Peace through negotiations in Syria? Or chasing the illusion of victory at any cost in lives? Which will the Syrian sides and foreign governments choose? It can’t be both

The Syrian government, the armed rebels and foreign governments involved in Syria are deceiving themselves in believing that what they want is what’s best for everyone, in believing that a complete military victory over the other side is possible, and in believing that such a victory would benefit even their own side.

The US and British governments are as fond of saying that Assad, Russia and Iran are destabilising Syria and the Middle East as Assad and the Russian and Iranian governments are of saying that NATO and its Arab allies arming the rebels is doing the same. They are each deceiving themselves in the commonest ways possible, assuming that what they want and what’s good for everyone else is the same thing; and that what they want themselves and what’s good for them is the same thing too.

This is not an unusual fault, but in this situation its one that’s killing a lot of people who would otherwise still be alive and leaving a lot of families mourning who wouldn’t be otherwise.

In fact a military victory for either side is likely to lead to more atrocities against the losers and civilians known or suspected of supporting them ; and each side stepping up training, arms and money supplies to their proxies may just result in a long bloody civil war in which civilians suffer most and the most extreme groups like Al Qa’ida grow stronger.

(“Stability” here obviously means, as Chomsky points out, not stability at all but “our influence or control there”).

In focusing on overthrowing Assad to weaken the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance NATO governments and the Sunni ruled dictatorships of the Gulf Co-operation Council are handing another country as a base to Al Qa’ida and similar extreme Islamists, just as in Iraq and Libya. This is in no-one’s real interests. Al Qa’ida is a far more dangerous and extremist enemy than Iran (1).

The Assad regime and the rebels are also deceiving themselves, believing that they can achieve peace and justice through civil war, through crushing their enemies totally and without compromise. The factions in Lebanon did the same for 15 bloody years, from 1975 to 1990, before they finally realised that none of them were ever going to win a complete victor over the others and agreed to share power instead. Will the Syrian factions spend 15 years and tens of thousands more lives before they face up to the same reality?

It’s easy also to deceive ourselves into seeing one side or the other in Syria as the villains and the other as all basically decent, and so believe that victory for one or the other will set everything right.

 

Rebel fanatic terrorists Vs sane secular Assad government?

Some say all the rebels are crazy religious fanatics who want to murder everyone who doesn’t share their beliefs, while Assad’s secular government is sane and defending itself against extremist terrorists. There is some truth in that. Al Qa’ida / Al Nusrah are among the rebels and the vast majority of the rebels are Sunni Islamists of varying degrees of sectarianism or non-sectarianism, extremism or moderation. There have been some massacres of Shia and Alawites and ethnic cleansing of Christians on a large scale. Al Qa’ida have even executed a 15 year old boy who for supposed blasphemy in mentioning Mohammed in an argument over the price of coffee he was selling (2).

This is not the whole truth though. Secular governments can be brutal, extremist dictatorships, like Stalin’s, Pol Pot’s, Hitler’s, Saddam’s or Assad’s. Assad’s forces have carried out a campaign of rape, torture and murder against civilians, including children (3) – (7).

Many rebels say they have become Islamists because of their revulsion at these atrocities by the secular government (8).

We only know about the 15 year old executed by Al Qa’ida only because the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an anti-Assad exile group, reported it as a crime. While many other rebels, including much of the FSA, have fought alongside Al Nusrah and Al Qa’ida some of them have fought against both those groups as well as against and Assad (9) – (12).

While many of the conscripts who have defected to the rebels are Sunnis, the vast majority of the Syrian professional military are Alawites, of the same religion as Assad.

Some of the most notorious rebels, like Abu Sakkar, the Sunni rebel leader who had himself filmed eating the lungs of a dead soldier and saying he and his men would kill and eat the hearts and livers of the Alawites, started out as peaceful anti-sectarian protesters, but decided after seeing other unarmed protesters killed around them by government soldiers and women in their family raped by government soldiers, that taking up arms was their only option. Such people are not necessarily monsters (13).

They may be decent people disfigured by atrocities and war. I would never mutilate anyone’s body, but who could say that if they had seen their peaceful protest met with death, rape and torture they might not have decided that fighting to the death was the only option? Who can say that if people they loved were murdered, raped or tortured by their government that they wouldn’t want revenge at all costs? Not me.

There are also claims that polls show the majority of Syrians support Assad. Apart from the virtual impossibility of carrying out a poll during a civil war, the only poll reported by any reliable source, supposedly showing 55% of Syrians supporting Assad, was an online poll of Arab countries in which only 97 of the respondents were Syrian. Even if online polls were reliable (and they’re not) 97 is far too few to judge anything from (14).

 

Brutal murderous Assad dictatorship Vs Rebels forced to fight to defend themselves?

Others say that Assad is a brutal sectarian, murdering, torturing dictator who responded to peaceful protests with bullets and torture, and that only overthrowing him and his regime will bring peace, justice and democracy. Again, this is part of the truth, but not the whole truth.

Assad’s regime, like his father’s, has been a dictatorship based on hereditary rule and the dominance of one religion as much as the Saudi monarchy’s. Peaceful protests were met with sniper fire, jailings, torture and rape.

However many Syrian Alawites, Shia Muslims, Druze and Christians fear sectarian Sunni Muslim rebels far, far more than they fear Assad, with good reason. Assad’s forces attack those who they know or suspect of opposing him, while Sunni religious fanatics among the rebels want to kill or expel anyone who is not a Sunni Muslim, just for not being a Sunni. Large numbers of the refugees fleeing Syria are Christians fleeing the rebels, or people who support neither side and just want to escape the fighting (15) – (19).

The practice of kidnapping and torturing people just to extract money from their families, practiced by militias on both sides of the Iraqi civil war and by the US trained Iraqi Police Commandos today too, has also been adopted by many of the Sunni rebels in Syria including some of the FSA , criminal gangs, and Assad’s Shabiha too (the Shabiha and many of the rebels, like militias in the civil wars of the former Yugoslavia are partly in the war for money and loot and as in Yugoslavia US sanctions plus civil war have made war and kidnapping into businesses) (20) – (22).

Not all Sunnis oppose Assad either. Some of his air force pilots are among the minority of Sunnis in the professional military. Two of the most senior Sunni clerics in Syria spoke out to support Assad and condemn the rebels as not true Muslims. One of them was assassinated by the rebels in a suicide bombing attack on a mosque which also killed many others praying there (23) – (24).

We can speculate on whether these Sunnis support Assad out of fear of him or out of opposition to the fanaticism and extremism of many of the rebels, but it’s as likely to be the latter as the former.

There are also many wealthy Sunni businessmen who have deals with Assad and pay Shahiba militias to attack Sunni rebel areas in order to protect their business interests (25).

While the majority of the pro-Assad Shabiha militias are made up of Alawites, there are some are Sunnis, for instance in Aleppo (26) – (27).

Some Syrian government soldiers and police have tried to stop Shabiha murders of civilians and been killed for trying (28).

Assad’s forces are not the only ones torturing people or murdering civilians. Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have reported on the torture and execution of prisoners of the rebels, civilian and combatant alike. They have also carried out sectarian murders and massacres and many terrorist car bombings.

Assad also scrapped the single party state in Syria last year and held the first multi-party parliamentary elections, though some of the opposition boycotted them (29). This makes his government less undemocratic than the pro-Syrian-rebel Saudi Arabia, where the only elected officials are local councillors and they are only there for show, complaining that they have no power to do anything.

Assad and his supporters also fear that they, their communities, their supporters and their families may be massacred, tortured to death or made refugees by their opponents and Sunni extremists. This is not an irrational fear, many already have been, whether for supporting Assad or just being the wrong religion (30).

Why many Syrians say negotiations are a more realistic solution
than fighting or arming each side

Both sides believe they are protecting their communities against murdering fanatics.

The question both sides have to ask themselves is “How will more civil war protect me and my family and friends and community?”. The answer is that it won’t. Every revenge killing, every act of torture against the other side puts your side’s people at greater risk and makes it more likely the war will go on longer. You may never achieve victory either. It may all turn out be pointless, as it was for 15 years for Lebanon, as it has been for 13 years in Iraq. You may have to accept that sharing power with your enemies and making peace with them is the only way out. So why not do it now before more of the people you love are hurt or dead?

Syrian rebels may say they tried peaceful protest and it was met with bullets. True, but Assad will sooner or later have to face up to the fact that he can’t win outright given the NATO and Arab governments’ arms, training and funding for the rebels along with the Muslim Brotherhood’s. He has already had to concede an end to the one party state and parliamentary elections. In negotiations he will have to concede more.

And if you overthrow Assad by force, what then? Al Nusrah and its allies will keep fighting against their opponents and rivals among the rebels. Many of the rebel fighters take no orders from anyone but themselves. Al Nusrah and its allies might well win such a war.

The Syrian governments’ supporters may say their enemies include fanatics and terrorists who can’t be allowed to win. That’s true. The rebels can’t be entirely defeated either though – and every attempt to crush such movements has failed, only making them stronger, whether in Iraq or Afghanistan – and not all the opposition are violent and not all the armed ones are extremists. Sharing power with the opposition will strengthen those among the opposition who are against civil war and violence ; and reduce the influence of the armed rebels and the most extreme among them, like Al Nusrah. If Al Nusrah try to fight on they will be isolated.

Many Syrians say they don’t care who the government is, so long as the fighting and killing ends and that’s been the case for a long time with much of the opposition to Assad both in Syria and in exile also opposing a civil war to overthrow his government. (31) – (34).

When will those in power listen and learn?

As one Syrian professor stuck in the middle of the fighting in Damascus said recently “Stop the killing! The more killing takes place, the more hatred is sown, and the more difficult it will be to rebuild.”  (35)

Similar warnings have been made in other wars before. After the September 11^th  attacks killed her husband Craig Amundsen, Amber Amundsen said “We cannot solve violence with violence. Revenge is a self-perpetuating cycle. Gandhi said, ‘An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind.’ ….I ask our nation's leaders not to take the path that leads to more widespread hatreds — that make my husband's death just one more in an unending spiral of killing. I call on our national leaders to find the courage to respond to this incomprehensible tragedy by breaking the cycle of violence.” (36)

Her government did not listen. Twelve years, thousands of NATO troops and tens of thousands of dead Afghan civilians later, they are negotiating with the Taliban. So why not start the negotiations in Syria now instead of losing thousands more lives in another decade of pointless fighting?

After the invasion of Iraq in 2004 Adnan Pachachi of the Iraqi governing council warned the US government and military not to take revenge for the killing of 4 American Blackwater military contractors and the mutilation of their bodies by attacking the entire city of Falluja. “More violence will cause more violence and this will be an endless spiral.” he warned (37).

They did not listen, killing 600 civilians including 300 women and children in revenge, by firing indiscriminately on anyone they saw including civilians, ambulances, medics and the wounded (38) – (39). Six years later the US withdrew from Iraq with over 3,000 US troops and over 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead. It did not end terrorist attacks on the US or its allies. Al Qa’ida has grown strong in Iraq and set up its Syrian branch Al Nusrah.

The professor in Damascus has warned us again. Will enough people listen to him this time?

This may seem idealistic or unrealistic to some, but is a civil war in which there is no justice for anyone, only suffering and death and grieving and atrocities by both sides, and extremists gaining ground every day,  a more realistic solution? The people of Lebanon didn’t think so after 15 years of it – and many of the people of Syria don’t think so 2 years into theirs.

There are already some small scale local ceasefires, like one organised by the head of a Sunni tribe in the city of Talakakh (40). A power sharing agreement could make them solid across the whole country.

So what will everyone involved do, Syrians and foreign governments? Is it victory at any cost in Syrian lives, including thousands of civilians and children? At any cost in strengthening Al Qa’ida? Or will they do what’s really best for Syrians and really best for other countries and persuade the factions they back to negotiate a compromise instead?

(1) = Reuters 14 Nov 2011 ‘Syria urges Arab League to reconsider suspension’,
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=245466  ; ‘Gabriel Ben-Dor, director of national security studies at the University of Haifa… Ben-Dor said the decision should also be viewed within the context of Arab and Western attempts to contain an emboldened Iran.…“They’re hoping to dismantle the axis of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah... to isolate Iran even more by depriving it of its only major ally in the Middle East.”’

(2) = Al Jazeera 09 Jun 2013 ‘Syrian rebels 'execute teenager' in Aleppo’, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/06/201369175918244221.html

(3) = Human Rights Watch 15 Jun 2012 ‘Syria: Sexual Assault in Detention - Security Forces Also Attacked Women and Girls in Raids on Homes’,
http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/06/15/syria-sexual-assault-detention

(4) = BBC News 25 Sep 2012 ‘Syria ex-detainees allege ordeals of rape and sex abuse’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19718075

(5) = Human Rights Watch 17 May 2013 ‘Syria: Visit Reveals Torture Chambers’,
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/05/16/syria-visit-reveals-torture-chambers

(6) = Human Rights Watch 10 Apr 2012 ‘In Cold Blood - Summary Executions by Syrian Security Forces and Pro-Government Militias’, http://www.hrw.org/reports/2012/04/09/cold-blood-0

(7) = Human Rights Watch World Report 2013 – Syria ,
http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/country-chapters/syria?page=1

(8) = CBC News 07 Dec 2012 ‘Free Syrian Army an uneasy mix of religious extremes’
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/06/f-vp-bedard-syrian-rebels.html (scroll down to sub-heading ‘Abandoning Secularism’)

(9) = See (2) above

(10) = Guardian 30 Jul 2012 ‘Al-Qaida turns tide for rebels in battle for eastern Syria’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/30/al-qaida-rebels-battle-syria

(11) = Independent 15 May 2003 ‘Syrian civil war: The day I met the organ eating cannibal rebel Abu Sakkar's fearsome followers’,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrian-civil-war-the-day-i-met-the-organ-eating-cannibal-rebel-abu-sakkars-fearsome-followers-8617828.html (says Sakkar led his men to kill a more extreme group who had kidnapped a British photographer)

(12) = Time 26 Mar 2013 ‘In Syria, the Rebels Have Begun to Fight Among Themselves’, http://world.time.com/2013/03/26/in-syria-the-rebels-have-begun-to-fight-among-themselves/

(13) = See (11) above

(14) = BBC News 25 Feb 2012 ‘Do 55% of Syrians really want President Assad to stay?’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17155349

(15) = Independent 18 Feb 2012 'Syrians flee their homes amid fears of ethnic cleansing',http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrians-flee-their-homes-amid-fears-of-ethnic-cleansing-7079802.html ; 'Members of Syria's minority Alawite community are fleeing their homes and going into hiding, terrified that avenging rebels will hunt them down as more areas of the country come under the control of fighters trying to topple President Bashar al-Assad. '

(16) = Independent 02 Aug 2012 ‘'What will happen to us?': Loyalists fear rebel attacks’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/what-will-happen-to-us-loyalists-fear-rebel-attacks-7999495.html

(17) = NYT 19 Jun 2013 ‘The Price of Loyalty in Syria’,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/magazine/the-price-of-loyalty-in-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

(18) = Los Angeles Times 07 Mar 2012 'Syria Christians fear life after Assad', http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/07/world/la-fg-syria-christians-20120307

(19) = Independent 02 Nov 2012 ‘The plight of Syria's Christians: 'We left Homs because they were trying to kill us'’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-plight-of-syrias-christians-we-left-homs-because-they-were-trying-to-kill-us-8274710.html

(20) = BBC News ‘Syrians live in fear as kidnappings increase’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22263331

(21) = Telegraph 07 Sep 2012 ‘Epidemic of kidnappings breaks out in Syria’, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9528698/Epidemic-of-kidnappings-breaks-out-in-Syria.html

(22) = Syria Deeply 06 Jun 2013 ‘In Syria, Kidnapping Becomes a ‘Big-Money Business’, interview with Peter N. Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch,
http://beta.syriadeeply.org/2013/06/syria-kidnapping-big-money-business/#.UceMX5zK47I

(23) = LA Times 13 Mar 2013 ‘Syria denies mass conscription, says military remains strong’,
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/13/world/la-fg-wn-syria-military-conscription-20130313

(24) = Wall Street Journal 21 Mar 2013 ‘Top Cleric Killed, With Dozens More, at Syrian Mosque’, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324103504578374580724798360.html

(25) = Guardian.co.uk 31 May 2012 ‘Ghosts of Syria: diehard militias who kill in the name of Assad’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/31/ghosts-syria-regime-shabiha-militias

(26) = Time 11 Jun 2012 ‘The Wrath of the Shabiha: The Assad Regime’s Brutal Enforcers’, http://world.time.com/2012/06/11/the-wrath-of-the-shabiha-the-assad-regimes-brutal-enforcers/

(27) = Reuters 03 Feb 2012 ‘Uprising finally hits Syria's "Silk Road" city’, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/03/us-syria-aleppo-idUSTRE81213720120203

(28) = BBC News 29 May 2012 ‘Syria unrest: Who are the shabiha?’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14482968

(29) = BBC News 16 May 2012 ‘Syria election results show support for reforms, says Assad’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18084827  3^rd paragraph ‘The election commission said on Tuesday that turnout was 51% for the polls, which the opposition said were a farce.’ 18^th paragraph…The polls were the first held under a new constitution adopted in February, which dropped an article giving the Baath Party unique status as the "leader of the state and society" in Syria. It also allowed new parties to be formed, albeit those not based on religious, tribal, regional, denominational or professional affiliation, nor those based abroad.

(30) = See (16) above

(31) = Independent 20 Jun 2013 ‘‘We don’t care who rules us, we just want to live’: After a year of fighting, most Damascans are simply weary of the battle for Syria’,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/we-dont-care-who-rules-us-we-just-want-to-live-after-a-year-of-fighting-most-damascans-are-simply-weary-of-the-battle-for-syria-8667561

(32) = guardian.co.uk 20 Aug 2012 ‘Pursued by violence, pawns in Syrian conflict await an endgame’ , http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/20/pawns-syrian-conflict-await-endgame

(33) = Guardian 22 Jun 2012 ‘Syria's opposition has been led astray by violence’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/22/syria-opposition-led-astray-by-violence

(34) = Guardian 18 Dec 2012 ‘Syria: after Assad falls, what then?’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/18/after-assad-falls-what-then

(35) = Independent 20 Jun 2013 ‘Letters: Let’s not fuel the flames in Syria’, http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/letters-lets-not-fuel-the-flames-in-syria-8666958.html

(36) = PBS Now 02 Jan 2002 ‘Amber Amundson's Letters’,
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_amberletters2.html

(37) = Guardian 08 Apr 2004 ‘Battles rage from North to South’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/apr/08/iraq.ewenmacaskill1

(38) = 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/

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

(40) = Guardian.co.uk 18 Feb 2013 ‘In a small corner of Syria, rebels attempt to reconcile’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/18/syrian-city-truce-sheikh

Some people called Duncan Smith think they’re fit to be government ministers And that voters are all idiots who’ll believe any lie they tell ; Wrong on both counts ; And what you can do about it

Conservative Work and Pensions Minister Iain Duncan Smith has responded to a court ruling that it was illegal for his department to tell unemployed people it was compulsory for them to work unpaid for private companies or lose their unemployment benefit, when the law parliament passed only allowed for voluntary unpaid placements, by making dishonest personal attacks on one of the people who brought the case (1).

Smith says people who think they are “too good to stack shelves” are wrong and that their attitude is “unacceptable”. Cait Reilly never objected to stacking shelves though – she objected to doing it for no pay for a company that was profiting from her unpaid labour, especially as this would mean the firm would hire less paid staff (2).

She objected to the government helping big companies avoid paying the minimum wage (and in fact avoid paying one penny for the work done for “workfare” workers). (Department of Work and Pensisons guidelines for Workfare ‘Providers’ warn that offering a job at the end of a Workfare placement could breach the National Minimum Wage law. (3))

She objected to being told that if she didn’t complete the unpaid placement, she would lose her unemployment benefit.

A decent government minister wouldn’t lie to the unemployed and tell them that workfare placements were compulsory when the law passed by parliament only allowed voluntary placements. Nor would they force them to stop unpaid work they enjoyed for a museum, a public asset, for unpaid work for the profit of a company.

Duncan Smith also pretends there will be a paid job at the end of workfare. For most people there isn’t. Research on workfare in other countries commissioned by the Department of Work and Pensions in 2008 concluded that ‘There is little evidence that workfare increases the likelihood of finding work. It can even reduce employment chances by limiting the time available for job search and by failing to provide the skills and experience valued by employers.’ (4).

As the Boycott Workfare blog points out, the claim made by Duncan Smith and the Department of Work and Pensions that half of people who do workfare are no longer on benefits after 13 weeks, does not show half of them are getting jobs (5).

Smith’s choice of 13 weeks as the relevant time-frame is also interesting given that his department brought in a ‘sanction’ against unemployment benefit recipients for “non-compliance” (including even missing an appointment) of cutting off their benefits for 13 weeks (This is one of the most minor 'sanctions' - higher ones include no benefits for 3 years) (6).

So how many of the people who aren’t on unemployment benefit after the 13 weeks have got a paid job Mr Smith? ; and how many had their benefits cut off even though they don’t have a job yet? ; and how many of those were for being late or missing unpaid work or an appointment with a DWP official on just one day?

Figures released by Tesco last year showed only 21% of those who were put on workfare placements with them got a paid job at the end of it (300 out of the first 1,400 (7) – (8).

You can judge the general level of honesty on this subject from the government from the fact that they are fiddling the unemployment statistics by counting people on unpaid workfare placements as “employed” in “new jobs” (9).

Smith, true to form, is being utterly dishonest. He’s also a hypocrite. When he was in opposition he toured the country in teary eyed meetings with the poor, the disabled and the unemployed and charities working with them, promising them that when he got into government he would help them rather than punish them.

After less than three years in government Smith as Welfare minister has approved not only a 21^st century version of the 19^th century workhouse through unpaid “workfare” placements like Cat Reilly’s; but also letting French IT company ATOS get commissions on the number of disabled people they take benefits from on the basis of the say of doctors ATOS is employing and who often refuse to even look at their medical records or their GP’s opinion (10).

(The leadership of the Labour party actually initiated this scheme and gave ATOS this contract in 2008 in a shameful betrayal of vulnerable people and their supposedly democratic socialist ideals, though the Conservatives have made it even harsher than it was under Labour by changing the terms of the contract (11) – (12))

Smith is also rumoured to be currently trying to scrap the appeal process against ATOS rulings, because 40% of people stripped of their benefits by ATOS have had them restored on appeal to tribunals (though ATOS keeps its commission payments for removing someone from disability benefit even if their ruling is found to be wrong on appeal) (13) – (14).

Smith has also approved caps on housing benefit, along with an insane “bedroom tax” which takes away the housing benefit of anyone living in a flat or other property with more than one room in it and the government thinks one of them could be converted into a bedroom (15).

But, warm-hearted, compassionate men that they are, he and Lib Dem Treasury minister Danny Alexander have now let it be known that they will oppose any further welfare cuts (16). That’s nice of them. How about reversing all the ones you’re making? Then there might be anyone who gave a flying fuck. Currently it’s a bit like Hitler pledging not to invade any more countries now he’s done France, Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Austria and Greece.

I know whose behaviour I think is unacceptable – and it’s not Cat Reilly’s, it’s yours Mr Smith. You would not make an acceptable local councillor never mind an acceptable government minister.

What You Can Do

Go to the Boycott Workfare website to find ways you can help end Workfare in the UK
(there will also be a week of action against Workfare on 18^th to 24^th March)

Sign this petition to keep the Disability Living Allowance instead of the ATOS contract

If you’re in Scotland, sign this petition to the Scottish government to ban the bedroom tax

Wherever you are in the UK, sign this petition to scrap the bedroom tax

Join the Peoples’ Assembly Against Austerity – a non-party group to oppose austerity and welfare and public service cuts which members of any party and of no party can join

Sources

(1) = Independent 13 Feb 2013 ‘Poundland ruling: Back-to-work schemes in disarray as no-pay placements judged unlawful’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/poundland-ruling-backtowork-schemes-in-disarray-as-nopay-placements-judged-unlawful-8491398.html

(2) = Independent On Sunday 17 Feb 2013 ‘Nobody is 'too good' to work as a shelf-stacker, says Iain Duncan Smith’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nobody-is-too-good-to-work-as-a-shelfstacker-says-iain-duncan-smith-8498374.html

(3) = Department of Work and Pensions – Work Programme Provider Guidance - Chapter 3c – work experience on a voluntary basis and community benefit work placement,
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wp-pg-chapter-3c.pdf ; ‘Even if they are not paid by the employer, participants will qualify for the NMW (National Minimum Wage) if they are regarded as employees of the employer AND are participating in a trial period of work with that employer, in which the employer has agreed to offer a job to the participant if they successfully complete the trial, in cases where the trial is in excess of six weeks… “Employment” has a wide meaning, and participants are likely to be regarded as employees if they agree voluntarily to take up the placement with a particular employer.…The NMW is very unlikely to apply to participants mandated to participate in unpaid work experience or an unpaid community benefit work placement through the Work Programme, or to Participants who volunteer to take part in an unpaid placement of either type which is not a work trial exceeding 6 weeks.’

(4) = Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No 533 ‘A comparative review of workfare programmes in the United States, Canada and Australia’,
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2007-2008/rrep533.pdf (see page 5 , paragraph 7)

(5) = Telegraph 21 Feb 2012 ‘Iain Duncan Smith: it's better to be a shelf stacker than a 'job snob'’, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9095050/Iain-Duncan-Smith-its-better-to-be-a-shelf-stacker-than-a-job-snob.html ; 5^th paragraph, 1^st sentence, ‘The Government says half of those who join the scheme have either found work or stopped claiming benefits after 13 weeks.’

(6) = Telegraph 03 Jul 2012 ‘Lazy jobseekers to lose benefits for up to three years’, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9370402/George-Osbornes-plans-to-use-billions-of-pounds-from-British-pension-funds-cash-to-pay-for-roads-fail-to-get-going.html ; 4^th sentence ‘The new sanctions regime, which come into force this Autumn. will see a claimant losing their benefit for 13 weeks for a first failure to comply with the rules.’

(7) = Guardian 10 Feb 2012 ‘Unions call on UK high street giants to halt unpaid work schemes’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/10/unions-shops-unpaid-work-schemes ; ‘Tesco said that over the last four months around 1,400 people had worked for free for a month as part of work experience in its stores, and since the scheme began 300 jobseekers had gained a job with the company.’

(8) = Daily Mirror Blogs 16 Feb 2012 ‘Outrage over Tesco's £1.50 per hour "job offer"’,
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2012/02/post-2.html (see ‘Tesco’s Statement’ at bottom of the page on that link)

(9) = Guardian 15 Jan 2013 ‘Statistics cast doubt on coalition's '500,000 new jobs' claim’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/15/statistics-doubt-coalition-500000-jobs

(10) = guardian.co.uk 31 Jul 2012 ‘Sick and disabled people are being pushed off benefits at any cost’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/31/disabled-people-benefits-panorama

(11) = New Statesman 23 Jan 2013 ‘The Shadow State: The "dehumanising, degrading" treatment of disabled people’, http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/01/shadow-state-dehumanising-degrading-treatment-disabled (see especially 2nd paragraph and 9^th paragraph)

(12) = BBC News 17 Aug 2012 ‘Watchdog finds weaknesses in benefits system’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19244639

(13) = New Statesman 23 Jan 2013 ‘The Shadow State: The "dehumanising, degrading" treatment of disabled people’, http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/01/shadow-state-dehumanising-degrading-treatment-disabled ; 11^th paragraph, 2^nd to 3^rd sentences ‘On average 40 per cent of challenged decisions are overturned at tribunal – one in ten of the total assessed. It has cost £60m thus far to assess the appeals. Some 1,300 people have died after being placed in the “work-related activity group” for those expected to start preparing for an eventual return - 2,200 died before the assessment process was completed.’

(14) = Channel 4 News 08 Feb 2013 ‘Disability testing system causes ‘misery and hardship’’, http://www.channel4.com/news/disability-testing-system-causes-misery-and-hardship , ‘But the public accounts committee report though, lays much of the blame at the door ot the Department for Work and Pensions. It says the DWP relies too heavily on the decisions taken by Atos assessors. And how good are those decisions? Well , according to the committee, 38 per cent of the department's decisions were overturned in appeals...In the meantime Atos Healthcare were paid more than £112m to carry out 738,000 assessments between 2011 and 2012. The PAC report adding: "It (the department) has failed to withold payment for poor performance."’

(15) = Independent on Sunday 17 Feb 2013 ‘'We won't put up with this': Residents facing brunt of 'bedroom tax' will refuse to pay’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/we-wont-put-up-with-this-residents-facing-brunt-of-bedroom-tax-will-refuse-to-pay-8498691.html

(16) = Guardian 15 Feb 2013 ‘Senior ministers to oppose more welfare cuts’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/15/ministers-oppose-more-welfare-cuts

Additional Ranting

The Conservatives’ theory is that people don’t work because they’re lazy. The reality is that even on the government’s own (fiddled) figures there are 5 people unemployed for every job vacancy available. And the real ratio is much higher because of all the fiddling of the unemployment figures. For instance people on temporary, unpaid “workfare” placements are counted as employed and in “new jobs”.

The Conservatives’ theory is that most people on disability benefit could actually work easily and are being prevented from getting jobs and getting on in life by receiving benefits and believing they can’t work (with the unspoken assumption again that there would be enough jobs for all of them even if this was true). Look at the Paralympic athletes they say, that proves that it’s all in the mind – glass half empty or glass half full perspectives. Unfortunately this is all bollocks. Many people are genuinely disabled and simply cannot work – and what’s more many of those who have become disabled worked and paid taxes for decades before becoming disabled due to illnesses or ageing.

The Conservatives’ theory is that the welfare state is creating dependency and a drain on the economy. The reality is that it is vital to a civilised society which doesn’t want to leave many of it’s people to die of hunger, cold or treatable diseases and illnesses, which is why it was created, in infancy and weak form in the late 19^th to early 20^th centuries and in it’s full form since the end of World War Two. Charities cannot do what welfare states and national health services do – we know that because there were lots of charities before there was a welfare state and they never came close to reducing poverty for the majority.

The welfare state is not a drain on the economy either. For instance unemployment benefit during recessions helps to limit a downwards spiral of falling wages and more people made unemployed, followed by people spending less money on buying goods and services (because many of them now have less), followed by firms sacking more employees and cutting pay for the rest as they can’t sell as many goods or services.

The Conservatives are trying to bring us back to the 19^th century and many of the Liberal Democrats are supporting them and basically agree with them. Worse still much of the leadership of the Labour party largely share their ideology and only differ in how quickly they want to dismantle the welfare state and privatise the NHS by the back door.

Much of the leadership of the Liberal Democrats and the Blairite wing of the Labour party seem to differ only in wanting to do this more gradually.

Eight current and former heads of Mossad and Shin Bet are against attacking Iran – the dangerous, aggressive nuclear armed government is in Israel

Warnings from current and former Israeli intelligence chiefs and statements by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak suggest the biggest danger from a rogue government armed with nuclear weapons comes not from Iran, but from Israel. The intelligence and history show that Iran would not use nuclear weapons except as a deterrent even if it developed them and that Israel’s fear is not a nuclear strike but Iranian political influence and it’s conventional military alliance with Israel’s Arab enemies. Even Barak admitted in a speech in 2010 that Iran’s nuclear programme does not threaten to destroy Israel which is a regional “superpower” which won't be destroyed(1).

Barak and Netanyahu have been trying to persuade other Israeli government ministers to support their plan for military attacks on Iran and have already persuaded their Foreign Minister Avigdor Leiberman (2).

Barak recently cited India not responding militarily to Pakistani military intelligence involvement in the Mumbai terrorist attacks because Pakistan has nuclear weapons as evidence that Iran’s response to Israeli attacks would be ‘muted’, as Israel has nuclear weapons already (3).

Barak’s bizarre reasoning ignores the fact that if Iran would be deterred from responding to Israeli attacks by Israel’s nuclear arsenal, then it would also be deterred from using any nuclear weapons it developed itself against Israel for fear of a massive nuclear or conventional response from the much stronger forces of Israel or the US and it’s allies, making the planned attack pointless.

That's unless the aim of the plan to bomb Iran isn't to avert a threat to Israel, but so Iran can't prevent Israel bombing it or threatening to bomb it in future by getting it's own nuclear deterrent.

My last post quoted the current head of Mossad, Tamir Pardo, saying Iran developing nuclear weapons would not be an ‘existential threat’ to Israel (4). Pardo and the current head of Shin Bet Yoram Cohen are against attacking Iran, as is the Israeli military’s Chief of Staff Benny Gantz (5). Pardo and Cohen were appointed by Netanyahu because of opposition to his plan to go to war on Iran from the previous heads of Mossad and Shin Bet (Israeli Military Intelligence) Meir Dagan and Yuval Diskin, who were sacked for leaking those plans to the media (6).

Dagan (pictured in the photo at the top of this post) says Iran won’t have nuclear weapons till 2015 (partly due to sanctions and Israeli assassination campaigns), assuming it wants them; and that bombing Iran would lead to retaliation, by both Iran and Iranian armed Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria, costing many Israeli lives, so should be a last resort if all other pressure fails (7) – (8). Dagan is no soft-line liberal. He was appointed as head of Mossad under serial war criminal and hard liner Ariel Sharon and also served under Olmert during the brutal ‘Gaza War’– neither Prime Minister had any complaints about him.

A third former head of Mossad, Efraim Halevy, says Iran is “far from posing an existential threat” to Israel and has also warned military attacks on Iran would result in heavy casualties in Israel, as has former Shin Bet (Israeli military intelligence) head Shlomo Gazit, who says Israel would likely be greatly weakened by such a war. They estimate that Israel would lose at least a third of whatever air forces it sent to attack Iran and would take further losses in Israel itself from retaliatory missile attacks (9) – (10).

Dagan, Halevy, Gazit and another former Shin Bet head Yakov Perry all warn that air strikes or threatening to attack Iran can’t prevent it eventually getting nuclear weapons – and may even make them decide to make nuclear weapons and put more resources into making them more quickly even if they weren’t planning to make them already. Perry has said that the Iranian and US governments should be talking directly with the Iranian government but so far haven’t done so (11).

Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld and former US commander in the Middle East General John Abizaid both say Iran would only want nuclear weapons as a deterrent against attack (12) – (13).

Retired Major General Uzi Dayan, another former head of Shin Bet and a former adviser to Ariel Sharon has also said that "While not an existential threat, Tehran's nuclear program is an unacceptable threat,”, but believes sanctions can dissuade the Iranians from building nuclear weapons (14).

The only former Mossad or Shin Bet head believing that if Iran got nuclear weapons it might destroy Israel and supporting attacking Iran is Danny Yatom, who was only head of Mossad for two years under Netanyahu from 1996 to 1998 and had a long political career as a hardliner. Yatom is working with his mentors and allies Barak (who he was an adviser and spokesman for for several years after having served under him in the Israeli army) and Netanyahu, to try to blackmail the US and its allies into attacking Iran on Israel’s behalf (15) – (19).

Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami also says Iran would only want nuclear weapons to deter attacks from the US and Israel – and that if Israel wants to reduce growing Iranian influence in the Middle East the best way to do it would be to make a comprehensive peace with it’s Arab enemies – especially the Palestinians (including Hamas) , Hezbollah and Syria, so that they will no longer look to Iran for arms, funding and support against Israel (20).

Even Ehud Barak himself admitted in a speech on Holocaust Remembrance Day in 2010 that “We are a strong country to which the whole world attributes nuclear capabilities, and in regional terms we are a superpower.” He also said he disliked people comparing Iran’s nuclear programme to the Holocaust , “because it cheapens the Holocaust and stretches current challenges beyond their proper place. There is none that will dare to destroy Israel.” (21)

Yet the Obama administration are so influenced or cowed by the Israel lobby in the US that they have repeatedly said that “no option is off the table” on preventing Iran getting nuclear weapons and that this “includes military action”.  British Foreign Secretary William Hague has dutifully parroted the American line, saying in mid-January that the UK may go to war on Iran too (22) – (24). As in Iraq sanctions may well be not an alternative to war but part of the propaganda to prepare for it, by saying ‘we tried sanctions and they didn’t work’.

We should make it clear that the UK will take no part in any military attack on Iran and will not give political approval for an Israeli or US attack either. Even most of those Israeli intelligence heads and former heads who support military strikes to try to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons do not believe Iran would risk it’s own destruction by Israeli or US forces by using nuclear weapons on Israel. They fear a shift in the balance of power in the Middle East that would make it impossible for Israel to make direct attacks on Iran in future and might make Iran less worried about supporting proxy wars on Israel through further arming Hezbollah or Hamas with conventional weapons.  

If some hot-headed, trigger happy, Israeli politicians want to attack Iran for their own ends, which are about Israeli power in the Middle East, not Israel’s survival which is guaranteed by it’s own military and economic strength and it’s ally the US, they must be made to realise that they will be left to deal with the disaster that would result themselves and must take full blame for it.

They should not be allowed to blackmail the US, the UK and France into attacking Iran out of fear that Israel will if they don’t. British soldiers and British civilians should not die to help Israel and the US dominate the Middle East, nor to secure profits for oil or arms firms or to get control of oil reserves we could buy anyway if we lifted sanctions on Iran.

(1) = Project Syndicate 03 May 2010 ‘The Abuse of History and the Iranian Bomb’ by Shlomo Ben-Ami’, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/benami41/English

(2) Haaretz 02 Nov 2011 ‘Netanyahu trying to persuade cabinet to support attack on Iran’, http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-trying-to-persuade-cabinet-to-support-attack-on-iran-1.393214

(3) = Independent 28 Jan 2012 ‘Israel warns time is running out before it launches strike on Iran’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-warns-time-is-running-out-before-it-launches-strike-on-iran-6295931.html

(4) = Israel National News 29 Dec 2011 ‘Mossad Chief: Nuclear Iran Not an Existential Threat’,http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/mossad-chief-nuclear-iran-not-necessarily-existential-threat-to-israel-1.404227

(5) = Ynet News (Israel) 28 Oct 2011 ‘Amos Gilad: Iran is massive threat that must be dealt with’, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4140625,00.html , ‘According to a Nahum Barnea article in Yedioth Ahronoth, published on Friday, the heads of the armed forces – Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz, Mossad Chief Tamir Pardo, Military Intelligence Chief Maj.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi and Shin Bet Chief Yoram Cohen share the opinion of their predecessors and are opposed to taking action against Iran at this time.’

(6) = Guardian.co.uk 03 Nov 2011 ‘Israeli PM orders investigation into Iran leak’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/03/israeli-pm-investigation-iran-leak

(7) =  Reuters 7 Jan 2015 ‘Israel: No Iran bomb before 2015’, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/07/us-iran-nuclear-israel-idUSTRE70612X20110107 , ‘Israel believes Iran will not be able to produce a nuclear bomb before 2015 and a top Israeli official has counseled against pre-emptive military strikes, intelligence assessments published on Friday said…."Iran will not achieve a nuclear bomb before 2015, if that," Dagan said ….Dagan, who in June 2009 told Israeli lawmakers that Iran could have its first nuclear warhead by 2014, attributed his valedictory timeline to a variety of factors including domestic ferment in Iran and the bite of international sanctions….Iran's enrichment drive has also suffered...foreign sabotage in incidents such as …the Stuxnet computer worm….Western intelligence agencies similarly say Iran could make a bomb by the middle of the decade, should it choose to…..Dagan, a former general whose eight-year tenure as spymaster ….said any Israeli military action against Iran should be last-ditch only…..Such attacks could spur Iran to pull out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and pursue its program entirely free of U.N. inspections, he said."’

(8) = Ha’aretz (Israel) 01 Dec 2011 ‘Former Mossad chief: Israeli attack on Iran must be stopped to avert catastrophe’, http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/former-mossad-chief-israeli-attack-on-iran-must-be-stopped-to-avert-catastrophe-1.399046 ; ‘Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan warned Thursday against an Israeli attack on Iran, saying such a move would likely lead to a regional war involving Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria.." …."I have to assume that the level of destruction, paralysis of every-day life, and Israeli death toll would be high." ….Dagan said he was worried about Barak's past comments on Iran, saying Barak believes Israel has less than a year to carry out an military strike. …"I am very concerned," he said. "My understanding of Barak's comments is that Israel must act within this timeframe, but I don't believe this is accurate."

(9) = Ynet news (Israel) 04 Nov 2011 ‘'Iran far from posing existential threat'’, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4143909,00.html, ‘Former Mossad Chief Ephraim Halevy warned against an Israeli strike on Iran, saying that the results of a confrontation could be devastating for the Mideast. "The State of Israel cannot be destroyed," he told Ynet on Friday. "An attack on Iran could affect not only Israel, but the entire region for 100 years."… The former head of the Israeli secret service said Thursday during an army boarding school reunion that while Iran should be prevented from becoming a nuclear power, its capabilities are still "far from posing an existential threat to Israel."

(10) = Maariv (Israel, Hebrew) 10/06/2011 ‘What will Israel look like the day after an attack on Iran?’ , Ephraim Halevy, former head of the organisation [Mossad…In an interview with the magazine "Time" in July 2008, he held a military strike will result in devastating consequences in the long run. "It can affect us in a hundred years, it will have a negative impact on the Arab world opinion. We need to attack only as a last resort." … This week he says to Mosfsbt that "my opinion has not changed. You may quote my remarks to Time magazine as if it were made ​​today. ..such an attack would impact for generations rather than a hundred years. " ….Shlomo Gazit, former head of Military Intelligence, agrees with Halevy. "Attacking Iran's nuclear reactors will bring the destruction of Israel. We cease to exist after such an attack. The result we were hoping to achieve such an attack, sabotage of Iran's nuclear program, would be exactly the opposite. …."Iran will publicly a nuclear state, and we will be victims of missiles coming at us from Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran even switch the oil weapon to the UN Security Council would impose on us a decision to return to the '67 borders, and the Security Council will have to impose on us such a decision would include, of course, Jerusalem ". http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/248/965.html ,  Translated version in English via Google Translate at http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=iw&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrg.co.il%2Fonline%2F1%2FART2%2F248%2F965.html&act=url

(11) = Jerusalem Post 20 Dec 2012 ‘Talk of Iran strike may speed-up nuclear program’, http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=250159 , ‘Dagan said that…“With the threat of a military attack, they may opt to cross all the red lines and instead of going carefully [toward nuclear capability], go very swiftly to obtain nuclear potential,” he said…. former Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) head Yaakov Perry, said Israel should try to open up some kind of lines of communications with Iran. Perry bemoaned that neither Israel nor the US have a channel of communications with Tehran, something he said could increase the chances of a tragic miscalculation.’

(12) = CNN 18 Jun 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

(13) = Forward (Jewish Daily) 24 Sep 2007 ‘The World Can Live With a Nuclear Iran’ by Martin Van Creveld, http://www.forward.com/articles/11673/#ixzz1kQQdA2qR

(14) = Israel National News (Arutz Sheva 7) 25 Nov 2011 ‘Former Mossad Head Yatom: Israel Can't Afford Not to Strike Iran’,http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/150093#.TyXBiIHGCuI ; ‘Yatom also doubted that sanctions or covert operations could stop the Iranians. "We have only two options: to let Iran get the bomb, or to use military force against their military nuclear program. I think that force will have to be used. But I don't think Israel should lead. This is, after all, a global problem’

(15) = McGeough, Paul (2009) ‘Kill Khalid - The Failed Mossad Assassination of Khalid Mishal and the Rise of Hamas’. Quartet Books, p 229.  (Yatom was head of Mossad from 1996 to 1998 under Netanyahu’s Prime Ministership and resigned over the Netanyahu government’s failed attempt to assassinate Khaled Meshal, a senior member of Hamas, in Jordan)

(16) = Jerusalem Post 30 June 2008 ‘Barak loses another ally as Yatom quits politics’, http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1214726161693

(17) = BBC News 29 Jan 2001 ‘Barak election hopes fade’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1142483.stm , ‘Mr Barak's security adviser, Danny Yatom, called Mr Arafat's speech "bellicose, inflammatory and intolerable".’

(18) = Haaretz 30 June 2008 ‘Labor MK Danny Yatom slams government, resigns from politics’,  http://www.haaretz.com/news/labor-mk-danny-yatom-slams-government-resigns-from-politics-1.248756 , ‘Defense Minister Ehud Barak's Labor Party suffered a blow on Monday when MK Danny Yatom resigned from the Knesset due to Barak's decision last week not to quit Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's coalition….Yatom, 63, served under Barak in the army and then as his chief of staff during the latter's tenure as prime minister.’

(19) = Independent 28 Jan 2012 ‘Israel warns time is running out before it launches strike on Iran’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-warns-time-is-running-out-before-it-launches-strike-on-iran-6295931.html

(20) = Project Syndicate 09 April 2007 ‘A Grand Bargain with Iran’ by Shlomo Ben-Ami, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/benami9/English

(21) = Project Syndicate 03 May 2010 ‘The Abuse of History and the Iranian Bomb’ by Shlomo Ben-Ami’, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/benami41/English

(22) = ABC News 18 Nov 2011 ‘Clinton on GOP Criticism on Iran Policy: ‘Iran Cannot Be Permitted to Have a Nuclear Weapon; No Option Is Off the Table’,http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/clinton-on-gop-criticism-on-iran-policy-iran-cannot-be-permitted-to-have-a-nuclear-weapon-no-option-is-off-the-table/

(23) = The Hill (Washington D.C, US) 08 Jan 2012 ‘Panetta says all options are on the table for dealing with Iran’ , http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/202951-panetta-all-options-on-the-table-for-dealing-with-iran ‘The United States is not ruling anything out when it comes to dealing with Iran, including military options, according to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.’

(24) = Guardian.co.uk 15 Jan 2012 ‘Iran could face UK military action over nuclear programme, says Hague’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/15/iran-could-face-uk-military-action