Tuesday,
September 29, 2009
(Update - Oct. 3, 2009)
Note:
Some items contained herein may contain additional formatting, emphasis and
hotlinks for enhanced context and perspective ~ Owen |
Obama, Nuclear Arms Reduction, and the Immense Power of the Israel
Lobby By Stephen Sniegoski Thornwalker.com 10.3.09 However,
Israel and its lobby have been able to get the US to pursue policies that bring the US close to war, and without
that pressure the relations between the US and Iran would be far more
tranquil. (See, for example, the CFR-sponsored
report “Iran: Time for a New Approach,” 2004, discussed
on p. 259 of “The Transparent Cabal”) |
Archives
& Resources ·
As The World Squirms (previous editions) ·
Menu – Updating Information Sources ·
Political Music & Music Videos ·
U.S. Israel Lobby & General (Videos, Commentaries, Interviews) |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Top Things You Think You Know About Iran That Are Not True By Juan Cole JuanCole.com
– Informed Comment October
1, 2009 Thursday
is a fateful day for the world, as the US, other members of the United Nations Security
Council, and Germany meet in Geneva with Iran in a bid to resolve
outstanding issues. Although Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had earlier
attempted to put the nuclear issue off the bargaining table, this rhetorical
flourish was a mere opening gambit and nuclear issues will certainly dominate
the talks. As Henry Kissinger pointed out, these talks are just beginning and
there are highly unlikely to be any breakthroughs for a very long time.
Diplomacy is a marathon, not a sprint. New Doubt
Cast on U.S. Claim Qom Plant is Illicit IPS News Service October 2, 2009 WASHINGTON,
Oct 2 (IPS) - An Iranian assertion that construction on its second enrichment
facility began only last year and further analysis of satellite photos of the
site have cast fresh doubts on the Barack Obama administration's charge that
the construction of the plant near Qom involved a covert decision to violate
Iran's obligations to report immediately to the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) on any decision to build a new facility. …At a Sep. 25 briefing
on the site, senior administration officials refused to provide any specific
information to back up the claim that construction had begun before the March
2007 Iranian withdrawal from an agreement requiring that it inform the IAEA
immediately of any decision to build a nuclear facility. …Meanwhile, a new
photo analysis by the Washington-based Institute for Science and
International Security (ISIS) of the Qom site in 2004 and 2005 suggests it
was not dedicated to building a uranium enrichment facility at that time. (More…) |
Iran's Nuclear
Program: Iran Truthful, in Treaty Compliance; US/Israel Lying, in Treaty
Violation
By Carl Herman
LA County
Nonpartisan Examiner
September 29, 2009
Enough Rope
Yet? By Gordon Prather September 25, 2009
Indeed,
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin is alleged to have said
something to that effect about those whom modern-day Russians apparently
recognize to be the ghost-writers of the draft UNSCR 1887 – the proponents and
enablers of the American Hegemony. You
see, Bonkers Bolton’s successors and acolytes in the Obama-Biden
administration had attempted to get Iran singled out by name as
an example of a State not in compliance with its NPT
"obligations" – and hence, ineligible to enjoy the benefits of the
peaceful use of atomic energy guaranteed them by the NPT – but the Russians
and Chinese objected. Why
did they object? Because
as they – and the vast majority of the heads of state of the Non-Aligned
Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Arab League and the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization – know, it is the United
States which for decades has been in outrageous non-compliance with its
NPT obligations. In
particular, Iran’s principal NPT obligation is to not "manufacture or otherwise acquire
nuclear weapons," and to conclude a Safeguards Agreement with the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), covering certain NPT-proscribed
"nuclear materials" in Iran and all activities involving their
chemical or physical transformation, "with a view to preventing
diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons." As a
result of exhaustive on-the-ground inspections and on-site monitoring of
Iranian Safeguarded activities, IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei
continues to "verify" the non-diversion of all Iranian
NPT-proscribed materials. Furthermore,
ElBaradei has – pursuant to requests made of him in several of the UN
Security Council Resolutions cited in UNSCR 1887 – also conducted exhaustive
inspections of Iran’s import records, going back several decades, as well as
inspections of certain military and commercial sites, alleged to have been
somehow connected to an attempt by Iran to "manufacture or otherwise
acquire nuclear weapons." As of this writing, ElBaradei has been unable
to find any evidence of any such attempt. In other
words, according to USCR 1887, Iran continues to be assured of receiving all
benefits available without discrimination to NPT-signatories in good
standing. On the other hand, the principal obligation undertaken by
the United States under the NPT is to "pursue negotiations in good faith
on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an
early date and to nuclear disarmament." Furthermore, the U.S. has undertaken to "cooperate"
with "other States" in contributing to the "further
development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes,
especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapons States Party to the
Treaty," such as Iran, for example, and "without discrimination." Clinton-Gore and Bush-Cheney – aided and abetted by The Best
Congress Money Can Buy – have done nothing but
"discriminate" against Iran in blatant violation of the NPT, the
IAEA Statute and the UN Charter, itself. Initially
claiming that Iran had a secret nuclear weapons program, undetected by the
IAEA, they have in recent years simply claimed that Iran’s IAEA-Safeguarded
program, in and of itself, constitutes "a threat to the peace of the
region" and must be suspended, indefinitely. Or else. Now, surely Obama is not as dumb as Dubya. Surely he realizes
what we have been doing to Iran for the past twenty years because it insists
on exercising its inalienable rights under the NPT and the IAEA Statute and
the UN Charter is not only illegal but immoral. According
to a Newsweek "Web Exclusive" report last week, “U.S. intelligence agencies” have
just informed “the White House” that the status of the Iranian alleged
program to develop a nuclear bomb has not changed since their formal National Intelligence Estimate of 2007. That NIE stated – with “high
confidence” – that Iran “halted," in the fall of 2003, whatever program
it was alleged to have had, and stated – with “moderate confidence” – that
Iran had made no attempt to resurrect it. Yet,
Obama attempted to get the UN Security Council to essentially reprise all the
past injustices committed by the Council against Iran at the instigation of
Bonkers Bolton. But,
it should be noted, there are a number of new "calls" and
"affirmations" in UNSCR 1887 regarding nuclear weapons that are
not going to make certain other states, such as India and Israel, very
happy. In
particular, UNSCR 1887 "welcomes and supports" steps taken to
conclude "nuclear-weapons-free zone" treaties and "calls"
upon all states to accede to the NPT "as non-nuclear-weapons
States." So, contrary to what you’ve been told, the real story was not at
the Security Council, but at the UN General Assembly, where Iranian and Libyan et al heads of state were reiterating
certain findings and recommendations made this
past July by the Presidents and Heads of State of Members of the Non-Aligned
Movement, about necessary changes that need to be made, immediately, in the
way the Security Council is organized and "does business." In
particular; "The Heads of State and Government reiterated the role
of the General Assembly in the maintenance of international peace and
security and expressed grave concern at instances wherein the Security
Council fails to address cases involving genocide, crimes against humanity,
war crimes or ceasefire between parties, in fulfilment of its primary
responsibility in this regard; "The Heads of State and Government emphasized that in
such instances where the Security Council has not fulfilled its primary
responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the
General Assembly should take appropriate measures in accordance with the
Charter to address the issue." Furthermore; "In recent years, the Security Council has been too
quick to threaten or authorise enforcement action in some cases while being silent
and inactive in others. Furthermore, the Council has been increasingly
resorting to Chapter VII of the Charter as an umbrella for addressing issues
that do not necessarily pose an immediate threat to international peace and
security. A careful review of these trends indicates that the Council could
have opted for alternative provisions to respond more appropriately to
particular cases. "Instead of excessive and quick use of
Chapter VII, efforts should be made to fully utilize the provisions of Chapters
VI and VIII for the pacific settlement of disputes. Chapter VII should be
invoked, as intended, as a measure of last resort. Unfortunately, provisions
of Articles 41 and 42 in some cases have been too quickly resorted to while
the other options had not been fully exhausted; "The Security Council-imposed sanctions remain an issue
of serious concern to Non-Aligned Countries. In accordance with the UN
Charter, sanctions should be considered to be imposed only after all means of
peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of the Charter have been
exhausted and a thorough consideration undertaken of the short-term and
long-term effects of such sanctions. "Sanctions are a blunt instrument, the use
of which raises fundamental ethical questions of whether sufferings inflicted
on vulnerable groups in the target country are legitimate means of exerting
pressure. The objectives of sanctions are not to punish or otherwise exact
retribution on the populace. In this regard, the objectives of sanctions
regimes should be clearly defined, and that its imposition should be for a
specified timeframe and be based on tenable legal grounds, and that it should
be lifted as soon as the objectives are achieved. The conditions demanded of
the State or party on which sanctions are imposed should be clearly defined
and subject to periodic review. "Sanctions should be
imposed only when there exists a threat to international peace and security
or an act of aggression, in accordance with the Charter, and that it is not
applicable "preventively" in instances of mere violation of
international law, norms or standards." So, perhaps the reason Russia and China allowed a resolution
that mostly recalls and affirms past Security Council actions (and inactions)
to pass, is to emphasize to the UN General Assembly in session the need to
make, immediately, drastic changes in the way the Security Council is
organized and "does business." Have
the proponents and enablers of the American Hegemony finally been given
enough rope? Stay
tuned. Physicist James
Gordon Prather [send him mail] has served as a
policy-implementing official for national security-related technical matters
in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development
Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of
Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as
legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry
Bellmon, R-Okla. – ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member
of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had
earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. |
Empathy for
‘Adversaries’ By Ivan Eland September 29, 2009
In
world history, the best generals are experts in empathy. They know that to
get the advantage, you have to put yourself in your adversary’s shoes, look
at things from that perceived perspective, and try to predict what he or she
would do under specific circumstances. So
why does the United States have trouble exhibiting empathy? It’s probably
because the United States has been the globe’s most powerful nation since
1945 and is the most dominant military power in world history, both
absolutely and relative to its contemporaries. In other words, empires don’t
need empathy. Empathy is for sissies or, at least, lesser nations. In
reality, a lack of empathy toward potential adversaries is as dangerous for a
superpower as it is for any other country. The United States found that out
during Vietnam, but hasn’t seemed to retain the lesson very well. The North
Vietnamese and Viet Cong were outnumbered 5 to 1 by the Americans alone
(excluding the South Vietnamese), but they fought tenaciously because they
were fighting to reunite their divided nation. They regarded the U.S. as
reneging on an implicit pledge to have elections in a reunited Vietnam, which
the communist Ho Chi Minh would have won. U.S. president Lyndon B. Johnson
had the vague idea that communist dominos had to be stopped, feared he would
get involved in an unwinnable quagmire, but nonetheless prosecuted the war
anyway to avoid being accused by the Republican right-wing of "losing
Vietnam," as Harry Truman was accused of "losing China." But
LBJ only escalated the war after his Great Society domestic agenda had
passed. (Any parallels to Barack Obama’s current situation in Afghanistan are
purely coincidental.) LBJ
has been criticized for not letting the U.S. military win the war – in other
words, putting too many restrictions on its operations. Yet LBJ’s
micro-management of the military made more sense when his real goals are
unearthed. He did not believe the war was winnable; he merely wanted to put
military pressure on the North Vietnamese to get a negotiated settlement, and
he wanted to avoid provoking a military intervention by China, as occurred in
the Korean conflict. Where LBJ made his mistake was in a lack of empathy for
North Vietnamese persistence in throwing off foreign invaders and reunifying
their country. They negotiated, but not seriously, and merely waited until
U.S. popular opinion tired of the war. (Any similarity to the doggedness of
the Taliban resistance in Afghanistan and their willingness to wait out the
already tenuous U.S. resolve is merely happenstance.) The
U.S. also has lacked empathy with Iran. Iran is a theocratic, authoritarian
country (but not entirely, as we’ve seen recently). Its president does make unnerving
statements denying the Holocaust, but he doesn’t really have much of a say in
national security issues. But even autocratic countries have legitimate
security concerns. Iran lives in a rough neighborhood of hostile nations –
the Sunni Arab states and Israel. That’s why any democratic revolution in
Iran probably wouldn’t attenuate Iran’s desire for a nuclear program. Thus,
the U.S. policy of trying to negotiate away Iran’s nuclear capabilities lacks
empathy and is naïve. And since the Iranians are fairly sophisticated in
their foreign policy and know that Israel or the United States could attempt
a military strike against their nuclear facilities, they have probably
hardened or buried many of them (if secret facilities even exist). Therefore,
U.S. policy should shift to managing a nuclear Iran instead of trying to
prevent what is probably inevitable. For
many of the same reasons, it is Pollyannaish and unempathetic to try to
negotiate away North Korea’s existing nuclear capability. U.S. policy should
take the same approach with the hermit kingdom. The
lack of U.S. empathy in Afghanistan has been covered. In Iraq, a lack of U.S.
understanding that ethno-sectarian loyalties will always trump those to an
artificial central state did not improve with a change in U.S.
administration. Recognizing the existing partition and devolving more power
to local and regional governments, rather than perpetuating the non-viable
central government, is probably the only way to avoid a massive civil war. The
most flagrant U.S. denial of reality occurred during the recent
Russo-Georgian war. The U.S. government and media focused on the autocratic
Russian government’s "nefarious" intentions of maintaining security
in its sphere of influence (after 25 million Russians died in an invasion by
a foreign power in World War II, this is hardly a surprise) and ignored the
Georgian shelling of a South Ossetian town (what many could call a war crime)
to start the war. The worst and most dangerous
case of non-empathy, however, has been the lack of U.S. introspection after
the heinous 9/11 attacks. Instead of reading Osama bin Laden’s clear
writings to glean his motives for attacking, the American public, to its
future peril, simply bought George W. Bush’s demagoguery that the U.S. was
attacked because it was an economically and politically free country. That bin
Laden specifically denied this accusation was lost in the drive to do more of
exactly what bin Laden was mad about in the first place – U.S.
forces invading and occupying Muslim soil, thus making
things worse by aiding the recruitment of the anti-U.S. Islamists worldwide. There
are notorious dictatorships and terrorists in the world, but their threat to
the United States has been exaggerated as an excuse to fulfill the foreign
policy agendas of certain politicians, bureaucracies, or interest groups.
Instead, the U.S. should realize that even these outlaws have security fears
and are not just hostile to the United States because it is a relatively free
country. |
'2B - The Era
of Flesh is Over' Film to premiere at Woodstock Film Festival Friday KurzweilAI.net, Oct. 1, 2009 "2B
- The Era of Flesh is Over," a science-fiction film set in the near future,
will have its world premiere at the 10th anniversary Woodstock Film Festival in Woodstock, NY on Friday,
Oct. 2, 2009. |
Contact