Hugo Chavez offers inexpensive gasoline to USA’s poor

Aztlan.net

The Mexico City newspaper that has been covering the Reverend Jesse Jackson’s visit to Venezuela, El Universal, is reporting that President Hugo Chavez is offering gasoline and heating fuel at very low and affordable prices to the poor and needy in the USA. Hugo Chavez said yesterday that he will be apportioning 1.5 million barrels of oil daily at 40% less than market price through the Venezuelan government owned "Citgo" in the USA. Citgo will refine the oil into gasoline and heating fuel and make it available to the unemployed, the poor and old folks who find it difficult to heat their homes in the winter. Petr󬥯s de Venezuela, S.A., the national oil company of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, purchased Citgo in the 1990’s.

[...]
President Hugo Chavez said that he estimates that his offer will benefit from between 7 to 8 million needy Americans. He added that his embassy in Washington D.C. has already received 140 applications for the program because Americans are being "defrauded" and "gouged" by greedy US oil companies like Chevron and others. Chavez plans to implement the program through 8 refineries and 14 thousand gas stations that Citgo (Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A.) owns in the USA.
MORE

Chavez timing couldn't be better. Threatened by Pat Robertson, villified by the Bush Administration, Chavez offers to come to the aid of the poor in the US. He has made a shrewd move to break through the stonewalling at the border for Chavez' political bandwagon. Lets see if he can get in.

Greenspan and the Housing Bubble

New York Times

These days Mr. Greenspan expresses concern about the financial risks created by "the prevalence of interest-only loans and the introduction of more-exotic forms of adjustable-rate mortgages." But last year he encouraged families to take on those very risks, touting the advantages of adjustable-rate mortgages and declaring that "American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage."


If Mr. Greenspan had said two years ago what he's saying now, people might have borrowed less and bought more wisely. But he didn't, and now it's too late. There are signs that the housing market either has peaked already or soon will. And it will be up to Mr. Greenspan's successor to manage the bubble's aftermath.


How bad will that aftermath be? The U.S. economy is currently suffering from twin imbalances. On one side, domestic spending is swollen by the housing bubble, which has led both to a huge surge in construction and to high consumer spending, as people extract equity from their homes. On the other side, we have a huge trade deficit, which we cover by selling bonds to foreigners. As I like to say, these days Americans make a living by selling each other houses, paid for with money borrowed from China.


One way or another, the economy will eventually eliminate both imbalances. But if the process doesn't go smoothly - if, in particular, the housing bubble bursts before the trade deficit shrinks - we're going to have an economic slowdown, and possibly a recession. In fact, a growing number of economists are using the "R" word for 2006.


And here's where Mr. Greenspan is still saying foolish things. In his closing remarks he suggested that "an end to the housing boom could induce a significant rise in the personal saving rate, a decline in imports and a corresponding improvement in the current account deficit." Translation, I think: the end of the housing bubble will automatically cure the trade deficit, too.


Sorry, but no. A housing slowdown will lead to the loss of many jobs in construction and service industries but won't have much direct effect on the trade deficit. So those jobs won't be replaced by new jobs elsewhere until and unless something else, like a plunge in the value of the dollar, makes U.S. goods more competitive on world markets, leading to higher exports and lower imports.


So there's a rough ride ahead for the U.S. economy. And it's partly Mr. Greenspan's fault. MORE

The Fed is supposed to be independent. However, I'm sure Greenspan was called on the carpet by Bush and told it would now be Bush's way or the highway. I'm sure he cued him in on some of his plans to make it seem as if it was a partnership and Greenspan wanting to keep his job and influence signed on. I'm sure he's had some surprises along the way, but he is a man of his word. So he has been set up as the fall guy when it all falls apart.
Bush's "base" the super rich, are less tied to the economic conditions. These are the folks that capitalize on adversity, who are making billions on the war on Iraq, who will own all the homes that default when the housing bubble bursts. Bush played a high risk gambit, knowing that if it all went wrong, the economy could falter. But his base would still be happy. Now it is playing out as a worst case scenario.
Take a look at the state of the "recovery".
Associated Press

Even with a robust economy that was adding jobs last year, the number of Americans who fell into poverty rose to 37 million -- up 1.1 million from 2003 -- according to Census Bureau figures released Tuesday. It marks the fourth straight increase in the government's annual poverty measure. The Census Bureau also said household income remained flat, and that the number of people without health insurance edged up by about 800,000 to 45.8 million people.

[...]
While disappointed, the Bush administration -- which has not seen a decline in poverty numbers since the president took office -- said it was not surprised by the new statistics. MORE

There is no surprise that Bush says there is no surprise. This is the outcome he expected all along. Perhaps by next year the Administration will figure out how to pad the figures like Reagan did to the unemployment rate. For those that don't know, the only people counted as unemployed are those that register at unemployment offices. If you used up your unemployment and were still looking, would you register with the office? I think not.

In the Struggle Over the Iraq War, Women Are on the Front Line

Even Anti-war movements in the past have been primarily led by men. Not this time. Sheehan has grabbed the spotlight and has been joined by dozens of other mothers and significant others of fallen heroes. In past generations, women were admonished to suffer their losses in silence. That world is no more.
In the Struggle Over the Iraq War, Women Are on the Front Line - New York Times

Women - mothers and widows of men killed in Iraq - were the most vocal leaders of antiwar protests in Texas, Idaho and Utah that dogged Mr. Bush all week. Another woman, Tammy Pruett, whose husband and five sons have served in Iraq, was showcased by the White House as a pro-war counterpoint.


Jean Prewitt getting a hug in Crawford, Tex. The tableau was a striking change from the 1960's protests against the Vietnam War, when the demonstrations were largely led by young men, who were subject to the draft. Although mothers protested that war too, they were not in the forefront of the movement.


In interviews last week, some of the female protesters suggested that decades of feminism had pushed them more easily into leadership and public speaking roles in the antiwar vigils inspired by Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a slain soldier, who is demanding to meet with Mr. Bush in a protest outside his ranch. But they also viewed the war through the traditional prism of mothers andmothers and wives, and said that women felt the pain of loss more intensely than men.


"There's a certain ferocity in motherhood," said Celeste Zappala of Philadelphia, a co-founder of Ms. Sheehan's antiwar group, Gold Star Families for Peace, and the mother of Sgt. Sherwood Baker, a national guardsman. Sergeant Baker was killed in Baghdad in April 2004 while protecting the Iraq Survey Group, which was searching for large unconventional weapons. Ms. Zappala, who protested against the Vietnam War in college and was a main speaker at an antiwar demonstration in Salt Lake City on Monday, added: "Maybe women feel more compelled, more empowered. Maybe it's because men in our country don't speak so easily about things that are personal and so hard."


Jean Prewitt of Birmingham, Ala., whose son, Pvt. Kelley Prewitt, died in Iraq in April 2003, said her former husband, Kelley's father, went back to work soon after their son died. "I was just a basket case," she said, adding that "we gave birth to these boys, and they didn't." Ms. Prewitt said she voted for Mr. Bush in 2000 and initially supported the war, but turned against it after no unconventional weapons were found. "The first year I was rather numb, and then I got angry," she said.


Ms. Sheehan and the other protesters are financed in part by antiwar organizations and advised by Fenton Communications, a public relations firm based in Washington that counts advocacy groups like MoveOn.org and TrueMajority among its clients. They resent it, the protesters said, when their opponents call them agents of the left.


"I may be a grieving mother, but I'm not stupid," said Ms. Zappala, who runs a city program for the elderly in Philadelphia. "No one has to tell me what to say. And if people help me amplify myself, God bless them."


At the Texas White House, Ms. Sheehan's protests have been closely watched, and the mood there is one of concern but not yet alarm. Mr. Bush has been careful not to go on a direct attack against a publicly grieving mother like Ms. Sheehan, and has pointed out that he met with her once already, in 2004, and that he has sympathy for her and her right to protest. Still, he said last week that protesters like her were weakening the United States and emboldening terrorists, and vowed that he would not immediately withdraw all American troops from Iraq, as she has demanded. More

Destroying the UN

Bush's appointment to the UN has started to show his hand. His agenda is to clearly destroy as much credibility of the body world wide as he possibly can. The world, especially the US has been impatient with this international body.
To me the UN has always represented the next level of evolution of society. From my perspective, it would take perhaps hundreds of years to accomplish it's lofty goal of acheiving an international body that would represent all of mankind and serve as a mediator of all conflicts between countries. Its purpose is to minimize conflict, serve as source of peacekeeping troops and only if necessary, protect the peace as has been necessary and at least reasonably successful in a few African countries in the past decade.
But the Bush Administration sees the UN as a rival in power politics, a body that is dominated by world opinion, not the interests of the US. That would diminish US power and influence worldwide by creating a counterpoise with substantial credibility and influence. In the Bush Administration point of view, if it interferes with getting what they want, it has to go.
The Agonist

America's controversial new ambassador to the United Nations is seeking to shred an agreement on strengthening the world body and fighting poverty intended to be the highlight of a 60th anniversary summit next month. In the extraordinary intervention, John Bolton has sought to roll back proposed UN commitments on aid to developing countries, combating global warming and nuclear disarmament.


Mr Bolton has demanded no fewer than 750 amendments to the blueprint restating the ideals of the international body, which was originally drafted by the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan. The amendments are spelt out in a 32-page US version, first reported by the Washington Post and acquired yesterday by The Independent. The document is littered with deletions and exclusions. Most strikingly, the changes eliminate all specific reference to the so-called Millennium Development Goals, accepted by all countries at the last major UN summit in 2000, including the United States.


To the dismay of many other delegations, the US has even scored out pledges that would have asked nations to "achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product for official development assistance by no later than 2015". All references to the date or the percentage level are gone in the Bolton version.


Passages that look forward to a larger role for the General Assembly are gone. Rejected also is a promise to create a standing military capacity for UN peacekeeping. This show of contempt from Washington and its new envoy comes at a time when Mr Annan has been severely weakened by allegations of widespread corruption, fraud and nepotism. More

Iraq takes yet another step closer to civil war

Despite all the white wash about Iraq from the Whitehouse and some of the mainstream press, the truth is things are worse now that they've ever been. Privately, US and British officials are comparing the recent developments to those that tore Lebannon apart twenty some years ago. You think the prices of gas is high now? Worried about the economy now? Just wait until regional war breaks out between Sunnis and Shiites in the Middle East and the world economy shutters.

The Observer

'The negotiation is finished and we have a deal,' said the Deputy Prime Minister, Ahmed Chalabi, one of the key movers behind the scenes. 'Everybody made sacrifices. It is an excellent document.' State television showed people rejoicing in the Shia holy city of Najaf. There was just one problem. The Sunnis, the restive minority everybody agreed had to be included to make the constitution a success, were queuing up to denounce the document as a betrayal that would fan the insurgency.


The main objection on the Sunni side was to federalism, which they said would break up the state and sandwich Sunnis in the centre, where there is no oil, between an autonomous Kurdistan in the north and a Shia region in the south. The Sunnis - many of them former ruling Baath party members - also wanted to block attempts to purge from government those who had served the old regime. The Kurds and Shias reportedly offered to delay autonomy for the south and to dilute de-Baathification, but the concessions were not enough. More

The American Conservative

There is increasing evidence that the Iraqi police forces, now under Shi’ite control, are carrying out systematic revenge killings against Sunnis in Baghdad. The bodies now showing up at the morgue have obvious signs of handcuffing and blindfolding and evidence of being tortured before death. U.S. sources indicate that the suspicious killings have reached the rate of almost 700 per month. The police are supervised by the Shi’ite-run Ministry of Interior, which claims that the killings are being carried out by insurgents wearing stolen police uniforms. But American intelligence sources disagree, noting that many of the killers appear to be actual policemen carrying the expensive standard-issue Glock automatics and driving official Toyota Land Cruisers.


August 1, 2005 Issue
Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative

AlertNet news

"Death squads" from both sects now operate. They drive around ridding neighbourhoods of Sunnis or Shi'ites. In recent months, the litany has continued: the brother of the man who buys food for the office was killed by a roadside bomb; the cousin of our Arabic service correspondent was tortured and killed after being taken by the police; the father-in-law of one of our translators was shot by U.S. troops and had to have his leg amputated; the brother of our reporter in Falluja was killed by Iraqi troops.


Last month, a Sunni Muslim politician who had become a regular source was gunned down in Baghdad because he was working on writing the new constitution. His name and number are still in our list of contacts. Emotionally, it's not easy to erase them. That is just one office. Others have similar stories to tell.


The vast majority of those who have died are Iraqis, and a huge number are also innocent victims. There is no definitive record but Iraq Body Count, a U.S.-British non-profit group, estimates 25,000 civilians were killed in just the first two years after the war began. They compiled the figure from media reports, which suggests the total is probably much higher -- far from every death is reported by the media. Almost none of those mentioned above was.


Over the same period, more than 1,850 U.S. troops have also died, 1,400 of them killed in combat, and more than 13,000 have been wounded, many of them horrifically, with the loss of limbs or their sight.


Journalists have not escaped either. More than 50 reporters and their colleagues have died in Iraq since March 2003, making it the most dangerous place in the world for the media to work. Reuters has had two cameramen killed, shot dead by U.S. tank or machinegun fire. Another cameraman, a freelance who worked for Reuters, was shot dead last November during a U.S. Marine offensive in Ramadi. Several other Reuters cameramen have been shot at, barely escaping alive. Marla Ruzicka, a young American woman who ran an aid group that worked to win compensation for the innocent victims of war, and who was a constant presence among the press corps in Baghdad, was killed by a car bomb on Baghdad's airport road.


Sometimes the horror stories come out of nowhere. I met an Iraqi Airways official in northern Iraq two weeks ago and we chatted for a while about his life and family. Last week I called to see how he was doing and he broke down on the phone. "It's too terrible," he said. "I came home from work three days ago and as my son was running to say hello to me, he collapsed on the ground. I went to him and he was covered in blood." His son, 10-year-old Mohammed, had been hit by a stray bullet. It went through his neck, severing his vertebrae, and left him paralysed from the waist down.


One of Iraq's leading psychiatrists, Dr Harith Hassan, believes the country may be the most psychologically damaged in the world, thanks to 25 years of Saddam Hussein's murderous regime and the past 2-1/2 years of violence. "The long-term implications are profound," he told me this month, estimating that up to 70 percent of the patients he sees are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. "What's going on is really a catastrophe from a psychological and a social point of view."

Not all Shiite's favor the constitution. One such leader has been a nemisis of the US invasion from the beginning. young Shi'ite firebrand Moqtada al-Sadr organized a demonstration by over one hundred thousand Iraqis across the country on Friday. Sadr has been battling the Iranian surrogate in Iraq Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). More
As I predicted before, the US finds it self in the untenable position of finding it's interests most closely represented by its enemies in Iraq, the Sunnis and Sadr are advocating for a united Iraq.
One doesn't have to go far to discover what might be a living model of a people fragmented by generations of constant war: Rwanda, Liberia and Sierra Leone. Insurgencies and civil war in equitorial Africa has led to small bands of armed teenagers roaming free, robbing, raping and killing and serving as mercenaries various conflicts over several decades helping to destabilizing several countries with a history of stability and producing more roaming armed youths.
Is that what we want all over the Middle East? This is bin Ladin's dream come true. Bush has given him everything he's wished for.

Bush Planning to Attack Iran?

The American Conservative

In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.


Copyright 2005 The American Conservative

Now considering the source, one wonders just how true this is. The part that rings true to me is that Cheney was the one who advocated attacking Iraq justifying it by alleging Sadaam was supporting Bin Ladin. With all the hype building about Iran supposedly supporting the insurgency in Iran, one would expect him to want to prepare for another unique opportunity even though its all an absurd lie that anyone informed would recognize immediately. However, former CIA ops have plenty of experience with creating disinformation and they have lots of bad blood with the Whitehouse. Here is what Doug Ireland said.

This report is signed by one Philip Giraldi, who is identified as "a former CIA Officer, [and] a partner in Cannistraro Associates." This makes it even more interesting -- for the head of Cannistraro Associates is none other than former CIA Vince_cannistraro counter-terrorism chief Vince Cannistraro (right), who was also Director for Intelligence Programs at the National Security Council under President Reagan, former Special Assistant for Intelligence in the office of the Secretary of Defense, and whose face you've seen a lot on TV -- he's currently a consultant to ABC News on intelligence and terrorism.


Now, I'm always mindful of the old saw that military intelligence is to intelligence as military music is to music -- and the blame-shifting between Cheney and his cronies and the CIA for intelligence failures in Iraq has led to a lot of bad blood between Langley types, past and present, and the Veep's office. But, while one wouldn't necessarily trust the ears of Cannistraro and his cronies when it comes to sussing out matters abroad, one wouldn't be wrong in thinking that the fact that this well-placed prominent veteran of a lifetime in the U.S. national security apparatus spent a lot of time at the highest levels of the intelligence community gives him and his subordinates access to some pretty juicy Pentagon gossip.

So, it's not surprising these guys would have lots of access to such information. Sounds like Ireland leans towards believing this.

Venezuela's Hugo Chavez Makes His Bid for a Bolivarian Revolution

There is a very interesting political process playing out all over South America. Currently the trendsetter is the mercurial Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela. Venezuela has the largest future oil reserves in the world, most of it the heavy tar crude that needs special refining. Chavez has been doing his part to contain the excessive profits of the multi-national oil companies. Not surprisingly, he has enemies, including the Bush Administration. The Center for Democracy talks about US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld making a tour of South America this past week blaming Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez for the last five years of Bolivian political turmoil. Clearly the movements in Venezuela and Bolivia are indigenous to their own disparity of wealth from the farmers to the wealthy oil and natural gas men and the multi-national corporations supporting them.
PINR

Throughout the first three months of 2005, the chronic verbal jousting between Washington and Venezuela's "populist" regime led by President Hugo Chavez ratcheted up in intensity, with Chavez threatening to cut off oil exports to the United States if Washington moved to destabilize his rule, and Washington declaring that it was pursuing a policy to "contain" him.

[...]
Washington sees Chavez to be its greatest problem in South America, because he is the most radically leftist regional leader and the only one offering a clearly alternative and opposed model to Washington's scenario of a Free Trade Area of the Americas (F.T.A.A.) composed of market democracies led by the United States.

[...]
Chavez's domestic model -- a "new socialism" -- is an eclectic mixture of state intervention in the economy, tolerance of an independent private business sector, mobilization of society through a revolutionary party that penetrates every community, yet tolerates political opposition and adheres to constitutional procedures. The model includes "participative democracy" at the local level that focuses on "endogenous development" projects that bring the various sectors of society together in pursuit of common purposes, yet are energized by "Bolivarian circles" composed of his supporters, a dose of Catholic "liberation theology" that emphasizes preference for the poor, and an overarching nationalism that provides the rationale for patience and sacrifice on the parts of the conflicting interests that constitute the entire program.


To call Chavez a "populist" and leave the matter there dismissively -- as his opponents consistently do -- is a mistake. Instead, Bolivarism is a complex vision that is riddled with tensions, yet provides a basis for institutional development and a framework for particular policies. The primary tension is between social mobilization through state intervention, a revolutionary party, and the network of Bolivarian circles along with the tolerance of a private business sector, political opposition and inclusion of civil society at the local level, all of which are capable of running counter to mobilization.


The balance between mobilization and inclusion is shaky and susceptible to falling toward the Castro-style dictatorship that Chavez's opponents foresee or toward the deadlock and disorder that broke out in 2002. Success in implementing the vision depends on a steady stream of funds from high oil prices, enabling Chavez to improve the conditions of the poor, who form his base, and to keep the more advantaged interests at bay.

[...]
The country has the largest proven oil reserves in the Western Hemisphere (78 billion barrels) and the largest in the world (300 billion barrels) if the super-heavy crude in the Orinoco tar belt is included. The Venezuelan state also owns significant downstream refining and distribution assets through Houston-based Citgo.

[...]
The lagging production figures reflect depletion of Venezuela's developed oil fields and insufficient investment in developing new ones. With profits estimated at $6.5 billion for 2004, P.D.V.S.A. claims to be investing $5 billion a year in development and exploration, with the goal of bringing production up to 4.9 million barrels a day by 2010. Yet Chavez is also estimated to be diverting $4 billion a year of the oil profits to finance the Bolivarian revolution, leading analysts to posit an investment shortfall that can only be made up by foreign investors.


Faced with the conflicting demands of expanding oil production and funding the Bolivarian revolution, Chavez has moved to extract more money from foreign producers operating in Venezuela. In October 2004, he raised the royalty tax on companies working in the Orinoco belt from one percent to 16.6 percent. All the affected companies except Exxon Mobil have acquiesced in the tax hike so far. Exxon Mobil, which argues that the original low tax compensates it for its capital investment, has succeeded in getting the government to enter talks with it on the issue, but Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Rodriguez insists that the tax hike will not be rolled back. Under a law passed in 2001, new projects will have a royalty rate of 30 percent, which does not seem to have discouraged investors in the short term (for example, on March 31, ChevronTexaco announced plans to pursue joint development in the Orinoco belt with P.D.V.S.A.).

[...]
As a longer term growth strategy that has geostrategic implications, Chavez has moved aggressively to diversify the market for Venezuelan oil and the sources of investment for its oil industry. Caracas has signed energy agreements with Beijing and Brasilia, and is negotiating with New Delhi. Chavez's plan is to deal government-to-government, rather than with private firms, and to make Venezuela less dependent on exports to the U.S. and on private investment. He also wants to see a cooperative energy agreement be made in South America to create a complex -- Petrosur -- uniting all state hydrocarbons companies in the region, with the goal of excluding the big multinational oil companies from energy development.

Now we see what Bush is primarily concerned about. All the criticism about Chavez being a closet Castro on his way to dictatorship is just the beginning disinformation campaign. Can you imagine a dictator in Venezuela surviving the pressure of the US, oil multi-nationals, and its own middle and upperclass? I think not.
Venezuela, Brazil and Bolivia offer to the world a model of development that just may balence the forces of globalization by turn the wheels of capitalism to benefit the whole population, not just the privileged few. I see real promise in these movements.

Don't Underestimate the Mullahs

Someone else is wondering about the Bush Administration. He's wondering if they are stupid. Well, I think they are smarter than that, but I do think they are up to something, and it's not wise.
New York Times

EARLIER this month Bush administration officials leaked to the press what they said was a new official estimate of when Iran might be able to build a nuclear weapon. Speaking anonymously, they told reporters that American intelligence agencies now believe it would take at least 6 and maybe as many as 10 years before that


Whew! Instead of worrying over the previous estimate of only five years, we can relax. And if this administration can't figure out how to stop the Iranian bomb, there will be plenty of time for someone else to do it. Right?


Actually, no. We should be alarmed rather than comforted by this latest prediction. Consider this: American intelligence agencies completely missed Saddam Hussein's giant machines for processing uranium to weapons grade before the Persian Gulf war in 1991. Then, overreacting to that mistake, these agencies wrongly reported that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the 2003 invasion. Now, they appear to be overreacting to their last overreaction by underestimating the threat from Iran.
What must Iran do to make a bomb? This month it started an essential part of the process. It resumed the conversion of about 37 tons of natural uranium into the gaseous form that can be fed into centrifuges. Those machines, by spinning the gas at high speed, enrich its potency - either to a low level for fueling a reactor, or to a high level for fueling a bomb. These 37 tons, which should be ready for enrichment in a month or so, would be sufficient for six to nine weapons.


Why does the administration think it will take up to 10 years to process this material? The intelligence estimate is secret, but foreign and American officials involved in monitoring Iran's efforts tell me that Washington assumes Iran's centrifuges are of poor quality and that Iranian scientists may have trouble connecting them into what is called a cascade, in which the uranium must flow from one machine to the next.


This prediction, however, discounts an overwhelming amount of countervailing evidence. First, an official at the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors Iran's nuclear progress in detail, told me that his agency is confident that the Iranians can produce high-quality centrifuges. Officials at the agency also know that Iran has built a string of workshops as part of a plan to produce some 50,000 centrifuges, with an assumed production rate of many thousand per year. It also has thousands of components for the centrifuges on hand, some it made itself and others imported, likely from Pakistan.


It is unreasonable to assume that Iran could not, after deciding to begin a concerted effort, assemble a 2,000-machine cascade in a year. In 2002, Iranian scientists enriched a small amount of uranium in an experimental cascade at the Kalaye Electric Company, a secret operation in Tehran that the International Atomic Energy Agency didn't discover until 2003.


After a year's operation of such a cascade, Iran would have one bombs worth of highly enriched uranium, and could have built and started running 2,000 more centrifuges. Continuing at this pace would yield three bombs' worth of enriched material in three years, and about six bombs' worth in four. This is the sort of calculation that experts at American government laboratories have been doing for a long time, and one such scientist told me he was stunned by the administration's 6-to-10-year estimate.


And then there is the problem of what we don't know. Inspectors from the atomic energy agency frequently complain that Iran has never explained how far it got in its efforts to build a more advanced model of centrifuge that could save lots of production time. Iran got the blueprints for this machine around 1995 from the notorious Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, and imported hard-to-find components like specialized magnets.

The Bush Administration set about destabilizing Iran not long after being re-elected. He's sent black ops Special Forces, penetrated air space to map anti-aircraft missile sites, they've working hard creating so much disinformation about Iran, much of it is so ludicrous that only the uninformed would believe it.
I have two ideas about this piece. First of all, I don't for a minute believe the Bush Administration no longer sees a threat in Iran. They are still spreading incredible lies about Iran sending bombs to the insurgents in the Iraq to kill fellow Shiites! Either the Administration is trying to mollify impatient right-wing hawks about their inaction on Iran, or they are planning imminent action and want to see if they can put Iran off guard. Which one it is is hard to predict. The former would require Bush to be aware he has very little political capital anymore, so he's trying to save what he has while taking very few major risks. Frankly, I'd be more inclined to believe the latter. Bush's pattern is that he "won't back down for nuttin'". So I expect some sort of action towards Iran in the next couple weeks from either the US or Israel, more likely Israel because Bush wants to keep as much rapport as he can in Iraq.

Can Bush Learn A Lesson?

On another side of Bush's war in the Middle East, Josh Landis of SyriaComment.com has his analysis of Syria's influence on the Middle East, in particular the future of Iraq.

Washington believes it would be an easy matter for Bashar to reverse his policy of opposing America’s presence in Iraq and to crack down on the Syrian Sunni population that gives comfort and assistance to Arab fighters traveling though Syria to fight in Iraq or Baathist Iraqis who have become ensconced here. It will not be easy.

[...]
Washington is asking Bashar al-Asad to do something similar by cracking down on the Sunni population that sympathizes with the Sunni Iraqi community and opposes the emergence of a Shiite dominated Iraq. Bashar may well be amenable to launching such a campaign and risking a new chapter of sectarian strife in Syria, but he can only do so if Washington supports him openly. So long as he believes Washington is trying to isolate him and topple his regime, he cannot. It would be suicide for him to open a second front against Muslim extremists in Syria, while Washington seeks his downfall. Syria is the one Arab country that has not been wracked by extremist violence over the last 20 years. That is because the government has not swum against the tide of public opinion by embracing American policies in the region. Syrians overwhelmingly believe that the US is waging a war against Arabism and Islam. For Bashar to attack this common perception and to support America’s fight in Iraq, he must have Washington’s backing. It is basic realism.


Those in Washington who insist on continuing President Bush's campaign to "reform the greater Middle East" by ratcheting up the pressure on Syria and refusing to engage President Bashar, even at the price of added instability in Iraq, are foolish. First, such a policy will fail. There is no internal opposition to President Bashar worthy of the name. Second, it is bad for the US. More American soldiers will be killed in Iraq because of it, and Iraq's chances of finding a way out of its downward spiral into chaos and civil war will be diminished. The US needs Syria's cooperation, and it should put its Iraq policy above that of bringing regime change to Damascus.


Washington must choose between stabilizing Iraq and destabilizing Syria. It is that simple. It cannot pursue both policies at the same time.


Bashar’s decision to go to New York and talk to Americans is wise. It shows he is willing to meet Washington half way. Hopefully, someone there will be listening.

The Bush Administration needs as much help as it can get in Iraq. Yet so far it continues to isolate Syria and promote regime change. This is a failed policy. Bashar won't be overthrown because he is not so stupid as to play a losing hand. Even if he could be overthrown, the new government will be relatively weak and certainly unable to reign in the militant Sunnis supporting the insurgency in Iraq.
Only Bashar can do that.

Staying the Course Just Means More Disaster in Iraq

Juan Cole of Informed Comment has an excellent article on Iraq today. As usual, I agree with most everything he says about Iraq.
The idea that Iran would smuggle bombs into Iraq is absolutely ludicrous. Iran wants a united Iraq as an ally and to prevent an independent Kurdistan.
The United States is divided on what to do about Iraq. The Republicans and the Democrats within their own parties can't agree on what to do. The only person sure of himself is Bush. What does that tell you?
Pulling out of Iraq immediately will precipitate a civil war and make us indirectly responsible for what Cole estimates as a million deaths, and millions more displaced. A civil war in Iraq would a regional war involving Turkey and Iran who are concerned about an independent Kurdistan precipitating a civil war in their countries. Cole believes Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia (I believe Egypt would join the Saudis) would enter the war as well. Oil would be disrupted all over the Middle East by saboteurs precipitating higher oil prices than anyone foresees today and a worldwide recession that will make 1987 pale in comparison. Or perhaps we would face a new depression.
The Bush Administration foriegn policy has destablized the world economy and most importantly destabilized the entire Middle East. He has compounded the mistakes of the Reagan Administration. Cole says it best:

...the gradual radicalization of the entire Sunni Arab heartland of Iraq stands [is a] testimony to the miserable failure of US military counter-insurgency tactics. It seems to me indisputable that US tactics have progressively made things worse in that part of Iraq, contributing to the destabilization of the country.

Cole offers an intriguing proposal for a morally defendable withdrawl of US troops. This is a proposal I can get behind.

1) US ground troops should be withdrawn ASAP from urban areas as a first step. Iraqi police will just have to do the policing. We are no good at it. If local militias take over, that is the Iraqi government's problem. The prime minister will have to either compromise with the militia leaders or send in other Iraqi militias to take them on. Who runs Iraqi cities can no longer be a primary concern of the US military. Our troops are warriors, not traffic cops.

2) In the second phase of withdrawal, most US ground troops would steadily be brought out of Iraq.


3) For as long as the elected Iraqi government wanted it, the US would offer the new Iraqi military and security forces close air support in any firefight they have with guerrilla or other rebellious forces.

[...]
7) The US should demand as a quid pro quo for further help that elections in Iraq henceforward be held on a district basis so as to ensure proper representation in parliament for the Sunni Arab provinces. This step is necessary if there is to be any hope of drawing the Sunni Arab political elites into the new government.


8) The US should demand as a quid pro quo for further help that the Iraqi government announce an amnesty for all former Baath Party members who cannot be proven to have committed serious crimes, including crimes against humanity. Former Baathists who have been fired from the schools and civil bureaucracy must be reinstated, and no further firings are to take place. (This step is key in convincing the old Sunni Arab elites that they won't be screwed over in the new Iraq.)


9) Congress must rewrite the laws governing US reconstruction aid to Iraq so as to take out provisions that Iraqis must where possible use US companies or materiel. All of the reconstruction money should go directly to Iraqi firms, so as to help jump-start the economy.

Flight over Africa: 100,000 pictures and a dire warning

We think there is an environmental problem in the US? Think again. During the last 50,000 years, humans have done significant damage to the environment. One has to wonder at what point will we have an unsustainable ecosystem? I suspect it's rather sooner than later. Fish populations in the Oceans are down precipitously. The world is so preoccupied with energy, it is ignoring sustainable food supplies. The US continues to leech trace elements out of our soils by chemical farming. Yields will likely at some point fall. And we are looking for ways to turn flora into energy while people are starving from the droughts in Africa without aid.
We need to pay attention.
the Daily Irrelevant

For seven months, US pioneer and environmentalist Michael Fay flew low over Africa in a small plane. He brought back 100,000 photographs and a dire warning of an environmental and human debacle. Called “Megaflyover,” the ambitious project sponsored by the National Geographic magazine took Fay last year from South Africa to Morocco by way of Madagascar, Tanzania, Chad, Niger and 15 other nations in Africa.

[...]
As the months flew by in his plane, Fay noticed a visible decline in the animal population in several regions of Africa. Across a region taken up by the Central African Republic, Congo and Chad, there appeared to be 90 percent fewer animals, especially elephants, compared to 25 years ago. In the Sahara desert, some rare species of antelope have practically disappeared. “There used to be hundreds of thousand of antelopes crossing that desert and we searched for days and days and we found two of probably the last of 150 addax left,” he told reporters.


In Tanzania he witnessed hippos slowly dying in Katavi national park as their wetland habitat was being drained by irrigation projects financed by the World Bank for rice cultivation.


In Kenya, lake Naivasha “from which water is extracted to feed … farms to produce roses is dying very quickly. “Over the past 15 years, the human population around Lake Naivasha has gone from tens of thousand of people to hundreds of thousand of people,” Fay added.


“In virtually every ecosystem we visited, humans have completely colonized the landscape,” he said. “There are few places left in Africa that people would classify as wild.” Niger and Darfur would be spared their current humanitarian crises, he added, if they had taken care to protect their environment 30 years ago.


Fay, however, said there was reason for hope in some sustainable development projects in South Africa and Namibia. “When I listen to Bono, I listen to (British Prime Minister Tony) Blair and I listen to (World Bank President Paul) Wolfowitz and I hear them speaking about poverty alleviation in Africa, I think to myself, that is not what we need to talk about, we need to be talking about sustainable development,” he said. “All that poverty alleviation means is an increase in exploitation of the resources, and it provides short-term and relatively superficial gains for people in Africa,” Fay said.

Arrrggghh!

The Agonist

AIPAC Israeli Spies: It Was All About Iran

Since 9/11, Israel's Likud Party has had unprecidented access and influence on foreign policy in the Bush Administration. Through it's surrogate, AIPAC, and it's Administration allies, the Neocons, Likud has largely directed US foreign policy towards Iraq, Syria, and Iran. If it wasn't for the realities of the military failures in Iraq, the US/Israeli empire would be advancing into Syria and Iran by now. Here is an outline of AIPACs connections to the Administration on the topic of Iran.
DIRELAND

[What the mainstream media is not telling you about the two AIPAC spies]: their espionage was principally about helping to prepare an attack by Israel on Iran. And one of the Israeli embassy officials who knows all about AIPAC's role in helping plan the attack on Iran has been whisked out of the country and out of the reach of U.S. prosecutors, the Israeli daily Ha'aretz reports this morning.


The neo-cons in the Pentagon had long been arguing for an attack on Iran to take out its nuclear facilities that had the potential to be converted for development of nuclear weapons. Wolfie's man Doug Feith had been particularly assiduous in pressing the case for a "forward strategy" against Iran. Feith's views are madly extremist, and Jim Zogby collected them in an April profile of Feith that should scare the pants off of anyone rational. (Feith's been a major activist for years with the viciously anti-Arab crazies of the ZOA, the Zionist Organization of America).


When, for purely electoral reasons with the Iraq occupation going so disastrously, the White House decided against a direct attack by the U.S. on Iran, the neo-cons went to Plan B -- an attack on Iran by proxy, from Israel. The principal classified documents leaked to Israel through AIPAC -- the leaks that that began the investigation of the AIPAC spy ring, which has been going on now for over a year -- concerned Iran. They were leaked by Feith's deputy, Larry Franklin, also now under a five-count indictment for spying. (At left, Feith and Franklin)


The plan for an Israeli attack on Iran has been long envisioned -- both in Washington and by Sharon's government -- but this attack is now in a highy advanced state of planning and could come as quickly as Sharon snaps his fingers to order it. Back on March 13, the London Times -- in a report that was largely ignored in the U.S. -- reported that: "The inner cabinet of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, gave 'initial authorisation' for an attack at a private meeting last month on his ranch in the Negev desert."


The London Times went on to describe how "Israeli forces have used a mock-up of Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the desert to practise destroying it. Their tactics include raids by Israel’s elite Shaldag (Kingfisher) commando unit and airstrikes by F-15 jets from 69 Squadron, using bunker-busting bombs to penetrate underground facilities. The plans have been discussed with American officials who are said to have indicated provisionally that they would not stand in Israel’s way if all international efforts to halt Iranian nuclear projects failed...." And, the Times added, "US officials warned last week that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities by Israeli or American forces had not been ruled out should the issue become deadlocked at the United Nations."

[...]
Americans don't like the sight of their elected officials pocketing campaign cash from foreign governments, and AIPAC fears being forced to register formally as a lobbyist for Israel would thus diminish their clout on Capitol Hill. Bush won't make AIPAC register, and the spineless Democratic Congressional leadership won't lead the charge to make them do so either. But today's indictments of string-puller Rosen and his AIPAC colleague for spying on the U.S. gives progressives who want to see a peaceful, two-state, land-for-peace solution between Israel and Palestine a strategic opening to press loudly for AIPAC's formal registration as a shil for the government that built the Israeli Wall of Shame. It's a measure long past due.

Ecuador sends troops to guard oil installations from protesters

FT.com

Ecuador has sent in troops to occupy its oil-rich Amazon region and declared a state of emergency, after attacks on installations by community groups cut oil production by about 65 per cent.


The armed forces said on Thursday evening they had secured the eastern provinces of Orellana and Sucumbios, which account for three-quarters of state oil production and about half of private oil production in Ecuador, in order "to guarantee the physical security of the hydrocarbons complex and the return of the flow of petrol".

[...]
The protests are the latest blow to Ecuador's troubled oil sector, South America's second biggest exporter of crude to the US. No new foreign investors have signed exploration or production contracts since 1996, and some of the largest foreign investors are being forced out.

[...]
Local groups began protesting last Sunday, calling for higher wages, more jobs for local people, and the con struction of schools, roads and health clinics. The oil sector agreed last week to devote more funds to infrastructure spending in oil-producing areas, but the deal failed to prevent the unrest. Protest leaders are now demanding outright nationalisation.

The people of South America seem to have hit on a winning formula of response to globalization. They have organized to ensure the benefit of their national resources reach all of the people, not just the rich landowners. Brazil, Bolivia and Venezuela have had similar successes in at least the initial steps towards capturing a piece of the excessive profit in oil and natural gas, but not without significant political consequences both internally and internationally. The US oil interests and the Bush Administration has been working to isolate these countries and pry free the oil and natural gas. They even appear to have funded a move for landowners to secede from Bolivia.
It seems that an organized populous will ultimately benefit, but we will have to wait and see.

Has Global Warming Hit It's Tipping Point Towards Runaway Greenhouse?

Ominous signs from the frigid artic expanse of Siberia. Similar to the Alaska permafrost, Siberia is melting. The problem is there is an incredible amount of methane that would be released if the melting continues. Methane is a more troublesome greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Guardian Unlimited

A vast expanse of western Sibera is undergoing an unprecedented thaw that could dramatically increase the rate of global warming, climate scientists warn today. Researchers who have recently returned from the region found that an area of permafrost spanning a million square kilometres - the size of France and Germany combined - has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. The area, which covers the entire sub-Arctic region of western Siberia, is the world's largest frozen peat bog and scientists fear that as it thaws, it will release billions of tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere.

[...]
The researchers found that what was until recently a barren expanse of frozen peat is turning into a broken landscape of mud and lakes, some more than a kilometre across. Dr Kirpotin told the magazine the situation was an "ecological landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected to climatic warming". He added that the thaw had probably begun in the past three or four years.

[...]
Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years. Scientists are particularly concerned about the permafrost, because as it thaws, it reveals bare ground which warms up more quickly than ice and snow, and so accelerates the rate at which the permafrost thaws.


Siberia's peat bogs have been producing methane since they formed at the end of the last ice age, but most of the gas had been trapped in the permafrost. According to Larry Smith, a hydrologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, the west Siberian peat bog could hold some 70bn tonnes of methane, a quarter of all of the methane stored in the ground around the world. The permafrost is likely to take many decades at least to thaw, so the methane locked within it will not be released into the atmosphere in one burst, said Stephen Sitch, a climate scientist at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter. But calculations by Dr Sitch and his colleagues show that even if methane seeped from the permafrost over the next 100 years, it would add around 700m tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each year, roughly the same amount that is released annually from the world's wetlands and agriculture. It would effectively double atmospheric levels of the gas, leading to a 10% to 25% increase in global warming, he said.

Perhaps too little too late, Republican Senators are growing concerned about Global Warming.
Los Angeles Times

Fresh from visits to the Yukon in Canada and Alaska's northernmost city, four U.S. senators said Wednesday that signs of rising temperatures on Earth were obvious, and they called on Congress to act. "If you can go to the Native people and listen to their stories and walk away with any doubt that something's going on, I just think you're not listening," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said. He was accompanied on the trip by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).


The senators said in Anchorage that Inupiat Eskimo residents in Barrow, Alaska's northernmost city, had found their ancestral land and traditional lifestyle disrupted by disappearing sea ice, thawing permafrost, increased coastal erosion and changes to wildlife habitat. Heat-stimulated beetle infestation has killed vast amounts of the spruce forest in the Yukon, the senators said.

More

In Pakistan's Public Schools, Jihad Still Part of Lesson Plan

Did you know that "Jihad" is taught in public schools all over Pakistan in text books approved by Musharraf, himself! And his former Intelligence chief who led the Taliban to power in Afghanistan is now the Education minister!
And Musharraf is an "ally in the War on Terror", says Doublethink Dubya?
Los Angeles Times

Each year, thousands of Pakistani children learn from history books that Jews are tightfisted moneylenders and Christians vengeful conquerors. One textbook tells kids they should be willing to die as martyrs for Islam. They aren't being indoctrinated by extremist mullahs in madrasas, the private Islamic seminaries often blamed for stoking militancy in Pakistan. They are pupils in public schools learning from textbooks approved by the administration of President Pervez Musharraf.

[...]
The current social studies curriculum guidelines for grades 6 and 7 instruct textbook writers and teachers to "develop aspiration for jihad" and "develop a sense of respect for the struggle of [the] Muslim population for achieving independence."


In North-West Frontier Province, which is governed by supporters of the ousted Taliban regime in neighboring Afghanistan, the federally approved Islamic studies textbook for eighth grade teaches students they must be prepared "to sacrifice every precious thing, including life, for jihad."


"At present, jihad is continuing in different parts of the world," the chapter continues. "Numerous mujahedin [holy warriors] of Islam are involved in defending their religion, and independence, and to help their oppressed brothers across the world."


The textbook for adolescent students says Muslims are allowed to "take up arms" and wage jihad in self-defense or if they are prevented from practicing their religion. "When God's people are forced to become slaves of man-made laws, they are hindered from practicing the religion of their God," the textbook says. "When all the legal ways in this regard are closed, then power should be used to eliminate the evil. "If Muslims are being oppressed," the book says, "then jihad is necessary to free them from this cruel oppression."

[...]
"Jihad" can mean peaceful struggle as well as holy war. Jihad can be waged on several levels, beginning with a peaceful, inner struggle for one's own soul and escalating to killing "infidels." But Pakistani critics of the public school system maintain that jihad's softer sense is easily lost in lessons that emphasize that Muslims are oppressed in many parts of the world, and that encourage fellow Muslims to fight to free them.

[...]
A study of the public school curriculum and textbooks by 29 Pakistani academics in 2002 concluded that public school "textbooks tell lies, create hatred, inculcate militancy and much more."


The study by the independent Sustainable Development Policy Institute angered religious conservatives, and even a few liberals, who saw it as an attack on the country's Islamic values, or even a plot by Western governments and rival India to subvert the Islamic state.


Qazi headed the ISI from 1993 to 1995, when the intelligence agency was recruiting students from Pakistan's madrasas to join the extremist Taliban militia. Under Qazi's watch, the Taliban won its first major victory, the seizure of the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, with ISI training and weapons. His critics say that makes Qazi the wrong man to take on hard-line Islamic parties and clerics who are blocking education reforms at every turn. But the education minister insists that he will fight hard to correct a curriculum that he calls lopsided.

[...]
"Reforming education is not a part of Musharraf's agenda because it will require squarely confronting the mullahs," said Pervez Hoodbhoy, a professor who specializes in high-energy and nuclear physics. "Musharraf acts only upon pressure, and there must be relentless, sustained pressure from the outside world if meaningful reforms are ever to become reality," he said. "Those who believe in secular education are far too weak and small in numbers."

Kabardino-Balkaria of the Russian Federation: the next to descend into chaos, following Chechnya and Daghestan?

The more I think about the Reagan plot that unleashed the Jihad that created Al Qaeda, the more I begin to believe it was deliberately designed to spread into Central Asia and weaken the "belly" of the Soviet evil empire. Now that fire has ignited in several spots all over the world including New York and London and show no sign of abating, even signs of picking up speed and expertise.
RADIO FREE EUROPE/ RADIO LIBERTY

Senior Russian officials and human rights activists alike have predicted in recent weeks that Kabardino-Balkaria, with a total population of some 800,000, could become the next North Caucasus federation subject to descend into chaos, following Chechnya and Daghestan. Periodic reports in the Russian media of the "neutralization" of individual, or groups of, Islamic militants would seem to substantiate the comparison with Chechnya and Daghestan. But armed Islamic militants are not the only threat to stability in the Kabardino-Balkarskaya Republic (KBR) -- and might not even pose the most serious danger.


Other contributing factors include tensions between Kabardians, who constitute half the population, and Balkars, who account for just 10 percent; widespread official corruption that has concentrated wealth and power in the hands of President Valerii Kokov and his family and close associates; socioeconomic problems, including high unemployment (20 percent average, reaching 70 percent in some mountain villages) and the lack of basic amenities in many mountain districts; spillover from the war in Chechnya in the form of Chechen displaced persons; and popular resentment at recent redistricting legislation.

Bangladesh Rattled by 400 Small Bombs, Two Dead

Events continue to unravel in Bangladesh where Jihad has a fertile foothold.
VOA News

A police officer looks at a small explosive device lying on the road in Dhaka, Bangladesh

Some 400 small bomb blasts have rattled Dhaka and other cities across Bangladesh, killing two people and injuring more than 100 others. Police say the homemade bombs, which went off almost simultaneously, did not cause major damage anywhere and appeared to be aimed at spreading fear and panic. Authorities have issued security alerts all over the country but have not been able to identify the bombers, though police said some 45 suspects ad been detained.


Police say they suspect an outlawed Islamic group, Jamatul Mujahedin Bangladesh, whose leaflets were found at some of the blast sites. The group wants Islamic rule in Bangladesh - a predominantly Muslim country with a secular constitution. The leaflets said the blasts were also to warn the United States and Britain "to vacate Muslim countries, or face Muslim upsurge."

Someone Tell the President the War Is [All But] Over

While I don't agree with his conclusion that the war is over, Frank Rich has many well stated points in his recent editorial. In my view the war is not over until the Iraqi government invites us to leave or it appears we can no longer be helpful. The Iraqi government is probably in the best position to make that assessment since they recognize more than anyone what the presense of US troops does to their credibility in certain quarters.
But the war is clearly lost, the US military ground forces are demoralized by facing an intractible enemy with inadequate numbers. The US is relegated to search and destroy missions with very little hope of having anything but temporary results to their efforts. Its become a very similar situation to the odds against success in Vietnam. Only Iraqis can settle this war, and it seems unlikely that anything less than civil war will be necessary.
One can only hope that the Kurds don't secede and draw Turkey and Iran into the conflict.
Quietly, the US continues its negotiation with Sunnis. This maybe the only thing that keeps the US in play in Iraq and the Iranians from openly supporting the Shia minority with arms and troops. It seems unlikely it will have any other effect unless they can bring the Baaths to the table in time to prevent a Shia theocracy from emerging. The interesting thing is that the Shias want a super province in southern Iraq, a development that suggests they would settle for partition. A civil war followed by an ultimate partition seems inevitable.
New York Times

LIKE the Japanese soldier marooned on an island for years after V-J Day, President Bush may be the last person in the country to learn that for Americans, if not Iraqis, the war in Iraq is over. "We will stay the course," he insistently tells us from his Texas ranch. What do you mean we, white man?


A president can't stay the course when his own citizens (let alone his own allies) won't stay with him. The approval rate for Mr. Bush's handling of Iraq plunged to 34 percent in last weekend's Newsweek poll - a match for the 32 percent that approved L.B.J.'s handling of Vietnam in early March 1968. (The two presidents' overall approval ratings have also converged: 41 percent for Johnson then, 42 percent for Bush now.) On March 31, 1968, as L.B.J.'s ratings plummeted further, he announced he wouldn't seek re-election, commencing our long extrication from that quagmire.


But our current Texas president has even outdone his predecessor; Mr. Bush has lost not only the country but also his army. Neither bonuses nor fudged standards nor the faking of high school diplomas has solved the recruitment shortfall. Now Jake Tapper of ABC News reports that the armed forces are so eager for bodies they will flout "don't ask, don't tell" and hang on to gay soldiers who tell, even if they tell the press.

[...]
WHAT lies ahead now in Iraq instead is not victory, which Mr. Bush has never clearly defined anyway, but an exit (or triage) strategy that may echo Johnson's March 1968 plan for retreat from Vietnam: some kind of negotiations (in this case, with Sunni elements of the insurgency), followed by more inflated claims about the readiness of the local troops-in-training, whom we'll then throw to the wolves. Such an outcome may lead to even greater disaster, but this administration long ago squandered the credibility needed to make the difficult case that more human and financial resources might prevent Iraq from continuing its descent into civil war and its devolution into jihad central.


Thus the president's claim on Thursday that "no decision has been made yet" about withdrawing troops from Iraq can be taken exactly as seriously as the vice president's preceding fantasy that the insurgency is in its "last throes." The country has already made the decision for Mr. Bush. We're outta there. Now comes the hard task of identifying the leaders who can pick up the pieces of the fiasco that has made us more vulnerable, not less, to the terrorists who struck us four years ago next month.

This is a revolt, not a protest

Sadly, the day that was inevitable from the first Israeli settler in Gaza is looming. It seems inevitable there will be both settlers and soldiers killed. The extremist settlers are all armed and have stated their intentions to fight. Sharon has been the champion of the settlers for many years. It is fitting he has to take responsibility for the dissolution of them.
haaretz.com

Protesters tried to persuade soldiers to disobey orders

Those who still see in the knitted skullcaps the best and brightest of our youth, and who think their contribution to the country and the army is priceless, hope that at the moment of truth the revolt against the evacuation will not erupt, and that the 42,000 soldiers and police officers called to suppress it will in effect have nothing to do. That was the hope as long as the pullout opponents made do with holding rallies, painting the country orange and lobbying ministers who oppose the withdrawal in an attempt to precipitate new elections or reverse the Knesset decision.


But in recent days, the concern has arisen that the line has been crossed, that the protest has become a revolt. Under the nose of the Israel Defense Forces, thousands of settlers have illegally infiltrated Gush Katif. Not just wanton settlers, but also the veteran leadership, which is considered to be responsible. In the last few days there have been threats of suicide and of holing up in synagogues wrapped in prayer shawls, until the end. Several hundred Gush Katif residents have even asked to be recognized as a separate Jewish state and have threatened to inject the horses of mounted officers with atropine when they come to evacuate the settlements.


At the same time, an additional fortification is being created in the northern West Bank settlement of Sa-Nur, where extremists are holing up. According to operational directives handed out at the mass rally in Rabin Square last week, all pullout opponents are to block access to Gush Katif with their bodies. The seditious talk of the rabbis, which is likely to have tragic consequences on the ground, leaves no room for empathy or complacency. We are no longer talking about expressions of sorrow for the evacuees - among whom the sane are in the midst of packing - but of the general enlistment of the sane public in suppressing the settlers' open revolt against the decisions of a sovereign government.

An Islamic Caliphate in Seven Easy Steps

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (left) is blamed for some of the worst terrorist attacks and hostage killings in Iraq.

Have you seen this man? (right) If so, you could earn yourself 5 million dollars. Seif al-Adl is not only wanted by the FBI but is also one of Hussein's main sources in the book.

Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein has an had a lot of fortune in his job as a journalist. He has not only spent time in prison with al-Zarqawi, but has also managed to make contact with Seif al-Adl. Perhaps most remarkable of all, he has lived to tell his story. He certainly is serving as a conduit to the world about the mission of Al Qaeda and so plays the role of the neutral journalist. This is very likely the short form of the plan and the version intended for public consumtion.
Yassin Musharbash, the author from der Spegiel, is pretty skeptical about the reality of the plan. While I would agree that the outcome as stated is probably unlikely, but it certainly is possible. Like all long term plans, more recent events are much more likely to affect the specific outcome than plans 20 years before.
What's most weak about the stated plan is the assumption that the Muslim world will just go along with Al Qaeda. It is much more like we'll see some rather weak democracies emerge in the Middle East. Though they maybe weak, they may well be more popular than insurgents. So any indigenous movement seems unlikely to enjoy the kind of support we see in Iraq.
If the Israeli-Palestinian conflict drags on for 20 years, that will certainly play in their favor. At this point, the chance for peace seem bleak indeed. If Sharon manages to drive most of the Palestinians out of Jerusalem while making it the new Israeli capital, things will be ugly for a long time in the Middle East.
SPIEGEL ONLINE

In the introduction, the Jordanian journalist writes, "I interviewed a whole range of al-Qaida members with different ideologies to get an idea of how the war between the terrorists and Washington would develop in the future." What he then describes between pages 202 and 213 is a scenario, proof both of the terrorists' blindness as well as their brutal single-mindedness. In seven phases the terror network hopes to establish an Islamic caliphate which the West will then be too weak to fight.

• The First Phase Known as "the awakening" -- this has already been carried out and was supposed to have lasted from 2000 to 2003, or more precisely from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington to the fall of Baghdad in 2003. The aim of the attacks of 9/11 was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby "awakening" Muslims. "The first phase was judged by the strategists and masterminds behind al-Qaida as very successful," writes Hussein. "The battle field was opened up and the Americans and their allies became a closer and easier target." The terrorist network is also reported as being satisfied that its message can now be heard "everywhere."


• The Second Phase "Opening Eyes" is, according to Hussein's definition, the period we are now in and should last until 2006. Hussein says the terrorists hope to make the western conspiracy aware of the "Islamic community." Hussein believes this is a phase in which al-Qaida wants an organization to develop into a movement. The network is banking on recruiting young men during this period. Iraq should become the center for all global operations, with an "army" set up there and bases established in other Arabic states.


• The Third Phase This is described as "Arising and Standing Up" and should last from 2007 to 2010. "There will be a focus on Syria," prophesies Hussein, based on what his sources told him. The fighting cadres are supposedly already prepared and some are in Iraq. Attacks on Turkey and -- even more explosive -- in Israel are predicted. Al-Qaida's masterminds hope that attacks on Israel will help the terrorist group become a recognized organization. The author also believes that countries neighboring Iraq, such as Jordan, are also in danger.


• The Fourth Phase Between 2010 and 2013, Hussein writes that al-Qaida will aim to bring about the collapse of the hated Arabic governments. The estimate is that "the creeping loss of the regimes' power will lead to a steady growth in strength within al-Qaida." At the same time attacks will be carried out against oil suppliers and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism.


• The Fifth Phase This will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared. The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al-Qaida hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order.


• The Sixth Phase Hussein believes that from 2016 onwards there will a period of "total confrontation." As soon as the caliphate has been declared the "Islamic army" it will instigate the "fight between the believers and the non-believers" which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden.


• The Seventh Phase This final stage is described as "definitive victory." Hussein writes that in the terrorists' eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the "one-and-a-half million Muslims," the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn't last longer than two years.

But just how serious is this scenario? "Al-Qaida makes no compromises," says the book's author Fouad Hussein. He obviously believes that this seven-point plan could well become the guiding principle for a whole range of al-Qaida fighters. Hussein is far from an hysterical alarmist -- in fact he is seen as a serious journalist and his Zarqawi book is better than most of the reports in Arabic on the subject. Only last year, the journalist made a film which was received with great interest and was shown on the German-French TV channel arte. In it he provided deep insights into al-Qaida's internet propaganda machine.

MOSCOW AND INSURGENTS TAKE STEPS TO MILITARIZE THE NORTH CAUCASUS

The Caucasus, located between the Black and the Caspian Seas, has a long history of turmoil throughout modern history. This appears to be largely because of it's geographic location as a crossroads of trade between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
The modern Caucasus continue its history now with a new element of trade: Oil deposits and pipelines.
The turmoil in Chechneya is spreading throughout the Caucasus, and both sides are arming.

Eurasia Daily Monitor

This year Abdul-Khalim Sadulaev, the new separatist leader after Aslan Maskhadov's death in March, has taken specific steps to trigger war across the Caucasus. Specifically, Sadulaev ordered the insurgents to establish a new front in the North Caucasus. According to his decree, the insurgents' "Caucasus Front" will consist of four republics west of Chechnya (Ingushetia, North Ossetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, and Karachaevo-Cherkessia), and two provinces populated mostly by ethnic Russians: Krasnodar krai and Stavropol krai (Kavkazcenter, May 16). Three days before Sadulaev's decree, field commander Doku Umarov had announced that the separatist forces were changing their tactics and would attack outside Chechnya (see Chechnya Weekly, May 11).


Unlike previous threats from the insurgents, this time the Kremlin did not ignore the warning. Earlier in 2005, the Kremlin had more than 300,000 troops in the Caucasus, but except for 80,000-100,000 troops located in Chechnya, all of them were scattered over a large territory, including ethnic Russian-dominated regions like Rostov oblast, Krasnodar krai, and Stavropol krai. Now forces are being concentrated in the Caucasian republics in preparation to fight the insurgency. On May 13, Nikolai Rogozhkin, commander of the Russian Interior Ministry troops, announced that MVD troops would be augmented in the cities of Elista (Kalmyikia), Cherkessk (Karachaevo-Cherkessia), Nalchik (Kabardino-Balkaria), and Sochi (Interfax, May 13).


According to Nezavisimaya gazeta, Moscow is responding to the rebels' increasing activities by preparing countermeasures and militarizing the entire North Caucasus. "The scope and concept of the reorganization are at such a level that we can say that the federal forces have never before conducted preparations for combat operations on such a grand scale" (Nezavisimaya gazeta, July 13). By early 2006, brigades and battalions of MVD troops in the North Caucasus will be replaced by regiments and divisions. Instead of a battalion of 600 men, there will be a regiment of 2,000 (Nezavisimaya gazeta, July 13). In addition, two mountain brigades will be established in Dagestan and Karachaevo-Cherkessia. Officially these units are to protect Russia's southern border, but in reality they will have other tasks. The mountain brigade in Karachaevo-Cherkessia will defend the Black Sea Coast from rebel attacks and the brigade in Dagestan will defend the republic, particularly areas near the Caspian Sea, from insurgents coming from Chechnya.


At the same time, the Russian army units already stationed in Caucasian republics such as Chechnya, North Ossetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, and Ingushetia will also be reinforced. More special-task and reconnaissance groups will be sent to the mountainous areas of Chechnya (Nezavisimaya gazeta, July 13).


This year the authorities also began to prepare the public for a major new war. Special attention is being paid to officers who serve in the Caucasus. According to kavkaz-strana.ru website, more and more people in the army are discussing the prospects of a new Caucasian war in near future (kavkaz-strana.ru, July 14).

Ike: The Bomb Was Unnecessary

In view of my post last night about nuclear bunker busters, I found a very interesting tidbit of US history in a Pakistani newspaper that I'd never heard. The quote from Eisenhower was particularly stunning.
Daily Times - Abbas Rashid

That the United States itself is moving in the direction of developing deep-earth penetration “bunker-buster” nuclear weapons does not help the world move towards a safer nuclear future.


At this point we should remind ourselves that the only time nuclear bombs were used militarily, it was unnecessary to do so. There is ample evidence that there was no need to employ the atom bomb against Japan as it posed no real threat to the allies and was likely to surrender before long. The decision to carry out the bombing had more to do with ensuring that the advancing Soviet forces were kept out of Japan and to put the final stamp of authority on the US’ position and place in the post-war world, as the war in Europe had already ended.


If many in the US still believe that the bombing was justified it is in part due to a determined effort by the Right to sustain the myth of necessity. Ten years ago, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Second World War, the Smithsonian Institution decided to hold an exhibition that would include the fuselage of the Enola Gay, the B-29 US Air Force warplane that had dropped the bomb destroying the entire city and leading to a death toll, eventually, of 140,000.


But the exhibition became a highly controversial issue because of the management’s decision to allow for different perspectives on the event at the venue. Remarkably, what the detractors objected to were not the views at the time of dissident intellectuals but military men such as General Dwight D Eisenhower and Fleet Admiral William D Leahy. They opposed the use of the bomb, particularly without warning and against non-combatant civilian populations. Of course they were among the few, along with a select group of scientists, who were aware of the terrible destructive power of the bomb. According to one poll a majority of people in the US did not oppose the use of the bomb against Japan. Significantly, however, an earlier poll had found that they were opposed to the use of poison gas. The latter weapon having been used in the First World War, its consequences were fairly common knowledge.


In his memoirs Eisenhower recounts telling Secretary of War Henry Stimson about his misgivings, “First on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary and secondly, because I thought that our country would avoid shocking world opinion by the use of what was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of ‘face’.”


Similarly Leahy wrote, “The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.” (Hiroshima’s Shadow, editors Kai Bird and Lawrence Lifschultz, 1996.) It needs to be pointed out that many of those opposed to the bomb had not been particularly critical of the indiscriminate firebombing of cities like Dresden and Tokyo that caused heavy civilian casualties. But, even for them, a line was being crossed.


The Franck Report of June 11, 1945 that included scientists like Leo Szilard, the Hungarian-born physicist who had favoured the launch of the A-bomb project, counselled against using the bomb: “We believe — the use of nuclear bombs for an early, unannounced attack against Japan inadvisable. If the United States would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.”


In much the same vein in a memorandum to the secretary of war, Ralph A Bard, the undersecretary of the Navy, argued that if the bomb had to be used against Japan that country must be given some preliminary warning, reaffirming that Japan was unlikely to hold out for long: “During recent weeks I have also had the feeling very definitely that the Japanese government may be serving for some opportunity which they could use as a medium of surrender.”


The warning proposal was in line with the thinking of a few like Szilard that a city like Hiroshima could be evacuated and then bombed to demonstrate the havoc an A-bomb could wreak, expediting Japanese surrender.


Had the US government heeded the important voices at the time in the US that were counselling restraint with respect to the use of the A-bomb, the enterprise of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world may have followed a different trajectory; without significantly affecting either the outcome of the war or indeed the post-war balance of power.

Bush warns Iran on nuclear plans

BBC NEWS

US President George W Bush says he still has not ruled out the option of using force against Iran, after it resumed work on its nuclear programme. He said he was working on a diplomatic solution, but was sceptical that one could be found.


The UN's atomic watchdog has called on Iran to halt nuclear fuel development. Iran, which denies it is secretly trying to develop nuclear arms, restarted work at its uranium conversion plant at Isfahan on Monday.


"All options are on the table," said Mr Bush, when asked about the possible use of force during an interview for Israeli TV. The use of force is the last option for any president. You know we have used force in the recent past to secure our country," he said.

There goes Bush being bellicose and belligerant again. What could he possibly thinking when Iraq has become a quagmire. Bush has given the German Chancellor a campaign slogan.
BBC NEWS

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has warned the US to back away from the possibility of military action against Iran over its nuclear programme. His comments come a day after President Bush reiterated that force remained an option but only as a last resort. Iran has resumed what it says is a civilian nuclear research programme but which the West fears could be used to develop nuclear arms. Mr Schroeder's rejection of force came at the official launch of his party's election campaign.

Certainly no one believes the US is preparing an invasion. But there has been much talk about the Israeli intentions for Iran. In fact, Bush has already invited the Israelis to attack Iran militarily.
Irish Independent

Israel, they argue, should do the same again [as they did in Iraq in 1981 - Dave] and launch pre-emptive military attacks on Iran's growing nuclear infrastructure. But Iran has developed its nuclear programme with such a scenario in mind.


It has deliberately spread its facilities far and wide, using nine locations, according to one intelligence source. Each facility is buried under tons of reinforced concrete, making it more difficult to destroy, even with the help of the BLU-109 "bunker-buster" bombs the US is selling its closest Middle Eastern ally.


Iran, moreover, is further away from Israel than Iraq, raising even greater doubts about the ability of the F15 and F16 planes Israel would use in any air raids to reach their target and then make it home without being refuelled.


There is also the question of how the aircraft would get close enough to hit their targets. The US controls Iraqi airspace but it seems inconceivable that Washington would open it up to Israeli combat jets and tankers. [Certainly the Iraqi government wouldn't allow it. - Dave] While the problems facing air strikes are significant, Israel's military nevertheless believes it has the means to cause serious damage to the Iranian nuclear capability.


Israel's cruise missiles, launched from planes or submarines, give the country a capability that it did not possess in 1981 when it launched its unilateral attack on the Iraqi reactor with a conventional bombing sortie.


"It's a bit more challenging in Iran but the military option remains a real one," said David Ivri, a retired Israeli air force officer who commanded Operation Opera, the attack on Iraq's reactor.

One would have to wonder just how effective a bombing attack on Iran would be given the conditions on the ground.
The Union of Concerned Scientists

According to several recent scientific studies, Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) would not be effective at destroying many underground targets, and its use could result in the death of millions of people.


RNEP would produce tremendous radioactive fallout: A nuclear earth penetrator cannot penetrate deep enough to contain the nuclear fallout. Even the strongest casing will crush itself by the time it penetrates 10-30 feet into rock or concrete.

[...]
RNEP could kill millions of people: A simulation of RNEP used against the Esfahan nuclear facility in Iran, using the software developed for the Pentagon, showed that 3 million people would be killed by radiation within 2 weeks of the explosion, and 35 million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India would be exposed to increased levels of cancer-causing radiation.

Figure 1: Fallout from the use of RNEP against the Esfahan nuclear facility in Iran would spread for thousands of miles across Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. It would kill 3 million people within 2 weeks of the explosion and expose 35 million to cancer causing radiation.

[...]
RNEP would not be effective at destroying the deepest or widely separated bunkers. The seismic shock produced by the RNEP would only be able to destroy bunkers to a depth of about a thousand feet. Modern bunkers can be deeper than that, with a widely separated complex of connected rooms and tunnels.


There are more effective conventional alternatives to RNEP: Current precision-guided conventional weapons can be used to cut off a bunker's communications, power, and air, effectively keeping the enemy weapons underground and unusable until U.S. forces secure them.

The experts say even a nuclear bunker buster wouldn't be effective against the Iranian nuclear installation. However, they do point to the real military option the US has.
By now, the US has considerable on the ground intelligence about Iran's nuclear capability. They have Special Forces in place prepared to support air strikes to isolate the facilities, neutralise air defenses, land a sufficient force of paratroopers, seals and special forces at all the locations simultaneous in Iran and take them by ground forces. While this would not be an easy operation because Iranian air defenses are formidable. But there are plenty of operational strength in the area to accomplish the purpose.
The only complication is the countries who might be used as bases. Iraq, and Uzbekistan are not likely to be supportive. On the other hand, since the US is moving out of Uzbekistan, they could time the move operationally for a move against Iran. I'm sure there'd be no apologies. Afghanistan and Pakistan would have little recourse that to protest after the fact, and quietly support the move. Much of the Middle East would do much the same. The Sunnis have no desire to see Shiites with the bomb.
The US has been planning this for a long time. It's likely that it was part of the contingencies after the US secured Iraq, a task Rummie thought would be easy. US Special Forces have been in Iran since probably late 2004. US aircraft have been playing cat and mouse with Iranian air defense since about that time. Richard Perle, a neo-con darling, floated a trial balloon in late January 2004. The CIA started complaining around the beginning of February that military intelligence has been stomping on their turf in Iran while the Senate Foreign Relations Committee launched a "pre-emptive" examination of intelligence on Iran to "avoid the problems that occured with Iraq".
The US has developed, with the support of Congress, a ready source of Iranian volunteers to help with the effort from the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK). It's indeed possible, MEK at the bidding of Washington, has sent operatives into Iran to help in the effort. MEK most likely in coordination with US Special Forces may be encouraging acts of sabatoge against the Iranian government, even those that are killing Iranian civilians.
US think tanks friendly with the Administration have been publically advocating regime change in Iran since May, 2004.
Events of the recent past may have helped swing the last Iranian election to the right. The new President of Iran has appealed to the nationalistic sentiments to this proud people. With the new Iraqi government effectively an new ally for Iran and Iran building new ties to China and India, its position in the world promises only to improve. The Bush Admininistration is eagerly attempting to damage the reputation of Iran.
All of this follows the pattern of build up towards the invasion of Iraq. While this time the operation will have to have limited goals, specifically destroying the Iranian nuclear facilities, you can be sure they will step up Special Forces operations promoting regime change.
The problem is that these actions will simply convince the rest of the world that the only way to prevent a US invasion in their country is to quickly and quietly go nuclear. The US has no credibility on that topic, even from its supposed allies.