the US. As it is the issue of nuclear programs is being dealt with gross inconsistency, which has resulted in the UNSC imposing sanctions on Iran for pursuing its legal rights whilst others maintain nuclear weapons programs without any oversight.

In the immediate term the questions are: is the softer, more conciliatory rhetoric from Iran sincere? And Daniel (G'day) raised a key point about the Bush Administration's intentions - will they proceed towards the remaking of the ME or will, as the NK agreement indicates, take the road to negotiation?

Angela Ryan: "Finally, jay, congratulations upon having a good grasp of Mandarin. Such a short dynasty language (about 200 years non?) by Chinese standards, and I suspect Cantonese will battle back. Will be one of those interesting tussles ,some will exploit. I see it already."

A bit like saying hillbilly or strine is about to take off. Language is a funny thing and we all have our beliefs. I am sure Warren Mundine speaks many languages. And, forgetting the P. Costello attack, I ask why is he not in the Liberal party? A broad church that needs people exactly like him. One up for Labour.

I would love to see Anthony Mundine and Warren (not saying their related) in the Liberal party. People may think what they like, but the man (Anthony) has never taken a short cut in his life. And that belief and that spirit is what this country was made on. And it is that belief and spirit that this country will be made greater upon.

C'mon Anthony it is time to step up! Naturally when the sport is all over. Australia is proud of their first people and I think or I hope that our first people are proud of what we have become. The time is right!

No short cuts in making Australia, all our place, a better nation.

Truth and the right way are not negotiable!

Thank you Angela for the reply. You have answered the questions I have asked. When one shows respect one is entitled to it back twofold. I will attempt (you might not like it) to make my feelings known on all the points you have made.

I will have to read over your points again to give my answer justice. I will though get the mistakes out of the way.

1. Parmalat is not a US company. It is an Italian company. It did take over an Australian dairy company. A well known one. Parmalat is now bankrupt. Not because of the Australian company BTW. About the only thing paid for, that did make a profit. Aussies and getting top dollar, must be a birthright, huh?

2. Maybe next time. And tell Ross with a three month time frame I will give him 13/2.

Um, I feel that I ought to make it clear that I seldom get to WD.  Therefore  if I post and do not respond to any replies it is probably because I have not seen them.

I note with amusement Jenny’s comment that her other half is calling her a hypocrite. I have no such problem but I look at my email, knowing I need  two to three hours to sort, file or discard. I have at least an hours ‘housework’ on my computer — renovations are running behind schedule and real work sits untouched — though I did meet a deadline on Monday last!
 
Jay White: "Fall apart? What does this mean? Do without a spare car? What?"

Nuh. No domestic airlines, no airconditioning, no fuel for domestic use, no electricity for the little industry that they have left.

I wrote: "Should the need arise, Iran would have no problem raising credit. Remember it has one of the world's major known reserves of the highest quality, most valuable commodity on earth."

Jay responded:  "And so does the USA. They are, and you may have missed it, sitting on top of not a bad oil commodity themselves in Iraq." (emphasis added)

Please Jay, tell me that you were tired, distracted, confused ......

You surely are not suggesting that the US would stoop to thieving the oil of the people the they went to ‘liberate’, are you?
   
Sorry, but that scenario didn’t play out the way the crazies planned. Rumsfeld at a senate enquiry, I think, stated that the war would cost not more than $50 billion. When it was put to him that others had put the cost at up to $300 billion, Rumsfield dismissed the figure as ridiculous.     That particular snippet was rebroadcast within the last few days. Relying on memory, Rumsfeld stated that the US would use the income from the Iraqi oil sales to fund the peace keeping and rebuilding.     The fact is that the US hasn’t even been able to attain the production levels that Iraq was producing immediately before the invasion. Not much joy there!

Then I could think of no quicker way to totally discredit the $US than to try raising money against the Iraqis oil!

Jamie Wilson in Washington on Saturday January 7, 2006 in
The Guardian:

Iraq war could cost US over $2 trillion, says Nobel prize-winning economist. 

• Economists say official estimates are far too low 
• New calculation takes in dead and injured soldiers
  

I wrote: "The Saudis are already sending 18 percent of their production to China.

Jay: "Now China is an interesting one. China's growth is fueled directly from investment from the US. The largest single investor being that of Walmart."

From Which Will It Be America, Empire or Democracy?
By Chalmers Johnson, Tomdispatch.com. Posted February 2, 2007.

In February 2006, the Bush administration submitted to Congress a $439 billion defense appropriation budget for fiscal year 2007. As the country enters 2007, the administration is about to present a nearly $100 billion supplementary request to Congress just for the Iraq and Afghan wars. At the same time, the deficit in the country's current account -- the imbalance in the trading of goods and services as well as the shortfall in all other cross-border payments from interest income and rents to dividends and profits on direct investments -- underwent its fastest ever quarterly deterioration. For 2005, the current account deficit was $805 billion, 6.4% of national income. In 2005, the U.S. trade deficit, the largest component of the current account deficit, soared to an all-time high of $725.8 billion, the fourth consecutive year that America's trade debts set records. The trade deficit with China alone rose to $201.6 billion, the highest imbalance ever recorded with any country. Meanwhile, since mid-2000, the country has lost nearly three million manufacturing jobs.

To try to cope with these imbalances, on March 16, 2006, Congress raised the national debt limit from $8.2 trillion to $8.96 trillion. This was the fourth time since George W. Bush took office that it had to be raised. The national debt is the total amount owed by the government and should not be confused with the federal budget deficit, the annual amount by which federal spending exceeds revenue. Had Congress not raised the debt limit, the U.S. government would not have been able to borrow more money and would have had to default on its massive debts.

 Among the creditors that finance these unprecedented sums, the two largest are the central banks of China (with $853.7 billion in reserves) and Japan (with $831.58 billion in reserves), both of which are the managers of the huge trade surpluses these countries enjoy with the United States. This helps explain why our debt burden has not yet triggered what standard economic theory would dictate: a steep decline in the value of the U.S. dollar followed by a severe contraction of the American economy when we found we could no longer afford the foreign goods we like so much. So far, both the Chinese and Japanese governments continue to be willing to be paid in dollars in order to sustain American purchases of their exports.

Now Jay, I was aware that Walmart was big — nay, even huge! — but compared to these figures?

Jay:  "Now one would have to suspect that with "depression" like conditions in the US, growth in China would have to be affected. Probably terminally at this point in the game."
 
Certainly China’s growth would be affected. But terminally?   No way.  Europe has been attempting to dream up ways of reducing Chinese imports into the EU.  The other side of the coin is, as every business man knows, that you can ‘sell’ an awful lot of goods or services if never get paid for them. And funding your major customer so that they can keep buying from you so that you can continue increasing your production is the road to disaster. (It is of course one way that you can cook the books so as to sell your outfit for far more than it is worth, though!)

Jay: "And who supplies most of the world medicines?"

Merely a matter of patent rights.  Ignore the patents and anybody can make them in whatever quantity, and cheaper than the US supplies them.

I wrote: "Then there is the undeniable fact that the Iranians will endure far harsher living conditions, and survive those conditions both as individuals and as a nation far better than the Americans ever will."

Jay: "What like starvation? Normally one just dies. Nationality makes little difference ..."

The day after ‘peace’ was declared in Lebanon the residents were making their way home, already beginning to put their lives back together. By way of contrast look at New Orleans.  Katrina hit what, some 18 months ago?   A city in the ‘worlds richest nation’, and it is still a bloody disaster. Nationality, heart, guts, experience, yes Jay, they do make a difference!

I wrote: "Russia, third biggest producer, with a poorer grade of crude, would I am certain help out their  great friends the Americans.   — anyone who believes that ..... well I have this herd of flying pigs!"

Jay: "Maybe not, but places like Australia will. And you have not bothered to mention alternative energies like LPG and nuclear energy."

Australia????  Now Howard we all know suffers under the delusion that he is a potentate who bestrides the world like a Goliath, but spare me, I didn’t think that it was catching! This thread assumes that the US could attack Iran. Nuclear therefore is not a feasible alternative now.  Natural gas, to the best of my knowledge will not fuel planes, and probably not most heavy war machines.   Besides, natural gas is a product of oil fields, or more accurately from areas which show up on surveys as oil deposits but turnout to be ‘only’ gas. Leaves the US with the same problem: where will they get it? 
   
Jay: "Your assumption about the impending end to the US is way off the mark. It is not even in the ballpark."     
 
The US is deep in external dept.  the internal economy is doing fine — that is if you don’t include war dept! They are bogged down in a disaster of their own making which is costing them: ‘Operations costs in Iraq are estimated at $5.6 billion per month in 2005'. — The Iraq Quagmire: The Mounting Costs of War and the Case for Bringing Home the Troops, a Study by the Institute for Policy Studies and Foreign Policy In Focus by Phyllis Bennis and Erik Leaver and the IPS Iraq Task Force.   (August 31, 2005)

There are moves to shift the pricing of oil contracts into Euro dollars.  This will reduce the significance of the $US dramatically. They are in real financial trouble.  They  have nothing to export, nothing to trade that could conceivably get them out of this mess, and there is no advantage for anyone in bailing them out.  The Iraq adventure has shown that invincible they are not. Bogged down with massive armaments, yes.  But to what purpose? Perhaps they could demand tribute from around the globe? ‘Pay up or we will bomb you back to the stone age’. Somehow I don’t think that such a tactic would fly!

There are other more complex reasons why the US economy is open to sabotage.  It seems to me that for at least the past three years there have been actions taken which suggest the US is being set up for a financial attack.  While it could be coincidence, I don’t believe it so.  I traded commodities on the US market for a living in more recent years. Were the US a commodity I would be selling, with sell orders placed all the way down to nothing. And I wouldn’t be buying any back — at any price. 

Jay, we will agree to differ!

According to this source (warning - very disturbing photo):

“A recent report into the attitudes of Young British Muslims makes depressing reading:

“Forty per cent of Muslims between the ages of 16 and 24 said they would prefer to live under sharia law in Britain, a legal system based on the teachings of the Koran.

“One in eight young Muslims said they admired groups such as al-Qa'eda that "are prepared to fight the West".

“36 per cent of the young people questioned said they believed that a Muslim who converts to another religion should be ‘punished by death’."

Yet Iran was once far more democratic than it is today. Its last popular democratically elected government was that of the moderate socialist Mohammed Ali Mossadegh, who was ousted in a CIA-MI5 inspired coup in 1953, inaugurating the period of despotic rule of the Pahlevis. The Shah was overthrown in turn in 1979 as we all know by the revolution led by the mullahs under the leadership of the Ayatollah Khomeini. It is not surprising therefore that there is so much residual hostility against the West in Iran, and particularly against the Americans.

Overthrowing a democratically appointed government is a far more serious act than anything a poor peanut like David Hicks might have done, and deserves very stiff penalties for the perpetrators. In a world of divided justice, however, such people almost invariably face no penalty at all, no matter how much death and mayhem results.

How much of the rise of medievalism and its ‘justice’ that the Iranian people have to bear with today is due to such foreign intervention in Iranian affairs?

Angela Ryan: "Hi Jay, I agree with you about the Walmart dilemma, but heck they will go where the credit cards flow and in a crashed economy there won't be many."

And where will that be (the flowing credit cards) Angela? I note you do have a propensity to write in an isolationist type fashion. Example: The US this, China that, Russia something different again. What makes you think all things are not interlinked? Perhaps you cannot have one without the other?

Angela Ryan: "But business is getting tougher there, actually some pollution laws coming in ... cough ... cough ... and the insurgent pro-democracy coverts are actually helping push for better wages and conditions in the factories .. er ... the US owned factories. LOL."

I agree. That is why I always caution against people getting to carried away with the Chinese economy. Measuring growth rates of China against America is comparing apples with oranges. One is a mature economy, the other is not. China at the moment does not have a floating currency.

And yes, with growth comes wealth. And with wealth comes wants and expectation. And with want and expectation comes pressure to deliver. The same things that Western economies are undergoing as we speak.

And why, for example, should America, or Australia for that matter, concentrate on low-end, often polluting, industries, when others will at a better cost? Why not concentrate on things that we will do with success?

Angela Ryan: "Maybe Africa is the next exploitable workforce/environment. You, unless I misunderstood you Jay, have some expertise in economics, or is that just a bit of learn on the hoof small business MBA type? Anyways, with that expertise, perhaps you could explain how the US is going to trade out of its huge debt dilemma, despite further military spending here and in Israel and Australia - even Christmas Island I hear is considered. Such usually is like buying an expensive car or farm, i.e. watch it chew up more funds as the asset value melts away. Also more and more companies continue to move production off-shore, as here, so how is the US to "trade" out of the debt?"

Africa? Maybe, if not somewhere else. I note one or two African nations are getting a little ansey about the Chinese at the moment. A business is a business, the nationality makes little to no difference.

America has a huge latitude to trade out of debt. There are any number of ways the "debt" can be overcome. A halting of the current profiligate spending would be a good starting place. You will find the "debt" situation will become a major political issue at the next election. Which is a good thing, because practical measures will be discussed seriously and they need to be discussed. If the US was a company, it would be rated in a fairly healthy condition. Be it some practical problems needing to be addressed. A long way, though, from panic stations.

BTW if I supplied you with my entire resume would it make a difference to the way you think about what I write? How interesting how much a piece of paper can effect people. Probably deep down the same sets of reasoning the paper with colours on it (i.e. money) sends people into such a frenzy. I mean you can't really eat paper, now can you?

Angela Ryan, it is a mistake to think that the US is one lumped together monolithic way of thinking. Really, it is quiet a diverse place (probably more so than anywhere else) with many degrees of thinking. And this, in fact, is its greatest strength. The ability to adapt and embrace change whilst others fall to the wayside.

The spread of socialism for example is not going to change the fact that the head of BHP will not be successful. It is not going to suddenly propel a guy now selling the Big Issue onto the world stage of business management. Really it is not going to change that much for these two distinctive sets of people. The same people will succeed under any system (take a gander at ex-East German, USSR and Chinese millionaires). They merely adapt to take into account the changed circumstances. What a system does is not make a person, it allows the person to make themselves. And a socialist type system is much more restrictive in this regard than a capitalist one. 

Any change in a system will have the most effect on the majority of people (in the West aka known as the middle class). And overall for most of them, it (socialism) will  have a negative effect which will eventually lead to its failure. As history has proven time and time again.

Then again, I would have to see your preferred way of doing things to put up a argument against it. For some reason when you ask a person around here what they actually believe in (system) they become all coy. I put it down to a lack of confidence. Perhaps a bigger problem than any particular system in itself.

"MUNICH: Facing the prospect of broader international sanctions, Iran's president and national security chief have offered to resume negotiations over their country's nuclear program and eased up on the contentious rhetoric of the past, including threats to destroy Israel."

Remember North Korea? And how the USA was going to "attack" it, too?

Bob Wall : "It is not succumbing to blackmail as some suggest, but rather the way responsible states operate. The danger arises when states become irresponsible, and crazy and delusional. The neocons were once called 'the crazies'; one day there came a President who suited them."

Actually an interesting comment that sums up a lot of the divides. For example Bob Wall it would seem takes the pragmatic approach advocated by James Baker. An American tradtionalist approach (the last fifty years anyway) that runs along the lines of making practical business decisions for business reasons. Some will note the call from some quarters to move away from the sanctions imposed since '79. This reasoning says that American interests are best served by taking a hands-off approach, but a direct approach through business, that way indirectly advancing American interest through other means. This term was known as economic colonialism. Rarely, if ever, a term heard nowdays, but once a highly emotionally charged one.

Neocons for instance were once lefties (shocking spending practices makes this not hard to work out). They advocate the spread of democracy. In itself not bad, but the forceful part is causing a problem. I could never be a Neocon. Firstly I was never stupid enough to be a leftie (I missed that crazy part in my life, thank God). Secondly, the spread of democracy is of minor importance when weighed against the promotion of "our" interests. The most effective way to spread democracy is by showing through your own success what others "could" have. Thirdly, I am a pragmatic person. I do not believe at this point in time democracy is possible for large parts of the world. Therefore it is pragmatic to concentrate on furthering one's own ends and hoping for a flow-on effect.

I am not against the US dealing with Iran. I am against the US making a poor bargain. If the deal is the right one it should be done. If not, it should not be done. Pretty simple. And at the moment the deal is not the right one.

A conservative approach in Iraq for the US should involve a pragmatic one. That is putting US (its peoples' and allies') interests first. This would involve making any Iraqi civil war a secondary issue. I would advise a tactical withdrawal of all allied troops away from Baghdad and around economic interests. Allow the civil war to flow unabated and make the protection of allied troops priority number one. Democracy will live or die on its own sword.

Only by understanding what motivates people can a problem be truly solved. Now call me callous, but I am betting most of these groups involved in the civil war (or at least their leaders) are not for the love of Iraq, nationalism or even religion. A set of "rewards" may then be offered by the US toward the "victorious" side. A true capitalist system is therefore put into place. A system where winners are rewarded and losers punished.

This has the effect of furthering interests whilst cutting back on prolifigate spending, moral dilemmas and troop casualities all whilst furthering ones aims. A pragmatic and sensible approach. And one that, whilst not outwardly advocated, is shared by a great deal of decision makers both inside the Democratic and Republican parties alike.

The interests of the global capitalist system must be placed above all else. Only through this healthy system can the world hope to survive without descending into chaos. No other system works. This has been proven time and time again. It is futile and insanity to go back to trying to prove it will not work again.

A strong US is the flag bearer of this system (the best system). Those that do not want this system to fail (all bar lunatics) have a stake in the US (at the moment at least) succeeding. So be careful what you wish for.

Neocons are wimps. They attempt to fight on moral grounds and have little stomach for tough decisions. They might be loathed by the left, they are loathed even more by true pragmatic conservatives. As Jim Webb quite rightly said: "They are so far right that they are left."

In the next US election I would like to see the reasons America should not pull out of Iraq at the moment spelt out with the truth. For the truth of a surrender is even more scary then much of the abject nonsense being put about at this point in time. Everyone in the West has something to lose and a lot more than most realise. Surrender is not an option.

Angela Ryan: "Maybe Africa is the next exploitable workforce/environment."

China is now the world’s second largest consumer of crude oil, bringing in more than 25% of its oil imports from the Gulf of Guinea and Sudan. Its thirst is limitless: by 2020 it will be forced to supply 60% of its energy needs from abroad, even from nations such as Chad that have maintained diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

Although in 2004 only 2% of Chinese trade was with Africa, the continent has done particularly well as China has opened up to the world: during the 1990s Sino-African trade grew by 700% and since the first China-Africa Forum in Beijing in 2000, more than 40 agreements have been signed, doubling trade to more than $20bn over the four years to the end of 2004.

By the end of 2005, China is expected to become Africa’s third most important trading partner, behind the US and France and ahead of the UK. Long experience of projects with the World Bank will help build a “presence in Africa [that] is illustrative of Beijing’s efforts to create a paradigm of globalisation that favours China”.

Craig Rowley: "The issue that seems to have become the focus here is whether the US (and/or Israel) will attack Iran and when that might happen. Why this has become the focus is understandable, but I think everyone, except the craziest neo-cons, is in agreement that the US should not take unilateral military action against Iran."

Certainly, that is the position which has been repeatedly stated by George Bush, Condi Rice and, over and over and over, by Bob Gates.

Bob Wall: "And Craig, in the Mann interview she recommends negotiations between the US and Iran, each making concessions."

Great idea. Should this be within the framework of the United Nations, rather than merely through the informal discussions already underway between the USA and Iran?

That way "both sides" will understand this is an issue of global concern, and not just a matter between Iran and the USA. As Iran keeps trying to say. Also, talks outside the framework of the UN won't be seen as such an obvious attack on the UN. 

The issue that seems to have become the focus here is whether the US (and/or Israel) will attack Iran and when that might happen. Why this has become the focus is understandable, but I think everyone, except the craziest neo-cons, is in agreement that the US should not take unilateral military action against Iran.

So what if we shift focus back to questions that go to the real and immediate issues at hand:

What is the IAEA likely to report to the UN Security Council later this month?

What is the Security Council likely to decide after hearing the IAEA's report?

The Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki has said this week that Iran considers negotiation as the only logical solution to the standoff. Former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami had said the day before Mottaki's announcement that negotiation would be the only logical means of resolving the issue. 

In Munich, Iran's nuclear envoy, Ali Larijani, stressed the need for a negotiated settlement of the dispute over Iran's nuclear program.  He says he's sent a letter to the UN's nuclear watchdog saying Tehran is ready to resolve the controversy within three weeks.

IAEA chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, has cautiously welcomed the announcement.

"He [Larijani] mentioned that they are ready to work with the Agency, I think that is positive," he said, "The earlier they can do that, the better. I mean, the whole problem started with the outstanding issues about the nature of the program so I welcome any move by Iran to try to work with the agency."

Peter Hindrup: "Jay, we will agree to differ. The US doesn’t have enough oil to function for longer than their stored reserves  last.  And should they attack Iran it is reasonable to assume that Iran will target all the US oil reserves."

Function under what capacity? And who said anything about attacking Iran?

Peter Hindrup: "With only the fear of running out of oil, the US falls apart. Stoic they ain't!"

Fall apart? What does this mean? Do without a spare car? What?

Peter Hindrup: "Should the need arise, Iran would have no problem raising credit. Remember it has one of the world's major known reserves of the highest quality, most valuable commodity on earth."

And so does the USA. They are, and you may have missed it, sitting on top of not a bad oil commodity themselves in Iraq.

Now this is what you orginally said:

Peter Hindrup: "Cut off the oil, cripple the world economy.  Which country will suffer  soonest? The US."

So I would take from that "cutting off the oil" means for everybody. Stoping production all together. So although the next part is a moot point, I will attempt to answer it anyway.

Peter Hindrup: "The Saudis are already sending 18 percent of their production to China.  With conflict and therefor a world shortage of crude, the Saudis would  have to choose between attempting to ship to the US, or increasing their supplies to China."

They will choose whomever pays the highest price. Now China is an interesting one. China's growth is fueled directly from investment from the US. The largest single investor being that of Walmart.

Now one would have to suspect that with "depression" like conditions in the US, growth in China would have to be affected. Probably terminally at this point in the game. And this is not even taking into account Europe that is not even in the position of the US with any oil. Had a look at bowser prices in Europe lately by any chance?

You also fail to realise that the Middle East is a large importer of secondry petroleum products such as chemicals, plastics and fertilisers. So with the price of crude rising so will all these products plus the obligatory ten percent on top. Win one way, lose on the other doubly, so to speak. And who supplies most of the world medicines?

Peter Hindrup: "Then there is the undeniable fact that the Iranians will endure far harsher living conditions, and survive those conditions both as individuals and as a nation far better than the Americans ever will."

What like starvation? Normally one just dies. Nationality makes little difference. And if the case of Iranians enduring "harsh conditions" with a smile was true: Why does the Iranian President rate so poorly at home?

Peter Hindrup: "Russia, third biggest producer, with a poorer grade of crude, would I am certain help out their  great friends the Americans.   — anyone who believes that ..... well I have this herd of flying pigs!"

Maybe not, but places like Australia will. And you have not bothered to mention alternative energies like LPG and nuclear energy.

Your assumption about the impending end to the US is way off the mark. It is not even in the ballpark. First and foremost is the fact that not one place outside of Iran and that Latin American country would wish to see this happen. If you think Australia has a stake tied up in the success of the US, you should see the stake places such as China and Europe have tied up in success.  And that is a fact.

Webdiarists might be interested in the report in the Chicago Tribune of John Howard’s attack on Barack Obama. Scrolling down through the comments below it is moderately educational, too.

G'day Craig and all. Good stuff Peter, and Angela - fired up and firing away. Yes, Cheney should be arrested but any request for a last bit of hunting before he is hauled away should be denied.

An item from CNN - an interview with Hillary Mann, former National Security Council Director for Iranian and Persian Gulf Affairs. Video.

"They're trying to push a provocative, accidental conflict," Mann said.

She added that the administration hopes to goad Iran into an overreaction so that it can have justification to carry out "limited strikes" against nuclear infrastructure and Revolutionary Guards headquarters buildings in Iran.

Paul Craig Roberts - Dump the Dollar.

Patrick Cockburn on scapegoating Iran.

Ray McGovern.

Juan Cole on the US accusations of Iranians supplying weapons.

How to tell if your empire is crumbling.

A view from the Arab world - a widening rift.

Divide and conquer?

More ammunition for you, Angela, to add to your own researches. Oh, the fireworks that result!

And Craig, in the Mann interview she recommends negotiations between the US and Iran, each making concessions. That is the way to go, and not a suggestion new to your threads on the issue. It is not succumbing to blackmail as some suggest, but rather the way responsible states operate. The danger arises when states become irresponsible, and crazy and delusional. The neocons were once called "the crazies"; one day there came a President who suited them.

The years haven’t made the memories any better.

Jay, we will agree to differ.   The US doesn’t have enough oil to function for longer than their stored reserves  last.  And should they attack Iran it is reasonable to assume that Iran will target all the US oil reserves.

With only the fear of running out of oil, the US falls apart. Stoic they ain't!

Then there is the question of how the US’s creditors would view the situation. No credit, no imports.

Twenty or thirty years ago the US could have pulled down the shutters and lived a tolerably comfortable life in isolation. That is certainly not the case today.

I worked with Schulmberger, down hole surveying for Shell, BP & Todd, on the Waitara field in Taranaki 1958 through ‘59.  With the inside access that was granted I wrote a history of oil exploration for a University publication which opened the door into newspapers for me.

Yes, years out of date, but the subject has remained one of my interests.

The Middle eastern oil producers have for some time been investing oil profits in gold.  While I do not have specific information that identifies Iran as one of those producers, it does seem likely.

Should the need arise, Iran would have no problem raising credit. Remember it has one of the worlds major known reserves of the highest quality, most valuable commodity on earth.

Then there is the undeniable fact that the Iranians will endure far harsher living conditions, and survive those conditions both as individuals and as a nation far better than the Americans ever will.

Venezuela is the major supplier of crude to the US. The US is a customer, not a friend. While Iran on the other hand is a friend.  So assume that the Venezuela production would be sabotaged.

(To discourage any bright ideas the US might get, like a take over of production.)

The Saudis are already sending 18 percent of their production to China.  With conflict and therefor a world shortage of crude, the Saudis would  have to choose between attempting to ship to the US, or increasing their supplies to China.

Russia, third biggest producer, with a poorer grade of crude, would I am certain help out their  great friends the Americans.   — anyone who believes that ..... well I have this herd of flying pigs! —

Then too, should the US invade/attack Iran nobody could possibly  imagine it will be a pushover.      Everybody knows that the US would be stretched to its absolute limits.  What better time for all those who have suffered under the heel of the bully to attack US interests.  The bases, the defence systems ground stations, Israel.

The closest thing to allies that the US has in the Middle East is Israel and the Saudi Administration. Attack Iran and it could well be that when the dust clears they have nothing.

Hi Jay, even Homer would have to say "Hmm, Don't like those odds!"

Add in a timeframe and let's see the odds again. Any one for a date guess?

And what it will be? Weather, George, Howard's End, Black Hole, Whole black?

I'm going with Black Hole, by 10 million years from....now. Short odds and not a bet I want to win either.

Ross Chippendale: "Jay White, care to frame a market on the impending invasion / attack? Money at the ready."

If I set a market I would have the non-attack at 1/3, on new age 1.33

"US" attack Iran 11/4 new age 2.75. If I were you I would look for better value though.

When you have quoting of unnamed sources talking about the plans of a Vice President with a popularity rating under 10% it is all over bar the shouting.

G'day Craig, interesting fuss over the US claims of Iran supplying/aiding Iraqi groups. The matter has been covered previously as has the matter of journalists regurgitating Administration claims has also been covered,  specifically the case of Michael Gordon and the NYTimes - see the link Deja vu, which I provided at 2.19 pm yesterday (11/2). Perhaps that material was missed so here is some more. There are a number of links at that site to follow, one might amuse readers, it is introduced as a possibly apocryphal account. There is this as well.

The Administration is trying to tone down the rhetoric and here is another report on the matter. It begins:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates insisted again Friday that, despite persistent reports to the contrary circulating in Washington and around the world, the United States is not planning military action against Iran.

"I don't know how many times the president, Secretary Rice and I have had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iran," an exasperated Gates told reporters at a NATO meeting in Spain. In fact, he said, the administration has consciously tried to "tone down" its rhetoric on the subject.

Further down, however, is this:

Some senior administration officials still relish the notion of a direct confrontation. One ambassador in Washington said he was taken aback when John Hannah, Vice President Cheney's national security adviser, said during a recent meeting that the administration considers 2007 "the year of Iran" and indicated that a U.S. attack was a real possibility. Hannah declined to be interviewed for this article.

A pity that this official has not made himself available to the media to affirm or deny that claim. For those who are unaware of some of Mr Hannah's past dealings, here is an account.

The CSM has a report from the Iranian side.

G'day's to Daniel, Michael, Ross and Richard.

Only a few sleeps till my hero comes to town, last time being '97, when he came here to shake hands with Craig Rowley.

The Pnacleheads haven't got a lot of time left in power, and if the last 10 years has been their idea of power-base consolidation, then what catalysts are being created at present to lock in the program? 

Ross, if Jay opens a tote I'll have a few bob each way on 7/7/07.  We've already had a bad 7/7 this century (London) and chances of some drongo using it "for luck" are pretty good.

That well known pinkoslamic co-conspirator, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, in his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 1st February 2007 described George W Bush's war in Iraq as "a historic, strategic and moral calamity", "driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris". He said the war was "intensifying regional instability" and "undermining America's global legitimacy".

He went on to say that "the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam". Brzezinski predicted "some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a 'defensive' U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan."

Jay White, care to frame a market on the impending invasion / attack? Money at the ready.

The same ignorance, stupidity, greed, apathy and love of killing that have dogged human civilization for millennia are about to prevail yet again. It is inevitable. The dominoes have already started to fall.

Hey mate any idea of the date, doomsday will begin? Ya reckon I should start digging that bomb shelter today?

Anyone ever see that Twilight Zone episode about the nuclear bomb shelter and the neighbours trying to get in at the last minute? Damn scary I thought and something I never forgot. Think I might keep my shelter a secret. Shhhhhhhhhhh!

Craig Rowley: "Look through the comments on this thread and the 1,370 comments on Cease Fire!  I've not once used the words "impending attack on Iran" whether by the US or anyone else. The only person to have done so on Webdiary is Jay White (on February 7).  C Parsons himself has mentioned "imminent attack" more often than anyone else." 

Yep, I used the phrase. To say there would be no attack last year. And I of course was correct. And I said there will be no attack this year. And I will be shocked if I am not correct this year. So far Jay 1, Doomsayers 0.