On 19 February 2007, nearly 100 eminent doctors, backed by a group of international lawyers, revealed in a letter to the Independent newspaper the desperate plight of children who are dying in Iraqi hospitals for the lack of simple equipment that in some cases can cost as little as 95p. The Independent also published a story the same day, based on the letter, "The battle to save Iraq's children ".
The group of international lawyers says this amounts to a breach of the Geneva conventions that require Britain and the US as occupying forces to protect human life, in other words it is a war crime.
I was first alerted to this story by a Media Lens Alert: "Iraqi Civilian Suffering - The Media Silence".
The Editors of Media Lens then posted to their message board this posting:
Latest Alert: Hilary Benn's shameful response to the doctors' letter - Posted by The Editors on February 26, 2007, 8:20 pm
"We have spoken to Nicholas Wood, one of the organisers behind the letter signed by 100 doctors and by lawyers that we featured in today's alert. He confirmed that Benn refused to meet with the doctors and refused to send emergency aid to a particular maternity hospital identified by the doctors as being in desperate need of help - a place where children are dying for want of equipment that costs a few pence.
Benn claimed that responsibility for the deaths lies with Saddam Hussein because of poor standards pre-2003 and with the Iraqi government now. Nothing to do with us! Here's the letter Benn published in the Independent. We should be writing to Benn in large numbers, should we not?"
Yes, we should. And I did. Of course, one never expects a response from politicians like Benn, as one is sure they scoff at the idea of participative democracy and believe they are not answerable to the ordinary citizen...
Here is the text of my letter, which was also copied to the Editors of Media Lens:
para
bennh@parliament.uk,
fecha
27-feb-2007 17:08
asunto
Iraqi health care
enviado por
gmail.com
Mr. Benn,
Your letter published in the Independent on 20 January 2007 is a cold excercise in supreme cynicism.
Firstly, you completely ignore the legal ramifications of British failure, as one of the occupying powers under UN resolution 1483, to comply with the Geneva and Hague conventions that require the UK and the US to "maintain order and to look after the medical needs of the population" of Iraq. I suppose this is not surprising, because, as Cabinet member of the British government of one of the occupying powers and as Secretary of State for International Development you are the person directly responsible for providing that aid, and because of this failure "to look after the medical needs of the population" you could be charged at the International Criminal Court for war crimes.
Secondly, as if that wasn't bad enough, you state in your letter "The terrible conditions you describe also have other causes. Their roots lie in what happened under Saddam's regime, which neglected healthcare, so that by 2000 health indicators for Iraq were comparable with some of the poorest countries in Africa." The reasons health indicators for Iraq were comparable with some of the poorest countries in Africa by 2000 had little to do with Saddam's regime neglecting healthcare as you well know, hence the supreme cynicism.
Iraq had one of the most advanced health care systems in the region prior to the 1991 Gulf War. A July 2003 report by UNICEF and the World Health Organisation noted that prior to 1990, 97% of the urban dwellers and 71% of the rural population had access to free primary health care; just 2% of hospital beds were privately managed. With the 1991 Gulf War that followed Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the situation changed dramatically.
US/UK air strikes deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure such as electrical plants, oil refineries, transportation networks and water treatment facilities, hospitals were destroyed; after hostilities ceased foreign nurses left the country; and the health budget was slashed. Spending per capita fell from $86 to $17 in 1996. In the eight months following the war, mortality rates for children under five shot back up to 120 per 1,000 live births, the highest recorded increase for any country in the world in the 1990s, according to the UNICEF/WHO report. I could go on, but I am sure you aware of this information.
Then we come to the genocidal sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations (backed strongly by the US and UK) which imposed harsh restrictions on imports of everything, including access to vital medical equipment, chemotherapy drugs (particularly important as a result of the use of depleted uranium muntions by the US/UK forces), and other key medicines, including even pain-killers. A 1999 Unicef report calculated that more than half a million children had died as a direct result of said sanctions. This has been well documented by John Pilger in his film 'Paying the Price: Killing the Children of Iraq'.
You pass responsibility to the Iraqis for the current situation when it is the criminal failure of the occupying powers to fulfill their international legal obligations that is at fault. I will certainly support any initiative to bring you and the rest of the Blair regime before the International Criminal Court to answer for these crimes.
Yours Sincerely,
28 February 2007
23 February 2007
Three out of four Israelis would like to be part of EU
Today's Independent informs us that:
"Three-quarters of Israelis want to be in the European Union and more than a tenth would actually leave Israel for Europe if they were granted EU citizenship, according to an opinion poll published yesterday. "
The report by Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem tells us that contrary to "the country's political class" Israelis "have a startlingly positive view of the EU".
Perhaps it would be a decent bargaining chip: we'll consider letting you into the EU, but obviously on the conditions of complete withdrawal from all occupied Palestinian land, withdrawal of all colonies and settlers, release of all political prisoners and bringing to justice all the war criminals. Because the country is littered with them.
Meanwhile the Guardian today neatly sidestepped the most serious charges of the latest UN report "on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967".
The thrust of Rory McCarthy's article on the UN report is on the issue of apartheid:
"A UN human rights investigator has likened Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories to apartheid South Africa and says there should be "serious consideration" over bringing the occupation to the international court of justice."
McCarthy finally gets round to mentioning Israeli war crimes in the last sentence of his article, but only after first managing to introduce the fact that Palestinians are guilty of war crimes themselves:
"Prof Dugard...described as a violation of international humanitarian law the firing of rockets by Palestinians from Gaza into Israel. "Such actions cannot be condoned and clearly constitute a war crime," he said. "Nevertheless, Israel's response has been grossly disproportionate and indiscriminate and resulted in the commission of multiple war crimes."
The very first paragraph of the report's summary says:
"The siege of Gaza is a form of collective punishment in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949. The indiscriminate use of military power against civilians and civilian targets has resulted in serious war crimes."
Further quotes from the report:
"In effect Israel and sections of the international community have imposed collective punishment on the Palestinian people."
This refers to "the economic isolation of the territory by the United States, the European Union (EU) and other States in response to the election of the Hamas Government."
In effect, we in Europe are complicit in war crimes.
"The international community has identified three regimes as inimical to human rights -colonialism, apartheid and foreign occupation. Israel is clearly in military occupation of the OPT. At the same time elements of the occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law. What are the legal consequences of a regime of prolonged occupation with features of colonialism and apartheid for the occupied people, the occupying Power and third States? It is suggested that this question might appropriately be put to the International Court of Justice for a further advisory opinion.
The Occupied Palestinian Territory is the only instance of a developing country that is denied the right of self-determination and oppressed by a Western-affiliated State. The apparent failure of Western States to take steps to bring such a situation to an end places the future of the international protection of human rights in jeopardy as developing nations begin to question the commitment of Western States to human rights."
Further evidence of Western barbarity comes with Naomi Klein's excellent comment piece, also in today's Guardian: "The US psychological torture system is finally on trial". Klein sums up thus:
"the US government has been deliberately driving hundreds, possibly thousands, of prisoners insane around the world. What is on trial in Florida is not one man's mental state. It is the whole system of US psychological torture."
"Three-quarters of Israelis want to be in the European Union and more than a tenth would actually leave Israel for Europe if they were granted EU citizenship, according to an opinion poll published yesterday. "
The report by Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem tells us that contrary to "the country's political class" Israelis "have a startlingly positive view of the EU".
Perhaps it would be a decent bargaining chip: we'll consider letting you into the EU, but obviously on the conditions of complete withdrawal from all occupied Palestinian land, withdrawal of all colonies and settlers, release of all political prisoners and bringing to justice all the war criminals. Because the country is littered with them.
Meanwhile the Guardian today neatly sidestepped the most serious charges of the latest UN report "on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967".
The thrust of Rory McCarthy's article on the UN report is on the issue of apartheid:
"A UN human rights investigator has likened Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories to apartheid South Africa and says there should be "serious consideration" over bringing the occupation to the international court of justice."
McCarthy finally gets round to mentioning Israeli war crimes in the last sentence of his article, but only after first managing to introduce the fact that Palestinians are guilty of war crimes themselves:
"Prof Dugard...described as a violation of international humanitarian law the firing of rockets by Palestinians from Gaza into Israel. "Such actions cannot be condoned and clearly constitute a war crime," he said. "Nevertheless, Israel's response has been grossly disproportionate and indiscriminate and resulted in the commission of multiple war crimes."
The very first paragraph of the report's summary says:
"The siege of Gaza is a form of collective punishment in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949. The indiscriminate use of military power against civilians and civilian targets has resulted in serious war crimes."
Further quotes from the report:
"In effect Israel and sections of the international community have imposed collective punishment on the Palestinian people."
This refers to "the economic isolation of the territory by the United States, the European Union (EU) and other States in response to the election of the Hamas Government."
In effect, we in Europe are complicit in war crimes.
"The international community has identified three regimes as inimical to human rights -colonialism, apartheid and foreign occupation. Israel is clearly in military occupation of the OPT. At the same time elements of the occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law. What are the legal consequences of a regime of prolonged occupation with features of colonialism and apartheid for the occupied people, the occupying Power and third States? It is suggested that this question might appropriately be put to the International Court of Justice for a further advisory opinion.
The Occupied Palestinian Territory is the only instance of a developing country that is denied the right of self-determination and oppressed by a Western-affiliated State. The apparent failure of Western States to take steps to bring such a situation to an end places the future of the international protection of human rights in jeopardy as developing nations begin to question the commitment of Western States to human rights."
Further evidence of Western barbarity comes with Naomi Klein's excellent comment piece, also in today's Guardian: "The US psychological torture system is finally on trial". Klein sums up thus:
"the US government has been deliberately driving hundreds, possibly thousands, of prisoners insane around the world. What is on trial in Florida is not one man's mental state. It is the whole system of US psychological torture."
03 February 2007
Mysterious death of Iran’s top (nuclear) scientist
I most certainly missed this. Did anyone else see it?
"Mysterious death of Iran’s top scientist"
Tehran, Jan. 26:
"One of Iran’s top nuclear scientists, Ardeshir Hassanpour, a professor at the University of Shiraz, has died under mysterious circumstances.
Hassanpour’s death was announced by Iranian state television, a week late, on Thursday.
No reason was given for his death. The scientist was proclaimed the best scientist in the military field in the Islamic Republic in 2003. Hassanpour directed the centre for nuclear electromagnetic studies he had founded in 2005. Ardeshir Hassanpour had also co-founded the centre for atomic research in Isfahan, the most important in the country, Iranian state television reported. Last year, Ardeshir Hassanpour was awarded Iran’s most prestigious scientific award, the Kharazmi Prize."
However, that's not all. Yesterday's Christian Science Monitor had this little gem hidden away in the last paragraph of an article on a different subject ("US intelligence report projects deteriorating situation in Iraq"):
"Stratfor, the military intelligence site (subscription needed)...goes on to say that Israel, not wanting to take any chances and having realized that an overt attack on Iran is not really possible, is conducting covert activities in Iran, hinting that the recent death of a top Iranian nuclear scientist may be connected to Israel's secret service, the Mossad."
Propaganda or truth?
UPDATE: Sunday 04 February 2007
The Sunday Times has picked up the story and adds some detail:
Iranian nuclear scientist ‘assassinated by Mossad’
By Sarah Baxter in Washington
"A PRIZE-WINNING Iranian nuclear scientist has died in mysterious circumstances, according to Radio Farda, which is funded by the US State Department and broadcasts to Iran.
An intelligence source suggested that Ardeshire Hassanpour, 44, a nuclear physicist, had been assassinated by Mossad, the Israeli security service.
Hassanpour worked at a plant in Isfahan where uranium hexafluoride gas is produced. The gas is needed to enrich uranium in another plant at Natanz which has become the focus of concerns that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons.
According to Radio Farda, Iranian reports of Hassanpour’s death emerged on January 21 after a delay of six days, giving the cause as “gas poisoning”. The Iranian reports did not say how or where Hassanpour was poisoned but his death was said to have been announced at a conference on nuclear safety.
Rheva Bhalla of Stratfor, the US intelligence company, claimed on Friday that Hassanpour had been targeted by Mossad and that there was “very strong intelligence” to suggest that he had been assassinated by the Israelis, who have repeatedly threatened to prevent Iran acquiring the bomb. "
"Mysterious death of Iran’s top scientist"
Tehran, Jan. 26:
"One of Iran’s top nuclear scientists, Ardeshir Hassanpour, a professor at the University of Shiraz, has died under mysterious circumstances.
Hassanpour’s death was announced by Iranian state television, a week late, on Thursday.
No reason was given for his death. The scientist was proclaimed the best scientist in the military field in the Islamic Republic in 2003. Hassanpour directed the centre for nuclear electromagnetic studies he had founded in 2005. Ardeshir Hassanpour had also co-founded the centre for atomic research in Isfahan, the most important in the country, Iranian state television reported. Last year, Ardeshir Hassanpour was awarded Iran’s most prestigious scientific award, the Kharazmi Prize."
However, that's not all. Yesterday's Christian Science Monitor had this little gem hidden away in the last paragraph of an article on a different subject ("US intelligence report projects deteriorating situation in Iraq"):
"Stratfor, the military intelligence site (subscription needed)...goes on to say that Israel, not wanting to take any chances and having realized that an overt attack on Iran is not really possible, is conducting covert activities in Iran, hinting that the recent death of a top Iranian nuclear scientist may be connected to Israel's secret service, the Mossad."
Propaganda or truth?
UPDATE: Sunday 04 February 2007
The Sunday Times has picked up the story and adds some detail:
Iranian nuclear scientist ‘assassinated by Mossad’
By Sarah Baxter in Washington
"A PRIZE-WINNING Iranian nuclear scientist has died in mysterious circumstances, according to Radio Farda, which is funded by the US State Department and broadcasts to Iran.
An intelligence source suggested that Ardeshire Hassanpour, 44, a nuclear physicist, had been assassinated by Mossad, the Israeli security service.
Hassanpour worked at a plant in Isfahan where uranium hexafluoride gas is produced. The gas is needed to enrich uranium in another plant at Natanz which has become the focus of concerns that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons.
According to Radio Farda, Iranian reports of Hassanpour’s death emerged on January 21 after a delay of six days, giving the cause as “gas poisoning”. The Iranian reports did not say how or where Hassanpour was poisoned but his death was said to have been announced at a conference on nuclear safety.
Rheva Bhalla of Stratfor, the US intelligence company, claimed on Friday that Hassanpour had been targeted by Mossad and that there was “very strong intelligence” to suggest that he had been assassinated by the Israelis, who have repeatedly threatened to prevent Iran acquiring the bomb. "
02 February 2007
Third Carrier deploys/Iraq Surge costs/Clinton bends over for the Israeli Lobby
According to The Fresno Bee, the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan "will set sail to the western Pacific Ocean today, U.S. Navy spokesman Dennis McGrath said. About 40 F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet fighter jets from four squadrons are scheduled to leave Lemoore on Sunday and fly onto the Reagan, McGrath said."
The USS Reagan is deploying "earlier than scheduled as part of a worldwide redeployment of forces resulting from the president's decision"..."for a troop surge in Iraq".
Why is it deploying so suddenly? According to The Fresno Bee, The USS Reagan ended its last deployment in July 2006 and "Usually, sailors have months to prepare for a deployment and spend more than a year at home before being asked to go to sea again".
The paper continues: "The Reagan's rapid deployment is part of the Fleet Response Plan, which the Navy says will provide the military with the ability to respond to any global commitment on short notice. "
"While the Reagan is scheduled to tour the western Pacific, destinations for aircraft carriers can change rapidly, McGrath said. The Stennis is headed to the Persian Gulf and the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower is near the African coast, he said. "They go wherever they're needed," McGrath said. "The world situation could change. He said deployments usually last about six months."
The US is moving its pieces...
...meanwhile, the Army Times informs us that that the "Iraq surge could actually total 50,000" trops, not the 21,500 Bush declared.
"A new congressional report says the increase of 21,500 combat troops for Iraq proposed by the Bush administration could result in up to 50,000 troops actually being deployed to the region.
The report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office bases that projection on the fact that the Bush plan is unclear about whether the 21,500 troops needed to quell violence are all combat troops or if that number already includes support forces."
Not only would the number of troops increase, but so too the amount of money Bush is asking, as Reuters informs: "President George W. Bush will request slightly more than $100 billion to cover war operations in Iraq & Afghanistan for the rest of this year and an even larger amount for fiscal 2008 that begins on October 1, congressional sources said on Thursday. "
The "surge" is looking more and more ominous as the propaganda war hots up in the western press.
Meanwhile, back in New York, the Associated Press (AP) informs us via the International Herald Tribune (IHT) that the woman who drove Bill Clinton into the mouth of a chubby intern, has herself, well and truly bent over for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC):
"Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation. "U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."
When will the Americans understand that the aims of both the Democrats and Republicans are the same, as this amply demonstrates. Time for a new American revolution, methinks.
The IHT continues with the discredited Israeli propaganda "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called the Holocaust a "myth" and said Israel should be "wiped off the map" and its Jews returned to Europe."
Have you noticed how recently the phrase is repeated day in, day out? Demonise the bastard and then kill him seems to be the tactic. First one then another leading to "The Age of Perpetual Conflict".
Some thoughts from Gabriel Kolko:
"America has power without wisdom, and cannot, despite its repeated experiences, recognize the limits of its ultra-sophisticated military technology."
"That the U.S. end its self-appointed global mission of regulating all problems, wherever, whenever, or however it wishes to do so, is an essential precondition of stemming, much less reversing, the accumulated deterioration of world affairs and wars."
"Ultimately, there will not be peace in the world unless all nations relinquish war as an instrument of policy, not only because of ethical or moral reasoning but because wars have become deadlier and more destructive of social institutions. A precondition of peace is for nations not to attempt to impose their visions on others, adjudicate their differences, and never to assume that their need for the economic or strategic resources of another country warrants interference of any sort in its internal affairs."
"The world will be safer to the extent that the U.S.’ alliances are dissolved and it is isolated"
The USS Reagan is deploying "earlier than scheduled as part of a worldwide redeployment of forces resulting from the president's decision"..."for a troop surge in Iraq".
Why is it deploying so suddenly? According to The Fresno Bee, The USS Reagan ended its last deployment in July 2006 and "Usually, sailors have months to prepare for a deployment and spend more than a year at home before being asked to go to sea again".
The paper continues: "The Reagan's rapid deployment is part of the Fleet Response Plan, which the Navy says will provide the military with the ability to respond to any global commitment on short notice. "
"While the Reagan is scheduled to tour the western Pacific, destinations for aircraft carriers can change rapidly, McGrath said. The Stennis is headed to the Persian Gulf and the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower is near the African coast, he said. "They go wherever they're needed," McGrath said. "The world situation could change. He said deployments usually last about six months."
The US is moving its pieces...
...meanwhile, the Army Times informs us that that the "Iraq surge could actually total 50,000" trops, not the 21,500 Bush declared.
"A new congressional report says the increase of 21,500 combat troops for Iraq proposed by the Bush administration could result in up to 50,000 troops actually being deployed to the region.
The report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office bases that projection on the fact that the Bush plan is unclear about whether the 21,500 troops needed to quell violence are all combat troops or if that number already includes support forces."
Not only would the number of troops increase, but so too the amount of money Bush is asking, as Reuters informs: "President George W. Bush will request slightly more than $100 billion to cover war operations in Iraq & Afghanistan for the rest of this year and an even larger amount for fiscal 2008 that begins on October 1, congressional sources said on Thursday. "
The "surge" is looking more and more ominous as the propaganda war hots up in the western press.
Meanwhile, back in New York, the Associated Press (AP) informs us via the International Herald Tribune (IHT) that the woman who drove Bill Clinton into the mouth of a chubby intern, has herself, well and truly bent over for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC):
"Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation. "U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."
When will the Americans understand that the aims of both the Democrats and Republicans are the same, as this amply demonstrates. Time for a new American revolution, methinks.
The IHT continues with the discredited Israeli propaganda "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called the Holocaust a "myth" and said Israel should be "wiped off the map" and its Jews returned to Europe."
Have you noticed how recently the phrase is repeated day in, day out? Demonise the bastard and then kill him seems to be the tactic. First one then another leading to "The Age of Perpetual Conflict".
Some thoughts from Gabriel Kolko:
"America has power without wisdom, and cannot, despite its repeated experiences, recognize the limits of its ultra-sophisticated military technology."
"That the U.S. end its self-appointed global mission of regulating all problems, wherever, whenever, or however it wishes to do so, is an essential precondition of stemming, much less reversing, the accumulated deterioration of world affairs and wars."
"Ultimately, there will not be peace in the world unless all nations relinquish war as an instrument of policy, not only because of ethical or moral reasoning but because wars have become deadlier and more destructive of social institutions. A precondition of peace is for nations not to attempt to impose their visions on others, adjudicate their differences, and never to assume that their need for the economic or strategic resources of another country warrants interference of any sort in its internal affairs."
"The world will be safer to the extent that the U.S.’ alliances are dissolved and it is isolated"
01 February 2007
Questions for Mary Dejevsky regarding: "The Big Question: Does the US intend to attack Iran, or is it only sabre-rattling?"
Dear Mary Dejevsky
I have an online blog and would like to ask you some questions regarding the above named article, in which you list a series of falsities masquerading as facts. The article is also littered with suppositions, why is there no caveat?
"US charges" (makes an assertion against), "Iran's alleged support", "Washington claims", "The US also objects to what it sees", "Behind these accusations lies a greater concern", "the fear that", "the deep resentment", "is also seen by some" (who exactly?), "Others see the "surge" as", "Iran's...priority, so far as can be judged" (it can't unless you are in the Iranian government), "in an announcement that seemed to cock a snook ", "While the US seems to be cultivating", "Iran's response suggests that the regime", "Mr Ahmadinejad seems to have lost some authority", "It is not hard to imagine", "Israel is seen by some as a power that could do Mr Bush's dirty work in Iran ",
The questions are:
1. Regarding the question in the title, why do you include the word 'only' before sabre-rattling?
'Sabre-rattling', as you call it, is in fact the threat of the use of force, which as you well know is prohibited under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Why did you not state this? It only gives the appearance that you approve of actions that are illegal under international law.
2. You state "the US seems to be cultivating a deliberate ambiguity vis a vis Iran - speaking loudly while carrying a very small stick".
"a very small stick"? It's interesting to see how you describe US gunboat diplomacy: 2 aircraft carrier groups - some 50 ships - , at least 4 nuclear submarines, a squadron of F-16's in Turkey, all with nuclear weapons capability, as 'a very small stick'. What would you call a big stick?
3. You state: "The temptation to talk big must be great. The risks associated with such a stance, however, were illustrated all too graphically by Saddam Hussein"
Actually the risks were illustrated by the US aggression not Saddam Hussein. The historical record counts for little it seems.
4. You state: "It is true that Israel has taken a hawkish stance towards Iran, largely because of Mr Ahmadinejad's threat to "wipe Israel off the map"."
This is nonsense. As you well know Israel's hawkish stance is primarily to do with its intentions for hegemony and domination in the region.
Why do you repeat US/Israeli propaganda? As you must be well aware, this deliberate use of a mistranslation as a 'casus belli' is both immoral and repugnant. To merely relay this propaganda yet again speaks volumes about the Independent's desire for fair and balanced reporting.
Why has the Independent never passed the Farsi version of the speech to a minimum of 3 independent, academic Farsi experts to have it independently analysed so that the question can be settled once and for all? Its the very least the Independent could do if it genuinely wants to avoid a nuclear aggression in the Middle East, I mean this is a fundamental issue, and a leading British newspaper does not even bother to search for the truth? There is abundant evidence in the public domain.
Why do you not report that the translation of the "wiped off the map" phrase is disputed and has been refuted by Iranian authorities?
5. You ask a further question: "Precisely what does the US have against Iran?"
Now, it is entirely unclear what you mean by this question? Do you mean by this what proof does the US have or do you mean what beef does it have? Because if you mean proof, there is none. But you do not specifically state this, which gives the effect that the claims are true. What do you mean?
6. You state: "Iran has defied the IAEA and the UN; it is in clear breach of its international legal obligations."
This is once again nonsense, and it is irresponsible in the extreme to publish false and misleading information.
Iran's international legal obligations are set out in the NPT. El Baradei stated to Reuters on 30 March 2006: 'Nobody has the right to punish Iran for enrichment. We have not seen nuclear material diverted to a nuclear weapon' .
The issue of Iran's nuclear activities was reported to the Security Council as a result of a resolution passed by the IAEA Board on 4 February 2006. This requested El Baradei to inform the Security Council that certain steps, defined in paragraph 1 of the resolution, were 'required of Iran' (and to send the Security Council all future IAEA reports and resolutions about Iran). Chief among these steps is the re-suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities.
None of these steps are 'required of Iran' under the NPT. The resolution itself makes this clear in paragraph 5, where the steps are referred to as 'confidence-building measures, which are voluntary, and non legally binding' .
In other words, Iran was reported to the Security Council, not because it refused to take measures required by the NPT, but because it refused to take measures that were explicitly stated to be voluntary and not required by the NPT .
Iran first agreed to the suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities in November 2004, when it signed the Paris Agreement with the EU (represented by UK, France and Germany). This suspension was a voluntary act of goodwill on the part of Iran while negotiations with the EU were taking place.
The Paris Agreement itself states: "'The E3/EU recognize that this suspension is a voluntary confidence building measure and not a legal obligation …. In the context of this suspension, the E3/EU and Iran have agreed to begin negotiations, with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable agreement on long term arrangements ."
Iran's only crime was to voluntarily resume what it had voluntarily suspended in November 2004. If Iran is forbidden to enrich uranium by a mandatory Security Council resolution, that is tantamount to amending the NPT, without Iran's consent , to take away Iran's right to engage in nuclear activities for peaceful purposes. The NPT may need to be revised, but this should be done properly through the correct channels and in consultation with all the countries involved.
Further, you ignore the fact that all 5 permanent veto-holding members of the UN Security Council are themselves "in clear breach of (their) international legal obligations " (under Article VI of the NPT), again, as you must be well aware, Why is this not mentioned in the article? Is it not incredibly relevant?
7. You state: "A nuclear Iran would destabilise a region that is already highly volatile and encourage others to acquire nuclear weapons"
This statement is a supposition not a fact. But worse than that, why do you ignore the elephant in the room: the fact that a nuclear Israel is already destabilising the region and encouraging others to acquire nuclear weapons by its own nuclear weapons?
8. You state: " Iran, with its particular strain of militant Islam, is a menace not just to the US, but to wider western interests, and should be curbed"
You do not explain this strange assertion. In what way is Iran a menace to the US? What are the "wider western interests" you talk about and most importantly are they legitimate?
9. Finally, nowhere in the article do you mention US policy of regime-change in Iran - as in Iraq - its real intention. Why is that? In fact, the historical record tells us that the US, with the UK, have continuously intervened in the region to install pro-western undemocratic regimes: Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Saudia Arabia, the Gulf States, Iran itself in 1953, etc. in complete defiance of international law.
I would be grateful for your comments.
Yours Sincerely
I have an online blog and would like to ask you some questions regarding the above named article, in which you list a series of falsities masquerading as facts. The article is also littered with suppositions, why is there no caveat?
"US charges" (makes an assertion against), "Iran's alleged support", "Washington claims", "The US also objects to what it sees", "Behind these accusations lies a greater concern", "the fear that", "the deep resentment", "is also seen by some" (who exactly?), "Others see the "surge" as", "Iran's...priority, so far as can be judged" (it can't unless you are in the Iranian government), "in an announcement that seemed to cock a snook ", "While the US seems to be cultivating", "Iran's response suggests that the regime", "Mr Ahmadinejad seems to have lost some authority", "It is not hard to imagine", "Israel is seen by some as a power that could do Mr Bush's dirty work in Iran ",
The questions are:
1. Regarding the question in the title, why do you include the word 'only' before sabre-rattling?
'Sabre-rattling', as you call it, is in fact the threat of the use of force, which as you well know is prohibited under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Why did you not state this? It only gives the appearance that you approve of actions that are illegal under international law.
2. You state "the US seems to be cultivating a deliberate ambiguity vis a vis Iran - speaking loudly while carrying a very small stick".
"a very small stick"? It's interesting to see how you describe US gunboat diplomacy: 2 aircraft carrier groups - some 50 ships - , at least 4 nuclear submarines, a squadron of F-16's in Turkey, all with nuclear weapons capability, as 'a very small stick'. What would you call a big stick?
3. You state: "The temptation to talk big must be great. The risks associated with such a stance, however, were illustrated all too graphically by Saddam Hussein"
Actually the risks were illustrated by the US aggression not Saddam Hussein. The historical record counts for little it seems.
4. You state: "It is true that Israel has taken a hawkish stance towards Iran, largely because of Mr Ahmadinejad's threat to "wipe Israel off the map"."
This is nonsense. As you well know Israel's hawkish stance is primarily to do with its intentions for hegemony and domination in the region.
Why do you repeat US/Israeli propaganda? As you must be well aware, this deliberate use of a mistranslation as a 'casus belli' is both immoral and repugnant. To merely relay this propaganda yet again speaks volumes about the Independent's desire for fair and balanced reporting.
Why has the Independent never passed the Farsi version of the speech to a minimum of 3 independent, academic Farsi experts to have it independently analysed so that the question can be settled once and for all? Its the very least the Independent could do if it genuinely wants to avoid a nuclear aggression in the Middle East, I mean this is a fundamental issue, and a leading British newspaper does not even bother to search for the truth? There is abundant evidence in the public domain.
Why do you not report that the translation of the "wiped off the map" phrase is disputed and has been refuted by Iranian authorities?
5. You ask a further question: "Precisely what does the US have against Iran?"
Now, it is entirely unclear what you mean by this question? Do you mean by this what proof does the US have or do you mean what beef does it have? Because if you mean proof, there is none. But you do not specifically state this, which gives the effect that the claims are true. What do you mean?
6. You state: "Iran has defied the IAEA and the UN; it is in clear breach of its international legal obligations."
This is once again nonsense, and it is irresponsible in the extreme to publish false and misleading information.
Iran's international legal obligations are set out in the NPT. El Baradei stated to Reuters on 30 March 2006: 'Nobody has the right to punish Iran for enrichment. We have not seen nuclear material diverted to a nuclear weapon' .
The issue of Iran's nuclear activities was reported to the Security Council as a result of a resolution passed by the IAEA Board on 4 February 2006. This requested El Baradei to inform the Security Council that certain steps, defined in paragraph 1 of the resolution, were 'required of Iran' (and to send the Security Council all future IAEA reports and resolutions about Iran). Chief among these steps is the re-suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities.
None of these steps are 'required of Iran' under the NPT. The resolution itself makes this clear in paragraph 5, where the steps are referred to as 'confidence-building measures, which are voluntary, and non legally binding' .
In other words, Iran was reported to the Security Council, not because it refused to take measures required by the NPT, but because it refused to take measures that were explicitly stated to be voluntary and not required by the NPT .
Iran first agreed to the suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities in November 2004, when it signed the Paris Agreement with the EU (represented by UK, France and Germany). This suspension was a voluntary act of goodwill on the part of Iran while negotiations with the EU were taking place.
The Paris Agreement itself states: "'The E3/EU recognize that this suspension is a voluntary confidence building measure and not a legal obligation …. In the context of this suspension, the E3/EU and Iran have agreed to begin negotiations, with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable agreement on long term arrangements ."
Iran's only crime was to voluntarily resume what it had voluntarily suspended in November 2004. If Iran is forbidden to enrich uranium by a mandatory Security Council resolution, that is tantamount to amending the NPT, without Iran's consent , to take away Iran's right to engage in nuclear activities for peaceful purposes. The NPT may need to be revised, but this should be done properly through the correct channels and in consultation with all the countries involved.
Further, you ignore the fact that all 5 permanent veto-holding members of the UN Security Council are themselves "in clear breach of (their) international legal obligations " (under Article VI of the NPT), again, as you must be well aware, Why is this not mentioned in the article? Is it not incredibly relevant?
7. You state: "A nuclear Iran would destabilise a region that is already highly volatile and encourage others to acquire nuclear weapons"
This statement is a supposition not a fact. But worse than that, why do you ignore the elephant in the room: the fact that a nuclear Israel is already destabilising the region and encouraging others to acquire nuclear weapons by its own nuclear weapons?
8. You state: " Iran, with its particular strain of militant Islam, is a menace not just to the US, but to wider western interests, and should be curbed"
You do not explain this strange assertion. In what way is Iran a menace to the US? What are the "wider western interests" you talk about and most importantly are they legitimate?
9. Finally, nowhere in the article do you mention US policy of regime-change in Iran - as in Iraq - its real intention. Why is that? In fact, the historical record tells us that the US, with the UK, have continuously intervened in the region to install pro-western undemocratic regimes: Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Saudia Arabia, the Gulf States, Iran itself in 1953, etc. in complete defiance of international law.
I would be grateful for your comments.
Yours Sincerely
31 January 2007
Telegraph Comment writers promoting another war of aggression
There is a lot of nonsense in this commentary. Either nonsense or just plain good old propaganda.
"it is easy to sympathise with Washington's irritation over Europe's failure to tighten the economic thumbscrews on Iran"
No it isn't. It seems the Times comment writers have forgotten or just don't give a damn about causing genocide, the genocide caused by the sanctions on Iraq after 1991 when over half a million children died.
"Washington believes an economic squeeze would help foment internal dissent against this bellicose Islamic regime"
How do the Telegraph Comment writers know what Washington "believes"?
One of the main problems of the main stream press in these times is their willingness to take as gospel, utterings by Administration, Defence or Intelligence officials. I say problem because how many times have these officials lied through their teeth since September 2001? It's about time their actions and not their words were examined.
Also who on earth gave the US the right to intervene in a sovereign nation's internal affairs? It is completely contrary to international law.
As for describing the Iranian regime as "bellicose", perhaps the Telegraph would care to back that up with some facts?
How many times has the USA been described as "bellicose" in the main stream media?
Which of the two countries has initiated over 200 military interventions since World War II? Iran? or the US?
"Critics of America will claim it is easy for the Bush Administration to call for an economic squeeze because America does little business with Iran, and so has little to lose."
The Telegraph Comment writers fail to question, exactly where Europe will find its own energy resources. It seems to forget that Europe is an energy competitor to the US, and must therefore look out for its own interests and not sacrifice them for the US.
"But in the real world, we all know if Teheran is to be stopped from developing a nuclear warhead it is to America that the West will ultimately turn"
Again the Telegraph assumes Iran is developing a nuclear warhead in spite of there being no proof.
Why is it that the falsified Iraq Downing St. dossier come to mind along with Colin Powell's false testimony to the UN?
"It will surprise many that Europe is offering such economic succour to a regime whose avowed aim is to use nuclear weapons to dominate the most volatile region on the planet. "
This is a blatant lie. In fact the truth is completely the opposite. The Iranians have never expressed any intention to dominate anyone with nuclear weapons. That is in fact what Israel and the US aims are. The Iranian Supreme Leader even issued a fatwa against the research, production or use of nuclear weapons.
One wonders why the Telegraph Comment writers are so interested in promoting yet another war of aggression? I would remind them that the Nuremburg tribunals sentenced people to death for doing exactly the same...
"it is easy to sympathise with Washington's irritation over Europe's failure to tighten the economic thumbscrews on Iran"
No it isn't. It seems the Times comment writers have forgotten or just don't give a damn about causing genocide, the genocide caused by the sanctions on Iraq after 1991 when over half a million children died.
"Washington believes an economic squeeze would help foment internal dissent against this bellicose Islamic regime"
How do the Telegraph Comment writers know what Washington "believes"?
One of the main problems of the main stream press in these times is their willingness to take as gospel, utterings by Administration, Defence or Intelligence officials. I say problem because how many times have these officials lied through their teeth since September 2001? It's about time their actions and not their words were examined.
Also who on earth gave the US the right to intervene in a sovereign nation's internal affairs? It is completely contrary to international law.
As for describing the Iranian regime as "bellicose", perhaps the Telegraph would care to back that up with some facts?
How many times has the USA been described as "bellicose" in the main stream media?
Which of the two countries has initiated over 200 military interventions since World War II? Iran? or the US?
"Critics of America will claim it is easy for the Bush Administration to call for an economic squeeze because America does little business with Iran, and so has little to lose."
The Telegraph Comment writers fail to question, exactly where Europe will find its own energy resources. It seems to forget that Europe is an energy competitor to the US, and must therefore look out for its own interests and not sacrifice them for the US.
"But in the real world, we all know if Teheran is to be stopped from developing a nuclear warhead it is to America that the West will ultimately turn"
Again the Telegraph assumes Iran is developing a nuclear warhead in spite of there being no proof.
Why is it that the falsified Iraq Downing St. dossier come to mind along with Colin Powell's false testimony to the UN?
"It will surprise many that Europe is offering such economic succour to a regime whose avowed aim is to use nuclear weapons to dominate the most volatile region on the planet. "
This is a blatant lie. In fact the truth is completely the opposite. The Iranians have never expressed any intention to dominate anyone with nuclear weapons. That is in fact what Israel and the US aims are. The Iranian Supreme Leader even issued a fatwa against the research, production or use of nuclear weapons.
One wonders why the Telegraph Comment writers are so interested in promoting yet another war of aggression? I would remind them that the Nuremburg tribunals sentenced people to death for doing exactly the same...
24 January 2007
Con Coughlin, more MI6 disinformation?
According to Con Coughlin in today's Daily Telegraph, "North Korea is helping Iran to prepare an underground nuclear test similar to the one Pyongyang carried out last year."
He continues: "A senior European defence official told The Daily Telegraph that North Korea had invited a team of Iranian nuclear scientists to study the results of last October's underground test to assist Teheran's preparations to conduct its own — possibly by the end of this year. There were unconfirmed reports at the time of the Korean firing that an Iranian team was present. Iranian military advisers regularly visit North Korea to participate in missile tests."
However, the "senior European defence official " is in all likelihood a "senior MI6 officer " if Coughlin's past form is anything to go by.
David Leigh wrote back in June 2000 in The Guardian that "Black propaganda - false material where the source is disguised - has been a tool of British intelligence agencies since the days of the second world war...readers of the Sunday Telegraph were regaled with with the dramatic story of the son of Libya's Colonel Gadafy and his alleged connection to a currency counterfeiting plan. The story was written by Con Coughlin, the paper's chief foreign correspondent and it was falsely attributed to a "British banking official". In fact, it had been given to him by officers of MI6, who, it transpired, had been supplying Coughlin with material for years."
Annie Machon, David Shayler's partner, in her book 'Spies,Lies and Whistleblowers: MI5 and the David Shayler Affair' "alleges that MI6's counter-Iranian section used the Sunday Telegraph (and the journalists Con Coughlin, John Simpson and Dominic Lawson) to try to blame Iran for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, the destruction of flight PA103. MI6 was trying to deflect attention from the fact that it was actually a Libyan retaliation for the US bombing of Tripoli (backed by Thatcher) in 1986."
The fact that another of her allegations in the book - that there was collusion between the Army Forces Research Unit and loyalist terrorists - has been proved true just this week gives her account added credibility:
So we know that on at least 2 occasions false stories were planted in the Sunday Telegraph with the connivance of Coughlin, both to do with Iran and one at least disguising the source.
We also know that Coughlin, back on 17 March 2003 was of the opinion that "Iran should come before Iraq"
He continues: "A senior European defence official told The Daily Telegraph that North Korea had invited a team of Iranian nuclear scientists to study the results of last October's underground test to assist Teheran's preparations to conduct its own — possibly by the end of this year. There were unconfirmed reports at the time of the Korean firing that an Iranian team was present. Iranian military advisers regularly visit North Korea to participate in missile tests."
However, the "senior European defence official " is in all likelihood a "senior MI6 officer " if Coughlin's past form is anything to go by.
David Leigh wrote back in June 2000 in The Guardian that "Black propaganda - false material where the source is disguised - has been a tool of British intelligence agencies since the days of the second world war...readers of the Sunday Telegraph were regaled with with the dramatic story of the son of Libya's Colonel Gadafy and his alleged connection to a currency counterfeiting plan. The story was written by Con Coughlin, the paper's chief foreign correspondent and it was falsely attributed to a "British banking official". In fact, it had been given to him by officers of MI6, who, it transpired, had been supplying Coughlin with material for years."
Annie Machon, David Shayler's partner, in her book 'Spies,Lies and Whistleblowers: MI5 and the David Shayler Affair' "alleges that MI6's counter-Iranian section used the Sunday Telegraph (and the journalists Con Coughlin, John Simpson and Dominic Lawson) to try to blame Iran for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, the destruction of flight PA103. MI6 was trying to deflect attention from the fact that it was actually a Libyan retaliation for the US bombing of Tripoli (backed by Thatcher) in 1986."
The fact that another of her allegations in the book - that there was collusion between the Army Forces Research Unit and loyalist terrorists - has been proved true just this week gives her account added credibility:
"15 murders linked to police collusion with loyalists· Special Branch protected paramilitaries, ombudsman finds · Calls for public inquiry over role of senior RUC officers"
Owen Bowcott, Ireland correspondent Tuesday January 23, 2007 The Guardian
So we know that on at least 2 occasions false stories were planted in the Sunday Telegraph with the connivance of Coughlin, both to do with Iran and one at least disguising the source.
We also know that Coughlin, back on 17 March 2003 was of the opinion that "Iran should come before Iraq"
Back on 05 January 2007, writing in The First Post, Robert Fox warned that the "British media appears to be softening us up for an attack on Iran".
Indeed, the plethora of anti-Iranian rhetoric in the press recently is a definite sign that the same model that was used against Iraq, is now being used for Iran: "the preparation of domestic opinion."
"Domestic Opinion
20. Time will be required to prepare public opinion in the UK that it is necessary to take military action against Saddam Hussein. There would also need to be a substantial effort to secure the support of Parliament. An information campaign will be needed which has to be closely related to an overseas information campaign designed to influence Saddam Hussein, the Islamic World and the wider international community. This will need to give full coverage to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, including his WMD, and the legal justification for action."
Indeed, the plethora of anti-Iranian rhetoric in the press recently is a definite sign that the same model that was used against Iraq, is now being used for Iran: "the preparation of domestic opinion."
"Domestic Opinion
20. Time will be required to prepare public opinion in the UK that it is necessary to take military action against Saddam Hussein. There would also need to be a substantial effort to secure the support of Parliament. An information campaign will be needed which has to be closely related to an overseas information campaign designed to influence Saddam Hussein, the Islamic World and the wider international community. This will need to give full coverage to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, including his WMD, and the legal justification for action."
Cabinet Office paper: Conditions for military action The Sunday Times June 12, 2005
"*sensitising the public: a media campaign to warm of the dangers that Saddam poses and to prepare public opinion both in the UK and abroad."
March 8, 2002 memo from Overseas and Defence Secretariat Cabinet Office outlining military options for implementing regime change.
"A Secret UK Eyes Only briefing paper was warning that there was no legal justification for war. So Mr Blair was advised that a strategy would have to be put in place which would provide a legal basis for war. It was also vital that the Prime Minister should be able to persuade the public that war was justified and, just as importantly, convince those among his backbench MPs who were becoming increasingly vocal in their opposition to another US-led war."
16 January 2007
Major investment bank issues warning on strike against Iran
The Raw Story has a scoop dated yesterday 15 January 2007.
Michael Roston of Raw Story reports:
"Warning that investors might be "in for a shock," a major investment bank has told the financial community that a preemptive strike by Israel with American backing could hit Iran's nuclear program, RAW STORY has learned.
The banking division of ING Group released a memo on Jan. 9 entitled
"Attacking Iran: The market impact of a surprise Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities."
ING is a global financial services company of Dutch origin that includes banking, insurance, and other divisions. The report was authored by Charles Robinson, the Chief Economist for Emerging Europe, Middle East, and Africa. He also authored an update in ING's daily update, Prophet, that further underscored the bank's perception of the risks of an attack."
Roston further reports:
"In his Jan. 15 update (p.4), Robertson points to a political reason that could make the assault more likely – personnel changes in the Bush administration may have sidelined opponents of attacking Iran.
Preisdent Bush recently removed General John Abizaid as commander of US forces in the Middle East and John Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence, both of whom have said attacking Iran is not a priority or the right move at this time. The deployment of Patriot missile batteries, highlighted in President Bush's recent White House speech on America's Iraq policy, also pointed to a need to defend against Iranian missiles."
The 15 January update also states:
"President Bush's speech included an interesting line ("And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region, to build support for Iraq and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East. ")
This is a different emphasis from that reported by Bloomberg on 09 January (NI IRAN "Go"), when it cited the State Department spokesman saying that Rice would be going to the Middle East to discuss the "common threat" from Iran and would be "laying the foundations for potential future actions".
This is a different emphasis from that reported by Bloomberg on 09 January (NI IRAN "Go"), when it cited the State Department spokesman saying that Rice would be going to the Middle East to discuss the "common threat" from Iran and would be "laying the foundations for potential future actions".
I reproduce verbatim the State Department briefing referred to above:
"In terms of the Secretary's travels, this is a trip where I expect that she is going to have some extended conversations with her counterparts and leaders in the region about how to address and confront the various threats that are -- that we face in common in the region"..."I would expect that this is a trip that is more about laying the foundations for potential future actions than actually coming to closure on any particular agreements.
QUESTION: So Iraq will also be part of the discussions?
MR. MCCORMACK: I would expect it will be. Yes, part of the stop in -- all along the way, I would expect that the topics of the Israel-Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq would come up. I would expect also discussions about the perception of a common threat posed by Iran and for other forces of extremism and violence in the region -- violent extremism in the region."
MR. MCCORMACK: I would expect it will be. Yes, part of the stop in -- all along the way, I would expect that the topics of the Israel-Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq would come up. I would expect also discussions about the perception of a common threat posed by Iran and for other forces of extremism and violence in the region -- violent extremism in the region."
14 January 2007
The US-Iran-Iraq-Israeli-Syrian War
Robert Parry, who broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek, warns us that "the preparations for a wider Middle Eastern war are very serious and moving very quickly".
Several indicators point to this according to Parry.
1. Bush's recent speech on Iraq in which he stated ""We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria," Bush said. "And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq." He also stated that "Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria"
Parry suggests that the whole troop 'surge' could have a different reason than the one offered in public by Bush, namely, that "Bush’s escalation of troop levels in Iraq would make sense as a way to protect the Green Zone and other sensitive targets" against "pro-Iranian Shiite militias in Iraq seeking revenge against U.S. troops" for any attack on Iran.
He 's not the only one. Paul Craig Roberts also believes the "“Surge” Is A Red Herring".
2. The "deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region" as Bush himself remarked in the same speech, adding “We will expand intelligence sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies.”
Parry comments:
"Militarily, a second aircraft carrier strike force would do little to interdict arms smuggling across the Iran-Iraq border. Similarly, Patriot anti-missile batteries would be of no use in defeating lightly armed insurgent forces and militias inside Iraq. However, both deployments would be useful to deter – or defend against – retaliatory missile strikes from Iran if the Israelis or the United States bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities or stage military raids inside Iranian territory. Iran has a relatively sophisticated arsenal of short- and medium-range missiles. Those short-range missiles could be fired at U.S. bases in Iraq or elsewhere in the Persian Gulf. The medium-range missiles could conceivably hit Tel Aviv. Not only could Patriot missiles be used to knock down Iranian missiles while they’re heading toward their targets, but the fearsome firepower of two aircraft carrier strike forces could deter any Iranian retaliatory strike following a U.S. or Israeli attack. The deployments would fit with Israel or the United States bombing Iran’s nuclear sites and then trying to tamp down any Iranian response."
3. President George W. Bush's choice of a Navy admiral to head Central Command after Gen. John P. Abizaid. As Martin Sieff, UPI's Senior News Analyst, asked recently: "An admiral to command a land war?" He comments " If the Bush administration either plans to launch air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in the foreseeable future, or if it expects any significant Iranian offensive operations against U.S. forces in Iraq, in the Persian Gulf region, or against U.S allies in the Gulf, then Adm. Fallon's appointment, and his vast experience in directing carrier-borne air strikes makes far more sense."
4. The removal of Negroponte as intelligence Czar. Parry comments: "McConnell is seen as far more likely than Negroponte to give the administration an alarming assessment of Iran’s nuclear capabilities and intentions in an upcoming National Intelligence Estimate. To the consternation of neoconservatives, Negroponte has splashed cold water on their heated rhetoric about the imminent threat from Iran. “Our assessment is that the prospects of an Iranian weapon are still a number of years off, and probably into the next decade,” Negroponte said in an interview with NBC News in April 2006. Expressing a similarly tempered view in a speech at the National Press Club, Negroponte said, “I think it’s important that this issue be kept in perspective.”
5. The fact that the US has sent warplanes to Turkey's Incirlik military base. On 11 January 2007 the Kuwait News Agency (KUNA) reported that "According to Local Cihan News Agency, at least 16 F-16 jets joined by early warning system AWACS airplane, as well as tanker airplanes landed here at Incirlik coming from an American base in Germany." In his speech Bush stated "We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border." Both Turkey and Iraq border Iran.
6. "Pentagon sources tell CBS News the U.S. military has planned covert cross-border raids into Iran — but so far none has been approved."
7. The First Post's Robert Fox has noted that the "British media appears to be softening us up for an attack on Iran,"
You have been warned.
Several indicators point to this according to Parry.
1. Bush's recent speech on Iraq in which he stated ""We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria," Bush said. "And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq." He also stated that "Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria"
Parry suggests that the whole troop 'surge' could have a different reason than the one offered in public by Bush, namely, that "Bush’s escalation of troop levels in Iraq would make sense as a way to protect the Green Zone and other sensitive targets" against "pro-Iranian Shiite militias in Iraq seeking revenge against U.S. troops" for any attack on Iran.
He 's not the only one. Paul Craig Roberts also believes the "“Surge” Is A Red Herring".
2. The "deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region" as Bush himself remarked in the same speech, adding “We will expand intelligence sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies.”
Parry comments:
"Militarily, a second aircraft carrier strike force would do little to interdict arms smuggling across the Iran-Iraq border. Similarly, Patriot anti-missile batteries would be of no use in defeating lightly armed insurgent forces and militias inside Iraq. However, both deployments would be useful to deter – or defend against – retaliatory missile strikes from Iran if the Israelis or the United States bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities or stage military raids inside Iranian territory. Iran has a relatively sophisticated arsenal of short- and medium-range missiles. Those short-range missiles could be fired at U.S. bases in Iraq or elsewhere in the Persian Gulf. The medium-range missiles could conceivably hit Tel Aviv. Not only could Patriot missiles be used to knock down Iranian missiles while they’re heading toward their targets, but the fearsome firepower of two aircraft carrier strike forces could deter any Iranian retaliatory strike following a U.S. or Israeli attack. The deployments would fit with Israel or the United States bombing Iran’s nuclear sites and then trying to tamp down any Iranian response."
3. President George W. Bush's choice of a Navy admiral to head Central Command after Gen. John P. Abizaid. As Martin Sieff, UPI's Senior News Analyst, asked recently: "An admiral to command a land war?" He comments " If the Bush administration either plans to launch air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in the foreseeable future, or if it expects any significant Iranian offensive operations against U.S. forces in Iraq, in the Persian Gulf region, or against U.S allies in the Gulf, then Adm. Fallon's appointment, and his vast experience in directing carrier-borne air strikes makes far more sense."
4. The removal of Negroponte as intelligence Czar. Parry comments: "McConnell is seen as far more likely than Negroponte to give the administration an alarming assessment of Iran’s nuclear capabilities and intentions in an upcoming National Intelligence Estimate. To the consternation of neoconservatives, Negroponte has splashed cold water on their heated rhetoric about the imminent threat from Iran. “Our assessment is that the prospects of an Iranian weapon are still a number of years off, and probably into the next decade,” Negroponte said in an interview with NBC News in April 2006. Expressing a similarly tempered view in a speech at the National Press Club, Negroponte said, “I think it’s important that this issue be kept in perspective.”
5. The fact that the US has sent warplanes to Turkey's Incirlik military base. On 11 January 2007 the Kuwait News Agency (KUNA) reported that "According to Local Cihan News Agency, at least 16 F-16 jets joined by early warning system AWACS airplane, as well as tanker airplanes landed here at Incirlik coming from an American base in Germany." In his speech Bush stated "We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border." Both Turkey and Iraq border Iran.
6. "Pentagon sources tell CBS News the U.S. military has planned covert cross-border raids into Iran — but so far none has been approved."
7. The First Post's Robert Fox has noted that the "British media appears to be softening us up for an attack on Iran,"
You have been warned.
14 December 2006
Oliver Kamm: little man with large ego
I have just seen the interview on The Late Edition, and what surprised me most (I don't know why it surprised me really), apart from seeing just what a small man Kamm is (albeit with an enormous superiority complex), was his use of the classic myth of "we are a civilised state, Iran and North Korea are not," argument to justify Trident, and the UK's own breaking of the NPT. Like most of his opinion, this is contradicted by the historical record.
Kamm has either not read Mark Curtis' books Web of Deceit and Unpeople which document what such a 'civilised' state we really are or he just ignores them.
In fact Curtis could be pointing directly at Kamm when he writes "The history of British foreign policy is partly one of complicity in some of the world's worst horrors. If we were honest, we would see Britain's role in the world to a large extent as a story of crimes against humanity. Currently, contrary to the extraordinary rhetoric of New Labour leaders and other elites, policies are continuing on this traditional course, systemmatically making the world more abusive of human rights as well as more unequal and less secure" Mark Curts, Web of Deceit p. 432.
Not surprisingly, Kamm also resorts to inverted logic in his opinions, for example when he states his primary reasons for supporting Trident:
"Because nuclear armories will be around for at least the next 50 years, that is, the life span of the successor to Trident; the likely acquirers will be the worst of states, in the not so distant future Iran and North Korea; the costs of acquiring Trident are known; the costs of renouncing it are incalculable; it is a prudent thing to do"
Kamm apparently can't see, or more probably ignores:
1. That "as Britain, especially with the US, increases military spending, heightens 'power projection' capabilities, develops even more sophisticated weapons and ensures Western conventional miltary dominance", in order to impose on the world a fundamentalist economic ideology that promotes the increasing takeover of the global economy by big business, "these priorities breed increasing insecurity and further encourage others to acquire even more devastating weapons". Mark Curtis, Web of Deceipt
2. That as Paul Rogers, Professor of Peace Studies at Bradford University, openDemocracy’s International Security Editor and a consultant to the Oxford Research Group, explains:
"The determination of Britain's political elite to maintain the country as a nuclear-weapons state is rooted in a half-century of military planning to which the possibility of tactical and first use of nuclear weapons is central."
3. The policy itself sends a "clear signal" to other states who are "serious about pursuing an independent course of development": "if a country does not have these weapons, it may be threatened wth destruction and pulverised, as in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Iraq. Nuclear weapons could be seen as protection against this new phase of Western threats and interventionism masquerading as the 'war against terrorism'." Mark Curtis, Web of Deceit pp.432-433
The simple explanation is that this policy actually encourages the proliferation Kamm talks about.
Finally he states "it is a prudent thing to do".
Prudent? For someone who acclaims his own superior intellect, and calls others 'ignoramus', this is a remarkable word to use.
Prudent: "characterized by, arising from, or showing prudence"
Prudence:
"1 : the ability to govern and discipline oneself by the use of reason
2 : sagacity or shrewdness in the management of affairs
3 : skill and good judgment in the use of resources
4 : caution or circumspection as to danger or risk "
In fact, as is common with Kamm, he uses words which describe the opposite of reality.
Trident is ill-considered, ill-judged, and rash.
Media Lens Message Board
Re: Oliver Kamm: little man with large ego
Posted by The Editors on December 14, 2006, 6:27 pm, in reply to "Oliver Kamm: little man with large ego "User logged in as: Editor
: Trident is ill-considered, ill-judged, and : rash.
Actually, David, I think that's extremely generous. I think Trident is completely, 100%, insane. How else to describe a massively expensive response to a threat that doesn't exist which simultaneously increases the danger from threats that do exist (nuclear terrorism, etc)? It reminds me of the 'debate' in some circles on whether climate change is real - it wouldn't even be happening but for the influence of big money, big interests and big power.
DE
Kamm has either not read Mark Curtis' books Web of Deceit and Unpeople which document what such a 'civilised' state we really are or he just ignores them.
In fact Curtis could be pointing directly at Kamm when he writes "The history of British foreign policy is partly one of complicity in some of the world's worst horrors. If we were honest, we would see Britain's role in the world to a large extent as a story of crimes against humanity. Currently, contrary to the extraordinary rhetoric of New Labour leaders and other elites, policies are continuing on this traditional course, systemmatically making the world more abusive of human rights as well as more unequal and less secure" Mark Curts, Web of Deceit p. 432.
Not surprisingly, Kamm also resorts to inverted logic in his opinions, for example when he states his primary reasons for supporting Trident:
"Because nuclear armories will be around for at least the next 50 years, that is, the life span of the successor to Trident; the likely acquirers will be the worst of states, in the not so distant future Iran and North Korea; the costs of acquiring Trident are known; the costs of renouncing it are incalculable; it is a prudent thing to do"
Kamm apparently can't see, or more probably ignores:
1. That "as Britain, especially with the US, increases military spending, heightens 'power projection' capabilities, develops even more sophisticated weapons and ensures Western conventional miltary dominance", in order to impose on the world a fundamentalist economic ideology that promotes the increasing takeover of the global economy by big business, "these priorities breed increasing insecurity and further encourage others to acquire even more devastating weapons". Mark Curtis, Web of Deceipt
2. That as Paul Rogers, Professor of Peace Studies at Bradford University, openDemocracy’s International Security Editor and a consultant to the Oxford Research Group, explains:
"The determination of Britain's political elite to maintain the country as a nuclear-weapons state is rooted in a half-century of military planning to which the possibility of tactical and first use of nuclear weapons is central."
3. The policy itself sends a "clear signal" to other states who are "serious about pursuing an independent course of development": "if a country does not have these weapons, it may be threatened wth destruction and pulverised, as in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Iraq. Nuclear weapons could be seen as protection against this new phase of Western threats and interventionism masquerading as the 'war against terrorism'." Mark Curtis, Web of Deceit pp.432-433
The simple explanation is that this policy actually encourages the proliferation Kamm talks about.
Finally he states "it is a prudent thing to do".
Prudent? For someone who acclaims his own superior intellect, and calls others 'ignoramus', this is a remarkable word to use.
Prudent: "characterized by, arising from, or showing prudence"
Prudence:
"1 : the ability to govern and discipline oneself by the use of reason
2 : sagacity or shrewdness in the management of affairs
3 : skill and good judgment in the use of resources
4 : caution or circumspection as to danger or risk "
In fact, as is common with Kamm, he uses words which describe the opposite of reality.
Trident is ill-considered, ill-judged, and rash.
Media Lens Message Board
Re: Oliver Kamm: little man with large ego
Posted by The Editors on December 14, 2006, 6:27 pm, in reply to "Oliver Kamm: little man with large ego "User logged in as: Editor
: Trident is ill-considered, ill-judged, and : rash.
Actually, David, I think that's extremely generous. I think Trident is completely, 100%, insane. How else to describe a massively expensive response to a threat that doesn't exist which simultaneously increases the danger from threats that do exist (nuclear terrorism, etc)? It reminds me of the 'debate' in some circles on whether climate change is real - it wouldn't even be happening but for the influence of big money, big interests and big power.
DE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
