Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 4, 2006
Rice Out?

A quite speculative thought: Is Rice on the way out? I thinks she is.

Rice Key to Reversal on Iran

At the end of March, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice flew to Europe and had unusual, one-on-one conversations with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Jacques Chirac and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. She also attended a meeting in Berlin on Iran at which the Russian and Chinese representatives denounced the idea of sanctions to halt Tehran’s drive toward a nuclear weapon.

Rice returned to Washington with a sobering message: The international effort to derail Iran’s programs was falling apart. Her conclusion spurred a secret discussion among Rice, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley: Should the United States finally agree to join the Europeans at the negotiations with Iran?

The only reason the Eurpoeans got involved in this at all was to prevent the U.S. from attacking Iran. The mess in the Midddle East is alredy terrible. To add to this by including Iran would be worse for Europe than any assumed nukes in Iranian hands ten years from now.

Rice Plays Down Iran’s Threat to Curb Oil Exports

Ms. Rice helped engineer a policy shift by Washington last week that would allow it to join in the talks with Tehran, conducted up to now by Britain, France and Germany. She was said to fear that the international coalition on Iran was close to collapse.

China and Russia had appeared increasingly resistant to calls from the United States and others to impose sanctions if Iran continued its enrichment activities.

Ms. Rice would not say explicitly today that Russia and China had agreed to impose sanctions if Iran rejected the latest offer, but she said on Fox News that "we are absolutely satisfied with the commitments of our allies to a robust path."

Obviously neither China nor Russia did agree to ANY sanction, which means no effective sanctions on Iran at all. But worse, the Europeans did not agree to this either. Why is the offer to Iran kept secret? "We" offer them a light water reactor for $3 billlion plus while the Russians are building one for $1 billion? "We" offer them five years of fuel supply when the economic valible case of a reactor is only justifiable at 30+ years of operations?

From the viewpoint of Cheney’s neocons Rice has played her card and failed. They will Powell her now. That move might come faster than anybody anticipates today.

For Bush, Talks With Iran Were a Last Resort

In the end, said one former official who has kept close tabs on the debate, "it came down to convincing Cheney and others that if we are going to confront Iran, we first have to check off the box" of trying talks.

Comments

Fired Fried Rice

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jun 4 2006 20:44 utc | 1

Hmm to use a repug style cliche, the BushCo administration has dragged their people, their economy and their institutions into a ‘rubber meets the road’ moment and given that there was considerable bluff in their position in the first place, faint hearts and realists are splintering off from those blinded by greed and/or ideology.
Dr Rice is merely reflecting the real world input coming from the State Department professionals’ advice she has had to rely upon since the neo-con theorists’ counsel provided increasingly unrealistic and dangerous options.
eg Invading Iraq and imagining those Ay-rabs were going to throw down their weapons and greet their invaders whilst on their knees, kissing feet and saluting the mighty white gods.
Bernhard’s theory would certainly explain the rumours about Laura in a hotel cowering from the indignity of a poor Texas gal being replaced in the mighty plantation owner’s heart by the nigra help.
Missy Laura has gone far enough away to separate herself from the licentiousness and miscegenation, but close enough to be ready for when the bossfella comes to his senses, and she can wrap her slim but tensile alabaster arms around Dubya’s proudly flexing chest displaying the years of toil he has put into taming the four corners of God’s earth.
“Laura-Lou Missy Pickles! I knewed yew was the one fer me ever since yew stood up to mean ole Mikey Douglas
stood up, run down, what’s the difference?
CheneyCo may have formed a coalition with elements of BushCo concerned that not only will concessions to the wily but cruel Persian be viewed as weakness but an ascendant hussy like Dr Rice will displace Jeb-boy in the facists’ affection.
Since neither Cheney nor Babs seem to let the facts get in the way of their greed and ambition, there is every chance that Babs has lured Laura into co-operation on a promise of the matriarch-in-waiting gig.
Whaaa. . ? I mean give it a shove, it’ll fly!
lets face it it’s plain to see that the whole Bagdad to Tehran express isn’t meeting the ‘reality test’.
The Europeans have already been softened up a little by “Vlad the Retailer” when he shut up shop on gas following the attempt to make off with his his Ukrainian stock, so they really aren’t likely to go along with the current US proposal.
It leaves them paying a lot more for a lot less energy, all to advance a scheme which is probably doomed to failure/nuclear war or both, at a time when their increasingly fractious population is making it clear that they Do Understand.
The only question is; what is the US populace going to do about it?
Are ‘merikans going to accept that they’re just like other mortals and as such don’t always get what they want just because ‘might is right’?
Or/
Is facing the reality of what has been going on more than they can bear?

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 4 2006 22:31 utc | 2

Vlad the Retailer
very nice!
The only question is; what is the US populace going to do about it?
what difference does that make? The Ferengi are running the show and they have to decide where the profits lie and the course taken.

Posted by: dan of steele | Jun 4 2006 23:57 utc | 3

Hmmm, pickled rice?
Not even necessary. It’s too complicated for Joe sixpack.
All the Cheney administration has to do is:
1) ratchet up the noise machine against the United Nations again — why are we financin and lettin them socialist anti-American cowards meet in our country anyway — and
2) unilaterally act to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb-Iran for trying to nuke us and israel. The media will play the right music. Let’s-take-a-sta-ya-yand…. The surrender frogs and old europeans aren’t man enough like us ‘muricans running for re-election. By the first Tuesday in November, we’ll be rockin-and-a-rollin, rockin-and-a-rollin, bomb-iran, bomb bomb, bomb bomb-iran….
My polls aren’t worth a damn
Big Oil’s got a plan
out in tehran
So I’ll pretend to be the man
And bomb iran

Posted by: gylangirl | Jun 5 2006 0:02 utc | 4

@ dan of steele,
Apparently, the Ferengi would object to their comparison to less civilized humann leaders. There is no profit in indiscriminate killing of women and children.

Posted by: gylangirl | Jun 5 2006 1:15 utc | 5

Khamenei is calling the bluff:
Iran’s Religious Leader Renews Anti-U.S. Rhetoric

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei unleashed a flurry of broadsides Sunday at the United States and other countries confronting his government over its nuclear program, saying that suggestions of a consensus against Iran were “a lie.”
“There is no consensus against Iran. This is a lie by the U.S. and a few other U.S. supporters,” Khamenei, the country’s supreme leader, said in a speech. “Some 116 member states of the Non-Aligned Movement supported Iran’s brave achievements in nuclear technology. The consensus is among a few monopolist countries. Their consensus is of no value.”

“You will never be able to defend the security of energy supplies in this region,” he said. “We would not initiate war. We do not want war with any state. We have noble ideas. We intend to use our resources to bring material and spiritual prosperity to our nation and make it a model for other nations.”

Posted by: b | Jun 5 2006 7:08 utc | 6

so, for what did KISSINGER come to vienna if its rice they’re firing ?
did he come to appease, or did he bring a stick with him and it turns out the old vampire has lost his mojo, and in both cases they’re heaping it on condi who is the only non-jew/non-white in the gang ?

Posted by: name | Jun 5 2006 11:07 utc | 7

Over here in Blighty, the ratcheting-upof the fear level goes on, this time a dawn raid w/ 200 police on a house in east London (200 people would be hard put to fit into a house like that). One of those arrested in the raid was shot by police, but it’s being touted about to the press that he was shot by his brother.
Can we see the video of the arrests to check, please?
All this a few days before the head of the Met(ropolitan) police force is likely to get slammed over 1) police shooting dead innocent Brazilian man at Stockwell tube 2) ill-preparedness of emergency services in London for 7/7 tube and bus attacks.
What a coincidence.

Posted by: Dismal Science | Jun 5 2006 12:54 utc | 8

The arms-control-wonk has some interesting thoughts on this

Anywho, the gist of the spin is easy enough to spot:
(1) Condi is a genius,
(2) The President is The Decider,
(3) Cheney is back in his cage.
Even Jim Hoagland agrees it is true!

That´s the spin but what is the reality. He cites Gary Sick

So the US hardliners get the last word, albeit in softer language than they might otherwise prefer. That is why Condi Rice must react in horror to the idea that this might be the beginning of a “grand bargain” with the Iranian regime. That is anathema to neo-Cheney dogma.
However, if you think that this is simply a neo-con package with a bit of new ribbon, just consult the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal today, or the article by Michael Rubin in the National Review Online entitled “Damage Is Done: The Bush administration’s bad Iran move”. And there will be much more. This was a major battle; it inspired outrage by those whose ideological convictions failed to carry the day; and it’s not over.

Posted by: b | Jun 5 2006 14:04 utc | 9

Other can play games too: Iranian drone plane buzzes U.S. aircraft carrier in Persian Gulf

A pilotless Iranian reconnaissance plane circled for 25 minutes over a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf before returning safely to its base, a senior Iranian official said Tuesday.
“Our pilotless reconnaissance plane flew over the USS Ronald Reagan in the Persian Gulf unnoticed to the Americans for 25 minutes,” the official said, according to Iran’s Fars agency.
He did not say when the flight took place, but added that U.S. radars picked up the unmanned aerial vehicle after 25 minutes, and that four USAF fighters and two helicopters were scrambled to intercept it. However, the Iranian plane had already crossed the border back into Iran and landed at its base.
“This points to holes in the U.S. military reconnaissance systems deployed in the Persian Gulf,” the Iranian official said.

Posted by: b | Jun 5 2006 14:12 utc | 10

Juan Cole has Khamenei’s speech:

“Their [U.S.] other issue is [their assertion] that Iran seeks [a] nuclear bomb. It is an irrelevant and wrong statement, it is a sheer lie. We do not need a nuclear bomb. We do not have any objectives or aspirations for which we will need to use a nuclear bomb. We consider using nuclear weapons against Islamic rules. We have announced this openly. We think imposing the costs of building and maintaining nuclear weapons on our nation is unnecessary. Building such weapons and their maintenance are costly. By no means we deem it right to impose these costs on the people. We do not need those weapons. Unlike the Americans who want to rule the world with force, we do not claim to control the world and therefore do not need a nuclear bomb. Our nuclear bomb and our explosive powers are our faith, our youth and our people who have been present on the most difficult scenes with utmost power and faith and will continue to do so. (Chants of slogan, God is great).

Posted by: b | Jun 5 2006 15:50 utc | 11

A very informative piece on the U.S. sanctions on Iran by one academic, Tom O’Donnell, and why now regime change is the (common) U.S. policy:
“The Political Economy of the U.S.-Iran crisis: Oil Hegemony, Not Nukes, is the Real Issue”

However, to assess the true intent of U.S. sanctions, one has only to look at the particular tool the U.S. chose to use and its clear effects. That tool was comprehensive sanctions on investments in Iran’s oil industry, and the clear effect has been to keep the clerical regime from being a significant player in the oil-rich region, unable to challange U.S. hegemony and its client states there. Furthermore, it has weakened the regime economically to the point that the U.S. is now ready to move to the next phase, to the use of force against the regime, and prepare for its removal. Only after it has removed the regime, and replaced it with one whcih accepts the U.S. as the regional hegemon, will the U.S. allow FDI to again flow into Iran’s oil sector. (Note, this is precisely the sequence it has followed with Iraq, a country whose oil potential is roughly equal to or somewhat greater than Iran’s, also under cover of a plethora of complaints about Iraq’s nuclear program, terrorism, etc., to mask the oil-hegemony issue.)

In short, all players in the international oil order agree that Iran’s oil fields (not to mention Iraq’s) need to be opened as quickly as possible to FDI. In this situation, the Europeans, especially the E.U.-3, have decided to throw their lot in with the U.S. in this confrontation with Iran. Neither are the Russians nor the Chinese objecting strenuously. And the world’s second largest economy, Japan, is once again quietly, but firmly, in the U.S. regime-change camp. The imperative to get Iran’s oil online is the main factor behind this multilateral support for the U.S. in confronting Iran. But, one cannot imagine these other powers waiting forever to bring Iran’s oil online. If the Washington doesn’t want to allow the mullahs to develop Iran’s oil, they have to remove the mullahs. It is crucial to recognize that this is not merely a matter of some subjective neo-con ideological bent which is driving the U.S. to forcible regime change in Iran (though, of course, this exists); rather, it is the objective political-economic realities of the oil order today which are impelling the U.S. to take the offensive, and soon, if the oil order is not to be undermined by a demand crisis. Such a crisis could, in turn, spell disaster for global capitalism generally as transportation is universally dependant on oil – oil is the basis for well over 90% of all transportation.
For the record, it should be noted here that, in fact, the present demand crisis in the global oil market would not actually be a crisis – there would be no issue of a narrow world-wide supply cushion, or of record-high prices – if U.S. sanctions had not prevented Iran from developing its full oil potential. (A similar statement can be made about the U.S. sanctions on Iraq’s oil, extending from the Gulf War until the U.S.-British occupation.) Clearly, for Washington at least, American hegemony in the global oil order has trumped the prevention of the present crisis of the oil order, the inability of supply to stay well ahead of rising demand.

What I have been endeavoring to illustrate above, is that the right-wing “revolutionary” sweep of the present Administration in the case of the Iran crisis is not merely a subjective, political-ideological phenomenon (though, of course, it is also that). Rather, it has a material-economic basis in the imperatives of the present global oil order. If this is true, then it is not at all irrational, in fact, from the perspective of maintaining U.S. hegemony, it is perfectly rational, for the U.S. to do as Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and Bush are wont to do: to ignore the “difficulties” of their present Iraq occupation, and lack of military manpower, and American and world public opinion – and proceed on to Tehran. We should have no illusions about this, and begin now to organize against this new reactionary war.

Recommended!

Posted by: b | Jun 5 2006 16:26 utc | 12

Vlad the Retailer
Wondeful!

Posted by: Noisette | Jun 5 2006 19:56 utc | 13

as opposed to Bush the impaler?

Posted by: possum | Jun 5 2006 23:59 utc | 14

Some commentary on US play in the Great Game:

Curiously and quietly the United States is being out-flanked in its now-obvious strategy of controlling major oil and energy sources of the Persian Gulf, Central Asia Caspian Basin, Africa and beyond.
The US’s global energy control strategy, it’s now clear to most, was the actual reason for the highly costly regime change in Iraq, euphemistically dubbed ‘democracy’ by Washington.
—-
If the trend of recent events continues, it won’t be Bush-style democracy that is spreading, but rather, Russian and Chinese influence over major oil and gas energy supplies.
The quest for energy control has informed Washington’s support for high-risk ‘color revolutions’ in Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Belarus and Kyrgystan in recent months. It lies behind US activity in the Western Africa Gulf of Guinea states, as well as in Sudan, source of 7% of China oil import. It lies behind US policy vis-à-vis Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela and Evo Morales’ Bolivia.
In recent months, however, this strategy of global energy dominance, a strategic US priority, has shown signs of producing just the opposite: a kind of ‘coalition of the unwilling,’ states who increasingly see no other prospect, despite traditional animosities, but to cooperate to oppose what they see as a US push to control it all, their energy future security.
Some in Washington are beginning to realize they might have been too clever by about half, as is evident in recent public statements to both China and Russia, two nations whose cooperation in some form is essential to the success of the global US energy project.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 6 2006 11:05 utc | 15

The Rose Revolution in Georgia turned out not too bad – Saakashvili (Columbia and G. Washington U law school) was installed. But then there was Ossetia and so on. (Beslan? – lots of question there…) Reckon Putin more or less won that one.
The Orange Revolution in Ukraine was a kind of pathetic transparent joke from the start, and its aftermath is not pretty.
The Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan (2005) – Akayev insisted that no COLOR revolution would take place on his turf! – was so insignificant that no one today even remembers it.
And that was the death of colored or flowery ‘revolutions’, put paid to a certain type of US foreign policy.
They wont try it again, I reckon.

Posted by: Noisette | Jun 6 2006 15:42 utc | 16

No chance.
I doubt Cheney/Rumsfeld have the power anymore to push aside or marginalize Rice like they did Powell. For one, Rice is much closer to Dubya than Powell was (the General being closer to H.W. Bush), and now that the administration’s approval ratings are so low and the 2006 elections are fast approaching, Rove and the RNC can’t afford to lose one of the few people that still gets the soft-handed glam treatment from the press.

Posted by: Bragan | Jun 6 2006 17:59 utc | 17

Rice once stated that we made “a thousand tactical errors” in Iraq. Rumsfeld makes it clear that we made only one colossal strategic blunder.
When anyone from the administration seeks to play down the threat of Iran disrupting oil supplies I can only make one recommendation – start hoarding gasoline!!!

Posted by: ralphieboy | Jun 7 2006 7:16 utc | 18

Bush loves syncophants and black women. Rice fits both.
Clueless flunkey and parrot – just what is needed!

Posted by: Noisette | Jun 7 2006 16:15 utc | 19