WB: Hizbullah Cheerleader Watch
Billmon:
Posted by b on August 30, 2006 at 19:26 UTC | Permalink | Comments (121)
Breaking Levees
A year ago Billmon wrote: When the Levee Breaks
As a living, functioning city, then, New Orleans has ceased to exist. Even if it can eventually be resuscitated, the patient's long-term prognosis is grim. Just as yesterday was a catastrophe in slow motion, the future of the Crescent City is likely to be a slow, lingering death by drowning: the environmental equivalent of pulmonary edema. In that sense, New Orleans is the canary -- peacock might be the more appropriate bird -- in the mine of global climate change. If melting ice caps continue to push sea levels rapidly higher, its death may also await many of the world's other low-lying cities.
The death will not only come to such cities.
Global warming will induce huge migration waves away from the low-lying coasts and new deserts. For Katrina refugees the experience and situation is sad and uprooting. But there are means for them to survive without violence. The conflict for and over Katrina refugees is a soft one.
The skirmishes resulting from desertification in Darfur are deadly. A one meter rise in sea levels will result in a loss of 16% of land, densely populated, in Bangladesh. Whereto will those people flee? Throughout this century hundreds of millions will have find new homes.
The levees the U.S., the EU and others are building on their boarders will break when that wave arrives. Populists will declare this new migration period to be an invasion of barbarians and the fighting will be fierce, deadly and on a very large scale.
Posted by b on August 30, 2006 at 9:41 UTC | Permalink | Comments (46)
WB: Unintentional Irony Department
Billmon:
Mark Twain himself couldn't write a satirical finish that clever.
Posted by b on August 30, 2006 at 6:10 UTC | Permalink | Comments (16)
Diwaniya - "not hurtling out of control"
DIWANIYAH, Iraq -- When the Bush administration talks about the progress it is making in Iraq, it points to places like this provincial capital about 100 miles south of Baghdad. The population is overwhelmingly Shiite, and the region is fairly calm by comparison with the capital. But even here in Qadisiyah province, the transition to full Iraqi sovereignty is taking longer than it should.
[...]
The situation in Iraq is difficult, but the sense of panic in the Washington debate just doesn't match the situation here. It's bad, but it's not hurtling out of control.
Iraq: Still Worth Some Waiting, David Ignatius, WaPo, August 27, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 29 — At least 27 people were killed today when a leaking pipeline where they were siphoning oil exploded outside Diwaniya, Iraqi officials said.
[...]
One official said that the looters had taken advantage of the turmoil that engulfed the southern city on Monday when Iraqi Army soldiers clashed with members of a militia loyal to Moktada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric. At least 28 people died during the fighting.
[...]
Gasoline has been chronically in short supply in Iraq, and its price has skyrocketed, from about 4 cents a gallon to about 67 cents a gallon now at the official price, as part of an agreement with the International Monitary Fund.
Pipeline Blast Follows Clashes at Iraqi City, NYT, August 29, 2006
Posted by b on August 29, 2006 at 15:41 UTC | Permalink | Comments (11)
OT 06-82
Some news & views:
The NYT has a long piece about the British "moisture on planes" terror scare.
The supects were under surveilance for a year after several tips form the British Pakistani community. The apartment they used was bugged with police video and microphones. They are now said to have wanted to make an HMTD explosive (here is a recipe) which is difficult to make, takes several days to prepare, is not a fluid and extremly sensitive. In summary - that explosive, if it was involved at all, was definitly not suitable for the alleged act.
Some suspects did not have passports and none of the had a plane ticket.
The case was blown when the Pakistani police, at the urging of U.S. officials, arrested a guy connected to the plotters (a fact the NYT forgets to mention) i.e. for political timing reasons.
Ironically today U.S. secretary of homeland security Chertoff in a Washington Post OpEd uses the above case to call for even more international air passenger data to be handed over to his agency. Mr. Chertoff, there were no passengers ...
---
In a report about clashes in Iraq, it is alleged that a big fight occured between the Iraq military and the Sadr Mahdi militia. But reading through it, it is difficult to find a fact that really points to Sadr forces. I have the feeling someone is setting this up. Oh, by the way, after a few paragraphs on Sadr, we learn that nine U.S. soldieres were announced dead yesterday.
---
Atrios points to this graphic on housing prices now being 200% of their historic value. The return to the means will include a lot of pain.
---
Looking at Eastern Europe, this Guardian comment says what is obvious but seldom mentioned:
Had the eastern countries not thrown out the baby with the bathwater in the early 90s by adopting the massively deflationary IMF/EU prescription, their economies would now be in better shape and much of the current wave of migration could have been avoided. The large-scale labour exodus we are witnessing may benefit the CBI and western multinationals but certainly not most western workers, who are seeing their wage rates depressed. But the biggest losers are the eastern countries, deprived of so many young, talented and productive people.
Your news & views in the comments ...
Posted by b on August 29, 2006 at 5:49 UTC | Permalink | Comments (76)
Diplomatic Baggage
This story on Venezuela is quite weird and I do not find any source to point out what really happened. But what is told here is pure spin:
Government officials from the United States and this country are intensifying their verbal sparring after Venezuelan customs authorities this week seized diplomatic baggage from the United States that contained military hardware.
Why would diplomatic baggage contain ANY legitimate military hardware?
Brian Penn, a spokesman for the American Embassy here, told local news media this week that the diplomatic bags seized Thursday contained replacement parts for ejector seats for the Venezuelan military. The United States banned sales of arms and military equipment to Venezuela in May, citing a lack of cooperation on antiterrorism efforts, though it said pre-existing contracts could be honored.
If there is an arms ban, why deliver such at all if there is a ban? More interesting, why deliver such equipment in diplomatic bags and not in a regular transport?
Edgar Vasquez, a State Department spokesman in Washington, told The Associated Press on Friday that the United States had requested an “immediate explanation of the entire incident,” claiming the search violated international treaties on diplomatic baggage. “The impounded cargo consisted of household effects of a U.S. diplomat and a shipment of commissary goods,” Mr. Vasquez said.
Mr. Penn, the U.S. embassy spokesman talks of ejector seat, essentially rockets, but the State Department takes of household effects and commissary goods - which is it?
Here we learn:
[Venezuelan Justice Minister] Chacon said U.S. shipping documents allegedly sent to the Venezuelan air force declared that the plane was also transporting cartridge devices, detonator fuses, rocket motors and pliers _ none of which had been ordered by the Venezuelan military.
"The only thing that the Armed Forces have requested are the (ejection seat) propulsion motors for the OV10 Bronco planes," Chacon said.
"As of today, the Venezuelan air force has not received from any U.S. official any part."
So the U.S. claims there was ordered military stuff in the baggage. The alleged shipping documents talk of other relevent weapons too, though never received.
It may be that the Venezuelan military (air force) needs some detonator fuses to prepare for a coup against Chavez, or maybe the U.S. embassy is importing some stuff for other clients.
Anyhow, the background might well be this: Venezuela to export half a million barrels of oil to China per day by 2009
Posted by b on August 28, 2006 at 20:17 UTC | Permalink | Comments (14)
Real Wages Fall
The NYT headline writer had trouble to express the truth, so it went with this:
But the simple truth is, real wages not only do not rise with productivity, sea levels or the number of bad TV shows, real wages are falling. From the article:
The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable, economists say, because productivity — the amount that an average worker produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a nation’s living standards — has risen steadily over the same period.
As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s. UBS, the investment bank, recently described the current period as “the golden era of profitability.”
The trick is bargaining power. How can that be reestablished?
Posted by b on August 28, 2006 at 17:31 UTC | Permalink | Comments (10)
Heavy Water What?
The NYT is back to spread disinformation about a perceived U.S. enemy. NYT staff reporter Michael Slackman writes: Iran Opens a Heavy-Water Reactor
On Saturday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a provocative, if symbolic, gesture by formally inaugurating a heavy-water reactor. The Iranians say the plant would be used for peaceful power generation. But nuclear experts note that heavy-water facilities are more useful for weapons because they produce lots of plutonium — the preferred ingredient for missile warheads.
That paragraph hardly includes a relevant fact:
- Iran did not open a heavy-water reactor, but a plant to produce heavy water. It is building a heavy-water reactor, but that reactor will not open any time soon. The now opened plant will have a capacity of 16 tons of heavy water per year. The 40 megawatt research reactor to be build will need about 80 to 90 tons of heavy water to start operating. It will not be finished before 2009 and the needed amount of heavy water will only be available on an even later date.
- The experts claiming that heavy-water reactors are more useful for weapons than for electricity production should explain why all 18 operational Canadian nuclear plants are heavy-water types and why Germany and France do use heavy water research reactors as neutron sources for material science projects
- The perfect ingrediant for missile warheads is definitly not Plutonium. About 99.999+% of missile warheads in this world use non-nuclear explosives. Iran has neither the missile- nor the nuclear technology to produce any threatening guided rocket with a nuclear warhead.
Starting with headline up to the very end, the readers of the article are not informed about the issue but dragged into assumptions of an immediate danger.
Judith Miller would have been proud had she written that piece.
Posted by b on August 27, 2006 at 8:48 UTC | Permalink | Comments (24)
WB: Cluster Fuck
Billmon:
Having the U.S. government investigate Israel's use of cluster bombs is like having the Unibomber investigate the London subway bombings.
Posted by b on August 27, 2006 at 5:47 UTC | Permalink | Comments (16)
Weekend OT
Enjoy ...Posted by b on August 26, 2006 at 6:06 UTC | Permalink | Comments (69)
"Crush ... Without Inhibitation"
There are many known facts to support these four thesis:
- Israel claims a historic right to conquer and to ethnic cleanse the Jordan West Bank - the Bush administration does support and furthers this;
- the Zionist lobby in the U.S has achieved an extremely high influence level;
- Israel is nurtured as a strategic asset for U.S. interests in the Middle East;
- the U.S. administration did recommend and expected Israel to "crush" Hisbullah "without inhibitation".
If a critic of AIPAC's role in U.S. policy would say such, the AIPAC and the ADL would be quick to brand that person as a defaming anti-semite.
But what do they say about a Jewish attorney from Maryland claiming the above in a Haaretz OpEd?
Since June 1967, there has been rigorous debate about the wisdom of retaining the territories that came into Israel's hands in the Six-Day War. Yet, almost no individual with a whit of appreciation for Jewish history would deny the essential right of the Jewish people to return and repopulate these territories that already millennia ago served as the cradle of the Jewish people.
[...]
American support for Israel's claim to Judea and Samaria reached its crescendo in President George Bush's April 14, 2004 letter to then prime minister Sharon, acknowledging that it would be "unrealistic to expect ... a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949 ..."This U.S. support for Israel did not arise in a vacuum. Israel's protectors in the United States, in the plethora of Jewish organizations that dot the American landscape and at the grass-roots level, have relentlessly struggled to shore up this support.
[...]
In a similar vein, consecutive Israeli governments and their U.S. supporters have worked for decades to ensure that Americans recognize the support that Israel provides in the Middle East. Through careful coordination - from important contacts at Defense Department levels, to meticulously managed visits to Israel by members of Congress, as well as by way of grass-roots lobbying and advocacy - Israel's role as a reliable ally and strategic asset of the United States had become an almost unassailable truth.
[...]
Short of erecting a billboard on Rehov Kaplan, it would have been difficult for the Bush administration to have more strongly communicated to the Israeli government its desire for the Israel Defense Forces to crush - forcefully, vigorously and without inhibition - Hezbollah's forces.
Though the ADL may not touch this, the Arab press will definitly reprint the appropriate sections for a wider digestion.
Who's interest is furthered here?
Posted by b on August 25, 2006 at 20:39 UTC | Permalink | Comments (8)
Fragile
by James Parker & beq
beq wrote yesterday:
My SO, James, and I have been working together on a project all summer.
This is a piece for an outdoor sculpture show in an industrial area of Richmond that is slowly becoming a gallery/artist's community and there is a successful micro-brewery in the district as well.
We installed it a little over a week ago at the brewery and the opening is tomorrow night. I've been trying to get good nighttime photos of it because it is lit from outside and within. It's hard because it's basically colorless and the etched glass panels are very subtle. It suggests an urban kiosk and we are making a statement about the environment and human effect and the risk to the future.
The website for the exhibition is here. I warn you that it is interactive and tedious.
There is bigger version (150kb) of the picture available and a detail view (240kb).
Posted by b on August 25, 2006 at 16:54 UTC | Permalink | Comments (12)
Why This Report?
So why did they release this stuff?
Laura Rozen yesterday linked to a report (PDF, 700kb) titled "Recognizing Iran as a Strategic Threat: An Intelligence Challenge for the United States."
The report was announced to have been written by staff of the House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence - Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy. It turns out, as Laura documents and the Washington post confirms, that it was written by Frederick Fleitz, a former CIA officer who had been a special assistant to neocon John Bolton and is still in the administration. Fleitz has to be seen as a Cheney front man. He might have had some role in the Plame fiasko.
I did read the report yesterday and struggled to understand why it has been released.
On page 1 is a picture of Ahmadinejad behind a lectern that has "The World Without Zionism" pinned to its front. On page 3 are three Ahmedinejad quotes. One refers to the state of Israel, one to the Holocaust as a justification for Israels existence and one to nuclear technology. Page 15 shows a map with the reach of Iran's ballistic rockets, demonstrating that the existing rockets barely cover the Middle East (the center of the firing range is Kuwait and the outer 4,000 mile circle is of a rocket that does not exist.)
To an open minded reader, the pamphlet does hint to but does not present any fact of Iran being a danger to the U.S.. It seems focused on Iran as an assumed danger to Israel. It critizises the U.S. intelligence community for not coming up with any proof that any of the presented dangers are real.
The purpose of the document, as described by the New York Times and Washington Post, is said to be to demonstrate that Iran is an urgent threat and to castigate the intelligence services for not coming to the same conclusion.
This is the same thing that was done before the War on Iraq, but then the grilling was done in private with Cheney visiting the CIA and intimidating agents in private meetings. The propaganda part was done under cover of anonymity by administration chills through outlets like NYT's Judith Miller and others and was based on stove piped false intelligence from the DoD's special office. Later the CIA had to take the blame for the bullshit intelligence conclusions on Iraq's WMD.
But to now blame the intelligence services for not being aggressive enough in coming to frightening conclusions on Iran is counterproductive. This blame guarantees that any future CIA claim of a danger from Iran will not be taken seriously. If the CIA tomorrow says any Iran nuke is an imminent threat (as it and others repeatedly did over the years), everybody will point to the pressure applied through this document and nobody will believe the reports, whether they are right or wrong.
On the propaganda side the report cites various unclassified ambiguous tidbits on possible Iranian WMDs and then blows at the intelligence services for not having aggressively confirmed these reports.
How does this help the neocon case? It just emphasizes that the facts presented are no such thing and that there is not a bit of really clear evidence the warmongers can build on.
So, again, why has this been published?
Are the neocons so far out of their mind that they fail to see how this hurts their case? Or are they right to assume that this will frighten anyone but me?
What is their reasoning behind this?
Posted by b on August 24, 2006 at 19:42 UTC | Permalink | Comments (17)
OT 06-81
News & views ...
Posted by b on August 23, 2006 at 19:01 UTC | Permalink | Comments (85)
The Bush Boom Party is Over
The U.S. housing bubble is popping. Interest rates are up and will not go down soon. Many people who recently signed Adjustable Rate Mortgages will learn that they can not afford their houses. But by then housing markets will be down and foreclosure will come. More offers will further turn down the market prices. Construction workers will lose their jobs. Homebuilders will shut down.
This will get really nasty next year when $1 trillion in ARMs are in for readjustment. Finally the Bush boom party is over.
The National Association of Realtors reported that sales of existing homes and condominiums dropped by 4.1% in July from June to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 6.33 million - the lowest level since January 2004. Economists were forecasting the pace of sales to fall to 6.55 million.
The fragile housing market....
Resource Investor
Some illustrating headlines:
Housing affordability drops to record low, home builders say
Market Watch
Affordability conundrum: Prices dip, yet homes remain out of reach
Palm Beach Post
Affordable homes still scarce here
Los Angeles Daily News
Luxury housing market sliding
phillyBurbs
Chill cast over KC housing market
The Kansas City Star
It's a housing market for buyers
Arizon Daily StarDebtors on Borrowed Time
Press of Atlantic City
Homeowners feel pinch of mortgage rate
Washington Times
Study Warns of Homeowner "Rate Shock"
Consumer AffairsStalled housing market clouds Lowe's outlook
Houston Chronicle
Weak housing-market hurts Toll Brothers' profit
The Salt Lake Tribune
Dollar May Decline on Speculation of Cooling Housing Market
Bloomberg
Posted by b on August 23, 2006 at 15:59 UTC | Permalink | Comments (158)
The Vultures Circle Beirut
Upcoming donor meetings to raise funds for rebuilding war-damaged Lebanon could be an opening for Western lenders to look for fresh commitments from Beirut to resume politically difficult economic reforms.
[...]
Western lenders are signaling they are willing to help with overall economic support if Lebanon agrees to adopt reforms, possibly seeking an International Monetary Fund program as a signal of its commitment to reform and to frame how donor money could be best used.
Donors may insist on Lebanese economic reforms
Good luck with that. The few hundred millions the west will pull out of its backpocket to salve its bad consciences are not needed. Saudi Arabia did come up with a gift if $1 billion alone. Other Middle East countries did or will follow - no strings attached.
Adding insult to injury, Wolfowitz's(!) Thiefdom Central also tries to get into the game:
The World Bank will reallocate $40 million in previously approved loans for post-war rebuilding in Lebanon and will help verify immediate reconstruction needs as donors consider how much aid to give, a senior bank official said on Monday.
[...]
Saba said the bank would also conduct an economic and social assessment for Lebanon that would review expenditures and budgets for sectors such as health and education.
World Bank moves to help Lebanon rebuild
Let me guess the gist of that World Bank assessment: Hospitals should be privatized, an urgent need to introduce school fee and a Neocon approved Israel friendly curriculum.
The Hisbullah will chuckle and send them back to New York.
Posted by b on August 23, 2006 at 14:58 UTC | Permalink | Comments (3)
Rumsfeld Out - Who In?
George W. Bush, Sep 20, 2001:
Either you are with us, or you are withl the terrorists.
Doing a bit of Kremlinology I come to the conclusion that Rumsfeld will be fired as soon as somebody else is found to take the job.
It took more than a year to find anyone willing to take the job of Secretary of Treasury John W. Snow, so it may well take a while a find a replacement for Rumsfeld.
But the case here is much more urgent than the Snow replacement ever was.
Rumsfeld is a political liability for the current administration AND he now did get into the way of the neocon's plans.
Those Republican politicians who will have to fight to get reelected need him to leave immediately. The neocon warmongers need him to get out of the way in time for the next cakewalk. But those two timelines differ and that ensures a conflict within the administration.
Karl Rove knows that Rumsfeld is a huge problem in the path of keeping a majority in both Congress chambers. He let other people know that Rummy has to be fired and he did ask his selection for the next presidential election, McCain, to take care of the issue.
Yes, this is speculative, but follow me along the trail:
Seymore Hersh, Aug 14, 2006 in The New Yorker:
Some current and former intelligence officials who were interviewed for this article believe that Rumsfeld disagrees with Bush and Cheney about the American role in the war between Israel and Hezbollah.
[...]
A Western diplomat said that he understood that Rumsfeld did not know all the intricacies of the war plan. “He is angry and worried about his troops” in Iraq, the diplomat said.
[...]
At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on August 3rd, Rumsfeld was less than enthusiastic about the war’s implications for the American troops in Iraq.
Seymore Hersh, Aug 14, 2006 on Democracy Now:
Well, what's interesting about Rumsfeld, because for the first time -- and not everybody agreed, but people that -- you know, I’m long of tooth, Amy, and I’ve been around this town a long time, and obviously, since 9/11, a lot of people talk to me. And for the first time, Rummy doesn't seem to be on board, is what I’m hearing.
[...]
Rumsfeld is very concerned about the 150,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, who are potentially in a very untenable position. There's no question Iraq’s lost. There's a lot of question about what we're doing in Afghanistan. We're sort of 0-for-2 in those two. And so, Rumsfeld was not happy about this policy, about going in in a protracted war in Southern Lebanon with Nasrallah
[...]
[T]o get back to Rumsfeld, there's no question that Iran has enormous influence inside Iraq, dominated now by the Shia, Shia Iran, and I think Rumsfeld’s concern, I was told, is that a protracted war against Nasrallah will only cause the Iranians, in support of Hezbollah, to start squeezing our troops in Iraq.
Laura Rozen, Aug 18, 2006:
Has Bush called some people to inquire if they would be willing to replace Rumsfeld? In the past ten days?
Laura Rozen, Aug 22, 2006:
Bush has put out a quiet feeler to replace Rumsfeld in recent weeks. He was politely turned down by at least one candidate he personally called. Unknown: is this one of many candidates Bush has sounded out?
Laura Rozen, Aug 22, 2006:
Reading the transcript of President Bush's press conference yesterday, which was heavily focused on promoting staying in Iraq, even while acknowledging the strain to the American psyche of the task, it's interesting who he does not once mention. [...] But he does not once mention Rumsfeld or refer to him. Is that a random omission, or notable, that he doesn't once mention the cabinet secretary charged with running the war when talking about the war?
McCain, Aug 21, 2006 Bloomberg via LA Times:
McCain repeated his criticism of President Bush for using too few troops in Iraq and his lack of confidence in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
Yet McCain said he remained confident of Bush's ability to handle the Iraq war and called for a greater U.S. military commitment, rather than a troop withdrawal, in the face of warnings that Iraq could be sliding toward civil war. "We cannot lose this," McCain said. "It will cause chaos in Iraq and in the region."
McCain, Aug 20, 2006 in Meet The Press
SEN. McCAIN: [..] I’ve had strong differences with Secretary Rumsfeld on this issue and other aspects of the war. The, the, the standing down of the Army, rather than hiring them. The, the failure to do a series of measures which were important as part of our effort to control Iraq.
[...]
MR. GREGORY: Do you think Secretary Rumsfeld should keep his job?SEN. McCAIN: That’s up to the president of the United States. The president picks his team and the president—as long as the president has confidence in him, then he’ll keep that team.
MR. GREGORY: Even at this stage of the war, you think, you still stick to that position that it’s up to the president?
SEN. McCAIN: Because elections have consequences. The president has the right to pick his team. I’ve been asked a number of times if I had confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld and the answer is no.
MR. GREGORY: But you still think he should stay in place if the president wants him.
SEN. McCAIN: I think the president should pick his team and I will support the president’s selections.
Journalist John Harwood Aug 21, 2006 in Meet The Press
MR. HARWOOD: And, David, that’s where the domestic politics is going to go in the near term. I talked to a top Democrat strategist yesterday who said, “What we’re going to do in the fall is try to focus on accountability questions on Rumsfeld, try to look at some way of pressuring the administration and Republicans in Congress on Rumsfeld.” And when that happens, you will have a moment when Republican candidates may have to choose, are they going to stick with the administration or are they going to try to go along with Democrats on some resolution, for example, calling for the president to replace Rumsfeld as a way of showing daylight between themselves and the Bush administration.
This looks like Rummy finally did get a bit of a lesson from his Generals and does now does see the consequences of risking the troops in Iraq. But as more he is developing some kind of lobotomized conscience the less valuable he gets for the next round of bombing the Middle East into something New.
This while he is the perfect negative figure the democrats can use that does not have a preeminent positive presidential aura.
The neocons would prefer Lieberman as a candidate for Rumsfelds position. But Lieberman first has to win or lose the election in Connecticut before he is available.
That is too long a wait for those republican candidates who have to win their race on the same date.
So this may well turn out to be a struggle between the neocons, Cheney essentially, and the more political minded, i.e. Rove. That is going to be a quite interesting fight.
So who will be Rumsfeld replacement and when will that change of command be announced?
Posted by b on August 22, 2006 at 20:36 UTC | Permalink | Comments (23)
Connecting the Battlefields
In the Middle East the battlefields of Lebanon and Iraq are deeply connected.
BLITZER: In today's "Welcome to the Future" report, is a show- down looming with Iran over its nuclear program? And are Tehran's missile tests an ominous sign of things to come? CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr has the latest -- Barbara?
[...]
STARR: Analysts say support for a strike against Iran would be tough. U.S. forces in Iraq would have to be protected from Iranian retaliation. U.S. military assets such as tanker aircraft and ships must be put into position. A U.N. peacekeeping force first must be deployed in Lebanon to protect Israel.
CNN - The Situation Room, August 21, 2006 (emphasis added)
Here some Pentagon folks spilled out what was obvious to smart observers. The Israeli attack on Lebanon, launched when Hizbullah was dumb enough to give some pretense, was part of the plan to attack Iran.
Either Israel would have a decisive victory, as some expected, or a third force would go in to protect Irael from any retaliation through Hisbullah in the case of an attack on Iran.
At first the U.S. and Israel called for NATO troops, but the European NATO members did kill that idea very fast. Who wants to play cannon fodder for Israel, especially under U.S. command?
The French stepped in and Cirac, asshole that he might be, made a smart move. He hinted at promissing lots of troops and after the ceasefire was approved at the UN, he did forget that offer.
The Germans said no too, and Israel refuses to have UN troops from Malaysia and Indonesia on its border. Olmert now tries to recruit in Italy. But the Italians make this unsensitive request for Israel to stop the ongoing shooting first.
Even if some European countries will come up with a paper-force, what this force should do is still open. Without another UN resolution, nobody will really show up and the chances for another resolution are slim.
To get to a new resolution might even require another full fledged fight between Israel and Hizbullah. With the trouble Olmert is already in, he is unlikely to start this soon.
But the coming attack on Iran will require two other issues to be solved.
The administration helpers lately have pointed a lot to Muqtada al Sadr as the key source of violence in Iraq. This is of course nonsense. While al Sadr's folks in Iraq may be part of the violence, the militia of other Shia fractions, Sciri and Dawa, as well as the various Sunni groups are in the mix too. So why pick on Sadr?
As far as I can tell Muqtada has been the only one in Iraq who bluntly stated that an attack on Iran would be answered by him with calling for all out war on the U.S. troops in Iraq. No other Shia fraction has so far publicly joined this call.
Before an attack on Iran can happen, al Sadr must be neutralized or the U.S. troops in Iraq will be sacrificed for the higher good of a flattened Teheran.
The third obstacle to an attack on Iran is Syria and here the plans are not clear yet. Syria might be bought out of its alliance with Iran by a peace deal that would give them back the Golan heights. But the Israeli government is not yet ready to do such a deal.
The only other chance to neutralize the Syrian rocket force aimed at Israel is through a massive air strike and ground attacks by special forces. But given the sad state of the IDF, the outcome of such a strike is quite doubtful.
All three condition for a strike on Iran, a neutralized Syria, Hizbullah controlled through some third party and al Sadr imprisoned or killed, are not in place and are unlikely to be in place soon.
In this configuration an attack on Iran is still possible, but the costs for the U.S. and for Israel are currently too high.
But things may have changed a year from now and the project itself is definitly not off the table.
Posted by b on August 22, 2006 at 13:13 UTC | Permalink | Comments (27)
WB: Package Deal
Billmon:
[S]o far I haven't seen anything that looks even remotely like accountability -- just the by-now familiar mixture of Orwellian lies, PR spin, carefully rigged investigations and phony rhetorical tricks (like Olmert's, which could have been ripped right from the lips of Donald Rumsfeld).
If Israel is still different from America, it sure the hell isn't apparent in the behavior of its political and military elites, from the Prime Minister on down.
Posted by b on August 22, 2006 at 5:41 UTC | Permalink | Comments (10)
WB: A Close Relationship
Billmon:
[F]or Shrub to argue that being the former colonial power in Lebanon makes France the ideal candidate to pull quasi-occupation duty there now says a lot about the character of the "new" Middle East.
Posted by b on August 21, 2006 at 18:33 UTC | Permalink | Comments (28)