I will just record here my own serious concern about two developments in the Middle East.
Today’s NYT lead story reports:
Mr. Sharon said Israeli intelligence showed Iran was near “a point of no return” in learning how to develop a weapon, the officials said. However, Mr. Sharon gave no indication thatIsraelwas preparing to act alone to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, a prospect that Vice President Dick Cheney, who was at the lunch, raised publicly three months ago
Nothing that is “revealed” that took place in such discussions is made known to us without purpose. I am concerned that the purpose is to forewarn the US public of further action – which, in six weeks time could have the support of the newly elected UK government.
The second item of concern is a report plucked off AP news:
Insurgents opened fire when the U.S. troops began their raid on the smuggling ring Tuesday, and several militants, including at least one suicide bomber, were killed, the U.S. military said in a statement. No Americans were injured, it said.
Residents reported violent clashes before dawn Tuesday in and around Qaim, although it was unclear if the violence was related to the raid.
Hamid al-Alousi, director of Qaim hospital, said his facility had received nine corpses and nearly two dozen wounded in the violence. Residents of a small village just north of Qaim said more than a dozen more people were buried in the area and not taken to the hospital. Residents and hospital officials said the victims appeared to be civilians.
Clear evidence of the smuggling of arms across the Syrian border is an intolerable situation for the US military and shows a breakdown in any supposed agreement to secure this border that had been arrived at with the Syrian authorities.
Both these reports are indicative that joint American/Israeli action may soon commence.
The same AP report records the death of twelve Iraqi Guard in a roadside bomb.
Noticeable is that AP make a point about the non-availability of any confirmation regarding these happenings from US Military. Such military clampdowns on responding to press enquiries is a further worrying sign of intense military activity.
Breaking News: Top of the news stream on AP is the following report:
At a joint news conference with U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Karzai said he had consulted many of his country’s citizens in recent weeks about “a strategic security relationship,” with the United States that could help Afghanistan avoid foreign interference and military conflicts.
“The conclusion we have drawn is that the Afghan people want a long-term relationship with the United States,” Karzai said. “They want this relationship to be a sustained economic and political relationship and most importantly of all, a strategic security relationship to enable Afghanistan defend itself, to continue to prosper, to stop the possibility of interferences in Afghanistan.”
This comes as no surprise despite persistent denials to the contrary in the past by the US Administration.
It is comforting to know that exactly the same announcement will be available for Iraq when the time comes without the need for any additional work, thus easing the burden on the hard-pressed US PR staff.
The failure of our media to report on all the permanent military bases we are building in Iraq is morally reprehensible.
Those bases are there for only one reason: to engage in an endless war in the Middle East.
the oil fields and to maintain a strong presence of US military in the Middle East.
Think how the Iranians must be feeling right about now. The US has taken over countries on both sides of them and refuses to enter a dialogue with them.
They have every right to be concerned.
And we in the US, at least, those of us who hate war, should be just as concerned.
Sad too, as I recall reading, is that the progressive movements in Iran were set back by the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Welshman, excellent rundown on what’s going on. I’ve read several accounts — but not recently enough to recall where — of rampant smuggling that goes on along every border of Iraq. One account I read is about the border with Iran where Iraqi Kurds smuggle goods back and forth. And I seem to recall that the border along Jordan is also porous.
And a lot of illegal drugs, for some time now, are making their way across the border, significantly increasing the number of addicts in Iraq. I think I read that a lot of those drugs come from Syria. Perhaps Turkey too — can’t recall.
I don’t think the U.S. troops have any kind of handle on the borders. Nor do the Iraqi troops and police.
Besides, doesn’t the ongoing infusion of arms into Iraq, and into the hands of the rebels (the term insurgent is rather incorrect, imho), help justify the U.S. military’s ongoing presence and establishment of bases in Iraq?
Susan
It has always been my belief that the US would be content for there to be a small, controllable on-going insurgency to justify their permanent presence. The mistake they have made is in the size of the armed opposition.
Help me understand, please, the reason for your choice of “rebel” (which may have particular USA resonance) rather than “insurgent”.
Insurgent seems to be used in the U.S. media, not in its correct sense (a revolt that’s not quite a revolution), but instead to imply that the fighters have come mostly from outside the country. The word by its very construct — “in surge” (the fighters into the country) — can mislead.
The term, as Bush et al. and the U.S. media use it, refers often to young men who travel from all parts of the Middle East, even Britain and France, to fight the U.S. and not to the hapless Iraqi people (against whom the “insurgents” also wreak destruction and death).
It’s not a big deal — particularly when someone like you uses the word — but I do resent how the word has been hijacked and used to mis-inform the typical American.
An election report from Iraq referred to these people as
“the bombers” quite often. They are the enemies of the US and most of the Iraqi population too.
In the documentary “Mission Accoplished” they were referred to as ‘the enemy’ by the US military interviewed.
The White House doesn’t want to call them simply ‘the enemy.’
What’s the current status of the agreement reached between EU + Russia and Iran? That acted as a counterbalance to our table-pounding. I think it doubtful that a new administration in the U.K. will back the U.S. position in Iran. Burned badly by Iraq, they’re not likely to tolerate any talk of agressive or pre-emptive action anywhere in the middle east.
That puts the U.S. in isolation with Israel, and this time the world will not tolerate any action without firm proof. Nor will we. Two highly militarized nations without a foreign policy brain between them appear as they are: insolent, arrogant bullies on the world stage.
Remember it will be a newly elected UK government who 1- know the short memory of the British electorate rarely lasts four years 2- may be temporarily led (bery temporarily I hope) by Tony Blair, who might see it as a means of getting his Congressional Medal and own ranch on the Plains.
More likely is that the Brits won’t be directly involved, so that there will be no need to bring it to Parliament, but will be covering the US bck by more intensive military action in Iraq. The same thing, really, as if they went to war with Iran, but oh, so much easier to finesse on the British public.
Did I cheer you up?
Cheer me up? Yeah, thanks a f*ck of alot. One can only hope the british public becomes enraged enough to at least prevent further troop shipments to Iraq. We are not amused. <grin>
I do not think there is any real doubt that Israel/USA are going to attack Iran later this year. The only question is when will the air strikes start. If this was to begin before the British election Tony Blair would have a problem.
I presume the timetable for war was not drawn up for British government convenience. If Blair was consulted at all no doubt he has taken account of what is to happen in fixing the election date.
Thanks for the information Welshman which we know we will never get from our media. I belive in the Washington Post this morning there was an article about what little killing machines we have turned our soldiers into. One spoke so candidly about how he feels nothing when he kills “the insurgents” and has used his”ghetto street smarts” to fight this “urban” type war.
It scares the crap out of me where we are headed and what we are going to be leaving behind for our children and grandchildren. The oh so nonchalant attitude that so many Iraqi civilians are being murdered is beyond comprehension.
War has worked so well for Repubs, I predict the assault on Iran/Syria will commence oh, say, six months before the ’06 elections.
and that is:
How seriously is Iran pursuing a nuclear device?
How close are they to getting one?
What consensus is there among the Security Council and UN more generally about preventing nuclear proliferation?
What principles are we using to decide who is bomb-worthy?
And what are the very real security concerns that would arise if the Iranian had a bomb?
Whose security would be most effected, and why?
The left needs to have coherent answers to all these questions.
We need them to formulate sensible policy, and we need them to use as talking points if (when) Bush’s policies come into conflict with our analysis.
just more questions.
Like, who and in what circumstances should ANYBODY be allowed to fire off a nuclear weapon.
At what point can we excuse the U.S., or any other nuclear holding country to actually use a nuke? And if there are no world events that we can imagine a country being excused to use a nuke, except in response to a nuke attack, maybe, then why don’t we just let Iran have a nuke?
Or, if there is never, ever, a reason to use a nuke, why don’t we get rid of ours?
But I agree BooMan, serious questions that need contemplation. The left needs a coherent, and not a John Kerry rambling eye-glazing coherent, but a clear talking point answer, to this, as well as our social, economic, security, and environment policies. Man, we are taking more hits for not having a plan ready than Mike Tyson! Where’s the playbook!
from Iran that it dismantle and destroy its own nuclear weapons, including its strategic assets located in Israel?
If not, what punitive measures should Iran take against the US?
I think Washington sometimes exaggerates the global popularity of the notion that it is up to the US to decide who is “bomb-worthy.”
There is something of a disconnect between American popular opinion and the rest of the world on this subject.
series of questions, I did raise the issue of how seriously the Security Council (not just the US) is about proliferation.
And I asked for a discussion of what principles an anti-proliferation stance would rest on.
be favorable to the security of the US to consider how the world views the Security Council, how the world views the US, and I am suggesting these additional questions:
What is the REAL level of global, grass roots support for the idea that the US, whether expressed on US or UN letterhead, has the authority to decree who shall have which weapons?
What would be the reaction of the US if another country should demand that the US destroy its own weapons?
I realize that these may sound like very far-fetched ideas to American ears, but that is an indication of how wide that disconnect is!
In my opinion, that disconnect is so vast that in and of itself, it constitutes a much graver threat to the safety and security of ordinary Americans than anything that is going on in Iran.
I think your points are implied in my questions, especially by my point about “the UN more generally”.
I think Bush’s decisions and our development of mini-nukes have created a rift in what was a fairly solid international consensus that nukes should not be built by anyone who doesn’t already have them.
India and Pakistan also muddied the waters.
And now North Korea and Iran are pushing this issue to the breaking point.
It all needs to be discussed. But not in a spirit that the automatically correct answer is that we should give up on anti-proliferation.
By destroying its own arsenal, the US could have set a great example.
However, I think what muddied the waters is that the rest of the world has never taken the idea of anti-proliferation seriously, and for the very reason stated above.
“nobody should have them that doesn’t” may sound fair and balannced to Americans, but to countries who are at risk for US aggression, it sounds more like
“we have the power to vaporize you, and you better not even think about defending yourself”
whereas
“nobody should have these weapons, and we are going to get rid of ours and not make any more”
would have been much more likely to reduce proliferation.
Which brings us to the inevitable question, was a reduction in proliferation really the goal?
I read this this morning before leaving for work and as I was driving thought that Bush & Co (including Blair?) are working up to selling airstrikes on Iran. Regrettable but necesssary, etc. No cost to us of course, just fly over and drop the bombs and then fly on back to wherever.
And the Iranians do what in response? They have an army of half a million?