Middle-East indicators and warnings point to war against Iran

The Vineyard of the Saker: Middle-East indicators and warnings point to war: The Saker joins more commentators than I could mention in predicting war against Iran. The preparations for war are so broad and deep it almost has an air of inevitability to it. As in a number of his articles, the Saker provides an interesting and original-looking analysis of the situation.

The future cannot be predicted so no one can say for certain. However war is certainly possible, and not unlikely. War, if it does come, would likely be disastrous (and criminal), perhaps catastrophically so. Moreover, the whole world is aware of this situation and of this danger.

In these circumstances what I find most appalling is the near-complete silence of the world's leaders, especially its Western leaders, including virtually the entire government, diplomatic, educational and media establishments.

Say it loud and say it now, as John Pilger virtually on his own has done: The US is the Third Reich of our time, bent on aggression against one country after another. It must not be appeased; it must be contained and deterred. War against Iran must not happen.

God Damn America and all its 'friends' and 'allies' if it and they, in near complete passivity and silence, let this war happen.

If the US attacked Iran, it would be a watershed moment for the 21st Century, even more so than the aggression against Iraq. And we're taking names: of those who protest, and those who don't.

The Vineyard of the Saker: Middle-East indicators and warnings point to war: The Saker joins more commentators than I could mention in predicting war against Iran. The preparations for war are so broad and deep it almost has an air of inevitability to it. As in a number of his articles, the Saker provides an interesting and original-looking analysis of the situation.

The future cannot be predicted so no one can say for certain. However war is certainly possible, and not unlikely. War, if it does come, would likely be disastrous (and criminal), perhaps catastrophically so. Moreover, the whole world is aware of this situation and of this danger.

In these circumstances what I find most appalling is the near-complete silence of the world's leaders, especially its Western leaders, including virtually the entire government, diplomatic, educational and media establishments.

Say it loud and say it now, as John Pilger virtually on his own has done: The US is the Third Reich of our time, bent on aggression against one country after another. It must not be appeased; it must be contained and deterred. War against Iran must not happen.

God Damn America and all its 'friends' and 'allies' if it and they, in near complete passivity and silence, let this war happen.

If the US attacked Iran, it would be a watershed moment for the 21st Century, even more so than the aggression against Iraq. And we're taking names: of those who protest, and those who don't.

Middle-East indicators and warnings point to war against Iran

MidEast Proconsul Fallon Out

Centcom Commander Admiral William Fallon has "resigned", after less than a year in the job.

Fallon was responsible for the rather remarkable comments last year that

an attack on Iran “will not happen on my watch”.

Asked how he could be sure, the source says, Fallon replied, “You know what choices I have. I’m a professional.” Fallon said that he was not alone, according to the source, adding, “There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box.”

One would think that such statements would greatly anger Bush and especially Cheney and it's a wonder he lasted as long as he did. After all, he doesn't really have the option of crossing the Rubicon, does he?

A recent interview with Esquire magazine seems to have sealed his fate, or, according to another version, was a pre-emptive strike by Fallon: get in another shot at the 'crazies' before he is inevitably fired.

The Esquire article also helps to make clear what a powerful position, a true Proconcul, the Centcom Commander is. Not only is he running two major wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) he is also conducting diplomacy at the highest level, with the heads of State and Government of strategically crucial countries like Pakistan and Egypt. This annoyed the Whitehouse, but if they install a sycophant or cripple the Commander's powers it can only lead to increased risk of bad policy.

Naturally this will lead to a renewed bout of speculation as to whether Bush/Cheney plan to attack Iran before the year is out, eg here, here, here and here.

As John Pilger pointed out prior to the Iraq invasion, the US is the Third Reich of our time: a superpower bent on Imperialism and military aggression against one country after another, which we to our lasting disgrace are not only appeasing but assisting. The world regards the US (quite correctly) as the greatest threat to world peace.

The only effective barriers to further aggression have been financial bankruptcy and military defeat. According to Seymour Hersh, had the war against Iraq been a success as planned, the US would already have gone 'left and right', ie Syria then Iran.

In other words, one million Iraqi people had to pay with their lives to save Syria and Iran from aggression, while the rest of the world merely looked on, or in some cases such as Australia's Howard Government, actually participated in the crime.

However there are two other sources of inhibition to US aggression which need to be mobilised: the US domestic population; and the global population. Our responsibility as world citizens is to oppose the barbarism of military aggression and its attendant warcrimes, crimes against humanity, atrocities, tortures, genocides etc - and to force our governments, specifically the new Australian Federal Labor Rudd Government, to also join in a policy of opposition and containment, instead of appeasement and participation.

Centcom Commander Admiral William Fallon has "resigned", after less than a year in the job.

Fallon was responsible for the rather remarkable comments last year that

an attack on Iran “will not happen on my watch”.

Asked how he could be sure, the source says, Fallon replied, “You know what choices I have. I’m a professional.” Fallon said that he was not alone, according to the source, adding, “There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box.”

One would think that such statements would greatly anger Bush and especially Cheney and it's a wonder he lasted as long as he did. After all, he doesn't really have the option of crossing the Rubicon, does he?

A recent interview with Esquire magazine seems to have sealed his fate, or, according to another version, was a pre-emptive strike by Fallon: get in another shot at the 'crazies' before he is inevitably fired.

The Esquire article also helps to make clear what a powerful position, a true Proconcul, the Centcom Commander is. Not only is he running two major wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) he is also conducting diplomacy at the highest level, with the heads of State and Government of strategically crucial countries like Pakistan and Egypt. This annoyed the Whitehouse, but if they install a sycophant or cripple the Commander's powers it can only lead to increased risk of bad policy.

Naturally this will lead to a renewed bout of speculation as to whether Bush/Cheney plan to attack Iran before the year is out, eg here, here, here and here.

As John Pilger pointed out prior to the Iraq invasion, the US is the Third Reich of our time: a superpower bent on Imperialism and military aggression against one country after another, which we to our lasting disgrace are not only appeasing but assisting. The world regards the US (quite correctly) as the greatest threat to world peace.

The only effective barriers to further aggression have been financial bankruptcy and military defeat. According to Seymour Hersh, had the war against Iraq been a success as planned, the US would already have gone 'left and right', ie Syria then Iran.

In other words, one million Iraqi people had to pay with their lives to save Syria and Iran from aggression, while the rest of the world merely looked on, or in some cases such as Australia's Howard Government, actually participated in the crime.

However there are two other sources of inhibition to US aggression which need to be mobilised: the US domestic population; and the global population. Our responsibility as world citizens is to oppose the barbarism of military aggression and its attendant warcrimes, crimes against humanity, atrocities, tortures, genocides etc - and to force our governments, specifically the new Australian Federal Labor Rudd Government, to also join in a policy of opposition and containment, instead of appeasement and participation.

MidEast Proconsul Fallon Out

Will Cheney Attack Iran?

Neverending game of speculation:

There is a race currently underway between different flanks of the administration to determine the future course of US-Iran policy.

On one flank are the diplomats, and on the other is Vice President Cheney's team and acolytes -- who populate quite a wide swath throughout the American national security bureaucracy.

The Pentagon and the intelligence establishment are providing support to add muscle and nuance to the diplomatic effort led by Condi Rice, her deputy John Negroponte, Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, and Legal Adviser John Bellinger. The support that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and CIA Director Michael Hayden are providing Rice's efforts are a complete, 180 degree contrast to the dysfunction that characterized relations between these institutions before the recent reshuffle of top personnel....

This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.

The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).

Militarism in Israel is practically out of control, as it is in the US, but, especially after the Lebanon debacle, one has to wonder whether even the Israelis would be up for this craziness.

This strategy would sidestep controversies over bomber aircraft and overflight rights over other Middle East nations and could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf -- which just became significantly larger -- as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war.

Commenters chip in:

I'm not sure what to think. I've believed Cheney & Co. were determined to attack Iran for a long time. I expected it last October, and again this spring. They probably still do want to attack Iran, but the forces arrayed against them are organised and growing.

First, China has demonstrated that it could knock out all our military navigation and communication satellites in a number of hours. Ever since January you might have noticed that admirals and generals are a lot less keen on a war. Our ships would be blind sitting ducks. Our most advanced weapons systems would be useless.

Second, Saudi Arabia has got all stroppy and started cutting deals behind our backs in the Middle East, with China, with India and with Europe. Bush's buddies in Saudi now say that their marriage to America is Catholic - so no divorce - but because they are Muslim they can take another, younger wife - China. 75 percent of Gulf oil exports go to Asia.

Third, Europe has gotten real confusing for Bush. He doesn't know any of the new players. He hates what he does know about Gordon Brown, who will replace Blair within weeks. He can't count on anyone white to give him cover of legitmacy this time around.

Fourth, Russia is much more powerful and agile now than it was five years ago. Five years ago Russia watched us storm into Iraq and did nothing. Russia will allow us to storm into Iran, and then they will do to us what we did to them in Afghanistan. Now that they know it was Robert Gates who suckered them into the briar patch and then financed and armed Al Qaeda to destroy the Soviet military, they will be keen to return the favour.

Fifth, Iran has been more reasonable and very effective at diplomacy in the region and in Asia and Europe lately. That and it has the best value-for-money military on the planet (about $91 per capita), having prepared for defensive operations ever since we instigated Saddam's invasion of Khuzestan (90 percent of Iran's oil reserves). The proxy war in Lebanon last year was meant to prove the model for massive attacks on civilian infrastructure to destabilise response, and then combined air superiority with limited ground occupation to hold Khuzestan. It failed there and will fail in Iran. We won't hold Khuzestan long enough or peacefully enough to get any oil out, no matter how many millions of cluster bombs we drop on the surrounding mountains.

If the USA attacks Iran it will not only be the end of US hegemony in the world, it will probably be the end of the US as free and wealthy nation. I would expect economic collapse, dictatorship and civil war within 10 years. With the Bushies thrown off their game plan of one party rule by rigged voting machines, a politicised Justice Department and crony courts, few Republicans have the stomach for the aggressive march toward dictatorship that an open grab for power requires. Most GOP officials are inclined to skulk in the darkness and start plotting again rather than press ahead with the full PNAC plan for global domination.

There's a rumour going around Washington that Cheney has been a client of the notorious DC Madam:

"Apparently, there are rumors coming out of Washington that Vice President Dick Cheney, when he was the CEO of Halliburton, used to go visit prostitutes. This could explain why one girl was paid two billion dollars. I mean, I was thinking about this and Cheney ... I mean, going to a prostitute, that's ... I mean, I can't believe a good-looking guy like that would ever have to pay for sex, you know what I'm saying?"

Wonkette explained why its staffers were "underwhelmed by this rumor."

"Because even if it’s a fact, which it probably is, there’s no way it would have any impact on Cheney’s 'career,'" Wonkette continued. "This is a draft-dodging half-human war criminal [whose ratings are in the toilet where they started from] with a pregnant lesbian daughter who tells senators to fuck themselves and shoots his own friends in the face. Ordering an outcall hooker is positively innocent compared to the well-known things Cheney does every day."

Again:

"The White House must either shut Cheney and his team down . . . or expect some to begin to think that Bush has no control over his Vice President."

Gee, what would give them THAT idea?

Fortunately, while Bush doesn't control Cheney, Cheney doesn't control the Pentagon any more through his fellow Sith Lord, Donald Rumfeld.

If Gates is on board with the realist strategy -- and he practicaly defines the type -- then Cheney would appear to be checkmated. The Vice President's office has no constitutional authority whatsoever over any of the cabinet departments. Sure, he can continue to plot with the AEI and tie the NSC up in knots. But he can't start a war, not without the Dauphin's signature. And, with luck, Condi and company are in a position to keep that from happening.

The fatuous and sycophantic Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer chips into the debate with the following:

the Prime Minister of Australia's decision on American soil immediately after September 11th ... invoked our defense alliance with the United States in effect to declare war on the terrorists that had attacked our friend and our ally.

So we invaded Iraq? It was Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda that attacked America on 9/11, not Saddam Hussein and Iraq. It's hard to find the words to express enough contempt for policy and public statements that are such transparent lies and manipulations. It's a time of lying, and a time of crimes, open and in your face, grinding on and on until these people are finally called to account. Downer again:

We believe that purposeful, determined, committed American leadership is equally indispensable to the peace and prosperity of the entire world. For us in Australia, these judgments are clear. There is a moral clarity about them. We fundamentally believe that the United States is a force for good in the world.

The attack on Iraq was an unprovoked act of aggression ('the supreme crime of aggressive war') accompanied by 'state-sponsored lies reminiscent of the worst regimes of the 20th Century'. It has destroyed the country in an incredible way, killing 650,000 people (heading towards one million) and creating four million refugees. And this is called 'good'.

But imperialism aint what it used to be. Last time we invaded a Muslim middle east nation 8,000 Australians were killed in the space of a few months, when the population was much smaller than it is now. Howard and Downer know that the public wouldn't stand for anything like such casualties today. In fact, the 'troops' are protected from harm, suffering virtually nil casualties, and are nothing more than a photo opportunity and political prop for a Prime Minister and a Government that loves the idea of a 'war leader'. A war hero without the deaths and casualties - you have to admit the 'tricky' John 'W' Howard has got one over Bush and Blair here.

Neverending game of speculation:

There is a race currently underway between different flanks of the administration to determine the future course of US-Iran policy.

On one flank are the diplomats, and on the other is Vice President Cheney's team and acolytes -- who populate quite a wide swath throughout the American national security bureaucracy.

The Pentagon and the intelligence establishment are providing support to add muscle and nuance to the diplomatic effort led by Condi Rice, her deputy John Negroponte, Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, and Legal Adviser John Bellinger. The support that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and CIA Director Michael Hayden are providing Rice's efforts are a complete, 180 degree contrast to the dysfunction that characterized relations between these institutions before the recent reshuffle of top personnel....

This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.

The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).

Militarism in Israel is practically out of control, as it is in the US, but, especially after the Lebanon debacle, one has to wonder whether even the Israelis would be up for this craziness.

This strategy would sidestep controversies over bomber aircraft and overflight rights over other Middle East nations and could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf -- which just became significantly larger -- as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war.

Commenters chip in:

I'm not sure what to think. I've believed Cheney & Co. were determined to attack Iran for a long time. I expected it last October, and again this spring. They probably still do want to attack Iran, but the forces arrayed against them are organised and growing.

First, China has demonstrated that it could knock out all our military navigation and communication satellites in a number of hours. Ever since January you might have noticed that admirals and generals are a lot less keen on a war. Our ships would be blind sitting ducks. Our most advanced weapons systems would be useless.

Second, Saudi Arabia has got all stroppy and started cutting deals behind our backs in the Middle East, with China, with India and with Europe. Bush's buddies in Saudi now say that their marriage to America is Catholic - so no divorce - but because they are Muslim they can take another, younger wife - China. 75 percent of Gulf oil exports go to Asia.

Third, Europe has gotten real confusing for Bush. He doesn't know any of the new players. He hates what he does know about Gordon Brown, who will replace Blair within weeks. He can't count on anyone white to give him cover of legitmacy this time around.

Fourth, Russia is much more powerful and agile now than it was five years ago. Five years ago Russia watched us storm into Iraq and did nothing. Russia will allow us to storm into Iran, and then they will do to us what we did to them in Afghanistan. Now that they know it was Robert Gates who suckered them into the briar patch and then financed and armed Al Qaeda to destroy the Soviet military, they will be keen to return the favour.

Fifth, Iran has been more reasonable and very effective at diplomacy in the region and in Asia and Europe lately. That and it has the best value-for-money military on the planet (about $91 per capita), having prepared for defensive operations ever since we instigated Saddam's invasion of Khuzestan (90 percent of Iran's oil reserves). The proxy war in Lebanon last year was meant to prove the model for massive attacks on civilian infrastructure to destabilise response, and then combined air superiority with limited ground occupation to hold Khuzestan. It failed there and will fail in Iran. We won't hold Khuzestan long enough or peacefully enough to get any oil out, no matter how many millions of cluster bombs we drop on the surrounding mountains.

If the USA attacks Iran it will not only be the end of US hegemony in the world, it will probably be the end of the US as free and wealthy nation. I would expect economic collapse, dictatorship and civil war within 10 years. With the Bushies thrown off their game plan of one party rule by rigged voting machines, a politicised Justice Department and crony courts, few Republicans have the stomach for the aggressive march toward dictatorship that an open grab for power requires. Most GOP officials are inclined to skulk in the darkness and start plotting again rather than press ahead with the full PNAC plan for global domination.

There's a rumour going around Washington that Cheney has been a client of the notorious DC Madam:

"Apparently, there are rumors coming out of Washington that Vice President Dick Cheney, when he was the CEO of Halliburton, used to go visit prostitutes. This could explain why one girl was paid two billion dollars. I mean, I was thinking about this and Cheney ... I mean, going to a prostitute, that's ... I mean, I can't believe a good-looking guy like that would ever have to pay for sex, you know what I'm saying?"

Wonkette explained why its staffers were "underwhelmed by this rumor."

"Because even if it’s a fact, which it probably is, there’s no way it would have any impact on Cheney’s 'career,'" Wonkette continued. "This is a draft-dodging half-human war criminal [whose ratings are in the toilet where they started from] with a pregnant lesbian daughter who tells senators to fuck themselves and shoots his own friends in the face. Ordering an outcall hooker is positively innocent compared to the well-known things Cheney does every day."

Again:

"The White House must either shut Cheney and his team down . . . or expect some to begin to think that Bush has no control over his Vice President."

Gee, what would give them THAT idea?

Fortunately, while Bush doesn't control Cheney, Cheney doesn't control the Pentagon any more through his fellow Sith Lord, Donald Rumfeld.

If Gates is on board with the realist strategy -- and he practicaly defines the type -- then Cheney would appear to be checkmated. The Vice President's office has no constitutional authority whatsoever over any of the cabinet departments. Sure, he can continue to plot with the AEI and tie the NSC up in knots. But he can't start a war, not without the Dauphin's signature. And, with luck, Condi and company are in a position to keep that from happening.

The fatuous and sycophantic Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer chips into the debate with the following:

the Prime Minister of Australia's decision on American soil immediately after September 11th ... invoked our defense alliance with the United States in effect to declare war on the terrorists that had attacked our friend and our ally.

So we invaded Iraq? It was Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda that attacked America on 9/11, not Saddam Hussein and Iraq. It's hard to find the words to express enough contempt for policy and public statements that are such transparent lies and manipulations. It's a time of lying, and a time of crimes, open and in your face, grinding on and on until these people are finally called to account. Downer again:

We believe that purposeful, determined, committed American leadership is equally indispensable to the peace and prosperity of the entire world. For us in Australia, these judgments are clear. There is a moral clarity about them. We fundamentally believe that the United States is a force for good in the world.

The attack on Iraq was an unprovoked act of aggression ('the supreme crime of aggressive war') accompanied by 'state-sponsored lies reminiscent of the worst regimes of the 20th Century'. It has destroyed the country in an incredible way, killing 650,000 people (heading towards one million) and creating four million refugees. And this is called 'good'.

But imperialism aint what it used to be. Last time we invaded a Muslim middle east nation 8,000 Australians were killed in the space of a few months, when the population was much smaller than it is now. Howard and Downer know that the public wouldn't stand for anything like such casualties today. In fact, the 'troops' are protected from harm, suffering virtually nil casualties, and are nothing more than a photo opportunity and political prop for a Prime Minister and a Government that loves the idea of a 'war leader'. A war hero without the deaths and casualties - you have to admit the 'tricky' John 'W' Howard has got one over Bush and Blair here.

Will Cheney Attack Iran?

BUSH ADMINISTRATION GUILTY OF STRATEGIC "MALPRACTICE" ON IRAN - EXPERT

Interview with Flynt Everett, former member of the National Security Council:

We [US] haven’t been hit because the Jihadists themselves have decided that, at this point in their strategy, they don’t think it is advantageous for them to strike at the United States. They would rather focus on going after our allies in the region and in Europe, and then they would come back at us. I think we are not really doing well in the war on terror.

EurasiaNet: What you just said about Jihadist strategy, is it speculation, or is your opinion based on hard intelligence?
Leverett: No, this is the internet age. All kinds of documents… are available on the internet and other places. This is a major theme of the Jihadist discourse -- that they don’t want to go after the United States right now.

This is a rare reference to 'jihadist discourse', in spite of its obvious importance. I'm an Australian, I'm a citizen, I'm a target of these murderous extremists. What is the level of risk that I currently face? I deserve to know. Does the media, academia, the defence force, the intelligence agencies, the parliament, the government, have any assessment about these matters? Do they even read 'jihadist discourse'?

At this point I am guessing, but perhaps the failure of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq is in effect serving to increase the security of persons such as myself. The humiliation of the United States in Iraq, combined with the target-rich environment in Iraq of US personnel may be sufficient to satisfy the jihadist impulse for revenge for the time being.

Certainly it is obvious that the aggression against Iraq has only increased the risk of attack against Western targets.

I think this administration is dysfunctional in some unique ways. There can be splits in any administration; it certainly isn’t unique to this one. But the level of division within this administration is more profound, and what’s more, there isn’t any real inclination to resolve the divisions to produce coherent policy.

Everett is here referring to the fundamental characteristic of the Bush Administration, its capture by Cheney and the neoconservatives. They are a driving force who attempt to cut off options for Bush who appears to be a complete tool (unfortunately, as his weeping father might feel).

I think the grand bargain is the only way to forestall Iran’s nuclearization. Given the potential consequences of Iranian nuclearization, why should the United States not do that? It is so manifestly in our interest to do it that not doing it is the strategic equivalent of medical malpractice. It is a real failure of leadership by the United States.

Everett is suggesting (same as the ISG) that negotiations and concessions to Iran could produce satisfactory results for the US. But again Cheney is working day and night to block that option. Instead of diplomacy, softpower and hegemony, Cheney and the neocons' concept of empire is brute force. People are either under attack or under threat of attack. You never 'negotiate with enemies'. This is a frankly stupid and disastrous concept of power and empire. But the neocons are relatively inexperienced in the game and perhaps could hardly be expected to be other than foolish and hubristic. Let's hope China and India have greater wisdom as they gain the power in the 21st Century.

I agree that a military strike by the United States is a bad idea. But at some point, probably in the next 12 months, the president’s current efforts in the Security Council will have played out. What we would get out of UN is certainly not going to be enough to leverage the Iranians to stop their nuclear program. At that point, this president would face a very stark, binary choice. He could either stand by and let Iran continue to cross significant thresholds in the development of its nuclear capability, or he could order military strikes to try to delay that development. I think that, with this president, when he is faced with that choice, the chances that he might take the military option are not trivial. It is a real risk. It is not going to happen tomorrow, or next week. We would be still working on the diplomatic route. But a year or so from now when the diplomacy has failed, the risks of a military strike are not trivial.

Everett is making the argument better than nearly anyone that Cheney and the neocons are and have been systematically cutting off the tool/fool Bush's options in favour of war and thus it becomes a possibility in spite of the fact that war with Iran is almost universally regarded as more disastrous than the failed and disastrous Iraq war.

Interview with Flynt Everett, former member of the National Security Council:

We [US] haven’t been hit because the Jihadists themselves have decided that, at this point in their strategy, they don’t think it is advantageous for them to strike at the United States. They would rather focus on going after our allies in the region and in Europe, and then they would come back at us. I think we are not really doing well in the war on terror.

EurasiaNet: What you just said about Jihadist strategy, is it speculation, or is your opinion based on hard intelligence?
Leverett: No, this is the internet age. All kinds of documents… are available on the internet and other places. This is a major theme of the Jihadist discourse -- that they don’t want to go after the United States right now.

This is a rare reference to 'jihadist discourse', in spite of its obvious importance. I'm an Australian, I'm a citizen, I'm a target of these murderous extremists. What is the level of risk that I currently face? I deserve to know. Does the media, academia, the defence force, the intelligence agencies, the parliament, the government, have any assessment about these matters? Do they even read 'jihadist discourse'?

At this point I am guessing, but perhaps the failure of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq is in effect serving to increase the security of persons such as myself. The humiliation of the United States in Iraq, combined with the target-rich environment in Iraq of US personnel may be sufficient to satisfy the jihadist impulse for revenge for the time being.

Certainly it is obvious that the aggression against Iraq has only increased the risk of attack against Western targets.

I think this administration is dysfunctional in some unique ways. There can be splits in any administration; it certainly isn’t unique to this one. But the level of division within this administration is more profound, and what’s more, there isn’t any real inclination to resolve the divisions to produce coherent policy.

Everett is here referring to the fundamental characteristic of the Bush Administration, its capture by Cheney and the neoconservatives. They are a driving force who attempt to cut off options for Bush who appears to be a complete tool (unfortunately, as his weeping father might feel).

I think the grand bargain is the only way to forestall Iran’s nuclearization. Given the potential consequences of Iranian nuclearization, why should the United States not do that? It is so manifestly in our interest to do it that not doing it is the strategic equivalent of medical malpractice. It is a real failure of leadership by the United States.

Everett is suggesting (same as the ISG) that negotiations and concessions to Iran could produce satisfactory results for the US. But again Cheney is working day and night to block that option. Instead of diplomacy, softpower and hegemony, Cheney and the neocons' concept of empire is brute force. People are either under attack or under threat of attack. You never 'negotiate with enemies'. This is a frankly stupid and disastrous concept of power and empire. But the neocons are relatively inexperienced in the game and perhaps could hardly be expected to be other than foolish and hubristic. Let's hope China and India have greater wisdom as they gain the power in the 21st Century.

I agree that a military strike by the United States is a bad idea. But at some point, probably in the next 12 months, the president’s current efforts in the Security Council will have played out. What we would get out of UN is certainly not going to be enough to leverage the Iranians to stop their nuclear program. At that point, this president would face a very stark, binary choice. He could either stand by and let Iran continue to cross significant thresholds in the development of its nuclear capability, or he could order military strikes to try to delay that development. I think that, with this president, when he is faced with that choice, the chances that he might take the military option are not trivial. It is a real risk. It is not going to happen tomorrow, or next week. We would be still working on the diplomatic route. But a year or so from now when the diplomacy has failed, the risks of a military strike are not trivial.

Everett is making the argument better than nearly anyone that Cheney and the neocons are and have been systematically cutting off the tool/fool Bush's options in favour of war and thus it becomes a possibility in spite of the fact that war with Iran is almost universally regarded as more disastrous than the failed and disastrous Iraq war.

BUSH ADMINISTRATION GUILTY OF STRATEGIC "MALPRACTICE" ON IRAN - EXPERT

North Korea detonates nuclear device: This is an outrage! - President Bush will have to respond forcefully, probably by attacking Iran. After all, he attacked Iraq when Bin Ladin struck from Afghanistan, didn't he?

North Korea detonates nuclear device: This is an outrage! - President Bush will have to respond forcefully, probably by attacking Iran. After all, he attacked Iraq when Bin Ladin struck from Afghanistan, didn't he?

Public Daily Briefing: Bush-Cheney Determined to Strike in Iran

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bush-Cheney since they came to power have wanted to conduct attacks in Iran.

We are picking up immense amounts of chatter about a possible war against Iran. All the lights are blinking red.

As Col. Sam Gardiner has been quoted: "When I discuss the possibility of an American military strike on Iran with my European friends, they invariably point out that an armed confrontation does not make sense -- that it would be unlikely to yield any of the results that American policymakers do want, and that it would be highly likely to yield results that they do not. I tell them they cannot understand U.S. policy if they insist on passing options through that filter. The "making sense" filter was not applied over the past four years for Iraq, and it is unlikely to be applied in evaluating whether to attack Iran."

Dave Lindorff: Report on strike group heading for the Gulf (21/9/6)

Time: What War with Iran would look like (17/9/6)

Col. Sam Gardiner: ASSESSING U.S. MILITARY OPTIONS ON IRAN (Sept 06)

Billmon: War with Iran could be just the beginning. (21/9/6)

Lindorff: Bush and Iran - 26/9/6

SusanUnPC: October Surprise? (22/9/6)

Raw Story: Senior Pentagon Planning moves to second stage for Iran strike

Chris Hedges: Bush’s Nuclear Apocalypse

Chossudovsky: War Preparations in the Middle East and Central Asia: Good on basic analysis and the citizen's duty in this crisis.

Moves toward War with Iran: William Polk rates an attack on Iran as a 90% chance before the end of Bush's term. He quotes one source as saying that "conversations with senior officials in the Pentagon and the White House had convinced him that the decision for war had already been made." No one supports the attack, not even the British. (Little Johnny Howard isnt mentioned.)

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bush-Cheney since they came to power have wanted to conduct attacks in Iran.

We are picking up immense amounts of chatter about a possible war against Iran. All the lights are blinking red.

As Col. Sam Gardiner has been quoted: "When I discuss the possibility of an American military strike on Iran with my European friends, they invariably point out that an armed confrontation does not make sense -- that it would be unlikely to yield any of the results that American policymakers do want, and that it would be highly likely to yield results that they do not. I tell them they cannot understand U.S. policy if they insist on passing options through that filter. The "making sense" filter was not applied over the past four years for Iraq, and it is unlikely to be applied in evaluating whether to attack Iran."

Dave Lindorff: Report on strike group heading for the Gulf (21/9/6)

Time: What War with Iran would look like (17/9/6)

Col. Sam Gardiner: ASSESSING U.S. MILITARY OPTIONS ON IRAN (Sept 06)

Billmon: War with Iran could be just the beginning. (21/9/6)

Lindorff: Bush and Iran - 26/9/6

SusanUnPC: October Surprise? (22/9/6)

Raw Story: Senior Pentagon Planning moves to second stage for Iran strike

Chris Hedges: Bush’s Nuclear Apocalypse

Chossudovsky: War Preparations in the Middle East and Central Asia: Good on basic analysis and the citizen's duty in this crisis.

Moves toward War with Iran: William Polk rates an attack on Iran as a 90% chance before the end of Bush's term. He quotes one source as saying that "conversations with senior officials in the Pentagon and the White House had convinced him that the decision for war had already been made." No one supports the attack, not even the British. (Little Johnny Howard isnt mentioned.)

Public Daily Briefing: Bush-Cheney Determined to Strike in Iran

Iranian President Ahmadinejad did not say the Holocaust was a myth or call for the annihilation of Israel: Mistranslations have been repeatedly circulated in the corporate media, obviously in order to raise the possibility of war with Iran. Its remarkable the extent to which this propaganda is circulated and the complacency with which it is regarded. Most sane people agree that a war on Iran would be a bigger disaster than the Iraq war.

However, former CIA analyst Ray Close makes an argument that in spite of the obvious and great dangers, Bush will be driven to attack Iran before the end of his term.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad did not say the Holocaust was a myth or call for the annihilation of Israel: Mistranslations have been repeatedly circulated in the corporate media, obviously in order to raise the possibility of war with Iran. Its remarkable the extent to which this propaganda is circulated and the complacency with which it is regarded. Most sane people agree that a war on Iran would be a bigger disaster than the Iraq war.

However, former CIA analyst Ray Close makes an argument that in spite of the obvious and great dangers, Bush will be driven to attack Iran before the end of his term.

Iranian President Opens Up: Interview is almost as interesting for the foolish performance of Mike Wallace as it is for the Iranian President's comments.

Iranian President Opens Up: Interview is almost as interesting for the foolish performance of Mike Wallace as it is for the Iranian President's comments.

Noam Chomsky on the Lebanon war: "The 'real issue' that is being ignored is the systematic destruction of any prospects for a viable Palestinian existence as Israel annexes valuable land and major resources (water particularly), leaving the shrinking territories assigned to Palestinians as unviable cantons, largely separated from one another and from whatever little bit of Jerusalem is to be left to Palestinians, and completely imprisoned as Israel takes over the Jordan valley (and of course controls air space, etc.)."

"The paired events, a day apart, demonstrate with bitter clarity that the show of outrage over the Shalit kidnapping was cynical fraud. They reveal that by Western moral standards, kidnapping of civilians is just fine if it is done by "our side," but capture of a soldier on "our side" a day later is a despicable crime that requires severe punishment of the population. As Gideon Levy accurately wrote in Ha'aretz, the IDF kidnapping of civilians the day before the capture of Cpl. Shalit strips away any "legitimate basis for the IDF's operation," and, we may add, any legitimate basis for support for these operations."

These juxtapositions are characteristic points, but who can deny the validity of them? More Chomsky:

"Virtually all informed observers agree that a fair and equitable resolution of the plight of the Palestinians would considerably weaken the anger and hatred towards Israel and the US in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Such an agreement is surely within reach, if the US and Israel depart from their long-standing rejectionism. Before they were called off prematurely by Ehud Barak, the Taba negotiations of January 2001 were coming close to a viable settlement, carried forward by subseqnent negotiations, most prominently the Geneva Accord released on December 2002, which received strong international support but was dismissed by the US and rejected by Israel. One can raise various criticisms of these proposals, but they are at least a basis, perhaps a solid basis, for progress towards peaceful settlement ­ if the US and Israel sharply reverse their rejectionist policies."

A political settlement of the Arab-Israeli is still possible, along the lines of the two state solution. But, tragically, Israel appears committed to attempting to wipe this solution out, and annex as much land as possible. This unreconstructed expansionist Zionism will likely ruin the State of Israel in the end.

"In 2003, Iran offered to negotiate all outstanding issues with the US, including nuclear issues and a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The offer was made by the moderate Khatami government, with the support of the hard-line "supreme leader" Ayatollah Khamenei. The Bush administration response was to censure the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer.

"In June 2006, Khamenei issued an official declaration stating that Iran agrees with the Arab countries on the issue of Palestine, meaning that it accepts the 2002 Arab League call for full normalization of relations with Israel in a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus. The timing suggests that this might have been a reprimand to his subordinate Ahmadenijad, whose inflammatory statements are given wide publicity in the West, unlike the far more important declaration by his superior Khamenei. Just a few days ago, former Iranian diplomat Saddagh Kharazzi "reaffirmed that Iran would back a two-state solution if the Palestinians accepted" (Financial Times, July 26, 2006). Of course, the PLO has officially backed a two-state solution for many years, and backed the 2002 Arab League proposal. Hamas has also indicated its willingness to negotiate a two-state settlement, as is surely well-known in Israel. Kharazzi is reported to be the author of the 2003 proposal of Khatami and Khamanei.

"The US and Israel do not want to hear any of this. They prefer to hear that Iran "is sworn to the destruction of the Jewish state" (Jerusalem correspondent Charles Radin, Boston Globe, 2 August), the standard and more convenient story.

"They also do not want to hear that Iran appears to be the only country to have accepted the proposal by IAEA director Mohammed ElBaradei that all weapons-usable fissile materials be placed under international control, a step towards a verifiable Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty (FMCT), as mandated by the UN General Assembly in 1993. ElBaradei's proposal, if implemented, would not only end the Iranian nuclear crisis but would also deal with a vastly more serious crisis: the growing threat of nuclear war, which leads prominent strategic analysts to warn of "apocalypse soon" (Robert McNamara) if policies continue on their current course."

"The US and Israel are stirring up popular forces that are very ominous, and which will only gain in power and become more extremist if the US and Israel persist in demolishing any hope of realization of Palestinian national rights, and destroying Lebanon. It should also be recognized that Washington's primary concern, as in the past, is not Israel and Lebanon, but the vast energy resources of the Middle East, recognized 60 years ago to be a "stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the greatest material prizes in world history." We can expect, with confidence, that the US will continue to do what it can to control this unparalleled source of strategic power."

As they say, go read the whole thing. This is a particularly good interview. Chomsky has always been very strong on Israel. What a pity Israelis and jews generally seem to take no notice.

Noam Chomsky on the Lebanon war: "The 'real issue' that is being ignored is the systematic destruction of any prospects for a viable Palestinian existence as Israel annexes valuable land and major resources (water particularly), leaving the shrinking territories assigned to Palestinians as unviable cantons, largely separated from one another and from whatever little bit of Jerusalem is to be left to Palestinians, and completely imprisoned as Israel takes over the Jordan valley (and of course controls air space, etc.)."

"The paired events, a day apart, demonstrate with bitter clarity that the show of outrage over the Shalit kidnapping was cynical fraud. They reveal that by Western moral standards, kidnapping of civilians is just fine if it is done by "our side," but capture of a soldier on "our side" a day later is a despicable crime that requires severe punishment of the population. As Gideon Levy accurately wrote in Ha'aretz, the IDF kidnapping of civilians the day before the capture of Cpl. Shalit strips away any "legitimate basis for the IDF's operation," and, we may add, any legitimate basis for support for these operations."

These juxtapositions are characteristic points, but who can deny the validity of them? More Chomsky:

"Virtually all informed observers agree that a fair and equitable resolution of the plight of the Palestinians would considerably weaken the anger and hatred towards Israel and the US in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Such an agreement is surely within reach, if the US and Israel depart from their long-standing rejectionism. Before they were called off prematurely by Ehud Barak, the Taba negotiations of January 2001 were coming close to a viable settlement, carried forward by subseqnent negotiations, most prominently the Geneva Accord released on December 2002, which received strong international support but was dismissed by the US and rejected by Israel. One can raise various criticisms of these proposals, but they are at least a basis, perhaps a solid basis, for progress towards peaceful settlement ­ if the US and Israel sharply reverse their rejectionist policies."

A political settlement of the Arab-Israeli is still possible, along the lines of the two state solution. But, tragically, Israel appears committed to attempting to wipe this solution out, and annex as much land as possible. This unreconstructed expansionist Zionism will likely ruin the State of Israel in the end.

"In 2003, Iran offered to negotiate all outstanding issues with the US, including nuclear issues and a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The offer was made by the moderate Khatami government, with the support of the hard-line "supreme leader" Ayatollah Khamenei. The Bush administration response was to censure the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer.

"In June 2006, Khamenei issued an official declaration stating that Iran agrees with the Arab countries on the issue of Palestine, meaning that it accepts the 2002 Arab League call for full normalization of relations with Israel in a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus. The timing suggests that this might have been a reprimand to his subordinate Ahmadenijad, whose inflammatory statements are given wide publicity in the West, unlike the far more important declaration by his superior Khamenei. Just a few days ago, former Iranian diplomat Saddagh Kharazzi "reaffirmed that Iran would back a two-state solution if the Palestinians accepted" (Financial Times, July 26, 2006). Of course, the PLO has officially backed a two-state solution for many years, and backed the 2002 Arab League proposal. Hamas has also indicated its willingness to negotiate a two-state settlement, as is surely well-known in Israel. Kharazzi is reported to be the author of the 2003 proposal of Khatami and Khamanei.

"The US and Israel do not want to hear any of this. They prefer to hear that Iran "is sworn to the destruction of the Jewish state" (Jerusalem correspondent Charles Radin, Boston Globe, 2 August), the standard and more convenient story.

"They also do not want to hear that Iran appears to be the only country to have accepted the proposal by IAEA director Mohammed ElBaradei that all weapons-usable fissile materials be placed under international control, a step towards a verifiable Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty (FMCT), as mandated by the UN General Assembly in 1993. ElBaradei's proposal, if implemented, would not only end the Iranian nuclear crisis but would also deal with a vastly more serious crisis: the growing threat of nuclear war, which leads prominent strategic analysts to warn of "apocalypse soon" (Robert McNamara) if policies continue on their current course."

"The US and Israel are stirring up popular forces that are very ominous, and which will only gain in power and become more extremist if the US and Israel persist in demolishing any hope of realization of Palestinian national rights, and destroying Lebanon. It should also be recognized that Washington's primary concern, as in the past, is not Israel and Lebanon, but the vast energy resources of the Middle East, recognized 60 years ago to be a "stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the greatest material prizes in world history." We can expect, with confidence, that the US will continue to do what it can to control this unparalleled source of strategic power."

As they say, go read the whole thing. This is a particularly good interview. Chomsky has always been very strong on Israel. What a pity Israelis and jews generally seem to take no notice.