Peace and Justice Post

by Prof. James Petras
Global Research, May 4, 2008
Email this article to a friend
Print this article

General Petraeus: “President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders promised to end their support for the special groups but the nefarious activities of the Quds Force have continued.”
Senator Joseph Lieberman: “Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?”

General Petraeus: “It certainly is…That is correct.”

General Petraeus testimony to the US Senate, April 8-9, 2008.

“The Israeli flag is proudly displayed above the Sacred Ark alongside the American flag…”( in an orthodox synagogue in wealthy Georgetown, Washington DC. The entrance fee to the synagogue is $1000 for a single holiday.) “On each Sabbath the prayers include the benediction for the Israeli Jewish soldiers and the prayer for the welfare of the Israeli government and its officials. Many Jewish American Administration officials pray there. They not only don’t try to conceal their religious affiliation, but go to great lengths to demonstrate their Judaism since it may help their careers greatly. The enormous Jewish influence in Washington is not limited to the government. In the Washingtonian media, a very significant part of the most important personages and of the presenters of the most popular programs on TV are warm Jews … and let us not forget, in this context, the Jewish predominance in the Washingtonian academic institutions.” Avinoam Bar-Yosef, Ma’riv (Israeli daily newspaper), September 2, 1994 (translated by Israel Shahak).

Introduction

When President Bush appointed General David Petraeus Commander (head) of the Multinational Forces in Iraq, his appointment was hailed by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post as a brilliant decision: A general of impeccable academic and battlefield credentials and a warrior and counter-insurgency (terrorist) intellectual. The media and the President, the Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and Congress, described his appointment as ‘America’s last best hope for salvation in Iraq’. Senator Hilary Clinton joined the chorus of pro-war politicians in praise and support of Petraeus’ ‘professionalism and war record’ in Northern Iraq. In contrast, Admiral William Fallon, his predecessor and former commander, had called Petraeus’ briefings ‘a piece of brown-nosing chicken shit’.

In theory and strategy, in pursuit of defeating the Iraqi resistance, General Petraeus was a disastrous failure, an outcome predictable form the very nature of his appointment and his flawed wartime reputation.

In the first instance Petraeus was a political appointment. He was one of the few high military officials who shared Bush and the Zioncons’ assessment that the ‘war could be won’. Petraeus argued that his experience in Northern Iraq were replicable throughout the rest of the country. Moreover Petraeus, unlike most military analysts, was willing to ignore the heavy costs of multiple prolonged tours of duty on US troops. Petraeus willingness to ignore the larger costs of prolonged military engagement in Iraq has weakened the capacity of the US to sustain its world-wide imperial interests. For Petraeus, sacrificing the overall cohesion and structure of the US military in Iraq, the global interests of the empire and the US domestic budget were worth securing Bush’s appointment as ‘Commander of the Forces in Iraq’. Shortly after taking office and in the face of massive domestic, international and Iraq demands for the withdrawal of US troops, Petraeus took the path dictated by the US and pro Israeli militarists in the Bush Administration and their powerful ‘Lobby’. He escalated the war, by calling up more troops, what he euphemistically referred to as ‘the surge’ – a massive call-up of 40,000 more mission-weary infantry and marines.

Continued . . .

Asia Times, May 2, 2008

By Pepe Escobar

More than two years ago, Seymour Hersh disclosed in the New Yorker how President George W Bush was considering strategic nuclear strikes against Iran. Ever since, a campaign to demonize that country has proceeded in a relentless, Terminator-like way, applying the same techniques and semantic contortions that were so familiar in the period before the Bush administration launched its invasion of Iraq.

The campaign’s greatest hits are widely known: “The ayatollahs” are building a Shi’ite nuclear bomb; Iranian weapons are killing American soldiers in Iraq; Iranian gunboats are provoking US warships in the Persian Gulf. Iran, in short, is the new al-Qaeda, a terror state aimed at the heart of the United States. It’s idle to expect the American mainstream media to offer any tools that might put this orchestrated blitzkrieg in context.

Here are just a few recent instances of the ongoing campaign: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates insists that Iran “is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons”. Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admits that the Pentagon is planning for “potential military courses of action” when it comes to Iran. In tandem with US commander in Iraq General David Petraeus, Mullen denounces Iran’s “increasingly lethal and malign influence” in Iraq, although he claims to harbor “no expectations” of an attack on Iran “in the immediate future” and even admits he has “no smoking gun which could prove that the highest leadership [of Iran] is involved”.

But keep in mind one thing the Great Saddam take-out of 2003 proved: that a “smoking gun” is, in the end, irrelevant. And this week, the US is ominously floating a second aircraft carrier battle group into the Persian Gulf.

But what of Iran itself under the blizzard of charges and threats? What to make of it? What does the world look like from Tehran? Here are five ways to think about Iran under the gun and to better decode the Iranian chessboard.

Continued . . .

Garowe Online, May 4, 2008

Aides to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf are trying to block a parliamentary resolution to reinstate judges who were removed from their posts during a six-week emergency rule last November.

Former Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif, who heads the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz party, reached an agreement to reinstate the judges with co-chair of the Pakistan Peoples Party ( PPP ), Asif Ali Zardari, during talks in Dubai last week.

The coalition will reinstate the judges by tendering a resolution in parliament, Sharif said on Friday. All the deposed judges would be restored by May 12, Sharif said.

Musharraf removed some 60 senior judges from their posts after declaring emergency rule last November. The president wanted to prevent the Supreme Court from challenging the legality of his re-election.

The reinstatement of the judges will probably lead to a challenge to Musharraf’s rule and could eventually remove him from the presidency.

Continued . . .

Press TV, May 4, 2008

Democratic hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton says she has no regrets over her threats to ‘totally obliterate’ Iran if Israel is hit with a nuclear bomb.

“Why would I have any regrets?” Senator Clinton said Saturday in response to ABC News’ question as to whether she had any regrets about threatening Tehran.

“I am asked a question about what I would do if Iran attacked our ally, a country that many of us have a great deal of, you know, connection with and feeling for,” the Democratic hopeful continued.

The former first lady added that she sought to make it ‘very clear’ for Iranian echelons what to expect if they ever draw up a plan for attacking Israel.

“I sure want to make it abundantly clear to them that they would face a tremendous cost if they did such a thing,” Clinton expounded.

Speaking to ABC News on April 22, the 60-year-old Democrat had threatened to attack Iran and ‘totally obliterate’ it if Tehran were to wage war on Israel in the ‘next 10 years’.

Clinton’s remarks stirred up fierce controversy both in the US and around the world.

While the recent US National Intelligence Estimate indicates that Iran’s nuclear program is not diverting into a military one, it is reputed that with her remarks the senator seeks only to influence public opinion ahead of the nominating showdowns in Indiana and North Carolina.

The Independent, May 4, 2008

Speculators blamed for driving up price of basic foods as 100 million face severe hunger

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor

Giant agribusinesses are enjoying soaring earnings and profits out of the world food crisis which is driving millions of people towards starvation, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. And speculation is helping to drive the prices of basic foodstuffs out of the reach of the hungry.

The prices of wheat, corn and rice have soared over the past year driving the world’s poor – who already spend about 80 per cent of their income on food – into hunger and destitution.

The World Bank says that 100 million more people are facing severe hunger. Yet some of the world’s richest food companies are making record profits. Monsanto last month reported that its net income for the three months up to the end of February this year had more than doubled over the same period in 2007, from $543m (£275m) to $1.12bn. Its profits increased from $1.44bn to $2.22bn.

Continued . . .

The Smirking Chimp, May 1, 2008

by R.W. Behan May 1, 2008 – 4:18pm

article tools: email print read more R.W. Behan

The “War on Terror” is a fraud and a façade, a mere label concocted and trumpeted by an Administration known for its signature dishonesty. The label conceals the Bush Administration’s international crimes of unprovoked military aggression—the armed invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, two sovereign nations the Administration meant to attack from its first days in office.[1]
With its pathological lying, secrecy, and brilliant propagandizing the Administration has prevented a compliant mainstream press from communicating fully the realities of the war. But now, as the country chooses a new president, the truth must prevail, to foreclose another catastrophic Administration—candidate McCain says “No surrender!”—and to make certain instead the fraudulent war is terminated with dispatch.

The “War on Terror” was launched in retaliation for 9/11, we were told, to apprehend Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. Then, justifying a quantum escalation in the war with 935 deliberate lies, the Bush Administration sought “regime change” in Iraq.[2]

These alleged objectives were elements of the façade. Osama bin Laden could have been brought to justice easily and without armed conflict. Regime change in Iraq could have been achieved with equal facility. George Bush rejected both opportunities.

Saddam Hussein, hoping to forestall warfare, yielded a series of increasingly attractive concessions to the Bush Administration, finally offering to leave his country for exile in Egypt. [3],[4] But the Bush Administration was unalterably committed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. If “regime change” were to be achieved by Saddam’s voluntary departure, there would be no excuse for proceeding with the attack: the Administration kept the offers from public view—and ignored them all.

Continued . . .

The Dissident Voice, May 3, 2008

Dan Lieberman

A century old conflict between the state of Israel and stateless Palestinians, many of whom have been dispossessed from lands that created the Israel state, has precipitated a argument: Is it preferable to have two states living side by side or have one state from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River that includes Jews and Palestinians without prejudice and with equal rights for all?

Those who propose a single-state do so because they sense the two-state solution is nonviable and those who propose two-states do so because they sense the one-state solution is unacceptable. The argument is doomed to irresolution because Israel has overwhelming military power, faces no countervailing power, doesn’t intend for the Palestinians to have a viable state and won’t approve a single state for all. If Israel intended to allow a viable Palestinian state, would the Israeli government proceed in the continuous construction of West Bank settlements? Would the present Israeli government demand recognition as a Jewish state and then concede to evolve into a multi-ethnic state? The endless debate concerning the shape of a Palestinian state allows Israel to comfortably proceed with its own agenda — seizing most of the West Bank, populating desirable lands with its own citizens, capturing aquifers and reducing the Palestinians to impoverishment.

Israel proceeds with a “we must have all or we will someday have nothing” program, which insinuates Israel will be destroyed unless it destroys all of its antagonists. The Palestinians react with a “if we lose, we lose everything” program, which insinuates they will be destroyed unless they stop Israel. The two antagonists have succeeded in establishing a “no win-no win situation” that affects the security and stability of the world and must be resolved by the world’s institutions. Starting with more salient arguments might provide an approach that turns minds to a solution. If the arguments seem to favor one side it is only because oppression and threat favor one side; the side of the oppressed and the threatened.

Continued . . .

The London Times, May 4, 2008
Michael Smith

The US military is drawing up plans for a “surgical strike” against an insurgent training camp inside Iran if Republican Guards continue with attempts to destabilise Iraq, western intelligence sources said last week. One source said the Americans were growing increasingly angry at the involvement of the Guards’ special-operations Quds force inside Iraq, training Shi’ite militias and smuggling weapons into the country.

Despite a belligerent stance by Vice-President Dick Cheney, the administration has put plans for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities on the back burner since Robert Gates replaced Donald Rumsfeld as defence secretary in 2006, the sources said.

However, US commanders are increasingly concerned by Iranian interference in Iraq and are determined that recent successes by joint Iraqi and US forces in the southern port city of Basra should not be reversed by the Quds Force.

“If the situation in Basra goes back to what it was like before, America is likely to blame Iran and carry out a surgical strike on a militant training camp across the border in Khuzestan,” said one source, referring to a frontier province.

They acknowledged Iran was unlikely to cease involvement in Iraq and that, however limited a US attack might be, the fighting could escalate.

Although American defence chiefs are firmly opposed to any attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, they believe a raid on one of the camps training Shi’ite militiamen would deliver a powerful message to Tehran.

Continued . . .

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 2, 2008

 Helen Thomas

WASHINGTON — The American people have heard President Bush and his spokespeople say many times that the U.S. government does not engage in torture.

Whether Bush was believed or not is another story — especially in light of the photographic evidence of the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib. It’s understood that many of the photos are too sadistically graphic to be made public.

Still, the official U.S. denials of torture continued until earlier this month when Bush acknowledged in an interview with ABC-TV that he knew about and approved “enhanced interrogation” of detainees, including “waterboarding” or simulated drowning.

“As a matter of fact,” Bush added, “I told the country we did that. And I told them it was legal. We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it.”

The president added, “I didn’t have any problems at all trying to find out what Khalid Sheik Mohammed knew.”

“He was the person who ordered the suicide attack — I mean, the 9/11 attacks,” Bush said. “And back then, there was all kind of concern about people saying, ‘Well, the administration is not connecting the dots.’ You might remember those — that period.” Bush said.

Bush also said in the interview that he had been aware of several meetings his national security advisers held to discuss “enhanced interrogation” methods.

Surely he is aware of the U.S. commitment to international treaties barring “cruel and inhumane” treatment of prisoners.

Continued . . .