Showing posts with label propaganda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label propaganda. Show all posts

Sunday, July 03, 2016

The propaganda campaign against Corbyn

The propaganda campaign against Corbyn

Ever since Corbyn became party leader the New Labour faction who still make up the majority of MPs (but not party members any more) have spent more time joining with the Conservative party and right wing elements of the media to try to undermine Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader than they have criticising the tories.

Corbyn and Scotland

The story that Labour lost the 2016 Scottish parliament elections due to Corbyn is pretty far fetched, given that Labour had already lost Scottish parliament elections when Blair and Brown were leaders – and had lost all but one of its MPs in Scotland in the May 2015 General Election, months before Corbyn was elected leader.

Labour didn’t win seats back in Scotland under Corbyn, but the fact that New Labour MPs retained so much influence and could move against Corbyn at any time will have made it hard for Labour to get back trust with Scottish voters. As did Kezia Dugdale MSP remaining Scottish Labour leader, as she is well known to be on the New Labour wing of the party.

Corbyn and the EU referendum

The pretext the New Labour MPs have used is that Corbyn failed to get a Remain vote in the EU referendum. It’s true that 37% of people who voted Labour in 2015 voted Leave. But 37% of SNP voters did too. So did 30% of Lib Dem voters, the Lib Dems being most pro-EU party in the UK. Yet no one is calling for Nicola Sturgeon or Tim Farron to resign (1).

The “disaster” of Britain leaving the EU is also being hyped up a lot. The likeliest outcome is that the EU will negotiate a deal with the UK similar to the ones Norway and Switzerland have – free trade in return for two-way Freedom of Movement of people and annual financial contributions to the EU budget.

There might yet even be a second referendum on whether to accept the final deal negotiated for the UK outside the EU, or remaining after all.

The EU is hardly the model of international brotherhood, solidarity and equality it is made out to be either, or it would not still be imposing levels of crippling austerity on Greece that make Conservative austerity in the UK look mild by comparison (and the tory austerity is bad enough). (And I say that as a Remain voter) (2).

It’s unlikely that any Labour leader could have avoided many Labour voters voting Leave.

Tom Mauchline, who heckled Corbyn over the referendum, is an employee of Portland Communications, a public relations firm established by former Blair adviser Tim Allan and employing Alastair Campbell (3) – (6). (credit to The Canary)

The allegations of Anti-semitism

The attacks on Corbyn for having referred to “our friends in Hamas” are pretty hypocritical coming from New Labour and Conservative MPs who have actually provided arms to dictatorships like the Saudis and Egyptian military

Corbyn was attempting to encourage peace negotiations between Israel and the entire elected Palestinian government – which includes Hamas.

Efraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad, is among  Israelis who have said Israel should accept Hama’s offer of talks. Is he meant to be an anti-semite too? (7)

The “anti-semitic slur” supposedly made by a party member to Jewish MP Ruth Smeeth at a Corbyn press conference does not seem to exist when you watch a video of the incident on The Independent newspaper’s website. (8)

Labour member Marc Wadsworth can be heard saying “I saw that the Telegraph handed a copy of a press release to Ruth Smeeth MP so you can see who is working hand in hand. If you look around this room, how many African Caribbean and Asian people are there? We need to get our house in order.” (credit to Craig Murray here)

Ruth Smeeth and some of the media spun this into a “traditional anti-semitic slur” of “Jewish media conspiracy” though her being Jewish had not been mentioned at all.

It also turns out that Ruth Smeeth is a former employee of BICOM – a pro-Israeli government lobby group. (9).

So it seems very likely she will be hostile to Corbyn, who is a well-known critic of some of the actions of the Israeli government.

The majority of the criticism of Corbyn and his allies equates any criticism of any of the actions of the Israeli government to anti-semitism or hatred of all Jews.

That is as ridiculous as claiming that any criticism of the Iraq war makes you “anti-British” or “anti-American”.

No doubt some anti-semites use the cover of anti-Zionism or opposition to Israeli policies, but these are a small minority even on the left of the Labour party, most of who, like Corbyn, believe that Israel has a right to exist, but should allow Palestine to exist alongside it.

Death Threats and “mob rule”

The police are absolutely right to treat allegations of death threats and threats of rape by Corbyn supporters against some Labour MPs seriously in case they are real (10).

But given all of the above there has to be a bit of doubt in anyone’s mind about whether they are.

If they are there is no way that Corbyn or MPs close to him have approved or encouraged it.

It also turns out that one of the people posing with an elderly man wearing an “Eradicate the Blairite vermin” t-shirt is Anna Phillips, an employee of the Blairite campaign group Progress – and the other is another public relations media strategist (credit to Craig Murray again). Did they provide the t-shirt too?

 

(1) = Lord Ashcroft polls 24 Jun 2016, ‘How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday… and why’, http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

(2) = Salon 29 Apr 2016 ‘“Ponzi austerity” scheme imposed by E.U. and U.S. bleeds Greece dry on behalf of banks, says ex-finance minister’, http://www.salon.com/2016/04/29/ponzi_austerity_scheme_imposed_by_e_u_and_u_s_bleeds_greece_dry_on_behalf_of_banks_says_ex_finance_minister/

(3) = BBC News 25 Jun 2016 ‘EU referendum: 'It's your fault, Jeremy' - Corbyn heckled’,  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36629976

(4) = https://uk.linkedin.com/in/thomas-mauchline-84538644

(5) = http://www.portland-communications.com/people/tim-allan/

(6) = http://www.portland-communications.com/people/alastair-campbell/

(7) = www.independent.co.uk 10 Jun 2015 ‘It's time for Israel to talk to Hamas, says former Mossad head’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/its-time-for-israel-to-talk-to-hamas-says-former-mossad-head-10311651.html

(8) = www.independent.co.uk 30 Jun 2016 ‘Labour activist who berated MP Ruth Smeeth says he did not know she was Jewish and denies Momentum links’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-activist-who-berated-mp-ruth-smeeth-says-he-did-not-know-she-was-jewish-and-denies-momentum-a7111366.html (see video on the page)

(9) = BICOM 11th May 2015 ‘BICOM Analysis: UK General Election – Implications for Israel’, http://www.bicom.org.uk/analysis/25415/ ( scroll down to bolded sub-heading ‘What can we expect from the new House of Commons?’ – 2nd paragraph under it, final sentence ‘Incoming Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent North Ruth Smeeth is a former BICOM staffer.’)

(10) = www.telegraph.co.uk 29 Jun 2016 ‘Revealed: Labour MPs go to police over death threats after refusal to back Jeremy Corbyn’, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/29/revealed-labour-mps-go-to-police-over-death-threats-after-refusa/

Thursday, October 13, 2011

The Iranian government did not plot a terrorist bombing in the US that would have ensured their own overthrow by US forces

The supposed Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador along with 150 Americans by a terrorist bombing of a restaurant on US soil is ludicrously paper thin war propaganda (1) – (2).

Why would senior members of the Iranian government or military plot an attack which, if it succeeded, would ensure their overthrow by the US military after September 11th style anger in the US ; and likely lead to many Ayatollahs and Revolutionary Guard officers being either killed or jailed? (3).

The US, Israeli and Saudi governments by contrast have everything to gain from making this scenario up ; control  of the second largest oil reserves in the world ;  eliminating a rival for influence in the Middle East; and a distraction from domestic economic problems.

Obama’s poll rating fell to 41% a few months ago and hasn’t moved since due to the stalled US economy and high unemployment, which he can’t do much about it as long as the Republicans control congress (4). There’s a Presidential election next year. President Bush senior in 1990, faced with similar problems, made war on Iraq to try to restore his poll ratings. He still lost the next election.

The US charges call plastic explosives “weapons of mass destruction”, a propaganda phrase also used to whip up support for war on Iraq, despite the fact that it has previously referred solely to nuclear, chemical or biological weapons (5).

The US going to the UN for a resolution against Iran as a fig leaf for having tried diplomacy is also de ja vu all over again (6).

The whole thing reeks of Iraq war style propaganda and similar US government made conspiracy theories like the mythical alliance between Saddam and Al Qa’ida.

If the plot existed at all it was likely the idea of FBI agents, who have started to make a habit of posing as Al Qa’ida operatives and offering poor and unemployed Americans vast amounts of money to carry out terrorist attacks, then arresting them and having them jailed when they do. There’s a word for that – it’s called entrapment and as one American woman said they haven’t identified a terrorist cell in these cases they’ve created one just to boost their own careers (7).


(1) = Independent 12 Oct 2011 ‘US accuses Iran of bomb plot to kill Saudi ambassador in Washington’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-accuses-iran-of-bomb-plot-to-kill-saudi-ambassador-in-washington-2369220.html

(2) = Bloomberg 12 Oct 2011 ‘U.S. Accuses Iran of Sponsoring Plot to Kill Saudi Official’,http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-12/u-s-accuses-iran-of-sponsoring-plot-to-kill-saudi-official.html ; ‘When the informant expressed concern that 100 to 150 people could be injured in a bombing of the restaurant, including “senators who dine there,” Arbabsiar said “no big deal,” the U.S. said in the complaint.’

(3) = Bloomberg 12 Oct 2011 ‘U.S. Accuses Iran of Sponsoring Plot to Kill Saudi Official’,http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-12/u-s-accuses-iran-of-sponsoring-plot-to-kill-saudi-official.html ; ‘The alleged plot was “directed and approved by elements of the Iranian government,” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said yesterday. “High-up officials in those agencies, which is an integral part of the Iranian government, were responsible.”’

(4) = Gallup 07 Oct 2011 ‘Obama's September Approval Rating Remains at Term-Low 41%’,http://www.gallup.com/poll/149966/obama-september-approval-rating-remains-term-low.aspx

(5) = Bloomberg 12 Oct 2011 ‘U.S. Accuses Iran of Sponsoring Plot to Kill Saudi Official’,http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-12/u-s-accuses-iran-of-sponsoring-plot-to-kill-saudi-official.html ; ‘Manssor Arbabsiar, 56, and Gholam Shakuri were charged with conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, in this case C-4 plastic explosives, to murder Ambassador Adel Al-Jubeir and attack Saudi installations in the U.S. in a plan hatched earlier this year. Targets included “foreign government facilities associated with Saudi Arabia and with another country,” the U.S. said in a complaint filed in Manhattan federal court.

The plotters, one of whom is in U.S. custody, also targeted Israel’s embassy in Washington, as well as the embassies of Israel and Saudi Arabia in Argentina, according to a federal law enforcement official familiar with the matter.

(6) = AFP 12 Oct 2011 ‘US seeks Security Council support for Iran action’, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gR7JgD6nBBVFODzZfeiH-Sde-ecg?docId=CNG.31489099dea4e6b34171e1a5ec101a16.bc1 ‘The United States on Wednesday sought UN Security Council support for action to hold Iran "accountable" for an alleged plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington, diplomats said.

France and Britain have already given strong backing to the US government. But the US administration will also be sending delegations to Beijing and Moscow to give details of the investigation, diplomats said.’

(7) = Newsnight BBC2 08 Sep 2011 ‘Have US anti-terror tactics strayed into entrapment?’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9584637.stm

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Amnesty finds Libyan rebels lied about Gaddafi rape orders, mercenaries and anti-aircraft guns - and says some protesters might have been armed

In case anyone else hasn’t seen it yet there’s an article in the Independent newspaper quoting Amnesty International investigators saying they’ve found no evidence to support the Libyan rebels’ claims that Gaddafi ordered his troops to rape women and that much of the rebels’ supposed evidence for it was manufactured, along with some of their other claims.

Rebel claims that Gaddafi was using black African mercenaries have also been found false by Amnesty, with those ‘mercenaries’ shown to journalists by the rebels being migrant workers. Some black migrant workers in Benghazi were murdered as a result of the rumours.

Amnesty’s investigation also found it’s possible some of the protesters killed by Gaddafi’s forces in Benghazi and Baidi at the start of the uprising may have been armed (though they’re not certain of this) and that there was no evidence of anti-aircraft weapons being used against the protesters, only kalashnikovs (that last one isn’t a big difference but is more evidence that the rebels’ claims include at least as much propaganda as Gaddafi’s claims do)

This confirms my earlier suspicions that both sides were putting out a lot of false propaganda and that we should take claims about what was going on in Libya with a pinch of salt.

It also makes me even more certain that US Defence Secretary Robert Gates’ claim that Gaddafi’s people are killing people and then moving the bodies about from one place to another to pretend they were all killed in NATO air strikes is recycled propaganda similar to that he used (and later admitted was false) in relation to the Taliban and US air strikes in Afghanistan.

I don’t doubt Gaddafi is involved in some propaganda too. It seems highly unlikely that all the rebels are Al Qa’ida, as he claims they are ; and one member of a hospital’s staff gave journalists a note saying that a baby who Gaddafi’s spokesmen said had been injured by a NATO air strike was actually hurt in a car crash.

NATO has admitted it was responsible for other air strikes attempting to assassinate Gaddafi and members of his government and military by airstrike – and in those cases children were, very predictably, killed.

We should beware of claims about the war in Libya made by Gaddafi’s people, the rebels and NATO government and military spokespeople unless corroborated by journalists (doing more than just repeating them) or human rights groups. None of them are all that reliable – and even Amnesty has sometimes been fooled for a few months till it got to investigate further on the ground, though not often.

Of course this doesn't mean Gaddafi and his forces haven't committed any war crimes against civilians. For instance Amnesty has reported Grad rocket attacks by his forces on Misratah from April through to this month by his forces, which is indiscriminate fire which they know will kill civilians whether they're aiming to hit rebels or not - and Amnesty also reported evidence of sniper fire on civilians in Misrata in April (3) – (4).


(1) = Independent 24 Jun 2011 ‘Amnesty questions claim that Gaddafi ordered rape as weapon of war’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/amnesty-questions-claim-that-gaddafi-ordered-rape-as-weapon-of-war-2302037.html

(2) = Channel 4 News (UK) 09 Jun 2011 ‘Gaddafi ordered rape attacks as weapon of war- ICC’, http://www.channel4.com/news/gaddafi-ordered-rape-attacks-as-tactic-of-war-icc

(3) Amnesty International 05 May 2011 ‘Libya: Attacks against Misratah residents point to war crimes’,http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/libya-attacks-against-misratah-residents-point-war-crimes-2011-05-05

(4) = Amnesty International 23 Jun 2011 ‘Libya: Renewed rocket attacks target civilians in Misratah’,http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/libya-renewed-rocket-attacks-target-civilians-misratah-2011-06-23

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Russian and Chinese government propaganda on Libya?

There have been reports from the Voice of Russia Radio of almost half the casualties being soldiers – without specifying how many soldiers were rebels and how many Gaddafi loyalists.The Chinese Xinua news agency also reported in the early stages of the protests in Benghazi that two policemen were hung by rioters and the managing director of a hospital was tortured to death by them (1) – (2).

It’s possible that these reports are true or closer to the truth than other media, but we also have to remember that these governments have their own ulterior motives and that most of the media in China and Russia are controlled by the governments of one party states with rigged elections. If Gaddafi survives then Libyan oil and arms contracts are likely to move from American and European firms to Russian, Chinese and Indian ones. Gaddafi has already started talks with the ambassadors of these countries on this (3). So there’s even more likelihood of their reports containing propaganda than those of the western media.

Xinua news agency have not been exactly unbiased on the causes of riots in Chinese occupied Tibet and Xinjiang, or on police responses to them. There’s no reason to think they’re more unbiased on Libya.

We also have to take account of the fact that Russia Today (RT) and Voice of Russia Radio get most of their funding from the Russian government – and that Russian journalists critical of their government often end up murdered, like Libyan journalists have in the past under Qaddafi, or having their legs and skulls broken (4) – (5). If you watch RT’s coverage of Chechnya for instance you’ll get the impression that the Russian government and their client thug Kadyrov in Chechnya are very humane democrats, with all killings in the country being the actions of “western forces” or terrorist groups. In fact Kadyrov, like Russian forces under Putin, kills anyone who defies his rule in order to keep the main oil and gas pipeline from the Caspian to Moscow under Russian control. Kadyrov has said that he approves of “honour killings” and worse than this many supposed “honour killings” are actually kidnappings followed by rape and murder, then presented by police as an “honour killing” (6). Russian forces along with Kadyrov’s  have tortured, murdered and raped their way across Chechnya for the last 25 years (7) – (9). When Russian journalist Anna Politskaya wrote articles about Putin and Kadyrov’s involvement in this, she was poisoned and when she survived that, shot dead. After the murder of human rights activist Natalya Estemirova, who was investigating the killings of women in Chechnya, Kadyrov said that she was a woman who “never possessed any honour, dignity or conscience” (10).

You will struggle to find out any of this from Russia Today or Voice of Russia coverage, which includes nothing but Kadyrov and Russian government officials condemning the killings, mixed with fawning interviews of Kadyrov telling them that all human rights activists are after is money and that all murders in Chechnya are caused by agents of the US, years after the US ended all support for Chechen rebels to get Russian support for UN resolution 1441 on Iraq (11) – (12). RT and Voice of Russia are the propaganda arms of the Russian government.


(1) = Voice of Russia 23 Feb 2011 ‘Libya riots kill 111 troops, 189 civilians’,http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/02/23/45700481.html

(2) = Xinua news 19 Feb 2011 ‘Two policemen hanged in Libya protests’,http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-02/19/c_13739109.htm

(3) = Xinua news 14 Mar 2011 ‘Gaddafi urges Russia, China, India to invest in Libya's oil sector’,http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-03/14/c_13778113.htm

(4) = guardian.co.uk 08 Nov 2010 ‘Russian journalist beaten unconscious outside office’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/08/russian-journalist-beaten-unconscious-office

(5) = guardian.co.uk 10 Dec 2010 ‘Russian journalist cleared of slander in road controversy’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/10/russia-beketov-cleared-slander-journalist

(6) = St. Petersburg Times 03 Mar 2009 ‘Chechen President Kadyrov Defends Honor Killings’,http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?story_id=28409&action_id=2

(7) = Human Rights Watch 13 Nov 2006 ‘Widespread Torture in the Chechen Republic’,http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2006/11/13/widespread-torture-chechen-republic

(8) = Human Rights Watch 13 Aug 2009 ‘Killing with impunity in Chechnya’,http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/08/13/killing-impunity-chechnya

(9) = Human Rights Watch 09 Mar 2000 ‘Rape Allegations Surface in Chechnya’,http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2000/01/19/rape-allegations-surface-chechnya

(10) = See (6) above

(11) = Russia Today 27 Jan 2011 ‘The US should leave the Caucasus alone – Chechen leader’,http://rt.com/news/kadyrov-chechen-negative-image/

(12) = Guardian 24 Sep 2002, 'Russia lifts objections after Chechen 'deal'', http://www.guardian.co.uk/chechnya/Story/0,,797846,00.html

Governments' war propaganda is the main reason why people doubt every call for humanitarian intervention


It’s best to retain some scepticism about some claims by governments and defectors from Gaddafi’s government, given the use of propaganda over the decades to get public support for wars and military coups.For instance in 1953 in Iran the CIA and MI6 hired mobs to chant pro-Communist and pro-Mossadeq slogans while smashing shop windows and attacking people, in order to give the false impression that Mossadeq’s supporters were mostly Communists and violent (1). Propaganda can even sometimes initially be spread by human rights groups and aid organisations before they find out it’s false. In 1991 there was the notoriously false story about babies being thrown out of incubators to die in Kuwait by invading Iraqi troops. In fact this never happened and the story was invented by the Hill & Knowlton public relations company hired by the Kuwaiti monarchy, with the key “witness” telling the story to congress being a member of the ruling Kuwaiti Al Sabah family and the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US. The babies thrown from incubators story was also published in an Amnesty International report based on what the Kuwaiti Red Crescent told them, before they carried out interviews with staff in the hospital involved and found out it was false. Hill & Knowlton also hired seven other people to assume false identities and give false testimony to the UN on supposedly eyewitness accounts of human rights abuses by Saddam’s forces  (2) – (3). The American media also declined to publish satellite images showing that President Bush (senior)’s claims of an Iraqi military build-up on the Saudi border were false (4)  Similar “public relations”  (often a euphemism for lying) would be used by the Bush junior administration to sell the 2003 invasion. (Of course I’m not suggesting here that Saddam’s dictatorship didn’t torture, rape or murder large numbers of people – while the US government was arming, funding and supporting it and once it was at war with it).

(We can put Gaddafi’s supposedly proven guilt for the Lockerbie bombing in the same propaganda category. Megrahi’s trial was a sham and no-one knows who carried out the Lockerbie bombing.)

That's why I can't say I know for certain what is going on in Libya, only to try to make informed guesses based on past events and recent reports – and parallels with events elsewhere currently and in the past. There is no maxim truer than that ‘in war, truth is the first casualty’. If we were to wait for absolute certainty though, we would be too late to prevent the killings of civilians which the balance of probabilities suggests are taking place.

The main motives of governments backing and opposing intervention in Libya are mostly selfish and about their own poll ratings, their firms’ profits and access to oil contracts and energy supplies, but Gaddafi is as much a dictator as Mubarak and the rest and we should support the rebels and protesters who want to overthrow him, especially as, wherever he’s winning, anyone in the town is taken away as a suspected rebel – and on past practice that means they’ll be in jail for decades, or more likely summarily executed. (It’s worth noting though that both Cameron and Sarkozy, the two heads of government most keen on a no-fly zone in Libya, also have mass unemployment at home and plummeting poll ratings – and may well hope a wave of patriotic fervor will save them at the next election if they use their militaries against Gaddafi (as Thatcher used hers in the Falklands war when she similarly had terrible poll ratings due to increasing unemployment from 2 million to over 3 million). Meanwhile the Italian government – which gets over 30% of its energy from Libya – is not keen at all to risk disrupting this by a change of government in Libya. EU countries’ reliance on Russian gas imports – especially Germany – may be another reason for most of the EU opposing a no-fly zone (5) – (9).

It’s also entirely rational to doubt the motives of the US and other governments for calls for intervention and war criminals to be brought to justice and Gaddafi’s dictatorship overthrown, given their failure to make similar calls about dictatorships (and democracies) allied to them who have had unarmed protesters shot or killed by police and thugs – in Egypt, in Bahrain, in Oman, Yemen and Iraq (though these killings seem to be smaller scale in most cases – though over 300 in Egypt until Mubarak handed over to Suleiman and the military - they are definitely against entirely unarmed protesters, whole some reports from Libya say some protesters in Zawiyah were armed with guns, though this was after Gaddafi’s forces had fired on protesters in Benghazi) (10) – (17). They made no such calls during Israeli war crimes which killed over 700 civilians in the 2008 -2009 Israeli war on Gaza – and they have committed war crimes including targeting civilians and using methods which kill civilians along with combatants in large numbers in air strikes and drone strikes and night raids in Afghanistan and Pakistan, just as they did during the Kosovo war (18) – (21). They’re making no calls for intervention while the Saudi military has drivne into Bahrain and is killing democracy protesters in a kind of Middle Eastern version of the Soviet crushing of the Prague Spring (the Emir of Bahrain may have “requested their assistance”, but he is a dictator not an elected head of government – and even if he didn’t want them there, he has little choice in the matter given Saudi’s greater military strength). (22) – (23) .


NATO’s “Humanitarian Intervention” in Kosovo

Jamie Shea - NATO's spokesman during the 1999 Kosovo war

In Kosovo NATO claimed to be intervening to stop Yugoslav (mostly Serbian) military and police killings of Kosovan Albanians. Yet the KLA had been killing Serbs to try to provoke such attacks for years and had been described as terrorists by the US state department until a few months before the war. The Rambouillet Accord, which the US demanded the Yugoslav government accept before the war stipulated that ‘The economy of Kosovo shall function in accordance with free market principles’ (chapter 4 article 1) and also basically demanded the entire country allow immediate occupation by NATO forces (Appendix B).John Norris , an adviser to US deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott (who was chief US negotiator at Rambouillet) wrote that ‘It was Yugoslavia’s resistance to the broader trends of political and economic reform—not the plight of the Kosovar Albanians—that best explains NATO’s war.’ So the war was at least as much about free market “economic reform” as “humanitarian intervention” (24) – (26).

NATO air forces committed a mixture of deliberate atrocities and indiscriminate bombing carried out because they were under orders to bomb from 50,000 feet. This ensured NATO pilots were safe from being shot down, but resulted in them bombing many of the same Albanian refugees they were meant to be saving, partly due to mis-identifying their tractors as Serbian tanks; and partly due to some Serbian soldiers locking refugees in a village they were in, which they knew NATO planned to bomb (27) – (29).

The deliberate atrocities included targeting Serbian state television on the grounds that its broadcasts encouraged genocide against Albanians. This succeeded in killing such supposed mass murderers as an elderly night watchman and a make up lady. The targeting of the Serbian Communist Party headquarters in Belgrade on similar grounds accidentally hit a hospital, killing patients. NATO forces also managed to bomb the Chinese, Russian and Indian embassies in Belgrade. This was explained as an accident. It was a remarkable co-incidence that all three governments had just voted against a US motion in the UN Security Council to give them UN authorisation for military action in Kosovo. This was not under the notorious Bush administration, but under the supposedly moderate and internationalist Clinton administration. This doesn’t even go into the bombing of bridges and town centres with cluster bombs on market day, or planes returning to target those trying to help the survivors and wounded (27) – (29).

Some will argue that despite all this the military action stopped massacres and ethnic cleansing once NATO ground troops moved in. Unfortunately that’s not true. It just changed how was ethnically cleansing and murdering who. Serbian military, police and paramilitary killings of Kosovan Albanians mostly ended. However KLA murders, kidnappings and ethnic cleansing of Serb and Roma civilians grew rapidly as recorded by Human Rights Watch and investigative journalists on the ground like Robert Fisk. These had begun before NATO intervention, partly in order to provoke Serb forces to carry out atrocities that would bring NATO in. Up until NATO began the push for military intervention they described the KLA (fairly accurately) as a terrorist group. The KLA are also involved in trafficking Afghan heroin to western Europe, including the UK, kidnapping people to sell their organs; and kidnapping women and girls as forced prostitutes (something ‘private contractors’ for the US state department and UN funded Albanian militia units have also been involved in). One of the most notorious KLA thugs is Hashim Thaci. The Clinton administration chose to back Thaci and the worst elements of the KLA rather than Kosovan Albanian nationalist and pacifist Ibrahim Rugova and his LDK party to become the new government of Kosovo (30) – (39).

So, understandably, few people trust any government to back democrats in it’s foreign policy; and when some of those calling for “liberal intervention” lambast people who think they may be being lied to again, they should really be complaining about the governments who have churned out so much propaganda that it’s hard for anyone to tell the difference until the major events are already over.


(1) = Curtis, Mark (1995), ‘The Ambiguities of Power : British Foreign Policy since 1945', Zed Books, London & New York, 1995 hardback edition, Chapter 4, pages 86 – 96 (and especially 93-94)

(2) = Naseer Aruri (1991) ‘Human Rights and the Gulf Crisis’ in Phyllis Bennis & Michel Moushabeck (1991) ‘Beyond the Storm : a Gulf Crisis Reader’, Canongate Press, Edinburgh, UK 1991, Chapter 28, especially pages 313-317 of paperback edition

(3) = Christian Science Monitor 06 Sep 2002 ‘When contemplating war, beware of babies in incubators’, http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p25s02-cogn.html

(4) = Laura Flanders (1991) ‘Restricting Reality : Media Mind Games and the War’ in  Phyllis Bennis & Michel Moushabeck (1991) ‘Beyond the Storm : a Gulf Crisis Reader’, Canongate Press, Edinburgh, UK 1991, Chapter 13, esp. p168 of paperback edition

(5) = YouGov/Sun Poll 10 Mar 2010, http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/3273 (also see recent polls and average of them on same page)

(6) = Reuters 21 Feb 2010 ‘Sarkozy's poll ratings fall, near record lows’,http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/21/us-sarkozy-ratings-poll-idUSTRE61K12520100221

(7) = BBC News 01 March 2011 ‘Italy and Silvio Berlusconi face Libya dilemma’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12612405

(8) = Reuters 20 Feb 2011 ‘Berlusconi under fire for not "disturbing" Gaddafi’,http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/20/us-italy-libya-berlusconi-idUSTRE71J1LH20110220

(9) = Anthony Seldon & Daniel Collings ‘Britain Under Thatcher’ , Chapter 2, page 20

(10) = Human Rights Watch 08 Feb 2011 ‘Egypt: Documented Death Toll From Protests Tops 300, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/02/08/egypt-documented-death-toll-protests-tops-300

(11) = Amnesty International 17 Feb 2011 ‘Bahrain protest deaths rise as camp is evicted’,http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/bahrain-protest-deaths-rise-camp-evicted-2011-02-17

(12) = Amnesty International 24 Feb 2011 ‘Oman must rein in security forces to prevent further deaths’,http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/oman-must-rein-security-forces-prevent-further-deaths-2011-02-28

(13) = Amnesty International 09 Feb 2011 ‘Yemen urged to halt deadly attacks on protestors’, http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/yemen-urged-halt-deadly-attacks-protesters-2011-03-09The Yemeni authorities must end deadly night raids and other attacks on protests, Amnesty International said today, after one protester was killed and around 100 injured in the capital Sana'a late last night. According to media reports, security forces used live rounds and tear gas against protesters camped outside Sana’a University…. Some 30 people have reportedly now been killed in Yemen during ongoing unrest which began early last month. Protesters are demanding government reform and an end to corruption and unemployment.

(14) = AP 25 Feb 2011 ‘12 killed as Iraqis protest in 'Day of Rage'’,http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110225/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq

(15) = Guardian.co.uk 04 Mar 2011 ‘Baghdad protesters converge on Liberation Square’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/04/baghdad-protesters-iraq-driving-ban ; Security forces around Iraq clashed with protesters last Friday in the country's most widespread and violent demonstrations since a wave of unrest began to spread across the Middle East. At least 14 people were killed

(16) = HRW 25 Feb 2011 ‘Iraq: Open Immediate Inquiry Into Protester Deaths’, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/02/25/iraq-open-immediate-inquiry-protester-deaths

(17) = Human Rights Watch 26 Feb 2011 ‘Libya: Security Forces Fire on Protesters in Western City’,http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/02/26/libya-security-forces-fire-protesters-western-city ; Egyptian migrant workers who fled to Tunisia from Zawiyah, a coastal city 40 kilometers west of Tripoli, told Human Rights Watch that Libyan security forces shot at protesters who had defied government orders to stay inside their homes and who tried to hold a demonstration after Friday prayers. One migrant worker said he saw approximately 3,000 protesters in the main square, some of whom carried guns.

(18) = Human Rights Watch 07 Feb 2010 ‘Israel: Military Investigations Fail Gaza War Victims’,http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/02/06/israel-military-investigations-fail-gaza-war-victims

(19) = The Public Record 19 Oct 2009 ‘Report: Drone Strikes Increased Dramatically Under Obama’,http://pubrecord.org/world/5801/report-drone-strikes-increased/

(20) = thenews (Pakistan) 03 Jan 2011 ‘Drones killed 59pc civilians, 41pc terrorists’, http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=23631&Cat=2&dt=1/3/2011

(21) = See this blog post and sources for it  http://inplaceoffear.blogspot.com/2010/08/killings-of-civilians-by-nato-forces-in.html and the following blog post link under the sub-heading ‘Night Raids and the El Salvador Option moving from Iraq to Afghanistan’, http://inplaceoffear.blogspot.com/2010/03/one-more-push-for-what-in-afghanistan.html

(22) = Reuters 14 Mar 2011 ‘Saudi sends troops, Bahrain Shi'ites call it "war"’,http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/14/uk-bahrain-protests-forces-idUKTRE72D28G20110314

(23) = guardian.co.uk 15 Mar 2011 ‘Two killed as Bahrain's king declares martial law’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/15/bahrain-king-declares-martial-law

(24) = BBC News 28 Jun 1998 ‘The KLA - terrorists or freedom fighters?’,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/121818.stm

(25) = US State Department ‘Rambouillet Agreement - Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo’, http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eur/ksvo_rambouillet_text.html

(26) = John Norris (2005) ‘Collision Course : NATO, Russia and Kosovo’ cited by Naomi Klein (2007) ‘The Shock Doctrine’ , Penguin/Allen Lane, 2007, page 328 of hardback edition, Chapter 17, page 328

(27) = HRW 26 Oct 2001 ‘Under Orders : War Crimes in Kosovo’, http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2001/10/26/under-orders-war-crimes-kosovo

(28) = BBC News 01 Jan 1999 ‘Nato's bombing blunders’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/340966.stm

(29) = Phillip Knightley (2000) ‘The First Casualty’, Prion Books Limited, London, 2000, Chapter 20 is on the Kosovo war and propaganda and NATO war crimes in it in general; pages 516-517, on bombing of Chinese and Indian embassies in Belgrade by NATO after they’d criticised NATO’s air war – and given NATO the addresses of their embassies at it’s request, supposedly to ensure they wouldn’t be hit

(30) = Independent 24 Nov 1999 ‘Serbs murdered by the hundred since `liberation'’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/serbs-murdered-by-the-hundred-since-liberation-1128350.html

(31) = Observer 25 Jul 1999 ‘Killings blamed on KLA’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/jul/25/balkans3

(32) =  HRW 26 Oct 2001 ‘Under Orders : War Crimes in Kosovo’, http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2001/10/26/under-orders-war-crimes-kosovo; see summary under Sub-heading ‘Abuses by the KLA’) http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2001/kosovo/undword.htm

(33) = San Francisco Chronicle 05 May 1999 ‘KLA Linked To Enormous Heroin Trade / Police suspect drugs helped finance revolt’, http://articles.sfgate.com/1999-05-05/news/17687597_1_kosovo-albanians-kosovo-liberation-army-ethnic-albanian-community

(34) = Mother Jones magazine Jan/Feb 2000 ‘Heroin Heroes’, http://motherjones.com/politics/2000/01/heroin-heroes

(35) = Observer 25 Mar 2000 ‘Revealed: UN backed unit’s reign of terror’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/mar/12/balkans.unitednations

(36) = Guardian 10 Dec 2003 ‘The Privatisation of War’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/dec/10/politics.iraq

(37) = Siddharth Kara (2009) ‘Sex trafficking: inside the business of modern slavery’, Columbia University Press, 2009, Chapter 5, pages 143- 145http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WWb-wx1gjLwC&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=KLA+sex+slaves&source=bl&ots=RwdHrczQRh&sig=JTo2XKmDBB9afaaB5iOqVjYut5M&hl=en&ei=IeVnTb7wDsib8QOUkt2LBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=KLA%20sex%20slaves&f=false

(38) = guardian.co.uk 14 Dec 2010 ‘Kosovo PM is head of human organ and arms ring, Council of Europe reports’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/14/kosovo-prime-minister-llike-mafia-boss

(39) = Time 05 Jul 1999 ‘Democracy School’, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,991398,00.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