Our inability to influence Iran dates back to before the current Iranian President, and stems largely from the decision to completely embargo Iran. Quite simply, the Iranians have nothing to lose by ignoring Bush and misleading Europe.

We are not a customer, and we don't supply them with anything, so why not ignore us. All the embargo has done has been to push them into the welcoming arms of the Chinese, our greatest potential threat, who would enjoy us impaling ourselves. And if we don't bomb Iran, China's need for its oil assures Iran of a permanent market, even if Europe embargoes them (which is about as likely as the Pope converting to Islam). Condi Rice gave Iran precious little incentive by promising only that the US would grant export licenses for a few aircraft parts Iran would like for its airlines.

Moreover, Bush's "War on Terror" has eliminated Iran's two principal threats: the Sunni Taliban and Saddam, and given them an enormous foot-in-the-door among the Shia majority in Iraq. They are sitting as pretty as they possibly could want.

The only thing Bush could offer them that might entice them, and which Bush adamantly refuses to consider, is to end the embargo at least with respect to non-strategic goods, as Clinton did with North Korea. That would be far more valuable to Iran than it was to North Korea because the Iranians actually produce useful stuff in addition to oil, and much of their oil infrastructure which needs to be replaced or retooled was originally US made.

It should also be remembered that Iran has a legitimate point about uranium. Iran has natural deposits of uranium, and with China buying up uranium in Canada and Australia for their nuclear power industry, and others eyeing a return to nuclear power as a supplement to oil and gas, the Iranians can hardly be faulted for wanting to get in on that market. What is needed is a strict monitoring and inspection program, not a total prohibition.

If we fail to take this opportunity to offer to end the embargo of Iran in return for their ending their nuclear weapons program, they will rebuilt their oil infrastructure with other sources, such as China, India, Russia, and other willing sellers, and we will not only have a nuclear Iran, but we will have lost forever a market of 5 to 10 billion dollars a year at a time when we are seriously in the hole with respect to trade with the rest of the world.

Emily, we love this post - one of the few thoughtful ones. But close the notebook and enjoy the scenery. The road to success is strewn the the bodies of the addicted and burned out who passed you when they thought they were rocketing to the top.

And don't you dare leave OZ without snorkeling the Great Barrier Reef.

PS. We will reap the fruits of having taught the world that we only invade small, essentially defenseless, non-nuclear nations. It will be seen as this administration's greatest failure.

Quote: "He praises the Washington Post editorial board for specifically not ruling out a military response to Iran's nuclear recalcitrance."

This is the same Washington Post Editorial Board that led us willy-nilly into the Iraq War as well, non? Can someone explain the difference to me between the Washington Post Editorial Board, and that of the WSJ?

Iran has made it abundantly clear that it is not going to stop research in uranium enrichment since this right is granted by articles of NPT to all the signatory member states.

US/EU continue to insist that Iran can not be trusted not to develop nuclear bomb if she is allowed to continue such research because Iran has conducted uranium enrichment research manufacturing capability in the past clandestinely.

US/EU want IAEA Board to recommend Iran be referred to UNSC for possible sanctions against Iran for Iran wanting to exercize it's right granted by NPT. By doing so, US/EU are warning rest of the non-nuclear signatory members not to even think about wanting to exercize their right granted by NPT. However US/EU did not propose to forbid or eliminate such right when NPT was being created and negotiated, knowing fully well that then most of the signatory members would have rejected outright NPT with such a clause.

So Iran is not going to forgo right to enrich its own uranium. Can US/EU do anything about it if Russia and/or China object to trade sanctions other than bypass UN like US/UK did over Iraq? Would entire EU be willing to join US this time unlike last time over Iraq?

The United Nations didn't stop the United States from going into Iraq with the UK, so I can't imagine them being able to prevent Germany, France, and England from going into Iran with the United States/Israel.

MikeDeal-

Loved the post, but I disagree on a key point. The United States *does* have something to offer Iran or rather, it offers not to do something to them contingently with them not pursuing nuclear weapons. It's very difficult for a country to pursue nuclear weapons without an infrastructure and, say what you want about our "Nation Building" (which has been exposed as weak), when it comes to "Infrastructure Destroying" we are about as good as it gets.

Liked Mike Deal's post. I think it is time to discuss some false paradigms now afloat:

1. If we only can do a fast, surgical regime change by bombing and special ops, the war will be over in a week and the nuclear threat ended.

Fact: Iranian dissidents are strong supporters of Iran's nuclear program. Toppling the clerics will not be reason enough for Iran to shift course. Any successor regime will go right to it.

2. With ample Iranian oil and gas, going nuclear makes no sense!

Fact: American economists in the 60s and 70s are the ones that convinced Iran that it made absolute sense to go nuclear and train massive cadres of nuclear scientists and engineers in the USA. Hence, the ubiquitous numbers of Iranians in civilian nuke power today in the West, plus those that stayed in Iran. Today, going nuclear makes even more sense, given Iran's huge uranium reserves and cost per kilowatt of nuclear being 1/10th-1/22nd the cost of oil fired plants, plus oil can be exported for hard cash.

3. America is obligated to defend our dearest ally, Israel, and preserve its large stockpiles of WMD as a regional monopoly.

Fact: Because of past Israeli actions, America decided never to sign a defense treaty with Israel. There is no treaty obligation to preserve Israels "edge". The Iraq War is slated to cost us over 1.3 trillion once we account for lifetime benefits of the dead and maimed, and we repay the interest owed for China and Japan financing us. Further wars to preserve a non-existent technical monopoly for Israel will have to account for the costs of invasions, long-term occupations of such nations as Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, possibly Turkey....attendendent oil embargoes and a sharply reduced standard of living as China Rises to the dominant economic, dominant financial, and co-equal military Superpower.

4. It would be evil of Iran to want a nuclear bomb!

Fact: As things currently stand, Iran faces two great historical rivals, Russia and Sunni Pakistan - that have nukes aimed at it. A country next door, Iraq, that killed 200,000 Iranians, by chem weapons WMD and almost got nukes. A nuclear America talking about invasion and regime change. A so far expansionist, colonizing Israel, which has had nukes aimed at Iran for 25 years. Absent arms control treaties and nuclear free zones in the ME, it is hard to imagine any nation with better reasons to seek strategic parity than Iran.

5. We must strike soon! Otherwise, our best pal will be forced to!

Fact: Our "best pal" lacks the logistics, airspace permissions, and conventional bombing capacity to deter Iran.

6. The neocon experts say we must invade soon to honor our eternal moral obligation to Israel.

Fact: There is no "moral obligation". The obligation we have is to try and force final ME Borders and get the ME a nuclear weapons free zone.

7. Sanctions and the Great Kofi issuing a UN double-deploration of Iran will work.

Fact: Sanctions are a joke that typically are circumvented and only screw the poor and powerless. Even with a sadsack nation like Cuba. And we already know that China will not let any touchy-feely Kofi babble stop its path to global greatness. Iran will sell every drop of oil and tank of nat gas it produces whatever the UN says. The US embargo is a joke, and Mr. Deal is right - our only peaceful leverage is to trade favors with Iran.

8. In the end, our "heroes" can defeat Iran under Bush.

Fact: Iran has 4X the population and 3.5X the land area of Iraq. Half the American public and almost all the world have no confidence in following the Bushies and ever more hysterical neocons because of
their incredible blunders. The public is not exactly ready for 160 a barrel oil, a 50% drop in the value of the dollar, a true economic depression - if possible, even in the worse case, they would like to delay a conflict until Iraq is over and a new Executive team is in the White House.

Chris Ford,

What an excellent, thought-provoking post. Thank you. I am particularly struck by the reasons you note for Iran's logical self-interest in seeking a nuclear arsenal. Iran is a major nation with a strong national cohesion and a long, long history. For the region, they've had a relatively stable government for the past 25 years. (The current leader is obviously a loose cannon, but how much power does he actually hold? He seems a fairly succesful propaganda tool, and easily discardable if a deal with the West is desired.)

Pakistan, India and Israel secretly turned themselves into nuclear powers and then went right on forging positive relationships with the West. These are clearly positive role models to Iran, just as at least two of them are potential enemies.

I undestand why powers that have alredy accepted or declined the option of going nuclear themselves would want to stop Iran from getting the bomb and my own interests clearly lie with this group, but what does that mean to the Iranians?

To second the last two posts, Iran may be looking 20-30 years in the future rather than at Israel today, despite their president's rhetoric. When the US and the rest of the West have used up all our own oil, oil will be incredibly valuable, and any remaining holder of large deposits like Iran a tempting target for occupation. Using nuclear power today to conserve oil supplies, and building nuclear weapons to scare off the future invasion seem prudent from that viewpoint.

Well said Chris Ford. You still have the ability to surprise.

Amen

Yawn! You ever watch one of those dominoes fall in slow-motion?

which domino is that, oh yeah? I'm still waiting for the ones in SE asia to fall -- Indonesia, Australia, and so on.

Chris Fordand the others said what I've been thinking for some time -- look at this from the iranian point of view, Nukes are the way to go -- save oil to sell later and keeps the US of A at bay.

And why should they trust the US. Last time they had a democracy we overthrew it. Would YOU trust a country that did that to you?

One suspects not.

ct

Mr. Ford,

I concur with pretty much all of what you say, but what (if anything) do you think should the US/EU/world do about Iran going nuclear? I'm not trying to be snippy, I just can't think of too many good options myself at this point.

Chris made a good point by looking at the issue from the perspective of Iranian govt. The argument that Emily posted is biased towards US policy without taking the sides of Iranian.

I am quite appalled with the logic that the US has used in this issue. If the Nuclear technologies is so dangerous, why don't we just ban them to all nations. If the Iran can't be trusted to hold the nuclear technology, why do we tolerate North Korean, Israel, India & Pakistan.\

Why don't we dismantle the illusion of democracy in United Nation? There are 5 nations that hold veto power to override any resolution by member nations. The veto power has been consistently to cause other nations to toe the line of the powerful. The Security Council is a joke that serves the political objective of the selected nations rather than the world.

It is ironic that Russia and China's self interest in resisting the US approach so far, has protected our national interest more than the actions of our own leaders. I am absolutely against the Islamic regime in Iran, but I tell you that when an idiot like Ahmadinejad points out to our imperious attitude towards developing countries, there are BILLIONS of people around the world who would share his sentiments. What we are telling Iran and the rest of the world is that we have absolutely no respect for the international law and agreements, including the NPT. We are saying that "we don't care if you are signatory to NPT and additional protocols; they don't mean anything if we don't like your face". I find that attitude racist. Look at who is making all the fuss, US, UK, France, and Germany, All the declining powers who are acting like old men too frustrated with their own fragility and decay, some with brutal and disgraceful imperial past. I wish those fools who are in charge of our foreign policy had the chance to walk the streets of South and South West Asia, even central and south America and get a first hand understanding of how little people care about our interpretation of reality. White man, wake up and smell the new world order.

To misquote Nazi propagandists, if you keep repeating a lie long enough and loud enough, eventually people may believe it. There is absolutely no evidence to date that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and yet the US government keep repeating that lie and reframing the debate.

Are we in the imminent danger from Iranian nuclear weapons? Only as much as we were in the imminent danger from Saddam's chemical weapons. Hay, later on we can always blame it on poor intelligence, or lack there of.

Many commentators have said there aren't too many good options, so you're not alone. We are really over a barrel. 2 billion new people just joined the global economy and they are as talented as the West and Asian tigers. They want the same standard of living - just as global oil production looks like it not going to grow anymore so Iran and other exporters are in a huge position of advantage. And unlike in the 70s, when we only had 30% import dependency - we are totally screwed by paralysis of special interest groups that have blocked conservation AND developing ANY sort of new energy source to replace oil. Worse, while we actually consume less than in the 70s, all our "efficiency" gains have been eaten up by uncontrolled immigration into the US and their 1st, 2nd gen large families, so energy usage went up 35%.

America had 203 million people in 1970. We have 300 million by next October. By 2030, we will have at least 363 million according to the Census estimates - far more if Muslim, African, Caribbean, and Latin American immigration is allowed to accelerate further. We use 107 Quadrillion BTUs of energy, of which 40 are oil, of that which perhaps 5-8 Quads are able to be conserved away before 20 million new Mexican arrivals negate all those conservation gains. By all means we should have more mpg requirements of the cars, trucks, and eeeeeeeviiiiil SUVs. But recognize the environmentalists occupy a fool's world...SUVs are a picayune part of the overall energy problem.

Solar is a pipe dream at 0.063 Quads, less than in 1990. Windpower is a joke that may give us 5 Quads of variable, unstorable, unreliable power by 2030 with triple tax breaks. Same with all the "alternate energy source" rubbish which only can add 5 or so Quads by 2030 or replace a tiny amount of imported oil. Yeah, every little bit helps, but Americans are profoundly uneducated on the limitations of those exotic sources making any appreciable dent. Our real sources of energy to replace Iranian and ME oil and make up for the energy demand that our population explosion invariably creates are: Nuclear. Oil shale/sands. Coal. All those will take us 10 years just to get infrastructure in place if we start tomorrow. In the interim, IMHO, we need to say "fuck the caribou and rats with wings" (garbage dump seagulls) and start drilling like crazy in any offshore or Alaskan locale suspected to have oil or nat gas. And dead serious - a complete halt on immigration, family and refugee reunification, mail order Muslim brides, etc.

All that is desperately needed just to be in a position where we can bargain and pressure the Owners of Overseas Oil. Iranian moves and our ability to affect them - is tied just as much to stopping Rashid and Juan getting into America and buying pick-up trucks as to our military capacity.

*******************Specific Actions I think America must do in the ME*********

1. If we can get Iran to accept the Russian enrichment offer for 10 years, that would be a huge step. Russia has surplus enrichment capacity and Iran cannot make an economic argument that it would be cheaper to build more excess global enrichment capacity domestically.

2. The fact Iran will have nuke reactors is not the end of the world alarmist neocons loyal to Israel would have us believe. As long as they are IAEA monitored and "burn" their fuel sticks enough, which they have to if they are generating economical electric power - their spent fuel plutonium is heavily contaminated with unseparatable PU-240 and 241, not just the "good" PU239. And we would quickly learn if they went with reprocessing.

3. We have had good success in making regions of the world "Nuke WMD-free". Oceana, Africa, Latin America. Libya has given up pursuing nukes now, and the new Gov't of Iraq is unlikely to go back to what Saddam tried. If any region really is left that Must be Made Nuke-free, it's the ME. Because Israel has nukes, all it's neighbors are "interested", though there are big political downsides. But if Iran gets them, then the pressure for Saudi Arabia to get them, with other Gulf state support due to the Shiite menace, would be considerable. With less than a few minutes flight time, the nations with nukes would have no option but launch on warning. The trick of course is how to "guarantee" Iran and Israel's security. Why would they trust outsiders? Why would any other nation wish to affiliate, then tie their fate to either Iran or Israel with no real "gain" for doing so? But I think a case can be made that the ME would be less dangerous for not just the nations, but the global economy if we can stop the "nuclear bomb cancer" from spreading and get rid of Israel's secret WMD stockpiles.

4. Iran would be easier to justify - at one point before the Islamic revolution, the US planned on being it's guarantor. Now you could easily see China being that to assist in China's efforts to strip the West of it's oil suppliers and block Russia. Israel would have to first take back it's colonists, work out a reparations plan for the Palestinian people it stole from, have compensation for the Jews the Muslims then stole from in retaliation, then have final borders imposed under a Prince Abdullah style plan with Arab recognition of it's right to exist - before it would ever consider abandoning it's secret Chem, bio, and nuke stockpiles. And no major country is wild about tying the albatross that is Israel around their necks.

5. The big loser in this is Israel. It once thought no Arab country could ever get the bomb so it was safer being a nuke power. But if it keeps it's bombs, Muslims will want parity, and now have the technology and the oil dollars they need to obtain nuclear weaponry. - And, because of Israel's small size and how it's population is mostly concentrated in 6-7 cities, under a dozen nukes would destroy Israel, while it's nukes would not completely destroy any of it's major neighbors. They would survive, barely. Israel would likely not. If Israel goes with a guarantor, and gives up it's WMD as a danger - it has to remember two thousand years of Jewish history as a friendless, despised people that were eventually made unwelcome in nation after nation, culture after culture.

6. We must get off our dependency on ME oil and watch China's drive for dominance in controlling global oil reserves...

7. We have some very good video production and FX stuff and maybe it's time to pound into some Islamoid heads just how bad a nuclear war would be. Too many people think it's a bad day for a few cities, but then it's back to business...It is like trying to extrapolate a WWI air bombing attack into how bad a WWII air bombing campaign would be. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tiny 12-16KT bombs and happened right at the end of a war, in a country that had very efficiently made regions as self-reliant as possible by wars end. The fallout mostly went out to sea, and rescue ops were possible. The effect of 60 years of "progress" in nuclear war-fighting, the shattering effect of 60-100 thermonuclear devices 30-50 times more powerful than the crude WWII bombs arriving almost simultaneously should be put into a movie. A movie customized for each Muslim nation that thinks nuke war is a desirable option to destroy Israel or advance Islam. The consequences. This would be your fate. This movie is not fiction. Allah would not spare you. And yes, a similar movie should be made for intransigent Zionists and intransigent Pals showing what Israel and the West Bank, Gaza would be after 7-12 bombs landed on it - an event that becomes likelier the longer both sides resist Final Borders and each others right to live side by side.....

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

www.copvcia.com

2006: Bush's Waterloo?

From Iraq to Plamegate to an angry bureaucracy, the coming year holds mortal dangers for Bush. But he still has some cards to play.

By Tom Engelhardt
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/01/13/engelhardt/print.html

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Jan. 13, 2006 | 2006 is sure to be the year of living dangerously -- for the Bush administration and for the rest of us. In the wake of revelations of warrantless spying by the National Security Agency, we have already embarked on what looks distinctly like a constitutional crisis (which may not come to a full boil until 2007). In the meantime, the president, vice president, secretaries of defense and state, various lesser officials, crony appointees, acolytes, legal advisors, leftover neocons, spy-masters, strategists, spin doctors, ideologues, lobbyists, Republican Party officials, and congressional backers are intent on packing the Supreme Court with supporters of an "obscure philosophy" of unfettered presidential power called "the unitary executive theory" and then foisting a virtual cult of the imperial presidency on the country.

On the other hand, determined as this administration has been to impose its version of reality on us, the president faces a traffic jam of reality piling up in the environs of the White House. The question is: How long will the omniscient and dominatrix-style fantasies of Bushworld, ranging from "complete victory" in Iraq to nonexistent constitutional powers to ignore Congress, the courts, and treaties of every sort, triumph over the realities of the world the rest of humanity inhabits. Will an unconstrained presidency continue to grow -- or not?

Here are just a few of the explosive areas where Bush v. Reality is likely to play out, generating roiling crises that could chase the president through the rest of this year. Keep in mind, this just accounts for the modestly predictable, not for the element of surprise that -- as with Ariel Sharon's recent stroke -- remains ever present.

Who, after all, can predict what will hit our country this year. From a natural-gas shock to Chinese financial decisions on the dollar, from oil terrorism to the next set of fierce fall hurricanes, from the bursting of the housing bubble to the arrival of the avian flu, so much is possible -- but one post-9/11 truth, revealed with special vividness by Hurricane Katrina, should by now be self-evident: Whatever the top officials of this administration are capable of doing, they and their cronies in various posts throughout the federal bureaucracy are absolutely incapable of (and perhaps largely uninterested in) running a government. Let's give this phenomenon a fitting name: FEMAtization. You could almost offer a guarantee that no major problem is likely to arise this year, domestic or foreign, that they will not be quite incapable of handling reasonably, efficiently or thoughtfully -- to hell with compassionately (for anyone who still remembers that museum-piece label "compassionate conservative," from the Bush version of the Neolithic era). So here are just four of the most expectable crisis areas of 2006 as well as three wild cards that may remain in the administration's hand and that could chase all of us through this year -- adding up, in one way or the other, to the political tsunami of 2006.

1. Iraq. Bush's war (and occupation) of choice has shadowed him like a boogeyman from the moment that banner over his head on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln announced "Mission Accomplished" and he declared "major combat operations" at an end on May 2, 2003. On that very day, in news hardly noticed by a soul, one of the first acts of insurgency against American troops occurred and seven GIs were wounded in a grenade attack in Fallujah. As either a prophet of the future or a master of wish-fulfillment, the president was never more accurate than when, in July 2003, he taunted the Iraqi guerrillas, saying, "Bring 'em on." Well, they've been bringing it on ever since.

Unwilling to face the realities of its trillion-dollar folly of a war and dealing with presidential polling figures entering free fall, the administration did the one thing it has been eternally successful at -- it launched a fantasy offensive, not in Iraq, but here at home against the American people and especially the media. A series of aggressive speeches, news conferences, spin-doctored policy papers, and attacks on the opposition as "defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right," all circling around an election likely to put an Islamic theocratic regime in power in Baghdad, pumped up the president's polling numbers modestly and, more important, caused reporters and pundits to back off, wondering yet again whether we weren't finally seeing the crack of light at the end of that tunnel. (Wasn't the president implicitly admitting to the odd mistake in Iraq policy? Wasn't he secretly preparing his own version of withdrawal? Weren't the Iraqis turning some corner or other?)

It's been a strange, brain-dead media era in which, far more than the American people, the pundits never seem to learn. Most pathetic of all, in what might have been a straightforward parody of the famed moment when a group of senior advisors from past administrations ("the Wise Men") met with President Lyndon Johnson and urged him to reconsider his Vietnam policy, the Bush administration gathered together 13 former secretaries of state and defense (including Robert McNamara and Melvin Laird from the Vietnam era) for a photo with the president. Also offered was an Iraq dog-and-pony show involving painfully upbeat reports from chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Peter Pace and ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalizhad. In return, the 13 former officials, including Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright, got a full 5-10 minute "interchange" with the president or (as the Dreyfuss Report did the math) all of 23 seconds of consultation time per secretary. It was the Wise Men (and Woman) Photo Op and it caught something of Bushworld and its peculiar allure.

However complicated the situation in Iraq may be, here's an uncomplicated formula for considering administration policy there in the coming year. After every "milestone," from the killing of Saddam Hussein's sons and the capture of Saddam himself through the "handing over" of sovereignty and various elections, things have only gotten worse. Remind me why it should be different this time? In fact, while the president warned endlessly about violence before the recent election, the violence since has been far worse with 28 Americans and hundreds of Iraqis dying in just a single tumultuous four-day period. Or put another way, whatever government may be formed in Baghdad's Green Zone, it will preside over a Bush-installed failed state, utterly corrupt (billions of dollars have already been stolen from it) and thoroughly inept, incapable of providing its people with anything like security. In fact, just the other day, two suicide bombers, dressed in the uniforms of "senior police officers" and with the correct security passes, made it through numerous checkpoints and into the well-guarded compound of the Interior Ministry where they blew themselves and many policemen up. Iraq's government, such as it is, has also proved incapable of delivering electricity or potable water, or of running its only industry of significance, the oil business (overseen by, of all people, Ahmed Chalabi), which is now producing less energy than in the worst moments of the Saddam Hussein/sanctions era. The country is already in a low-level civil war; its American-supported military made up of rival militias preparing to engage in various forms of ethnic cleansing; its police evidently heavily infiltrated by the insurgency; and its most important leaders are Shiite theocrats closely allied with Iran. The insurgency itself shows not the slightest sign of lessening.

Meanwhile, at home, figures as disparate as Rep. John Murtha and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski are demanding a military disengagement by the end of 2006 and in Brzezinski's case calling on the Democrats to come out against the war. ("Finally, Democratic leaders should stop equivocating while carping. Those who want to lead in 2008 are particularly unwilling to state clearly that ending the war soon is both desirable and feasible.")

Iraq is a minefield for the Bush administration. Prepare for it to blow this year.

2. Trials (and Tribulations) of Every Sort. Of course some of the description of Iraq above has become increasingly applicable to the Bush administration as well. It is, after all, run by fundamentalists and presidential cultists, presiding over what increasingly looks like a FEMA-tized, failed state, riddled with corruption, and at war with itself. In 2006, Bush and his associates face a quagmire of potential scandals, exposures of corrupt and illegal practices, and trials and tribulations of all sorts. There is, as a start, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, still on the Plame case job.

After a brief flurry of activity in November when the National Law Journal's 2005 "lawyer of the year" convened a new grand jury to hear further evidence, the Fitzgerald investigation dropped off just about everyone's radar screen. Fitzgerald, however, is a dogged character, playing things very close to the vest. No one can know what exactly he will do, but he is reportedly preparing material on Karl Rove for the new grand jury. It would be reasonable to expect that, sometime in the next two or three months, he might indeed indict "Bush's brain" and then, rather than winding down his investigation, turn from those who attempted to obstruct his view of the Plame case to the case itself. In other words, if you happen to be a betting soul, you might consider putting your money on the possibility that the Plame case investigation will reach ever higher in the administration -- and Fitzgerald seems carefully shielded within the Justice Department from administration tampering.

At the same time, even though former House Majority Leader Tom (the Hammer) DeLay got hammered and officially ended his bid to regain his leadership post last week, the Texas and Washington parts of the DeLay corruption scandal are likely only to grow and spread. In Texas, DeLay's money-laundering case was not, despite his deepest wishes, thrown out of court and is now expanding into an election spending scandal involving the National Republican Congressional Committee and linked to the Abramoff case. Lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who plied endless (mostly Republican) congressional reps with favors and perks in return for influence, pleaded guilty last week to public corruption charges and turned state's evidence. He has claimed he possesses incriminating material on 60 congressional lawmakers (as well as many of their aides).

Last week, the Washington Post reported, federal prosecutors turned "up the pressure on a former senior aide to Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Tex., in the clearest signal yet that the sprawling public corruption investigation is now focusing on House Republican leadership offices." Though the career prosecutors from the Justice Department's Office of Public Integrity who turned Abramoff seem to have been reasonably insulated from administration pressure, the case threatens to hit the Republican Congress hard, just as the Plame case threatens to empty the higher realms of administration power. It looks like at least a limited number of cases will be brought against lawmakers this election year. Unlike Fitzgerald, however, the career prosecutors in the Abramoff case are overseen by a notorious Bush recess appointee, Alice Fisher. Her nomination was opposed even in a Republican-controlled Senate as she is without prosecutorial experience (though she has some experience in the subject area of Guantánamo interrogations and is tied to Tom DeLay's defense team). So look for future fireworks, conflicts, scandals and plenty of leaks on this one.

In the meantime, the courts will be busy indeed. Just count a few of the ways: The question of whether Bush's warrantless NSA wiretaps have polluted other terrorism cases will hit the courts this year, while the kangaroo "military" tribunals in Guantánamo have just started up again, and various cases having to do with the limits of presidential power (or the lack of them) are likely to arrive, not to speak of the four Texas gerrymandering cases (think, once again, Tom DeLay) the Supreme Court has agreed to take up before the 2006 elections that could put five now-Republican seats in the House up for grabs. (A court already tarred by the 2000 election might rule surprisingly on this one.)

3. War with the Bureaucracy. Until quite recently, with an oppositionless Congress, increasingly right-wing courts, and a cowed media, traditional constitutional checks and balances on administration claims of massive presidential powers and prerogatives have been missing in action. However, the Founding Fathers of this nation, who could not have imagined our present National Security State or the size of this imperial presidency, could have had no way of imagining the governmental bureaucracy that has grown up around these either. So how could they have dreamed that the only significant check and balance in our system since Sept. 11, 2001, has been that very bureaucracy? Parts of it have been involved in a bitter, shadowy war with the administration for years now. It's been a take-no-prisoners affair, as Tomdispatch has recorded in the first two posts in its Fallen Legion series, focusing on the startling numbers of men and women who were honorable or steadfast enough in their governmental duties that they found themselves with little alternative but to resign in protest, quit, retire or simply be pushed off some cliff. This administration has done everything in its power to take control of the bureaucracy. As Hurricane Katrina showed with a previously impressive federal agency, FEMA, Bush and his officials have put their pals ("Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job"), often without particular qualifications other than loyalty to this president, into leading positions, while trying to curb or purge their opponents. At the CIA, for instance, just before the last election former Rep. Porter Goss, a loyal political hack, was installed to purge and cleanse what had become an agency of leakers and bring it into line. Administration officials have, in fact, conducted little short of a war against leaks and leakers. To give but a single example, the origins of the Plame case lie in part in an attempt by top officials to administer punishment to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson for revealing administration lies about an aspect of Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction program. What those officials (as leakers, of course) did to his wife was clearly meant as a warning to others in the bureaucracy that coming forward would mean being whacked.

And yet, despite the carnage, as Frank Rich pointed out last Sunday, the New York Times reporters who finally broke the NSA story did so based not on one or two sources but on "nearly a dozen current and former officials." Doug Ireland laid out in his blog recently how, despite fears of possible prosecution -- the first thing the president did in the wake of these revelations was to denounce the "shameful act" of leaking and the Justice Department almost immediately opened an investigation into who did it -- one of them, former NSA analyst Russell Tice, has gone very public with his discontent. He has already been on "Democracy Now!" and ABC's "Nightline," saying that "he is prepared to tell Congress all he knows about the alleged wrongdoing in these programs run by the Defense Department and the National Security Agency in the post-9/11 efforts to go after terrorists." He claims that the NSA spied on "millions" of Americans, including, it was revealed recently, a Baltimore peace group.

The war with the bureaucracy and even, to some extent, with the military -- high-level officers, for instance, clearly leaked crucial information to Rep. Murtha before his withdrawal news conference -- will certainly continue this year, probably at an elevated level. The CIA has been a sieve; the NSA clearly will be; at the first sign of pressure, expect the same from career people in the Justice Department; and an unhappy military has already been passing out administration-unfriendly Iraq info left and right. Administration punitive acts only drive this process forward. Any signs of further administration weakness will do the same.

The "warriors" in the bureaucracy will, in turn, fuel further media and congressional criticism. Congress, worried about next year's election, is an exceedingly fragile pillar of support for the president. Conservatives, as Todd Gitlin pointed out in a recent Los Angeles Times Op-Ed, are alienated or worse; certain Republican senators are angry over the way the administration is sidelining Congress. Even some right-wing judges have been acting out. And, of course, there's the possibility that, in some chain-reaction-like fashion, the dike will simply burst and we will catch sight of something closer to the fullness of Bush administration illegality -- sure to be far beyond anything we now imagine.

4. Election 2006. Count on it being down and dirty. This could be a street brawl because, with the Republican loss of even one house of Congress, the power to investigate is turned over to the Democrats as we head into a presidential election cycle.

Consider points 1-3 above: Iraq as a rolling, roiling, ongoing disaster, Republican congressional representatives and administration figures under indictment, bureaucrats leaking madly, possible seats put into play in Texas, presidential polls dropping -- all having the potential to threaten an administration already filled with the biggest gamblers in our history and capable of doing almost anything if they think themselves in danger. So what can the president and his pals draw on?

Administration Wild Cards

As Noah Feldman pointed out recently in the New York Times Magazine, the rise of the imperial presidency has a history that goes back to Thomas Jefferson's decision to conclude the Louisiana Purchase, while the presidency's outsize "war powers" go back at least to Abraham Lincoln. The president has long had powers unimagined by the Founding Fathers, but the Bush administration still represents a new stage in the obliteration of a checks-and-balances system of government. Last week, in an important, if somewhat overlooked, front-page piece in the Wall Street Journal ("Judge Alito's View of the Presidency: Expansive Powers"), Jess Bravin reported on a speech Sam Alito gave to the right-wing Federalist Society in 2000 in which he subscribed to the "unitary executive theory" of the presidency ("gospel," he called it) which puts its money on the supposedly unfettered powers of the president as commander in chief. This theory has been pushed by administration figures ranging from the vice president and his chief of staff, David Addington, to former Assistant Attorney General and torture-memo writer John Yoo. As Alito put the matter in his speech: "[The Constitution] makes the president the head of the executive branch, but it does more than that. The president has not just some executive powers, but the executive power -- the whole thing." And Yoo put it even more bluntly while debating the unitary executive theory recently. In answering the question, "If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?" he responded, "No treaty."

Evidently, John Roberts subscribes to the same view of presidential powers (as Harriet Miers certainly did, at least when it came to George Bush). In other words, the administration is trying to pack the Supreme Court with judges who are, above all, guaranteed to come down on the side of the president in any ultimate face-off with Congress or the courts. This is surely the real significance of the Alito nomination, should it go through. In any constitutional crisis-to-come the "commander in chief" is trying to predetermine how things will fall out if his own power is at stake.

Terrorism: From Sept. 11, 2001, the terrorism/fear card has certainly been the most powerful domestic weapon in the administration's arsenal. In the event of a major (or several smaller) terrorist strikes in this country, the Bush administration could certainly be the major beneficiary, but even that is no longer a given. History tends not to happen quite the same way twice and no one knows whether, under the shock of such an event or events, the post-9/11 moment would simply be repeated or whether Americans might feel that this administration had completely betrayed them. A terrible war, lousy government, hideous crisis management, and then, on the one thing they swore they did best -- protecting the country from terror -- failure. Still this is certainly an administration wild card.

Wag the Dog Strategies: In a crisis of power, there is no reason to believe that the officials who already led us into Iraq might not be willing to gamble on a Wag the Dog strategy -- that is, launching an operation they had been hankering for anyway that might also turn attention elsewhere. Rumors and speculation about a massive air attack on Iran (or on "regime change" in Syria) have been kicking around since at least the spring of 2005. These have begun circulating again recently. Such a thing is certainly possible (more so, obviously, should Benjamin Netanyahu happen to win the Israeli election in March), but whether the effect of this on the administration's fortunes would be positive for long is also unknown. It certainly seems one path to madness, not just in Iraq but also on the oil markets. (If you happen to be a devotee of oil at $100 a barrel, you might quickly get your wish.)

Is a Constitutional Crisis in the Cards?

Until 2005, it wasn't that the Bush administration didn't make more than its share of mistakes; thanks to 9/11, it simply had plenty of wiggle room. It could always turn attention elsewhere. It always had the fear and terror cards ready to be played. These days, turn people's attention elsewhere and they're likely to see yet more disaster, corruption, incompetence and illegality. In 2006, the administration has a lot less wiggle room than it used to. Polling figures reflect that vividly. When new disasters hit, whether in Iraq or New Orleans, it's becoming harder to take American eyes off them.

Let me then offer one of those predictions -- surrounded by qualifications and caveats -- that all writers should be wary of. If in a bitter, dirty midterm election, filled with "irregularities," one house of Congress or both nonetheless go to the Democrats, which I believe possible (despite their low polling figures at the moment), expect the investigations to begin. Expect as well that the Bush administration will then trot out that "obscure" presidential philosophy of power and claim that the Congress has no right to investigate the president in his guise as commander in chief.

That is why the Alito nomination is so crucial and why 2007 may prove the year of constitutional crisis in the United States.

This article originally appeared on TomDispatch.com.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

...any thoughtful and balanced evaluation
of ME politics and conflicts of the last
150 years would need to address the tribal
and ethnic makeup of ME populations,the
wind down of the ottoman empire and the
ramping up of european and then post ww2
american political and economic interests
and contamination of regional evolution...
...... the advent of israel post ww2 due
to the european experience the jews had
just passed thru introduced some very
far reaching ramifications for the western
energy interests in ME,the convulsive and
never ending political/religous strife,the
desire for survival that led to ultra
border defense postures,territorial addons
and the palestinian quaqmire...
...with israel in possession of nuclear
weapons it is not likely to give up anytime
soon the ME will not be nuclear free ever
...as the usa found out after ww2 intellect
and ability to perform the science and
technical process of atoms is not border
or creed bound...
...iran surely has demonstrated it is able
to marshall the needed intellect and means
to create atomic science and application...
...unlike pakistan it has not sold this
to other countries...which again returns
the discussion to the lack of balance in
how countries are treated over atomic
issues...pakistan has sold it,israel has
it,so why are these countries considered
by usa as allies and yet iran cast as the
pariah? it is a bad can/can't position...
...brainpower and science are not border
respective,politics and economics are for
all time now ever global...china will find
a way back to its historical great power
and country past...the usa and europe have
had a nice romp over the last 200 years
as the invader and exploiter but it is now
clear enough that this century and the one
to follow will bring new order economics,
new or restored centers of political and
military power,and like it or not this will
need to be seen by europe and the usa as
a natural evolution of peoples and lands...
attempts to hold this back or going to war
to prevent will not be persuasive or in
the end succeed...china,india and brazil
are in ascent,africa and southeast asia
surely moving beyond the last century...

"Abe Lincoln said that you can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones I concentrate on."
George W. Bush 2000

Chris Ford, thank you for an enlightening and clear thinking post. My feeling is that Ahmedinijad is a rampant populist and says stuff that the non-thinking Arab street laps up. He knows as well as anyone that a strike on Israel would assure the end of Iran, first by its own fall-out, and then by massive retaliation. Not to mention the rest of the ME and beyond. Still, he talks up a game that endears him to a key constituency, which is how Bush opertates too. America and Europe are handling this all wrong. So wrong its laughable. Let Iran go nuclear i say. Its their insurance that they dont get trampled by the big boys or their nuclear neighbours. They would never use them first. US and europe simply want subjugated oil producers at their disposal, hence Iraq war. Having said all that, all nuclear weapons are a manifestation of human insanity, but sadly we cant un-invent the damn things.

There is a lot of "tough talking rhetoric" from western citizens here.

If US, EU or any other nation was able to do anything about the Iranian nuclear program (militarily, or any other means) do you really think we'd be having this discussion in this forum?! The answer is simple, NO.

Iran "will" be a nuclear power and Iran will be a force to be reckoned with.

They told the US administration that Iraq is no Afghanistan when it came to invading it and "winning". The naive American public scoffed at this only to see themselves knee deep in mud, and no where to go but to sink. There is no way America and it's western allies will win in Iraq. And I am here to tell you "Iran is no Iraq". If you think we have lost this battle in Iraq badly, it will be a catastrophy going to Iran. Regardless of all the Israeli lobbyist telling the American people how great and mighty their military is, pandering to this young nations ego, and pushing it to self destruct. The only ones here that are going to lose are the Americans and the Iranians. There is no winning for either side.

Perhaps a nuclear armed Iran will bring balance to this region, as odd as that may sound. Because the status quo is NOT working in the middle east.

Is Israel or the USA going to give up their nookular programs or nookular WMD?

What the hell is wrong with all of you?

Attack Iran? For building a Power Plant?

The current cockeyed propaganda twists have Europe and America uniting at the UN against Iran. In March, Iran is supposed to be switching the sale of their oil from American dollars to Euros. That would make the American dollar no longer the foundation for the world's economy. So why, if Europe does NOT want to support Iran, would they allow the Euro to replace the American dollar as the oil currency?

We have been lied to about everything, including the Holocaust, Israel, 911, etc.

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html
-- US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.

Our Government isn't the only ones spying on US!

Right, right. Let Iran go nuclear. Never mind those pandering comments about wiping Israel off the map or that the Holocaust was a myth (as apparently some posters in here believe) or that there president was on of the 1979 embassy hostage takers or that Iran has supported international terrorism and continues to support Hezbollah or that its President (and apparently quite a few of the mullahs) is a believer in the return of the 12th Imam, who will come at the End Time to restore peace to the world (Islamic of course) or that it has developed and tested the Shahib missle, capable of reaching Israel and possibly Europe. Or that its awash in oil. Nah, all that stuff is for domestic consumption. See, the Iranian presidents poll numbers are down, just needs a little boost.

No, a nuclear Iran is a dangerous option.

But hey, somehow its all Americas fault, right?

As far as I can tell Iran has done nothing illegal. Do I want to see a nuclear Iran? No, of course not. But not because it is illegal, but because I believe even the possession of nuclear weapons is a crime against humanity. No human being can protect him/herself against a nuclear weapon.

To make matters worse the United States doesn't even have relations with Iran and all 'talks' are conducted with third-parties. Such a policy is beyond immature and stupid, and puts everyone at more risk because of what? ideology? We need direct talks with every nation, including Iran.

I believe that the Iranian government would be stupid NOT to attempt a nuclear capacity. If Iraq had nuclear weapons it is hard to believe we'd be occupying that country right now. North Korea, with a nuclear capacity, has not been invaded. Apparently, the best way to guard against being invaded by any nation, or a 'coalition,' is to be nuclear armed. The Bush model of 'good' and 'bad' countries is particularly unhelpful and only exposes our own hypocrisy.

The biggest problem for the United States government is the hypocrisy. There are several nuclear armed nations that have never signed any treaties nor allow inspections. Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea to name the ones I am aware of. A nuclear-armed Israel is a public relations nightmare for us when it comes to diplomatic relations in the Islamic world. They have signed no treaties regarding these nuclear weapons and I have even read articles that have stated that the United States has an agreement that our spy satellites purposely do not observe Israel's nuclear facilities. And yet we bolster Israel with $3 billion a year; Israel is the single largest single recipient of American foreign aid in the world, yet they have a population of less than 8 million. How can we justify that? America's top beneficiaries of foreign aid are, in order, Israel, Egypt and then Colombia. Apparently ideology trumps any concerns we have for gross poverty when it comes to foreign aid...

India has not signed any agreements regarding their nuclear weaponry either. Instead of being demonized like some other nations, the Bush administration actually wants to increase trade including in nuclear technologies with them. This cannot be the way to bring India into the non-proliferation fold...

Of all the nations on the list of non-treaty nuclear powers Pakistan is the most breathtaking. No other nation has added more to nontreaty nuclear proliferation than has Pakistan. Yet, because they are an ally of the Bush administration in their 'war on terror' they have been given a huge pass on their actions and have not paid any price. The hypocrisy of our policy regarding Pakistan has been sickening.

North Korea is a sad case and probably has festered because, like with Iran, we do not have direct relations and all communications are through third parties. Hasn't it become obvious that when we allow ideology, on our side as well as theirs, to trump direct negotiations that nobody really wins?

As long as nuclear weapons are seen as legitimate by governments this problem will not go away. One can hardly blame nations for wishing to acquire them if they are seen as a deterrent for invasion and wars by more powerful nations.

Hey, while your down in Australia why don't you do a story on the Australian government's treatment of refugees and asylum seekers? They have a long history of mistreating people of color, from the 'Stolen Generations' to their infamous 'All White Policy.' Their recent 'Pacific Solution' is truly horrific, as well as their mandatory detention policies that allowed such places as the now defunct Woomera and the current Villawood and Baxter to flourish. Their policies of an exclusion zone around refugees and asylum seekers deters the press and their policies of excising huge tracts of Australia from official 'Australia' have been nothing but a political ploy to deter legal and legitimate refugees and asylum seekers from seeking protection in Australia. Who can ever forget the saga of The Tampa?

http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/HinckleyAndBush.htm
Take a look at this link. This would make for an interesting article sometime.

D. - Are we the only one's here who believe Iran having nuclear capabilities would be devastating?
I truly am flabbergasted by the posts I've read here. If Iran goes nuclear, they will surely use it to destroy neighboring countries and offset the balance of global power. The US and its allies should take any steps necessary to ensure this madman never achieves nuclear capability.

Rebuttal to "D";

Your post proves to me that the American interest is NOT what you're concerned about.

YOUR concern is "Israel". And what America can do for her. You couldn't care less if this great nation (USA) suffers irreversable damage, because of dubious policies.

It's high time American policies reflects the interest of the American people, not just it's Jewish minority. Or the Israeli interests first.

It's time for this great nation to shed the policies that ensure it's decline and demise.

What does the Holocaust, and the rhetorical statements made by the young, naive and obviously inexperienced Iranian president have to do with the US!?! I think the world knows what laughable chracter he really is. He was talking about Israel not America, when he made the statement of "wiping out, and the myth iof the Holocaust". It seems like you can not distinguish between the two countries D! They are different nations with different values and cultures. This is a Christian majority nation whilst Israel is a Jewish majority state.

Then again you don't care what happens to the US as long as it is 100% in line with the Jewish state's agenda and interests.

It's high time American policies reflect the interests of the American people. And for it to be the beacon of democracy for the world to look up once again.

uh sure. I'm a tool of the "Zionist Occupied Government". What in Gods name are you babbling about Arslan? The man makes no bones about his views on Israel, is on the verge of acquiring nuclear capability and if the rest of us out here kinda play connect the dots we are placing the interest of Israel (or as cartman would say, the J-O-O-S) ahead of those of the US? Sorry, the man is dangerous.

Oh wait, how about the comments made by his
chief adviser, Hassan Abbassi, that "Britain is the mother of all evils" - the evils being America, Australia, Israel, the Gulf states and even Canada and New Zealand, all of which are the malign progeny of the British Empire.

"We have established a department that will take care of England," said Mr Abbassi last May. "England's demise is on our agenda."

Christian, Jew or Mohammedean, religious nuts are, well, NUTS.

I actually agree with D. on this one, although it looks like we'll be the bad guys on The Debate when it comes to the Iranian issue.

There is no utility in allowing Iran The Bomb. I appreciate the well thought out posts by Chris and others pointing out their vested interest in aquiring nuclear weapons, but that doesn't make the idea any more sensible to me. If Iran has an incentive to get the bomb, IE: as protection, economic gain, political clout, etc. then it is up to the United States and others to offer disincentives.

This would be an entirely different issue if, say, Iceland was going after the bomb. Iceland's president (as far as I can tell) has not denied the Holocaust, has not called for the complete destruction of a regional competitor, and is not puppet-stringed by religious leaders.

I know there is hypocrisy in nuclear non-proliferation. I know that America is imperialistic. These things are unfortunate, but they are not reasons for pandering to Iran's nuclear "entitlement".

Nuclear weapons are uncool. They are uncool for countries who unfortunately have them, like the United States, Pakistan, and North Korea, and they are uncool for countries that do not have them. We can do more about the latter, though.

By the way have you guys figured out how Iran can shoot nuclear missiles at Israel and miss Al Aghsa, the second holiest site in Islam, as well as over a million Arab and Muslim population of Israel? How would they keep the clouds away from east Jerusalem or Gaza city, or for that matter from the wind blowing it back home? Since Iranians are no fools, is there a real threat of nuclear attack on Israel? Iranian president is an extremist and all this international pressure on Iran is actually cementing his position. In the absence of these issues, he had to pull his sleeves up and create a viable economy.

Rebuttal to D;

"uh sure. I'm a tool of the "Zionist Occupied Government"."

After what I've been reading on the Israeli's your statement is NOT far fetched D. Your statement makes a lot of sense.

Thanks Chris Ford, that was well thought out. I hope we can all come to the same reasoning in this country.

Cheers

Guess what American exceptionalists? It's not our job to "allow" or "now allow" Iran to get the bomb.

Of course, if/when they do, they will join the Mutually Assured Destruction club - and I highly doubt any nukes will be coming our way from Iran for the simple reason that we have more and more easily deployed nuclear weaponry than anyone on earth (which, by the way, we are the only nation to ever have actually used.) Of course, they would also have Isreal to reckon with, and they're on an even more nervous hair trigger than we are.

I'm still more worried about the thousands of battlefield nukes developed for use in artillery in Western Europe. Even a relatively small tactical nuclear device would certainly do a job on a densely populated US city - and Bushco have dropped the ball completely on this sort of effort in their singleminded obsession with invading Iraq.

That's the real threat.

Oops - "Not allow". More coffee...

Excellent post Mr. X

Interesting that we seem to think we own the world and can impose our views over it.

Maybe we should have spent the past 50 years actually helping people instead of blasting them to vapor. As a practical question there doesn't seem to be much to be done at this stage of the game.

Maybe we should think about changing the rules a little and building their reactor for them. Hey, goodwill is deductible in the US, maybe it works globally as well.

Guess I shoulda hit refresh.. Mr X said it better.

MAD works when you are dealing with an adversary that fears its own destruction. If you are dealing with folks who believe they'll get into paradise if they die taking out their "enemy", the logic of MAD pretty much goes out the window.

As for the capability to deliver a warhead to the States or into Europe: Iran is awash in petro-dollars. Whats to say that in 15-20 years time they wouldn't be able to develop ICBM technology? Hell of a gamble. I know alot of you aging hippies may not be around in 20 years, but I and my children will.

If, as Will said earlier, Iceland was talking about making the bomb, well, as much as that would be regrettable, at least their president hasn't come out talking like Mr. Ahmadinejad. Such rhetoric and Irans past activities has to give you pause.

Israel deploys nuclear arms in submarines

Peter Beaumont in London and Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem
Sunday October 12, 2003
The Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1061381,00.html

Israeli and American officials have admitted collaborating to deploy US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, giving the Middle East's only nuclear power the ability to strike at any of its Arab neighbours.
The unprecedented disclosure came as Israel announced that states 'harbouring terrorists' are legitimate targets, responding to Syria's declaration of its right to self-defence should Israel bomb its territory again.

According to Israeli and Bush administration officials interviewed by the Los Angeles Times, the sea-launch capability gives Israel the ability to target Iran more easily should the Iranians develop their own nuclear weapons.

Although it has been long suspected that Israel bought three German diesel-electric submarines with the specific aim of arming them with nuclear cruise missiles, the admission that the two countries had collaborated in arming the fleet with a nuclear-capable weapons system is significant at a time of growing crisis between Israel and its neighbours.

According to the paper, the disclosure by two US officials is designed to discourage Israel's enemies from against launching an attack amid rapidly escalating tensions in the region following a raid by Israeli jets on an alleged terrorist training camp near the Syrian capital, Damascus.

In a clear echo of the Bush doctrine of pre-emption, the Foreign Ministry's senior spokesman, Gideon Meir, insisted: 'Israel views every state that is harbouring terrorist organisations and the leaders of those terrorist organisations who are attacking innocent citizens of the state of Israel as legitimate targets out of self defence.'

The disclosure, is certain to complicate UN-led efforts to persuade Iran to make a full disclosure of its nuclear programme. It will also complicate the Bush administration's efforts to reach out to moderate Arab states when they are pressing for an equal disclosure of Israel's nuclear weapons programme.

Although Israel has long been known to possess nuclear weapons, in the past it has abided by a deal struck with President Richard Nixon in 1969 that it would maintain 'ambiguity' about its retention of weapons in exchange for the US turning a blind eye. According to reliable estimates, Israel has around 200 nuclear warheads.

It acquired the three Dolphin class submarines, which can remain at sea for a month, in the late Nineties. They are equipped with six torpedo tubes suitable for the 21-inch torpedoes that are normally used on most submarines.

It had been understood they would carry a version of the 'Popeye Turbo' cruise missiles being developed by Rafael Armament Development Authority of Israel.

Israel's seaborne nuclear doctrine is designed to place one submarine in the Persian Gulf, the other in the Mediterranean, with a third on standby. Secret test launches of the cruise missile systems were understood to have been undertaken in May 2000 when Israel carried out tests in the Indian Ocean.

'We tolerate nuclear weapons in Israel for the same reason we tolerate them in Britain and France,' one of the LA Times' sources told the paper. 'We don't regard Israel as a threat.'

Despite the anonymity of the source, the sentiment is almost identical to that of the US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, John Bolton, who told British journalists last week that America was not interested in taking Israel to task for its continuing development of nuclear weapons because it was not a 'threat' to the United States.

Even if Bolton was not one of the sources for the story, his comments, coming on top of that of the two other sources, suggest the degree to which senior members of the Bush administration can now not even be bothered to hide America's assistance and encouragement for Israel's nuclear programme.

While I don't like it, I see no fault with Iran wanting to go nuclear. It just makes the most sense for them strategically. And like others have expressed, there is very little the US can say or offer to deter their desires. By simply taking a look at US policy in the ME, in regards to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and bending over backwards to accomodate Israel over the last 50 years, we are definately not the most trustworthy of speakers about the conflict in the ME. We've obviously got an agenda out there and it is most definately not one that Iran can see as benefiting it.

"Ok so I read the articles. Oh my! Iran has an "idealogical" government which puts its idealogies before its people. Maybe, but our current government fits the same radical description. THINK about IT. Bush and their shaman-like sway over the born again christains, the use of church as a political vehicle, their constant lying in your face, and yelling at you that if you don't do as your told, something bad will happen to you."

There you go with the moral equivelance thing again. Lets review; as a christian (if I werent an athiest), and my daughter marries a Jew; I would not kill her! Get it?
Catholics, Jews, Born agains all feel they have a monopoly on the one and only TRUE religion of god, and therefore the only people really going to heaven. The funny thing is, they dont feel the need to Convert, subjigate, or kill the rest of us because we are not muslim.
Jeez IP is it really that hard to see the difference? THINK about IT.

To Emily Messner,

If there is one thing about people that's a given, it's that they can only change themselves. You can try to understand them, change their circumstances, try to point the roads to peace, but in the end, they must want it for themselves, knowing what the alternatives are.

Thus I offer the following perspective, in the hope that folks find that it makes too much sense to ignore.

-- Original Message -----
From: Eric Jette
To: israel-un@newyork.mfa.gov.il
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: "In Larger Freedom" a public letter by the Iranian opposition

To: Ambassador Dan Gillerman Permanent Representative

Dear Mr. Ambassador,

Shalom,

Comes now this US citizen humbly requesting you keep these two things in mind about me personally as you read further.

1. My grandfather was division head of the center for chemical and metallurgical research LANL, under Oppenheimer at the time of the Manhattan project.
2. I have been considering issues surrounding nuclear weapons all my adult life. On the flyleaf of my grandmother's book about Los Alamos that I gave to Bill Clinton the day he was first elected President I wrote, "This is a slice of times past, to give perspective on the present, so that in the future we can eliminate the threat of nuclear war. The greatest threat we face today is that terrorists will obtain nuclear weapons." Not to be partisan, this is just fact.
3. I firmly stand beside those standing up for their liberty, and with those who support those aspirations and inalienable rights to live in dignity and freedom, globally.

It took America just 3.5 years, from 1942-45 to build an industry from scratch, based on designs from scratch, building a city from scratch to build a bomb from scratch, with only theories to go on, in the middle of the largest and most costly war in history. Yet we did this and ended that war that had cost 50 million lives up to that point with the weapon that no one knew would even work at the time it was being produced. Just 3.5 years, from theory to reality (3.5 years from the time FDR read a letter signed by Einstein till the Trinity test).

Everyone who worked on the first bomb, being as uncivilized a weapon as it is, believed it would cause mankind to forever choose peace instead of war after it ended WW2. Unfortunately, that direction was not taken, at the expense of the environment, and to the continued threat to all life on this planet.

I stress here the biggest "what if?" is what we might have accomplished as the Human species had we chosen to live in peace, instead of fear after WW2.

Truly the abysmal statements of the unelected president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, do not reflect the majority, as the majority of Iranian people view this terrorist regime as a threat to themselves, and to their children's future. A regime that rules them by fear only.

In the enclosed public letter to US Ambassador John Bolton, you will find ideas and solutions put forth by the Iranian democratic opposition, and a bit of Persian history that is deeply rooted in Jewish history as well. It is my thinking that this historical connection may be also of importance to Israel should her policies reflect the prayers of suggestion contained in this letter. As from a historical standpoint, supporting the Iranian people's aspirations for liberty through Israeli policy, may be publicly welcomed by the people of Iran as "repayment" of a very old and ancient debt of freedom, in kind.

I hope this personal perspective may aid you (as I believe it has my government) in understanding and assessing the grave and urgent issues surrounding the activities of the IRI, and their intent at this time, and solutions.

There are those affected who have no voice in the matter, and so in solidarity I offer the following public letter in the same spirit of common cause. Thank you for reviewing it.

Sincerely, and with Best Regards,

Eric Jette

Note: SMCCDI's website is down at the moment, but the contact info included is still good.
http://www.daneshjoo.org/article/publish/article_3326.shtml

The "Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy
in Iran" (SMCCDI)
_____________________

September 7, 2005

The Honorable John Bolton,
United States Ambassador to the UN
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520

Via Federal Express & Fax (202) 647-0244

Dear Mr. Ambassador,

On behalf of the membership of the "Student Movement
Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran" (SMCCDI), and
the people of Iran who have striven so long for freedom of
speech, worship, assembly, a free press, civil liberties,
woman's rights, the application of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, and the rule of law; We
congratulate you on your nomination as America's Ambassador
to the UN.

Comes now this Iranian opposition group, to apprise you of
the facts, the conclusions and suggestions we have been
given to put forward herein this letter, as context to the
2005 UN Summit, and the pending address to the UN of the
Islamic Republic regime's appointed president, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, with the gravest concern for the welfare and
common good of all people, and generations to come...

"In Larger Freedom"

The body of evidence compiled over the long history of
the Islamic Republic's systemic methodology of torture,
political repression and murder of journalists and
dissidents; crimes against humanity including the past and
current crackdown on ethnic and religious minorities, and
"troublemakers" (i.e.: political dissidents of the regime);
applying a Gender Apartheid policy and sexual
discrimination against women; sponsoring and officially
engaging in terrorism (internally and externally), by its
leadership and proxy; suppression of the press, closing of
TV and newspapers as well as confiscation of satellite
dishes, the arrest of "bloggers" and the shutting down of
internet sites, arbitrary arrest and lack of "due process";
the denial of requested information to the UN Commission on
Human Rights (and its sub committees), the denial of access
and information to the IAEA, false declaration to various
UN committee; The failure to uphold the tenants of the UN
Charter signed by Iran in 1948 (in multiple aspects,
consistently and premeditative, and the long history of
denial, subterfuge, bribery, and false public statements on
the record in the UN we believe must be addressed in
totality, before the Security Council, along with other
issues and recommendations brought before the council
regarding this regime, to obtain a holistic solution to a
common threat.

We understand that the UN Commission on Human Rights
mandate covers only one aspect of the larger picture that
must be addressed, and while the "1503 procedure" states, "
No communication will be admitted if it runs counter to the
principles of the Charter of the United Nations or appears
to be politically motivated." and further states, "As a
rule, communications containing abusive language or
insulting remarks about the State against which the
complaint is directed will not be considered."

We believe it is essential that you and the Commission
understand that SMCCDI's intent is not "politically
motivated" in seeking greater freedom for Iran's people,
nor does any member aspire to become a representative of
any new political structure that may exist in a future free
Iran. It is important for us that you and the UN understand
the nature and precepts of SMCCDI as well as the long road
that has brought the opposition in general to the
conclusions and suggestions expressed herein.

While the 1503 procedure states that no "insulting
language" be used, the truth is different from opinion, and
evil is as evil does. Therefore, while the Islamic regime
will no doubt claim insult and injury to its reputation,
one must in all honesty; call it like one sees it being
manifest in action. Using logic over emotionalism, truth
over viewpoint, and ethics over all.

This is one of the reasons we welcome your tenure as UN
Ambassador, as you have the reputation of manifesting
tangible results, whether it be on UN reform, proliferation
of WMD, or state sponsors of terrorism. We wish to inform
you as a courtesy that a copy of this letter will be hand
delivered to the door of the UN, on September 14th, for
your kind inspection, while thousands of freedom loving
Iranians outside the UN protesting this regime cheer you on
as well as cheering on other free nations' representatives
as measures are taken to address the theocratic regime's
abysmal activities before the UN general assembly.

As you may face the incarnation of boycott and the
regime's answer to the aspirations of the Iranian people's
desire to self determination in the form of an evil man who
has come to power illegitimately; who comes to usurp the
chair of membership in the UN which is by right the chair
belonging to the Iranian people; Usurped by an unpopular
regime that has never held credence to the premise of the
UN charter, or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in
word or deed; we urge you, and all free nation's
representatives to address this issue of , and consider
wisely the matter of the regime's membership, as a matter
of UN reform.

Sir,

Our opposition movement (SMCCDI) is bound by a charter
formed on principals such as; Human Rights, Democracy,
separation of church and states, and free markets. We
believe these principals represent the most fair and
efficient means for humanity to realize its potential.

Ultimately, no repressive, intolerant regime can withstand
the spread of these ideals.
The Islamic Republic regime currently in power in Iran or
any Islamic variances that may exist there in the future
are no exception. By staying true to these values our
people's triumph is absolutely, positively, and undeniably
inevitable.

It is these precepts voiced by Secretary General Kofi
Annan; "Today, our challenge -- as it was for the founders
of the United Nations -- is to pass on to our children a
brighter legacy than that bequeathed to us. We must build
a future as envisioned in the UN Charter -- a future in
larger freedom"; that the Iranian opposition, and the
democracy movement in Iran is based upon, referencing the
Universal Declaration on Human Rights, so often among the
various opposition groups over these past years.

The horror of this evil regime's hypocrisy, and methodical
atrocities can only be likened to a daily Auschwitz for the
stain it brings on the honor of those who appease and
support and lengthen the life span of this barbaric and
tyrannical regime through silence, economic incentive,
"engagement" and illusion. Blind or not as they may be of
what is taking place in our country, or the intent of the
regime in many aspects that threaten the security of the
international community.
Nor can the international community, or any member of any
government that holds in their heart the values of freedom
continue to turn their back on these long standing issues,
and still call themselves human. Or allow this regime,
along with other human rights abusers to block necessary UN
reform of the human rights commission, or the draft
measures in reference on "responsibility to protect".

As a "test case" for UN reform, the Islamic Republic
regime qualifies in every conceivable way.

It is our hope placed in trust that you (as have the US
President and his Secretary of State and many members of US
Congress in the past) will illuminate the plight of our
people that have struggled to shrug off the oppressors and
theocratic chains which have bound the Iranian people for
so long. Chains which have silenced the voice of the people
in utterance, and stilled them with overwhelming force.
Chains denying the Iranian people a better future for our
children, and our children's children for over a generation
in this process

Speaking in regard to "International Woman's Day, March 8,
2005" the US Secretary of State said, "Freedom, the
protection of fundamental human rights, economic
opportunity and prosperity, equality and the rule of
law...these are all elements of the democratic process.
Women are integral to the process of building responsible
governments and democratic institutions. Women's
participation and empowerment at all levels of society will
be key to moving these new democracies forward."

It is the women, who represent a large part of the
opposition and will make a major contribution through their
degree of knowledge and political and civil maturity to the
democratic and peaceful revolution we seek to manifest, as
well as to a future democratic Iran. We cannot carry such
baggage or the individuals who continue to deny women their
place in society in this process of regaining our freedom
and their equality in the process.

Mr. Ambassador,

When one considers the IRI in totality, the abysmal human
rights record, its long-standing support for terrorism,
it's WMD programs in violation of signed agreements; logic
dictates that with or without referral by the IAEA, this
ideological and unelected regime should not just be
sanctioned, but booted out of the UN altogether for gross
violation of the UN charter, which the Iran Nation is a
signatory to, believing it to be criminally negligent for
any nation to support the continuance and aspirations of
the Islamic Republic system one day longer, and remaining
"seized of the matter." As Churchill put it, "Given the
choice between war and dishonor, Chamberlain chose dishonor
and got war."

To this point, the only leader of free nations who's had
that alternate vision of an Iran existing within the
community of nations..."in larger freedom", and had the
guts to voice the option is President George W. Bush...."..
and to the Iranian people I say tonight, as you stand for
your own liberty, America stands with you." The man
presented possibilities to people in so doing, as a
president will on occasion.

Those words of hope to our people must now be joined in
chorus among all free nations, standing in solidarity with
the tenets and premise of "in larger freedom". The freedom
from fear, from want, the hope to raise our children in
dignity and in religious freedom in a nation that is truly
secular and representative of the people's will.

We shall see if the UN honors the precepts of its founding
Charter, whether the EU, Russia, China and India will
continue to trade and negotiate with a tyrannical and
terrorist regime, and whether the UN membership comes
together in solidarity of it's founding principals to honor
the words of President Bush to the Iranian people.

If the UN cannot see fit to honor the tenets of its
founding by enforcing its Charter on members signatory to
it, we in the Iranian opposition will briefly bow our heads
in shame being witness to this, but only briefly as time is
short, and our heads will rise looking only forward, as our
feet continue to trod the path of freedom in process,
whether the international community supports us or not. But
whether this popular movement is successful, or crushed,
depends now upon free nation's support for the aspirations
of Iranian liberty.

It is self-evident that the international community cannot
live with terrorists, nor terrorist regimes in its midst.
There is but one solution to common security in larger
freedom.

To prevent war and/or civil war, the Islamic regime must
be disavowed by the UN as not legitimately representative
of the People of Iran, and held accountable for its
activities.
Nor can its newly unelected leader, self confessed to
having fired coup de grace bullets into political prisoners
after being tortured; under investigation for hostage
taking and other murders outside of the territory of Iran;
claim any "diplomatic immunity", nor be afforded any claim
by the regime under the rules of UN membership, nor be
granted same by the UN, or host nation, if the
investigation warrants prosecution.

We ask very simply that America, and every democratic
member nation of the United Nations, and their
representatives and leaders stand united with the Iranian
people now. Not as diplomats or representatives neither of
nations, nor even as members of the UN per se, but simply
as Humans. For this, and the hope of liberty and justice is
what binds all people, and the UN together in unity, under
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the premise
of the UN Charter.

Indeed, the Islamic Republic regime is engaged in terror,
torture and atrocity on a daily basis, and this
illegitimate regime dares to call itself Democratic, an
advocate of human rights, and protector of the oppressed
throughout the region. A cruel joke added onto the injury
to our nation's pride and heritage, as reportedly the
regime via a dam, will submerge the founder of Persia,
Cyrus the Great's tomb and the archeological sites of
Pasargad and Persepolice under water.
The only way our people can regain our honor, civil
liberties and the trust of the world for a WMD-free Iran
that seeks to provide a safer future for the world and
adheres to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is by
providing us, the people of Iran, the support for our
legitimate aspirations of liberty necessary to restore hope
to the land that Cyrus the Great brought Democracy to over
2500 years ago.

Those ancient precepts regarding freedom of worship,
individual right to own property, freedom from slavery,
representative government in a democratic "federalist"
government that respected the states rights to determine
local laws so long as they were consistent with the
inherent rights of the people, respecting territorial
integrity in the process, have proven themselves over time
and among many cultures. The UN has a replica of this vital
document on display in the entrance lobby. It is as if to
us, the regime intends to submerge the very tenets that
civilization was founded upon, honored and recognized in
the UN, on display. This is not just Persia's heritage
that is at stake, but mankind's, and we hope that a
resolution will be tabled and mandated to protect and
preserve this historical legacy for future generations.

Sir,

With the firm unanimous voice of the UN, and the pressure
that may be applied "in greater freedom" The UN may honor
the precepts of its founding principals, and reform itself
into an effective, cohesive, transparent instrument for the
common good of all men and women. But if not starting with
the "test case" the regime poses, where will, and when
will, UN reform becomes manifest in action and intent, "
being seized of the matter"? All reform must have some
gage or measure to assess its merit; we propose this as a
means to that end.

1. Implementation of full international economic and
military sanctions on the Islamic Republic regime via UN
Security Council resolution based on human rights, support
for terrorism, and this to be tabled with or without IAEA
board recommendation on the nuclear threat the theocracy
poses. These two issues alone should be viewed as
circumstance the world cannot turn it's back upon, at risk
of civilization itself.

Such measures should include coordination with oil
producing nations to ensure stable world supply while
sanction persists, as well as the halting of any and all
arms transfers to the Islamic Republic regime via the
Proliferation Security Initiative.

2. Full diplomatic sanction and closing of Islamic
republic's embassies worldwide, removal and deportation of
regime representatives, their agents and spies from all
nations.
Diplomatic sanction by the UN, revocation of UN membership
and removal of representation from this international forum
till such time as a legitimate interim government can be
established in Iran.

Note: We ask that concerns regarding lack of consular
functions as a result of this action be cooperatively
addressed, so as to continue to allow emergency visas to be
issued. (i.e. family emergencies, etc.) It may be possible
to retain the minimum consular functions, under tight
supervision, but they are well known in their recruiting
of, and issuing visa to potential martyrs and terrorists.

3. Freezing of any and all financial assets of the Islamic
Republic system, current and former leadership, and
corporate interests worldwide, till such time as a new
interim government can be established.

As well as allocation of portions of these assets now to
legitimate non-violent opposition groups inside and outside
Iran, to provide the tangible support needed while civil
disobedience becomes manifest in action. Only in this way
can this action be self-sustaining till it succeeds. Poland
couldn't have become free without support, nor can we, as
this is much to expect of a people under the boot of
repression for over a generation.

4. Repeated statements by world leaders publicly calling
for the leadership of the Islamic Republic regime to step
down peacefully, and to relinquish the government to the
hands and will of the Iranian people, and a UN monito