Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Hi. I've closed this thread, because there's too much old stuff happening and it's boring. Those interested in the topic of this thread are invited to submit a new piece, which includes an honest assessment of the key points of factual disagreement which have emerged in this very passionate and dramatic discussion.

The new piece will be edited by one person who the editors choose after considering nominations, if any.  

I remind readers of the first paragraph of Craig's piece:

"I have been mulling over a question or two. Make that a whole series of questions. They are '"What if ..." questions.  They are not messy and futile backward looking "What if ..." questions of the "toothpaste back into the tube" type. They are future focused, solution focused questions that ask what if we could do something, what if we did this or something like it or something else. What if we could work through a problem together?

The Nobel Women's Initiative published an article in October outlining Shirin Ebadi's perspective on the current stand-off situation:

According to Dr. Ebadi, “The ratcheting up of US unilateral punitive measures against Iran will only make the situation for political reformists and human rights advocates in Iran a lot more difficult. The designations could also bring a backlash against Iranian citizens working for human rights, undermining our efforts for democracy and reform in our country. The Iranian government must respect international law, UN resolutions and human rights, but US policies that encourage isolation will only play directly into the hands of those who want isolation in Iran. The improvement of the situation of democracy and human rights in Iran can only take place when there is peace."

It also outlined Nobel Laureate Mairead Maguire's perspective:

"This is dangerous rhetoric and action coming from the US administration, and it serves no good purpose other that to inflame the fear and isolation of Iran, when the obvious and only real road is dialogue and negotiations. We witnessed similar rhetoric and actions by USA administration before its illegal occupation and invasion of Iraq. This time, the international community must stand united against such negative politics of enmity and war."

And 1997 Nobel Peace Laureate Jody Williams' perspective:

“What we are calling for is quite simple: a nonviolent resolution of the standoff between the U.S. and Iran ... These new measures by the Bush administration could lead to a tit-for-tat escalation resulting in military confrontation. We do not want to see another Iraq and more disruption in the volatile and fragile Middle East. We do not want to see more suffering among women and children in another Middle Eastern country. We demand the Bush administration engage in a serious and sustained diplomatic initiative with Iran without preconditions. The US has engaged in successful dialogue with North Korea, another of the "axis of evil," over its nuclear weapons. There is no reason that it cannot do the same with Iran over its nuclear program.”

Paul Morrella, you are completely wrong to claim you can read my mind and somehow know what I did or did not know before sharing a link to Stern's research and I'm not interested in your line by line reply routine, so please don't address your comments to me again. From this point onward I'll not be responding to them (though I'll reserve the right to contact Margo about any comments by you which I believe are in breach of the Editorial Policy).

Craig Rowley

Paul Morrella, I thought you might come back to try and attack me on this thread before long.

The problem with this is that there wasn't any attack.

And I've got to tell you, Paul, you really should reconsider you propensity to speculate about what is "unwittingly given" and so on.

You have unwittingly given the answer to Iran's problems - or at least I hope you have. Given that you have never advocated that particular solution the alternative word to unwittingly is not a happy word.

Also, in your comments directed toward Bob Wall you appear to have completely overlooked the recent statements by the Iranian President that he does not expect the US or Israel to attack Iran.

Given I have assured all that no such attack will take place I' am not sure how you could think that.

Bob Wall had this to say:

"We persevere in the hope that a better way is found than yet another resort to military action."

Merely pointing out to Bob that there is no need to persevere; hope has been found. Reading your above statement should further calm those tense nerves.

The statement that the IAEA is “unable to provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities” which is presently true for Iran, is also true (as at end of 2006) for 42 other states including Belgium, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey. That's made clear in the IAEA's Safeguards Statement for 2006.

Craig Rowley, you have unwittingly given the answer to Iran's (as in Iranian people) problems in one of your links

Because Iran's government relies on monopoly proceeds from oil exports for most revenue, it could become politically vulnerable if exports decline.

In the event of a probable world recession not only will the export decline so will the Iranian government.

Bob Wall: "We persevere in the hope that a better way is found than yet another resort to military action."

The Iranian leadership might consider this statement a fraction preemptive. Attack talk generally kicks in around 80 a barrel - I am convinced the Iranian President dude owns a stake in Exxon.

Jenny Hume: "And such does not inspire confidence in the regime as being one of a responsible internationall citizen."

Are there any states you would like to propose as exemplars of being good international citizens?

Surveying the various viewpoints on the Annapolis conference I've found that some see the renewed peace push as a means toward limiting Iran's influence (I tend to agree), whilst others (e.g. Cheney's man David Wurmser) are framing it as "a gift to the Islamic Republic's plan for regional domination" and doing their damndest to undermine a negotiated path to peace.

 Bill Avent: "Chilling to the bone, watching footage of those bombs raining down from the sky."

Bomb Harvest has certainly gained the attention of some of us, and deservedly so. Thanks to Craig for the link and I agree that Laith Stevens certainly deserves recognition for his work. Bill, that pre-bombing mission prayer scene certainly hit me - "humble servants" with their gift of liberty through B52s and their payloads - 'the gift that keeps on taking".

To madness and with an oft found coincidence a couple of articles that can be linked to the matter. One is an example of delusion in action - featuring none other than the Crawford Caligula.

Also, Bush said Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's calling the Israeli-Palestinian meeting in Annapolis, Md., a failure shows the leader's true colors.

"This is a man who doesn't believe in democracy, freedom and peace," Bush said.

There is something seriously amiss in the CC saying this. The second comment following the story details this for those who do not know. The worry us that CC might actually believe what he says. 

War on the Couch - Stephen Soldz. 

Curt Guyette and W. Kim Heron - Bombs Away. An interview with Scott Ritter. In their opening comments they refer to a piece by John H Richardson - it can be found in a post of mine on 19th October, this thread, for those who missed it. Or easier still.

On Annapolis - Kaveh L Afrasiabi Israel's nukes missing from the table.

Laura Rozen - The Elephant in Annapolis' Living Room.

Further thanks to Craig for providing the IAEA reports. Not that the crazies and their supporters care much about evidence, or reality. Or broken, charred and mutilated bodies.

Scott Peterson, staff writer for The Christian Science Monitor reports today that former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami and Nobel Peace Prize-winner Shirin Ebadi are among several key Iranian public figures saying that only direct, unconditional talks with the US can ease spiraling tensions:

"The solution is for both sides to resort to logic, refrain from provocative rhetoric, and put the emphasis on negotiations," Khatami told the Monitor.

 

"We have no choice but to overcome misunderstandings that mostly stem from the meddling of the US [in the Middle East] and its wrong policies in Iran," said Khatami. "We can find common interests in the region and the world. And we can also avoid actions that would be damaging to both sides."

Failure could mean "things will get worse, a huge crisis will be created, and then it is not only Iran that would suffer," warns Khatami. "Our crisis-stricken region would also suffer greatly, and the US itself."

...

To counter militarism, Nobel laureate Ebadi called upon Iranians last week to join her in creating a broad-based National Peace Council.

 

"War will not solve any problem. Peace negotiations must start," Ebadi told the Monitor. Iran should "respect UN resolutions," including one that requires suspending enrichment. "If America offers to negotiate, Iran must accept."

"Attacking Iraq was beyond international rules, and [the US] should not make the same mistake regarding Iran," said Ebadi. "Both governments should change their dialogue, bring down their rhetoric and reduce tensions."

More on Ebadi's National Peace Council initiative has been reported by UNPO:

Ebadi, a Tehran-based human rights activist and lawyer, this week invited all Iranians to participate in the creation of the national body, saying the initiative emerged from a group of activist lawyers called the Center of Human Rights Defenders, which she co-founded.

 

The council is seen primarily as a discussion forum, but analysts say it has the potential to offer an alternative to the pro-confrontation policies of the current Iranian leadership.

Ebadi told Radio Farda's Niusha Boghrati that the council would include "individuals who are trusted by people." "The National Peace Council will discuss ways to decrease political and military tensions between Iran and the United States and Western countries," she said.

"If you see it as irrelevant, why on earth did you bother posting it? You're not making sense."

Bill, It's irrelevant as to whether the bloke holding the flag is a soldier or activist, the truth in the message is what counts. Trying to find something to disparage the message is not the sign of a caring person, but one steeped in ideological dismissal of the reality behind the photo. My own personal experiences gave me the same type of feelings many times, as I observed the fruitlessness of war.

[You] would see it as irrelevant as to who or why they are displaying the USA flag that way, or the message on it.

If you see it as irrelevant, why on earth did you bother posting it? You're not making sense.

Yes, I've been watching it too. Mad. I couldn't help thinking what Alga's reaction might be to the pre-bombing raid prayers scene. Mad.

Chilling to the bone, watching footage of those bombs raining down from the sky.  Mad, bad bastards. On another thread I've been arguing that Americans are mad; others there find my comments objectionable, but are unable put forward an argument against the idea.

Now on that thread they're talking about their pet cats, and white ties, and shoes and ships and sealing wax, and cabbages and kings. Soon they'll be telling each other about how long their toenails are. Riveting.

Alga, your post appeared as I was watching Bomb Harvest - documentary on clearing unexploded ordnance in Laos so your comment about "seeing the results" hard a particularly graphic relevance. Decades later and people are still dying yet we have the spin , not only trying to justify the Iraq disaster, but for a new "adventure" against Iran.

Who can forget John McCain's "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran". How obscene. So we do what we can to look behind the spin and bring other material to people's notice. Here Craig, not unexpectedly, gave an example by providing material to expand on the Erlich piece I linked earlier. Not that similar material hasn't been linked previously - and ignored by some.

We persevere in the hope that a better way is found than yet another resort to military action - the gift that keeps on taking for decades.

“I wonder though, about two things. What was the soldier's initial attitude when American forces started its current round of killing innocent people? Or is he not really a soldier, and the whole thing just anti-war propaganda?”

When your a volunteer or a conscript, your first understanding and obligation is to your job and those beside you. It's only when you see the results of your side's actions and the responses that you get the opportunity to question its veracity. I may question the war and the actions of the ideologies behind them, but never those who are bound to abide by their defined and accepted obligations and carry them out responsibly.

I would see it as irrelevant as to who or why they are displaying the USA flag that way, or the message on it. Nothing justifies the slaughter of innocent people unless your ideological desire is to be right at any cost.

Mohamed ElBaradei is the target of a great deal of criticism from certain quarters. Lawdy save us but there was once a move to have him replaced by Lord Downer of Baghdad! We might well have needed saving had that come to pass. So it is nice to find someone, in this case Renaud Girard of Le Figaro, give him a big tick.

Bow for the subject of my header - an excerpt from  Reese Erlich's The Iran Agenda: The Real Story of U.S. Policy and The Middle East Crisis.

The excerpt begins: 

 

Top Democratic and Republican leaders absolutely believe that Iran is planning to develop nuclear weapons. And one of their seemingly strongest arguments involves a process of deduction. Since Iran has so much oil, they argue, why develop nuclear power?

In an op-ed commentary former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote that "for a major oil producer such as Iran, nuclear energy is a wasteful use of resources," a position later cited approvingly by the Bush administration.

But U.S. leaders are engaging in a massive case of collective amnesia, or perhaps more accurately, intentional misdirection. In the 1970s the United States encouraged Iran to develop nuclear power precisely because Iran will eventually run out of oil.

A declassified document from President Gerald Ford's administration, for which Kissinger was Secretary of State, supported Iran's push for nuclear power. The document noted that Tehran should "prepare against the time--about 15 years in the future--when Iranian oil production is expected to decline sharply."1 The United States ultimately planned to sell billions of dollars worth of nuclear reactors, spare parts and nuclear fuel to Iran.

The Shah even periodically hinted that he wanted Iran to build nuclear weapons. In June 1974, the Shah proclaimed that Iran would have nuclear weapons "without a doubt and sooner than one would think."2 Iranian embassy officials in France later denied the Shah made those remarks, and the Shah disowned them. But a few months later the Shah noted that Iran "has no intention of acquiring nuclear weapons but if small states began building them, then Iran might have to reconsider its policy."3

If an Iranian leader made such statements today, the United States and Israel would denounce them as proof of nefarious intent. They might well threaten military action if Iran didn't immediately halt its nuclear buildup. At the time, however, the comments caused no ripples in Washington or Tel Aviv because the Shah was a staunch ally of both.

Highly recommended.

I agree with Bob Wall — nice one, Alga. Great photo, worth saving.

The flag upside-down is a nice touch. Internationally recognised sign of distress.

I wonder though, about two things. What was the soldier's initial attitude when American forces started its current round of killing innocent people? Or is he not really a soldier, and the whole thing just anti-war propaganda?

Either way, it is powerfully effective.

Angela Ryan: "There have been many who equate the Iranian threat as one to Israel."

Nice one, Alga.

While we wait for constructive responses (again) for the proposals for a nuclear free ME and a reciprocal agreement between Iran and Israel, we can turn out attention to the heralded Annapolis conference. I have previously linked some material about why people thought it would not prove productive before the event, today I am linking material after the event.

Democracy!Now. (Second segment is an interview with Naomi Wolf, no transcript at tome of writing)

Ira Chernus. 

Rob Kall. 

Jeff Halper.

Mohammed Khatib - on conditions in the West Bank. 

On Iran agendas - Ismael Hossein-zadeh Distorting Fascism to Demonize Iran.

Gareth Porter - White House squabble on releasing Iranians.

On proliferation, Tom Engelhardt presents Catherine Collins and Douglas Frantz on A Q Khan.

In this article Paul Craig Roberts writes:

By focusing America on war in the Middle East, the purpose of which is to guarantee Israel’s territorial expansion, the executive and legislative branches, along with the media, have let slip the last opportunities the US had to put its financial house in order.  We have arrived at the point where it is no longer bold to say that nothing now can be done.  Unless the rest of the world decides to underwrite our economic rescue, the chips will fall where they may.

Amid all the agendas that bode ill, could that be the breaker? Will the result be for the better or worse?

This says it all from the US Army.

Of course, the practical implementation of a nuclear-weapon free zone will become possible only when all countries in the region, including Israel, join the NPT and subject their activities to the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

What is the reason the Israeli government gives for its exceptionality on nuclear non-proliferation?

Perhaps security guarantees for Iran and Israel and other nations could be negotiated as part of a broader multilateral negotiation effort aimed at developing a cooperative approach to regional security and the establishment of a nuclear-weapon free zone in the Middle East.

Craig Rowley says:

"We could discuss the merits of the idea that the United States, as the most powerful actor in this situation, is in the best position to create an atmosphere for successful conflict resolution by offering security assurances that it will not attack Iran."

Perhaps if Iran offered Israel a security assurance?

 Richard:  As part of a reciprocal treaty, Eliot?
 

... in the sense you meant, Margo?

Whilst with that "something tried and true" he's demonstrated that he's not keen to "have a go" at constructive participation in a conversation about solutions to the stand-off leading to threat reduction for all involved, perhaps you could try to encourage him one more time to use that intellect on something better than the tired old "remorseless ridicule" routine.

I did have some hope he could do more than the old routine when he'd recommended to Jenny Hume that she read Amin Maalouf's In the Name of Identity: Violence and the Need to Belong.

And whilst now it seems that he's turning Maalouf's message  I'm reasonably sure it's just that obsession with Schadenfreude getting in the way. If it were not, then I suppose we could "have a go" at a beneficial conversation about how to reduce the potential for the stand-off to become violent conflict and thus avoid the catastrophic consequences that would result.

So, what if you ask him to drop targeting of others on Webdiary with his "remorseless ridicule" routines and suggest he go satisfy his expressed desire to get off on Schadenfreude somewhere else?

Perhaps he'd take heed and it would then become possible for us to discuss strategies for reducing tension and preventing violence.

We could discuss the options available other than the current coercive diplomacy approach and the other option that the Bush administration keeps reminding everyone is "on the table" (military action).

We could discuss the merits of the idea that the United States, as the most powerful actor in this situation, is in the best position to create an atmosphere for successful conflict resolution by offering security assurances that it will not attack Iran. I think this would be taking the initiative to reduce tension quickly and could initiate a series of de-escalatory, confidence-building measures designed to create an atmosphere conducive to further dialogue.

We could discuss the merits of the idea that the U.S. can dramatically reduce tension by recalling the carrier groups dispatched to the Persian Gulf and thereby initiate a cycle of reciprocated de-escalation.

We could discuss the merits of the idea that influential members of the U.S. and Iranian communities should enter into confidential "track two" dialogues, assisted by non-partisan facilitators to define the major underlying issues and establish the type of process that has helped resolve or prevent violent conflicts in dozens of other situations.

David C: Hi Craig.  Alternatively, you could just ignore Eliot, and anybody else you think is being deliberately unhelpful.  Deliberate baiting is not published, by the way - although I'm sure we miss stuff occasionally.

Craig Rowley: "What, exactly, this 'new idea' involves, has not yet been fully revealed."

Deutsche Presse-Agentur have reported that Iran is working on the 'completion of a new idea' for settling the dispute over its nuclear programme.

"The new idea is currently discussed and to be completed and presented at the next round of talks with (European Union foreign policy chief Javier) Solana," Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mohammad-Ali Hosseini, told reporters at a press conference on Sunday.

What, exactly, this 'new idea' involves, has not yet been fully revealed. Iran's new chief nuclear negotiator Saeid Jalili will meet Solana in London this coming Saturday, so we might know what it is by next week. What is known is that Hosseini is also reported to have recently said, "Tehran is ready to consider and study different ideas within the NPT framework."

It's possible the 'new idea' is something that fits with Javier Solana's recent comment:

Only a multilateral solution can make it possible to end this crisis ... The idea of international enrichment centres under multilateral supervision has been discussed for some time. Let us therefore try to deepen it.

Continuing the theme of the Annapolis conference on the Israel/Palestine issue - little hope bit perhaps about something else.

Stephen Zunes.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi

The CSM. 

Phyllis Bennis on DemocracyNow!

Sincerity?

And.

Marjorie Cohn on resisting the push for attacks against Iran.

Whither America?

Paul Craig Roberts.

Chris Hedges.

Naomi Wolf.

Enjoy.

Craig Rowley, so have the failed predictions of "imminent attack" been consciously re-packaged as "regime change plans"?

Or was that just a Freudean slip?

Margo: OK, Eliot, over to you for new rhetoric! You are very intelligent. Have a go, mate...

The IAEA reports that it "has no concrete information about possible undeclared nuclear material or weaponization activities in Iran" (though it is still following up info that came from a MEK affiliated group), and most Neocon/Likudnik propagandists appear to have taken the hint and have moved on to focus on promoting their other excuses for implementing their regime change plans.

One, however, continues trying to promote the idea of some imminent threat to the very existence of Israel, ignoring ample opportunity to join discussion on workable (non-military) solutions to the stand-off, solutions that could lead to threat reduction for everyone.

You have to wonder why.

The reality is, and it's about time we all faced up to it, is that Iran is building not only a bomb, but long range missile capability to deliver that bomb. And it's getting help from North Korea

If Iran was just building peaceful nuclear energy infrastructure for when its oil runs out (ha ha), then:

• Israel wouldn't care less
• Iran wouldn't have to keep the IAEA at arms length all the time

Also, Iran's apologists wouldn't have to keep on announcing "imminent attacks" by the USA and Israel to justify the overall climate of non-cooperation by Iran

Because why would they bother attacking?

Oh, that's right. To get oil. That's "running out".

This is what ElBaradei really reported to the IAEA Board of Governors:

The report before you provides an update on the implementation of Agency safeguards in the Islamic Republic of Iran. As you know, the Agency has so far not been able to verify some important aspects of Iran´s nuclear programme: those relevant to the scope and nature of Iran´s centrifuge enrichment activities, as well as those relevant to alleged studies and other activities that could have military applications. Iran´s past undeclared nuclear activities, together with these verification issues, resulted in the Agency´s inability to make progress in providing assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and created a confidence deficit about the nature of Iran´s nuclear programme. This prompted the Security Council to adopt a number of resolutions calling on Iran to clarify these outstanding verification issues, and to undertake simultaneously confidence building measures, including the implementation of the additional protocol and the suspension of uranium enrichment activities.

See how that first part was a backgrounder, using past tense in the language and summarising the history of the stand-off. Now, let's look at what he said about the current situation:

The work plan agreed by the Secretariat and Iran in August, in which Iran has finally committed itself to address the outstanding issues relevant to its nuclear activities, is proceeding according to schedule. The report outlines, inter alia, our progress to date.

As the report makes clear, as regards the first outstanding issue - the scope and nature of Iran´s centrifuge enrichment activities - there has been good progress in connection with the verification of Iran´s past acquisition of P-1 and P-2 centrifuge enrichment technologies. The Agency has concluded that the information provided by Iran in that regard is consistent with the Agency´s own investigation. However, as in all verification cases, the Agency will continue to seek corroboration of this conclusion as we continue to verify the completeness of Iran´s declarations concerning its nuclear material and activities, and as we investigate the remaining outstanding issues - namely, the uranium particle contamination at a technical university, as well as the alleged studies and other activities that could have military applications. In accordance with the work plan, this will take place over the next several weeks. I would note that Iran has provided the Agency with a copy of the 15-page document on uranium metal, which the Agency is currently examining. The Agency is also continuing to work on arrangements to make copies of the alleged studies available to Iran.

Our progress over the past two months has been made possible by an increased level of cooperation on the part of Iran, in accordance with the work plan. However, I would urge Iran to be more proactive in providing information, and in accelerating the pace of this cooperation, in order for the Agency to be able to clarify all major remaining outstanding issues by the end of the year.

With regard to Iran´s current nuclear activities, we have been able to verify the non-diversion of all declared nuclear material. We also have in place a safeguards approach for the Natanz facility that enables us to credibly verify all enrichment activities there.

However, as with all States that do not have an additional protocol in force, we are unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities. This is especially crucial in the case of Iran, because of its history of undeclared activities, and the corresponding need to restore confidence in the peaceful nature of Iran´s nuclear programme. As the report indicates, the Agency´s knowledge about specific aspects of Iran´s current programme has diminished since 2006, when Iran ceased to provide the Agency with information under the additional protocol and additional transparency measures. This relates especially to current procurement, R&D and possible manufacturing of centrifuges. I urge Iran, therefore, to resume without delay the implementation of the additional protocol. The Agency needs to have maximum clarity not only about Iran´s past programme but, equally or more important, about the present. I should note, however, that the Agency has no concrete information about possible undeclared nuclear material or weaponization activities in Iran, other than the outstanding issues I have already mentioned.

Naturally, as we go through our own investigation of Iran´s past and present nuclear programme, I continue to urge Iran to take all the confidence building measures called for by the Security Council, including the suspension of enrichment related activities. This will be in the best interests of both Iran and the international community, and should facilitate the return by all parties to dialogue and negotiations. The earlier that negotiations are resumed, the better the prospects of defusing this crisis. It is only through such negotiations that a comprehensive and durable solution can be reached, and that confidence in the future direction of Iran´s nuclear programme can be built.

I've underlined certain key phrases that show how the spin presented by some is contrary to the actual content of this report. Naturally, I'd urge everyone interested in seeing workable solutions to the stand-off explored to ignore propaganda from the person who has been persistently promoting the pinkoslamic conspiracy line on this conversation thread.

The UN atomic watchdog said on Friday that it was in the dark about Iran's disputed nuclear programme, as its 35-member board seemed divided on how to get Tehran to shed more light on its activities.

Golly.. That's not the impression you'd get reading the stuff on this thread, is it? Anyway...

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) "has so far not been able to verify some important aspects of Iran's nuclear programme," its director general Mohamed ElBaradei told a board meeting in Vienna.

He specifically cited key questions related to the scope and nature of Iran's centrifuge enrichment activities, "as well as those relevant to alleged studies and other activities that could have military applications".

As a result, the UN watchdog was "unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities," Mr ElBaradei complained.

The undeclared nuclear material comment relates to traces of the presence of weapons grade fissionable products.

"We're disappointed that cooperation by Iran is only partial and reactive," said French ambassador Francois-Xavier Deniau.

But not everyone was upset.

The so-called "non-aligned countries" (various failed Marxist and banana republic dictatorships mostly, headed by hereditary police state Cuba) described the progress shown by Iran so far as "a very positive step".

Iran is of course a close political ally of Cuban lackey Hugo Chavez.

As we have noted previously, Craig, so if all these ships are close and... things could go bump in the night and then...

So some cooling off is required, if it is desired. The Iranian offer I linked earlier is worth considering. As was the 2003 offer, which the WH wasn't at all interested in.

Dilip Hiro says Time for Reality Check in Iran.

Chris Hedges says Hands Off Iran.

Gordon Prather - It's Still Pakistan, Stupid, looks at a puzzle.

A follow up to the McClellan statement about Plamegate - Robert Parry on a Bush family tradition.

Kerryn, it would be great if the matter was revivified and an Irises, Mark II was justified.

Time to reassess the risk of the stand-off turning into something more violent and dangerous.

Shipping and oil industry sources are saying the US military has stepped up chartering of tankers and requests for extra fuel in the US Central Command area (which includes the Persian Gulf).  Not just any fuel either; there have been increased orders for JP5, the high flashpoint jet fuel used to power F18 fighters.

It's probably just to facilitate another of show-of-power exercise, part of the Bush administration's gunboat / coercive diplomacy strategy, but such exercises do increase the risk of an error by one side or the other triggering a sequence we really don't want to see occur.

The Iranian regime is also acting in ways that increase the risk.  At a press conference in Tehran yesterday, Iranian Navy Commander, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayari, revealed that Iran plans to hold naval exercise in the Sea of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz.

The exercise, named Etehad 86, is scheduled to be held in February. They are apparently designed to test the capacities reinforced by a new Iranian-made submarine that is scheduled to be launched next week.

G'day Angela, at least in some ways good, but as you note the clock does tick along. And more turmoil - the president of Lebanon has resigned.

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Lebanon's political tumult intensified as President Emile Lahoud said the country is in a "state of emergency" and handed security powers to the army before he left office late Friday without a successor. The rival, pro-Western Cabinet rejected the declaration.

Lahoud's final announcement created new confusion in an already unsettled situation, which many Lebanese fear could explode into violence between supporters of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora's Western-backed government and the pro-Syria opposition led by the Shiite militant group Hezbollah.

So, eyes wide open for what develops.

An offer from Iran:

VIENNA, Austria — Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency said Friday that his country could suspend uranium enrichment if the United States and Western Europe agreed to acknowledge that its nuclear program was peaceful.

But Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh said there was a "serious confidence gap" between his country and the United States and Western Europe and that he saw little point in trying to "build confidence" with an American administration that had none in his country.

"We don't trust the United States," he told McClatchy Newspapers after the IAEA Board of Governors finished its latest round of talks on Iran's nuclear program. "We could suspend nuclear enrichment. We did it before for two and half years. But it wasn't enough then, and wouldn't be enough now. We will not suspend enrichment again because there is no end to what the United States will demand."

Diplomats said Soltanieh's remarks reflected what he'd been saying in private. "Iran is willing to deal," one said. "But they've made it clear there would have to be a quid pro quo, and they don't believe that's possible." The diplomats said they couldn't be quoted by name because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Does the CC want to settle it peacefully?

Which is a good segue to your comments on the neocon cabal and pressures. M & W can be debated over specifics - as has been seen from material linked here - but the gist is, imo, correct. But as you note, there is a "right spin" - difficult to break through and even when not the result of direct pressure or design, it is accepted wisdom. And I use the word "wisdom" advisedly. I have had battles with media organisations over their repeating of material as if it were undisputed fact when it is no such thing.

The Israel/Palestine issue needs to be dealt with honestly as it is a key to any chance of calming tensions in the ME. There are other issues but while a grievance such as the I/P one (real or perceived) exists, it can be exploited.

As you mentioned Christianity, Chris Floyd has a piece that I think will be of interest - Praise the Lord and Pass the Ethnic Cleansing.

And also. I feel it's a Floyd kind of day.

And Floyd has now added a piece on the runt's fall. Too late for my other post. Here is the last paragraph:

Yes, John Howard has metaphorically bit the dust in a humiliating electoral defeat. But many thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died because of his lies, and Bush's lies, and Blair's lies (the latter always affirmed and supported by his successor, Gordon Brown). The dust these victims have bitten is not metaphorical -- it is the dirt of the grave. And electoral humiliation is the very least of the punishments that should be heaped upon John Howard and his partners in mass murder.

Come on Kevin, begin the proceedings asap. We can dream.

A couple of articles about the US and its nuclear policy:

Tad Daley - America's Shocking Nuclear Hypocrisy.

Khodi Akhavi - The Nuclear Cowboys. 

On the Iran issue, Leon Hadar - Look Who's Downplaying Iran's Nuclear Threat.

And there is an Israeli-Palestinian summit coming up in Annapolis ... some are working to undermine it.

Uri Avnery thinks it is an unfunny joke.

An interview with Norman Finkelstein.

And back to the core - Ilan Pappe talks about the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. 4 10 minute videos.

So when some people make allegations against others and given their record, there is a word ... Hint: you'll find it in the title of the first link.