Obama's Contradiction: The Iran-USA Escalation

In May, the Islamic Republic of Iran brokered a deal to transport 1200 kilograms (approximately half) of its enriched Uranium fuel for storage in Turkey--a step to deter ongoing threats of new economic sanctions by the United Nations Security Council. The agreement, facilitated by President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, requires the Turkish government to provide fuel to power a research reactor in Tehran.

The deal echoes a failed UN-backed deal, which called for Iran's low-enriched uranium to be transported to Russia and France for processing. It has been paralyzed for months--primarily due to Iran's lack of trust that reactor-grade fuel will be returned. The Islamic Republic demanded that the transaction occur on Iranian soil, at the same time. Western powers did not find this a valid request.

Despite the apparent de-escalation of Iran's nuclear aspirations, the United States and other Security Council members are not backing down from sanctions. The Iranian government does not plan to cease it's uranium enrichment, though it has vowed to both the international community and its own citizens that intentions are peaceful and civilian.

As we saw in last summer's botched election and ruthless crackdown on peaceful protestors, however, this theocratic regime is not a particularly honest or reliable authority.

That is not to say an escalation of diplomatic conflict is warranted. Especially if the outcome could be full-fledged war. Indeed, the position of President Barack Obama is highly questionable.

On April 20, the White House sent a letter to President Lula da Silva encouraging the deal, saying: "For us, Iran’s agreement to transfer 1,200 kg of Iran’s low enriched uranium (LEU) out of the country would build confidence and reduce regional tensions by substantially reducing Iran’s LEU stockpile." The President did not say it would mean the end of proposed sanctions, but stressed that this deal would send a powerful message to the international community, saying "I would urge Brazil to impress upon Iran the opportunity presented by this offer to 'escrow' its uranium in Turkey while the nuclear fuel is being produced."

Shortly after President Obama's wishes were granted, the sanctions were approved by a unanimous Security Council vote. What does this mean and what are the implications?

The sanctions are intended to target the military leadership of Iran as well as the institutions responsible for uranium enrichment--isolating state-controlled banks from the global financial system and blacklisting petroleum companies. Whether or not the strategy will succeed is unknown. The Bill Clinton sanctions on Iraq brought about the crippling of the Iraqi economy, and is oft-cited as an underlying cause of the mass looting and poverty-induced crime that so destabilized the country post-invasion. The Iran sanctions appear to be more focused on leadership, but there is no telling what effect they might have, or if they will be expanded.

Though the mainstream media will not attempt to analyze the contradictory behavior of the reformer President, it is vital that we ask why he voiced such support for the Turkey-Brazil deal in the first place? Why would this success not be praised? It is a clear improvement from the recent past, but is met with further escalation.

Perhaps it is an issue of American hegemony--that the USA was not a part of the negotiations delegitimizes the agreement for many in the Washington establishment. If other states are able to accomplish diplomatic goals that Americans are not, does this undermine USA's position as the sole super-power? Is peace truly the priority of this escalation?

How to Change a Culture: Question of Imperialists

What is the U.S. military's goal in Afghanistan?  This is a difficult question to answer.  It ought to puzzle the most intellectual of minds because no single response could make sense entirely.  The American Revolution was a conflict to break from the bondage of an empire.  The Civil War was a battle for national identity and unity.  World War II had a concrete objective: to defeat fascist aggressors in Europe, and end Japanese imperialism.  These are wars with clear objective and victory.


Afghanistan on the other hand?  We invaded to destroy Al Qaeda, but we remain to rebuild a nation.  What could this possibly mean?  No one knows, apparently.  The fact that we support its shameful democracy is proof of our misdirected efforts.  The U.S.-backed Karzai Administration casts an inescapable shadow of corruption over the entire government.  Scandal and fraud have plagued his recent reelection, delegitimizing the very democracy we have set in place. 


Corruption aside, this sham of a government does not seem to be a whole lot better than Taliban rule.  A provision in legislation passed this April states: "...a wife is obliged to fulfill the sexual desires of her husband..."  What this could mean I do not know, though some have said this law essentially condones rape.  Mastermind of the law, Ayatollah Mohammed Asef Mohseni (yes, Ayatollah), defends the statute by refuting Western analysis, and claiming that married women do indeed have the right to refuse sex, though "If a woman says no, the man has the right not to feed her."  Oh okay, cool.  All cleared up.  Thanks Asef!


But the perverted and broken government of Afghanistan are actually not my primary arguments against the war.  No, my critique is one against the imperialist mind.  We Americans are, after all, imperialists, plain and simple.  Two countries we now occupy (facilitated by foreign mercenaries... ask me), with hundreds upon hundreds of military installations throughout the world... the aggressors in over 200 conflicts since 1945.  We alone determine global economic policy.
     
Living in the Empire has many perks, I must say.  I've had a privileged life (though not without my parents' comprehensive health insurance plan) and we are all blessed with relatively few foreign attacks (with two days of exception, of course).  This country is somehow able to wage endless wars without the public even remembering!  A miracle?  Must be! "A million Iraqis died?  Oh, hey did you see that new iPhone app?  Pretty sweet, huh.  Tiger Woods had an affair?  What sport does he play again?  Hey, pass the cocaine.  And hand me that silly as shit magazine.  Yeah, the one about nothing."
     
When I bring up Afghanistan in public, I most often get a "remember 9/11" line or some defensive variation of our "moral duty" to save those people over there.  Who are they again?  Also popular is the "we broke it, we bought it" line.  These latter defenses seem silly to me, though they are common to the 'moral' imperialists.  To address the 9/11-imperialists: Al Qaeda does not even need Afghanistan because they have such a wonderful home in Pakistan to conduct operations.  Al Qaeda left long ago, and if they ever returned from over the Kush Mountains, they would not have nearly comparable resources as they had further East.
     
The 'moral' imperialists talk about some kind of higher responsibility to save these people.  But really we should not be meddling in such drastic ways in foreign lands at all.  It is just so imperial to believe in your state's sole right to wage devastating wars and heartless occupations in the name of Freedom.  That is not Freedom, that is tyranny.  President Washington would be ashamed.  Jefferson too.  Barack Obama says we are fighting for something just, but is it 'just' to impede on another's sovereignty?  To be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands?  What American cares about those people?  Please, tell me if you do!
     
We are trying to change cultures.  Cultures that are so unlike ours we cannot imagine.  We do not understand--or even bother to understand--the Muslim world.  Perhaps we never will.  The West spent many centuries fighting its own religious wars, yet we seem to believe it is possible for a foreign occupation to end ideological feuds in a matter of years.  It cannot be done, and thus we have no business in such affairs.

The Pressure of Peace

While I'm not sure I understand exactly why the Nobel Committee in Norway decided upon Barack Obama as winner of the Peace Prize so early in the game, I'd like to try and imagine the potential of this strategic gesture.

This award is a call of expectations of the freshman President.  It is also a vote of confidence in the American electorate.  You see, President Bush changed the world forever-- he began a war of fear and intimidation.  He destabilized entire regions of the globe, and caused Iran to rush to arms.  Mr. Bush was a President for war, and one who reflected the values of the imperial elites of the United States.

But America said no, and elected a man who promised peace.  For this, every American deserves this award because it is WE who determine our country's policies and rulers.  We chose peace, and this seems to have been recognized by members of the international community.

Now the pressure of the world is on, and the world demands a peaceful USA.  But it is vital that we ask ourselves: what does their opinion matter?  Why should we listen to the desires of other states?

These are common questions-- and they are fair questions.  We are a sovereign state with the power to act in whichever way we see fit.  But what must not be forgotten is that because of our extraordinary wealth, power and influence, our choices ripple throughout the world in ways that we cannot imagine.  It is easy for American to lose touch of global realities because we are essentially an island.  We are not surrounded by nations with ancient traditions of conflict.  We do not know what it was like to be invaded and occupied by brutal militaries.  We cannot fathom the imagery of a holocaust in our backyard.

The fact of the matter is that there are deep global problems that cannot be solved without an engaged, informed United States.  Europe understands it.  We seem to be realizing it.

While Americans are essentially a peace-loving people, they are
also a distant, and easily convinced people.  We are duped into wars of "liberation" and "freedom."  We want peace, but our fault lies in the belief that war solves all problems.  That war yields peace.

Some of our allies across the pond understand that if the people of the United States of America do not break free from the bondage of the industrial-military complex, we will go the way of all empires.  Our potential to do remarkable things will wilt away, and the story of American democracy will be mere whispers of legend.

So let us unleash ourselves from this militaristic society.  Let us fight in ways we haven't yet thought.  Let us take the Nobel Prize and show everyone that we can be with the world, not at odds with it.

People, call your congressmen and women and senators--tell them where you stand.  President Obama, fight those generals and do what is right.  Be strong and call your people to action.  We'll fight with you.

Or against you.

Pakistan Crisis: the Military, Politics, and Role of the USA Pt. 3

Here is the final part of a Pakistani perspective. Regardless of how you believe, this is a thoughtful essay and important to think about.

Judgement Day for the Pure, Part III
by G, the Legend
The US of A: Can they be trusted?

o Everyone in the Muslim / Arab / Developing world loves to bash America. For most countries its enough that they’re rich, we’re poor, and they seem so much happier than us and that just can’t be fair at all. With Muslims and Islam in the mix, the picture gets murkier. Their policies to the Arab world vis a vis their unflinching support for Israel and turning a blind eye to all atrocities committed against Palestinians has been a gaping, open wound to all Muslims around the world. The fact that the US has become almost incapable of changing its tone and taking an objective view of ground realities has become inexcusable; the policy of choosing who to negotiate with is over, as organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah now have strong local, democratic support, largely due to the success of successive Israeli military campaigns in creating alienation, oppression and hatred amongst the people they rule over. The presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia, as a response to the aggression of a repressive, inhuman military dictator in Iraq who was himself a recipient of US funding and support against Iran, just crystallizes the West’s image in the Muslim world as a power with double standards and worthless promises. The trust deficit of the US from a Muslim standpoint is too great; we cannot simply take their word for it that they won’t leave us high and dry the next time they want to sell things to India, but I doubt our political leaders have the stature or vision to stand up for Pakistani interests.

o The current problem of Talibanization in Pakistan has its roots in the oft repeated saga of American cold war support of the Afghan Mujahideen. While it’s true and we did fight the American’s war for them, the reality is that we did so on extremely favorable terms of payment and by means left entirely up to our own devising. The army received huge payments during the entire Soviet occupation, and the method of adapting an ideology to prey on the marginalized, poor, downtrodden and persecuted is a creation of Pakistani operational needs. This was not the only way to win that war, but we chose it wholeheartedly and kept at it many, many years after the war ended. The Americans are notoriously shortsighted, and the patchwork of American military bases and precarious diplomatic ties in every region shows just how much vision (or lack thereof) they exercise in conflict zones. However, our problems at this juncture, the growing polarization between rural and urban areas, the spread of jihadist, sectarian and extremist organizations across the country, and the lack of any social discourse on a contrary national ideology to fundamentalism, are entirely of our own making.

We need to accept that whatever the US does, its job has always been to supports its people’s global interests, not holding our hand and nursing us out of sickness; as a sovereign nation ourselves, if anyone we have been remiss in putting the priorities of Pakistan above the requirements of other countries, and it is our leaders who are to blame. It is us, the privileged, English speaking, big spending elite that has let this country down by being uncaring, un-patriotic spectators of a grand Tamasha. We are complicit in the looting of our national resources over the last 60 years because not once have we exerted influence or tried to be heard, mainly because we have benefited quite well from the injustice. The economics of neglect and apathy has been exceptionally generous to the rich in Pakistan, and that is why we find ourselves here today; in 4 provinces, those with means see a different, modern, progressive Pakistan, while the majority of our countrymen’s lives are so miserable that they can only see the world of salvation or death. We failed them by not demanding that they be fed, clothed and educated as is their right, we never gave them a chance to escape the dark specter of poverty as it snatched away children, tore apart families, shot up neighborhoods and reduced hundreds of thousands to starvation. These are the sins we pay for today, so please Pakistanis, don’t simply blame America. If you need someone to hate, look in the mirror. We have slipped and fallen, our halo is gone, our face is wrinkled and our skin is decaying; we can no longer cling to the names of Iqbal and Jinnah like talismans, hoping their spirit will guide us through the dark. We need to act now to save Pakistan from becoming a polarized, fractious, ethnic hodge-podge of a country, where our cities have curfews and rampant violence, and our villages grow terror and hatred rather than wheat and maize. If we are to live and prosper, we must act now; else we must recognize that tomorrow may never be the same again.

Pakistan Crisis: the Military, Politics, and Role of the USA Pt. 2

Judgement Day for the Pure, PART II
by G, the Legend

Politics: The security situation of the country is better known to insiders, this is simply a summary of speculation and analysis available in the world media and on your local TV channels. The real inside story may yet be far too real for us to handle. This is probably why most elected leaders have chosen this critical time to remain silent and meditate on what to buy with their recently increases salaries.

o It is an indictment of our political leaders that the passing of the Peace Accord / Surrender Agreement in Swat was done with a unanimous vote and without disagreement, with almost all major political parties on board. To give credit where it’s due, the only party that actually staged a walkout and has been on the case of this peace deal from the very beginning has been the MQM. This is while the ANP continues to extol the virtues of ‘peacemaking’ in spectacularly shortsighted fashion, while the PPP dishes out its daily dose of inane, nonsensical statements and political gaffes. The PML-N has done absolutely nothing to oppose this deal, and despite riding back to power on the coattails of the ‘people’, it seems content to wait around in the Punjab till this whole thing blows over. Maybe they’re planning to make Lahore the capital once the Taliban take over Islamabad, who knows; for now, I think its about time for Nawaz Sharif to make use of the immense political leverage he can gain in the West by coming out against the militants. Some recent anti-Taliban statements suggest that he may be positioning himself to the US as a better qualified, better supported and more legitimate leader for the country. Whether this plan works or not depends entirely on how bad Zardari lets things get, and how fast.

o What does Zardari really want? When I discussed the military’s thought process above, it was under the assumption that the PPP government was for a resolution of the Swat situation under peaceful means. Whether this is true or not is also another aspect up for debate. The PPP historically went into Karachi, its own city, with all guns blazing to cleanse it from the ethnic violence of the 90s, yet now it balks at the concept of establishing the writ of the government and prioritizing national security over shortsighted ‘peace’. Maybe I’m just cynical, but more talking and less shooting just doesn’t strike me as their administrative style. I guess the real question is who is really in charge? Are Zardari’s hands tied by the military, is he calling the shots or are both colluding to keep the Americans spinning? We won’t know for many years till its all over, and I can’t speculate any more based on my information than I already have; but if one thing is for certain, inaction, incompetence and insincerity on behalf of the incumbent government is a great part of why we are here today.

Pakistan Crisis: the Military, Politics, and Role of the USA Pt. I

Hey all, not sure sure if you've been following the situation in Pakistan (it's the big country sharing borders with Afghanistan, India, and Iran), but since the civilian government took power not long ago, instability has been on the rise. Taliban militants have gotten close to the capital, and this is worrisome not only to the global community, but to the people of Pakistan. Remember that this is a country with a nuclear arsenal, so the resolution of this crisis is of utmost importance. I will dedicate the next three entries to addressing this issue. Here is the first part of an essay by a friend of a friend:

Judgement Day for the Pure
by G, the Legend

As of today, the Swat Taliban have expanded the territory under their influence from North & South Waziristan, Bajaur and Swat to the adjacent district of Buner, and have made clear their intentions of continuing to push towards Mardan, Shangla and onwards. Wherever they go they bring with them their brand of hardcore ideology, a perversion if Islamic beliefs that reflect nothing but the bare essentials needed to subvert the local populace and wield power with an iron fist.

The Pakistani Taliban are different from the Afghan Taliban in the respect that these fighters have no need to justify their existence by relying on an ideological position, such as the expulsion of US & NATO forces from Afghanistan on religious grounds; rather they are simply opportunists taking advantage of a socio-economic meltdown and gross government mismanagement to make as many gains as they can before consolidating their position. All they are really doing is making use of the disenchantment of the poor by offering them money and weapons to take on the status quo. They are preaching ‘empowerment’ and ‘virtue’ derived through the barrel of a gun, and they are taking areas under their control to a system of anarchy, barbarism and ignorance, matched only by the 7 years of Taliban rule in Afghanistan. Can we afford to let wide swathes of our land be occupied and governed by terrorist organizations that would rather enslave or kill us than enter the political mainstream? Will we let our next generation be brainwashed into becoming the tools of hate-mongers and extremists? These questions need to be answered with facts, not conjecture, rhetoric or bombast, as our nation to know the truth. If you feel the need to be informed, search no further, just read on:

Wait, Global Terrorist State, What!! How on Earth Did We Get Here?

Many Pakistanis who left the country in the last decade would be surprised to see just how far we have fallen in so short a time. Under the heavy cover of Musharraf’s 10 years in office, the Pakistani people rarely knew what deals were struck with militant groups in the North in exchange for peace or what resources were shared with the Americans in exchange for a free flow of easy money into our system. With civilians in power our policy making has been exposed as shortsighted in the least and a shambles at best. We pretend we can sign ‘peace’ agreements with terrorists who strike at the hearts of our cities, attacking innocent civilians, infrastructure and security installations with gusto and proudly taking responsibility for their actions. Our military and intelligence establishment thinks it can play both sides, funding and propping up militant leaders who have been useful in the past as well as trying to sell the idea to the Americans that we have accepted the idea of ‘Pakistan’s War’. Truly, sieving truth from all the garbled information is difficult, but it’s always good to start with what we know:

* Military: Despite the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan over 2 decades ago, the Pakistan army has continued to fund militant groups both in Pakistan and along the border areas of Balochistan and Afghanistan. Part of this policy is a legacy issue from the Zia regime, but today there are known links of the Pakistan Army to militant groups like those run by Mullah (Col.) Nazir on the Pak-Afghan border, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar along the Baloch-Afghan border and Jalaluddin Haqqani in the area close to disputed Kashmir. These groups have served Pakistan’s security interests in the past by taking on the armed struggle for liberation in Kashmir, reducing India’s influence in Afghanistan to prevent the opening of ‘two fronts’ in the event of a conflict, and working with the army against even more dangerous groups like Baitullah Mehsud’s network of Taliban that is decidedly anti-government. They have been on our payroll for decades, and the big question is whether the army has the will to take the tough decisions Pakistan finds itself faced with. The return of Pakistan to democratic rule (not democracy by far) has seen a complete turnaround in public statements and the PR policy of the Pakistan government. Whatever the government’s actions, under Musharraf we had a fixed public position on terrorism:

o Pakistan doesn’t fund or support any kind of militants or terrorist groups
o All Taliban are foreigners and have no indigenous support
o Differentiate between Pakistani tribal militant groups who fight for economic gain and self interest, and fundamentalist Jihadi/Terrorist groups like Al Qaeda
o Osama bin Laden is NOT in Pakistan
o The military and civilian government is in complete agreement and unity over the fact that Pakistanis are FOR Peace, Democracy and ‘Enlightened Moderation’

As a result of this unified policy, the Republicans were kind enough to fund our nation’s economy for a good 7 years before the global economic collapse. Under civilian government, our arguments radically changed, becoming akin to a daily airing of years of dirty laundry:

*
o Taliban are Pakistanis, extremists are Pakistanis, and so the army can’t fight ‘its own people’. Ironic?
o ‘Rogue’ elements of the ISI exist not under Pakistani government control (who can apparently carry off attacks on Mumbai hotels and embassies in Kabul)
o The Pakistan army ‘surrendered’ and ‘lost’ to 6,000-8,000 militants in Swat, forcing our hand on the peace deal
o ‘Osama is our muslim brother and is welcome in our areas anytime’ (a widely reported quote from the Swat Taliban spokesperson)

This is a startling change in our public discourse. Where once we battled Uzbek, Tajik, Arab and Chechnyan Taliban on our borders, less than a year later it seems they are all made up of Pakistani militant leaders who are better established in those areas than our own army. Did all of this happen magically while we weren’t looking? On one hand, while these revelations show the incompetence of the incumbent government in handling national security matters in the media, it is also a reflection of how populist politics results in shortsighted and ultimately costly decisions for Pakistan. I don’t believe for a second that our army can’t totally eradicate the Pakistani Taliban if it wanted to…after all, these are the same militant leaders that have been funded and nurtured by our security establishment for over 20 years. It is a known fact that these organizations count amongst their numbers several former army personnel. If we don’t have the ability to carry out an operation on our own territory, 60 miles from the capital city, then I’m assuming we just bought our nukes right off a shelf in Beijing. It is obvious governments cannot be telling the truth, and that such a huge change cannot happen in less than a year. As to what it does mean, I boil it down to three options, as follows:

* The Pakistan Army does not have the will to fight Pakistani Taliban groups, because:
o It is waiting for its security concerns to be recognized by the West, and assurances/arrangements be made to protect Pakistan before turning on the Pakistani Taliban support network, OR

o It is creating a situation where the US views a civilian government as a liability, and is more than happy to accept a military ruler as state head as long as the job gets done, OR

o This last one is the scariest: It could just be that the military cannot make up its mind. 20 years and many ideologues later, perhaps building the support within the nation’s security and intelligence establishment to take on groups viewed for some time as a virtual extension of Pakistan’s last resort security policy isn’t as easy as giving out orders. An internal split between our national interests and the ulterior motives of select security personnel/agencies represents the gravest danger to our nation imaginable. Why? Because it means we can’t trust the army, the Americans can’t trust us, and then the line between Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq begins to go even blurrier in the minds of the foreign geo-strategist. If, at any point, the world begins to actually listen to the Indian argument (let us send Indian troops to Taliban areas with your blessing, we’ll ‘secure’ everything), it could be the end of an entire nation.

Obama Myth: The Revised Blueprint for Change

When it became clear that Barack Obama would win the presidency, I was watching an appearance by Ralph Nader who was explaining what he believed would happen early on in the first term. He predicted that the supporters would say: "Give him a chance." There is much to be changed, and it will take time. The first hundred days go by... not a whole lot of change, but hey, he's workin on it... right?

Wrong: Only a swindler as masterful as Barry Obama could oversee the largest corporate welfare program ever seen by human civilization, expand an endless, and unpopular, war of ideology, and refuse to uphold basic rule of law, while calling it the "Blueprint for Change" and enjoying widespread fascination of the masses at the same time. (breathe)

For the masses I present the "Revised Blueprint for Change":

1. Holy change and hope, Batman! There's an economic disaster in our midst! Gotta act fast!
-oversee corporate adoption... check
-submit to the banking oligarchy... check
-don't ask for much in return (don't want to piss off the oligarchy)... check
-spend taxpayer dollars like a yiked up japanese girl taking pics in nyc... in progress
-spend taxpayer dollars like a pretween taking pics at a Jonas Bros. 3D fiesta... in progress and lovin it

2. Declare an end to the occupation of Iraq... check
-provision: don't mean it

3. Buy stupid looking dog for girls... check

4. Frame the Afghanistan effort as "winnable"... workin on it
-oh, and maintain exorbitant military budget, while selling it to the public as "deep cuts"... check

5. Ba-rock the empire... progressing with crisp style

6. Defeat Swine flu pandemic with rainbow sword (aka 3 wood)... reworking strategy

7. appease the middle class and win re-election... like pie

8. Pardon Bush and Cheney... tba

Got any more? Let's hear!

[editor's note, 10.26.2009-- This was a harsh assessment, but reflects a very real anger.  Obama should have taken a stand against Wall Street bailouts, but understand that Congress is the real problem.  President Barry is far more promising than that raucous bunch!]

A Huffington Post

Will The Madoff Debacle Finally End The "Who Could Have Known?" Era?

by Arianna Huffington

See if this sounds familiar:

An ambitious and risky undertaking carried out with hubris, and featuring the weeding out of anyone who raises alarm bells, little-to-no transparency, an oversight system in which no central authority is accountable, and the deliberate manufacturing of ambiguity and complexity so that if -- when -- it all falls to pieces, the excuse "who could have known?" can be used....

Is it Iraq? Fannie Mae? Citigroup? Bernie Madoff?

The correct answer is: all of the above.

When you look at the elements that were crucial to the creation of each of these debacles, it's amazing how much in common they all have. And not just in how they began but in how they ended: with those responsible being amazed at what happened, because...who could have known? Well, to paraphrase James Inhofe, I'm amazed at the amazement.

In fact, when historians look for a name that sums up the Bush II years, they could do worse than calling them The "Who Could Have Known?" Era.

Each of the disasters listed above was entirely predictable. And, indeed, was predicted. But those who rang the alarm bells were aggressively ignored, which is why it's important that we not let those responsible get away with the "Who Could Have Known?" excuse.

Let's start with Iraq -- specifically the reconstruction of Iraq. This weekend the New York Times got its hands on the unpublished 513-page federal history of the reconstruction. It's not pretty. As the Times puts it: it was "an effort crippled before the invasion by Pentagon planners who were hostile to the idea of rebuilding a foreign country, and then molded into a $100 billion failure by bureaucratic turf wars, spiraling violence and ignorance of the basic elements of Iraqi society and infrastructure." As a result, almost six years and $117 billion later, many essential services are only now reaching pre-war levels.

The report quotes Colin Powell on how the Pentagon, to cover up its failures, "kept inventing numbers of Iraqi security forces [that had reached readiness] -- the number would jump 20,000 a week! 'We now have 80,000, we now have 100,000, we now have 120,000.' "

Hmm, making up numbers to realize a short-term gain, but which end up making the inevitable long-term reckoning much worse? Sounds a lot like what was happening at Citigroup at around the same time.

In late 2002, Charles Prince was put in charge of the company's corporate and investment bank. The banking giant was already knee deep in toxic paper and aggressively looking the other way.

He was so successful at averting his eyes that when, five years later, as Wall Street began to feel the initial shocks of the mortgage meltdown, he was told that the bank owned $43 billion in mortgage-related assets -- it was the first he'd heard of it. Isn't that something he should have known? Or did he prefer not knowing?

Prince had plenty of help ignoring the obvious, particularly from Robert Rubin. According to a former Citigroup executive quoted in the long New York Times analysis of Citi's downfall, despite ascending to the top of the Citi food chain, Prince "didn't know a C.D.O. from a grocery list, so he looked for someone for advice and support. That person was Rubin."

When it all came tumbling down, both Rubin and Prince portrayed themselves as helpless victims of circumstance, because...Who Could Have Known?

"I've thought a lot about that," Rubin said when asked if he made mistakes at Citigroup. "I honestly don't know. In hindsight, there are a lot of things we'd do differently. But in the context of the facts as I knew them and my role, I'm inclined to think probably not."

What he means, of course, is the facts as he chose to know them.

Prince's head is even higher in the clouds: "Anything," he said, "based on human endeavor and certainly any business that involves risk-taking, you're going to have problems from time to time."

Sounds like he's reading from the same damage control playbook as former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines. According to Raines, he can't be blamed for what happened at Fannie Mae because mortgage stuff is so, well, complicated. In fact, he can't even understand his own mortgage: "I know I can't and I've tried," Raines told a House committee last week. "To this day, I don't know what it said... It's impossible for the average person to understand" mortgage terms such as negative amortization. In other words, Who Could Have Known?

Committee chair Henry Waxman wasn't buying it: "These documents make clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac knew what they were doing. Their own risk managers raised warning after warning about the dangers of investing heavily in the subprime and alternative mortgage markets."

Ignoring warning after warning is an essential element of the "Who Could Have Known?" excuse, as are rewriting history and shamelessly disregarding the foresight shown by those who sounded the alarm bells.

We're seeing the same ingredients in the Madoff affair. "We have worked with Madoff for nearly 20 years," said Jeffrey Tucker, a former federal regulator and the head of an investment firm facing losses of $7.5 billion. "We had no indication that we...were the victims of such a highly sophisticated, massive fraudulent scheme." It's a sentiment echoed by Arthur Levitt, the former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission: "I've known [Madoff] for nearly 35 years, and I'm absolutely astonished."

Who Could Have Known?

Well, Harry Markopoulos, for one. In 1999, after researching Madoff's methods, Markopolos wrote a letter to the SEC saying, "Madoff Securities is the world's largest Ponzi Scheme." He pursued his claims with the feds for the next nine years, with little result.

Jim Vos, another investment adviser who had examined Madoff's firm, says: "There's no smoking gun, but if you added it all up you wonder why people either did not get it or chose to ignore the red flags."

The answer comes from Vos's cohort Jake Walthour Jr., who told HuffPost blogger Vicky Ward: "In a bull market no one bothers to ask how the returns are met, they just like the returns."

Hasn't the "Who Could Have Known?" excuse been exposed as a sham enough times to render it obsolete?

Apparently not. Here come the Bush Legacy Project's revisionists expecting us to believe that everyone thought Saddam had WMD -- even though many were on record saying he didn't.

In the wake of 9/11, Condi Rice assured us nobody "could have predicted" that someone "would try to use an airplane as a missile." Except, of course, the government report that in 1999 said, "Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House."

After Katrina, the White House read from the "Who Could Have Known?" hymnal: No one could have predicted that the storm would be a Category 5, and that this could result in the levees being breached. We now know, of course, that plenty of people knew that the levees could be breached and said so before the storm hit.

Then there is Alan Greenspan, who, looking back in October of this year on the makings of the financial crisis he helped create (I mean, that just happened to come out of nowhere) delivered this "Who Could Have Known?" classic: "If all those extraordinarily capable people were unable to foresee the development of this critical problem...we have to ask ourselves: Why is that? And the answer is that we're not smart enough as people. We just cannot see events that far in advance."

The only problem is, many people did see events that far in advance.

Unlike Greenspan, I don't believe the problem is that we are "not smart enough as people." As we've seen time after time, smart enough people are all too willing to ignore facts they don't like. Or, even worse, they construct oversight systems designed to be ineffective -- and unable to provide to those in power information they don't really want to know.

Much has been made of the smartness of Obama's new team. But I'm hoping that their defining characteristic won't be their IQs but their willingness to confront reality and take responsibility for their decisions.

It's time to say goodbye to the "Who Could Have Known?" era. It's time to know things again. And to know that you know them.

The Military-Industrial Complex: It's Real

The "Military-Industrial Complex". It characterizes one of the most influential (and terrifying) undercurrents of power in the United States government, and conceptualizes the fusion of government and military business. The term, immortalized by President Eisenhower in his farewell address, refers to the dangerous relationship between government and "for-profit" business, which fuels "for-profit" conflicts and wars. And what a perfect example we have in front of us!

On the Iraq war, author and journalist Naomi Klein said on Democracy NOW:

And one of the things that I think is most important for progressives to challenge is the discourse that everything in Iraq is a disaster. I think we need to start asking and insisting, disaster for who [?], because not everybody is losing. It’s certainly a disaster for the Iraqi people. It’s certainly a disaster for US taxpayers. But what we have seen—and it’s extremely clear if we track the numbers—is that the worse things get in Iraq, the more privatized this war becomes, the more profitable this war becomes for companies like Lockheed Martin, Bechtel, and certainly Blackwater. There is a steady mission creep in Iraq, where the more countries pull out, the more contractors move in...

Do you know how many American troops are currently stationed in Iraq? Answer: 160,000

Do you know how many Blackwater-soldiers-for-hire (aka mercenaries...not all BW) there are in Iraq? Answer: 180,000 (highlight to see answer... so you can guess) ...source.

And guess how many Blackwater mercenaries have been prosecuted for crimes in Iraq? Answer: 0!

Moral implications aside (like how the war has cost probably over 1 million Iraqi lives), let's try to bring this back to the economy. Francis Ferguson, phD economist, explains his view:

As the US slides into recession, economists wonder why the massive government spending on Afghanistan and Iraq provides so little economic stimulus. World War Two brought an immediate end to the Great Depression, yet a current $600 billion dollar defense budget (not counting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) does little to stop the emerging recession. Part of the minimal effect results from the fact that we were already spending well over $300 billion on the military prior to 9/11, whereas the US defense budget was trivial prior to the beginning of World War II. The other reason for the minimal economic stimulus lies in the fact that so much of the expenditure goes to fund wages and corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so much flows as excess profits to American corporations rather than into the pockets of American workers who would have a greater tendency to spend those earnings here. Finally, even the portion of war spending that does flow to American workers has, today, a very high probability of being used to buy imported consumer goods, providing stimulus, ironically, to our friends the Chinese—the very people who fund our wars (but that's another story).

So why do I bring this up today? Well it's still quite relevant, and I think people should be concerned about it and the effects upon the country and world. But the New York Times actually brought me back to this important issue in their 11/29 article entitled "One Man’s Military-Industrial-Media Complex"--which places special emphasis on the media's role is fueling the MIC. It's long, but important... please read. Thanks.

The Bailout Passed, but Check this Out!

Yes, the new bailout passed in the Senate, and tomorrow it goes to the House for a vote. My uncle brought my attention to this petition ... basically a bunch of the nation's leading economists came together to say that the bailout is a terrible idea: that is, it will disrupt the markets long term, it is unfair to the taxpayers, and it's really shady (they say ambiguous). Essentially what I said before (I think), but this time from experts!

But those in power will do what they want. If they want to go to war against a random country for trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives, they will. If they want to give $700 billion to their Wall Street friends and co-workers, they will. If those from within commit crimes, the investigations (if any) will be insufficient and false. This is the age-old story of government.

PS: Obama, McCain, and Biden all voted for the bailout ... I think we all know why.

PPS: Palin showed up to vote, but was told she couldn't.

My Thoughts on the Bailout

Full disclosure: I don't understand the economy like I should (though I'm working on it), but I have been carefully listening to various explanations of what is going on, and what should be done--in fact, the more I read about it, the more I understand that most people don't get it either.

I was watching C-SPAN the other day (we had to for class... seriously), and this Senator from ND named Byron Dorgan was talking about this thing called the Glass-Steagall Act, which was repealed in 1999 (when the Senate voted for the further deregulation of the banks and end of GS, Dorgan said: "I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this, but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past... and that that which is true in the 1930s is true in 2010.")

In response to the Wall Street crash of 1929 and the resulting banking failures of the Depression, the U.S. government implemented a series of bank regulations within the Glass-Steagall Act. It created the Federal Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and introduced reforms that were to control speculation. Basically what it did was separate "banks that did risky investing from those that did basic lending" (NYT). Without the regulations, firms began taking bad mortgages and risking lenders' money. When the value of houses went down, the banks were stuck with all these mortgages, etc. etc.... And my understanding quickly dissipates from there (it's much more fun to discuss foreign policy!).

But essentially Glass-Steagall divided the banks into the safe banks that the public could depend on to be consistent, and the risk-taking banks who were allowed to make reckless investments. When this divide was eliminated, all the banks started taking huge risks with your money, and now it's all going to hell.

So the first bailout plan was 4 pages long and called for the Congress to hand over $700 billion to the Wall Street honchos to save their tails, no questions asked--thereby rescuing "Main Street" (what they are calling the common folk). The second one was longer, but still involved giving $700 billion to the same guys who got us into this mess. Granted I don't have a great grasp on all of the technicalities, but this seems REALLY SHADY. I really think that the federal government is being exposed for what it truly is: the Wall Street government. They reap in billions as a result of the criminal and disastrous Iraq War, and now they are trying to make out like bandits by getting a free pass for their reckless actions. When the Treasury Secretary is a former Golman Sachs exec, and the EPA is headed by energy company execs, something has gone terribly wrong.

When did our government become dominated by the selfish elitists? How did they take it from us? More importantly, what happened the last time Americans were abused by their rich minority leadership?

The Conclusion: Iran, Iraq, and the United States Post 2003 part 7

For those of you who have been following this paper, thanks! It took a long time and a lot of research. If you'd like to read the whole thing, or to look at my Works Cited, go HERE. Also, I'd like to know how people liked the essay. Was it interesting enough? Did it help broaden your understanding in any way? Give it a rating and a comment if you want! Well here it is... the conclusion:

...With respect to the United States’ position towards Iran and its affairs with Iraq, the situation is quite complex. The neoconservative mission to establish regime change in Iran is certainly coming to odds against the idea that Iran is going to be a prolonged and even vital part of the future of Iraq. It seems as though the neoconservatives did not anticipate that the regime change in Iraq would drastically change the regional situation and make Iran more of a necessary force. Whether or not this fact will put a hold on the agenda is another matter.

It seems that Iran would not have much of a purpose to support insurgency efforts directed at undermining the Iranian-backed Iraqi government, no matter what U.S. officials may say—there is no solid evidence, and it is not a reasonable assumption. It is true that Iranian weapons are being used by people outside the “circle of Iranian and U.S. allies, but that doesn’t prove people’s loyalities. Saying that al-Sadr is loyal to Iran because his militias had some Iranian missiles is equivalent to saying that … [he] is loyal to the Soviet Union because they had some AK-47s.”[41]

But even if the Iranians were supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents, on what basis does the United States have the right to criticize? The U.S. preemptively invaded a sovereign nation, and is now an occupying force—Noam Chomsky says that in that situation, “you can’t have a serious discussion on whether or not someone else is interfering.”[42] It is a matter of imperial arrogance that drives this policy—the neoconservative belief in a new Middle East that is pro-United States. As a neighboring country, Iran certainly has more at stake in the future stability of the region—and that is a fact that should be respected. Iran will continue to be a vital presence in the future of Iraq, and the United States can either maintain its drumbeat towards another war, or it can turn to Iran for help in re-stabilizing the region that it so disrupted.

Iran, Iraq, and the United States Post 2003: Part 6

Okay, here is part 6 of my paper on the Iran-Iraq-U.S. situation post 2003. This is actually the first half of the conclusion... so only one more part to go! Oh yeah, and if you want to catch up on the previous installment (or just want them available for reference) check'em out: part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, and part 5.  Also, if you just want to read the whole thing (plus the Works Cited), go here.

....The fall of Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime in 2003 marked a new era in the relationship of Iran and Iraq. A once conflicted and even hateful affiliation as a result of territorial disputes, diplomatic breakdown, and aggression, has become something entirely new. Iran is now a key player in the inner-dynamics of Iraqi politics, and is being looked upon as a key stabilizing force. In fact, the stabilization of Iraq is in the best interests of Iran—especially if the resulting Iraqi leadership is friendly to Iran.

Iraqi fears of an overly influential Iran are also at play. Certain secular forces are concerned that an Iranian-style theocracy will be harbored within the walls of Iraqi government, and some Sunnis are also worried that a Shiite “crescent” is being created in the region. Though Iranian influence within Iraqi politics is undeniable, it is worthy to note that Iraqi groups maintain their independence from Iran. Muqtada al-Sadr, for example, said in an interview that he told Ayatollah Khamenei (the Iranian Supreme Leader) “we share the same ideology, but that politically and militarily, I would not be an extension of Iran, and that there were negative things that Iran was doing in Iraq.”[40]

It is important to remember that while Iranians and Iraqis may share ideology, they are still ethnically diverse. From different lineages and with different languages, it is difficult for me to imagine that Iraqis would be willing to be controlled by Iran—there is still a strong sense of nationalism among Iraqis that I believe would prevent an Iranian-based, theocratic government in Iraq. That is not to say that Iran’s influence is irrelevant, because it most certainly is not. As we saw in the Basra situation, Iran holds a considerable amount of sway over the various forces in Iraq.

State of Affairs

Did you know that if you and I had a conversation that was critical of the Bush Administration's policy in Iraq, that we could be labelled as "conspirators" according to an Executive Order dated July 17, 2007?  Our assets can be frozen, our homes can be seized, and we can be rendered as "non-persons" by the U.S. government.  Habeas Corpus has been thrown out the window; we are a nation that tortures; the U.S. government defied international law, and illegally invaded a sovereign nation based on a false premise -- oh yeah, and they are listening in on your conversations --and cutting health care for kids... and the media is totally complicit.

I hope you are upset.  

Iran, Iraq, and the United States Post 2003: Part 5

The next part on my essay dealing with the geo-political aspects of the relationship between Iran, Iraq, and the U.S.A. post 2003 (see the others in the recent archives):

Though much emphasis has been put on some of the more friendly aspects of Iranian-Iraqi relations, there are those Iraqis who oppose Iranian influence. The underlying fear is that Iran will take advantage of Iraq in its weakened state—attempting to instill its own theocratic government. In July 2004, “Iraqi interim Defense Minister Hazem Sha’alan proclaimed that Iran remained his country’s ‘first enemy’, supporting ‘terrorism and bringing enemies into Iraq … Iran interferes in order to kill democracy.’”[34] Sha’alan added that the Iranians “are fighting us because we want to build freedom and democracy, and they want to build an Islamic dictatorship and have turbaned clerics to rule in Iraq.”[35] In addition to this fear, “King Abdullah II of Jordan warned that repercussions of Iran’s influence in Iraq could be felt throughout the region and could lead to a ‘crescent’ of dominant Shiite movements or governments stretching through Iraq and into Syria, Lebanon and the Gulf, altering the traditional balance of power between Shiites and Sunnis and posing new challenges to the interests of the U.S. and its allies.”[36]

Accusations of Iran sending over a million citizens across the border into Iraq in order to vote in the Iraqi elections have also been made. King Abdullah commented, “I’m sure there’s a lot of people, a lot of Iranians in there that will be used as part of the polls to influence the outcome. It is in Iran’s vested interest to have an Islamic Republic of Iraq … and therefore the involvement you’re getting by the Iranians is to achieve a government that is very pro-Iran.”[37] Similar concerns from some of Iraq’s Sunnis have been voiced—accusing Iran of “actively seeking to create a Shiite satellite regime through intelligence operations, financial support and propaganda campaigns.”[38]

Though Iran favors a Shia-led, independent, and democratic Iraq, it would be foolish to ignore their caution to the enormous threat that the United States poses to them. Naser Chaderchi, head of Iraq’s National Democratic Party, said:

The Iranians believe that if there is stability in Iraq, the Americans would consider moving against Iran next. I don’t think the Iranians want to create uncontrollable chaos in Iraq, though. They want a manageable chaos, and they share this approach with other neighboring states.[39]

However, I am curious to know if this viewpoint has changed since Iran has gained considerably more influence within Iraq. If leading elements of the United States government are beginning to suggest that Iran has a crucial role in the stabilization of Iraq, then perhaps the Iranian fear of invasion is moot.

Iran, Iraq, and the United States Post 2003: Part 4

Okay, hopefully you are all caught up.  Here's the next installment of "Iran, Iraq, and the United States Post 2003":

Though it seems as though Petraeus and Crocker want Iran to act as a stabilizing force in the Iraq conflict, their allegations against Iran must not be forgotten. In particular, the accusations that Iran is escalating the violence in Iraq via “special groups,” which are fabricated concepts according to Professor Sabah, who says that they “are a construction.” He explains that the administration is attempting to convey that the Iraqi people are not the ones resisting, but that there are “different … ‘elements’—good and bad … They are trying to faction the Iraqi people into so many different elements that there are no people anymore, and … [therefore] no resistance.”[30]

Since there is a clear antagonism in the rhetoric against Iran (save for the acknowledgements in the peacekeeping role Iran played in Basra), we must take a closer look at what “groups” Iran is supporting versus what groups the U.S. is supporting. Raed Jarrar suggests that U.S. officials are distorting Iran’s role inside Iraq:

The Administration is trying to say that the U.S. is supporting some groups and Iran is supporting some other groups, and these groups are fighting in some type of ‘proxy’ war … this is absolutely not what’s happening in Iraq … What is happening on the ground is that Iran and the United States are supporting the same parties … The Administration is trying … to say that ‘our role in Iraq is exactly the opposite [of] Iran, and therefore, this might justify an attack.[31]

Contrary to governmental claims, “there is no reason why Iran would have any connection to Al Qaeda … [or] ‘special groups’” because of its overwhelming influence throughout Iran (plus, Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization).[32] It seems as though elements within the United States government are deliberately skewing facts and misleading in order to advance an agenda of regime change in Iran. This is, according to Real News analyst Aijaz Ahmad, because of the “pro-Israeli lobby in the U.S. Congress that is pressing for that kind of blame on Iran.” Furthermore, in the week leading up to the testimonies, violence escalated dramatically, and instead of letting blame fall on the failure of the surge, the administration is instead blaming Iran—saying that the U.S. troops must stay because of the external threat of Iran.[33]

Iran, Iraq, and the United States Post 2003: Part 3

Here's the next part of my research paper:

The U.S. government, however, is adamant in its position towards Iran—a stance that has recently been called into question due to new developments in the Iran-Iraq relationship. In April 2008, General David Petraeus, commander of the U.S. military forces in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and accused Iran of arming militias within Iraq. Ryan Crocker explained that:

Iran continues to undermine the efforts of the Iraqi government to establish a stable, secure state through the training of criminal militia elements engaged in violence against Iraqi security forces, coalition forces, and Iraqi civilians. The extent of Iran’s malign influence was dramatically demonstrated when militia elements, armed and trained by Iran, clashed with Iraqi government forces in Basra and Baghdad.[20]

These statements bring us back to the previous analysis of Raed Jarrar, which questions the logic that Iran is attempting to sabotage its own parties in Iraq. But we must delve into a much deeper analysis and ask: whom does Iran have influence over and are these parties supported by the United States? We already know that Iranian influence goes deep within the Iraqi government, but it is also prevalent in the Shia militia movements—particular the al-Sadrist movement led by Muqtada al-Sadr.[21]

In April 2008, about a week before the Senate testimonies of Petraeus and Crocker, Prime Minister al-Maliki engaged the al-Sadrists in Basra, Iraq. This operation was to be a defining moment in post-Saddam Iraq—a turning point in the restructuring of a shattered nation. However, the outcome was anything but spectacular. Al-Maliki’s forces could not fight the Mahdi Army (the Sadrist militia), and actually turned to Iran to ask for help in making a truce between the two groups.[22] Indeed, even General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, much to the dismay of certain neoconservatives, “confirmed that Iran had brokered the peace in Basra … and that Iran wants democracy in Iraq.”[23] Petraus explained that:

Iran … clearly played a role as an arbiter … for talks among all the different parties to that particular action [in Basra] whether that strengthened them or also made them realize that their actions have been destructive … in helping a country they want to succeed … Shia-led democracy…[24]

Ryan Crocker went on to say “One might look for a reconsideration in Tehran as to just where they want to go in Iraq … no country, other than Iraq itself, suffered more under Saddam Hussein than did Iran.”[25] This declaration introduced a surprising element to the U.S.-Iran-Iraq relationship; that is, a split between the military leadership and the neoconservative geopolitical strategy, which “advocates regime change in Iran … not a compromise with Iran over Iraq.”[26]

But are there any underlying reasons for why Petraeus and Crocker were not more aggressive towards Iran? Professor al Nasseri suggests that there are two main interests driving this decision:

In the short term, the United States is interested in securing a security agreement with the Iraqi government because the Iraqi parliament decided last year that there would be no extension of the international troops in Iraq beyond December 2008; so since last August, the United States has been trying to convince the Iraqi executive to sign a long term security agreement … to keep the U.S. troops and bases in Iraq.[27]

The suggestion here is that if the United States is overly aggressive in their policy towards Iran, the legal presence of the occupation could be put in jeopardy. The other driving interest is a long term one, which holds that the U.S. must maintain its military presence on the ground in Iraq because “Iran is the most dangerous place now because they … have affiliation to Al Qaeda, they support these so-called ‘special groups,’ they create a lot of instabilities in Iraq, etc. … The message to the neocons is that Iran is an issue, but not now.”[28] At this point, Petraeus and Crocker are attempting to find common ground between the Republicans and Democrats because they do not know who will be president after 2008, and they “want to create a consensus … between the two parties” and tone down the rhetoric against Iran.[29]

Iran, Iraq, and the United States Post 2003: Part 2

Here is the next part of my research paper on the Iran-Iraq-U.S. relationship post 2003. If you'd like to read it in its entirety (and to dig my sources), check out my knol here.

In December 2004, almost two years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Reuel M. Gerecht[5], a former member of the CIA and resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (a neoconservative think-tank), wrote, “Iran’s primary objective is to ensure that Iraq remains destabilized, incapable of coalescing around a democratically elected government.”[6] He describes a condition of bitterness between the Shia of Iraq and the Shia government of Iran—“The Iraqi Shia retain enormous bitterness towards … Iran’s clerical regime, which did virtually nothing to help their Iraqi ‘brethren.’ He continues by saying that the Iranians are resentful towards the Iraqi Shia “given the damage the [Iran-Iraq] war did to Iran, that Iraq’s army was primarily Shiite, and that Saddam’s elite Sunni Republican Guards were on several occasions near the cracking point. When the Iraqi Shia felt Saddam’s wrath in ’91, there was more than a little schadenfreude on the Persian side.”[7] While there is perhaps legitimacy to many of these claims, Gerecht’s assumption (one that is shared by many in Washington) that “Iran ideally wants to see … strife that can produce an Iraq Hezbollah”[8] does not seem to hold much merit considering the present situation.

Raed Jarrar[9], an Iraqi from the American Foreign Services Committee, explains that the ruling parties in Iraq are directly tied with Iran, and fails to see the logic in an Iranian plot to keep Iraq in chaos. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Iranian supported Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and Nouri al-Maliki of the Dawa Party (a party with Iranian origins) came from Iran in 2003.[10] “Why would Iran send special Iranian forces (called Al-Kud’s brigade) into Iraq to attack a regime that is run by their own people?”[11]

Though it is quite unlikely (and illogical to assume) that Iran desires a complete structural breakdown in Iraq, it is clear that Iran has specific goals for Iraq’s future. The International Crisis Group suggests that:

Tehran’s priority is to prevent Iraq from re-emerging as a threat, whether of a
military, political or ideological nature, and whether deriving from its failure
(its collapse into civil war or the emergence of an independent Iraqi Kurdistan
with huge implications for Iran’s disaffected Kurdish minority) or success (its
consolidation as an alternative democratic or religious model appealing to
Iran’s disaffected citizens).[12]

To accomplish this, Iran certainly desires a Shia dominated government in Iraq that is friendly to Iran. Professor Sabah al Nasseri[13] from York University suggests that Iran wants a stable, independent, and democratic Iraq, but only as long as its allies (the regime of al-Maliki and al-Hakim) are in power. But if “other political forces—secular forces, or maybe Al Sadr”—become popular and offer a “different kind of democracy,” Iran will oppose it.[14] Direct Iranian intervention is known to have occurred in the January 2005 elections in Iraq, where “Iran had played a significant behind-the-scenes role in assuring the electoral success of the UIA (United Iraqi Alliance—a coalition of mostly Shia groups … in particular, the Dawa party and SCIRI), and had a great deal riding on the UIA’s choice of prime minister.”[15]

In 2005, President Bush made an appearance on Israel’s state-owned news network, and made a comment with regards to a possible military confrontation with Iran over its nuclear aspirations: “As I say, all options are on the table. The use of force is the last option for any president and, you know, we’ve used force in the recent past to secure our country.”[16] Within the Bush administration, there is a commonly held belief that “Iran is the major threat in the region and … simply cannot be allowed to produce nuclear weapons, whether or not it intends to do so.”[17] Iran has declared that it aspires only for “a civil nuclear-power programme,” and denies allegations that it will use these advancements for weaponry.[18] In fact, U.S. intelligence reports indicate that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003; furthermore, Mohamed El Baradei, Head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has stated that there is no nuclear weapons program being pursued by the Iranians.[19]

....I'll post the next part soon.

Iran, Iraq, and the United States Post 2003: Part 1

Here is Part 1 of my study on the complex relationship of Iran, Iraq, and the United States post 2003. There are many misconceptions about the conflict in Iraq and Iran's role in the region (which is portrayed by the U.S. media and government as fanatical and malicious); this paper's intent is to shed some honest light on those issues, as well as to spark some serious discussion. Enjoy!


In 1979, Saddam Hussein, dictator of Iraq, preemptively invaded the Islamic Republic of Iran, and thereby started one of the “longest and costliest conventional wars of the twentieth century.”[1] The war was in response to “Iranian provocations” and Iraq’s aspirations to “enlarge its role in the Gulf,” and ended in disaster. Fresh out of a revolution, the people of Iran proved to be more of a challenge than Saddam had anticipated, and the Iranians were also incorrect in their assumption that the Shia majority of south Iraq would fight for their cause.[2] There was no true winner and each side suffered massive casualties—with “an estimated 400,000 killed and perhaps 700,000 wounded on both sides.”[3] The Economist perhaps put it best when it described the war as one that “should never have been fought … neither side gained a thing except the saving of its own regime. And neither regime was worth the sacrifice.”[4]

It is now 2008, and the situation between the two nation states has become something quite different—as a result of the United States government’s regime change in 2003, elements within Iraq’s complex political quagmire have established a much more friendly and productive relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The implications of such a relationship are wide reaching; it is certainly having a direct effect on the geo-political situation within Iraq—playing a key role in diplomatic efforts between various forces in Iraq. It also brings forth a dilemma for the United States and its confrontational policies towards Iran because while they are trying to deal with the Islamic Republic as a nation of “terror”—warning them against developing nuclear technology— they must also recognize the undeniable role that Iran is going to play in the future of Iraq.

The primary purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship of Iran and Iraq post 2003, and how this affects the role of the United States in both the future of Iraq and its position towards Iran. What implications is this relationship having on the inner-politics of Iraq, and is there any legitimacy to the U.S. claims (by both the government and the mainstream media) that Iran is backing the insurgency? What kind of Iraq do the Iranians want to see develop in the coming years, and does this goal conflict with that of the United States—if at all?

Stay tuned for more.

SHOWDOWN: Iran

Well, it’s been about 2 months since my last post, and I must say that I have no good excuse for the extended hiatus. I suppose there was a lot of energy and motivation when I decided to found the blog—I had a lot of ideas in my head that I wanted to express. Over time that initial sense of purpose sort of wore off. I took a week off, then a month, and now my break has gotten out of hand. But now I’m back—hopefully this time for good. Today’s topic: SHOWDOWN IRAN.

Today, an official U.S. intelligence report came out that declares Iran’s nuclear weapons program an indefinitely halted operation. In fact, it states that the program was halted way back in 2003. Iran is continuing its process of uranium enrichment, but as of now there is no evident intent to develop a bomb (confirmation of what the mullahs have been saying all along). So when President Bush stated in October that we could be facing the third World War, was he wrong? Apparently not—according to the White House.

National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley states that this report is in fact a confirmation of everything the Administration has been saying. “It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons…” So they were right all along, but Hadley doesn't want the American public to jump off the fear-bandwagon quite yet: “the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem.”

What I don’t understand is how this administration claims that it has been right all along. In October of this year, Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of “lying” about its nuclear program; the Vice President has voiced direct and pointed attacks and threats on the government; the President has assured everyone that the nuclear program is, without a doubt, active. Clearly these threats and accusations were either knowingly over-hyped or completely baseless—perhaps a reminder of many of the threats and accusations against Iraq, which were later found to be total fabrications. Perhaps Iran is actually developing nuclear power for the sake of developing the nation. Could it be that the mullahs aren’t lying? Maybe they aren’t the hostile terrorists that we make them out to be.

My fear is another war. The neo-conservative movement has already succeeded in waging one unjust war, and I have no doubt in my mind that they are fully capable to do it again. Our leaders do not seem to understand that the game they are playing involves millions of people. The current war has devastated Iraq—a terrible civil war has broken out, millions are now refugees, and God knows how many Iraqi civilians have been killed (some counts are up to a million). This is worse than reckless foreign policy—this is criminal. This cannot be accepted.

Sources: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/03/america/cia.php
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21516968/