Showing posts with label WMD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WMD. Show all posts

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Why sanctions on Iraq could have been ended without any war of invasion or occupation ; no threat from Saddam’s regime to Iraqis or other countries existed by 2000; the genocide against the Marsh Arabs was largely over by the late 90s and could have been ended by air strikes in the Southern No-Fly Zone

The tenth anniversary of the Iraq war has seen the repetition of many excuses for the invasion. One of the commonest is that UN sanctions on Iraq killed millions of Iraqi civilians, with the pretence that sanctions which killed millions of Iraqis through shortages of food and medicines couldn’t be lifted or else Saddam’s regime would become a serious threat. Another is that it was necessary to end Saddam's genocides and massacres. These are lies; the US could have stopped Saddam's genocides and massacres but either kept supporting him (while he committed genocide against the Kurds) or did nothing (while he massacred Shia and Marsh Arabs); and sanctions could have been lifted at any time ; here’s why.

Saddam couldn’t even defeat Iran in the 8 year Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s; and that was with almost the entire world’s governments supporting him with arms, funding, intelligence and political support. This included as Saddam used chemical weapons on Iranians and in his genocidal Anfal campaign against the Kurds, even after Halabja (see post on this link for sources and more details).

(The Halabja attack used US Apache Bell helicopters, whose sale was approved by the Reagan administration, supposedly for “crop spraying”, even though they already knew Saddam was using chemical weapons (1) – (3). After Halabja the US government issued one statement of condemnation, then continued supporting Saddam and suggested that maybe the Iranians had done it (4).)

Saddam showed during the 1991 war that he didn’t dare to use chemical weapons on other countries or the Iraqi Kurds after 1991. He had chemical warheads for his scud missiles, but only used conventional warheads (5).

He could only massacre Shia rebels and their families in Southern Iraq (including Marsh Arabs) at the end of the 1991 war because Bush senior ordered his troops not to intervene ; a massacre that would never have happened if Bush hadn’t given Iraqis the false impression that his forces would aid them if they rebelled (he actually wanted a military regime to replace Saddam) (for details and sources see this post).

Saddam did carry out one horrific campaign of torture, massacres and genocide against Iraqis after 1991; against the Marsh Arabs and other Shia rebels and their families who fled to the southern marshes in 1991 (6).

However US and British aircraft patrolling the Southern No-Fly Zone could have stopped most of this by bombing Saddam’s artillery, trucks, tanks and bulldozers; but made no attempt to do so, probably for the same reason Bush senior didn’t help the other Shia rebels ; the Marsh Arabs are also mostly Shia and so they were seen as potential allies of Iran (7).

Throughout the 1990s Saddam’s forces shelled Marsh Arab villages and towns with tanks, artillery and mortars, including chemical weapons according to some reports, drained the marshes by diverting rivers, killed many rebels, bulldozed houses, left many civilians to die in deserts; and forcibly relocated most of those who didn’t leave to live elsewhere in Iraq, or weren’t among the unknown number who were killed (one estimate being 120,000), or the estimated 40,000 to 120,000 who fled to Iran (8) – (11).

By comparison dozens of Coalition offensives on Iraqi cities during the occupation killed hundreds of civilians in each assault – e.g  600 in the April 2004 assault on Falluja alone (12). Coalition offensives, Saddam’s earlier campaigns and sectarian fighting had left 2.8 million Iraqis “internally displaced people” (homeless refugees inside Iraq) and 2.2 million refugees in other countries at the highest point (during the occupation in the late 2000s). Today an estimated 1.3 million Iraqis remain “internally displaced” and 1.4 million are refugees in other countries While some have returned home , unfortunately other reasons for the reduced numbers include Iraqi refugees who fled to Syria deciding it’s even more dangerous there (13) – (15).

By the end of the 1990s Saddam’s campaign of genocide against the Marsh Arabs was complete. All but an estimated 20,000 Marsh Arabs were gone from the area they had lived in, compared to an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 in 1991, the last major rebellion being crushed in 1998. Only 1,600 still lived in their traditional reed houses on floating platforms in the marshes (16) – (18).

That’s why Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch concluded in 2004 that the 2003 invasion of Iraq “was not a humanitarian intervention” as no massacres or genocide were being planned or carried out by Saddam’s forces (19).

He could have added that none had been carried out or planned for over a decade. Any war was now bound to kill far, far more Iraqis than Saddam was killing. That’s before we even get into the constant firing on civilians and ambulances in many US offensives on Iraqi cities during the occupation which led western aid workers and Iraqi doctors and civilians to conclude they were being deliberately targeted – e.g Fallujah in April 2004 and in Samarra in October 2004 ; or the US trained Iraqi paramilitary torture and death squads, of which more in my next post  (20) – (21).

(Many Marsh Arabs, who have survived only by becoming bandits or extortionists, also went to war with Coalition forces after the invasion in a rebellion against attempts to disarm them – many joining Al Sadr’s Madhi army or other anti-occupation militias. (22)

Dennis Halliday and Hans Von Sponeck, two successive heads of the sanctions programme who resigned in protest over it, said it was not Saddam's regime causing the starvation and shortage of medicines under sanctions, but that the sanctions imposed a limit on oil sales too low to support Iraq’s population ; both opposed the war (23) – (25).

The UN sanctions on Iraq had been demanded by the US and British governments at the end of the 1991 war – a war which began with an invasion of Kuwait which resulted largely from US and Kuwaiti co-operation to put economic pressure on Iraq by slant-drilling across the border into Iraq, by Kuwait exceeding it’s agreed OPEC quotas for oil sales and by it demanding immediate repayment of loans made to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war (see this post for sources and details).

We’ve already shown that their reason for not wanting them lifted was not that this would end Saddam’s “containment” and allow him to conquer the Middle East or massacre Iraqi rebels again.

The real reasons were avoiding loss of face; and ensuring US and British firms got oil contracts on favourable terms. The US had punished Saddam in 1991 and put him on their enemies list. If his regime now survived, the US would look weak and this would encourage other governments to defy it.

Even worse, after the 1991 war Saddam had negotiated oil contracts with Russian, French and Chinese oil companies. If sanctions were lifted and Saddam survived in power they would get the oil contracts, with US and British firms excluded.

As the Washington Post reported on the 15th of September 2002 A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition...."It's pretty straightforward," said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power. "France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them." But he added: "If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them."’ (26).

The US however failed to get the Oil Law it wanted the Iraqi parliament to pass during the occupation (it’s main reason for it’s war with the Shia Iraqi nationalist Al Sadr, whose Shia Sadrist MPs joined Sunni parties’ MPs in opposing the oil law;) and as a result failed to get contracts on the terms it wanted for most US oil companies (27).

Anglo-American oil giant BP  has managed to get a very lucrative contract for one giant Iraqi oil field on terms extremely favourable to it ; and is seeking others in Iraqi Kurdistan which is in disputes with the central government in Baghdad over the regional government negotiating oil contracts rather than the central government ; and over how favourable the terms of contracts are to oil companies (28) – (31). BP took over the US oil firm Amoco (formerly Standard Oil of Indiana and one of the ‘Seven Sisters’ oil giants) in 2001.

Oil and arms company profits and global power were the US aims in Iraq, not protecting Iraqis or promoting democracy – as I’ll show in my next post on how US and Coalition forces and the new Iraqi government still torture and kill Iraqis using all Saddam’s methods short of actual genocide.

 (1) = Mark  Phythian (1997) Arming Iraq: How the U.S. and Britain Secretly Built Saddam's War Machine, Boston: Northeastern University Press

(2) = Washington Post $1.5 Billion in U.S. Sales to Iraq; Technology Products Approved Up to Day Before Invasion’,

(3) = LA Times 13 Feb 1991 ‘Iraq Arms: Big Help From U.S. : Technology was sold with approval--and encouragement--from the Commerce Department but often over Defense officials' objections.’, http://articles.latimes.com/1991-02-13/news/mn-1097_1_commerce-department-approved-millions/3 , page 3 of online version of article

(4) = Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting 01 Sep 2002 ‘The Washington Post's Gas Attack -Today's outrage was yesterday's no big deal’, http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-washington-posts-gas-attack/

(5) = Nye , Joseph S. & Smith , Robert K. (1992), ‘After the Storm' , Madison Books , London , 1992 , - pages 211-216 (Nye is a former member of the Clinton administration)

(6) = Chicago Tribune 05 Aug 1993 ‘Briton: Iraq Is Wiping Out Arabs In Marshes’,
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-08-05/news/9308050117_1_marshes-chemical-weapons-arabs ; 3rd Paragraph ‘She said doctors and other experts aiding the Arabs estimate that 120,000 may die from the terror campaign being waged against them by the regime of Saddam Hussein. There are an estimated 200,000 marsh Arabs, and she said more than 300,000 other people from nearby towns and cities fled to the marshes for refuge when Hussein crushed a Shiite Muslim uprising after the Persian Gulf war.

(7) = Guardian.co.uk 19 Nov 1998 ‘Rebellion in southern marshes is crushed’ ,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1998/nov/17/2

(8) = See (6) above

(9) = See (7) above

(10) = BBC News 03 Mar 2003 ‘Iraq's 'devastated' Marsh Arabs’,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2807821.stm ; 6th to 7th paragraphs

(11) = The Oregonian 14 May 2003 ‘IRAQ'S MARSH ARABS, MODERN SUMERIANS’,
http://www.simplysharing.com/sumerians.htm

(12) = Iraq Body Count 26 Oct 2004 ‘No Longer Unknowable: Falluja's April Civilian Toll is 600’, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/reference/press-releases/9/

(13) = Internal Displacement Monitoring Center ‘Iraq: Response still centred on return despite increasing IDP demands for local integration’,  http://www.internal-displacement.org/countries/iraq

(14) = 2013 UNHCR country operations profile – Iraq,
http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e486426.html

(15) = BBC News 29 Oct 2012 ‘Iraqi refugees flee Syrian conflict to return home’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20131033

(16) = Juan Cole (2008) ‘Marsh Arab Rebellion : Grievance, Mafias and Militias in Iraq’ Fourth Wadie Jwaideh Memorial Lecture, (Bloomington, Indiana : Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, Indiana University, 2008),   Page 7,
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/iraq/iraqtribes4.pdf

(17) = BBC News 03 Mar 2003 ‘Iraq's 'devastated' Marsh Arabs’,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2807821.stm ; 7th to 8th paragrahs

(18) = Guardian.co.uk 19 Nov 1998 ‘Rebellion in southern marshes is crushed’ , http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1998/nov/17/2

(19) = Human Rights Watch 26 Jan 2004 ‘War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention’,
http://www.hrw.org/news/2004/01/25/war-iraq-not-humanitarian-intervention

(20) = BBC News 23 Apr 2004 ‘Picture emerges of Fallujah siege’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3653223.stm

(21) = Independent 04 Oct 2004 ‘Civilians Bear Brunt as Samarra 'Pacified'’,
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1004-02.htm (no longer exists on the Independent newspaper’s website – is this connected to Tony Blair’s biographer and apologist John Rentoul being the paper’s Politics Editor?)

(22) = Juan Cole (2008) ‘Marsh Arab Rebellion : Grievance, Mafias and Militias in Iraq’ Fourth Wadie Jwaideh Memorial Lecture, (Bloomington, Indiana : Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, Indiana University, 2008),   Pages 7-17,
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/iraq/iraqtribes4.pdf

(23) = BBC News 30 Sep 1998 ‘UN official blasts Iraq sanctions’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/183499.stm

(24) = BBC News 14 Feb 2000 ‘UN sanctions rebel resigns’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/642189.stm

(25) = Guardian 29 Nov 2001 ‘The hostage nation - Former UN relief chiefs Hans von Sponeck and Denis Halliday speak out against an attack on Iraq’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/29/iraq.comment

(26) = Washington Post 15 Sep 2002, 'In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue : U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool',
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/177755831.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Sep+15%2C+2002&author=Dan+Morgan++and++David+B.+Ottaway&pub=The+Washington+Post&edition=&startpage=A.01&desc=In+Iraqi+War+Scenario%2C+Oil+Is+Key+Issue%3B+U.S.+Drillers+Eye+Huge+Petroleum+Pool ; or read full version at
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0915-03.htm

(27) = Greg Muttitt (2011) ‘Fuel on the Fire – Oil and Politics in Occupied Iraq’, Bodley-Head 2011

(28) = Observer 31 Jul 2011 ‘BP 'has gained stranglehold over Iraq' after oilfield deal is rewritten’,  http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/31/bp-stranglehold-iraq-oilfield-contract

(29) = Wall Street Journal Online 27 Jan 2013 ‘Iraq, BP Considering Kirkuk Field Deal’,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323468604578247013430825632.html

(30) = BBC News 20 Mar 2013 ‘Kurdish oil exports stall in row over revenue-sharing’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21793783

(31) = CNN 12 Dec 2011 ‘Oil power struggle as U.S. leaves Iraq’, http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/12/world/meast/iraq-oil

Thursday, December 15, 2011

The formal US withdrawal from Iraq is deceptive ; and war on Iran on the same dodgy grounds remains on the table

There’s been a lot of fanfare over the US withdrawal from Iraq, but in fact the US will keep 5,000 armed men in Iraq – many of them former US special forces – they just won’t be called US troops ; and they’ll be accompanied by CIA agents over-seeing US trained El Salvador style Iraqi death squads.

CNN reports that

Hundreds of nonmilitary U.S. personnel will remain in Iraq, including 1,700 diplomats, law enforcement officers and economic, agriculture and other professionals and experts, according to the State Department.

In addition, 5,000 security contractors will protect U.S. diplomats and another 4,500 contractors will serve other roles, such as helping provide food and medical services, until they can be done locally.’ (1)

These ‘private security contractors’ (a euphemism for mercenaries), working for companies like Dyncorp will include many former members of the US and British militaries and Special Forces, just as they have up until now. They have been responsible for some of the worst cases of random shootings of civilians in Iraq and the transfer of command of them from the Pentagon to the State Department will shift them from almost total immunity from prosecution to total immunity from prosecution.

They may become as immune to prosecution as the Dyncorp employees contracted by the US State Department in Bosnia who kidnapped young girls, raped them and used them as forced sex slaves, selling them to human traffickers (for details and sources on this click this link).

The reason that no US troops are being left turns out to be that the Iraqi government would not grant them immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts.

The Washington Post reported thatIraqi leaders said last week that they want a small contingent of U.S. military trainers to remain, but without immunity from local prosecution, a condition the Obama administration has said it cannot accept. The administration has been planning to keep 3,000 to 5,000 military trainers in the country if the two sides can hammer out an agreement.’(2). (for more details on the immunity issue click this link)

The US military also spent the last 8 years training up El Salvador style Iraqi 'police commandos' and 'special forces' in Iraq under both Bush and Obama - units responsible for the same torture and murder that the Salvadoran military carried out against rebels and civilians alike in the 1980s (3) – (5).

Some of the ‘diplomats’ operating from the vast US embassy in Baghdad, which is bigger than the Vatican and cost over $1 billion to build, will undoubtedly be CIA agents, as every major power uses embassies and diplomatic immunity as cover for intelligence operatives (6). Some of these will be CIA ‘handlers’ overseeing Iraqi death squads, just as in the past in Vietnam and countries across Latin and Central America.

So the Obama administration doesn't have much of a leg to stand on in demanding that no country 'destabilises' or 'interferes' in Iraq, unless by 'de-stabilises' they mean 'threatens to replace our puppet government with a different one' (7).

Obama may not use the phrase ‘war on terror’ any more, that doesn’t mean the death squads or the ‘extra-ordinary rendition’ for torture are over.

It doesn’t mean the calls for a re-run of the Iraq war,  this time against Iran, is off either. The supposed justification is even identical– that the Iranian government and military would commit collective national suicide by using WMDs or nuclear weapons on nuclear armed states such as the US or Israel or their allies; or would commit national suicide by proxy by giving nuclear materials to terrorists.

This is despite the fact that Iran’s Ayatollahs and the Republican Guard showed in 1988 that they preferred an inglorious peace that allowed them to survive in power to glorious national martyrdom, just as Saddam showed the same during the 1991 Iraq war (when he did have chemical warheads for his scuds) by only using conventional warheads in scud missile attacks on Kuwait and Israel; and despite Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld and former US General John Abizaid saying we can live with a nuclear Iran, which, if it develops nuclear weapons, will want them for the same reason as the US and Israel – as a deterrent against attacks on it by others (8) – (9). Creveld also points out that US or Israeli intelligence have been claiming Iran was on the verge of building nuclear weapons for at least 20 years (10).


(1) = CNN 13 Dec 2011 ‘Obama says U.S. goal is successful Iraq’, http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/12/politics/obama-maliki/index.html

(2) = Washington Post 08 Oct 2011 ‘State Department readies Iraq operation, its biggest since Marshall Plan’,http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/state-department-readies-iraq-operation-its-biggest-since-marshall-plan/2011/10/05/gIQAzRruTL_story.html ; ‘Iraqi leaders said last week that they want a small contingent of U.S. military trainers to remain, but without immunity from local prosecution, a condition the Obama administration has said it cannot accept. The administration has been planning to keep 3,000 to 5,000 military trainers in the country if the two sides can hammer out an agreement.’

(3) = New York Times Magazine 01 May 2005 ‘The Way of the Commandos’, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/magazine/01ARMY.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

(4) = Shane Bauer ‘Iraq’s new death squad’ in The Nation 6th June 2009, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090622/bauer

(5) = See the blogpost linked below – the part under the sub-heading ‘Killing and torturing Iraqis’ and sources 16 to 41 on it http://inplaceoffear.blogspot.com/2010/09/are-iraqis-better-off-as-result-of-2003.html

(6) = Mother Jones 11 Jun 2011 ‘How Not to Withdraw from Iraq’http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/withdrawal-iraq-american-embassy-size

(7) =  White House Office of the Press Secretary 12 Dec 2011 ‘Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister al-Maliki of Iraq in a Joint Press Conference’, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/12/remarks-president-obama-and-prime-minister-al-maliki-iraq-joint-press-co

(8) = Forward 24 Sep 2007 ‘The World Can Live With a Nuclear Iran’, http://www.forward.com/articles/11673/

(9) = CNN 18 Sep 2007 ‘Retired general: U.S. can live with a nuclear Iran’, http://articles.cnn.com/2007-09-18/world/france.iran_1_nuclear-weapon-nuclear-program-nuclear-fuel?_s=PM:WORLD

(10) = NYT 21 Aug 2004 ‘Sharon on the warpath : Is Israel planning to attack Iran?’, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/21/opinion/21iht-edcreveld_ed3_.html

Sunday, January 23, 2011

The Chilcot Inquiry on Iraq, Blair ; and Guardian editor Michael White’s lazy, contemptuous failure to research the facts on Iraq or Iran

Guardian editor Michael White's coverage of the Chilcot Inquiry on Iraq is unbelievably lazy. His fact free, condescending and contemptuous piece makes the ludicrous claim that Blair is partly right on Iran as Iran is “scary”. White couldn't even be bothered finding out the second name of the mother who had lost her son to Blair's war - she's just "a middle aged woman called Deirdre" to him

According to White on Tony Blair’s latest appearance before another shoddy ‘ Iraq Inquiry’, “Yet again Sir John Chilcot's panel had hardly laid a glove on the former prime minister” (1)

What a surprise that such trenchant critics of Blair as the Chilcot Inquiry didn’t put him on the spot.

There’s Baroness Prashar, made a Baroness and member of the Lords by one Tony Blair MP in 1999 – and also appointed by him to various other jobs (2) – (3).

There’s historian (read propagandist in this case) Sir Martin Gilbert, who is an expert on and hero worshipper of Winston Churchill (4) – (5). He whitewashes Churchill’s urging of the use of “poison gas” on such “uncivilised tribes” as the Iraqi Kurds – and later on German civilians in World War Two. Churchill claimed that targeting civilians and using chemical weapons on them were matters of “fashion” not of “morality” (a German historian has brought attention to this) (6) – (8). Luckily no-one at the time listened to Churchill’s plan for an early version of Saddam’s Anfal genocide of the Kurds by gassing them – though the RAF and British army deliberately massacred thousands of Kurdish villagers and other Iraqi rebels and civilians with conventional weapons in the 1920s and 1930s, one RAF officer recounting tactics used against Kurdish villages as follows “the attack with bombs and machine guns must be..unrelenting…continuously by day and night, on houses, inhabitants, crops and cattle” An RAF manual noted that by using such methods “within 45 minutes a full sized village can be wiped out”.  (This is not a quote from Gilbert’s histories but Arab American historian Rashid Khalidi) (9).  Boer and black African civilians in the Boer War were starved to death in huge numbers in the first concentration camps, a British invention which provided neither enough food nor any shelter. Sadly for Churchill he didn’t get to use poisoned gas on the detainees, but he fought in and enthusiastically backed the war and the methods used in it (10). Churchill’s actions could only look enlightened by comparison with Hitler’s – and then only because other members of the British government and military refused to carry out Churchill’s full plans.

Gilbert also hero worships and whitewashes the records of Bush and Blair, which are even worse, just as much.  In 2004 he compared Bush and Blair to Roosevelt and Churchill and the "war on terror" against some terrorist groups to World War Two against the most powerful state and military in the world – as if bombing, invading and occupying entire countries with whole armies and air-forces could ever stop terrorism rather than create new enemies with dead allies and civilians to avenge) – and as if in the present the attacked  and invaded weaker countries, not the attackers, were the aggressors. If he’d compared the war on terror to the British and French Empires’ invasions and occupations in the Middle East between the First and Second World Wars he’d have been closer to the truth. (11) – (12).

Gilbert’s modern day heroes continued the British Empire’s methods in Iraq with constant air strikes by the USAF and RAF on Iraqi civilians from the 1991 war on through the ‘No Fly Zone’ period from 1991 to March 2003 - and massively increased during ‘Operation Desert Fox’ and from 2000 to 2003. Between 10,000 and 20,000 civilians were killed directly by US and Coalition bombing in the 1991 war alone and an estimated 250,000 died due to damage to clean water supplies, sewage systems and hospitals as an indirect result of that bombing. During the war from 2003 to 2010, in which (as in 1991) bombing, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, napalm and similar substances and white phosphorus were used on Iraqi cities, massive civilian casualties were the result again. Many more would die due to sanctions. They continue to be killed by terrorism, Iraqi government (US trained) death squads and torture; and hunger and illness due to corruption and lack of reconstruction at a rate exceeding that under Saddam and sanctions. Millions of civilians have died as a result from 1991 to present; at least as many as were killed by Saddam in the 80s (when he was armed and funded by the US and British governments among others even after Halabja) and in 1991 (when the US government ordered it’s troops to prevent Shia rebels getting to arms caches and let Saddam’s forces wipe them out to minimise Iranian influence in Iraq) (13) – (22).

Then there’s Gilbert’s colleague on the Chilcot Inquiry, another (only a bit less biased) historian  Lawrence Freedman, who has written an entire book on US involvement in the Middle East since 1976 (‘A Choice of Enemies’) which makes almost no mention of the vast number of civilians killed in indiscriminate attacks by US forces or their allies – and absolutely none of the deliberate targeting of civilians and ambulances in Coalition assaults on Fallujah and other cities like Samarra ; nor of the systematic and brutal torture by Coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq reported by US and British troops to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as well as to British courts. The word “torture” appears on just a few paragraphs on 4 of 509 pages of Freedman’s book and is glossed over without any discussion of the scale of it or the methods used. Unlike in soldier’s reports to human rights groups, Freedman mentions “beatings” once – without mention of the fact they often go on for days and nights on end by shifts of troops, with some victims dying. Breaking bones with baseball bats is never mentioned by Freedman, nor does battering head off doors or concrete floors, nor electrocution. His only other descriptions are “humiliation” and “attack with dogs”, in the same sentence as “beatings” – and he gives the false impression these happened only at Abu Ghraib and only by the soldiers named in the Taguba report. (23) – (24).

Then there are a two thoroughly establishment former civil servants, one being Inquiry Chairman sir John Chilcot, who approved the previous Butler Inquiry whitewash (25).

In short the entire inquiry is a joke Michael. It is not dealing with any of the core facts or evidence, just playing around the edges for show. Pretending otherwise is a sad joke, but feel free to pretend this is a rigorous trial which has found Blair guilty of nothing more than “mistakes”.

White goes on to say that

a middle-aged woman called Deidre, smartly dressed and articulate, emerged from the hearing on BBC TV to sum up the familiar case for the prosecution….Deidre acknowledged "tears in his voice, but it was all rehearsed. I don't believe a word of it"…And that's it really: "We wuz robbed." Whatever the man says doesn't matter to his hardcore critics…It will not stop the Iraq specialists poring over Blair's testimony and the accompanying release of documents looking for flaws and inconsistencies, as they so often have done before – and emerge as "frustrated" as Deidre because they still can't find that final proof…. ……..

….It's disappointing for the pack that always gathers where Blair goes, not least because the Get Blair crowd are looking for something that isn't there – the smoking gun that proves Blair's villainy. Instead they get mistakes, his misplaced optimism in the WMD (weapons of mass destruction) intelligence about WMD, the efficacy of invading such a snake pit as quasi-Stalinist Iraq or the Pentagon's reckless occupation strategy.

You really think we would ever expect to get evidence of Blair's guilt coming from his own mouth in an inquiry set up with a panel of Iraq war supporters who are banned from even referring to parts of his communications with President Bush during questioning in the inquiry or in the final report, when, even if they’re released, large sections of these conversations have also been deleted from Whitehall records ?  (26) – (27) How naive. How ludicrous.

Should we judge everyone's guilt or innocence of crimes on these standards? We could allow the accused to appoint his friends and associates as judges, not bother with a jury - and decide what evidence the "court" is allowed to bring up and what it can't; and what questions they can and can't ask. Then everyone will be found to have just made some mistakes, even if they got large numbers of people killed by premeditated lies, because i mean if they didn't admit their guilt you haven't laid a glove on them. Isn't that right Michael? The prisons can be emptied tommorrow that way. Everyone's a winner.

Still, it makes you feel smug to pretend that if Blair doesn’t admit guilt he must be innocent of anything but some “mistakes”, despite the wealth of evidence ; and clearly you can look down on some “middle aged woman” who’s only one of millions to have lost people they loved as a result of Blair’s lies.

Her name by the way Mr White is Deirdre Glover and her son's name was Kristian Glover. He was 30 when he was killed in Iraq.

Forget researching the facts, Iran is “scary” so Blair and his critics are supposedly equally wrong

White continues

I think Blair was naive and careless, but so were many of his critics – as they demonstrate today on the scary subject of Iran, though I share their distaste for Blair's bellicosity, on evidence again today. But we're not learning more than nuances of the Iraq policy any more, we're mostly spinning in well-trodden mud.

Wow another brilliant fact and argument free "analysis". Iran is "scary". Blair just made mistakes and all his critics are supposedly as wrong as he is and just as much to blame for being “careless”, based on not one fact, because he hasn’t admitted guilt.

Fact: Iran's government had the opportunity for glorious national martyrdom in 1988 when the US Vincennes shot down an Iranian Airbus. They believed this signalled the US was about to join the Iran-Iraq war on the Iraqi side, as opposed to arming him and providing him with chemical and biological weapons (as it had been for years). They - including Rafsanjani and Khameini and Revolutionary Guard officers like Ahmadinejad - chose to persuade Khomeini to make peace instead. This fact is available from many histories of Iran, including the Persian Puzzle by former CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack (28).

Iran's 'Supreme Leader' Ayatollah Khameini (above) has control of Iran's military - not President Ahmadinejad while the pragmatic Ayatollah Rafsanjani (below) is influential in Iranian politics. Both helped persuade Khomeini to choose peace over national martyrdom in 1988.

So, as Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld and US General John Abizaid have both said, the world can live with a nuclear Iran, as Iran's government is not going to commit mass suicide by starting a nuclear war, however much they might urge individual martyrdom on others (29) – (30).


Former US General John Abizadi (above) and Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld (below) both say we can live with a nuclear Iran

Fact: This is basically the same scenario as with the whole Iraq charade. During the 1991 war Saddam did have WMDs and some delivery systems for them - highly inaccurate Scud missiles with chemical warheads. He did not use one of them (You can find this fact in a book written by Joseph S .Nye (a former member of the Clinton administration) and Robert Keohane called 'After the Storm' though they pretend it's a "mystery" that he didn't use them, despite the blindingly obvious - that as Condoleezza Rice acknowledged in 2000 "rogue regimes" could not use WMDs even if they developed them without being destroyed by a nuclear counter strike from Israel, the US or it's allies and so "classical deterrence" would render their WMDs ineffective for anything except deterring others from attacking them (31) – (32).

Chilcot Inquiry member and historian Lawrence Freedman also acknowledges the scud chemical warheads existed but weren’t used by Saddam in the 1991 war in his book ‘A Choice of Enemies’, adding that “Iraqis..Indicated that they were influenced by the prospect of nuclear retaliation, though as much from Israel as the United States.”, but, as far as I can find out, has never brought this up during the Inquiry. His book goes on to make up some illogical and vague claim about the Iraqis maybe having made this claim about their motives for reasons of “prestige”. (33)

A Scud missile - in 1991 Saddam had chemical warheads for his scud missiles, but only fired conventional ones for fear of nuclear retaliation from Israel or the US. So the supposed Iraqi "threat" never existed and whether Saddam had WMD or not was irrelevant.

North Korea has nuclear weapons already and it’s government is no less “unstable” or “irrational” than Iran’s – if anything more so. So why is the prospect that Iran might get it’s own nuclear deterrent “scary” to you Mr. White, but you don’t worry about North Korea?

The conspiracy theory that the Iraqi or Iranian governments would commit national and personal suicide by proxy by handing WMDs to terrorist groups is ludicrous - which is why, a decade into the "war on terror", it's never happened - despite the chaos in Iraq after the invasion letting Al Qa'ida get it's hands on the few remnants of Saddam's WMDs from the 1980s. Even Al Qa’ida do not want to risk nuclear retaliation.

Fact : Saddam could only use WMDs on his own people - and on Iranians- while the nuclear powers - including the US, France, theUK, Russia and China - were allied to him during the Iran-Iraq war. Fact :  At the time of Halabja none of these governments gave a toss about it - and Blair refused to sign parliamentary motions condeming the gassing and genocide and demanding US and British aid be ended (which it never was till shortly before the 1991 war as the Scott Report and US members of congress revealed) (34)

Saddam could only use chemical weapons on his own people and the Iranians when all the nuclear powers were supporting him, funding and arming him during the Iran-Iraq war - which they continued to do for 2 years after Halabja. After 1991, with the US hostile to him, he couldn't risk it. So there was no threat of him using WMD on his own people again either

As for Blair having made “mistakes” on WMD don’t make me laugh (or should that be cry that not one national newspaper editor seems to know or care about the basic facts). Read UNMOVIC head Hans Blix’s last two briefings of the UN Security Council on the progress being made in destroying Saddam’s last reserves of WMDs from the 80s and on the destruction of his longest ranged missiles and of manufacturing facilities for them (35) – (37).

Also note the trick of misdirection used on the mythical “threats” posed by Iraq or Iran getting WMD –  i.e both had and have proven they wouldn’t use them if they had them for fear of a nuclear counterstrike.

As for your theory that his critics should “move on”, that will only be possible when Blair, the Israeli government and half the politicians in the US at least stop calling for another war on Iran that would get hundreds of thousands more killed – and editors and journalists like yourself stop parroting them on the non-existent “threat” from “scary” Iran. (Hoping that they might admit the horrendous lies they told and crimes they committed in Iraq and deal with the reality that neither Iraq nor Iran can possibly pose a threat to nuclear armed nations and their allies who also have immensely stronger militaries than them would doubtless be too much.)

Iraqis will not be able to move on for decades, because they’re still being killed by the same US trained death squads and the same terrorists that the US let into the country by invading and creating chaos, with no concern for anything but their own profits.

You, Mr. White, like Blair, are certainly “careless” of the truth and “spinning in well-trodden mud” on Iran as on Iraq before it though. You never let facts get in the way of some smug opinion that Blair is half right and his critics are all just as wrong as he is - some tawdry, fact and logic free, fence sitting.

But forget facts, eh Michael? Iran is "scary" so Blair must be half right. Pathetic. Anyone paying to buy a newspaper with one of your columns in it is certainly being robbed if they expected any of the central facts from reliable sources, or any coherent argument.

Have you spent so much time being flattered and fed lies by government press officers and Ministers that you actually believe they’re giving you the facts and not spoon feeding you garbage? Do you actually check any reliable, neutral (as opposed to political, government) sources on anything? ; Clearly not often.

The above includes plenty of reliable sources with solid facts (listed below and in some cases on the links below). I wish you’d recognise some of them. I don’t think it’s likely you ever will though. Much easier to pretend the truth is half way between what Blair says and what his critics say than risk losing readers or having to do any work by researching and publishing the unpleasant facts.


(1) = Guardian Politics Blog 21 Jan 2011, 17.38 GMT, ‘Chilcot inquiry: we wuz robbed again’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/jan/21/chilcot-inquiry-tony-blair-iraq

(2) = Baroness Prashar,http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/usha-prasher/26541

(3) = The Iraq Inquiry – People - Baroness Usha Prashar of Runnymede,
http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/background/ushaprashar.aspx

(4) = The Iraq Inquiry – People – Sir Martin Gilbert,http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/background/martingilbert.aspx

(5) = Sir Martin Gilbert Online,http://www.martingilbert.com/

(6) = Telegraph 31 Jan 2007 ‘Churchill wanted to use gas on enemies’,http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/gaswar.html

(7) = Guardian 28 Nov 2002 ‘The Churchill you didn't know’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2002/nov/28/features11.g21

(8) = Guenther W. Gellermann, "Der Krieg, der nicht stattfand", Bernard & Graefe Verlag, 1986, pp. 249-251, http://www.codoh.com/incon/incongasmemo.html

(9) = Rashid Khalidi (2005) ‘Resurrecting Empire’, Beacon Press, Boston, Massachusets, 2005, page 26 - 27

(10) = Thomas Pakenham (1999) ‘ The Boer War’, The Folio Society, London, 1999,
p613-615, 626-634 (chapters 38 & 39)

(11) = Observer 26 Sep 2004 ‘Statesmen for these times’, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1379819,00.html

(12) = See (9) above, entire book

(13) = Bennis , Phyllis & Moushabeck  , Michael (Editors) (1992)  ‘Beyond the Storm’  ; Canongate Press , London , 1992, p326 – 355

(14) = Lee , Ian (1991) ‘Continuing Health Costs of the Gulf War’, Medical Educational Trust , London , 1991

(15) = Clark , Ramsey (1992) ‘War Crimes: a Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq’ Maissoneuve Press , 1992 – and at http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-index.htm

(16) = Observer 20 Dec 1998 ‘Refineries in the bombsights in plan to undermine regime’

(17) = New York Times 18 Aug 1999 ‘With Little Notice, U.S. Planes Have Been Striking Iraq All Year’, http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/081399iraq-conflict.html

(18) = New Statesman 17 Aug 2000 ‘Labour claims its actions are lawful while it bombs Iraq, starves its people and sells arms to corrupt states’, http://www.newstatesman.com/200008070012

(19) = Guardian 19 Feb 2001 ‘Raid shows Bush-Blair bond on Iraq’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/feb/19/usa.iraq2

(20) = Counterpunch 04 Dec 2002 ‘No-Fly Zones Over Iraq : Washington's Undeclared War on "Saddam's Victiims"’, http://www.counterpunch.org/scahill1204.html

(21) = See blog post on following link and the sources listed for it,http://inplaceoffear.blogspot.com/2010/09/blair-us-uk-and-saddams-invasions-and.html

(22) = See blog post on following link and the sources listed for it,http://inplaceoffear.blogspot.com/2010/09/are-iraqis-better-off-as-result-of-2003.html

(23) = Lawrence Freedman (2008) ‘A Choice of Enemies’, Weidenfield & Nicolson, London, 2008

(24) = See the website page on the following link and the sources listed for it, http://www.duncanmcfarlane.org/who%27s_right_on_Iraq/torture/

(25) = http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/people.aspx

(26) = BBC News 18 Jan 2011 ‘Iraq inquiry 'disappointed' by Bush-Blair note secrecy’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12210687

(27) = Independent 20 Jan 2011 ‘Details from Blair's Iraq calls were deleted’,http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/details-from-blairs-iraq-calls-were-deleted-2189275.html

(28) = Pollack, Kenneth M.(20054), ‘The Persian Puzzle, Random House, New York, 2005 paperback edition - pages 249-374 ; Also see the link below and the sources for it, which include Pollack’s book with chapter and page numbers, http://www.duncanmcfarlane.org/PersianProblem/

(29) = Forward – The Jewish Daily – 24 Sep 2007 ‘The World Can Live With a Nuclear Iran ’,http://www.forward.com/articles/11673/

(30) = CNN 18 Sep 2007 ‘Retired general: U.S. can live with a nuclear Iran’,http://articles.cnn.com/2007-09-18/world/france.iran_1_nuclear-weapon-nuclear-program-nuclear-fuel?_s=PM:WORLD

(31) = Nye , Joseph S. & Smith , Robert K. (1992), ‘After the Storm, Madison Books , London , 1992 , - pages 211-216

(32) = Rice, Condoleeza (2000) in Foreign Affairs January/February 2000‘ - 'Campaign 2000: Promoting the National Interest' http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20000101faessay5-p50/condoleezza-rice/campaign-2000-promoting-the-national-interest.html - cited in Chomsky, Noam (2003) 'Hegemony or Survival' , Penguin Books , London & NY 2004, pages 34 & 260 citing Mearsheimer, John & Walt, Stephen (2003) in Foreign Policy Jan/Feb 2003

(33) = Lawrence Freedman (2008) ‘A Choice of Enemies’, Weidenfield & Nicolson, London, 2008, Chapter 12, p245

(34) = See the blog post link below and sources 5 to 11 at the bottom of it,http://inplaceoffear.blogspot.com/2010/09/blair-us-uk-and-saddams-invasions-and.html

(35) = Briefing of the Security Council, 14 February 2003: An update on inspections, Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix, http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/pages/security_council_briefings.asp#6

(36) = Briefing of the Security Council, 7 March 2003: Oral introduction of the 12th quarterly report of UNMOVIC, Executive Chairman Dr. Hans Blix,http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/pages/security_council_briefings.asp#7

(37) = Also see the blog post link below and sources for it,http://inplaceoffear.blogspot.com/2010/09/risks-of-action.html

Tuesday, September 07, 2010

The Risks of Action

The Risks of another unnecessary war on Iran are very real - the risks of not acting are proven by Iranian government actions (especially in 1988) to be propaganda, just as they were with Saddam - as proven by his actions in 1991 - when he did have WMD, but didn't use them

Tony Blair and others who called for "action" to prevent the supposed "threat" from Iraq and are saying the same about Iran now are calling for actions which risk creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of strengthening support for terrorist groups and letting them get access to WMDs during the chaos of war and "regime change". Saddam's actions in 1991 (when he did have WMD) proved he wasn't willing to risk using them on nuclear armed states or their allies (and was only willing to use them on his own people while the rest of the world looked the other way and kept funding and arming him against Iran). Iran's rulers similarly showed they have no appetite for glorious personal and national martyrdom in 1988. Weapons inspections in 2002 to 2003 were working. If Saddam had had large stocks of WMD the chaos after the invasion would have let looters steal and sell them, as they did with conventional munitions.

Weapons inspectors weren’t expelled in 1998 –
 and weren’t being duped in 2003

Tony Blair and his adherents still claim that Saddam “duped, bribed and expelled weapons inspectors”. In fact Saddam never expelled UN inspectors. The UNSCOM inspections teams present from 1991 were withdrawn in 1998 due to Clinton and Blair announcing bombing in ‘Operation Desert Fox’, giving them only hours notice ;and refused re-entry when it was found CIA agents had infiltrated UNSCOM to identify Iraqi air defence and military barracks sites to bomb , with only 13 out of the first 100 targets on the 'Operation Desert Fox' target list having any connection to suspected biological or chemical weapons or missiles that could deliver them (1) – (3).

UNSCOM from 1991 to 1998 certainly didn't get full, prompt and unrestricted access to all the Iraqi sites they wished to inspect, but things were different with UNMOVIC from 2002. The threat of war was getting results.

In February 2003 Hans Blix, head of the new UNMOVIC UN weapons inspection teams, reported to the UN Security Council that inspectors had destroyed mustard gas stocks and identified empty chemical warheads for scud missiles along with Iraqi missiles exceeding the permitted 150 kilometre range (4). Just three weeks later on 7th March he updated them on  the destruction of 34 Al Samoud 2 missiles, 2 combat warheads, 1 launcher and 5 engines” along with two missile casting chambers.” He added that inspections “faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than ...in... 1991 to 1998, perhaps due to strong outside pressure ”, estimating completion within “months”. (5).

The risk in Iran, as in Iraq, is chaos caused by war allowing terrorists to sieze of buy WMD - and the collapse of the Soviet Union shows even this risk is exaggerated

Instead Bush rushed to war, creating chaos in Iraq and leading Saddam's forces to mostly flee or go into hiding. As a result large amounts of conventional arms as well as ammunition, shells and mines were looted and likely eventually sold to terrorist groups and militias. Construction machinery which could potentially be used to make chemical and nuclear weapons was also looted from many sites long before US troops arrived (though as most of it was "dual use" it could equally have been sold to companies making civilian products) (6) - (8).

If the Bush administration genuinely believed Saddam had WMD and had - as it claimed - identified WMD sites, it's strange that they didn't bother to secure these sites right away with special forces air-dropped to them.

If Saddam had genuinely had large stocks of WMD and "active" WMD programmes then the invasion would have created the chaos in which they could sieze or buy them (with the same holding true for any planned invasion of Iran). The threat of terrorist groups getting WMDs during the chaos of war and "regime change" was always a much greater threat than the ridiculous claims that Saddam was about to committ suicide by proxy by arming terrorist groups with WMDs.

During the 1991 war, when Saddam did have over a dozen chemical warheads for his Scud missiles, he used none of them in attacks on Coalition forces, Kuwait or Israel. Instead he used conventional warheads (9). While the authors of the book ‘After the Storm’, who include former CIA man Joseph Nye, consider this to be one of the “great mysteries” of the war, there is nothing mysterious about it. Saddam was not willing to risk nuclear retaliation by using any kind of WMD on nuclear armed states or their allies.

That's why the original British MoD intelligence assessment said Saddam might use WMDs on coalition forces “if attacked” and on the point of being overthrown, but was unlikely to do so otherwise. Tony Blair and his advisers had the “if attacked” removed (10).

This is the vital point; and despite Tony Blair’s endless and typically wild eyed and alarmist claims about the “threat” from Iran holds good for Iran’s rulers too (11) – (13). However brutal they are, they have proven they aren’t willing to risk national annihilation by using nuclear weapons on nuclear armed states (who include Israel, France, the US and the UK) or their allies. If they wanted glorious national martyrdom they could have had it in 1988 when, after the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, they thought the US was joining the Iran-Iraq war directly on the Iraqi side with its own forces. Instead they accepted an ignominious peace – and the people who persuaded Ayatollah Khomeini to make peace included the generals of the Revolutionary Guard, Ayatollah Khameini and Ayatollah Rafsanjani – all senior figures in the current Iranian government (14) – (16).

That’s why Condoleezza Rice wrote in 2000 that :‘These regimes [rogue states] are living on borrowed time, so there need be no sense of panic about them. Rather, the first line of defense should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence -- if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration.’ (17)

That, unlike some of the things she’s said since, was absolutely true. One of real questions we should have been asking about Iraq and should be asking about Iran (and Pakistan) is not "Do they have or want to acquire nuclear weapons or WMD?", but "Will they use them on us and our allies despite the risk of nuclear annhilation if they do so?". The answer has always been no. Since any government in the world has the capability to build WMD within years or decades if it chooses (chemical weapons at the least) the question is "would they use them?". The second question is "would they use them on their own people". In Saddam's case the answer was - only when the whole world was willing to look the other way as he did while fighting the Iranians. In the case of Iran's government there is no reason to think they would use nuclear weapons on rebels, dissidents and separatists in their own country even if they had them, any more than the US would try to use such weapons on similar militias and terrorist groups in Iraq or Afghanistan - because to do so in either case would kill their own troops along with their enemies.

Even the risk of chaos caused by war or revolution allowing WMDs into the wrong hands is greatly exaggerated. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 it had vast stocks of nuclear weapons, missiles and materials spread over a vast area now made up of dozens of countries, many of them in a state of civil war. Yet almost 20 years later, with Russia having fought a brutal war in Chechnya with many war crimes and acts of terrorism on both sides (and the Russian's enemies including many Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups), there have been no nuclear attacks by terrorists, no nuclear missiles fired by terrorist groups. This puts the risk in Pakistan and Iran into perspective. Though it should not be discounted entirely any war on either would almost certainly increase the chaos and so the risk rather than decrease it - much as in Iraq.

(1) = Guardian.co.uk 17 Dec 1998 ‘Missile blitz on Iraq’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1998/dec/17/iraq.ewenmacaskill ; ‘The US and Britain unleashed air strikes against Iraq last night ... A few hours before the attack began, 125 UN personnel were hurriedly evacuated from Baghdad to Bahrain, including inspectors from the UN Special Commission on Iraq and the International Atomic Energy Agency.’

(2) = BBC News 23 Mar 1999 ‘Unscom 'infiltrated by spies'’,   http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/301168.stm ; (summary of Panorama programme interviewing former UNSCOM personnel including Scott Ritter) ,‘US intelligence agents succeeded in smuggling into Baghdad a large and sophisticated listening device known as "Stephanie". The device was kept in the office safe of American weapons inspector, Scott Ritter.... In Operation Desert Fox last December, when the US and Britain launched sustained air strikes on Iraq, they used the "Stephanie" material to help them choose their targets, the programme says.’

(3) = Washington Post 16 Jan 1999 ‘Analysis - The Difference Was in the Details’,http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/analysis.htm ; ‘It is clear from the target list, and from extensive communications with almost a dozen officers and analysts knowledgeable about Desert Fox planning, that the U.S.-British bombing campaign was more than a reflexive reaction to Saddam Hussein's refusal to cooperate with UNSCOM's inspectors. The official rationale for Desert Fox may remain the "degrading" of Iraq's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction and the "diminishing" of the Iraqi threat to its neighbors. But careful study of the target list tells another story.

Thirty-five of the 100 targets were selected because of their role in Iraq's air defense system, an essential first step in any air war, because damage to those sites paves the way for other forces and minimizes casualties all around. Only 13 targets on the list are facilities associated with chemical and biological weapons or ballistic missiles, and three are southern Republican Guard bases that might be involved in a repeat invasion of Kuwait.

The heart of the Desert Fox list (49 of the 100 targets) is the Iraqi regime itself: a half-dozen palace strongholds and their supporting cast of secret police, guard and transport organizations.’

(4) = Briefing of the Security Council, 14 February 2003: An update on inspections, Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix, http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/pages/security_council_briefings.asp#6

(5) = Briefing of the Security Council, 7 March 2003: Oral introduction of the 12th quarterly report of UNMOVIC, Executive Chairman Dr. Hans Blix,http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/pages/security_council_briefings.asp#7

(6) = NYT 13 Mar 2005 'Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says',http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/international/middleeast/13loot.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

(7) = United States Government Accountability Office Mar 2007 Report to Congressional Committees - Operation Iraqi Freedom - DOD should apply lessons learned concerning the need for security over conventional munitions storage sites to future operations planning,http://www.fas.org/asmp/resources/110th/GAO07444.pdf

(8) = Federation of American Scientists Security Blog 09 Apr 2007,http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/04/iraqs_looted_arms_depots_what.php

(9) = Nye , Joseph S. & Smith , Robert K. (1992), ‘After the Storm' , Madison Books , London , 1992 , - pages 211-216 (Nye is a former CIA agent)

(10) = Guardian 24 Sep 2003 ‘Blair aide boosted dossier threat’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/24/uk.iraq

(11) = Guardian Unlimited 19 Oct 2007, 11.30 am update, ‘Blair accuses Iran of fuelling 'deadly ideology' of militant Islam’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2195043,00.html

(12) = Times 30 Jan 2010 ‘Iraq inquiry: Tony Blair slated for Iran threat claim’,http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article7009478.ece

(13) = BBC News 04 Sep 2010 ‘Radical Islam is world's greatest threat - Tony Blair’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11182225

(14) = Takeyh, Ray (2006), ‘Hidden Iran - Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic, Times Books, New York, 2006 - pages 170-174

(15) = Pollack, Kenneth M.(2004), ‘The Persian Puzzle', Random House, New York, 2005 paperback edition - pages 231-233

(16) = Rice, Condoleeza (2000) in Foreign Affairs January/February 2000‘ - 'Campaign 2000: Promoting the National Interest',  http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20000101faessay5-p50/condoleezza-rice/campaign-2000-promoting-the-national-interest.html - cited in Chomsky, Noam (2003) 'Hegemony or Survival' , Penguin Books , London & NY 2004, pages 34 & 260 citing Mearsheimer, John & Walt, Stephen (2003) in Foreign Policy Jan/Feb 2003

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Groundhog Day of Fear Of Nuclear Iran (PART I)

Obama’s policy on Iran could lead to disasters even worse than Bush’s – The Solution is to see that Iranians are jusitifiably as afraid of Israel and the US as Israelis and Americans are of Iran

“In desiring to defend it’s liberty each side tried to become strong enough to oppress the other...in trying to escape fear men begin to make others fearful and inflict the injury they seek to avoid on others, as if there was no choice except to harm or be harmed.” Machiavelli “The Discourses”(quoted in ‘Occupational hazards’ by Rory Stewart)

PART 1: Groundhog day of Fear; Propaganda ; Misdirection and Misquotation ; Terrorism ;Hypocrisy


Groundhog Day of Fear of Iran

Reading the latest statements on Iran’s nuclear programme is a bit like being Bill Murray’s character in the film “Groundhog Day”. First supposedly “active WMD programmes” and a potential “mushroom cloud over New York” coming from Iraq, then Bush claiming the same on Iran, now Obama on Iran. Of course everything is completely different this time; at least in that q and n are different letters of the alphabet.

Dozens of times before the US and Israeli governments have claimed they have solid evidence proving Iran has an active nuclear programme, just as they did with Iraq’s “active” WMD programmes. Their claims have been proven wrong over and over again.

The US and Israeli governments and intelligence agencies have been claiming that Iran was about to produce a nuclear weapon within years, months or days since the early 1990s. In 1992 then CIA officer Robert Gates (now US Defence Secretary) said Iran could have nuclear weapons in “three, four or five years”. Five years later it hadn’t. In 1995 senior Israeli government officials were reported in the American press saying Iran would have a nuclear weapon within 5 years (1). In 2000, it still hadn’t. In 2006 the Bush administration claimed Iran could have a nuclear weapon within 16 days (2). Three years later it still doesn’t.

To be fair Obama is making more effort to build an international coalition and to give Iran a chance to negotiate.

The problem is that by also threatening sanctions and if those don’t end Iran’s supposed nuclear weapons programme, leaving the option of “pre-emptive military strikes” open, it could lead to a disaster even worse than the Iraq war – and create the results it’s meant to prevent : an even more extreme, nuclear armed Iranian government; or terrorists getting hold of nuclear materials in the chaotic aftermath of a “regime change” in which huge numbers of people die (3).

Obama says that “"With respect to the military, I've always said that we do not rule out any options when it comes to US security interests, but I will also re-emphasize that my preferred course of action is to resolve this in a diplomatic fashion. It's up to the Iranians to respond.” (4)

While Obama may well be more honest than the Bush administration and the threats of war are repeated less often and offers of negotiation more often, the basic meaning isn’t much different to Bush on Iraq, when he said that “I hope this Iraq situation will be resolved peacefully. One of my New Year's resolutions is to work to deal with these situations in a way so that they're resolved peacefully. But thus far it appears that on first look that Saddam Hussein hadn't heard the message.” (5)



WMD propaganda on Iraq and Iran

The supposedly indisputable evidence this time amounts to some satellite images with some vague images with huge arrows pointing to them from boxes marked “tunnel entrance” (6).



If you thought anyone could make something similar and label anything as supposedly being anything using photo-shop, you’d be right.

If you thought you’d seen something similar before the Iraq war, you’d be right.

Then US Secretary of State Colin Powell presented ‘conclusive evidence’ of Iraqi chemical weapons plants and “mobile chemical weapons labs” to the UN in February 2002(7).





The trouble was that when the world’s foremost chemical and biological weapons experts saw the images and visited Iraq to view the sites they came to the conclusion that the “mobile biological weapons labs” were actually trucks carrying mobile weather balloons used to judge wind speed and direction for artillery fire. This was confirmed later by the CIA (8). One of the experts was Dr. David Kelly, who would later be found dead in a “suicide” that paramedics, friends and doctors said almost certainly wasn’t (9) – (12). Powell’s “Iraqi source” code-named “curve-ball” similarly “committed suicide” in a Libyan prison shortly after Human Rights Watch staff found and interviewed him on how he was tortured into telling CIA operatives that Iraq had WMD programmes (13), (14).

Powell would later claim that he was furious to have later found out that the evidence he presented to the UN was false. Yet it wasn’t only UN weapons inspectors who correctly dismissed the claims. Powell he had access to the State Department’s own intelligence reviews on Iraq, which disputed every one of the claims made in the speech well before it was made. Powell also privately told colleagues no WMD would be found in Iraq (15) – (17).

So much for conclusive evidence of an Iranian nuclear programme; Iran may or may not have a secret nuclear weapons programme, but don’t look for reliable information on it coming from the US government or its allies.

In February 2003 many critics of the Bush administration believed the “evidence” presented to the UN on the grounds that Powell was presenting it. They were wrong to. It would be just as wrong to assume that an administration led by Obama would never present false claims to the world, whether knowingly or in the belief that they’re true.

The US and Israeli governments ask why Iran has built secret underground facilities if it’s not to build nuclear weapons. Well it could be to build nuclear weapons – or it could be because the US and Israeli governments have threatened to bomb them so often they’re keeping everything vital underground.




Misdirection and Making up quotes:


The focus on whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons or not obscures the fact that
nuclear deterrents prevent WMD attacks either way


AND


Terrorism :

Iranians are as outraged, afraid and angry when they see civilians killed by US and Israeli forces as Americans and Israelis are seeing September 11th and suicide bombings killing civilians

As infuriating as it is to be blatantly lied to to justify war, all the debate over whether other countries are developing WMDs misses the point. Like a magician’s sleight of hand it misdirects our attention away from the fact that whether hostile states have WMDs or nuclear weapons or not is irrelevant; because they’d have to commit national suicide to use them – and the past behaviour of the Iranian regime, like Saddam before them, shows they’re not suicidal.

True, they may recommend ‘martyrdom’ to other people, but as an organisation they are not prepared to commit suicide themselves.

Iran has entirely rational motives to want nuclear weapons, just like Israel.

Israel, at war with neighbouring Arab states, developed nuclear weapons in the 1950s and since then has built up an arsenal of between dozens and hundreds of nuclear warheads (18).

Iran was invaded by Saddam Hussein’s forces in 1980. Saddam had political support, financial backing and arms sales from most of the world’s governments as he used chemical weapons on Iranians and Iraqi Kurds. That included the US government, who continued funding him even after Halabja. Ahmadinejad fought in the eight year Iran-Iraq War. In 1988, when the USS Vincennes entered Iranian waters and through the negligence of its crew shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing over 280 people, the Iranian government and military believed the attack had been deliberate and that the US military was now going to fight alongside Iraq’s. Rather than be defeated and overthrown in a war they couldn’t have won senior Ayatollahs and Revolutionary Guard officers persuaded Khomeini to make peace.They included Khameini, now “Supreme Leader” of Iran and Rafsanjani, now one of the most senior members of Iran’s governing councils. The “Leader” Khameini is Commander in Chief of the Iranian military; not President Ahmadinjead. If Iran had nuclear weapons Khameini would control them, not Ahmadinejad. Yet we’re meant to believe that the same Ayatollahs and Revolutionary Guard commanders who persuaded Khomeini to make peace rather than be overthrown in 1988 would gladly all be destroyed by a nuclear counter-strike from Israel’s allies which would destroy the Islamic Republic they fought for just in order to destroy Israel (19)– (30).


p align="justify">We are told to listen to what they say, by a mixture of misquoting the speeches calling for the overthrow of the Israeli government as calls to “wipe Israel off the map”.

The actual translation of Ahmadinejad’s supposed “wipe Israel off the map” speeches was a quote from Khomeini’s annual ritual Qod’s Day address. What he actually said was that he hoped the “illegal regime which rules over Quods [in Jerusalem] will be erased from the pages of history.” It was a quote from Khomeini, who said the same annually since the 1979 revolution. In other words for decades the Iranian government have called for “regime change” in Israel just as the Israeli and US governments have threatened and called for “regime change” in Iran repeatedly. One is reported as warmongering and threatening behaviour and provocative, while the other is supposedly entirely legitimate Only when the Bush administration and the Israeli government wanted to carry out “regime change” in Iran was a Qods day address brought up and misquoted as if it was something new and dangerous. (31) – (32).

In a subsequent interview with a French TV channel Ahmadinejad clarified that he meant he hoped Israel would collapse the way the Soviet Union collapsed – by the will of all its people – Christian, Jewish and Muslim and suggested a referendum as one possible mechanism (33).

A much more worrying speech was made by Rafsanjani in December 2001 in which he said “If one day ... Of course, that is very important. If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.” (34)


It’s worth looking at the context of this speech though. The Israeli government – most of all Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, was vocally trying to persuade the US to attack Iran instead of or as well as Iraq and making threats of Israeli airstrikes on Iran. Iranians, seeing Palestinian civilians and terrorists alike blown to pieces in Sharon’s opportunistic offensive following September 11th, had the message “you’re next”, soon to be reinforced by Bush’s February 2002 “Axis of Evil” speech. In that context Rafsanjani’s speech can be seen as a speech aiming to frighten and deter the US and Israel from attacking Iran – a reaction to their threats to attack Iran; as well as an expression of Iranian anger at the indiscriminate killing of Palestinians, both combatants and civilians. Since the speech was a ‘Qods Day’ speech, on which Khomeini annually condemned the Israeli government for its backing for the Shah’s dictatorship and its oppression of Palestinians, Rafsanjani was reflecting the public mood in Iran, one of anger and fear towards Israel and the US. For many Iranians it is the Israeli and US governments and militaries who are the “terrorists” murdering “us” (Muslims in occupied Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq). When they see civilians including children killed by US or Israeli airstrikes they are as outraged, angry and afraid as Americans were when they saw people killed on September 11th. The message Rafsanjani was sending was a similar one to that sent out by the US and Israeli governments to Al Qa’ida, Iraq and Iran – if you “terrorists” keep murdering “us” then we will destroy you (35)– (37). Both sides threats were completely counter-productive, putting them each in more danger of attack by the other as it made them feel threatened.


If anyone doubts that more than half the Palestinians killed by Israeli forces are civilians they can consult any independent human rights group, such as Amnesty International or the Israeli B’T Selem.

Amnesty found that around half the dead in Israeli offensives in the first half of 2008 were civilians, with 70 of the 450 killed being children(38) . B’T Selem’s investigation of Operation Cast Lead in Gaza from December 2008 to January 2009 found that 773 of the 1,387 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces were civilians, with another 248 being police officers killed in Israeli air strikes on police stations. Only 330 were definitely combatants, while for 36 it was uncertain. Palestinian groups meanwhile killed 3 civilians and one Israeli soldier in rocket attacks and 5 soldiers in Gaza. So Israeli forces killed over 100 Palestinians for every Israeli killed and of the Palestinians killed over half were unequivocally unarmed civilians, with about another quarter being police. Almost a quarter of the Palestinians killed – 320 – were children (39).

At the same time as being told we should believe Iranian threats against Israel (and badly misquoting them in many cases to change the meaning of the words) we’re told not to listen to what the Iranian government say when they say (as Ahmadinejad and Khameini have many times) that they are not developing nuclear weapons, that nuclear weapons are immoral and un-Islamic. Khameini, like Khomeini before him, has issued fatwas against the production, stockpiling or use of nuclear weapons. Yet it may well be that the Iranian regime, like Saddams, is actually telling the truth. Iraq had no WMDs, Iran may have no nuclear weapons programme.In the 1970s the Shah’s regime had a nuclear weapons programme. If the Islamic Republic’s government really wanted nuclear weapons surely they would have them 34 years later? They don’t. Ahmaedinejad has even said repeatedly that Iran does not want nuclear weapons. For instance in September 2009 he said that “Nuclear arms, we believe they belong to the past and the past generation...We do not see any need for such weapons," This was bizarrely reported by much of the media under headlines such as ‘Ahmadinejad says he won't rule out an Iran nuclear bomb’ (40) – (44).

There is of course the real possibility that the constant threats of attack against Iran from the US and Israel from the mid-1990s on could have made it’s government decide to get the technology so it can rapidly construct a weapon as a deterrent if an attack seems imminent.

Israelis can’t be blamed for being afraid when hearing what sound like threats of nuclear attack. Even if many of these threats are deliberate mis-translations someone living in Tel Aviv will obviously be much more concerned by them than someone living in London or Glasgow. However it’s worth noting that a poll of Israeli Jews in June 2009 found that only 21% believe Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel if it acquired them, with 80% of respondents saying Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would make no difference to their lives (45)

So if most Israelis aren’t worried, why the hype?

However it’s possible that the Iranians aren’t telling the truth in either case; that they might be developing nuclear weapons; and that their bluster and threats against Israel are also based on their equal fears due to repeated threats from Israeli and US governments of attack by the much stronger Israeli and US militaries. The Iranian speeches are almost certainly attempts at deterrence by a country with a weak military and no reliable allies – Iran- faced by one with a powerful military, nuclear weapons and allies with an even more powerful military and even more powerful weapons (Israel and the US). After every missile test the Iranian government issue a warning to Israel not to attack Iran, the message being, if you attack us, we can hit you back. After the latest launch for instance Iranian Defence Minister Ahmad Vadhi warned Israel not to “dare” to attack Iran, warning that if it did it would expedite “the last breath of the Zionist regime” (46). Iranian missile launches in July 2008, which were loudly condemned as “aggression” and “provocation” followed a massive Israeli air force exercise in June practising for air strikes on Iran (47)

The constant threats of military action against Iran by the US and Israel over the last decade and the US occupations of countries on both of Iran’s borders – Afghanistan and Iraq – are certainly enough to make them feel threatened; as are US fleets entering their waters from the 1980s on; US backing for Saddam’s attacks on Iran in the past; US Special Forces entering Iran and aiding Sunni and Arab dissident groups to carry out attacks on Iranian government officials and roadside bombings against the Iranian military. In reality Iranians are considerably more threatened by the US, Israel and their allies than any of us are by them. Every Iranian missile launch, including the recent ones, has been accompanied by a warning – don’t attack us, because we can hit back if you do (48)– (50).

Iran will not arm terrorist groups with nuclear weapons for the same reason. National suicide by proxy would still be national suicide.

Pakistan has had nuclear weapons for decades under an Islamic fundamentalist ideology in its military from General Zia on; yet not one nuclear weapon was handed over to the Islamic terrorist groups it backs. Iran would be no different.


Hypocrisy:

on Nuclear Weapons Programmes, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), genocide and Human Rights

Israel, has built up an arsenal of anywhere from dozens to 200 nuclear warheads from the 1960s on. This is surely a much more serious breach of the (hypocritical) Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty than anything Iran has done so far, even if all the allegations are true. An Israeli Arab, Mordechai Vanunu, has been jailed or under house arrest for decades for leaking details of the Israeli nuclear weapons programme, which is well known to governments worldwide.Then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert let slip for the first time in a TV interview that Israel possesses nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons programmes. IAEA inspectors have never been granted access to any of them. (51) - (53).

Here are some photos and satellite images you won’t be seeing in the media much – of Israel’s nuclear weapons plant at Dimona in the Negev desert (courtesy of Space Imaging Middle East and AFP respectively).







Israel has threatened and carried out attacks on Arab states, occupied Palestinian territory, carried out large scale indiscriminate fire on civilians, torture and gross abuses of human rights against Palestinians as bad as anything the Iranian regime has done to dissidents and minorities in Iran.

Yet there has been no condemnation, no threats of sanctions or airstrikes or regime change.

Iran’s threats to overthrow the Israeli government are reported as threats of genocide by nuclear weapon. Nuclear armed Israel’s similar threats against Iran are not.Nor is the routine and indiscriminate killing and deliberate starvation of Palestinian civilians by Israeli forces.

(for sources on Israeli killings of Palestinian civilians and deliberate starvation see http://www.duncanmcfarlane.org/Israel-Palestine/notdemocratsversusterrorists/ and http://www.duncanmcfarlane.org/Israel-Palestine19thJan08/ and these blog posts, all of which provide full sources) as well as sources (38) and (39) above




copyright©Duncan McFarlane2009



Sources



(1)
= Forward 28 Aug 2009 ‘With Each New Assessment, Iran’s Nuclear Clock Is Reset’, http://www.forward.com/articles/112468/

(2)
= ABC News 12 Apr 2006, The Insider: Daily Investigative Report,
‘U.S. Wants U.N. Action Against Nuclear Iran’,
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1835578&page=1

(3)
= Guardian 27 Sep 2009 ‘Iran and United States on collision course over nuclear plant’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/27/iran-nuclear-weapons-plant

(4)
= Jerusalem Post 26 Sep 2009 ‘Obama warns Iran to come clean’/ “Obama: Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow”,
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1253820675245&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

(5)
= CNN LIVE EVENT/SPECIAL, Presidential Comments, Aired December 31, 2002 - 14:12 ET, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/31/se.01.html

(6)
= Institute for Science and International Security 25 Sep 2009 ‘ISIS Imagery Brief’,
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/Qom_Imagery_Brief_25Sept2009.pdf

(7)
= U.S State Department Archive ‘Remarks to the United Nations Security Council,
Secretary Colin L. Powell, New York City, February 5, 2003’,
http://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm ;
And ;
‘U.S State Department Archive ‘Secretary Powell at the UN: Iraq's Failure to Disarm’’,
http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/nea/disarm/index.htm

(8)
= Observer 08 Jun 2003 ‘Blow to Blair over 'mobile labs'’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jun/08/iraq.foreignpolicy

(9)
= Independent 17 Aug 2003 ‘New evidence shows crucial dossier changes’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/new-evidence-shows-crucial-dossier-changes-536153.html

(10) = Observer 12 Dec 2004 ‘Kelly death paramedics query verdict’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/dec/12/politics.davidkelly

(11) = Independent 13 July 2009 ‘Doctors call for inquest into scientist's death’,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/doctors-call-for-inquest-into-scientists-death-1743688.html

(12) = Norman Baker MP (2007) ‘The Strange Death of Dr. David Kelly’,
Methuen Publishing, 2007

(13)
= HRW 11 May 2009 ‘Libya/US: Investigate Death of Former CIA Prisoner’, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/05/11/libyaus-investigate-death-former-cia-prisoner

(14) = Washington Post 12 May 2009 ‘Detainee Who Gave False Iraq Data Dies In Prison in Libya’, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/11/AR2009051103412.html

(15)
= ABC News 08 Sep 2005 ‘Colin Powell on Iraq, Race, and Hurricane Relief’,
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Politics/story?id=1105979

(16) = Guardian 05 Feb 2003 ‘US claim dismissed by Blix’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/05/iraq.unitednations

(17) = Mother Jones 05 Feb 2003 ‘The U.N. Deception: What Exactly Colin Powell Knew Five Years Ago, and What He Told the World’, http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2008/02/un-deception-what-exactly-colin-powell-knew-five-years-ago-and-what-he-told-world (provides links to US State Department Intelligence Reviews on Iraq)

(18)
= Federation of American Scientists – Israel – Nuclear Weapons,
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/index.html

(19) = Newsweek 13 Jul 1992 ‘Sea of Lies : Sea Of Lies : The Inside Story Of How An American Naval Vessel Blundered Into An Attack On Iran Air Flight 655 At The Height Of Tensions During The Iran-Iraq War-And How The Pentagon Tried To Cover Its Tracks After 290 Innocent Civilians Died’, http://www.newsweek.com/id/126358

(20) = Karsh, Efraim (2002) ‘The Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988’ Osprey, London, 2002, p20-22,44-45,53-55

(21) = Washington Post 22 Mar 1992, ‘Gonzalez's Iraq Expose: Hill Chairman Details U.S. Prewar Courtship, Washington Post archive article here ; full article also reproduced at the Federation of American Scientists' website here ; This gives an account provided by A US Congressman based on information provided to congressional committees by the CIA.

(22) = Washington Post 5 Aug 1992, ‘GOP Seeks Probe of Gonzalez Over Iraq Data, Washington Post archive article here ; also reproduced in full at the Federation of American Scientists’ website at http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920325wp.htm
Far from disputing the accuracy of Gonzalez's claims the Bush (senior) administration and the CIA instead stopped providing Gonzalez with intelligence briefings and attempted to have him censured by congress for releasing the information to the public

(23) = 'U.S. chemical and biological warfare-related dual use exports to Iraq and their possible impact on the health consequences of the Persian Gulf War'/ A report of Donald W. Riegle, Jr. and Alfonse M. D’Amato of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with respect to export administration, United States Senate (1994) - Link to Library of Congress record

(24) = National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82, 25 Feb 2003 ‘
Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984’,
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

(25) = Freedman, Lawrence (2008) ‘A Choice of Enemies : America Confronts the Middle East’, Orion, London, 2008, chapter 8, Pages 152-166 of hardback edition

(26) = Freedman, Lawrence (2008) ‘A Choice of Enemies : America Confronts the Middle East’, Orion, London, 2008, chapter 10, Pages 194-206 of hardback edition

(27) = Newsweek 13 Jul 1992 ‘Sea of Lies : Sea Of Lies : The Inside Story Of How An American Naval Vessel Blundered Into An Attack On Iran Air Flight 655 At The Height Of Tensions During The Iran-Iraq War-And How The Pentagon Tried To Cover Its Tracks After 290 Innocent Civilians Died’, http://www.newsweek.com/id/126358

(28) = Takeyh, Ray (2006), ‘Hidden Iran - Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic, Times Books, New York, 2006 - pages 170-174

(29) = Pollack, Kenneth M.(2004), ‘The Persian Puzzle', Random House, New York, 2005 paperback edition - pages 231-233

(30) = NYT 15 Jul 1988 ‘Iran Falls Short in Drive at U.N. To Condemn U.S. in Airbus Case’,http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/15/world/iran-falls-short-in-drive-at-un-to-condemn-us-in-airbus-case.html

(31)
= Takeyh, Ray (2006), ‘Hidden Iran - Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic, Times Books, New York, 2006, (hardback edition)

(32) = Guardian Comment Is Free14 Jun 2006, ‘Lost in Translation’,http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html

(33)
= Iranian Television Broadcasts President Ahmadinezhad's Interview With French TV "Exclusive interview" with Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad by David Pujadas of French TV's TF2 Channel on 22 March 2007 – recorded Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network 1 Sunday, March 25, 2007 (reproduced as second item below article on Professor Juan Cole’s website at http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/ahmadinejad-i-am-not-anti-semitic.html

(34) = Qods Day Speech (Jerusalem Day)
Chairman of Expediency Council Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani
December 14, 2001, Friday
Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Tehran, in Persian 1130 gmt 14 Dec 01
Translated by BBC Worldwide Monitoring,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2001/011214-text.html

(35) = Gareth Porter/Asia Times 30 Aug 2007 ‘Israel urged US to attack Iran - not Iraq’
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IH30Ak04.html

(36) = Takeyh, Ray (2006), ‘Hidden Iran - Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic, Times Books, New York, 2006

(37) = Uri Avnery/Counterpunch 11 Feb 2002 ‘Oil, Sharon and the Axis of Evil’,
http://www.counterpunch.org/avneryoil.html

(38) = Amnesty International World Report 2009 - Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/israel-occupied-territories

(39) = B’T Selem 9 Sept. 2009: B'Tselem publishes complete fatality figures from Operation Cast Lead, http://www.btselem.org/English/Press_Releases/20090909.asp

(40) = San Francisco Chronicle 31 Oct 2003 ‘Nuclear weapons unholy, Iran says
Islam forbids use, clerics proclaim’, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/10/31/MNGHJ2NFRE1.DTL&hw=Khamenei+fatwa&sn=001&sc=1000+%282003%29

(41) = Christian Science Monitor 18 Sep 2009 ‘Ahmadinejad says he won't rule out an Iran nuclear bomb’, http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0918/p99s01-duts.html

(42) = Jerusalem Post 18 Sep 2009 'Defiant Iran risks further isolation',
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1253198149651

(43) = Observer 27 Sep 2009 ‘Iran and United States on collision course over nuclear plant’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/27/iran-nuclear-weapons-plant

(44) = Takeyh, Ray (2006), ‘Hidden Iran - Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic, Times Books, New York, 2006, (hardback edition) p137

(45) = Haaretz/Reuters 14 Jun 2006 ‘Poll: Most Israelis could live with a nuclear Iran’, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1092691.html

(46) = Guardian.co.uk 28 Sep 2009 ‘Iran test-fires long-range missiles – then warns Israel’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/28/iran-tests-long-range-missiles

(47) = BBC News 20 Jun 2008 ‘Israelis ‘rehearse Iran attack’’http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7465170.stm

(48) = New Yorker Magazine 5 Mar 2007
, ‘Annals of National Security : The Redirection’, http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh

(49) = ABC News 03 Apr 2007
, ‘ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran’, http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html

(50) = Telegraph 17 Jan 2006
, ‘'We will cut them until Iran asks for mercy'
’, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/15/wiran15.xml

(51) = See (18)

(52) = Guardian 18 Mar 2005 ‘Vanunu faces new jail term’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/mar/18/pressandpublishing.internationalnews

(53) = Guardian 13 Dec 2006 ‘Calls for Olmert to resign after nuclear gaffe
• PM admits on TV that Israel has atomic weapons’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/dec/13/israel



copyright©Duncan McFarlane2009