There are those that you antagonize because you know that there won’t be serious repercussions and those that you do not. Heated rhetoric aimed at Iran is one thing, but outing the Pakistani ISI is another matter altogether. Like it or not, agree with it or not, the reality is that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence is an extremely powerful entity, one that routinely transcends the authority of Pakistan’s government. The ISI has been referred to as Pakistan’s Ghost Government on more than one occasion, and even Pervez Musharraf, who was, for all intents and purposes, a military dictator, lived with the reality that if you do not possess the confidence and favour of the ISI then you are in the wilderness.

After the assassination of Benazir Bhutto it was speculated by many that the ISI was complicit, even if their involvement was limited to the employment or financing of others to accomplish the deed itself. Bhutto must have been fully aware when she returned to Pakistan that the ISI would be a problem were she to succeed in securing her old office. She must have also been aware of the fact that they most likely viewed her as little more than a US political proxy. Those in and around Washington that pushed for her return given the state of Pakistani politics at the time severely underestimated the ISI’s resolve in my opinion, and it ultimately cost Bhutto her life.

One thing that should be taken into account is that the ISI is, more than likely, not afraid of the United States. They have, in the past, worked closely with the CIA, and are by no means strangers with regards to American covert practices. In truth, they have probably been the most significant force behind Pakistan’s double dealings with the US since 9/11, placating US interests when it suits their purposed while supporting those that serve their own, the Taliban included.

In yesterday’s New York Times, an article by Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt was published entitled Pakistanis Aided Attack in Kabul, U.S. Officials Say. An excerpt…

“American intelligence agencies have concluded that members of Pakistan’s powerful spy service helped plan the deadly July 7 bombing of India’s embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, according to United States government officials.

The conclusion was based on intercepted communications between Pakistani intelligence officers and militants who carried out the attack, the officials said, providing the clearest evidence to date that Pakistani intelligence officers are actively undermining American efforts to combat militants in the region.

The American officials also said there was new information showing that members of the Pakistani intelligence service were increasingly providing militants with details about the American campaign against them, in some cases allowing militants to avoid American missile strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

Concerns about the role played by Pakistani intelligence not only has strained relations between the United States and Pakistan, a longtime ally, but also has fanned tensions between Pakistan and its archrival, India. Within days of the bombings, Indian officials accused the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, of helping to orchestrate the attack in Kabul, which killed 54, including an Indian defense attaché.

This week, Pakistani troops clashed with Indian forces in the contested region of Kashmir, threatening to fray an uneasy cease-fire that has held since November 2003.

The New York Times reported this week that a top Central Intelligence Agency official traveled to Pakistan this month to confront senior Pakistani officials with information about support provided by members of the ISI to militant groups. It had not been known that American intelligence agencies concluded that elements of Pakistani intelligence provided direct support for the attack in Kabul.”

The publication of this story has, of course, spread like wildfire, resulting in a statement today by the Pakistani government claiming that the ISI was not involved in the Kabul bombing. Among those that have picked up on it are The BBC, The CBC, The Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, and Reuters, just to name a brief few. The point being, the world is out, and now a very dangerous game of US covert interventionism and Pakistani culpable deniability will no doubt ensue. But the real motivation behind the revelation of the ISI’s involvement in the Kabul bombing by the CIA could have very little to do with an attempt to egregiously expose the ISI’s support of insurgents that operate along the Pakistan-Afghan frontier and use the information to fan another flame altogether.

The Probable Squeeze Play

First, this morning finds the article penned by the New York Times’ Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt in yesterday’s publication ‘updated’. The exact same body of text quoted above now reads…

“A top Central Intelligence Agency official traveled secretly to Islamabad this month to confront Pakistan’s most senior officials with new information about ties between the country’s powerful spy service and militants operating in Pakistan’s tribal areas, according to American military and intelligence officials.

The C.I.A. emissary presented evidence showing that members of the spy service had deepened their ties with some militant groups that were responsible for a surge of violence in Afghanistan, possibly including the suicide bombing this month of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, the officials said.

The decision to confront Pakistan with what the officials described as a new C.I.A. assessment of the spy service’s activities seemed to be the bluntest American warning to Pakistan since shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks about the ties between the spy service and Islamic militants.

The C.I.A. assessment specifically points to links between members of the spy service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, and the militant network led by Maulavi Jalaluddin Haqqani, which American officials believe maintains close ties to senior figures of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

The C.I.A. has depended heavily on the ISI for information about militants in Pakistan, despite longstanding concerns about divided loyalties within the Pakistani spy service, which had close relations with the Taliban in Afghanistan before the Sept. 11 attacks.

That ISI officers have maintained important ties to anti-American militants has been the subject of previous reports in The New York Times. But the C.I.A. and the Bush administration have generally sought to avoid criticism of Pakistan, which they regard as a crucial ally in the fight against terrorism.

The visit to Pakistan by the C.I.A. official, Stephen R. Kappes, the agency’s deputy director, was described by several American military and intelligence officials in interviews in recent days. Some of those who were interviewed made clear that they welcomed the decision by the C.I.A. to take a harder line toward the ISI’s dealings with militant groups.”

You will note that mention of tensions with India have been removed. This passage from yesterday’s version of the story is of paramount importance…

“Within days of the bombings, Indian officials accused the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, of helping to orchestrate the attack in Kabul, which killed 54, including an Indian defense attaché.”

To many this might seem of little consequence given historical tensions between the two nations, but the inevitable question must be asked – who furnished the Indians with information that the ISI was involved? Of course, given that the Indian embassy was the target, they could have come to that conclusion on their own, it’s not as if they lack the intelligence capability to unearth such information. But given the revelations now being provided by the United States, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the US provided the Indian government with that information in an attempt to open what could be referred to as ‘a second front’ with regards to using the Indians as part of a ‘squeeze play’ to regionally box the Pakistanis in. In that sense, Kashmir becomes the inevitable playing field in that arena, one which, if properly exploited, could result in the diversion of support intended for insurgents operating along the Pakistan-Afghan frontier. As was also pointed out in the initial article run by the New York Times yesterday…

“This week, Pakistani troops clashed with Indian forces in the contested region of Kashmir, threatening to fray an uneasy cease-fire that has held since November 2003.”

Reuters is also reporting the following…

“India said on Friday that peace talks with Pakistan were at the lowest point in their four-year history after a spate of bombings in Indian cities and at the country’s embassy in Kabul.

Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon said the blasts had “affected the future” of negotiations between the nuclear-armed neighbors.

“If you ask me to describe the state of the dialogue, it is in a place where it hasn’t been in the last four years,” Menon told reporters.

“We face a situation where things have happened in the recent past which were unfortunate and which quite frankly have affected the future of the dialogue.”

India blames Pakistan for a breach of a 2003 ceasefire on its de facto border in disputed Kashmir, and accuses its spy agency of involvement in last month’s bomb attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul, in which two senior diplomats were among 58 people killed.”

In situations such as this, motive is always a factor. US motives are plain enough – there must be a serious transformation of the Pakistani political landscape so that the ISI’s powers are either limited or altogether removed. Bhutto’s return was certainly a part of US efforts to upset that balance. Of course, the ISI aren’t fools, and are well aware of how the United States operates when it comes to the differentiation between promoted initiatives and covert ones. They, themselves, have been running the very same game against the US since 9/11. Publicly they claim that they are not aiding militants involved in operations in Afghanistan, or that if elements with the ISI are involved in such activities that they will be rooted out. Privately they continue to support those groups that they view, and have viewed for some time, as vital to the spread of Pakistani influence in the region. And they will, make no mistake, be patient and wait for the United States to act rashly with regards to unilateral military operations within Pakistan itself, which will only further their domination over the Pakistani government and ultimately lead to a growth in public support as it pertains to confronting the United States as a foreign aggressor that is threatening Pakistani sovereignty.

This is where the Indians become a crucial part of the equation, and again, motive must be examined. If the United States did furnish the Indian government intelligence with regards to the ISI’s role in the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul, what do the Americans get out of it – or, better, yet, what leverage do they possess to help ensure that the Indian government plays ball. Well, interestingly enough, and only a day after that initial New York Times article was published…

“The governors of the U.N. nuclear watchdog approved an inspections plan for India on Friday, an important step towards completing a nuclear cooperation deal between New Delhi and the United States.

The plan, approved by consensus by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s board of governors, will permit regular IAEA surveillance of India’s declared civilian nuclear energy plants — 14 of 22 existing or planned reactors.

This clears a hurdle to an accord that would allow sales of atomic materials and technology for civilian use to India. The deal has been criticized because New Delhi has not signed the global Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).”

This is, I am sad to report, how things work. There are back channels for back channels when it comes to the covert agendas of nations that are often conveniently appropriated through openly negotiated dealings. It is no secret that the United States and India have been working on this deal for some time now, but given the situation in Pakistan, and the fact that Afghanistan is beginning to resemble its former self more and more, securing the favour of traditional regional allies is quintessential.

The reason is clear enough.

Pakistan Has Always Been The Crux Of The Problem

After the Taliban was overthrown in 2001, were Pakistan not a regional factor, the reconstitution of the Taliban would never have occurred. The reality is, and has always been, that the war in Afghanistan is perpetuated by the support provided by those within Pakistan that view the success of what they view as military proxies as quintessential with regards to securing Pakistani influence in Afghanistan. That was why Benazir Bhutto backed supporting the Taliban in the 90’s and why the ISI supports them today.

It is very important to remember that, prior to 9/11, the United States possessed a very cool outlook towards Pakistan, one fermented by their acquisition and development of a nuclear weapons program. Despite the fact that the United States has never seriously condemned the Indians regarding theirs, the Pakistanis have always been another matter altogether, a position very likely cultivated during US cooperation with the ISI in the 80’s and their exposure to the organization’s mindset. Of course, there is a significant deal of hypocrisy involved as it pertains to the United States during that era, but that does not change the fact that both the CIA and the ISI are by no means strangers with regards to each others governing mindsets.

Following 9/11, unilaterally striking Pakistan was off the table - most likely because of their possession of a nuclear deterrent. Instead, the Bush Administration decided to ally itself with Pakistan’s military dictator, ironically casting him in an altogether ‘just’ light for as long as it served the administration’s ends. By the time it became clear that the Taliban were not defeated, and that their military prowess was growing, Musharraf became an obstacle that needed to be removed. Thus, various actions taken by his government to do with the diminishment of democratic freedoms were highlighted and Bhutto was ultimately thrust into the fray as a US-backed hopeful.

We all know how that turned out, and, as I stated earlier, the involvement of the ISI in her assassination should not be disregarded as mere speculation. In truth, if we’re to talk brass tacks, it was a move that the ISI had to make to ensure that foreign interventionism would not gain a significant foothold in the country.

But the fact remains that the war in Afghanistan is a war for Afghanistan, not a war to emancipate a people from a once ruthless regime. It is a conflict that is being fought by Western powers against insurgents supported by one of the region’s foremost covert military organizations that possess decades worth of experience when it comes to using regional militants to their advantage. Seven years after the fact, Western powers are finally waking up to that reality, though there is little that they can do about it without purposely orchestrating a coup within Pakistan or targeting both insurgent and Pakistani forces within the country itself without hesitation or excuse. Unfortunately, Pakistan is not Afghanistan, and to do so would lead to an outcome that would make the war in Iraq look like a child’s birthday party.

Calling a spade a spade is one thing. But the game that has seemingly been initiated by the United States regarding the ISI’s culpability is a very dangerous one indeed.

It’s no secret that former President Jimmy Carter has his detractors. His more recent attempts to confront the problems plaguing Israeli - Palestinian relations have drawn scorn from many quarters, with many labeling him anti-Israeli. And now, during remarks made at the recent Hay-on-Wye festival, he has done what no American President has ever dared to do – openly state that Israel possesses nuclear weapons.

Despite the fact that within the international intelligence community it is widely known that Israel possesses a nuclear arsenal that ranges somewhere between 100 to 300 weapons, no major Western power has ever broke faith with Israel’s official policy of claiming that they do not possess one.

The Whistleblower

The existence of Israel’s nuclear program was made public in 1986 by The Sunday Times who ran an exclusive story based on information provided them by Mordechai Vanunu, once a nuclear technician at Israel’s Negev Nuclear Research Center. Numerous leading nuclear weapons experts, including former nuclear weapons designers Theodore Taylor (US) and Frank Barnaby (UK), substantiated the information provided by Vanunu to The Times prior to the piece being published.

Vanunu had left Israel in 1985, disenfranchised with his work and personally tormented by the realization of what it was producing. He traveled to South East Asia for a time before briefly relocating in Australia where he met journalist Peter Hounam of The Times. In the fall of 1986, Vanunu left Australia for the UK, where he relayed his story to Hounam and also provided personal photographs he had taken while working at the site.

In late September of 1986, the Israeli Mossad employed a female agent posing as an American tourist to lure Vanunu out of the UK rather than directly involving the British government in his detention. Vanunu traveled with Cheryl Bentov, who was known to Vanunu as Cindy, to Rome, where he was seized by Mossad agents, drugged, and smuggled out of Italy on a freighter. Once in Israel he was tried in secret for treason and then spent a decade in solitary confinement. In all, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison. Vanunu was not executed because, according to former Mossad director Shabtai Shavit , “Jews do not do that to other Jews.”

After Vanunu’s release he did what any man of conscience would do – he spoke out again, reiterating his position on Israel’s secret program. Despite the fact that Vanunu’s knowledge of the program was by that time technically inconsequential, he was placed under house arrest. Following that, his movements would be restricted and he was closely watched.

On the 15th of this month…

“The Norwegian Lawyer’s Petition called on the Norwegian government to urgently implement a three-point action plan within the framework of international and Norwegian law, to grant Vanunu asylum and permission to work and stay in Norway.”

Vanunu had applied for asylum in Norway in 2004 following his release. It was later learned that while approval for his initial application for asylum was sought by then Prime Minister Kåre Willoch, it was ultimately rejected to protect Norwegian – Israeli relations.

There are those that consider Vanunu a traitor, just as there are those that considered Daniel Ellsberg a traitor. I believe that what Vanunu did was vital for Israeli democracy in that he revealed something not just to the world, but to the people of Israel itself that had been kept from them by their elected officials. Because no matter the reasons, disclosure is one of the most crucial elements in any true democracy.

That said; it would seem that ‘true’ democracy isn’t something that any of us are all that familiar with.

Flat Out Hypocrisy

According to the government of Israel, the State of Israel does not possess nuclear weapons, nor has it ever possessed them. That is, no matter how you slice it, a flat out lie. Were the same scrutiny applied to Israel as is being applied to Iran, the IAEA would quickly discover that the government of Israel has been lying for decades. And even if the UN were allowed to inspect Israeli facilities and found evidence of a nuclear weapons program, the truth is that not a damn thing would be done about it.

Now, ask yourself a question. How is it that one nation can get away with lying about the possession of a significant nuclear weapons program for decades while others are attacked relentlessly before proof even exists that they have one? Why is it that the UN’s watchdog can be set upon, for example, Iran or Syria, and not be equally persuaded to scrutinize Israel? Where exactly does that sort of hypocritical power and protectionism come from?

Before even entering into the corrupt and wholly one sided protectionist stance that the Western world provides Israel, let’s state the obvious excuses used by those that ignore blatant contradictions.

First, because of a mistranslation that was then used to produce sensational headlines the world over, the government of Iran has claimed that it wants to ‘wipe Israel off the face of the map’. Of course, given their position on the existence of the Israeli state, the Iranians are easy targets. Mind you, that’s not to say that if some reasonable Israeli – Palestinian agreement could be reached that Iran wouldn’t ultimately back it, just that they’re viewed by most of the Western world as lacking what we refer to as ‘a sense of morality’. As far as we’re concerned they’re terrorist sympathizers and if they ever did get the bomb, would use it without hesitation or any consideration of the inevitable and utterly devastating consequences (I have written extensively about this subject, so use the search engine if you’d like to research past entries). Of course, throughout history, most of the world’s foremost powers have supported terrorist organizations, not to mention used militant groups and financial organizations to overthrow governments – such as the democratically elected government of Iran in the 50’s. But that’s of little consequence as it applies to the world post 9/11. The presentation of all things black and white to the public at large is a time honoured tradition, such as the removal of Mosaddeq in 1953 (Operation Ajax). He dared to attempt to nationalize the Iranian oil industry and for that he was painted a Communist by the West and removed from power. The Shah was then reinstated and British Petroleum’s stranglehold over Iran’s oil conveniently continued.

The support of military proxies, whether large or small, is nothing new. Israel represents such a proxy with regards to Western interests in the region, its nuclear arsenal included. It is a nation whose transgressions are widely overlooked while the transgressions of others are not, a hypocrisy that continues unabated precisely because of foreign interests and the protections that they are able to provide.

On September 11th one of the most repeated questions was - “why do they hate us?” The answer to that question, while technically complex, can also be viewed in a rather simplistic light. What have we done in the Middle East in a spirit of equality that has ever provided counter balance? The reality is – nothing. We have exploited natural resources, supported despotic regimes when they have suited out purposes, such as that of Saddam Hussein, and watched from the sidelines while such support has led to the degradation and suffering of societies. We then have the gall to claim that we champion freedom and represent beacons of global liberty and conscience. To think that those watching on the other side of the fence aren’t aware of our hypocrisy is more than ignorant. And, if we’re to cut the shit and be honest with ourselves, the people of New York and Washington paid for it seven years ago. And since then, troops involved in the subsequent wars promoted and produced in the wake of 9/11, along with countless civilians, have been made to suffer the fruits of that ignorance as well.

Why do they hate us? It is, in truth, more a question of why we believe we have the right to play God with others? And that’s not merely limited to Western powers, but others as well. The answer to that question is as old as the ages – arrogance bolstered by economic power and military might. That is the foundation on which every major empire in human history has sat, and the very same that always, without exception, has cracked and ultimately crumbled under the weight of its own excesses and senses of invulnerability and superiority.

Jimmy

So President Carter did the unthinkable – he spoke the truth. In doing so he will be labeled numerous things I imagine. This is, of course, the same President who was in power during the 444 days of the Iranian hostage crisis, and who, despite that experience, is currently urging the US to start talking to the Iranians rather than continuing their current policy of isolationism.

I’ll not deny that I believe Carter to be one of the better Presidents in US history. Despite those things that plagued his one term in office, he remains a man of considerable worth to the cause of repairing the damage done by the Bush Administration with regards to global perceptions of the United States. I am also one of those ‘nut jobs’ that believes the claims of former Reagan White House staff member Barbara Honegger, not to mention those of former Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, that the October Surprise was not fantasy.

If the Israelis can still claim, with a straight face, that they don’t have a nuclear weapons program (and get away with it) then I see no reason to start discounting something as plausible as the October Surprise, despite the conclusions of investigations to the contrary.

Andrew Cockburn comments on a new US covert initiative that is truly frightening in its scope…

“Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, “unprecedented in its scope.”

Bush’s secret directive covers actions across a huge geographic area – from Lebanon to Afghanistan – but is also far more sweeping in the type of actions permitted under its guidelines – up to and including the assassination of targeted officials. This widened scope clears the way, for example, for full support for the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, the cultish Iranian opposition group, despite its enduring position on the State Department’s list of terrorist groups.

Similarly, covert funds can now flow without restriction to Jundullah, or “army of god,” the militant Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan – just across the Afghan border — whose leader was featured not long ago on Dan Rather Reports cutting his brother in law’s throat.

Other elements that will benefit from U.S. largesse and advice include Iranian Kurdish nationalists, as well the Ahwazi arabs of south west Iran. Further afield, operations against Iran’s Hezbollah allies in Lebanon will be stepped up, along with efforts to destabilize the Syrian regime.

All this costs money, which in turn must be authorized by Congress, or at least a by few witting members of the intelligence committees. That has not proved a problem. An initial outlay of $300 million to finance implementation of the finding has been swiftly approved with bipartisan support, apparently regardless of the unpopularity of the current war and the perilous condition of the U.S. economy.

Until recently, the administration faced a serious obstacle to action against Iran in the form of Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon, who made no secret of his contempt for official determination to take us to war. In a widely publicized incident last January, Iranian patrol boats approached a U.S. ship in what the Pentagon described as a “taunting” manner. According to Centcom staff officers, the American commander on the spot was about to open fire. At that point, the U.S. was close to war. He desisted only when Fallon personally and explicitly ordered him not to shoot. The White House, according to the staff officers, was “absolutely furious” with Fallon for defusing the incident.

Fallon has since departed. His abrupt resignation in early March followed the publication of his unvarnished views on our policy of confrontation with Iran, something that is unlikely to happen to his replacement, George Bush’s favorite general, David Petraeus.

Though Petraeus is not due to take formal command at Centcom until late summer, there are abundant signs that something may happen before then. A Marine amphibious force, originally due to leave San Diego for the Persian Gulf in mid June, has had its sailing date abruptly moved up to May 4. A scheduled meeting in Europe between French diplomats acting as intermediaries for the U.S. and Iranian representatives has been abruptly cancelled in the last two weeks. Petraeus is said to be at work on a master briefing for congress to demonstrate conclusively that the Iranians are the source of our current troubles in Iraq, thanks to their support for the Shia militia currently under attack by U.S. forces in Baghdad.

Interestingly, despite the bellicose complaints, Petraeus has made little effort to seal the Iran-Iraq border, and in any case two thirds of U.S. casualties still come from Sunni insurgents. “The Shia account for less than one third,” a recently returned member of the command staff in Baghdad familiar with the relevant intelligence told me, “but if you want a war you have to sell it.”

Even without the covert initiatives described above, the huge and growing armada currently on station in the Gulf is an impressive symbol of American power.”

Given my last entry, and an email I received from an Israeli in which I was attacked for being purposely hateful, I thought that this development might be of interest…

“A former U.S. Army mechanical engineer was arrested Tuesday on charges he slipped classified documents about nuclear weapons to an employee of the Israeli Consulate who also received information from convicted Pentagon spy Jonathan Pollard, authorities announced.

Ben-ami Kadish faces four counts of conspiracy, including allegations that he conspired to disclose U.S. national defense documents to Israel and that he acted as an agent of the Israeli government, U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia and FBI officials said.

A criminal complaint said the activities occurred from 1979 through 1985 while Kadish worked at the Army’s Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center in Dover, N.J.

Kadish, a U.S. citizen, is accused of taking classified documents home several times and letting the Israeli government worker photograph them.

The documents included information about nuclear weapons, a modified version of an F-15 fighter jet, and the Patriot missile air defense system, the complaint said.

According to the complaint, the Israeli government worker on numerous occasions during 1979-1985 gave Kadish lists of U.S. national defense classified documents for Kadish to obtain.

The complaint said Kadish, born in Connecticut, was employed from October 1963 to January 1990 as a mechanical engineer at the Army’s Picatinny Arsenal in Dover, where the research center is based.

The complaint said the Israeli worker, whose name was not given, is an Israeli citizen. It said that in the late 1970s, he was employed at Israeli Aircraft Industries in Israel, a defense manufacturing contractor for the Israeli government.

From July 1980 through November 1985, he was the consul for science affairs at the Israeli Consulate General in Manhattan, the complaint said.

The complaint noted that Pollard was charged in November 1985 with espionage-related offense after he provided classified information to the same Israeli worker, among other people.

The Israeli worker left the United States in November 1985 and has not returned, the complaint said.

Pollard, a former civilian intelligence analyst for the U.S. Navy, pleaded guilty while standing trial for transferring military secrets to Israel while working at the Pentagon. He is serving a life sentence.

There was no immediate comment from the Israeli government but a senior Israeli defense official told Reuters: “I find it hard to believe that, after the Pollard affair, we would recruit an American spy.”

Kadish was scheduled to appear Tuesday afternoon at a federal court in New York.”

Now, isn’t it ironic that a nation that has been caught red handed in the past stealing US military secrets remains one of the largest recipients of US military aid in the world? Not only that, but that current Presidential nominees defend them tooth and nail?

When was the last time, for example, someone was caught within the US military or intelligence community passing information to the Iranians? And if an individual were caught doing so, what do you honestly believe the repercussions would be?

After Pollard’s arrest, the Israeli’s denied that Pollard had spied for them, but would change their story in 1998, granting Pollard Israeli citizenship. The Israeli government has also paid for two of Pollard’s attorneys and has lobbied for his release, the most recent request supposedly being made in January of this year directly to President Bush by Prime Minister Olmert.

The US is also guilty of the practice, according to Israeli sources. The CIA supposedly turned Israeli intelligence officer Yosef Amit in the 1980’s, which led to Amit ultimately being sentenced to 12 years in prison. That was, of course, during an era in which Soviet made tanks, captured in Lebanon, were being transferred from the Israelis to the CIA, who then transferred them to the Pakistani ISI, who then transferred them to the Mujahideen fighting in Afghanistan.

It makes the head spin, I know – arms seized from one Arab force only to be transferred to another Arab force by way of three different countries. Unfortunately, that’s the game my friends, and it’s one that’s played by many. The Iranians support Hezbullah, the Americans support the Saudis who funnel support to Sunni militants in Iraq on the sly. The US also supports Colombian paramilitary groups and various African military proxies. The Russians support radical factions in breakaway States, and on and on and on.

But, ultimately, the point remains – how exactly does Israel get a free ride after being caught infiltrating the US intelligence community? Unless, that is, the US intelligence community knew about it, or willfully ignored it as long as they were able to before it being exposed to Congress or the media.

Put into bizarre perspective, not long ago a variety of Arab States were awarded $20 billion dollars in US military aid. To counterbalance that agreement, Israel was awarded $30 billion. Given that, and the fact that the US has been a steadfast supporter of Israel for decades, one has to seriously wonder why the Israeli government felt the need to infiltrate the US intelligence community and why the United States didn’t hold them, as a nation, more accountable?

The answer is very simple. Israel is, and always has been, a US Middle Eastern proxy. And as long as the money continues to flow, the Likud’s that control the Israeli government will continue to operate under the assumption that they can handle the Americans to their continued advantage.

So what’s a few spies between ‘friends’?

The Bush administration is running out of time. Since President Bush singled out Iran as a member of his auspicious Axis Of Evil, the gears have been turning with regards to how best to confront the Iranians. Obviously, condemnation of Iran’s nuclear program was never going to provide substantial pretext given the precedent set during run up to the invasion of Iraq and the wholly erroneous information provided the Security Council, and others, pertaining to Iraq’s quest for nuclear materials, among other things. The best that the administration could hope for to do with that avenue is its use as an exploitative psychological mechanism with regards to American domestic perceptions.

Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the US, besides perceptions to the contrary, has been baiting the Iranians at every conceivable turn. For example, they parked a carrier group just off the Iranian coast (just far enough out to remain in international waters) and then proceeded to conduct exercises, flying sorties obviously geared towards the possibility of striking Iranian targets. The Pentagon categorized the exercises as being a necessary step in containing Iranian powers.

Given that the clock is running out on the Bush administration, and one of the Democratic Presidential frontrunners has claimed that he would attempt to begin a dialogue with Tehran, the need to find a way in which to confront the Iranians openly has been accelerated, and recent events in southern Iraq have provided the pretext that the administration has been seeking.

Ryan Crocker has openly claimed that Iran is engaged in a full-fledged proxy war against the United States in Iraq. Given that, and recent events in southern Iraq, the Bush administration has been provided the pretext that is has been seeking to accelerate plans to target Iranian facilities near the Iraqi border and perhaps beyond. As to when such operations might begin is anyone’s guess.

Stepping back for a moment, it should be said that, given Iran’s position in the region, it is by no means a stretch to think that they have engaged in supporting Shi’ite militias and possess influence within the ranks of the Iraqi Interior Ministry. It should also not be overlooked that, despite the views of many ordinary Iranians, the government of Iran remains co-opted by a hard line element that has only been emboldened by the occupation. In fact, when one views the similarities between Tehran and Washington they are eerily similar in many ways. The occupation of Iraq is viewed by both as an opportunity to strengthen regional influence, both have used highly conservative bases that include zealous religious support to maintain their positions, though it should certainly be said that the Iranian government is structured to ensure that reality on a permanent basis while the overt exploitation of the religious right in the United States was a political phenomenon that was, in truth, a component of a premeditated political strategy.

In the end, what this all boils down to is - is the United States is willing to take that first step into the unknown. The US Military is utterly overextended, meaning that operations against targets inside Iran will most assuredly be undertaken by air forces and off shore missile strikes. That, of course, will lead to the Iranians countering such incursions with force, employing surface to air missiles and other counter measures, such as retaliatory strikes on US vessels in the Gulf from which missile attacks emanate, or locations in Afghanistan used for the same purpose. And that, no matter how you want to look at it, is war.

Were such a scenario to unfold, the United States would find itself militarily engaged from Afghanistan to Iraq. One would like to think that the Pentagon, and the President’s advisors, aren’t that stupid. Unfortunately, their track record to this point doesn’t leave one with any real sense optimism. Given the overly aggressive tenets of the current foreign policy doctrine of the United States, it cannot be discounted that those who support it want to squeeze every last ounce of opportunity from it prior to the exit of the current administration. And that is a scary prospect indeed.

Ten dollars a day isn’t nearly enough to put up with a lot of things, never mind this…

“U.S.-allied security forces said today they were abandoning their posts in a volatile area south of Baghdad to protest airstrikes by American forces that they say have killed at least 12 civilians this month.

The walkout followed an airstrike Friday near the town of Jarf Sakhr that tribal leaders said killed three members of the Sons of Iraq, the civilian guard corps credited with helping reduce violence across Iraq. The U.S. military said Friday that helicopters responding to gunfire near Jarf Sakhr rocketed a building, but it did not confirm any casualties.

On Feb. 2, nine Iraqis, including three Sons of Iraq members, were killed in the same area in an errant airstrike that the U.S. military acknowledged.

Majeed Janabi, a tribal leader in the area who worked with U.S. forces to establish Sons of Iraq checkpoints there, said he did not believe the shootings were a mistake and said in Friday’s incident, the helicopter landed and U.S. forces fired on the guards. “The U.S. forces stepped out of their choppers and killed our [forces],” he said. “That means they had time to look at them and their uniforms.”

The U.S. military pays the security volunteers about $10 a day and gives them vests to make them easy to identify. In the past, U.S. officials have said accidental shootings occurred when volunteers were not wearing their vests and were mistaken for armed insurgents. But some volunteers say there are not enough vests to go around.

“When we signed the contract with the U.S. forces, it was dependent on working jointly with them,” Janabi said. “If they want us to come back, we will, but we need to make another contract that will guarantee our rights and prevent a repeat of such mistakes.”

Police in Babil province said about 2,000 of the volunteers had left their posts in Jarf Sakhr and nearby villages Saturday night.

The corps has an estimated 80,000 members across the country, bolstering security in areas without adequate Iraqi police protection.”

Meanwhile, in Kirkuk, US air strikes killed eight people on Friday, including a woman and five children.

After years of cataloguing and commenting on world events on this website, I must admit that it has become somewhat of a chore. Obviously, my personal beliefs remain unaltered, but as the years have passed I have found myself suffering from a bizarre form of self induced anxiety because I feel that I’m unable to grant a myriad of subjects the attention that I feel they deserve, and in a manner that reflects their seriousness by providing the sort of attention to them that simply cannot be provided by a single person within a 24 hour time frame.

Being that the geopolitical landscape is fluid, it is very difficult to keep on top of a variety of events. Being that this website isn’t a news organization, nor do I have at my disposal the sorts of resources that such organizations have, it makes attempting to disseminate current events in a timely fashion rather difficult without simply posting an array of hyperlinks. In short, blogging isn’t supposed to be about directing readers to likeminded websites that contain information, but rather exist to provide an individual a platform to comment on those things that they feel important.

In my case, the problem is that so many of the things that I find important are interlinked with occurrences elsewhere, many of them steeped in the intrusions of foreign interventionism. Therefore, when commenting on, for example, the genocide in Sudan, a myriad of other factors become relevant, such as the fact that while the United States has declared it genocide, it works behind the scenes with the government in Khartoum on a program to use Sudanese nationals to infiltrate radical groups in Iraq. That, of course, then leads to Iraq and events regarding such radical groups. The same can be said of Somalia, where Ethiopian forces were backed by the United States to displace the ICU, which has led to one of the most overlooked humanitarian crises in Africa. In that instance, while the focus should be placed on the disastrous consequences of Ethiopia’s actions with regards to ordinary Somalis and what they have had to endure, it also cannot be overlooked that the United States not only supported the initial invasion of the country with Special Forces teams and air strikes, but that the US currently uses notoriously harsh Ethiopian jails to house detainees (Clarification with regards to my initial mention of AFRICOM).

Given these contradictions, it becomes extremely important to include them when dealing with base issues, those largely being the plights of the innocent simply caught in the middle, and who, while they have the world’s sympathy, remain in a state of perpetual limbo because ideological methodology remains at the root of such problems. In the case of Darfur, given China’s relationship with Sudan, the chances of the UN Security Council adopting a unanimous declaration that genocide is taking place in Darfur is slim to none. Were it to, given the UN Charter, immediate and substantial action would have to be taken. Therefore, it costs the Americans very little to claim it genocide. Knowing full well that China’s position will ensure that the Security Council does not reach a unanimous consensus, and therefore require that real action be taken, assuming the position that genocide is occurring costs the US nothing. And if that sounds ridiculous to some of you, consider Rwanda. At the time of the Rwandan genocide, much of the Security Council was unwilling to categorize it as genocide precisely because it would have meant that they would have had to intervene on a much greater level. Instead, they did not, and UNAMIR was left to wither, literally forcing its commander to go against his orders and refuse to leave the country after being told that UNAMIR’s mandate had been exhausted. In that instance, the French were particularly suspect being they had been involved in arming those that would ultimately undertake the slaughter, not to mention evacuating numerous individuals that were involved in masterminding it. Given the disaster that had befallen the US in Somalia prior to that, it too had very little desire to become involved in fear of a domestic backlash. Thus, while the world’s attention was on events in the Balkans, some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were massacred.

With regards to Darfur, initially AMIS (whose mandate forbade them to use force to protect civilians) was instituted after the UN found itself in the position of facing funding problems because many of the world’s wealthier nations refused to commit military resources to a substantial peacekeeping initiative. Obviously there were underlying issues, such as China’s opposition given their reliance on Sudanese oil and the fact that they are the primary supplier of arms to the Sudanese. But last summer, after things has become far too catastrophic to ignore any longer, UNAMID was instituted, which is a joint UN-AU force authorized by UN resolution 1769 whose mandate is set to last one year. It is under the command of Nigerian General Martin Luther Agwai.

Nothing is easy, not even responding to a genocidal situation. Like an onion, it has layers of conditions and corruptions, all of which must not only be seen to before the killing of innocents can be addressed, but must also be examined when confronting the reality of why such a situation is allowed to continue. Thus, while simply blogging about what has occurred in Sudan on a base level is important, is it equally as important to seriously confront such issues to reveal the hypocrisies of those who have, all along, possessed the ability to act, or to even aggressively demand that action be taken, but have failed to do so in a timely fashion. That includes the government of Sudan itself, which forbade the presence of UN peacekeepers until last year, and which, with regards to culpability and crimes against humanity, makes them susceptible to applicable international laws regarding genocide. Unfortunately, given the damage done the ICC since the invasion of Iraq and the US position that it will not adhere to its authority, the Sudanese find themselves in a comfortable gray area in which they too can ignore international law, having been provided precedent to fall back on with regards to war crimes prosecution.

That said; there’s an example of how a simple statement can become multidimensional in a matter of a few paragraphs. And, in truth, it’s just the tip of the iceberg. One of the most crucial aspects is, of course, personal experience. When it comes to Darfur, I will say that I deeply regret not going when I was offered the opportunity several years ago. Unfortunately, I was scheduled to begin touring at the time and therefore had to turn it down.

What Is Simple And What Is Not

Complexities reign. No situation is as black and white as it’s made out to be, not even those that are painted as struggles of good against evil.

I commented after the release of The Manley Report that if we’re to take confronting the Taliban in Afghanistan seriously then we must face the hard, cold truth that the abandonment of our morality is something that we are going to have to come to terms with. With most in government adamantly opposed to any process of negotiation, the alternative is – what? The pretense of nobly confronting and overcoming the Taliban? And how is that to be accomplished? By holding down the fort long enough for the Afghan military to reach a level of professionalism to deal with the problem? The truth is, a considerable portion of the Afghan military, including its leadership, is comprised of ex-Northern Alliance members that are, by no means, strangers to conflict, specifically fighting the Taliban. Therefore, how long will we have to wait before they’re able to return to doing what they did prior to the 2001 invasion, which was fighting the Taliban?

Of course, they did a piss poor job of it, and infighting didn’t help their cause either. That being the case, having tens of thousands of foreign troops around to work towards accomplishing what they couldn’t doesn’t seem like something they’d be in favour of disparaging. Which brings us back to our confrontation of the Taliban and what we hope to achieve.

If there is no place for the Taliban in the new Afghanistan, then it only stands to reason that they have to be eliminated, which means the application of overwhelming and inhumane force to decimate their will to wage war and disenfranchise that portion of the civilian population that supports them. That means that everyone, fighters and civilians alike, are equal opportunity targets. And given that the United States has ruled that Omar Kahdr, who was 15 years old when he was captured in Afghanistan, can be classified an enemy combatant because he belonged to an organization that is not recognized as a legitimate military force, child soldiers are fair game as well.

If you’re labouring under the misconception that there’s a more noble way to go about it, you’re dreaming. Unless, that is, you want Canadians to be in Afghanistan until hell freezes over and believe that the Taliban can actually be ‘waited out’. Because the reality is that were international forces to leave the country tomorrow, Mr. Karzai would be on a plane a day later headed for a life in exile and Kabul would be overrun in a matter of weeks. Therefore, given that reality, the most prudent course of action is to abandon this arrogant assumption that we’re ‘better’ than those we’re fighting and get to the business of eradicating them with extreme prejudice.

As for the inevitable backlash that it will occur on a global scale, what would it matter? We’re already in bed with the most despised nation on earth, no need to split hairs. We can’t retain our reputation and be involved in the sort of undertaking required to ensure victory without it being pissed on.

In March, this country may very well go to the polls over this issue, at great expense to the people of this country to boot. Thus, if you’re willing to support our continued role in combat operations in Afghanistan, stop hiding behind lame preconceived notions of nobility and justice and at least have the guts to admit that the only way that the job is going to get done is if we start displaying the same zealotry as those we’re fighting.

Handing prisoners over to be tortured by local authorities? It’s a waste of valuable time. We should just do it ourselves, on the spot, and forgo having to wait for actionable intelligence. If nothing comes of it, well, at least that’s one less enemy combatant to worry about. A sympathetic bullet to the back of the head and on with the business of winning. Because that’s what we’re there to do, win. Not fuck about worrying whether the people of the country we’re saving on their behalf have a problem with our tactics, not to mention bleeding hearts here at home. According to The Manley Report, the majority of Afghans want us there anyway, so our alteration in tactics is just going to have to be something they get used to if liberty is at all important to them.

Pakistan, of course, remains a problem. Our actions will, without question, plunge that nation into a further state of chaos, which means that we might have to be prepared to deal with it as well. Given that Bhutto is dead, and out best chance at implementing a puppet regime that would allow us free reign in Waziristan is gone, we’ll have to tread lightly until we see what becomes of Musharraf’s government. If Musharraf were willing to help us undertake the elimination of those in his own military establishment that have ties to radical groups, we could offer him some future considerations with regards to Afghanistan (what’s Karzai going to say, honestly?). We could even demand that the IAEA be granted access to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, which would, of course, provide us a backdoor with which to compromise it, and in doing so throw Musharraf a few extra bones, such as gifting him arms and promises that we will aid in any effort to protect his regime from other political elements within the country. Of course, we’ll also have to make him President as well, which, after putting a few key ‘international electoral observes’ in place, shouldn’t be a problem.

If any of that sounds dirty to you, and completely counter to everything that we stand for, it’s time to get your head out of the dark recesses of your ass and see the world for what it is. Because justice and decency are only as good as their domestic projections. They win elections, they don’t win wars, nor do they have any place in foreign policy when it comes to global interests.

This is the game we’re now playing, and it’s time that Canadians got used to it. We did our bit in the Great Wars, that was all well and good, but times change. We can no longer fall back on the past to comfort ourselves with regards to what now must be done and the ugliness that we must be willing to embrace to see it accomplished.

We live in a free country and have an all-volunteer army. If our elected officials send those volunteers into harms way, it only stands to reason that some of them are going to come home in boxes. The hard reality facing Canadians is the differentiation between casting those deaths in some wholly romantic and patriotic light, or one that represents the reality that they were ordered into action to kill and therefore run the risk of being killed. But, most importantly – to kill.

That must, at the end of the day, be the goal. And it is here that the hard, cold mathematics of warfare have to be applied and seen for what they are. If ten Canadian deaths mean the deaths of 100 Taliban fighters, or those civilians that support them, then it was worth it. During the Second World War, those sorts of numbers would have been cause for celebration. In this case, being that we are engaged in a global war against terrorism, its primary front being in Afghanistan, it only stands to reason that they should be cause for celebration as well. Of course, the loss of any of our fighting men and women is always terrible, but that’s what soldiers are ultimately for, is it not? If our government orders them into a situation in which they are to kill an enemy, then it only stands to reason that their role is accept death as a consequence. Despite what many might believe, especially given that we haven’t been involved in a serious conflict for generations, that’s the reality of the combat soldier. They are tools with which to kill and be killed in turn. If that were not the case, then they would not be trained to kill because simple logic dictates that when you’re profession is to go to war and kill others, your own death is something that might also come with the package.

So here we are, on the raggedy edge.

In a speech yesterday in the UAE, President Bush called Iran the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. Now, to some, that might not sound unseemly, but it shouldn’t be overlooked that Iran is the UAE’s number one trading partner, which Bush completely failed to mention in the speech. Nor did he mention that the UAE is one of the most important conduits for Iranian imports despite US Sanctions, the fact that a significant Iranian ex-pats community that plays a central role in commerce in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, that human rights violations are commonplace in the UAE, or the fact that power is commonly inherited and that democratic development is, at best, a façade.

Instead, he praised the rulers of the UAE for luring foreign investment.

Dancing around such issues is not uncommon. Obviously the remarks regarding Iran were made for the sake of the Iranians and the American public, not necessarily those in attendance, some of whom took offense given their connections with Iran. Bush’s remarks regarding “free and just societies” were also not well received given that those he was addressing have absolutely nothing to gain by the implementation of serious democratic reforms.

With regards to the overtones of Mr. Bush’s speech, it should also not be overlooked that the UAE was one of only three nations to acknowledge the Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan when it was in power, the very same group that the United States has accused the Iranians of militarily assisting. Of course, when the Taliban was in power, Tehran did not recognize it as the nation’s official government.

Beyond all of this, and the fact that there is always the issue of arms agreements lurking in the shadows during such visits passed off as joint security initiatives, there are also the contradictions that the United States is currently in negotiations with the Iranians with regards to Iraq, and that while the President is promoting “free and just societies” in the region, the United States is militarily occupying two of them.

Probably the most hypocritical, not to mention historically astonishing, statement made during the speech was…

“For decades, the people of this region saw their desire for liberty and justice denied at home and dismissed abroad in the name of stability. Today, your aspirations are threatened by violent extremists who murder the innocent in pursuit of power. They hate your government because it does not share their dark vision. They hate the United States because they know we stand with you in opposition to their brutal ambitions.”

Of course, the United States was, and still is, one of the leading nations with regards to supporting autocratic regimes in the region, something that people in the region have certainly not forgotten, even if people on this side of the world have. While the President talks freely of liberty and justice in the Middle East, the United States remains as committed as ever to their relationships with the ruling factions of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE. It recently penned an agreement promising $20 billion dollars worth of military aid over the next decade that all of them will benefit from, and yet the President, who has full knowledge of that fact still has the audacity to talk about “free and just societies”. Let’s also not overlook the fact that, by entering into such an agreement the United States had to counteract it by offering the Israelis $30 billion dollars in aid over the same period of time.

The goal of the President’s speech was to target the Iranians, and in doing so speak more so to his domestic audience than anyone else. Unlike those in the region in which he gave the address, domestic perceptions regarding the ‘threat’ that Iran posses are primarily formed based on the constant stream of alarming information provided by the administration and others in the government. The same cannot be said for your average person on the street in the UAE.

This leads us to the inevitable question – is Iran truly the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism?

Examining who has been behind most of the international attacks since the mid 1990’s, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that Iran has no affiliation with al-Qaeda or groups linked to it. It does not, unlike elements within Saudi Arabia, Libya, the UAE, and Syria, support the efforts of Jihadists in Iraq, it’s primary link being with militant Shi’ite groups, some of which have substantial influence within Iraq’s Interior Ministry itself – which means the armed forces and police. Thus, if anything, it is guilty of supporting factions within Iraq’s most predominant group, the very same group that did not play a significant role in the rise of the Sunni based insurgency, and one that has, since sectarian tensions came to a head, conducted violent campaigns against Sunnis, which constitute the majority of the insurgency and Jihadist groups whose ranks are replete with foreign fighters.

If anything, Iranian interference in Iraq has been solely based on aiding radical aspects of the Shi’ite population who have had links with Tehran since before the US invasion of the country.

Looking abroad, there is no arguing the fact that Iran supports Hezbullah and other such groups. In truth, though still indefensible, their support of such groups has been largely aimed at helping them in their struggles against other regional powers, many of whom are backed by foreign powers, in an attempt to consolidate power and expand their influence, something that, like it or not, the United States helped write the handbook on.

Also rather telling is this passage…

“They hate the United States because they know we stand with you in opposition to their brutal ambitions.”

Like the people of Chile stood with the United States against the ‘brutal ambitions’ of Salvador Allende, their fears erased when the CIA helped engineer the coup that put Pinochet in power who then went about ‘disappearing’ tens of thousand of Chileans?

Next to the covert global foreign policy undertakings of the United States, Iran is a snow white virgin by comparison. And don’t think that the United States hasn’t endeavored to sponsor terrorists either. In 2005, Luis Posada was held in Texas on the charge of Illegal Presence. The charges were later dropped. While the US Justice Department requested that the court keep Posada in jail because he was, of his own admission, the mastermind behind numerous terrorist attacks, Posada was neither charged with crimes relating to those admissions, nor was a Venezuelan extradition request approved because the a US Immigration judge ruled that were he to be extradited he would face torture.

In 1976, Luis Posada, a long-time asset of the CIA with links to the Cuban American National Foundation, a CIA shill, masterminded the bombing of a Cuban airliner, killing 76 innocent people. He was also involved in the 1997 bombing of numerous Cuban hotels and nigh clubs. While being found guilty in absentia for numerous terrorist attacks and unrealized plots. Ironically, unlike those being held at Guantanamo, Posada was granted his rights under the Constitution with regards to his seizure and the legal proceedings that followed.

The truth is, the United States has another word for ‘terrorist’ when they are the ones producing them. They tend to call them ‘assets’ or ‘paramilitaries’, many of which were trained at the notorious School Of The Americas [1], whose graduates include Manuel Noriega, Cid Diaz, and others used in violent operations by proxy regimes in Latin America.

So is Iran the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism? Have they perhaps been gifted that title because they are a powerful player in a region in which the United States currently finds itself militarily and politically treading water? Is the President’s rhetoric an attempt to whitewash the recent findings of the recent National Intelligence Estimate? Is Iran a nation stupid enough to engage in a clandestine nuclear weapons program with the whole world watching and then provide a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization? Would they be stupid enough to do it were they not being scrutinized? What are the actual logistics involved in employing a nuclear device capable of causing serious damage? Can such a device be contained within a backpack? And if that is a possibility, and something of that nature did occur, is the Iranian government stupid enough to believe that an immediate retaliation of vastly greater proportions wouldn’t be rained down upon them in the event that it happened? And if they aren’t that stupid, would they seriously consider gifting such a device to a terrorist group? Would members of the Revolutionary Guard do it, knowing full well that by doing it they would be forfeiting their lives and the lives of perhaps millions of others, their families included?

I have written about this in the past, so won’t bother retracing my steps, but consider this. The United States has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Its destructive power is so great that even a portion of it could render this planet completely uninhabitable. They have the ability to launch weapons from domestic and foreign silos, from aircraft, and from naval vessels. In fact, a single Ohio Class nuclear submarine could devastate the Iranian population and launch its compliment from the Gulf providing little to no warning whatsoever. In truth, they could park themselves 20 miles off the Iranian coast and launch submerged and no one would know a thing until it was all over.

This world might be home to moronic fanatics that don’t care about their own lives because of religious zealotry, but they have to get their guns and ammo from somewhere. Those that provide them their wares usually aren’t the sort that are stupid enough to completely overlook what would befall them were they to hand over a nuclear device.

Now, we can claim that by employing preemptive military force we can assure something of that nature won’t occur. Then again, we’re not prepared to deal with Pakistan, which has an arsenal of its own, and whose military establishment has longstanding ties with known militant organizations. Unlike Iran, it’s a nation in chaos, one in which terrorist attacks have been on the rise, and one in which elements of the Taliban, and groups sympathetic to their plight, operate largely unhindered. And while there has been a great deal of talk regarding the uncertainty that the unrest in Pakistan has produced, it is not seen as the sort of threat that Iran is.

Demonizing Iran is, in truth, wholly to the benefit of the United States. It remains the most powerful nation in the region opposed to the US occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan. By supplanting a friendly regime in Tehran, the United States would, in essence, created a unified operational area stretching from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean. And that reality is something that, in all of this, has remained largely overlooked.

The Toronto Star’s Rosie Dimanno quoted something yesterday from Steve Coll’s Ghost Wars that I had forgotten about. Benazir Bhutto’s role in the rise of the Taliban…

“As Ghost Wars author Steve Coll so dryly put it: “Benazir Bhutto was suddenly the matron of a new Afghan faction.”

The late – twice – but no longer future prime minister of Pakistan was far, far from a stupid woman. The Taliban was a gamble she took, cunningly if not without considerable trepidation – and certainly at the behest of a powerful intelligence service, the ISI, she feared but had to accommodate, in the doomed hope of retaining office.

But make no mistake: The woman who is now being so widely mourned – assassinated last week, perhaps by the very elements she empowered more than a decade ago – was nurturing stepmother to terrorists incubated under her watch; the same Islamist fanatics she inveighed against during the election campaign that came to a screeching halt in the calamitous assault on her motorcade.

She was a brave woman, without question, but Bhutto was much to blame for the tinderbox that Pakistan became during her exile in Dubai and London – the toxic military entanglement with the Taliban – having helped to create a monster that not even the sponsoring ISI can control any longer.

For years, during her second tenure as PM, Bhutto lied brazenly to Washington about the extent to which Pakistan, with her approval, was covertly arming and funding the Taliban. As Bhutto admitted in a 2002 interview: “Once I gave the go-ahead that they should get the money, I don’t know how much money they were ultimately given … I know it was a lot. It was just carte blanche.”

For Bhutto, the objective was to keep a new Afghanistan yoked to Pakistan and out of India’s orbit. (Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud was considered far too Delhi-friendly.) Out of this relationship would flow the riches of a Pakistan-controlled trucking industry circumventing Kabul – a modern Silk Road trade incorporating the markets of Central Asia – the never realized gas pipeline from Turkmenistan, and training camps, off the Pakistan reservation, for fighters deployed to Kashmir.

Bhutto had an economic and political vision for Pakistan, one that depended largely on creating a compliant client state next door. It all got away from her, as it did also from the ISI. Indeed, Al Qaeda – now firmly interwoven with the Taliban – was contemptuous of Bhutto from the start, plotting her political demise, at the invitation of some ISI officers, as early as 1989.”

Everything comes out in the wash, unfortunately.

Interventionism can be a nasty business. In the case of Benazir Bhutto, whose return to Pakistani politics was dramatic, polarizing, and suspiciously timed, it ultimately took her life. True, Bhutto played the role of democratic savior and stood to make a significant impact in the upcoming elections, but despite the tragedy of her death, the root of why she returned to Pakistan should not be overlooked.

Benazir Bhutto was an instrument of US interventionism that was playing just a risky a game as President Musharraf has been. The different, of course, is that Musharraf possesses the support of the Armed Forces and Inter Service Intelligence, which, with regards to the reality of the Pakistani political landscape, is immensely significant. There is no question that Bhutto’s distrust of Pakistan’s military establishment was palpable, and given the expedience of her reintroduction to political life, and the entrenchment of the military establishment, one has to seriously wonder what would have occurred had she been successful in unseating the current government given that fact. There is little doubt that the military establishment was well aware of the motives behind Bhutto’s return and, given that, were certainly faced with difficult decisions of their own – even including the possibility of terminating Bhutto to usurp the objectives of those behind her return.

Bhutto’s assassination has plunged Pakistan into a state of chaos, resulting in a decision today by the government to crack down on unrest throughout the country. According to the BBC, 38 people have died in the violence that has erupted since Bhutto’s assassination last Thursday. But beneath such scenes, the wheels of interventionism continue to turn on this side of the globe, with even the New York Times suggesting that the Bush administration should intervene in Pakistan to “fortify Pakistan’s badly battered democratic institutions.” Without Bhutto, US hopes for timely change have been temporarily dashed, but that does not mean that they are out of options. Having alienated Musharraf, they may very well now turn to Nawaz Sharif, who, like any politician in a volatile state, may very likely be open to forming strong ties with foreign interests that are in a position to significantly support his government should he succeed. Then again, given Ms. Bhutto’s fate, he might not.

Ultimately, there should be no confusion regarding the loose employment of the term ‘democracy’ and the reality of what is transpiring in Pakistan. Since 9/11, the use of that term has been bandied about by the United States with regards to those locations that if feels are of significance to its foreign policy objectives. Where the United States is able to enjoy the cooperation of autocratic regimes to facilitate their policy objectives in specific regions they do. In fact, Saudi Arabia is a prime example of that reality.

Pakistan’s significance is obviously multifaceted. Not only are wilder regions of it home to a variety of militant groups, but it has also been used as a staging ground for Taliban operations since their deposition in 2001, not to mention the fact that the Pashtun belt remains home to millions of refugees, many of which have been used to bolster the Taliban’s numbers.

Then there is the reality that within the military establishment itself there are elements that support those that the United States would see confronted. In fact, the assassination of Bhutto could very well have been undertaken by that very element using militants as proxies. The speed with which the ISI was able to produce evidence that Bhutto’s assassination was undertaken by an al-Qaeda affiliated group is both suspect and, in truth, genius. While it certainly appeared to be far too expediently convenient, it shouldn’t be lost on anyone that that convenience plays perfectly into the hands of the very powers that championed Bhutto. Offering up al-Qaeda, in any way, shape, or form, was sure to set off a media firestorm in the Western world, introducing confusion into an already confused situation. Compounding that confusion is also the growing scandal regarding the government’s assertion of how Bhutto died. While her supporters claim that she was shot, a government spokesman has said that she died as a result of her head being slammed against the vehicle she was in as a result of the bomb blast. Adding another layer to the confusion, the militant that the Interior Ministry has claimed was responsible for masterminding the attack has denied any involvement.

If all of that sounds like a contradictory mess then one has to ultimately ask if it’s the product of genuine confusion or manufactured confusion? In situations such as these, genuine confusion certainly does occur, but is usually tempered by the eventuality of informational course corrections. On the other hand, if, in situations such as this, confusion is being manufactured, you’re going to see a continuance in contradictory information being released. The reason for this is to so utterly submerge the event in confusion that answers seem almost impossible to obtain and the public, faced with such overwhelming confusion, will find themselves so mired in it that they will eventually find their focus and scorn diverted.

Diversion, of course, is key to the success of any killing undertaken by the military establishment of any country.

Upon her return to Pakistan, Ms. Bhutto exclaimed that she was not afraid of those that sought to stop her democratic vision from becoming a reality. On the day that she returned to Pakistan, her motorcade was attacked, an incident that took the lives of over 130 people. Since that time, her public appearances placed more lives in danger, including her own it should be rightly said, and numerous attempts on her life were also made. Of course, it takes courage to continue in the face of such dangers, but ultimately the reason for doing so has to be seen for what it is. While her death will most certainly make her a martyr of the country’s democratic movement, it should never be forgotten that hers was not a singular campaign aimed solely at delivering true democracy to the people of Pakistan. That, in the end, it came with conditions that were to the benefit of foreign interests, just as much as to the satisfaction of her own ego given the corruption that plagued her past. Ultimately, perhaps it was her ego that allowed her to overlook the inherit dangers of becoming the democratic proxy of foreign interests. And though it might seem a harsh thing to say, that decision may very well have been what killed her.

As for US interventionism, Pakistan’s nuclear capability requires that future attempts at political subversion be undertaken in a similar fashion. An outright confrontation with Pakistan is not something the United States is at all in the position to consider. There are also other factors to consider as well, such as - in 2006 the United States “signed arms transfer agreements with Pakistan in excess of $3.5 billion, ranking Pakistan first among all arms clients of the United States during that calendar year.” Obviously relations with Musharraf’s government have changed over the last year, but ultimately, customers are customers.