952 replies to this topic

[DJS]

What we are dealing with here are animals. I have said this time and time again. These people don't care one bit about world peace or international orders. They are dirty rats that need to be taken out. Period. Until these threats to world peace are eliminated the rule of international law will never have a chance.

Basra's last-stand militia using five-year-olds as human shields

JEANETTE OLDHAM

PRO-SADDAM Hussein militia in Basra are using children as young as five as human shields and threatening men with death if they do not fight for them, British troops revealed yesterday.

Sergeant David Baird, a tank commander, told Martin Bentham, a journalist with the Sunday Telegraph newspaper, that he had seen at least four or five children, aged between five and eight, being grabbed by the scruff of the neck and held by Iraqi fighters as they crossed a road in front of his tank.

He said he was "sickened" by the tactic adopted by the Iraqis who moments earlier had been firing rocket-propelled grenades at him.

Sgt Baird, 32, from Kilwinning, Ayrshire, who commands a Challenger 2 tank from C Squadron of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards battle group, said he was forced to halt any retaliatory fire because of the danger of killing the children.

"They [the militia] were crossing the road to try and outflank us on the left and as they crossed, four or five of them grabbed kids by the scruff of their necks and dragged them across with them," he said. "They were using them as human shields so that I had to stop firing.

"The children were only five to eight years old. There were lots of women and children there. It was a busy crossroads, but they didn’t seem to care.

"I am married with a son of nine months and I just felt disgusted. In this part of the world, it seems that life is not held in the same way as we regard it. It was terrible."

The incident happened during a battle on Sunday fought by Royal Marines and tanks from the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards to the south of Basra which resulted in the capture of two Iraqi villages.

British forces are learning of the desperate situation inside Basra from the hundreds of civilians fleeing the city.

Young men told how the ruling Baath Party militia has rounded up an entire generation of male residents in the city and ordered them to fight the British and Americans. Anyone refusing is shot. Two men in their 30s, who escaped and asked for asylum, told how they fled because they feared their families would be killed if they were found hiding in their homes.

Captain Ken Jolley, a British Army officer, said the two men had begged to speak to military officials at a vehicle checkpoint on a road out of the city. "The government is trying to round up all able-bodied males to fight with weapons," he says they told him. "Anyone not doing it is being executed."

He said the men were two of several giving information to the army in return for food, water or protection from their own leaders. They were taken away to be interviewed. British Army officers said that they would probably be treated as displaced persons.

British military officials have suspected for several days that Iraqi fighters were being coerced into war, either by bribery or death threats against them and their families. But Abdul-Baqi Saadoun, the second-highest ranking Baath Party official in the region, claimed at the weekend that "holy warriors are rushing to die or be martyred".

Stories of atrocities are also starting to emerge. One mother told British medics that her 12-year-old son was among dozens of children gunned down by death squads. He was shot in the liver and several times in the stomach in Az Zubayr, just outside Basra, and was being treated aboard the British hospital ship, RFA Argus.

Lieutenant Commander Nigel Bassett, the ship’s interpreter, said: "His mother says he was definitely shot by Iraqis and there were another group of children in the same place who were all gunned down by Iraqis.

"It seems there was an area of the town where people were leaving or going to get food to assist the coalition and there was a group of tearaways who came in and started indiscriminately shooting, trying to teach people not to co-operate."

A correspondent for al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based satellite channel, reported that schools and administrative offices in Basra were closed yesterday, by order of the Iraqis, to avoid mounting civilian casualties caused by the fighting.

Tamara Rafai, a spokeswoman for the International Red Cross, in Kuwait, said medical supplies in Basra were beginning to run low and fresh stocks were urgently needed.

Ms Rafai said everyone in the city now had access to at least some clean water at some point during the day. But she warned: "We are very concerned. Our teams are visiting hospitals where the injured and dead have been taken and they need medical and surgical materials - urgently. The hospitals are dealing with more wounded people, a lot of people every day, a lot of civilians."

Meanwhile, the 7th Armoured Brigade - the Desert Rats - who surround Basra from the north-west down to the south-east, continued to man checkpoints across the bridges that span the canal to the west of the city.

They allowed civilians to come and go and tried to glean fresh intelligence on the situation inside the city.

For almost a week, the soldiers have exchanged artillery fire with the irregular forces still inside the city.

They have already made gains in the outskirts of the city, including through a major operation involving 600 Royal Marines from 40 Commando.

Earlier this week, the coalition managed to mount lightning raids into the city centre to discomfit and demoralise the Iraqi militia.

Officials from the United States and Britain have acknowledged the expected uprising against the Iraqi leader by Shiite residents of Basra and other southern towns in support of coalition troops has not materialised to any large degree.

But members of 40 Commando, from Taunton, in Somerset, who are on the streets of the suburb of Abu al-Khasib, yesterday said local people were pleased to see them.

Securing the area is a key part of the coalition plans to prevent Iraqi forces escaping from Basra and halting aid convoys.

Edited by Kissinger, 02 April 2003 - 11:52 PM.

[DJS]

Paul Greenberg
Al-Qaida is a distraction
2/10/2003

I was impressed by the words of the judge who sentenced Richard Reid, the shoe bomber who couldn't manage to blow himself up aboard a trans-Atlantic flight. But not impressed in the way the judge doubtless intended.

Imposing a life sentence on this all-around loser - a light sentence, indeed, considering the death and destruction the defendant had hoped to wreak - The Honorable William Young swept aside the wannabe bomber's threats of revenge:

"We are not afraid of any of your terrorist co-conspirators," His Honor told the would-be mass killer. "We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. You are not an enemy combatant - you are a terrorist . and we do not negotiate with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice."

Attorney General John Ashcroft echoed the same theme: "The sentence imposed on Richard Reid says to the world that terrorists cannot escape American justice. We will hunt them down, stop them, and we will put them away."

All of which is fine as far as it goes. Which isn't far enough. What worries is the emphasis on tracking down terrorists one by one - instead of dealing with the regimes that produce, support and dispatch them. If the war against terror is reduced to a manhunt for individual killers, then the war will go on until the last terrorist is caught, which could take approximately forever. To win this long, twilight struggle, we'll have to go to the source.

A virulent hatred of America is being preached in the Middle East and around the world, and that propaganda is often echoed by regimes that claim to have no connection with terror. Yet they give these jihadists aid and comfort, not to mention hideouts. The way Saddam Hussein sheltered the late and unlamented Abu Nidal. And continues to work with others, as Colin Powell pointed out in his prosecutor's brief at the United Nations.

That's why, in addition to tracking down individual terrorists like Richard Reid, the free world must go after those governments that produce, nourish and dispatch them.

Terror needs a sponsor in order to flourish. It needs a base - like Afghanistan before Sept. 11, or the mosque where Richard Reid hung out in London, or the caves along Afghanistan's border with Pakistan. Terrorists don't come from nowhere. A number of them have come from Iraq.

To focus all our efforts on al-Qaida terrorists would be a dangerous mistake. It would reduce the West to only reacting - to waging only a defensive war against terror. And wars are not won on the defensive. It would be as if, after Sept. 11, this country had gone after al-Qaida but not overthrown the Taliban that protected, produced and supported these killers out of Afghanistan. It's not enough to kill the occasional wasps; the hive must be destroyed.

One of the arguments against the current focus on Iraq is that liberating the country from Saddam Hussein's grip would distract us from the war against terror. But the hunt for terrorists is more likely to distract us from the war against Iraq. Both are part of the same plague. For it is regimes like Saddam Hussein's that could give the terrorists not only refuge but the most terrible weapons - chemical, biological and nuclear.

We're told to concentrate on defending ourselves against the terrorists rather than go after their source. We're warned that, if we do, we'll set off a wave of terrorist attacks in revenge. Which is what Richard Reid promised at his sentencing.

Goodness, what do you think these terrorists will do to us if we strike in Iraq - fly planes full of passengers into the World Trade Center? Attack the Pentagon? Dispatch inept suicide bombers to blow up airliners above the Atlantic?

It's all been done. And more will be done unless the source of the infection is cleaned out.

No, toppling Saddam Hussein will not put an end to the hatred for America that pervades a once great but now sick, decayed civilization. But acting in Iraq will strike a clarifying blow at the widespread contempt for America in that part of the world. We're supposed to be a fat, weak, self-absorbed society that trembles before a few suicide bombers. After Afghanistan, that delusion was a little harder to sell.

After Iraq, it will be impossible.

This time America and her allies must not be distracted from total, unconditional victory in Iraq. Not even by al-Qaida - which is only a byproduct, not the source, of all this poison. It would be a serious mistake to let a terrorist organization obscure a far greater danger in the making: a terrorist regime, and one armed with some of the most terrible weapons ever known to man.

[DJS]

I shouldn't have said ICBM's in Pakistan's case actually, they probably have less than a half dozen that are true Intercontinental, but most of their arsenal is deliverable up to and exceeding a 1000 miles.

Unless you know something I don't know Pakistan possesses zero ICBMs. They do, however, have at least 50 "ready to go" in theater ballistic missile. Whether they have acquired three stage ballistic missile capabilities or not, is information I am not privy to. If you have any articles on Pakistan's capabilities it would be much appreciated.

And some could be disassembled and made portable over the Afghan border all too easily.  This current confrontation lacks foresight.

This is a non sequitur. Example, "my shirt is blue, therefore the war in Iraq is wrong." Or more specifically, your above argument, "ballistic missiles can be disassembled and transported into Afghanistan. Therefore, we should cease hostilities." Would halting the implementation of hard power in anyway reduced the threat of potential proliferation? NO.

I read the article the first time and didn't agree then either.

At least 80% of the article was historical fact. The other 20% was informed opinion.

Edited by Kissinger, 03 April 2003 - 02:46 AM.

[bobdrake12]

I have already commented on the Arrogant Empire article.

An additional point I would like to make is that world opinion is over rated.

World opinion should not alter our foreign policy decision making process. National interests are national interests, not world interests.

Kissinger,

Thanks for your comments.

It might surprise you, but this article (Arrogant Empire) is the one that definitely shifted me to significantly be in favor of the war with Iraq.




The Jimmy Carter Administration seemed to be ruled by thinking about the popular opinions of other countries instead of making the hard decisions that were in the best interest of the US. For example, Carter wrung his hands as he paced in the Rose Garden rather than taking the decisive action necessary (that probably would be unpopular with some countries) to free the US hostages in Iran.

On the other hand, I believe in being diplomatic and listening to others before taking action specifically when it comes to waging war or even setting sanctions. This is because that there will definitely be times that we need allies.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 03 April 2003 - 01:49 AM.

[DJS]

APR. 2, 2003: PRESSING ON

Forget it. We won't be in Baghdad by the weekend. We may be there tonight or tomorrow morning, unless we stop--again--to allow the Army to regroup and ready itself. All reports are that the Republican Guard is falling apart. The Marines blew through the Baghdad Division last night, and the Army can get through the Medina Division, which is nearly destroyed. Stopping again would be very unwise. The longer we wait to take Baghdad, the longer the world will wonder if Saddam's regime can survive.

Gen. Tom McInerny, one of the RSG's (real smart guys) I rely on, points out that the Saddam and his inner circle fear the Republican Guard more than they fear us. Last year Saddam fell deeply into the fear that always haunts him: a Republican Guard coup against him, which could succeed. He had about ten generals shot to send a message to the others. Given their battered capability, and the continued battering from above, the Republican Guards look like a brittle shell waiting to be cracked.

Some of the warriors I know are questioning if they ever were much more than that. We are now paying a price of about 1 coalition life for every 200 Iraqis killed. In recent actions, we have incurred few if any casualties, which is wonderful. But it makes you wonder just how "elite" those Republican Guards really are. Or ever were. Any force as tough as they were reputed to be would have made us pay a far higher price. Our military leaders need to remember that the more time this takes, the more others in the terror world will believe they can thwart us, even defeat us. We need to win this quickly, not just eventually. The sooner the tanks are rumbling down the streets of Baghdad, the better.

The carpers are still sniping at Rumsfeld, Myers, and Franks. Yesterday, Gen. Myers called the retired generals who are among the main critics unhelpful, and admonished the press to be "fair and balanced." I wonder what network he watches.

The next delay--if there is one--may be because State and CIA are still fighting Defense about who takes over when Saddam is out. That they want to impose a huge civilian bureaucracy, mainly populated by Clintonistas, shows their bankruptcy of thought. This is a liberation. Why can't the Iraqis' govern themselves with our military presence to help? The president needs to sort this out now, before the diplomats throw away the military victory that appears to be at hand. Toss out the plan for dozens of Americans to run Iraq, and put in a provisional government. Do it now, before the diplos blow the whole thing.

[bobdrake12]

What we are dealing with here are animals. I have said this time and time again. These people don't care one bit about world peace or international orders. They are dirty rats that need to be taken out. Period. Until these threats to world peace are eliminated the rule of international law will never have a chance.

Basra's last-stand militia using five-year-olds as human shields

JEANETTE OLDHAM

PRO-SADDAM Hussein militia in Basra are using children as young as five as human shields and threatening men with death if they do not fight for them, British troops revealed yesterday.

Sergeant David Baird, a tank commander, told Martin Bentham, a journalist with the Sunday Telegraph newspaper, that he had seen at least four or five children, aged between five and eight, being grabbed by the scruff of the neck and held by Iraqi fighters as they crossed a road in front of his tank.

He said he was "sickened" by the tactic adopted by the Iraqis who moments earlier had been firing rocket-propelled grenades at him.

Kissinger,

We have the image:





Then, we have the reality:

JEANETTE OLDHAM:

Stories of atrocities are also starting to emerge. One mother told British medics that her 12-year-old son was among dozens of children gunned down by death squads. He was shot in the liver and several times in the stomach in Az Zubayr, just outside Basra, and was being treated aboard the British hospital ship, RFA Argus.

Lieutenant Commander Nigel Bassett, the ship’s interpreter, said: "His mother says he was definitely shot by Iraqis and there were another group of children in the same place who were all gunned down by Iraqis.

"It seems there was an area of the town where people were leaving or going to get food to assist the coalition and there was a group of tearaways who came in and started indiscriminately shooting, trying to teach people not to co-operate."

bob

[DJS]

It might surprise you, but this article (Arrogant Empire) is the one that definitely shifted me to significantly be in favor of the war with Iraq.

It does surprise me because, although based on many flawed premises, the article was well written. The main problem I had with the article was its assumption that anti American sentiment in the rest of the world is our fault. Maybe other nations have anti American sentiment for domestic political reasons. This is a typical flaw in liberal thinking. Liberals believe that the US has influence over everything. We do not. There are limits to our power, especially when trying to influence the domestic political sentiment of foreign nations. When the US is getting bashed by foreign media outlets there is no counter response. This is not fair and balanced media presentation. If it is possible we should try to develop a better PR campaign through out the world. However, I doubt that foreign governments will be "cooperative".

Did you also ever think that maybe, just maybe, competitors/ strategic adversaries have a vested interest in giving the domestic opponents of US hegemony ample ammunition in the form of rhetorical quips? Example: Mubarrak of Egypt saying yesterday that US action has had the effect of creating "a hundred Bin Ladens". Ask yourself, why is he saying that. Mubarrak is one of many brutal despots in the Middle East. Is he simply speaking his mind, or is he trying to fuel domestic American opposition to the war by feeding them what they want to hear? Or stated more succinctly, do you trust a dictator or your government?

You have to understand that from my perspective America is the spear head of progress. We can not wait for the rest of the world to catch up. If the changes we hope are going to take place, take place, then it is going to have to come from America and its allies. Our goal should be to create a stable world order that allows our technological progress to continue unabated. This is a much more realistic goal then hoping to create a new world order using a debunked United Nations.

[DJS]

Here is one from Thomas Friedman (a flaming moderate) who I don't always agree with, but find to be relatively objective.

COME THE REVOLUTION
THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN


CAIRO

To read the Arab press is to think that the entire Arab world is enraged with the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and to some extent that's true. But here's what you don't read: underneath the rage, there is also a grudging, skeptical curiosity — a curiosity about whether the Americans will actually do what they claim and build a new, more liberal Iraq.

While they may not be able to describe it, many Arabs intuit that this U.S. invasion of Iraq is something they've never seen before — the revolutionary side of U.S. power. Let me explain: for Arabs, American culture has always been revolutionary — from blue jeans to "Baywatch" — but American power, since the cold war, has only been used to preserve the status quo here, keeping in place friendly Arab kings and autocrats.

Even after the cold war ended and America supported, and celebrated, the flowering of democracy from Eastern Europe to Latin America, the Arab world was excluded. In this neighborhood, because of America's desire for steady oil supplies and a safe Israel, America continued to support the status quo and any Arab government that preserved it. Indeed, Gulf War I simply sought to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait to restore the Kuwaiti monarchy and the flow of oil. Once that was done, Saddam was left alone.

And that is why Gulf War II is such a shock to the Arab system, on a par with Napoleon's invasion of Egypt or the Six-Day War. But different people are shocked in different ways.

To begin with, there is the shock of Arab liberals, still a tiny minority, who can't believe that America has finally used its revolutionary power in the Arab world. They are desperate for America to succeed because they think Iraq is too big to ignore, and therefore a real election there would shake the whole Arab region.

Second is the shock of those Arabs in the silent majority. They recognize this is the revolutionary side of U.S. power, but they see it through their own narrative, which says the U.S. is upsetting the status quo not to lift the Arab world up, but rather to put it down so it will submit to whatever America and Israel demand. That's the dominant theme in the Arab media: this war is simply another version of colonialism and imperialism. Al Jazeera uses the same terms for U.S. actions in Iraq as it does for Israeli actions in the West Bank — Iraq is under U.S. "occupation," and Iraqis killed are "martyrs."

As Raymond Stock, a longtime Cairo resident and the biographer of the novelist Naguib Mahfouz, remarked, "People here, particularly the chattering classes who watch the Arab satellite channels, are so much better misinformed than you think. The Arab media generally tells them what they want to hear and shows them what they want to see. There is a narrative that is deeply embedded, and no amount of embedded reporting from the other side will change it. Only a different Iraq can do that."

But there is a third school: Egyptian officials, who are instinctively pro-American but are shocked that the Bush team would use its revolutionary power to try to remake Iraq. Egyptian officials view this as a fool's errand because they view Iraq as a congenitally divided, tribal country that can be ruled only by an iron fist.

Whose view will be redeemed depends on how Iraq plays out, but, trust me, everyone's watching. I spent this afternoon with the American studies class at Cairo University. The professor, Mohamed Kamel, summed up the mood: "In 1975, Richard Nixon came to Egypt and the government turned out huge crowds. Some Americans made fun of Nixon for this, and Nixon defended himself by saying, `You can force people to go out and welcome a foreign leader, but you can't force them to smile.' Maybe the Iraqis will eventually stop resisting you. But that will not make this war legitimate. What the U.S. needs to do is make the Iraqis smile. If you do that, people will consider this a success."

There is a lot riding on that smile, Mr. Kamel added, because this is the first "Arab-American war." This is not about Arabs and Israelis. This is about America getting inside the Arab world — not just with its power or culture, but with its ideals. It is a war for what America stands for. "If it backfires," Mr. Kamel concluded, "if you don't deliver, it will really have a big impact. People will not just say your policies are bad, but that your ideas are a fake, you don't really believe them or you don't know how to implement them."

In short, we need to finish the peace better than we started the war.

[DJS]

More of the great William Safire.

SNAP JUDGEMENTS
WILLIAM SAFIRE


WASHINGTON

I never made it higher than corporal, but it doesn't take a military genius to figure out the strategy when you have air supremacy: break the back of the enemy's armor and its infantry before your big ground assault. A month's bombing worked in the last gulf war and a couple of weeks should "degrade" the Iraqi Army again.

Here is a baker's dozen of my snap judgments about this war:

1. Best gamble: jumping our guns a few days early in a daring bid to win all at once. Our air strike to kill Saddam and his gang may not have succeeded, but failing to try on the basis of a sleeper spy's tip would have been a great mistake.

2. Biggest diplomatic mistake: trusting the new Islamist government of Turkey. This misplaced confidence denied us an opening pincers movement and shocked the awesomeness out of "rapid dominance."

3. Best evidence of Saddam's weakness: his reliance on suicide bombers for media "victories." Individual self-destruction may or may not terrorize a civilian population but is not a weapon capable of inflicting decisive casualties on, or striking fear into, a powerful army. (It does vividly demonstrate the Baghdad-terrorist nexus.)

4. Most stunning surprise: the degree of intimidation of Shiites in southern cities by Saddam's son Uday's Gestapo. When Basra falls, however, fierce retribution on these thuggish enforcers by local Shia may send a message of uprising to co-religionists who make up a third of Baghdad's populace.

5. Most effective turnaround of longtime left-wing lingo: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's labeling of Uday's paramilitaries as "death squads."

6. Most profound statement from a military leader: Gen. Tommy Franks, refuting criticism of a "pause" in the ground war, said, "We have the power to be patient."

7. Most overdue revelation by the Pentagon: that Russia has long been smuggling sophisticated arms to Saddam's regime with Syria's hostile connivance. Who suppressed this damning data for a year, and to what end? And is the C.I.A. still ignorant of the transmission to Iraq through Syria of a key component in rocket propellant from China, brokered by France?

8. Most inexplicable weakness of our intelligence and air power: the inability to locate and obliterate all of Saddam's TV propaganda facilities.

9. Biggest long-run victory of coalition forces to date: the lightning seizure of southern oil fields before Saddam had a chance to ignite them. This underappreciated tactical triumph will speed Iraq's postwar reconstruction by at least a year.

10. Worst mistake as a result of State and C.I.A. interference with military planning: fearing to offend the Turks, we failed to arm 70,000 free Kurdish pesh merga in northern Iraq. Belatedly, we are giving Kurds the air, commando and missile support to drive Ansar-Qaeda terrorists out of a stronghold, but better planning would have given us a trained, indigenous force on the northern front.

11. Best military briefer: General Franks is less of a showman than the last war's bombastic Norman Schwarzkopf, but his low-key deputy, Lt. Gen. John Abizaid, is Franks's secret information weapon. Since Abizaid speaks fluent Arabic, why doesn't he hold a cool news conference with angry Arab journalists?

12. Most inspiring journalism: "embedding" is almost-full disclosure that puts Americans in close contact with local conflict, but the greatest war correspondent of this generation is not attached to any unit. He is John Burns of The Times, who is reporting with great insight, accuracy and courage from Baghdad and makes me proud to work on the same newspaper. (Among TV anchors, a lesser calling, the best organized are MSNBC's John Seigenthaler, CNN's Paula Zahn and Wolf Blitzer, and Fox's Tony Snow.)

13. Greatest wartime mysteries: What tales of special-ops derring-do await the telling? Who, in the fog of peace, will honor Iraqis inside Baghdad spotting military targets to save civilians? Will we learn first-hand of the last days of Saddam in his Hitlerian bunker? What scientists, murdered lest they point the way to germs and poison gases, left incriminating documents behind? Where are the secret files of Saddam's Mukhabarat, detailing the venal transactions with Western, Asian, Arab and Persian political and business leaders — and connections to world terror networks?

Snap judgments, these. Considered conclusions come after unconditional surrender.

[DJS]

A poll released on Monday by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes suggested that 52 per cent of Americans believe the UN should be in charge of governing post-war Iraq, while only 30 believed the US should do it.

First, a 52% approval rating for the UN signals a significant declined. The American public is still in the process of being educated about the inadequacies of the UN. It takes time to drive home a message. Second, this 52% number incorporates Republican Internationalists (G Bush 41), who are considered to be marginal supports of the United Nations. Their real loyalties still lie with the Republican Party. If George W. Bush decides against substantial UN involvement, the Republican Internationalists will fall in line, dropping UN approval numbers into the mid to low 40s.

Polling numbers are fickle. Before the war in Iraq started approval for war in Iraq was in the mid 50s, now its in the mid 70's. When the President makes a decision the American public will stand behind him. It's called leadership.

[DJS]

We should not, I repeat not, give custody of Iraq to the UN. It would be a debacle. The UN doesn't have the capabilities to handle a full scale occupation of Iraq. Let's, once again, be frank. We did not take over Iraq simply to clear it of WMD and leave. We are not going to spend billions upon billions of dollars only to have a new threat emerge 10 years from now because we were unwilling to "seal the deal." Now that we have committed militarily things are going to be done properly, and things are going to be done our way. Besides, we took the political and military risks in toppling Saddam, when the war is over -- if there are profits and prestige -- it should be ours for the taking.

One thing I think you may agree with me on Lazarus -- the US decision on how to administer to Iraq after the war may be as important as the initial decision to go to war.

[DJS]

Ultra Violence, a la Israeli policy vis a vie the Palestinians

My former boss was Israeli and we use to talk about Middle Eastern politics all the time. Needless to say, he wasn't what you would call "objective". As a young Israeli he had gone through two wars and continuous instability. Even years after the fact, and in the safety of America, he still couldn't bring himself to trust Arab intentions. Wars do that to people.

Believe it or not I am not "Gungho Israel". Anyone with any knowledge of history would realize that there were virtually no Jews in present day Israel 150 years ago. (This would drive my boss nuts when I said this to him.) The settlement activities that are still taking place are totally unacceptable and a direct result of Zionist influence in Israel policy making. The Arab do have legitimate gripes.

This being said, Israel is a nation besieged on all sides and even inside. Every Arab-Israeli war has been started by an act of aggression on the part of the Arabs. The occupied territories in the West Bank are strategically important to Israel because it is the "high ground". The Israelis became acutely aware of this in the 67 war. Any concessions by the Israelis resulting in Pre 67 borders would undermine Israel's national security. A reformed and non threatening Iraq (and a sustained US military presence in the region) may help to make some kind of concessions possible on this matter.

Another point which I do not have time to elaborate on but want to put out anyway is that the Arab world uses the "Zionist entity" as an excuse for every thing that is wrong in its society. This kind of scape goating is all too convenient for corrupt regimes to use as cover for their deficient, backward and often corrupt government policies.

The pace at which the violence is exacted on both warring groups is becoming faster and more intense. The second antifada represents an escalation in asymmetrical warfare (terrorism) never before seen by the world. However, it must be noted that both sides are still holding back. This is true, even for the Palestinians, who have skirted the line of using chemical weapons for a long time (rat poison is one step away from breaking out the VX). Both sides are trying to gain concessions by fighting a limited war. The main reason for no WMD being used in Israel is that the regimes of the Middle East are unwilling to supply them since they know they would be the recipients of any retaliation on the part of Israel. This test of wills, waged in such an extreme setting, has a dangerous potential for escalation. All it would take is one lone wolf with chemical agents to start a regional war that would cause tens of thousands of lives. From a sociological perspective, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a text book case of cyclical violence amongst clashing cultures. The cessation of violence is not the result of shared common ground, but of sheer exhaustion.

Edited by Kissinger, 03 April 2003 - 07:56 AM.

[Saille Willow]

Mind

We are very well aware of the atrocities commited by Saddam Hussein. The media here have to cater for extreme oppinions, but if you ask most of the people here whether they believe that the US is invading Iraq for humanitarian reasons, it is actually met with laughter.

As one reporter puts it;" Hussein commited his worst excesses when the West supported him. The US stood by and watched Hussein suppress a Kurdish rebellion in the north and a Shi'te uprising in the south. In 19991, Cheney observed, " There could be worse things than Hussein.' This was interpreted as meaning that the Us would rather have a crippled dictator they could contain, then a popular uprising that they couldn't." - Bryan Rostron

You must remember that Africans have been subjected to human rights abuses and torture for centuries.. Without the use of WMDs, machette-wielding civilians in Rwanda killed 200 000 people in two weeks. Horror is still contimuing here. People here are sceptical of the West good intentions. having been at the receiving end of it for so long.

[Thomas]

Do everything or nothing!?

Is that the motto of the day?

Don't touch Saddam, if you haven't dealt with Mugabe first?

Is that your point?

- Thomas

[Saille Willow]

Thomas

I am sorry if I did not express myself well. No, that was not my point. I was trying to convey what the perception among the people was. Why most do not believe America is fighting the war for Humanitarian reasons. Africa wants to solve its own problems. Here double standards exist too, but slowly progress is made. In South Africa we still have a lot of problems to solve but at least our infrastructure was not destroyed during a war. It will still take generations to repair the damage done during the Apartheid years, but at least we do not have the added trauma of seeing everything around us destroyed by bombings, our loved ones maimed and killed, our children severely traumatised by the horror of war.

[Lazarus Long]

kissinger says:
The cessation of violence is not the result of shared common ground, but of sheer exhaustion.  

This is what I call, and history defines as the survivor's peace, it is only a step away from the "Rest in Peace" phase. But it also means that one appreciates that they already have at least one foot in the grave, for they are aware of having yanked their committed appendage back out.

This is not a formula for a lasting peace, nor anything more than a cynical goal. It is not a pragmatic solution for it breeds an unending generational memetic of continuous war. War not just as hell but a condemnation to hell for all Humanity.

Hell of our own continuous creation.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 03 April 2003 - 02:09 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

Kissinger says:
One thing I think you may agree with me on Lazarus -- the US decision on how to administer to Iraq after the war may be as important as the initial decision to go to war.

No we don't quite agree, I think it is more important and the issue predated the war.

[Lazarus Long]

Mind, your eloquent plea for understanding deserves to be addressed.

Again Lazarus...you are using past injustices to negate the reasons for doing the right thing now.

To clarify, just because the U.S. has done bad things in the past doesn't mean it should not be doing the right thing now.

The problem is that we still are doing “bad things” and what we have done by acting unilaterally isn’t demonstrating “good” behavior, in fact the example is the opposite to most of the world regardless of how justified we feel here in the United States. We are seen around the world as returning to a gunboat diplomacy; the ONLY justification for taking "Police Action” will be recognized by the majority of Nations and their Peoples THROUGH a Commonly recognized global body.

By demonstrating what we have done, we are making enemies out of friends, not the other way around. We aren't defending our sovereignty as much as getting perceived to be threatening the sovereignty of others. Many disparate groups will unite against us on this. I am not interested in saying what is good or bad about this I want Americans to be sure they hear the probabilities because they are being seduced.

We aren’t trapped by the past Mind, but we are repeating our own patterned behavior.

I asked Saille if people there are concerned about the torture and mass executions that have occurred in Iraq because here in the U.S. there are many thousands of Iraqi dissidents with horror stories. I do not know if this information has gotten out to other countries of the world as much, because a lot of the world media is slanted against the U.S.  

Saille answered for herself but I am one who spoke out for years about this to all that would listen and I am suspect of how the issue has been usurped to justify our actions now. I also have seen reliable reports of damage to marketplaces, children’s hospitals, and of course the widely renowned checkpoint incidents, but I still commend our soldiers for making the very best of a very bad scenario. BUT we shouldn’t have started this and they are acquitting themselves as well as they can with the orders received.

I have agreed to disagree about the past because the die is cast, but I have little intention of just pretending my opinion has changed. We are responsible for the increase of violence in Iraq too. We may not be motivated by the kinds of self serving goals as a petty dictatorial despot (maybe) but we are creating a similar result. This too is not lost on the inhabitant of the region, or the rest of the world.

Also, you keep assuming that past evils committed by the U.S. are going to repeat in the future. You are wrong. Do you forget how much more the world is connected nowadays? It was much easier in the past for the U.S. government (and all governments for that matter) to keep their populations "in the dark" about things going on in other parts of the world. That was the past. It is a different age now. An age of information. An age of great change. A different world is going to emerge and I would rather have free countries leading the way. Wouldn't you?

I don’t forget we live in the middle information age; I am shocked at how easy it appears to manipulate the flow of information to control the American People. Our conduct as a People is no source of pride to me at the moment. I am only moderately impressed at our claimed intent, and technological prowess, but as rational ethicists, I am frankly concerned. I listen to the people and too many here are doing this for the wrong reasons no matter how the party line is spun for public consumption.

I said early on I would hold the Neo-hawks to their words of promise. Tomorrow’s struggles will demonstrate that today’s war is but a skirmish. You are right that the people of the world are not in the dark, and many, many of them see us as in the dark about them. We in America aren’t using this medium of the internet for gaining an understanding of foreign culture; we are using it to send a message preceding our weapons that we are coming to a neighborhood near you soon.

If you think we are suddenly nobler in intent then it might behoove you to realize our behavior sends profoundly mixed signals. The world is not so faithful of our “Good Intentions” and I must add that I am not entirely convinced either. I however will work to make this myth of American good will true, I will do so by protesting the excess I am witness to, by reminding my fellow Americans of our checkered past, and I will continue to point out where we possess glaring and subtler conflicts of interests. I will do my best to demonstrate integrity while doing so and hopefully this aspect of what our culture defines will not be lost on those that do not trust us and they will come to understand the power that such freedom can provide a people. Hopefully they will see a way to trust us with good reason. But this is not an aspect of faith; you and all America can do this because of faith in ourselves and our system but the rest of the world deserves and demands proof, objective and definitive proof: Just facts not wrapped in Old Glory.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 03 April 2003 - 02:58 PM.

[Mind]

We are very well aware of the atrocities commited by Saddam Hussein. The media here have to cater for extreme oppinions, but if you ask most of the people here whether they believe that the US is invading Iraq for humanitarian reasons, it is actually met with laughter.

I know that the U.S. has done bad things in the past, but the results of this war will be "good" (hard to say any war is good - but some are worse than others). I think you should not judge until you see the results after the war. The U.S. is already prepping Iraqi dissidents here in the U.S. to move back to Iraq to set-up an Iraqi government. This is a good first step and a good initiative. Read about the effort here I know the cynics out there will say it is just an attempt to install a puppet governement, but it is better than nothing, and will have to be judged in the future.

[Lazarus Long]

I wrote:
We in America aren’t using this medium of the internet for gaining an understanding of foreign culture; we are using it to send a message preceding our weapons that we are coming to a neighborhood near you soon.

I should add however Mind that I do notice that YOU are using the medium to at least ask how people around the world feel a little more than you are using it to tell them how they should feel.

You are a demonstration of the "powerful good" this medium does offer, but how many around you, aruond US, really care to listen?

[Limitless]

[quote]Limitless,

Actually, the more I research, the more convinced I am that going to war with Iraq was the correct decision.   [/quote]

Oh. Well, I can understand that.... I just don' think this discussion is about whether something should be done -of course it should. I just don't think war ever does what it purports to do (there must be another way.)....whether Bush & Co. mean well or not, I think this war could destabilize the middle east. My point being, I'm not sure this debate should even be about research, proof and so forth.


So let me take you through the steps why I am backing the war with Iraq:

[quote]b]1) The US led the Gulf War led by President George H.W. Bush's Administration.[/b]

2)  After the Gulf War, per the "'Embed' free Iraqis, now!" article:

3)  Both 1) and 2) appear to have resulted a strong animosity between the Saddam's regime and the US.[/quote]

Yes... Sorry to change the subject, but: 1-if this war were about freeing a people, why didn't the U.S. ignore UN intentions, and prevent the mass-murder of Shi'ite rebels in 1991 [?] Perhaps because George Bush Sr. had more respect & caution towards breaking international law [?] There was much more justification for war in 1991, (when lives were in imminent danger) than there is now.

2-Also, if this war were also about removing an imminent threat to the United States, then why did the U.S. not target North Korea 1st, Iran 2nd, and Iraq 3rd [?] Even if you buy the "One at a time" theory that the current administration trumps, wouldn't that therefore force common sense to prevail, and dictate that the U.S. should target the largest threat (by far) first [?]

[quote]
Please check out how Saddam tried to Kill Bush I in the post following this one.  That in itself was sufficient reason for me for the US to go to war with Iraq.[/quote]

I find this odd. Aren't many leaders targets [?] There have been many unsuccessful assassination attempts on world leaders. I believe the important thing is that the attempt on Bush Sr. failed. It's impossible to know (for sure) how close the Iraqis came to meeting this objective, but I don't see how the actions of a dictator and his few close supporters should allow Americans to paint all Iraqi citizens (most of whom are innocent) with the same brush. The current war will take thousands of civilian lives.....doesn't the U.S. have the money, personnel (i.e. special elite forces, undercover agents etc.) and creativity to take out a leader without attacking an entire country [?]

[quote]]4)  The UN established Sanctions on Iraq to combat their potential for WMD.  

The WHO has reported as a result of Sanctions, that approximately 60,000 children in Iraq under 5 die a year.  We can point fingers at the Sanctions themselves or we can point fingers at the way Saddam's regime distributed the resources available under Sanctions, but this has damaged the US's reputation in the Middle East.

Quoting from the article by The International Monitor Institute (URL shown below) and posted by myself on page 51 in the Forum:

http://www.imisite.org/iraq.php

[quote]The sanctions clearly devastated the population, as Iraq depends on imports for over 75 percent of its food consumption. In response to deteriorating nutritional and health conditions, effecting mainly children and the elderly, the UN Security Council implemented the oil-for-food program as a temporary solution (Resolution 986).

Denis Halliday, the former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General and Humanitarian Coordinator who was sent to Iraq to supervise the oil-for-food program in 1997, stated that:

 Even the most conservative, independent estimates hold economic sanctions responsible for a public health catastrophe of epic proportions. The World Health Organization believes at least 5,000 children under the age of 5 die each month from lack of access to food, medicine and clean water. Malnutrition, disease, poverty and premature death now ravage a once relatively prosperous society whose public health system was the envy of the Middle East. I went to Iraq in September 1997 to oversee the UN's "oil for food" program. I quickly realized that this humanitarian program was a Band-Aid for a UN sanctions regime that was quite literally killing people.

The oil-for-food guidelines allow for the Iraqi government to sell petroleum and petroleum products to buy and distribute "medicine, health supplies, foodstuffs and materials and supplies for essential civilian needs" to the Iraqi people.[/quote]However there is mounting evidence that Saddam has used the profits on personal luxuries. According to the US State Department, "Saddam has spent over $2 billion on presidential palaces. Some of these palaces boast gold-plated faucets and man-made lakes and waterfalls, which use pumping equipment that could have been used to address civilian water and sanitation needs."

In the documentary "Uncle Saddam," journalist Joel Soler reports that Saddam has built some 21-46 palaces, one of them over 50 square-miles. Hussam Khadori, Saddam's Architect, gives Soler a tour of one palace that was decorated in a classic cathedral style, including Italian ceilings, crystal chandeliers, and giant Italian marble collums. Khadori mentions that "This house was bought after the sanctions."[/quote]

Well, I agree with you here. Saddam does what most dictators do. He uses fear & money to create power and influence. I still think there is a question, however, about whether or not the U.S. has the right to act unilaterally , because they disagree with how another part of the world lives....I know it looks ridiculous from the outside, but I don't claim to much about Iraq from the outside.....


[quote]5)  The UN established a number of Resolutions regarding WMD which Saddam essentially ignored.

Note I have posted a few of these resolution on this Forum.  One of the Resolutions essentially stated the Iraq had WMD.  That is proof enough for me that Saddam's regime has WMD.  [/quote]

True. However, if you respect the UN, you must acknowledge that they were none to supportive of America's actions in this case.....I wish Bush Sr. had toppled Saddam in 1991. There was more of a case for doing it then, and America would've much more world support.

Per your quote:


[quote]I can appreciate what you are stating, but all the proof I needed was the UN Resolution.[/quote]

You are referring to a past resolution, I believe.....There is no resolution at this time. If you respected the procedures of the UN in the past, then why do you have no faith in them now, when they say that Saddam has destroyed some/all of his weapons. They have been unable to find evidence to prove otherwise.....what happened to the "Inocent until proven guilty" ideology that America supports [?] I think we are seeing that America has different rules for different people.....that's fine, but they should at least admit it.

[quote]6)  Iraq has considerable resources (oil) which would allow Saddam's regime to build considerable WMD once Sanctions were removed.[/quote]

Iraq's oil resources are actually very small. Only 20% of Amrica's oil comes from the middle east, and most of this comes from Saudi Arabia....also, although it costs a lot to extract, (down to abut $15/barrel, from $35 in Candian dollars) Canada has 5 times the oil Saudi Arabia has, in the Alberta tar sands, and in various regions off the pacific coast of B.C., and the Atlantic coast of Newfoundland.

[quote]7)  Saddam's regime is a very brutal one with the motive to strike the US.[/quote]

Not even Iran or North Korea have a realistic shot at hitting the U.S. at this time. Iraq is a long way off from being able to do that, based on UN findings....the only place they can reach at this time is Turkey. Also, what evidence is there that a war will prevent Iraq from attacking the US [?] A war could provoke an unexpected attack from one of many Arab nations....and couldn't Iraqis reject Democracy, and form a new regime/group to specifically target the Americans [?]


[quote]If 1) through 6) only existed, the concern would not be as great, but it is 7) added 1)-6) that is the issue.  It is 7) that personally concerns me.  Each person has the right to feel differently about 7).  I am not trying to lead others to the same conclusion I have, but rather to understand my conclusion myself.[/quote]

That's very fair, but I'm much more worried at North Korea. N. Korea has better weapons, and nothing much to lose by using them. Also, if America weakens Iraq, that could bring a new attack against Iraq from much stronger neighbouring Iran. Iran could then further strengthen itself for a attack on the US.

[quote]I might add that I would have preferred that the diplomacy by the Bush Administration to have been handled in a far better way.  I would have much preferred that the UN Security Council to have voted for the Resolution for the war. [/quote]

Me too [!]

[quote]
But then, I understand that there were business ties specifically between France and Iraq.  I will leave this last point regarding France as my personal belief rather than a fact.[/quote]

Actually bobdrake there is evidence to support this claim. (I think) I heard a report on CBC radio, originally
from a Scottish news channel. I will do my best to track it down for you. The report linked companies from Germany, Britain, the U.S. (Kodak, etc.) and many other countries to business deals with Iraq in the LAST TWO YEARS!!! No wonder France, Germany didn't want to go to war!!! Not surprisingly, this story received ZERO play in the American media.


[quote]This issue goes on and on in complexities and other reasons for the war.  I really don't know for certain what the real core issue is as to why the Bush Administration opted for war, but I have laid out mine.

I might add that I asked numerous times for options, and only got "continue the Sanctions".  "Continuing the Sanctions" was no longer an option because of the reasons already stated.

Yes, there are the horrors of war, but there are also the horrors of Sanctions.  One is a very easily seen and photographed while the other one is relatively silent.[/quote]

Iran and N. Korea ignored, you have a point here. I think the real American mistake was not removing Saddam from Iraq in 1991.


[quote]I do not believe that either Europe nor Canada have anywhere the same threat by Iraq because of 1) through 4).  [/quote]

That's for sure.....Canada has limited troops and 3 ships in the gulf...although the government is attempting to call them part of the "War on terror", not the "Attack on Iraq." ....although the Canadian ships (HMCS Fredericton, Iroquois, and 1 other whose name I forget) will have to participate if they are attacked.


[quote]I am listing Saddam's atrocities and probably will continue to do so if appropriate.  If Saddam committed atrocities on his own people, and his neighbors (Iran and Kuwait), he certainly would not hesitate to repeat that behavior with another country he considers his enemy.    [/quote]

Oh yeah. Although it is hard to fund wars/terrorist activities, and I think they'll have some trouble in this respect. (Luckily)

[quote]But while discussing the Middle East, the Palistinian issue has not been satisfactorily addressed in my opinion.   This is a separate issue, but it complicates the issue we are currently discussing.  [/quote]

Rightly or wrongly, this is used as more fuel on the fire that America is two-faced.


[quote]
We have 50+ pages of discussion on this subject.  These have yet to embrace the entire issue.  There are two sides to the issue, but based upon my research the decision for the US to go to war is a valid one for me.  I have friends who have flipped back and forth some 7+ times.  It is not an easy issue to make a determination on.[/quote]

I think this is a no-won situation...this action may have been completely necessary eventually. It's hard to win the battle of public opinion by acting "Early" to prevent an attack.


[quote]Wouldn't it have been great to have found another solution rather than simply responding to the top title "should the US go to war with Iraq"?  The title of this thread itself is limiting.  Had collaborative thinking taken place rather than combative rationale, maybe a reasonable solution could have been found.  But sadly I saw no solution that would reasonably protect the interest of the US other than going to war with Iraq.   [/quote]

It's impossible to get anyone to agree on anything....everyone is so reactionary, it's depressing....I don't like the simplistic Arab position any more than you do. Perhaps the country with the best military doesn't need approval..... [?]


[quote]It is my belief that as long as people argue using the "conflict of opposites" style rather than shooting for win-win solutions, war will continue on this planet.  The predominant use of the Hegelian Dialectic (synthesis and anti-synthesis) in discussions, will probably result in continued use of war in conflict resolution.   The technology that is out there (MAD) in conjunction with people arguing using the "conflict of opposites" could possiblily eventually lead to the distruction of our civilization.

bob[/quote]

I just hope the world is still standing in enough places to eventually allow us to move on to bigger and better things. ( than primitive conflicts.)

[DJS]

Next on the hit parade...

U.S.: Iran will infiltrate 5 Iraqi cities
By Eli J. Lake
UPI State Department Correspondent
From the International Desk
4/3/2003


WASHINGTON, April 3 (UPI) -- Iran's senior leadership decided last month to send irregular paramilitary units across their border with Iraq to harass American soldiers once Saddam Hussein's regime fell, according to U.S. intelligence reports.

On March 24, a U.S. intelligence agency issued a "spot report" to a wide range of senior U.S. officials detailing conversations in a meeting of the Islamic Republic's top leadership in the equivalent of the U.S. National Security Council. The council, which is working on Iran's post-conflict strategy, includes Iranian President Mohammed Khatami and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei.

"This confirmed all of our suspicions that the Iranians are not our friends and not for peace in the region. They are in fact for a piece of the region (a-duh [huh] )," one U.S. intelligence official told United Press International. This official said the units would target the Iraqi cities of al-Najaf and Karbala, the two places in Iraq considered holiest by the country's Shiite minority. But also targeted would be Baghdad, where several hundred thousand Iraqi Shiites live in the suburb known as Saddam City, as well as Basra and the oil-rich northern city of Kirkuk.

"They were saying we have to be careful ultimately in the battle for Iraq. This is not to be won on the battlefield. Remember the tactics we need are direct confrontation we must raise the cost of occupation," this official said recounting the conversation detailed in the March 24 intelligence report.

Adding to American concerns, previous CIA reports on Iran claim that the country's Revolutionary Guard has procured several Saudi and Kuwaiti military uniforms, a tactic another intelligence official said was meant to cause confusion on the battlefield.

The explosive intelligence from March 24 also confirmed the failure of U.S. and British diplomatic efforts in the last three months to convince Iran to remain neutral in the current conflict. On the weekend of March 16 the U.S. special envoy to the Iraqi opposition met with Iranian diplomats in Geneva, under the auspices of a U.N. grouping to discuss Afghanistan, to firm up an agreement from Tehran not to send proxy forces over their border or attempt to send agent provocateurs into Iraq during or after the conflict.

The private statements from last month's meeting follow with many of the public statements from Iran's senior leaders in the run up to Operation Iraqi Freedom. On March 14 Hujjat al-Islam Hassan Rowhani, Iran's national security adviser, warned ominously in a public statement that there will be no "happy ending to the way the Americans have chosen" for their occupation of Iraq. "The U.S. presence in the Middle East is worse than Saddam's weapons of mass destruction," Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former Iranian president and current chairman of the country's powerful expediency board, said on Feb. 7.

The intelligence has already hardened America's public reaction to Iran's intentions in the war. On March 28, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld opened his news briefing with a stark warning to the Baddr Brigades, the military wing of an Iranian opposition group that he said was "equipped and directed" by Iran's Revolutionary Guards. "The entrance into Iraq by military forces, intelligence personnel, or proxies not under the direct operational control of (Central Command Chairman) Gen. Franks will be taken as a potential threat to coalition forces," Rumsfeld said. He added that the United States would hold the Iranian government responsible for the actions of the Badr Brigades. Two days earlier when Secretary of State Colin Powell was asked whether Iranian proxies were becoming a problem for U.S. forces in the Iraq campaign, he said, "Not yet."

Edited by Kissinger, 03 April 2003 - 09:43 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

http://www.iranexper...trope1april.htm
1 April RFE/RL

Tehran Walks A Tightrope In Iraqi Conflict

While officially opposing the U.S.-led war on Iraq, Iran simultaneously appears to have reached a tacit understanding with Washington. Looks at what lies behind Iran's practical neutrality in the conflict in neighboring Iraq.

Tehran holds the Iraqi leader responsible for the eight-year war (1980-88) between the two nations, in which up to 1 million people were killed on both sides. Nevertheless, Iran regards the current U.S.-led military offensive in Iraq as a threat to the security of its own regime, labeled by Washington as part of an "axis of evil" along with Iraq and North Korea.

Despite such fears, Iran's first government-backed antiwar rally since the allied military action began on 20 March was held only on 28 March, when tens of thousands marched in Tehran.

Iranian sociologist Ehsan Naraghi said the sentiments of the Iranian public and its leadership toward the war are torn, leading to what he calls a certain "uneasiness." "Iranians have an extremely negative opinion of Saddam because he is responsible for the eight-year war with Iran. Of course, [Iranians] wish from the bottom of their hearts his overthrow. They do not agree, however, with the American attack for three reasons. First, they have not forgotten the 1953 American 'coup' against [Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad] Mossadegh. Second, Iranians dislike the arrogant manner in which America went to war, ignoring [the views of] other nations. Third, [Iranians] are aware of the sufferings that the Iraqi population has endured from Saddam Hussein, [so] new suffering appears to them as really unfair."

Mohammad-Reza Djalili notes the strong division in views between the population and the political establishment in Iran. Djalili is a professor at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva. According to Djalili, the Iranian public tends to be sympathetic to the war, while the leadership in Tehran is concerned about U.S. intentions in the region. "What is very, very interesting is that Iran has not organized any spontaneous protest against the war. This does not mean that Iranians are against the Iraqi people, not at all. This means that Iranians oppose authoritarian regimes such as Saddam Hussein's. It also doesn't mean that Iranians are unfavorable, by no means, to Americans, despite the antiwar position of the government, which is in keeping with its anti-American ideology," Djalili said.

Officially, Tehran supports the view that Saddam Hussein must disarm, as required by UN resolutions. It opposes, however, the use of military intervention to accomplish this task.

In practical terms, Tehran is remaining neutral to ensure that any new Iraqi regime will not be hostile to Iran and to avoid further antagonizing the U.S. Djalili characterized the Iranians' attitude as "quite realistic."

"The government officially condemns the war but maintains a very firm [practical] neutrality. The Iranians, indeed, can only lose if they are implicated directly or indirectly in the conflict. This is why we can say there is a tacit agreement between the Iranians and the Americans. The American have said to the Iranians: 'Don't interfere, and we'll leave you in peace,'" Djalili said.

But Iran is closely monitoring the U.S. presence on its borders -- the establishment of a new U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan, the U.S. military buildup in the Persian Gulf, Washington's cooperation with Turkey and Pakistan, and now the military campaign in Iraq.

According to Ali Ansari, a lecturer on the political history of the Middle East at the University of Durham in England: "The Iranian officials in the first place are very concerned that Iran may be next on the [U.S.] list after Iraq is finished. But also there are worries, even if there is no military attack on Iran -- and I think it's very unlikely -- about an American occupation in Iraq, in addition to Afghanistan, that would leave Iran very much surrounded."

Iranian leaders accuse Washington of attempting to establish its political, military, and cultural dominance throughout the world. Leading conservative Hujjat al-Islam Hassan Rowhani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, last month emphasized the cultural aspect of such fears. After Iraq, he said, Washington plans to wage what he called a "software war" against Iran, destroying "people's belief and changing their behavior, striking at our national unity and obliterating the national and religious identity of the people," the Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

Many Iranian leaders also believe the U.S. decided to attack Iraq in a bid to gain control of its oil reserves.

There are also concerns that a different regime in Iraq will affect Iran's religious influence over the Shiites. With the establishment of Hussein's regime in the 1970s, the Shiite leadership was forced out of the Iraqi city of Najaf -- the prime Shiite spiritual center -- and into exile in the Iranian city of Qom. The return of the ayatollahs of Iraqi extraction from Qom to Najaf would increase Iraq's influence to the detriment of Iran. Ansari remarked: "What they're worried about in some senses -- and this is really the hard-line conservative establishment -- are, once Najaf and Karbala, particularly Najaf, are opened up -- are liberated so to speak -- then theological discussions will open up. And this will then pose a challenge to Qom as the center of Shia learning, and it would thereby -- and in all likelihood -- undermine the theological foundations of the Islamic Republic [of Iran]."

Given these threats, Iranian officials want to have as much influence as they can in any postwar settlement in Iraq. They are, for instance, holding talks with representatives of the Iraqi opposition -- both Shiites and Kurds -- and allowing the opposition to meet on Iranian territory.

According to Naraghi, the Iranian sociologist: "There are Shiites, there are Kurds, there are opponents to Saddam who have friendly relations with Iran. Yes, Iran will certainly be a partner of a democratic Iraq, excluding an American military [-sponsored] government, as some people predict. It will be easier for Iran to build a relationship with such a government than Saddam's government. Saddam was an insufferable, dishonest, hypocritical, and cruel person. [Iran] is likely to have an excellent relationship with a representative government of the different groups of the Iraqi nation."

Djalili admits that the existence of an important Shiite faction in any future Iraqi political system could help bring the two countries closer together. But Iran, according to Djalili, will have to proceed carefully. "[Iran] has room for maneuver: the Shiites [in Iraq] and above all the Shiite organizations based in Iran and also several partisans among Islamist Kurdish groups. However, Iran is going to use these [leverages] very cautiously because once Saddam Hussein is put aside, there will very likely be a pro-American regime in Iraq, and then there will also be an American military presence in Iraq, which will surround Iran for a long time to come. In fact, as there will be a pro-American government in Iraq, the United States will become the main neighbor -- the global neighbor -- of Iran," he said.

Meanwhile, the war of words between Washington and Tehran continues to escalate. Speaking on 28 March at the Pentagon, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld urged Iran not to support Iraqi forces that oppose Hussein while coalition troops are active in Iraq. He specifically cited the Badr Corps, a unit that he said is trained, equipped, and directed by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

On 30 March, Secretary of State Colin Powell said that Iran and Syria must end what he called their "support for terrorism."

Iranian government spokesman Abdullah Ramezanzadeh responded yesterday, arguing that these warnings are an exercise to divert attention from the setbacks in the U.S.-led war against Iraq and are part of Washington's attempt to gain dominance in the Middle East.

[Lazarus Long]

http://www.iranexper...ality2april.htm
2 April Daily Star

Iranian ‘neutrality’ has some special features

In the early hours of March 20, the telephone rang in the Tehran office of Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, who was meeting with his aides to discuss the latest developments in the Iraqi crisis.

The caller turned out to be Kharrazi’s British counterpart, Jack Straw, who had developed a close friendship with the Iranian minister since visiting Tehran in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Realizing that Kharrazi wanted to speak to Straw in private, the minister’s aides left the office.

As a matter of fact, the British and Iranian governments have been in regular contact concerning a number of issues. However, the Foreign Office and Downing Street usually get in touch with Iran’s ambassador in London, Murtaza Sarmadi, when they have a message to convey to Kharrazi or to President Mohammad Khatami. Sarmadi, who is very close to Khatami, then passes the message on.

This time though, the call was made directly to Kharrazi. In a conversation lasting more than 15 minutes, Straw explained that the US and Britain were at that very moment launching missile attacks on certain Iraqi command centers.

According to an Iranian Foreign Ministry source, Kharrazi immediately left his office after Straw’s call and went to the presidential palace, where he met with Khatami and his national security adviser, Ali Rabiie. Kharrazi informed Khatami of two important things:

1. That Straw stressed to him that neither the US nor Britain intended to widen the war, and that Washington and London only wanted to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein. If any coalition missiles fell on Iranian soil by mistake, the coalition would compensate the Iranians immediately. All that the coalition expected of Iran was to remain neutral.

2. That Britain would continue to honor the undertakings it had given in the past concerning the participation of the Iran-based Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SAIRI) and other pro-Iranian Iraqi Shiite movements in any post-Saddam political arrangements in Iraq ­ so long as Iran refrains from sending units of the Badr Brigade to Iraq during the conflict, and does not exploit the situation to attack opposition Mujahideen-e-Khalq bases in Iraq.

Straw stressed that the US and Britain view the Mujahideen as a pro-Iraq terrorist organization, which would be treated similarly to the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Jund-al-Islam. Mujahideen bases, Straw said, would be considered legitimate military targets and would be bombed by coalition forces.

Two days later, the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) held an emergency meeting in which Kharrazi read out a report detailing the issues he discussed with Straw, as well as the results of his recent visits to Saudi Arabia and Yemen. He said Riyadh and Sanaa were resigned to the fact that Saddam Hussein was living on borrowed time.

While the Yemeni government was coming under pressure both from public opinion and from the US and Britain, Kharrazi said, Saudi Arabia was more concerned with the future of Iraq. The Saudis, he said, were totally against replacing the regime of Saddam Hussein with a pro-Iranian, Shiite-dominated government. He said the Saudis told him they would go to all lengths to prevent the emergence of a sectarian regime.

However, the Saudis did offer to cooperate with Tehran to find a suitable replacement for the regime that would represent all the country’s religious sects without handing the Shiites domination over Iraq’s Sunnis.

After Kharrazi finished speaking, a row erupted between Khatami and his supporters on the one hand, and Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani and judiciary head Ayatollah Sayyed Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi (who was the first leader of SAIRI) on the other. Shamkhani had already called on the Iranian people to demonstrate against the war on Iraq on March 28 after Friday prayers. The defense minister had not consulted with Khatami or the Cabinet before making his call. When questioned about this by Rabiie, Shamkhani said he had already obtained the support of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The row escalated, and, according to a source close to SNSC Secretary Hassan Rouhani, it was only thanks to the latter’s intervention that Shamkhani was not sacked.

The crafty Rouhani suggested that since the deed had been done, the best thing to do to remedy the situation was for the demonstrations not only to raise banners condemning the Anglo-American action, but also condemning the Iraqi regime. Rouhani’s aim was to assuage the feelings of millions of Iranians who were victims of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, and to avoid angering Washington.

The meeting agreed to Straw’s requests. The SNSC also entrusted Kharrazi with following up on Straw’s undertaking to give SAIRI a role in the postwar Iraqi government. Iran, thus, appeared to have taken a strategic decision to maintain a neutral stance. It gave Britain an official undertaking to that effect. In spite of the fact that viewers of Iranian (and Iranian-backed) media might be led to believe that Tehran is sympathetic to the Baghdad regime, Iran’s official position has been that conveyed by Kharrazi to his “friend” Straw: neutrality ­ but with some stealthy moral support for the war.

Clerics denounce ‘war on islam’

TEHRAN: Senior Iraqi Muslim religious figures have gathered in Iran’s holy city of Qom to denounce the US-led attack on Iraq as a war against Islam.

About 300 Islamists, including theological students, met on Sunday in the city, 120 kilometers south of Tehran, to condemn the war.

In a statement, they warned that any domination of Iraq by the United States if President Saddam Hussein was toppled would be considered “a war against Islam and against Muslims.”

“We believe that Iraq’s future should be decided by the Iraqi people,” said the statement.

Participants at the meeting included members of Iraq’s main Shiite opposition group, the Tehran-based Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). SCIRI’s main leader, Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir Hakim, said last week that Americans would face armed resistance if they stayed in a post-Saddam Iraq.

The group’s armed wing, the Badr Brigade, is said to be trained and equipped by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Friday warned that members of the brigade operating in Iraq would be treated as enemy forces if they chose to join the struggle to oust Saddam.

Iran has adopted an official policy of neutrality on the war in Iraq. Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi reiterated on Sunday that the Badr Brigade was independent and had no relations with Iran and called Rumsfeld’s remarks “baseless.”

The Qom statement also condemned US and British forces for attacking Iraq’s holy cities of Najaf and Karbala. ­ Reuter

[Lazarus Long]

http://politics.guar...,928010,00.html
11.15am update

Straw: UK will not attack Syria or Iran

Staff and agencies
Wednesday April 2, 2003

Britain would have "nothing whatever" to do with military action against Syria or Iran, the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, signalled today.
Mr Straw's comments will be seen as an attempt to ensure that speculation about an Anglo-American attack on the two countries is quashed ahead of his meeting with EU foreign ministers tomorrow.

The US president, George Bush, has previously identified Iran as part of the so-called "axis of evil", while America's defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, recently accused Syria of supplying military equipment to Iraq and threatened to hold it to account for its actions.

In contrast, the government has made efforts to improve relations with Syria and Iran. Mr Straw has visited Iran on a number of occasions and the prime minister has visited Syria.

Interviewed on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Straw described Iran as "a completely different country and situation from Iraq".

"Iran is an emerging democracy and there would be no case whatsoever for taking any kind of action."

"We have had good cooperation from the Iranian government," he added. "The Iranians have more reason to know of the terror imposed by Saddam Hussein, not just on his own people but on other peoples in the region, than almost any other country including Kuwait."

Regarding Syria, Mr Straw said "we have worked hard to try to improve relations".

But he went on: "That said, it is important that Syria ensures that its territory is not used as a conduit for military supplies to the government of Iraq, and I hope that they are not doing so."

Asked whether he was worried that an impression was being created that Syria and Iran were next in line behind Iraq, Mr Straw replied: "it would worry me if it were true. It is not true, and we would have nothing whatever to do with an approach like that."

Mr Straw is in Berlin today, and Brussels tomorrow, on a diplomatic mission to sell the government's plans for a UN-sponsored conference to decide upon Iraq's postwar future and to repair relations damaged by Britain and America's march to war.

The government hopes the conference would open during the period of post-conflict American military rule and would follow the model set by the Afghanistan conference in Bonn which preceded the formation of a post-Taliban government.

Yesterday, Mr Straw described the conference's goal as "to place responsibility for decisions about Iraq's political and economic future firmly in the hands of the Iraqi people". It is hoped that all the Iraqi anti-Ba'athist political groups would attend.

Washington hawks are known to be unimpressed by the idea, especially the prospect of giving dovish security council members like France and Germany a say in Iraq's future.

European leaders are also believed to sceptical about contributing to the cost of rebuilding a country that America and Britain have destroyed.

Today Mr Straw is having dinner with Germany's foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, who chaired the Afghanistan conference but has been bitterly critical of the present war.

Tomorrow, the foreign secretary is in Brussels for a meeting of Nato's North Atlantic council, followed by a working lunch for foreign ministers of Nato and EU states and meeting with the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, and Russia's foreign minister, Igor Ivanov.

[DJS]

I can't find the article, but I heard a report last night that Al Jazeera (spelling?) was pulling its reporters out of Baghdad because Saddam had kicked one of their reporters out of the country. Sure, that's the reason why[]. Can you say plausible deniability? The Arabs wouldn't want to have eye witness accounts that it was Saddam who used chemical weapons, now would they?

[Lazarus Long]

http://politics.guar...,928010,00.html

Illegal to hand PoWs to US, claim ministers

Patrick Wintour and Michael White
Thursday April 3, 2003
The Guardian

British cabinet ministers are warning that it would be illegal for Tony Blair to bow to US demands for Iraqi prisoners of war captured by the British to be handed over to the US for trial or imprisonment in America.

They are checking reports that paramilitaries captured by the British will eventually be segregated from regular prisoners of war and then handed to the US military police before being sent to the US base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba for questioning.

Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, has told MPs that more than half of the 8,000 Iraqi PoWs are being held by the British.

Cabinet ministers are warning that prisoners of war captured by the British cannot be handed to the US for extradition since the US still uses the death penalty.

One government source warned that it would be entirely unacceptable for British captured prisoners of war to be taken to Guantanamo Bay. He argued that even if Osama bin Laden was captured in Britain, it would be unlawful to hand him over to the US for trial because of the death penalty there.

The doubtful legality of the US treatment of prisoners taken in Afghanistan has still not been settled in the higher American courts, British ministerial sources pointed out. Around 640 alleged Taliban and al-Qaida fighters are being held at the US naval base. Tony Blair has sounded lukewarm about the prisoners' treatment.

The prime minister's spokesman has so far only given an undertaking that Iraqi prisoners of war will be treated in line with the Geneva convention, but has not ruled out their transfer to Guantanamo Bay.

Senior military spokesmen for the US have toughened their vocabulary to denounce the militia forces during the past week.

General Vince Brooks has several times called them "terror squads" and members of "terroristic behaving organisations". This language would allow the US to treat the Iraqi paramilitaries as unlawful combatants in line with the Taliban.

The stance of some British cabinet ministers on the PoW issue is supported by senior British officers in Kuwait, who have made it clear that they would prefer plainclothes fighters, paramilitaries and the Fedayeen to be subjected to due judicial process for war crimes, possibly through the new international criminal court.

The US has refused to sign up to the international criminal court and has even suggested it would "rescue" any US soldiers that were to be tried at the court.

A spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross said that anyone captured in a war zone, whether in military uniform or civilian clothes, had to be treated as a PoW under the Geneva Convention. The convention was extended in 1977 to protect some guerrilla combatants.

· The United States Congress is set to award Tony Blair the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest civilian honour the legislature can bestow, in recognition of his "commitment to secure the world from the threat of terrorism".

The legislation to award Mr Blair the medal - which would make him its first British recipient since Winston Churchill - now has the two sponsors it needs, Senator Elizabeth Dole and Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite, both Republicans

[DJS]

If the British do not want to come along for the ride that is ok. They are too much of a moderating force anyway. One could argue that the reason Saddam was not taken out in 1991 was because of the restrictions imposed on the United States by the coalition it had formed.

Any offensive action against Iran, Syria or North Korea will not take place until after the 2004 election when Bush has a free hand for four years. That is, of course, unless the Iranians or Syrians are stupid enough to give us an excuse.

Jack Straw can say anything he likes. It doesn't concern me. Just more diplomatic talk to mend fences within the EU. If Iran or Syria do anything that truly violates their position of neutrality, we would have enough cover to A) take out Syria B) unleash preemptive air strikes against Iran (since an actual military campaign against Iran would be a logistical nightmare).

I can assure you of one thing. Donald Rumsfeld must be sitting at his desk at the Pentagon rubbing his hands together in anticipation. Please oh please, just give us a reason. [ph34r]

[Lazarus Long]

http://www.iranexper...tions2april.htm
2 April by Charles W. Nass and Henry Precht Washington Report

Shining a Light Into the Darkness of Iranian-U.S. Relations

Of all the black holes in America's foreign relations few have been darker than Iran. How to understand a country that overthrew an autocrat in the name of freedom and then produced a theocracy whose human rights abuses make the shah's look mild? Proclaimed itself a leader of the dispossessed and the guide for the world's Muslims, yet earned international scorn and isolation by provoking the hostage crisis? Prolonged its war with Iraq, bringing a terrible loss of lives and treasure? Why?

The answers begin with history. Throughout much of the past century, Iran was manipulated by outsiders—first British and Russians, then Americans, and now, apparently, by Heaven. This bitter fate has fed national cynicism and suspicion, along with a tangle of conspiracy theories. More important, Iran's history has nourished a fierce nationalism which fuses its Shi'i faith with a strong pride in the country's rich culture. Nationalism, especially when superheated by revolution, is rarely rational. Yet, to continue with the paradoxes, Iran's absolutist rulers correctly think themselves vulnerable and are profoundly risk-averse.

How does this perspective play out? What openings, if any, might there be for the U.S.?

Regime Stability?

After 25 years, the revolution's fire has cooled. Sixty percent of the population is under 30 and has no memory of the shah. They know only the tight grip of the clerics and the weakness of the reformers.

Both conservatives and reformers share two emotions: disappointment in the failure to realize the revolution's promises (for reformers, greater freedom, and for hard-liners, stronger Islamic values) and revolution fatigue (fear of another violent conflict with uncertainty of outcome). For the ruling clerics, student protests are a way of letting off a little steam. They must be controlled, however, lest unrest spread to the working and bazaar classes and provoke the strikes and massive demonstrations that brought down the shah. Reform leaders, for their part, draw a line that should not be crossed by student demonstrators.

In these circumstances it is futile and counterproductive for President George W. Bush to label Iran as a spoke in the Axis of Evil while sending sweet words to the beleaguered democratic opposition. All Iranians resent President Bush's denigration of their country. The democrats, valuing their independence, reject any foreign intervention on their behalf. During the revolution there was little outsiders could say or do that did not produce unintended effects. That condition holds today. Informed silence and inactivity is in order for Washington.

Reaction to a U.S. Assault on Iraq?

While Iranians bitterly hate Saddam Hussain, they have no taste for his removal by an American-led invasion. Should U.S. forces take over Baghdad, Iran will face American power on all its borders, a situation no Iranian nationalist wants. (Even the shah disliked the heavy U.S. Navy presence in the Gulf, preferring to be its gendarme himself.) Will a defeated Iraq become fragmented, with an independent Kurdish state emerging in the north? Iran, like Turkey, would resist that attraction for its own Kurds. Will refugees flood across the border? What will be the fate of Iraq's long-abused majority Shi'i population? Iran has to be concerned with the uncertain future of its western neighbor, but is powerless to affect the outcome of a war.

Tehran, therefore, is most likely to resume the posture it adopted during the Afghan war: neutrality (with a friendly gesture or two toward the U.S.) and eagerness to assert some influence when the fighting ends. It will make common cause with any successor regime, and with Russia, Turkey and European and Arab states, in seeking to limit a threatened U.S. hegemony in Baghdad.

It is also possible that a U.S. attack on Iraq will lead Iran's clerics to conclude that they may be next on Washington's liberation list for the Middle East. Out of fear of that possibility—or of an American success in creating a model democracy in Baghdad—they may well tighten their controls, cracking down on students and restricting the already small scope for political expression.

Iran's Foreign Policy Objectives

Iran has come a long way since the post-revolution days when it was accused of “exporting revolution” and suffered hostile relations with most of its neighbors as a result. Now, the reverse is true. Iran looks inward, giving highest priority to stimulating the economy in order to generate jobs for its restive unemployed youth. That, in turn, places a premium on maintaining decent relations in the immediate neighborhood so that funds are not unnecessarily diverted for national defense. It also means attracting European investment for industry and in oil and gas extraction. Reformers would like to add American firms to those bidding on projects, but they are blocked by conservatives in both Tehran and Washington.

Iran's foreign policy is not bereft of ideology, however. Three such causes remain important for the rulers—if not equally appealing to the ruled. One is the protection (with prudence) of Shi'i co-religionists where they are abused. Iran aided foes of the Taliban when Afghanistan's Shi'i minority was being persecuted, but, fearing a no-win war, did not attack when Kabul had 13 Iranian diplomats murdered. Good relations with Bahrain and Saudi Arabia take precedence over aid to their Shi'i populations. Iran's most active assistance has been to Hezbollah in Lebanon during Israel's occupation of the Shi'i south. That aid has diminished since the pullout of Israeli troops. (Israel calls Iran's support for Hezbollah sponsorship of terrorism; Iran calls it resistance to occupation.)

Second, Iran's hard-line clerics are unrelenting foes of a Jewish state in Palestine. Nevertheless, while some aid may go to help Hamas, it is certainly less than the flow from the Arab world. For most Iranians, unlike their rulers and the Arabs, Israel is not a burning issue. President Mohammad Khatami has said that Iran could live with any solution to the conflict that Palestinians would accept.

The third, and internally most divisive, issue is the attitude toward America. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his clique are adamantly opposed to any thought of improving relations with Washington. In part because of their intense distaste for the controlling clerics, students and much of the population favor a normalization of that connection. American values—jeans, music, technology, and political ideals—are popular, even if American policy is not.

Nuclear Power or Weapons?

Washington believes Iran is developing facilities to produce nuclear weapons. Iran says it will need nuclear energy as oil reserves are depleted. When the shah took the same position, Washington cooperated with him in seeking to build nuclear plants. It is, of course, possible that nuclear power development could lead—if not tightly monitored-to nuclear weapons. Having witnessed Iraq's experiences, few Iranian officials can believe the U.S. or Israel would allow that to happen. Nevertheless, in a neighborhood where there are nukes on all sides, Iran will be tempted to create its own deterrence. Having directly experienced wartime gas attacks from Iraq, moreover, Tehran is building missiles, and might also decide it needs chemical and biological weapons. The problem of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iran is one that will be around a long time and will require constant attention and expert diplomacy.

U.S. Interests and Options

Trying to understand Iran's paranoia, ideology and grievances is important for the U.S. Iran still sits where it always has—between the oil-rich Gulf and emerging Central Asian republics, between the Arab-Israel and South Asian cockpits, and on top of large oil and gas reserves. Although no longer as critical as when it was a wedge in the containment of the Soviet Union, Iran has a potential for great trouble making or for some good in its region. So far the balance is mixed—positive in calming strife in Central Asia, helpful in Afghanistan but consistently—in the eyes of Israel and the U.S.—an irksome challenge. If Washington had normal relations with Tehran the U.S. might exercise a modicum of influence over its behavior—including over the development of WMDs. (Reflect on the crisis that turning our back on North Korea has helped produce.)

If Iran were accepted as a full participant in the world community, it might also be able to be more productive in combating the narcotics trade and joining the fight against terrorism.

Washington once had four complaints against Iran: human rights violations, opposition to the peace process, sponsorship of terrorism and development of WMDs. The first was dropped early on, when Iran was compared with the performance of other allies. The second charge has been silenced by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's negation of the Oslo accords and other peace initiatives. The terrorism complaint is unsupported except by dated and unverifiable secret intelligence reports. WMD production, at this stage, relies on the same kind of sources and is, in effect, a speculation.

So why are there no diplomatic relations between Tehran and Washington? Three reasons: lingering, but (polls show) largely faded American memories of the hostage outrage; the opposition of Supreme Leader Khamenei; and the strong but shady influence Israel and its friends (including extremist Christians and arms salesmen) exercise over Congress, the Pentagon and, via Karl Rove, the presidency. Until the Leader and AIPAC lose their powers, there is little prospect for an American Embassy in Tehran.

Never mind. There are excellent reasons for American officials to seek ways to ease and eventually end the failed policy of economic and political sanctions against Tehran. The U.S. has strong economic interests in greater energy production for the world and a promising market for U.S. investments. It should let business people begin to bridge the gap diplomats cannot approach. The same pragmatic congressmen who were willing to confront special interests in the recent partial liberalization of trade with Cuba should take on the similarly short-sighted Iran policy.

Washington should allow itself to be guided by history, public facts and basic intelligence, rather than questionable secret intelligence and domestic politics. Gradually, very gradually, economic and cultural relations between the two peoples might prosper—a more sensible policy on visas on both sides would help a lot—and then it would not seem so shocking for U.S. and Iranian officials to discuss common problems.

When that day comes, American policy can be tugged out of the black hole now stuffed with obscure political influences and shadowy intelligence operatives,

[DJS]

Saille Willow
Why most do not believe America is fighting the war for Humanitarian reasons.

The reason, Saille, is that the US is not fighting the war for strictly humanitarian reason. We are fighting the war to protect our own national security (AKA get rid of WMD in Iraq and install a new moderate, non aggressive regime). The positive effects on humanitarian issues within Iraq is just icing on the cake.

I will repeat once again, the only justification a nation has for military action is in protecting its national security/interests. This is why Somolia was a debacle before it ever started. This is also why I would never again support military action in Africa (with the exception of Northern Africa lol, or covert special operations ). Africa does not pose a threat to our security or interests in the world. Therefore, you are free to govern yourselves, for the good or the bad. Frankly, it is not really our business. Your continent should be responsible for establishing legitimate, functioning governments. If you were ever to pose a threat to our security or interests that is when we would step in. And we would have every right to do so.