Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
November 21, 2004
Iranian Problems

Iran needs to develop its economical, technical and social base, but is confronted with a series of problems.

Iran produces only 1.77 MWh of urgently needed electricity per year per inhabitant. The US produces 12.4 MWh* per year per inhabitant. To increase its electricity production Iran prepares to use its resource of natural uranium and to establish an IAEA controlled cival nuclear program.

While the US recently announced plans to fly to Mars, Iran only now tries to launch its first own satellite into a low orbit by modifying military missiles.

Drug addiction is a major problem in Iran. There are at least 2 million drug users in the country. With opium production in neighboring Afghanistan increased by 63% in 2004 to record amounts, this is likely to further endager the Iranian society. 

There are even more concerns. As blogger Abu Aardvark explains:

The country is ever more dominated by conservatives and advocates of political religion. There was a time in the 1990s when the country seemed to be moving in a more liberal direction, but those days are long past.  Conservatives and religious movements have spent the last few years consolidating their control over the major political institutions – the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judiciary, even the media.  Indeed, in the most recent elections, the conservatives routed their liberal counterparts. These conservatives and their religious base express open contempt for liberals and their values. Pretty much the only remaining opposition seems to be among university students and among some liberal newspapers, but their limited power doesn’t really threaten the ruling coalition. What’s more, the country has recently been very active inside of Iraq, which threatens important national security interests. Leading conservative figures, including some known for very close ties to senior government leaders, have openly declared their hostility and have even spoken about the need for military action. Even relatively moderate foreign policy officials have been sounding pretty hawkish lately.

Israel has declared Iran to be its No. 1 enemy and is lobbying the US into attacking Iran. With the current political developments in the United States, described by Abu Aardvark above, Iran now is not only confronted by economic and social problem, but also has to fear an immediate attack. Further escalation looks inevitable.

I am now reestablishing my long position in crude oil.

*Update: corrected decimal sign, thx Jérôme

Comments

Abu Aardvark.
Giggle.

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Nov 21 2004 13:48 utc | 1

And the father of the Aardvark has a Buffy-quote! That´s so cute.
Might not be posting here for a while. Got to read that blog until I´ve read it all (if it lives up to my – by now extremely high – expectations). Thanks Bernhard.

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Nov 21 2004 13:52 utc | 2

I am reposting the map from Needlenose, which I posted yesterday on an other thread. I think it explains a lot.
The map and an Axis of Evil Quiz

Posted by: Fran | Nov 21 2004 14:01 utc | 3

I guess Bush needs a reason to invade, it can’t definitely be the fear of ‘nucular’ weapons owned by Iran. Honestly, I am much more afraid of the Nutcase sitting in the White House using nuklear weapons, and one thing we do know for sure, the US definitely is in possession of them. Plus, the only country (to my knowledge) so far to have used nuclear bombs has been the US (Hiroshima and I think also in Nagasaki).

Posted by: Fran | Nov 21 2004 14:13 utc | 4

Iran is rapidly becoming the new “meme” of the incoming administration. Already they are laying the groundwork for Something Big and the media is just lapping it up and yappingly broadcasting it without the least bit of critical examination or thought. The other night all the networks led with “the nuclear weapons problems in Iran… an even bigger problem for Bush than Iraq, blah blah blah.” It truly sickens me to think that the media could fall for this shallow, transparent and clearly bogus routine all over again. And I can’t imagine what the administration is planning, given that there are no military options left for us outside of present commitments as far as I can see. Something is definitely afoot, however. The rumblings about Iran are growing louder and more insistent every day. I sense a depressingly deja vu sense of “Oh no, here we go again” in the air.
If anyone has insight into the administration’s actual plans or even just its available options on Iran, I would be interested to hear more. We need to steel ourselves for the next stop on the “Armageddon Express.”

Posted by: Bea | Nov 21 2004 14:15 utc | 5

b – you must have a figure wrong for electricity production (or put a comma instead of a point for the US)
For Iran
Electricity production: 124,600,000,000 kWh
population: 68,278,826
i.e. 1.8 MWh/hab
For the US:
electricity production: 3,719,000,000,000 kWh and population: 290,342,554,
i.e. 12.8 MWh/hab
So US production per capita is about 7 times that of Iran, which is in line with the ratio for GDP per capita (7,000 vs 37,600 (the US is slightly more electricity- intensive, which should not come as a surprise…)

Posted by: Jérôme | Nov 21 2004 14:50 utc | 6

i have serious doubts about an inevitable attack on iran. in iraq, american armed forces have proved only their incompetence & lack of efficiency except in the methods of mass murder.
as strategists, even as tacticians they are a sorry lot. i imagine the resistance also is improvising on the ground – that is – tactics & strategy have to bel flexible & fluid & would have to account for a unity of forces that would sometimes have contradictory impulses
th u s uses force of such brutality & horror – it is unimaginable to us here – even those of us who know a thing or two about battle conditions. what we are seeing is vietnam on metaamphetemines of not very good quality
other than the common murders practiced day & night – the methods are either sloppy or borrowed – there is no one – certainly no one within the military leadership – even on their own terms – who is capable of an ‘intelligent’ interpretation of method
to attack iran would presuppose so many things. that iran would not fight back. that the fatwas against the u s are not starting to gain force & momentum in muslim countries. it presumes that the iranians are not in some sense protected by their relationship with china & russia. it presumes that europe would sit still
even if the u s used their hired israeli thugs to bomb targets within iran – i am convinced that it would not be limited to that & i take the iranians at their word that they would send divisions – divisions into iraq – & no the iranians are not band leaders – they have the means & they have also a popular support – it would even serve the cause of the unpopular conservative mullahs to concretise their own positions
the iranians are not stupid, they must be watching the military strategy in iraq collapsing under the inertia of its own stupidity & i would imagine they could see many tactical advantages in entering militarily
the entry of iran into this conflagaration would be capable of destroying this presence of 150,000 americans – concretely. it would doom an already defeated strategy
an attack on iran would mobilise forces way out control for the americans at every level & while i detest the american armed forces & their evil works & agree with almost every word of sic transit gloria & b reals post – this american army is not completely insane – they will not open another front – i am sure – but perhaps i should not underestimate the stupidity of this administration
i could much easier see aan attack on syria – which has less means to protect itself but the long term effects of that too would be catastophic but not immediately in the way an attack on iran would most certainly be
i would much easier see an attack of an enfeebled cuba – that beautiful jewel of national independence & sovereignty – that for all its flaws( & flaws that have been coerced on the cuban people by u s policy) is still a guiding light for many in latin america for its work in housing, medecine & education. they might attack her because she could minimally defend herself
no, the american army in this instance is like a brutal thug – while it is capable of bullying – it is not capable of courage or invention & an attack on iran would require too much of both
still steel

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 21 2004 15:12 utc | 7

added problems :
u s has insufficient numbers for iraq – no matter how many quislings it employs – they seem from reports – to desert, to escape, to exchange with the resistance & that would seem under current circumstances a situation that will only get worse for american military
iran has palyed its diplomatic cards very well – even the english would be extremely hesitant for an intervention – i think – of any kind
perhaps i am naîve on this & i underestimate the venality of this administration but i would be interested to know from other posters – whether they think an attack – likely . on this point – sic transit gloria usa could give some valued counsel & b since you know a thing or two about tanks – perhaps you could outline reasons you think an attack would be possible
still steel

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 21 2004 16:20 utc | 8

@ remembereringgiap
I believe we can expect an attack on Iran. There will not be an invasion but I do believe that the nuclear plants will be destroyed, perhaps even with nuclear weapons. The US is currently developing ruggedized earth penetrating nuclear bombs which might be used to do the job.
With the overwhelming power of the United States, we can pretty much do what we want.
There it is, in your face.
Again I ask, what can be done to stop this?

Posted by: dan of steele | Nov 21 2004 17:35 utc | 9

Dan,
I wish I had an answer. Demonstrations – well the huge international one before the Iraq war was ignored and, my guess is, one against attacking Iran would have the same effect.
Collecting signatures to submit to the UN, but would that be of any use. Collecting signatures to get the goverments of our own individual countries to protest? I am a little at los about what can be done.
Creating a military alliance from all none US countries and attacking and fighting the US if it should attack Iran or even a pre-emptive strike against the US goes against my pacifist nature and it would need a unity between those countries I can not see at present. So your question is a tough question and I don’t know if there is an answer to it. Maybe someone else has some better ideas.

Posted by: Fran | Nov 21 2004 17:50 utc | 10

At the time of the Israeli strike on Iraq’s nuclear facilities……… I was too busy with my own issues to even read a newspaper article about it.
How was that issue dealt with at that time?
I just have the feeling that I will wake up some morning, switch on the news to hear about an Israeli strike on Iran’s facilities.
As for consequences……. WW3 in the ME.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Nov 21 2004 18:07 utc | 11

Only slightly of Topic. Today I received this link from a friend. It is about a Master Maitreya – I don’t know to much about him or his organisation, but what he writes is interesting.
America adrift

They will ruefully watch an attack on their proudly held freedoms; they will see a steep decline in their standard of living as the government, of necessity, strives to tackle their enormous debts; they will witness a loss of confidence in their currency and a sharp reversal of trade with their traditional trading partners. The calamitous invasion of Iraq will continue to fester, both in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. Reacting to the fear and hatred which this administration has engendered almost universally, the tendency will be for the people to look inwards, and to turn their backs even more squarely on the world.

Thus the world is turning away from the dominance of American power and wealth, and charting another path to fulfil its destiny.
If the United States insists on its right of unilateral action, it will find itself neglected and ignored in international plans and projects, its economy will further decay, and its people will lose confidence and trust in government action. Without friends, and with ebbing strength, it will be forced to change, and to renew dialogue with its former friends.

R’giap:
there is also a comment on Arafat under the same link, just scroll down. You might like it.

A great man of our time has died, great, yet abused by his enemies, and misunderstood even by his friends. He was a man of vision and extraordinary courage and optimism, an inspiration and father-figure for nearly half a century to the oppressed people of Palestine.
He has been the target of the implacable hatred of Mr Sharon for decades, and the Israeli propaganda machine has accused him of every manner of mistake, misdeed and mishandling of opportunity for peace. The mud has stuck and he is seen, even by erstwhile friends, as a ‘flawed’ President.

Posted by: Fran | Nov 21 2004 18:11 utc | 12

but even that dan would involve all the following i have mentioned above – it would be out of the question i think for iran not to move its divisions into iraq & it has a standing army of consquence & possible extension of that almost immediately
there would be an arab populace capable & willing to assist a popular war against the u s & i think that once & for all would wipe out the divisions of the arab world. it woul be a time of oligarchies ending abruptly – so abruptly – it would simply overwhelm americans & their agents of influence
mad as the american aministration is – i do not think they would risk that – have always thought they would destabilise from within while using sanctions to create impossible economic conditions but perhaps they do not have the time for these time tried methods of creating coups & regime change
whatever support & it is minimal would dissapear altogether if they or their israeli agents used nuclear weapons against military facilities
dan, they can barely control iraq & what they do control as anna missed pointed out is their bases & not much else – they could not risk a widening of what is even for them a military crisis
still steel

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 21 2004 18:21 utc | 13

r’giap –
The US does have the military option of an successful air attack on Iran in several possible stages:
1a. eliminate Iran air force and air defense
1b. destroy all known Iranian nuclear installations
2. deminish Iran military potential by attacking standing forces and weapon production facilities
3. attack economic infrastructure
4. attack political/social/religious leadership
There is no realistic successful option of a sustained US ground attack, though there could be some small special operations.
See the recent US Army War College Quarterly Parameters article for a discussion of the above.
The discussion misses the retaliating steps Iran could and probably would take. These may include:
– attack by proxy on US forces in Iraq
– attack on any commercial transport through the street of Hormuz
– attack on Saudi oil installations (maybe through shia proxy living in East Saudi Arabia)
– attack on Israel by Hisbollah proxy from Lebanon and (wide shut) by rockets from Iran
The best chances Iran has are:
– to disperse nuclear production facilities as wide a possible and keep everything redundant
– to aquire Chinese (and Russian) support
– to make a realistic threat for economic retaliation through sustained disruption of world oil supplies.
All of the above would most probably lead to further escalation with unknowable consequences.
But then – would a possible worldwide recession and oil at $100/barrel or any other consequences keep Bushco from starting a war?

Posted by: b | Nov 21 2004 19:26 utc | 15

would a possible worldwide recession and oil at $100/barrel or any other consequences keep Bushco from starting a war?
that depends on whether the people running the show (whether that’s really Bush or not) are rational or delusional. so far they’ve given ample evidence of being delusional, i.e. they show the signs of functional delusion. the famous “reality-based” comment is the kind of remark which — if made by a scruffy looking person of uncertain domicile on a bus bench to a somewhat nervous respectable person — might result in a call to the cops and some involuntary seclusion. the purge at CIA is another bad sign of delusion: silencing all voices that contradict the fantasy world they’re building.
if we believe that their policies are all motivated by mean, reptilian realpolitik, that they are pursuing a grand plan to Get Control of the Oil, then their tactics are merely incompetent and arrogant: a fumbled attempt to plan and execute armed robbery and hostage-taking on a grand scale. a rational criminal would eventually figure out that the plan wasn’t working, cut his losses and run. so we might expect them eventually to do this, as they did in Viet Nam. and if we adhere to this theory, then all the crazy lies and the God-talk and Bible thumping and Crusade invoking are just smoke screen, legerdemain, a bit of feelgood icing for the masses — and the use of nukes to provoke (or inflict) a Day of Doom in the ME is less likely imho.
but there’s the other possibility suggested by the evangelical mannerisms and rhetoric of the Bush gang. and that’s that they really believe their absolutist, xtian-jihadist theocratic rhetoric, they literally believe that these are the End Times, and that the coming of the Messiah will be accelerated if they do what they can to wreck the planet and create a global war. if this theory is true then all bets are off — nothing, including worldwide recession or the need to impose martial law on an unruly populace at home, will stop them if they are on a Mission from God. if the US administration has become, in effect, a “suicide bomber for Christ,” willing to self-destruct in order to prove their point or win their way into heaven, then all our attempts to rationalise and predict their “policy” are in vain.
I’d give a lot to be a fly on the wall during some of their really secure, really private conversations. the question of whether we’re being ruled by ranting self-appointed prophets or by sleazy crooks is a fairly urgent one. sleazy crooks I think can be dealt with, though it takes time and it’s scary. the madness of the Crusades is another matter altogether.
BTW, is it really true that Kissinger once said that US foreign policy should focus on the “depopulation of Asia”? I’ve heard this quoted, and from what I know of Henry K it would not surprise me, but I have never seen it properly sourced. is it just urban legend?

Posted by: DeAnander | Nov 21 2004 20:07 utc | 16

Damn, am I the hundredth monkey? Over on the 3rd Iraq thread the answer to my question about Kissinger has already been posted.

Posted by: DeAnander | Nov 21 2004 20:10 utc | 17

b – your scenario is sadly realistic, except that a blockade of Hormuz (the most logical reaction by Iran, apart possibly from strikes on Israel) would send oil to several hundred dollars per barrel. With no spare capacity around, if you take out 30% of world exports out, you have a hell of a shortage and Iran will have every reason to make it last (after all, what can the US do – attack them? Hey, just did…). And if Russia joins in…
Actually, unless tha initial attack is an obvious joint manoeuvre between the US and Israel, I think that Iran would be especially careful NOT to strike Israel back, because I am sure they see Israel as much more likely to use nuclear bombs against them than the US.

Posted by: Jérôme | Nov 21 2004 20:11 utc | 18

Dear all: the Arab-language (and associated regions) literature/culture thread is at last open over at Le Speakeasy, under Front Page Articles.

Posted by: DeAnander | Nov 21 2004 20:26 utc | 19

Colin Powell’s obituary.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Nov 21 2004 20:31 utc | 20

There’s one thing I’d like to understand, if these (recent and future) conflicts are about oil, in line with De’s question whether Bushco are crooks or x-crazies:
I understand (not approve, but understand) the logic of putting a friendly strongman to lead an oil-rich country. You deal with him, you help him and his cronies stay in place, and you get – for as long as he is in place, i.e. potentially a long time – privileged access to the oil resource. As long as the regime is stable (and you can help), it’s safe, secure and cheap (the stability is paid by someone else) to produce oil.
But chaos? How can chaos be conducive to oil production?
In the best case, you’ll manage to preserve the existing production facilities, minus whatever is destroyed, damages, sabotaged, and minus the normal technical decline of any field, especially if you cannot manage it properly. No oil company will invest in a country at war, where there is no legitimate government to make decisions, and no hope for short term security nor long term stability.
The numbers for Iraq (provided by the US government, but probably close to the truth as a good chunk is exported and thus “visible” on the international markets): it has stabilised at levels 20% below the levels below the war, which were themselves quite low in view of Iraq’s reserves because of underinvestment for the past 10-15 years. No American or international oil major is involved – it does not make sense for them to go in. So the US has broken even further an already damaged oil producing region.
Is that the goal with Iran as well???
Monthly Iraqi oil production: (thousand b/d)
2003 and 2004
Source: US Energy Information Agency
2003
2 555
2 490
1 373
53
293
453
573
1 053
1 403
1 753
1 853
1 953
1 312
2004
2 103
2 003
2 203
2 303
1 903
1 703
2 003
1 803
2 003

Posted by: Jérôme | Nov 21 2004 20:44 utc | 21

CP – thanks for posting the link to that article
I’d like to post the most important paragraphs, which remind us of the actual content of the “Powell doctrine” and how it was obviously not applied to Iraq:

After Condoleezza Rice’s elevation as Mr. Powell’s successor, so much of the commentary seemed focused on her “closeness” to the president that it might have seemed the height of indiscretion to point out that she has been something of a disaster in her present job – a fact widely acknowledged among foreign policy professionals.
No one can say how many lives could have been saved had the responsible officials asked the right questions. As it happens, those questions had been laid out with courage and clarity back in 1992, by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, Colin Powell. While the Powell Doctrine is generally thought simply to prescribe the setting of clear objectives and the use of overwhelming force to achieve them, it also sets out a series of questions that policymakers must ask and answer before committing American lives to war. They make sobering reading today:

“Is the political objective we seek to achieve important, clearly defined and understood?
Have all other nonviolent policy means failed?
Will military force achieve the objective? At what cost? Have the gains and risks been analyzed?
How might the situation that we seek to alter, once it is altered by force, develop further and what might be the consequences?”

The article goes on to discuss the question viz. Iraq, and the whole thing is quite scathing, so CP’s title is sadly appropriate.

Posted by: Jérôme | Nov 21 2004 20:52 utc | 22

While stupidity seems in ample supply with regards to the US policy in the ME, an attack on Iran, be it through surrogate Israel or the US itself, mere stupidity itself, could never excuse the sheer insanity of such an undertaking.
In Iraq, the US position is now maintained only through the tenious management of Kurdish and Shiite political positions relative to the promised path to power through elections. The Sunni insurgency, with their increasingly marginalized prospects (of power) through elections, coupled with the absolute failure of the occupation to deliver even the bare minimum security, social services, reconstruction, or governmental function — have decidedly chosen a path of active resistance, and have demonstrated both it’s method and it’s effectivness. Inversly, the occupation takes the bait toward ever greater atrocity, thus increaseing the flow of willpower and (I would assume) financial and military power from neighboring states sympathetic to the Sunni cause.
Now an attack on Iranian soil, other considerations aside, would clearly radicalize the Shiite position within Iraq. Sure, the US could maintain an exclusively air campaign ala Serbia or Kuwait in an attempt to prevent an Iranian response, but the odds of runaway escalation would be very high. In part, it’s likely that the Iranian response would in large measure take place within Iraq, where the US is most vulnerable. A large influx of men and material (state of the art weaponary) would make the current US position in Iraq impossible to say the least. There is also the likelyhood, with Iran fully involved in Iraq, of other regional interests also being drawn in, creating a cauldren of regional miscontent being played out within Iraq that would disrupt the entire region in unknown proportion and duration. This, for the rest of the world would be intolerable, and much less an evil than Iran having the nuke.

Posted by: anna missed | Nov 21 2004 21:17 utc | 23

@Jérôme
So the US has broken even further an already damaged oil producing region.
Is that the goal with Iran as well???

Could a world wide resession hit China (so far without a big reserve) more than it would hit the US (with a huge reserve)?
That would be the only “logic” I can come up with for your question marks.

Posted by: b | Nov 21 2004 21:25 utc | 24

Jérôme
The Iranians attempted to close down Hormuz already. There was an immediate reaction from the insurance companies who announced they would no longer cover tankers sailing through the straits and the price of oil did go up for a short while. At that time the US Navy began escorting tankers. There was a small threat of Silkworm missiles but it was taken out.
By now with the incredible satelite coverage available, all missile sites are well known and would be vaporised in short order. There also seems to be an explicit warning from the US
It is my belief that a different kind of war is planned for Iran. They are to be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons and that is the primary goal. If the Iranians are hurt bad enough financially as well as through the destruction of their infrastructure, they will probably sue for peace. This is pretty much the way the war against Serbia was conducted. They can not retaliate, to do so would only invite more destruction on their land and people.
This endeavor has already been sold to the American public. Most everyone still remembers the hostage situation and there have been no kind words toward Iran recently. The media whores are reciting their lines again warning us of the terrible threat that is posed by these terrible people. As soon as some resources can be freed up in Iraq the countdown will begin.

Posted by: dan of steele | Nov 21 2004 21:28 utc | 25

dan of steele
Iranians can close the Straits of Hormuz with sea mines. They could also destroy the oil infrastructure of countries that host US bases.

Posted by: Greco | Nov 21 2004 21:45 utc | 26

Good to see you again Greco.
Yes, the Iranians could do that but it would be certain suicide. The only hope they have was pointed out by Bernhard way up thread – an alliance with China or Russia. China would probably carry more weight as the US has already thumbed its nose at Russia during the Serbian adventure.
Is China ready to play with the big boys? I don’t think so….not yet.

Posted by: dan of steele | Nov 21 2004 22:05 utc | 27

I would like to think that the people leading foreign policy in America are not insane, unfortunately, evidence appears to the contrary.
As the talking heads from AEI state over and over, they see this as a generational war. There is no room for the Powell doctrine when you think that you have entered an era in which you, your children and your grandchildren will be fighting a war for the dominance of your ideology.
They have not really sold this idea to the majority of the American people very well, and it’s likely an impossible thing to do. But such a war would be yet another way to keep the Republicans in power in this nation for a long time. The likely terrorist responses to these actions would bring some people into line, while a draft would solve the problem of all those unemployed by the economic crisis that could also result.
But it seems clear that the administration hawks want to attack Iran. The noises they are making are the same. Their base detests the UN and thinks European nations are acting like ungrateful allies.
Anyone who thinks they are talking up a threat to get concessions from Iran must have missed the lead up to the invasion of Iraq last year…or must be still thinking that was the plan… oops.
I’d read (from a not very reputable site that I’d linked to here before) that the idea was to launch an air strike, using the Israelis and the bunker buster bombs we delivered to them before the election. Not an invasion, but tactical strikes like Israel did on their own previously. I guess we’ll see if that speculation has any merit.
I honestly don’t think they care if their actions inflame the Muslims in the middle east. I think they decided, maybe before 9-11, but certainly afterward, that they were going to remove any govt they thought could threaten the U.S. with an attack. That’s the Bush Doctrine, and none of them have repudiated it, and they feel they have a mandate with this election to pursue it.
They thought they could pay for this all with the oil in Iraq.
I think the Bushies are made up of hawks who really do think they are fighting “satan” in the form of a religion that competes with theirs (extremist capitalist Christianity), mixed in with American Likudniks who think that Israel has to destroy its enemies to be safe. Their goals, whatever the motivation, coincide.
These are the same people who gave crappy intelligence to the CIA during Bush 1, and who continued to argue, for instance, that Iraq was behind previous acts of terrorism (not 9-11).
And just a reminder…Oliver North actually did have those concentration camps built for Americans (not necessarily Muslim ones)…
From 1982 to 1984, Colonel Oliver North assisted FEMA in drafting its civil defense preparations. Details of those plans emerged during the 1987 Iran-Contra scandal. They included executive orders providing for suspension of the Constitution, the imposition of martial law, internment camps, and the turning over of government to the President and FEMA.
Sometimes I think the Republicans want a World War from one of theirs that would make one of theirs as respected as that “socialist” Roosevelt. I do think they wanted a scandal, via Clinton, to rival Watergate…and they certainly achieved something like that, since Clinton will always be associated with that moment.

Posted by: fauxreal | Nov 21 2004 23:34 utc | 28

Tehran says meeting Powell at Iraq conference pointless

Posted by: Sic transit gloria USA | Nov 21 2004 23:35 utc | 29

The link above is not subject to copyright, as far as I know, since it a gov. site…a speech by Rep. Jim McDermott in March 2003.
“A Miami Herald article on the 5th of July, 1987, reported that the former FEMA director’s, Louis Guiffrida’s, deputy, John Brinkerhoff, handled the martial law portion of the planning. The planning was said to be similar to one Mr. Guiffrida had developed earlier to combat a national uprising by black militants. It provided for the detention of at least 21 million American Negroes in assembly centers or relocation camps. Today, Mr. Brinkerhoff is with the highly influential Anser Institute for Homeland Security. Following a request by the Pentagon in January that the U.S. military be allowed the option of deploying troops on American streets, the institute in February published a paper by Mr. Brinkerhoff arguing the legality of this. He alleged that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which has long been accepted as prohibiting such deployments, had simply been misunderstood and misapplied. The preface to the article also provided the revelation that the national plan he had worked on under Mr. Guiffrida was approved by Reagan and actions were taken to implement it.
By April, the U.S. military had created a Northern Command to aid homeland security. Reuters reported that the command is mainly expected to play a supporting role to local authorities. However, Mr. Ridge, the Director of Homeland Security, has just advocated a review of U.S. law regarding the use of military for law enforcement duties.
Disturbingly, and it just really should disturb people, the full facts and contents of Mr. Reagan’s national plan remain uncertain. This is in part because President Bush took the unusual step of sealing the Reagan Presidential papers last November. However, many of the key figures of the Reagan era are part of the present administration, including John Poindexter, to whom Oliver North later reported.
At the time of the Reagan initiatives, the then-Attorney General, William French Smith, a Republican, wrote to the National Security Adviser, Robert McFarlane: “I believe that the role assigned to the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the revised executive order exceeds its proper function as a coordinating agency for emergency preparedness. This department and others have repeatedly raised serious policy and legal objections to an emergency czar role for FEMA.”
Criticism of the Bush administration’s response to September 11 echoes Mr. Smith’s warning. On June 7 of last year, the former Presidential counsel, John Dean, spoke of America sliding into a, quote, “constitutional dictatorship,” close quote, and martial law. ”

Posted by: fauxreal | Nov 21 2004 23:44 utc | 30

Would it not be unreasonable to expect that , if Iran were attacked, that part of their counterattack would include major strikes against the oil facilities of US client states Saudi Arabia, Kuwaite, etc?

Posted by: anna missed | Nov 22 2004 0:08 utc | 31

a very good documentary that includes details & alludes to this is a film “all power to the people'” – it is otherwise known as a history of the black panther party – it is an exceptional documentary shown just once here – the director has a chinese name – cover thirty years in a little over two hours & includes clear evidence of a liquidation of the black leadership, also cointelpro, drugs american indian movement, phillip agee, ramsey clarke
wonder if its still available in america
still steel

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 22 2004 0:11 utc | 32

dan of steele
thanks.
Iran is not Iraq or Serbia. If they are attacked, they will strike back and strike hard. If they keep the Straits of Hormuz closed for 6 months they will win. The Americans would have to win fast, if they attacked Iran. And the only way to do that, is to use nukes.
The tragedy for the Americans is that using their military forces in Iraq, they disarmed themselves. And everyone has noticed. That’s why the dog is barking.

Posted by: Greco | Nov 22 2004 0:37 utc | 33

greco
precisely why i think the american are not mad enough to enter that whirlpool

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 22 2004 0:45 utc | 34

swedish and rgiap- I hope you are right, but again, these are the same people who utterly ignored 6 generals who warned them repeatedly (and also warned in the American press) that an invasion of Iraq would be a horrific mistake and then warned that troop strengths were insufficient when they were going in anyway, and yet the Bushies continued to insist they would be greeted as liberators and thought they could install Chalabi within weeks.
These are the people who had Franklin Graham waiting at the border with Bibles.
These are the people who say they “create reality” while the rest of us watch.
Powell is gone. Condi is a “yes woman,” the CIA has been purged of those who criticized the Bushies war plans…
who is among them who will not agree that invading Iran is the best of all possible worlds?

Posted by: fauxreal | Nov 22 2004 3:01 utc | 35

excuse me. I should have written “greco.”
I wonder, too, why they are beating the drums of war to invade Iran unless they plan to do so? believe me, it’s getting play in the American media, just like the way the talk began leading up to the invasion of Iraq.
included in this talk are the reports that Iran is supporting the Shiites, and fighting with them in Iraq…therefore already technically “at war” with the U.S.

Posted by: fauxreal | Nov 22 2004 3:05 utc | 36

For a while after the Iraq invasion but before the insurgency swelled, the news was full of reports about WMD gone to Syria and Syrian infiltration into Iraq. Then it all died down. Probably because there were no free troops to march on Damascus.
My interpretation of the latest increase in reports about Iran is the President is going to spend a little of his capital and take out Iran’s nuclear sites. DeAnander above clearly spells out the likelihood that a lot of magical thinking is going on in the White House.
The US for all intents and purposes is now in a Holy War with Sunni Arabs. Iranians are just as fundamentalist in their thinking as the GOP. I cannot envision a measured and restrained response to an American attack such as increasing Shiite Holy Warrior infiltration into Iraq. A more likely scenario is closure of the Strait of Hormuz and an all out suicide attack to take out the USS Eisenhower. Of course, these disasters bring on Martial Law (Patriot Act III) and the Draft in the USA.
With all this just over the horizon, I can’t see why the rest of the world doesn’t immediately start to boycott American goods and stop infesting in America. Maybe, an economic collapse will halt America’s Crusade in the Middle East.

Posted by: Jim S | Nov 22 2004 4:32 utc | 37

Rule One: Deception Like Plato’s Noble Lie Any questions?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Nov 22 2004 4:39 utc | 38

Several posters have already shown why an attack on Iran is untenable – the oil bomb. Even if a prolonged air attack managed to wipe out most of Iran’s massive land forces (which the invasion of Serbia failed to do) and got all of its ballistic and cruise missiles, Tehran could still cut production by, say, half or two-thirds. Supplies are so tight, oil prices would more than double or triple in response. Iran would be no worse off, and the US (and every other oil-importing country) would be plunged into the worst depression in 75 years.
It’s unlikely the US has enough ground forces to occupy Iran’s oil fields and forcibly pump the oil itself. And even if they did, Iran could adopt a scorched earth policy and raze its petro infrastructure. So unless Bush is as mad as a fundamentalist Caligula, it’s not too likely.

Posted by: Harrow | Nov 22 2004 5:02 utc | 39

Jim S:
…the rest of the world doesn’t immediately start to boycott American goods and stop infesting in America.
Infesting? Are you doing a Fox Spews impression? Those damn Frenchmen and illegal immigrants!
FWIW, I do think Israel might try this crap with the quiet help of the American government. But I think Iran’s response would be similar, which is why the coldly rational Sharon will think long and hard.

Posted by: Harrow | Nov 22 2004 5:22 utc | 40

Damn – rereading my posts, they sound rather snarky. Sorry, not my intention.

Posted by: Harrow | Nov 22 2004 5:26 utc | 41

BTW, about magical thinking, this is long but may be worth it.
I have not read these Left Behind potboilers — life is too short to read really, really bad books. But I’ve read several reviews and analyses of them and the reviewers are consistent — also a friend of mine (librarian) has been bold enough to read a couple and Hugh Urban’s description tallies well w/hers. Scary stuff. And millions are reading them not as fiction, but as some kind of prophecy or roman à clef which, decoded, explains current events.

Posted by: DeAnander | Nov 22 2004 5:35 utc | 42

Sorry, I have to quote this at moderate length.

As has been well reported since November 3 […] the Daily Mirror, ran a banner headline following Bush’s victory asking how so many millions of Americans could have been so “dumb”. Hard-hitting as this may have been, it seems to me to have been a bit off the mark. “Irrational” would have been more polite, and more accurate. A vote for Bush was irrational in the literal sense of the term: it went against the self-interest of the vast majority of Americans with respect to financial well-being, as well as the kind of well-being supposedly seen to by the Department of Homeland Security.
It has been said often enough in the past year or so that to vote for Bush is to behave irrationally. What has not been emphasized forcefully enough is that there are objective standards by which this can be determined. Voting for Bush is irrational in a way that could be determined by, say, an ideally impartial Martian observer who knew nothing but the definition of the word “irrational” and a few of the relevant details concerning the Bush administration’s domestic and foreign policies. As long as we fail to recognize irrationality for what it is –a hard-nosed, decision-theoretic category, and not a moral judgement, let alone an insult– we will be unable to make any progress towards understanding how it is that one half of our countrymen, and over half of our country’s voters,have by all appearances been invaded by body-snatchers. I take it for granted that such understanding must come before change.
Why do people vote against their own interest? Is it because they do not know what their interest is? Certainly, to say that the media could do a better job is a gross understatement. I have a little anecdote that I think captures how dismally our media fail to fulfill their traditional task of informing citizens about issues of consequence, in order that they might be able to make reasoned judgments. Almost every weekday, I eat lunch at a wonderful, dirt-cheap Lebanese restaurant in downtown Montreal called Al Taib (I am an American who lives in Canada). It consists in two floors. Downstairs, there is a television blaring Al Jazeera; upstairs, there is another, locked on CNN. When I order my food on the first floor, invariably I catch glimpses of Baghdad and the West Bank, interspersed with talking heads who –though I have no idea what they’re actually saying– by the duration of the camera shots I am confident are speaking in long, full, reasoned sentences rather than staccato, Crossfire-style eructations.
For the last two weeks, when I’ve gone upstairs to eat, what I’ve found has been something quite different from the first-floor fare: live, special- reporting from the Redwood City courthouse hosting the trial of a certain Scott Peterson, a murderer distinguished, as far as I can tell, only by the fact that bored housewives find him and his dearly departed attractive in a way familiar to them from the soap operas they might just as well be watching. The Peterson trial is a story of absolutely no consequence for anything going on in the world. It is simply unreasonable to expect Americans to come through as an informed, judicious citizenry when the purported sources of information about what’s going on focus, as CNN does, on nothing.

Posted by: DeAnander | Nov 22 2004 5:43 utc | 43

Scott who?

Posted by: anna missed | Nov 22 2004 5:54 utc | 44

if michael ledeen has his way, there will be us action against iran. ledeen has been gunning to take out iran from the git-go, rather than iraq, since iran is the “mother of modern terrorism”, having “invented modern Islamic terrorism” when it “created, trained, protected, funded and supported the world’s most deadly terrorist group–Hizbollah.” [which is a much greater threat, apparently, to the us than & israel than al qaeda…go figure]
helen caldicott fears that the crazies will go nuke-u-luhr this term. things can escalate & get out of control pretty quick. what a mess. f*ckers.
also noted, purely for reference – ledeen uses the line “I’ll bet you a dollar to your doughnut…” when wagering on iran in this article.

Posted by: b real | Nov 22 2004 7:14 utc | 45

Thanks to Dan for the interesting and frightening
links. After watching McCain and Scheuer on Meet the Press yesterday, I am convinced that there is a complete disconnect between U.S. perceptions of the world and
those of “everybody else”. McCain was what one might expect from third generation U.S. navy nobility, but we
should recall that this guy might have ended up as Kerry’s secretary of defense. Scheuer was marginally more in tune with “reality”, but even he seems intent
on more killing. Depressing, isn’t it, how thoroughly acceptable the verb “to kill” has become in polite political discourse? Not long ago even the CIA
felt the need to use euphemisms like “terminate with
extreme prejudice”: the substance doesn’t change, but
the degradation of “political” discourse could scarsely be more complete. Naturally, all of this
homicidal frenzy is justified by 9/11. Those of us
who doubt the official conspiracy theory remain aghast
that the true believers (even if only in that nefarious “theory”) are no ready to excuse every American atrocity and take umbrage at every non-American testimony to same. Things are bad, bad, bad, and barring a miracle seem certain to get worse, worse, worse.

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Nov 22 2004 9:18 utc | 46

Make that “… are now ready …”

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Nov 22 2004 9:19 utc | 47