RhetIraq

Who: Mohamed ElBaradei, United Nations Atomic Energy Chief - Head of International Atomic Energy Association
Source: The Los Angeles Times
Quotes: From article titled, "Calm Is Urged in Iran Debate"

United Nations atomic energy chief Mohamed ElBaradei urged the international community Thursday to steer away from threats of sanctions against Iran, saying the country's nuclear program was not "an imminent threat" and that the time had come to "lower the pitch" of debate.

ElBaradei's remarks at a forum in Doha, the capital of Qatar, came at a sensitive moment in the discussions over Iran, as the United States and other members of the U.N. Security Council calculate their next steps. His comments publicly expressed the dismay that many diplomats privately have voiced about what they consider an air of crisis that the Bush administration and some European governments have created with recent statements.

"There is no military solution to this situation," said ElBaradei, the Nobel Prize-winning director-general of the IAEA. "It's inconceivable. The only durable solution is a negotiated solution."

ElBaradei said the international community should act only on concrete information. He warned against a repetition of the 2003 experience with Iraq, when IAEA inspectors did not find signs of an active nuclear arms program but were ignored by the United States, which proceeded to use unsubstantiated intelligence to make the case for war. Since then, the IAEA has been proved right that Saddam Hussein did not possess any of the alleged weaponry.

"I work on facts," ElBaradei said in his remarks reported by Reuters news agency. "We fortunately were proven right in Iraq, we were the only ones that said at the time that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons, and I hope this time people will listen to us."

Tehran, under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. However, Iran's intentions have come under international scrutiny because it hid its nuclear program for 18 years, in violation of the treaty of which it had long been a signatory. Although Tehran is now largely in compliance with the treaty's requirements, the U.N. nuclear inspectors say there are still key questions Iran needs to answer about its program.

Tehran compounded international distrust when it ended nearly two years of negotiations with the European Union over a deal to halt its nuclear-fuel work altogether. Then, in January, Tehran resumed operations at a pilot uranium enrichment facility that it had suspended during the talks with the EU. It has begun enriching tiny quantities of uranium to test its centrifuges.

The IAEA, in its most recent report on Iran, said it could not rule out that Tehran had secret nuclear facilities or materials. The vague language underscores the chief problem for policymakers dealing with Iran: Key aspects of its program remain opaque.

Who: Eric Haney, Retired Command Sergeant Major and Delta Force founding member
Source: Rome News-Tribune
Quotes: From article titled, "Veteran: War based on greed"

Harsh criticism of the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq is nothing new, but this critic has the counter-terrorism credentials and military connections to bolster his assertions.

Eric Haney, a retired command sergeant major and founding member of the elite Delta Force commando unit, charged Monday that the president’s policy is based on cultural arrogance and corporate greed rather than sound military strategy.

“I understand the people who are doing this and where they’re coming from,” the veteran said. “Delusional ideology is a big factor, and there’s a huge amount of venal corporate activity. Halliburton and other companies are making so much money that they don’t want to see it changed.”

A 1970 graduate of Pepperell High School, Haney is now executive producer and technical adviser for the new CBS hit drama “The Unit,” based on his 2002 memoir titled “Inside Delta Force.”

... Haney said Bush “may well have started the third world war” by his focus on Iraq instead of on Saudi Arabia’s role in funding and encouraging the centuries-old culture clash between Sunnis and Shiites in the Middle East.

“Saudi Arabia is the root source of Islamic extremism and terrorism,” he said. “But this administration keeps the public blinded to the fact because it makes so much money from the monarchy.”

Haney said his concerns are military, not political, and he is surprised more “dyed-in-the-wool” Republicans are not speaking out.

“I don’t care if it was the pope in charge; wrongdoing does not recognize partisanship,” he said. “I had the same problem with (former President) Clinton and the Democrats — you should clean up your own mess.”

“At every turn, in the upper levels of our administration, they refused to listen to what they did not want to hear,” Haney said.

He said [General Eric] Shinseki’s fate [marginalization to forced retirement] served as a warning to other career soldiers considering public contradictions of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

“Rumsfeld said the generals are getting all the troops they ask for, but they’ve gotten the word not to ask,” he said. “If you don’t play ball, you don’t get that other star or that book deal or the chance to sit on corporate boards when you retire.”

Still, Haney said he is hearing of a few commanders ready to buck the pressure and reject the blame for failed Iraq policies. Despite what supporters claim, he said, criticizing Bush’s decisions is not unpatriotic.

“The henchmen of Hitler said it. The henchmen of Pol Pot said it. Every low-life tyrant has said it, but it is the duty of every American citizen to stand up and say it when something is wrong,” he said. “This administration has wrapped itself in the troops. They’ve learned from Vietnam to say, ‘If you don’t support me, you don’t support the troops,’ but they’re hiding behind those kids.”

Who: Jeffrey Gettleman, Iraq War Correspondent
Source: The New York Times
Quotes: From article titled, "Redirecting Bullets in Baghdad"

I GOT back to Iraq two weeks ago, having been away more than a year. The first story I covered began with a tip that vigilantes had hanged four suspected terrorists from lamp posts in Sadr City, a Shiite slum. The minute I got to the scene, I realized I was stepping into a new Iraq. Another new Iraq, really; maybe even the third Iraq I have seen since I began reporting here in 2003.

Gone were the American tanks that used to guard the intersections. Instead, aggressive teenagers with machine guns and shiny soccer jerseys ruled the streets. They poked their heads into cars and detained whomever they wanted. There were even 8-year-olds running checkpoints, some toting toy pistols, others toting real ones. Whatever they carried, 4-foot-tall militias made me nervous. The streets now had a truly Liberian feel.

The episode was oddly symmetrical with a moment in 2004 when mobs in Falluja swarmed four American contractors and hung the bodies from a bridge. But there were a few big differences. For one, this wasn't Falluja, angry heart of the insurgency. This was Baghdad. And these weren't Americans dangling from rope. They were Sunni Arab Iraqis.

I had thought Iraq might be getting quieter. Fewer mortars were sailing into the Green Zone, where the Americans are based, and fewer suicide bombings were disrupting the morning rush. Even the airport road, the most dreaded strip of asphalt in the world, was doing better. It had been repaved and was flowing with traffic.

But soon I caught on. The violence had not declined. It had just turned inward. No longer was most of it pointed at the Americans, either directly or indirectly, as it had been during the invasion and when the insurgency exploded in 2004. Back then, if G.I.'s were not the targets, their helpers were — the Iraqi police, regional governors, Kurdish leaders, foreign civilians, anyone remotely connected to the "occupiers."

It's true that American soldiers are still dying, but the focus of the bloodshed has changed.

The day after that mob scene in Sadr City, bodies started showing up, first a couple and then dozens. By conservative counts, nearly 200 civilian men have been executed in the past two weeks and dumped on Baghdad's streets. Many have been hogtied. Some have had acid splashed on their faces. Others have been found without toes, fingers, eyes.

Granted, Baghdad is no stranger to the corpse. There were assassinations two years ago, when an entire intellectual class was being wiped out.

But this new wave of executions was different. It was more sadistic and less selective. These people weren't rounded up because they were important. They were tortured and killed simply because of their religion. And because most of them were Sunni Muslim Arabs, there was no response from the Shiite-led government.

Mass murder used to provoke some form of official reaction, however feeble. I remember seeing the Iraqi police seal off areas after big bomb attacks and poke around for evidence. Now, there are major crimes with no crime scenes. Very few of these mystery killings have been investigated, and it isn't for lack of witnesses. Many of these men were abducted in daylight, in public, in front of crowds.

Not enough can be said about the attack on a Shiite shrine in Samarra last month. That explosion opened a cycle of revenge that seems to have split modern Iraqi history. There is before Samarra and after. Before Samarra, many Iraqis tried to play down Sunni-Shiite tensions. Since Samarra, they live in mortal fear of them.

If this all sounds depressing, it is. That's how people here feel. I've been looking hard, but in two weeks I haven't found an Iraqi optimist. In the summer of 2004, I profiled a band of young artists who braved dangerous roads to get away from Baghdad and paint pretty pictures of the Tigris River. Now, they're homebound. There is a similar sense of newfound hopelessness in the faces of the Iraqis I work with.

"What is the style of death?" is the No. 1 question in our bureau, now that all these bodies have turned up.

Of course, the old insurgency hasn't abated. Last week, 200 masked insurgents besieged a jail, killing more than a dozen guards and springing their comrades. A few days ago, one of our translator's uncles was killed when a box of sweets blew up in a tea shop. It seems as if half of our staff has had family murdered.

It is difficult to communicate just how violent Baghdad has become. A DVD was recently circulated in markets showing an imam being dragged behind a pickup truck. There was also a home video of a family of four, including a 10-day-old girl, all of them wrapped in plastic in the morgue.

Everyone has guns. We interviewed an educated woman who rides the bus with a loaded Glock pistol in her lap.

This is not to say life has ground to a halt. Stores are open, though the curfew has cut into business. Children go to school. The other day a mortar shell flew over a swing set and the children kept on swinging, even as a cloud of dust rose behind them.

I recently met a Sunni man who used to be virulently anti-American. He showed me postmortem pictures of his younger brother, who had been kidnapped by death squads and had holes drilled in his face.

"Even the Americans wouldn't do this," he said.

Source: Azzaman
Quotes: From article titled, "Poverty chronic in Iraq"

More than 20% of Iraqis live in abject poverty despite the boost in government’s social security program, a report by the Ministry of Planning reveals.

The poverty level is bound to increase due to inefficiencies in the distribution of food rations which are credited for saving the country from starvation.

Facing tough armed resistance and political inaction, the government has proved much less efficient than the former regime which U.S. troops ousted three years ago in handing out food rations.

Iraqi families now get less food than before and certain essential items have gone missing from the food ration card. Prices of staples like rice, sugar, flour and vegetable ghee are soaring. Iraqis without income find it extremely hard to make ends meet.

The government has expanded its social security program which now covers hundreds of thousands of families. But welfare benefits are meager and fall short of meeting basic needs. Under the new social security arrangements a poor family – one without support or income – gets an average of 80,000 dinars. The sum is much bigger than what civil servants made under former leader Saddam Hussein.

But prices have skyrocketed particularly of fuel, rent and other basic needs.

Who: David Manning, PM Blair's ex-Chief Foreign Policy Advisor
Source: The New York Times
Quotes: From article titled, "Bush Was Set on Path to War, British Memo Says"

During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he [Pres. Bush] made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.

Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.

Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.

Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

Those proposals were first reported last month in the British press, but the memo does not make clear whether they reflected Mr. Bush's extemporaneous suggestions, or were elements of the government's plan.

The January 2003 memo is the latest in a series of secret memos produced by top aides to Mr. Blair that summarize private discussions between the president and the prime minister. Another group of British memos, including the so-called Downing Street memo written in July 2002, showed that some senior British officials had been concerned that the United States was determined to invade Iraq, and that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war.

The latest memo is striking in its characterization of frank, almost casual, conversation by Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair about the most serious subjects. At one point, the leaders swapped ideas for a postwar Iraqi government. "As for the future government of Iraq, people would find it very odd if we handed it over to another dictator," the prime minister is quoted as saying.

"Bush agreed," Mr. Manning wrote. This exchange, like most of the quotations in this article, have not been previously reported.

Mr. Bush was accompanied at the meeting by Condoleezza Rice, who was then the national security adviser; Dan Fried, a senior aide to Ms. Rice; and Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff. Along with Mr. Manning, Mr. Blair was joined by two other senior aides: Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, and Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide and the author of the Downing Street memo.

At their meeting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks, the memo said. The president spoke as if an invasion was unavoidable. The two leaders discussed a timetable for the war, details of the military campaign and plans for the aftermath of the war.

Discussing Provocation

"The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."

It also described the president as saying, "The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam's W.M.D," referring to weapons of mass destruction.

A brief clause in the memo refers to a third possibility, mentioned by Mr. Bush, a proposal to assassinate Saddam Hussein. The memo does not indicate how Mr. Blair responded to the idea.

At several points during the meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, there was palpable tension over finding a legitimate legal trigger for going to war that would be acceptable to other nations, the memo said. The prime minister was quoted as saying it was essential for both countries to lobby for a second United Nations resolution against Iraq, because it would serve as "an insurance policy against the unexpected."

The memo said Mr. Blair told Mr. Bush, "If anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning the oil wells, killing children or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq, a second resolution would give us international cover, especially with the Arabs."

Running Out of Time

Mr. Bush agreed that the two countries should attempt to get a second resolution, but he added that time was running out. "The U.S. would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would twist arms and even threaten," Mr. Bush was paraphrased in the memo as saying.

The document added, "But he had to say that if we ultimately failed, military action would follow anyway."

The leaders agreed that three weeks remained to obtain a second United Nations Security Council resolution before military commanders would need to begin preparing for an invasion.

Summarizing statements by the president, the memo says: "The air campaign would probably last four days, during which some 1,500 targets would be hit. Great care would be taken to avoid hitting innocent civilians. Bush thought the impact of the air onslaught would ensure the early collapse of Saddam's regime. Given this military timetable, we needed to go for a second resolution as soon as possible. This probably meant after Blix's next report to the Security Council in mid-February."

Mr. Blair was described as responding that both countries would make clear that a second resolution amounted to "Saddam's final opportunity." The memo described Mr. Blair as saying: "We had been very patient. Now we should be saying that the crisis must be resolved in weeks, not months."

It reported: "Bush agreed. He commented that he was not itching to go to war, but we could not allow Saddam to go on playing with us. At some point, probably when we had passed the second resolutions — assuming we did — we should warn Saddam that he had a week to leave. We should notify the media too. We would then have a clear field if Saddam refused to go."

Mr. Bush devoted much of the meeting to outlining the military strategy. The president, the memo says, said the planned air campaign "would destroy Saddam's command and control quickly." It also said that he expected Iraq's army to "fold very quickly." He also is reported as telling the prime minister that the Republican Guard would be "decimated by the bombing."

Despite his optimism, Mr. Bush said he was aware that "there were uncertainties and risks," the memo says, and it goes on, "As far as destroying the oil wells were concerned, the U.S. was well equipped to repair them quickly, although this would be easier in the south of Iraq than in the north."

The two men briefly discussed plans for a post-Hussein Iraqi government. "The prime minister asked about aftermath planning," the memo says. "Condi Rice said that a great deal of work was now in hand.

Referring to the Defense Department, it said: "A planning cell in D.O.D. was looking at all aspects and would deploy to Iraq to direct operations as soon as the military action was over. Bush said that a great deal of detailed planning had been done on supplying the Iraqi people with food and medicine."

Planning for After the War

The leaders then looked beyond the war, imagining the transition from Mr. Hussein's rule to a new government. Immediately after the war, a military occupation would be put in place for an unknown period of time, the president was described as saying. He spoke of the "dilemma of managing the transition to the civil administration," the memo says.

The document concludes with Mr. Manning still holding out a last-minute hope of inspectors finding weapons in Iraq, or even Mr. Hussein voluntarily leaving Iraq. But Mr. Manning wrote that he was concerned this could not be accomplished by Mr. Bush's timeline for war.

"This makes the timing very tight," he wrote. "We therefore need to stay closely alongside Blix, do all we can to help the inspectors make a significant find, and work hard on the other members of the Security Council to accept the noncooperation case so that we can secure the minimum nine votes when we need them, probably the end of February."

At a White House news conference following the closed-door session, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair said "the crisis" had to be resolved in a timely manner. "Saddam Hussein is not disarming," the president told reporters. "He is a danger to the world. He must disarm. And that's why I have constantly said — and the prime minister has constantly said — this issue will come to a head in a matter of weeks, not months."

Despite intense lobbying by the United States and Britain, a second United Nations resolution was not obtained. The American-led military coalition invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, nine days after the target date set by the president on that late January day at the White House.

Who: Governor of Baghdad
Source: Le Figaro via Truthout.org
Quotes: From article titled, "The Shiites in Power Accuse the US of "Organized Crime""

The bloody raid conducted Sunday in north Baghdad against Shiites assembled in a mosque in the country's capital continues to elicit reactions. Shiite leaders, who suggest there were around twenty deaths, denounce an American bungle. The Unified Iraqi Alliance, the Shiite coalition in power, describes that operation as a "massacre" and demands that the American government cede responsibility for the maintenance of order to the Iraqi government.

For his part, the Governor of Baghdad announced his intention of suspending all cooperation with American forces until an independent investigation is opened to determine what really happened. "We have decided today to cease all political and logistical cooperation with American forces," declared Hussein al Tahan, adding that the United States embassy and the Iraqi Defense Ministry should be associated with the investigation, but not the American military.

Giving an account of the operation that elicited such intense reactions, including an indignant one from Jawad al-Maliki, an intimate of Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari, the American Army denied all responsibility. According to the United States, the operation was planned and executed by Iraqi Special Forces. The role of American Special Forces was limited to "advising Iraqi forces," an American Army communiqué emphasized.

Source: Associated Press via Forbes
Quotes: From article titled, "U.S. Embassy Focuses on Hiring Jordanians"

The U.S. Embassy, a diplomatic fortress in central Baghdad's isolated "Green Zone," has begun hiring its local staff from neighboring Jordan, rather than recruiting Iraqis.

An internal embassy notice obtained by The Associated Press says the "Jordan Hiring Program" was devised because Iraqis face "unique security and safety risks" in working for the embassy, a reference to the threat of violence facing Iraqis associated with the U.S. occupation.

Embassy officials would not answer questions about the unusual program, including whether they were having difficulty hiring Iraqis or whether they had concerns Iraqis might pose security risks as possible sympathizers with the anti-U.S. insurgency.

The "locally engaged staff" totals more than 200, but it could not be learned how many are Iraqi Arabs and how many are Iraqi Kurds or Arabs from other countries.

U.S. embassies around the world hire host-country nationals for many positions, typically clerical jobs and posts for which the local language is essential, such as in the office issuing U.S. visas. In the case of Baghdad, Jordanian Arabic is closely related to Arabic spoken in Iraq.

Newly hired Jordanians "will not replace the loyal and talented Iraqi employees already working in Baghdad," said a circular distributed internally within the embassy Jan. 31 and obtained more recently by AP.

"It is intended as an interim measure to cover Embassy LES (locally engaged staff) hiring needs while Embassy employment poses special dangers and risks to Iraqi staff."

One highly placed American official, who agreed to discuss Green Zone security only if granted anonymity because of the situation's sensitivity, told a reporter he had hired non-Arab guards for his important operation. "I don't trust Iraqis," he said.

Iraqis and Americans point to similar signs of nervousness elsewhere as a result of the 3-year-old insurgency waged primarily by Iraq's Sunni Arab minority. For instance, Iraqis from surrounding communities are seldom hired to work at central Iraq's Balad Air Base and other U.S. installations, except in sandbag-filling details under U.S. armed guard.

Who: David MacMichael, former CIA Analyst and member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Source: Counterpunch
Quotes: From opinion piece titled, "An Unnecessary Crisis; The Iranian Nuclear Showdown"

For almost a half century Iran, both under the government of Shah Reza Pahlavi and the succeeding Islamic governments after the Shah's overthrow in 1978, has had a policy of developing nuclear plants for electric power generation. Prior to 1978 the policy had the full support and encouragement of the United States and other western governments which used Iran as a major Middle Eastern ally against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. For example, in 1974 Iran contracted with the American research firm SRI International (the former Stanford Research Institute) for assistance in the design and construction of such plants.

Things changed after the overthrow of the Shah and the subsequent US Embassy hostage crisis, during the course of which American Army Special Forces attempted a military rescue raid in Iran which proved an embarrassing failure. Not only were diplomatic relations between Teheran and Washington broken and never restored, but the US prohibited all direct trade between US business and Iran and sequestered all Iranian assets in the US, including some $18 billion in deposits in American banks, assets which the US government still holds. Admittedly, the ban was covertly lifted during the Reagan presidency when advanced US weapons were sold, through Israeli channels, to Iran and the proceeds diverted to the support of US-directed forces (the "Contras") seeking to overthrow the Nicaraguan government-thus, the "Iran-Contra" scandal. However, this was a momentary digression from the policy, partly rationalized as a means of restoring US influence in Iran's military or establishing links with "moderate elements in Iran" with an eye toward repeating the pro-US military coup of 1953 which ousted Iran's elected government of Mohammed Mossadeq and established the essentially US-controlled monarchy of the Shah. (It might be noted in the context of the present US effort to have Iran sanctioned by the UN Security Council, that prior to the 1953 coup Great Britain, furious at Mossadeq because of his nationalization of British-owned oil fields, unsuccessfully attempted to have the Security Council punish Iran).

Indeed, such was US hostility toward the post-Shah government and its Islamic fundamentalist religious leader, the Ayatolla Khomeini-despite the fact that it was by any definition anti-communist, possibly even more so than the also fundamentalist mujahaddin rebellion the US organized and supported in neighboring Afghanistan-that Washington and its western allies to greater or lesser degrees encouraged, financed, armed, provided intelligence to, and even directly participated in the war of aggression which Iraq launched against Iran in 1980. This participation climaxed in 1988 when a US cruiser operating in Iranian national waters mistakenly shot down an Iranian civil airliner, killing the 100 plus passengers aboard.

Ironically, this western aid included scientific and industrial support for Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. This support proved critical because it was only by resort to massive use of chemical weapons that Iraq-which had disastrously underestimated Iran's ability to rebuild its armed forces following 1978 when most of the pro-Shah senior officer corps left the country-was able to prevent Iran's enthusiastic Islamic volunteers from routing Saddam Hussein's secular baathist regulars. In any event, the war was a disaster for both countries with deaths in the hundreds of thousands and huge economic losses. Less noticed then, but a major factor in current US strategic calculations, was the fact that Iraq's very large Shia Muslim population tended to a great degree to identify with largely Shia Iran and to reject their own secular government whose popular support base, insofar as it was religious, was drawn from Sunni Muslims, traditionally foes of the Shiites they regard as heretics.

When the war ended in 1988, with the United Nations negotiating a ceasefire and then supervising withdrawal of both sides to pre-war borders and repatriation of prisoners, Iran turned its energies to restoring its economy. Iraq, on the other hand, feeling betrayed by its Arab neighbors, particularly Kuwait which Baghdad believed had not only failed to provide promised financial assistance but had actually taken advantage of the war to steal oil from Iraqi fields, committed the extraordinary error of launching its August 1990 attack on Kuwait. Admittedly, Saddam had some reason to believe that his old allies in Washington would tolerate his assault. US Ambassador April Glaspie in Baghdad famously told him on July 25 that the United States "had no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait.The issue is not associated with America."

How wrong was Saddam's belief, because the George H.W. Bush administration seized the opportunity to lead an international coalition to war against Iraq-the Gulf War--; totally crush his painfully reconstructed military forces; and usher in the decade-long era of brutal United Nations economic sanctions that almost completely destroyed what was left of Iraq's once thriving economy and social structure. Saddam and the Baath Party remained in control of the government, somehow retaining the capability of bloodily suppressing a major Shiite rebellion in the southern third of the country and maintaining tenuous control over the Kurdish provinces in the north despite British and US-imposed "no fly regions"-non-UN-authorized activities which prevented the Iraqi air force from supporting Baghdad's military operations there.

While Iraq sank deeper into misery-an impoverished international outcast-Iran, although still seen by the US as an enemy, made a relatively rapid recovery. It continued satisfactory trade relations with everyone but the US and, after the death of the Ayatollah Khomeini, experienced social and political moderation. Certainly, the Shia religious leaders who succeeded Khomeini retained an effective veto over the elected civil government, but by and large Iran's large and cosmopolitan middle and upper classes were not subjected to any Taliban-like repression or even the severe life style restrictions of Saudi Arabia. Compared to many other nations of the Middle East Iran's political system was relatively open. The result of the 2005 national elections which confounded most observers by giving the presidential office to Mahmoud Ahmajinedad, the populist and religiously conservative mayor of Tehran over much better known and wealthier candidates from the Iranian elite is evidence of that.

Iran's conduct of its foreign affairs following the war with Iraq shows no record of disruptive international or regional behavior. As a member of OPEC it has cooperated with that body's policies. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union Teheran quickly established cordial political and economic relationships with the new Russian Federation as well as with the new Near Eastern states formed from the old USSR-the so-called 'Stans. Trade with western Europe has continued; Germany, for instance, exports about $5 billion worth of products annually to Iran. Likewise, Tehran has worked diligently to improve its diplomatic and economic relationships with the rising Asian economic powers of China and India as well as with Japan, which gets over 15 per cent of its petroleum from Iran. Fully conscious of the dangers posed by the Taliban regime in its eastern neighbor of Afghanistan to its own relatively moderate Islamism and comparatively open political system, Iran worked closely with others in the region to counter the efforts of the mujaheddin and, after, 2001 cooperated with the United States in suppressing alQuaeda's activities in the region. Iran, with a significant drug abuse problem among its population, has also been active in efforts to stop the opium and heroin traffic emanating from Afghanistan. Indeed, Iran was notably cooperative with the anti-Iraq coalition during the Gulf War.



THE NUCLEAR ISSUE

More to the point here is that Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1970 by which, while having the right to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy, it pledged not to make nuclear weapons and to submit to the inspections of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a UN body established in 1957, to ensure that it was not doing so. Indeed, Iran has allowed these inspections over the years, and, following the US invasion of Iraq, partly rationalized by charges that Iraq-also an NPT signatory-had or was developing nuclear weapons, went beyond what the NPT required it to do by accepting a so-called "additional protocol" proposed by the European Union. Under this it agreed to suspend its NPT-authorized right to enrich uranium for its nuclear power plants, currently under construction with Russian assistance, while the IAEA conducted detailed investigations to ascertain that Iran was not, as the United States was openly accusing it of doing, using its nuclear power program as a cover for weapons manufacture. After an extraordinary examination, in which Iran cooperated fully, IAEA chief Mohammed Al Baradei, issued a report in November 2004, stating that Iran was in "substantive compliance" not only with its NPT obligations but with those of the "additional protocol" as well.

He did point out, it should be noted, that Iran had previously not reported on or completely explained some activities and possession of traces of some materials. However, having said this, he went on to state that he had found "no indication" that Iran had ever diverted any "special nuclear materials" to a military purpose.A fairminded observer, especially in light of renewed nuclear weapons design work in the United States-also an NPT signatory-might say that since Iran has been engaged in nuclear energy work for over 30 years and during much of that time under threat or actual attack by enemies possessing nuclear weapons-among them the US and Israel-it would be surprising if there had not from time to time been discussion or actual planning for nuclear weapons development in Teheran. Al Baradei's finding of "substantial compliance" probably means that whatever the Iranians had done in this way had not, in fact, been "substantial" in the sense of establishing a meaningful weapons production capability.

However much or little credit one gives to official Iranian statements of policy on nuclear weapons, it is worth recalling that at his inauguration President Aboudinejad made a point of denouncing them and promised that Iran would remain a non-nuclear weapons state. Of equal, if not greater, significance is the fact that the real power in Iran, the man who, among other things, controls its armed forces, is the head of the Shiite clergy, Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei. He has issued a fatwa-a religious ruling-against nuclear weapons.

Granted, Iran, like every other Islamic nation, sees Israel as an enemy, something, as its current president has unwisely said, that should be wiped off the map. It also sponsors the armed Lebanese Shiite group, Hizbollah, which has commited the crime of effectively defending Lebanese territory against Israeli incursions. However, everything taken into consideration, one could make the case that Iran over the years has been a very respectable global citizen and, indeed, if anything has been more sinned against than sinning.



WHAT LIES BEHIND US POLICY

It is against this background that one has to try to explain why the United States ignores, indeed, denounces, the IAEA report's conclusion that Iran is today in "substantial compliance" and instead seizes on its note of possible prior incomplete reporting to charge Iran with being "a threat to peace and security" to be referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctioning or other action. Indeed, when other permanent members of the Security Council, such as Russia and China, question the need for even economic sanctions, senior Bush administration officials, especially Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and UN Ambassador John Bolton, echoed by Israeli government spokesmen, mutter darkly that the use of military force against Iran "remains on the table" as an option. It is even more of a question as to why this issue of possible past Iranian incomplete reporting-and the emphasis here is on "possible"-that both the European Union and the majority of the 39 member countries on the IAEA board-have elevated this to a major international crisis.

It may be that the US and EU intelligence services have more convincing evidence about Iran's alleged nuclear weapons programs and intentions than they have revealed to date. If so, it is puzzling that they have not gone beyond broad accusations and seem to rely on allegations by Iranian exile organizations seeking to restore the monarchy. All this is unhappily reminiscent of the run up to the invasion of Iraq with charges of WMD. Indeed, given the total discrediting of the charges made by US and UK intelligence agencies about Iraq, supported by politically motivated ?migr? groups, it is astonishing that the accusations are not laughed out of the court of world public opinion.

Nevertheless, a US Congress-so badly stung only three years ago by accepting the false representations of the Bush administration about Iraq-snaps eagerly at the Iran bait. Moreover, this time it is the Congress that takes the initiative, rejecting White House cautions about taking unilateral action that would hinder administration efforts to build an international consensus against Iran. On March 15, the House International Relations Committee in a bipartisan 35 to 3 vote, endorsed legislation that would deny US economic assistance to any country that invested in Iran's energy sector or allowed a private entity to do so. Democratic hawk Tom Lantos argued that this would inflict "economic pain on Tehran" and "starve" it of the resources needed to fund its nuclear program. The resolution will probably pass in the House, but indications are that the Senate will reject it. One cannot resist the temptation of saying to the Congress, "Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice; shame on me."

As of now, the matter is before the Security Council, the IAEA accepting Rice's demand that its whole dossier on Iran's nuclear power program be sent there. It is not clear what will be the result of the Council's consideration of the dossier. As noted, IAEA's documentation is far more exculpatory of Iran than otherwise. Moreover, the presidency of the Council has passed from the aggressive, to say the least, US Ambassador Bolton to the Argentine Ambassador Cesar Mayoral who is certainly unlikely to push hard for sanctions. Moreover, permanent Council members China and Russia, both having veto power, are opposed to any punitive action. Granted, both are not completely happy with Iran for not accepting the proposal for abandoning uranium enrichment activities on its own soil and working in partnership with Russia in a Russian plant. Both of them, while accepting that Iran is within its treaty rights in demanding that it have the capability for producing fuel for its nuclear power plants, clearly wish that Iran would compromise on this point, defusing the crisis and, importantly, not forcing them into a confrontation with the US and the EU. That said, in the final analysis it is clear that neither China nor Russia, especially the former, will endorse or take part in any economic or security measures directed against Iran and they will, if necessary, veto any such measures should they come to a vote.

Of all the questions about the "Iranian nuclear crisis" surely the most basic one is why has the United States made it such a major issue? Secondarily, but surely even more puzzling is why has the European Union shown itself so willing to carry Bush administration water in what is by any measure a very dubious cause?

With regard to the US, a factor, ridiculous as it sounds, is desire to punish Iran for overthrowing the Shah and the taking of the embassy hostages twenty-eight years ago. More important is the underlying longterm policy of wanting direct control over the oil resources of the Middle East. This policy, despite the fact that there is little evidence of any inability of the US to access oil in the global market, is intensified by the growingly recognized fact that China and India are becoming ever more powerful competitors for the oil of the region. It is hard to take really seriously Washington claims that Iran-a country of 70 million people, industrially underdeveloped, with no modern record of military adventurism-represents a threat to either the US or its neighbors, with or without a nuclear capability. However, that is not the way the Bush administration, which interprets anything other than total subservience as a threat to US national interests, sees it.

As for the Europeans, it can be argued that, with the exception of the UK and Italy, having taken a principled but totally ineffectual stand against the US aggression in Iraq, they fear that if the US somehow does succeed in its goal of turning Iraq into a quasi-US colony and then is able somehow to subdue Iran, that they will be frozen out of Middle Eastern picture in the future. Perhaps their governing elites worry that failure to join in will mean they will no longer be taken seriously.

Certainly there has been not entirely unfounded speculation that Germany's new Chancellor, Angela Merkel, sees herself in the role of Margaret Thatcher to George Bush's Ronald Reagan. Certainly France's political leadership, shocked by the rejection of the EU constitution and uncertain about how to deal with its growing and restive Islamic immigrant population, has lost the confidence it showed when it opposed the Iraq invasion. Certainly also there can be no real belief in either Berlin or Paris that Iran, whether it enriches its own uranium or not, poses any "threat" to them now or in the foreseeable future.

What they must know, as the King of Jordan warned this week, is that any military attack on Iran, by either the US or Israel, will send the smouldering Middle East and the rest of the Islamic world up in flames, with tragic consequences for the planet. Even the establishment of a sanctions regimen against Iran for, essentially, the crime of insisting on its treaty rights, while Israel holds its several hundred nuclear weapons and the US, while blatantly announcing the modernization of its own nuclear bomb stocks and, in its just-issued strategic doctrine paper, announces that it will use nuclear weapons in any future conflicts when and how it wishes, is likely to have very negative results.

It is a good sign that the UK's foreign minister, Jack Straw, has recently very pointedly distanced himself and his country from Washington on the Iran strategy by saying that the use of military force to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue has been ruled out. Russia and China, as emphasized here, definitely oppose either sanctions or armed force. The rest of the EU, having shown solidarity to this point, appears ready to draw back. The United States, even as Iraq descends into civil war and where the Shiite majority of its population identifies with Iran, is increasingly isolated.

Will Washington, regardless of the weakness of its case and its limited international support, still press on? If it fails to carry the Security Council, as it probably will, will it then take unilateral military or economic action? Military action is madness; unilateral economic sanctions are basically cutting of the American nose to spite the American face.

The Iran nuclear issue. An unnecessary crisis, totally manufactured and fatuously pursued. Just one more Bush administration fiasco.

Who: Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and former UN Human Rights Commissioner
Source: The Times UK
Quotes: From article titled, "Ex-UN chief: America has 'lost its moral compass'"

The United States has lost its moral compass and fallen out of step with the rest of the world in the wake of September 11, the former United Nations human rights commissioner warned tonight.

Mary Robinson expressed sadness and regret at America’s erosion of human rights as part of its "War on Terror".

In a speech in central London, Mrs Robinson praised the British courts for taking a global lead on interpreting international human rights laws.

Highlighting the US’s opposition last week to the creation of a new UN Human Rights Council, Mrs Robinson said: "It illustrates the seismic shift which has taken place in the relation of the US to global rule of law issues. Today, the US no longer leads, but is too often seen merely to march out of step with the rest of the world."

She added that she hoped it was a "temporary loss of moral compass".

Speaking at an event organised by human rights and law reform group Justice, Mrs Robinson - who is also the former President of Ireland - criticised government’s use of Big Brother-style language to cover up their activities.

"Misuse of language has also led to Orwellian euphemisms, so that ’coercive interrogation’ is used instead of torture, or cruel and inhuman treatment; kidnapping becomes ’extraordinary rendition’," she said.

The former Irish leader disputed the argument that the post 9/11 world meant that human rights could be curtailed in the name of security. This would lead to democracies "losing the moral high ground", she said.

"Almost five years after 9/11, I think we must be honest in recognising how far international commitment to human rights standards has slipped in such a short time," she told an audience at Middle Temple Hall.

"In the US in particular, the ambivalence about torture, the use of extraordinary rendition and the extension of presidential powers have all had a powerful ‘knock on’ effect around the world, often in countries that lack the checks and balances of independent courts, a free press and vigorous non-governmental organisation and academic communities.

"The establishment of an off-shore prison in Guantanamo (and) its retention in the face of the most principled and sustained criticism ... are all aspects of this situation."

Mrs Robinson went on: "The tables have turned, and it is UK rather than US courts which are taking a lead as interpreters of fundamental human rights, on the basis of the European Convention and - by extension - the body of international human rights treaty law.

"This new situation is well illustrated by recent House of Lords decisions, most notably their ruling that evidence obtained through torture is inadmissible in any proceedings before UK courts."

But she warned that "political decisions" in Britain - such as pre-trial detention periods or limiting the right to peaceful demonstration - could become examples used to justify the behaviour by the state in less democratic countries.

Source: Los Angeles Times
Quotes: From article titled, "Bush's Requests for Iraqi Base Funding Make Some Wary of Extended Stay"

Even as military planners look to withdraw significant numbers of American troops from Iraq in the coming year, the Bush administration continues to request hundreds of millions of dollars for large bases there, raising concerns over whether they are intended as permanent sites for U.S. forces.

Questions on Capitol Hill about the future of the bases have been prompted by the new emergency spending bill for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives last week with $67.6 billion in funding for the war effort, including the base money.

Although the House approved the measure, lawmakers are demanding that the Pentagon explain its plans for the bases, and they unanimously passed a provision blocking the use of funds for base agreements with the Iraqi government.

"It's the kind of thing that incites terrorism," Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said of long-term or permanent U.S. bases in countries such as Iraq.

Paul, a critic of the war, is co-sponsoring a bipartisan bill that would make it official policy not to maintain such bases in Iraq. He noted that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden cited U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia as grounds for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Source: Guardian UK
Quotes: From article titled, "Pakistani Taliban take control of unruly tribal belt"

A powerful new militia dubbed "the Pakistani Taliban" has effectively seized control of swaths of the country's northern tribal areas in recent months, triggering alarm in Islamabad and marking a big setback in America's "war on terror".

The militants are strongest in North and South Waziristan, two of seven tribal agencies on the border with Afghanistan. Strict social edicts have been handed down: shopkeepers may not sell music or films; barbers are instructed not to shave beards. Yesterday a bomb blew up a radio transmitter in Wana, taking the state radio off the air.

The Pakistani military deployed 70,000 troops to Waziristan two years ago to rein in the militants. But the campaign is faltering. An army assault against an alleged al-Qaida training camp outside Miran Shah on March 1 left more than 100 dead.

Comparisons to the emergence of the Afghan Taliban in the early 1990s are increasing. Although they have distinct identities, the groups are strongly linked - both are ethnic Pashtun - and Afghans use Waziristan as a rear base.

Analysts say the Pakistani Taliban is a loose alliance of tribal militia operating under radical clerics such as Sadiq Noor and Abdul Khaliq. Many are angered by heavy-handed Pakistani military attacks against suspected al-Qaida hideouts, which are thought to have killed hundreds of civilians over the last two years.

The tribesmen are allied with al-Qaida fugitives, mostly from Uzbekistan and Chechnya. The foreigners have blended into the tribal structures, buying loyalties and marrying local women.

Such attacks have won the militants much support. "These are not the proper Taliban," said the refugee Mr [Fareed Ullah] Khan. "They are the common people who have revolted against the [Pakistani] government and targeted killings by Americans."

Who: President George W. Bush
Source: The White House
Quotes: From "Press Conference of the President"

Q Will there come a day -- and I'm not asking you when, not asking for a timetable -- will there come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: That, of course, is an objective, and that will be decided by future Presidents and future governments of Iraq.

Q So it won't happen on your watch?

THE PRESIDENT: You mean a complete withdrawal? That's a timetable. I can only tell you that I will make decisions on force levels based upon what the commanders on the ground say.

Who: Muhammad Said, Iraqi Citizen
Source: The New York Times
Quotes: From article titled, "New Business Blooms in Iraq: Terror Insurance?"

Twice in the past year, Muhammad Said has survived assassination attempts that left his car riddled with bullets. He works part time as a bodyguard for his father, a Baghdad city councilman, and helps a friend who has contracts with the American military. Both are very dangerous jobs.

So last month, Mr. Said, a slim, baby-faced 23-year-old, did what a small but growing number of Iraqis are doing: He walked into the offices of the Iraq Insurance Company and bought a terrorism insurance policy. It looked like an ordinary life insurance policy, but with a one-page rider adding coverage for "the following dangers: 1) explosions caused by weapons of war and car bombs; 2) assassinations; 3) terrorist attacks."

It cost him 125,000 dinars, about $90. Mr. Said paid more than most people because of his risky occupation. The payout, if he dies, is five million dinars, around $3,500, or about what an Iraqi policeman earns in a year.

That guarantee appears to be the first off-the-shelf terrorism policy in the world, insurance experts say. In most countries, of course, there is no need for it: death by terrorism is rare enough that it is usually covered by ordinary accident insurance. In Iraq it is not, partly because the state used to compensate the families of war victims directly. So the Iraq Insurance Company began stepping into the gap about a year ago.

Who: Oguz Celikkol, Turkey's Special Envoy to Iraq
Source: TurkishPress.com
Quotes: From article titled, "Celikkol: Iraq Has Never Been Such Close To Civil War"

''Iraq has never been such close to civil war. Only political process in the country can prevent this,'' Turkey's special envoy to Iraq Oguz Celikkol said on Thursday.

Speaking to private NTV television on Thursday, Celikkol said, ''all leaders I met in Iraq are uneasy about a possible civil war. Iraq has never been such close to civil war after Saddam regime.''

''Turkey wants Iraq to form a national unity government which represents all parts of the society. Meetings continue with Iraqi groups within that scope,'' added Celikkol.

''A delegation from Iraqi Islamic Party arrived in Istanbul last week. Shi'ite leader Muqtada al-Sadr may also visit Turkey after a new government is formed in Iraq,'' said Celikkol.

He noted, ''PKK terrorist organization is a problem both for Turkey and Iraq. We expect concrete steps to be taken against PKK with contribution of the United States after a new government is established in Iraq.''

Who: Iyad Allawi, former Prime Minister of Iraq
Source: BBC
Quotes: From article titled, "Iraq in civil war, says former PM"

Mr Allawi heads the Iraqi National List, a secular nationalist alliance made up of Sunnis and Shias.

Speaking on BBC TV's Sunday AM programme, he said it would be a mistake to underplay Iraq's problems, although the country was "edging towards" a political deal.

He said he had warned against creating a vacuum in the country and raised concerns about the insurgents and the dismantling of the military.

"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more.

"If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."

Mr Allawi added that a national unity government may not be "an immediate solution" to the country's problems.

Iraq is moving towards the "point of no return", he said, when the country would fragment.

"It will not only fall apart but sectarianism will spread throughout the region, and even Europe and the US will not be spared the violence that results...," he said.

Who: Patrick Seale, Writer and Middle-East Consultant
Source: The News International
Quotes: From article titled, "Britain breaks with the US over Iran"

Britain has told the United States that it will not take part in any armed action against Iran’s nuclear sites, according to diplomatic sources in London. Already facing huge public criticism for his participation in the Iraq war, Prime Minister Tony Blair is seeking to distance himself from America’s belligerent rhetoric towards Iran.

There is a real fear that if Iran refuses to yield to pressure either by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or by the UN Security Council to which Iran was formally referred on March 8 then the US would be left with no other option than to strike. The US may indeed have boxed itself into a corner by its threats, which Iran has scornfully rejected.

The view in Whitehall is that if America attacks Iran, it will have to do so alone or with Israel. In private discussions, British officials have made clear that any sort of military campaign against Iran would be "madness".

Despite its close alliance with the US, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has departed publicly from aggressive statements by senior US officials. He has ruled out military action by Britain against Iran as "inconceivable".

Analysts in London are now convinced that Washington’s real aim is "regime change" in Tehran, an ambition which goes far beyond merely delaying or halting Iran’s nuclear programme.

As with the invasion of Iraq, the campaign against Iran seems to be driven by neocons and other pro-Israeli activists. Richard Perle one of the most eager advocates of the Iraq war has been beating the drums of war against Iran, as has the pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The Israeli daily Haaretz reported on March 10 that "in recent months, IDF officers have visited Washington to offer their support for a military strike should the diplomatic channels fail to bring Iran to heel".

American war fever against Iran seem largely to do with Israel. It includes Iran’s support for anti-Israeli militant groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remarks about "wiping Israel off the map", which most independent observers dismiss as an angry response to Israel’s brutal oppression of the Palestinians and not in any sense a realistic threat.

The inescapable conclusion would seem to be that the US should start direct talks with Iran as soon as possible. It may be the only way to defuse the threat of war, to provide the US with an exit strategy from Iraq and to build bridges to an inflamed Muslim public opinion.

Who: Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Oakland)
Source: Truthout.org
Quotes: From article titled, "Barbara Lee Amendment on Permanent Bases Approved in Debate on Iraq War Supplemental Spending Bill"

Today, during debate on the to an emergency spending bill for the War in Iraq, the House approved an amendment introduced by Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) that will prohibit the use of funds to enter in to basing agreements that would lead to a permanent military presence in Iraq.

The amendment to H.R.4939, the administration's $91 billion supplemental request for Iraq, Afghanistan and Katrina relief, was approved by a voice vote. Lee, who last year introduced H.Con.Res. 197, to make it "the policy of the United States not to enter into any base agreement with the Government of Iraq that would lead to a permanent United States military presence in Iraq," gave the following statement on the House floor:

"This amendment is not about the war, though I offered an alternative to keep us out of Iraq. This amendment is not about bringing our troops home, though I believe we should. This amendment is not about holding the President accountable for misleading us into an unjust and unnecessary war, though we should.

"Mr. Chairman, the amendment we are offering is very simple: it would provide that no funds be used under this bill to enter into military base agreements between the US and Iraq. Stating this will clearly indicate that the US has no intention of making military bases permanent.

"Mr. Chairman, can't we all agree - right here and right now - that we should not be in Iraq permanently. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the administration's position is unclear.

Mr. Chairman, the President shares our view and has said as much. April 13, 2004 the President said, 'as a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation, and neither does America.'

"But just yesterday, General John Abazaid, the Army general in charge of the US troops in Iraq, told the House Defense Appropriations committee that the US could end up having permanent bases in Iraq.

"Mr. Chairman, we need to be clear. The aim of our amendment is to simply codify the sentiment that the President, many of our constituents, and many of us strongly believe."

Source: Ireland On-Line
Quotes: From article titled, "Saddam 'suspected al-Qaia in side Iraq in 2002'"

Iraqi documents collected by US intelligence during the Iraq war and released by the Bush administration show Saddam Hussein’s regime was investigating “rumours” that 3,000 Iraqis and Saudis had travelled unofficially to Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks to fight US troops.

The documents, the first of thousands expected to be declassified over the next several months, were released last night via a Pentagon website at the direction of National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.

Many were in Arabic – with no English translation – including one the administration said showed that Iraqi intelligence officials suspected al Qaida members were inside Iraq in 2002.

However, one of the documents, a letter from an Iraqi intelligence official, dated August 17, 2002, asked agents in the country to be on the lookout for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and another unnamed man whose picture was attached.

Source: The Daily Star
Quotes: From article titled, "Iran: Bandits who killed 22 people tied to U.S., U.K."

Afghan bandits with links to U.S. and British security services have killed 22 people in Iran and seized an unknown number of others in an ambush that also left a senior official critically wounded, officials said Friday.

Police said "a group of armed bandits who crossed the Afghanistan border killed 21 people and injured another seven innocent people driving in their vehicles" between the border city of Zabol and Zahedan, the provincial capital of Sistan-Baluchistan.

"A number of victims' families have told us their relatives have been taken hostage, but we cannot confirm it yet," he added.

Iran's police commander, Brigadier General Ismail Ahmadi-Moqaddam, told state television "we have information that the bandits in Sistan-Baluchistan area had some meetings with the British and the American security services.

"These services have dictated plans to the bandits on how to destabilize the area. They are trying to spread disputes between Shiites and Sunnis. This is a terrorist action against innocent civilians," he said. Ahmadi-Moqaddam said the bandits had killed Shiites, who were stopped at a fake checkpoint. "There is the possibility that the bandits have escaped to Afghanistan since the area is close to the border."

Source: Iran Press Service
Quotes: From article titled, "In a Dramatic Shift Of Policy, Iran Says Ready To Direct Talks With US Over Iraq"

Iran exploded a diplomatic bombshell announcing on Thursday that it would meet the United States directly for the first time in decades.

"We will accept the request by Ayatollah Abdol Aziz Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution of Iraq (SAIRI) about talking to the Americans on Iraqi problems”, Mr. Ali Larijani, the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme Council on National Security (SCNS) told a closed door, unscheduled meeting of the Majles, or the Iranian Parliament.

We will accept the request by Ayatollah Abdol Aziz Hakim about talking to the Americans on Iraqi problems.

“No matter of the subject and no matter who initiated it, that Iran accepts to meet Americans directly at this juncture is important, for it shows that the clerical-led political establishment has realised the dangers it faces. It is also very important because such decisions can not be taken without prior approval by Ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i, who, as the absolute leader of the regime has the last word on any major domestic or foreign policy”, one political analyst commented.

“Considering that the request emanates from one of the most distinguished Islamic leaders of Iraq, therefore, the Islamic Republic, in order to help resolve the problems in Iraq and the realisation of an independent government and real freedom there would accept and would appoint people to carry out discussions about Iraq", he pointed out.

Though Mr. Larijani named no one in particular, but informed Iranian diplomatic sources said it is highly probable that the Iranian delegation for talks with the Americans be led by Mr. Mehdi Safari, a former ambassador to Moscow who is the Foreign Affairs Minister's Special Envoy for Iraq.

Tehran accepts the painful U-turn from its basic diplomacy sat by Mr. Khameneh’i on “no to dialogue with the Great Satan on any circumstance” at a time that Washington increases pressures on the Iranian theocratic regime over its controversial nuclear activities.

On instructions from the White House, Mr. Zalmay Khalizad, the Afghan-born American ambassador to Baghdad had ten days ago proposed to the Iranians a meeting aimed at discussing ways and means to cooperate about mounting Iraqi difficulties, including averting the dangerous escalation of religious war and the formation of a government representing all ethnic and religious components of the fragmented nation, but Tehran had refused the suggestion.

“When (the now toppled Iraqi dictator) Saddam was in power and the Americans, the Europeans and Arab countries were supporting him, all Iraqi Shi’ites, Kurds and even Sunnis were our guests and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis had found refuge here. This something that the Iraqis never forget”, the semi-official Students News Agency ISNA quoted Mr. Larijani as having told reporters on the sideline of the Majles meeting centred on the latest situation over the nuclear standoff.

It is a long time that the Americans have made this request. Their ambassador has said several times that solving some of Iraqi problems needs talking to Iranians. But we don’t trust them. Every time they need us, they make such demands to say other things afterward”, he added, reminding that in Iraq, “our natural ally” , Iran has supported the Iraqi Constitution, the elections of the Parliament, the formation of a new government as well as the process of democracy.

“At the same time, we have always said that the troubles in Iraq come from the occupiers”, Mr. Larijani, a former revolutionary guard officer and a close advisor to the Iranian fundamentalist and bellicose President Mahmoud Ahmadi Nezhad stressed.

Khalilzad has criticized what he called Iran's "negative role" in Iraqi affairs, saying the country's diplomatic relationship with its neighbor was tainted by a policy "to work with militias, to work with extremist groups, to provide training and weapons."

He added that there was evidence the Iranians provided "indirect help" to Sunni Arab insurgents who attack U.S. and Iraqi government troops.

Iran denies the accusations and says that “based on intelligence reports, CIA and Israel are behind the bombing of religious places”, including the shrine of two Shi’ite imams at Samarra last month that triggered a deadly wave on inter-religious killing between the dominant Shi’ites and the minority Sunni Muslims.

Who: Mohammed Kashmoula, Governor of Mosul
Source: Azzaman
Quotes: From article titled, "Governor permits Mosul residents to carry arms as security worsens"

Governor Mohammed Kashmoula urged the inhabitants to apply for gun licenses “to defend themselves.” The move comes as the city, the country’s second largest, has plunged into a vicious circle of violence with a surge in abductions and violent crime incidence.

Mosul, the capital of the Province of Nineveh, was the first city in Iraq to elect a council and for a short time was seen as a major success story of post-Saddam era. But conditions worsened when armed groups began moving operations there. The city is now believed to be a bastion for anti-U.S. resistance with certain quarters completely outside government control.

Many of the inhabitants have fled and the Iraqi security forces there are too weak to combat rising crime and deal with the resistance.

Who: Issam al-Jalabi (Iraqi Oil Minister) & Joint Mujahideen Command (Insurgent group)
Source: Azzaman
Quotes: From article titled, "Former minister warns of precipitous decline of oil sector; armed group vows to intensify attacks"

Oil output will decline drastically if the government fails to raise enough funds to rehabilitate the sector, warned former Oil Minister Issam al-Jalabi.

Jalabi, who is currently one of the world’s most authoritative experts on Middle East oil, said at least $2 billion were urgently needed to stop further deterioration. Jalabi’s pessimistic forecasts came amid reports that armed groups had vowed to escalate attacks on oil installations.

The group, called the Joint Mujahideen Command, said attacking oil installations was its key strategy to deny the government the financial resources it needs to survive. “We are determined to destroy this government. We shall continue targeting their points of weakness, namely oil,” the group said. ... “We call on our fighters to escalate their attacks and bring oil exports to a halt. Once that happens, they (the government) will fail to finance their militias to fight us,” the group said.

Jalabi predicted the crisis to continue for up to four more years.

“The destruction of the oil fields and installations which started with the (U.N.) trade sanctions is proceeding,” he said.

The oil sector, he added, has seen “no major improvements” since the U.S. invasion. No new oil fields have been drilled and old ones are left unrepaired.” As a result, he said, oil output has been declined from 2.8 million barrels before the U.S. invasion to 1.7 million barrels.

Source: Bloomberg News
Quotes: From article titled, "U.S. War Spending to Rise 44% to $9.8 Bln a Month, Report Says"

U.S. military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will average 44 percent more in the current fiscal year than in fiscal 2005, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said.

Spending will rise to $9.8 billion a month from the $6.8 billion a month the Pentagon said it spent last year, the research service said. The group's March 10 report cites ``substantial'' expenses to replace or repair damaged weapons, aircraft, vehicles, radios and spare parts.

It also figures in costs for health care, fuel, national intelligence and the training of Iraqi and Afghan security forces -- ``now a substantial expense,'' it said.

The research service said it considers ``all war and occupation costs,'' while the Pentagon counts just the cost of personnel, maintenance and operations.

Spending on the wars and hurricane relief will help widen the federal budget deficit to a record $423 billion this fiscal 2006, an increase from last year's $319 billion deficit, the administration forecast last month.

Who: Condoleeza Rice, Secretary of State
Source: CNN
Quotes: From article titled, "Rice: Iraq reforms to take years"

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday [in Australia] that Iraq's political transition will take a couple of years, acknowledging the process that is currently stalled will not move swiftly.

"I think that there is a very good chance that the Iraqi people, with the support of their coalition partners, will build a good foundation, a political foundation, for a stable and secure Iraq over the next couple years," Rice said. "This is a difficult task."

She added, "We should express confidence in them because every time they have been confronted with a challenge," Iraqis have risen to the occasion.

A day before Rice arrived, Australia said it will keep troops in Iraq at least well into next year and announced a larger mission for about 450 troops now stationed in southern Iraq.

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald
Quotes: From article titled, "America can't block UN's new human rights body"

In an unusual split with the US, Australia was one of the 170 countries that supported a new body to replace the discredited Human Rights Commission.

The Human Rights Council will have upgraded status, will be a standing body which meets regularly - the old commission met for just a few weeks each year - and hold special sessions to deal with a crisis.

The new council is one of the more important UN changes which the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has been calling for, and which came out of the summit of world leaders last September.

... The new body will be elected by the entire General Assembly.

The US was one of just four countries to oppose the new body, and demanded that each country's vote be recorded. Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau also voted against it.

Mr Bolton said the US objected to dropping the requirement that two-thirds of the countries in the General Assembly had to support a candidate state for it to be elected to the council. Instead, members will be elected by a simple majority.

Mr Bolton also said that countries which were subject to sanctions for human rights abuses or for supporting terrorism should also be barred.

Australia, in a joint statement with New Zealand and Canada, said it would have liked a two-thirds requirement for membership, and tougher provisions for preventing abusers of human rights being elected, but voted in favour anyway.

... The first vote for the council will be in May.

Who: Mullah Mohammad Omar (Taliban Leader) & Rear Admiral Robert Moeller (U.S. Central Command director for plans and policy)
Source: Reuters Canada
Quotes: From article titled, "Afghan Taliban chief vows "unimaginable" violence"

Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar vowed a ferocious offensive against U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, saying on Thursday they would soon face unimaginable violence.

An insurgency that has killed more than 1,500 people since the start of last year has intensified in recent months with a wave of suicide bombings, including at least 12 this year.

Ten U.S. troops have been killed in combat this year and U.S. commanders have said they expect violence to increase in coming months as the weather warms, snow on mountain passes melts, and Afghanistan's traditional fighting season begins.

"With the arrival of the warm weather, we will make the ground so hot for the invaders it will be unimaginable for them," Omar said in his message, read by Taliban spokesman Mohammad Hanif over the telephone from an undisclosed location.

A U.S. commander said last week an upsurge in violence was expected as U.S. and NATO forces extend their reach into parts of Afghanistan where the insurgent presence is greater.

"We anticipate that we are going to see a fairly violent spring and summer and then an improvement in overall conditions," U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Robert Moeller, U.S. Central Command director for plans and policy, told a congressional hearing.

The 26-member NATO alliance is preparing to expand its International Security Assistance Force mission -- already in the north, west and in the capital Kabul -- to the more volatile south and ultimately the east, raising its troop numbers to 16,000 from 9,000.

About 18,000 U.S. troops in the country are targeting Taliban and al Qaeda forces, but the United States hope to cut numbers by several thousand as NATO forces take on more responsibilities and the Afghan army becomes stronger.

Who: Jumah Al Dossari, a Bahraini national held prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
Source: Center for Constitutional Rights
Quotes: From article titled, "Attorneys Representing Guantánamo Detainees React to Shocking Guantánamo Suicide Letter Just Released by The U.S."

In New York, on March 15, 2006, attorneys representing Guantánamo detainees at the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) reacted to the first detainee suicide letter ever declassified by the U.S. Government, blasting the Bush Administration for driving detainees to suicide through indefinite detentions, mistreatment and torture at the base. The shocking letter by Jumah Al Dossari, a Bahraini national whose attorney found him hanging by his neck in a suicide attempt at Guantánamo in October 2005, describes how the horrific conditions of Jumah’s confinement and indefinite detention drove him to try to take his own life. In his letter, Jumah seeks to make his “voice heard by the world from the depths of the detention centers” and implores the “fair people of America to look again at the situation and try to have a moment of truth…”

Description and Status

"This disturbing new letter reveals a man brought to the brink of self-destruction because of the government's inhumane policies of indefinite detention and mistreatment - affecting hundreds of people who have not been accused of a crime or even afforded the most basic due process in court," said CCR Deputy Legal Director Barbara Olshansky.

"Jumah's letter is a haunting reminder of the meeting I had with him just before he slashed and hung himself. Jumah had repeatedly begged us to get him out of isolation. Because our request to the court for this relief was denied on technical grounds, we implored the military to hold Jumah under more humane conditions, and we continue to do so. Our grave fear is that if the military persists in denying our requests, Jumah, who by the military's own count has tried to kill himself ten times in U.S. custody, will not survive Guantanamo," said Joshua Colangelo-Bryan of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, co-counsel with the Center for Constitutional Rights for Jumah.

On March 22, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will hear oral argument relating to the government's motion to dismiss Jumah's case and those of all other Guantanamo detainees.

Who: Noah Shachtman, Journalist and editor of "Defense Tech" at Military.org
Source: DefenseTech.org
Quotes: From article titled, "The Enemy is Me"

Last summer, a U.S. Colonel in Baghdad told me that I was America's enemy, or very close to it. For months, I had been covering the U.S. military's efforts to deal with the threat of IEDs, improvised explosive devices. And my writing, he told me, was going too far -- especially this January 2005 Wired News story, in which I described some of the Pentagon's more exotic attempts to counter these bombs.

None of the material in the story -- the stuff about microwave blasters or radio frequency jammers -- was classified, he admitted. Most of it had been taken from open source materials. And many of the systems were years and years from being fielded. But by bundling it all together, I was doing a "world class job of doing the enemy's research for him, for free." So watch your step, he said, as I went back to my ride-alongs with the Baghdad Bomb Squad -- the American soldiers defusing IEDs in the area.

Today, I hear that the President and the Pentagon's higher-ups are trotting out the same argument. "News coverage of this topic has provided a rich source of information for the enemy, and we inadvertently contribute to our enemies' collection efforts through our responses to media interest," states a draft Defense Department memo, obtained by Inside Defense. "Individual pieces of information, though possibly insignificant taken alone, when aggregated provide robust information about our capabilities and weaknesses."

In other words, Al Qaeda hasn't discovered how to Google, yet. Don't help 'em out.

This was taken to ridiculous extremes yesterday by President Bush, who said:

Earlier this year, a newspaper published details of a new anti-IED technology that was being developed. Within five days of the publication -- using details from that article -- the enemy had posted instructions for defeating this new technology on the Internet. We cannot let the enemy know how we're working to defeat him.


Folks, that doesn't pass the laugh test. This technology, Ionatron's Joint IED Neutralizer, hasn't even been shipped to the field -- and may never get there. So insurgents are posting instructions on how to beat a device that they've never seen? Based on a few, vague paragraphs in the L.A. Times? Yeah, right.

Who: Max Boot, Opinion Writer & self-proclaimed Neoconservative
Source: The American Interest via History News Network
Quotes: From March 8, 2006 article titled, "Guess What? We're Winning"

To listen to the critics, you would think that the Iraq war was the biggest blunder in U.S. history and George W. Bush the worst president ever. Comparisons with Vietnam have already become a cliché, but that's not going far enough for the respected Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld. In a November 2005 article in The Forward, he called the invasion of Iraq "the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C. sent his legions into Germany and lost them." Most Americans are more judicious, but polls indicate that a majority doesn't trust Bush's handling of Iraq and now thinks the invasion was a mistake. Although only a minority favors an immediate pullout, ever more Americans seem to agree with Democratic chairman Howard Dean, who said on December 5 that "the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong."

As we mark the war's third anniversary, it is worth asking whether such sentiments are justified or whether they represent an emotional overreaction to the sorts of temporary setbacks that occur in every major conflict. The answer is, of course, unknowable until we see how the war turns out. It won't be clear for years whether Iraq becomes a stable democracy or whether, as critics expect, it becomes mired in despotism or internecine conflict. It is entirely possible that the naysayers will be proven right and the invasion will go down as a fiasco. This might be a self-fulfilling prophecy, however, for the more opposition there is on the home front, the less chance there is for our troops to prevail.

... we can see that although the Administration has made plenty of mistakes, their consequences are not irredeemably calamitous. To his credit, President Bush has not made the most critical mistake of all: He has not lost his nerve in difficult times, as have so many Democrats who initially supported the invasion. Thanks to the President's fortitude, the Iraqi people's resilience and, above all, the skill and bravery of Coalition armed forces, victory is still the most likely outcome. But due at least in part to Administration missteps, that victory will be a good deal harder to achieve than it needed to be.

... In Iraq, we are losing an average of two soldiers a day, a pace that would require another 76 years for U.S. deaths in Iraq to match those in Vietnam.

... if, decades from now, Iraq emerges as a stable democracy and the Middle East becomes a better place, future historians may well marvel at how cheaply and skillfully this transformation was achieved. It's good that we as a nation are hard on ourselves, that we expect a lot from our leaders and have little patience for incompetence. It's not so good that we sometimes set our expectations unrealistically high. If we took our own history more seriously, we might learn to temper our expectations with humility and to find a greater capacity for patience. We surely need more of both.

Who: Francis Fukuyama, Neoconservative author and signatory of a letter to Pres. Clinton and a letter to Pres. Bush through the "Project for a New American Century" to overthrow Saddam Hussein
Source: The Scotsman
Quotes: From February 21, 2006 article titled, "Neocon architect says: 'Pull it down'"

Francis Fukuyama, who wrote the best-selling book The End of History and was a member of the neoconservative project, now says that, both as a political symbol and a body of thought, it has "evolved into something I can no longer support". He says it should be discarded on to history's pile of discredited ideologies.

In an extract from his forthcoming book, America at the Crossroads, Mr Fukuyama declares that the doctrine "is now in shambles" and that its failure has demonstrated "the danger of good intentions carried to extremes".

In its narrowest form, neoconservatism advocates the use of military force, unilaterally if necessary, to replace autocratic regimes with democratic ones.

Mr Fukuyama now thinks the war in Iraq is the wrong sort of war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

"The most basic misjudgment was an overestimation of the threat facing the United States from radical Islamism," he argues.

"Although the new and ominous possibility of undeterrable terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction did indeed present itself, advocates of the war wrongly conflated this with the threat presented by Iraq and with the rogue state/proliferation problem more generally."

Mr Fukuyama, one of the US's most influential public intellectuals, concludes that "it seems very unlikely that history will judge either the intervention [in Iraq] itself or the ideas animating it kindly".

Going further, he says the movements' advocates are Leninists who "believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practised by the United States".

Although Mr Fukuyama still supports the idea of democratic reform - complete with establishing the institutions of liberal modernity - in the Middle East, he warns that this process alone will not immediately reduce the threats and dangers the US faces. "Radical Islamism is a by-product of modernisation itself, arising from the loss of identity that accompanies the transition to a modern, pluralist society. More democracy will mean more alienation, radicalisation and - yes, unfortunately - terrorism," he says.

"By definition, outsiders can't 'impose' democracy on a country that doesn't want it; demand for democracy and reform must be domestic. Democracy promotion is therefore a long-term and opportunistic process that has to await the gradual ripening of political and economic conditions to be effective."

Source: Associated Press via Independent UK
Quotes: From article titled, "Major Iraq air assault launched"

In a well-publicised show of force, US and Iraqi forces swept into the countryside north of Baghdad in 50 helicopters yesterday, looking for insurgents in what the American military called its "largest air assault " in nearly three years.

The military said that the assault - Operation Swarmer - detained 41 people, found stolen uniforms and captured weapons including explosives used in making roadside bombs. It said the operation would continue over several days.

The attack was launched as Iraq's new parliament met briefly for the first time. Lawmakers took the oath but did no business and adjourned after just 40 minutes, unable to agree on a speaker, let alone a prime minister. The legislature set no date to meet again.

Still, the session marked a small step toward forming a unity government that the US hopes will calm the insurgency and enable it to begin withdrawing American troops.

Yesterday's operation appeared concentrated near four villages - Jillam, Mamlaha, Banat Hassan and Bukaddou - about 20 miles north of Samarra. The settlements are near the highway leading from Samarra to the city of Adwar, scene of repeated insurgent roadblocks and ambushes.

Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable said the operation was the biggest air assault since 22 April 2003, when the 101st Airborne Division launched an operation against the northern city of Mosul from Iskandariyah, south of Baghdad.

UPDATE:

Source: Time Magazine
Quotes: From article titled, "On Scene: How Operation Swarmer Fizzled"

The press, flown in from Baghdad to this agricultural gridiron northeast of Samarra, huddled around the Iraqi officials and U.S. Army commanders who explained that the "largest air assault since 2003" in Iraq using over 50 helicopters to put 1500 Iraqi and U.S. troops on the ground had netted 48 suspected insurgents, 17 of which had already been cleared and released. The area, explained the officials, has long been suspected of being used as a base for insurgents operating in and around Samarra, the city north of Baghdad where the bombing of a sacred shrine recently sparked a wave of sectarian violence.

But contrary to what many many television networks erroneously reported, the operation was by no means the largest use of airpower since the start of the war. ("Air Assault" is a military term that refers specifically to transporting troops into an area.) In fact, there were no airstrikes and no leading insurgents were nabbed in an operation that some skeptical military analysts described as little more than a photo op. What’s more, there were no shots fired at all and the units had met no resistance, said the U.S. and Iraqi commanders.

The operation, which doubled the population of the flat farmland in one single airlift, was initiated by intelligence from Iraq security forces, says Lt Col Skip Johnson commander of the 187 Battallion, 3rd Combat Brigade of the 101st Airborne. "They have the lead," he said to reporters at the second stop of the tour. But by Friday afternoon, the major targets seemed to have slipped through their fingers.