PRESIDENT BUSH: … I would ask him to listen carefully to Ryan Crocker and General Petraeus. It's — you know, there's a temptation to let the politics at home get in the way with — you know, with the considered judgment of the commanders. That's why I've strongly rejected an artificial timetable of withdrawal. It's kind of like an arbitrary thing; you know, that "We will decide in the halls of Congress how to conduct our affairs in Iraq based upon, you know, polls and politics, and we're going to impose this on people," as opposed to listening to our commanders and our diplomats, and listening to the Iraqis, for that matter. You know, the Iraqis have, you know, have invited us to be there. But they share a goal with us, which is to get our combat troops out as conditions permit. Matter of fact, that's what we're doing. Return on success has been the strategy of this administration. And our troops are coming home, but based upon success.

And so I would ask whoever goes there, whatever elected official goes there, to listen carefully to what is taking place, and understand that the best way to go forward is to, you know, listen to the parties who are actually on the ground. [Emphasis added]

There are, of course, so many absurdities contained within these statements that it is difficult to begin to parse each one. Let's start with "…the Iraqis have… invited us to be there." I somehow remember history rather differently. Last I recall, the United States and Great Britain, with a few other add-ons, invaded Iraq with well over 100,000 troops and met resistance from an Iraqi army, no matter how ineffective it turned out to be. To claim that the United States troops were invited in is a rewriting of history that Stalin would be proud of.
Now my guess is that Bush would claim that he is talking about the current Iraqi government — but even then the use of the word "invited" is rather bizarre. When the Maliki government was given the reins of power — however limited that power may be — it was from the structure of the Iraqi Provisional Authority which was controlled by Americans. The U.S. military is still, by far, the prominent military force in Iraq and funds for running and reconstructing Iraq are coming in at the billions courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer (and a debt financed by China). To be invited is to say that the inviter actually had a role in the decision. But by having over 130,000 troops in Iraq already, and by focusing on a policy in which this Administration is ignoring pleas by both the general population and the Maliki government itself to begin the process of leaving, the use of the the concept of being invited is beyond a stretch.

Then to claim that their goal is to get U.S. combat troops out "as conditions permit" and then to go on to say that that was being accomplished already, is to twist the facts so that they are unrecognizable.  Some troop brigades did return home to pre-surge levels, but that is as much due to the fact that the troop level was unsustainable if the military wanted to continue its other functions.  The Administration has noted the decrease in violence in Iraq — but this has not been coupled with any real troop withdrawal. Our troops have not come home based on success — they have come home based on military priorities.

The final piece of Bush's response is also part of this theater of the absurd. To tell Obama to "listen to the parties on the ground" is a clear case of "do what I say, not what I do."  The first four years in Iraq were lost in part due to the arrogance of the Bush Administration.  Anyone who has read some of the comprehensive books about those years in Iraq, whether The Assassin's Gate or Fiasco, or if you viewed the great documentary No End in Sight, you know that the Bush Administration assiduously ignored those on the ground, whether real Iraqis or experts on various aspects of Iraq.  It is true that in the past year some of this problem has been reversed, but it has occurred very late and only in part. If Barack Obama were to listen to the parties on the ground, he could ask the Maliki government when they believe that U.S. troops should be withdrawn, and the answer most likely will be, within two years.

The Bush Administration has the technical problem that the U.N. resolution authorizing the U.S. to keep troops in Iraq expires at the end of this year.  The Bush Administration wants to sign an agreement with the Maliki government allowing them to stay without a deadline.  The Maliki government wants the agreement to last only two years and have a goal of combat troop withdrawal.  The Bush Administration isn't too keen on this idea.  But if they just use Bush's and the Soviet's definition of being invited, then such an agreement really isn't necessary — now is it?

Most importantly, as revealed in The New Yorker last week by veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, the Bush administration (with the acquiescence of congressional leadership) greatly stepped up covert operations in Iran, with the goal of destabilizing the country enough that the U.S. would be compelled to attack. A "Presidential Finding" is a secret, highly classified directive by the President to authorize covert activity.  The only oversight it gets is that the top congressional leaders, both majority and minority, plus the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Intelligence Committees get to view and and issue any objections if they have any.  They rarely do.  All findings are otherwise completely classified and it is illegal for these leaders to discuss them.  The details of this activity, according to Hersh:

These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.

What was especially disturbing about this request by the Administration was the authorization of the use of "defensive lethal force," which gives operatives the power to kill people.  According to Hersh, there are many members of the military who are skeptical about the Administration's strategies in Iran.

Some Pentagon officials believe, as they have let Congress and the media know, that bombing Iran is not a viable response to the nuclear-proliferation issue, and that more diplomacy is necessary.

But in this Administration, ideology trumps the views of the military itself.

So when a country believes it is threatens and placed on a kind of enemies list; When a country is constantly accused of developing Weapons of Mass Destruction; When a country is constantly told that "all options are on the table" when it comes to dealing with them (except for diplomacy of course); When a country is next to another member of that Axis of Evil that has already been invaded; When a country has internal, covert operations being run by the most power nation in the world, in order to destabilize it, wouldn't we expect it to act and react?

Earlier this year I interviewed Professor John Muellerwho has written about the United States' overreaction to both terrorism and supposed nuclear proliferation. For him, the actions by the United States lead to this kind of military development by a country like Iran.

The Seminal: Do you think that these so-called "unstable" countries are more apt to try to get nuclear weapons due to the actions of the U.S. and other developed countries in the name of non-proliferation?

John Mueller: If that includes real or assumed threats — it is hardly surprising that these countries may feel the need to get nuclear weapons. the best way to reduce their incentive is to not threaten them. An example of this is putting Iran in the "Axis of Evil." After Iraq we basically have been saying to Iran, "You're Next." In 2003 John Bolton said about Iran, "Take a Number." So Iran's reaction isn't surprising.

What the Bush Administration seems to expect is that either Iran bends to all of the real and perceived threats that are made against them, or the United States may attack.  That doesn't sound like much of an option.  When the United States is threatened, the U.S. military flexes its muscles, tests weapons, does military exercises.  Why wouldn't we assume that other countries would do the same?

While Condoleeza Rice is reacting as though Iran's missile and torpedo tests were offensive in nature, rational observers understand the reality:

Some in the U.S. saw the Iranian tests on Wednesday as essentially deterrent in nature. A senior American intelligence official said the missile tests, together with belligerent comments by Iranian officials, seemed part of a strategy to warn Iran’s neighbors of its “capacity to inflict pain.”

“I think Iran has a hedgehog strategy: mess with me and you’ll get stuck,” said the official, Thomas Fingar, the deputy director of national intelligence for analysis and head of the National Intelligence Council, during remarks at the Center for National Policy, in Washington.

Maybe the entire Bush-Cheney strategy with regard to Iran is misguided?  Look at the results when actual discussions took place with the third wheel of the Axis of Evil, North Korea.  But reports are that Bush –actually Cheney more so — are bent on "taking care" of Iran before they leave office.  Once again the U.S. military becomes George and Dick's ideological toys.

Yesterday, Nick Turse at TomDispatch posted an excellent account of why American media, and specifically the NY Times, is several years late in bringing us this story.

For reference here is the story that broke two weeks ago:

Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat….

The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.

Note the extraordinary nature of the no-bid contracts:

The first oil contracts for the majors in Iraq are exceptional for the oil industry. They include a provision that could allow the companies to reap large profits at today’s prices: the ministry and companies are negotiating payment in oil rather than cash.

“These are not actually service contracts,” [one expert] said. “They were designed to circumvent the legislative stalemate” and bring Western companies with experience managing large projects into Iraq before the passage of the oil law.

A clause in the draft contracts would allow the companies to match bids from competing companies to retain the work once it is opened to bidding, according to the Iraq country manager for a major oil company who did not consent to be cited publicly discussing the terms.

So basically, in the height of an energy crisis these companies have snuck in and secured for themselves what is likely the world's largest, most lucrative remaining reserve of oil: the Iraqi fields. They have obtained contracts designed to bypass the democratic process, block out any competition, and lock-in historically high prices. And according to Turse, they did all of this with the help of the Bush Administration.

Here is how one energy analyst described the significance of these contracts:

Iraq is more than just about a handful of contracts in the early days….

Whoever goes in and starts drilling and starts adding production really doesn't have to sink a huge amount of infrastructure. You've got easy fields and easy ways to get it out of the country….They're working in existing reservoirs that are well mapped out and already connected to infrastructure. After [the first round of contracts,] when you're talking about big deals, you could see an additional fresh million barrels per day added in under a year…and an extra million barrels per year every year for probably five or six years. And then all of a sudden you have a second Saudi Arabia.

Citing mostly matters of public record Turse's piece explains just how the four oil companies came to be rewarded these crucial contracts. He spells out specifically the role of the Bush administration and the Pentagon in facilitating them, going right back to Dick Cheney's notorious secret energy meetings (that included these companies) in 2001.

Definitely worth a read for anyone wanting to better understand this war.

Sadly, in order to get elected, the candidates have to make statements that the public can understand. Those candidates have to express things in those simplistic terms, convey that they are in control of the information, and that they can act intelligently. 'Stay the Course". "Cut and Run". "Victory". For U.S. interests, this simplistic handling of events has created disaster so far.

I have a source I've used several times, Barnett Rubin at InformedComment, where a longtime student of the Middle East gives complicated and nuanced information which usually conflicts with what we hear from the candidates and the press. Today's report about the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan is an example of that.

The war in Afghanistan is often depicted as a battle between jihadi groups and the U.S. or the west. But Afghanistan is also a theater for the struggle between India and Pakistan and for the domestic struggles of Pakistan. This is the second major terrorist attack on an Indian target since the election of a civilian government in Pakistan. Nine synchronized bombs killed 63 people in the Indian city of Jaipur on May 13, just before the first high-level diplomatic meeting between India and Pakistan after the elections. Part of the context of this attack is also the Afghan official, public charges that the Pakistani intelligence agency, ISI, organized the attempted assassination of President Karzai in Kabul in April. These attacks seem designed to sabotage any improvement of relations between Pakistan and either of its two neighbors, India and Afghanistan, to assure that Pakistan has no alternative but to continue to support militant organizations as part of its foreign policy.

I might add that there is also a consistent pattern of attacks on Indian road construction teams in southwest Afghanistan.
(snip)
Juan Cole on Informed Comment links the bombing to the attack yesterday in Islamabad and posits:

Since the neo-Taliban want to pull down the Karzai government, trying to scare the Indians into leaving would be a way of removing one foreign pillar of support from the edifice of state.
(snip)
UPDATE: Now I heard on NPR that the "Taliban" have denied responsibility. Let me stick my neck out here: I don't believe that the Kandahari Taliban leadership would mount an attack like this against the Indian embassy. The idea of such an attack came from some combination of all or some of the following: the Haqqani group (as part of a campaign for Pakistani support), Pakistani Taliban, al-Qaida, and the Pakistani security agencies, or private entities under their supervision.

It is past time for voters to accept that in order to act wisely, this government has to depend on reality-based information from proven sources. We can't settle for believing in a poseur who insists his/her own judgment invariably can meet an international standard. We are in scary territory because of that kind of approach.

In order to evaluate what is going on in episodes such as bombings in Kabul, the press needs to rely on real information. Cutbacks in international press presence has left very few sources that can be relied on. Statements from politically or financially interested parties are hardly a good source of information in any event.

Following proven, reliable blogs has become the only way I know to be sure I'm not poorly informed, and don't make wrong-headed decisions. The internets are serving a vital service. We need to keep it up, and make sure our voices always can be counted on for the best information, and best viewpoint, we can provide.

Increasingly, the internets are the only source of actual information.

(This post also at http://cabdrollery.blogspot.com/ )

Today, while public opinion is against the war, there is no protest movement, and the war continues. Perhaps it's because Bush is censoring the images that reach American shores. An award winning photo-journalist, Zoriah Miller, was kicked out of his embedded position after photographing the grisly aftermath of a suicide bombing:

Miller ran with the Marines he was with to the scene of the attack. "As I ran I saw human pieces…a skull cap with hair, bone shards," he told IPS during a telephone interview from the so-called Green Zone in Baghdad. "When we arrived at the building it was chaotic. There were Iraqis, police and civilians running around screaming. Bodies were being pulled out of the building."

"I went in and there were over 20 people's remains all over the place," Miller continued, "Of the Marines I jogged in with, someone started to vomit. Others were standing around, not knowing what to do. It was completely surreal."

"At that moment I realized this was far beyond anything I'd experienced, and I realized I wanted to focus and make sure I could capture what it felt like, and the visual horror," Miller explained.

…

"Tuesday [Jul. 1] I awoke to a call in their combat operations centre, and the person on the phone told me they were a PAO (Public Affairs Officer) at Camp Fallujah, and he wanted me to take my blog down right away," Miller told IPS. "I asked them why, and was then called back after five minutes by a higher ranking PAO who claimed I had broken my contract by showing photos of dead Americans with U.S. uniforms and boots."

Miller said the PAO claimed he was not allowed, by the embed contract, to show dead or wounded U.S. citizens or soldiers in the field. "I never signed any contract for that," Miller said.

Miller's blog is one of the many horrifying, but true accounts of the war in Iraq that most Americans never see. With a war raging so far away, and the casualties largely out of reach of photo or television cameras, is it any wonder few people are taking to the streets?

In our insane conduct of policy toward Iran, in particular, the worst administration ever has demonstrated it cannot act rationally when the war criminals in high office get the bit in their teeth and smell an end coming to their freedom to conduct counterproductive militarism. Once again, the uglies in our government are supporting enemies of the very interests we claim we are promoting.

The cretin in chief's speech yesterday claiming that we are offering freedom to Iraqis amounts to just so many lies.

The balancing act has become more difficult for Iraq since George Bush successfully requested $400m (£200m) from Congress last year to fund covert operations aimed at destabilising the Iranian leadership. Some of these operations are likely to be launched from Iraqi territory with the help of Iranian militants opposed to Tehran. The most effective of these opponent groups is the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), which enraged the Iraqi government by staging a conference last month at Camp Ashraf, north-east of Baghdad. It demanded the closure of the Iranian embassy and the expulsion of all Iranian agents in Iraq. "It was a huge meeting" said Dr Othman. "All the tribes and political leaders who are against Iran, but are also against the Iraqi government, were there." He said the anti-Iranian meeting could not have taken place without US permission.

The Americans disarmed the 3,700 MEK militants, who had long been allied to Saddam Hussein, at Camp Ashraf in 2003, but they remain well-organised and well-financed. The extent of their support within Iran remains unknown, but they are extremely effective as an intelligence and propaganda organisation.

Though the MEK is on the State Department's list of terrorist groups, the Pentagon and other US institutions have been periodically friendly to it. The US task force charged by Mr Bush with destabilising the Iranian government is likely to co-operate with it.

In reaction to the conference, the Iraqi government, the US and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have started secret talks on the future of the MEK with the Iraqi government pressing for their expulsion from Iraq. Dr Othman, who speaks to the MEK frequently by phone, said: "I pressed them to get out of Iraq voluntarily because they are a card in the hands of the Americans."

An embarrassing aspect of the American pin-prick war against Iran is that many of its instruments were previously on the payroll of Saddam Hussein. The MEK even played a role in 1991 in helping to crush the uprising against the Baathist regime at the end of the Gulf war. The dissidents from Arab districts in southern Iran around Ahwaz were funded by Saddam Hussein's intelligence organisations, which orchestrated the seizure of the Iranian embassy in London in 1980 which was supposedly carried out by Arab nationalists from Iran.

The record for supporting our own enemies has been pushed a little farther, again. The use of quasi military forces begs those temporary allies to arm and enrich themselves at our expense, all the while being ready and willing to turn against us when it suits their interests. An attack on Iran, or on Iran's allies like, say, the Mahdi militia, is reason enough to spur such a turnaround.

Actually working for the American people will mean giving up militarist ambitions, and giving other nations some reason to be friends with us again. The factions we are serving now have no long-term reason to cultivate an association with the munitions addict that dominates the face we show to the world in the present state of our executive branch.

The U.S. has sacrificed a lot, its reputation is in tatters and it will take a lot of restaffing in high offices to regain all we've thrown away in the wars we have waged so poorly and so needlessly.

(This post also at http://cabdrollery.blogspot.com/ )

Now our government is claiming that au contraire, it was insisting on all consideration being given to central government in Baghdad, and the U.S. always intended to keep oil money in the hands of its minions in the Green Zone.

Speaking with a forked tongue hasn't been so prevalent since the U.S. government took away their lands from the native tribes.

A congressional committee exploring whether the Bush administration has pushed Iraq oil contracts to U.S. companies released documents Wednesday showing that Hunt Oil Co. officials and U.S. diplomats talked several times before the company signed an exploration deal in Iraq last September.

The documents show that U.S. officials expressed no objections to what the Dallas-based company was doing, despite their later criticism that the exploration deal could undermine Iraqi unity.

Included in the documents were two letters from company chief executive officer Ray Hunt to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board last year outlining his company's pursuit of an oil deal in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq.

After the Sept. 8 deal was announced, State Department officials criticized the company for signing a contract with a regional government before the Iraqi Parliament had passed a national law covering participation of foreign companies in Iraq's oil industry. President Bush, a friend of Mr. Hunt, said he "knew nothing about the deal."

The documents released Wednesday show that Hunt managers met last year with U.S. diplomats in Erbil, Iraq, on June 12 and June 15 to outline the company's interest, and were told that the U.S. government had no policy "for nor against" contracts with the Kurdish Regional Government.
(snip)
Iraq has more oil reserves than any country but Saudi Arabia and Iran, and much of the country's oil potential has not been explored. Oil fields discovered in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein were capped and seeded with land mines to prevent Kurds from gaining economic benefit.

Iraq still hasn't passed a law outlining the role of foreign companies in its oil sector, but Hunt Oil has pressed ahead with plans to do seismic surveys and other site work in an area straddling Sunni and Kurdish areas in northern Iraq.

This week, the Iraqi Oil Ministry invited 35 companies from around the world to bid on long-term service contracts to boost production by 1.5 million barrels a day from six of Iraq's largest oil fields.

Although the worst administration ever has kept from revealing just what voices formed its energy policy, or lack thereof, it is obvious that those voices were antithetical to this country's interest. Our total reliance on oil has been promoted by those 'energy' mavens, and has seriously undermined our economy.

Previous administrations, such as President Carter's, tried to guide the country into better economic postures with respect to oil usage, but the right wing persistently headed away from that safe position.

Bill Clinton did try to raise vehicle fuel-efficiency standards and impose an energy tax in the '90s, but Congress stopped him. Despite all that happened before and since, the Bush administration has barely lifted a pinky to prepare the U.S. economy for the inevitable surges.

And that's why Americans don't have money, and Europeans do.

Any power contracting with the oil companies that have disserved the U.S., the country where they began, should be wary. The nationalization of companies by several countries has been necessary to regain the wealth they have had stolen by abuse of their resources. It will remain a problem governments have to deal with in an honest effort to serve their own citizens.

Government acting against the interests of its electorate is usually a risk taken only after opponents, and public concerns, have been overthrown. The viewpoint many I have talked with online is - that that has taken place here. Hopefully not. But the war criminals are determinedly removing all doubt that they consider themselves above law, here and abroad.

Lies and rejection of public interests have characterized the occupied White House.

Happy Independence Day Eve.

(this post also at http://cabdrollery.blogspot.com/ )

This was in turn followed by a threat of resignation by the Chief of the IAEA in case Iran were attacked because "I don't believe that what I see in Iran today is a current, grave and urgent danger. If a military strike is carried out against Iran at this time … it would make me unable to continue my work,". Al Baradei also warned that any such an attack on Iran would turn the region into a ‘fireball’.

The picture is quite confusing, and in the absence of real transparency from any side, one is left with pure speculation. So what ‘facts’ can we decipher from the situation?

The new package of incentives:

A quick search through various news sources reveals that the package is comprehensive and far reaching.

Nuclear energy:

The package apparently does not require a halt to enrichment, but a freeze at the current levels for 6 weeks. In other words, Iran is being asked not to expand its capacity beyond current levels of enrichment until a full suspension is agreed in direct return for concrete incentives such as agreement on building a light water reactor based on state-of-the-art technology as well as legally binding guarantees for nuclear fuel supplies. Support is also offered for research and development in nuclear energy "as international confidence is gradually restored" and help in managing its spent fuel and radioactive waste. This actually means that Iran can continue with enrichment once ‘confidence’ is restored. Despite the senseless insistence on 'full suspension' these constitute a far-reaching concession by the Iran-6.

Political concessions:

This is the most surprising of the lot. The package offers support for Iran in playing an important and constructive role in international affairs. It would meet Iranian demands for cooperation "on non-proliferation, regional security and stabilization issues" as well as a conference on Middle East security issues. It says that a solution to Iran's nuclear issue would contribute to "realizing the objective of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, including their means of delivery," This is a clear reference to dealing with Israel’s nuclear arsenal.

Trade:

The package also calls for moves toward normalizing Iran's trade and economic ties with the rest of the world by helping integrateTehran into "international structures, including the World Trade Organization." It also proposed the possible removal of restrictions on manufacturers exporting aircraft to Iran.

Agriculture:

It calls for helping Iran become fully self-sufficient in food through cooperation in modern technology and proposed civilian projects in environmental protection, infrastructure, science and technology.

The package also calls for helping Iranians take courses in areas like civil engineering, agriculture and environmental studies, and would also help Iran develop capacities to respond to disasters like earthquakes and other emergencies.

Iran’s own offer of unconditional talks

A few weeks before the new offer was presented, Iran presented its own package to the Iran-6 and the UN. The key element of this package was a regional consortium for uranium enrichment to be built in Iran in collaboration with international agencies and interested parties. This would be staffed by international experts and constantly monitored by them and the IAEA.

Iran’s package also took a comprehensive approach to regional security and foresaw a key role for Iran in future regional negotiations.

So what is the problem?

The problem has been that negotiations with the US and the Europeans have usually ended in a u-turn by the US as soon as the parties got close to agreement.

The last time Iran suspended its enrichment activities, the EU and the US reneged on their commitments in 2005. The US insisted on a permanent suspension of enrichment, and Iran withdrew its cooperation after a 2-year suspension period.

In early 2005, officials from the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency studied the idea of placing an enrichment facility inside Iran, but the US blocked the idea.

In the same year, a proposal by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to end the standoff over Iran's nuclear program was also rejected by the Bush administration. The proposal argued for a dramatic shift in U.S.policy to help build an internationally run enrichment facility inside Iran to replace its current facilities rather than trying to halt Iran's efforts to enrich uranium.

So while the Iran-6 make much noise about a ‘lack of confidence’, the problem is actually as much the other way.

Speculation

At the same time as the Iran-6 have made some big concessions, in front of the cameras we have Bush and Brown threatening more sanctions and the Israelis threatening war. What could explain this schizophrenia?

One possibility is that this is a tactic to undermine the process once again. They could be trying to provoke Iran into confrontation. This does not really make sense because neither the UK nor the US is in a position to engage in conflict. Israel on the other hand is being heavily sidelined by this potential agreement. Could this also be the reason for Israel’s frantic peace-making with Hamas, Syria and perhaps also Hezbollah at this juncture?

Another likelihood is that they are trying to save face after years of confrontation when Iran is on the verge of being invited back into the fold. Whatever the outcome, Iran cannot be allowed to look like the winner in this. Rather, Iran should look like it capitulated while in fact the Project for the New American Century is in full retreat.

Some relevant IAEA Reports for those interested:

Report of June 2008

Report of November 2007

Report of September 2007

Report of November 2006

Report of November 2005

Recommendation: Best to start with the earliest reports first in order to get a better picture of the chronology of events. A number of the issues were fully dealt with in earlier reports and are not mentioned in the later ones (e.g. traces of weapons grade plutonium found on equipment imported from Pakistan) because the IAEA was satisfied with Iran’s responses to these questions.

Niloufar Parsi is an Iranian-born graduate of Manchester University in the field of Development Studies. She has spent most of her professional life working with various development agencies globally, and is a keen political commentator under her chosen pseudonym.

CBS' Bob Schieffer talked with Sen. Joe Lieberman about the Iraq policies offered by Barack Obama and John McCain. Lieberman said that if Obama's plan had been followed then Iran and Al Qaeda would now be in control of Iraq.

Lieberman said, "If we had done what Senator Obama asked us to do, for the last couple of years, today Iran and Al Qaeda would be in control of Iraq."

It really doesn't matter how many times he is reminded that Iran and Al Qaeda are mortal enemies, Joe will still try and connect America's biggest bogeyman of the last decade to what he hopes will be the biggest bogeyman of the next.

Do you think Americans buy it? Are all scary Muslim men the same to us, no matter what sect they come from? How do we educate America to at least differentiate between the two largest Muslim categories? It can't be that hard…we can tell the difference between Catholics and Protestants, right?

North Korea turned over its nuclear secrets and demolished its reactor cooling tower and in exchange, George Bush has moved to normalize relations with the isolated country by taking it off the infamous "axis of evil" list and lifting some sanctions. All this, as Steven Lee Myers of the New York Times points out, is very un-Bush-like:

North Korea’s declaration of its nuclear activities is a triumph of the sort of diplomacy — complicated, plodding, often frustrating — that President Bush and his aides once eschewed as American weakness.

In more than two years of negotiations, the man who once declared North Korea part of an “axis of evil” with Iran and Iraq, angrily vowing to confront, not negotiate with, its despotic leader, in fact demonstrated a flexibility that his critics at home and abroad once considered impossible.

There is now only one country left in Bush's "axis of evil:" Iran. The question is, will we have to go down the same road with Iran that we went down with North Korea?

George Bush has characteristically refused to "negotiate with terrorists," putting any kind of high-level talks with the North Korean regime off for years. Under Bush's watch, North Korea bought nuclear technology from Pakistan's A.Q. Kahn, developed a nuclear weapons program which resulted in a successful nuclear test, and used this nuclear capability as leverage to bring Bush reluctantly to the negotiating table.

It's a classic example of what I call the nuclear cycle:

Are you a small, under-respected nation? Do you want to get the attention of the "big boys" and be taken seriously on the world stage? All you need to do is obtain a nuclear weapon and you'll be rolling in cash, favors, and prestige.

This seems to be the message the U.S. and others in the so-called "first world" are sending. Get a nuke and we'll take you seriously. Until then, we can and will ignore you.

North Korea, above all, wants what any nation wants - respect, prosperity, and security. While it may be run by an oppressive regime, its general foreign policy goals are quite similar to any other nation. When Bush unilaterally moved to cut off relations with North Korea, the nation saw not only its hopes of world acceptance but its very security threatened. In that atmosphere, with an American leader who doesn't believe in "negotiating with terrorists," the path to respect and security was to prove you shouldn't be messed with. George Bush, with his with-us-or-against-us philosophy, created a strong incentive for countries like North Korea to build nuclear weapons.

And guess what; it worked!

North Korea immediately gave up its nuclear secrets once negotiations started moving, signaling their true intent was never to build a nuke for its own sake but to use it as a bargaining chip. Relations between the U.S. and North Korea have been steadily warming since it detonated a nuclear weapon. Its basic security is no longer in peril. And hey, it gets to sell its nuclear technology on the side for a tidy profit.

As anyone can plainly see, this is an awful cycle Bush has set up. Nearly every country that goes down this road, from Pakistan to North Korea, ends up selling their nuclear expertise to other countries hoping for the same outcome. This cycle is guaranteed to accelerate nuclear proliferation - a terrible outcome.

With that in mind, can't we figure out a way to short circuit this cycle and not repeat history with Iran?

Iran clearly wants - like North Korea, India, and Pakistan before it - normalized relations with the United States. The fact that it helped us prosecute the war in Afghanistan after September 11th and offered to put everything on the negotiating table in exchange for normal relations - even the issue of Israel - makes this clear. But Bush won't let normalization happen without confrontation first. Instead, Iran is painted as pure evil, beyond the reach of diplomats. The only option left for either country is conflict.

Let's not do this again. We could continue down this dangerous road, with Iran racing to build the bomb that will make them untouchable and force negotiations before Bush decides to attack. We could let another country develop nuclear technology that will find its way into other hands. Or we could cut off this process by talking to Iran, taking them up on their offer to put everything on the table and showing them some respect by doing the same on our end.

Let's talk about Iran's stance towards Israel. Its nuclear secrets. Its sponsorship of terrorism. But let's also talk about Iran's membership in the World Trade Organization. And foreign aid and expertise to rebuild its crumbling infrastructure. And equal respect as an ally in the Middle East.

There are plenty of carrots we can offer Iran to get them to give up the worst of their current practices. They may never be our buddy, but we don't have to force them to build a nuke before we can talk to them. The North Korean situation has proved diplomacy works. Let's see if this time, we can make it work without proliferation.