March 12, 2008
The fall of Fallon
Does the resignation of Admiral William Fallon as head of CentCom mean that the “war party” is back in control of American policy to Iran?
I doubt it’s quite that simple. From what we know both the secretaries of state and defence - Rice and Gates - are opposed to an attack. But there is no doubt that fallon was a key member of the “peace party”.
I met him at the IISS conference in Bahrain late last year, just after the US had published the famous NIE report that appeared to debunk the idea that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Fallon was cock-a-hoop. He was keen to underline what a fundamental re-assessment this was and how “wrong”, in his eyes, previous intelligence reports had been.
It could be that Fallon is resigning for reasons other than Iran. He is said to be a difficult guy to work with. All the same, I would say that the odds of an attack on Iran before the end of the Bush administration, have just gone up.
Shinseki 2003 - Fallon 2008.
Based on the way that the Bush/Cheney administration usually operates, one would be justified in drawing the worst possible conclusions from this, namely that Fallon was shoved out because he was perceived as standing in the way of the next White House war.
From the Republicans’ point of view, there would be nothing like an attack against Iran, coming around August or September, to obliterate all of the Democrats campaign issues, including the frightening economic meltdown (if one reads Martin Wolf) from the consciousness of the electorate. There would be a tsunami of jingoistic, mendacious McCain campaign ads of the “We’re at war - don’t change horses in midstream” variety, followed by a Republican victory in November - especially, I am afraid, if Obama, with little foreign policy experience, is the Democratic candidate.
On the other hand, if the election focuses on the economy, Senator John “Let’s extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich and that will solve all our problems” McCain, might just lose big to either Democrat. If it takes another war to prevent that, don’t put it past the Republicans for a nanosecond.
Posted by: algasema | March 12th, 2008 at 6:11 pm | Report this commentAn all-out attack on Iran is unnecessary and would be unjustified. It would only be right to pinprick a few vital targets, enough to disrupt the devious nuclear chain.
Posted by: RCS | March 12th, 2008 at 6:20 pm | Report this comment“It would only be right to pinprick a few vital targets”. I trust that the initials “RC” in “RCS” do not stand for “Richard Cheney” even though the advice sounds similar.
Posted by: algasema | March 12th, 2008 at 7:17 pm | Report this comment“I trust that the initials “RC” in “RCS” do not stand for “Richard Cheney” even though the advice sounds similar.”
alg, so it’s you — Al Gore! How did you ever find me out? By the same cleverness that helped you invent the internet, I guess.
Posted by: RCS | March 12th, 2008 at 7:29 pm | Report this commentWith all respect to admiral Fallon , he was too close to the snakes of the press and must pay for it
Posted by: jeannick | March 12th, 2008 at 9:37 pm | Report this commentas for a war act against the islamic republic of Iran ,that still would be the strong play of a bad hand ,
the U.S. ,litteraly , can’t afford it any more
IF (and that is an IF) he resigned as a protest due to a proposed strike/operation that is being planned…I would would watch Lebanon not Iran…however, as we all know when you target Lebanon you must factor Iran.
Fallon is not “peacenik” by any means…but Fallon knows of what he speaks when he says our military is “Stretched”…It is true tha Gates appears not to be for a strike …but in the end he must answer to Bush and Cheney.
If Fallon resigned because something really is up and he has misgivings and does not want it on his watch then we should be concerned that the strike/operation may be as badly planned and hi-risk as the US invasion of Iraq.
Too many rumors to know if this resignation was forced or a result of a protest…but I assume due action or inaction we will know shortly.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 12th, 2008 at 11:50 pm | Report this commentI wouldnt expect the Iranians to take a “pinprick” attack lying down on their bellies. Their reaction would be total. The US military is hardly stretched…They could easily deploy another 100k troops from Japan, Germany and Italy, but their is not chance any boots would hit the ground. With air power alone the US has the strength to obliterate Iran completely. Unfortunately, the Bush admin in doing something so insane would only guarantee the end of US presence in the gulf and a century of terrorism on american soil. I am not too sure the american people would approve of this, but an insane, racist and lame duck president with nothing to lose could just be that stupid
Posted by: Reza | March 13th, 2008 at 2:18 am | Report this commentThis is of interest, this is Senator Jim Webb (Demicrat), a decorated war hero and novelist, statement on Adm. Fallon’s resignation:
“I have great respect for Admiral Fallon’s service to our country, and also for his strategic vision. His decision to resign abruptly in the midst of the war in Iraq raises a number of serious questions that I hope will be answered over the course of the next few days.
“On many occasions-most recently in letters dated January 17-I have suggested to the chairmen of both the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees that Admiral Fallon be brought more aggressively into the oversight process with respect to the occupation of Iraq and the overall strategic approach to resolving the issues of the region.
“In particular, I had hoped that Admiral Fallon would join General David Petraeus this spring when General Petraeus is scheduled to testify on the pace of troop reduction and mission adjustment in Iraq.
“One of the lessons of the build up to the Iraq War is that the advice of our most senior military officers was too often ignored by the civilian leadership within the Bush administration. In the coming days and weeks, I hope that we can call on Admiral Fallon to more directly share his thoughts and concerns with the American people.”
I think Adm. Fallon’s resignation might just be one of those “stay tuned” times…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 13th, 2008 at 4:49 am | Report this commentReza: “The US military is hardly stretched…”
The army and the marines ARE stretched (by Iraq and Afghanistan)…but NOT the US Navy…and we are at the moment telling Hezbollah, Syria and Iran just that…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 13th, 2008 at 5:18 am | Report this commentAdmiral Fallon’s revelations in Esquire, nearly constitute what in 19th century Spain and Latin America was called a pronunciamiento. In a sense, so was the intelligence report that Iran had dropped its nuclear program. This is probably as close to a coup d’etat as you can get in the United States today. The military and intelligence establishments are defying the President. Fallon has taken early “retirement” in order to publicize his views and throw a monkey wrench into the neocon/Israeli juggernaut to have the United States attack Iran before there is a changing of the guard in the White House.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
Posted by: David Seaton | March 13th, 2008 at 6:47 am | Report this commentTo RCS:
Pushing for wider public access to the net was the obvious thing to do back in the 80s, so what’s Gore claiming credit for? He’s really really dumb, not at all like RCS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_information_technology
Posted by: effell | March 13th, 2008 at 7:43 am | Report this commentGideon, a small reminder: it takes two to tango. I think the impact of this week’s elections in Iran will have as much, if not more impact, than Fallon’s resignation. Let’s see what noises come out of Tehran next week before we start allocating blame for any increased tension in the region.
Posted by: AYC | March 13th, 2008 at 10:37 am | Report this commentProfessor Juan Cole has an interesting theory on Admiral Fallon’s forced resignation. He thinks it is an act of electioneering by GWB on McCain’s behalf. After all, McCain is running as the arch defender of the Iraq war and the “surge” and it wouldn’t do for some very senior military figure to p*ss on his parade.
Here is what Cole has to say:
Quote
My guess is that the real reason for moving Fallon out is not Iran but Iraq, and that he is being made to step down for the same reason that Donald Rumsfeld was. He does not agree with the long-term troop escalation or ’surge’ in Iraq. He doesn’t believe that counter-insurgency will work in Iraq in the medium term. And as an admiral, he has his eye on potential trouble spots such as Taiwan and North Korea, and is frustrated that the hands of the US are tied as long as it is bogged down in the Iraq quagmire.
Having such a big dissenter as CENTCOM commander is inconvenient for the Republican Party at a time when John McCain is admitting that if he fails to convince the American people that the surge is succeeding, he will lose the presidency. That is, Fallon may have run afoul not of Cheney on Iran but McCain on Iraq. This may be Bush’s first favor to the Republican nominee, who after all had a career as a naval officer himself.
Unquote
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | March 13th, 2008 at 11:12 am | Report this commentDoes not make sense. He would be more damaging from outside the system, when free to air his opinions, then when tethered from within.
There is no end to that literary genre — the conspiracy theory.
Posted by: RCS | March 13th, 2008 at 12:52 pm | Report this commentHi RCS,
Fallon could speak his mind from the inside because at the age of 64 he was very near retirement and having been continuously on 4-star assignments for about 8 years he had little left to prove.
You don’t get to the top of any large organisation without acute political antenae (with a small p). To have got to the highest echelon of the US military he needed political skills (of both lower and upper case variety).
Therefore, his comments and interviews could not have been some slip of the tongue (or evidence of inexperience, as in Samantha Power’s case). I suspect he genuinely believed that this administration is doing harm to the national interest and wanted to stop it.
Whethe he is more effective from outside or inside is debatable. Now that he is on the outside, he will be tarnished as bitter and twisted the way they have done to others.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | March 13th, 2008 at 1:10 pm | Report this commentLeaving aside the terribly dreary conspiracy theory P has seen fit to bring to our attention, the troubling aspect of the affair is the lengths to which a serving commander was prepared to go to to develop policy, going over the head of his commander in chief. Iraq, and the long war there, certainly were a point of contention to Fallon. However, his approach to Iran was also incompatible with that of the president.
By claiming that war with Iran was impossible to conceive (or words to that effect), he was not only taking military action as an end in itself off the table, but he was effectively undermining the diplomatic efforts as well. Thus making a peaceful resolution to the issue, one that satisfies all sides through a grand bargain, even more remote than it otherwise might be.
Posted by: AYC | March 13th, 2008 at 1:23 pm | Report this comment“Thus making a peaceful resolution to the issue, one that satisfies all sides through a grand bargain, even more remote than it otherwise might be.”
AYC assumes that the USA has the right to threaten the Iranians with killing thousands of them if they don’t negotiate to the satisfaction of the USA. Is it permitted to call this attitude fascistic? If it isn’t I’ll apologize.
Posted by: David Seaton | March 13th, 2008 at 1:33 pm | Report this commentRCS, Fallon was obviously forced out because he was trying to tell us an inconvenient truth.
Posted by: algasema | March 13th, 2008 at 1:59 pm | Report this commentI am touched by David’s charming naivety. The threat of force (hard or soft) underpins all international treaties - just so happens that military force is more effective than softer versions in the final analysis, hence why few listen to the EU, even when it does manage to speak with one voice. My specific point is that there is a chance to avoid any deaths - but one that can only be brought to fruition if all options are on the table. If there is no agreement, then there is very likely to be a war of one form or another. That’s the reality, whether you believe it to be fascistic or not.
Posted by: AYC | March 13th, 2008 at 2:51 pm | Report this commentAlgasema said “From the Republicans’ point of view, there would be nothing like an attack against Iran … to obliterate all of the Democrats campaign issues … from the consciousness of the electorate.”
Even as a longstanding critic of Bush/Cheney’s adverturism, and despite the long list of ill-conceived and porly executed initiatives, I regard this analysis as a touch hysterical.
Clearly there has been a drive from the WH to lay the foundations for an attack on Iran, but given the recent NIE and GWB’s domestic approval ratings, I just don’t see this as being a realistic eventuality.
To lauch an attack would utterly alienate the US administration from most countries, including allies such as the UK which are trying to address the nuclear issue.
Aside from the lack of a credible military gameplan, not least in terms of a well-defined endgame, I believe any such attack would backfire massively within the US, including a sufficient number of republicans as to be a fatal move for McCain’s campaign.
Posted by: DKM | March 13th, 2008 at 3:17 pm | Report this commentThere will not be a direct strike on Iran. Just like the Isareli sept 6 strike and the rescent assasination in Syria were more messages/strikes to Iran than anything else…that is how this would go, if they are up to something….again keep your antenna up on Lebanon…not Iran …however, it remains unclear what Iran would do if that happened…and what Iran’s reaction would be would depend on the successful execution of an operation…because of how this administration has mishandled Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gaza (see: Vanity Fair - The Gaza Timebomb) one hopes that for the next few months they do nothing, as their Middle east policies are toxic.
The conventional wisdom is that he was forced out (did not resign to protest an upcoming strike/operation etc). If this theory is corrrect and he knew it was coming then that is why he probably gave the Esquire interview. Here’s hoping Senator Webb is successful in getting his future testimony on record. He was in Iraq yesterday it was reported as an unexpected “surprse” visit.
This is an odd time for him to leave such a pivotal post. It is possible that they left him out of all the decision making and he felt thet even if he stayed he would not be effective so why not exit…as I said it does seem like not the best time for a man who devoted his life to the military to exit unless your position and ability to have impact was being made untenable:
Pakistan is dealing with very bold terrorists attacks. US Navy is off the coast of Lebabnon due to an untenable position there. Afghanistan is looking more like Iraq in 2006 and US soldiers deaths are once agin on the rise in Iraq…Israel/Hezbollah is poised for round 3 and Israel -Palestinian negotiations more or less over…and I am only touching the surface of current conflict in ME…
And Cheney off to Middle East! …West Bank and Saudi Arabia…I don’t know how he can show is face there now after finally a major publication (Vanity Fair -The Gaza Bombshell) has published the article detailing how responsible the uS is for destroying the Mecca (PNA-Hamas Unity Government) Agreement and aiding Dahlan in his oppressive brutal tactics…
For those of you who love reading…there is a wonderful detective/crime series written by Matt Beynon Rees, a Welsch writer and journalist…the hero is a Palestinian school teacher turned detective! His second novel takes place in Gaza “A Grave In Gaza” and one of the characters is based on Dahlan …I know I am off topic and should have added this in Mr. Rachman’s “Favorite Book “post…so I shall end now…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 13th, 2008 at 4:16 pm | Report this comment“I am touched by David’s charming naivety.”
And I am nauseated by such an archly smug way of talking about war and the possible death of thousands of people. And what’s more, a war with Iran at this precise moment, setting the Persian Gulf alight is just what is needed to push the world economy right over the edge into depression. How that for naive?
Posted by: David Seaton | March 13th, 2008 at 4:18 pm | Report this commentDear Ms. Lawson,
I don’t think Iran is unduly worried about the US meddling in Lebanon. The Lebanese can repel the Yanks if need be as they did in 1983.
As for the US navy’s frightening fire power, if the push comes to the shove, Iranians (maybe wrongly) believe that they can overwhelm them with suicide bombings and, failing that, there are the Sunburn missiles against which the US navy has no defence.
I humbly conclude that whilst a minor bombing raid might meet outraged protests and nothing else, a major, concerted US action against Iran will be avenged ferociously and will escalate into a full-scale war.
Let us hope cooler heads prevail.
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | March 13th, 2008 at 5:19 pm | Report this commentReasonable enough, DKM. Unfortunately, however, Bush/Cheney have had a tendency to prove us hysterics right more often than the calm, rational observers on any number of issues. The powerful military-industrial-financial interests that control this country are not happy with McCain, for obvious reasons, but they still feel that he is less of a threat to people who want to “make a lot of money” (see today’s FT article about McCain) than either of the Democrats.
If it takes another major disastrous war to help keep the White House in Republican hands, does anyone seriously think that Bush/Cheney are incapable of starting one, if not downright eager to do so? The only “conspiracy theory” is the attempt to make excuses for or downplay the seriousness of what they clearly see as their goal.
Posted by: algasema | March 13th, 2008 at 5:30 pm | Report this commentWell P,
I agree with you somewhat, if fact, Iran may be itching for a strike in Lebanon…I also think if US were to strike or be part of a strike in Lebanon…Iran is totally capable (and perhaps ready) to ignite the Shia minority populations in the Persian Gulf states… certainly a strike even surgical to Iran would have that result….that is why I, along with King Abdullah and the rest of the monarchs are and probably anyone who does not want to the global economy come tumbling down are hoping that Adm. Fallon’s resignation is not due to a protest to a future strike but forced due to personality/policy difference.
Btw, Russians protested US build up off coast of Lebanon yesterday at UN…
P, I am not happy about Lebanon one bit, and have conflicted feelings about what to do there. Between Iran, Syria and Israel policies and actions , Lebanon is at the top of my “Countries that Break your Heart List” ….but no doubt Iran has the power to take it off that list…
And it is unacceptable that it does not.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 13th, 2008 at 5:51 pm | Report this commentAs Flanders was for imperial Spanish power, so the Middle East is proving to be for America’s.
Posted by: David Seaton | March 13th, 2008 at 6:00 pm | Report this commentDear Ms. Lawson,
The Lebanese have the misfortune of being a weak, divided country whose politics are based on corrupt, feudal clans.
There will be conflict for a long time to come as the country is an artificial, colonial creation and its constitution, economy and institutions are stacked against the largest grouping (the Shia) that have been kept poor and powerless since independence.
The way to address the above is not to blame Iran but to set Lebanon on a proper democratic course where the grievances of the dispossessed is properly addressed or to face facts and give up the pretence that it will function as a nation state.
Iran appears to be a kind of Diabolus Ex Machina that is brought out by the Americans to blame every ill in the region,and beyond, on.
In fact, most problems are of a local, indigenous nature which are made worse by the legacies of colonialism. If Iranians have a role in them, it is not because they are a branch of the evil empire, but because they have legitimate national / territorial, security / religious / ethnic concerns in the region. Iranians have been around a long long time and their interests are intertwined in the wider region much more than a young and immature power like the US’s will ever be.
Demonisation of Iran and Iranians will continue to be a counterproductive strategy.
Best wishes,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | March 13th, 2008 at 6:14 pm | Report this commentOil is at $111, gold is at $1000, the Euro at $1.56. Anyone for war in the Persian Gulf?
Posted by: David Seaton | March 13th, 2008 at 6:19 pm | Report this commentP”Demonisation of Iran and Iranians will continue to be a counterproductive strategy.”
The significant powers that be in the world, and I include Iran has one, can and do play positive and negative forces around the globe. I am not demonizing Iran or Iranians,(and I am surprised that is your response) anymore than I am being un -American or anti- American, when I voice opposition to some US policies. Moreover, It is precisely because of Iran’s power in the region, its Shia religious leadership role, that it has the means more than any other power to assist in stabilizing Lebanon.
Recently according a report (at Naharet website)Ahmadinejad told a high-ranking Arab official that Lebanon will not have a new president before Bush leaves office…that would be Jan 2009…if this report is true it is very disturbing….and I hope you do not see his statement as means to “set Lebanon on a proper democratic course where the grievances of the dispossessed is properly addressed or to face facts and give up the pretence that it will function as a nation state.”
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 13th, 2008 at 6:56 pm | Report this comment“And what’s more, a war with Iran at this precise moment, setting the Persian Gulf alight is just what is needed to push the world economy right over the edge into depression.” And what would a nuclear armed Iran do to the world economy? She could hold the world to ransom, terrorise the Gulf states (without having to activate the Shia minorities there), REALLY threaten US interests, not to mention carry out Ahmagonnanukeya’s threat to wipe “Israel off the map”.
But relatively, I agree. War in the gulf would be terible. But not as bad as having a martyrdom-seeking, messianic cult armed to the teeth with nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them to anywhere in the middle east or Europe. Let’s hope a grand bargain can be struck. ALL the other options going to be bad for the world.
Posted by: AYC | March 13th, 2008 at 8:27 pm | Report this commentTo David seaton ,Granted the spanish army in Flanders squandered the indies treasure and bankrupted the spanish crown ( and the rest of europe too ) but what would be the U.S. equivalent of the spanish road , the logistic artery bringing supplies to flanders ,
Posted by: jeannick | March 13th, 2008 at 9:37 pm | Report this commentWould it be the central asia air bases of Kyrghistan ,turkey , Ormuz or suez ??
More important , Spain was willing and did to fight to keep it open .
jeannick,
Posted by: David Seaton | March 13th, 2008 at 9:44 pm | Report this commentIsrael is America’s Flanders.
While most of the articles out now claim Fallon resigned due to differences with Bush-Cheney Iran policy, there are a few now claiming that it was not Iran but the continuing Bush-Cheney IRAQ policy that is behind his resignation.
These articles argue that he was insistent on making his case that the Surge Policy is not really working to the administration…. that he believed Petraeus is in concert with Administration in selling the surge as a great success while masking a very dangerous volatile situation. Moreover, the Administration who dealt directly with Petraeus (bypassing him) gave Gen. P total control of resources. This made Fallon’s job of meeting the needs of the entire region impossible.
The above theory seems most plausible to me.
Further, the last thing Bush-Cheney (and MCCain)want discussed or scrutinized is the merits of the Surge Policy…at least until 2009. And unfortunately, most Americans do not want to even think about the Iraq War …preferring to believe all is and/or will be well due to the SURGE. However, that may not be an option for either the Administration or the American people to just sail along as we are now doing,… as Senator Webb does want to question a retired Adm Fallon in committee along with receiving an update from General Petraeus. Well, I think its time for truth no matter how uncomfortable it makes all of us feel.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 14th, 2008 at 3:04 am | Report this commentAYC,
Posted by: Reza | March 14th, 2008 at 4:45 am | Report this commentI see you are starting with the ahmadi-nejad wiping Israel off the map hysteria again. Truly funny… At the moment, it is only the Palestinians who are being wiped off the map, by Israel. Anyway, I truly believe this has only to do with Iran and not some political engineering for the upcoming campaign. The Bush administration has demonstrated every inclination to disregard law, morality and justice, even when they were popular. What incentive do they have to be AS orthodox now with a 20% approval rating?…
Reza,
You should tell the Iranians that. Please have a look at this billboard in central Tehran, as reported in the NYT, and then tell me that they do not want to wipe Israel off the map.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/world/middleeast/30iran.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Do Al Jazeera understand Farsi? Perhaps they’d better stick to Arabic:
http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816
Believe Reuters?
“We actually had access to this speech, and heard the president’s words verbatim from our own TV footage. We stand behind our translation. In this case, he used the word “mahv,” which in Farsi means “wiped off”: Editor”
Maybe Fallon had fallen for the Iranian disinformation campaign - perhaps we can now lay it rest? Thanks.
Posted by: AYC | March 14th, 2008 at 9:12 am | Report this commentIran just try to defend itself.
Iran is a relatively poor nation under constant pressure from the US, Israel and its European allies.
Just Israel has over 100 nuclear heads while Iran has none.
After Jomeini defeated the Anglo-American pawn Sha the US and France promoted an Iraqi invasion by Saddam Husseim which ended in a 8 years War with a million people dead.
I don´t ve any doubt Iran is the victim. No doubt.
They use a defensive rethoric against Israel to search support in other Muslim countries…but the only nations in the area with nuclear heads are Israel and Pakistan, and both have the support of the US, which already has a Defense Budget 50 times larger than Iran and which already has attacked and invaded two nations of over 25 million people in five years.
Iran is the victim even if it is playing well with the short cards they have on the table. They are poor but with determination to defend their sovereignty while Europe is just an American Protectorate without autonomous Defense, without Sovereignty (even if Jacques Chirac did an important work to build an independent Europe so Americans promoted a coup against him)
When the most important symbol of national Sovereignty, the Military Forces (Army, Navy, Air Force), is under foreign control as happens with European Armies under he Submission of General John Craddock, head of SACEUR, then we cannot say we are sovereign. Craddock is our Viceroy and I, like an increasing number of Europeans, am ashamed that the Generals of my Army have to serve him, the Viceroy.
We want to be Free. Independence for Europe.
Posted by: Enrique | March 14th, 2008 at 9:40 am | Report this commentDear AYC,
The billboard says “Israel should disappear from the pages of time”. It does not talk about wiping anything off any maps and grammatically, it is more of prediction that an exhortation to any specific action.
Once again, I post an article from an independent academic (American but Farsi speaking) below but I know that you will keep bleating about it for the reasons that are also mentioned in the quote below. Churchil once defined a bigot as someone who won’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.
Quote
http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/ahmadinejad-i-am-not-anti-semitic.html
I renew my call to readers to write protest letters to newspapers and other media every time they hear it alleged that Ahmadinejad (or “Iran”!) has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.” There is no such idiom in Persian and it is not what he said, and the mistranslation gives entirely the wrong impression. Wars can start over bad translations.
It was apparently some Western wire service that mistranslated the phrase as ‘wipe Israel off the map’, which sounds rather more violent than calling for regime change. Since then, Iranian media working in English have themselves depended on that translation. One of the tricks of Right-Zionist propagandists is to substitute these English texts for Ahmadinejad’s own Persian text. (Ethan Bronner at the New York Times tried to pull this, and more recently Michael Rubin at the American Enterprise Institute.) But good scholarship requires that you go to the original Persian text in search of the meaning of a phrase. Bronner and Rubin are guilty disregarding philological scholarship in favor of mere propagandizing.
These propaganda efforts against Iran and Ahmadinejad also depend on declining to enter into evidence anything else he has ever said– like that it would be wrong to kill Jews! They also ignore that Ahmadinejad is not even the commander in chief of the Iranian armed forces.
Unquote
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | March 14th, 2008 at 11:26 am | Report this commentAJ said it would be wrong to kill Jews?! What high ethics and searing intellect! So maybe there is more to him than meets the eye. Is the Nobel Peace Committee aware of this?
Posted by: RCS | March 14th, 2008 at 11:45 am | Report this commentIt actually says, in English, for the benefit of the world media and with the sanction of the theocrats who run the country, “Israel must be wiped out the world”. In red and black and white. Never mind what Juan Cole says. Poor grammar, but the sense is clear, undeniable and if they didn’t want that message to be seen by the world, why have the Iranian authorities allowed it to be posted to a giant billboard in the middle of Tehran?
And as per my earlier post, Reuters stand by their translation.
Posted by: AYC | March 14th, 2008 at 12:18 pm | Report this commentAdmittedly, attacking Iran as an election ploy is only one possible reason for the Bush/Cheney march toward war. Perhaps more likely, they just want to keep control over the oil lanes (if not Iran’s oil itself). All indications are that, for whatever reason, war with Iran is a keysone of administration policy and that we can look forward to it as the final “legacy” of this benighted administration.
Anyone who thinks that Fallon resigned over any other issue might just as well believe that Governor Spitzer made his trip to Washington in order to bust the Emperor’s Club.
Posted by: algasema | March 14th, 2008 at 12:42 pm | Report this commentOne further thought. Sometimes things that seem to be ovbious may, indeed, actually be so. Why, for example, is it so surprising that one of America’s most hawkish politicians may actually mean what he says when he states that American soldiers may be in Iraq for a hundred years? And why would an administration that fired General Eric Shinseki for telling the truth about how many troops would be needed in Iraq, and destroyed the career of the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson because he exposed the lie about Saddam’s supposed interest in buying “yellowcake” nuclear bomb material from Niger, hesitate to shove Admiral Fallon out the door for disagreeing with its apparent goal of going to war with Iran?
Posted by: algasema | March 14th, 2008 at 2:26 pm | Report this commentI am sorry for my “obvious” typo in misspelling that same word.
Posted by: algasema | March 14th, 2008 at 2:28 pm | Report this commentIt is true that secretaries of state and defense - Rice and Gates - are both of the view that war on Iran is not such a good idea. It is possible that the latest National Intelligence Estimate, debunking the idea that Iran was developing nuclear weapons, had gained from the wisdom of Robert Gates, a career CIA officer who rose to be the agency’s director. It may also be, although I have no first-hand experience, that Fallon left because he was too difficult to work with.
Having said all that, I believe that George W Bush is a president who is quite good at hurting himself. He strikes me as someone who wnats to chop the branch which he is sitting on. And I am always aware of Dick Cheney being around Bush.
Could it be that if Barack Obama, or less likely Hillary Clinton, won the presidential election in November, America or Israel might bomb Iran before Bush left office in January 2009? But if MacCain won,it might not happen?
Deepak Tripathi
Posted by: Deepak Tripathi | March 14th, 2008 at 10:44 pm | Report this commentI wonder if there is a relationship between the fall of Fallon and the Tibet revolt. Perhaps the US is saying China, the most important ally of Iran, not to help the Iranians before and during their military attack when it takes place or they will support Tibet´s Independentists the same way they supported Kosovo. And the same goes to the Russian Federation: don´t help Iran or the U.S. will support independentist movements inside your nations…
Posted by: Enrique | March 17th, 2008 at 4:58 am | Report this commentAYC,
Posted by: Reza | March 17th, 2008 at 5:34 am | Report this commentLets not debate what Ahmadi-nejad did not say. Instead, let me please ask you this: Are you in agreement with Israel’s racist and genocidal policy of wiping Palestinians off the map and stealing their property?
I don´t find any difference between Milosevic and Sharon. There is clearly a double standard: Israeli Jews can enjoy an state of apartheid without problem and keep 4 million people in concentration camps without problem as they don´t ve to answer. After all they ve absolute control of the U.S., French and German Governments who are unable to make a single decissio which can annoy Isreal…so Israel can continue with the Genocide of the Palestinians with a happy smile.
Posted by: Enrique | March 17th, 2008 at 6:21 am | Report this commentMs Lawson,
Posted by: Reza | March 17th, 2008 at 8:47 am | Report this commentthe US currently has nearly 500k personel stationed in over 130 countries….. in the event of any major need, these people could be immediately mobilised The fact is, that Iraqi security is not a priority. The majority of US troops in Iraq are conveniently guarding oil instalations, pipelines and western oil workers.
The need could arrive if the US attacks Iran. Under such a situation, the iranian response would be severe enough to pull the US into a large scale conflict involving American troops dierectly in Iran. The Bush admin has gone as far as to say in 2006 that the US would use nukes pre-emptively in any situation where the US or its interests were at risk., implying that IF 50k US troops were to be surrounded in nothern iran or southern iraq and about to be slaughtered, that Tehran would face imminent annihilation. So ….through this transitive effect, we can conclude with high probability that a US attack on Iran would likely lead to a nuclear war. Most military professionals realise this and I suspect Mr Fallon didnt want the murder of 15 million iranians on his conscience
Mr Pacifist, either you dont speak arabic or you are liar the caption at the bottom says Israel must be erased from the face of the Earth. The particular word they use “imha” - which means “erased” in the sense of wiped out, annihilated, obliterated, eradicated, extinguished. If Cole says otherwise then he needs to go back to school and refresh himself or more likely he is also simply lying as it is a well-known word.
In case you still think there is some way that Iranians really have a lovely, cuddly intention then here is THEIR translation:
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//080309/ids_photos_wl/r1636364257.jpg/
Apparently Iranians don’t speak Farsi as well as you and Cole.
Posted by: danny | March 18th, 2008 at 12:03 pm | Report this commentSorry, only just read the rest of you post Mr P. I have to take my hat off to you by managing to get Cole and “good scholarship” together without using the phrase “hasn’t got the first clue about…” in between.
As for Enriques - Milosevic’s subordinates were responsible for the death of 8,000 unarmed Bosnians in one day. That’s nearly twice the number of Palestinians killed in 7 and half years of conflict and nearly four times the number of Palestinians killed “whilst not actively engaging in hostilities when killed”. Can you see the difference now?
Posted by: danny | March 18th, 2008 at 12:12 pm | Report this commentReza, over half of those “nearly 500k” are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another 30k are in South Korea, which is a flashpoint thanks to China’s protection of the DPRK and with a resurgent Russia there is a limit to how many of the 100k+ guarding Europe.
Maybe you were thinking of the countries with Marine embassy guards and a military attache who make up the majority of your quoted “130 countries” but I doubt they’d be that much help.
As for guarding pipelines and oil pumps, wasn’t aware there was that much oil in Baghdad, Anbar and Fallujah where most of the US troops are based. I thought it was in the North - where the US has a minimal presence - and in the South - where the UK was running things. Almost the opposite of what you claimed in fact.
Posted by: danny | March 18th, 2008 at 12:57 pm | Report this commentThe visit of Nancy Pelosi to the Dalai Lama makes clear that the Tibet revolt is related to the next U.S. attack on Iran. Americans are telling China to be quiet or they will support both the Independence of Tibet and the Independence of Taiwan…using Hong Kong to promotoe turmoil and revolts in the populated and Cantonese speaking Guangdong province (90 million people) a province that, like Xingjiang (Uygur), is a priority for the U.S. and the U.K. in their search to divide the People´s Republic of China. Just Guangdong will have in two decades a GDP bigger than Britain and close to Germany. By then Guangdong (including Hong Kong and Macau) will have a population of 110 million people…On the other side, Xingjiang is the natural resources reserve of China so driving China out of Xingjiang is also a priority to the Anglo-Americans.
Posted by: Enrique | March 21st, 2008 at 12:37 pm | Report this commentCentrifugal forces (economic, religious, nationalist) sooner or later will lead to the fall of the Communist Party of China…and Anglo-Americans need a Chinese “Yeltsin”, a liberal in the Communist Party who can give birth to a Confederation of Independent States holding the Mandarin center.
Xingjiang/Uyghur would be their Kazhakhstan, Guangdong (including Hong Kong and Macau) would be their Ukraine, Tibet their Baltic states, Inner Mongolia Central Asia…
The Mandarin Center, with over 1,200 million people will contine being the most populated nation in the World even if soon reached by the much more ethnically divided India (which is ethnically even more divided than the European Union) Anyway they will lose both their main reserves of raw materials and the main Trade and Financial center leaving the Taiwanese coast open.
Posted by: Enrique | March 21st, 2008 at 1:55 pm | Report this commentEnrique where do you dig up this nonsense? Firstly, the US is ADAMANTLY against independence for Taiwan. Secondly, the last thing anyone needs is a “Yeltsin”, chinese, japanese or siamese.
Posted by: danny | March 22nd, 2008 at 10:12 am | Report this commentReza,
Again,the army and the marines ARE VERY stretched (by Iraq and Afghanistan)…but NOT the US Navy…and we are at the moment telling Hezbollah, Syria and Iran just that…
Fallon, Hagel, Webb, have shown the real and responsible pro-military stance by arguing this fact…unlike McCain with his “straight talk” who never even takes a question or utters a word about how destructive the Iraq War has been to the US military as an institution…if the US had its own version of a “Winograd ” investigation and report …Bush,Cheney and Rumsfeld would not be in power now
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 22nd, 2008 at 7:34 pm | Report this comment…but US Congress and public are simply “out to lunch”
it’s a very weird time…
yes… I know Rumsfeld is not Sec of Def ..I meant he would have been …all of them would have been drummed out much earlier on…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 22nd, 2008 at 7:37 pm | Report this commentHere is the interview:
http://www.esquire.com/features/fox-fallon. It is safe to say, Mr Fallon hardly comes out as the ardent anti-war partisan he is made out to be - one should also note that Fallon claimed that this article misrepresents him and is a “poison pen”…
Some choice quotes:
“It’s not that Fallon is risk averse — anything but. “When I look at the Middle East,” he says late one recent night in Afghanistan, “I’d just as soon double down on the bet.”" - guess that’s gonna upset Enrique and his “the US are the only people since Hitler to attack two countries with total population of 26 million” - which will come as a newsflash to Chad, Pakistan(which was split in two as a result of losing that fight), Uganda, South Vietnam, Laos etc etc etc.
“And Fallon is in no hurry to call Iran’s hand on the nuclear question. He is as patient as the White House is impatient, as methodical as President Bush is mercurial, and simply has, as one aide put it, “other bright ideas about the region.” Fallon is even more direct: In a part of the world with “five or six pots boiling over, our nation can’t afford to be mesmerized by one problem.”
And if it comes to war?
“Get serious,” the admiral says. “These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them.”" - hmm, almost the polar opposite of those who are claiming some sort of “disaster” if Iran is attacked. For the record, I think he is wildly understating the case. If we are talking about simple a bombing mission then he is right, anything more and the Iranians have a proven track record of causing problems - probably we’d find that Hizbollah have a need to make another “Kept Promise”…
“Fallon was quietly opposed to a long-term surge in Iraq” - great call…
“Early in his tenure at Pacific Command, Fallon let it be known that he was interested in visiting the city of Harbin in the highly controlled and isolated Heilongjiang Military District on China’s northern border with Russia. The Chinese were flabbergasted at the request, but when Fallon’s command plane took off one afternoon from Mongolia, heading for Harbin without permission, Beijing relented.” - there are so many ways this could have ended badly, although apparently it didn’t. Hardly proof of sound judgement.
” Right after the new year, three American ships were passing through the Strait of Hormuz, exchanging normal greetings with Gulf State navies, checking them out as they passed. The same with the Iranian navy. And then, suddenly, small Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps boats started speeding toward the American ships, showing, the admiral says, “very stupid behavior, showboating, and provocative taunts. Given that it was a small boat that did in the USS Cole, this was very dangerous behavior.”
The Iranians dropped boxes in the water, simulating mines.
“Remember,” he says, “my first day on this job, I was greeted by the IRGC snatching the British sailors, and so it was a sense of here we go again. You wonder, Are they really acting on their own, because the pattern seems clear.”
Fallon’s eyes narrow and his voice becomes that whisper: “This is not how a country that wants to be a big boy in the neighborhood behaves. How are we supposed to take these guys seriously as players in the region? You’d like to deal with them as big-league players, but when they do this, it’s very tough.”" - again hardly the words of a guy tripping over himself to appease the Iranian hardliners.
There are lots of bizarre moments in this interview and an impression is made of a military guy who thinks he is really a diplomat of some sort.
Oh and PS, looks like the Sadrists have backed down in Basra and Baghdad. Bad news for the US-haters.
Posted by: danny | March 31st, 2008 at 9:45 am | Report this commentDanny…..”Oh and PS, looks like the Sadrists have backed down in Basra and Baghdad. Bad news for the US-haters.”
Look at this article from the USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-03-30-iraqnews_N.htm
“Iranians help reach Iraq cease-fire.” It means the US is dependent on Iranian goodwill in Iraq. You don’t have to be a US-hater but you have to love the Iranians
P
Posted by: Pacifist | March 31st, 2008 at 10:39 am | Report this commentP, thanks for the link. Very interesting.
Posted by: danny | March 31st, 2008 at 11:37 am | Report this commentIranians not exactly boasting about it though:
http://www.presstv.ir/sections.aspx?sectionid=351020201
normally the sort of thing they shout from the rootops.
Posted by: danny | March 31st, 2008 at 11:43 am | Report this commentAnd apparently Sadr is none too happy with Khameni - the guy who wields the real power in Iran…
http://tabnak.ir/pages/?cid=8318
Also Sadr was saying some rather unpleasant things about the “Iranian intervention in Iraqi politics” in an interview with Al-Jazzeera. I looked and can’t find a link, sorry.
This is the closest thing - skip to the end:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080329/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_al_sadr_3;_ylt=AvWyEz0UUFKYX0Xn5GFbRZdX6GMA
Posted by: danny | April 2nd, 2008 at 1:58 pm | Report this commentDanny… can you read Farsi?!
Moqtada Sadr’s relations with Iran are quite complex. The Sadr clan is related by marriage to the Khomeinis and the followers of Moqtada are the very (Mostazafin) “downtrodden” that Iranian ideology purports to support.
His resistance against America also makes common cause with the Iranians.
On the other hand, Sadr is an Arab nationalist with anti-Persian sentiments (a trait more usually found amongst the Sunnis) and is known to have mimicked the Arabic accent of Grand Ayatollah Sistani (who is Iranian by origin and speaks Arabic with a trace of a Persian accent).
Moreover, Iranians have, since the revolution, supported other Shia factions (SCIRI)and consider Moqtada a hothead and a loose cannon.
As you see, the alliances and the animosities are quite interwoven and do not fit the easy pattern of Shia-Sunni, pro-Iran / anti-American etc.
These complexities seem to go over the heads of the Westerners in general and Americans in partiicular and give rise to frequent, unfortunate policy errors.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 2nd, 2008 at 3:05 pm | Report this commentP “As you see, the alliances and the animosities are quite interwoven and do not fit the easy pattern of Shia-Sunni, pro-Iran / anti-American etc.
These complexities seem to go over the heads of the Westerners in general and Americans in partiicular and give rise to frequent, unfortunate policy errors.”
Well Said P.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | April 2nd, 2008 at 4:25 pm | Report this commentI can read a bit. I am half Iraqi - Shia by coincidence, but utterly, utterly atheist. Most of the “Westerners” that the complexities have gone over the heads of seem to be journalists. The relationships between Iranians and Iraqi Shia are indeed complex. On one hand for the religious, especially given the antipathy of the Saddam regime and the Ottoman empire [50 years] before, Iran was a safe haven. On the other hand during the Iran-Iraq war the vast majority of Iraqi Shia fought against the Iranians and there is quite a strong natural antipathy between Iranians and Arabs - in general, not just Sunnis. As for the old opposition group that Maliki’s party is associated with they all used to live in a particular neighborhood of Tehran back in the old days.
I saw over the weekend an interview with Sadr by an Al-Jazeera journalist who usually hangs out in Lebanon - he is the favourite mouthpiece for Hizbollah - and Sadr was being rather aggressive towards the Iranian Supreme Leader which suggested to me his militia were getting heavily hit and he had been knocked back by the Iranians. Hence my interest in your post’s article.
PS I think you confused Muqtada As-Sadr with Musa As-Sadr. Musa As-sadr is the founder of the Amal movement - and indirectly Hizbollah - and he is the guy who speaks arabic with a persian accident and is related by marriage to Khatami - not Khomeni. Muqtada’s father is a very, very, very distant relative. Sistani speaks with a very strong Persian accident. Note that neither Musa As-sadr, Baqir as-sadr nor Sistani agree with the wilyat al-faqih which is the Iranian system of government.
Hope the above was interesting/helpful…
Posted by: danny | April 2nd, 2008 at 5:04 pm | Report this commentOne last point on the Tabnak agency, it apparently owned by the Head of the Iranian Revolutionary guards and has close links to Khameni… On the other hand my mate who emailed this did so by emailing a link not exactly favouring the Shia.
However it does seem Sadr may have lost a sugar daddy…
Posted by: danny | April 2nd, 2008 at 5:15 pm | Report this commentHi Danny,
I said Sistani speaks Arabic with a Persian accent. Musa Sadr (as you say, his father (Sadruddin) was a distant cousin of Moqtada’s father) was kidnapped by Ghadhafi and never seen again. Iran has been on Libya’s back ever since and the support given last week (at the Arab summit) by Gadhafi to Iran over the the 3 islands is said to be a result of a deal between Iran and Libya so that Iran shuts up about Musa Sadr and Libya supports Iran over other issues.
Sadrs, Khatamis and Khomeinis are all related to each other by marriage.
As far as I know, president Khatami’s brother (Mohammad Reza Khatami) is married to Khomeini’s granddaughter (Zahra Eshraghi) and Moqtada Sadr is the nephew of President Mohammad Khatami’s wife who is, in turn, the aunt of Ahmad Khomeini’s wife (Ahmad was the son of the Ayatollah) as well as the niece of the aforemetioned Musa Sadr. Talk of interwoven relationships!
The Sadrs are a big clan that originate from the mountains of Lebanon and are prominent in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon. Although they are technically from different nationalities, they have maintained their close clan relations (as witnessed by Musa Sadr’s actions who was Iranian-born himself but went to Lebanon and became the leader of the Lebanese Shia.)
Finally, Tabnak is run by Mohsen Rezaii, a former head of the Revolutionary Guards who is now close to Rafsanjani but brands himself a conservative. He belongs to the conservative wing who oppose Ahmadinejad in a similar way (some say) that American paleo-conservatives oppose the American Neo-cons!
Again, Iranian factions’ loyalties cannot be put into neat boxes like “Left” and “Right”
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 2nd, 2008 at 6:14 pm | Report this commentP,
Fascinating!…tell us more!…who exactly is: General Qassem Suleimani…
Thanks,
Lisa
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | April 2nd, 2008 at 6:38 pm | Report this commentYes the Maraja all seem to be intermarried…. all the Khois, Hakims and Sadr’s seem to be each others cousins.
As for the specifics of the married interrelationships, didn’t know that. You learn at least one new everyday….
Posted by: danny | April 2nd, 2008 at 6:57 pm | Report this commentP “Again, Iranian factions’ loyalties cannot be put into neat boxes like “Left” and “Right” - maybe, but can your comments be linked back to the fall of Fallon?
Posted by: AYC | April 3rd, 2008 at 10:02 am | Report this commentAnd I guess you’re feeling pretty sore this morning, given all your past comments, with the latest news about Iran’s designs for nuclear warheads received from the Khan network, the testing of high explosives designed for warhead detonation, that China has divulged Iran’s nuclear secrets it knows to the IAEA, and further that the director of the CIA now believes that Iran is in fact developing a nuclear weapon. Still believe they’re innocent of the charge?
Looks like Fallon was wrong all along, had an ideological game to play, and was therefore right to step down.
Dear L-H L, as “Danny” says, the senior clergy intermarry and have always done in the past.
In fact, in many traditional societies, where the family have a big say in choosing spouses, the elite intermarry extensively to strengthen the family “business” and also because a “suitable bride / husband” is not necessarily someone with good personal qualities but, perhaps more importantly, somebody from the appropriate social background. For example, I was amused to see the educated and Westernised Benazir Bhutto had married a gentleman whose chief qualifications appeared to be his feudal background and Shia religion (both compatible with that of Ms. Bhutto). In pre-revolutionary Iran existed the so-called “1,000 Faamil” (1,000 families) who constituted the elite and everyone who was anyone was related to them. Given time, I am sure a new social class will develop who will be related by blood, influence and wealth. They will be the descendants of the major clerical and political families.
As for Gen. Qasem Suleimani, he is the commander of the Qods force of the Revolutionary Guards. He is one of the people mentioned by name in the American sanctions against Iran.
Here he is, greeting the new commander of the IRGC, last September:
http://www.khakriz8.blogfa.com/post-83.aspx
His case is also an example of Psy Ops against Iran as, about 4 years ago, the Americans (and their Farsi mouthpieces) claimed that he had fled Iran and sought asylum in the West!
To AYC….don’t read so much of the Debkafiles. If you like comics, I recommend the Spiderman
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 3rd, 2008 at 1:28 pm | Report this commentP,
I see you’ve raised yourself intellectually, although I am surprised you read Spiderman. I would have thought it was a little “ethnic” for your taste.
Anyway you can see the real news here:
http://news.scotsman.com/world/Surprise-as-China-gives-IAEA.3942324.jp
And here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-04-02-nuclear-iran_N.htm
And here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/02/wiran102.xml
And re: Michael Hayden, the director of the CIA, here:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gRbpL8Gdzu3lQj1bmGxroaNs6UAA
pip pip
Posted by: AYC | April 3rd, 2008 at 2:29 pm | Report this commentDear AYC,
imho the reports are typical planted stories intended for spinning and Psy Ops, hence the requests for anonymity etc.
Iran is not hiding that it is undertaking nuclear activities and the Chinese are giving information about Iran’s nuclear activities. Information does not equate incrimination and the Chinese would hardly provide anything to show that they helped Iran in anything illicit, would they?
As for the CIA saying that Iranians are naughty, that also is part of the NeoCon (=Israel-first lobby) counterattacking against the NIE report. It is yawn-inducing and pitiful.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 3rd, 2008 at 2:43 pm | Report this comment“It is yawn-inducing and pitiful”. Still. It shows how out of step Fallon actually was with the administration. And how far they have moved from last year’s report. And more importantly, where they might be going.
Posted by: AYC | April 3rd, 2008 at 2:52 pm | Report this commentDear AYC,
This lame duck administration of Bush-Cheney is out of step with everyone who is not and Israel-first neoCon but, above all, it is out of step with realities and caught up in its own fantasies and fanaticisms.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 3rd, 2008 at 3:09 pm | Report this commentGen. Petraeus reports tomorrow to Congress. It is a pity that Adm. Fallon is not there too. Below link is to an important report recently issued. It suggests several questions for Gen. Petraeus, it has been distributed widely to Congress, it is worth reviewing.
http://www.usip.org/pubs/usipeace_briefings/2008/0406_iraq_sur
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | April 8th, 2008 at 12:25 am | Report this commentDear Lisa,
The link you give doesn’t work.
Petraeus is a very highly political general and sings from the hymn sheet provided by the NeoCons. I think there is much cause for pessimism:
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=12644
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 8th, 2008 at 10:06 am | Report this commentThe biggest cause of pessimism I can see is the 6000 centrifuges installed in Natanz. Fallon was and is indisputably wrong.
Posted by: AYC | April 8th, 2008 at 12:47 pm | Report this commentDear AYC,
No doubt you were among those who said Iraq had WMD’s in 2003, although there was no evidence for it.
For warmongers there will always be an excuse to beat the war drums, especially when the pro-Israel lobby dominates the US polity and will spend American lives and money to uphold their project.
Posted by: Pacifist | April 8th, 2008 at 1:08 pm | Report this commentFor me the case was much more open and shut. A vicious tyrant, mass murderer and megalomaniac, who killed hundreds of thousands - his own people, Iranians, Kurds, Kuwaitis - had to be deposed. I guess the tyrants in Tehran have learned the lesson - nuclear weapons at all costs.
I suppose you were on the dreary march through London, with all the right-on Liberals who supported “human rights”, except when it came to the human rights of Saddam’s victims. What price the human rights of the victims of the Iranians?
Posted by: AYC | April 8th, 2008 at 1:32 pm | Report this commentDear AYC,
A measure of the intellectual bankruptcy of those who supported the war was the number of times they have changed their story. From export of democracy to the imminence of a WMD attack on Western Europe.
Now, ex post, their defence is the deposing of Saddam but they conveniently overlook the death of hundreds of thousands Iraqis and that over 2 million of them have been made refugees. Iraq’s infrustructure has been ruined and its society brutalised to an unprecedented level. The arming of the Sunni tribes by Gen “Betray us” will simply fan the flames of a future civil war and will create another grouping to haunt the West, like Al Qaeda (another byproduct of American intervention) did.
Basically, your “cure” is killing the patient but that does not stop you from prescribing the same treatment for other patients!
You ought to have the courage of your convictions and state your aims:- Your kind want the stupid Americans to fight Israel’s wars for her and everything else (Democracy, WMD etc.) is a sideshow.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 8th, 2008 at 2:03 pm | Report this commentDear Lisa,
This is a good article on the issue (originally from the Daily Telegrap).
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/4575
Note the CASMII editorial comments:-
Editor’s note: After failing to unleash a civil war among Shias in Basra so as to defeat the resistance against occupation, the US is again blaming Iran for the disastrous consequences of its own illegal invasion of Iraq and beating the drum for an attack on Iran.”
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 8th, 2008 at 2:53 pm | Report this commentP,
Thank You for the article ..here is a link to an article on the report… there is a news report today that on April 17 the Quartet are meeting in Amman and that this meeting is a forerunner to a Annapolis follow up meeting to be held in Moscow…that is good news if true…there is a serious effort by high ranking Israeli officials to free Marwan Barghouti (which in turns means Gilad Shalit will be freed)…this is even better news!…of course, there are rumblings and rumors of a new Hezbollah -Isarel -Syria war…it would be difficult to hold a 60th birthday party with world leaders in attendance and also conduct a war …so for now, I am dismissing those rumors….
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/05/ST2008040502204.html?sid=ST2008040502204
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | April 8th, 2008 at 3:30 pm | Report this comment“Now, ex post, their defence is the deposing of Saddam but they conveniently overlook the death of hundreds of thousands Iraqis and that over 2 million of them have been made refugees. Iraq’s infrastructure has been ruined and its society brutalised to an unprecedented level.”
Don’t really see many GIs strapping explosives to their bodies do you? No? Funny that really. A malignant ideology nurtured in Iran, the cult of the suicide bomber has spread far and wide, but really, it’s not a tool used by western armies. More likely to be utilised by terrorist groups. Oh, and the Iranians. And doubly so by terrorist groups sponsored by Iran (PIJ, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc). Also, I don’t remember hearing about any US troops helping the mahdi army fight against the Iraqi army in Basra recently.
Not really I surprise I suppose, as they would have had difficulty fighting alongside the Iranians. I expect you’re going to tell me that Al-Sadr’s daughter’s pet cat is related to Ahmagonnanuka’s cousin’s moggy and that the IRGC were in Basra to look after it overnight, or some such.
But the fact of the matter is that Iran has been stirring the pot in Iraq, arming the militias, supplying military technology (including shaped roadside bombs that kill British soldiers), arranging links between the mahdi army and Hezbollah, kidnapping western citizens and generally hoping to repress the flowering of democracy and at the same time tie the US down in some sort of quagmire whilst they press ahead with their nuclear programme.
One final point regarding your comment on “my kind” - don’t worry, I get the dark undertones. But I have a question - if democracy, WMD etc are a sideshow, what is the real show? A greater Israel stretching from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean? Perhaps we should get the UK taxpayer to fork out £12m to investigate your conspiracy theories.
Posted by: AYC | April 8th, 2008 at 4:10 pm | Report this commentLisa,
“of course, there are rumblings and rumors of a new Hezbollah -Isarel -Syria war…it would be difficult to hold a 60th birthday party with world leaders in attendance and also conduct a war …so for now, I am dismissing those rumors….”
Nice of you to assume that Israel will start the war. I seem to remember the last one was started with a cross border incursion from Lebanon. However, in the same way it would be difficult for Israel to hold a 60th birthday party, I’m sure nothing would make the Iranians, Syrians and assorted terrorist groups and their fellow travellers happier than to see the anniversary disrupted.
Posted by: AYC | April 8th, 2008 at 4:35 pm | Report this commentDear AYC,
A few points:
1-) Cult of suicide bombing was nurtured in Iran? Ever heard of WW2’s Kamikaze pilots? Were they trained by the Iranians too? And was the Tamil suicide bomber who killed Rajiv Gandhi trained by the Iranians?
Suicide bombing is a response of people who don’t have sophisticated weapons. Having access to sophisticated weapons (paid for by the stupid, nay stupefied, American taxpayer) does not make you more civilised.
2-) Roadside bombs were developed by Iranians? Not true again. The technology was leaked by the British army / MI5 to the IRA who passed on to the Lebanese and via them to the Iraqis.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article742783.ece
The Iraqis themselves are capable of manufacturing the devices themselves and don’t need to rely on the Iranians, a fact that the US army (especially General Betray us, has tried to cover up: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/27/5469/
3-) Iran stirs up trouble in Iraq?
Need I remind you that Iran directly fought Iraq for 8 years? If Iran had such influence on Iraqis, why oh why couldn’t they stir up such trouble during those 8 years?!
This is simply propaganda by US/K to try to cover up their own incompetence.
4-) Under the Geneva Conventions, the occupiers are responsible for the security of the occupied people. It is no good saying that it is the Iraqis that are killing each other. They were not doing so in anything remotely like the numbers that they are doing now at any point in the previous history of Iraq. The occupying powers are clearly responsible for this. Many of the Iraqis died and were made homeless by the Shock and Awe strategy and the consequent destruction of Iraq’s infrustructure and the consequent chaos wrought by the US-K military actions. Of course, stupid acts like the arming of the Sunni groups is one part of the picture and then there is the deliberate fomenting of civil war by the occupiers of which this was an example:
http://www.infowars.com/articles/iraq/basra_agent_provocateurs.htm
5-) Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah are terrorist organisations (outside the imagining and propaganda of Israel and friends). They have electoral mandates from their own people and represent their legitimate aspirations. By any standard, Israel is a bigger terrorist than either of those two and so is the US.
6-) Democracy cannot be imposed by bombs and freedom cannot be imposed by mass murder. The real show is an alliance of Zionists and oil interests to destroy the larger states of the Middle East, to their own mutual advantage.
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 8th, 2008 at 5:15 pm | Report this commentLebanon 2 was a continuation of Lebanon I … I was there in the midst of Lebanon I, working with refugee populations, … Israel started Round 1… And got in over her head…Hezbollah provoked Round 2 …Israel fell for it and got in over her head …Israel wants a round 3…it would like to finish off Hezbollah military chokehold on Lebanon…I would like that too unless Hezbollah changes its tune and becomes strictly a political party….Israel thinks it can next time around as it has learned hard lessons from Round 2. I cannot imagine it happening at his time with Gaza and West Bank in turmoil. I do not pretend to be a military expert but Israel cannot battle on 3 fronts at the same time..Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon and there is a fear that conflict in Lebanon would turn into 4 fronts… with the Israeli Arab majority Galilee joining and participating in an uprising.
I want to see a JUST 2 state solution … with the hope that a viable Palestinian State finally defuses Hamas and Hezbollah and takes the steam out of Iran’s militant stance toward Israel….but Israel needs to get serious about ending the occupation. Israel wants reconciliation before ending the occupation…it wont happen. A good way for Israel to show it is serious about ending the occupation is by freeing Marwan Barghouhti. He is the one person who has the potential to unify Palestinians, lead Hamas into the political arena, deliver on Israel’s security issues and deliver a state.
I am off topic and Mr. Rachman has voiced disapproval of that in the past …so this shall be my last post on this here.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | April 8th, 2008 at 10:40 pm | Report this comment