Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Santa Cruz Assemblyman Laird Backing Bush Build-Up to War on Iran?
John Laird voted for AB 221 last month in the state Assembly, a bill disinvesting massive amounts of money in state pension funds from Iran unless and until the State Department certifies Iran "non-terrorist" and after it stops nuclear weapons development. Democrats like Laird are beating the war drums or going along. Sound familiar?
Anti-war activists might consider a protest at Assemblyman's Laird's office as their next target.
Last month Laird voted (along with a unanimous Assembly) for AB 221.
This is a bill that divests the California Public Employees’ Retirement System
(CalPERS) and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) from Iranian investment (with certain exceptions) until (a) Iran has been removed from the United States Department of State’s list of countries which have been determined to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. and (b) The President determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that Iran has ceased its efforts to design, develop, manufacture, or acquire a nuclear explosive device or related materials and technology.
This seems to me part of the war drive on Iran using the familiar "WMD" excuse that was used in Iraq.
Ominous parallel developments range from a U.S. build-up in the Persian Gulf, to heightened propaganda activity focusing on Iran (rather than say Saudi Arabia or Syria...or the U.S....as a source of insurgent weaponry in Iraq).
I left both e-mail and phone messages with Laird's office over a week ago asking for clarificaition. Today Alley, a staff worker there, confirmed that Laird had voted for the bill. She promised to inform Laird of my interest (both personally, as a member of HUFF ---Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom, and as a Free Radio Santa Cruz broadcaster).
Call him yourself it you wish to check out what our "progressive liberal" Democrat is doing on this issue: Call him at 831-425-1503. And let us know what he says.
The full text of AB 211 can be found at http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/about/board-cal-agenda/agendas/invest/200705/item10a-00.pdf
Measures at the state level opposing the war (rather than encouraging its extension to Iraq as AB 221 does) are not necessarily a bad idea.
But vague initiatives or referenda on the U.S. troop presence in Iraq are of little use and too far in the future. A specific move to call back the California National Guard on the grounds that they are engaging in war criminal activity is much more to the point and much more immediate.
Last month Laird voted (along with a unanimous Assembly) for AB 221.
This is a bill that divests the California Public Employees’ Retirement System
(CalPERS) and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) from Iranian investment (with certain exceptions) until (a) Iran has been removed from the United States Department of State’s list of countries which have been determined to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. and (b) The President determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that Iran has ceased its efforts to design, develop, manufacture, or acquire a nuclear explosive device or related materials and technology.
This seems to me part of the war drive on Iran using the familiar "WMD" excuse that was used in Iraq.
Ominous parallel developments range from a U.S. build-up in the Persian Gulf, to heightened propaganda activity focusing on Iran (rather than say Saudi Arabia or Syria...or the U.S....as a source of insurgent weaponry in Iraq).
I left both e-mail and phone messages with Laird's office over a week ago asking for clarificaition. Today Alley, a staff worker there, confirmed that Laird had voted for the bill. She promised to inform Laird of my interest (both personally, as a member of HUFF ---Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom, and as a Free Radio Santa Cruz broadcaster).
Call him yourself it you wish to check out what our "progressive liberal" Democrat is doing on this issue: Call him at 831-425-1503. And let us know what he says.
The full text of AB 211 can be found at http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/about/board-cal-agenda/agendas/invest/200705/item10a-00.pdf
Measures at the state level opposing the war (rather than encouraging its extension to Iraq as AB 221 does) are not necessarily a bad idea.
But vague initiatives or referenda on the U.S. troop presence in Iraq are of little use and too far in the future. A specific move to call back the California National Guard on the grounds that they are engaging in war criminal activity is much more to the point and much more immediate.
Add Your Comments
Comments (Hide Comments)
Friday Jul 6th, 2007 9:53 AM
"This seems to me part of the war drive on Iran using the familiar "WMD" excuse that was used in Iraq.
Ominous parallel developments range from a U.S. build-up in the Persian Gulf, to heightened propaganda activity focusing on Iran (rather than say Saudi Arabia or Syria...or the U.S....as a source of insurgent weaponry in Iraq)."
-Yeah, except for the fact that :
a) the UN is in agreement with the US on this one and has made it clear that Iran has flubbed EVERY effort to get into compliance with the IAEA. Different from Saddam who dragged his feet, but generally complied with the UN.
b) Ahmadinejad is conducting a religious crackdown on the women in his country, unlike Saddam who allowed women to advance in professions and go unveiled.
c) Ahmadinejad has threatened the destruction of a sovereign country.
d) Ahmadinejad has hosted an International Holocaust Denial conference. Remember the good old days when leftists, liberals, anarchists, street fighters, etc. used to get angry about stuff like that? Does that not bother you, Mr. Norse?
Ominous parallel developments range from a U.S. build-up in the Persian Gulf, to heightened propaganda activity focusing on Iran (rather than say Saudi Arabia or Syria...or the U.S....as a source of insurgent weaponry in Iraq)."
-Yeah, except for the fact that :
a) the UN is in agreement with the US on this one and has made it clear that Iran has flubbed EVERY effort to get into compliance with the IAEA. Different from Saddam who dragged his feet, but generally complied with the UN.
b) Ahmadinejad is conducting a religious crackdown on the women in his country, unlike Saddam who allowed women to advance in professions and go unveiled.
c) Ahmadinejad has threatened the destruction of a sovereign country.
d) Ahmadinejad has hosted an International Holocaust Denial conference. Remember the good old days when leftists, liberals, anarchists, street fighters, etc. used to get angry about stuff like that? Does that not bother you, Mr. Norse?
Friday Jul 6th, 2007 6:29 PM
Both Bush ( to a lesser degree) and Ahmadinejad (to a greater degree) are masters of deception. I saw the interview of Ahmadinejad on 60 minutes and the answers he gave were smooth and professional. If it wasn't for his track record, I would have voted for Ahmadinejad to become president of the US, based on his answers to the questions.
The US simply can't afford to be the policeman of the world. This is the United States with finite resources, not Smallville with some superhero at the helm.
I have to seriously question weather Iran would ever use nukes if they aquired them. Launching them on a missle is subject to the same rules of engagement as the US-Soviet cold war (MAD). Smuggling them into the US and then blaming an unaffiliated terrorist group risks the US determining that the isotope signature of the bomb matches the Iranian production facility. Still MAD, ultimately. India and Pakistan seem to be getting along ok, even though they both have nukes and have a common border that is in dispute. I don't see the US or the UN applying severe sanctions to either one of them, though there does appear to be some embargoes of nuke material and technology on both countries. For some background on the latest from Pakistan, including their non-proliferation commitment, check out:
http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/press-coverage-2006/january-2006/pakistan-anchor-for-peace-stability
For some discussion of the Iran-nuke issue, check out:
http://www.defendingthetruth.com/us-politics-international-politics/11363-how-fight-iran-4.html
If Iran aquired nukes, Iran and Israel would just have to learn to get along the same way as India and Pakistan I guess. Something would have to change from the current mutual stands of "your version of reality doesn't exist". (ie Israel doesn't have a right to exist/there is no such thing as Israeli Apartheid/there was no Jewish holocaust/Israel is a democracy and upholds the rule of law for all residents)
The US simply can't afford to be the policeman of the world. This is the United States with finite resources, not Smallville with some superhero at the helm.
I have to seriously question weather Iran would ever use nukes if they aquired them. Launching them on a missle is subject to the same rules of engagement as the US-Soviet cold war (MAD). Smuggling them into the US and then blaming an unaffiliated terrorist group risks the US determining that the isotope signature of the bomb matches the Iranian production facility. Still MAD, ultimately. India and Pakistan seem to be getting along ok, even though they both have nukes and have a common border that is in dispute. I don't see the US or the UN applying severe sanctions to either one of them, though there does appear to be some embargoes of nuke material and technology on both countries. For some background on the latest from Pakistan, including their non-proliferation commitment, check out:
http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/press-coverage-2006/january-2006/pakistan-anchor-for-peace-stability
For some discussion of the Iran-nuke issue, check out:
http://www.defendingthetruth.com/us-politics-international-politics/11363-how-fight-iran-4.html
If Iran aquired nukes, Iran and Israel would just have to learn to get along the same way as India and Pakistan I guess. Something would have to change from the current mutual stands of "your version of reality doesn't exist". (ie Israel doesn't have a right to exist/there is no such thing as Israeli Apartheid/there was no Jewish holocaust/Israel is a democracy and upholds the rule of law for all residents)
Saturday Jul 7th, 2007 10:01 AM
OK, Mr. Thielking, explain to me why it is that Iran would change its messed up attitudes (which you accurately described in your post) if it got nukes? Why would they all of a sudden recognize Israel's right to exist if they had nukes? That flies entirely in the face of everything known about world politics and history. Countries that have nukes have less reason to negotiate, not more.
Also, like the worst of Christian fundamentalists, Mr. Ahmadinejad believes in an end-times scenario involving the return of the "12th Mahdi". He has every spiritual reason to "bring it on". Unfortunately, the Left in America is stuck on the Iran of '90s where Khatami made efforts to come to peace with the West. Ahmadinejad represents a much more extreme position and the world is right to be worried about him. Remember, if the US bombs Iran, it won't be because of Israel, it will be because of the Saudis and gulf kingdoms who are scared of Iran and have paid off our corrupt Republican and Democratic politicians through the oil industry.
Also, like the worst of Christian fundamentalists, Mr. Ahmadinejad believes in an end-times scenario involving the return of the "12th Mahdi". He has every spiritual reason to "bring it on". Unfortunately, the Left in America is stuck on the Iran of '90s where Khatami made efforts to come to peace with the West. Ahmadinejad represents a much more extreme position and the world is right to be worried about him. Remember, if the US bombs Iran, it won't be because of Israel, it will be because of the Saudis and gulf kingdoms who are scared of Iran and have paid off our corrupt Republican and Democratic politicians through the oil industry.
Saturday Jul 7th, 2007 10:03 AM
Laird is proposing a NON-VIOLENT economic sanction which may have the effect of curtailing Iranian ambitions to develop nuclear weapons. Divestment worked with S. Africa without a single US troop committed.
Norse sticks his head in the sand, quibbles over English translations of a single quote while ignoring a dozen similar quotes by Ahmadinejad that clearly threaten the State of Israel.
Iranian military parades include Shehab-3 missiles on trucks with banners that say "Death to Israel" and "Death to America".
There were no WMD in Iraq. However, Iran is busy building them and has threatened to use them. This is a threat to world peace that US govt. officials would be negligent to ignore.
Norse sticks his head in the sand, quibbles over English translations of a single quote while ignoring a dozen similar quotes by Ahmadinejad that clearly threaten the State of Israel.
Iranian military parades include Shehab-3 missiles on trucks with banners that say "Death to Israel" and "Death to America".
There were no WMD in Iraq. However, Iran is busy building them and has threatened to use them. This is a threat to world peace that US govt. officials would be negligent to ignore.
Saturday Jul 7th, 2007 11:41 AM
Look at what the Pakistanis are saying for a moment. They are no longer publicly denouncing India over the Kashmir border dispute. Their retoric at least speaks volumes to peaceful negotiations. They are well aware of the destabilizing effect in South Asia of their posession of nukes and are working to prevent a catastrophe. They are working to notify governments in the area of plans to test missiles for instance. I can't be sure that Iran would modify it's retoric, but it is possible.
Also, I must back up a moment on my statement that the US might be able to determine that a rouge nuke planted in the US came from Iran. If the US were to train native Iranians to infiltrate nuke facilities and retrieve small amounts of nuke material for testing purposes, and probably would have to retrieve the plans for the bomb as well, so the people in the US could figure out exactly how it would detonate, those same rouge elements could too easily start working for terrorists who would actually do the deed of making a bomb. It could end up being a "false flag operation" or it could really be a real terrorist group with nuke capability. We would never know. So the best strategy is to aviod brinkmanship. So it looks like MAD probably would not really work to deter suitcase bomb terrorists.
Still, it is just not physically or fisically possible for the US to pre-emptively attack every country that poses a threat, real or imagined. We have to stop somewhere and come up with a different strategy. Bombing Iran would be about as logical as punishing your teenager by cutting the electrical cord to your refrigerator. Everybody in the whole family would starve. And everyone in the neighborhood (including CPS) would be mad at you for trying to starve your teenager.
If it were possible to keep the discussion focused on disinvestment from Iran, and not have it spill over into support for attacking Iran, John Laird's position would be supportable. Also, just how much of an effect will disinvestments from stocks that Iran owns have when they have all of that oil revenue coming in? If you really want to disinvest from the terrorist states, start riding your bike and sign up for solar power for your house. If you don't own a house or don't pay your own utility bill or you don't want to ride a bike, buy wind energy credits to "offset" your fossil fuel consumption.
Also, I must back up a moment on my statement that the US might be able to determine that a rouge nuke planted in the US came from Iran. If the US were to train native Iranians to infiltrate nuke facilities and retrieve small amounts of nuke material for testing purposes, and probably would have to retrieve the plans for the bomb as well, so the people in the US could figure out exactly how it would detonate, those same rouge elements could too easily start working for terrorists who would actually do the deed of making a bomb. It could end up being a "false flag operation" or it could really be a real terrorist group with nuke capability. We would never know. So the best strategy is to aviod brinkmanship. So it looks like MAD probably would not really work to deter suitcase bomb terrorists.
Still, it is just not physically or fisically possible for the US to pre-emptively attack every country that poses a threat, real or imagined. We have to stop somewhere and come up with a different strategy. Bombing Iran would be about as logical as punishing your teenager by cutting the electrical cord to your refrigerator. Everybody in the whole family would starve. And everyone in the neighborhood (including CPS) would be mad at you for trying to starve your teenager.
If it were possible to keep the discussion focused on disinvestment from Iran, and not have it spill over into support for attacking Iran, John Laird's position would be supportable. Also, just how much of an effect will disinvestments from stocks that Iran owns have when they have all of that oil revenue coming in? If you really want to disinvest from the terrorist states, start riding your bike and sign up for solar power for your house. If you don't own a house or don't pay your own utility bill or you don't want to ride a bike, buy wind energy credits to "offset" your fossil fuel consumption.
Saturday Jul 7th, 2007 2:52 PM
Totally agree on the energy conservation issue, that is the part of the equation that conservatives have dragged their feet on (not all, but most).
"Still, it is just not physically or fisically possible for the US to pre-emptively attack every country that poses a threat, real or imagined. We have to stop somewhere and come up with a different strategy. Bombing Iran would be about as logical as punishing your teenager by cutting the electrical cord to your refrigerator. Everybody in the whole family would starve. And everyone in the neighborhood (including CPS) would be mad at you for trying to starve your teenager."
Honestly, I really don't want to see a war and would hope that efforts like the one Mr. Laird is supporting can be successful. However, Iran has denied EVERY effort at diplomacy at every opportunity! And I certainly don't think we can "pre-emptively attack every country that poses a threat", but one that is promising and constantly threatening to destroy us is one that we should take very seriously! I mean, I'm not worried about Fiji or say Denmark, personally, but Iran? I remember seeing a documentary on the Holocaust once where a survivor replied when asked what the most important thing she learned was " when someone tells you they are going to kill you, believe them". I think that lesson applies to Iran.
"Still, it is just not physically or fisically possible for the US to pre-emptively attack every country that poses a threat, real or imagined. We have to stop somewhere and come up with a different strategy. Bombing Iran would be about as logical as punishing your teenager by cutting the electrical cord to your refrigerator. Everybody in the whole family would starve. And everyone in the neighborhood (including CPS) would be mad at you for trying to starve your teenager."
Honestly, I really don't want to see a war and would hope that efforts like the one Mr. Laird is supporting can be successful. However, Iran has denied EVERY effort at diplomacy at every opportunity! And I certainly don't think we can "pre-emptively attack every country that poses a threat", but one that is promising and constantly threatening to destroy us is one that we should take very seriously! I mean, I'm not worried about Fiji or say Denmark, personally, but Iran? I remember seeing a documentary on the Holocaust once where a survivor replied when asked what the most important thing she learned was " when someone tells you they are going to kill you, believe them". I think that lesson applies to Iran.
Monday Jul 9th, 2007 12:36 AM
I agree that divestment can be an excellent nonviolent strategy and I think that California has every right to divest from Iran, which has a dismal human rights record. However, California needs to take the extra step and begin to divest from all of those other countries with dismal human rights records, including Israel and Egypt.
Imagine if California took that money and then re-invested it into solar technology, sustainable alternative fuel or mass transit systems. That could pay triple dividends to California taxpayers -- now and in the future.
Imagine if California took that money and then re-invested it into solar technology, sustainable alternative fuel or mass transit systems. That could pay triple dividends to California taxpayers -- now and in the future.
Monday Jul 9th, 2007 11:14 PM
There are plenty of noxious authoritarian regimes around the world. Bush's aggressive focus at the moment is Iran. You're playing Bush's game when you support this kind of pressure on Iran and justifying his next move.
Those sympathetic to the Israeli regime, should not let that blind them to Bush's next military target.
Pelosi has already removed a prohibition from attacking Iran from the Iraqi special military appropropriation earlier this year.
Wake up, folks! Now's the time to unite against the Bush regime's policies (and Bush-lite imperialist strategies from the Hillary, Nancy, Obami, and the rest of the Democratic party sell-out's).
Those sympathetic to the Israeli regime, should not let that blind them to Bush's next military target.
Pelosi has already removed a prohibition from attacking Iran from the Iraqi special military appropropriation earlier this year.
Wake up, folks! Now's the time to unite against the Bush regime's policies (and Bush-lite imperialist strategies from the Hillary, Nancy, Obami, and the rest of the Democratic party sell-out's).
Wednesday Jul 11th, 2007 9:09 AM
Americans should not be fooled by Bush's reckless depiction of Iran threat
By The Daily Star
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Editorial
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&article_id=83705&categ_id=17
By The Daily Star
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Editorial
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&article_id=83705&categ_id=17
Friday Jul 13th, 2007 5:19 PM
(for direct access to the article with links:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11276
July 13, 2007
Is War With Iran Inevitable?
Yes.
by Justin Raimondo
We didn’t just invade Iraq – when we launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" the American people not only signed on to an occupation that resembles, in many respects, Israel’s occupation of Palestine, we also bought into a serial war strategy, the first of which was Gulf War I. Gulf War II landed us in our present predicament. Gulf War III – involving, at a minimum, Iran, Syria, and Lebanon – is about to break out, and no one seems willing to stand against it.
Indeed, the third Gulf War has already begun, and all that remains is for the aerial phase of it to commence. The presence of three U.S. carriers in the Gulf is a prelude to a much larger operation, and, as if on cue, accusations of Iranian interference in Iraq have escalated, with the US military now echoing earlier assertions by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney that the Iranians stood behind the Iraqi insurgency. We are, of course, never allowed to see the "evidence" for this claim, and, in the long, anguishing reappraisal of the "intelligence" that rationalizes a strike at Tehran the real paucity of concrete facts backing up these statements will doubtless come out. In the meantime, however, we are supposed to accept the veracity of the charges on faith: foreign policy is this administration’s most successful faith-based program, at least in terms of getting politicians of both parties, the media, and the general public to willingly suspend their disbelief until well after the shooting starts.
The political build-up to the actual fireworks reached a crescendo of hypocritical cant in the Senate the other day, with the passage of an amendment – 97 to nada – deploring alleged Iranian perfidy in Iraq, including purported attacks on U.S. soldiers. This, while we hold their diplomats hostage in a bizarrely inverted replay of the 1970s Iranian hostage crisis that brought down Jimmy Carter. Perhaps the regime-changers in Washington are hoping the same fate awaits Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If so, they are bound to be disappointed: such provocations only enhance the authority of Iranian hard-liners, and make the prospect of conflict with the U.S. more likely. On the other hand, maybe that’s exactly the point …
The bipartisan band is striking up a war tune, as "antiwar" Senator Carl Levin co-sponsors with Joe Lieberman the Iran Amendment to the defense appropriations bill, joining with Republican Senators McCain, Kyl, and Graham in a rousing chorus of rattling sabers. The amendment accuses Iran of murdering American soldiers, and of committing other acts of war: it is, in effect, a declaration of war, and Senator Lieberman was quite clear about this on the Senate floor the other day.
I find it fascinating that al Qaeda is taking the same line, these days, as Lieberman, Levin, and the Lobby. In a statement released just as the Senate was passing the Iran amendment, Osama’s boys in Iraq warned Tehran to get out of town:
"The leader of an al-Qaeda umbrella group in Iraq threatened to wage war against Iran unless it stops supporting Shiites in Iraq within two months, according to a new audiotape. Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, who leads the Islamic State in Iraq, said his Sunni fighters have been preparing for four years to wage a battle against Shiite-dominated Iran.
"’We are giving the Persians, and especially the rulers of Iran, a two month period to end all kinds of support for the Iraqi Shiite government and to stop direct and indirect intervention ... otherwise a severe war is waiting for you,’ he said in the 50-minute audiotape.
"In the recording, al-Baghdadi also gave Sunnis and Arab countries doing business in Iran or with Iranians a two-month deadline to cease their ties. ‘We advise and warn every Sunni businessman inside Iran or in Arab countries especially in the Gulf not to take partnership with any Shiite Iranian businessman — this is part of the two-month period,’ he said."
This perfectly illustrates what Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit, means when he describes the US as OBL’s "one indispensable ally." Critics of the Iraq war note that US intervention has swelled the ranks of bin Laden’s legions, but, in light of this, can we bring ourselves to wonder if, perhaps, instead of an unintended consequence of U.S. policy, this one was fully intended from the start? Seymour Hersh calls Washington’s tilt toward the Sunnis "The Redirection," but the reality is that we didn't direct our full power at bin Laden and made only a feeble effort to destroy al Qaeda. Our initial half-hearted efforts in that direction were soon diverted to invading and occupying Iraq. Having established a Mesopotamian beachhead, U.S. forces are now using Iraq as a launching pad for the next phase in our serial war strategy – the invasion of Iran.
It may be that the American people are opposed to another war in the Middle East: that may even be the last thing on their minds. Yet our elected "representatives" could care less about popular opinion, or else they would have gotten us out of Iraq last year. The Lobby is plumbing for war with Iran, and the tom-toms are beating out their message of fear, intimidation, and vaunting – the prelude to another symphony of "shock and awe."
One would think that our presidential front-runners would be more sensitive to the popular anti-interventionist zeitgeist, but no – not a single "major" candidate dissents from the "let’s-hit-Iran" Washington consensus, including Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, and of course all the Republicans but Ron Paul want to nuke Tehran. Politically, the stage is set for the third Gulf war.
Widespread predictions that Bush will launch "Operation Iranian Freedom" before leaving office may be mere speculation, and yet all the signs point to the likelihood of a U.S. attack on Iran fairly soon. As we have seen, the U.S. is already making the requisite military preparations, and the propaganda war was begun long ago. Ahmeninejad makes a fine Saddam-figure, even better than the original, and, this time, they have their "weapons of mass destruction" narrative fully developed in advance. With the passage of the Lieberman-Levin amendment, the US Congress is giving Bush the green light for war. It’s all systems go.
So hunker down, get ready for the coming storm – prepare yourself for gas prices that will make it impossible to drive without taking out a bank loan – and, most importantly, stay online. Because the first news of the Big War will be headlined right here on Antiwar.com – along with a thorough debunking of the alleged "incident" that sparks it.
It was never possible to contain the war against Iraq’s insurgency to the borders of the state once ruled by Saddam Hussein, and US policymakers could not have failed to realize that early on. The War Party, in any case, was never shy about proclaiming its war aims, first among these being the "democratic" transformation of the entire region. Iran is next: it’s as simple as that.
The Bush Doctrine of exporting "democracy" at gunpoint is being tested in the laboratory of the Middle East. The results, so far, are similar to those experienced by one Dr. Frankenstein, who also – out of hubris – tried to create life out of death, and instead birthed a monster.
In invading Iraq, we created a Shi’ite theocracy, ruled by death squads and radical mullahs: the so-called Shia crescent is the bastard offspring of our own promiscuously interventionist policy. One had only to look at a map and have a nodding acquaintance with the history and ethno-religious composition of the region to see that post-war Iraq would be vulnerable to Iranian influence and even dominance. To offset this disastrous "blowback," we are turning on a dime and aligning ourselves – at least rhetorically – with allies of the barbarians who brought down the World Trade Center and murdered some 3,000 Americans. Forgotten in all this maneuvering and backtracking is the security of the United States and the pursuit of legitimate American interests in the region, none of which are served by our reckless, drunken veering from Shi’ite to Sunni "allies."
At this point, unless the American people wake up in time – which I very much doubt – war with Iran seems all but inevitable. Politically, there is no one of any stature standing up to oppose it, or even to point out that the question of war with Iran is imminent. Ron Paul, alone of all the candidates in both parties, has warned of a Gulf-of-Tonkin-style incident, which could be blown up into a casus belli. It could happen tomorrow. It could happen three months from now. We can’t be sure of when, and yet I am convinced that it is only a matter of time – and not much time, at that – before the third Gulf war begins in earnest, and we enter an entirely new era in the history of this country – and the world. The global conflict the neocons are always eagerly anticipating, and which they call "World War IV," is about to break out – and it ought to make at least the most thoughtful among us just a little bit queasy that, in the coming struggle with Iran, Osama bin Laden is on our side.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11276
July 13, 2007
Is War With Iran Inevitable?
Yes.
by Justin Raimondo
We didn’t just invade Iraq – when we launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" the American people not only signed on to an occupation that resembles, in many respects, Israel’s occupation of Palestine, we also bought into a serial war strategy, the first of which was Gulf War I. Gulf War II landed us in our present predicament. Gulf War III – involving, at a minimum, Iran, Syria, and Lebanon – is about to break out, and no one seems willing to stand against it.
Indeed, the third Gulf War has already begun, and all that remains is for the aerial phase of it to commence. The presence of three U.S. carriers in the Gulf is a prelude to a much larger operation, and, as if on cue, accusations of Iranian interference in Iraq have escalated, with the US military now echoing earlier assertions by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney that the Iranians stood behind the Iraqi insurgency. We are, of course, never allowed to see the "evidence" for this claim, and, in the long, anguishing reappraisal of the "intelligence" that rationalizes a strike at Tehran the real paucity of concrete facts backing up these statements will doubtless come out. In the meantime, however, we are supposed to accept the veracity of the charges on faith: foreign policy is this administration’s most successful faith-based program, at least in terms of getting politicians of both parties, the media, and the general public to willingly suspend their disbelief until well after the shooting starts.
The political build-up to the actual fireworks reached a crescendo of hypocritical cant in the Senate the other day, with the passage of an amendment – 97 to nada – deploring alleged Iranian perfidy in Iraq, including purported attacks on U.S. soldiers. This, while we hold their diplomats hostage in a bizarrely inverted replay of the 1970s Iranian hostage crisis that brought down Jimmy Carter. Perhaps the regime-changers in Washington are hoping the same fate awaits Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If so, they are bound to be disappointed: such provocations only enhance the authority of Iranian hard-liners, and make the prospect of conflict with the U.S. more likely. On the other hand, maybe that’s exactly the point …
The bipartisan band is striking up a war tune, as "antiwar" Senator Carl Levin co-sponsors with Joe Lieberman the Iran Amendment to the defense appropriations bill, joining with Republican Senators McCain, Kyl, and Graham in a rousing chorus of rattling sabers. The amendment accuses Iran of murdering American soldiers, and of committing other acts of war: it is, in effect, a declaration of war, and Senator Lieberman was quite clear about this on the Senate floor the other day.
I find it fascinating that al Qaeda is taking the same line, these days, as Lieberman, Levin, and the Lobby. In a statement released just as the Senate was passing the Iran amendment, Osama’s boys in Iraq warned Tehran to get out of town:
"The leader of an al-Qaeda umbrella group in Iraq threatened to wage war against Iran unless it stops supporting Shiites in Iraq within two months, according to a new audiotape. Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, who leads the Islamic State in Iraq, said his Sunni fighters have been preparing for four years to wage a battle against Shiite-dominated Iran.
"’We are giving the Persians, and especially the rulers of Iran, a two month period to end all kinds of support for the Iraqi Shiite government and to stop direct and indirect intervention ... otherwise a severe war is waiting for you,’ he said in the 50-minute audiotape.
"In the recording, al-Baghdadi also gave Sunnis and Arab countries doing business in Iran or with Iranians a two-month deadline to cease their ties. ‘We advise and warn every Sunni businessman inside Iran or in Arab countries especially in the Gulf not to take partnership with any Shiite Iranian businessman — this is part of the two-month period,’ he said."
This perfectly illustrates what Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit, means when he describes the US as OBL’s "one indispensable ally." Critics of the Iraq war note that US intervention has swelled the ranks of bin Laden’s legions, but, in light of this, can we bring ourselves to wonder if, perhaps, instead of an unintended consequence of U.S. policy, this one was fully intended from the start? Seymour Hersh calls Washington’s tilt toward the Sunnis "The Redirection," but the reality is that we didn't direct our full power at bin Laden and made only a feeble effort to destroy al Qaeda. Our initial half-hearted efforts in that direction were soon diverted to invading and occupying Iraq. Having established a Mesopotamian beachhead, U.S. forces are now using Iraq as a launching pad for the next phase in our serial war strategy – the invasion of Iran.
It may be that the American people are opposed to another war in the Middle East: that may even be the last thing on their minds. Yet our elected "representatives" could care less about popular opinion, or else they would have gotten us out of Iraq last year. The Lobby is plumbing for war with Iran, and the tom-toms are beating out their message of fear, intimidation, and vaunting – the prelude to another symphony of "shock and awe."
One would think that our presidential front-runners would be more sensitive to the popular anti-interventionist zeitgeist, but no – not a single "major" candidate dissents from the "let’s-hit-Iran" Washington consensus, including Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, and of course all the Republicans but Ron Paul want to nuke Tehran. Politically, the stage is set for the third Gulf war.
Widespread predictions that Bush will launch "Operation Iranian Freedom" before leaving office may be mere speculation, and yet all the signs point to the likelihood of a U.S. attack on Iran fairly soon. As we have seen, the U.S. is already making the requisite military preparations, and the propaganda war was begun long ago. Ahmeninejad makes a fine Saddam-figure, even better than the original, and, this time, they have their "weapons of mass destruction" narrative fully developed in advance. With the passage of the Lieberman-Levin amendment, the US Congress is giving Bush the green light for war. It’s all systems go.
So hunker down, get ready for the coming storm – prepare yourself for gas prices that will make it impossible to drive without taking out a bank loan – and, most importantly, stay online. Because the first news of the Big War will be headlined right here on Antiwar.com – along with a thorough debunking of the alleged "incident" that sparks it.
It was never possible to contain the war against Iraq’s insurgency to the borders of the state once ruled by Saddam Hussein, and US policymakers could not have failed to realize that early on. The War Party, in any case, was never shy about proclaiming its war aims, first among these being the "democratic" transformation of the entire region. Iran is next: it’s as simple as that.
The Bush Doctrine of exporting "democracy" at gunpoint is being tested in the laboratory of the Middle East. The results, so far, are similar to those experienced by one Dr. Frankenstein, who also – out of hubris – tried to create life out of death, and instead birthed a monster.
In invading Iraq, we created a Shi’ite theocracy, ruled by death squads and radical mullahs: the so-called Shia crescent is the bastard offspring of our own promiscuously interventionist policy. One had only to look at a map and have a nodding acquaintance with the history and ethno-religious composition of the region to see that post-war Iraq would be vulnerable to Iranian influence and even dominance. To offset this disastrous "blowback," we are turning on a dime and aligning ourselves – at least rhetorically – with allies of the barbarians who brought down the World Trade Center and murdered some 3,000 Americans. Forgotten in all this maneuvering and backtracking is the security of the United States and the pursuit of legitimate American interests in the region, none of which are served by our reckless, drunken veering from Shi’ite to Sunni "allies."
At this point, unless the American people wake up in time – which I very much doubt – war with Iran seems all but inevitable. Politically, there is no one of any stature standing up to oppose it, or even to point out that the question of war with Iran is imminent. Ron Paul, alone of all the candidates in both parties, has warned of a Gulf-of-Tonkin-style incident, which could be blown up into a casus belli. It could happen tomorrow. It could happen three months from now. We can’t be sure of when, and yet I am convinced that it is only a matter of time – and not much time, at that – before the third Gulf war begins in earnest, and we enter an entirely new era in the history of this country – and the world. The global conflict the neocons are always eagerly anticipating, and which they call "World War IV," is about to break out – and it ought to make at least the most thoughtful among us just a little bit queasy that, in the coming struggle with Iran, Osama bin Laden is on our side.
Friday Jul 13th, 2007 10:18 PM
As can be seen from Ali's e-mail below neither she nor Laird gave any answer to my concerns about a war with Iran and this measure being a support for Bush's selective war focus on "terrorist" Iran.
>From: "Spickler, Ali"
>To:
>Subject: AB 221
>Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:45:15 -0700
>
>Dear Mr. Norse,
>
>
>
>Thank you for contacting me for information on AB 221. As we discussed last week, Assemblymember Laird did vote in favor of passing AB 221 when it came before him. Currently, the bill has passed in the Senate's Judiciary Committee, and is in the Senate Committee on Appropriations for reading and possible further amendments. Included below is a copy of the most recently amended text of this bill.
>
>
>
>Thank you again for contacting Mr. Laird's office for legislative
>information.
>
>
>
>Ali Spickler
>
>Field Representative
>
>Office of Assemblymember John Laird
>
>701 Ocean Street, Suite 318 B
>
>Santa Cruz, CA 95060
>
>Phone: (831) 425-1503
>
>Fax : (831) 425-2570
>
>ali.spickler [at] asm.ca.gov
>
>
>
>
>
>Bill: AB 221 (2007-2008), Last Amended Date: 06/14/07
>
>
>
>AB 221, as amended. Public retirement systems: investments: Iran.
>
>
>
>The California Constitution provides that the Legislature may by statute prohibit retirement board investments if it is in the public interest to do so, and providing that the prohibition satisfies specified fiduciary standards.
>
>Existing law prohibits the Public Employees' Retirement System and the State Teachers' Retirement System from investing public employee retirement funds in a company with active business operations in Sudan, as specified. Existing law also requires these retirement systems to sell or transfer any investments in a company with business operations in Sudan.
Existing law requires these retirement systems to submit an annual report to the Legislature regarding any investments in a company with business operations in Sudan and the sale or transfer of those investments. Existing law requires the state to indemnify, from the General Fund, and hold harmless the present, former, and future board members, officers, and employees of, and investment managers under contract with, these retirement systems by reason of any decision to restrict, reduce, or eliminate investments in Sudan, as specified.
>
>
>
>This bill would create the California Public Divest from Iran Act and additionally prohibit the Public Employees' Retirement System and the State Teachers' Retirement System from investing public employee retirement funds in a company with business operations in Iran that is invested in or engaged in business operations with entities in the defense or nuclear sectors of Iran, or the company is invested or engaged in business operations with entities involved in the development of- petroleum or natural gas resources of Iran, and that company is subject to sanctions under federal law, as specified, or the company is engaged in business operations with an Iranian organization labeled as a terrorist organization by the United States government. The bill would require the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System and the Teachers' Retirement Board of the State Teachers' Retirement System to sell or transfer any investments in a company with business operations in Iran, until Iran is removed from the United States Department of State's list of countries that have been determined to repeatedly provide support for acts of international terrorism and the President of the United States determines and certifies that Iran has ceased its efforts to design, develop, manufacture, or acquire a nuclear explosive device or related materials and technology, as specified. The bill would make related legislative findings and declarations.
>
>This bill would require these boards to report to the Legislature any
>investments in a company with business operations in Iran and the sale or transfer of those investments, subject to the fiduciary duty of these boards, by January 1, 2009, and every year thereafter.
>
>
>
>From: "Spickler, Ali"
>To:
>Subject: AB 221
>Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:45:15 -0700
>
>Dear Mr. Norse,
>
>
>
>Thank you for contacting me for information on AB 221. As we discussed last week, Assemblymember Laird did vote in favor of passing AB 221 when it came before him. Currently, the bill has passed in the Senate's Judiciary Committee, and is in the Senate Committee on Appropriations for reading and possible further amendments. Included below is a copy of the most recently amended text of this bill.
>
>
>
>Thank you again for contacting Mr. Laird's office for legislative
>information.
>
>
>
>Ali Spickler
>
>Field Representative
>
>Office of Assemblymember John Laird
>
>701 Ocean Street, Suite 318 B
>
>Santa Cruz, CA 95060
>
>Phone: (831) 425-1503
>
>Fax : (831) 425-2570
>
>ali.spickler [at] asm.ca.gov
>
>
>
>
>
>Bill: AB 221 (2007-2008), Last Amended Date: 06/14/07
>
>
>
>AB 221, as amended. Public retirement systems: investments: Iran.
>
>
>
>The California Constitution provides that the Legislature may by statute prohibit retirement board investments if it is in the public interest to do so, and providing that the prohibition satisfies specified fiduciary standards.
>
>Existing law prohibits the Public Employees' Retirement System and the State Teachers' Retirement System from investing public employee retirement funds in a company with active business operations in Sudan, as specified. Existing law also requires these retirement systems to sell or transfer any investments in a company with business operations in Sudan.
Existing law requires these retirement systems to submit an annual report to the Legislature regarding any investments in a company with business operations in Sudan and the sale or transfer of those investments. Existing law requires the state to indemnify, from the General Fund, and hold harmless the present, former, and future board members, officers, and employees of, and investment managers under contract with, these retirement systems by reason of any decision to restrict, reduce, or eliminate investments in Sudan, as specified.
>
>
>
>This bill would create the California Public Divest from Iran Act and additionally prohibit the Public Employees' Retirement System and the State Teachers' Retirement System from investing public employee retirement funds in a company with business operations in Iran that is invested in or engaged in business operations with entities in the defense or nuclear sectors of Iran, or the company is invested or engaged in business operations with entities involved in the development of- petroleum or natural gas resources of Iran, and that company is subject to sanctions under federal law, as specified, or the company is engaged in business operations with an Iranian organization labeled as a terrorist organization by the United States government. The bill would require the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System and the Teachers' Retirement Board of the State Teachers' Retirement System to sell or transfer any investments in a company with business operations in Iran, until Iran is removed from the United States Department of State's list of countries that have been determined to repeatedly provide support for acts of international terrorism and the President of the United States determines and certifies that Iran has ceased its efforts to design, develop, manufacture, or acquire a nuclear explosive device or related materials and technology, as specified. The bill would make related legislative findings and declarations.
>
>This bill would require these boards to report to the Legislature any
>investments in a company with business operations in Iran and the sale or transfer of those investments, subject to the fiduciary duty of these boards, by January 1, 2009, and every year thereafter.
>
>
>
Saturday Jul 14th, 2007 5:21 PM
ROBERT NORSE WRITES: "Those sympathetic to the Israeli regime, should not let that blind them to Bush's next military target. Pelosi has already removed a prohibition from attacking Iran from the Iraqi special military appropriation earlier this year."
BECKY: Any US sitting President needs to be mindful of real enemies to the United States. That is in his job description. Much as I deplore the faults of the Bush Administration, I still hope he will continue to act as the leader of the country and so do you. He can and should consider Iran a direct threat to our ally, Israel and a threat to world peace.
Terrorism is a violent tactic used to affect some kind of concession from a sitting administration. It always involves stealth, non-uniformed personnel, and attacks a civilian population in order to compel them to pressure their own government into granting some kind of concession.
The point of terrorism is fear, disruption, and to force the other side into expensive counter-strategies.
I support the State Assembly's vote to divest from Iran and Pelosi's quiet removal of her objection to prohibitting funds from being used against Iran at this point in time. AB 221 is legal, tied to the State Department's list of countries which support terrorism, and provides a carrot for Iran if they step back from the brink and stop building nuclear weapons.
You see it as supporting a needless, pre-emptive war in Iran the likes of which we have seen in Iraq. I think it says the opposite.
It says that we as Americans will not sit and twiddle our thumbs when a foreign country holds a holocaust denial conference, a "World without Zionism Conference", sponsors a Holocaust cartoon contest, sends hit squads into Iraq to blow up American troops, kidnaps British sailors in international waters, jails Bahai's, Christians, and Jews, repeatedly insists that a UN member nation be "wiped from the pages of history" , parades missiles with banners saying "death to Israel" and "death to America", jails dissidents, makes women wear the veil, and could possibly start world war III if they get their hands on the bomb which they are eagerly developing.
Going on record in opposition, and giving that opposition an economic bite makes sense to me.
Don't we, as Americans stand for something?
Remember Neville Chamberlain? He made peace with Hitler in 1939.
Look what that got him.
Question for Robert Norse:
What should the President do about Iran sending armed insurgents into Iraq to blow up US soldiers and any Iraqi that is working with us?
BECKY: Any US sitting President needs to be mindful of real enemies to the United States. That is in his job description. Much as I deplore the faults of the Bush Administration, I still hope he will continue to act as the leader of the country and so do you. He can and should consider Iran a direct threat to our ally, Israel and a threat to world peace.
Terrorism is a violent tactic used to affect some kind of concession from a sitting administration. It always involves stealth, non-uniformed personnel, and attacks a civilian population in order to compel them to pressure their own government into granting some kind of concession.
The point of terrorism is fear, disruption, and to force the other side into expensive counter-strategies.
I support the State Assembly's vote to divest from Iran and Pelosi's quiet removal of her objection to prohibitting funds from being used against Iran at this point in time. AB 221 is legal, tied to the State Department's list of countries which support terrorism, and provides a carrot for Iran if they step back from the brink and stop building nuclear weapons.
You see it as supporting a needless, pre-emptive war in Iran the likes of which we have seen in Iraq. I think it says the opposite.
It says that we as Americans will not sit and twiddle our thumbs when a foreign country holds a holocaust denial conference, a "World without Zionism Conference", sponsors a Holocaust cartoon contest, sends hit squads into Iraq to blow up American troops, kidnaps British sailors in international waters, jails Bahai's, Christians, and Jews, repeatedly insists that a UN member nation be "wiped from the pages of history" , parades missiles with banners saying "death to Israel" and "death to America", jails dissidents, makes women wear the veil, and could possibly start world war III if they get their hands on the bomb which they are eagerly developing.
Going on record in opposition, and giving that opposition an economic bite makes sense to me.
Don't we, as Americans stand for something?
Remember Neville Chamberlain? He made peace with Hitler in 1939.
Look what that got him.
Question for Robert Norse:
What should the President do about Iran sending armed insurgents into Iraq to blow up US soldiers and any Iraqi that is working with us?
Saturday Jul 14th, 2007 6:24 PM
Becky has let her passionate support for the Israeli regime distort her sense of reality about what's happening in Iraq. She asks "What should the President do about Iran sending armed insurgents into Iraq to blow up US soldiers and any Iraqi that is working with us?"
The answer is obviously, "get the hell out of Iraq and let the Iraqi people and their neighbors work things out." Continued criminal U.S. intervention, now using Iran as the excuse, is lethal folly.
The Raimondo article I posted above provides an interesting theory as to the real rationale behind Bush's bizarre and seemingly counter-productive Middle Eastern strategy, demonizing Sunni insurgents one moment, and Shi'ite's the next.
The kicker here is Becky's special pleading for the Israeli government (which is a much different larger issue, but probably underlies a lot of the neoCon strategy with respect to Iraq as well).
As for "terrorism", that catch-all excuse for government murder, one need only look to the 727+ U.S. military bases around the world and the biggest one of all in Baghdad to get a vivid picture of state terrorism. It's a more destructive, more dangerous, terrorism that spawns resistance and counter-terrorism.
It's time for Laird and his colleagues to give us some straight talk about the "War on Terror, the "War on Drugs", and all these other government-aggrandizing, constitution-destroying plagues that are the excuse for more military, more police, and more organized mayhem.
Bullying Iran into not developing a nuclear weapon is a jingoist rallying cry that ignores the vastly greater nuclear capacities of the countries surrounding Iran and misidentifies the countries who are the major threats to world peace.
Singling out Iran for its involvement in Iraq is the grossest form of hypocrisy and/or blindness, considering who has the most troops daily killing Iraqis all over the country.
Bush's opportunistic choice of Iran as the next "evildoer" to demonize and mobilize U.S. hatred against is itself a Hitlerian tactic and, one would hope, a transparent one.
But Laird and every major Democratic and Republican Party hack--as well as some otherwise well-intentioned local activists--have bought into this dangerous deadly march towards war. Or remained silent while it brings us daily closer and closer to the brink.
If we want to act locally, we need to speak up loudly and stop this machine now.
The Chamberlains we need to be afraid of are those that "go along" with "Squeeze Iran" votes in the California Assembly, the federal House of Representatives, and in the public dialogue in Santa Cruz.
Thanks to the Good Times for printing an earlier version of the initial letter that sparked this thread.
Laird's number is 425-1503. His office is located in the County Building. If anyone wants to show up there demanding some answers and a change of policy, please let me know.
The answer is obviously, "get the hell out of Iraq and let the Iraqi people and their neighbors work things out." Continued criminal U.S. intervention, now using Iran as the excuse, is lethal folly.
The Raimondo article I posted above provides an interesting theory as to the real rationale behind Bush's bizarre and seemingly counter-productive Middle Eastern strategy, demonizing Sunni insurgents one moment, and Shi'ite's the next.
The kicker here is Becky's special pleading for the Israeli government (which is a much different larger issue, but probably underlies a lot of the neoCon strategy with respect to Iraq as well).
As for "terrorism", that catch-all excuse for government murder, one need only look to the 727+ U.S. military bases around the world and the biggest one of all in Baghdad to get a vivid picture of state terrorism. It's a more destructive, more dangerous, terrorism that spawns resistance and counter-terrorism.
It's time for Laird and his colleagues to give us some straight talk about the "War on Terror, the "War on Drugs", and all these other government-aggrandizing, constitution-destroying plagues that are the excuse for more military, more police, and more organized mayhem.
Bullying Iran into not developing a nuclear weapon is a jingoist rallying cry that ignores the vastly greater nuclear capacities of the countries surrounding Iran and misidentifies the countries who are the major threats to world peace.
Singling out Iran for its involvement in Iraq is the grossest form of hypocrisy and/or blindness, considering who has the most troops daily killing Iraqis all over the country.
Bush's opportunistic choice of Iran as the next "evildoer" to demonize and mobilize U.S. hatred against is itself a Hitlerian tactic and, one would hope, a transparent one.
But Laird and every major Democratic and Republican Party hack--as well as some otherwise well-intentioned local activists--have bought into this dangerous deadly march towards war. Or remained silent while it brings us daily closer and closer to the brink.
If we want to act locally, we need to speak up loudly and stop this machine now.
The Chamberlains we need to be afraid of are those that "go along" with "Squeeze Iran" votes in the California Assembly, the federal House of Representatives, and in the public dialogue in Santa Cruz.
Thanks to the Good Times for printing an earlier version of the initial letter that sparked this thread.
Laird's number is 425-1503. His office is located in the County Building. If anyone wants to show up there demanding some answers and a change of policy, please let me know.
Sunday Jul 15th, 2007 12:26 AM
for full story with links, go to http://www.lewrockwell.com/floyd/floyd79.html
The Senate's Blank Check for War on Iran
by Chris Floyd
As you may know – unless you rely on the corporate media for your news, of course – yesterday the U.S. Senate unanimously declared that Iran was committing acts of war against the United States: a 97-0 vote to give George W. Bush a clear and unmistakable casus belli for attacking Iran whenever Dick Cheney tells him to.
The bipartisan Senate resolution – the brainchild (or rather the bilechild) of Fightin' Joe Lieberman – affirmed as official fact all of the specious, unproven, ever-changing allegations of direct Iranian involvement in attacks on the American forces now occupying Iraq. The Senators appear to have relied heavily on the recent New York Times story by Michael Gordon that stovepiped unchallenged Pentagon spin directly onto the paper's front page. As Firedoglake points out, John McCain cited the heavily criticized story on the Senate floor as he cast his vote.
It goes without saying that all of this is a nightmarish replay of the run-up to the war of aggression against Iraq: The NYT funneling false flag stories from Bush insiders. Warmongers citing the NYT stories as "proof" justifying any and all action to "defend the Homeland." Credulous and craven Democratic politicians swallowing the Bush line hook and sinker.
To be sure, stout-hearted Dem tribunes like Dick Durbin insisted that their support for declaring that Iran is "committing acts of war" against the United States should not be taken as an "authorization of military action." This is shaky-knees mendacity at its finest. Having officially affirmed that Iran is waging war on American forces, how, pray tell, can you then deny the president when he asks (if he asks) for authorization to "defend our troops"? Answer: you can't. And you know it.
This vote is the clearest signal yet that there will be no real opposition to a Bush Administration attack on Iran. This is yet another blank check from these slavish, ignorant goons; Bush can cash it anytime. This is, in fact, the post-surge "Plan B" that's been mooted lately in the Beltway. As you recall, there was much throwing about of brains on the subject of reviving the "Iraq Study Group" plan when the "surge" (or to call it by its right name, the "punitive escalation") inevitably fails. Bush put the kibosh on that this week ("Him not gonna do nothin' that Daddy's friends tell him to do! Him a big boy, him the decider!"), but that doesn't mean there isn't a fall-back position – or rather, a spring-forward position: an attack on Iran, to rally the nation behind the "war leader" and reshuffle the deck in Iraq.
Of course, the United States is already at war with Iran. We are directing covert ops and terrorist attacks inside Iran, with the help of groups that our own government has declared terrorist renegades. We are kidnapping Iranian officials in Iraq and holding them hostage. We have a bristling naval armada on Iran's doorstep, put there for the express purpose of threatening Tehran with military action. The U.S. Congress has overwhelmingly passed measures calling for the overthrow of the Iranian government. And now the U.S. Senate has unanimously declared that Iran is waging war on America, and has given official notice that this will not be tolerated. It is only a very small step to move from this war in all but name to the full monty of an overt military assault....
UPDATE: Jonathan Schwarz points out that all of the Senate's Democratic candidates for president voted for Lieberman's Iran War amendment: Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and Joe Biden. Just in case you were expecting a saner foreign policy after the 2008 election.
UPDATE II: Meanwhile, George Milhouse Bush wants to make one thing perfectly clear: even in the highly unlikely (if not totally impossible) event that the Senate grows a rudimentary spine and tries to place the slightest obstacle in the way of a military attack on Iran, the Commander Guy will peremptorily veto it and instigate the mass murder anyway.
Spencer Ackerman at TPM Cafe found this gem of arrogant defiance in "a little-noticed letter from the White House to Carl Levin (D-MI), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee." The main subject of the letter was a similar vow to veto any restrictions on Bush's ability to continue his war crime in Iraq. The passage concerning Iran might seem redundant now, after the Senate's vote on Lieberman's "Persia delenda est!" measure, which puts a gun in Bush's hand and screams for him to pull the trigger, but the President is obviously taking no chances.
July 14, 2007
Chris Floyd [send him mail] is the author of Empire Burlesque: The Secret History of the Bush Regime.
Copyright © 2007 Chris Floyd
The Senate's Blank Check for War on Iran
by Chris Floyd
As you may know – unless you rely on the corporate media for your news, of course – yesterday the U.S. Senate unanimously declared that Iran was committing acts of war against the United States: a 97-0 vote to give George W. Bush a clear and unmistakable casus belli for attacking Iran whenever Dick Cheney tells him to.
The bipartisan Senate resolution – the brainchild (or rather the bilechild) of Fightin' Joe Lieberman – affirmed as official fact all of the specious, unproven, ever-changing allegations of direct Iranian involvement in attacks on the American forces now occupying Iraq. The Senators appear to have relied heavily on the recent New York Times story by Michael Gordon that stovepiped unchallenged Pentagon spin directly onto the paper's front page. As Firedoglake points out, John McCain cited the heavily criticized story on the Senate floor as he cast his vote.
It goes without saying that all of this is a nightmarish replay of the run-up to the war of aggression against Iraq: The NYT funneling false flag stories from Bush insiders. Warmongers citing the NYT stories as "proof" justifying any and all action to "defend the Homeland." Credulous and craven Democratic politicians swallowing the Bush line hook and sinker.
To be sure, stout-hearted Dem tribunes like Dick Durbin insisted that their support for declaring that Iran is "committing acts of war" against the United States should not be taken as an "authorization of military action." This is shaky-knees mendacity at its finest. Having officially affirmed that Iran is waging war on American forces, how, pray tell, can you then deny the president when he asks (if he asks) for authorization to "defend our troops"? Answer: you can't. And you know it.
This vote is the clearest signal yet that there will be no real opposition to a Bush Administration attack on Iran. This is yet another blank check from these slavish, ignorant goons; Bush can cash it anytime. This is, in fact, the post-surge "Plan B" that's been mooted lately in the Beltway. As you recall, there was much throwing about of brains on the subject of reviving the "Iraq Study Group" plan when the "surge" (or to call it by its right name, the "punitive escalation") inevitably fails. Bush put the kibosh on that this week ("Him not gonna do nothin' that Daddy's friends tell him to do! Him a big boy, him the decider!"), but that doesn't mean there isn't a fall-back position – or rather, a spring-forward position: an attack on Iran, to rally the nation behind the "war leader" and reshuffle the deck in Iraq.
Of course, the United States is already at war with Iran. We are directing covert ops and terrorist attacks inside Iran, with the help of groups that our own government has declared terrorist renegades. We are kidnapping Iranian officials in Iraq and holding them hostage. We have a bristling naval armada on Iran's doorstep, put there for the express purpose of threatening Tehran with military action. The U.S. Congress has overwhelmingly passed measures calling for the overthrow of the Iranian government. And now the U.S. Senate has unanimously declared that Iran is waging war on America, and has given official notice that this will not be tolerated. It is only a very small step to move from this war in all but name to the full monty of an overt military assault....
UPDATE: Jonathan Schwarz points out that all of the Senate's Democratic candidates for president voted for Lieberman's Iran War amendment: Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and Joe Biden. Just in case you were expecting a saner foreign policy after the 2008 election.
UPDATE II: Meanwhile, George Milhouse Bush wants to make one thing perfectly clear: even in the highly unlikely (if not totally impossible) event that the Senate grows a rudimentary spine and tries to place the slightest obstacle in the way of a military attack on Iran, the Commander Guy will peremptorily veto it and instigate the mass murder anyway.
Spencer Ackerman at TPM Cafe found this gem of arrogant defiance in "a little-noticed letter from the White House to Carl Levin (D-MI), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee." The main subject of the letter was a similar vow to veto any restrictions on Bush's ability to continue his war crime in Iraq. The passage concerning Iran might seem redundant now, after the Senate's vote on Lieberman's "Persia delenda est!" measure, which puts a gun in Bush's hand and screams for him to pull the trigger, but the President is obviously taking no chances.
July 14, 2007
Chris Floyd [send him mail] is the author of Empire Burlesque: The Secret History of the Bush Regime.
Copyright © 2007 Chris Floyd
Sunday Jul 15th, 2007 12:56 AM
ROBERT NORSE WRITES: As for "terrorism", that catch-all excuse for government murder, one need only look to the 727+ U.S. military bases around the world and the biggest one of all in Baghdad to get a vivid picture of state terrorism. It's a more destructive, more dangerous, terrorism that spawns resistance and counter-terrorism.
BECKY: You are getting sloppy. 727+ bases around the world is not "terrorism". It may be military occupation or it may even be mutual protection agreements, but US bases don't target civilians and even in Iraq, despite large numbers of troops, most people are getting killed by other Muslims and not by US troops. They can shoot at gunmen, rocket launching teams, and suspected attackers, but not innocent civilian life.
Government murder is sometimes called "collateral damage" or "extra-judicial assassination" or simply "a firefight". Sometimes they actually ARE what they are named. Often they are not. But whatever they are, "terrorism" is the wrong label. If the attack was justified (self defense/defense of others) its not murder. If it is outside of that policy, then it is murder.
ROBERT NORSE WRITES: Bullying Iran into not developing a nuclear weapon is a jingoist rallying cry that ignores the vastly greater nuclear capacities of the countries surrounding Iran and misidentifies the countries who are the major threats to world peace.
BECKY: None of the countries which currently have nuclear weapons are threatening to remove another member country from the pages of history. You seem to think that if we don't look at Iran, don't talk about them, they will just quietly go away. Bush is right to say that Iran poses a threat. However, if we can neutralize that threat without another war breaking out, that would obviously be better. Thats what Laird and the Democrats are trying to do here. And its not just an empty gesture. It has teeth.
Military occupations can be terrifying. But they are not terrorism. Terrorism involves stealthy attacks on civilians to cause terror in among the public. US soldiers are not supposed to fire bullets indiscriminatingly towards civilian populations, and can face a court-martial if they do. Terrorists try to kill as many civilians as possible. If they succeed, their face goes up on a poster and they are celebrated as heros.
This is not to excuse the US military for their unlawful invasion and occupation of Iraq. Or for the damage they have inflicted on civilians. Abu Grahib was a horrible example of military excess.
But it is not terrorism. There are rules. The Geneva Convention and the United Nations Charter, NATO, and various treaties the USA has signed all provide guidelines for ethical warfare---which sounds like a contradiction in terms.
Your comments about Iran as one of the "evildoers" is well taken. Iran is a complex country with many pro-western factions. It has a large, well educated middle class. It has more Jews than any mideastern country other than Israel. Bush paints the entire country and everyone in it with one brush. But pretending that Iran doesn't directly threaten the very existence of Israel is to deny what they have been repeating over and over again.
"A world without Zionism" "Holocaust revisionism" "Death to Israel" "Death to America" and defiance of the IAEC? Israel is right to be concerned. And if an attack is imminent, they have the right to ward it off. This is not war-mongering. THis is self-preservation.
Don't you believe that someone might want to kill 6 million Jews all at once?
BECKY: You are getting sloppy. 727+ bases around the world is not "terrorism". It may be military occupation or it may even be mutual protection agreements, but US bases don't target civilians and even in Iraq, despite large numbers of troops, most people are getting killed by other Muslims and not by US troops. They can shoot at gunmen, rocket launching teams, and suspected attackers, but not innocent civilian life.
Government murder is sometimes called "collateral damage" or "extra-judicial assassination" or simply "a firefight". Sometimes they actually ARE what they are named. Often they are not. But whatever they are, "terrorism" is the wrong label. If the attack was justified (self defense/defense of others) its not murder. If it is outside of that policy, then it is murder.
ROBERT NORSE WRITES: Bullying Iran into not developing a nuclear weapon is a jingoist rallying cry that ignores the vastly greater nuclear capacities of the countries surrounding Iran and misidentifies the countries who are the major threats to world peace.
BECKY: None of the countries which currently have nuclear weapons are threatening to remove another member country from the pages of history. You seem to think that if we don't look at Iran, don't talk about them, they will just quietly go away. Bush is right to say that Iran poses a threat. However, if we can neutralize that threat without another war breaking out, that would obviously be better. Thats what Laird and the Democrats are trying to do here. And its not just an empty gesture. It has teeth.
Military occupations can be terrifying. But they are not terrorism. Terrorism involves stealthy attacks on civilians to cause terror in among the public. US soldiers are not supposed to fire bullets indiscriminatingly towards civilian populations, and can face a court-martial if they do. Terrorists try to kill as many civilians as possible. If they succeed, their face goes up on a poster and they are celebrated as heros.
This is not to excuse the US military for their unlawful invasion and occupation of Iraq. Or for the damage they have inflicted on civilians. Abu Grahib was a horrible example of military excess.
But it is not terrorism. There are rules. The Geneva Convention and the United Nations Charter, NATO, and various treaties the USA has signed all provide guidelines for ethical warfare---which sounds like a contradiction in terms.
Your comments about Iran as one of the "evildoers" is well taken. Iran is a complex country with many pro-western factions. It has a large, well educated middle class. It has more Jews than any mideastern country other than Israel. Bush paints the entire country and everyone in it with one brush. But pretending that Iran doesn't directly threaten the very existence of Israel is to deny what they have been repeating over and over again.
"A world without Zionism" "Holocaust revisionism" "Death to Israel" "Death to America" and defiance of the IAEC? Israel is right to be concerned. And if an attack is imminent, they have the right to ward it off. This is not war-mongering. THis is self-preservation.
Don't you believe that someone might want to kill 6 million Jews all at once?
Sunday Jul 15th, 2007 11:26 AM
ROBERT NORSE WRITES: ""What should the President do about Iran sending armed insurgents into Iraq to blow up US soldiers and any Iraqi that is working with us?" The answer is obviously, "get the hell out of Iraq and let the Iraqi people and their neighbors work things out." Continued criminal U.S. intervention, now using Iran as the excuse, is lethal folly."
BECKY: Don't you think the USA has the right and the obligation to try to pre-emptively strike at cells inside of Iran that are launching bloody attacks against US soldiers and Iraqi citizens? I do.
Likewise, a unified America can be powerful leverage to influence Iran into backing down.
I DON"T think your charge that the US military is a "huge terrorist organization" is accurate.
We may be a huge, military-industrial complex that may or may not be on the right foreign policy track, but the US does not send in terrorists into Iran to blow up civilians.
Do you have any evidence otherwise?
If the new Iraqi congress votes for the USA to leave, THEN we must. Heck, we should probably leave anyway. We can't afford to be there, US soldiers shouldn't be losing their lives for a lost cause. But just as Colin Powell said, this is the China Barn. We did break it. We are obligated to fix it.
BECKY: Don't you think the USA has the right and the obligation to try to pre-emptively strike at cells inside of Iran that are launching bloody attacks against US soldiers and Iraqi citizens? I do.
Likewise, a unified America can be powerful leverage to influence Iran into backing down.
I DON"T think your charge that the US military is a "huge terrorist organization" is accurate.
We may be a huge, military-industrial complex that may or may not be on the right foreign policy track, but the US does not send in terrorists into Iran to blow up civilians.
Do you have any evidence otherwise?
If the new Iraqi congress votes for the USA to leave, THEN we must. Heck, we should probably leave anyway. We can't afford to be there, US soldiers shouldn't be losing their lives for a lost cause. But just as Colin Powell said, this is the China Barn. We did break it. We are obligated to fix it.
Monday Jul 16th, 2007 12:07 PM
See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051000387.html for Washington Post article "Iraqi Lawmakers Back Bill on U.S. Withdrawal"
Becky and I debated the "Back Bush on Iran" issue on my show yesterday. For those interested check: http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb070715.mp3 (towards the end of the long show).
PROGRESSIVE SILENCE THE REAL PROBLEM
The real issue is not between Becky's position and my position. The problem is that the Santa Cruz progressive community is keeping a very low anti-war profile at a very dangerous time when the louder we speak, the more chance sympathetic people in other cities may hear us.
Appealing to folks in power at this point is useless. The only appropriate response is resistance.
Laird's office is open daily. So is Farr's. And they're right there in the County Building.
FARR UPDATE
I called Farr's office today and asked if he were going to vote against the Iranian disinvestment bill (the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007).
[http://obama.senate.gov/press/070516-obama_frank_lan/].
Call him up and demand a commitment to immediate withdrawal from Iraq and an end to provocations against Iran (a 3rd carrier in the Persian Gulf, funding armed insurgents in Iran, kidnapping Iranian diplomats in Iraq, a massive propaganda war against Iran in Iraq).
DEMAND SANTA CRUZ SELECT SISTER CITIES IN IRAQ & IRAN
The Santa Cruz City Council could have chosen a "sister city" in Iraq years ago, but why provoke the federal government?
Currently SC Sister Cities are
* Alushta, Ukraine
* Jinotepe, Nicaragua
* Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela
* Sestri Levante, Italy
* Shingu, Japan
Call City Council at 420-5020 and ask them to choose a sister city in Iran and Iraq.
SUPPORT THEIR TROOPS
It also might show some guts and sense to "Support Their Troops" (see Alexander Cockburn pointed out in his counterpunch article yesterday at http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07142007.html). Support the right of Iraqis to oust foreign military occupiers, as many of us supported the right of the Vietnamese to oust the American war criminals, the right of Nicaraguans to resist CIA-backed Contras, the right of indigenous peoples everywhere to resist foreign occupiers (Soviet, British, Chinese).
I know, this be treason, right? Patriot Act right? Hey you might be the first on your block to be declared an "enemy combatant" and spend a five-year term testing new interrogation techniques in some dark hole in Egypt or eastern Europe! True enough. Also true that our silence has allowed daily mass murder to take regular root. And expand.
You can wear your Obama hat as they bomb Iran and wait for the next meaningless election. Or write angry letters to the Sentinel and "honk for peace". Or trust Nancy Pelosi, who votes for war appropriations with guidelines that allow Bush to continue the war anyway and ignore impeachment.
HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) will be tabling next weekend against Two Wars---the War on the Poor in Santa Cruz and the War in Iraq in front of the Bookshop Santa Cruz.
If anyone is planning any protests before than--like sleeping out at the offices of our "representatives' or any other kind of direct action, please post and let us know. 423-4833
Becky and I debated the "Back Bush on Iran" issue on my show yesterday. For those interested check: http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb070715.mp3 (towards the end of the long show).
PROGRESSIVE SILENCE THE REAL PROBLEM
The real issue is not between Becky's position and my position. The problem is that the Santa Cruz progressive community is keeping a very low anti-war profile at a very dangerous time when the louder we speak, the more chance sympathetic people in other cities may hear us.
Appealing to folks in power at this point is useless. The only appropriate response is resistance.
Laird's office is open daily. So is Farr's. And they're right there in the County Building.
FARR UPDATE
I called Farr's office today and asked if he were going to vote against the Iranian disinvestment bill (the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007).
[http://obama.senate.gov/press/070516-obama_frank_lan/].
Call him up and demand a commitment to immediate withdrawal from Iraq and an end to provocations against Iran (a 3rd carrier in the Persian Gulf, funding armed insurgents in Iran, kidnapping Iranian diplomats in Iraq, a massive propaganda war against Iran in Iraq).
DEMAND SANTA CRUZ SELECT SISTER CITIES IN IRAQ & IRAN
The Santa Cruz City Council could have chosen a "sister city" in Iraq years ago, but why provoke the federal government?
Currently SC Sister Cities are
* Alushta, Ukraine
* Jinotepe, Nicaragua
* Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela
* Sestri Levante, Italy
* Shingu, Japan
Call City Council at 420-5020 and ask them to choose a sister city in Iran and Iraq.
SUPPORT THEIR TROOPS
It also might show some guts and sense to "Support Their Troops" (see Alexander Cockburn pointed out in his counterpunch article yesterday at http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07142007.html). Support the right of Iraqis to oust foreign military occupiers, as many of us supported the right of the Vietnamese to oust the American war criminals, the right of Nicaraguans to resist CIA-backed Contras, the right of indigenous peoples everywhere to resist foreign occupiers (Soviet, British, Chinese).
I know, this be treason, right? Patriot Act right? Hey you might be the first on your block to be declared an "enemy combatant" and spend a five-year term testing new interrogation techniques in some dark hole in Egypt or eastern Europe! True enough. Also true that our silence has allowed daily mass murder to take regular root. And expand.
You can wear your Obama hat as they bomb Iran and wait for the next meaningless election. Or write angry letters to the Sentinel and "honk for peace". Or trust Nancy Pelosi, who votes for war appropriations with guidelines that allow Bush to continue the war anyway and ignore impeachment.
HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) will be tabling next weekend against Two Wars---the War on the Poor in Santa Cruz and the War in Iraq in front of the Bookshop Santa Cruz.
If anyone is planning any protests before than--like sleeping out at the offices of our "representatives' or any other kind of direct action, please post and let us know. 423-4833
Monday Jul 16th, 2007 6:24 PM
becky is correct with her list of human rights abuses in iran. add to them the STONING to death of a man accused of adultery over this past weekend. the women involved is scheduled to be STONED to death in the next week.
not to mention iran's continued defiance & belligerence of many United Nations resolutions.
this is a very dangerous place waiting for the return of the 12th iman, to create world jihad.
something more than financial divesture is in order.
not to mention iran's continued defiance & belligerence of many United Nations resolutions.
this is a very dangerous place waiting for the return of the 12th iman, to create world jihad.
something more than financial divesture is in order.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$ 117.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network