The Neo-cons & Iran: Chalabi redux

What can we say about people who keep repeating the same action and expecting a different result? Here's the neo-con version of this psychiatric dilemma.

Israel ready to launch attack on Iran?

According to Jason Koutsoukis, the Jerusalem-based correspondent for the Australian The Age (February 14, 2009):

A SENIOR Israeli diplomat has warned that Israel is ready to launch a military offensive against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.

In an interview with The Age, Dan Gillerman, who was Israel's permanent representative at the United Nations from 2003 until last September, said time for diplomatic efforts to stop Iran acquiring a nuclear capability might have already expired. Mr Gillerman said:

The world cannot afford to live with a nuclear Iran, I hope diplomacy will work, but I'm not sure we have the time for diplomacy to work.

Global Research responds to this sabre rattling with this:

The truth is that, after witnessing Israeli war crimes in Lebanon and in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories, the world cannot afford to live with nuclear Israel. As opposed to Iran, Israel has secretly developed hundreds of nuclear warheads and delivery weapons outside of any supervision by international community. Iran continues to run its nuclear program in cooperation with the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

That seems quite reasonable to me. It further seems to me the prudent thing to do would be to label Israel a terrorist state.

Clinton rattles her sabers at Iran

It may, at this point be beating a dead horse. The Clinton campaign may be history, but I still think it's important to check out this Keith Olbermann interview with Hillary Clinton, particularly the section on "obliterating" Iran. After all how much different is Clinton's attitude toward Iran from Bush's "axis of evil"? And we know how far that has gotten us. Do you really want someone who echoes the politics of Conn's Sen. Joseph Lieberman answering that mythical 3AM phone call? Someone who has already been rattling her sabers at countries who are only an enemy in her (and McSame/Lieberman's) mind. Also remember this was all said just before the Pennsylvania primary. Was it primarily (no pun intended, well maybe) intended to influence the Jewish vote?


(For more on Clinton and Iran, see Robert Weitzel "Hillary Clinton's 'final solution' to the Persian Problem")

The Bomb, Bomb Iran boys are at it again

According to Amy Gooodman on Democracy Now:

"...the Democratic-led Senate unanimously passed a resolution last week sponsored by Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman to censure Iran for complicity in the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Lieberman opened debate on the measure by saying the Senate has a 'choice between turning a blind eye to the murder of our troops and confronting those who are murdering them.' The measure passed by a vote of 97 to zero.

"Lieberman has been the leading voice in the Senate in support of a possible U.S. military strike on Iran. Last month in an interview on CBS' Face the Nation, Lieberman said 'I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq.'"

Let's just see how long it is before some of the Senators who voted to tighten the screws on Iran last week will be pleading: "if we knew then what we know now, we wouldn't have voted to target (pun intended) Iran for "the murder of our troops."

On the same broadcast Goodman also noted that:

"The Los Angeles Times is reporting that nearly half of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops in Iraq have come from Saudi Arabia – one of Washington's closest allies in the Middle East. Of the 19,000 prisoners being held by the U.S. in Iraq only 135 are foreign-born fighters and half of them are Saudi. U.S. officials have so far refused to publicly criticize Saudi Arabia's role in Iraq. [Obviously including the Senate and Joe 'I never saw a bomb I didn't like' Lieberman]."

Once again, as in 2003, if these Senate hawks paid attention, they'd know now when it counts. Nobody elects Monday morning quarterbacks to the presidency.

Iran and the British sailors

During the saga of Iran and the British sailors I have been plagued by a question: How is it possible for the corporate media to once again buy into the innocent Blair-Bush act? Or perhaps, is it possible to actually envision Blair and, in this case, his sidekick, Bush as victims of an international incident?

This has been articulated perfectly by Robert Parry on Consortiumnews.com:

"Of course, left outside this narrow frame of reference was the gross violation of international law – the bloody invasion of Iraq in 2003 – that put the Brits there in the first place.

"Back then, international law was deemed little more than a nuisance getting in the way of what President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair wanted to do, i.e. conquer Iraq, install a compliant government, 'privatize' its resources, and threaten other countries in the region to get in line."



"The combined interventions by the United Kingdom and the United States may have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands – possibly millions – of Iraqis and Iranians over the past century, but somehow Blair and Bush have positioned themselves as the innocent victims – at least as far as the Western press corps is concerned."

Of course, Bush has spent most of his almost two terms in office playing the victim. And until last Nov. 7 it worked perfectly. And now it's up to the Democrats to articulate an alternative framework and take it to the people before Bush, once again, snatches victory from the jaws of defeat (here, not in Iraq).

An open letter to Sens. Clinton & Edwards

One of the easiest things to do is Monday-morning quarterbacking. However, the great ones, the Hall-of-Fame quarterbacks do it on Sunday. That's what differentiates them from the rest of the pack.

I am well aware that your positions on Iraq are different. But basically they boil down to this,
"if I knew in 2002 what I know now I would not have voted to give the president the power to invade Iraq."
My question is, Why didn't you know then what you know now?

Surely we have learned more since then, but most of what we know now was available then. That's why many in and out of Congress knew enough then to raise serious questions about the snake oil the neo-con artists were selling. There was clearly enough information available to raise significant questions. Now-Sen. Obama spoke out then against the drum rolls for war and 23 of your colleagues voted against the joint resolution. Why didn't you have the same information they had?

There is no vote you can cast more important for our country and the world than the decision to go to war. In 2002 you failed us. We elected you to protect us from those who for their own reasons wanted - and continue to want - to send our young people to die and be maimed in Iraq, and perhaps soon in Iran. You failed to protect us. Why?

There was enough information available for many Americans and most people around the world to be suspicious of the direction Cheney and Bush were taking us. But you voted in lockstep with those who took us to war. We don't need mea culpas now. We need to know why you made the choice you made then. Why you ignored all the available intelligence that contradicted the neo-con artists pro-war smoke screen.

Now you want a promotion to a more important job. Since you failed at the moment of decision, why should we hire you for the job you now want? How do we know that you won't fail us again when you are making the ultimate decision no longer just one of 100 votes? The neo-con artists are promoting a new war - to take out Iran.

It's basically the same people warning us that Armageddon will ensue if we don't change the regime in Iran. Does that sound familiar?

In "From the Wonderful Folks who Brought you Iraq" in Vanity Fair, Craig Unger says:

"Once again, neocon ideologues have been flogging questionable intelligence about WMD. Once again, dubious Middle East exile groups are making the rounds in Washington, this time urging regime change in Syria and Iran. Once again, heroic new exile leaders are promising freedom.” (Also check Amy Goodman's interview with Craig Unger)

As Paul Krugman said in Monday's N .Y.Times,

"It’s still hard to believe that they’re really planning to attack Iran, when it’s so obvious that another war would be a recipe for even bigger disaster. But remember who’s calling the shots: Dick Cheney thinks we’ve had 'enormous successes' in Iraq."

To paraphrase a popular TV commercial, "Every war begins with "W."

So! What are you going to do now? Are you going to stand up against this extension of the war into Iran or are you going to fall into the same trap again?