Showing posts with label iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iran. Show all posts
Saturday, April 07, 2007
The US offered to take military action on behalf of the 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran, including buzzing Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions with warplanes, the Guardian has learned.
In the first few days after the captives were seized and British diplomats were getting no news from Tehran on their whereabouts, Pentagon officials asked their British counterparts: what do you want us to do? They offered a series of military options, a list which remains top secret given the mounting risk of war between the US and Iran. But one of the options was for US combat aircraft to mount aggressive patrols over Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases in Iran, to underline the seriousness of the situation.
We didn't consider sending Condi Rice out for shuttle diplomacy? I am shocked. Our plan of being militarily aggressive would have worked too if those meddling kids didn't foil our plans!
I keep harping on this over and over, but it remains the truth that George Bush's concept of all bombs, no diplomacy is the stupidest idea he has come up with during his presidency. That is saying quite a bit. Diplomacy is the art of the possible. War is the failure of diplomacy. Bush thinks if we don't try diplomacy, we can get to blow some more shit up.
Too bad Iranians can read the papers too. They knew exactly what Bush was thinking, and backed down right before he got a chance to come up with a "good excuse" to go authorize some bombing runs.
Who can blame Nancy Pelosi for trying diplomacy? If impeachment for high crimes & misdemeanors was taken seriously, Cheney and Bush would be out on their ass, and she would become president. Now, it appears all we can hope for is that some people in our government haven't been fired for not being "loyal bushies" and that they resist all evil, incompetent schemes that people in Dick Cheney's office come up with until January 2009.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Iran has more than tripled its ability to produce enriched uranium in the last three months, adding some 1,000 centrifuges which are used to separate radioactive particles from the raw material.
The development means Iran could have enough material for a nuclear bomb by 2009, sources familiar with the dramatic upgrade tell ABC News.
The sources say the unexpected expansion is taking place at Iran's nuclear enrichment plant outside the city of Natanz, in a hardened facility 70 feet underground.
I have learned the identities of ABC News' sources. Like Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, I think outing is a fun idea. The sources on the centrifuges is some guy named Curveball. I have never heard of him before. Is he a baseball fan?
The source on the enriched uranium is somebody ABC calls "blossom of turd". The information on the Iran enrichment plant in Natanz comes from a high ranking government official who wears a pace maker, shoots lawyers, and is considered by some to be "a Dick", if you know what I mean. This detail about Natanz was confirmed by a source with the code name of Bahkmed Kalabi. ABC has this story down cold.
I am sorry ABC. This shit is not going to fly again. Give it a rest, that dog won't hunt. Do you think we are stupid? Oh no, not this shit again.
There is a ticking clock too. It ends in 2009. Oh dear. That means coincidentally that the next president won't have a chance to stop it. Only one brave leader will have to target this plant with nuclear tipped buster bunker bombs. Why did his favorite philosopher Jesus give him this cross to bear? George Bush needs to blow more shit up.
Friday, March 23, 2007
With all the back and forth on Iran in the news, especially today's incident between the Royal Navy and Iran, I thought it would be good to look up a bit of history on the coup that placed the Shah into power. It involved the usual suspects, as well as some people might not realize were involved. England and America were involved. MI6 and the CIA were involved as well as the US military in the personage of General Norman Schwarzkopf Sr. father of the Desert Storm General. In addition the BBC was actually used to air the code word over the air that the coup was on.
The history is as follows. Britain prior to WWII was in it's colonial age, and the large oil fields of Iran did not escape their attention. They tried to install puppet leaders in Iran who would of course sell them the Iranian oil at no real benefit to the Iranian people.
In 1933 for example, while Hitler was dreaming of greater conquest of Europe, the English forced a 32 year renewal of their rights to get all the oil they wanted from Iran with no increase for inflation. Seriously. They already had rights lined up until 1961, 28 years later, but that wasn't good enough, so they "secured" Iran's oils until 1996. This was in 1933, remember, so it was good long term planning.
After WWII, where both England and the USSR had both invaded and occupied Iran, a nationalist movement had begun to swell, and the Iranian government began to take their duties seriously. The Iranian Parliament's oil committee studied the contracts under the influence of representative Mohammed Mossadeq.
Nov. 25, 1950, the specific Supplemental Agreement was put to a vote and Mossadeq's influence resulted in a "no" vote. Mossadeq was now providing the backbone with which Iran would attempt to reclaim its self-destiny. On March 15, 1951, the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize Iran's oil industry and on May 6, parliament elected Mossadeq the Prime Minister of Iran.
Well, any student of UK and American history know of course what was bound to happen next. Iranians in control of their own oil was intolerable. UK spooks such as Norman Derbyshire, and Americans such as Norman Schwarzkopf Sr. were involved in a plan to topple the democratically elected government in Iran and place somebody more attuned to our needs.
The Shah was our man that we wanted in there, but we weren't even sure that he wanted to permit it. He was having cold feet. Thousands of documents were destroyed, those that are left are highly classified. Tactics that we did support included counterfeiting Iranian money to destroy their economy, fake uprisings paid for with our money, and bombings of religious leaders homes to provoke outrage.
Professor Mark Gasiorowski of LSU who is considered an expert on the history of the events writes:
Perhaps the most general conclusion that can be drawn from these documents is that the CIA extensively stage-managed the entire coup, not only carrying it out but also preparing the groundwork for it by subordinating various important Iranian political actors and using propaganda and other instruments to influence public opinion against Mossadeq. This is a point that was made in my article and other published accounts, but it is strongly confirmed in these documents. In my view, this thoroughly refutes the argument that is commonly made in Iranian monarchist exile circles that the coup was a legitimate "popular uprising" on behalf of the shah.
The BBC was involved in a peculiar way. They admit now that they were involved in helping give the go call to the revolution through MI6 agent Norman Derbyshire.
"Iran had just nationalised the very oil fields that had powered Britain through two world wars. Downing Street wanted them back. London paid Iranian agents to sow seeds of dissent in Tehran. Then, to win American support for a coup, the men from the Ministry fanned fears of a Russian invasion.
"Even the BBC was used to spearhead Britain's propaganda campaign.
"In fact,Auntie (the BBC) agreed to broadcast the very code word that was to spark revolution."
As of now, the CIA still has witheld releasing the remaining papers they have left. As a matter of fact, they have declassified one sentence out of the documents.
That sentence reads: "Headquarters spent a day featured by depression and despair."
What this means now is a great deal. Americans are totally unaware of what transpired in Iran in the 1950's. But it can't be looked upon just that way. An entire generation of Iranians grew up during the rule of the Shah, knowing that we put him there until he was toppled in 1979. What it has to do with now is a question that is very debatable, except that it isn't very debatable to Iranians. They learn and know this history. Their thuggish repressive governments self justify every time we rattle our sabers. They literally can get away with murder by reminding people that the US who is talking down to Iran is the same government that toppled their democracy. Without understanding this history, one can not adequately deal with Iran. I am in no way a fan of this government. Their leader is anti semetic, they are repressive towards women, brutal towards dissent, and freedom of expression. I just hope that knowing some of the history will help us all to realize where we came from, and what paths need to be taken to change things there.
It will never happen, but a good idea would be an apology. We were wrong to topple your government and steal your oil might actually be believed if we were the least bit sincere about it. But instead we act like it never happened. How can the Iranians, good minded Iranians take us seriously about our love of democracy when we not only destroyed theirs but even worse acted as if it is an event that isn't worth even remembering?
Thursday, March 22, 2007
NEW DELHI, MAR 22: Left parties on Thursday said America’s opposition to the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline was an “outrageous interference” in New Delhi’s affairs and asked the UPA government to resist such pressures and go ahead with the project. Maintaining that the gas pipeline project was of vital interest to India’s energy security, CPI(M) politburo said the government “must proceed with it and ensure the completion of the negotiations with Pakistan on the transit fee and other charges”. The American opposition was motivated by its “partisan interests and its targeting of Iran,” it said and described as “disturbing” reports that US energy secretary Samuel Bodman had conveyed to the Indian government Washington’s objections to the project.
Similarly, CPI Central Secretariat said, “This is nothing but outrageous interference in the affairs of India. As a sovereign country, India has every right to strengthen its energy security through economic cooperation with Iran.”
To be clear here, what the US is proposing is weakening Iran economically, and also making Pakistan and India suffer in solidarity with Iran. Sanctions against Cuba are working out really well too. I think it's great actually that Pakistan and India are co-operating here. It is a healthy sign of progress. Therefore the Bush administration wants no part of it, and are pressuring India hard to kill the deal.
On NPR today I heard a report about how Iran is actually propping up Iraq's economy in several cities, actually flooding the market with goods and keeping things going. No Iran's motives are not pure. They are far from ideal. The Bush administration though is functionally mentally retarded however. This deal with Iran, Pakistan, and India might help the region grown more serene. They really don't know, but their gut reflex to punish Iran no matter who may else suffer is childish, counterproductive, and typical of their behavior.
Sticking our fingers in our ears and shouting LA LA LA at the top of our voices is not diplomacy. John Bolton isn't working for us anymore right?
Sunday, March 11, 2007
The United States cut diplomatic ties with Iran nearly three decades ago, and relations between the two nations have been further strained over Iran's nuclear program and U.S. assertions that the government is providing arms to both Shiite militias and insurgents in Iraq. The Bush administration also blames Syria for allowing weapons and fighters to flow into Iraq across their porous border.
While American delegates did not sit down with their Iranian and Syrian counterparts for much-anticipated bilateral talks, they did shake hands before the meetings began and spoke directly to one another, according to al-Dabbagh.
Well, we now will actually say hello before being immature and stubborn and refusing to speak to two of the key players in the regime. It's not like Iran and Syria have anything to discuss with us about Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, or Iraq or anything.
It was a firm handshake I have been told. We didn't let go and engaged in a blinking contest. Sadly, the Lebanese diplomat was crosseyed and beat us and wouldn't do two out of three.
What the fuck is wrong with these people? Diplomacy has been the art of having skilled, culturally sensitive negotiators trying to find common ground amidst their differences and trying to find a resolution that would be a benefit to both sides.
Bush believes diplomacy is calling that guy who talks funny English who lives in London to see if he can make him roll over and play dead. Just like the rest of the neo-con dream that is dying in the dust. Their brand new way of doing diplomacy is a miserable failure.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
From wingnut central, there are reports on Newt Gingrich's comments last night in a debate with Mario Cuomo.Sure, I have mocked Newt's giraffe hunting analogies, as well as his lack of faithfulness to his wives, but another thing that is incredibly understated about Newt is that he has some really crazy ideas. He is a historian, the conservatives say. He's actually got ideas about things other than hitting Jack Abramoff up for more money. Here is historian Newt discussing the Iran situation.
He suggested that “a country that did not insist on putting its secrets on page one of the New York Times would in fact be able to have industrial sabotage” against Iran’s only oil refinery, which would render Iran dependent on imported gasoline and hasten the collapse of the current regime.
Firstly, what a dick. That being said, Gingrich apparently has no flipping clue as to why the Iranians have issues with us. In 1933, Brittish businessmen decided it would be a good idea to represent the Iranian oil companies themselves in signing a 28 year oil rights contract with the puppet government of Iran. Also in this contract was a clause that allowed them to extend the contract from it's end in 1961 to 1993 for a total of 60 years, at a fixed price. That meant, screw inflation or the price of oil, they would still only receive the same amount per barrel. Great long term planning, not so good for Iran.
In 1950, parliament member Dr. Mohammed Mossadeq lobbied to get the contracts voided. In March 1951, they were ended and two months later he was elected Prime Minister. You can probably figure out the rest. The CIA and Brittish intelligence helped engineer a coup that overthrew him in 1953 to place Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in as a puppet. He became better known as the Shah of Iran. He was very pro-western friendly of course. Not so friendly to his people, who often ended up tortured if his authority was questioned.
This was the background that most Americans didn't know in 1979 as the radicals in Iran finally overthrew him. Iran was not a radical country until his rule formented fundamentalism in a great way as a backlash against his subservience to the west.
Newt Gingrich's answer to the Iranian crisis is therefore retarded. Crippling the Iranian oil industry by destroying their refinery is not going to make the citizens of Iran jump up with joy and praise the shrewd thinking of Newt "the giraffe" Gingrich. It will actually strengthen the radical elements, and anger the moderate elements in the nation. We may be willfully ignorant of our history with Iranian oil, but Iranians aren't.
Conservative activists are talking up Newt Gingrich now as the heir apparent to Ronald Reagan. They are more correct than they could ever know.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
TEHRAN, Feb. 24 (Xinhua) -- Iranian Foreign Minister said on Saturday that the United States was in no position to launch military strike against the Islamic Republic, stressing that talks were the only choice to resolve the nuclear standoff.
"We do not see the U.S. in a position to impose another crisis on its tax payers by starting another war in the region," Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters during a press conference with his Bahraini counterpart, in a response to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's warnings over Tehran earlier Saturday.
"But the Islamic Republic of Iran has prepared for two scenarios. We prefer the second one which is based on dialogue and constructive interaction," Mottaki added.
That has to smart a bit. They don't understand DeadEye Dick Cheney and George "Rapture Ready" Bush that well though. They don't care about our taxpayers, our military capabilities, or any such reality based concerns. We haven't had to use too many missiles up since the start of the Iraq invasion. We may not have the ground troops, but we can bomb them until the whole region is a smoking mess, just the way that apparently they like it.
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Thousands of Shiites on Saturday protested the U.S. detention of the son of Iraq's most powerful Shiite politician, and the country's Kurdish president deplored the "uncivilized" behavior of the American soldiers responsible.
The real message of the demonstrations: Don't push the Shiites too far either over concessions to the Sunnis or ties to Iran.
In cities throughout the Shiite south, protesters carried Iraqi flags and chanted slogans against the detention of Amar al-Hakim, 35, who was taken into custody by U.S. troops Friday as he returned from Iran.
The message it sends to this American is that unless we are assisting the Shia is taking out Sunnis, our actions aren't welcome. But, maybe I am reading too much in to this.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking on the eve of a UN
Security Council deadline to halt unranium enrichment, called on Western nations Tuesday to stop their own enrichment programs if they wanted his country to stop its own and return to negotiations.
Ahmadinejad told a crowd of thousands in northern Iran that it was no problem for his country to stop, as long as Western nations did the same.
One of the worst kept secrets in the world is that there is a great deal of hypocrisy when it comes to weapons of mass destruction. North Korea just cut a nice deal with us because they already proved they could build nuclear weapons. Iraq, which hasn't gotten that far yet, got bombed and invaded. Notice the difference?
Vladimir Putin's point is apt. President Bush's bellicose behavior only encourages rogue states to hurry faster to get their program going. North Korea, Pakistan, India, or Israel for that matter are in no danger of being seriously invaded by anybody because they are already nuclear powers.
We have tons of nuclear weapons, we have biological weapons, and President Bush wants to resume testing of next generation of nuclear weapons at the same time we are demanding that third world nations better not dare to develop these things because they are "bad".
Assume Iran is a rational or even rational actor. What is their incentive to stop? So, we won't invade? Bush invaded Iraq on dummied up intelligence even when they stopped their program, so that isn't a great motivator. The only legitimate way that Iran can feel safe from us bombing them to kingdom come is a slew of nukes aimed at Tel Aviv. Period. It sucks for the Israelis who in this respect are pawns for the US foreign policy. But, that is reality.
Until we give genuine incentives for Iran to stop, they realistically won't because it isn't in their self interest to wait until GWB decides that the four horsemen of the apocolypse were messengers of Jesus telling him that we got to smoke out those persians before the President's personal philosopher can get funding for a sequel.
Friday, February 16, 2007
A bomb exploded in Iran on Friday not far from the site where an explosion earlier this week took the lives of 11 people, a report by the state-run news agency says.
The explosion occurred in the southeastern city of Zahedan, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency. There was no word on casualties.
"Minutes ago, the sound of a bomb explosion was heard in one of Zahedan's streets," the news agency said.
Sunni extremists are being blamed for the blast. This could be a sign that there is starting to be spill over from what is occuring in Iraq. Just 9% of Iran's population is Sunni. If more bombs go off, there will likely be retaliations against the Sunni minority from the Shia in Iran. Ethnic and religious violence within Islam could be the new danger that broadens in the near future.
George W. Bush probably has a good plan for this. Ignore Iran, point fingers at them, and commence bombing. Like his other diplomatic initiatives, success will not be easy to measure in terms other than complete disaster.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice misled the U.S. Congress when she said last week that she had not seen a 2003 Iranian proposal for talks with the United States, a former senior government official said on Wednesday.
Flynt Leverett, who worked on the National Security Council when it was headed by Rice, likened the proposal to the 1972 U.S. opening to China. He said he was confident it was seen by Rice and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell but "the administration rejected the overture."
Speaking at a conference on Capitol Hill, Leverett said "this was a serious proposal, a serious effort" by Iran to lay out a comprehensive agenda for U.S.-Iranian rapprochement
In defense of Condi, at this point she has to assume that everybody knows she is lying. It sets up an interesting philosophical discussion in my mind. If we all know she won't tell the truth, is it really a lie? Perhaps in a reverse psychology kind of way, she was telling the truth in the only way she knows how.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
