American Hegemony: India and Iran in the New World Order

Updated November 24 & 25 below.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lord Acton once implored us to remember a simple mantra:

Where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Since its inception, American foreign policy has essentially been to expand the sphere of American dominance at whatever cost is necessary. It began with simple expansion out along the American continent, slaughtering the inhabitants along the way. In 1899 President McKinley issued the "Benevolent Assimilation Proclamation" announcing Americas intention to set up its own version of the British Empire. This policy continued through the years of "Wilsonian Idealism" and accelerated after World War II, reaching its climax under the guise of "Humanitarian Intervention" under Clinton. Each step along the way has seen an increase in the scope of Americas hegemonic ambitions, and each time the sphere of influence was expanded. First it was just the North American continent, then nearby islands, Central and South America, and finally expanding through the Middle and Far East.

Americas two most recent conquests, Afghanistan and Iraq, are becoming indicators that the time of American Empire may be coming to an end. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States remained as the sole world superpower, excersising its will with reckless abandon. However, the extension - and expansion upon - these policies by George Bush Junior has polarised the world in a very different way. The unipolar order of The United States and everybody else is giving way under the paralysing weight of American ambitions of dominance. What is emerging is a multipolar order, with the United States being put in a position of being unable to exert its influence at will, and instead having to increasingly accept foreign influence and input in world affairs.

The end of America's reign as the worlds sole superpower, and the absolute corruption that such power brings along, should be welcomed and encouraged by people the world over. As important policies in America are seldom even discussed (The Kyoto Protocols, Nuclear Disarmarment, Human Rights), and the US is using its global power to marginalise such important doctrines as those set forth by the Geneva Conventions, any move away from the absolutely corrupting Absolute Power given to American interests should be heralded as a positive move by anyone concerned about the safety and well being of our species as a whole.

Lynchpin: India

The United States Senate last week passed (by a vote of 85 to 12) a measure approving the transfer of Nuclear technology, equipment, and fuel to India. Doing so required that an exception be made to the Atomic Energy Act, which specifically forbids the sale of nuclear materials to countries that are non-signatories to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The important reasoning behind this was spelled out in a recent article in The New York Times which stated that the vote was "expressing that a goal of nurturing India as an ally outweighed concerns over the risks of spreading nuclear skills and bomb-making materials." Such an agreement also brings to an end the 30 year old doctrine prohibiting the transfer by the United States of Nuclear reactor components and fuel to other countries.

Today, Chinese Premier Hu Jintao is in India on a visit meant to increase bilateral ties between the two countries. The China Daily reports that

As the first Chinese president to visit the country in a decade, Hu is expected to work with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, to "fill in the specifics" in the strategic partnership, according to Sun Yuxi, Chinese ambassador to India.

China and India announced the establishment of their strategic partnership for peace and prosperity last April in a joint statement signed by Premier Wen Jiabao and Singh.

Hu's talks with Singh today will iron out the details for enhancing this partnership in political, economic, military, cultural, scientific, technological and educational spheres, Sun revealed in a group interview last Friday with Chinese journalists at his residence.

Meanwhile, The Boston Globe reports that this meeting between Chinese and Indian premieres is likely to lead to a Nuclear arrangement being ironed out between those two countries as well, with China adding their bid for India to the one already on the table from the US.

If China and India enter into a nuclear cooperation agreement, it will mark a new stage in the increasing competition between China and the United States for India's friendship.

President Bush branded China a "strategic competitor" as soon as he came to office in 2001. Since India's burgeoning economy and muscular military can tip the balance of power in Asia, over the last year the United States and China have been trying to build closer ties with India, said Sun Shihai, deputy director of the Institute for Asia Pacific Studies at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing.

"The US always said it wants to use India to balance China," Sun said. "China feels it needs to engage India more [and] develop some kind of Russia-China-India cooperation" that can balance US hegemony. "So there is some kind of competition happening."

The White House's July 2005 decision to enter into civilian nuclear cooperation was widely seen as a critical step in attracting India into the US orbit.

The worrysome emergence of spheres of influence outside of US control, specifically Russia and China (with partnerships growing to include Latin America, India, Iran and Pakistan), has US planners on their heels, of which the US offer of Nuclear technology to India is merely a byproduct.

The most specific worry for US planners is the duo of China and Russia extending their influence beyond the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and including countries in Latin America (Brazil, Venezuela) and such strategic heavyweights as India, Pakistan, and Iran. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the US has aggressively been trying to expand NATO influence as far east as possible, encompassing many former Warsaw Pact nations. This is where the importance of India comes into play.

Were India to join a strategic alliance with China and Russia, they would throw their sizeable population (over 1 Billion people, the 2nd most populous nation on the planet behind China and much larger than the US with 300 Million) and strategic central-asia location (between China and another country the SCO has been courting, Pakistan) into the already economically- and militarily- hefty China/Russia partnership. Moves have already been made in increasing cooperation between China and India with trade set to exceed $20billion (US) this year, exceeding the target set by the two governments for 2008. There is also talk of a bilateral free trade agreement between the two countries, which could enable an increase in the already strong rate of general economic growth in the region.

There are, of course, a couple of sticking points in the China-India relationship, which the US is trying to take advantage of while it still has the opportunity. These include Chinese cooperation with India's foe Pakistan, the asylum of the Dali Lama from Tibet in India, and the China/India border. The border was in fact originally drawn by the British government near the end of their colonial reign, and has not been agreed upon by China or India. In the heat of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, Nikita Kruschev is rumored to have encouraged Chairman Mao to go ahead and attack India over their disputed border, which India accepts but China views as claiming for India 90,000sq-km of Chinese territory. This act set in motion stronger ties between the US and India, which continue to this day; for instance, including a ten year mutual protection pact between the two countries currently in effect.

However, steps have also been taken in recent years to increase military cooperation between China and India, another factor worrying to US planners who hedge their bets on permanent US military dominance. This cooperation is being manifested in the areas of economics and defense, mainstays in the US's exertion of dominance in world affairs.

The value of courting India away from China/Russia is not lost on analysts, with such influential writers as Henry Kissinger and Noam Chomsky making their opinions heard on the subject. A regional economic and military alliance comprising Russia, China, and India, would have severe implications for continued American dominance.

Battleground: Iran

Successful defiance of American hegemonic interests is not undertaken lightly. However, the failed US invasion and occupation of Iraq has put the United States in its weakest position in decades, leaving open the opportunity for other power centres to assert their influence.

Previous attempts at defiance have led to serious consequences for countries such as Cuba, which suffered at the hands of an American economic strangulation since the overthrow of the US-backed Batista regime. Overt actions have been taken against others guilty of defiance in the past, such as many Latin American countries, North Korea, Vietnam, Sudan, and the recent US-sponsored coup attempt in Venezuela to oust the elected president Hugo Chavez.

Historically, Russia and/or China have consistantly fought the US on different battlegrounds, with Mao's troops fighting American troops in both North Korea and Vietnam (in the latter, the 100,000 strong Chinese forces even went so far as to don their Chinese military uniforms), the placement of Russian Nukes in Cuba, American Nukes in Turkey, and so on.

The re-emergence of Russia and China as global players is today being showcased in Iran. What was originally a confrontation strictly between France (proportedly representing the EU, although EU polls at the time indicated that the EU population was more worried about US militarism than Iran's nuclear program) and Iran has become a standoff between the East (Russia/China) and West (US/UK). Backed by these two UN Security Council Veto holders, Iran has refused to back down in front of US pressure regarding their nuclear program. Simultaneously, Iran is stepping to the forefront of one of the major issues of the day, the civil war raging in Iraq.

After two decades of diplomacy suspension, Iran's close ally Syria and American occupied Iraq are resuming diplomatic relations. Syria, branded by George Bush Jr. as a member of the "axis of evil" along with Iran and North Korea, broke ties with Iraq in 1982 in reaction to the US-backed war against their partner Iran; increasing ties between Syria and the US-installed regime of Malaki (and Talabani) could only be as surprising to their US masters as Malakis denunciation of Israel's US-backed murderous escapades in Lebanon and Palestine over the past few months.

Even more surprising for the US is the acceptance of the offer of a state visit to Iran by Talabani this weekend, where the major issue is likely to be the civil war raging in Iraq (it is often referred to in the western media as the "security situation" but to a rational observer 100 sectarian murders a day is beyond a simple "security situation"). This is on the heels of a call by Tehran for a summit with Iraqi and Syrian leaders to discuss Iraqs deep seeded problems.

The idea of such a summit occuring is so worrysome to the US that the US Embassy immediately issued a warning to the Iraqi government to stay away from Iran and Syria, and The US Propaganda machine immediately issued a report that such a summit would never happen.

Why should America be so worried about Iranian influence on Iraq? It is generally accepted by those who look beyond Fox News Headlines that the US's intention was to impose a client regime on Iraq, opening up for US businesses "economic opportunities," in other words unfettered access to Iraqs vast reserves of natural resources, and a permanent US presence in the center of the resource-blessed region. Iran, on the other hand, wholeheartedly rejects the idea of any American and British influence in the region. An op-ed in the Iran Daily reflects this:

Many Arabs and Muslims I talked to at the weekend about his new round of irresponsible statements about Iran were of the opinion that Blair could be suffering from a fresh bout of dementia.

In a television interview, the Labour boss known to many peace lovers in and outside Britain as “Tony Bliar“, “Phoney Tony“ and “King of Spin“, publicly admitted that the war he jointly engineered with George Bush was a “disaster.“
However, that admission of defeat did not stop him from blaming Tehran for all that has been going very wrong in occupied Iraq as a direct result of the Bush-Blair arrogance.
...
He said he had a message for Tehran and Damascus: “If you are prepared to be a part of the solution, there is a partnership available to you.“

We cannot speak for the leadership in Syria, nor do we know if or when Bashar Assad proposed any mechanism to help bring peace to the volatile Middle East. As far as Tehran is concerned, Blair, who will be remembered by posterity as a pro-war ruler obsessed with Israeli security and interests, had the wrong address once again. Those who decide foreign policy in our country do not recall ever wanting to be partners with killers of innocent Muslims like Blair or Bush.

Having said that, it deserves mention that the UK prime minister who dragged his country into the bottomless quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan, is simply not in a position to make offers or speak on behalf of the people in our part of the world. One need not be a political scientist to understand that there is not one single country in the Muslim-Arab world that wants even impartial western rulers to speak on its behalf.

Now, how can Iran get away with such blatant disobedience of American power? The answer lies, once again, in the East. Iran's ties with Russia and China are consistantly played down in the western media in favor of a portrayal of Iran as a country on the verge of aquiring nuclear weapons and intent on using them to commit genocide against Israel. However, if we look back at the timeline of the most recent developments in the confrontation we see other important factors. Iran's military is being supplied by the Chinese (who in turn were supplied by Russia), and their military capabilities were most recently demonstrated in excersises they carried out in nearly half of their provinces and the Persian Gulf. This chinese-supplied military capability is widely seen as a deterrant to the American military option. Additionally, Iran has secured a trade partnership with Russia (and, in turn, the SCO) that comprises the worlds largest supply of Natural Gas and one of the top five supplies of crude oil, and it is Russia (not Iran) that is building in Iran a new state-of-the-art nuclear reactor.

Strategically, Iran is in an ideal position to all but cut off the supply of Middle East oil to the West, while allowing oil supply to continue through pipelines to their allies in the East. Iran's close ties with China and Russia are likely to prevent the US taking any more aggressive stance against the country than they already have, for economic reasons I have explained before:

Another dangerous economic trend is the steady decline in value of the US Dollar. Against the Euro it has dropped by more than a third of its value over the past five years. America's aggressive foreign policy isn't helping the situation much either, as the countries that were subsidising the US's enormous budget deficit by (as required by the IMF) purchasing US government bonds as collateral to insure their own currencies, such as many South American, Asian, and "Old Europe" countries, are looking to withdraw from their IMF obligations and take their money elsewhere in response to what they rightly perceive as American Imperialism.

Perhaps more worrysome for the American economy is the fact that major energy-commodity trading countries, which have been propping up the value of the dollar since the seventies as it is the major trading currency for oil, are also responding to american imperialism with a desire to switch to other currencies as their oil buying and selling currency. Most notable would be China, which holds the largest foreign reserve of US dollars on the planet, and which has begun serious discussions this year to switch to Euros as its oil buying currency. That would lead their main oil supplier Iran, which the US has been bullying recently, to switch to Euros as well (for oil), and could lead other OPEC countries to follow suit. This would lead to a rapid decline in the value of the already weak dollar, and skyrocketing inflation in America.

The end result is that the US, bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and facing strong eastern opposition, is not currently in any position to enforce their hegemony.

Future Implications

Once an empire enters into decline, history tells us that the end result is consistantly terminal to their ambitions of dominance. Rome, Greece, Persia, the Ottomans, Britain; each have fallen by the wayside as their policies led to their downfall. What is emerging now is a multipolar order (rather than a unipolar order under US control) with the US sharing its global power with China and Russia, India (whom America is having to attempt to woo away from the other emerging powers), and a Latin America being led by Democratic Venezuela in partnership with defiant Cuba and economically strong Brazil, and with close ties to the strategic alliance of Russia and China in the East.

The indications of the demise of America as the worlds sole dominant superpower can only be welcomed by those who care about the future of our civilisation. The absolute power and absolute corruption that a system of American Hegemony has brought along is far from the best interests of the people, and it will be the people who benefit from moving away from the current Status Quo.


--------------------
cross posted at Daily Kos and European Tribune.
---------------------------------------
Update: November 24, 2006

The India Daily reports today that China will be soon announcing its full support for India to be granted a permanent UN Security Council seat. This is different from the recent Kofi Annan proposal of six semi-permanent non-veto holding seats.

China opposes Japan and favors India just to make sure Western dominance of in UN Security Council is challenged. Japan is seen as an American satellite. Brazil is a mixed bag. Though India is tending towards Japan’s posture, most likely Indian people will not accept American policies as their own.

We should also bear in mind that the US does not want to see a peaceful and prosperous relationship between India and Pakistan, as it might lead to a strengthening of the Asian bloc that is emerging as a counterbalance to American hegemony. China sees this, and on Hu Jintao's recent visit he was quoted as saying china "welcomes and supports" improved relations and would like to take a "constructive role" in advancing the interests of Asian peace. However, he stopped short of offering to directly mediate talks. I get the impression that India and Pakistan, although still succeptable to mutual pervading animosity, are aware of the positive ramifications of normalisation and strengthening of relations. This would be an important step in the emergence of a South Asian bloc to counterbalance current American hegemonic interests.
------------------------
Update November 25

As previously mentioned, China supplies much of Iran's defensive military capabilities. As Xinhua (China's State-Run news agency) is reporting today Russia is also supplying defensive military capabilities to Iran.

MOSCOW, Nov. 24 (Xinhua) -- Russia has begun delivering air defense systems Tor-M1 to Iran within the framework of an earlier signed agreement, Russian news agencies reported on Friday.

"The deliveries of Tor-M1 to Iran have begun. The first systems have been delivered to Iran," a source in Russia's military and intestinal complex was quoted by the Interfax news agency as saying, adding the Iranian soldiers who will operate the systems were trained in Russia.

"Earlier Russian officials stated that Iran is a sovereign state, a member of the UN and League of Arab States, and no international sanctions prohibiting it from receiving defensive arms have been imposed," the arms-exporting company Rosoboronexport said.

One lesson that States who find themselves on the US's hit list have learned from Iraq and Afghanistan is that the likelyhood of attack increases as military power decreases. Both Iraq and Afghanistan had little or no military capabilities, which made them easy targets for the militaristic Bush administration.

One byproduct of these invasions is that it has sparked a mini arms race, with countries that the US comes out against scrambling to build up a military deterrant, as evidenced by Iran's increasing purchase of weapons from the east and North Koreas test of a nuclear bomb some weeks back, seen as a "deterrant to US designs" in the words of N. Chomsky.

China and Russia are eager to provide such a deterrant to countries who are willing to offer to them their strategic value, such as Iran, while simultaneously condemning measures that are viewed as "provoking" the United States, such as N. Koreas missile and nuke tests.

It should also be noticed how Russia is working to build an energy consortium which "runs counter to and increasingly circumvents the established liberal US-backed global oil market denominated in US dollars," often (as seen by their recent stance with Georgia) in a very aggressive and (dare I say) Western Capitalist manner.

Also, it will be interesting to see how the how the cold-war-relic Robert Gates, anti-Chinese Nancy Pelosi, and anti-Russian Tom Lantos (incoming Chairman, House Committee on International Relations) affect the re-emerging competitive nature of the relationship between East and West. The Asia Times has a thoughtful analysis on the subject.

"Israel must be wiped off the map."

Ehud Olmert and George Bush met in Washington on Monday to discuss the latest target in the recently revived "war on terror" (originally declared in the 1980s to deal with uncooperative governments in Latin America), Iran.

In response to this visit, Bush held a press conference in which he threatened Iran with "global isolation" if they did not give up their uranium enrichment program. Tony Blair, in keeping with the precedent he has set countless times since the Bush administration took power in 2001, obediently echoed these sentiments in a speech given later that day.

Mr Blair presented Iran with a choice: end support for insurgents and extremists in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories in return for what he described as a new partnership in the region.

The alternative, he said, was diplomatic isolation for Tehran.

From RTE News

Bush's threat to Iran was similarly worded, according to the Associated Press:

Bush said the U.S. has not changed the terms, and he warned of "economic isolation" for Iran if it presses ahead.

"There has to be a consequence for their intransigence," Bush said.

One common thread that I have noticed in the coverage of this meeting between Bush and Olmert is the constant reference back to a statement by the Iranian President that Israel should be "wiped off the map." Such a statement, taken out of context, could easily be interpreted as a call to genocide; much like the statement by Richard Nixon regarding targets to bomb in Vietnam being "anything that flies on anything that moves."

But, for a statement to be so consistantly repeated, it should generally be accepted that such a statement should be carefully researched first. I won't get into the fact that the UN mandate for the state of Palestine was wiped off the map by Israel between 1947 and 1967, but rather proffer a short critical examination of the genocidal nature of this remark.

After having heard the statement repeated constantly in the western press, it was only after an astute reader of this blog, Nadia, pointed out that there was some discussion as to the accuracy of that translation. I regret to confess that it had not even occurred to me that the Iranian President would have been speaking Persian, not english, when the statement was made. As such, I turned to an expert on middle east affairs, Juan Cole, as referenced on Wikipedia in an article entitled Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel:

""Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[8]

According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[1]

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:

[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.[9]

On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime," he said."

I find it interesting to note that they specify the "Zionist" regime, rather than just the Israeli regime. Let us also not forget that, pursuant to a UN Resolution, from 1974 (up until the US had it repealed in 1991) the word "Zionist" was equated with the word "Racist."

Does the fact that Iran refuses to recognise (similar to World Court judgements on the subject) the "Racist" regime in Tel Aviv make Iran what Bush terms a "threat to world peace"? It would seem that the US establishment thinks so. Airing soon on the american Discovery Channel is a special report entitled
Koppel: Iran The Most Dangerous Nation. Again, this will undoubtedly add to the hype surrounding the Iranian regime, which itself (predictably) states that the "Zionist state's fears are unfounded". Perhaps, if Iran were such a dangerous nation, they would warrant economic and diplomatic isolation.

However, diplomatic and economic isolation are two threats that the US, UK, and Israeli regimes will not be able to make good on. The US and Israel have no economic ties whatsoever with Iran, and Iran's two major trading partners, China and Russia, are not going to support any "isolation" of their close partner.

Iran was first targeted in the 1950s for its vast reserves of oil and natural gas, and a 1952 US-sponsored coup in the country did away with their Parliamentary Democracy and installed a monarchy, headed by the Shah. After 27 years of brutal oppression under the Shah, a popular rebellion occured that led to the creation of the current Islamic State of Iran, in 1979, under the rule of Ayatollah Khomeni and a directly elected parliament.

Rather like Venezuala under Hugo Chavez, or Cuba under Fidel Castro, for US planners Iran is a dangerous example of intransigence (towards US imperial interests rather than towards the "international community" as Bush would like us to believe) to allow to exist right in the midst of an area that they wish to exert control over. This is one of the reasons why the US asserts that Iran is the world's leading State Sponsor of Terror for its support for Hamas and Hizballah. We shall not delve into the US sponsorship for terrorist regimes in Uzbekistan, Kazakstan, Columbia, most of latin America in the 1980s, etc., or delve into detail regarding US arms sales but rather point out a glaring irregularity with regards to Israel and Palestine.

In 1947, the state of Palestine was an official state on UN maps. The territory still exists, but it is under the illegal occupation of Israeli forces. Pursuant to Article 51 of the UN Charter, the people of Palestine are legally entitled to defend their land from aggressors. To support the is in fact, by current legal interpretations, more legal than the support received by revolutionaries in the current territory of the US from countries in Europe in the late 18th century.

However, today Iran is in a position that requires that it become, once again, a target. As such, it is not surprising that some will "pull out all the stops" to make Iran a "diabolical enemy" on par with Hitler. The danger, as discussed on this blog on many occasions, is Iran's nuclear program. The fact that, according to every IAEA report on the subject, they seem to be abiding by the NNPT is irrelevant to western media sources apparently, as what has been manufactured as the "main issue" is Iran's uranium enrichment program.

One of the proponents of the US's policy towards Iran is the well known Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State under Richard Nixon. His statements on Iran's nuclear program are telling.

Prior to the 1979 revolution, when Iran was under the rule of the US-sponsored Shah, Kissinger stated that "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals." Most recently, Kissinger is quoted as saying "For an oil producer such as Iran, nuclear energy is a wasteful use of resources." When asked why he had so completely changed his stand, Kissinger explained that prior to 1979 "they were an allied country." And of course their oil was going to the US, not Russia and China.

------------------
Additional Source:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/13/141754/83

Hope

When confronted with harsh realities, human beings have an inherent nature to do one of two things: bury their heads in the sand and say "it can't be true," or give up hope along the lines of a pessimistic austrian writer who once wrote "A first sign of the beginning of understanding is the wish to die."

Grave predictions, uncertain futures, and a feeling of powerlessness can lead people to give up hope. I won't pretend to not understand why someone in Baghdad who has lost their family to american shells and sectarian bullets would want to give up hope. Or why someone in Michigan might sigh as they look back on 2 presidential elections that should have been won, the first that was stolen blatantly and the second that produced an unimaginable result based on what seemed to be an astounding turnout of young and opposition voters, and surrender to institutional structures that they believe will never change. Or how someone, after too long under the screw of an oppressive occupation, could be left so devoid of hope that they would be willing to sacrifice themselves for the purpose of hurting their oppressors. I can understand these people.

But hope should never be abandoned. We as human beings have the capability to be so much more than we allow ourselves to be. I believe that human beings have the capability to forsake anger and hatred, vengence and violence, and overcome any challenge they are presented without having to sacrifice their dignity and morality. This power comes not only from our minds, but from our hearts as well.

A courageous leader once stated that "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." He also pointed out that "History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."

Leading scientists and intellectuals often proffer dire predictions and observations, and many of us pass along these statements without pointing out constructive solutions. It is painfully obvious that human beings have an unprecedented capability to destroy, but along with the ability to destroy comes an unprecedented ability to create, to nourish, and to improve.

We must never allow ourselves to become slaves to fear, hopelessness, vengence, or greed. We need not destroy ourselves and our environment to satisfy our primal urges, we have the capability to be so much better than that.


There are many things wrong with the world today. There is no other species that destroys its own with such ferocity and on such an immense scale. I would like to present you today with the words of unquestionably one of the greatest scientific minds of all time, Albert Einstein, with help from Bertrand Russell.

From the Russell - Einstein Manifesto:

Almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one or more of these issues; but we want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings and consider yourselves only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire.

We shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to another. All, equally, are in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they may collectively avert it.

...

Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.

...

"In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them."

Now, I do not consider myself a pacifist. I believe that there are situations, as described in Article 51 of the UN Charter, in which military action is appropriate. However, military action as a first resort, rather than a last resort, is a danger to all of us, and a danger that can easily be avoided.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty demands that its signatories not only refrain from producing new nuclear weapons, but also take steps to dismantle existing nuclear arsenals. The Bush administration's continued simultaneous assertions to be against the proliferation of WMDs and intent development of "low yeild" "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons are not only hypocritical , but a danger to all of us. Their actions have already triggered the beginning of an arms race, and their constant war-like posturing is increasing the danger posed to all of us. Simultaneously they claim christian piety, and as such, to them and their supporters I say "first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:5).

On this page I had previously planned to illustrate the un-democratic nature of American governance, but not for the purpose of inspiring despair, or causing people to surrender to what they see as an unbreakable system for the "protection of the minority of the opulent," but rather because real change, for the better, is possible. In any event, a discussion of the American Republic form of government (republic, not democracy) and its implications for the world will be postponed.

Rather, at this point it is necessary to point out some key facts that are relevant to the world's current state of affairs.

The first is American Militarism. Most Americans are in fact not the militant "chicken hawks" that are so often highlighted in the media. The majority of Americans do not wish to go to war unless no other options are available. As we have seen with the collapse of all pretexts for the invasion of Iraq, those in power are not catering to the will of their people. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and "liberation," by any rational definition, does not entail 500,000 civilian deaths as a direct result. The only people who have reaped any positive benefit from the invasion are the small number of people who made a profit off of the $350billion in congressional budget appropriations for the conflict, and a profit from the redistribution of Iraq's wealth of natural resources to private companies. A well informed American would not have chosen such a course of action. A byproduct of this invasion, brought about by a militarism that is not in the wishes of a majority of the population, is an increase in support for organisations that assert their intentention to launch reprisals against what they perceive (rightly) as American Imperialism.

Another byproduct of this militarism, or resort-to-force-as-the-first-option, is that other countries are developing their own military capabilities, including nuclear weapons, as a deterrant to the American threat. This is evidenced by North Korea's recent Nuclear test. This increases a danger to us all, due to the fact that they increase the risk of provocation of a larger conflict, and as discussed by Russell and Einstein above, this would have disasterous effects for our species as a whole.

But how can this situation be changed? Because it is America that poses this threat, it is the American people who are in the best position to alleviate it. It is widely understood that the coming American election will have little or no effect on US government policy. Simultaneously, there is a pervailing sentiment (rarely articulated) that regardless of who is in charge (in the US), things will stay the same. This is partially right. Madeline Albright (Bill Clinton's Secretary of State) has intoned that every president over the past few decades has had a strategy like George Bush's in their back pocket, they just know better than to bash people over the head with said strategy. We need look no farther than the first months of the Clinton administration to see that he was more than willing to engage in military strikes as a first option, with disasterous consequences for hundreds of children holed up in a Baghdad childrens shelter.

However, a change in regime as far as the US congress is concerned could lead to additional positive moves. Most notably, the American public would likely be let in on the realities that have been so vehemently hidden from them for the past 6 years. As we all know, an ignorant population is easy to control, and the Bush administration has excersised this control to the fullest. Their unprecedented control over the flow of information to the population has allowed them to excersise unprecedented control over public discussion on major issues, many of which are not open for public discussion to begin with. A few examples:

The first that comes to mind is the recent "conflict" between Israel and the civilian populations of Lebanon and Palestine. The very limited discourse on the subject was limited to the scope of Israel's actions, proportedly against "terrorists" but realistically against civilians (in violation of the Geneva conventions), was evidenced both in the mainstream and so-called "fringe" media. I'm including in the "fringe" media blog sites and information websites, including the well known site "MyLeftWing." On that particular site I was directly threatened with expulsion from discussion by the site's owner for a comment regarding the fact that those who supported the Israeli military incursions that killed thousands of civilians, many of whom were children, was tantamount to support for murder. And this site is proportedly the epitome of "the left" in America, which it was observed to me by a source that I trust that there really is no "left" left in America, and "the right" committed political genocide against "the left" decades ago. Aprepo, though not entirely accurate. The fact of the matter is that most Americans, even those who consider themselves well versed in news and politics, and of a "liberal" bent, are inherently subject to the information control mechanisms of an overreaching Executive, which has the power to disseminate a very large volume of disinformation to the public so as to cloud any attempt at rational discourse. Supressed from the public was the fact that Israel's invasion plans were drawn up long before the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier, that Israeli soldiers had kidnapped "suspected hizballah" members just days before, and the fact that the weapons used to flatten Lebanon were handed to the Israeli military with the costs deferred to the American taxpayers.

Another example that comes quickly to mind is of course the Iraq war, wherein civilian and military death tolls are surpressed to an unprecedented extent by the Bush administration. This has included going so far as to arrest Hospital personnell in Iraq for realeasing accurate but "too high" casualty figures, and barring the US media from covering the return of injured or dead American soldiers. Due to current disagreement in elite circles as to the effectiveness of the US's Iraq policy, some dissent has filtered through into the US Media (much the same as in later stages of the Vietnam conflict), and as such the issue is receiving a large amount of coverage. However, even policy makers on the democratic side of the aisle (including Chuch Schumer and Hilliary Clinton) do not disagree with the administrations stated goals, merely question the methods. Again, even a "regime change" in the US congress is unlikely to have any impact on policy.

However, that is not to say that people should give up hope in initiating change. One of the first steps for making changes is to be presented with the full picture, which influential analysts argue will increase in likelyhood with a change in those in charge (in congress) of overseeing the actions of the government as a whole, specifically the executive. It is pointed out that Democratic oversight committees would be able to share much needed information with the American public, and put them in a better position to make informed decisions, one of the most important aspects of reclaiming democracy in America.
From Unclaimed Territory:

A Democratic takeover of one or even both houses of Congress is unlikely to result in any new affirmative legislation or policies, since their control will be by only a small margin, dependent on conservative lawmakers in their majority, and subject to a presidential veto. With some exceptions (such as the power to control appropriations and cut off funding), the real power they will have will be to investigate and expose the conduct of the Bush administration and to reveal to Americans what has really been going on.

It is difficult to overstate how crucial that is for exposing what the Republican Party has become and undermining those who control it. The administration has been able to ward off even the most incriminating accusations and disclosures because they control the primary sources of information. They can deny anything, selectively release misleading exculpatory information, and operate in the darkest shadows and behind the highest walls of secrecy. As a result, disclosures about what they have done are always piecemeal and easily obscured.

Armed with a more realistic view of what's going on, Americans are put in a much better position to initiate the so-badly-needed changes that the rest of the world is screaming for. Hope for a better tomorrow always exists as long as there are those who are willing to work for it, and who are aware of the needs and opportunities involved.

Naturally, there are those whose vested interest in seeing that things continue as they are leads them to continue to take steps to quiet their opposition. The murders ("unintentional") of dozens of foreign journalists by US troops notwithstanding, the tactics employed are nothing new: maintaining claims that "everything is allright, trust us" or playing upon the most negative of emotions, fear and anger.

To give just a couple of examples, today the BBC published a report by the US Ambassador to Iraq that "success" by the US in Iraq was still possible. This was in response to the admittal by a US State Department official that the US was "arrogant" and "stupid" in Iraq, a statement claimed by the White House to have been mistranslated but verified by the BBC to have been accurate. It was also immediately following an analysis by Robert Dreyfuss, echoing the sentiments of many prominent analysists, that a coup was on the cards in Iraq.

Facing such grim news, the Bush administration reverts to its classic strategy of playing upon the fears of the American population. The latest of a virtual plethora of examples is a video recently published on the Republican party's website RNC.org designed to scare the American public into obedience (much the same as Mao scared his population into obedience). The video is below:


The Iranian President Mahmood Ahmadi-Nejad had some thoughts and observations on this very subject in his letter to George Bush a few months back:

All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbors of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people -- who had been immensely traumatized by the attacks -- some Western media only intensified the climate of fear and insecurity – some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?

American citizens lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?

I think the answer is obvious. To constantly push the buttons of the population and use their fear as a tool of manipulation is an intense disservice not only to the American population, but to those against whom the fear is used to mobilise militant action. But I have hope. I have hope that Americans are as fed up with the situation as the rest of the world is. I have hope that the "elites" in the american business world are not right in their assessment that the candidate with the largest campaign war chest [must have] superior grass-roots support, the war chest referring to the amount of money they have left for their campaign. I have hope that Americans are intelligent enough to realise that the Dow Jones' record performance recently does not represent the economic welfare of their nation or themselves as individuals.

I think Americans are at a breaking point, that the situation is bad enough at this stage (domestically, for americans, and internationally) that many are coming to realise that major changes are needed, of which making a showing at their election next month is an important first step.

I have hope that the strength of morality and human decency will overpower the will of those whose greed, arrogance, and or fear have monopolised their decision making processes. I have hope for the future.

We have the power, we must only choose to use it.

Iran's Nuclear Weapons

I made the mistake of watching CNN the other day and had the pleasure of getting to see Larry King lie repeatedly into the camera. It is possible, of course, that he believed the lies he was telling, but that does not make them true.

He kept referring, as most American journalists do, to "Iran's Nuclear Weapons" or "Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program."

What needs to be noted is that, based on the evidence provided, Iran does not have a Nuclear weapons program. The IAEA's reports on the subject outline the fact that "there is no evidence of diversion of nuclear material to a weapons program" however "outstanding questions" remain. Suspension of Uranium Enrichment is intended to "build confidence in the international community," and clearing up the outstanding questions (rather than suspension of enrichment) is the real issue, contrary to the assertions of the western media.

We should also note that a few months ago Iran offered the IAEA full access to all of Iran's nuclear sites and suspected nuclear sites. This offer was flatly rejected by America's Condeleeza Rice, speaking on behalf of a Security Council Veto holding state. However, this offer was basically what is being demanded of Iran right now by the Security Council (aside from the manufactured issue of Suspension) in their recent resolution on Iran.

The resolution by the Security council refers to a document released by the IAEA board of Governers from February 8, 2006, numbered Gov/2006/14. That IAEA resolution states "that Article IV of the Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
stipulates that nothing in the Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable rights of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of the Treaty," and each IAEA report (covered extensively in this blog) since then has reiterated the fact that "the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices."

It will be difficult for the Security Council to agree on any kind of sanctions what with the fact that Iran's right to develop enriched Uranium and Nuclear Power is protected by the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, and there is no evidence of any nuclear weapons program in Iran.

Somehow, however, the US media and US public (including such liberal comedians as George Carlin, who on the Jay Leno show some weeks back stated bluntly that "now Iran has The Bomb") are convinced that Iran either has a Nuclear Weapons program, or has a Nuclear Bomb already.

Again, people are being too easily misled. Perhaps they don't realise that, instead of just believing what their Lying News Agencies tell them, they could check the firsthand sources instead, such as the IAEA News Center, Focus: Iran web page.

Misneach Stories blog new post today:
The Next 9/11: coming soon.
"I can still remember the morning of September 11, 2001, as if it were yesterday..."
...it continues.
WARNING: the post contains graphic imagery.
The main topic is why American foreign policy is creating an atmosphere in the world that will ensure that they will face additional terrorist attacks. This subject greatly upsets me, because I feel that it should be the job of the government to protect its citizens as part of serving them and doing what is best for the nation as a whole. I also feel the the current U.S. regime has disrespected the memories of the innocent civilians lost on September 11 by a) using their deaths as an excuse to invade Iraq, b) responding to their deaths by bringing about more bloodshed, and c) ensuring that such an atrocity will happen again by pursuing policies that engender rage and resentment towards America and towards the west in general. This includes Europe as well, in addition to other America-friendly countries that haven't had the courage to stand up and say that Americas policies are wrong, and work to bring an end to them and see that the perpetrators of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity are brought to justice.



Also, this week (as I discussed previously about the SCO and Iran) the Iranian President was welcomed in China. This is in line with the closer ties between Iran and China (and Russia) I have discussed on numerous occasions in this blog.

On that subject, another intelligent take on the issue:
Awakening of a Giant
from Bottle Message™ blog at Yahoo 360.

Playing Chess with Iran
from TomDispatch blog.
-------

Something mentioned as a side-note in an article in the Tehran Times is an important aspect of this discussion that's not being covered.

Iran should try to balance nuclear offer
Tehran Times Political Desk

We support Iran's position on the peaceful use of atomic energy because this right is enshrined in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa said.
"This right exists for all Arab and non-Arab countries which have signed the NPT and wish to achieve progress," Mussa added.
But he stressed the region was not in need of a military nuclear program. "This applies to Iran and Israel and others," Mussa said.

Everyone involved, from East to West, seems to be in agreement on one key issue: Iran should not have Nuclear Weapons. China, Russia, France, Germany, the U.S., and even Iran herself all agree that Nuclear Weapons are not something that it would be in the best interests of the world for Iran to possess.

This is understandable, and rational, and legal based on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is also in line with UN Security Council Resolution 687, Article 14, which outlines "the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missles for their delivery."

Based on current intelligence data, the only country in the area of the Middle East, West Asia (up to Afghanistan) and North Africa that possesses Nuclear Weapons is Israel. While they are non-signatories to the NPT, and as such their actions (at least in this one specific instance, we can revisit the ICJ wall ruling or UN General Assembly resolutions, or the Geneva Accords, or the Nuremberg Tribunal's precedents another time) are in line with their international obligations. However, the aim of resolution 687 was a very understandable one: due to the constant state of conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors, Israel being armed with 200 Nuclear Weapons is a far more dangerous issue than Iran enriching a very small percentage of the amount of nuclear material required to build one bomb.

If we are going to hold Iran to the understandable standard of maintaining their abstinence from Nuclear Weapons, why must we not demand the same from their regional comrade Israel?

--------
Sourcing:
CNS: Middle East WMDs: Israel

Russian Intelligence Estimate on Nuclear Weapons 1995

Ha'aretz July 2000 article on Israel's Nuclear Weapons Program
--------
Loads more news sources than you're used to at Misneach Homepage News

A Daily Briefing on Iran: Week in Review

Some opposing perspectives.
The posts from Regime Change Iran are copied here in bold face type.


Time reported that an IAEA report on Iran's activities is expected next week will include "potentially incriminating" details about traces of highly enriched uranium recently found by inspectors.


The head of the IAEA stated that the highly enriched uranium (in trace quantities) was most likely residue on the equipment from its previous owner, China (or India, depending on which equipment they were inspecting).

The Chicago Tribune reported the debate inside of Iran over President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions.


The fact that there is a debate in Iran on the nuclear program is merely an indication that free thought and free speech is more prevalent in Iran than America, where there is no possible debate on major issues.

The Jerusalem Post reported that Japan is considering imposing sanctions on Iran if it continues to reject international calls to scrap its nuclear program.

Japan would like to make the symbolic gesture of imposing sanctions on Iran based on the fact that Iran is such a huge trading partner with their largest competitor, China. They don't trade much with Iran to begin with.

Hindu Times reported that the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries have backed global efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the standoff between Tehran and Western countries over its controversial nuclear program.

After the Iraq Attack, I don't believe that the populations of any Gulf nations would support anything but a diplomatic solution to this the latest round of American bullying.


The Washington Post reported that a senior Iranian official said: "What we need is an American president who will follow the example of Richard Nixon going to China."
The washington Post story discusses the democracy or lack therof in Iran.

America abandoned democracy decades ago, and have proven that fact time and time again in Latin America and the Middle East, most recently with the "democratic" elections in Iraq that were by definition un-democratic. The US chose who could run in the elections, and as such the Iraqis did not actually have the power to choose whomever they wanted to lead them, which is what democracy actually is.
Reuters uses US Department of Defence Handouts as news stories, (the same as the German media did in the 1930s) and as such cannot be trusted as an actual news source.
China is the largest trading partner of Iran, and as such if they're not on board, nothing will happen in the international community. See also recent news on Iran being invited to become full members of the SCO.

Reuters reported that the incentives to be offered on to Iran include a proposal to allow Tehran to purchase aircraft parts from Boeing Co. and Airbus.


The U.S. has no case for moving to Chapter 7 sanctions against Iran in the UN, nor do they have the clout (anymore) in the international community to take uni-or-multi-lateral action without the danger of military opposition. As such they're backing down, yet trying to do so in a way that makes it seem as though they're being altruistic in making such offers, or doing things for the greater good rather than out of necessity.

Bloomberg reported that President George W. Bush said Iran's response to a U.S.-backed initiative aimed a resolving a standoff over the Islamic Republic's nuclear program is a "positive" first step.
New York Post reported that while the Bush administration offered to join the negotiations with Iran, Ahmadinejad quickly rejected any cessation of enrichment. But the U.S. government is refusing to take no for an answer.


Cessation of Uranium Enrichment was, if you look at the actual presidential statment from the Security Council and the IAEA report that started this mess, not actually the main issue. The actual goals of the nuclear program were. The Pres statement made it clear that enriching uranium for the purpose of providing civilian nuclear energy is well within international law and treaties.


We should also note, based on the bloomberg story, that (due to the aforementioned main issue of the intentions of the Iranian Government's nuclear program) the Iranian Government offered in April for the IAEA to have full reign at all Iranian nuclear and suspected-nuclear sites, which is what the IAEA wanted from the beginning, but the U.S. flatly refused.

Reuters reported that oil dipped, then steadied below 73 dollars a barrel after Iran said world powers had made positive proposals to end a crisis over its nuclear program.


73 dollars a barrel is still higher than the February-of-this-year record high price of 72 dollars a barrel.

Yahoo News reported that a package of incentives presented Tuesday to Iran includes a provision for the United States to supply Tehran with some nuclear technology.


The U.S. took that suggestion (of supplying nuclear technology) from the E.U. in the proposal they were putting together for the past month. It's nothing new.


Khaleej Times Online reported that the United States and other world powers have offered possible guarantees for Iran’s ”terroritorial integrity” as part of its nuclear proposal.

(BTW, the Khaleej times is one of my news favorites) The EU, China, and Russia have all already made similar proposals to protect Iran in exchange for some concessions on the Nuclear stance. Again, the U.S. is playing the role of follower.
-------


Ok, that's enough story-by-story counterpoint. I agree wholeheartedly with the most important thrust of this post (as I see it), wherein the fact that the U.S. is acting more civily towards the Iranian government has brought about a more civil response from them. This is what has been missing over the past few months: enough of the rhetoric, enough of the posturing, enough of the veiled threats; this issue needs to be dealt with in a mature and rational manner.

[A Daily Briefing on Iran: Week in Review Trackback]
------------------------------

Call to Non-sensationalist Campaign for Jahanbegloo's Release
From Free Thoughts Blog (Iran)

"It is at least twelve years that I have known Ramin Jahanbegloo as a friend and a mentor. Dr. Ramin Jahanbegloo was arrested at the airport by the Iranian intelligence agents and was taken to Evin Prison about a week ago.

...Dr. Jahanbegloo's arrest is a cause of concern and his release should become the goal of all who are concerned with the promotion of civil society, open public space for free political debate, and last but not least a space safe enough to conduct such debates in a non-violent manner. Dr. Jahanbegloo has taught, lived, and acted in a non-violent manner, and those who would like to rally for his release should remember one fact: He did all this without Media-Mongering and without recourse to Sensationalism."

Its upsetting to hear about restriction of freedom of speech and denial of basic human rights, no matter where it happens. Its a terrible sign when people who have a positive influence are silenced in one way or another.
In this day and age of constant retaliatory attacks, "preventive" "just" war, torture, internment, destruction of the basic institutions of Human Rights and the Sanctity of Human Life, we need all the positive voices we can get. This man deserves to be able to have his voice heard.

Keep your eyes open for more on this at Misneach Letters and at the original post on Free Thoughts.

"Nazi Arm Bands"

The Recent Hype about Iran requiring Religious Minorities to wear color-coded armbands, which was fabricated, but yet was latched onto by the western neo-cons as part of their propaganda push.

c/o News Favorite The Asia Times

Yellow journalism and chicken hawks A report by a prominent neo-conservative journalist, Iranian-American Amir Taheri, asserting that Iranian authorities plan to make non-Muslims wear colored insignia marking them as such - with yellow for Jews, just as in Nazi Germany - has been happily picked up by various mainstream publications. The story has been widely rubbished, but it refuses to die. - Jim Lobe Click here for the original article, "A color code for Iran's 'infidels'" (which has not been withdrawn by Benador Associates, the neo-con PR outfit for which Taheri writes). Amir Taheri addresses 'queries' "On color schemes, however, there seems to be consensus ... Religious minorities would have their own color schemes. They will also have to wear special insignia ... Jews would be marked out with a yellow strip of cloth ..." This, Amir Taheri says in response to his critics, is just his "opinion", and anyone who thinks otherwise is "jumping the gun". Now he tells us.

The Day

Afghanistan air raid kills
up to 80 Taliban,
at least 16 civilians
Photo Courtesy of The Daily Times with their story.

From the
Nasrat Shoib
AFP story: exerpts below, specifically things that disturbed me about the situation.

To skip to my other news highlights click here.

When did human life become so meaningless that airstrikes on civilian areas were an acceptable means of accomplishing a military goal? Also, if America has the best military in the world (as conservative pundits would like us to believe), why are they not capable of sending troops in to take out the enemy fighters, why do they have to instead wipe out the entire village? And when did the proclamation by the "coalition" that the Taliban had been handily "defeated" become untrue? And why is no-one pointing out this irregularity?

Choice Quotes:

"Coalition forces conducted a significant operation early this morning in the Kandahar region near the village of Azizi that resulted in the unconfirmed deaths of possibly up to 80 Taliban members," a coalition spokesman said.

Unconfirmed... possibly up to... doesn't sound too convincing from the Coalition.

"Kandahar provincial governor Asadullah Khalid told reporters that at least 16 civilians were killed and 15 wounded in the attack"

"An elderly man, Attah Mohammad, said at the hospital that 24 members of his family, including some children, were killed in the bombing.

"They started to bomb our village at midnight and continued up to this morning," he said.

A doctor said that security forces had not allowed ambulances into the sealed-off area to fetch the wounded.

An 18-year-old with wounds to his face and chest said that there had been Taliban in the village but that they disappeared when the bombs started to fall.

"One hit my house. I was wounded and my two brothers were killed," said the teenager named Azizullah, adding that he had seen scores of dead and wounded on his way to the hospital.

A 45-year-old man named Nasratullah said that he had been having dinner with his in-laws. "Suddenly the bombardment started - there was big fire in our place. I managed to escape but I don't know what happened to my in-laws," he said. "
----------------------------
More...
The New York Times vs. Hugo Chavez
FAIR Media Views reports: This title was taken by FAIR from CounterPunch, regarding the Front Page of the New York Times yesterday.

-----------------------------
Daring Depraivity Blog, my interesting find of the night
new posts:
US figures out how to solve UN Torture Crisis...
and
Foreign Law does not apply to the U.S.
-----------------------------
JERUSALEM, May 22, 2006 (WAFA)- The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said the ability of Palestinians to move inside the West Bank (WB) has significantly worsened in the past nine months.

In a report on "territorial fragmentation of the West Bank, May 2006", OCHA stated that a combination of checkpoints, physical obstacles and a permit system has effectively cut the West Bank into three distinct areas in addition to East Jerusalem.

"Within these areas further enclaves have been created - also bordered by checkpoints and roadblocks - that has led to one Palestinian community being isolated from its neighbour," it said

more at the Palestinian News Agency
-----------------------------
An Op/Ed from Pravda Russian News

If United States can occupy Iran, or at least change the regime in Iran to something that is subservient to the American interests, then U.S. can have over half of the world’s oil reserves under its control. There are four countries in the Middle East, that combined, have over 50% of the world’s proven oil reserves. These countries are: Iraq, Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia

the story continues here...
-------------------------------
German Foreign Minister Urges Flexibility to End Iran Stand-off

Britain, France and Germany are preparing a package of trade, technology and security benefits if Tehran stops enriching uranium, a process which creates fuel for power plants but can also form the core of a nuclear bomb

the story is here, from the German news source Deutsche Welle

--------------------------
Iraq: children suffer as food insecurity persists, UNICEF reports
From the U.N. News Center
--------------------------

Stand together

on the issue of torture

Iran vs. Israel

It is quite often pointed out that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad is viewed as the following, in washington:
"Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler"
They also make the erroneous claim that the IAEA has determined that Iran is actively seeking to build a Nuclear Bomb (that is COMPLETELY FALSE, man do I hate it when they lie to me).
Most troubling for me is the fact that people actually believe all of these claims. To those people I say this:

Wow, you certainly believe the propaganda that they feed you. I wonder if you see the lack of difference between your acceptance of official views as truth (without thinking critically or logically) and the way the German people accepted the Third Reich's official views as truth in the 1930s. I find it amusing that, in 1991, there was a huge outcry against Saddam that he was Hitler (incited by Bush I). Now, in 2006, the current target is Iran, and as such it's Pres Mahmoud that is the new Hitler (incited by Bush II). I think if that evil name keeps getting trown around every time the government wants to go after someone, it will eventually lose its meaning and it's true significance. I think that would be a great disservice to all those who lost their lives under his leadership. As far as Pres Mahmoud's anti-israeli views, you need to bear in mind that his rhetoric is always directed specifically at the Nation of Israel, and at radical Zionist elements (who advocate the removal of all Arabs from "the holy land" with force, if necessary; you may remember the removal of a specific race or nationality from your studies of WWII, with the well documented consequences), but not at all followers of Judaism. Is his anger at Israel so difficult to understand for someone who knows anything about the current situation in the middle east? I think not. While the American media (indeed most western media and a large percentage of other world media) tends to focus more on Israeli victims of Palestinian violence than on Palestinian victims. Perhaps I should point out to you, as you don't seem to know this, that the Civilian Death Toll in the Palestine/Israel conflict is very much lopsided, specifically that for every 1 Israeli that has been lost, 4 Palestinians have been lost. I would recommend you look into the civilian death tolls of IDF raids before you get so defensive of Israel. The fact is that this 4-1 ratio is actually far more even than the ratio during the 1980s and 90s, when TWENTY palestinians died for every 1 israeli that was lost. Again I ask you, is a pervailing Arab anger with Israel really so hard to understand? Just to give one example, just this weekend the IDF launched missles from an Apache helicopter at a suspected militant leader in Palestine, as he was driving down the street in the middle of a civilian area. It seems that this man was hit, and killed, but in the process so were 2 innocent women and a 4 year old boy. This kind of "collateral damage" is the norm as far as IDF raids in Palestinian territories are concerned. Again I ask you: is an anger towards Israel really so hard to understand?

I'm not even going to get into the Humanitarian Catastrophe that is Palestine, due to an IDF stranglehold on the region and a systematic destruction of all of their indegenous crops, because discussing it just makes me more upset.

It really, really surprises me that in this day and age of supposed enlightenment people are so gullible when it comes to official propaganda.
---------------
On Iran, the full text of the recent letter sent from President Mahmood Ahmadi-Nejad of Iran to President Bush is available here.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Whoever is in charge of this guy's Public Relations could teach Karl Rove a thing or two.

"Last week the president revealed his seldom-seen softer side by ordering an end to a decades-old ban on women entering stadiums for major sporting events, including football matches"

Now, before all you propaganda-believers out there start bitching and moaning about how women aren't treated fairly in Iran and they have such a horrible record when it comes to womens rights, I would like to point out that gender equality is still a major problem in countries all over the world. I know full well that women are treated quite poorly in general in Iran, more so than in most western countries, but in fairness women's rights is a worldwide issue, and the propaganda campaigns against Iran that have highlighted degrading treatment towards women specifically do so to hurt the country's stature in the international community. Lets just take a moment and think about how much more equal things could still be in many other countries in the world, and how many countries are doing (pardon my language) sweet fuckall about it. America, for one, still has a long way to go before women are treated the same as men. For a middle east example, lets have a look a Kuwait. Does anyone out there remember Kuwait, the country that America went to war to protect in 1991 against the "terror" that was Saddam Hussein? The country that the U.S. government seems to love oh so much? The close ally of america in the "war on terror?" Women are now allowed to vote in Kuwait, and have been allowed to vote now for ONE WHOLE YEAR. I'm sure those Kuwaities are patting themselves on the back for that, but if I were in touch with people in the American government, and I cared enough about womens rights to make my opinion heard as far as Iran was concerned, I would ask them why such a close ally of america didn't let women vote until 2005. But it's Iran's record that gets picked on, not the record of an ally, I forgot, allies can do no wrong. My mistake, sorry.

Anyway, Pres. Ahmadinejad has gone and pissed off the Iranian hard-liners (same as he's pissing off the U.S. government these days, boy he's good at that) by stating that

"Any distinction between men and women that leads to their separation hurts women. In places where women are present, the atmosphere is healthier,"

and, responding to critics of the plan, remarked that

"sadly, when we speak of corruption the finger is pointed at women. Are men without reproach?"

So the guy is not only fighting for Iran's right to use Nuclear Power (so they can have more oil to sell and have more money in their budget), but now he's fighting for women's rights in Iran as well.

I know the western press keeps telling us that we should hate the guy and that he's a danger to the world, but I've gotta admit, I quite like the guy. He's got panache.

War Mongering America

Condoleeza Rice has absolutely no credibility in the International Community. If this is the first time you've heard this, then I'm sorry, but you had to find out sometime. Her recent statements to the effect that Iran is "playing games" by OFFERING TO ALLOW CONTINUED IAEA INSPECTIONS is a transparent attempt to push the confrontation in the Diplomatic community into the realm of warfare. Her threats of putting pressure on Iran "outside of the U.N." or moving to a Chapter 7 resolution by the Security Council (she's just re-iterating what the US Ambassador to the U.N. said on friday) are rediculous and only tarnish the already pathetic reputation of the United States. Let me explain.

To refer back to a previous post of mine that discussed this particular issue, I have previously noted that the only intent of the Security Council with regards to the Iran issue before it was "unresolved questions" and that Iran needed to be more transparent in their dealings with the international community regarding their Nuclear ambitions. THAT IS THE ONLY PART OF THIS THAT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY AGREES UPON, regardless of the spin you may hear from such news agencies as ABC (always bush's constituents). France has not sided with the U.S. regarding the "all options are on the table" nonsense or any of the rest of it, but the media is still counting them as in America's corner no matter what comes up. However, the most recent press conference with the French Ambassador to the UN stressed that all governments must work together for a diplomatic solution, and that if ALL governments don't agree on the issue then there is no issue. His exact words:

"[On Iran Mr. Ambassador, are you now close to putting something forward on a chapter 7 resolution? Does the (Iranian) announcement yesterday change the dynamics in the Council? ]
We must first wait for the discussions between the capitals before we can look at it here among ambassadors. We are now in a phase of discussions between capitals.
[But are you going towards a chapter 7 resolution right now?] As far as France is concerned, we’ve never had any problem with such a proposal. It is our position, but it has to be shared by the others."

IT HAS TO BE SHARED BY THE OTHERS. The others=China and Russia (HUGE TRADING PARTNERS WITH THE EU). China and Russia, you may recall, are also strong trading partners with Iran. The american media viewpoint that there is some kind of agreement between France and America on the "all options are on the table" stance is completely baseless.

Condi's blatant attempt to push the situation to the next level becomes painfully obvious upon review of the events that led up to it.

• The IAEA (in march) released a report on Iran's nuclear program that stated in no uncertain terms that there was NO EVIDENCE of the diversion of Nuclear materials to any kind of weapons program, but that raised concerns about the fact that there were still some gaps in their knowledge of the atomic situation in Iran.
• The March President of the U.N. Security Council released a decree that the IAEA was to look in to Iran's nuclear program for the purpose of "building confidence in the international community" that their Nuclear program was for peaceful civilian uses. The decree also called on Iran to halt their enrichment program FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING CONFIDENCE BUILDING MEASURES TO BE PUT IN TO PLACE, such as "greater transparency" in their intentions and in their actions.
• Iran announces that they have successfully enriched uranium (and they specifically noted that it was specifically) for the purpose of producing nuclear power, a concept that the UN Security council president had specifically stated (in the same decree discussed above) was well within the realm of acceptability as far as the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty was concerned, and thusly well within the purvue of UN Member States.
• The IAEA releases their report regarding the Iranian nuclear program, and the report specifically states that Iran had continued their enrichment activities (which was already public knowledge due to statements from Tehran) which the Security Council march president had asked them to suspend ONLY FOR AS LONG AS THE IAEA WAS STILL DOING THEIR RESEARCH FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUILDING CONFIDENCE IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY, but the report states that Iranian Nuclear weapons intentions WAS NOT A CONCLUSION THAT COULD BE DRAWN FROM THE EVIDENCE.
• Iran states that they would be more than happy to allow "snap" inspections of their Nuclear sites by the IAEA, but ONLY IF the UN did not start taking direct sanction or military action against them for pursuing what they have the legal right to pursue: a civilian Nuclear Power program.
• Condeleeza Rice flatly rejects their offer (even though it is EXACTLY what was requested of Iran by the UN in march)

If you look at this chain of events objectively and with your information drawn from the first hand sources, such as the UN or the IAEA, then it becomes painfully obvious that Iran has complied specifically with everything that has been asked of them (to the letter). Yet america continues to try to goad them into a fight.

America is well aware that if they are successful in pushing through a Chapter 7 resolution by the security council that could lead to imposing sanctions on Iran, they will most likely follow through on their threat to discontinue cooperation with the IAEA and withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, because as they so aptly pointed out, they have been cooperating up until this point and it has gotten them nowhere. What the U.S. seems to be failing to recognize (although this point is well hidden by the Western Media so most casual observers do not recognize it either) is that any kind of attack on Iran (sanctions, military, etc.) is (as Iran continually points out) not in anyone's best interests, but those who would suffer the most from it (as Iran keeps pointing out) are actually those in America. Again, let me repeat: an attack on Iran is counterproductive to American interests, economically, politically, and with regards to safety. Again, I must explain.

First of all, everyone in America is bitching and moaning these days about the price of gasoline (at record highs in many parts of the states). Sanctions on Iran are likely to drive the price of gasoline (petrol) up yet again, as the current price-highs are based primarily on the fact that everyone is worried about supplies from Iran (the worlds 4th largest producer of crude oil). What most americans don't seem to grasp is that these same gasoline prices affect the PRICE OF EVERYTHING in america. All goods sold have to get to their selling point somehow, that somehow is through oil-powered vehicles. If it costs more for their goods to get to supermarket shelves, then the products themselves are going to cost more to maintain profit margins. Simple capitalism. Attacking a huge supplier of oil will push oil futures through the roof (bloomberg.com recently reported that Oil prices are likely to continue their rise, right up to nearly 100 dollars a barrel; at the moment they're about 72 dollars, and the price at the pump is 3.00doll's a gallon. If the price goes up for crude by another 40%, then, well, you can do the math). But that's not even the greatest of America's concerns.

More worrysome to the American Taxpayer should be the fact that this war is not a winnable one (in the classic american definition of the term) for America. First of all, the U.S. has proven their ineptness militarily in Iraq (and even Afghanistan) through their failure to control what they claim to be their main danger: terrorism. They turned Iraq from a harmless and defenseless country (STILL WAITIN' on the WMDs they claimed were there...) into the largest recruitment pool for Al-Qaida in the world. You need only check the news on Iraq to see how the "coalition" forces are completely unable to control the situation. And Iraq's military was extremely weak, and the average soldier in that army was a conscript (average citizen given a gun and told they must go fight, they had no choice). Iran's military is not weak. If America cannot control Iraq (they are STILL CLAIMING THAT REMNANTS OF SADDAMS REPUBLICAN GUARD ARE FIGHTING THE COALITION TROOPS, and that's their excuse for why they can't get the security situation under control) after 3 years, and Iraq's military was tremendously weak, they don't have a hope in hell of defeating Iran.

As far as how effective a military attack on Iran would be at actually halting Iran's nuclear program, in the words of Iran's top security official:
"It will have no effect on our nuclear programme. They say they will bomb us, but where do they want to bomb? We already have the know-how."
In fact, attacking Iran directly with military force will most likely only solidify the public opinion in Iran that their Nuclear program is a matter of national pride, and that it is important for their very national character.

Perhaps more importantly, (you should pay attention to this one) an attack on Iran is an attack on China, Russia, India, and Pakistan.

As I have discussed in previous posts (such as "lies, nuclear chess, and george orwell" and "conspicuously absent from western media") just last month Iran was accepted as a full member into the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, an intergovernmental energy/security organisation whose founding members include China and Russia. Everyone has to be well aware by this point that Iran exports the vast majority of their oil to china, china exports a large amount of military equipment to Iran, and that Iran's nuclear program was built and is being partially operated by Russia.
If I may draw your attention to an article posted recently regarding a role playing scenario acted out at an American university by university students:
"When it became clear that an American attack was imminent, the Russian team announced an extraordinary measure: the deployment of Russian troops to strategic sites in Iran"
It goes on to conclude that if that was the logical course of action for American University students, then obviously (former KGB officer) Vladimir Putin may contemplate the same. As I have discussed before, both China and Russia have important economic interests in Iran, and I do believe that they (based on their party platforms and rhetoric) would be inclined to protect their interests.
Which brings us back to the concept of sanctions, as I mentioned earlier. Ms. (it's a wonder she isn't married, isn't it?) Rice's recent rejection of the most logical course of action to solve this issue and her reiteration of the American demand for sanctions against Iran is a moronic idea. The administration in washington is also trying to assert that if the UN doesn't support sanctions that the UN is not fullfilling it's responsibility (from the administration's standpoint, apparently, that is to serve the U.S.'s interests at all times, based on the fact [as pointed out in the US UN Ambassador's friday news conference about the IAEA findings by a reporter from "News Weekly"] that the UN was "irrelevant" as far as America attacking Iraq, in violation of article 51 of the UN charter, and now the US is saying that they will again prove their irrelevance if they don't support sanctions, but yet are still trying to say that one of the dangerous aspects of Iran is that they are not living up to their responsibilities as a UN member [which, as illustrated above, is actually completely untrue] by acting in a manner that is in violation of the US interpretation of the wishes of the Security council) in yet another attempt to circumvent the actual authority of the U.N., and hopefully it's an attempt that will eventually be noticed in the International press and exposed for what it is. It seems that the U.S. is trying to set the situation up so that they can again claim the "irrelevance" of the U.N. and act unilaterally to again try to secure global hegemony. The likelyhood of sanctions as an ACTUAL solution to the problem is neglegable.
First of all, (as many media sources around the globe have pointed out) Russia and China both have veto power in the UN Security Council, and they are not going to allow tough economic sanctions against one of their close economic partners. Secondly, (as mentioned above) France only supports moving towards chapter 7 and pressing for sanctions if ALL INTERNATION BODIES AGREE that this is the proper course of action. The western media should take note of this and (AGAIN) stop their inaccurate reporting of the situation: If all parties don't agree on sanctions, France does not support sanctions. Therefore France cannot continue to be grouped in as supporting America on this issue. Thirdly, as Colin Powell (former holder of Condi's position) recently pointed out, "Iran seems to "have pretty much decided they can accept whatever sanctions are coming their way."" which is very much in contrast to Condi's position that sanctions are the most intelligent course of action.
Therefore, sanctions obviously (as even C.P. is admitting) wouldn't have the effect of sorting out the situation. Nor would military action, as explained above. The only intelligent option left open to America is to return to the negotiating table, accept Iran's concession of allowing the IAEA free reign in Iran, and stop their war mongering. But how often does America EVER make the intelligent decision.