Just International

Behind The Durban Blame Game

Why did the Durban climate talks fail? Ultimately, the culprit is the near-universal pursuit of economic growth. All the major players want growth: the US, because it’s still pulling out of a recession; China, because it knows 10 percent annual growth can’t go on forever, but is trying to avoid a hard landing; Europe, which is trying to pull out of its sovereign debt spiral. The US and China, in particular, know that fossil fuels have given them growth in the past, and are especially reluctant to give them up now.

The Chinese pulled a PR coup during the talks by announcing that they were willing to consider emissions cuts if the US signs onto a global binding agreement. Perhaps Beijing felt safe saying this because there is a general understanding that binding climate action is currently unthinkable in the US for domestic political reasons. If China were indeed seriously concerned about climate, then as the world’s foremost greenhouse gas emitter it could simply unilaterally cut back on emissions and then challenge the US and other countries to follow suit. But of course that’s not what we’re seeing; instead, China is leading not only in total national emissions but in rates of emissions increase, due to its phenomenal coal consumption.

Can the world decouple GDP growth from carbon emissions? To a certain extent, yes. During the 90s there was some decoupling, especially in the US, but it was mostly due to globalization and financialization. Industrialized countries outsourced much of their production, mainly to China, which burned its coal to make America’s consumer goods; meanwhile, the financial industry blossomed as debt grew faster than GDP and banks leveraged that debt through securitization and derivatives. But, as we’ve seen since 2008, growing the size of the financial industry relative to the size of the rest of the economy can have some nasty long-term side effects.

Over the past decade, most of the decoupling effect has disappeared globally, and energy use and GDP growth have moved in tandem. In 2010, greenhouse gas emissions actually grew faster than GDP. So we’re moving in the wrong direction, and accelerating.

Could we still have economic growth while transitioning to renewable energy? Perhaps, but renewables typically have high up-front investment requirements. Once one has a solar panel up and running, one gets very low-cost energy, but buying and installing the panel is quite expensive—and for the world that’s problematic at a time when investment capital and credit are scarce. So, as regular oil and coal grow more costly, countries are often motivated to solve their energy supply problems simply by digging deeper into their resource base for lower-grade fossil fuels, such as tar sands, which just make the climate problem worse.

This dynamic is only likely to change when we finally get to the point where we are concerned less about short-term economic growth than about our longer-term survival prospects. But by then it may be too late to avert catastrophic and irreversible climate change.

Here’s the bitter irony: we are postponing serious climate action for the sake of immediate economic growth. But with a flood here, a drought there; with a famine here, a mass migration there, we soon arrive at a place where economic growth is unachievable in any case.

Nobody expected much from the Durban talks. Thanks to the US and China, the negotiations fully lived down to their expectations. It’s past time for these nations to wake up and realize that even their short-term growth strategy is doomed to failure. It may be too late by now to avert serious climate impacts, but the world can still benefit by abandoning its pointless and counterproductive quest for growth at any cost.

By Richard Heinberg

10 December 2011

Post Carbon Institute

Richard Heinberg is Senior Fellow-in-Residence at Post Carbon Institute. He is the author of ten books, including The Party’s Over, Peak Everything, and the soon-to-be-released The End of Growth. He is widely regarded as one of the world’s most effective communicators of the urgent need to transition away from fossil fuels.

 

America ‘s Chickens Are Coming Home to Roost

“Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant (Ambassador to Iraq , Edward Peck). Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised…”

(Jeremiah Wright, September 16, 2001 )

Prophets fare poorly in their own country, yet countries would do well to hearken to their prophets. Scorn, ridicule, and innuendo attend their pronouncements as the righteous defend their actions as logical, existential and necessary. Jeremiah Wright suffered such scorn and mockery because he understood the consequences of revenge on the innocent and the defenceless, justified by whatever inane discourse. Wright spoke truth to power that Sunday after 9/11 and the righteous cried to heaven condemning him to perdition for defaming America, for even suggesting that revenge for the sake of revenge is the motivation of the arch fiend against the Almighty, the foulest, most ignorant, most amoral rational for action.

Prophets anticipate truth; they review a nation’s past history and can predict its future. Witness America ‘s past as the Reverend Wright did that Sunday morning, and what America is doing now repeats its ugliness. Wright said this about America ‘s past:

He pointed out, a white man, an ambassador, he pointed out that what Malcolm X said when he was silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, he said Americas chickens, are coming home to roost.”

“We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.

“We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.

“We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.

“We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

“We bombed Qaddafi’s home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children’s head against the rock. (See Psalm 137 to understand how the righteous take revenge against the innocent and defenceless.)

“We bombed Iraq . We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they’d never get back home.

“We bombed Hiroshima . We bombed Nagasaki , and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.

“Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America ‘s chickens are coming home to roost.

That was the Sunday after 9/11, 2001 when Wright quoted Ambassador Peck. But even that list of America’s atrocities is not complete as Mark Twain would attest in his recounting of the massacre of the Moro’s at the turn of the last century 1900 and our disastrous foray into Vietnam when we lost 58,000 American soldiers and killed millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians.

This is the America that exists now: we preach righteousness, but lie with impunity; declare God’s mission to bring freedom to the mid-east, then decimate the women and children, the old and infirm as necessary collateral damage; proclaim the existence of Weapons of Mass destruction, then massively destroy a nation’s infrastructure, steal its natural resources, take control of its government replacing it with a favoured puppet; and then write the history to extol our righteousness while defaming the defenceless people decimated. Wright knew.

Perhaps our President might hearken back to a time when principles mattered, when truth mattered, when might did not make right, when the souls and hearts of people mattered, when justice and equality mattered not deceit and dominance over all. When did America become a dictatorial empire manipulated by an elite few using the Presidency like some houseboy to do their bidding? When did the founding documents get trashed, mocked and ridiculed as weak, worthless, and obsolete? When did the American people vote to become the dominant empire in the world? What interests of the people demand that this nation establish military bases in about 140 nations around the world then threaten the nations of the world with pre emptive slaughter should they dare to embark on economic or military equality with the United States ? How do the actions implicit in these questions reflect a nation based on the rule of law, on justice for all its citizens, on equity of rights and recognition of rights, on the morals inherent in the Bill of Rights and the ideals enunciated in the Declaration of Independence?

Let’s say it loud and clear, the America of our founding fathers no longer exists; America is owned in mind and pocket book by those who have purchased our representatives, propagate their news through the corporate controlled media, determine the receivers of our tax dollars salvaging those who wrought havoc with our economy, write the legislation that controls the American people orchestrated through the largest conglomerate of a police state ever assembled, Homeland Security, and in its final nail in the coffin of human rights has legislated the abolishment of habeas corpus and rule of law by installing the draconian National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA 2012). This act in the words of Jonathan Turley, expert in constitutional law ( December 21, 2011 on C-Span, gives dictatorial power to the President:

President Obama has just stated a policy that he can have any American citizen killed without any charge, without any review, except his own . If he’s satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world including in the United States .

Two of his aides just … reaffirmed they believe that American citizens can be killed on the order of the President anywhere including the United States.

You’ve now got a president who says that he can kill you on his own discretion. He can jail you indefinitely on his own discretion

I don’t think the Framers ever anticipated that [the American people would be so apathetic]. They assumed that people would hold their liberties close, and that they wouldn’t relax…

This is the President that rejected the Reverend Wright’s prophecy, that capitulated to his new masters who demanded that he repudiate him, that now elevates himself to the role of Judge, Jury and executioner, the role that used to be played by the Sheriffs of the old segregated south when they turned a blind eye to those dragging a slave to the hanging tree. Indeed, we have turned back in time to that denunciated by a real leader of men, a man born into slavery, Frederick Douglass, when he described the America he lived in just before the Civil War:

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelly to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States , at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

The American people are now in Douglass’ shoes; they have been put on notice that any pathological employee of Homeland Security, of the armed forces of the United State, of our local police and National Guard, can suspect a citizen of associating or being engaged somehow with “terrorists,” can be arrested, interrogated, imprisoned indefinitely, without charge, without review except his own. The America Douglass so graphically describes existed up through the 100 years of segregation until the Civil Rights movement of 1954 got under way. We’ve had a modicum of equality for the past 50 years brought on by national movements that made clear to the government that they were elected to serve the people, not arrest them.

But let it also be said that the America Douglass describes, the one grounded in “bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy,” still exists outclassing its past a hundred fold. Our savagery knows no bounds: we decimate people wantonly throughout the world as Dresden, the fire-bombing of Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Vietnam, the sanctions against Iraq, the illegal invasion of Iraq, the unqualified military support we provide to the Zionist government in Israel against a defenceless people, the abominable use of drones against the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan, the continuing development of weapons of mass savagery and our willingness to develop further atomic weapons graphically illustrates.

The numbers slaughtered in this review is in the millions–not all dressed in combat fatigues. The numbers of the defenceless and the innocent outstrips those trained to kill. All of those slaughtered happened outside the United States and every son and daughter, mother and father, sister and brother, aunt and uncle, grandfather and grandmother felt the pain of loss that was to our forces a “body count.” “Revenge is mine sayeth the Lord.” “Violence begets violence, hatred begets hatred, terrorism begets terrorism,” so rings the prophetic knell of the Reverend Wright to his congregation one of whom happened to be our current President Barack Obama. Would that he had listened, for if any man was ever elected to the office of President to change the world, this was the man and he has failed.

By William A. Cook

26 December 2011

Countercurrents.org

William A. Cook is a Professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California. He writes frequently for Internet publications including The Palestine Chronicle, MWC News, Atlantic Free Press, Pacific Free Press, Countercurrents, Counterpunch, World Prout Assembly, Dissident Voice, and Information Clearing House among others. His books include Tracking Deception: Bush Mid-East policy, The Rape of Palestine, The Chronicles of Nefaria, a novella, and the forthcoming The Plight of the Palestinians. He can be reached at wcook@laverne.edu or www.drwilliamacook.com

America’s Growing Isolation

A longer headline would have added the words because of President Obama’s grovelling for Jewish campaign funding and votes.

On 19 December, in the Jewish Daily Forward, Josh Nathan-Kazis wrote this:

“Top-level Jewish fundraisers from President Obama’s 2008 campaign are sticking with the president in 2012.

“Despite reports that President Obama faces a loss of Jewish funders due to his Middle East policy, analysis of a list of elite bundlers from his 2008 race shows no defections among the president’s top Jewish supporters in 2012.”

That’s not good news for the would-be presidents on the Republican side who are grovelling for Jewish campaign funds and votes.

On the same day, in what the BBC’s Barbara Plett called “a highly unusual move”, all the regional and political groupings on the UN Security Council sharply criticised Israeli settlement activities. They said in their statements that “continued settlement building threatened the chances of a future Palestinian state.” They also expressed dismay at rising settler violence. (“They” were the envoys representing the European Union, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Arab Group and a loose coalition of emerging states known as IBSA).

It was UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant who read the statement of the EU group.

“Israel’s continuing announcements to accelerate the construction of settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, (1000 new housing units tendered for last week), send a devastating message. We believe that Israel’s security and the realisation of the Palestinians’ right to statehood are not opposing goals. On the contrary they are mutually reinforcing objectives. But they will not be achieved while settlement building and settler violence continues.”

As Barbara Plett noted,

“Despite the unanimity of views, the envoys did not try to draft a single Security Council statement because they knew the US would veto it.” She also noted that the Obama administration’s stance was that “anything to do with Israeli-Palestinian peace talks belongs in a US-led bilateral process, not at the UN.”

It could be said, and I do say, that such criticism of Israel’s settlement activities is 44 years too late. So what, really, is its significance?

My answer is in three parts.

The first is that it’s a strong indication of America’s growing isolation because of the Obama administration’s unconditional support for Zionism’s monster child.

The second, related, is that it seems to confirm what I have been saying and writing for several months – that behind closed doors almost all of the governments of the world, European governments in particular, are more than fed up with Israel’s contempt for and defiance of international law.

The third is that the governments of most of the member states of the UN have come to terms with the fact that Zionism’s assertion that a Palestinian state on the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip could and would pose a threat to Israel’s existence is propaganda nonsense of the highest order. (This, of course, is only of academic interest because the two-state solution has long been dead if not yet buried).

When I am thinking about Obama’s grovelling, my memory recalls a comment made to me by Dr. Hajo Meyer, the passionate anti-Zionist Nazi holocaust survivor and author of An Ethical Tradition Betrayed, The End of Judaism.

We had shared a platform in London and over breakfast the following morning I asked him a question. I said: “Hajo, you’re well into your eighties and you are being vilified by Zionism’s verbal hit-men for your efforts to unmask the Zionist monster. Why are you continuing with your truth-telling? Why don’t you sit back in peace and quiet and enjoy what’s left of your life?”

He replied with nine little words. “The first person I see every morning is me,” meaning “I have to live with myself.”

It’s more than reasonable to assume that Obama looks in the mirror from time to time. I wonder if he can live with himself.

Footnote: My comments on Israel’s response

Israel’s response as delivered by Karean Peretz, spokeswoman for Israel’s UN Mission, included this: “The main obstacle to peace, has been, and remains, the Palestinians’ claim to the so-called right of return and its refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state,”

That, too, is Zionist propaganda nonsense of the highest order.

Israel is not a Jewish state. How could it be when about a quarter of its citizens are Arabs and mainly Muslims? Israel could only be a Jewish state after it had resorted to a final round of ethnic cleansing. Israel is a Zionist state.

Because Arafat kept them informed through a secret channel, Israel’s leaders have long known that in the event of a two-state solution, the PLO was reluctantly reconciled to the reality of the right of return being confined to the territory of the Palestinian state, which would mean that only about 100,000 refugees would be able to return, with the rest having to accept financial compensation for the loss, theft, of their land and rights.

As I explain in my book Zionism, The Real Enemy of the Jews, when they decided they had no choice but to be pragmatic, Arafat and his leadership colleagues took a degree of comfort from two hopes. One was that all Palestinian refugees everywhere could and would have a Palestinian passport. The other was that if there was a two-state solution, it could evolve over one or two generations into one state for all – i.e. because in peace and partnership enough Israeli Jews would say something like “We don’t need two states”. In the event of a one-state solution coming about by mutual consent, it was assumed on the Palestinian side at leadership level that, over time, all Palestinians who wanted to return would be able to return. So in theory the two-state solution was not necessarily the end-game on the right of return.

By Alan Hart

23 December 2011

Alanhart.net

Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent. He is author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. He blogs at http://www.alanhart.net and tweets via http://twitter.com/alanauthor

 

Al-Qaradawi says Bahrain events are “sectarian” revolution

Prominent Muslim cleric Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi described the protests in Bahrain as a “sectarian” revolution by Shiites against the Sunnis.

Prominent Muslim cleric Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi described the protests in Bahrain as a “sectarian” revolution by Shiites against the Sunnis. Al-Qaradawi has strongly criticized the opposition movement in Bahrain, which he considered to be very different from the protest movements in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.

Al-Qaradawi stressed that the “revolution of Bahrain is quite different from those in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen, adding that” what is happening in Bahrain is a sectarian revolution, while the rest of the four revolutions were staged by the people against the unjust rulers. The Egyptian-born cleric explained that the Egyptian people came out from all classes and sects, Muslims and Christians, both young and old, men and women, liberals and conservatives.

“I mean all the Egyptian people, all the Tunisian people, all the Libyan people, as well as the Yemeni people, while in Bahrain we see a sectarian revolution,” he conveyed.

Al-Qaradawi stated that when the Sunnis in Bahrain understtod the protests have a sectarian character, hundreds of thousands of them participated in the rally, which took place near Al-Fateh Mosque in Manama.

Sheikh Qaradawi was one of the first clerics who supported the protest movements of the Tunisian people and strongly supported the Egyptian revolution to end the rule of Mubarak. He also issued a fatwa allowing to kill Libyan Leader Moammar Gaddafi for abusing for years his own people.

20 March 2011

@ Al Bawaba

 

 

Aggression Is Closing On Syria

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” Frederic Bastiat, French thinker (1801-1850).

The U.S. and its allies are preparing for aggression against the Syria as part of the U.S.-Israel destabilisation agenda in the region. The pretext is, as usual; the “protection of civilians” and installing of Western-style “democracy”. But in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. The aim is to topple the current Syrian government and replace it with a puppet government subservient to U.S.-Israel Zionist interests.

It should be note that because of Syria’s support for the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance to Israel’s terror and Syria’s ties with Iran, the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad deemed a ”threat” to U.S. and Israel interests. Hence, a Syrian regime subservient to U.S.-Israel dictates is vital to isolate Iran and ignores Israel’s Zionist expansion.

The ongoing foreign interference in Syria’s internal affairs is a reminder of the recent criminal foreign interference in Libya, which began with the imposition of a “no-fly” zone over Libya that was an illegal military invasion of Libya. Media reports show that the U.S. and Israel have hired Saudi and Lebanese elements to foment unrest in Syria and create a rift between the government and the Syrian people based on sectarian divisions.

The demonization campaign by the U.S. and its allies to delegitimize the Syrian government is similar to the demonization campaign that was carried out in Libya. On 25 November 2011, the Arab League – a collection of illegitimate despots controlled by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf oil fiefdoms – suspended Syria’s membership in the Arab League and called for economic and diplomatic sanctions against the nation of Syria. Like Libya, the suspension of Syria from the Arab league provides the U.S. and its allies with a fig-leaf to attack Syria and wage war against another Muslim nation.

The Arab League has a long history of betrayal and has become irrelevant. “ It is Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) that have helped hijack the League. The GCC is comprised of the Arabian Gulf petro-sheikhdoms of the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. None of these countries are model states, let alone democracies. Their U.S.-installed leaders have betrayed the Palestinians, helped attack Iraq, support Israel against Lebanon, demolished Libya, and now they conspire against Syria and its regional allies”. He added; “[The Arab League] has been hijacked and serves Washington and its NATO allies instead of any genuinely Arab interests”. Like the GCC, the Arab league is a tool of U.S. imperialism. Its shameful act against Syria (a rehearsal of its shameful act against Libya) is an act of war against another Arab nation.

The most shameful of all of this is the role of the U.S.-backed Arab despots lead by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. It is ironic that these despots are motivated by concern for human rights and democracy in Syria. Decades of repression, embezzlement of the peoples’ wealth and resources by these despotic regimes led to high levels of inequality and corruption. Despite their wealth, they remain backwards indulging in Western decadence and turning away from Islam as a way of life. They espouse and practise an extremist (Islamic) sect that is destroying Islam as a great religion. They are unelected, illegitimate rulers and do not tolerate any opposition to their tyrannical rule.

Saudi Arabia, of course, is the world’s most repressive regime. It is also the U.S. closest ally. It is an absolute monarchy which sees freedom and human rights as a threat to its corrupt ruling class. Ordinary Saudi women are excluded from employment, which is very high (40%) among young men and women. Saudi Arabia’s so-called “anti-terror” law criminalises dissent as “terrorist crimes” and allows for long detention of people without charge. Dissent in Saudi Arabia is dealt with brutally. On 21 November 2011, Saudi troops opened fire on a peaceful demonstration in Qatif in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province, killing more than four demonstrators and injuring more. Saudi rulers don’t even tolerate dissent in their neighbouring countries.

In March 2011, Saudi forces invaded Bahrain and brutally crushed pro-democracy protesters. The invasion was encouraged and supported by the U.S. administration. The recent report by the King of Bahrain appointed commission, Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) was an orchestrated whitewash designed to enforce the rule of the despotic monarchy. Nevertheless the report found “systematic abuses of human rights” during the government attacks on pro-democracy protests. The 500-page report outlines various abuses committed by King Hamad Bin Isa al-Khalifa’s despotic regime. According to the report, detainees – including medical staff whose only crimes were to treat injured protesters – were tortured and sexually abused. The report was immediately buried by Western media before it saw daylight.

Step by step, the Libyan model is being implemented in Syria. On 28 November, the UN – the right arm of U.S. imperialism – accused Syrian forces of “crimes against humanity” in their defence of the Syrian nation against Western-sponsored armed gangs and terrorists. The so-called ‘UN Human Rights Council’ report is entirely based on lies fabricated by expatriates in London, Paris and Washington. While the report accuses the government of “committed atrocities”, the report has completely omitted the death and torture of thousands of Syrians, including soldiers and police by the armed gangs. The report main purpose is to demonise the Syrian government and justify Western armed aggression. The report was immediately disseminated by Western propaganda organs, including the BBC, CNN, Fox News, Al-Jazeera and the print media led by the Murdoch Press.

The report was a carbon copy of the UN reports on Iraq and Libya before they were invaded and destroyed by the U.S.-NATO militaries. The same pack of lies that were used to justify U.S barbaric aggression against Iraq has been recycled against Syria. The report is a prelude to a U.S.-NATO aggression against Syria. Where was the UN Human Rights Council when the U.S. perpetrated genocide in Iraq? It is evident that the UN is playing the role of a facilitator of Western-perpetrated war crimes. Disinformation is important and effective in manipulating public opinion and creating an atmosphere of war.

While the UN is busy manipulating world’s public opinions on behalf of U.S.-NATO armies, British Prime Minister David Cameron and the Qatari despot, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem al-Thani, pledged to support (i.e., shipment of arms and money) the Syrian “opposition groups” in an attempt to shore up “democracy”. Of course, David Cameron and the Qatari despot love for democracy is evident in their violent destruction of Libya. Today, Libya is a mirror image of Iraq, looted, ruined and mired in violence. Tens of thousands of Libyans (and Africans) have been murdered, thousands are languishing in torturous prisons and a third of the population is displaced.

Still blood-thirsty, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has called for the creation of a secure “humanitarian zone” to protect civilians similar to the Libyan “humanitarian zone” where thousands of innocent civilians were murdered by U.S.-NATO armies. The pretext of “human rights” to justify war of aggression has been around since the rise of Adolf Hitler’s Germany. The German Nazis used the pretexts of “protecting civilians” to justify military invasions and violence. Indeed, since the early 1990s, the world has witnessing the rise and rise of Anglo-American fascism invading and terrorising defenceless nations and leaving them in complete ruin on the pretext of “protecting civilians”.

According to the Turkish daily newspaper, Milliyet (28 November 2011): “France sent its military training forces to Turkey and Lebanon to coach the so-called Free [Syrian] Army — a group of defectors operating out of Turkey and Lebanon — in an effort to wage war against Syria”. Foreign mercenaries have been pouring through the border with Lebanon. As mentioned earlier, they are armed and financed by the CIA, Britain’s MI6, Israel’s Mossad, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan.

It is important to remember that, the armed insurrection – financed and armed by the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Israel, Lebanon and Jordan – against the Syrian government has been confined to smaller cities and towns along the borders with Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. (For more, see my Target Syria ). The overwhelming majority of Syrians support President Bashar al-Assad, particularly in major population centres, such as Damascus, Latakia and Aleppo . Recent pro-government demonstrations in these major cities have attracted millions of al-Assad supporters.

Meanwhile, Turkey is exploiting the violence to serve Turkey’s and NATO imperialist interests. Turkey has been promoting the creation of “a buffer zone” in Syria to train and arm the so-called “Syrian resistance” to the Syrian government. In its flagrant interfere in Syrian domestic affairs, Turkey has sponsored several conferences aimed at building an opposition to the Syrian government and Turkey was instrumental in creating the so-called Syrian National Council (SNC), a fractious coalition of expatriates and armed extremists. Their leaders have already indicated that they will cut Syria’s ties with Iran and with the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance movements once they are in a position of “power” in Syria. In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal , the SCN spokesman , “Burhan Ghalioun, was forced (and there is no other explanation for it) to come clean about the nature of the payback required of the Syrian opposition by its US, Turkish, Gulf, and European supporters”, observed Ibrahim al-Amin , editor-in-chief of al-Akhbar news. Large quantities of weapons have been smuggled into Syria from Turkey to foment civil war in the country. Turkey is even contemplating an invasion of Syria if Ankara receives the green light from Washington. Turkey is not interfering in Syria’s internal affairs because “White Turks” suddenly began to care about human rights and democracy in the Arab World, Turkey’s interference is self-serving and on behalf of U.S.-Israel Zionist interests.

Turkey pretends to be an even-handed “mediator” in the region, a “bridge” between the West and Muslim nations. In reality, White Turks are subservient to Western imperialism and have been performing the role of an imperialist proxy since the rise of Kamal Ataturk. While Turkey prides itself of being a Muslim nation, Turkey espouses a Western-oriented “Calvinist Islam”, which clearly conflicts with Islamic principles. Turkey’s decades-long relationship with the Zionist state of Israel and Turkey’s participation in U.S.-NATO (Turkey is a NATO member) wars against Muslim nations are anti-Islam. Indeed, many ordinary Turks have condemned Turkey’s role in the U.S.-NATO destruction of Libya and the mass murder of Libyan civilians. Furthermore, Turkey’s decision to allow the U.S.-NATO to deploy nuclear missiles “shield” on its soil that is directly aimed at Iran and other Muslim nations is an outright hypocrisy and a betrayal of Islam.

Turkey’s recent posturing as a champion of Palestine is an opportunistic rhetoric designed for domestic and regional consumption. If White Turks really care about human rights, they will end Turkey’s cooperation with Israel and impose economic sanction against the Zionist state. White Turks should be concern about human rights in their own backyard. The Arabs should and must reject Turkey’s new role as a gendarme on behalf of imperialism and Zionism.

U.S. interference in the affairs of sovereign nations, including Arab nation is well-documented. The U.S. is the greatest enemy of democracy, human rights and international law. Regarding democracy, U.S. ruling class prefers what Hillary Clinton called: “The kind of democracy that we want to see”. The kind of democracy in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Iran under the torturer Shah Reza Behlavi, Egypt under the tyrannical Mubarak and Chile under the fascist regime of Augusto Pinochet. In fact, it would be very difficult to name a single murderous dictator that was not (put in power) financed and armed by the U.S. and its allies. The U.S. has long love affairs with murderous dictators and fascists.

Furthermore, U.S. agencies and think-tanks, such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), George Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and many more are directly involved in financing opposition groups in the Arab world and beyond. The New York Times (14 April 2011) revealed, “ a number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the [Middle east], including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a non-profit human rights organization based in Washington”. In Syria, NED is directly involved in financing the armed insurrection in Syria through its partner, the Damascus Centre for Human Rights Studies, an anti-Syrian government organisation. In the case of Egypt, the U.S. supported the Mubarak regime to the end. Once Mubarak was ousted, the U.S. switched sides and has begun promoting divisions and sectarianism. At the same time, the U.S. continues to work with its faithful client, the Egyptian Army to manipulate the “revolution” to serve U.S.-Israel Zionist interests. However, if regime change cannot be achieved through what is so-called “colour revolution” and economic sanctions, the U.S. uses military intervention (illegal aggression) to achieve its goal. It happened in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya and it is closing on Syria.

Finally, Syria is not a perfect country. Like in every country, Syria has internal oppositions of several parties. T hey are against violence and foreign interference in their country’s affairs. The Syrian people want real reforms – economic and political reforms – that serve their interests. The Syrian people have suffered greatly in the last decade. As a result of economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. and more than 2 million Iraqi refugees, the Syrian economy has stagnated and living conditions have deteriorated. The Syrian people don’t want U.S.-sponsored regime change. An opinion poll conducted in March 2009 revealed that more than two-thirds of the Syrian population viewed the U.S. unfavourably. The decision to change the current Syrian government and political system remains in the hands of the Syrian people.

With powerful forces gathered against them, the Syrian people are facing violent aggression to destroy and plunder their nation. There is no excuse to remain on the sideline, complicit in war crimes and crimes against humanity. The struggle to uphold international law and oppose aggression must continue.

By Ghali Hassan

8 December 2011

Countercurrents.org

Ghali Hassan is an independent political analyst living in Australia.

 

 

 

 

A more hopeful continent: The lion kings?

Africa is now one of the world’s fastest-growing regions

MUCH has been written about the rise of the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and the shift in economic power eastward as Asia outruns the rest of the world. But the surprising success story of the past decade lies elsewhere. An analysis by The Economist finds that over the ten years to 2010, no fewer than six of the world’s ten fastest-growing economies were in sub-Saharan Africa (see table).

The only BRIC country to make the top ten was China, in second place behind Angola. The other five African sprinters were Nigeria, Ethiopia, Chad, Mozambique and Rwanda, all with annual growth rates of around 8% or more. During the two decades to 2000 only one African economy (Uganda) made the top ten, against nine from Asia. On IMF forecasts Africa will grab seven of the top ten places over the next five years (our ranking excludes countries with a population of less than 10m as well as Iraq and Afghanistan, which could both rebound strongly in the years ahead).

Over the past decade sub-Saharan Africa’s real GDP growth rate jumped to an annual average of 5.7%, up from only 2.4% over the previous two decades. That beat Latin America’s 3.3%, but not emerging Asia’s 7.9%. Asia’s stunning performance largely reflects the vast weight of China and India; most economies saw much slower growth, such as 4% in South Korea and Taiwan. The simple unweighted average of countries’ growth rates was virtually identical in Africa and Asia.

Over the next five years Africa’s is likely to take the lead (see chart). In other words, the average African economy will outpace its Asian counterpart. Looking even farther ahead, Standard Chartered forecasts that Africa’s economy will grow at an average annual rate of 7% over the next 20 years, slightly faster than China’s.

So it should, of course. Poorer economies have more potential for catch-up growth. The scandal was that Africa’s real GDP per head fell for so many years. In 1980 Africans had an average income per head almost four times bigger than the Chinese. Today the Chinese are more than three times richer. Africa’s rapidly rising population still dampens its growth in real income per head but that, too, has risen by an annual rate of 3% since 2000—almost twice as fast as the global average.

For Western firms Africa’s economy still looks tiny, accounting for only 2% of world output. Emerging Asia’s is ten times larger. But Africa’s share is rising, not only because of brisker growth but because GDP has been seriously understated in many economies. In November the size of Ghana’s economy was revised up by a massive 75% after government statisticians improved their data and added in industries such as telecoms. Other countries are likely to revise their GDP levels and growth rates upward over the coming years.

Africa’s changing fortunes have largely been driven by China’s surging demand for raw materials and higher commodity prices, but other factors have also counted. Africa has benefited from big inflows of foreign direct investment, especially from China, as well as foreign aid and debt relief. Urbanisation and rising incomes have fuelled faster growth in domestic demand.

Economic management has improved, too. Government revenues have been bolstered in recent years by high commodity prices and rapid growth. But instead of going on a spending spree as in the past some governments, such as Tanzania’s and Mozambique’s, have put money aside, cushioning their economies in the recession.

Some ambled through the decade rather than sprinted. Africa’s biggest economy by far, South Africa, is one of its laggards: it posted average annual growth of only 3.5% over the past decade. Indeed, it may be overtaken in size by Nigeria within ten to 15 years if Nigeria’s bold banking reforms are extended to the power and the oil industries. But the big challenge for all mineral exporters will be providing jobs for a population expected to grow by 50% between 2010 and 2030.

Commodity-driven growth does not generate many jobs; and commodity prices could fall. So governments need to diversify their economies. There are some glimmers. Countries such as Uganda and Kenya that do not depend on mineral exports are also growing faster than before, partly because they have increased manufacturing exports. Standard Chartered thinks that Africa could become a significant manufacturing centre.

Formidable obstacles to Africa’s continued progress loom, among them political instability, the weak rule of law, chronic corruption, infrastructure bottlenecks, and poor health and education. Without reforms, Africa will not be able to sustain faster growth. But its lion economies are earning a place alongside Asia’s tigers.

6 January 2011

@ The Economist

A Doomsday View of 2012

The economic, political and social outlook for 2012 is profoundly negative.  The almost universal consensus, even among mainstream orthodox economists is pessimistic regarding the world economy. Although, even here, their predictions understate the scope and depth of the crisis, there are powerful reasons to believe that beginning in 2012, we are heading toward a steeper decline than what was experienced during the Great Recession of 2008 – 2009.  With fewer resources, greater debt and increasing popular resistance to shouldering the burden of saving the capitalist system, the governments cannot bail out the system.

Many of the major institutions and economic relations which were cause and consequence of world and regional capitalist expansion over the past three decades are in the process of disintegration and disarray.  The previous economic engines of global expansion, the US and the European Union, have exhausted their potentialities and are in open decline. The new centers of growth, China, India, Brazil, Russia, which for a ‘short decade’ provided a new impetus for world growth have run their course and are de-accelerating rapidly and will continue to do so throughout the new year.

The Collapse of the European Union

Specifically, the crises-wracked European Union will break up and the de facto multi-tiered structure will turn into a series of bilateral/multi-lateral trade and investment agreements.  Germany , France , the Low and Nordic countries will attempt to weather the downturn.  England – namely the City of London , in splendid isolation, will sink into negative growth, its financiers scrambling to find new speculative opportunities among the Gulf petrol-states and other ‘niches’.  Eastern and Central Europe, particularly Poland and the Czech Republic , will deepen their ties to Germany but will suffer the consequences of the general decline of world markets.  Southern Europe ( Greece , Spain , Portugal and Italy ) will enter into a deep depression as the massive debt payments fueled by savage assaults on wages and social benefits will severely reduce consumer demand.

Depression level unemployment and under-employment running to one-third of the labor force will detonate year-long social conflicts, intensifying into popular uprisings.  Eventually a break-up of the European Union is almost inevitable.  The euro as a currency of choice will be replaced by or return to national issues accompanied by devaluations and protectionism.  Nationalism will be the order of the day.  Banks in Germany , France and Switzerland will suffer huge losses on their loans to the South.  Major bailouts will become necessary, polarizing German and French societies, between the tax-paying majorities and the bankers.  Trade union militancy and rightwing pseudo-‘populism’ (neo-fascism) will intensify the class and national struggles.

A depressed, fragmented and polarized Europe will be less likely to join in any Zionist inspired US-Israeli military adventure against Iran (or even Syria ).  Crisis ridden Europe will oppose Washington ‘s confrontationalist approach to Russia and China .

The US :  The Recession Returns with a Vengeance

The US economy will suffer the consequences of its ballooning fiscal deficit and will not be able to spend its way out of the world recession of 2012.  Nor can it count on ‘exporting’ its way out of negative growth by turning to previously dynamic Asia, as China, India and the rest of Asia are losing economic steam.  China will grow far below its 9% moving average.  India will decline from 8% to 5% or lower.  Moreover, the Obama regime’s military policy of ‘encirclement’, its economic policy of exclusion and protectionism will preclude any new stimulus from China .

Militarism Exacerbates the Economic Downturn

The US and England will be the biggest losers from the Iraqi post war economic reconstruction.  Of $186 billion dollars in infrastructure projects, US and UK corporations will gain less than 5% ( Financial Times , 12/16/11, p 1 and 3).  A similar outcome is likely in Libya and elsewhere.  US imperial militarism destroys an adversary, plunging into debt to do so, and non-belligerents reap the lucrative post-war economic reconstruction contracts.

The US economy will fall into recession in 2012 and the “jobless recovery of 2011” will be replaced by a steep increase of unemployment in 2012.  In fact, the entire labor force will shrink as people losing their unemployment benefits will fail to register.

Labor exploitation (“productivity”) will intensify as capitalists force workers to produce more, for less pay, thus widening the income gap between wages and profits.

The economic downturn and growth of unemployment will be accompanied by savage cuts in social programs to subsidize financially troubled banks and industries.  The debates among the parties will be over how large the cuts to workers and retirees will be to secure the ‘confidence’ of the bondholders.  Faced with equally limited political choices, the electorate will react by voting out incumbents, abstaining and via spontaneous and organized mass movements, such as the “occupy Wall Street” protest.  Dissatisfaction, hostility and frustration will pervade the culture.  Democratic Party demagogues will scapegoat China ; the Republican Party demagogues will blame the immigrants. Both will fulminate against “the Islamo-fascists” and especially against Iran .

New Wars in the Midst of Crises:  Zionists Pull the Trigger

The ‘ 52 Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations’ and their “Israel First” followers in the US Congress, State Department, Treasury and the Pentagon will push for war with Iran .  If they are successful it will result in a regional conflagration and world depression.  Given the extremist Israeli regime’s success in securing blind obedience to its war policies from the US Congress and White House, any doubts about the real possibility of a major catastrophic outcome can be set aside.

China :  Compensatory Mechanisms in 2012

China will face the global recession of 2012 with several possibilities of ameliorating its impact.  Beijing can shift toward producing goods and services for the 700 million domestic consumers currently out of the economic loop.  By increasing wages, social services and environmental safety, China can compensate for the loss of overseas markets.  China ‘s economic growth, which is largely dependent on real estate speculation, will be adversely affected when the bubble is burst.  A sharp downturn will result, leading to job losses, municipal bankruptcies and increased social and class conflicts.  This can result in either greater repression or gradual democratization.  The outcome will profoundly affect China ‘s market – state relations.  The economic crisis will likely strengthen state control over the market.

Russia Faces the Crisis

Russia ‘s election of President Putin will lead to less collaboration in backing US promoted uprisings and sanctions against Russian allies and trading partners.  Putin will turn toward greater ties with China and will benefit from the break-up of the EU and the weakening of NATO.

The western media backed opposition will use its financial clout to erode Putin’s image and encourage investment boycotts though they will lose the Presidential elections by a big margin.  The world recession will weaken the Russian economy and will force it to choose between greater public ownership or greater dependency on state funds to bail out prominent oligarchs.

The Transition 2011 – 2012:  From Regional Stagnation and Recession to World Crises

The year 2011 laid the groundwork for the breakdown of the European Union.  The crises began with the demise of the Euro, stagnation in the US and the outbreak of mass protests against the obscene inequalities on a world scale.  The events of 2011 were a dress rehearsal for a new year of full scale trade wars between major powers, sharpening inter-imperialist struggles and the likelihood of popular rebellions turning into revolutions.  Moreover, the escalation of Zionist-orchestrated war fever against Iran in 2011 promises the biggest regional war since the US-Indo-Chinese conflict.  The electoral campaigns and outcomes of Presidential elections in the US , Russia and France will deepen the global conflicts and economic crises.

During 2011 the Obama regime announced a policy of military confrontation with Russia and China and policies designed to undermine and degrade China ‘s rise as a world economic power.  In the face of a deepening economic recession and with the decline of overseas markets, especially in Europe , a major trade war will unfold.  Washington will aggressively pursue policies limiting Chinese exports and investments.  The White House will escalate its efforts to disrupt China ‘s trade and investments in Asia, Africa and elsewhere.  We can expect greater US efforts to exploit China ‘s internal ethnic and popular conflicts and to increase its military presence off China ‘s coastline.  A major provocation or fabricated incident in this context is not to be excluded.  The result in 2012 could lead to rabid chauvinist calls for a costly new ‘Cold War’.  Obama has provided the framework and justification for a large-scale, long-term confrontation with China .  This will be seen as a desperate effort to prop up US influence and strategic positions in Asia .  The US military “quadrangle of power” – US-Japan-Australia-South Korea – with satellite support from the Philippines , will pit China ‘s market ties against Washington ‘s military build-up.

Europe :  Deeper Austerity and Intensified Class Struggle

The austerity programs imposed in Europe, from England to Latvia to southern Europe will really take hold in 2012.  Massive public sector firings and reduced private sector salaries and job opportunities will lead to a year of permanent class warfare and regime challenges.   The ‘austerity policies’ in the South, will be accompanied by debt defaults resulting in bank failures in France and Germany .  England ‘s financial ruling class, isolated from Europe, but dominant in England , will insist that the Conservatives ‘repress’ labor and popular unrest.  A new tough neo-Thatcherite style of autocratic rule will emerge; the Labor-trade union opposition will issue empty protests and tighten the leash on the rebellious populace.  In a word, the regressive socio-economic policies put in place in 2011 have set the stage for new police-state regimes and more acute and possibly bloody confrontations with workers and unemployed youth with no future.

The Coming Wars that End America “As We Know It”

Within the US , Obama has laid the groundwork for a new and bigger war in the Middle East by relocating troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and concentrating them against Iran .  To undermine Iran , Washington is expanding clandestine military and civilian operations against Iranian allies in Syria , Pakistan , Venezuela and China .  The key to the US and Israeli bellicose strategy toward Iran is a series of wars in neighboring states, world- wide economic sanctions , cyber-attacks aimed at disabling vital industries and clandestine terrorist assassinations of scientists and military officials.  The entire push, planning and execution of the US policies leading up to war with Iran can be empirically and without a doubt attributed to the Zionist power configuration occupying strategic positions in the US Administration, mass media and ‘civil society’.  A systematic analysis of American policymakers designing and implementing economic sanctions policy in Congress finds prominent roles for such mega-Zionists (Israel-Firsters) as Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Howard Berman;  Dennis Ross in the White House, Jeffrey Feltman in the State Department, and  Stuart Levy, and his replacement David Cohen, in the Treasury.  The White House is totally beholden to Zionist fund raisers and takes its cue from the ‘ 52 Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organization .

The Israeli-Zionist strategy is to encircle Iran , weaken it economically and attack its military.  The Iraq invasion was the US ‘s first war for Israel ; the Libyan war the second; the current proxy war against Syria is the third.  These wars have destroyed Israel ‘s adversaries or are in the process of doing so.  During 2011, economic sanctions, which were designed to create domestic discontent in Iran , were the principle weapon of choice .  The global sanctions campaign engaged the entire energies of the major Jewish-Zionist lobbies .  They have faced no opposition from the mass media, Congress or the White Office.  The Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) has been virtually exempt from criticism by any of the progressive, leftist and socialist journals, movements or grouplets – with a few notable exceptions.

The past year’s re-positioning of US troops from Iraq to the borders of Iran , the sanctions and the rising Big Push from Israel ‘s Fifth Column in the US means expanded war in the Middle East . This likely means a “surprise” aerial and maritime missile attack by US forces.  This will be based on a concocted pretext of an “imminent nuclear attack” concocted by Israeli Mossad and faithfully transmitted by the ZPC to their lackeys US Congress and White House for consumption and transmission to the world.  It will be a destructive, bloody, prolonged war for Israel ; the US will bear  the direct military cost by itself and the rest of the world will pay a dear economic price.  The Zionist-promoted US war will convert the recession of early 2012 into a major depression by the end of the year and probably provoke mass upheavals.

Conclusion

All indications point to 2012 being a turning point year of unrelenting economic crisis spreading outward from Europe and the US to Asia and its dependencies in Africa and Latin America .  The crisis will be truly global.  Inter-imperial confrontations and colonial wars will undermine any efforts to ameliorate this crisis.  In response, mass movements will emerge moving over time from protests and rebellions, and hopefully to social revolutions and political power.

By James Petras

26 December 2011

Countercurrents.org

James Petras is the author of more than 62 books published in 29 languages, and over 600 articles in professional journals.

Will his New Sanctions on Iran Cost Obama the Presidency?

A sharp drop in the value of the Iranian currency as a result of new American sanctions may sound like good news to hawks in the US. But actually this development may signal ways in which Americans will also be harmed, and Obama may have put a second term in jeopardy, cutting off his nose to spite his face.

An amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act signed by President Obama this past weekend will seek to slap third party sanctions on countries and enterprises that deal with Iran’s central bank. It will go into effect this summer. In effect, the law says that if you buy Iranian petroleum, you cannot do business with American financial institutions. Since the United States is still over a fifth of the world economy, and most institutions with capital need to deal with it, the hope of Congress is that Iran will be left without customers.

The measure, pushed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on behalf of the government of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, might well be a trap for Obama. In an election year, he could not refuse to endorse new sanctions against Iran (the Republican candidates in Iowa are practically running on promising that if elected they will launch a war on Iran; and they are lambasting the president as weak on this issue).

But the new sanctions may well hurt Obama’s own election chances. Iran’s military exercises in the Persian Gulf, aimed at reminding the world that it can play the spoiler and stop one-sixth of the world’s petroleum from reaching the market, helped put Brent crude up to $108 a barrel, a spike helped along as well by news of a jump in Chinese manufacturing.

Those two factors, the likelihood of rising Asian demand for petroleum in 2012, and investor nervousness about how tensions with Iran will play out, will probably keep petroleum prices at historically high levels in 2012, and some analysts believe that there could be a return to the overheated pricing of 2008 before the crash.

It would be much better for the American economy if prices sank back down to the levels of only a few years ago, of $50 a barrel or less.

If the Congressional sanctions actually worked, and took Iran’s roughly 2.5 million barrels a day in exports off the world market, that would take out 80% of Iran’s export income and deeply hurt the regime. But it would also send world petroleum prices through the stratosphere, deeply harming Western economies already teetering on the edge.

 Actually, I have to wonder whether the fall in the value of the Iranian currency might not even be good for the country. Nations with pricey primary commodities such as petroleum suffer an artificially hardened currency. In turn, that makes it expensive for outsiders to buy what they make, leading to stagnating industry. Softening the currency should help Iranian exports, a key element of the economy. Iran has had a crash program to expand its non-oil exports, with some success.

Obama cannot hope for decisive help from the only quarter able to offer it in the short term, Saudi Arabia. The Saudis were willing, in the late 1970s, to flood the petroleum markets with their excess capacity for political gain. But Riyadh now no longer wants inexpensive petroleum, because the king is using extra petroleum receipts to bribe the Saudi population into repudiating any “Arab Spring” inside the kingdom. The Saudi government has expanded subsidies so much, in a quest to mollify a formerly angry public, that it probably cannot afford them if prices fall too much. Hence, the Saudis cannot pull Obama’s bacon out of the fire, though they could try to blunt the force of the crisis by pumping an extra million barrels a day or so.

Moreover, the sanctions on those who deal with Iran’s central bank threaten profound harm to the economies of American allies. South Korea is deeply worried about their impact and will seek an exemption. South Korea imports roughly $11 billion a year of petroleum and other products from Iran and sells Iran $6 bn. worth of South Korean manufactures– automobiles, etc. If Seoul cannot buy Iranian petroleum (some 10 percent of its oil imports), that would hurt its economy. If it cannot receive payment from Iran for Hyundais and other exports, that would hurt its economy. In short, some $16 billion a year in trade is at stake for South Korea. That is about 5% of its external trade, a significant hit. And, energy is not like just any other import– it is foundational. In a world where petroleum supplies are already tight, it will not be easy or maybe even possible for all of Iran’s former customers (should they cut Iran off as the US Congress urges) to make up the shortfall from other sources.

In fact, the non-NATO world will likely find workarounds to thwart these new US sanctions sufficiently to allow the regime to survive, even if they do add to the cost of peteroleum and so harm US recovery. Venezuela opened a binational bank with Iran in 2009, which provides a back door for Iranian financial transfers in Latin America.

Russia says it will refuse to cooperate with new sanctions.

And India, for instance, has found ways to pay Iran for its petroleum without dealing directly with an Iranian bank. It uses Halkbank in Turkey. There is talk of simply setting up new private banks in each other’s countries, which would not be under US sanction. There are admittedly drawbacks to the current ad hoc arrangements. Without the security of bank transactions, Indian exporters to Iran are reduced to dealing on a basis of trust with importers. And, Iran this fall was reluctant to accept payment in rupees held in Indian accounts because of a steep decline of the rupee against the dollar. (Iran may rethink this skittishness, given the similar decline in its own currency provoked by the new American sanctions). Still, India needs the petroleum it imports from Iran, and needs to sell its made goods to Iran, and it is likely that ways will be found to keep that trade going, whether the US Congress likes it or not.

For its part, China has been paying for Iranian petroleum with Euros, and if that becomes difficult they are considering just paying in Chinese yuan. China’s Sinopec petroleum company seems completely unafraid of US sanctions and is actually helping develop Iranian fields, something that was already sanctionable under US law. Iran now does $30 billion a year in trade with China, something that the US probably can do nothing about. China and Iran, it is true, have been having some tough negotiations on prices going forward, and China has been able to resort to Saudi Arabia, Libya and Iraq to make up the petroleum shortfall from Iran while the two countries are playing hard ball. But a) this tiff will probably be over by March; b) China is likely to continue to import a lot of petroleum from Iran and c) the world petroleum market is not so saturated that China can probably permanently reduce its reliance on Iranian sources. If it did, that would make it harder for other countries to do so.

In short, even Congress’s more severe sanctions and targeting of Iran’s Central Bank are likely to be ultimately ineffective in changing Iranian policy or undermining the regime. The international community will find work-arounds and close US allies like South Korea, facing major economic consequences, will lobby hard for exemptions. Obama, who was forced into this law and had opposed it, has every reason to grant the exemptions. In other instances, the NDAA will cause American will to be tested. It will take a lot of impudence to attempt to impose sanctions on Chinese banks for dealing with Iran, when Chinese finance is so important to propping up the US economy.

An Iran with its back against the wall will be a formidable adversary for the US and its allies in the Middle East. The 20,000 US personnel at the massive American embassy in Baghdad are vulnerable to reprisals by Iraqi militias allied with Iran. The American war effort in Afghanistan depends for success on Iranian good will. And, Iran can put up petroleum prices incessantly with just a little saber-rattling.

In signing the NDAA (which also allows the US military to arrest Americans anywhere in the world and to hold them indefinitely without trial), Obama has likely done harm to himself. Iranians will suffer some inconveniences and ordinary people may face real hardship in Iran. But the ayatollahs will still have their billions, and the regime will go on enriching uranium and supporting Syria and Hizbullah. The US, on the other hand, will suffer massive opportunity costs (i.e. it won’t do all kinds of things in the economy that it might have otherwise) from a policy of keeping petroleum prices artificially high by bothering Iran.

By Juan

3 January 2012

@ www.juancole.com

Will 2012 Bring Tribal War To Libya?

Tripoli: The weather in Tripoli this New Year’s weekend is unseasonably bone chilling with heavy rains flooding the streets reminding this observer more of dreary London this time of year than the southern Maghreb coast of the Mediterranean. My modest family run neighborhood hotel off Omar Muktar Street is clean and cheap, but my room has no heat except what eventually builds up under a stack of velour Turkish blankets.

Much valued by me and the only other registered guest, a Libyan engineer from Sirte whose home was torched by rebels in early October, is the hotel proprietor who reopened in early November following closure since last March. He is an encyclopedia of knowledge and opinion on “the current situation” here. But the hotel owner and his two English speaking sons are not the only ones who are increasingly speaking out about realities in the “new Libya” nearly two months after NATO declared another victory and stopped systematically and seemingly indiscriminately reducing to rubble this essentially defenseless and militarily speaking, Third World country, with the First Worlds most advanced arsenal.

My good luck this trip was to find my best friend from the months I was in Libya last summer. “Ahmad,” who like most contacts disappeared without a trace on August 22nd following the fall of Tripoli to NATO forces. As so many of us have learned, those we knew this summer either fled fast, were jailed, or were killed. “Ahmad” resurfaced in September via email to explain that he was in hiding. He went deep down in South Libya in a small Sahara town the name of which he told me has never even made it on a map, much less google earth. Then, a few weeks later Ahmad disappeared again when he ventured out to see his family near Tripoli. He was betrayed by friends for militia cash, was arrested, tortured and jailed without charges simply because his family was known to be Gadhafi supporters. The last week of Ahmad’s incarceration, which ended only because one of the guards recognized him as a former classmate, he and the other more than 100, including Sheik Khaled Fantouch, all held in a large room in a makeshift Misrata militia prison, were given nothing at all to eat and shared bottles of water to stay alive.

Life has become more complicated in Libya for about everyone it seems including foreign visitors. One example: Back in the summer, before August 21st, if one found himself on a side street somewhere face to face with some heavily armed and scowling types it was a good idea to whisper, “Allah, Muammar, Libya, al bas (‘that all we need!”) and chances were quite good that you would be warmly received. Now it’s much more complicated. More than 55 rebel militia, totaling more than 30,000 armed fighters control parts of Tripoli, some of them loosely under the protection and direction of the TNC, Tripoli Military Commander Belhaj. Belhaj, formerly with Al Qaeda spent seven years in prison here when the US & UK sent him to the Gadhafi regimes as part of its rendition program. His party, now being formed into the Muslim Brotherhood will likely win next June’s election. His in the third largest militia in Tripoli. The largest is run by Salh Gait, from Tripoli, and according to his deputy has 5000 fighters and adding more.

These days in Libya it is a good idea to memorize the name of the largest of the local militia and the name of its leader so when approached by the heavily armed unfriendly types one can rub two index fingers together and say the leader’s name while adding “mieh, mieh” i.e. “good, good.” One wants to avoid saying the wrong militia and leader name because there is today an uneasy calm among militias in Tripoli after a few weeks of largely unreported skirmishes.

Largely unreported for the following reason. The transitional government daily touts the new freedom of the press here and they claim that there are 43 new newspapers or magazines. That on the surface sounds pretty good and there are more or fewer each week as local and foreign funders fail to deliver on funding promises or others start publishing a newspaper or magazine.

What is remarkable about the “new free Libya, new free media” is that it is 100 percent pro “new government”. I am advised that it’s only partly out of fear of consequences for failing to toe the line that accounts for this apparent universal support for the TNC. Another reason according to a western ambassador who have returned to his post here is that the new media sprang from the myriad militia and they simply have a psychological issue with criticizing any of the obvious problems which seem to be swelling by the day. Ahmad agrees. “They were so involved with NATO and its rebels that they do not want to admit that they were wrong in many ways so they ignore what is really happening in front of their eyes”.

This observer witnessed one example yesterday at “Green Square”. “Almost everyone still calls it Green Square rather than its TNC re-name of Martyrs Square” the hotel proprietor explained, “because it’s been Green Square for decades and what’s wrong with that name? If you tell someone to meet you at ‘Martyrs Square’ its sounds silly to most of us. What if the new Egyptian government renames Tahrir Square? Will people in Egypt accept it?”

What surprised me yesterday is that there were two well attended anti-government demonstrations being held at opposite ends of this large space. One was led by two women I knew during the summer who were and openly say they remain, Gadhafi regime supporters. One ran a women’s lawyers’ group last summer and the other a women’s group. The one demonstration was demanding that the husbands and children of Libyan wives and mothers be granted Libyan citizenship. The same struggle that continues decade after decade in Lebanon.

The other demonstration, led by the lady lawyer who I last saw giving a speech at a conference at the Corinthia Hotel a few days before Tripoli fell, was organized by a group demanding accountability for those who have disappeared and are being held in scores of secret militia prisons around the country. According to her committee’s research, in addition to the 7000 plus pro Gadhafi loyalists acknowledged as imprisoned by the TTC,, 80% identified by name, the Committee for Justice for the Disappeared, claim that there are more than 35,000 Libyans being held secretly by militia that are outside the control and sometimes even the knowledge of the essentially powerless TNC. Ahmad agrees with this figure from what he learned in prison and explained that he would take me to a school near my hotel before classes open on January 7th and if we walk by at night without traffic noise we can hear the shouting of guards and screams of prisoners being held.

It does appear that at least for now, demonstrations are being allowed although they were plenty of observers watching and which ones are from the TNC and militia security forces is anyone’s guess.

Ahmad just arrived to pick me up and informed me that neither demonstration was reported in this morning’s papers thanks to the new Libyan feel good media who don’t criticize the new government.

The lady who heads the woman’s group has several issues her group plans to raise. One is the fact than Libyan women have been disappearing from public places and not heard from again. One of her suspicions is that some are ending up in the homes of former Gadhafi relatives and supporters of the regime. She estimates that just in Tripoli more than 90 such homes, all of them in desired areas, often on the sea, were ransacked by various rebels gangs, stripped of possessions, some appearing now in various street souks for sale. Following the trashing of some of the properties, many militia members got a better idea. Why return to say, Benghazi, Misrata, or wherever they came from when they can just live here in Tripoli and in relative luxury? Militiamen are now doing this by the hundreds, “Mara” the women advocate claims. “They are well-armed, living off a little militia pay, but mainly from various crimes, these groups are repairing some of the damage they caused and have moved in long term even charging rent to some new arrivals. Mara added, “If they see an empty house, especially if it’s a really nice one, they assume, often correctly, that it belonged to a Gadhafi relative, official or supporter and they think it’s theirs for the grabbing. And they are grabbing. They dare anyone or even another militia or the non-existent new government to try to remove them. They have no intention of returning to where they came from and less on given up their arms. Actually they are stockpiling more weapons and explosives both as security and to increase their political bargaining power. It appears that Libya is up for grabs for so many, local and foreign operations.” The same lady said the population of Tripoli has risen by one million and the locals want the “outsiders” to return to their towns and leave Tripoli’s real residents to take care of their city. The outsiders are said to add to traffic problems and a decline in security so people stay inside at night.

Some of the home invaders have moved in their families from other parts of Libya and some are accused of holding kidnapped female foreign domestic workers and are suspected by the women advocacy groups, kidnapping women off the streets and enslaving them within their sanctuaries.

What outrages many here is that the new “government” will not even acknowledge that these problems exist. Just as the new government has no desire for the International Criminal Court to investigate any crimes from either side because they don’t want investigators snooping around asking questions.

Libyans inside the country and those seeking safety in nearby countries, are increasingly turning to the ten largest Libyan tribes to put an end to this situation and many other problems.

One situation that is said to be ready to explode in violence is from areas like Bani Wallid and Serte where NATO and its local forces killed many civilians that no human right group even knows about. One local militia commander explained to me and my two colleagues some of what he learned while helping run a secret prison: “Whatever intra-tribal or geographical divisions existed a year ago, they are 500 times worse today. The Tribes are arming and have given the new government several deadlines for committing to rebuild destroyed homes and businesses, helping homeless families, and getting the guns off the streets and sending the armed gangs back to where they came from. To date nothing has been achieved by the new government and people are growing very angry.”

Other current problems causing strife here are the rising prices on everything except electricity which no one has paid in the whole country according to my sources since last February. But the electricity cuts are similar to during the NATO bombing. Lack of money is a problem with citizens not being allowed to withdraw more than 750 dinars each month. Money is still relatively scarce and if one accepts that 7 billion was taken out of Libyan banks by former Libyan officials and businessmen early last spring, more than 8 billion was withdrawn by citizens in a panic last summer before a limit of 500 dinars per month was imposed by the Gadhafi government.

This observer has been advised both in neighboring countries and inside Libya by Tribal officials that war in coming maybe as soon as March 1. “Our history, our culture, our dignity, is at stake. It is the responsibility of the Tribes to cleanse the country of these outlaws just as we did against the Italian colonizers.”

During a meeting in a nearby country one Gadhafi loyalist explained: “We know which tribes worked with NATO and sold out their birthrights. Some did the same thing with the Italians and over the years with foreign oil companies. We will fight to restore a path for the Libyan people knowing that mistakes were made by the Gadhafi regime but also that his support today ranges from 90% in Wafala Tribe areas like Bani Walid to close to 60% in Tripoli. He is not coming back but many of his good policies will return enshallah.”

By Franklin Lamb

1 January 2012

Countercurrents.org

Franklin P. Lamb is Director, Americans Concerned for Middle East Peace, Wash.DC-Beirut and Board Member, The Sabra Shatila Foundation and the Palestine Civil Rights Campaign, Beirut-Washington DC Email: fplamb@palestinecivilrightscampaign.org

Why Not Attack Iran?

The push to attack Iran has been on for so long that entire categories of arguments for it (such as that the Iranians are fueling the Iraqi resistance) have come and gone. At DontAttackIran.org we’ve been collecting the arguments for and against attacking Iran for years. We’ve campaigned against an attack, but never been able to claim a success, because decisions not to launch wars are never announced, because those pushing for wars never give up, and because those believing what their government tells them think the Pentagon never campaigns for wars but is forced into them defensively on short notice by attacks from evildoers.

While Iran has not attacked any other country in centuries, the United States has not done so well by Iran. Remember (or, like most U.S. citizens, learn for the first time): the United States overthrew Iran’s democracy in 1953 and installed a dictator. Then the United States aided Iraq in the 1980s in attacking Iran, providing Iraq with some of the weapons (including chemical weapons) that were used on Iranians and that would be used in 2002-2003 (when they no longer existed) as an excuse for attacking Iraq. For the past decade, the United States has labeled Iran an evil nation, attacked and destroyed the other non-nuclear nation on the list of evil nations, designated part of Iran’s military a terrorist organization, falsely accused Iran of crimes including the attacks of 9-11, murdered Iranian scientists, funded opposition groups in Iran (including some the U.S. also designates as terrorist), flown drones over Iran, openly and illegally threatened to attack Iran, and built up military forces all around Iran’s borders, while imposing cruel sanctions on the country.

The roots of a Washington push for a new war on Iran can be found in the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance, the 1996 paper called A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, the 2000 Rebuilding America’s Defenses, and in a 2001 Pentagon memo described by Wesley Clark as listing these nations for attack: Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. In 2010, Tony Blair included Iran on a similar list of countries that he said Dick Cheney had aimed to overthrow. The line among the powerful in Washington in 2003 was that Iraq would be a cakewalk but that real men go to Tehran. The arguments in these old forgotten memos were not what the war makers tell the public, but much closer to what they tell each other. The concerns here are those of dominating regions rich in resources, intimidating others, and establishing bases from which to maintain control of puppet governments.

Of course the reason why “real men go to Tehran” is that Iran is not the impoverished disarmed nation that one might find in, say, Afghanistan or Iraq, or even the disarmed nation recently found in Libya. Iran is much bigger and much better armed. Whether the United States launches a major assault on Iran or Israel does, Iran will retaliate against U.S. troops and probably Israel and possibly the United States itself as well. And the United States will without any doube re-retaliate for that. Iran cannot be unaware that the U.S. government’s pressure on the Israeli government not to attack Iran consists of reassuring the Israelis that the United States will attack when needed, and does not include even threatening to stop funding Israel’s military or to stop vetoing measures of accountability for Israeli crimes at the United Nations. In other words, any U.S. pretense of having seriously wanted to prevent an attack is not credible. Of course, many in the U.S. government and military oppose attacking Iran, although key figures like Admiral William Fallon have been moved out of the way. Much of the Israeli military is opposed as well, not to mention the Israeli and U.S. people. But war is not clean or precise. If the people we allow to run our nations attack another, we are all put at risk.

Most at risk, of course, are the people of Iran, people as peaceful as any other, or perhaps more so. As in any country, no matter what its government, the people of Iran are fundamentally good, decent, peaceful, just, and fundamentally like you and me. I’ve met people from Iran. You may have met people from Iran. They look like this. They’re not a different species. They’re not evil. A “surgical strike” against a “facility” in their country would cause a great many of them to die very painful and horrible deaths. Even if you imagine that Iran would not retaliate for such attacks, this is what the attacks would in themselves consist of: mass murder. And what would that accomplish? It would unite the people of Iran and much of the world against the United States. It would justify in the eyes of much of the world an underground Iranian program to develop nuclear weapons, a program that probably does not exist at present, except to the extent that legal nuclear energy programs move a country closer to weapons development. The environmental damage would be tremendous, the precedent set incredibly dangerous, all talk of cutting the U.S. military budget would be buried in a wave of war frenzy, civil liberties and representative government would be flushed down the Potomac, a nuclear arms race would spread to additional countries, and any momentary sadistic glee would be outweighed by accelerating home foreclosures, mounting student debt, and accumulating layers of cultural stupidity.

Strategically, legally, and morally weapons possession is not grounds for war, and neither is pursuit of weapons possession. And neither, I might add, with Iraq in mind, is theoretically possible pursuit of weapons never acted upon. Israel has nuclear weapons. The United States has more nuclear weapons than any other country. There can be no justification for attacking the United States, Israel, or any other country. The pretense that Iran has or will soon have nuclear weapons is, in any case, just a pretense, one that has been revived, debunked, and revived again like a zombie for years and years. But that’s not the really absurd part of this false claim for something that amounts to no justification for war whatsoever. The really absurd part is that it was the United States in 1976 that pushed nuclear energy on Iran. In 2000 the CIA gave the Iranian government (slightly flawed) plans to build a nuclear bomb. In 2003, Iran proposed negotiations with the United States with everything on the table, including its nuclear technology, and the United States refused. Shortly thereafter, the United States started angling for a war. Meanwhile, U.S.-led sanctions prevent Iran from developing wind energy, while the Koch brothers are allowed to trade with Iran without penalty.

Another area of ongoing lie debunking, one that almost exactly parallels the buildup to the 2003 attack on Iraq, is the relentless false claim, including by candidates for U.S. President, that Iran has not allowed inspectors into its country or given them access to its sites. Iran has, in fact, voluntarily accepted stricter standards than the IAEA requires. And of course a separate line of propaganda, albeit a contradictory one, holds that the IAEA has discovered a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), Iran was not required to declare all of its installations, and early last decade it chose not to, as the United States violated that same treaty by blocking Germany, China, and others from providing nuclear energy equipment to Iran. While Iran remains in compliance with the NPT, India and Pakistan and Israel have not signed it and North Korea has withdrawn from it, while the United States and other nuclear powers continuously violate it by failing to reduce arms, by providing arms to other countries such as India, and by developing new nuclear weapons.

This is what the empire of U.S. military bases looks like to Iran. Try to imagine if you lived there, what you would think of this.

Who is threatening whom?

Who is the greater danger to whom? The point is not that Iran should be free to attack the United States or anyone else because its military is smaller. The point is that doing so would be national suicide. It would also be something Iran has not done for centuries. But it would be typical U.S. behavior.

Are you ready for an even more absurd twist? This is on the same scale as Bush’s comment about not really giving much thought to Osama bin Laden. Are you ready? The proponents of attacking Iran themselves admit that if Iran had nukes it would not use them. This is from the American Enterprise Institute:

“The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it’s Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don’t do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, ‘See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you Iran wasn’t getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately.’ … And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.”

Is that clear? Iran using a nuclear weapon would be bad: environmental damage, loss of human life, hideous pain and suffering, yada, yada, yada. But what would be really bad would be Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon and doing what every other nation with them has done since Nagasaki: nothing. That would be really bad because it would damage an argument for war and make war more difficult, thus allowing Iran to run its country as it, rather than the United States, sees fit. Of course it might run it very badly (although we’re hardly establishing a model for the world over here either), but it would run it without U.S. approval, and that would be worse than nuclear destruction.

Inspections were allowed in Iraq and they worked. They found no weapons and there were no weapons. Inspections are being allowed in Iran and they are working. However, the IAEA has come under the corrupting influence of the U.S. government. And yet, the bluster from war proponents about recent IAEA claims is not backed up by any actual claims from the IAEA. And what little material the IAEA has provided for the cause of war has been widely rejected when not being laughed at.

Another year, another lie. No longer do we hear that North Korea is helping Iran build nukes. Lies about Iranian backing of Iraqi resisters have faded. (Didn’t the United States back French resistance to Germans at one point?) The latest concoction is the “Iran did 911” lie. Revenge, like the rest of these attempted grounds for war, is actually not a legal or moral justification for war. But this latest fiction has already been put to rest by the indespensable Gareth Porter, among others. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, which did play a role in 911 as well as in the Iraqi resistance, is being sold record quantities of that good old leading U.S. export of which we’re all so proud: weapons of mass destruction.

Oh, I almost forgot another lie that hasn’t quite entirely faded yet. Iran did not try to blow up a Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C., an action which President Obama would consider perfectly praiseworthy if the roles were reversed, but a lie that even Fox News had a hard time stomaching. And that’s saying something.

And then there’s that old standby: Ahmadinejad said “Israel should be wiped off the map.” While this does not, perhaps, rise to the level of John McCain singing about bombing Iran or Bush and Obama swearing that all options including nuclear attack are on the table (I’m really starting to despise that table, by the way). Yet, it sounds extremely disturbing: “wiped off the map”! However, the translation is a bad one. A more accurate translation was “the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”. The government of Israel, not the nation of Israel. Not even the government of Israel, but the current regime. Hell, Americans say that about their own regimes all the time, alternating every four to eight years depending on political party (some of us even say it all the time, without immunity for either party). Iran has made clear it would approve of a two-state solution if Palestinians approved of it. If we launched missile strikes every time somebody said something stupid, even if accurately translated, how safe would it be to live near Newt Gingrich’s or Joe Biden’s house?

The real danger may not actually be the lies. The Iraq experience has built up quite a mental resistance to these sorts of lies in many U.S. residents. The real danger may be the slow start of a war that gains momentum on its own without any formal announcement of its initiation. Israel and the United States have not just been talking tough or crazy. They’ve been murdering Iranians. And they seem to have no shame about it. The day after a Republican presidential primary debate at which candidates declared their desire to kill Iranians, the CIA apparently made certain the news was public that it was in fact already murdering Iranians, not to mention blowing up buildings. Some would say and have said that the war has already begun. Those who cannot see this because they do not want to see it will also miss the deadly humor in the United States asking Iran to return our brave drone to us.

Perhaps what’s needed to snap war supporters out of their stupor is a bit of slapstick. Try this on for size. From Seymour Hersh describing a meeting held in Vice President Cheney’s office:

“There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives. And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. That’s the kind of — that’s the level of stuff we’re talking about. Provocation. But that was rejected.”

Now, Dick Cheney is not your typical American. Nobody in the U.S. government is your typical American. Your typical American is struggling, disapproves of the U.S. government, wishes billionaires were taxed, favors green energy and education and jobs over military boondoggles, thinks corporations should be barred from buying elections, and would not be inclined to apologize for getting shot in the face by the Vice President. Back in the 1930s, the Ludlow Amendment nearly made it a Constitutional requirement that the public vote in a referendum before the United States could go to war. President Franklin Roosevelt blocked that proposal. Yet the Constitution already required and still requires that Congress declare war before a war is fought. That has not been done in over 70 years, while wars have raged on almost incessantly. In the past decade and right up through President Obama’s signing of the outrageous National Defense Authorization Act on New Years Eve 2011-2012, the power to make war has been handed over to presidents. Here is one more reason to oppose a presidential war on Iran: once you allow presidents to make wars, you will never stop them. Another reason, in so far as anybody any longer gives a damn, is that war is a crime. Iran and the United States are parties to the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which bans war. One of those two nations is not complying.

But we won’t have a referendum. The U.S. House of Misrepresentatives won’t step in. Only through widespread public pressure and nonviolent action will we intervene in this slow-motion catastrophe. Already the United States and the United Kingdom are preparing for war with Iran. This war, if it happens, will be fought by an institution called the United States Department of Defense, but it will endanger rather than defending us. As the war progresses, we will be told that the Iranian people want to be bombed for their own good, for freedom, for democracy. But nobody wants to be bombed for that. Iran does not want U.S.-style democracy. Even the United States does not want U.S.-style democracy. We will be told that those noble goals are guiding the actions of our brave troops and our brave drones on the battlefield. Yet there will be no battlefield. There will be no front lines. There will be no trenches. There will simply be cities and towns where people live, and where people die. There will be no victory. There will be no progress accomplished through a “surge.” On January 5, 2012, Secretary of “Defense” Leon Panetta was asked at a press conference about the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he replied simply that those were successes. That is the kind of success that could be expected in Iran were Iran a destitute and disarmed state.

Now we begin to understand the importance of all the media suppression, blackouts, and lies about the damage done to Iraq and Afghanistan. Now we understand why Obama and Panetta have embraced the lies that launched the War on Iraq. The same lies must now be revived, as for every war ever fought, for a War on Iran. Here’s a video explaining how this will work, even with some new twists and lots of variations. The U.S. corporate media is part of the war machine.

Planning war and funding war creates its own momentum. Sanctions become, as with Iraq, a stepping stone to war. Cutting off diplomacy leaves few options open. Electoral pissing contests take us all where most of us did not want to be.

These are the bombs most likely to launch this ugly and quite possibly terminal chapter of human history. This animation shows clearly what they would do. For an even better presentation, pair that with this audio of a misinformed caller trying hopelessly to persuade George Galloway that we should attack Iran.

On January 2, 2012, the New York Times reported concern that cuts to the U.S. military budget raised doubts as to whether the United States would “be prepared for a grinding, lengthy ground war in Asia.” At a Pentagon press conference on January 5, 2012, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reassured the press corpse (sic) that major ground wars were very much an option and that wars of one sort or another were a certainty. President Obama’s statement of military policy released at that press conference listed the missions of the U.S. military. First was fighting terrorism, next detering “aggression,” then “projecting power despite anti-access/area denial challenges,” then the good old WMDs, then conquering space and cyberspace, then nuclear weapons, and finally — after all that — there was mention of defending the Homeland Formerly Known As The United States.

We’re in bad straights.

The cases of Iraq and Iran are not identical in every detail, of course. But in both cases we are dealing with concerted efforts to get us into wars, wars based, as all wars are based, on lies.

One thing you can do is to ask U.S. and Israeli air, missile, and drone crews to refuse to attack Iran at DontAttackIran.org.

Sign the appeal to US and Israeli forces!

By David Swanson

6 January 2012

DontAttackIran.org

David Swanson is the author of “When the World Outlawed War,” “War Is A Lie” and “Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union.” He blogs at http://davidswanson.org and http://warisacrime.org and works for the online activist organization http://rootsaction.org