The Fake U.S. Victory in Iraq

 

How the Bush Administration is Helping McCain

By PATRICK COCKBURN

Political events in Iraq are seldom what they seem. The hand- over by the US military of control of Anbar province, once the heartland of the Sunni rebellion, to Iraqi forces is a case in point. The US will keep 25,000 American soldiers in Anbar, so the extent to which the Iraqi government will really take over is debatable. But the future of Anbar is a crucial pointer to the fate of Iraq. It is a vast area and one of the few parts of Iraq that is overwhelmingly Sunni.

The Iraqi government is dominated by Shia Islamic parties in alliance with Kurdish nationalists. The vital question now is whether or not this Shia-dominated government can reassure the Sunni minority that they are not going to be overrun as the US withdraws its forces. The Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is in a very confident mood. In the past four months he feels he has successfully faced down the Shia militiamen of Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army by taking back control of Basra, Sadr City and Amarah. Then he refused to sign a new security accord with the US which President George Bush wanted to see agreed by August 31.

In the past few weeks he has been confronting his Kurdish allies over the future of the oil city of Kirkuk and the town of Khanaqin.

Mr Maliki may be overplaying his hand but there is no doubt that the Iraqi state is becoming more powerful in Iraq and the Mahdi Army, the Americans and the Kurds less so. The Americans in particular feel that he exaggerates the extent to which his success against the Mahdi Army was because of the new strength of the Iraqi security forces.

These troops were doing badly until they received American support.
Nevertheless, Mr Maliki’s position is strong. He seems to have realized that he may need the US, but the US also cannot do without him and is in no position to replace him as it did with his predecessor, Ibrahim al-Jaafari.

Much of what the White House is now doing is done to help the Republicans in the presidential election. The aim is to give the impression that Iraq has finally come right for the US and victory is finally in its grasp. The surge is promoted as the strategy by which the tide was turned and it is true that the Sunni uprising against the US occupation has largely ended.

But it has done so for reasons that have little to do with the surge or American actions of any kind. Crucial to the success of the government against the Mahdi Army has been the support of Iran. It is they who arranged for the Shia militiamen to go home.

It takes real cheek for Mr Bush to claim yesterday that “Anbar is no longer lost to al-Qa’ida” since during the last presidential election in 2004, he was claiming that the media was exaggerating the success of the insurgents.

Patrick Cockburn is the Ihe author of “Muqtada: Muqtada Al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq.

 

http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick09032008.html

 

 

 

 

””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’

””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’

 

US-Iraqi Agreement: Leaked

 

 

 

By Raed Jarrar

I read about a leaked copy of the US-Iraqi agreement a few days ago when a radio station in Iraq mentioned some of its details, then it was mentioned in some Arab newspapers like Al-Qabas and Al-Sharq Al-Awsat. A couple of days ago, one Iraqi website (linked to an Iraqi armed resistance group) published the leaked draft on their web page for less than a couple of days before their website went offline. (Thankfully, I downloaded the 21 pages agreement and saved them before their server went down)

I spent this weekend translating it, and just finished now. you can read the 27 articles August 6th draft by clicking here or here or here. The title of this draft is “Agreement regarding the activities and presence of U.S. forces, and its withdrawal from Iraq”, but this is the same agreement that is referred to as a “status of forces agreement” or “SOFA” or framework or whatever. It’s the result of months of negotiations after Bush and Al-Maliki signed the “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America” by the end of last year.

This leaked draft is a treasure of information. It’s the first time any document related to this topic is made public. It shows how weak the Iraqi negotiations team is (it is really pathetic to read their “suggestions” on how to fix the disaster of an agreement).

There are many outrageous articles in the agreement that violates Iraq’s sovereignty and independence, and gives the U.S. occupation authorities unprecedented rights and privileges, but what has draw my attention the most (so far) are three major points:

1- the agreement does not discuss anything about a complete US withdrawal from Iraq. Instead, it talks about withdrawing “combat troops” without defining what is the difference between combat troops and other troops. It is very clear that the US is planning to stay indefinitely in permanent bases in Iraq (or as the agreement calls them: “installations and areas agreed upon”) where the U.S. will continue training and supporting Iraqis armed forces for the foreseeable future.

2- the agreement goes into effect when the two executive branches exchange “memos”, instead of waiting for Iraqi parliament’s ratification. This is really dangerous, and it is shocking because both the Iraqi and U.S. executive branches have been assuring the Iraqi parliament that no agreement will go into effect without being ratified by Iraq’s MPs.

3- this agreement is the blueprint for keeping other occupation armies (aka Multi-national forces) in Iraq on the long run. This explains the silence regarding what will happed to other occupiers (like the U.K. forces) after the expiration of the UN mandate at the end of this year.

It is really disturbing to read how the U.S. government is still going down the same path of intervention and domination in Iraq.

This agreement will not be accepted by the Iraqi people and their elected representatives in the Iraqi parliament, and if the U.S. and Iraqi executive branches try to consider it valid anyway it will lead to more violence in Iraq.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/35797

 

 

The Strategic Importance of the Black Sea

 

 

 

By Stratfor

Stratfor, short for Strategic Forecasting Inc., is the world’s leading private intelligence company. Founded in 1996, Stratfor delivers to its clients real-time intelligence, analysis and forecasts on geopolitical, economic, security and public policy issues.Recent events in Georgia have brought into sharp focus the strategic value of the Black Sea, a vital body of water in the middle of a resource-rich area. This region is particularly strategic from the Russian perspective, meaning any fight flaring up between the West and Russia would likely see the Black Sea as a major point of conflict. A review of the strategic importance of the Black Sea for the various interested powers is therefore in order.

The Black Sea forms roughly the southern and the eastern boundaries of Europe with the Middle East and Asia respectively, and it is the major body of water between the Caspian Sea and the Mediterranean. It is connected to the Mediterranean via the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, two straits that form a maritime bottleneck separating Europe from Asia. The Turkish coast forms the southern coastline of the Black Sea, while the northern coast of the sea is split almost equally between Russia and Ukraine. The Russian-populated, but Ukrainian-owned, Crimean Peninsula juts into the middle of the sea, affording whoever controls it crucial access to the Russian and Ukrainian plains. To the sea’s east are the Georgian coast and the Caucasus, while in the west lie the Balkan states of Bulgaria, Romania and landlocked Moldova.

The Black Sea is essential to any attempt at force projection in the region because the Carpathian Mountains in Romania and the Caucasus Mountains constrain any land-based moves against Russia from the south. The Black Sea is therefore the only path through which a potential enemy could threaten Russia’s core without, of course, driving across Poland and the North European plain straight to Moscow — a path Napoleon and Hitler found was not so direct after all. Because the Black Sea is close to the Caucasus and directly below Russia’s oil-producing regions of Tatarstan and Bashkorostan, it also affords any Russian enemy a direct line toward the energy lifeline of the Russian military.

For Europe, the Black Sea has never been a major military route of invasion and has often, in fact, acted as a buffer against land-based armies. As a trade route, however, the Black Sea is vital for the Europeans. During the Cold War, Black Sea shipping was minimal, as the lower Danube River fell into the Soviet sphere. But with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the cessation of hostilities in former Yugoslavia, the Danube has returned as a key transportation route, particularly for Germany. Now, Central European manufacturing exports can be floated down the river to the Black Sea, which is much cheaper than transporting them to the Baltic Sea by land. Any renewed closure of this transportation route would certainly be a big problem for Europe.

The Black Sea is vital for Georgia, whose only access to Europe is via the sea, due to the rugged terrain of the Caucasus and through Russian hostility.

For Russia, the key strategic value of the Black Sea lies in controlling the energy resources in the Caucasus and around the Caspian Sea. If a naval operation were to project power from the Black Sea toward the Don River corridor between Rostov-on-Don and Volgograd (better known by its former name, Stalingrad), Moscow would be cut off from the Russian Caucasus and the region’s immense energy resources.

French and British expeditionary forces tried to do just that during the Crimean War, first invading Crimea and taking Sevastopol and then trying to get to Rostov-on-Don through the Sea of Azov. In the nuclear age, a similar land invasion of Russia would of course be out of the question, but the trajectory of possible power projections still stands: through the Black Sea to Crimea and into the Rostov-on-Don/Volgograd Don River corridor. By attacking Moscow’s control over the Don River corridor, an enemy essentially would cut off the Caucasus from the Kremlin, setting the stage for further force projection inland.

Contemporary politico-military arrangements in Europe dictate that the Black Sea is essentially a NATO-controlled lake. The bottleneck of the Dardanelles/Bosporus is, for all intents and purposes (nuances of current international treaties such as the Montreux Convention aside), fully under the control of NATO member Turkey. Just south of the crucial straits lies the Aegean Sea — also NATO-controlled — a confining body of water that further entrenches NATO’s power in the region. Even if Russia were to miraculously break through the Dardanelles, the maze that is the Aegean would prove impossible to escape. Also, the entire Mediterranean is a NATO lake, given the predominance of its navies there along with the fact that the entire sea is in range of land-based airpower.

The extent of Russian naval and military power today lies in its ability to conduct precisely the sort of power projection witnessed in Georgia. Russia can play on its side of the Black Sea, particularly in Georgia and Ukraine; the strategic Crimean Peninsula and the naval base of Sevastopol act as a cockpit from which Russia controls the northern shores of the sea. Combined with air superiority on its side, Russia can certainly dominate the Caucasus and Ukraine. Russia also dominates these regions by virtue of its land power and contiguous territory. Doctrinally, Russia rolls in on the ground, maintaining direct land links to its home territory.

But this cuts both ways, and the Black Sea is the perfect platform through which to project military power into the very heart of Russia. Oceans and seas, in general, are the modern highways of war that a powerful state can use to project its power to any point on the planet. Without the Black Sea, the closest anyone could get to the Russian underbelly would entail marching through the North European Plain or the Balkans, prospects with a historically very low rate of success — and brutally high human and military costs. Alternatively, a modern navy, such as those possessed by the United States and some of its NATO allies, could easily park its fleet in the Black Sea, thanks to Turkish control of the Dardanelles. This would put the fleet within easy striking distance of Moscow’s energy-rich Caucasus region, all without the need to invade Russia proper as during the Crimean War. This option has only appeared with the advent of modern -guided missiles and carrier-launched aircraft, which perhaps accounts for the increased importance of the Black Sea Fleet, nominally the Kremlin’s least-favored fleet.

At present, the West also has overall superior military power in the Black Sea. By controlling the Dardanelles, the formidable U.S. and Turkish navies control the sea’s entrance as well as its waters. Turkish and U.S. air forces also have presence in the region. The U.S. air force has a hub in the southern Turkish air base at Incirlik, and airfields in Greece, Bulgaria and Romania could easily host decisive airpower from any number of NATO member countries, which could be used to establish air superiority over the entire sea and devastate the Russian naval presence. Turkey’s air force is also well-drilled and well-equipped. Modern weapons systems such as submarine- and ship-launched cruise missiles and carrier-launched jets would be able to target the very heart of Russia once the supremacy of the Black Sea was assured. (It should be pointed out, however, that when it comes to U.S. ship-, submarine- and air-launched cruise missiles, the Black Sea presents an additional vector of attack but is not decisive for attacking Russia’s European core, given U.S. access to the Barents, Baltic, Mediterranean and Aegean seas.)

The Black Sea could become an advantage for Russia only if Moscow somehow managed to neutralize Turkey and its control of the straits. Thus far, Russia has never been able to do this, either militarily or diplomatically. Moscow’s geography has always hindered its naval development, and despite trying on and off for more than a century, it has never been able to secure the Black Sea, instead living with it as a buffer, just as it uses Ukraine as a buffer. Today, more than ever, Turkey holds decisive military control over the only sea access to the Black Sea, and as such is the absolute arbiter of outside naval intervention. Turkish alliance with the West is therefore the key to NATO’s — and thus the West’s — continued denial of the Black Sea to Russia as anything more than a buffer, a reality that has not changed much throughout the centuries.

Link

Putin vows ‘an answer’ to NATO ships near Georgia

 

 

 

 

By MIKE ECKEL

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that Russia will respond calmly to an increase in NATO ships in the Black Sea in the aftermath of the short war with Georgia, but promised that “there will be an answer.”

Russia has repeatedly complained that NATO has too many ships in the Black Sea. Foreign Ministry official Andrei Nesterenko said Tuesday that currently there are two U.S., one Polish, one Spanish and one German ship there.

Russian officials say the United States could have delivered weapons to Georgia under the guise of humanitarian aid.

“We don’t understand what American ships are doing on the Georgian shores, but this is a question of taste, it’s a decision by our American colleagues,” he reportedly said. “The second question is why the humanitarian aid is being delivered on naval vessels armed with the newest rocket systems.”

He said Russia’s reaction to NATO ships “will be calm, without any sort of hysteria. But of course, there will be an answer,” Interfax quoted Putin as saying during a visit to Uzbekistan.

Asked by exactly what measures Russia would take, Putin was quoted as answering “You’ll see.”

Separately, Russian officials criticized European threats to postpone talks on a partnership deal over the war in Georgia, but the Russian envoy to the EU said he was not surprised that the bloc declined to impose sanctions on Russia.

“We are too interdependent,” Vladimir Chizhov told reporters in Moscow. “Russia and the European Union are bound by destiny to be close partners.”

EU officials said Monday that unless Russian troops pull back from positions in Georgia, talks on the wide-ranging political and economic agreement would be delayed.

Britain and Eastern European nations held out for a tougher line, but Europe’s dependence on Russian oil and natural gas deterred stronger sanctions.

Putin’s visit to Uzbekistan only highlighted that dependence: The Russian leader announces a new natural gas pipeline to cross Uzbekistan, strengthening Russian control over Central Asian gas exports to Europe and undermining Western-backed efforts for a rival trans-Caspian route.

Criticizing the EU decision, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said Russia had fulfilled “all of its commitments.”

He claimed efforts were under way to rebuild Georgia’s armed forces, and said Georgian military forces were behind protests against Russian troops stationed in the country.

“There are active attempts to restore the activity of Georgian troops,” he said. “Yesterday, there were rallies and provocations near the town of Kapoleti targeting Russian troops. We believe they were organized by Georgian special services.”

Georgian officials could not be immediately reached for comment on the claim.

“Naturally, we cannot agree with a number of biased statements regarding Russia in the final declaration of the summit, including the assertion that our reaction to the Georgian aggression was disproportionate,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

“The main thing, however, is that they are in the minority and the majority of EU countries have manifested a responsible approach and confirmed their intention to continue the partnership with Russia,” the ministry said.

On Aug. 7, Georgian forces attacked South Ossetia, hoping to retake the province, which broke away from Georgia in the early 1990s. Russian forces repelled the offensive and pushed into Georgia. Both sides signed a cease-fire deal in mid-August, but Russia has ignored its requirement for all forces to return to prewar positions.

Moscow insists the cease-fire accord lets it run checkpoints in security zones of up to 4 miles into Georgian territory.

Link

 

 

”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’

EU split over Russia

 

 

 

The Foreign Ministry says it regrets the EU’s decision to suspend talks on a new partnership agreement with Russia. Moscow says the new deal is just as important to Europe as it is to Russia. The bloc has been split over its response to the conflict in South Ossetia.

At Monday’s emergency summit in Brussels, EU leaders decided to halt talks on a new deal with Russia. The move was in response to Moscow’s role in the conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia. But according to some members of the European parliament, the summit showed that the union is anything but united.

Member of the European Parliament, Giulietto Chiesa, said that ‘a strange situation’ had occurred in the EU:

“The document states Russia made a disproportionate reaction while there is no mentioning of the attack from the Georgian side, so, we are talking about ‘disproportionate’ reaction, but against what? That was not even clear. It is not a good sign because it shows that Europe is not united”.

The EU has divided into two groups over the issue. On one side, Western European states – including France, Italy, Germany and Spain – are opposed to any harsh steps against Russia.

The French President Nicolas Sarkozy summed up their position:

“We don’t want to embark upon a new Cold War where problems in relations between Russia and Europe can only be settled through military confrontation. We have to remain calm and cool-headed”.

On the other side, newcomers to the Union – including Poland and the Baltic countries, backed by Sweden and Great Britain – condemned the events and insisted that Moscow must be punished for its actions in South Ossetia.

John Laughland, an expert from the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation in Paris, says the EU is hopelessly divided and therefore powerless.

“This is an organisation that has been struggling now for nearly ten years to elaborate a unified foreign policy. It’s precisely because they cannot agree on anything; they want to try and present a united front to the world on the situation with Russia, to make an impression that they are doing something, but in fact the EU is essentially powerless”.

The EU failed to agree on any concrete measures against Moscow. Many thought sanctions would be imposed, but they weren’t even mentioned.

The only practical outcome of the gathering is that a new partnership agreement with Europe and Russia to replace the one signed in 1997 has been suspended.

The Foreign Ministry says it isn’t happy with this, but says Europe should think about whether this delay is in its interests.

“We do have a lot of issues of mutual concern, and I believe that without being partners at the negotiating table on these issues we would not be contributing to the solutions of the problems,” said Andrey Nesterenko, Foreign Ministry spokesman.

But despite some potentially unpleasant consequences, there is a belief among Russian politicians that common sense has prevailed.

The Foreign Ministry said that despite the efforts of some European leaders to rock the boat, there’s still room for optimism.

Many experts agree that the biggest achievement of the EU talks is that European parliamentarians have agreed to go to Georgia. Then they’ll see with their own eyes what has been happening in the conflict zones.

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29836

 

 

 

”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’

Ukraine, NATO start military drills in Poland

 

A joint Ukrainian-Polish-British tactical exercise began on Tuesday at the Nova Demba military training grounds in Poland, the Ukrainian Defense Ministry said.

The Cossack Steppe 2008 exercise is part of the NATO Partnership for Peace Program and has been conducted in succession on the territories of the three countries since 1997.

“The current exercises are aimed at practicing stabilization measures in a region controlled by opposing terrorist and extremist forces,” the ministry said in a statement.

The exercise involves 50 Ukrainian servicemen from the 79th Airmobile Brigade and will be conducted until September 14. Soldiers from the brigade have served as peacekeepers in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Kosovo, and Sierra Leone.

The stated goal of Ukraine’s defense policy has long been to integrate with NATO, a drive that has received strong backing from the United States.

Every year the U.S. Departments of State and Defense allocate about $1-3 million to Ukraine’s participation in Partnership for Peace Program through the so-called “Warsaw Initiative,” founded by the United States in July 1994. The initiative primarily helps to promote the ability of the Ukraine’s armed forces to cooperate with NATO members, as well as to prepare the country for joining NATO.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080902/116478044.html

 

 

 

”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’

 

NATO continues to build up naval presence in Black Sea

NATO is continuing to strengthen its naval task force in the Black Sea, a Turkish military source said on Wednesday. “A U.S. Pathfinder ship has entered the Black Sea,” the source said on condition of anonymity.

USNS Pathfinder (T-AGS 60) is an oceanographic survey ship owned by Military Sealift Command and has a civilian crew and scientists on board.

However, a Russian military source told RIA Novosti that ships of the Pathfinder class could be used for reconnaissance and intelligence gathering purposes.

“We have reliable information confirming that the Pathfinder ship has arrived in the Black Sea primarily to conduct intelligence gathering operations in support of the NATO naval task group currently deployed in the area,” the source said.

NATO sent at least five warships, including guided missile frigates, into the Black Sea after Russia completed its operation “to force Georgia to peace” on August 12.

The operation came as a response to Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia on August 8.

Another U.S. warship is expected to arrive in the Black Sea in the next few days, a Russian intelligence source said on Wednesday.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday that Russia will respond calmly to the presence of NATO warships in the Black Sea. (U.S. Coastguard cutter Dallas enters Sevastopol Harbor – Video)

“Our response will be calm, not hysterical, but there will definitely be a response,” Putin said. (Russian warships arrive in Abkhazia – Video)

Meanwhile, Admiral Eduard Baltin, a former fleet commander of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, suggested last week that the NATO naval strike group currently deployed in the area could be destroyed by a single missile salvo within 20 minutes.

“Within 20 minutes the waters would be clear,” he said, stressing that despite major reductions, the Black Sea Fleet still has a formidable missile arsenal.

However, Baltin said the chances of a military confrontation between NATO and Russia in the Black Sea were negligible.

“We will not strike first, and they do not look like people with suicidal tendencies,” he said.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080903/116513608.html

 

20 Civilians Killed as NATO Forces Attack South Waziristan village

 

 

Early this morning NATO helicopters landed in a tiny village in South Waziristan, just a mile from the Afghan border. The forces killed 20 people including three women and four children, according to local residents, and wounded an undetermined number of others.

North-West Frontier Province Governor Owais Ahmed Ghani condemned the attack as “cowardly” and confirmed that at least 20 innocent civilians were killed. He also urged Pakistan’s military to “defend the sovereignty of the country”. NATO spokesman declined comment on the incident.

Local media reported that tribesmen launched a protest in the wake of the attack, marching and chanting anti-American slogans. The Pakistani Foreign Office announced that it had summoned US Ambassador Anne Patterson to lodge a formal protest against the incursion.

The Bush Administration was reported last month to be considering stepped up military strikes inside Pakistan, and while missile and artillery strikes against Pakistan’s tribal areas are not uncommon, the use of ground forces to attack a village on the Pakistani side of the border is practically unheard of. The move is likely to be ill-received in the upper echelons of Pakistan’s government, as in his July visit to Washington Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani warned President Bush against unilateral actions within Pakistan. It also comes just three days before Pakistan’s presidential election, in which the Pakistani Peoples Party’s de facto leader is courting the votes of tribal legislators to secure victory.

But the US is also said to be losing trust in the Pakistani government. The administration has accused Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency of having close ties with Islamist militants, and has pressed Pakistan’s military to do more to secure its long and porous border.

 

http://news.antiwar.com/

 

 

””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’

”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’

3 Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan

 

Three Canadian soldiers were killed and five wounded when they were attacked during a patrol in southern Afghanistan, officials said Wednesday.

The latest casualties brings Canada’s death toll to 96 soldiers.

Task Force Commander Brig.-Gen. Denis Thompson said from Afghanistan that Cpl. Andrew Grenon, Cpl. Mike Seggie and Pvt. Chad Horn were conducting a security patrol in the volatile Zhari district near Kandahar city when the attack occurred.

All dead and wounded were flown by helicopter to Kandahar Airfield.

Three of the soldiers were confirmed dead on arrival. One of the wounded remained in critical condition, another in serious condition and two in good condition. The fifth wounded soldier was treated and returned to duty.

Soldiers near end of tour
The latest casualties involved soldiers who were nearing the end of their six-month tour.

“It saddens me to think of their loved ones who were expecting them to return home later this month,” Thompson said.

4,000 troops deliver U.S. aid project to Afghans

Canada has lost 96 soldiers and one diplomat in Afghanistan since the country first sent troops to Afghanistan after the 9/11 terror attacks in the United States. Ottawa increased the deployment after declining a U.S. request to dispatch troops to Iraq.

Canada has 2,500 soldiers stationed in Kandahar province, the former Taliban stronghold that has again emerged as the epicenter of violence.

As the death toll in Afghanistan approaches 100, it threatens to rekindle a debate between those who argue a stable Afghanistan is needed to protect Canadians and global security and opponents who say too many soldiers are dying for a lost cause. That debate had largely dissipated since Parliament voted in March to extend the mission to 2011

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26531348/

September Surprise Get ready for it…

 

 

 

by Justin Raimondo

 

While the rest of the pundits opine about the meaning and implications of Sarah Palin’s ascension from small town mayor to prospective vice president – and whether or not her daughter’s private life is fair game for any media outlet other than the National Enquirer – those of us whose job it is to stand watch on the ramparts and report the real news are wondering when – not if – the War Party will pull a rabbit out of the proverbial hat. For months, I’ve been warning in this space that an American attack on Iran is imminent, and now I see that the Dutch have reason to agree with my assessment. Their intelligence service reportedly has pulled out of a covert operation inside Iran on the grounds that a U.S. strike is right around the corner – in “a matter of weeks,” according to De Telegraaf, a Dutch newspaper.

As the story goes, the Dutch had infiltrated the purported Iranian weapons project and were firmly ensconced when they got word that the Americans are about to launch a missile attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. They wisely decided to close down the operation and pull out.

Remember, the Israelis have been threatening to strike on their own for months: what’s changed is that now, apparently, the U.S. has caved in to what is a blatant case of blackmail and has agreed to do the job for them.

We haven’t heard much about Iran lately, at least compared to the scare headlines of a few months ago, when rumors of war were swirling fast and furious. The Russian “threat” seems to have replaced the Iranian “threat” as the War Party’s bogeyman of choice. What we didn’t know, however, is that the two focal points are intimately related.

According to this report by veteran Washington Times correspondent Arnaud de Borchgrave, the close cooperation of the Israelis with the Georgian military in the run-up to President Saakashvili’s blitz of South Ossetia was predicated on a Georgian promise to let the Israelis use Georgia’s airfields to mount a strike against Iran.

The main problem for Tel Aviv, in making its threats against Iran at all credible, has been the distance to be covered by Israeli fighter jets, which would have a hard time reaching and returning from their targets without refueling. With access to the airfields of “the Israel of the Caucasus,” as de Borchgrave – citing Saakashvili – puts it, the likelihood of an Israeli attack entered the world of real possibilities. De Borchgrave avers:

“In a secret agreement between Israel and Georgia, two military airfields in southern Georgia had been earmarked for the use of Israeli fighter-bombers in the event of pre-emptive attacks against Iranian nuclear installations. This would sharply reduce the distance Israeli fighter-bombers would have to fly to hit targets in Iran. And to reach Georgian airstrips, the Israeli air force would fly over Turkey.

“The attack ordered by Saakashvili against South Ossetia the night of Aug. 7 provided the Russians the pretext for Moscow to order Special Forces to raid these Israeli facilities where some Israeli drones were reported captured.”

Reports of anywhere from 100 to 1,000 Israeli “advisers” in Georgia do not bode well for the situation on the ground. With the Israelis already installed in that country, the logistics of carrying out such a sneak attack are greatly simplified. Israeli pilots would only have to fly over Azerbaijan, and they’d be in Iranian airspace – and within striking distance of Tehran.

Faced with this fait accompli – if the Dutch are to be believed – the Americans seem to have capitulated. In which case, we don’t have much time. Although de Borchgrave writes “whether the IAF can still count on those air bases to launch bombing missions against Iran’s nuke facilities is now in doubt,” I don’t see why the defeat of the Georgians in Saakashvili’s war on the Ossetians has to mean the plan to strike Iran via Georgia has been canceled. Indeed, reading de Borchgrave’s riveting account of the extent of the Tel Aviv-Tbilisi collaboration, one finds additional reasons for all concerned to go ahead with it:

“Saakashvili was convinced that by sending 2,000 of his soldiers to serve in Iraq (who were immediately flown home by the United States when Russia launched a massive counterattack into Georgia), he would be rewarded for his loyalty. He could not believe President Bush, a personal friend, would leave him in the lurch. Georgia, as Saakashvili saw his country’s role, was the ‘Israel of the Caucasus.’”

Saakashvili, a vain and reckless man, now has even more reason to go behind Uncle Sam’s back and give the Israelis a clear shot at Tehran. With this sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of the Americans, the rationale for a more limited, shot-across-the-bow strike by the U.S. becomes all too clear.

After all, if the Israelis attacked, the entire Muslim world would unite behind the Iranians. If, on the other had, the U.S. did Israel’s dirty work, with Tel Aviv lurking in the background, it would conceivably be far less provocative, and might even generate sub rosa support among the Sunni rulers of America’s Arab allies. It’s going to happen anyway, goes the rationale, and so we might as well do it the right way, rather than leave it to the Israelis, who have threatened – via “independent” commentators like Israeli historian and super hawk Benny Morris – to use nuclear weapons on Iran’s population centers.

In terms of American domestic politics, the road to war with Tehran was paved long ago: both major parties and their presidential candidates have given the War Party a green light to strike Tehran, McCain explicitly and Obama tacitly, albeit no less firmly.

The stage is set, rehearsals are over, and the actors know their lines: as the curtain goes up on the first act of “World War III,” take a deep breath and pray to the gods that this deadly drama is aborted. 

Justin Raimondo

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13401

Iranian Trump Card. Russia Can Take Control of Persian Gulf

 

 

 

 

by Radzhab Safarov

Global Research, September 1, 2008
Vremya Novostey

 

 

 

The recognition of South Ossetia’s and Abkhazia’s independence by Russia is a timely step to protect these republics from new Georgian aggression. However, taking into account the United States’ plans to expedite Georgia’s and Ukraine’s accession to the NATO military-political bloc, the situation near the Russian border remains alarming. At the same time Moscow has a lot of possibilities to take balanced counter measures to the United States’ and entire NATO’s unfriendly plans. In particular, Russia can rely on those countries that effectively oppose the United States’ and their satellites’ expansion. Only collective efforts can help to create a situation which would, if not eliminate then at least reduce the risk of the Cold War’s transformation into local and global conflicts.

For instance, Moscow could strengthen its military-technical ties with Syria and launch negotiations on the reestablishment of its military presence in Cuba. However, the most serious step which the United States and especially Israel fear (incidentally, Israel supplied arms to Georgia) is hypothetical revision of Russia’s foreign policy with regard to Iran. A strategic alliance presuming the signing of a new large-scale military political treaty with Iran could change the entire geopolitical picture of the contemporary world.

New allied relations may result in the deployment of at least two military bases in strategic regions of Iran. One military base could be deployed in the north of the country in the Iranian province of Eastern Azerbaijan and the other one in the south, on the Island of Qeshm in the Persian Gulf. Due to the base in Iran’s Eastern Azerbaijan Russia would be able to monitor military activities in the Republic of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey and share this information with Iran.

The deployment of a military base on the Island of Qeshm would allow Russia to monitor the United States’ and NATO’s activities in the Persian Gulf zone, Iraq and other Arab states. With the help of special equipment Russia could effectively monitor whois sailing toward this sea bottleneck, from where, and with what cargo on board to enter the World Ocean or to return.

For the first time ever Russia will have a possibility to stop suspicious vessels and ships and inspect their cargo, which the Americans have been cynically doing in that zone for many decades. In exchange for the deployment of its military bases Russia could help the Iranians to deploy modern air defense and missile defense systems along the perimeter of its borders. Tehran, for instance, needs Russia’s modern S-400 SAMs.

The Iranian leadership paid close attention to reports stating that the Georgian Government’s secret resolution gave the United States and Israel a carte blanche to use Georgian territory and local military bases for delivering missile and bomb strikes against Iranian facilities in the event of need. Another neighbor, Turkey, is not only a NATO member, but also a powerful regional opponent and economic rival of Iran. In addition to this, the Republic of Azerbaijan has become the West’s key partner on the issue of transportation of Caspian energy resources to world markets. The Iranians are also concerned at Baku’s plans to give Western (above all American) capital access to the so-called Azerbaijani sector of the Caspian Sea, which is fraught with new conflicts, because the legal status of the Caspian Sea has not been defined to date.

Russia and Iran can also accelerate the process of setting up a cartel of leading gas producers, which journalists have already dubbed the “gas OPEC.” Russia and Iran occupy first and second place in the world respectively in terms of natural gas reserves. They jointly possess more than 60 percent of the world’s gas deposits. Therefore, even small coordination in the elaboration of a single pricing policy may force one-half of the world, at least virtually entire Europe, to moderate its ambitions and treat gas exporters in a friendlier manner.

While moving toward allied relations, Russia can develop cooperation with Iran in virtually all areas, including nuclear power engineering. Russia can earn tens of billions of dollars on the construction of nuclear power plants in Iran alone. Tehran can receive not only economic, but also political support from Russia in the development of its own atomic energy sector.

In addition to this, in view of the imminent breakup of the CIS from which Georgia already pulled out, Russia could accelerate the process of accepting Iran as an equal member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). By accepting Iran, one of the key countries of the Islamic world, the organization could change fundamentally both in terms of its potential and in terms of its regional role. Meanwhile, as an SCO member Iran will find itself under the collective umbrella of this organization, including under the protection of such nuclear states as Russia and China. This will lay foundations for a powerful Russia-Iran-China axis,which the United States and its allies fear so much.

Radzhab Safarov is Director of the Russian Center for Iranian Studies. Text Translated from the Russian.

OSC Translated Text

courtesy of Information Clearing House, which first posted the article

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10032

Saudia in the Gun Sights Projecting Zionist Tactics onto Arabs

 

 

 

 

by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni@aol.com)

On May 6, 2008, the Harvard Objectivist Club, which frequently engages in Muslim-baiting, hosted a panel discussion on Totalitarian Islam. Announced participants on the panel were Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute, Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum, and Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, which is a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Even though Robert Spencer was unable to attend because of conflicting commitments, the event was extremely interesting for its revelations about Neocon thinking with regard to the American Muslim population, US ME policy, and Islam in general.

The audience filled an Emerson lecture hall and numbered approximately 120-140 attendees. There were two Harvard cops within the room. Tawfiq Rahim of the Kennedy School Muslim Caucus attempted to hand out a flyer* but was stopped by one of the officers. There was a temporary problem with the audio.

Objectivist Club President Kelly Kedainos (?) welcomed Pipes and Brook. He informed the audience that banners and signs were not allowed and that its members must obey the conduct sections of the student handbook. He introduced a post-doctoral fellow named Stevens, who would moderate the discussion.

Stevens restated the topic of the event as: The Threat of Totalitarian Islam: What is it? Who is the Enemy? How Should the West Respond to Calls for Censorship?

Stevens introduced Brook as a writer on economics, business, and objectivism, which is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Brook often appears on Forbes.com. There is apparently a split among objectivists because a significant number believe that Brook’s support of Israel is inconsistent with objectivism and that the executor of Ayn Rand’s estate has betrayed objectivism to Neoconservatism. This dispute appears to be of no interest to Harvard Objectivists, who appear to be for the most part a Jewish sect of some sort, have historically shown themselves to be super-Zionist and generally support Neocon agenda completely.

Stevens briefly summarized the Biographical Sketch of Daniel Pipes as it appears at http://www.danielpipes.org/bios/.

Stevens then explained that each panelist would speak for 5 minutes and would then respond to questions from the audience.

Pipes spoke first and noted that for the first time he was speaking in a hall where he had been a student, for he had attended the lectures of the introductory E. Asian studies class Soc. Sci. 10 in this room.

Pipes point out his father Harvard Professor Richard Pipes, who was present in the room and who did quite well as a Sovietologist and Russian studies specialists. Daniel Pipes mentioned that Professor Pipes had asked him back in 1978 how he would make a living from a specialization in Islamic Studies, which at that time period before Khomeini’s revolution in Iran seemed like a generally underfunded esoteric academic field.

Of course, nowadays anyone writing books and articles to scare-monger Islam seems to do fairly well, but there is deeper answer to the question.

Both Richard Pipes and Daniel Pipes have effectively chosen the same career of explaining the international menace to the general public and to the US political class, and both have more or less obviously distorted their analysis to fit preferred Jewish Zionist beliefs.

Solzhenitsyn has accused Richard Pipes of writing the Polish history of Russia but generally misses how this version of Russian and Soviet history serves Jewish and Zionist mythology. Even though Richard Pipes concedes in The Russian Revolution that pogroms were hardly confined to Jews in Czarist Russia (as I once challenged him on the issue more than 30 years ago), the Harvard Professor systematically underestimates or diminishes the role that Russian ethnic Ashkenazim played in the overthrow of Czarist Russia and in the establishment of the Soviet Union as well as in the planning and perpetration of the crimes of the latter state.

In The Unknown Lenin Richard Pipes is careful to establish Lenin’s status as an hereditary Russian aristocrat but neglects — almost certainly because it is good for the Jews — to mention anything about the new information available after the fall of the Soviet Union about Lenin’s Jewish ancestry as recorded in Dmitri Volkoganov’s biography Lenin. Daniel Pipes’s analysis of Islam, Middle Eastern politics, and the American Muslim community likewise fits perfectly the Neocon agenda of subordination of American interests to those Jewish Zionist oligarchy and intelligentsia.

In his five minute presentation Richard Pipes outline three approaches to understanding the relationship of terrorism and Islam.

1. The terrorists have hi-jacked Islam,
2. Islam, which is a cultic political doctrine, is the eternal enemy of the West, and
3. Islamism is a movement that develops in the twentieth century into a totalitarian menace of great power.

Pipes leans toward the third analysis with some modifications. He believes that Islamism can be discredited just as fascism was and that by encouraging a different interpretation the West can help Islam to become a good neighbor.

Brook took over and agreed with almost everything Pipes said. He emphasized the totalitarian nature of the Islamist ideology and postulated that Islamists will use the mechanism of the state to force their version of Islam on everyone else. According to Brook the ultimate goal is the reestablishment of the Caliphate and world domination. He argues that Islamists will destroy everything that we Americans cherish. In his opinion Islamists despise freedom, individual rights and capitalism.

Brook believes that the US failed to fight the ideological war properly and only used force after 9/11. He believes that the war with totalitarian Islam began on Nov. 4, 1979 with the seizure of the US embassy in Teheran when the West should have started the ideological war against radical Islam and Islamic totalitarianism. The enemy is not terrorism. Just as in WW2, the enemy was not simply the kamikaze pilots but the ideologies of German Nazism and Japanese imperialism, the West must wage a war against the ideology of Islamic totalitarianism by offering an alternative to persuade Muslims to reshape their culture along Western parameters,** to separate church and state, and to respect reason. He tells the audience that Americans must have the pride to fight for what makes them Americans. Until Americans are clear on this point, the enemy will only gain ground.

At that point the moderator opened the questions portion session. The responses of Pipes and Brook to the questioners form a complete and self-consistent approach to Islam, the American Muslim community, and ME foreign policy with the following three qualifications.

1. Pipes has some reservations when Brook attempts to lump Sunnis and Shiites together,
2. Pipes has a more nuanced understanding of Islamic beliefs or practices, and
3. Pipes makes a greater distinction between Saudi and Iranian goals.

Only Muslims that accept Israel and believe that it is something good are moderates. Ten to fifteen percent of Muslims are dangerous Islamist extremists. A large percentage of the remaining Muslims are stealth or legal Islamists. Just as orthodox Jews voluntarily obey Jewish law (Halakhah), stealth Islamists voluntarily obey Islamic law (Sharia).

Stealth Islamists will attempt to introduce Islam into the societies where they live by discussion and by persuasion. Perhaps they will try to convert non-Muslims to Islam, and then if they have sufficient numbers they may try to legislate Sharia or Islamic morality into the law code. For all intents and purposes stealth Islamists are Muslims that sincerely try to practice their religion. They do not differ much from sincere Christians. Just as far too many Jews have prejudices against believing Christians, Jewish Zionist Neocons have problems with believing Muslims and are making an effort to incorporate anti-Muslim prejudices structurally into American society in order to limit the democratic rights of Muslim citizens of the USA.

In terms of ME politics, the Iranians are the force of direct confrontation with the USA while the Saudis use the power of their wealth both to subvert the Islamic world and also to corrupt the USA by using American Muslims as a fifth column. For Pipes, the Saudis seem to be the more serious enemy because the male members of the Saudi royal family have created something like the Soviet nomenklatura (номенклату́ра) by marrying multiple wives and by fathering lots of children.

In many regards Pipes’s depiction of an Islamic world dominated by the Saudi version of the Soviet ruling class is simultaneously laughable and somewhat reminiscent of my analysis of Judonia. Pipes may both be projecting his experience within the Neocon or Jabotinskian Zionist intelligentsia onto Muslims and also be making consciously or unconsciously a fundamental mistake of equating a ruling class with the mobilized or mobilizing intellectuals that comprise an intelligentsia.

In Russian history, the Russian (russki), Russianized (rossitski) and Jewish intelligentsias worked together to overthrow Czarism. The Soviet nomenklatura worked hard to make sure that Soviet intelligentsia had no such capability. The Zionist intelligentsia has been tremendously successful because it deals with a small relatively homogenous political economic oligarchy that is willing to allow Zionist intelligentsia to think for it in all matters but how the individual Zionist oligarchs run their private businesses.

Not only does the Saudi state have a plethora of internal and external enemies, but the political powers and centers throughout the Islamic world are not going to concede authority or even strategic planning to the Saudi leaders any time soon.

While Pipes is probably one of the most important members of the Zionist intelligentsia, he may not have a complete grasp of the political economics either of the Zionist system or of the Saudi state, but he is working hard along with other members of the Zionist intelligentsia to create a Saudi bogeyman for the American public. Because of the success of the Zionist intelligentsia in manipulating the USA into incinerating Arab and Muslim states, the Saudi government should be extremely worried by the activities of Pipes and his fellow members of the Zionist intelligentsia.

http://eaazi.blogspot.com/