Around The Clock

Despite the fact that it’s absolutely beautiful here in Toronto today, this entry is going to be quite the opposite. First up on the agenda…

Afghanistan

According to the International Red Cross, some 250 Afghan civilians have been killed or wounded by coalition and insurgent attacks in the last six days alone.

Not surprisingly, with regards to the recent bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul, the Taliban has denied involvement. So too has the United States with regards to air strikes that have claimed the lives of civilians.

Who knows, maybe they’re using the same PR firm.

Action And Reaction

Not too long ago the Israeli air force conducted an exercise involving some 100 aircraft. The purpose of the exercise, though it has since been downplayed as such, was to work on target portfolios regarding a possible future strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.

Of course, and despite economic sanctions already in place, the United States has repeatedly claimed that ‘all options are on the table’ with regards to Iran.

Yesterday the Iranians tested nine missiles, including the new Shahab-3 rocket, which has a range of 2,000 kilometers, making it able to hit any city in Israel. The test was, of course, immediately condemned by the United States and Israel, along with others. Of course, the military exercise carried out by the Israelis was not condemned, despite the fact that it involved some 100 state of the art fighter aircraft.

So how should we view the Iranian tests? In truth, the tests have played directly into the hands of the West, who can use them as proof positive that the Iranians indeed possess an aggressive rather than defensive agenda. While threats against the Iranians, and military operations undertaken in preparation to hit Iranian nuclear sites, are misrepresented as urgent necessity, the reaction to such threats by the Iranians, which in this case was the testing of nine rockets, is publicized as proof positive that they represent a considerable threat.

It is, in a word, ‘baiting’, and is precisely the technique used by nations that are seeking conflict but do not want to be seen as the aggressors. They will, by all means available to them, attempt to lure the Iranians into doing something that can then be used to justify action. Given the horrible results produced by the preemptive, unilateralist foreign policy doctrine of the current US administration, it is precisely the sort of modus operandi that will be employed to defuse accusations that the same sort of arrogant presumptions that led the United States into Iraq in 2003 were simply rehashed and used to confront the Iranian regime.

Given the fact that the United States currently occupies Iraq, which obviously borders Iran, and that the possession of a nuclear deterrent might be the only safeguard that the Iranians could rely on to avoid foreign military action, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see why the Iranians might want that sort of insurance. Of course, the rest of the world views that as preposterous. According to them, the Iranians shouldn’t be allowed the right to possess a nuclear program whatsoever. Of course, Israel has, for decades, possessed a nuclear weapons capability that, to this day, they deny exists. But that’s neither here nor there. On this side of the ocean, and north of the Med, they’re viewed as the constant victim, and therefore possess a permanent free pass.

The United States and the Soviets played this very game for decades. One would test a weapons system or detonate a nuclear device and the other would respond. In that particular case, for the most part, it ensured a peculiar global détente, while smaller conventional hot wars played out around the world for the sake of face. In this instance, Iran is not the Soviet Union, but rather a nation caught up in the altogether propagandized ‘reality’ of the post 9/11 era.

Again, this issue comes down to the belief in moral superiority and the xenophobic fuel that drives it. While I will not defend the construct of the Iranian government, I will say that the irony regarding this situation is thick enough to cut with a knife being that it was the United States and Britain that fifty-five years ago removed Iran’s first, and only, democratically elected leader from power because he had the audacity to threaten the stranglehold that foreign oil companies had on the nation. They painted him a Communist and replaced a democratically elected government with a Monarch wholly sympathetic to foreign interests who, of course, could ensure that he remained in power. That is, until the revolution occurred.

Late last night, while watching television, a local ABC affiliate reported on the firing of the missiles. During the report they threw to a correspondent in Tel Aviv whose first words were to remind viewers that Iran’s President has repeatedly stated that Iran wants to ‘wipe Israel off the face of the map’. The truth of course, as I have pointed out in other entries in the past, is that no such statement was ever made, let alone repeated. The translation of the initial speech given by Ahmadinejad was incorrect, though that did not stop the mistranslation from circling the globe in record time and ultimately becoming ‘fact’. But, as an objective Farsi translator will tell you, Ahmadinejad did not say that his government wished to wipe Israel off the face of the map. If you actually spend the time to research the sources that first spread the mistranslation, you’ll find officials from the United States and Israel at the epicenter.

I’ll not disagree that Ahmadinejad is no better than his American counterpart, nor that the government of Iran is wholly misrepresentative of the majority of its population, but the fact remains that Ahmadinejad never uttered those words, even though they have since been employed as incontrovertible truth by the media based on the translation initially provided by entirely opportunistic quarters.

We are on the precipice of something very dangerous, something that could result in the loss of a great deal of innocent life. Behind the threats and oratory of those in power live the innocent who, as is often the case, have little to no say until such time that they are rendered statistics.

As an aside, and this really should come as no shock to anyone…

“Iran may be part of the “axis of evil,” but it is good enough to be able to buy increasing amounts of American products — including bull semen, brassieres and possibly even weapons — despite U.S. sanctions that have been in place for decades.

An analysis of seven years of U.S. trade statistics done by the Associated Press shows that exports from the United States to Iran grew more than tenfold during President George W. Bush’s years in office, even as he accused the Mideast country of having nuclear ambitions and helping terrorists.

Cigarettes were Iran’s favorite U.S. import, the statistics said, with the Islamic republic’s smokers going through more than $169 million worth of popular U.S. brands since 2001.

Other surprising shipments to Iran during the Bush administration have included fur coats, sculptures, perfume and musical instruments.

Despite increasingly tough rhetoric toward Iran, and reports of U.S. or Israeli plans for a military strike, trade in a range of goods has survived on-again, off-again sanctions originally imposed nearly three decades ago.”

Ah - blessed hypocrisy.

The Maliki Bomb

This is a few days old now, but crucially important. The following is from The Nation’s Robert Dreyfuss…

“The long-running showdown over the proposed US-Iraq treaty, aimed at legitimizing the American occupation of Iraq, is coming to a head, and it doesn’t look good for the United States.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki tossed a bombshell today. In a news conference about the still-secret US-Iraqi talks, which began in March, Maliki for the first time said that the chances of securing the pact are just about nil, and instead he said Iraq will seek a limited, ad hoc renewal of the US authority to remain in Iraq, rather than a broad-based accord.

More important, Maliki and his top security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie added that Iraq intends to link even a limited accord to a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces. Reports the Sydney Morning Herald:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki raised the prospect of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops as part of negotiations over a new security agreement with Washington.

It was the first time the US-backed Shi’ite-led government has floated the idea of a timetable for the removal of American forces from Iraq. The Bush administration has always opposed such a move, saying it would benefit militant groups.

[UPDATE July 8: Rubaie was even stronger today: "There should not be any permanent bases in Iraq unless these bases are under Iraqi control. ... We would not accept any memorandum of understanding with (the US) side that has no obvious and specific dates for the foreign troops' withdrawal from Iraq."]

Here’s the quote from Maliki:

“The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or a memorandum of understanding to put a timetable on their withdrawal.”

Don’t think for a minute that Maliki, or his Shiite allies, want the US forces to leave. But they are under a lot of pressure. First of all, they are under pressure from Iran, whose regime remains the chief ally of the ruling alliance of Shiites, including Maliki’s Dawa party and the powerful Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), led by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim. Iran’s goal is to neutralize Iraq as a possible threat to Iran, and Iran’s leaders are pressuring Maliki and Hakim to loosen their reliance on the United States. Interestingly, Maliki reportedly told President Bush personally, in a video teleconference on Friday, that the United States cannot use Iraqi territory to attack Iran, and he added that “fomenting tension in the region and pushing for military action against Tehran could wreak havoc on the entire region, including Iraq.”

Maliki is also under pressure from a broad coalition of Iraqi nationalists, from angry, disenfranchised Sunnis to Muqtada al-Sadr’s movement.

But Maliki’s statement is a big deal. At a minimum, it presents an enormous problem for Bush and John McCain, who are arguing for an indefinite US stay in Iraq til “victory,” and who oppose a timetable. True, Maliki seems to be linking his timetable to Iraqi military success, which is not too different from the Bush-McCain formula. But inside Iraq, the pressure is building day by day for a US withdrawal, and Maliki is by no means in control of the process. The fact that both Iran and Sunni nationalists, who are on a collision course, agree that US forces need to leave Iraq, only means that pro- and anti-Iranian factions will settle their differences (either by peaceful diplomacy or by violence) once the United States is gone.

Another factor is that Maliki, who is visiting the United Arab Emirates, is working hard to gain the support of the Sunni-led Arab regimes for his shaky coalition. The UAE and Jordan have both announced that they will be sending ambassadors to Baghdad, and King Abdullah of Jordan will himself make a visit to Baghdad soon, the first by an Arab head of state since the US invasion.

Despite US bungling, it seems increasingly likely that Iran and Saudi Arabia are working behind the scenes to negotiate a Shiite-Sunni accord in Iraq, but both Tehran and Riyadh will want it conditioned on a US withdrawal.”