|
Sadrist MPs hit back at PM''s remarks (KUNA)
Iraqi MPs Call Maliki Depraved (BBC)
 | Breaking News |
 | Will Sadr declare open war? |
 | Did Petraeus part ways with the neocons? |
 | Candidates jockey for position on Iraq Thursday April 10th, 2008 01:00:00 Tom Hayden: Iran is Washington's scapegoat for failure of surge |
 | Ex-CIA analyst on Petraeus and Cheney Friday April 11th, 2008 05:53:42 Ray McGovern: Was Cheney behind Iraqi army's failed Basra offensive? |
Ex-CIA analyst on Petraeus and Cheney
Ray McGovern: Was Cheney behind Iraqi army's failed Basra offensive?
Friday April 11th, 2008
Raymond McGovern is a retired CIA officer turned political activist. McGovern was a Federal employee under seven US presidents for over 27 years, presenting the morning intelligence briefings at the White House for many of them. McGovern was born and raised in Bronx, graduated summa cum laude from Fordham University, received an M.A. in Russian Studies from Fordham, a certificate in Theological Studies from Georgetown University, and graduated from Harvard Business School's Advanced Management Program.
Transcript:Does Sen. Kennedy know something we don't?MATTHEW PALEVSKY,PRESENTER: Here on Capitol Hill, both General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker had testified to Iraq several times over the last couple of days. To better understand their testimonies, I spoke with former CIA official Ray McGovern. McGovern worked for the federal government for over 27 years and under seven different presidents, presenting the morning intelligence briefing at the White House for several of them.RAY MCGOVERN, RETIRED CIA OFFICER AND POLITICAL ACTIVIST: Mostly it was entirely predictable. What shocked me was how Senator Kennedy, at the very end of his remarks, apropos of nothing, asked Petraeus and Crocker, "Tell me, General, and Ambassador Crocker, when the vice president was in Baghdad, were you in any meetings where the offensive against Basra was discussed with the vice president?"(CLIP BEGINS)TED KENNEDY, US SENATOR (D-MA): Were you at any meetings with the vice president or Ambassador Crocker where the issue of the Basra invasion took place?RYAN CROCKER, US AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ: It was not discussed.KENNEDY: It was not discussed at all during the vice president's visit to Baghdad? The possibility of Maliki going into Basra was not discussed? You were not at any meetings where the vice president was present or where this was discussed in his presence?CROCKER: It was not discussed in any meeting I attended. No, sir.KENNEDY: General?DAVID PETRAEUS, COMMANDING GENERAL, MULTINATIONAL FORCE IRAQ: Same, Senator.KENNEDY: Thank you. My time's up.PETRAEUS: Thank you, sir.(CLIP ENDS)Well, I thought Petraeus was going to have a little conniptionary. He turned a little bit white and looked at Crocker, and Crocker, ashen as he was for the whole time, even paled the more, and he thought really quick, and his eyes sort of went like this, and he said, "No, sir. I was at no meetings, no meetings where Basra was discussed with the vice president." "And you, General Petraeus?" "Same." I think Kennedy knows more than the rest of us know. I think it's very clear that if you're looking for why Maliki went off half-cocked for a big offensive down against Muqtada al-Sadr in southern Iraq, it was because Cheney told him to. And I would be shocked if Cheney didn't tell Petraeus and Crocker what he was going to tell Maliki—not only Cheney, but McCain. They were both there just days before. Petraeus has hundreds of troops there embedded with the Iraqi forces. He had to know exactly what was going on. He just couldn't stop it. Why? Well, he didn't want to stop it, because Cheney is running things. The plan was to get down there into the south, to (A) show that this fellow could take the initiative and be—well, the president was instructed two days later to say this is a defining moment, a defining moment in the leadership of Prime Minister Maliki. Oh, yeah, it sure was, but not the way they meant. And so Petraeus and Crocker could come before Congress and say, "Look, you told us," you know, "you told us last time that the Iraqis had to take more initiative so that we're not doing the fighting." Well, look—just what happened. You cleaned out the whole of southern Iraq. And they still played that theme, bring several changes on that theme. Here Maliki finally took the initiative, "Iraqis are doing—you know, we supported them." But that was only an half-truth. The other truth was he lost miserably. Muqtada al-Sadr has 70,000 people under arms with better arms than Maliki had. And if it weren't for the US air force and US ground troops to bail them out, not only down there in Basra but out from Sadr City, you know, he would have had even a bloodier nose. Right after it became clear that, you know, it's a great initiative, but it was going to lose, you know, they distanced themselves from it and they told all the press people, you know, "We didn't know anything about [inaudible]." I mean, Hayden, the head of the CIA, goes on Meet the Press and says, you know, "I didn't know anything about it, and neither did Petraeus or Crocker."(CLIP BEGINS)TIM RUSSERT, HOST, MEET THE PRESS: The United States was not informed by the Iraqis that he was going to do this?GEN. VINCENT HAYDEN, CIA DIRECTOR: I don't know what went on on the ground in Baghdad prior to the operation. I do know that this was a decision of the Iraqi government by the prime minister, and personally by the prime minister, and that he's relying on Iraqi forces, by and large, to take this action.RUSSERT: Were you aware of it?HAYDEN: I was—. In terms of being pre-briefed or having, you know, the normal planning process, in which you build up to this days or weeks ahead of time, no, no, I was not.RUSSERT: You didn't know it was going to happen?HAYDEN: No more so than Dave Petraeus or Ambassador Crocker did.(CLIP ENDS)Well, you know, that's a crock. And in the Bronx, where I come from, we say "that's a crock," okay? Because [inaudible] Petraeus has got people all over that Iraqi army, and there's no way that he could not have known. And I'm sure that Cheney told him, included him as well. Maliki can't scratch his nose without asking Petraeus to make sure there are some bodyguards around. So it was very much a joint operation. Ironically, they wanted to give the initiative to Maliki because they thought it might succeed, and then they wanted to give the initiative to Maliki because it failed so miserably. You know. This is a great crew, you know. Those of us who are old enough to have been through Vietnam, you know, this is an old tactic. You can construct a concept out of language: "special group" can be brought to mean whatever you want it to mean, okay? And so in this case it's always Iranian-influenced, nefarious influence from Iran, and all these adjectives that were used yesterday to blame what's happening on—you know. I mean, you really need to be able to blame somebody. And as has been pointed out ad nauseam, the Iranians are indeed involved with all these groups, including Maliki, including the other part of the government, so to speak. And so to the degree things are going a-¬shambles, well, it must be the Iranians. How do we say the Iranians if they're involved with everybody? Ah! How about "special groups"? Do you think that will work? Well, it seemed to work yesterday, because some of the congress people were using the same thing. And so, you know, those who were more perspicacious or could see through this stuff [were] saying, "Wow, this is really quite a dog and pony show." Petraeus talked about battlefield geometry; I'll talk about arithmetic. Okay? Look at his own manual about insurgency. There's no ratio that can ever cope with a country. He talked about 27 million. There aren't 27 million Iraqis anymore, only 23 million, 'cause four [million] are outside in diaspora, four [million] refugees, okay? But you can't occupy a country that doesn't want to be occupied with the ratio of troops that we have. And the reason we don't have more troops is because there are no more troops. And so what you have is very similar to Vietnam. We have even US colonels—at the very end of Vietnam, Colonel Harry Summers, who was the army colonel who was sent to Hanoi to negotiate the final withdrawal of US and other troops—okay? So he goes there and he makes the big mistake of saying, "Colonel Tu"—that was his opposite number—"Colonel Tu, you have to admit that you never beat us at a pitched battle." And Tu looks at him. He says, "That is correct. It is also irrelevant." Pitched battles don't happen in insurgencies. And so, as somebody pointed out yesterday—I guess it was said at a Web—here we have taken the most sophisticated, maneuverable forces that have ever been created in the world, and wasted them, squandered them on an enterprise that has no chance of being won. And I have been saying that, personally, for four and a half years.
Iran Opens War Avoidance Flank : by Muriel Mirak-Weissbachhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/ - Saturday, 3 May 2008, Global Research
As threats of military action against Iran continue to issue from various spokesmen of the war party in the U.S., the Islamic Republic has launched an ambitious initiative aimed at preventing war, based on a comprehensive package of economic, political and security measures on a vast regional plane. The package includes proposals to settle remaining questions related to Iran's nuclear energy program, but is not limited to that.
It was Saeed Jalili, the new head of the Supreme National Security Council and chief nuclear negotiator, who first announced the initiative. As Acting Secretary of the Russian Security Council Valentin Sobolev arrived in Tehran, April 28, Jalili declared that his government was presenting the Russian delegation a package of proposals aimed at solving the problems of the world. "The package is about the great questions of the world," he said, "and the nuclear question could be the subject of discussion" While declining to give details, he added, "We spoke in detail with our Russian friend and we explained our vision. Our approach could be a good basis for negotiation between the influential powers of the world," according to AFP. Talks continued in the Iranian capital for three days, including with Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on return from his South Asian tour. Although both sides said the package would not be made public yet, remarks made by Sobolev at a joint press conference April 28, indicated that Russia had listened to Iran's proposals with keen interest. He praised the expansion of relations with Iran "in all areas." After their second round of talks on April 29, Jalili said of the package that it "has provided a new opportunity for constructive cooperation for restoration of regional and international peace and stability and those who have adopted positive stands on the issue should welcome it." Ahmadinejad, following his talks with the Russian envoy, indicated that the discussions aimed at introducing a new international order. "The might of the United States and some other countries speaking the language of force that used to dictate international relations after the Second World War is now rapidly vanishing," The same day, the Iranian student news agency ISNA reported that, following that meeting, Sobolev, "said his country hails Iran's package of proposals covering a wide range of issues including Iran's nuclear program." TASS said Sobolev explicitly ruled out any Iranian weapons program. "We believe," he said, "that Iran is not engaged in any military nuclear research, but we are confident that not only Russia should think so but all countries that are involved in the settlement of the situation [revolving around the Iranian nuclear program]." Further confirmation of Russia's positive response, came, albeit indirectly, from the top. Sobolev announced to RIA , "An oral message from Russian President Vladimir Putin was conveyed to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a meeting. The substance of it is that Russia confirms the principles of mutual relations (with Iran) and her policy will not depend on who is in power," a reference to the new president Dmitry Medvedev. While talks were going on with the Russian delegation, Jalili informed Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey of the initiative by telephone, saying it should be considered at the next meeting of the five permanent memers of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany.
The Mystery Package
The content of the Iranian package has remained shrouded in secrecy, but certain features have emerged. Alaeddin Borujerdi, head of Iran's parliamentary commission on national security and foreign policy, spoke of the fact that it would guarantee the country's enrichment rights. According to well-informed Iranian sources, the initiative develops the idea of an international consortium for the enrichment of uranium, on Iranian territory. This idea had been floated by Tehran earlier, when the President issued an invitation to international partners to participate. Most important, it has also been under consideration by a group of U.S. figures opposed to the war policy of the administration, led by former diplomat Thomas R. Pickering. Together with William Luers and Jim Walsh, Pickering outlined the idea in an article, "A Solution for the US-Iran Nuclear Standoff," published in The New York Review of Books in its March 20 issue. (www.nybooks.com/articles/21112) The paper stated that the authors had been part of "a group of former American diplomats and regional experts" who "have been meeting directly and privately with a group of Iranian academics and policy advisers." The article stated: "We propose that Iran's efforts to produce enriched uranium and other related nuclear activities be conducted on a multilateral basis, that is to say jointly managed and operated on Iranian soil by a consortium including Iran and other governments." This approach reflected a similar idea worked out by the International Crisis Group, of which Pickering is a member, and presented to an international conference in Berlin in March 2006. (1) In a section entitled, "Turning Iran's Enrichment Activities into a Multilateral Program," the article goes on to suggest that "the Iranian government would allow two or more additional governments (for example, France and Germany) to participate in the management and operation of those activities within Iran." It notes that, of course, several Iranian officials, including Ahmadinejad, had "already publicly endorsed a multilateral solution." However, as Iranian sources pointed out to this author, Tehran, significantly, did {not} address Paris or Berlin, but rather Moscow Russia is considered the priority interlocutor due to the special relationship that exists between the two countries, epitomized by Russia's participation in building the Bushehr nuclear plant, but also because the Russians, unlike the Germans and French, have refused to let the nuclear issue become a casus belli. Russia and China have succeeded in blocking more hostile sanctions through the Security Council, and are both fully aware of the danger that the issue might be exploited by the war party in London and Washington, to justify military aggression. For this reason, the Russian government has been insisting that Iran return to the negotiating table with the 5+1 group. On March 31, Ambassador to the U.N. Vitaly Churkin urged Tehran to restart such talks. That was just prior to Sobolev's visit. And China had taken the unprecedented initiative of convening a meeting of the permanent five in Shanghai in mid-April, to seek a solution; although the meeting yielded no solution, it underlined Beijing's concern that war could be on the agenda otherwise.
Iran expressed its readiness to settle all remaining questions related to the controversial program, just a week prior to Sobolev's mission. On April 21-22, a delegation of the International Atomic Energy Agency led by Oli Heinonen met with Iran's leading nuclear officials, including Mohammed Saeedi, Iran's IAEA envoy Ali-Asghar Soltanieh, and several AEOI and foriegn ministry representatives. Iran announced it would cooperate in clarifying anything that had to be settled. IAEA chied Mohammad ElBaradei did not hesitate to praise the move. "That is certainly a milestone," he said, "and hopefully by the end of May we will be in a position to get the explanation and clarification from Iran as to these alleged studies," referring to studies that allegedly Iran had made regarding nuclear weapons. He said this was "the only remaining topic for us to investigate about past and present Iran nuclear activities."
But, the nuclear issue is merely one aspect of Tehran's global package. The rest is of a strategic nature. As noted above, Ahmadinejad was visiting South Asia when Sobolev landed in Tehran, and his mission involved other components of the package. The main focus of his talks was the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project (IPI), which has been held up for various reasons, some more real than others. Aside from bickering about the price India would have to pay Pakistan, the main glitch was pressure that certain U.S. officials were placing on New Delhi, to sabotage the agreement. Once it had been announced that Ahmadinejad would visit India, the Bush administration moved into high gear. Tom Casey, State Department spokesman, came out somewhat undiplomatically suggesting that India should "use its influence" with Iran, to persuade it to give up its uranium enrichment program. The Indian government was not amused. External Affairs Ministry spokesman Navtej Sarna was quoted by Tehran Times April 23, saying, "Neither country needs any guidance on the future conduct of bilateral relations as both countries believe that engagement and dialogue alone lead to peace." He went on to develop the concept, saying, "Both nations are perfectly capable of managing all aspects of their relationship with the appropriate degree of care and attention." The foreign ministry issued a statement which must have been somewhat embarassing for youthful Washington: "India and Iran," it read, "are ancient civilizations whose relations span centuries." Ahmadinejad's visit was a resounding success. In an April 29 press conference, he said that progreess was being made on the IPI. "Ministers from the three countries," he was quoted by Arab News as saying, "hope to reach a tripartite agreement in the next 45 days." Construction on the pipeline is to begin in 2009, and should be completed by 2012. The 2,600 km pipeline is to transport Iranian gas to Pakistan and India. Prior to his visit to India, Ahmadinejad had been in Pakistan, where he fine-tuned details of the project with President Parvaz Musharraf. He also committed Iran to providing 1,100 MW of electricity to Pakistan, to help it overcome energy shortages. Talks between Pakistan and India had also taken place at the end of April, after which Indian Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister Murli Deora announced that the deal would be "clinched soon." At an Islamabad press conference on April 25, IRNA reported that the oil ministers of the two countries said they had reached agreement on "fundamental issues," and that a final agreement could be signed in weeks, if not days. One factor which may have nudged India in the direction of a deal, is that China was showing interest in the project. In his meeting with Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, Ahmadinejad said that the IPI deal would soon be finalized "and my government will also welcome the inclusion of China in the project." The crucial question of financing for the $7.4 billion project, was being hammered out in the Asian Development Bank. According to sources in the Pakistani Petroleum Ministry cited by the Tehran Times on April 23, the ADB was ready to foot the bill. The ADB is also sponsoring the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline project, in which Pakistan would import 3.2 billion cubic feet of gas, to be shared with India. So much for pipelines. But Iran's "package" contains much more. As Iranian sources have indicated, India is also committed to invest in Iran's oil industry. And Sri Lanka, another stop on Ahmadinejad's Asian tour, is looking forward to Iranian participation in $1.5 billion worth of infrastructure projects, including the $450-million Uma Oya hydro power project slated to produce 100 MW electricity, and an upgrading of the country's oil refinery. In addiiton, Iran is ready to offer credits for military equipment to be brought in from China and Pakistan, as well as training. Beyond energy agreements, the Iranian package also deals with developing transportation infrastructure. As reported in the Tehran Times April 16, Iran and India signed an MoU for starting work on the India-Iran-Russia railway line. When one puts all these bits and pieces together, then a rather wonderful mosaic image emerges. As confirmed by Iranian sources, what the Iranians are proposing in their new package is nothing less than a blueprint for a new correlation of nations in Eurasia, whose collaboration in developing continental infrastucture--nuclear energy, gas and oil pipelines, and transportation--should establish the economic, and therefore political, basis for true independence. Iran's Foreign Minister Mottaki made clear, during his visit to Dushanbe on March 24, that his country wanted to become a full-fledged member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a grouping which includes Russia and China, along with the leading nations of Central Asia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Not only: the Iranians are also moving in their more immediate regional environment, to erect this alternative economic, political and security structure. Most significant in this context, is the meeting that took place in Tehran April 30, between Iranian Interior Minister Mostafa Pourmohamadi and Saudi Arabian Deputy Interior Minister for Security Affairs Ahmed bin Mohammad Al-Salem. The aim of this 2nd joint Iran-Saudi security committee meeting was to implement the agreements the two countries had reached in groundbreaking talks in October 2001, when they signed a joint security agreement. At the same time, Iran had been engaged in talks with Turkey on security. Iran's deputy interior minister for security and political affairs, Abbas Mohtaj, had said that Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia had reached some form of agreement on regional security. Add to this the ongoing process of discussions between Iran and the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council for establishment of a free trade zone, as well as for a regional nuclear energy agreement, and it becomes clear that what is on the agenda is nothing less than a regional economic-security arrangement. The Iranian leadership has understood that, in order to face the continuing threat of militrary aggression by the war party, it must not only mobilize its military capabilities, as a defensive measure, but, more importantly, that it must move in a positive direction, to build the economic-strategic alliances in the immediate Persian Gulf region, and in the broader regional context -- Russia, Central Asia, India, China. This is precisely what Tehran is doing. This is the signifance of the "package." NOTE1. The ICG proposal was the most far-reaching and detailed. The Iranian participants at the conference signalled their overall approval. See EIR, April 7,2006 for a report on the conference and interviews with the Iranian representatives as well as with Tim Guldimann, former Swiss ambassador to Tehran.
Iran mum on ‘names’ confrontation
TEHRAN, Iran (Agencies): An Iraqi delegation was in Tehran on Friday for discussions on the recent upsurge in violence in Iraq, Iran’s official news agency reported, but made no mention that the visit sought to pressure Iran to stop arming and training Iraq’s Shiite extremists — a claim backed by Washington but denied by Tehran. In Baghdad, an Iraqi lawmaker said the Iranians admitted nothing when confronted with documents carried by the Iraqi delegation, and claimed they were not meddling in Iraq in any way. Iran’s IRNA news agency said the Iraqis were here to discuss “security issues” related to clashes between Shiite extremists and the Iraqi government and US forces. It quoted Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini as saying that the five-member Iraqi team was to “discuss latest developments” in Iraq.“Iranian officials will hold talks with this delegation in line with helping settle differences and ongoing clashes in Iraq,” Hosseini said. Senior Shiite Iraqi politicians from the ruling United Iraqi Alliance arrived Wednesday to confront Iranian authorities with what Baghdad officials described as “sufficient evidence” of Iran’s support for Iraq’s militias and outlaws. Haider al-Ibadi, a lawmaker from Iraqi prime minister’s Dawa party, said Friday that the delegation visiting Tehran presented a “list of names, training camps and cells linked to Iran” but that “Iranians did not admit anything.” “They claim they are not intervening in Iraq and they promised to exert efforts to support the Iraqi government in containing the lawbreakers and to prevent the flow of weapons to Iraq,” al-Ibadi told The Associated Press in Baghdad. On Thursday, the Iraqi delegates met with the commander of the Quds Force, an elite unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps that has been accused of training and funneling weapons to the Shiite extremists in Iraq. A second meeting with the commander, Ghassem Soleimani, was expected Friday.The Quds Force is believed to operate overseas, and is said to have helped create the militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon in 1982 and armed Bosnian Muslims during the Balkan wars of the 1990s.The Iraqi delegation was said to have documents and other material implicating the Quds Force in supplying weapons and training fighters. US military officials have said the evidence includes caches of weapons that have date stamps showing they were produced in Iran this year — including mortars, rockets and armor-piercing roadside bombs known as explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs.The Bush administration has been raising its anti-Iran rhetoric as American troops in Iraq face daily clashes with Shiite militiamen. The combat helped push the US military death toll in Iraq to at least 50 in April, the highest monthly toll since 65 were killed in September.Hosseini said Iran supports its neighbor’s stability and that hosting the delegation from Baghdad was “in line with the goal ... of providing stability and security in Iraq.”He blamed Washington for the violence in Iraq, saying Iraq’s “main problem is the presence of occupiers and terrorists.” Iran has repeatedly called for the withdrawal of US-led forces from Iraq, saying their presence is the root cause of instability there.Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Shiite-dominated government faces a delicate challenges as it tries to maintain a relationship with its US backers and neighboring Iran, a predominantly Shiite nation that has close ties to Iraq’s leaders.But al-Maliki has shown a recent willingness to crackdown on Shiite militias led by the Mahdi Army as he seeks to gain political support from rival Shiite groups and minority Sunnis.Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that the Iraqi visit was “a very important step” and that it may prompt Iranians choose whether they “want to work with the government of Iraq or subvert” it.
A CounterPunch Exclusive
Democrats Okay Funds for Covert Ops
Secret Bush "Finding" Widens War on Iran
By ANDREW COCKBURN
Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, "unprecedented in its scope."
Bush’s secret directive covers actions across a huge geographic area – from Lebanon to Afghanistan – but is also far more sweeping in the type of actions permitted under its guidelines – up to and including the assassination of targeted officials. This widened scope clears the way, for example, for full support for the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, the cultish Iranian opposition group, despite its enduring position on the State Department's list of terrorist groups.
Similarly, covert funds can now flow without restriction to Jundullah, or "army of god," the militant Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan – just across the Afghan border -- whose leader was featured not long ago on Dan Rather Reports cutting his brother in law's throat. Other elements that will benefit from U.S. largesse and advice include Iranian Kurdish nationalists, as well the Ahwazi arabs of south west Iran. Further afield, operations against Iran's Hezbollah allies in Lebanon will be stepped up, along with efforts to destabilize the Syrian regime. All this costs money, which in turn must be authorized by Congress, or at least a by few witting members of the intelligence committees. That has not proved a problem. An initial outlay of $300 million to finance implementation of the finding has been swiftly approved with bipartisan support, apparently regardless of the unpopularity of the current war and the perilous condition of the U.S. economy. Until recently, the administration faced a serious obstacle to action against Iran in the form of Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon, who made no secret of his contempt for official determination to take us to war. In a widely publicized incident last January, Iranian patrol boats approached a U.S. ship in what the Pentagon described as a "taunting" manner. According to Centcom staff officers, the American commander on the spot was about to open fire. At that point, the U.S. was close to war. He desisted only when Fallon personally and explicitly ordered him not to shoot. The White House, according to the staff officers, was "absolutely furious" with Fallon for defusing the incident. Fallon has since departed. His abrupt resignation in early March followed the publication of his unvarnished views on our policy of confrontation with Iran, something that is unlikely to happen to his replacement, George Bush's favorite general, David Petraeus. Though Petraeus is not due to take formal command at Centcom until late summer, there are abundant signs that something may happen before then. A Marine amphibious force, originally due to leave San Diego for the Persian Gulf in mid June, has had its sailing date abruptly moved up to May 4. A scheduled meeting in Europe between French diplomats acting as intermediaries for the U.S. and Iranian representatives has been abruptly cancelled in the last two weeks. Petraeus is said to be at work on a master briefing for congress to demonstrate conclusively that the Iranians are the source of our current troubles in Iraq, thanks to their support for the Shia militia currently under attack by U.S. forces in Baghdad. Interestingly, despite the bellicose complaints, Petraeus has made little effort to seal the Iran-Iraq border, and in any case two thirds of U.S. casualties still come from Sunni insurgents. "The Shia account for less than one third," a recently returned member of the command staff in Baghdad familiar with the relevant intelligence told me, "but if you want a war you have to sell it."Even without the covert initiatives described above, the huge and growing armada currently on station in the Gulf is an impressive symbol of American power.
Armed Might of US Marred By Begging Bowl to Arabs
Sometime in the next two weeks, fleet radar operator may notice a blip on their screens that represents something rather more profound: America's growing financial weakness. The blip will be former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin's plane commencing its descent into Abu Dhabi. Rubin's responsibility these days is to help keep Citigroup afloat despite a balance sheet still waterlogged, despite frantic bail out efforts by the Federal Reserve and others, by staggering losses in mortgage bonds. The Abu Dhabi Sovereign Wealth Fund injected $7.5 billion last November (albeit at a sub-prime interest rate of eleven percent,) but the bank's urgent need for fresh capital persists, and Abu Dhabi is where the money is. Even if those radar operators pay no attention to Mr. Rubin's flight, and the ironic contrast it illustrates between American military power and financial weakness, others will, and not just in Tehran. There's not much a finding can do about that.Andrew Cockburn is a regular CounterPunch contributor. He lives in Washington DC. His most recent book is Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall and Catastrophic Legacy.
Posts
اخبار مربوط به زندانیان سیاسی و نقض حقوق بشر
Tulips in Holland
