|
|
home / subscribe / donate / tower / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events
|
How the U.S. Army Kills Its Own Soldiers A horrifying, exclusive report from JoAnn Wypijewski on the grim secrets of Fort Sill, Oklahoma. How a sadistic drill sergeant tortured basic trainees, amid brutal indifference that led to the death on March 19,2006,of 21-year-old PFC Matthew Scarano. Dead Movement Marching? Cockburn and St Clair assess the failures of the national antiwar groups, even as popular opposition to the war tops 60 per cent. Stalin or Confucius? Chris Reed on the Secrets of the Garden of Bliss, otherwise known as North Korea. 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 March 22, 2006 Jeffrey
St. Clair
March 21, 2006 Paul
Craig Roberts Winslow
Wheeler Tom
Engelhardt Arnold
Oliver Earl
Ofari Hutchinson Mike
Whitney William
A. Cook Sophia
A. McLennen
March 20, 2006 Paul
Craig Roberts Dave
Lindorff Ralph
Nader Diane
Christian Jeff
Halper Harry
Browne Norman
Solomon Patrick
Cockburn Website
of the Day
March 18 / 19, 2006 Cockburn
/ St. Clair Werther Chris
Kromm Patrick
Cockburn Elaine
Cassel S. Brian
Willson Fred
Gardner Brian
Cloughley Laura
Carlsen Eamon
Martin Julie
Hilden Alison
Weir Jeffrey
St. Clair Poets'
Basement Website
of the Weekend
March 17, 2006 Eduardo
Galeano Greg
Moses Richard
Falk / David Krieger Cindy
and Craig Corrie Amira
Hass Mike
Marqusee James
Petas and Robin Eastman-Abaya Website
of the Day
March 16, 2006 Norman
Solomon Tom
Philpott Heather
Gray Amira
Hass Missy
Comley Beattie Sen.
Russell Feingold Lucinda
Marshall Andrew
Bosworth Clancy
Sigal Website
of the Day
Jonathan
Cook Winslow
Wheeler Diane
Christian Ron
Jacobs Missy
Comley Beattie Jared
Bernstein Noam
Chomsky Website
of the Day
March 14, 2006 Earl
Ofari Hutchinson Dave
Lindorff Kevin
Zeese Todd
Chretien Jason
Kunin Thomas
Palley Cockburn
/ St. Clair Website
of the Day
March 13, 2006 Uri
Avnery Dave
Lindorff Mike
Whitney David
Green Jeremy
Scahill Mike
Ferner Corey
Harris Paul
Craig Roberts Website
of the Day
Alexander
Cockburn Ralph
Nader Paul
Craig Roberts Ben
Tripp John
Strausbaugh Landau
/ Hassen Robert
Bryce Gary
Leupp Fred
Gardner Ron
Jacobs Jonathan
Scott Ramzy
Baroud Jordan
Flaherty John
Chuckman Joe
Allen Julia
Kendlbacher St.
Clair / Walker / Pollack / Vest Poets'
Basement Website
of the Weekend
March 10, 2006 Ben
Rosenfeld Lila
Rajiva Saree
Makdisi Elena
Shore Joshua
Frank Dave
Zirin Aura
Bogado
March 9, 2006 John
Walsh Annie
Zirin Brian
McKenna Chris
Floyd Rachard
Itani Niranjan
Ramakrishnan Wylie
Harris Alexander
Cockburn Website
of the Day
March 8, 2006 Patrick
Bond Brian
Concannon, Jr. Pat
Williams Lance
Selfa Mokhiber
/ Weissman Walter
Brasch Vijay
Prashad Website
of the Day
March 7, 2006 Werther John
Blair Dave
Lindorff Mike
Whitney Warren
Guykema Sen.
Russell Feingold Robert
Jensen Norman
Solomon Bernie
Dwyer Website
of the Day
Ralph
Nader Dave
Zirin Vanessa
Redgrave Walter
A. Davis Joshua
Frank Nate
Mezmer Paul
Craig Roberts Website
of the Day
Alexander
Cockburn Jennifer
Van Bergen Steven
Higgs Winslow
T. Wheeler Ron
Jacobs Rev.
William E. Alberts Colin
Asher Fred
Gardner "Pariah" John
Scagliotti Seth
Sandronsky Joan
Roelofs Arjun
Makhijani Ardeshr
Ommani Diana
Barahona Ben
Tripp St.
Clair / Socialist Worker Staff Poets'
Basement Website
of the Weekend March 3, 2006 Laura
Carlsen John
V. Whitbeck Chris
Floyd Mohamed
Hakki Pratyush
Chandra John
Scagliotti Website
of the Day
March 2, 2006 Paul
Craig Roberts Dave
Lindorff Ramzy
Baroud Saul
Landau Joe
Allen Steve
Shore Denise
Boggs Norman
Finkelstein Website
of the Day
March 1, 2006 Mairead
Corrigan Maguire Niranjan
Ramakrishnan Faheem
Hussain Antony
Loewenstein Elizabeth
Schulte Mike
Whitney John
Ryan Michael
Donnelly Tom
Reeves Website
of the Day
February 28, 2006 Sen.
Russ Feingold Ralph
Nader Joshua
Frank Aziz
Haniffa Benjamin Dangl Norman Solomon Mike
Ferner Sharon
Smith Website
of the Day
February 27, 2006 Buncombe
/ Cockburn Paul
Craig Roberts Ingmar
Lee Ron
Jacobs Dave
Lindorff Pat
Wolff Lila
Rajiva Website
of the Day
February 25 / 26, 2006 Alexander
Cockburn Lila
Rajiva Lee
Sustar Jennifer
Van Bergen / Madis Senner Justin
E.H. Smith Paul
Craig Roberts Jason
Leopold Gilad
Atzmon Zahid
Shariff Fred
Gardner Dick
J. Reavis David
Stocker John
Bomar Mike
Marqusee Pratyush
Chandra Ben
Tripp Dr.
Susan Block Poets'
Basement Website
of the Weekend
February 24, 2006 Alan
Maass William
S. Lind Dave
Lindorff Pierre
Tristam Meg
Bannerji Robert
Jensen Mark
Engler Jennifer
Loewenstein Website
of the Day
February 23, 2006 Chet
Richards Jonathan
Feldman Joshua
Frank Ron
Jacobs Amira
Hass Samah
Sabawi Norman
Solomon Christopher
Reed Website
of the Day
February 22, 2006 Robert
Pollin Phil
Doe Pirouz
Azadi Saul
Landau Brian
McKinlay Sam
Smith Niranjan
Ramakrishnan Diane
Farsetta Website
of the Day
February 21, 2006 Paul
Craig Roberts Franklin
Spinney Dave
Lindorff Alevtina
Rea Bruce
K. Gagnon Dave
Zirin Bill
Quigley Website
of the Day
February 20, 2006 Jennifer
Van Bergen Rachard
Itani Gideon
Levy Joshua
Frank Newton
Garver Pratyush
Chandra Seth
Sandronsky Cockburn
/ St. Clair Website
of the Day
February 18 / 19, 2006 Werther Uzma
Aslam Khan Joe
DeRaymond Edward
F. Mooney Paul
Craig Roberts Elaine
Cassel P.
Sainath Thomas
P. Healy Brian
Concannon, Jr. Fred
Gardner Rep.
Cynthia McKinney Brian
Tokar Chan
Chee Khoon Andrew
Freedman St.
Clair / Walker Poets'
Basement Website
of the Weekend
February 17, 2006 Floyd
Rudmin Gervasio
Rodríguez Gary
Leupp Ramzy
Baroud Amira
Hass Matthew
Koehler Niranjan
Ramakrishnan Debbie
Nathan Website
of the Day
Febrauary 16, 2006 Lila
Rajiva Norman
Solomon Ron
Jacobs Paul
Craig Roberts Website
of the Day
February 15, 2006 Brian
Conacnnon, Jr. Dave
Lindorff Saree
Makdisi Joshua
Frank Amira
Hass CounterPunch
Wire Robert
Bryce Website
of the Day February 14, 2006 John
Sugg Don
Santina William
A. Cook Ray
McGovern John
Ross Website
of the Day
Lila
Rajiva Christopher
Brauchli Dave
Lindorff Ron
Jacobs Mike
Whitney Michael
Neumann Website
of the Day
February 11 / 12, 2006 Alexander
Cockburn Ralph
Nader Paul Craig
Roberts Pat Williams Fred Gardner Saul Landau John Chuckman Roger Burbach Seth Sandronsky Website of
the Weekend
February 10, 2006 Carl
G. Estabrook Sen.
Russell Feingold Roxanne
Dunbar----Ortiz Saree Makdisi Website of
the Day
February 9, 2006 Dave Lindorff Mike Marqusee Paul Craig Roberts Peter Phillips William S. Lind Christine Tomlinson Innocent Targets in the "Long War": False Positives and Bush's Eavesdropping Program Will Youmans Robert Robideau Richard Neville Peter Rost Website of the Day
February 8, 2006 Ron Jacobs Stan Cox Sen. Russ Feingold Robert Jensen Rep. Cynthia McKinney Niranjan Ramakrishnan Don Monkerud David Swanson C.L. Cook Christopher
Fons Jeffrey Ballinger Website of
the Day
February 7, 2006 Edward Lucie-Smith Robert Fisk Paul Craig Roberts Neve Gordon Joshua Frank Peter Montague Jackie Corr Jeffrey St.
Clair Website of the Day
February 6, 2006 Christopher
Brauchli Robert Fisk John Chuckman Jenna Orkin Paul Craig
Roberts
February 4 / 5, 2006 Alexander Cockburn Mike Ferner James Petras Alan Maass Fred Gardner Ralph Nader Bill Glahn Saul Landau Laura Carlsen James Brooks Mike Roselle John Holt Sarah Ferguson William S.
Lind Niranjan Ramakrishnan Seth Sandronsky Derrick O'Keefe Michael Donnelly Ron Jacobs Elisa Salasin St. Clair / Vest Stew Albert Poets' Basement Website of
the Weekend
February 3, 2006 Toufic Haddad Heather Gray Tim Wise Conn Hallinan Eva Golinger Daniel Ellsberg Dave Zirin Robert Bryce Website of
the Day
February 2, 2006 Winslow T.
Wheeler Stan Cox Rachard Itani Mike Whitney Amira Hass Norman Solomon Michael Simmons Christopher
Reed Website of the Day
February 1, 2006 Sharon Smith Jason Leopold Cindy Sheehan Joseph Grosso Earl Ofari Hutchinson Steven Higgs Robert Robideau R. Siddharth Jim Retherford Rep. Cynthia
McKinney Paul Craig
Roberts Website of
the Day
Subscribe Online
|
March 22, 2006 An Unnecessary Crisis The Iranian Nuclear Showdown By DAVID MacMICHAEL
For almost a half century Iran, both under the government of Shah Reza Pahlavi and the succeeding Islamic governments after the Shah's overthrow in 1978, has had a policy of developing nuclear plants for electric power generation. Prior to 1978 the policy had the full support and encouragement of the United States and other western governments which used Iran as a major Middle Eastern ally against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. For example, in 1974 Iran contracted with the American research firm SRI International (the former Stanford Research Institute) for assistance in the design and construction of such plants. Things changed after the overthrow of the Shah and the subsequent US Embassy hostage crisis, during the course of which American Army Special Forces attempted a military rescue raid in Iran which proved an embarrassing failure.. Not only were diplomatic relations between Teheran and Washington broken and never restored, but the US prohibited all direct trade between US business and Iran and sequestered all Iranian assets in the US, including some $18 billion in deposits in American banks, assets which the US government still holds. Admittedly, the ban was covertly lifted during the Reagan presidency when advanced US weapons were sold, through Israeli channels, to Iran and the proceeds diverted to the support of US-directed forces (the "Contras") seeking to overthrow the Nicaraguan government-thus, the "Iran-Contra" scandal. However, this was a momentary digression from the policy, partly rationalized as a means of restoring US influence in Iran's military or establishing links with "moderate elements in Iran" with an eye toward repeating the pro-US military coup of 1953 which ousted Iran's elected government of Mohammed Mossadeq and established the essentially US-controlled monarchy of the Shah. (It might be noted in the context of the present US effort to have Iran sanctioned by the UN Security Council, that prior to the 1953 coup Great Britain, furious at Mossadeq because of his nationalization of British-owned oil fields, unsuccessfully attempted to have the Security Council punish Iran). Indeed, such was US hostility toward the post-Shah government and its Islamic fundamentalist religious leader, the Ayatolla Khomeini-despite the fact that it was by any definition anti-communist, possibly even more so than the also fundamentalist mujahaddin rebellion the US organized and supported in neighboring Afghanistan-that Washington and its western allies to greater or lesser degrees encouraged, financed, armed, provided intelligence to, and even directly participated in the war of aggression which Iraq launched against Iran in 1980. This participation climaxed in 1988 when a US cruiser operating in Iranian national waters mistakenly shot down an Iranian civil airliner, killing the 100 plus passengers aboard. Ironically, this western aid included scientific and industrial support for Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. This support proved critical because it was only by resort to massive use of chemical weapons that Iraq-which had disastrously underestimated Iran's ability to rebuild its armed forces following 1978 when most of the pro-Shah senior officer corps left the country-was able to prevent Iran's enthusiastic Islamic volunteers from routing Saddam Hussein's secular baathist regulars. In any event, the war was a disaster for both countries with deaths in the hundreds of thousands and huge economic losses. Less noticed then, but a major factor in current US strategic calculations, was the fact that Iraq's very large Shia Muslim population tended to a great degree to identify with largely Shia Iran and to reject their own secular government whose popular support base, insofar as it was religious, was drawn from Sunni Muslims, traditionally foes of the Shiites they regard as heretics. When the war ended in 1988, with the United Nations negotiating a ceasefire and then supervising withdrawal of both sides to pre-war borders and repatriation of prisoners, Iran turned its energies to restoring its economy. Iraq, on the other hand, feeling betrayed by its Arab neighbors, particularly Kuwait which Baghdad believed had not only failed to provide promised financial assistance but had actually taken advantage of the war to steal oil from Iraqi fields, committed the extraordinary error of launching its August 1990 attack on Kuwait. Admittedly, Saddam had some reason to believe that his old allies in Washington would tolerate his assault. US Ambassador April Glaspie in Baghdad famously told him on July 25 that the United States "had no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait.The issue is not associated with America." How wrong was Saddam's belief, because the George H.W. Bush administration seized the opportunity to lead an international coalition to war against Iraq-the Gulf War--; totally crush his painfully reconstructed military forces; and usher in the decade-long era of brutal United Nations economic sanctions that almost completely destroyed what was left of Iraq's once thriving economy and social structure. Saddam and the Baath Party remained in control of the government, somehow retaining the capability of bloodily suppressing a major Shiite rebellion in the southern third of the country and maintaining tenuous control over the Kurdish provinces in the north despite British and US-imposed "no fly regions"-non-UN-authorized activities which prevented the Iraqi air force from supporting Baghdad's military operations there. While Iraq sank deeper into misery-an impoverished international outcast-Iran, although still seen by the US as an enemy, made a relatively rapid recovery. It continued satisfactory trade relations with everyone but the US and, after the death of the Ayatollah Khomeini, experienced social and political moderation. Certainly, the Shia religious leaders who succeeded Khomeini retained an effective veto over the elected civil government, but by and large Iran's large and cosmopolitan middle and upper classes were not subjected to any Taliban-like repression or even the severe life style restrictions of Saudi Arabia. Compared to many other nations of the Middle East Iran's political system was relatively open. The result of the 2005 national elections which confounded most observers by giving the presidential office to Mahmoud Ahmajinedad, the populist and religiously conservative mayor of Tehran over much better known and wealthier candidates from the Iranian elite is evidence of that. Iran's conduct of its foreign affairs following the war with Iraq shows no record of disruptive international or regional behavior. As a member of OPEC it has cooperated with that body's policies. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union Teheran quickly established cordial political and economic relationships with the new Russian Federation as well as with the new Near Eastern states formed from the old USSR-the so-called 'Stans. Trade with western Europe has continued; Germany, for instance, exports about $5 billion worth of products annually to Iran. Likewise, Tehran has worked diligently to improve its diplomatic and economic relationships with the rising Asian economic powers of China and India as well as with Japan, which gets over 15 per cent of its petroleum from Iran. Fully conscious of the dangers posed by the Taliban regime in its eastern neighbor of Afghanistan to its own relatively moderate Islamism and comparatively open political system, Iran worked closely with others in the region to counter the efforts of the mujaheddin and, after, 2001 cooperated with the United States in suppressing alQuaeda's activities in the region. Iran, with a significant drug abuse problem among its population, has also been active in efforts to stop the opium and heroin traffic emanating from Afghanistan. Indeed, Iran was notably cooperative with the anti-Iraq coalition during the Gulf War.
THE NUCLEAR ISSUE More to the point here is that Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1970 by which, while having the right to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy, it pledged not to make nuclear weapons and to submit to the inspections of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a UN body established in 1957, to ensure that it was not doing so. Indeed, Iran has allowed these inspections over the years, and, following the US invasion of Iraq, partly rationalized by charges that Iraq-also an NPT signatory-had or was developing nuclear weapons, went beyond what the NPT required it to do by accepting a so-called "additional protocol" proposed by the European Union. Under this it agreed to suspend its NPT-authorized right to enrich uranium for its nuclear power plants, currently under construction with Russian assistance, while the IAEA conducted detailed investigations to ascertain that Iran was not, as the United States was openly accusing it of doing, using its nuclear power program as a cover for weapons manufacture. After an extraordinary examination, in which Iran cooperated fully, IAEA chief Mohammed Al Baradei, issued a report in November 2004, stating that Iran was in "substantive compliance" not only with its NPT obligations but with those of the "additional protocol" as well. He did point out, it should be noted, that Iran had previously not reported on or completely explained some activities and possession of traces of some materials. However, having said this, he went on to state that he had found "no indication" that Iran had ever diverted any "special nuclear materials" to a military purpose.A fairminded observer, especially in light of renewed nuclear weapons design work in the United States-also an NPT signatory-might say that since Iran has been engaged in nuclear energy work for over 30 years and during much of that time under threat or actual attack by enemies possessing nuclear weapons-among them the US and Israel-it would be surprising if there had not from time to time been discussion or actual planning for nuclear weapons development in Teheran. Al Baradei's finding of "substantial compliance" probably means that whatever the Iranians had done in this way had not, in fact, been "substantial" in the sense of establishing a meaningful weapons production capability. However much or little credit one gives to official Iranian statements of policy on nuclear weapons, it is worth recalling that at his inauguration President Aboudinejad made a point of denouncing them and promised that Iran would remain a non-nuclear weapons state. Of equal, if not greater, significance is the fact that the real power in Iran, the man who, among other things, controls its armed forces, is the head of the Shiite clergy, Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei. He has issued a fatwa-a religious ruling-against nuclear weapons. Granted, Iran, like every other Islamic nation, sees Israel as an enemy, something, as its current president has unwisely said, that should be wiped off the map. It also sponsors the armed Lebanese Shiite group, Hizbollah, which has commited the crime of effectively defending Lebanese territory against Israeli incursions. However, everything taken into consideration, one could make the case that Iran over the years has been a very respectable global citizen and, indeed, if anything has been more sinned against than sinning.
WHAT LIES BEHIND US POLICY It is against this background that one has to try to explain why the United States ignores, indeed, denounces, the IAEA report's conclusion that Iran is today in "substantial compliance" and instead seizes on its note of possible prior incomplete reporting to charge Iran with being "a threat to peace and security" to be referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctioning or other action. Indeed, when other permanent members of the Security Council, such as Russia and China, question the need for even economic sanctions, senior Bush administration officials, especially Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and UN Ambassador John Bolton, echoed by Israeli government spokesmen, mutter darkly that the use of military force against Iran "remains on the table" as an option. It is even more of a question as to why this issue of possible past Iranian incomplete reporting-and the emphasis here is on "possible"-that both the European Union and the majority of the 39 member countries on the IAEA board-have elevated this to a major international crisis. It may be that the US and EU intelligence services have more convincing evidence about Iran's alleged nuclear weapons programs and intentions than they have revealed to date. If so, it is puzzling that they have not gone beyond broad accusations and seem to rely on allegations by Iranian exile organizations seeking to restore the monarchy. All this is unhappily reminiscent of the run up to the invasion of Iraq with charges of WMD. Indeed, given the total discrediting of the charges made by US and UK intelligence agencies about Iraq, supported by politically motivated ?migr? groups, it is astonishing that the accusations are not laughed out of the court of world public opinion. Nevertheless, a US Congress-so badly stung only three years ago by accepting the false representations of the Bush administration about Iraq-snaps eagerly at the Iran bait. Moreover, this time it is the Congress that takes the initiative, rejecting White House cautions about taking unilateral action that would hinder administration efforts to build an international consensus against Iran. On March 15, the House International Relations Committee in a bipartisan 35 to 3 vote, endorsed legislation that would deny US economic assistance to any country that invested in Iran's energy sector or allowed a private entity to do so. Democratic hawk Tom Lantos argued that this would inflict "economic pain on Tehran" and "starve" it of the resources needed to fund its nuclear program. The resolution will probably pass in the House, but indications are that the Senate will reject it. One cannot resist the temptation of saying to the Congress, "Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice; shame on me." As of now, the matter is before the Security Council, the IAEA accepting Rice's demand that its whole dossier on Iran's nuclear power program be sent there. It is not clear what will be the result of the Council's consideration of the dossier. As noted, IAEA's documentation is far more exculpatory of Iran than otherwise. Moreover, the presidency of the Council has passed from the aggressive, to say the least, US Ambassador Bolton to the Argentine Ambassador Cesar Mayoral who is certainly unlikely to push hard for sanctions. Moreover, permanent Council members China and Russia, both having veto power, are opposed to any punitive action. Granted, both are not completely happy with Iran for not accepting the proposal for abandoning uranium enrichment activities on its own soil and working in partnership with Russia in a Russian plant. Both of them, while accepting that Iran is within its treaty rights in demanding that it have the capability for producing fuel for its nuclear power plants, clearly wish that Iran would compromise on this point, defusing the crisis and, importantly, not forcing them into a confrontation with the US and the EU. That said, in the final analysis it is clear that neither China nor Russia, especially the former, will endorse or take part in any economic or security measures directed against Iran and they will, if necessary, veto any such measures should they come to a vote. Of all the questions about the "Iranian nuclear crisis" surely the most basic one is why has the United States made it such a major issue? Secondarily, but surely even more puzzling is why has the European Union shown itself so willing to carry Bush administration water in what is by any measure a very dubious cause? With regard to the US, a factor, ridiculous as it sounds, is desire to punish Iran for overthrowing the Shah and the taking of the embassy hostages twenty-eight years ago. More important is the underlying longterm policy of wanting direct control over the oil resources of the Middle East. This policy, despite the fact that there is little evidence of any inability of the US to access oil in the global market, is intensified by the growingly recognized fact that China and India are becoming ever more powerful competitors for the oil of the region. It is hard to take really seriously Washington claims that Iran-a country of 70 million people, industrially underdeveloped, with no modern record of military adventurism-represents a threat to either the US or its neighbors, with or without a nuclear capability. However, that is not the way the Bush administration, which interprets anything other than total subservience as a threat to US national interests, sees it. As for the Europeans, it can be argued that, with the exception of the UK and Italy, having taken a principled but totally ineffectual stand against the US aggression in Iraq, they fear that if the US somehow does succeed in its goal of turning Iraq into a quasi-US colony and then is able somehow to subdue Iran, that they will be frozen out of Middle Eastern picture in the future. Perhaps their governing elites worry that failure to join in will mean they will no longer be taken seriously. Certainly there has been not entirely unfounded speculation that Germany's new Chancellor, Angela Merkel, sees herself in the role of Margaret Thatcher to George Bush's Ronald Reagan. Certainly France's political leadership, shocked by the rejection of the EU constitution and uncertain about how to deal with its growing and restive Islamic immigrant population, has lost the confidence it showed when it opposed the Iraq invasion. Certainly also there can be no real belief in either Berlin or Paris that Iran, whether it enriches its own uranium or not, poses any "threat" to them now or in the foreseeable future. What they must know, as the King of Jordan warned this week, is that any military attack on Iran, by either the US or Israel, will send the smouldering Middle East and the rest of the Islamic world up in flames, with tragic consequences for the planet. Even the establishment of a sanctions regimen against Iran for, essentially, the crime of insisting on its treaty rights, while Israel holds its several hundred nuclear weapons and the US, while blatantly announcing the modernization of its own nuclear bomb stocks and, in its just-issued strategic doctrine paper, announces that it will use nuclear weapons in any future conflicts when and how it wishes, is likely to have very negative results. It is a good sign that the UK's foreign minister, Jack Straw, has recently very pointedly distanced himself and his country from Washington on the Iran strategy by saying that the use of military force to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue has been ruled out. Russia and China, as emphasized here, definitely oppose either sanctions or armed force. The rest of the EU, having shown solidarity to this point, appears ready to draw back. The United States, even as Iraq descends into civil war and where the Shiite majority of its population identifies with Iran, is increasingly isolated. Will Washington, regardless of the weakness of its case and its limited international support, still press on? If it fails to carry the Security Council, as it probably will, will it then take unilateral military or economic action? Military action is madness; unilateral economic sanctions are basically cutting of the American nose to spite the American face. The Iran nuclear issue. An unnecessary crisis, totally manufactured and fatuously pursued. Just one more Bush administration fiasco. David MacMichael is a former CIA analyst and a member
of the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity.
|
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. |