December 4, 2007
Iran and the bomb
The new US intelligence report on Iran is clearly a bit of a blow to those pressing for military action against Iranian nuclear facilities. As the FT explained this morning: "The key finding in the estimate, the product of more than 18 months of work by the 16 US intelligence agencies, is that Iran is probably not actively seeking to turn nuclear material into weapons."
You might expect that the only people who would be depressed by this news would be the hawks around Dick Cheney. But you would be wrong. I spent a bit of time today with some British policymakers who follow Iran and counter-proliferation closely. And they are not exactly jumping for joy.
Specifically, the Brits are very worried that efforts to push through a new sanctions package against Iran will now be much harder. And they still think further sanctions are justified. Their argument is that even if Iran is not actively trying to "weaponise" uranium (and the non-proliferation people did not seem convinced, even by this) we should not conclude that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons. They argue that the key point is that Iran has an active uranium enrichment programme, which can only be explained as part of a nuclear-weapons programme. And they also point to Iran’s ballistic-missiles programme as further reason for concern.
Leading Democrats in the US are now calling for a policy of dialogue with Iran. The doves in Europe - led by the Germans - are expected to take a similar line. But my British interlocutors today were not convinced. They are not in favour of bombing (the Cheney option) and they do believe in talking to Iran - at some point. But they want to negotiate when Iran is feeling nervous and on the defensive, not when the hardliners in Iran are feeling confident and vindicated. A further concern is that the US intelligence report will play into the hands of President Ahmadi-nejad, who will be able to argue that Iran has faced down the world and humiliated its adversaries. Conversely, those in Iran who might be arguing for concessions on their nuclear programme, will now be weakened.
Amir Oren, Ha’aretz’s military-affairs columnist, was also not convinced. He imagines the Iranians now laughing a rowdy Persian laugh.
Possibly the Americans, after committing a type I error (false positive) over Iraq, are now committing a type II error (false negative) over Iran. The FT characterises the latest report as the most ‘nuanced’ to date. That is bad. Intelligence reports are not supposed to be ‘nuanced’ — that is best left to philosophers.
Posted by: RCS | December 4th, 2007 at 5:34 pm | Report this commentMr Rachman:
I find it intiguing that you are not proffering your own point of view.
I take the view that the US intelligence services have gone out of their way to destroy the war party. (They did this in a way that leaves very little doubt about their message. Tthey released the total report and not a summary)
(Read the PDF file of the TOTAL narrative in to day’s Guardian).
The only figleaf they left was the statement that by 2003 they had ceased the weaponization effort”.
Does anybody remember any effort by anybody to stop the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons in 2003? I do not.
The only story i believe is the following: In 2002 they CONSIDERED the possiblity of going the weapon’s way (during HATAMI’s presidency) and decided against it. In actual fact the Iranians do not have a weapons program.
Your interlocutors are actually disingenuous because their actual agenda on iran is mainly its hydrocarbons. The agenda has been “regime change” since the beginning.
Why do they insist on enrichment as they are allowed? I believe they are doing this so as to get to the point where they would have no need for russian supplies. They want to be as free from potential pressure as possible.
The really interesting story is the public relations ambush which the intelligence services have sprung on BUSH and co and on the israelis.
It is absolutely fascinating.
Posted by: Max | December 4th, 2007 at 10:23 pm | Report this commentIt has been reported that the draft of this report was reviewed by key senators about six months ago. (I apologise for not researching the date before writing this.) The findings have been known in security circles for even longer. The White House has already been asked to respond to how President Bush could have made his “facing WWIII” comment in late summer. Why would anyone believe C Street, the Pentagon, the White House, or Whitehall could find the report a blow? They find its release a blow, as someone with a rare combination of information, power and integrity weighed in and forced its release.
There is something most disingenuous in reading a piece suggesting this moment hasn’t been anticipated and thought through.
Recall my suggestions that the Annapolis corridors may have been more interesting than many thought they would be. The reasons I thought began with the Abu Dhabi funding of Citi’s reserve shortfall and other material help imposed upon reluctant US officials and bankers in the face of a financial crisis that posed a far greater risk than whatever Iran’s worst dreams may be at the moment.
Does anyone have at least an ear behind the curtains?
Posted by: WCM | December 4th, 2007 at 10:30 pm | Report this commentThe report raises big questions: If the Iranians suspended their weaponisation programme in 2003, why did they not come clean as Libya did? If you are not to be believed, you might as well go on with it.
Posted by: RCS | December 5th, 2007 at 6:28 am | Report this commentI find it very interresting that the report coincides with the fact that China has finally agreed on approoving sanctions against Iran….
Posted by: fritzen | December 5th, 2007 at 8:09 am | Report this commentA couple of comments on points made by RCS.
Firstly, intelligence absolutely should be nuanced, precisely because of the myriad uncertainties surrounding their informations sources which result in a high risk of making Type I or II errors. It’s essential that policymakers understand the nuances before acting on the intelligence.
Second, the question why the Iranians didn’t come clean if they had stopped weaponisation. Here’s one entirely plausible rationale:
“By appearing to be irrational and developing nuclear weapons, the Iranians created a valuable asset to use in negotiating with the Americans. The notion of a nuclear weapon in Iranian hands appeared so threatening that the United States might well negotiate away other things — particularly in Iraq — in exchange for a halt of the program. Or so the Iranians hoped. Therefore, while they halted development on their weapons program, they were not eager to let the Americans relax.”
Posted by: DKM | December 5th, 2007 at 10:03 am | Report this commentIf Whitehall has seemed in disarray during the last 72 hours, it may be for reasons that came to me when I watched the tape of the press conference last night. Whitehall Mandarins may likely have thought that political maps still were relevant. Fears that they are not are confirmed now when watching Bush, Olmert and Sarkozy handle questions on the absence of hard proof to justify their determination to overthrow the Tehran regime and impose one of its own choosing at all political costs.
One could even wonder aloud if the US military establishment is not sharing Whitehall’s alarm. I think there is a legitimate question here that may be the key determinant as to what will happen during the next 12 months.
While listening to a couple of analysts, I named this new suprastate: BAIPAC
I have never discounted Bush the shareholder and chairman, the role he himself described for his presidency in 2001. Like Putin, he plans to continue to direct BAIPAC long past next November.
Bush & AIPAC are not concerned about the upcoming US election. I have had many discussions in recent months with individuals who are the new stewards of globalisation and the thinking is the same: politics and democracy are meaningless factors in the governance of the global wheels of production. It is an updated version of “Let them eat cake!”
BAIPAC is designed to operate as a super-corporation. It’s aim is ensure the continued dominance of a model that millions of Americans and countless others who are within the net exist on. It is fight for dwindling resources in the long run. Finance is its blood and money, afterall, is only an idea. It is deeply cynical and self-serving. There is no religion at its core. That too is fodder for the masses.
The new world order will be BAIPAC, China, and Russia. A European Union official has told me in recent days of his concerns that Sarkozy had effectively already taken down “the project”. One can presume the UK will be a problem child for BAIPAC in future. Scandinavia, Benelux, Germany and Switzerland will be permitted to extend their protected, enriched existences. Maybe Austria, too. Central Europe and the Baltics are already incorporated; they just need to reconcile some things with Vlad.
Turkey and the Middle East are being sorted and pacified, even if not according to plan yet. Africa and Latin America have always been and always will be subservient, thanks to their economic structures. Masses can only do so much harm these days if they can’t get financing.
Okay. I’m sharing a nightmare. Let’s hope it is nothing more than that. Nonetheless, I think BAIPAC merits some reflection.
Posted by: WCM | December 5th, 2007 at 10:11 am | Report this commentDear DKM,
Why would they halt the program but keep bluffing?! The report claims that they suspended weaponisation in reaction to the threat of sanctions or military attack. But what is that worth if you don’t let it be known? You might be erroneously attacked anyway! This is not fiction — we saw it happen to Saddam Hussein.
Either they suspend weaponisation because of the risks and signal that they had done so, or they continue development because they view this as an asset. If they’re going to take on the risks then they might as well get the weapon too. Any other possibility would be truly irrational, contradicting another assertion in the report –that they act rationally.
Posted by: RCS | December 5th, 2007 at 10:31 am | Report this commentIran has stood behind its claim to sovereign rights, which on this point put it at odds with its obligations as a member of IAEA. As you have mapped out a consistent defence of Israel on this blog, perhaps you can respond as to why Israel deserves to remain exempt from any accountability, even to the US, on its nuclear weapons. A wasted question, I realise.
Libya’s conversion of the soul still deserves scepticism. I believe their menace was overblown, but their bluff has won them alot.
Posted by: WCM | December 5th, 2007 at 10:49 am | Report this commentDear WCM,
Not a wasted question at all. Firstly, let me remind you that Israel never claimed it had nuclear weapons. But even if it did, then you must remember that nearly 60 years after its establishment, Israel remains encircled by an Arab and Islamic populace that has yet to recognise it’s very right to exist. Contrary to that, Iran’s existence as a nation-state is not in question. Iran merely wants to achieve a strategic dominance over the region. So there is no symmetry in their respective situations.
Posted by: RCS | December 5th, 2007 at 11:11 am | Report this commentRCS–I am sorry, but these arguments are root cause of where we are today. No more response from me.
My mind has wandered off into what life will be under BAIPAC: little different for me I would guess, but I’m not in the habit of thinking where I stand in terms of commonwealth, rights of man, democratic process. Like many on this blog, I somehow drifted above such concerns. Perhaps, we will no longer pay taxes, as they give a false sens of empowerment. Unfortunately, they’ll soon restructure universities into business schools, and thoughts of teaching in retirement may be knocked down, as my competencies will no longer be relevant.
Converting to a BAIPAC system certainly would work for a billion+ Chinese and fits not badly with Wahabi Islam, provided the Saudis get over what I think is a snit at the moment. Ahmadinezad is unlikely an engaging dinner guest in Doha.
Posted by: WCM | December 5th, 2007 at 12:07 pm | Report this commentThe situation can be summarised as follows:-
- Iran does not have a programme to produce nuclear weapons. This has long been been the conclusion of the IAEA inspections and experienced weapons inspectors like the American, Scott Ritter.
- The US intelligence services have not found any evidence of such weaponsiation either. Unlike 2005 when they were railroaded by Cheney and gang, they no longer have to pretend that there is a weapons programme in Iran because the NeoCons are weaker and the Bush regime is a lame duck.
- Nevertheless, it is politically impossible for Bush to accept a report that tells it like it is, because the fulcrum of the American policy in the past 4 years has been a demonisation of Iran over the nuclear issue. Therefore they have hit on a compromise solution to say that there was a weapons programme before 2003 and it was stopped. (This from the same people who two years ago said there was a programme in full swing and in 2003 invaded Iraq because of the allegedly imminent threat of WMD’s by Baghdad…..)
- The idea that Iran stopped (her non-existent) weapons programme because of fear of sanctions and therefore more sanctions are called for is logically equivalent to saying that people do not break the law for fear of imprisonment and fines, “therefore” let’s imprison and fine them anyway in order to prevent them from breaking any laws in the future!!
- Truth is a luxury that the bloodthirsty Likudnik-NeoCons cannot afford. Therefore, they issue opinions and articles that defy all evidence (Chutzpah being a Yiddish word) because Iran is an inconvenient obstacle to their domination of the Middle East.
- Uri Laubrani, an adviser to Ben Gurion, once said “We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters.”
The suggestion in Mr. Rachman’s last paragraph simply extends that principle to all of the Muslim Middle East, including Iran. How dare Iranians do research in physics? They should not assert their rights under International treaties, they should not make any progress in any sciences but be dependent on the West for everything and not get ideas beyond their station. Their best bet is to do like the Gulf Arabs do and spend their money in London casinos and on English prostitutes (an overlooked part of the invisible exports that the Brits are so proud of).
- My constructive suggestion to the British government and its discredited, ironically-named “intelligence” circles is that they should mind their own business and not be oily rags to their American mechanics.
Concentrate on sorting out your own country with its crumbling infrastructure where a bit of rain (an “unexpected” event in England!) floods half the country and the falling of leaves on the railways brings the transport to a halt.
Don’t waste your money and energy on messing up foreign countries, far away. Try to sort out Britain and make it a better place. Now that would require “intelligence”.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 5th, 2007 at 3:22 pm | Report this commentI would go along with WCM’s comment. This is not mainly about preventing nuclear proliferation, much less bringing democracy to Iran. This is about preserving the US led world order (or what is left of it) at gunpoint. Vice President Cheney, John Bolton and their fellow hawks in the White House and its appendage, the American Enterprise Institute, are not about to give up their dream of setting up a client state in Iraq, so why should they be expected to accept Iran as a regional power? These are the same people who tried to start a war with North Korea that could have incinerated all of South Korea and half of Japan, until sanity somehow managed to prevail. But sanity is having a hard time competing with this administration’s drive for imperial domination overseas and unlimited power at home.
Posted by: algasema | December 5th, 2007 at 3:51 pm | Report this commentDear P,
Your post reminds me of Louis Armstrong:
“I see skies of blue and clouds of white
The bright blessed day, the dark sacred night
And I think to myself, what a wonderful world”
Nuclear proliferation is not an issue, maybe you also think climate change is not an issue…what a wonderful world.
By the way, Uri LUBRANI, not Laubrani. He was also Israeli ambassador to Iran (what a wonderful world!).
Also: “woodcutters and drawers of water”, which is a Hebrew idiom, and not as you wrote: “waiters”. I believe Mr Lubrani was being ironic, ie it would be irresponsible to assume the Arab village dwellers would never advance…and so he was also being prescient.
Posted by: RCS | December 5th, 2007 at 4:24 pm | Report this commentHi RCS,
“We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters (or drawers of water)…”
and that is irony…so it’s OK then, is it?
What would nuking the Iranian people be? A supreme irony or just a bit of fun and jokes caused by the cute little misunderstanding of making the world think that Iranians were making bombs when they were not?
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 5th, 2007 at 4:39 pm | Report this commentDear P,
You’re being disingenuous. As if the Iranians haven’t themselves contributed to this sad “misunderstanding”…or is the IAEA affiliated with AIPAC and El Baradei a Neocon Likudnik?
Posted by: RCS | December 5th, 2007 at 4:52 pm | Report this commentDear RCS,
IAEA says there is no evidence of weaponisation. That is why El Baradei is so unpopular with the the NeoOns etc.
BTW, Where is Mordechai Vanunu nowadays? He is proof that there are couragous, decent Human Beings in every society, including yours.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 5th, 2007 at 5:11 pm | Report this commentde al-Jazeera, 12:51 GMT:
“The director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency said that the conclusions in the National Intelligence Estimate were similar to his agency’s findings.
“The report gives me a sigh of relief because it is consistent with our assessment,” ElBaradei said in the capital, Brasilia.
“It opens a window of opportunity for Iran now because Iran obviously has been somewhat vindicated in saying they have not been working on a weapons programme at least for the last few years,” he said.
—————————-
also current:
“Wang Guangya, the Chinese ambassador to the UN, said the six powers’ bid for new sanctions against Iran could be called into question by the US intelligence assessment.
“I think council members will have to consider that, because … now things have changed,” he said.”
——————————–
29 Nov 2007, al-Jazeera:
“A memorandum from the former US president’s then national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, in 1969 warned that “Israel’s secret possession of nuclear weapons would increase potential danger in the Middle East”.
However Kissinger, said: “I do not believe we can ask Israel not to produce missiles. Israel is sovereign in this decision.”
Posted by: WCM | December 5th, 2007 at 5:15 pm | Report this commentIran, by continuing with enrichment, by disregarding the NPT, by turning down Russian initiatives, has contributed its fair share to any “suspicions”.
Mordechai Vanunu is today a free man, thanks to the unreasonable lenience of the Israeli justice system. ‘Courageous’? ‘Troubled soul’ would be a better description.
Posted by: RCS | December 5th, 2007 at 5:36 pm | Report this commentDear RCS,
1-) Iran is entitled to enrichment under the NPT. Get your facts right.
Vanunu is not the free man you make him out to be. He is subject to a broad array of restrictions on his speech and movement and has been arrested several times . In July this he was sentenced to a further 6 months imprisonment. Amnesty International considers him a prisoner of conscience:
Quote
In its press release of July 2, 2007, Amnesty International said “The organization considers Mordechai Vanunu to be a prisoner of conscience and calls for his immediate and unconditional release.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu
Unquote
Facts are devils for the propagandist
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 5th, 2007 at 5:53 pm | Report this commentDear P
You’re right, all is wonderful with Iran’s nuclear programme! I must of been having a nasty dream!
As for Mordechai Vanunu — he’s freer than he should be.
Posted by: RCS | December 5th, 2007 at 6:15 pm | Report this commentDAVID MILIBAND SPEAKS
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/443ec2a0-a357-11dc-b229-0000779fd2ac.html
Posted by: RCS | December 5th, 2007 at 8:20 pm | Report this commenthere is Jenkins in the Guardian:
quote:
This affair must indicate the demise of the White House in US foreign policy, and particularly of its Rasputin, Dick Cheney, who reportedly wanted the NIE suppressed. Washington is rife with rumours that Cheney’s eagerness to bomb Iran met with a resignation threat from the defence secretary, Robert Gates, and a virtual mutiny from the chiefs of staff. They did not believe any proven threat merited such aggression and they could not and would not handle the military consequences. This defeat for Cheney probably emboldened the intelligence community to break cover. Intelligence has not conceded defeat to virtue, merely felt the wind of a political climate change
unquote.
I really believe this is the most important break in american foreign policy of the last five years.
Significantly it was delivered from within the executive.
These people realised that both the Chinese and the Russians could not be coerced to follow the road of corcive regime change in Iran.
The chinese have an absolute need of iranian energy and the russians want (a) to establish conrol over the Caspian as a countermove to american penetration of Azerbaizan and Georgia and (b) they also want to set up an OPEC for GAS together with the Persians and the Algerians.
There was a contingent event which I think played a final determinant role.
The subrime debacle has seriously undermined the anglosaxon financial system to the point that it makes it vulnerable to policies initiated by the chinese mountain of 1.4Tr USD.
The private equity game is over. Real investment is in. (This fits german thinking as well). The global financial
Posted by: Max | December 5th, 2007 at 10:55 pm | Report this commentecosystem is changing very fast.
You cannot substitute Ricardo with a global poker chip game especially if there is no money behind the chips.
I agree with Max on the significance of this event. We have just witnessed a military coup in America!
It goes without saying that the NIE should have been supressed — since when are intelligence reports publicised? For one, the Iranians can now deduce the quality of the sources available to the Americans (and they seem to be short on intelligence…). Secondly, as I pointed out in a previous post, the report makes no sense: why would the Iranians suspend weaponisation but not signal they had done so?
Posted by: RCS | December 6th, 2007 at 4:22 am | Report this commentP - the only thing you can draw from the existence of Vanunu is that there are people in Israel who agree with you. That is called democracy. I’m not sure that anyone in Iran would agree that their weapons programme is a danger to the world, simply because the fascist nature of the regime denies them the right to speak out. And yes I know, there is a Jew in the “parliament” so it must be a democratic regime, mustn’t it?
The key point here is that if Iran continues to enrich uranium, then it will be able, once it has enough, to build a bomb at its leisure. And in addition, why do they need a heavy water reactor at Arak - who needs plutonium, except those seeking to make a bomb?
See article here from Bronwen Maddox in The Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/bronwen_maddox/article3001210.ece
And even this from today’s NY Times (the bible of the left, eh P?):
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/opinion/06milhollin.html?th&emc=th
Posted by: AYC | December 6th, 2007 at 9:55 am | Report this commentWho cares what Miliband thinks?! The UK acts merely like a discarded piece of chewing gum stuck to the bottom of the Americans’ jackboot. The callow youth can rap on what he likes.
The article that Max posted from The Guardian probably arrives at the right conclusion (a strike back, from within the administration, at the war party) but I don’t buy into Max’s subsequent reasoning.
It simply appears that the military-intellignce apparatus who were overridden and suckered into an unnecessary war in Iraq did not want to make the same mistake again. They also realise that by expending resources on insignificant and imaginery threats, they are detracting from the US ability to concentrate resources on where it matters.
No doubt this was a salutary experience for AIPAC and other Zionist interests who will try and pack the US military and intellignce top brass with political appointees so that Americans can continue to die and American money can continue to be spent on Israel’s expansionist policies.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 6th, 2007 at 10:39 am | Report this commentDear AYC,
It seems that there are people in high places in America who know that Iran’s nuclear programme is not a danger to anybody and they have managed to raise their head above the parapet despite the fog of war.
What Vanunu’s case shows is that Israel can kidnap people in Europe and get away with it. Israel has also frequently assassinated people across the world and got away with it. Israel is a veritable terrorist state that practices apartheid (even to the extent of building Jew-only roads) and the support for it is a significant reason why one cannot take Western protestations about other matters (from democracy to nuclear proliferation) seriously.
As for Iran’s nuclear efforts, Iran has the right under the NPT to pursue peaceful nuclear research. It is a fact of life that practically any technology is dual use. You can’t stop people from buying kitchen knives and matches because they could use it to injure somebody or set fire to others’ house.
The fact is that there is no evidence of weaponisation of the nuclear effort by Iran. The IAEA (the appropriate world body) has repeatedly said that and now we find from the US spooks that this is indeed the case although their report had to be tampered with and slanted by Cheney and Co to suggest some dark, unspecified, uncorroborated misdeeds in the past.
The sanctions regime against Iran is a fraud. It is meant to bring Iran to its knees because it doesn’t toe the USraeli line.
Murdoch’s hirelings like Bronwen Maddox can write what they like as can various NY papers. Their constituency and agenda is clear.
Finally, unlike what you say, there is plenty of internal debate within Iran about the nuclear effort. Some say it is pragmatic to give it up in exchange for other things. Others point out, rightly imho, that EU3 made a lot of promises to Iran in exchange for suspension of enrichment and did not deliver a single things. For Iranians, self-reliance is the way to go.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 6th, 2007 at 10:59 am | Report this commentP,
Don’t you find it wearying to find a Jewish / US conspiracy behind every rock? And before you start lecturing about so-called Israeli apartheid, any chance you could give me an explanation about why the Arabian peninsula is Judenrein?
Posted by: AYC | December 6th, 2007 at 11:25 am | Report this commentDear AYC,
Thanks for mis-characterisation of my long and reasoned arguments. Won’t wash
As for Arabian peninsula, I am not from there. They can speak for themselves.
(In Iran we have had a Jewish community that we rescued from the babylonians 25 centuries ago.)
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 6th, 2007 at 12:04 pm | Report this commentDoes Iran have an inalienable right to nuclear self-determination? NO! Any country whose national ideology calls for the destruction of a fellow member of the United Nations, has lost many of the rights normally accorded by international law to sovereign states. In addition to that Iran, having flaunted its obligations under the NPT, has lost its right to a nuclear enrichment programme.
Is this inherently anti-Islamic? No. Pakistan is an Islamic country which is a trusted member of the international community, and therefore is treated very differently by the ‘West’. North Korea is not an Islamic country, and yet is treated the same, because it has similarly flaunted international rules and obligations.
Posted by: RCS | December 6th, 2007 at 12:25 pm | Report this commentHi RCS,
I noticed that you have retreated from saying that Ahmadinejad called for wiping Israel off the map and are now referring to some vague and woolly “national ideology” that calls for the destruction of another UN member.
Can you please share with me a copy of this “national ideology”? There is no mention of Israel in the Iranian constitution. The majority religion, (Shia) Islam, also does not call for the destruction of the Jews whom it calls, together with Christians, “People of the Book”.
So, go on enlighten me. Where is this national ideology?
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 6th, 2007 at 2:09 pm | Report this commentIt is with considerable hesitation that I step back into this kitchen noise on Israel-Iran. I suggest a new paradigm is unfolding that is beyond the grasp of RCS, AYC and Pacifist. It is economic.
Since Annapolis, there are signs of a crucial shift in Saudi policy. A year ago, Sheikh Mohammed told the Arab Conference, “Change or be changed.” King Abdullah has had reason driving from Andrews AFB to Annapolis to observe, as I did three months ago further to the north, that the US is in decline.
Since his return, we are seeing thoughtful signs of reconsideration on the dollar strategy within OPEC. We have seen the King and Iranian President hand in hand in Doha. We again here voices in Tehran (Pacifist, I believe, is in London) speaking of investment and growth. Iran is poised to stun the world, and Ahmadinezad seems finally to be buying into proposals developed by Rafsanjani and numerous bankers in Dubai, Paris, London, Tokyo, Hong Kong/Shanghai, Mumbai and Tokyo.
Odds are well bet that Bush & Co have had their wings clipped by a de facto coup organised at the Pentagon. If not completely grounded, whatever effort they try to mount with Blackwater will meet with painful and ugly failure.
So, perhaps the Saudis and Gulf States will move ahead with a strategy of investment in Iran, that further neutralises a US threat, raises the dollar, and thus sets the stage for some break in the current fall of the US economy. A win-win? Not if Israeli paranoia has its way. Israel still has the power to derail progress.
Why would it? Surely it will not be because of a bomb scare? Could it be fear of the economic transformation that would occur through an Islamic economic union that will span the Straits of Hormuz?
Israel has missed an extraordinary opportunity to develop a rival to Dubai, Qatar and Abu Dhabi. It serves no geographic strategic value in terms of global trade. Israeli global funds, such as Apax, operate above and beyond Israel out of London, Zurich, Amsterdam or Paris. It is widely accepted that Israel, the state, is a demographic time bomb, even without a Palestinian threat. How many of the Diapora’s best and brightest settle (long term, not just for the obligatory roots experience) there and contribute to Israel’s development as a global economic player? A significant part of the Israeli population had little idea they were even Jewish when they were born in Russia or Sudan.
The Israeli dream will only be realised–and now not so soon–when people like RCS and AYC awake to the lost opportunities and commit to being global citizens, with risks like the rest of us.
btw–within the past two hours, Sarkozy’s old law office was bombed here in Paris. I doubt the Mideast is in any implicated or at cause. More likely labour groups, as angry youth are unlikely to see the significance of his old law address. When I had the call reporting this eent, from which a number of people are now in hospital, I recalled the Paris/Europe of 30 years ago, when such bombings were frequent and deadly. Israel is neither the first nor the last to suffer such. Yes, vigilance can, but does not always, help avert such disasters. Quite frankly, many are tired of listening to those who believe they alone are despised and at risk. I walk the block on Blvd Malesherbes where the bombing occurred twice a week in midday. Nonetheless, I do not dismiss your “exceptional” concerns lightly.
Posted by: WCM | December 6th, 2007 at 2:47 pm | Report this commentHi WCM,
I am impressed that you follow the news in the Persian Gulf so closly.
This link from the Saudi based Arab News talks about some of the things you say:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=104278&d=4&m=12&y=2007
Nevertheless, I am quite pessimistic about the Gulf Arabs ever slipping the yoke and unting with Iran to achieve self-determination. The reason for the existence of so many small states in the region is the colonial desire to divide and rule and the quid pro quo is that they (or the ruling families) toe the line drawn by Washington and London.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 6th, 2007 at 3:33 pm | Report this commentSome interesting Iranian perspective:
Inventing facts
Iran had a clandestine nuclear weapons program?
http://www.iranian.com/main/2007/inventing-facts
Some quotes:
Quote
Forgive this writer for being a spoiler, but haven’t report after report issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the many years since repeatedly confirmed non-existence of such nuclear weapons program in Iran?
Unquote
.
.
.
AND…
Quote
“So there you have it – An analytical assessment not based on any facts, proof, or knowledge which for the time being allays fears of an imminent threat from Iran, but cleverly transforms what was once pure hearsay into an established fact that Iran did at one point have a clandestine nuclear weapons program.”
Unquote
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 6th, 2007 at 4:14 pm | Report this commentDear P,
http://www.irna.com/occasion/ertehal/english/saying/P2CH5.html#THE%20QUDS%20OCCUPATIONIST%20REGIME
Posted by: RCS | December 6th, 2007 at 4:33 pm | Report this commentDear P,
Here is some help with the previous link I posted. It comes from this site (just scroll down to chapter 5):
http://aminah64.multiply.com/journal/item/1430/Wise_Sayings_Guidelines_by_Imam_Khomeini_
Posted by: RCS | December 6th, 2007 at 5:09 pm | Report this commentHi RCS,
Hardly national ideology? I think overstating one’s case actually weakens it.
There is neither desire nor capability in Iran to destroy another nation.
I would worry about a taliban takeover of Pakistan (whose first target would be Iran) and I worry about the irrational noises coming out of Israel where there seems to be a certain paranoia with the traditional left-right lines disappearing and someone like Barak moving well to the right of Olmert.
I hope your particular section of the society don’t spook the Israelis into starting a war. Jusging by the poles, you are a minority within Israel:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iHSNqst2EKZ8lnhNnGYCHDEHNpwg
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 6th, 2007 at 5:25 pm | Report this commentHi RCS,
Please check out this comment by the most senior woman in the Pentagon as attested by some British MP’s:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484762&in_page_id=1770
She has said “I hate all Iranians” in her official capacity and talking to a delegation of British politicians!
Is this official US policy?
(You see, if one wants to make mountains out of molehills it is easy.)
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 6th, 2007 at 5:36 pm | Report this commentDear P,
For a moment you left me wondering: to what grand persona could you have been referring? Was it Rice? Even she would have been a woefully inadequate comparison.
Usually you’re much better than this.
Posted by: RCS | December 6th, 2007 at 5:50 pm | Report this commentI think she is indicative of the thought processes in the US though.
Posted by: Pacifist | December 6th, 2007 at 6:33 pm | Report this commentDear DCM: I am a bit perplexed with your last post. Can you expand?
I do not for example see why the Saudis would invest in Persia. The Chinese just signed a contract for about 30BN$ investments in Hydrocarbons.
There is no real fit between the Saudi and the Persian economies.
The story about un-pegging wrt dollar
is narrated differently here in Athens.
Everybody but the Saudis will unpegg.
Saudis will stay put for geostrategic regions. The larger context is the huge
mountain (more than 3 trillions $) in reserves and SWF that has to be taken care of. Everybody will go for hard assets as a hedge against the falling
dollars.
This why the game of private equity with very high leverage is passe. These fellows are paying cash. It took the Dubai group no time to inject 5bn in Marfin Finance here. Arab money is moving into the Balkans and China.
There is about 400bn African $ debt. The chinese are buying into this. (Original primcipal about 200bn !!)
The numbers are absolutely staggering.
This is a bad time for anglosaxon investment banks which find themselves
in a liquidity squeeze.
The politics/diplomacy etc that goes with this is bound to be interesting.
Posted by: Max | December 6th, 2007 at 8:49 pm | Report this comment(This is the window, I think, thru’ which the Iranians avoided the war so far)
People should place more importance on the assessments of the IAEA than those of the US intelligence community. The IAEA is neutral and has superior access on the ground. In the case of the alleged Iraqi WMDs, the IAEA were as far as I know shown to be completely correct in their assessments, which were of course radically different from the claims of the US intelligence agencies.
It seems that there is a drive, led by the US, to diminish Iran’s influence in the region. Sanctions are a key tool in achieving this. They are therefore fishing for justifications for sanctions. There will be more reports and claims emerging in the next few months aimed at justifying sanctions, and possibly attacks, on Iran.
Posted by: Oscar D | December 6th, 2007 at 10:52 pm | Report this commentI wonder if the Zionists Sarkozy and Kouchner still want to attack and invade Iran…
Posted by: Enrique | December 7th, 2007 at 5:08 am | Report this commentTo Max, I cannot see any reasons apart from historic bias and a regretable lock-in with the US that would dissuade the Saudis from seeing and investing in an emerging Iran. You may underestimate Arab genius. Betting on exchange rates is a fool’s game, and the Saudi may have bet too much on the dollar. They have been quietly divesting of dollar assets for more than rhee years.
In 2000 it was said that more than 40 percent of Saudi GDP was invested in the US. Firstly, their GDP has risen dramatically, while dollar investments have fallen in nominal terms, before exchange rate devaluation. Exposures are simply not what they used to be. Secondly, in response to local discontent as Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Qatar rose over the pink sandy beaches to the north, they began to invest in what was becoming an appaling infrastructure problem. Riyadh five years ago looked like a sad 1970s concrete land compared to what was going on elsewhere. That has changed; today the problems lay with Pakistani, Malay and Filipino workers who see their dollar-pegged real salaries falling.
Thirdly, you overlook Dubai’s relationship with Iran. Much of the Iranian treasury is managed by Dubati funds. Rafsanjani is on the board of one. A visible part of the Dubai action, as GR can report when he returns, is targeted at Iran. Just check the forwarding flight connections for the Dubai inbound business class cabins on Lufthansa, Air France, Swiss and Austrian.
Your comments suggesting Apax and others have had better days are correct, and support my point. Nonetheless, Apax, KKR and Blackstone (look at their China links) are apolitical. As valmue in Iran come to light, they are no doubt having to dance a bit faster.
As I have noted before, Gulf hotels no longer count Americans, except for rich parents of weekending Blackwater employees, among their top guests. Most US multinationals control travel to the region for security and cost reasons.
To Enrique: As I suggested, follow the money. French companies, including those whose “patrons” serve on the comité de direction for Sarkozy et le Cercle de l’Union d’Inter-Allié, have been amongst the early industrial investors in Iran. Despite recent pressure and added US financial sanctions, I am not aware of any significant pullback by PSA, Renault-Nissan or Total. Banque Melli and Banque Sarasin were open here yesterday.
Perhaps others here can shed some light on FDI from India, Mauritius, Russia, Austria and Japan.
Oh, I have failed to mention Royal Dutch/Shell, whose board has struggled for more than a year over what to do in the face of sanctions. Before the US backed down a year ago, there was serisou discussion of slpitting the company along UK-US and Dutch lines. This makes a lot of sense, as the upstream business is largely Dutch. Teheran is ready to put Shell technology to work on its reserves again, and this will mean settling its decades’ old seizure of titles. Royal Dutch/Shell NEEDS these reserves.
Please don’t misunderstand. I am declaring there is a bonanza unfolding, but I think the economics for ending the overblown Shia-Wahabi cold war are compelling. Anglo-Saxons, particularly the US, will be left out of this game. They will be hard pressed to hold onto their Iraqi assets, the titles of which will be subject to extensive litigation for years. Despite the current improvement, Iraqis will see the US as baggage in a few years and will want to shake them off for new reasons.
Despite the current distasteful impasse, I expect a realpolitik solution in Israel and Palestine.
Perhaps the Levant will require rethinking. Nonetheless, if Gulf wealth, which must move off the oil game, transforms into a pan-Arab/Muslim de facto economic union, the Israelis will not want to continue the current noise. By that time, we will be facing the realities of Israel’s demographic crisis and the diminished relevance of the US, which will never be an honest broker to anything again in the lifetimes of those who contribute to this blog. Israel has shown clear cigns in private circles that it is aware fo the new paradigm. In the end, they are part of the region’s family and maybe in a decade or so, with disengagement from the US victim-class mentality, you will see Israeli regional leadership again in IT, alimentation, finance and selected industries.
btw–my expectation for pan-Arab/Muslim includes the quickly advancing economies in Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia. Egypt is a known unknown. If there is even a 10 percent chance of this scenario unfolding, I would suggest the futures for Turkey and the trans-Caucasus will advance in parallel.
Brussels now needs to sort itself out to help fuel all of this. This will mean that Sarkozy needs to be brought to terms. He is destabilising the framework. Spain needs leadership, as Zapatero is more of a lawyer trying to do the right thing but with no control over his agenda. The Cueta/Melilla affair is no small matter for Brussels. The UK drift under Brown and lost lustre in London real estate may prove fortuitous for the rest of Europe. Germany should be in top form with the competent Merkel, but she had too little wine while in Texas and has lost her nerve. Let us hope she regains it. Then the wisdom of supporting Turkey in whatever the next steps will be should be clear to all.
Coffee was good here this morning, but I’m not as delusional as this post may convey. I remain sceptical and concerned, but it is time for others to ponder some new dreams, as I think King Abdullah may be.
Posted by: WCM | December 7th, 2007 at 9:28 am | Report this commenthttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22134108/
An interesting analysis of how Bush’s terminology changed before and after 6 August when the NIE report’s findings were communicated to him and his obfuscations ever since. This is a highlight:
Quote
But a study of the mutation of his language about Iran proves that though he may not be very good at it, he is, himself, still a manipulative, Machiavellian snake-oil salesman.
The Bushian etymology was tracked by Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post’s Web site.
It is staggering.
March 31: “Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon…”
June 5: Iran’s “pursuit of nuclear weapons…”
June 19: “consequences to the Iranian government if they continue to pursue a nuclear weapon…”
July 12: “the same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons…”
Aug. 6: “this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon…”
Notice a pattern?
Trying to develop, build or pursue a nuclear weapon.
Then, sometime between Aug. 6 and Aug. 9, those terms are suddenly swapped out, so subtly that only in retrospect can we see that somebody has warned the president, not only that he has gone out too far on the limb of terror but there may not even be a tree there….
McConnell, or someone, must have briefed him then.
Aug. 9: “They have expressed their desire to be able to enrich uranium, which we believe is a step toward having a nuclear weapons program…”
Aug. 28: “Iran’s active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons…”
Oct. 4: “you should not have the know-how on how to make a (nuclear) weapon…”
Oct. 17: “until they suspend and/or make it clear that they, that their statements aren’t real, yeah, I believe they want to have the **capacity**, the **knowledge**, in order to make a nuclear weapon.”
Before Aug. 9, it’s: Trying to develop, build or pursue a nuclear weapon.
After Aug. 9, it’s: Desire, pursuit, want … knowledge technology know-how to enrich uranium.
And we are to believe, Mr.. Bush, that the National Intelligence Estimate this week talks of the Iranians suspending their nuclear weapons program in 2003….
And you talked of the Iranians suspending their nuclear weapons program on Oct. 17.
And that’s just a coincidence?
And we are to believe, Mr. Bush, that nobody told you any of this until last week?
Your insistence that you were not briefed on the NIE until last week might be legally true, something like “what the definition of ‘is’ is,” but with the subject matter being not interns but the threat of nuclear war.
Legally, it might save you from some war crimes trial, but ethically it is a lie.
It is indefensible.
Unquote
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 7th, 2007 at 10:57 am | Report this commentTrue, WMC, and also that if Israel follows the steps of Dubai (E.A.U.) or Kuwait the overwhelming majority of the population would be immigrants from countries like India, the Phillipines or….Palestinians.
Posted by: Enrique | December 7th, 2007 at 1:17 pm | Report this commentThe US military and intel were not in lockstep with Cheney and company on Iran…certainly Adm. Fallon made that clear on his trip to the Persian Gulf. Sec Gates speech in Bahrain (IISS) (now that he has won the political battle in DC) will outline new US policy on Iran (or at least provide a hint) as to where US is going…this is the highest ranking US official to ever make an appearance the The Manama Dialogue…what is said here at Manana by U.S/Gates is very important will assist in making sense as to where this is all going…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | December 7th, 2007 at 6:34 pm | Report this commentInteresting remarks today from al-Rubbaie, Iraq´s national security adviser.
Posted by: Enrique | December 10th, 2007 at 2:05 pm | Report this commentRCS, Rice is not in the Pentagon, she is in the administration.
Pacifist, thank you for the post on Vanunu. Very informative.
Posted by: Red | December 10th, 2007 at 5:46 pm | Report this comment“IRAN NEEDS TO ‘WANT’ TO REMAIN A NON-NUCLEAR POWER, IE: NOT FEEL ‘FORCED’ BY THE DEVELOPED WORLD INTO THIS POSITION!”
“Winning the minds” of potential terrorists/terrorist nations’ leaders- ought to be at the centre of ‘new-themed’ foreign-policy initiatives of the USA/UK & allies towards Iran.
The obvious motivations for Iran’s (& similar states, like N Korea) aggressive over-sensitivity + their proceeding with nuclear & missile programmes:
- objectives to feel “heard”, & respected as viable nation’s; &
- wishes to be viewed (by other nations) as equal, & valued, players at “the head table” of the world stage…
… call out for being “constructively addressed” with ‘Soft Power’, instead of- in a perceived-as-bullying, hostile way- opposed.
The main ‘Soft Power’ policy-objective of leading-world nations like the USA & United Kingdom re Iran’s & N Korea’s oppositional relationships with developed world nations, ought to be these 2 countries’ ‘planned development’: in ways that enable their productively interfacing with the world.
This requires setting a “direction of development”.
Underpinning such with structures & international agreements that mandate these troubled nations to work towards well defined long-term objectives- with the comprehensive participation of developed-world countries- is vital.
How?
Led by the United Kingdom, USA & leading EU nations such as France, + perhaps, Japan, the developed world ought to:
- Offer Iran the 2016 Olympics, with guaranties of significant logistical & financial support.
Other states in the region could be approached for participation, with a “regional” Olympic games the optimal objective.
- Offer both Iran & N Korea the rights to be exclusive locations for the International Thermonuclear Energy Research project, ITER (in planning stages, recently awarded to Cadarache, France, http://www.iter.org ).
The ITER project is, by its design & nature, international in function, thereby enabling competent oversight, precluding Iran or N Korea from misusing the project’s resources.
Publicly offering Iran & N Korea the ITER project would, in effect, call their bluff about needing secretive nuclear technology development programmes.
It would also neutralize their basis for alleging that many developed-world nations’ harbour unseemly motives for being against their development of advanced nuclear technology.
- Additionally, offer to pay for, & partner in the building of significant infrastructure for N Korea, & possibly Iran, of a type that will instill national-prestige, as well as facilitating an improved connectedness- both physical & psychological- to the outside world.
Japan’s new Prime Minister, Yasuo Fukuda, advocates more assertiveness & a greater global role for his country.
These objectives could be accomplished productively, by Japan supporting strategies like ITER & the 2012 Olympics, & participating in the paying for & construction of a Japanese-type high-speed “bullet” train to connect North & South Korea’s capital cities to each other & to China.
A pan-Korean peninsula high-speed rail link could only contribute to, & make more permanent the existent, but very limited, trade & industry connections between these two culturally similar states.
If accepted by Iran & North Korea, ‘Soft Power’ altruistic overtures such as the ITER project, the 2012 Olympics & high tech infrastructure mega-projects, would enable global stages where these 2 egotistically defensive country’s (& many Islamic nations) could feel that they can show their positive potential & achievements, & as well- meeting the developed world’s political objectives- would effectively require these countries to “fit”, & “work with”, the world community.
Furthermore, & of utmost importance, offering Iran & N Korea the ITER project & the 2012 Olympics + simultaneously committing to pay-for & partner-in-the-building-of much needed infrastructure would go a long way to eliminating their (+ many Islam nations/people’s) perceptions of threat from developed world & “Judeo Christian” country’s- removing their leaders’ main argument for alleging a requirement for nuclear weapons & long-range missile programmes.
Equally importantly, this approach would, albeit indirectly, “by ‘SOFT POWER’ example” serve to act as a potent neutralizer of factors existent within developed world nations that contribute to the ‘radicalization’ of Muslims and others against their resident nations/the USA.
Doing the above would give both these problemmed, but latently very talented nations “status” on the world stage, in a ‘good’, constructive and long-term stabilizing way.
Perhaps the 2016 (or even the 2012) Olympics/sharing-the-ITER-project are not incentives that developed-world nations’ leaders could stomach proffering to Iran/N Korea… but similar long-term inertia-building positive-incentive strategies need to be identified by leading developed-world nations’ politicians/bureaucrats…
Isn’t a stabilized middle-east and east Asia what the USA, UK & allies have had as objectives during the preceding 6-years of counterproductive Iran & N Korea policies ??
_________________
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | December 10th, 2007 at 8:41 pm | Report this commentRoderick V. Louis
(near) Vancouver, BC,
Canada,
rvlouis@patientempowermentsociety.com
The main problem is that Nuclear Technology has became very cheap. Nuk Tech is a bargain by itself. The process has been the same as any other product. The cost of developing it the first time is extremely expensive and only a nation like the US could have done it in 1945. Then came the USSR, France, China, UK, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea…Spain, South Africa and Brazil had a Military Nuclear Programme which was volunteerly halted.
Everybody knows that the NPT or Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a short term solution. Once Nuk Tek is in the Market and access to it is relatively cheap there is no way to stop it. A bargain, every year easier to develop, carry, steal, sell, copy. Of course, cheaper copies doesn´t have the same quality as the original and nobody can guarantee an absolute control of the product.
It is difficult to stop the chain as all nations has the same needs of security and pride. Once China got the bomb, India needed it, and once India got the bomb, Pakistan needed it…. Once Israel got the bomb, Iran needed it, and once Iran got the bomb, Saudi Arabia needed it…
There are legitimate fears from any nation to defend their sovereignty and their dignity. Nuk Tek is there, it is an increasingly accessible tech, and becoming a relative bargain.
We can now say that Nuk Tek is becoming conventional technology, not something special and so Nuclear Weapons are just becoming CONVENTIONAL Weapons ready to be used as any other…
Posted by: Enrique Costas Mira | December 11th, 2007 at 4:10 am | Report this commentFrom today’s issue of the Jerusalem Post:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847366234&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Quote
Israel does not have “smoking gun” intelligence that will force an American reassessment of its National Intelligence Estimate that Iran halted its nuclear weapons plan in 2003, a government official told The Jerusalem Post Monday.
Unquote
But anyhow, let’s bomb Iran for its feelgood factor seems to be what the article goes on to say later.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 18th, 2007 at 11:29 am | Report this commenthttp://www.iran-un.org/documents/sg/articles/Letter%20to%20the%20SG-2.pdf
The above is the text of a letter from the Iranian representative at the UN, addressed to the UN Secretary General, requesting an end to the unlawful consideration of the case by the Security Council and sending back the dossier to the competent authority, the IAEA.
For a discussion of the legality of the referring the dossier to the UNSC and the resolutions against Iran, please refer here:
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/3516
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 19th, 2007 at 11:20 am | Report this commentArgentina’s chief prosecutor harbours no doubts as to who was behind the murderous bombings of the Israeli embassy and the Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires in the 1990s:
Quote
I have no doubt that the most senior Iranian leadership, with the help of Hezbollah, is responsible for the attacks in Buenos Aires against AMIA [the community center in 1994] and the Israeli Embassy [in 1992].
Unquote
Here is the link from today’s Ha’aretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/936041.html
Posted by: RCS | December 19th, 2007 at 3:52 pm | Report this commenthello,
Posted by: b | December 20th, 2007 at 2:23 pm | Report this commentI guess that before i make a post i should mention that i used to work as a producer for bbc news……for those of you who laugh at the idea that there is some kind of Israeli consiracy, i must ask you then in what context was it that my office had taken hundreds of calls from jewish groups, the israeli embassy and even the UK foreign office demanding that we change/delete any palestinian sympathetic reports or news that incriminates israel…..near the end, before i quit…we were even ordered to falsify confirmed news on iran according to what had been released in the Israeli media. This was in 2005! guess what happened then…
yes, because we know that all the information presented to us in the western media about iran, in particular, all the information that succeeds in vilifying iran for the purposes of the israeli pro war propoganda, MUST BE TRUE… I can tell you for a fact that it is NOT
Posted by: b | December 20th, 2007 at 2:27 pm | Report this commentThanks for that b. Sounds awful. But do you have anything to substantiate your claims, or do we just have to take your word for it?
Posted by: AYC | December 20th, 2007 at 3:19 pm | Report this commentwell, you can believe what you want….personally, i dont think the world would care if a few million iranians were “wiped off the map” seeing as how they didnt much care about 700k Iraqis, 3m vietnamese or 500k Japanese. My life will go on
Posted by: b | December 21st, 2007 at 2:05 am | Report this commentjust one last thing, As an ex journalist, i have always wondered why there has never been research into the powers of the Israeli lobby in the US and britain. In other words, with all this conspiracy talk, how come they have never been audited, questioned by the public, or researched by journalists in the slightest. Is this issue a closed book as well?
Posted by: b | December 21st, 2007 at 2:10 am | Report this commentb, I think the only people living under the threat of being “wiped off the map” are the Israelis. Ref: various past comments by the Iranian president.
Also, as an ex-journalist you might know if there has been any research into the power of the NRA, the tobacco lobby, construction industry, Taiwan lobby, Armenian lobby, oil lobby etc etc ad infinitum. All of whom have an influence on US policy. And in the UK has there been any research into the power of the Scots? They seem to have an iron grip over the levers of power in Westminster…
As an ex-journalist you might spot a pattern here…
Posted by: AYC | December 21st, 2007 at 11:08 am | Report this commentDear b,
Your concerns are valid and many people wonder the same but are shouted down. The enclosed is a very powerful article by the former American weapons inspector Scott Ritter on the American side of this issue.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ritter.php?articleid=12064
Unfortunately, effective censorship (sometimes manifested as self-censorship) is happening in the UK too.
We witnessed the media manipulation and domination of only one viewpoint during the Israeli assault on the Lebanese civilian infrustucture in the summer of 2006 and we are seeing it over the peaceful development of the Iranian nuclear industry too.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 21st, 2007 at 12:35 pm | Report this commentCuriously it seems there is no problem if Israel has dozens of nuclear heads…which, after all, would be the cause of any nuclear race in the area….
Posted by: Enrique | December 21st, 2007 at 1:22 pm | Report this commentAnd about the Zionist lobby, it is something evident, even here in Spain where is a clear separation between those “neocons” (usually former Marixists) rabidly Zionists and the traditional Conservatives in the People´s Party. Zionists pretend to be conservative or liberal but are just Zionist, a bunch of ex-communists without any respect for national interests.
Posted by: Enrique | December 21st, 2007 at 1:27 pm | Report this commentDear Enrique,
Re your first post, support for Israeli possession of Nuke weapons appears to be official America policy as witnessed by this exchange at the recent conference in Barain:
Quote
During a conference in the Persian Gulf nation of Bahrain, the Bahraini Labor Minister Majeed al-Alawi questioned Defense Secretary Robert Gates about Israel.
Majeed al-Alawi: “Secretary of Defense thank you very much for the excellent speech. I was wondering whether you think the Israeli nuclear weapon is a threat to regional security or not?”
Robert Gates: “No, I do not.”
The statement by Gates was greeted by laughter from a room filled with government officials from Middle Eastern countries. Gates said there are significant differences in terms of both the history and the behavior of the Iranian and Israeli governments.
Robert Gates: “I think that Israel is not training terrorists to subvert its neighbors. It has not shipped weapons into a place like Iraq to kill thousands of innocent civilians covertly. It has not threatened to destroy any of its neighbors. It is not trying to destabilize the government of Lebanon.”
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/10/headlines#8
Question:-
You have an extremely aggressive neighbour who has broken into other peoples’ houses and kicked a few out of their homes and sees himself above the law (because somebody killed his granfather) and that neighbour goes and buys a gun. What should you do?!
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 21st, 2007 at 2:31 pm | Report this commentIsrael and Iran are not on a par, so any talk of “double-standards” rings hollow: Israel is encircled by Islamic nations who, sixty years after its establishment, still deny its very right to exist. Contrary to that, Iran’s existence as a nation-state is not in question. Iran’s ambitions are fueled by a pure national chauvinism.
BTW, there is nothing inherently anti-Islamic in opposing Iran’s ambitions: as proof, Pakistan is in a very different strategic situation and the world understands and accepts this.
As for the accusations made against the Israel lobby, I think AYC’s was an apt reply. The obsessiveness with which a certain section of the population pursues the issue is telling. There is indeed such a thing as Israeli exceptionalism — except that it has nothing to do with Israel itself, but with the relentlesness with which Israel is pursued by a certain section of the population. This is something which has deep historical roots in Christendom, so much so that Enrique is willing to tag a third of the People’s Party as ‘Zionist’, as if Zionism was one of the main political issues in Spain today — a country, let us remember, which has been Judenfrei since 1492! (I am now reading Merce Rodoreda’s “La placa del diamant”, from which I’ve learned that it is customary on Palm Sunday, in Catalunya and other parts of Spain, to “kill Jews” by hitting on the walls with a club — Enrique, could you please elaborate on this tradition?) Unfortunatley, many Muslims in Europe have adopted many of these attitudes, possibly as a psychological prop against their own feelings of insecurtiy.
Posted by: RCS | December 21st, 2007 at 3:30 pm | Report this commentRCS,
Don´t worry. Spain has a Constitution which makes no distinction between individuals (unlike Israel which makes a clear distinction between Jews and everybody else as if Christian Israelis or Muslim Isrealis were not as much citizens…)
No matter the ethnicity or religion of the individual but the respect of our Constitutional values.
Of course, i prefer a Jew or a Muslim who lives according to our Law than a Christian who break the Law.
The Penal Code makes no distinction.
A crime doesn´t have ethnicity or religion and the consequence of crime is punishment.
Posted by: Enrique | January 5th, 2008 at 6:32 pm | Report this commentEnrique: “Spain has a Constitution which makes no distinction between individuals (unlike Israel which makes a clear distinction between Jews and everybody else”
Well you have it wrong again Enrique. Israel does not have a constitution so the distinction you claim could not have been made.
Posted by: RCS | January 5th, 2008 at 8:24 pm | Report this commentHere is an excerpt from the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel:
“THE STATE OF ISRAEL… will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”
The High Court of Justice has maintained that the Declaration forms a legal source for judicial interpretation.
And here is an excerpt from the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty:
“2. There shall be no violation of the life, body or dignity of any person as such.
3. There shall be no violation of the property of a person.
4. All persons are entitled to protection of their life, body and dignity.
5. There shall be no deprivation or restriction of the liberty of a person by imprisonment, arrest, extradition or otherwise.”
Basic Laws in Israel act as a quasi-constitution. As can be seen from the above excerpt, the wording is very general — which allows for very wide powers of judicial review. The High Court of Justice has maintained its authority to strike down any law which violates the Basic Laws.
Posted by: RCS | January 5th, 2008 at 8:51 pm | Report this commentCon Coughlin, a very experienced middle east commentator, has a worrying conclusion in his column in today’s Telegraph.
“What the IISS report makes clear is that if Iran does achieve its goal of acquiring a nuclear weapons arsenal, the rest of the region will quickly follow. And then we will all have a lot more to worry about than the rising costs of oil.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/23/do2303.xml
This is a key question that has not been overly focussed on in the media - the arms race in the middle east that would result from any announcement by Tehran that it has the bomb.
It’s not hard to imagine a scenario in which any of the unstable autocracies were overthrown by fundamentalists who then passed nuclear material to terrorists, or even used the weapon themselves. Always assuming that Tehran hasn’t beaten them to the punch, as previously billed.
Posted by: AYC | May 23rd, 2008 at 11:00 am | Report this commentThe way it is, USrael are the biggest criminals in the Middle East and beyond and the ones who threaten other with nukes that they do actually posses. Now you go walk along the “Jews’ Only” roads in Israel whilst shouting that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.
Mazel Tov.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | May 23rd, 2008 at 2:25 pm | Report this commentGlad to see you’ve dealt with the serious issues raised in the piece. The issue of Tehran’s nuclear bomb is concerning for very many people around the world and Coughlin’s piece is a serious article based on a credible study, and all you can do is offer insults?
An arms race in the Gulf, and Wahabis with a nuclear bomb, would not be good for Tehran either.
Posted by: AYC | May 23rd, 2008 at 2:47 pm | Report this commentDear AYC,
Is pointing out that Israel has nuclear weapons and Jews only roads an insult? NO. It is the real answer to your question.
If Israel were not menacing others in the region and behaving so badly, ther would be less insecurity and less fear.
Have a nice weekend,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | May 23rd, 2008 at 3:59 pm | Report this commentPacifist, I didn’t ask a question.
Enjoy the wet weekend.
Posted by: AYC | May 23rd, 2008 at 4:20 pm | Report this commentLatest news from the IAEA:
“Iran withheld information needed to establish whether it had tried to make nuclear arms and continued to enrich uranium in defiance of United Nations sanctions, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a new report.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/2033623/Iran-withheld-nuclear-secrets-from-UN-inspectors.html
Reported in the Daily Telegraph, BBC, NY Times any very many other outlets. It’s clear that Iran is pushing to the limits international patience with its policies - support for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, Afghan insurgents and the development of nuclear weapons - and that far from aspiring to be a responsible regional power, it is looking to force others in the region to bend at the knee.
Otherwise why the emphasis on destabilisation? Why the desire for nuclear weapons at all costs? Why the support for groups (Sunni fundamentalists) who clearly would like nothing better that blowing up apostate Shiites - to qualify that statement: like nothing better, apart from blowing up “Zionists” / western Imperialist forces etc? Why the need to spread fear and disorder in the region? Hardly the intentions of a regional power with benign intentions.
Posted by: AYC | May 28th, 2008 at 4:02 pm | Report this commentTwo points:
AFP: “In his latest report on Iran, circulated to the IAEA board last week, ElBaradei said Tehran could be hiding key information about weaponisation work, as well as defying UN demands to suspend uranium enrichment.”
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iL5c_b-J3ObTVKRPRz91TWuZDj5w
And in other reports including IHT
“Iran has not yet agreed to implement all the transparency measures required to clarify this cluster of allegations and questions,” ElBaradei told the closed Vienna gathering.
“Iran has not provided the agency with all the access to documents and to individuals requested … Nor provided the substantive explanations required to support its statements.
“The agency understands that Iran may have additional information, in particular on high explosives testing and missile-related activities, which should shed more light on the nature of the alleged activities,” ElBaradei said.
http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/06/02/africa/OUKWD-UK-NUCLEAR-IAEA-IRAN.php
Add to that the below, and things don’t look particularly bright for peace in the middle east this year:
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran’s president said on Monday Israel would soon disappear off the map and that the “satanic power” of the United States faced destruction, in his latest verbal attack on the Islamic Republic’s arch-foes.
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSDAH23449220080602
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was speaking at a gathering of foreign guests marking this week’s 19th anniversary of the death of Iran’s late revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, in 1989, the official IRNA news agency said.
“You should know that the criminal and terrorist Zionist regime which has 60 years of plundering, aggression and crimes in its file has reached the end of its work and will soon disappear off the geographical scene,” he said.
Posted by: AYC | June 2nd, 2008 at 3:55 pm | Report this commentI’m Off To Iran Before Israel Bombs It
Jun 30 2008
George Galloway
BY the time you read this, I will be in Iran. I’ve never been there before, never met an Iranian leader - I don’t even like the present Iranian leadership - so remember all that, because it might become important.
I’m determined to do my bit for the anti-war effort. We need another war like Gordon Brown needs another by-election.
But the Sunday papers were again full of Israeli war games and threats as speculation mounts of a massive bombardment of yet another Muslim country.
I’m going for the first anniversary of Press TV, on which I present two programmes - Comment at 10.30pm on Thursdays and The Real Deal at 10.30pm on Sundays.
This week I hope to meet Ali Larijani, formerly Iran’s nuclear negotiator, now speaker of the Iranian parliament and, I hope, the next president.
Larijani proved beyond even the CIA’s attempt at contradiction that Iran is acting entirely within her legal rights to develop nuclear power.
As a signatory to the treaty governing the development of nuclear weapons, Iran has done nothing wrong under it either, at least according to the watchdog maintained by the international community, the IAEA.
Israel, on the other hand, refuses to sign the nuclear weapons treaty and thus, with a chutzpah which takes the breath away, claims it’s not in breach of it.
Yet last week, it acknowledged the truth first revealed by the Israeli hero Mordechai Vannunu, who spent nearly 20 years in solitary for telling us that they possess nuclear weapons in abundance.
Their brazenness about this reached its apogee when they publicly thanked France, in the diminutive form of Nicolas Sarkozy, for the decisive help they had given them (we ourselves gave them the heavy water technology) to enable to build their nuclear arsenal.
So let me run that past you. Israel, which has hundreds of nuclear weapons, seems to be planning to attack a country with none with the support of France, Britain and the US and all in the name of, er, checking the spread of nuclear weapons in that region.
You couldn’t make it up, but alas you don’t have to.
The Dr Strangeloves who’ve taken over the bunker have already done so.
Next week’s column, should I survive, will no doubt tell you about the great civilisation that is Persia, which hasn’t attacked another country for more than 300 years, not a boast we can make ourselves.
Iran is no broken-backed land enfeebled by decades of war and sanctions.
If attacked, she most certainly will defend herself and by all means necessary.
Fasten your seatbelts.
Posted by: Pacifist | July 1st, 2008 at 10:51 am | Report this comment