Iran

Bush Exits with a Bang: Toxic Bailout and Two More Wars?

Heather Wokusch — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:53:09 -0400

The Bush administration is heading us towards more disaster with its 'toxic debt' bailout and destabilization of Pakistan and Iran. We can't afford to go down this road again. In this short video, Heather Wokusch provides background, context and ideas for taking action.

Links for sources cited in this video:

Bailout:

Crisis talks over $700B 'toxic debt' rescue plan

Bush: "The American people have got to know that I made this decision along with a lot of experts because it was necessary to protect them."

Pakistan:

Washington is Risking War with Pakistan

The American War Moves to Pakistan

Iran:

Preparing The Battlefield July 07, 2008

Dutch intel: US to strike Iran in coming weeks September 1, 08

Israel asks U.S. for arms, air corridor to attack Iran September 11, 08

U.S. to sell IAF smart bombs for heavily fortified targets September 14, 08

Bush could still attack Iran Sept 17 08

Carah Ong on Alternatives to Attacking Iran

davidswanson — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:13:25 -0400

Helena Cobban on Alternatives to Attacking Iran

davidswanson — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:32:40 -0400

Charlottesville Virginia Says Don't Attack Iran

davidswanson — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:20:21 -0400

Iran Resolution Must Change

davidswanson — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:45:38 -0400

By Congressman Robert Wexler

Over the past several weeks, there has been a growing debate in Congress, the blogosphere and throughout the media about a controversial non-binding resolution (House Concurrent Resolution 362), which expresses the sense of Congress regarding the threat Iran's nuclear pursuit poses to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States.

This resolution's introduction and the subsequent debates that have taken place across the country have come at a time when the United States faces grave security challenges. It also comes at a time when Congress and the US must be especially careful -- given the monumental foreign policy failures of President Bush -- and remain vigilant in deciding which direction to take our nation, especially as it relates to our policy in Iran.

In the coming weeks, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which I am a member, may vote on House Concurrent Resolution 362. Given my growing concerns regarding this resolution, including its failure to advocate for direct American engagement with Tehran and open language that could lead to a US blockade of Iran, I will lead an effort to make changes to this resolution before it comes to the Foreign Affairs committee for a vote. Despite being a cosponsor of this resolution -- these changes will ultimately determine whether or not I will continue to support H. Con. Res. 362.

My rationale for originally supporting H. Con. Res. 362, which currently has 230 cosponsors, was to urge the Bush administration to pursue a policy to place additional economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran as part of an international endeavor to prevent Tehran from moving forward on its nuclear program. Given my intense distrust of President Bush and his administration's disastrous foreign policy record, I also sponsored legislation (H. R. 3119), which if passed into law would prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran unless authorized by Congress and prevents the president from unilaterally going to war.

It is still my belief that it is in America's strategic interest to use strong diplomacy and directly engage Iran in order to prevent the Iranian government from developing nuclear weapons and to avoid a third regional war. However this diplomatic surge will only be successful if the US takes the lead role along with our European allies in directly engaging Iran. American engagement with Iran must be done from a position of strength and with sufficient leverage. In this vein, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman recently pointed out in a May 2008 article, "When you have leverage, talk. When you don't have leverage, get some -- by creating economic, diplomatic or military incentives and pressures that the other side finds too tempting or frightening to ignore. That is where the Bush team has been so incompetent vis-à-vis Iran."

It should have been an American representative last week along with European Union High Representative Javier Solana sitting down with Iranian leaders and offering an incentives package as part of an international effort to suspend a key part of Iran's nuclear program. It is my goal to add language to H. Con. Res. 362 highlighting a more effective American strategy that calls for direct engagement with Tehran for the purpose of thwarting Iran's nuclear weapons program and ending its support for international terrorism.

It is clear that despite carefully worded language in H. Con. Res. 362 that "nothing in this resolution should be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran" that many Americans across the country continue to express real concerns that sections of this resolution will be interpreted by President Bush as "a green light" to use force against Iran.

The language that is most disconcerting in the resolution is the third resolved clause, which demands that the president initiate among several things an "international effort to impose stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran."

I firmly believe it was not the intention of the authors of this resolution to open the door to a US blockade or armed conflict with Iran. However, I fully understand and share the American public's mistrust of President Bush and his administration, which has abused its executive powers, willfully misled this nation into a disastrous war in Iraq and disturbingly continues to beat the Iran war drum.

To that end, I am not willing to leave even the "slightest crack" open for this president to unilaterally set this nation down another disastrous path of war in Iran. It is unacceptable for Congress once again to leave the door open for President Bush to exploit -- as he did when Congress authorized the use of military force against Iraq in a 2002 resolution. I believe it is essential that Congress remove the language in H. Con. Res. 362 that could lead to president Bush's unilateral imposition of a blockade on Iran.

We are in a unique moment in American history because the misgivings about the Bush administration's intentions and policies run so deep that the President is not trusted to carryout security policies that are in the best interest of our nation. As we debate H. Con. Res. 362, it has become clear that Congress must counter the Administration's tendencies of preferring armed conflict over diplomacy, and we must make every effort to change the text of this resolution. The stakes are too high for Congress to kowtow to this Administration; therefore, I am preparing to offer amendments to H. Con. Res. 362 and articulate a responsible policy that places America in the strongest possible diplomatic position to thwart Iran's nuclear program and the difficult security challenges we face.

Talk is Cheap, Even with Enemies, and By the Way, Rivals Aren't Enemies

dlindorff — Fri, 30 May 2008 10:41:02 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

What the hell is Barack Obama talking about?

He says that America should be talking with leaders in Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, Korea, Syria. Fine. But he calls this “talking with our enemies.”

What enemies?

Let’s get something straight. Enemies are people who are fighting against you, who are trying to destroy you. Is Cuba fighting against America? Is Iran fighting against America? Is Venezuela fighting against America? Syria? China? No. These countries may be rivals, but they are not enemies.

The closest we come to having an actual enemy in today’s world is North Korea, where we are technically still in some kind of truce following a hot war, but of course that war itself has been over for half a frigging century, and nobody has been killing anyone on the Korean Peninsula in decades.

The truth is, America doesn’t have any real enemies, except for the ones it has made for itself in Iraq and Afghanistan, and of course the Al Qaeda organization. But Al Qaeda is a gang of terrorists, not a country, and in Afghanistan it is movement, the Taliban, once the government of that country, which we overthrew. And even there, where we have enemies, talk is better than war. It is obvious that at some point if we are ever to exit from Iraq and Afghanistan, there will have to be talks with the people we are fighting. Afghanistan’s leaders have said this—that there will have to be talks with the Taliban. And Bush’s own “Iraq Study Group,” headed by former Republican Secretary of State James Baker and former Democratic Congressman Lee Hamilton, concluded that the US will have to negotiate to settle the Iraq conflict. Both those processes should be begun immediately, not after more thousands have been killed.

By calling other countries “enemies,” Obama fell into a trap of his own making, though admittedly, he’s not the first to define all these rival nations as enemies. It’s a logical outcome of the Bush/Cheney position that “either you’re with us or you’re against us.”

Instead of buying into that nonsense, Obama should have questioned the premise. Then he wouldn’t be in the mess he’s in now, trying to fine-tune whom he would talk to and whom he wouldn’t talk to. Erstwhile Democratic presidential candidate and former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel had it right when, during an early TV “debate” before the media decided to black him out, he replied to the moderator’s stupid question to all the candidates of “Who, after Iran, are America’s biggest enemies?” He challenged the premise, asking, “Iran’s not our enemy. Who are we afraid of? We don’t have any enemies.” He got one of the biggest applauses of the evening for that.

As for the basic point—talking with people we have disagreements or rivalries with—it is obvious that not talking is idiotic, and gets you nowhere—or worse, into a war.

Let’s take Cuba. For exactly half a century since its Communist revolution, we have treated Cuba like a mortal enemy, blockading the country, forcing other countries to join us in an embargo (an act of war, by the way), plotting and attempting to assassinate the country’s leader, Fidel Castro, and financing and supporting an obsessed group of dispossessed rich Cubans who want to return the island to its mob-infested, neo-colonial days. In those 50 years, the only thing not talking has accomplished has been the impoverishment of two generations of Cubans. Meanwhile, of course, the US has talked, conceded, caved in, given in, pandered and invested in China, another Communist country that, unlike Cuba, actually has fought against the US (in Korea, by proxy in Vietnam, and against an ally, Taiwan). There is clearly no logical reason for not talking with Cuba, and if we were talking with Cuba, life there would be better, and no doubt, things would be better here, too.

Iran is another example. It is known that when the US invaded Iraq, in 2003, Iran tried desperately to initiate talks with the US. The Bush/Cheney administration didn’t want to talk. It was calling Iran an “Axis of Evil” nation. Had talks begun, there might not even be a nuclear dispute today. Indeed, there might not even have been a rivalry. Instead, we now have the Bush/Cheney administration pushing forward for plans to attack Iran.

We could go back to Iraq, too, of course. Before the US launched its attack, Saddam Hussein was telling the Bush/Cheney administration he was willing to leave the country. All he wanted was a safe haven like Idi Amin got, and a billion dollars. We were not told about this offer until years later. Yet think how much cheaper that solution, arrived at through a little talking, would have been than what we got through not talking. Instead of letting Hussein run off with a billion of his own ill-gotten wealth, we’ve spent close to a trillion dollars, killed upwards of a million innocent Iraqis, destroyed a country, driven four million people in a nation of 24 million into exile, ruined America’s global reputation, and bankrupted the US treasury, not to mention running up the price of oil four-fold.

Talk is cheap, I’d say.

Obama should be more forthright and admit that America has no enemies, and that we can talk to anyone.
____________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Interview with Congressman Dennis Kucinich by Hooshang Amirahmadi

davidswanson — Wed, 21 May 2008 08:18:15 -0400

By American Iranian Council

Dennis Kuicinich (DK)
Hooshang Amirahmadi (HA)

Office of the Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Democrat-Ohio), Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, Wednesday May 14, 2008.

HA: Congressman Kucinich thank you for this interview on US-Iran relations. Please feel free to answer or not answer any question or speak as short or as long as you want.

DK: My pleasure!

HA: My first question is a personal one; you are a democratic super delegate in this election; who are you supporting?

DK- I have not made up my mind yet.

HA: My next question is a broader one. The US and Iran have been in hostile terms for almost thirty years. Has the time come for the relations to be normalized?

DK: Yes, relations should be normalized between the US and Iran. It's quite unfortunate that the United States has not made diplomatic initiatives or has ignored diplomatic initiatives that were made by Iran in the last four years. The people of Iran have had a longstanding respect for and love for the American people. And the people of Iran have been forgiving of America's illegal interventions in the internal affairs of Iran going back to the days of Mossadegh when the CIA helped overthrow his government. So people have a capacity for forgiveness even though they don't forget it. We have to understand that we have much in common with Iran. Our people have aspirations of freedom. Our people have a desire for economic progress. Our people have aspirations for security and peaceful relations with neighbors. Iran can be a very important partner with the United States in creating a new peace in the Middle East.

HA: Then why have they not been able to achieve normalization? Who is against this relationship in the US -- any groups, political parties?

DK: Well, the initial push to undermine the sovereignty of Iran fifty five years ago came from the US oil companies. So many of our political decisions are now being driven by the desire for oil. There is a masking of our political motives and intentions but oil has a significant role to play. There is also a certain element that makes money off of war and selling weapons.

HA: But the oil companies should be for US-Iran relations because they benefit from it, right?

DK: No! Consider the situation in Iraq where the United States illegally attacked the country, and at this point is trying to force the privatization of Iraq's oil on behalf of US oil interests. Look at the high price of oil in the United States; people are paying upwards of four dollars a gallon for gasoline in the United States. This is devastating to our economy. They could not do that if the oil companies did not have the amount of control that they do. And so, what I advocate is for the Iraqi people controlling their oil. If that is established, it is established for the entire region.

HA: The US and Iran have a number of complaints against each other. For the US there are four complaints: It alleges that Iran is involved in nuclear proliferation; supports terrorism, is intervening in Iraq, and finally lacks democracy. If you were to rank these in terms of importance what would be first, second, etc?

DK: Let me speak for myself. I think we need all nations in the region get rid of nuclear weapons. I am for nuclear abolition, in the Middle East and in the world. But the Middle East, as well as the Asian subcontinent, represents flash points. We should be working to see that all nations in the region move away from nuclear weapons, as well as the technologies that are used to create nuclear weapons. What I would humbly recommend to my friends in Iran is that they take a very close look at the economics of nuclear power. The economics don't work. The cost of constructing the plants is extraordinary, the cost of processing fuel is very great; the cost of long-term storage of radioactive waste is even greater. Those costs never go away. If Iran were to invest a similar amount of money in wind and solar technologies, it could lead the world in those areas. Of course Iran has a right to develop nuclear power if it so chooses and our National Intelligence Estimate supported the statements that Iran was making, that it was not developing nuclear weapons. We also understand that if you are involved in the processing of fuel, if you have spent fuel rods, that you can use that technology and those fuels down the road for the purpose of making weapons. The United States needs to take the lead in the world towards nuclear abolition. Then we will have the credibility to tell other nations that they should not take steps towards developing nuclear technology. I would approach this with Iran from an entirely different perspective; I would say that while you have a right to develop nuclear power, it is not a sound economic decision, and it is inevitably a money loser.

HA: If you were to advise the Bush Administration tomorrow, what would you tell them in this case?

DK: Stop preparing for war.

HA: And you think the Bush Administration is preparing for war with Iran?

DK: That is what has been widely reported. There is no legitimate reason for the United States to engage in any action against Iran, and the Bush Administration has been doing everything it can to try to justify military action. I think it would be a grave mistake to do that. I work for peace. I've met with people around the world on this. There is grave concern that a military attack on Iran would destabilize the region. But there is just no question that based on numerous reports that the Administration has been slowly and steadily developing plans of attack.

HA: And why haven't they attacked yet?
DK: I think that's a political question.

HA: A political question? Some argue that the next seven, eight months will not be months of policy but of incidents. Do you agree?

DK: Well we hope that won't happen; the Iranian people are very confident, brave people, people who do not live in fear. And they should not live in fear. The Bush Administration has shown a lack of understanding of the complexities of the world, an inability to negotiate ambiguities, a lack of understanding that mutually contradicting circumstances can exist simultaneously and require diplomatic skills, not military action to reconcile. And so I think we need to open diplomatic avenues, we need to have cultural exchanges; we need to begin to see each other as potential allies. We need the support of Iran to bring about peace in the region.

HA: If you were to be invited, would you travel to Iran?

DK: Absolutely! I wouldn't hesitate. I think that we must be ready to pursue peace. This world is a dangerous world. The initiatives of individuals who are willing to stand for peace can contribute to the security of the world. And so we do not do ourselves any justice by maintaining cartoon like images of each other. Caricatures don't work; people have to talk to people. We must sit down eye to eye and address each other as equals and not as stereotypes.

HA: You say that the Bush Administration has a plan to militarily attack Iran. Yet at the same time the Bush Administration has been engaging Iran in Iraq in negotiations over security, while simultaneously accusing Iran of not being serious with that negotiation and that Iran causes more trouble than it solves; what is at play?

DK: It's a pattern of behavior of the Bush Administration. We should open up diplomatic relations with Iran. We should engage in a series of confidence building measures. The United States needs to assure Iran that it has no intention of attacking it. Iran needs to assure the United States that it has no intention of attacking Israel, or any other sovereign nation. There is a lot of room for discussion. Instead, there is incontrovertible proof that there is an outstanding war plan by the Bush Administration; whether or not they execute it is another question. At this moment when the security of the world community is in doubt, the United States can be a very important party for peace if it so chooses. We have not yet seen the Bush Administration make that choice.

HA: Why not?

DK: I know that they are not philosophically predisposed to choosing peace. They choose chaos. But when you continually choose chaos, it eventually engulfs you; the Middle East and the surrounding communities are seeking stability, not chaos. The achievement of stability requires the cooperation of all nations, and the United States to play a leading role in bringing about circumstances that de-escalate the tensions, ratchet down the rhetoric, that pursue diplomacy. Every one understands the United States military power; we have unquestioned, unchallengeable military power, but we live in a complex world where military power is not the final answer.

HA: Iraq has proven it!

DK: Yes! So we have to look at a higher authority. And that authority has to come from the human heart -- from our ability to see each other as equals having common claims to peace, security, and existence. And when we come from that level there is no difficulty that cannot be solved. But when we come from the level of military action to attempt to solve our problems, there is no matter so small that it cannot be a cause for war. So we really have to look at the world anew, without fear and for its potential for resolving differences. We may benefit from a view that says the world is one, it's interconnected interdependent. America's first motto E-Pluribus-Unum, out of many one, was not simply about the unity of states but human unity. We must strive for human unity at this time in the history of the world. It is our solemn obligation, not only for ourselves but for future generations that we work and try to find areas where we can come to agreements, where we can have reciprocity, mutual respect, and mutual progress instead of mutual destruction. That's why cultural exchanges are very important, that's why parliamentary exchanges are very important, leaders meeting leaders is also very important.

HA: So far, all I conclude from your view of Bush's doctrine of chaos is that its engagement of Iran at the negotiation table in Iraq is not serious, that they are just playing games. Let me tell you why I want to clarify this matter. In a recent meeting in the State Department I was told that Iran was not taking the negotiations in Iraq seriously. Yet, I had heard the opposite of that view in Tehran a week earlier when I was told that the Americans were not taking the negotiations in Iraq seriously! Now here you come and say that philosophically speaking, the Bush Administration could not be serious because it is for chaos, proving the point an Iranian official made.

DK: Well he is serious, but he is serious about war! Look at Iraq and you would have to see that Bush is serious about war. And he must be taken seriously for that reason. He has at his disposal the most powerful military in human history. I would take that very seriously. His talents seem to be limited to war making, he does not have a similar talent for diplomacy and peace making and that is a tragedy.

HA: Could Iraq be used by the Bush Administration as a pretext to attack Iran?

DK: Of course! There is less talk today about Iran's nuclear program in light of the NIE; there is no legitimate reason to continue making Iran's nuclear program a threat worthy of military action; however there is a lot of talk witch attempts to blame Iran for the resilience of the insurgency in Iraq, for the strength of Hezbollah in Lebanon, resistance in Gaza, and in many other places where the United States is having great difficulty, including Afghanistan. If I get in a fight in my neighbor's back yard, my neighbor may ask why I am in his backyard. And so the solution to the situation in Iraq is to end the US occupation because the occupation is the one that is fueling the insurgency. We went into Iraq; Iraq did not come to us. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq did not have the intention or capability of attacking the United States and did not have weapons of mass destruction. Iran does not have the intention or capability of attacking the United States and had nothing to do with 9/11. The build up of rhetoric against Iran parallels the build up against Iraq. When you put the phrases, indeed by the same people, and when you put their comments side by side, they seem to match. This is very serious. International law forbids making threats against other nations. Yet we have seen some of our officials make threats against Iran. I have noted that and included them in various articles of Impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney. I think that we need to take a direction that gives Iran assurances that there will not be an attack. The energy needs to be put towards negotiations and diplomacy. However, despite all the talks trying to link Iran to weapons and munitions that enter Iraq, and groups that are adversaries of the United States in Iraq, we have yet to make a solid case against Iran. We have yet to make a case as to what we are doing in Iraq and in Lebanon. We are fighting in our neighbor's back yard and frankly our neighbor is asking what we are doing there?

HA: There is only seven months left of the Bush Administration. Could they realistically pull together a war in that short amount of time?

DK: I don't want to project fear, because I don't want to see a war happen. At the same time we have to recognize that there are plans out there. You don't need seven months. When you're President of the United States you could have everything ready in a few days. I think that there is urgency today in assuring the people of the United States that there won't be a war against Iran. People in this country are losing their jobs, they are losing their health care, and they losing their homes and pensions. Standards of living are declining sharply in many parts of this country; more people are on food stamps, a form of welfare. Life is becoming harder and harder for more Americans. Yet our government is borrowing money from China to fight this war against Iraq. We are on the verge of appropriating another 183 billion dollars, most of it to fight the war in Iraq. You know the American people can't afford another war, can't afford it economically and politically, can't afford it in terms of our alliances, can't afford it in terms of international law, and can't afford it with respect to the future of the country. This path of destruction is a very dangerous path. That's why I've been pushing efforts to have Iran help solve problems in Iraq, and to build bridges for cultural exchange.

HA: I know this is a difficult question but when you talk about plans for war, are you basing your assertion on information that is already in the public sphere or information that is yet to become public?

DK: Based on the information that is public!

HA: Do you personally consider Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations? I tell you why I ask the question. Iran is labeled a terrorist nation because of the support it gives to those groups. If Hamas and Hezbollah were not considered terrorist then Iran could not have be considered a terrorist nation either.

DK: If we are to build a lasting peace, we must have an ability to speak to any and all groups in the region. If we want peace we must open up lines of communication so that no one is a stranger.

HA: Basically what I am getting from this is that you are for the inclusion of Hezbollah and Hamas; you are in favor of including them in peace discussions?

DK: Right! How can we have negotiations for peace if the very groups we are claiming to be responsible for instability are left out? I think a lot of this comes from misunderstanding of the nature of power. There is the power to destroy but there is also a greater power to create. These forces coexist but contrast in the world. We have to decide which to use and what we stand for in this world.

HA: Congressman, what is happening in the US Congress regarding Iran? Is there any new bill that targets Iran?

DK: No, there have been bills I have voted against, attempts to isolate Iran. I don't think it's smart to isolate Iran; we have to engage them peacefully and productively. When you talk to individual members of Congress they are more likely to listen, but the anomalous mass is very different; it's not positive -- which is why I think we need to have parliamentary exchange. We should get to know each other, some times we need to travel ten thousand miles to meet our brothers.

HA: Congressman, in eight months we are going to have a new administration, McCain, Clinton or Obama? That's basically the choice ...

DK: There will be a new administration.

HA: The question I have is, of the three, Obama is the only on who has said that he would hold direct talks with Iran. He has said he will engage Iran directly because it's important to engage Iran. He will have direct talks with President Ahmadinejad, he has said. This is very much the policy you have been advocating as well. Hypothetically, if Mr. Obaama is elected, can he carry that policy forward or will he be stopped?

DK: I hope that the next president of the United States, whether Senators Clinton, Obama or McCain, will be willing to speak with the leaders of Iran, will open negotiation with Iran, and will engage in confidence building measures that would lead to full diplomatic relations. We need to enlist Iran's support in resolving the full range of matters in the region, to work with Iran in creating a new structure for security in the region.

HA: So the next President of the United States would be in a position to carry that kind of direct talk ...

DK: The next President needs to do more -- to go to Iran, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq ...

HA: Iran you said?
DK: Yes, Iran!

HA: He will need to go in the first three months, six months, first year? When?

DK: It is something that needs to be done quickly; we need to reach out.

HA: McCain has been speaking very tough about Iran -- "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran!" Do you think he should be taken very seriously?

DK: I think that what he said was said as a joke, but it was poor taste, he was trying to be funny.

HA: Is he different than Bush?

DK: Yes, I think so.

HA: For sure?

DK: Well he knows war; Mr. Bush's familiarity with war is somewhat limited. Senator McCain, because he knows the price people pay in war, you would think he would be more careful.

HA: What about Senator Clinton saying that if Iran attacked Israel, she would "obliterate" the nation?

DK: It was unfortunate and is unacceptable.

HA: Multilaterally, the US has used the UN and the EU to isolate Iran. Bilaterally, the US has been trying to engage Iran in Iraq. Some people think that when the US wants to create trouble for a country it goes multilateral; when the US wants to resolve the dispute it goes bilateral. What do you think?

DK: It's sort of like having a chess game going, you have two games of chess going, one with six players on one side and another with just one. The US likes the game with just one because it simplifies it.

HA: The reason I ask that question is because multilaterally, say in the UN, the US sets preconditions for engagement with Iran, like suspension of uranium enrichment. Yet in Iraq, they are more open to discussions without any condition.

DK: I actually think that America diminishes its power when it fails to engage in direct talks, without precondition. For the Bush Administration, the way to not negotiate is to move multilaterally. Yet, when you want a peace agreement you need multilateral engagement, you need to get the whole world on board. But you also need to start with individual members and then get the entire community to concur.

HA: But that is the exact opposite of what has happened; multilaterally the US is creating trouble for Iran, while bilaterally it is more open.

DK: Maybe they don't want to solve the problem. One thing I have seen about Iranians is that they like to deal directly, what you see is what you get. They don't like the type of negotiation where people say one thing and then do another. Some people see that as a way of using politics to get control. I see it as being negative; I see it as being a shortcoming, opposite of diplomacy that leads to misunderstanding. Whatever disagreements we have we need to put on the table and be forthright about it. We shouldn't tell people we want to work things out when we do not.

HA: Some people suggest that the Bush Administration and Ahmadinejad's Government are engaged in some sort of secret negotiations. Do you believe in that?

DK: About what?

HA: About Iraq, about nuclear issues, Hezbollah ...

DK: I hope so! I think it's important to talk, if they want to talk secretly that's okay with me, if they want to talk openly that's okay with me as well - but talk!

HA: You have participated in several of the events that the American Iranian Council has organized. The Council now is working hard to convince the two sides that their parliamentarians should meet and soon. Any advice for AIC?

DK: Keep working hard as in the past to promote understanding. Where there is darkness we have to bring light, where we have hatred we have to bring love. We need to continue to work for understanding and right choices.

HA: In 2006, the American Iranian Council put together a proposal called 6+1, basically saying that 5+1 isn't enough and that the discussions needed to include Iran -- that is the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany and Iran; are you in favor of that proposal?

DK: Yes and I'm in favor of recognizing Iran as having the potential for being a significant player in resolving many current security issues and working with the world community to achieve peace. There are many ways that that can be done, and you mentioned one of them; but it's not the only one. When we have direct talks with Iran that's where it all begins. Without direct talks with Iran 6+1 ends nowhere; but when we have direct talks with Iran, 6+1equals much more than seven!

HA: So the bottom line is, we need to talk directly! As the last question, do you wish to make a point, send a message, to the Iranian people, the Iranian government, and to AIC?

DK: There are many of us in the United States that understand the greatness of the Persian culture, of the great gift that the Persian culture has given to the world in the arts, in language, in literature, in music, in mathematics -- in so many areas of human endeavors. It's important for us to study the history of Iran, to learn about its richness, its diversity, to learn what makes up the character of the Iranian people. When we do that we will learn that what we have learned is wondrous, not fearful. To the Iranian Government I say that the US is a potential great ally and that it should work toward realizing the mutually beneficial partnership sooner rather than later. To the Council, I say work hard and thoughtfully as in the past many years and that one day soon we would proudly celebrate your dream of normal US-Iran relations!

HA: Congressman Kucinich, thank you for your sincere and open interview style and for taking the time from your very busy schedule to answer my questions. I hope to see you in Iran one day soon!

DK: Thank you! I do like to visit Iran and soon, and I am hoping that our discussion will bear fruit and soon as well.

Big John McCain and the Scary Iran Threat

dlindorff — Mon, 19 May 2008 22:53:57 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

Mighty war hero John McCain has a troublesome perceptual problem. He sees things as being bigger than they really are.

When he was flying fighter-bombers over North Vietnam, he, like many in the military, imagined that he was fighting against a mighty foe (world communism, I suppose). What he was really doing was dropping bombs on a peasant country that was essentially still in the 19th or even, in much of the countryside, the 18th Century. It was also only a sixth of the size of the US. But John McCain bravely battled against this pipsqueak enemy, dropping his bombs until some of those peasant soldiers shot him down and captured him.

Now Big John is looking at Iran and seeing a dangerous, implacable enemy of America. In fact, he says this enemy is as big a danger as was the mighty Soviet Union of the 1970s or 1980s! Watch out America! Iran is coming! Like the Soviet Union before it, which had America living in daily terror of nuclear annihilation for decades, and which had our poor country fighting proxy wars around the globe as we tried to contain the spread of a dreaded Communist ideology that threatened to destroy our great capitalist society, McCain says Iran poses a mortal threat to the survival of the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. Look out America! Iran is going to turn us all into Moslems! Ah-h-h-h!

But wait a minute. During the Cold War, before it collapsed in a heap of rubble, the Soviet Union was a country of nearly 250 million people. Its mighty Red Army had defeated the German Wehrmacht in World War II. The USSR had tens of thousands of nuclear bombs and it had missiles bigger than ours, capable of lobbing 20-megaton bombs on American cities. It held half a dozen European nations of ancient lineage captive, and financed dreaded revolutionary forces around the globe. It had a nuclear submarine fleet that was better than ours, and that was equipped with sea-launched missiles that could be fired at US targets from locations only minutes from our coastline.

Iran, in contrast, is a poor country of 70 million. It has no nuclear weapons. It has no missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, much less of carrying them halfway around the world to US targets. It hasn’t conquered or even attacked another country in centuries, and seems to show little interest in doing so (it couldn’t even defeat Iraq, a country less than half its size, which attacked it in the 1980s). Its navy consists of little boats more suitable to towing water skiers than to fighting American carrier battle groups. Its air force wouldn’t last a day in a contest with the planes from just one US carrier. Hell, Iran's leadership is afraid of its own women!

But Big John is afraid, and he says we all should be too.

He says Barack Obama is naïve for proposing that the next president negotiate with the leaders of Iran, saying that Iran is as dangerous as the Soviet Union.

Forget for a moment that America did negotiate with the Soviet Union, not once, but many times—let’s see, by my count every president from Roosevelt to Reagan negotiated with the Soviets. But John McCain, our brave war hero who wants to be president, says Iran is too scary and dangerous. We dare not negotiate with them.

Maybe the guy should be wearing glasses. He’s sure not seeing things accurately.

Big John needs some little warning stickers that he can put on things to remind him of reality. They could say: “Caution! Things you are looking at may be smaller than they appear!”

This disability of McCain’s could at least explain how he has managed to stay so trim at the ripe age of 71 when most of his doddering Senate colleagues are sporting paunches. He probably looks at a plate with a little a tiny burger on it, and thinks he’s been served a Quarterpounder.
__________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/33527'; digg_title = "Big John McCain and the Scary Iran Threat"; digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\n\r\nMighty war hero John McCain has a troublesome perceptual problem. He sees things as being bigger than they really are.\r\n\r\nWhen he was flying fighter-bombers over North Vietnam, he, like many in the military, imagined that he was fighting against a mighty foe (world communism, I suppose). What he was really doing was dropping bombs on a peasant country that was essentially still in the 19th or even, in much of the countryside, the 18th Century. It was also only a sixth of the size of the US. But John McCain bravely battled against this pipsqueak enemy, dropping his bombs until some of those peasant soldiers shot him down and captured him.\r\n\r"; digg_skin = 'standard';

Nobel Peace Winner Visits US from Iran

davidswanson — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:09:10 -0400

Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Shirin Ebadi to Answer Your Questions Online
By David Swanson

Shirin Ebadi (Persian: شیرین عبادی - Širin Ebâdi) is an Iranian lawyer, human rights activist and founder of the Children's Rights Support Association in Iran. On October 10, 2003, Ebadi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her significant and pioneering efforts for democracy and human rights, especially women's and children's rights. She is the first Iranian, the first Shia and the first Muslim woman to receive the prize. She is currently visiting the United States, and is focusing her energies on opening lines of communication and preventing war between the United States and Iran.

Here's a chance to ask Ebadi questions about Iran and the United States that are on your mind. I'll be interviewing her live, and she'll be taking your questions, between 3 and 4 p.m. ET on Thursday, May 1, 2008.

Go to http://www.thepeoplespeakradio.net/listen-live to listen live. You'll find instructions there to enter a paltalk chat room where you can post questions. We will not be taking questions by telephone during this interview. Following the show, the audio file will be posted at http://www.thepeoplespeakradio.net/audio/2008

The Clock is Ticking for A US Attack on Iran

dlindorff — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:54:18 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

I admit to feeling a little like the weatherman who keeps saying it's going to rain, and who eventually is proven correct. I feel certain that the Bush/Cheney regime is going to launch a disastrous attack on Iran, but have made several calls, which have been proved wrong, beginning back in October 2006, when I wrote that it looked like several aircraft carrier battle groups were being put in position for the assault, but then it was called off.

Now it looks like the attack is coming soon.

The Washington Post's Ann Scott Tyson is today reporting in an article headlined, Joint Chiefs Chairman Says US Preparing Military Options Against Iran, that Admiral Michael Mullen, the nation's top military officer, thinks the US military is not stretched too thin to take on Iran, and that Iran is becoming an "increasingly lethal and malign influence" in Iraq.

This article comes only a day after a US civilian ship under contract to the US military to deliver supplies to Iraq fired on Iranian boats in the Persian Gulf--just the kind of aggressive action that could lead to an Iranian reaction and trigger a full-blown US response.

The Persian Gulf is now crammed full of US attack ships, ranging from a missile-armed nuclear sub to aircraft carriers packed with tomahawk cruise missiles and fleets of attack aircraft larger than most nation's entire air forces (and also with nuclear weapons).

Other things also point to an attack, most significantly the pushing out of Adm. William Fallon as Central Command chief, and now his replacement by Gen. David Petraeus, who is widely seen as a "political" general who is essentially a yes-man for Bush and Cheney.

I would say the die is cast, and that it awaits only the pretext.

There would be no melodramatic Congressional debate over the reasons for going to war against yet a third nation this time around. Thanks to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress in October 2001 to authorize the attack on the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Iraq, which Bush and Cheney have illegally and outrageously interpreted as a declaration of a global and unending "War on Terror," the administration is claiming it has the right to attack any nation it defines as "terrorist" at any time, without authorization. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton helped promote war against Iran a few months ago by backing a Senate resolution authored by Sens. Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyle that defined the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a "global terrorist" organization. That was all Bush and Cheney needed, as Clinton, Lieberman and Kyle clearly knew.

In what has to be one of the understatements of the century, Adm. Mullen said he knew that conflict would be "extremely stressing" and "distrous on a number of levels."

Indeed it would. Troops in Iraq are already on their fourth and even fifth rotation, and the "surge" troops in Iraq for the past year are being sent home, not because their job of "stabilizing" Baghdad is done (hardly! violence is increasing!), but because there's nobody left to replace them, and they've been there for 15 brutal months.

Worse yet, oil prices have hit a record $122/barrel and are causing a US and even a global recession--but that figure will be doubled the minute any US attack on Iran begins. This is because war with Iran would immediately bring all oil shipments through the Persian Gulf, which supplies 20-25 percent of the world's oil, to a halt. Even if not one tanker were sunk, no insurer would cover a tanker in that region. Moreover, Iranian sappers, and their allies in Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, could be expected to take out vulnerable pipelines, refineries and even well-heads in retaliation to any attack.

So an attack on Iran would mean global economic collapse.

Hold on to your hats. I hope I'm proved wrong yet again, but I'm afraid we're in for a bumpy ride. Even if there is no attack, the level of threats against Iran now emanating from the White House and the Pentagon are sufficient to keep driving oil prices skyward.

Americans should look at those pump prices and see Bush's and Cheney's faces in the digital display.

They should also think of the gas they pump as blood, because it is going to be spilled in prodigious quantities if the US goes through with an attack. Not only would countless innocent Iranians be killed by US bombs and rockets and by any radiation released by attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities (the more so if the US or its Israeli ally use nuclear bombs in that attack), but the toll of US military casualties could be expected to soar, as Iran's Shia allies in Iraq predictably turn on American forces in support of Iran.

Clearly this is all madness, but it is also predictable madness. The Bush/Cheney regime is finishing out its last year as the most disastrous, most unpopular, most loathed presidency in the nation's history, and may even be facing criminal prosecution once out of office. It has approached each election since taking office by upping the military jingoism. I see no reason to see their political strategy changing. It is critical to them that John McCain and the Republican Party hang onto the White House, and in their view, getting the US into an all-out war with Iran is just the way to do that.

They may be right.
_______________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philsadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now available in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/33023'; digg_title = "The Clock is Ticking for A US Attack on Iran"; digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\n I admit to feeling a little like the weatherman who keeps saying it\'s going to rain, and who eventually is proven correct. I feel certain that the Bush/Cheney regime is going to launch a disastrous attack on Iran, but have made several calls, which have been proved wrong, beginning back in October 2006, when I wrote that it looked like several aircraft carrier battle groups were being put in position for the assault, but then it was called off.\r\n\r\n Now it looks like the attack is coming soon.\r\n\r"; digg_skin = 'standard';