|
|
home / subscribe / donate / tower / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events
|
Bush's Worst Appointment Yet? Read Jeffrey St Clair's blazing expose of the new Interior Secretary nominee , Dirk Kempthorne, and make up your own mind. Even in the dingy history of Idaho's predators, Kempthorne stood proud as the dingiest of them all. Now he's poised to seize his place in history. Will he be the sleaziest Interior Secretary in history, sleazier than Watt, fouler than Fall? More on the great Israel Lobby debate! Norman Finkelstein blazes a new path, asks "Are the Neo-Cons really committed Zionists?" "Bliss was it in that dawn" Not in Michigan! Raymond Garcia describes Dem governor's appalling plan to scapegoat youth and teachers. Plus the full print version of Virginia Tilley's savage dissection on this website of the double-standard onslaught on Hamas by the US and EU. CounterPunch Online is read by millions of viewers each month! But remember, we are funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition of CounterPunch. Please support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter, which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or by making a donation for the online edition. Remember contributions are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! |
|
Today's Stories May 16, 2006 Ted Honderich May 15, 2006 Alexander Cockburn William Blum Tanya Golash-Boza
and Douglas A. Parker Dave Lindorff Debra Schaffer
Hubert Patrick Cockburn Tom Turnipseed Ken Livingstone Gideon Levy Mickey Z. Jeff Faux Website of the Day
May 13 / 14, 2006 Vijay Prashad Joan Roelofs Kathy Kelly Michael Neumann Dr. Susan Block Daniel Cassidy Christopher Reed Mike Roselle Saul Landau Robert Fisk Ralph Nader Evelyn Pringle Fred Gardner Stanley Heller Conn Hallinan Valentina Palma Novoa David Krieger Col. Dan Smith Christopher Brauchli Jeffrey St. Clair Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend
May 12, 2006 Michael Snedeker Dave Lindorff Leah Fishbein
/ RJ Schinner Brian Kwoba Chris Kromm Kai Diekmann David Swanson Virginia Tilley Website of the
Day
May 11, 2006 Sunsara Taylor Jonathan Cook Tariq Ali Wayne S. Smith Mike Whitney Pratyush Chandra Joshua Frank Mickey Z. Francis Boyle Edward S. Herman
/ David Peterson Website of the
Day
May 10, 2006 Werther Larry Birns / Michael Lettieri Ramzy Baroud Kevin Zeese Evelyn Pringle Amira Hass Michael Donnelly Ron Jacobs Sharon Smith Website of the Day
May 9, 2006 Ray McGovern M. Shahid Alam Moshe Adler Walter MIgnolo Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor William S. Lind Todd Chretien Dave Lindorff Ishmael Reed Website of the
Day
May 8, 2006 Kate McCabe Paul Craig Roberts Col. Dan Smith Norman Solomon Ingmar Lee Robert Jensen Ricardo Alarcon Will Youmans / M. Kay Siblani Alexander Cockburn Website of the
Day
May 6 / 7, 2006 Jeffrey St. Clair Ariel Dorfman Joe Allen Fred Gardner Jeff Taylor Saul Landau Stephen Philion Trish Schuh Ralph Nader Robert Fisk Paul Cantor John Holt James Ryan Lawrence R. Velvel Greg Moses Laray Polk Ron Jacobs Ben Tripp Mickey Z. Jeffrey St. Clair Poets' Basement Website of the Week
May 5, 2006 Vijay Prashad Robert Fisk David Swanson Mearsheimer / Walt Dave Lindorff Sarah Ferguson CounterPunch
News Service Corporate Crime Reporter Website of the
Day
May 4, 2006 John F. Sugg Jonathan Cook Roger Burbach Chris Dols Christopher Brauchli Tony Swindell Website of the Day
May 3, 2006 Robert Bryce Paul Craig Roberts James Petras Lee Sustar David Bolton Joshua Frank Jeffery R. Webber Website of the
Day
May 2, 2006 Evelyn Pringle Tariq Ali Saul Landau Paul Craig Roberts Gary Leupp Ron Jacobs Sen. Russell
Feingold Anthony Papa Website of the
Day
May Day, 2006 Norman Finkelstein Christopher Reed Michael Donnelly Dave Zirin Mike Whitney Gilad Atzmon Missy Comley Beattie Alexander Cockburn Website of the
Day
April 29 / 30, 2006 Peter Linebaugh Ralph Nader Robert Bryce Rev. William
Alberts Lee Sustar John Chuckman Eric Ruder Seth Sandronsky Ron Jacobs Ben Tripp Fred Gardner Don Monkerud Tommy Stevenson Lettrist International Contratiempo St. Clair, Vest
and D'Antoni Poets' Basement Website of the
Weekend
April 28, 2006 James Ridgeway Ramzy Baroud Sarah Knopp William S. Lind Werther April 27, 2006 Winslow T. Wheeler Robert Fisk Juan Santos Robert Jensen Dave Lindorff Jose Pertierra
April 26,2006 Robin Philpot Sherry Wolf Pratyush Chandra Joshua Frank Gary
Leupp Bill
Quigley
April 25, 2006 Gary
Leupp Paul
Craig Roberts Linda
S. Heard Ralph
Nader Mike
Whitney Michael
Donnelly Sharon
Smith Website
of the Day
April 24, 2006 Tim
Wise John
Stanton Dave
Lindorff Steve
Shore Amadou
Deme Mickey
Z. Ralph Nader Alexander
Cockburn Website
of the Day
Subscribe Online
|
May 16, 2006 US Plans for Iran Go Beyond Halting Nuclear EffortsRegime Change Redux By CHARLES PEÑA At the end of April, U.S. President George W. Bush was asked at a Rose Garden question-and-answer session with the press about the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA's) declaration that Iran's nuclear program was not in compliance with the U.N. Security Council. Bush answered, "It reminds the nations of the world that there is an ongoing diplomatic effort to convince the Iranians to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions. It should remind the Iranians that the world is united and concerned about their desire to have not only a nuclear weapon, but the capacity to make a nuclear weapon or the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon, all of which we're working hard to convince them not to try to achieve." With both Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice and John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations, stating that the United States could take action outside
of the U.N. Security Council, the buzz in Washington speculates
whether the United States might be willing to take military action
to halt Iran's nuclear program. But there is evidence that another consideration is at play: to overthrow the Iranian government. U.S. leaders need to think hard about the strategic consequences of such a move before moving too far down that road. Administration rhetoric would lead one to believe that the underlying motive for any potential action (including sanctions) against Iran is because of its nuclear program. The Iranians claim that their program is for peaceful energy purposes, but many analysts believe the real purpose - just as the North Koreans did with their nuclear program - is to build nuclear weapons. Iran has declared that it has enriched uranium. While such a capability is not prohibited by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a party, it is an inherent capability to produce weapon-grade uranium. But the hand-wringing over Iran's nuclear program, much like Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, needs to be put into perspective. First, even if the Iranians acquired a few nuclear warheads (such as the North Koreans now have); they do not have the long-range military capability to deliver those warheads to targets in the United States. Thus, they are not a direct threat to America. But even if they could reach the United States, they would not be able to ignore the realities of the vast U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal and deterrence, just like the Soviet Union and China before them and North Korea now. The so-called "mad mullahs" in Tehran have a return address, and a nuclear attack against the United States would be met with an overwhelming and devastating retaliatory response. The country that would be most threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran would be Israel, which is within range of Iran's Shehab-3 missiles. Indeed, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that "Israel must be wiped off the map." But just as the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal is a powerful deterrent, so is Israel's stockpile, thought to number some 400 deliverable weapons. Although Iranian rhetoric might call for wiping Israel off the map, the reality is that the price of doing so would be Iran wiping itself off the map. So if Iran can be deterred, why would the Bush administration be willing to risk military action against Iran? The answer lies in the new National Security Strategy issued on March 16. As important as are these nuclear issues, the United States has broader concerns regarding Iran. "The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism, threatens Israel, seeks to thwart Middle East peace, disrupts democracy in Iraq and denies the aspirations of its people for freedom," said the strategy. "The nuclear issue and our other concerns can ultimately be resolved only if the Iranian regime makes the strategic decision to change these policies, open up its political system and afford freedom to its people. This is the ultimate goal of U.S. policy." In other words, it is regime change redux. The conventional wisdom, however, is that regime change is unlikely at best given that the U.S. military is still - three years after President Bush declared mission accomplished aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln - unable to put down the Iraqi insurgency. But consider this scenario: The United States decides to take out Iran's nuclear program with limited air strikes (much like the Israelis did when they attacked Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in June 1981). But even limited air strikes would involve bombing hundreds of targets, and because many of those targets are located in urban areas (such as a research reactor in Tehran), even precision weapons likely would cause civilian casualties. Unable to put forth a direct military response, the Iranians instead may decide to resort to terrorism via Hizbollah in Lebanon. The result is a terrorist attack that kills either American soldiers or civilians, which then makes the regime in Tehran a legitimate target in the global war on terrorism, just as the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was. This does not mean that the administration would deliberately attack Iran to invite a terrorist attack as a reason to engage in regime change. Yet it is easy to see how what started as air strikes to destroy Iran's nuclear program could become something bigger and more dangerous. The United States could make an unnecessary enemy out of Hizbollah, which has not actively targeted Americans since the Khobar Towers attack in 1996. Worse, Hizbollah and al-Qaida could overcome Sunni-Shiite divisions and form a tactical alliance against a common enemy: the United States. And if regime change meant a U.S. invasion and occupation of Iran, many in the Muslim world would view this as confirmation that the United States is waging a war against Islam. But if Iran's nuclear program and its potential to build nuclear weapons - however undesirable - is not a direct threat to the United States, is risking any or all of these possibilities worth it? Charles Peña is an adviser on the Straus
Military Reform Project, a senior fellow with George Washington
University's Homeland Security Policy Institute and author of
Winning
the Un-War: A New Strategy for the War on Terrorism (Potomac
Books).
|
from CounterPunch Books! The Case Against Israel By Michael Neumann Grand Theft Pentagon: Tales of Greed and Profiteering in the War on Terror by Jeffrey St. Clair Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid? CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues, as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org. |