Perhaps if the invasion and occupation of Iraq had been more “successful” from the American perspective — that is, if Iraq had been subdued and made a de facto American territory — American troops may have been in Tehran, and even Damascus after a short stint in Baghdad. 

But the occupation of Iraq was poorly thought out, and remains so.  This is why seven years after invading Afghanistan, and five years after invading Iraq, the United States remains trapped in a hopeless battle against rebel insurgents. 

Yet even with the failure of the current wars, the threat of a new war with Iran refuses to go away. According to famed reporter Seymour Hersh, the United States has significantly increased Special Forces operations in Iran, in an attempt to foment sectarian violence and look for clues regarding Iranian nuclear weapons programs. 

Covert operations are not the only item on the agenda.  In recent weeks, Israel has staged massive war games, insinuating to observers that such activities are a dress rehearsal for an assault on Iran.  Iran has responded to these threats by firing missiles and stating that, “Tel Aviv and the US fleet” would be “set on fire” if Iran is attacked in any way.

How much of this is rhetoric, versus actual threat of war?  This is difficult to say.  Even while saner heads appear to be controlling diplomacy, at least for the moment, certain factions within the American, Israeli, and Iranian governments favor war as an outcome.  A third war in the Middle East would give American neo-conservatives the opportunity to waive the banner of the “war on terror” and cast a dark vision of fear once more on the population, stymieing Democratic Party victories in November and feeding the ever-deafening military-industrial juggernaut. 

In Israel, as well, war would allow the ruling Kadima Party an opportunity to divert attention from a host of domestic scandals that have forced the Israeli Prime Minister to schedule early elections. 

And in Iran, war would allow the ruling elite an opportunity to maintain its grip on power while blaming the country’s domestic and economic problems on outside forces.  As in the United States and Israel, war serves an important purpose of providing a distraction from the real pressing problems of the day.

It is probably fair to say that at this point, war is not the desired outcome of any three of these countries.  On the other hand, none of these countries would shirk from a war, as long as they characterize any war as an “act of self-defense.”  This is not as difficult as it sounds: Hitler famously stated that his invasion of Poland was done in self-defense, and the Germans ate it up. 

And while it may seem stunning that Americans would accept a third war in the Middle East, the power of the mass media to influence the public mood cannot be understated.  If Iran is labeled as a “terrorist threat” and is made an enemy in the rubric of the war on terror, Americans will accept another war.  This is a sad but honest statement of the American public today, and is the reason why Barack Obama (in yet another disappointing gesture of his candidacy) has characterized Iran — a third world nation with no ability to attack the United States — as a “great threat” to the United States. 

At this very moment, making its way through the United States Congress is HR 362 (supported in part by a militant Israeli lobbying group, AIPAC), which calls for an embargo against Iran of “refined petroleum products”, and which would impose a “stringent inspection requirements” on all ships entering and leaving Iran.  Under international law, an embargo against another country is an act of war.   While not calling for war, such a law would make war inevitable.  Passage of HR 362 could happen within the next few weeks.

No doubt there will be further developments in this situation, but it is clear that the United States, Israel, and Iran are playing with fire.  We may not be speeding towards war, but as of now, we are almost certainly stumbling into it. 

After meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told a press conference at Downing Street that his Government “cannot wait forever” for the raids by the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) against his military to stop.

“We waited for 14 months for this mechanism to bear fruit, but it did not, and we cannot wait forever,” the Turkish Prime Minister said. “We have to make our own decisions.” These decisions would include “a military dimension.”

“Right now we are in a waiting stance, but Iraq should know we can use the (parliamentary) mandate for a cross-border operation at any time,” he said.
The mandate mentioned by Erdogan refers to a vote taken by the Turkish parliament last week, which overwhelmingly approved a motion to allow Turkey to launch raids into Iraq against Kurdish militants.

The odds are probably even as to whether Turkey will actually invade. Domestically, Erdogan is under serious pressure to stop the Kurdish incursions. But an invasion contains the risk of a regional war. A localized cross border raid may show the Kurds — and their American protectors — that the Turks are serious, and it may just end at that before everyone realizes that diplomacy is a saner option than bullets.

In any event, this latest twist in the Iraq saga highlights the insanity of a continued American presence. America makes nobody happy by staying: neither the Iraqis, the Turks (with whom America has a military alliance, through NATO), or the American public. The occupation of Iraq is a giant black hole sucking in American money, energy, and integrity. The longer America stays, the greater the damage.

September 2, 2007

Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran

Sarah Baxter, Washington

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.

Bush threatens to confront Iran over alleged support for Iraqi insurgents

· US president accuses Tehran of arming militants
· Speech aimed at shoring up support for ’surge’

Ed Pilkington in New York
Wednesday August 29, 2007
The Guardian

George Bush yesterday ramped up the war of words between the US and Iran, accusing Tehran of threatening to place the Middle East under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust and revealing that he had authorised US military commanders in Iraq to “confront Tehran’s murderous activities”.In a speech designed to shore up US public opinion behind his unpopular strategy in Iraq, the president reserved his strongest words for the regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which he accused of openly supporting violent forces within Iraq. Iran, he said, was responsible for training extremist Shia factions in Iraq, supplying them with weapons, including sophisticated roadside bombs. Iran has denied all these accusations.

…

The blunt terms in which Mr Bush portrayed the Iranian threat, and his threat of military confrontation with Tehran involving US troops based in Iraq, elevated the tense standoff between Washington and Tehran to a new level.

The speech also contained the implicit desire on Mr Bush’s part for regime change, calling for “an Iran whose government is accountable to its people, instead of to leaders who promote terror and pursue the technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons”.

Equally disturbing is the economic news that the housing bubble has now “popped”:

Economy starting to feel housing market’s pain

Home prices take a second-quarter plunge, reports show, and consumer confidence is also falling. Stocks close sharply lower.

By Annette Haddad, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
2:18 PM PDT, August 28, 2007

U.S. consumer sentiment took its sharpest plunge in nearly two years in August, and home prices declined at their fastest pace in two decades in the second quarter, according to reports that show the housing slump starting to weigh on the economy.

The weak economic news triggered a sell-off on Wall Street, where the Dow Jones industrial average closed down 280.28 points, or more than 2%, to 13,041.85. The Nasdaq, S&P 500 and other major financial indexes also closed sharply lower.

Home prices dropped 3.2% in the second quarter compared to the same period last year, according to the S&P/Case-Schiller quarterly index, which tracks price trends among existing single-family homes in key U.S. markets. It was the worst decline in the 20 years since the index was inaugurated.

The housing boom was the force behind the stability of the American economy: ever increasing property prices allowed people and companies to obtain cheap credit, which they then invested in risky enterprises (high risk mortgage buyers, for example). The enterprises collapsed, people and companies are now realizing that they have taken out too much credit, and there is a resulting panic in the market.  If uncontrollable fear breaks out amongst the investment class, economic turmoil would increase considerably.

If and when the economy sputters, war becomes more inevitable. It will be a distraction from the complete meltdown of the American financial and economic system, brought on by near decades of pillaging of the land, of people’s labor, of the treasury — from the common good itself. War prevents accountability by making people afraid.

I wrote this a year back talking about the context of an attack against Iran:

In any iteration, it is hard to see the Americans walking away with a victory, no matter how thorough the bombing. But the chief aim of the Bush Administration is not victory in the Middle East — it is the protection of their power. And an attack against Iran would force the American people to make that choice which up till now has been permeating beneath the surface of the war on terror but has yet to be asked openly: “Whose side are you on?”

Reason’s eyes do not yet comprehend the outcome of these trends. This country cannot afford — in any sense of the word — another war. Could this really be happening?

Bush War Adviser Says Draft Worth a Look

Aug 10 06:25 PM US/Eastern
By RICHARD LARDNER

WASHINGTON (AP) – Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft, President Bush’s new war adviser said Friday.”I think it makes sense to certainly consider it,” Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered.”

“And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation’s security by one means or another,” Lute added in his first interview since he was confirmed by the Senate in June.

Lt. Gen. Lute is absolutely right about the Army being broken, and he doesn’t even mention the fact that already, the close to 160,000 American troops serving in Iraq are supplemented by 180,000 mercenaries (or “private contractors”), bearing the logos of Blackwater USA and DynCorp.

But I wonder about the timing of this announcement. Surely there must be easier ways to find soldiers, but maybe there isn’t. And I’ve always assumed that bringing up the idea of a draft would be tantamount to political suicide — is this changing?

Most people probably wouldn’t believe that a draft is possible. On the other hand, Lt. Gen. Lute had to have received approval from Bush and Cheney before making these type of comments on a public radio show. Maybe they’re testing the waters.

Would Americans care if the draft were reinstated? I’d like to think they would, but I’m not sure if they would anymore. A part of me is starting to believe that maybe — just maybe — people would accept it, just as they’ve accepted the myriad of other changes and atrocities that have taken place since 9/11. If there were another terrorist attack, you could certainly imagine a general call to arms by the government and possibly emergency legislation that called for more troops. The now reviled President Bush had 90% plus approval ratings when he invaded Afghanistan. Another attack would certainly help push through his agenda in the last year of his presidency.

It’s very clear, with the Democrats having caved into Bush, that the Iraq war will continue through January 20, 2009, the day Bush leaves office. That is almost a year and a half from now. There are a lot of people who are going to die in Iraq between now and then, that’s pretty much guaranteed. The main question relates to if or how the war expands into other regions.

In war — especially modern war — a year and a half is an eternity.

Turkey bombards norther Iraq, Iraq says

BAGHDAD – The Iraqi government said Turkish artillery and warplanes bombarded areas of northern Iraq on Wednesday and called on Turkey to stop military operations and resort to dialogue.

The claim occurred amid rising tension and Turkish threats to strike bases of the Kurdistan Worker’s Party, or PKK, which has been launching attacks against targets in Turkey from sanctuaries in Iraq.

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told The Associated Press that the morning bombardment struck areas of the northern province of Dahuk, some 260 miles northwest of Baghdad.

Col. Hussein Kamal said about 250 shells were fired into Iraq from Turkey. He added that there were no casualties on the Iraqi side of the border.

(rest of the article)

BY CHARLES J. HANLEY

BALAD AIR BASE, Iraq (AP) – The airplane is the size of a jet fighter, powered by a turboprop engine, able to fly at 300 mph and reach 50,000 feet. It’s outfitted with infrared, laser and radar targeting, and with a ton and a half of guided bombs and missiles.

The Reaper is loaded, but there’s no one on board. Its pilot, as it bombs targets in Iraq, will sit at a video console 7,000 miles away in Nevada.

The arrival of these outsized U.S. “hunter-killer” drones, in aviation history’s first robot attack squadron, will be a watershed moment even in an Iraq that has seen too many innovative ways to hunt and kill.

That moment, one the Air Force will likely low-key, is expected “soon,” says the regional U.S. air commander. How soon? “We’re still working that,” Lt. Gen. Gary North said in an interview.

(The rest of the article)

Completely unreported, at least here in the West, was an interview given by Russin President Vladimir Putin to a host of journalists on Russia’s growing conflict with the current American leadership.

If Putin is to be believed, then America and Russia are headed for serious conflict in the near future.

On American missile defense:

“[W]e have removed all of our heavy weapons from the European part of Russia and put them behind the Urals. We have reduced our Armed Forces by 300,000. We have taken several other steps required by the ACAF. But what have we seen in response? Eastern Europe is receiving new weapons, two new military bases are being set up in Romania and in Bulgaria, and there are two new missile launch areas — a radar in Czech republic and missile systems in Poland. And we are asking ourselves the question: what is going on? Russia is disarming unilaterally. But if we disarm unilaterally then we would like to see our partners be willing to do the same thing in Europe. On the contrary, Europe is being pumped full of new weapons systems…

“[W]e are proceeding from common sense and think that everyone else could also use their common sense. But if this does not take place then we will absolve ourselves from the responsibility of our retaliatory steps because we are not initiating what is certainly growing into a new arms race in Europe. And we want everybody to understand very clearly that we are not going to bear responsibility for this arms race. For example, when they try to shift this responsibility to us in connection with our efforts to improve our strategic nuclear weapons. We did not initiate the withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. But what response did we give when we discussed this issue with our American partners? We said that we do not have the resources and desire to establish such a system. But as professionals we both understand that a missile defence system for one side and no such a system for the other creates an illusion of security and increases the possibility of a nuclear conflict.”

On oil contracts written in the 1990s:

“[The original oil contract with BP] was a colonial treaty that has absolutely nothing to do with the interests of the Russian Federation. I can only regret that in the early 1990s the Russian officials allowed such incidents to take place, incidents for which they should have been put in prison. Implementing this treaty resulted in a situation in which, for a long period of time, Russia allowed its natural resources to be exploited and received nothing in return. Almost nothing at all.”

On relations with the West:

“An arms race really is unfolding. Well, was it we who withdrew from the ABM Treaty? We must react to what our partners do. We already told them two years ago, ‘don’t do this, you don’t need to do this. What are you doing? You are destroying the system of international security. You must understand that you are forcing us to take retaliatory steps.’ They said: ‘okay, no problem, go ahead. We are not enemies. Do what you want to.’ I think that this was based on the illusion that Russia would have nothing to answer with. But we warned them. No, they did not listen to us. Then we heard about them developing low-yield nuclear weapons and they are continuing to develop these charges. We understand in the rocks where bin Laden is hiding it might be necessary to, shall we say, destroy some of his asylum. Yes, such an objective probably exists.

But perhaps it would be better to look for other ways and means to resolve the problem rather than create low-yield nuclear weapons, lower the threshold for using nuclear weapons, and thereby put humankind on the brink of nuclear catastrophe. But they are not listening to us. We are saying: do not deploy weapons in space. We don’t want to do that. No, it continues: ‘whoever is not with us is against us’. What is that? Is it a dialogue or a search for compromise? The entire dialogue can be summed up by: whoever is not with us is against us.”

On targeting Europe with nuclear missles:

“[I]t is clear that if part of the United States’ nuclear capability is situated in Europe and that our military experts consider that they represent a potential threat then we will have to take appropriate retaliatory steps. What steps? Of course we must have new targets in Europe. And determining precisely which means will be used to destroy the installations that our experts believe represent a potential threat for the Russian Federation is a matter of technology. Ballistic or cruise missiles or a completely new system. I repeat that it is a matter of technology.”

MUSCAT, Feb 27 (Reuters) – U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney was whisked into a bomb shelter immediately after a Taliban suicide bomber struck the main American military base he was visiting in Afghanistan on Tuesday.

Up to 14 people were killed, including one U.S. and one South Korean soldier, in the Bagram Airbase attack which rebels said was aimed at Cheney.

…

“We wanted to target … Cheney,” Taliban spokesman Mullah Hayat Khan told Reuters by phone from an undisclosed location.

(entire article)

Assassination attempt shows strength of the Taliban, according to analysts:

Islamabad – A suicide attack at an Afghan air base where US vice-president Dick Cheney was staying shows that the Taliban and al-Qaeda have penetrated local intelligence agencies, analysts and officials said.

The blast early on Tuesday at Bagram air base near Kabul also highlights the increasing sophistication of the extremist outfits as they prepare for a feared spring offensive against Western troops, they said.

The day before the explosion Cheney warned President Pervez Musharraf of neighbouring Pakistan to crack down on militants regrouping in Pakistan’s tribal areas to mount attacks across the border and further afield.

“This shows how much the militants have penetrated the intelligence of the Afghan security forces. It is a most shocking attack,” retired Pakistani general turned analyst Talat Masood told AFP.

(entire article)

Assassination attempt contributes to massive Dow selloff:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Stocks tumbled across the board Tuesday, with the Dow industrials sinking more than 500 points at one point, after declining markets in China and Europe and a steep drop in durable goods orders triggered a massive selloff on Wall Street.

News that Vice President Dick Cheney was the apparent target in a Taliban suicide bombing attack in Afghanistan added to the day’s worries.

(entire article)

This is getting really serious, folks.