Ian Welsh

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Middle East

Iranian Nuclear Hysteria

By

On September 30, 2009

Comments

The story dominating the news cycle right now is that Iran declared a nuclear site after it realized that the US already knew about it, and this means Iran wants nukes and is working on getting them.

The story is questionable at best. Under the Non Proliferation Treaty, Iran believes it needs to only declare sites 180 days before it introduces nuclear materials to them. This has been Iran’s stand for years, and there is no evidence that the site has any nuclear materials in it.

Second: we don’t know why Iran declared the site now. Maybe it’s because they knew the US knew (what is this, n-dimensional chess), or maybe it’s because they were going to anyway. We don’t know. We do know that the last time the US accused a country of having a nuclear program, however, that the US lied.

At this point there is no firm evidence that Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons. Various intelligence services have claimed Iran is, but none of them have produced evidence to be evaluated in the light of day.

Nonetheless the call is out for “severe sanctions”. Now, I’m not entirely sure that I know what severe sanctions means, but I think a safe guess is that the US wants sanctions similar to those imposed on Iraq in the nineties.

Those sanctions killed hundreds of thousands of people, possibly as many as a million. They were as devastating to Iraq as an all-out war. In terms of lives lost, the substantive difference between the sanctions and the Iraq war is that in the Iraq war American soldiers were killed as well—a few thousand American soldiers, a number much smaller than the Iraqi deaths, but a number which matters much more to Americans.

However, if deaths of non-Americans matter to you, then you should oppose Iranian sanctions. Especially since there is so far no convincing evidence that Iran even has a military nuclear program.

But even if Iran did have a military nuclear program, severe sanctions, or a military strike might still be overkill. Like them or hate them, Iran’s leadership are not insane. Nuclear weapons come with return addresses. If Iran were foolish enough to use a nuke, the country would be reduced to a glowing glass lined parking lot. Iran’s leadership would have to be insane and suicidal to do so.

Screaming constantly about how dangerous a nuclear Iran would be is simply war-mongering intended to whip up hysteria. The sort of lies which are used to whip Westerners up before every action which kills large numbers of foreigners.

To recap:

There is no public convincing evidence that Iran has a military nuclear program.

Even if Iran has somehow successfully concealed such a program from the innumerable inspections it undergoes, and did somehow manage to get nukes, it would be no more likely to use them than any other nuclear armed nation.

Sanctions could kill as many people as a major war, and they are being sold without solid evidence and through a campaign which tries to claim that Iranian nukes would be a real threat to the US, which is simply untrue.

Although American soldiers won’t die due to sanctions on Iran, the effect of sanctions could well be equal to that of a major war on Iranians. As with war, the decision to kill that number of people requires the highest evidence and the most careful consideration: not accusations which aren’t backed up by proof or hysteria about America being endangered.

We’ve been down this road once. Let’s not go down it again, and let’s not be quiet just because the people trying to shove us down this road have a (D) by their name.

The West Drives Iran Into China’s Arms

By

On September 29, 2009

Comments

China started exporting petrol to Iran recently.  Petrol is one of the main things Iran needs from the outside world.

Meanwhile, the West, and the US in specific, seems determined to impose sanctions if Iran doesn’t give up its nuclear program, a program that Iran insists is for civilian purposes.

If the West does  impose “draconian sanction” they will shove Iran firmly into China’s orbit unless China is onside with the sanctions.  It is unlikely China will be.  China has very consistently supported the individual sovereignty of various countries the West tries to use sanctions against (both Burma and Sudan, among others), and they are willing to back it up with large amounts of aid, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but for cold hard pragmatic reasons.

One major arm of China’s foreign policy is to lock up as much access to natural resources as possible and helping Iran is part of that policy.

The Chinese think long term and strategically about these issues.  America and the West in general are being driven by irrational hysteria on this issue, and short term thinking in general.

The evidence that Iran is working towards a nuclear bomb is scanty though not nonexistent, and even if they had nuclear weapons the only thing it would change is the ability of other nations to threaten them with armed force.  Tehran’s leaders are not insane, they would be no more likely to use nuclear weapons than any other country which has them, and probably less likely than some.  Nuclear weapons, including weapons provided to terrorists, come with “return addresses” —they have distinctive signatures which can be used to figure out where they came from.  If Iran were to use a nuke in any way against outsiders, other nuclear powers would respond and wipe the country off the map.

Iran probably isn’t working on nukes.  Even if it is, its getting them doesn’t particularly matter.  And the West’s preoccupation with the Iranian nuclear program is only driving them into the arms of the Chinese.

The Gore Gutlessness Lesson for Mousavi

By

On June 22, 2009

Comments

A friend of mine, someone I respect a great deal, just observed that Mousavi calling for more demonstrations was sad, given that it isn’t his head that’s going to be cracked.  Leaving aside the fact that I’m not so sure he’s sacrosanct, if things go far enough, my response is “so what?”

Because, with all due respect it’s that sort of attitude that let Bush get appointed as President in 2000 and thus lead to hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths.  Nothing’s worth getting heads cracked to most Westerners.  Certainly not an election which was even more unquestionably stolen than the Iranian one (which may or may not have been.)

For all the good Gore has done since then, I’ll despise him to the day I die for his gutlessness in 2000.  Democratic crowds, including leg-breakers from the unions and other sources were ready to roll, and he told them to stand down.  If there had been large protests, there is a very good chance that Sandra Day O’Connor would have blinked, and voted against Bush.

The price of Gore’s gutlessness was a lot of deaths.  A hell of a lot of deaths, and the gutting of the US constitution, which the country may never recover from.

I don’t know if Mousavi is making the right decision in continuing to keep the fight going.  But I do know that whether it’s the right decision or not is not determined by whether or not his opponents will use violence.  If you are unwilling to stand up to violence, then anyone who is willing to use it controls you.  You become their slave, and a slave to fear.

Anti-Abortion Terrorism Chalks Up Another Success

By

On June 9, 2009

Comments

The measure of terrorism's success

The measure of terrorism's success

The Tiller family has announced that it is closing Dr. Tiller’s clinic. The terrorists have won, and that assassination has succeeded in doing what it was meant to do. I’m sure the murderer is very happy tonight.

The bottom line on right wing terrorism against abortion rights is that it’s succeeding and has been for some time. Take a good hard look at the chart at the top and try and tell me otherwise. And when it comes to late term abortions, well, Tiller was one of the very few who still provided the service. According to Tiller, speaking in March before his assassination, he was one of only three doctors left in the US doing such abortions. Now there are two. If those numbers are right, one third of all abortion doctors doing these abortions were just killed.

In the aftermath of Tiller’s death, I heard a lot of progressives talking about how the anti-abortion folks were losing. The bottom line is that they’re winning. It is harder to get abortions than it was 5 years ago, or 10 years ago, or 25 years ago. Abortion access peaked in 1982 and has been declining ever since. Consider that the US population has increased by approximately 30% since 1982.  At the same time the number of providers has dropped by over a third.

Now, most types of abortion violence had been in a slow, long term decline (the exception is burglary) so there’s certainly some reason for optimism. At the same time I strongly suspect that anti-abortion violence will rise, along with other types of right wing terrorism, during Obama’s administration.

The larger point is simpler. It’s harder to get an abortion than it has ever been since Roe vs. Wade, because there are just less doctors who perform abortions. Until more doctors step up and start providing abortions, especially late term abortions, this will continue. It’s hard to blame doctors for not being willing to provide abortions. Not only could you be killed for doing so, your family will be stalked and perhaps harmed, your clinic will be burglarized, you will be subject to constant legal harassment and your life will, in general, be made a living hell along with the lives of your family, friends and associates.

It’s a lot to ask of someone. But this comes back to the truth of rights. You have no rights that people aren’t willing to suffer and die for. Rights that someone won’t put their life on the line for will be taken away by people who are willing to resort to intimidation, violence and to push for laws which take those rights away.

So the questions, then are these:

1) Where are the doctors who are willing to risk their lives, the lives of their families, and to endure constant harassment to ensure that women keep this right, not just in theory, but in practice?

2) Where are the mass of people who will provide money, aid, and physical protection to the doctors who put their lives on the line? Yes, they exist even now, but obviously there aren’t enough of them, because the number of abortion providers keeps going down.

Is this a right you’re willing to risk your life to keep? If enough people don’t answer that question yes, then you will continue to lose it.

Chart Source

Cross posted at Crooks and Liars.

Who Are the Radicals? Hamas, or America?

By

On May 15, 2009

Comments

Had a conversation with a friend who kept insisting Hamas are radicals because they pay suicide bombers to kill people and engage in propaganda.

Personally I’ve never understood why people get so upset by suicide attacks when bombs dropped from airplanes kill far more people.

I guess Americans are radicals, since they spend billions of dollars funding people to blow up other people and Americans have killed a ton more people in the last eight years than Hamas has.  Heck, Hamas isn’t even in contention, it’s apparently orders of magnitudes less radical than America.

I just don’t get it.  I really really don’t get why people get so caught up on the form of things, rather than the end effects.

I have no idea what the word radical means, I guess.  Perhaps it means”they don’t kill people in the ways we approve of, and they believe in a different religion than us”.  Or something.  I just don’t know.

But if funding people to kill other people is the metric, well then, Hamas are hardly radicals at all compared to most governments in the world.  Pikers, in fact.

As for propaganda, they’re just not very sophisticated.  American propaganda is far better and far more pervasive.  How many Americans thought Iraq was behind 9/11?  How many do today?  Without even having to use Mickey Mouse.

Propaganda makes you radical?

Welcome to the Radical States of America – which funds more murders and engages in more propaganda than Hamas could ever hope to.

And without even as much justification.  What did Iraq do to America compared to what Israel has done to Palestinians?

The End of Israel?

By

On April 2, 2009

Comments

I will confess that over the years I have moved from a strong support of the Israeli side to a disgust so deep that it is almost existential. I am not so self-righteous, so sure of my Gandhi-nature, to think that if I had been born in Palestine, as a Palestinian, that I would be committed to a non violent solution.

People don’t seem to get it. Most Palestinians have never known anything but occupation. They have never known anything but curfews, residences being bulldozed, travel passes and settlers moving in increasing numbers and taking the best land, along with access to water.

They have never known anything but a boot in the face. It’s that simple.

And the Israeli army, once the finest in the world, has been, as all armies are, coarsenened by the occupation. The Israeli state bemoans suicide bombers, then kills Palestinian opposition leaders with rockets – rockets they know will cause collateral damage (a phrase that means “will kill innocents”). They have complete access to the country and could easily assassinate people cleanly, without collateral casualties – they choose not to. They could arrest those same people, again easily. They chose not to. The blood is on their hands as much as those of the innocent Israeli citizens killed by Palestinian suicide bombers and rockets.

But there is much more blood on their hands. Much, much more. As with the narcissism that is America bewailing its losses (oh, you’ve lost 2,500, eh? How many have the Iraqis lost?) Palestinian losses are much higher than Israeli, and like Israeli they are predominantly innocent civilians who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But I find it funny too, in a dark sort of way. My cold hard calculation is that the odds favouring Israel’s survival as a Jewish state have never been worse. Over time demographic realities will end the possibility of a two state solution. They will come to be an ethnic and religious minority ruling over bantustans full of Muslims who can’t vote, who are subject to attack, who are not allowed enough water for agriculture, who require passes to trvel from one part of Palestine to another – people who are clearly disenfranchised second class citizens.

Failure to make peace with Palestinians; greed for more and more of Palestine; the constant undermining of any faction capable of actually delivering a peace (ie. what is happening to Hamas right now); refusal to negotiate until the Palestinians have given up most of the items on the table prior to negotiation – all of these have doomed Israel to turn into South Africa.

Oh, none of this is to say that Palestinians bear no blame, let alone all the Muslim nations who have chosen to use the Palestinian situation as a political football. There have been despicable acts on both sides. But Israel chose to occupy Palestine – they chose to rule over non-citizens, and to keep them down with a military boot. They are the ones with the most power in the relationship – and in the end it is their dream of a safe Jewish state which is going to be destroyed by their own actions.

For the two-state dream is dying. Failure to achieve it leaves Palestinians clearly under Israeli rule. The majority of them have never known anything but Israeli rule.

What do you call a person who is subject to the authority of a country, who was born in land that country rules, who does not have a vote?

The failure of a two state solution, the insistence that Israel has the right to do anything it wants, including arresting cabinet ministers of a foreign government, in their own country, makes it clear that Palestine is not a separate country.

And if it is not a separate country, then it is part of Israel. And in the end it will be recognized as such.

Soon enough America is not going to be able to afford to continue massive subsidies of Israel. Soon enough protectionism and isolationism is going to be on the upswing. Soon enough other powers, like Europe and China, will find their relative power growing.

Soon enough, Uncle Sam isn’t going to be enough.

Soon enough, Israel is going to find itself all alone, locked in a country with a mjority of the population being Palestinian – Palestinians who have every reason to hate their occupiers.

And they will be faced with a series of horrible choices, choices that will either see the end of Israel as a Jewish state, will see them turn to ethnic cleansing, or will require them, at long last, to face what occupying another people’s country has done to their noble dream.

Originally Written June 29th, 2006 at the Agonist. More true now than it was then.

Netanyahu’s Delusional Desire to Attack Iran

By

On April 1, 2009

Comments

Netanyahu states that if the US doesn’t deal with Iran’s “nuclear program”, Israel will.

Neither Netanyahu nor his principal military advisers would suggest a deadline for American progress on the Iran nuclear program, though one aide said pointedly that Israeli time lines are now drawn in months, “not years.” These same military advisers told me that they believe Iran’s defenses remain penetrable, and that Israel would not necessarily need American approval to launch an attack. “The problem is not military capability, the problem is whether you have the stomach, the political will, to take action,” one of his advisers, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told me.

This is like saying “if Russia doesn’t stop its program to create apocalyptic fairies, we will attack them”.  That is to say, while Iran certainly has a nuclear program, there is no credible evidence that it is trying to get nuclear weapons, only civilian nuclear technology.

And while Iranian defenses may be “permeable”, who, exactly, is going to give Israel overflight rights to get its planes to Iran?  Add to that the fact that Israel will need multiple sorties, unless it wants to use nuclear weapons itself (which would be somewhat ironic) and there’s a fair chunk of bluster going on here.

And then there is Netanyahu’s apocalyptic hysteria:

In unusually blunt language, Netanyahu said of the Iranian leadership, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran.”

This is just propaganda, or if not that, self-delusion.  There is no credible evidence that Iran is willing to accept certain nuclear annihilation in order to use nuclear weapons on Israel.  Nukes come with return addresses, even nukes given to terrorists.  Iran having nukes just means it can’t itself be nuked without retaliation, what Israel is concerned about is not the possibility of pre-emptive nuclear war started by Iran, but the fact that if Iran was to get nukes (again, there is no evidence they are trying, but Israeli decision makers don’t appear to care about evidence) then Israel would loose its Middle Eastern nuclear monopoly.

If the US greenlights an Israeli attack on Iran it risks having both Iraq and Afghanistan go up in flames, and having Iran shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which would send the price of oil through the roof and put intolerable pressure on the world economy.

In no way is an Israeli attack on Iran in America’s interests.  In no way is it in Israel’s interests.  However, like the Israeli attack on Gaza, it may serve domestic Israeli political needs, by making Israelis feel tough and as if they are doing something for their security.  Like the attack on Gaza, however, all it will accomplish is to make the rest of the world trust and like Israel even less.  And it may make Iran decide that it does actually need nuclear weapons.

Israeli decision makers are abominably bad.  After failing to achieve their goals in Lebanon (destroy Hezbollah) or Gaza (end smuggling and missile attacks) they now claim they want to attack another country for doing something there is no evidence it is doing.

George Bush would approve, I suppose.

How ‘Bout Treating Palestinians Like Equal Human Beings

By

On March 31, 2009

Comments

Pat Lang sums it up nicely:

On a grander scale, Israeli complaints of continued Palestinian (Hamas) smuggling of supplies and munitions are a validation of the analytic comments I made here and on television to the effect that the Israeli effort at Gaza (Cast Lead) would be a total strategic failure if the Palestinians did not submit to the Israeli collective will as a result of that punitive campaign.

They have not submited and so it is fair to say that “Cast Lead” was strategically a total failure that served once again to demonstrate the impotence of Israeli arms in dealing with the essence of their “problem” with the Palestinians.  What is next, forced “re-locations,” a first strike against Iran as a relief from having to deal with the truly existential issue of Palestine?  How about face to face negotiations with the Palestinians as equal human beings?  How about that?

The Palestinian problem only as three solutions—real negotiation leading to a single state or two state solution with the settlers withdrawn, or full on ethnic cleansing.  The Israelis need to cut bait and decide if they are monsters or human beings and which one they’d prefer to do.  In the meantime, until they decide that, perhaps they should stop with the deliberate war crimes:

Well, the photograph above is of white phosphorus shell fired from either artillery or mortars.  It is bursting over an upscale civilian apartment development.  There are a lot of pictures like this.  Any old soldier, including ones from the IDF, knows that this is white phosphorus shell.

White phosphorus (a metal) burns on contact with air.  It burns under water.  If you get it on you, it will burn through your arm, leg, etc., until the burning phosporus comes out the other side.  Your only real recourse is to cut it out of you with a knofe before it does so.  White phosphorus shell is legally used for generating smoke on the battlefield.  It used to be common in aerial bombs.  Germany and Japan were heavily bombed with this among many other  things for the specific purpose of burning down their towns.

So.  The IDF spokeman is a liar.  The question of whther and to what extent the IDF also shot civilians deliberately I leave to the conscience of IDF soldiers who seem unwilling to shut up about it.  God bless them.

Saying this sort of thing is one of the last taboos, where you can get real pressure to stop.  But I don’t imagine Pat Lang cares much what people tell him to do and I think the worm is slowly turning.  The Israelis deliberate decision to commit premeditated war crimes during the Gaza incursion turned a lot of stomachs.  It was different mostly in degree, not kind, to the sort of thing they’ve done before but just people have a threshold beyond which evil becomes too hard to ignore.

Hopefully Americans and, more importantly, the arbiters of American discourse in the media and politics, are beginning to be tired of covering up Israeli atrocities.

Hopefully.

And meanwhile the Israelis are 0 for 2.  Neither their war against Hezbollah nor against Gaza achieved the goals they themselves declared were the victory conditions.

Page 20 of 20

Previous

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén