Archive for July 14th, 2008
Amber Alert! Get ready for war
Amber Alert! Get ready for war
by Justin Raimondo
In spite of reassurances from the Washington talking heads and policy wonks that the U.S. is not about to launch an attack on Iran, or countenance an Israeli strike, the Sunday Times has the real scoop:
“President George W. Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.
“Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread skepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political, and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an ‘amber light’ to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.
“‘Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack, and tell us when you’re ready,’ the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use U.S. military bases in Iraq for logistical support.”
It seems, however, that the Israelis have already been using U.S. bases in Iraq to train for the coming attack. There have been denials all around – from the Iraqis, the Americans, and the Israelis – but both the Iraqi media and the Israeli media have reported, as the New York Post put it, that “Israeli warplanes have been flying over Iraq and landing at U.S. bases there in preparation for an attack on Iran.” The Iraqi Web site Nahrainet reported Israeli fighter jets have been in rehearsals, so to speak, for their much-anticipated strike at Iran, flying at night over Jordanian airspace and arriving at U.S. air bases in Nasiriyah in southern Iraq and near Haditha in western Anbar province.
The Israelis, in concert with their amen corner in the U.S., have been engaged in a propaganda blitz targeting Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program, the whole point of which is not to pressure the Iranians into backing down, but to force the U.S. to take action in lieu of the Israelis going it alone. Why fight if your big brother is willing to wage the battle? To that end, the Israelis are taking aim at Washington, rather than Tehran, in a full-scale political assault that shows every sign of succeeding where it counts – in the Oval Office. The Times cites a top Pentagon official:
“It’s really all down to the Israelis. This administration will not attack Iran. This has already been decided. But the president is really preoccupied with the nuclear threat against Israel and I know he doesn’t believe that anything but force will deter Iran.”
Translation: The U.S. will not be the first to attack Iran, but it may well join in once the Israelis get things started. Laura Rozen, writing in Mother Jones, reports that a parade of Israeli officials – including Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi – is due in Washington over the next two weeks to impress upon the Americans the urgent necessity of taking military action. Rozen spoke to neocon superhawk David Wurmser, former adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney on Middle Eastern affairs, who said:
“‘Ultimately, my gut tells me that most of the administration on most levels would push back very hard,’ on Israeli pressure on Washington to authorize it to strike Iran, Wurmser added. ‘What those in the administration who don’t want Israel to act probably won’t want is for it to be taken to the highest level. They would always be afraid that the president might not be so tough on the Israelis. If the Israeli government really intends to do something, they would go to the highest level without a lot of people knowing.’”
They may have gotten to the president already, as Rozen reports:
“A former Pentagon intelligence official who spoke with Mother Jones also alleges that Meir Dagan, the chief of the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad, held secret meetings with officials in the White House on Wednesday. Neither the Israeli embassy nor National Security Council would comment on whether Dagan had been at the White House.”
This is really the crux of the matter: George W. Bush. Reckless, more radical than most of his advisers, and now dangerously fixated on his “legacy,” he is more determined than ever to leave his lasting mark on the Middle East and the world – and, given that the Constitution has been abandoned, and a single man can take us to war without the consent of Congress or the people, an apocalyptic departure from office seems more likely than not.
As in the run-up to the Iraq war, the prelude to this far greater conflict is marked by attempts to circumvent what one Bush official disdainfully referred to as “the reality-based community” and “stove-pipe” the Israelis’ analysis of Iran intelligence into the White House. Our own National Intelligence Estimate, compiled by the CIA and a raft of other intelligence-gathering outfits, says that the Iranians abandoned their nuclear weapons program years ago and they aren’t anywhere near weaponization of their nascent nuclear capabilities at the present time. The Israelis beg to differ, and they are stating their case to Bush in person – whispering in a presidential ear that has been unusually receptive to them in the past.
Wurmser gives the odds of the Israelis attacking Iran before Bush leaves office as “slightly, slightly above 50-50.” If that happens, then it is only a matter of time – a very short time – before the U.S. is involved in a large-scale conflict with Iran that will send oil prices skyrocketing past $300 per barrel and bring the world economy to a screeching halt…
58 permanent U.S. bases in Iraq?
58 permanent U.S. bases in Iraq?
Let the next president decide troops’ long-term status
On Dec. 31, the United Nations mandate authorizing American and other foreign troops to operate in Iraq expires. Absent an agreement between the Iraqi and U.S. governments, U.S. troops would be in Iraq illegally past that date. The two sides have been working frantically toward such an agreement — the Bush administration more frantically than Iraq’s Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.
Two questions: Given that the occupation of Iraq is costing taxpayers $12 billion a month (and rising), why isn’t the administration involving Congress? And why is the administration intent on securing a long-term agreement now, denying the next president the chance to set his own agenda in Iraq rather than be bound to Bush’s?
The administration doesn’t want to make public what it’s aiming for in the “status of force” agreement. All of what’s known about it is leaked through the Iraqi side, which doesn’t feel bound by secrecy. The administration also doesn’t want to submit the agreement to Congress for review, likely fearing the public hearings that would follow. Al-Maliki is surprising Bush by sounding tougher on the American military presence than most anti-war Democrats have managed to do lately. Al-Maliki doesn’t want a permanent U.S. military presence on his soil. He wants a withdrawal timetable. He’s refusing to sign off on the agreement.
Al-Maliki has good reason to resist. That he does is good for Iraq and American taxpayers. The Bush administration’s version of the agreement would have U.S. forces stationed in 58 permanent bases around Iraq (Florida has about 18 major and minor bases). There would be no pullout timetable. And American forces as well as contractors working with them, such as private-security guards and mercenaries, would be granted immunity from Iraqi laws. Al-Maliki wants neither a permanent military presence nor full immunity. He wants a more temporary agreement.
The deployment in Iraq is neither a minor operation nor a peaceful one. Despite the decrease in violence there, American forces, as opposed to Iraqi forces, still control about half the country. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, projects an end to military operations (but not to some form of occupation) by 2013. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, projects a withdrawal sooner. But even he would not altogether eliminate an American military presence from Iraq.
Disagreements abound over what the next course should be. There should be no disagreement over what matters most immediately to the American and Iraqi public: The Iraqi prime minister cannot sign a status-of-force agreement with the United States without his parliament’s approval. Bush should not sign the agreement without congressional approval. Better yet, he should not pursue more than a temporary agreement, as al-Maliki is urging. Let the next president decide, with Congress and free of Bush’s muddied motives, how broad and permanent the American presence in Iraq should be.
Status of Force
The United States is party to about 100 status-of-force agreements. Many outline how troops may operate in allied countries such as Canada, Germany, Greece and Norway. Several are like lease agreements setting forth which military bases the U.S. may use. Several are secret (Kuwait, Kenya, Malaysia, Qatar, Oman, the United Arab Emirates). Most aren’t submitted to Congress because they don’t involve large expenditures — of money or personnel. They’re usually negotiated by the State Department and the Pentagon. But major agreements, such as the 1970 pacts controlling U.S. troops in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, were ratified by the Senate. Half the country’s pacts fall under the guidelines of the NATO agreement. The 1954 treaty controlling U.S. forces in South Korea also was ratified by the Senate.
USA has lost the war with unexpected Iraqi demand for US withdrawl
USA has lost the war with unexpected Iraqi demand
for US withdrawl
With Unexpected Iraqi Withdrawal Demand, Bush Has Lost the War
By Gareth Porter,
New Iraqi resistance to U.S. demands reflects Iran’s influence as well as Sadr’s belief that he could succeed in driving U.S. forces out.
The official Iraqi demand for U.S. withdrawal confirms what was becoming increasingly clear in recent months — that the Iraqi regime has decided to shed its military dependence on the United States.
The two strongly pro-Iranian Shiite factions supporting the regime in Baghdad, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) and al-Maliki’s own Dawa Party, were under strong pressure from both Iran and their own Shiite population and from Shiite clerics, including Ayatollah Ali Sistani, to demand U.S. withdrawal.
The statement by al-Rubaei came immediately after he had met with Sistani, thus confirming earlier reports that Sistani was opposed to any continuing U.S. military presence.
The Bush administration has had doubts in the past about the loyalties of those two Shiite groups and of the SIIC’s Badr Corps paramilitary organization, and it maneuvered in 2005 and early 2006 to try to weaken their grip on the interior ministry and the police.
By 2007, however, the administration hoped that it had forged a new level of cooperation with al-Maliki aimed at weakening their common enemy, Moqtada al-Sadr’s anti-occupation Mahdi Army. SIIC leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim was invited to the White House in December 2006 and met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in November 2007.
The degree of cooperation with the al-Maliki regime against the Sadrists was so close that the Bush administration even accepted for a brief period in late 2007 the al-Maliki regime’s argument that Iran was restraining the Mahdi Army by pressing Sadr to issue his August 2007 ceasefire order.
In November, Bush and al-Maliki agreed on a set of principles as the basis for negotiating agreements on stationing of U.S. forces and bilateral cooperation, including a U.S. guarantee of Iraq’s security and territorial integrity. In February 2008, U.S. and Iraqi military planners were already preparing for a U.S.-British-Iraqi military operation later in the summer to squeeze the Sadrists out of Basra.
But after the U.S. draft agreement of Mar. 7 was given to the Iraqi government, the attitude of the al-Maliki government toward the U.S. military presence began to shift dramatically, just as Iran was playing a more overt role in brokering ceasefire agreements between the two warring Shiite factions.
The first indication was al-Maliki’s refusal to go along with the Basra plan and his sudden decision to take over Basra immediately without U.S. troops. Petraeus later said a company of U.S. army troops was attached to some units as advisers “just really because we were having a problem figuring where was the front line.”
That al-Maliki decision was followed by an Iranian political mediation of the intra-Shiite fighting in Basra, at the request of a delegation from the two pro-government parties. The result was that Sadr’s forces gave up control of the city, even though they were far from having been defeated.
U.S. military officials were privately disgruntled at that development, which effectively canceled the plan for a much bigger operation against the Sadrists during the summer. Weeks later, a U.S. “defense official” would tell the New York Times, “We may have wasted an opportunity in Basra to kill those that needed to be killed.”
In another sign of the shifting Iraqi position away from Washington, in early May, al-Maliki refused to cooperate with a Cheney-Petraeus scheme to embarrass Iran by having the Iraqi government publicly accuse it of arming anti-government Shiites in the South. The prime minister angered U.S. officials by naming a committee to investigate U.S. charges.
Even worse for the Bush administration, a delegation of Shiite officials to Tehran that was supposed to confront Iran over the arms issue instead returned with a new Iranian strategy for dealing with Sadr, according to Alissa J. Rubin of the New York Times: reach a negotiated settlement with him.
The al-Maliki regime began to apply the new Iranian strategy immediately. On May 10, al-Maliki and Sadr reached an accord on Sadr City, where pitched battles were being fought between U.S. troops and the Sadrists.
The new accord prevented a major U.S. escalation of violence against the Mahdi Army stronghold and ended heavy U.S. bombing there. Seven U.S. battalions had been poised to assault Sadr City with tanks and armored cars in a battle expected to last several weeks.
Under the new pact, Sadr allowed Iraqi troops to patrol in his stronghold, in return for the government’s agreement not to arrest any Sadrist troops unless they were found with “medium and heavy weaponry”.
The new determination to keep U.S. forces out of the intra-Shiite conflict was accompanied by a new tough line in the negotiations with the Bush administration on status of forces and cooperation agreements. In a May 21 briefing for Senate staff, Bush administration officials said Iraq was now demanding “significant changes to the form of the agreements”.
The al-Maliki regime was rejecting the U.S. demand for access to bases with no time limit as well as for complete freedom to use them without consultation with the Iraqi government, as well as its demand for immunity for its troops and contractors. The Iraqis were asserting that these demands violated Iraqi sovereignty. By early June, Iraqi officials were openly questioning for the first time whether Iraq needs a U.S. military presence at all.
The unexpected Iraqi resistance to the U.S. demands reflected the underlying influence of Iran on the al-Maliki government as well as Sadr’s recognition that he could achieve his goal of liberating Iraq from U.S. occupation through political-diplomatic means rather than through military pressures.
Iran put very strong pressure on Iraq to reject the agreement, as soon as it saw the initial U.S. draft. It could cite the fact that the draft would allow the United States to use Iraqi bases to attack Iran, which was known to be a red line in Iran-Iraq relations.
The Iranians could argue that an Iraqi Shiite regime could not depend on the United States, which was committed to a strategy of alliance with Sunni regimes in the region against the Shiite regimes.
Iran was able to exploit a deep vein of Iraqi Shiite suspicion that the U.S. might still try to overthrow the Shiite regime, using former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and some figures in the Iraqi Army. When the U.S. draft dropped an earlier U.S. commitment to defend Iraq against external aggression and pledged only to “consult” in the event of an external threat, Iran certainly exploited the opening to push al-Maliki to reject the agreement.
The use of military bases in Iraq to project U.S. power into the region to carry out regime change in Iran and elsewhere had been an essential part of the neoconservative plan for invading Iraq from the beginning.
The Bush administration raised the objective of a long-term military presence in Iraq based on the “Korea model” last year at the height of the U.S. celebration of the pacification of the Sunni stronghold of Anbar province, which it viewed as sealing its victory in the war.
But the Iraqi demand for withdrawal makes it clear that the Bush administration was not really in control of events in Iraq, and that Shiite political opposition and Iranian diplomacy could trump U.S. military power.
The Big Secret about Peak Oil and the US Military
The Big Secret about Peak Oil and the US Military
By: Mike_Stathis
Those of you who do not believe Peak Oil Theory should first make sure you fully understand it. According to this theory, after a reservoir has been depleted by half of its total volume, the output begins to plateau or remain constant for some unknown period. At some later time (which is unpredictable) the output begins a permanent decline of variable duration (which is also unpredictable) until the remaining quantity of oil is no longer economically feasible to extract with current technology. Therefore, Peak Oil Theory does not state that the earth is running out of oil per say. It states that the earth is running out of inexpensive oil, otherwise known as conventional oil – the high-grade oil that comes out by drilling on land and requires minimal refinement costs.
What this means is that we could have enough total oil (conventional plus non-conventional) say for the next 100 years, but that does not matter. What really matters is how much conventional oil reservoirs remain because this is the lowest cost oil to produce. In other words, Peak Oil is concerned with how much crude we can produce and refine per given day per dollar.
The United States reached its peak oil period in the early 1970s. Ever since that time, we have relied more and more on foreign oil imports. Interestingly, since that time we have also relied more and more on imported goods, while both consumer and federal debt have ballooned. According to many independent (and unbiased) oil experts, the world will soon have reached this peak oil period, causing even more dependence on exploration for non-convention oil.
Over the past two decades, new conventional oil finds around the world have been far and few. And what was once thought as large finds have turned out to yield much less than first thought. Throughout this period oil demand has continued to increase. It has especially strengthened over the past few years due to the rapid expansion of Asia .
As demand has increased and new finds have diminished, OPEC has fudged oil reserves data for many years, causing concerns about Peak Oil to remain hidden up until recently. As a result, oil prices have soared. And this has made exploration for non-conventional oil not only more feasible, but mandatory. Consequently, over the past few years, we have become increasingly reliant on more non-conventional oil sources, such as tar and oil sands and deep water drilling. These are considered non-conventional sources because they require large expenditures of money to produce finished petroleum products. These two variables – increased demand and decreased supplies of conventional oil have been the main forces responsible for record oil prices. Over the past year, oil has also risen due to the inflationary effects from the Federal Reserve, which has weakened the dollar. The dollar-oil link explains many things which you were probably unaware of.
Oil industry giants such as Exxon continue to insist that we have plenty of oil for decades, but then add that more investments are needed for offshore exploration. What they are really saying is that higher oil prices are due to Peak Oil – the decline in conventional oil reservoirs, which is forcing companies to focus on non-conventional oil. They use word games to hide the truth because they realize any possibility of Peak Oil will cause a push for alternative energy, which would threaten their monopoly. OPEC plays the same game. Washington goes along with these fantasies as well for a much bigger reason – the preserve the dollar-oil link.
You see folks, as long as the world is dependent on oil, the dollar remains backed by crude since you can only buy it with the dollar (with one rare exception to be mentioned shortly). This dollar-oil link helps keep the dollar as the universal currency. And because the entire world must use the dollar, you can imagine how that dilutes the inflationary effects seen in America due to the Fed’s printing presses. Thus, the dollar-oil link ensures the Fed’s inflation machine is spread throughout the globe. Without the dollar’s link to oil, the inflation seen in America would be much more severe.
This is the secret that virtually no one realizes. It is not a conspiracy. It is a fact. And the few in Washington who realize it are never going to admit it. But consider why it is that America has such good relations with the Saudis. After all, it was President Nixon who negotiated with the Saudi Royal family to demand dollar payments for oil shortly after severing the finally link to the gold standard. Soon after all of OPEC followed suit. In exchange for the dollar-oil link, the Saudi Royal family receives the protection of the U.S. military. This is why the Saudis are rarely criticized by Washington . They have earned a blanket exception for virtually anything they do, including involvement in terrorism and yes, even including holding down oil output.
The Saudis know well that they have a good deal of control over the fate of the U.S. economy. Given the fact that Iran has now created an oil exchange (Iranian Oil Bourse, March 2006) that accepts only the Euro, you should understand why they want nuclear weapons – for protection against a U.S. attack. As Iran realizes, severing the dollar-oil link is the easiest way to destroy the U.S. And any nation that tries to do this will be dealt with accordingly. Saddam Hussein tried to sell oil accepting only the Euro in 2000 and we know what happened to him. As well, any committed push to transition the U.S. into alternative energy threatens to destroy the global enslavement by the dollar-oil link. Alternative energy will come. But it will come slowly and Washington will make sure of this. Incidentally, I discuss this as one of many critical topics in my book “ America ’s Financial Apocalypse.”
By Mike Stathis
http://www.apexvc.com
Mike Stathis is the Managing Principal of Apex Venture Advisors , a business and investment intelligence firm serving the needs of venture firms, corporations and hedge funds on a variety of projects. Mike’s work in the private markets includes valuation analysis, deal structuring, and business strategy. In the public markets he has assisted funds and corporations with investment strategy, valuation analysis, market forecasting, risk management, and distressed securities analysis. Recently, Mike has been particularly active helping clients navigate the real estate and banking crisis.
The accuracy of his predictions and insights detailed in the 2006 release of “America’s Financial Apocalypse” and “Cashing in on the Real Estate Bubble” have positioned him as one of America ’s most insightful and creative financial minds. These publications serve as proof that he remains well ahead of the curve, as he continues to position his clients with a unique competitive advantage.
US and Israel should beware of taking on Iran
US and Israel should beware of taking on Iran
The war fever is up again over Iran’s nuclear programme, which Tehran still claims is only peaceful. Mullen refused to say what Israeli leaders told him privately last week. But in June the Israelis flew some 100 aircraft across the Mediterranean to practice aerial refuelling of their strike force of F15 and F16s. They tanked them to travel a distance of some 2,000km – roughly the distance to Natanz, where Iran currently has thousands of centrifuges spinning.
Natanz is the likely target of any ‘fire power demonstration’ by combined forces of
America and Israel. But what would flattening the facilities, such as they are known, achieve? “It would probably set Iran back about two years,” according to one US analyst. And it would leave a terrible human mess. Some 35,000 Iranians have been housed close to the plant.
“An attack would be crazy,” the rising star of the Tehran hierarchy, Ali Larijani, has said. He sees real possibilities of productive talks now.
It seems almost incredible that after their two disastrous efforts at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush and Cheney might still be thinking of a third against Iran. The consequences could be worse by far, because Iran is well-prepared for retaliation, with land-launched anti-ship missiles ready along the coast.
It plans to choke 40 per cent of the world’s oil in the Straits of Hormuz in the Gulf, and trigger further offensives by the Taliban and the Tajik northern alliance in Afghanistan. There will be a general order to attack Anglo-American allies and interests.
Someone in the White House is still desperate to bomb something in Iran before they leave officeSign in America and Israel. But what would flattening the facilities, such as they are known, achieve? “It would probably set Iran back about two years,” according to one US analyst. And it would leave a terrible human mess. Some 35,000 Iranians have been housed close to the plant.
“An attack would be crazy,” the rising star of the Tehran hierarchy, Ali Larijani, has said. He sees real possibilities of productive talks now.
It seems almost incredible that after their two disastrous efforts at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush and Cheney might still be thinking of a third against Iran. The consequences could be worse by far, because Iran is well-prepared for retaliation, with land-launched anti-ship missiles ready along the coast.
It plans to choke 40 per cent of the world’s oil in the Straits of Hormuz in the Gulf, and trigger further offensives by the Taliban and the Tajik northern alliance in Afghanistan. There will be a general order to attack Anglo-American allies and interests.
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/44779,opinion,us-and-israel-should-beware-of-taking-on-iran
US suffers heavy losses in Afghanistan
US suffers heavy losses in Afghanistan
US commander Daniel Dwyer told the BBC the soldiers had been killed in clashes in the north-east of the country.
The BBC’s Martin Patience in Kabul says it is one of the biggest single losses in a day for the coalition since the start of military operations there.
The attack came as international and Afghan security forces battled militants on several fronts.
On Sunday, US forces said 40 insurgents had been killed in Helmand province in the past 24 hours.
There are conflicting reports as to where the latest attack took place.
A foreign military spokesman said US soldiers and members of the Afghan National Army came under attack in Kunar province, near the border with Pakistan.
But Afghan officials insist the fighting took place in neighbouring Nuristan Province.
Nato reported that a small American Combat Outpost in Dara-I-Pech district of Kunar Province, came under heavy fire at around 04.30 local time.
It said insurgents had fired “with small arms, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars using homes, shops and the mosque in the village of Wanat for cover.”
Local officials say a number of civilians and militants were killed in the attack.
Our correspondent says there are frequent attacks in the area.
In a separate incident on Sunday, a suicide bomber killed at least 21 people, many of them children, in a market in the Deh Rawud district of Uruzgan province.
