Archives: Articles

Iraq plans to increase its oil production capacity up to 12 million barrels per day by 2017 [Al Jazeera]

Baghdad, Iraq – While the US military has formally ended its occupation of Iraq, some of the largest western oil companies, ExxonMobil, BP and Shell, remain.

On November 27, 38 months after Royal Dutch Shell announced its pursuit of a massive gas deal in southern Iraq, the oil giant had its contract signed for a $17bn flared gas deal.

Three days later, the US-based energy firm Emerson submitted a bid for a contract to operate at Iraq’s giant Zubair oil field, which reportedly holds some eight million barrels of oil.

Earlier this year, Emerson was awarded a contract to provide crude oil metering systems and other technology for a new oil terminal in Basra, currently under construction in the Persian Gulf, and the company is installing control systems in the power stations in Hilla and Kerbala.

Iraq’s supergiant Rumaila oil field is already being developed by BP, and the other supergiant reserve, Majnoon oil field, is being developed by Royal Dutch Shell. Both fields are in southern Iraq.

According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), Iraq’s oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks second in the world, only behind Saudi Arabia. The EIA also estimates that up to 90 per cent of the country remains unexplored, due to decades of US-led wars and economic sanctions.

“Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, US and other western oil companies were all but completely shut out of Iraq’s oil market,” oil industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera. “But thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back inside Iraq and producing oil there for the first time since being forced out of the country in 1973.”

Juhasz, author of the books The Tyranny of Oil and The Bush Agenda, said that while US and other western oil companies have not yet received all they had hoped the US-led invasion of Iraq would bring them, “They’ve certainly done quite well for themselves, landing production contracts for some of the world’s largest remaining oil fields under some of the world’s most lucrative terms.”

Dr Abdulhay Yahya Zalloum, an international oil consultant and economist who has spent nearly 50 years in the oil business in the US, Europe, Asia and the Middle East, agrees that western oil companies have “obtained concessions in Iraq’s major [oil] fields”, despite “there being a lack of transparency and clarity of vision regarding the legal issues”.

Dr Zalloum added that he believes western oil companies have successfully acquired the lions’ share of Iraq’s oil, “but they gave a little piece of the cake for China and some of the other countries and companies to keep them silent”.

In a speech at Fort Bragg in the wake of the US military withdrawal, US President Barack Obama said the US was leaving behind “a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people”.

Of this prospect, Dr Zalloum was blunt.

“The last thing the US cares about in the Middle East is democracy. It is about oil, full stop.”

A strong partnership?

A White House press release dated November 30 titled, “Joint Statement by the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq Higher Coordinating Committee”, said this about “energy co-operation” between the two countries:

“The United States is committed to supporting the Republic of Iraq in its efforts to develop the energy sector. Together, we are exploring ways to help boost Iraq’s oil production, including through better protection for critical infrastructure.”

Iraq is one of the largest oil exporters to the US, and has plans to raise its overall crude oil exports to 3.3m barrels per day (bpd) next year, compared with their target of 3m bpd this year, according to Assim Jihad, spokesman for Iraq’s ministry of oil.

Jihad told Al Jazeera that Iraq has a goal of raising its oil production capacity to 12m bpd by 2017, which would place it in the top echelon of global producers.

According to Jihad, Iraq’s 2013 production goal is 4.5m bpd, and in 2014 it is 5m bpd. The 2017 goal is ambitious, given that Iraq did not meet its 2011 goal, and many officials say 8m bpd capacity is more realistic for 2017.

Unexplored regions of Iraq could yield an additional 100bn barrels, and Iraq’s production costs are among the lowest in the world.

To date, only about 2,000 wells have been drilled in Iraq, compared with roughly one million wells in Texas alone.

Globally, current oil usage is approximately 88m bpd. By 2030, global petroleum demand will grow by 27m bpd, and many energy experts see Iraq as being a key player in meeting this demand.

It is widely understood that Iraq will require at least $200bn in physical and human investments to bring its production capacity up to 12m bpd, from its current production levels.

Juhasz explained that ExxonMobil, BP and Shell were among the oil companies that “played the most aggressive roles in lobbying their governments to ensure that the invasion would result in an Iraq open to foreign oil companies”.

“They succeeded,” she added. “They are all back in. BP and CNPC [China National Petroleum Corporation] finalised the first new oil contract issued by Baghdad for the largest oil field in the country, the 17 billion barrel super giant Rumaila field. ExxonMobil, with junior partner Royal Dutch Shell, won a bidding war against Russia’s Lukoil (and junior partner ConocoPhillips) for the 8.7 billion barrel West Qurna Phase 1 project. Italy’s Eni SpA, with California’s Occidental Petroleum and the Korea Gas Corp, was awarded Iraq’s Zubair oil field with estimated reserves of 4.4 billion barrels. Shell was the lead partner with Malaysia’s Petroliam Nasional Bhd., or Petronas, winning a contract for the super-giant Majnoon field, one of the largest in the world, with estimated reserves of up to 25 billion.”

Zalloum says there is a two-fold interest for the western oil companies.

“There is development of the existing fields, but also for the explored but not-yet-produced fields,” he said. “For the old fields, there are two types of development. One is to renovate the infrastructure, since for most of the past 25 years it has depreciated due to the sanctions and turmoil. Also, some of these fields have different stratum, so once they use innovative techniques like horizontal drilling, there is a huge potential in the fields they have explored.”

But there are complicating factors. As a spasm of violence wracked Baghdad in the wake of the US military withdrawal and political rifts widen, Iraq’s instability is evident.

“Iraq has lots of cheap-to-get oil, but it also has a multitude of problems – political, ethnic, tribal, religious etc – that have prevented them from exploiting it as well or as quickly as the Saudis,” says Tom Whipple, an energy scholar who was a CIA analyst for 30 years. “Someday it may turn out that Iraq has more oil underground than Saudi Arabia. The big question is how stable it will be after the US leaves? So far it is not looking all that good.”

Jihad, Iraq’s ministry of oil spokesman, however, said attacks against Iraq’s oil pipelines have minimal effect on production capabilities, and claimed “sabotage will not affect our oil production and exports because we can fix these damages within days, or even hours”.

Whipple, a fellow at the Post-Carbon Institute, says Baghdad had driven a hard bargain with western oil companies.

“The only reason they are participating is because everybody else is and they hope to get a foot in the door in case some new government in Iraq changes its policies to let other outsiders make more money. Remember it is not all the traditional western oil companies that are in there; the Chinese, Russians and Singapore all want a piece of the action.”

Wrong idea?

Spokesman Jihad told Al Jazeera that the reason many Iraqis think western oil companies are operating in Iraq is simply to steal Iraq’s oil.

“These ideas were obtained during the regime of deposed dictator Saddam Hussein, and these are the wrong ideas,” he said. “The future will help Iraqis understand these companies have come to work here to help Iraq sell its oil to help the people, and they work to serve the country.”

Jihad admitted that his media office works “to help Iraqis understand the nature of the work of these companies and their investing in Iraq”.

Despite the efforts of Jihad’s office to prove otherwise, Iraqis Al Jazeera spoke with disagree.

“Only a naïve child could believe the Americans came here for something besides our oil,” Ahmed Ali, an unemployed engineer, told Al Jazeera. “Nor can we believe their being here has anything to do with helping the Iraqi people.”

Basim al-Khalili, a restaurant owner in Baghdad’s Karada district, agrees.

“If Iraq had no oil, would America have sacrificed thousands of its soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars to come here?”

Oil analyst Juhasz also agrees.

“The US and other western oil companies and their governments had been lobbying for passage of a new national law in Iraq, the Iraq Oil Law, which would move Iraq from a nationalised to a largely privatised oil market using Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs), a type of contract model used in just approximately 12 per cent of the world’s oil market.”

She explained that this agreement has been summarily rejected by most countries, including all of Iraq’s neighbours, “because it provides far more benefits to the foreign corporation than to the domestic government”.

But it has not been an easy road for the western oil companies in Iraq.

“Major western companies, such as Chevron and ConocoPhillips, that had hoped to sign contracts were unable to do so. A third round [of contracts] took place in December 2010 and saw no major western oil companies (except Shell) win contracts. I believe that there was an Iraqi backlash against the awarding of contracts to the large western major oil companies. Thus, in December 2010, fields went to Russian oil companies Lukoil and Gazprom, Norway’s Statoil, and the Angolan company Sonangol, among others.”

Unlike under Iraq’s Oil Law, these contracts do not need to go through parliament, according to the central government. This means the contracts are being signed without public discourse.

“The public is against privatisation, which is one reason why the law has not passed,” added Juhasz. “The contracts are enacting a form of privatisation without public discourse and essentially at the butt of a gun – these contracts have all been awarded during a foreign military occupation with the largest contracts going to companies from the foreign occupiers’ countries. It seems that democracy and equity are the two largest losers in this oil battle.”

Iraq’s oil future

Under the current circumstances, the possibility of a withdrawal of western oil companies from Iraq appears remote, and the Obama administration continues to pressure Baghdad to pass the Iraq Oil Law.

Nevertheless, resistance to the western presence continues.

“The bottom line is that it seems clear that the majority of Iraqis want their oil and its operations to remain in Iraqi hands,” said Juhasz. “Thus far, it has required a massive foreign military invasion and occupation to grant the foreign oil companies the access they have thus far garnered.”

While Iraq’s security remains as volatile as ever, as does the political landscape – which can change dramatically at any moment – there is one thing we can always count on as being at the heart of these conflicts, and that is Iraq’s oil.

By Dahr Jamail

8 January 2012

@ Al Jazeera

Dahr Jamail is an American journalist who is best known as one of the few unembedded journalists to report extensively from Iraq during the 2003 Iraq invasion. He spent eight months in Iraq, between 2003 to 2005, and presented his stories on his website, entitled Dahr Jamail’s MidEast Dispatches. Jamail writes for the Inter Press Service news agency, among other outlets. He has been a frequent guest on Democracy Now!. Jamail is the recipient of the 2008 The Martha Gellhorn Prize for JournalismFollow Dahr Jamail on Twitter: @DahrJamail

The Obama administration dispatched Jeffrey Feltman, assistant secretary of state for Near East Affairs, to Cairo yesterday for talks with the Arab League about Syria. His mission is to ensure that a negative verdict is rendered on the Arab League observers’ mission to Syria—paving the way for a push for a United Nations Security Council resolution legitimising military intervention to depose Syrian President Bashir al-Assad.

Feltman’s visit was preceded by multiple statements from the White House, insisting that the Syrian regime had failed to meet the demands for a withdrawal of troops from the cities and an end to repression.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said: “as sniper fire, torture, and murder in Syria continue, it is clear that the requirements of the Arab League protocol have not been met… We believe it’s past time for the Security Council to act.”

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said, “the violence hasn’t stopped; far from it.”

“The United States is one of the parties which is seeking to rekindle violence by its mobilisation and incitement”, Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdisi responded. “The US … statements are a gross interference in the work of the Arab League”, and “an attempt toward deliberate unjustified internationalization of the situation in Syria”.

The US stepped up its anti-Assad rhetoric after the League’s 100 or so monitors gave indications that they were considering a favourable verdict on the regime’s honouring of the terms of the agreement. A spokesman for the Arab League said the Syrian military has now withdrawn from major cities and moved to the outskirts. Arab League official Adnan al-Khudeir said, “There is noticeable progress”.

Arab League ministers meet this weekend and the monitoring team’s preliminary report will be ready by Sunday, delayed by a day—probably due to US pressure to beef up its criticisms before recommendations are sent to a high-level ministerial meeting that has not yet been timetabled.

On Monday, Arab League Secretary General Nabil Elaraby said the monitors had achieved the release of 3,484 prisoners and that heavy weapons have been removed from cities, but also stated, “Yes, there is still shooting and yes there are still snipers. Yes, killings continue.”

The US is most likely confident that it will get what it wants from the Arab League, but it has made clear that anything less will be denounced as capitulation by the Arab League to Syrian deception.

On Wednesday, it appeared that the Arab League has been called to heel. Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem al-Thani, the head of the League’s task force on Syria, was in discussions with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in New York—seeking “technical help and to see the experience the UN has, because this is the first time the Arab League is involved in sending monitors, and there are some mistakes”.

Behind the scenes, Washington is working with the opposition Syrian National Council (SNC) and various regional powers, including Qatar, to get a military campaign in place, either through the Security Council or through various proxy forces, as it did in Libya.

The SNC, based in and sponsored by Turkey, is made up of CIA assets, defectors from the Assad regime and Islamists, chiefly the Muslim Brotherhood. It operates as a front for the US, Turkey and the Gulf States led by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who are united in seeking regime change in Syria as part of ongoing efforts to isolate Iran.

On Wednesday, the SNC announced that an agreement with the National Co-ordination Body for Democratic Change in Syria (NCB)—a Syrian-based umbrella group of Arab nationalists, and pseudo-socialist groups—had fallen apart. This was due specifically to the SNC’s support for imperialist military intervention. SNC member Khalid Kamal said the two sides disagreed over the percentage of NCB representation and the NCB’s failure to call for the UN Security Council to protect civilians.

“There’s only a handful left in the SNC that don’t want to move toward armed intervention”, said one anonymous SNC member. In a wide-ranging interview with The Majalla magazine, SNC President Burhan Ghalioun made clear that the major powers are utilising the Arab League as a portal through which they can intervene in Syria. “No one, not even the Arab League, has confidence in this regime”, he said. “I think the majority of Arab League ministers who supported the initiative anticipate its abortion by the regime, and intend to refer the issue to the UN Security Council.”

This was, he acknowledged, an effort to get around the veto of previous efforts to secure a UN resolution by Russia and China and give the impression that military intervention was an Arab initiative. “There is no alternative to the Arab initiative”, he said but, “the Arab League has to direct all its efforts to move from simply an Arab initiative, to an Arab initiative adopted by the UN Security Council”.

Ghalioun was forced to deny the accusations, posed by The Majalla, from “opposition figures” who have “described the council as an Islamic structure standing in for the Muslim Brotherhood with a secularist spokesperson represented by you”.

He described the Free Syrian Army (FSA) as the main pillar of the protection system, proof that “We will not wait for foreigners to protect civilians but we will develop means to protect civilians from inside Syria …”.

He then praised the “Gulf States, including Saudi Arabia”, for “taking the most powerful position in supporting the Syrian people politically as well as backing the Arab initiative. The Arab League initiative was initially a Gulf initiative …”.

The FSA, made up of Sunni military defectors and armed by Turkey and the Gulf States, has announced this week that it will mount “huge operations” against “vital interests” of Assad’s regime.

FSA commander Colonel Riad al-Asaad said, “We can’t force him off with peaceful demonstrations, so we are going to force him by arms to leave”.

“We are preparing for big operations and have no faith in Arab League monitors or their useless mission”, he added.

The FSA and other militias have been waging a military campaign that has led to the deaths of 2,000 security personnel, which has been concealed by the media in order to portray events as Assad’s forces targeting purely peaceful protests. The FSA has ambushed military convoys and attacked an airbase and a Ba’ath party office in Damascus. On December 23, Islamist suicide bombers targeted two security bases killing 44 people.

Defence Minister Ehud Barak told Israel’s foreign affairs and defence committee this week that Assad had only “a few weeks” before he would be toppled. Referring to Iran, Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon, he said the collapse of the Ba’athist regime would be “a severe blow to the radical ax

By Chris Marsden

6 January, 2012

WSWS.org

This spring, Israel and US will showcase the largest ever missile defense exercise and establish US command posts in Israel and Israeli Forces will occupy EUCOM headquarters in Germany.

Between Thanksgiving and Christmas, Lt.Gen. Frank Gorenc, commander of the US’s Third Air Force based in Germany, visited Israel and finalized the plans for “Austere Challenge 12”.

This misguided action will deploy several thousand American soldiers in Israel and establish joint task forces that further entwine US-Israeli policies that favor military muscle over diplomacy, equal human rights and justice.

Presidential candidates pontificate over the dangers of nuclear weapons in Iran and are oblivious to the danger to the American people because of US support of Israel’s military occupation of Palestine and collusion in Israel’s nuclear ambiguity/deceptions.

As the West was adopting more sanctions against Tehran claiming Iran is manufacturing WMD, Iran responded in a 10-day war game naval exercise near the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

All of the oil output of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Iraq and Iran run through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran is well equipped with missile boats and land-based missiles. It doesn’t require much intelligence to comprehend that Iran would close off the Strait of Hormuz as soon as the first plane from Israel or US entered Iranian airspace. The blowback to the world’s economy with the elimination of nearly a fifth of the industrial nations’ supply of oil would lead to the end of the world as we all now know it.

What we all need to know is what Mordechai Vanunu, Israel’s nuclear whistle-blower said just prior to Israel sending him back to solitary confinement for 78 days in 2010-the outcome of his historic freedom of speech trial and punishment for speaking to foreign media in 2004:

“Everyone knows Israel has 200 bombs-hydrogen, nitrogen…No one wants atomic weapons in the Middle East….No one wants Israel or the Middle East to have atomic weapons, because if Israel has the bomb Iran will have the bomb.”

What Americans desperately need to know is what Vanunu told me in 2005:

“President Kennedy tried to stop Israel from building atomic weapons. In 1963, he forced Prime Minister Ben Guirion to admit the Dimona was not a textile plant, as the sign outside proclaimed, but a nuclear plant. The Prime Minister said, ‘The nuclear reactor is only for peace.’

“Kennedy insisted on an open internal inspection. He wrote letters demanding that Ben Guirion open up the Dimona for inspection. The French were responsible for the actual building of the Dimona. The Germans gave the money; they were feeling guilty for the Holocaust, and tried to pay their way out. Everything inside was written in French, when I was there, almost twenty years ago. Back then,the Dimona descended seven floors underground. In 1955, Perez and Guirion met with the French to agree they would get a nuclear reactor if they fought against Egypt to control the Sinai and Suez Canal. That was the war of 1956. Eisenhower demanded that Israel leave the Sinai, but the reactor plant deal continued on.

“Kennedy demanded inspections. When Johnson became president, he made an agreement with Israel that two senators would come every year to inspect. Before the senators would visit, the Israelis would build a wall to block the underground elevators and stairways. From 1963 to ’69, the senators came, but they never knew about the wall that hid the rest of the Dimona from them.

“Nixon stopped the inspections and agreed to ignore the situation. As a result, Israel increased production. In 1986, there were over two hundred bombs. Today, they may have enough plutonium for ten bombs a year.” [1]

On 2 October 2009, The Washington Times reported that Obama agreed to keep Israel’s nukes ‘secret’ and reaffirmed a 4-decade-old understanding that has allowed Israel to keep a nuclear arsenal without opening it to international inspections.” [2]

Three officials spoke on the condition that they not be named because they were discussing private conversations, but all said Obama pledged to maintain the agreement when he first hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House in May 2009.

Under the understanding, the U.S. has not pressured Israel to disclose its nuclear weapons or to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would require Israel to give up its estimated several hundred nuclear bombs.

This nuclear deception was reached at a summit between President Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir on 25 September 1969, with “the United States passively accepting Israel’s nuclear weapons status as long as Israel does not unveil publicly its capability or test a weapon.”[Ibid]

In 2007, the Nixon library declassified a 19 July 1969, memo from Henry Kissinger, the then national security adviser stating: “While we might ideally like to halt actual Israeli possession, what we really want at a minimum may be just to keep Israeli possession from becoming an established international fact.”

The “established international facts” were exposed in 1986, when Mordechai Vanunu told the truth and provided the photographic proof of Israel’s seven story underground WMD Facility that can be viewed on You Tube:

Another established international fact occurred on 17 April 2010, when Iran hosted a conference in Tehran on nuclear disarmament with sixty countries represented.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a statement delivered at the conference stating that nuclear weaponry was “haram” meaning prohibited under Islam and he also blew the doors off Israel’s and America’s nuclear deceptions:

“If America’s claims of fighting the proliferation of nuclear weapons were not false, would the Zionist regime be able to turn the occupied Palestinian lands into an arsenal where a huge number of nuclear weapons are stored while refusing to respect international regulations in this regard, especially the NPT?

“There is only one government that has committed a nuclear crime so far. Only the government of the United States of America has attacked the oppressed people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs in an unfair and inhumane war…using or even threatening to use such weapons is a serious violation of the most basic rules of philanthropy and is a clear manifestation of war crimes.

“The greatest violators of the NPT are the powers who have reneged on their obligation to dispose of nuclear weapons mentioned in Article 6 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. These powers have even surpassed other countries with respect to promoting nuclear weapons in the world. By providing the Zionist regime with nuclear weapons and supporting its policies, these powers play a direct role in promoting nuclear weapons which is against the obligations they have undertaken according to Article 1 of the NPT.

“We believe that besides nuclear weapons, other types of weapons of mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons also pose a serious threat to humanity. The Iranian nation, which is itself a victim of chemical weapons, feels more than any other nation the danger that is caused by the production and stockpiling of such weapons and is prepared to make use of all its facilities to counter such threats. We consider the use of such weapons as haram (religiously forbidden) and believe that it is everyone’s duty to make efforts to secure humanity against this great disaster.”[3]

In 1987, from Ashkelon prison, Vanunu wrote:

“The passive acceptance and complacency with regard to the existence of nuclear weapons anywhere on earth is the disease of society today.

“This struggle is not only a legitimate one – it is a moral, inescapable struggle.

“Already now there are enough nuclear missiles to destroy the world many times over [and] this issue should unite us all, because that is our real enemy.

“Is any government qualified and authorized to produce such weapons?” [4]

In 1961, John F. Kennedy warned:

“Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident, or miscalculation, or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us.”

The ties that bind US-Israeli policies are not in the best interests of Americans-or anyone else in the world.

1. BEYOND NUCLEAR: Mordechai Vanunu’s FREEDOM of SPEECH Trial and My Life as a Muckraker: 2005-2010

2.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/02/president-obama-has-reaffirmed-a-4-decade-old-secr/

3. http://www.juancole.com/2010/04/khamenei-us-only-nuclear-criminal-for-hiroshima.html

4. BEYOND NUCLEAR: Mordechai Vanunu’s FREEDOM of SPEECH Trial and My Life as a Muckraker: 2005-2010

By Eileen Fleming

6 January 2012

Wearewideawake.org

Eileen Fleming, Citizen of CONSCIENCE for House of Representatives 2012, Founder off WeAreWideAwake.org, Staff Member of Salem-news.com , A Feature Correspondent for Arabisto.com and Columnist for Veteranstoday.com, Producer “30 Minutes with Vanunu” and “13 Minutes with Vanunu”, Author of “Keep Hope Alive” and “Memoirs of a Nice Irish American ‘Girl’s’ Life in Occupied Territory” and BEYOND NUCLEAR: Mordechai Vanunu’s FREEDOM of SPEECH Trial and My Life as a Muckraker: 2005-2010, http://www.youtube.com/user/eileenfleming

The US administration responded to Iran’s announcement last weekend that its Fordo uranium enrichment plant was operational with renewed threats of military action. The sharp rise in tensions in the Persian Gulf follows steps by the US and Europe to impose an embargo on Iranian oil exports that would ruin the country’s economy.

Speaking on the CBS “Face the Nation” last Sunday, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged that Iran was not building a nuclear bomb at present. But he added, Iran was “developing a nuclear capability” and “that’s what concerns us.”

He warned: “Our red line to Iran is: do not develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us.” Panetta is threatening a devastating US military attack on Iranian nuclear and military facilities, under the pretext that Tehran is developing nuclear arms.

While insisting that the current US focus was economic and diplomatic pressure, he repeated the mantra that the US was not “taking any option off the table.”

General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked on the same program how difficult it would be for the US to “take out their [Iran’s] nuclear facilities.” He did not address the question directly, but indicated that he was ensuring the “right degree of planning” and positioning of assets “to provide those [military] options in a timely fashion.”

Asked about any attempt by Iran to block the strategic Strait of Hormuz, Panetta declared that the US would not tolerate such action. “That’s another red line for us, and we will respond to them,” he said. Dempsey confirmed that the US “had invested in capabilities to ensure that if that happens, we can defeat that… We would take action and reopen the Straits.”

The US threats are being accompanied by a relentless campaign in the US and international media to demonise Iran as a rogue state bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. The opening of a second enrichment plant at Fordo near the city of Qom is portrayed as another step in that direction. Like the Natanz enrichment plant, the second is buried deep underground and heavily guarded—which is hardly surprising, given repeated US and Israeli threats to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The Iranian regime has repeatedly insisted that it has no plans to build a nuclear weapon. Iran’s envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Ali Soltanieh, described the US reaction as “exaggerated and politically motivated.”

According to Iran, the Fordo plant will enrich uranium to the 20 percent level required to produce medical isotopes. Soltanieh pointed out that the IAEA has installed cameras in the plant to monitor operations and carries out regular inspections to ensure enriched uranium is not diverted to military purposes.

The Iranian regime has also signalled a harder line, by imposing a death sentence on Amir Mirzaei Hekmati, a US citizen and former Marine convicted of spying. The US has denied that Hekmati was a spy.

These allegations come amid a series of assassinations and a program of sabotage directed against Iran’s nuclear and military programs over the past two years, indicating that Israel is waging a covert war inside Iran, with US support.

The European Union is stepping up pressure on Iran, announcing that a meeting of foreign ministers would be held on January 23—a week earlier than previously proposed—to finalise an oil embargo already agreed in principle. Divisions still exist among EU members, some of which like Greece are heavily dependent on Iranian oil and are seeking a lengthy “grace period” to find alternate supplies. Europe accounts for about 20 percent of Iran’s oil exports.

US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is currently visiting China and Japan, both of which are large importers of Iranian oil, to press them to wind back their purchases from Iran. US President Obama has signed a measure into law that would exclude corporations doing business with Iran’s central bank from the American financial system. Most of Iran’s oil transactions involve the central bank.

Japan, a close American ally, has already taken steps to reduce its oil imports from Iran. Japan’s state-owned exploration company Impex has already bowed to US pressure to abandon its joint development of the Azadegan natural gas field. Japan’s Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba told the media yesterday that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates had been approached to supply more oil as Japan wound back its imports from Iran. Japan and South Korea buy about 25 percent of Iran’s oil exports.

China, which is confronting US demands on multiple fronts, has so far resisted US bullying. Last week, President Obama released a key strategic review that made Asia the top priority for the US military and singled out China as the chief threat to American economic and strategic interests in the region.

In Beijing, Geithner will repeat US demands that China revalue its currency. Trade relations are already tense after China imposed tariffs on imported American automobiles in November and began an inquiry into US government subsidies for renewable energy industries. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration is setting up a new task force to investigate alleged unfair trade and business practices by China.

The US demand that China fall into line with unilateral American sanctions on Iran is another device designed to undermine Chinese economic and strategic interests. China has developed close economic relations with Iran and purchases large quantities of Iranian oil, in part to avoid being dependent on close American allies such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.

China has publicly opposed the imposition of further penalties on Iran via the UN Security Council and has so far refused to back Washington’s sanctions. China’s vice foreign minister, Cui Tiankai, declared on Monday: “Regular economic and trade relations between China and Iran have nothing to do with the nuclear issue.”

Washington’s attempts to strong-arm Beijing underscore the fact that the sharpening US confrontation with Iran is part of a global imperialist strategy that goes far beyond concerns with Tehran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. Rather, US imperialism is seeking to establish its untrammelled hegemony over the key energy-rich regions of the Middle East and Central Asia, as a means of undermining its European and Asian rivals.

Geithner’s visit to Beijing contains the implicit threat that the US could punish Chinese corporations for trading with Iran—a move that would dramatically heighten economic tensions between the US and China.

By Peter Symonds

11 January 2012

@ WSWS.org

It may come as a surprise to Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum but the U.S. is obligated under international law to the peaceful resolution of its grievance against Iran.

Santorum has criticized President Obama’s attempt to negotiate withIran and, according to The Christian Science Monitor, “called for increased covert sabotage, bombings, and even arresting foreign scientists” working in Iran. Romney has called Iran “the greatest threat we face” and for pulverizing its nuclear facilities “through airstrikes and (to) make it very public we are doing just that.”

If the U.S. sought to prevail by military force, however, it would be in contravention of at least three historic treaties the U.S. has signed pledging itself to the peaceful resolution of disputes. As war fever sweeps Washington and the Republican candidates, save for Rep. Ron Paul, cry for war, it behooves Iran to initiate legal action.

In this age of instantaneous communications, the whole world is watching to see if either nation will seize the diplomatic initiative, to see which truly prefers conversation to conflict. As members of the United Nations, both Iran and the U.S. are obligated to go to arbitration, not to come out shooting, a fact lost on the hawkish GOP politicians who seem unaware the American people have had a bellyful of war and want to prioritize a domestic agenda.

According to Francis Boyle, a world renowned international law professor, both Iran and the U.S. are signatories of the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928 which states, “The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.”

To the contrary, “The United States has been illegally threatening war against Iran going back to the Bush Jr. Administration,” says international law authority Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois, Champaign, and author of “Destroying World Order: U.S. Imperialism in the Middle East Before and After September 11”(Clarity Press).

Boyle reminds, “Article 2 of the United Nations Charter requires the pacific settlement of the international dispute between the United States and Iran.” The UN Charter, he adds, “sets up numerous procedures” for the U.S.-Iranian dispute while prohibiting “both the threat and use of force by the United States against Iran.”

Ditto for the Hague Convention of 1899, to which both nations are a party. That pact set up the Permanent Court of Arbitration(PCA) in The Hague and made it the duty of other signatories of that treaty to remind the aggrieved parties the Court is there for them.

The reason given by the U.S. for threatening Iran is alleged to be that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon in secret. This charge is made with a straight face even as the U.S. lavishes military aid on its ally Israel. Israel is said to have an arsenal of 200-300 nuclear bombs it refuses to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect.

The spurious U.S. pretext for war flies in the face of U.S. aggression against Iran long before Iran began building the nuclear facilities it says are needed to expand electrical output. Past U.S. aggression had everything to do with Iran’s oil and nothing else.

It is indisputable that the CIA in 1953 overthrew by force and violence Iran’s democratic government, causing Iranians years of suffering under a savage, despotic regime. The CIA overthrow was prompted by Great Britain, peeved when Iran took over management of its own oil fields after years of being cheated by the British corporation to whom they were entrusted. That firm today is known as BP.

The U.S. also backed Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran and supplied him with conventional weapons as well as illegal chemical and biological warfare agents responsible for the horrible killing and maiming of tens of thousands of Iranian troops. This was, in fact, by any reasoning, an act of war by the U.S. against Iran.

As peace activist David Swanson writes on OpEdNews January 6th: “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.”

This same U.S. that is threatening to Iran today has a long history of lying in order to justify its wars of aggression. It lied to invade Iraq by charging Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, when he did not. It lied in 1964 to justify its war in Viet Nam when it claimed the Vietnamese attacked a U.S. destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin, when they did not. And much of the U.S. public believes Washington lied about those responsible for the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington to justify the start of the war against Afghanistan. Aggressive nations relish a fight and the U.S. presently is doing just that in a half dozen countries in the Middle East and Africa.

This history is important because, by contrast, Iran has not started a war in approximately 300 years. Its defense budget of less than $8 billion a year is a tiny fraction of the U.S. warfare budget of nearly $1 trillion annually. (Describing Iran as America’s “gravest threat” reflects poorly on Romney’s foreign affairs smarts.) In fact, Iran would commit national suicide if it launched an attack upon the U.S. or Israel. The Pentagon’s annual budget is the largest in the world and, in fact, greater than the next 20 military powers combined.

Yet another measure of Iran’s peaceful intent and America’s warlike posture is that Iran has no military bases outside of its own borders while the U.S. has over 800 bases around the world from Okinawa to Diego Garcia, frequently established against the will of the local inhabitants. More than 40 U.S. bases are located in six nations that encircle Iran, from which the Pentagon is poised to attack.

Betraying America’s aggressive intent is that none of its military response has been to defend its own borders from attack. Its troops are always waging war halfway around the world in Asia and the Middle East, bombing the other guy’s yard. Given the foregoing facts, which nation does Gov. Romney conclude poses the greater menace to world peace and security? Iran, of course.

While Iran’s military in recent days says it will give a good account of itself if attacked, there is every prospect Iran would suffer the terrible punishments the U.S. inflicted on Viet Nam and Iraq, among others, if war broke out.

An imaginative leadership in Iran likely would be better off to announce in advance a course of non-violent resistance to any aggressive move by the U.S. and/or Israel. And it needs to immediately present its case to the International Court of Justice at the Peace Palace in The Hague.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Here Is The Legal Opinion by Francis A. Boyle

Article 2 (3) of the United Nations Charter requires the pacific settlement of the international dispute between the United States and Iran. To the same effect is article 33 and the entirety of Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter that mandate and set up numerous procedures for the pacific settlement of the international dispute between the United States and Iran. And of course Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter prohibits both the threat and use of force by the United States against Iran.

Furthermore, both Iran and the United States are parties to the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, upon which legal basis the Nazi Leaders were prosecuted by the United States, inter alia, at Nuremberg for Crimes against Peace, sentenced to death, and executed. In Article I thereof the States Parties “condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.” The United States has been illegally threatening war against Iran going back to the Bush Jr. Administration. Article II requires the United States only to pursue a pacific settlement of its international dispute with Iran: “The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.”

Finally, both the United States and Iran are parties to the 1899 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. This seminal Hague Peace Convention establishes numerous mechanisms for the pacific settlement of international disputes between contracting parties that are too numerous to analyze here. But they are discussed in detail in my book Foundations of World Order (Duke University Press: 1999). According to article 27 thereof, if a serious dispute threatens to break out between contracting powers, it was the DUTY of the other contracting powers to remind them that the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague is open to them, and such reminder could not be treated as an unfriendly act of intervention by the disputants. Today the world needs one State party to either the 1899 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes or the 1907 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes to publicly remind both the United States and Iran that the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, together with its International Bureau and the entirety of the 1899 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes , are available to the two States in order to resolve their dispute in a peaceful manner.

After the terrorist assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand in Sarajevo in June of 1914, Serbia made an offer to Austria to submit the entire dispute to “the International Tribunal of The Hague”—i.e.,to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. Austria did not accept the offer, the First World War broke out, and about 10 Million Human Beings were needlessly slaughtered. The death toll from World War III will be incalculable. Humanity must not allow our history to repeat itself! Otherwise, that could be the end of our Humanity.

By Sherwood Ross

8 January 2012

Countercurrents.org

(Sherwood Ross is an American public relations consultant who formerly reported for major dailies and wire services and was active in the civil rights movement. Reach him at sherwoodross10@gmail. com).

The Obama administration has reinforced the threat of American military strikes against Iran by doubling the number of US aircraft carrier groups in the region. The provocative decision heightens the danger of war in the Persian Gulf as the US moves aggressively to impose a de facto embargo on Iranian oil exports.

The aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson, backed by a cruiser and a destroyer, arrived in the Arabian Sea this week to join the USS John Stennis. A third aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, is also heading for the area after a port visit in Thailand on Tuesday.

US military spokesmen downplayed the naval deployments as “routine,” noting that the USS John Stennis was due to return to the US. Nevertheless, the Pentagon has quietly decided to maintain two aircraft carriers in the region rather than one, and, while the changeover is taking place, could have three, greatly enhancing its ability to conduct an air and naval war against Iran.

The New York Times reported on Thursday that the Obama administration had taken the unusual step of directly warning Iran via a secret diplomatic channel that any attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz would be considered a “red line”—implying massive military retaliation. Tehran has threatened to shut the waterway, which carries about one fifth of the world’s daily traded oil, if the US and its allies block Iranian oil exports.

The Obama administration’s menacing moves against Tehran are being accompanied by an escalating campaign in the American and international media designed to vilify the Iranian regime and create the climate for war. A steady stream of editorials and commentary gives legitimacy to unproven claims that Iran is developing nuclear arms, while portraying the regime as aggressive, provocative and a threat to regional peace.

In reality, the description more acutely applies to the Obama administration, which, at the very least, has given its blessing to a covert war of assassination and sabotage being waged inside Iran. The latest victim was the Iranian nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, who was killed by a bomb blast on Wednesday in an operation that bears all the hallmarks of the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad.

Thousands of mourners took part yesterday in a public funeral in Tehran for Roshan, angrily denouncing the killing. Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused the US and Israel of orchestrating the “cowardly assassination” and pledged to punish those responsible.

Washington’s pro-forma denials of any involvement are in marked contrast to the widespread discussion in US official and media circles, which accepts these acts of terrorism as legitimate and debates the efficacy of the covert war. Over the past two years, three other Iranian nuclear scientists have been killed, a series of unexplained bombings have taken place at military sites, and a computer virus has been used to inflict damage at Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Whether or not Iran’s nuclear program has been retarded, these criminal activities have the character of deliberate provocations aimed at producing retaliation by Tehran, which will, in turn, be seized on to further inflame tensions in the Persian Gulf or provide a casus belli for war.

The Obama administration’s punitive economic measures against Iran are likewise acts of calculated aggression. On December 31, President Obama signed a measure into law that imposes penalties on foreign corporations that do business with Iran’s central bank. The US sanction, which does not even have the fig leaf of UN approval, means that Washington can punish companies for carrying out normal and entirely legal business activities.

Over the past fortnight, US officials have used the threat to bully foreign governments, businesses and banks into complying with Washington’s demands. US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner visited Japan and China this week to press for a reduction in oil imports from Iran. A senior Obama administration official told the New York Times on Thursday, “We do mean to close down the Central Bank of Iran.”

The US legislation is already having an impact. According to the Financial Times, European refineries have begun to wind back their purchases of Iranian oil on the spot market, while at this stage continuing to buy under their long-term contracts. The European Union is due to decide later this month on a full embargo on Iranian imports. Faced with the prospect of being excluded from the American financial system, European banks are also restricting their involvement in financing trade with Iran.

To drive home the threat, the US announced sanctions on Thursday against three oil corporations: China’s state-run Zhuhai Zhenrong Corporation, Singapore’s Kuo Oil Pte Ltd, and FAL Oil Company Ltd, an independent trader based in the United Arab Emirates. The companies will be excluded from receiving US export licences, US Export Import Bank financing or loans over $10 million from US financial institutions.

There is no doubt that the main target was Zhuhai Zhenrong, a major Chinese corporation, which not only buys Iranian oil but sells refined petroleum products to the country. Lacking refining capacity of its own, Iran is dependent on imports for 30 to 40 percent of its gasoline.

While Zhuhai Zhenrong is unlikely to be seriously affected by US sanctions, other major Chinese oil corporations—China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC), China Petroleum and Chemical Corp (Sinopec) and China National Offshore Oil Corp (CNOOC)—have billions of dollars invested in the US energy sector and are thus highly vulnerable.

China has refused to back further UN sanctions against Iran and has rebuffed US calls for it to reduce Iranian oil imports. The sanctions against Zhuhai Zhenrong are aimed at pressuring Beijing to fall into line. Analyst Derek Scissors from the US-based Heritage Foundation told Reuters: “We don’t want to be taking action against Sinopec, CNPC and CNOOC. They are huge, and politically powerful. But Zhenrong is close enough to them, and won’t really do that much harm beyond sending the signal.”

The targeting of China highlights the underlying purpose of the Obama administration’s aggressive drive against Iran: to secure US economic and political dominance in the Middle East and thus control over the vital energy supplies of its European and Asian rivals. Its reckless intervention in the Persian Gulf risks a dangerous new war that could embroil the region and the major powers.

By Peter Symonds

14 January 2012

@ WSWS.org

Jan. 3—Lyndon LaRouche has again warned that the world is hovering on the brink of thermonuclear extinction, and that the sole source of that danger is the British Empire, with its control over the U.S. arsenal of nuclear weapons via their White House pawn, President Barack Obama.

The source of the war danger does not stem from Iran’s quest for a nuclear bomb, or Syria’s alleged crackdown on peaceful dissenters, or even Israel’s obsession to remain the sole nuclear weapons state in the Middle East.

The British oligarchy is committed to preventing the Eurasian region, led by China, Russia, India, and other nations of the Asia-Pacific, from emerging from the collapse of the entire trans-Atlantic financial and economic system, as the new center of gravity of world political and economic power. To prevent this from happening, London is committed to starting a thermonuclear conflict pitting the United States against Russia and China. From the standpoint of the British oligarchy, a world of vastly reduced population—under 1 billion inhabitants—is preferrable to a prospering world, in which the power of the private financier oligarchy is wiped out.

While the overwhelming majority of American citizens and even leading politicians are absolutely clueless about this reality, the same is not true of leading circles in Russia and China, who have made their voices heard, loudly, in recent weeks, in a war-avoidance effort that has been joined by some leading American military and diplomatic circles.

But as LaRouche has repeatedly emphasized, dating back to his April 11, 2009 international webcast, the only true war-avoidance option that is sure to avert thermonuclear Armageddon is the immediate removal of President Obama from office—using the provisions of the U.S. Constitution to secure a stable transfer of power, and the launching of an unprecedented global economic recovery.

With Obama in office, unfettered by the threat of impeachment or removal under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, London maintains a precarious finger on the U.S. nuclear trigger. Furthermore, as LaRouche emphasized in a New Year’s Day emergency message, if nuclear Armageddon is avoided, the world still faces a plunge into a New Dark Age of famine, disease, and perpetual war—unless the United States leads a fundamental revolution in policy, returning to the American System tradition of a credit system under national banking, and a science-driver program for global economic recovery.

Strategic Warnings

Both Russian and Chinese leaders are keenly aware of the danger of a thermonuclear war, triggered by an Israeli attack on Iran, or other provocations aimed at pitting the United States against the Eurasian superpowers. While Russian-Chinese relations have their own long history of friction, the two nations have reached a consensus that the war danger must be defeated, and have signaled, in a series of public statements and actions, that they are aware of the threats, and will work towards a common war-avoidance effort.

On Dec. 26, in one indicative action, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin held a televised meeting with Dmitri Rogozin, until recently the Russian Ambassador to NATO. Rogozin was recently named deputy prime minister in charge of the defense sector, the nuclear power sector, and the space program. In the meeting, Rogozin pledged to lead a rapid “rebirth of the defense industry,” with “one of the most important aspects being, in effect, a new industrialization of the defense industry, which should function as a locomotive to pull the entire Russian economy.”

A month before his promotion to deputy prime minister, Rogozin had visited the restricted city of Krasnoznamensk to deliver an address before the Aerospace Forces, in which he clearly spelled out the war danger emanating from NATO’s pursuit of a missile defense shield in Europe, minus the earlier cooperation with Moscow on a joint defense shield.

Rogozin warned that

“NATO continues to live by the principles set down by NATO Secretary-General Lord Ismay [1952-57]: ‘To keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down’…. They understand that the Germans may always develop into a force that will consolidate Europe around itself.”

Zeroing in on the recent agreement reached between the U.S. and Romania, where an important component of the anti-missile system will be installed on Russia’s southeastern tier, Rogozin told the Aerospace Forces assembled, “We have scrutinized the agreement the Americans have signed with the Romanians. The Romanians may think they are important interception missile operators, but even the base commander, a Romanian serviceman, has the right to enter only the lobby.” Rogozin warned that the Europeans have become “hostages and targets of a retaliatory attack.”

On Dec. 27, the Chinese also issued a clear warning that they understood the new threats coming from a London-controlled Obama Administration in Washington. In a lengthy article in People’s Daily, Lin Zhiyuan, an expert on U.S. policy, from the Department of World Military Research of the Academy of Military Sciences, warned that the Obama Administration has adopted a new “return to Asia” strategy, based on the British geopolitical doctrines of Halford Mackinder.

“Some thinkers of the U.S. Navy are quite interested in the English geographer Halford Mackinder’s ‘Heartland theory,’ and believe that controlling the South China Sea will make the U.S. Air Force and Navy command East Asia, and consequently command the ‘World Island.’ Currently, the situation in Europe is under the American control, and the situation in the Middle East is beneficial to the United States. The world’s geographic center is transferring from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and the Asia-Pacific region has become the world’s political and economic center. The United States is eager to find a new way to consolidate its dominant position in this region.”

Lin concluded that, with President Obama facing a challenging reelection campaign, under conditions of serious economic crisis at home, “the Obama administration needs to be more aggressive in military and diplomacy in order to create favorable conditions to win the presidency election. Therefore, the American global strategy shows a layout of stabilizing Europe, ‘shrinking’ appropriately in the Middle East, and ‘expanding’ in the Asia-Pacific region.” As the Chinese are well aware, it was Mackinder’s geopolitical doctrine of war between the Heartland and the Rimland that was the basis for Britain launching two world wars in the 20th Century.

Pre-War Deployments

Already on Dec. 15, the Russian government, in a clear recognition of the war danger coming from the Anglo-Americans, published a detailed report on the bolstering of Russian defenses along the southern tier. The article, by Sergei Konovalov, based on Defense Ministry briefings, was published both in the Russian-language daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta and in the English-language Russia Today. Konovalov began by bluntly stating that, “The geopolitical situation unfolding around Syria and Iran is prompting Russia to make its military structures in the South Caucasus and the Caspian, Mediterranean and Black Sea regions more efficient. Nezavisimaya Gazeta’s Defense Ministry sources are saying that the Kremlin has been informed about an upcoming U.S.-supported Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. The strike will be sudden and take place on ‘day X’ in the near future. One could assume Iran’s reaction will not be delayed. A full-scale war is possible, and its consequences could be unpredictable.”

The article, not coincidentally, appeared the day that the Russia-European Union summit was underway in Brussels, and just one week after the NATO-Russia summit in the same city. Konovalov recounted a Russian warning delivered to the Europeans the day before the EU summit: “A day before the event, Russia’s envoy to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov, relayed a message from the Kremlin, saying that an Israeli, or U.S. strike on Iran will lead to a ‘catastrophic development of events.’ The diplomat stressed that the negative consequences will not only be felt by the region, ‘but also in a much broader context.’ “

The article went on to detail all of the war-alert deployments of the Russian southern command, which has been on a heightened alert status since Dec. 1, particularly Russian forces in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, who are aware of potential provocations from Georgia, in the event of an attack on Iran by Israel, the U.S., and NATO. The alert status includes coastal guided-missile batallions in Dagestan, and in the Caspian Flotilla.

The report also noted the deployment of the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov into the eastern Mediterranean off the coast of Syria, noting that Ministry of Defense officials would neither confirm nor deny that the carrier was accompanied by Russian nuclear submarines from the Northern Fleet.

The Konovalov article concluded with a report on an assessment by Russian Col. Vladimir Popov (ret.), an expert on the Caspian Sea region, who told the paper that he “does not exclude the possibility of Russia’s military involvement in the Iranian conflict. ‘In the worst-case scenario, if Tehran is facing complete military defeat after a land invasion of the U.S. and NATO troops, Russia will provide it military support, at least on a military-technical level,’ predicts Vladimir Popov.”

At the United Nations

Russia’s UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin brought the issue of the war danger before the UN Security Council during one of his final comments as Council president (he was replaced on Jan. 1, by the South African ambassador). In a year-end interview with reporters, Churkin warned that Russia would not support any further sanctions against Iran, and also reported that his government was engaged in talks with both the Syrian government and opposition leaders to bring a peaceful end to the crisis there, which was being fueled by “violent extremists” who refused to negotiate. Churkin warned that the “greatest danger” in 2012 was a war between Iran and Western nations, and that his government would take measures to prevent such a war.

The most in-depth Western media coverage of Churkin’s warnings appeared in the Dec. 31 Daily Telegraph. He asserted that

“Moscow believes that there are no further sanctions at the UN Security Council against Iran regarding its nuclear program. The sanctions track at the Security Council has been exhausted.”

In an interview on Dec. 30 with Russia Today, Churkin had reiterated that the standoff between Iran and the West represents “a very dangerous scenario” for war, “but we do believe that a peaceful solution is possible…. Our consistent stand, our effort, is going to be targeted at doing whatever we can in order to prevent this scenario of regional catastrophe being carried out in 2012.” And while Russia is also concerned about Iran possibly developing nuclear weapons, Moscow does not “accept the proposition that the best way to prevent a war is to start a war.”

Churkin closed by restating the Russian government position that the Syrian situation can and must be resolved without resorting to outside force, as had been the case with Libya. He demanded the same degree of patience from the international community for Syria that has been shown in the case of Yemen.

“I think there was more bloodshed over the past few months [in Yemen] than in Syria. We do not accept the premise that somehow the Assad regime cannot change, that there cannot be progress [through dialogue] under this regime.”

Indeed, Russia’s intervention has apparently temporarily pushed back the London-led war drive for regime change in Damascus. In the final days of 2011, leaders of the major Syrian opposition parties met in Cairo, and signed a formal decree, vowing to seek reform without outside military intervention, the use of violence, or the promotion of sectarian conflict. One of the signers of that document, National Coordinating Committee for Democratic Change (NCC) head Haitham Manna, publicly praised the Russian role in mediating a solution to the Syrian crisis, noting that it was more worthwhile to look to Russia, China, and Iran for assistance than to rely on traditional Western allies like France and Great Britain and the United States.

American Voices

The war-avoidance campaign has not been restricted to Russia and China. In addition to LaRouche’s warnings, a number of leading American military and diplomatic voices have been sounded against the Iran trigger.

On Dec. 29, Paul Pillar, until recently the Middle East director of the National Intelligence Council at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, published a sharp attack on U.S. failed diplomacy towards Iran. In The National Interest journal, Pillar warned, “The United States has made it almost impossible for Iran to say ‘yes’ to whatever it is the United States is supposedly demanding of Iran.” Pillar noted that

“Any feasible change in Iranian policies that could be the basis of a new understanding with the United States and the West would include a continuing Iranian nuclear program, very likely including the enrichment of uranium by Iran. Feasible arrangements that would provide the minimum assurances to both sides could be negotiated, but they are unexplored. They remain unexplored because the United States has abandoned negotiations and has made its policy toward Iran solely one of pressure and sanctions.”

Pillar went one step further, charging that many in the U.S. government do not want those sanctions to work.

“They instead see them as a necessary preliminary to war that they really want. This is a tragedy in the making. It is being made largely because too many people in this country have lost sight both of U.S. interests and of the fundamental bargaining principle that if we want to solve a problem that involves someone else with whom we have differences, we should make it easier, not harder, for the other side to say yes.”

The next day, a similar chord was struck by former Amb. Thomas Pickering and William Luers, writing in the Washington Post. The authors warned that “Military action is becoming the seemingly fail-safe solution for the United States to deal with real and imagined security problems. The uncertain and intellectually demanding ways of diplomacy are seen as ‘unmanly’ and tedious, likely to involve compromise or even ‘appeasement.’

U.S. policy, they lament, has become one of “an unprecedented series of sanctions and ostracization. History teaches that engagement and diplomacy pay dividends that military threats do not. Deployment of military force can bring the immediate illusion of ‘success’ but always results in unforeseen consequences and collateral damage that complicate further the achievement of America’s main objectives. Deploying diplomats with a strategy while maintaining some pressure on Iran will lower Tehran’s urgency to build a bomb and reduce the danger of conflict.” Instead, the U.S. must set out on a “relentless search” for different ways to deal with Iran, without which “Washington will be stuck with a policy that will not change Iran’s practices or its regime and could lead to a catastrophic war.”

These U.S. institutional voices opposing a catastrophic war must themselves face the reality that it is only with the removal of President Obama from office, by legitimate Constitutional means already available, that war avoidance can be assured. Only by removing British control over the American nuclear arsenal can war be averted at this late moment.

That is the harsh reality that the world is facing, as the New Year begins.

By Jeffrey Steinberg

6 January 2012

@ Executive Intelligence Reviews

Nine months after anti-government protests began in Syria, with more than 4,000 people killed, the crisis sometimes seems like it might be heading towards a civil war. Even though regional and international players have upped the political and diplomatic pressure on Damascus in recent months, clashes between security forces and armed groups and army defectors, as the balance of forces continue to sway in all directions. This article looks at the unfolding situation in Syria, and how key actors have responded to the crisis.

Introduction: Background to the uprising

Nearly nine months into the Syrian uprising, the death toll, according to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), has reached a staggering 5 000 people (civilians, government soldiers, army defectors and members of armed opposition groups). Despite a consistently rising death toll and continued violence, the situation has reached an impasse.

The uprising began in March inspired by or as part of the broader Middle East and North Africa (MENA) uprisings which had engulfed Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and Libya. In the initial stages – from the earliest protests in Dar’aa – Syrians who took to the streets called for President Bashar al-Asad to implement reforms which he had promised since taking office in 2001. These early protests included expressions of love for the president. The heavy-handed response of the regime, however, determined that within weeks the situation developed into one where protesters became hardened in their stance and the predominant slogan of protesters opposing the regime segued to ‘The people want the overthrow of the regime’.

Soon thereafter, it became evident that a ‘third force’ had entered the fray, taking advantage of the protests to further its own objectives and agenda. This included groups of armed men who pitted themselves militarily against the state. This body of armed opposition included a number of elements. Some were Syrians who had fought in Iraq and who had returned to their homes militarily trained, armed, and with a strong Sunni chauvinist ideology. Others were Lebanese – mainly from the disadvantaged Sunni majority areas around Tripoli in the north of Lebanon. Some genuinely wanted (militarily) to support a democratic transition; others aimed simply to create havoc and instability and undermine and weaken the regime. Some from the latter group were involved in attacks both on government troops and protesters. While some of the arms for this third force came from those who had fought in Iraq and elsewhere, most of it was smuggled in from Lebanon – funded and supplied by Saudi Arabia and Lebanon’s Future Movement. Later, arms were also smuggled in from Jordan and Libya. In the main, the modus operandi of the third force element – which remained small for a long time – was to attack troops – either while troops were on duty in various towns where protests were taking place or by ambushing them on roads, in their homes, etc., and, to a lesser extent, random attacks on troops and protesters.

The past few months have seen the uprising take a decidedly militaristic turn – especially with a large number of soldiers who defected from the army and made common cause with other armed groups. Initially, the army defectors were hailed as heroes by protesters because they switched sides to join the protesters, but they soon decided to make use of their military training against the state rather than joining unarmed protests.

The opposition

One of the reasons for the uprising not being able to proceed beyond a certain stage is the fractious nature of the opposition. The opposition includes groups within the country as well as groups in exile. The difficulty in communication between those inside and those outside further undermines cohesive action. Furthermore, ideological and other differences between the various groups means that attempts at unifying the opposition have met with little sustainable success. Currently, there are at least three coalitions of opposition groups outside the country, while inside there is an attempt at coordination through the Local Coordination Committees (LCC). However, the volatile security situation makes real coordination virtually impossible.

The most prominent of the external groups is the Syrian National Council (SNC), which is head-quartered in Istanbul. The most significant group within the SNC is the banned Ikhwanul-Muslimoon – the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. The SNC sees itself following a trajectory similar to the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC). However, it has no base inside Syria, no popular mandate, and no means to launch the kind of campaign that the NTC did. It has attempted to campaign for ‘recognition’ by foreign powers, but has succeeded only in getting the ‘recognition’ of Libya’s NTC. The SNC has called for foreign intervention in Syria, including a ‘no-fly zone’. This call has also been seen in recent protests. However, not all opposition groups agree, and many regard any foreign intervention as disastrous for their struggle.

The leader of the self-styled Free Syrian Army (FSA), Riyadh al-Asaad, is based in Turkey. The FSA is a group of army defectors who claim to represent the interest of protesters and to act to protect them from the brutality of the state. However the actions of the FSA contradict this position. This can be seen in unprovoked attacks in various flashpoint areas against state security apparatuses. Additionally the FSA believes that the regime can only be overthrown through violence. There are suggestions that in certain areas there is co-ordination between the ‘armed groups’ and the FSA.

The nature of the conflict

The ‘uprising’ in Syria may now be said to present itself in three forms:

• Sporadic demonstrations as occur in some areas;
• Ongoing, repeated demonstrations in other areas; and
• Armed conflict.

Sporadic demonstrations have occurred in a number of towns and villages across the country. Sometimes these are sparked by an incident in another town, or a heavy-handed security force operation in the town itself. Other areas have been experiencing ongoing, repeated demonstrations– in some places almost every day; while in others every few days.

Finally, there are certain areas where armed clashes have taken place between, on the one hand, army defectors and other armed elements (either civilian or persons who have received some form of military training outside Syria) and the Syrian army, on the other. While the FSA is claiming ownership over all these elements and incidents, there is no proper command structure linking the internal armed groups to the FSA headquarters in Istanbul, and it is not clear whether the armed men within Syria will be willing to follow orders from outside if these orders contradict their own views. Thus far the FSA label has been convenient for them to claim ownership of actions, and will remain so as long as there is no attempt to impose a structure and strategy onto the local fighters. If this happens, we suspect that the FSA will be shown up to be just a set of disparate local armed groups.

Real fighting has been restricted to a few areas: Rastan (where the opposition armed elements were subdued); Homs (where fighting has been happening for more than three months); Dar’aa (where new fighting erupted in the past weeks); Idlib (where sporadic clashes have been occurring between the army, and defectors seeking refuge – or who are trying to escape over the Turkish border – rather than armed groups trying to capture territory); Hama (where fighting erupted a few weeks ago) and some areas on the outskirts of Damascus. Apart from these, the FSA has also claimed responsibility for a few sabotage operations. In none of these areas does the FSA (or the opposition more generally) control any territory (as for example, the opposition controlled Benghazi and western region in the Libyan conflict).

The current situation

Amidst a stalemate that has gripped Syria over the past few months, new developments have led to the question of whether we will witness a game-changer any time soon. There have been two important developments that have created such a feeling.

First, on 19 December, Syria finally signed an Arab League plan that saw foreign observers entering Syria and fanning out across the country. Second, the past weeks have seen bitter fighting and a high death toll particularly in the north-western Idlib province which borders Turkey. Neither development (nor both together) is significant enough to signal any change in the Syrian landscape in the near future. However, the larger regional picture and Syria’s position within that is noteworthy.

International Scenario

On the international front, there are four sets of actors – with subsets within them.

1.     Western powers – the most vocal being the United States, France, Germany and the UK;

2.     The Arab League – including the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) bloc;

3.     Syria’s allies / supporters – mainly Russia, China, Iran and Iraq; and

4.     Turkey.

Western powers have taken strong diplomatic positions against the Syrian regime and have implemented a range of sanctions over the past nine months. Beyond that, there is evidence that some within this group – particularly the CIA and the US State Department – have been providing other forms of support to the opposition, particularly the SNC.

The Arab League – which has not yet recovered from the Libyan imbroglio – has been more careful in dealing with Syria, and has attempted to position itself as a mediator. Its rhetoric has usually been harsher than its actions. The foreign observer agreement signed by Syria, which will allow foreign observers into areas across the country, is a coup for the League. It is also a coup for Syria which, by its signing, has forestalled the possibility that the League will refer the matter tithe UN Security Council. The strongest opponents of the Asad regime within the League are the GCC members – especially Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Lebanon, Iraq and Algeria (to a lesser extent) have been more supportive of Syria.

For the more vocal GCC members, there are two main objectives: 1) to attempt to install a Sunni government in Syria that will allow for more amicable relations with them (especially Saudi Arabia), and 2) to undercut the influence of Iran in the region and to break the ‘arc of resistance’ which stretches from Iran across Iraq through Syria to Lebanon. For them, Syria is more about undermining Iran – for political and theological reasons – than about Syria itself. A recent GCC meeting held in Riyadh had Syria and Iran high on its agenda amidst talk, sparked by Saudi King Abdullah, of the GCC going beyond cooperation and forming itself into a ‘union’.

Of all the international players, Turkey has taken the hardest rhetorical line against the Asad regime. Furthermore, Turkey – and the AKP in particular – have been hosting the Syrian Ikhwan which they see as a mirror image of itself, and a possible loyal ally. Turkey hosts both the SNC and FSA. However, there are no indications that Turkey is willing to go beyond such rhetoric to taking any military action as is being called for by some opposition forces.

The pro-Syria camp remains resolute. Russia has much to lose if Asad falls. Syria is an important arms purchaser, and Syria hosts Russia’s only Mediterranean naval base in Tartous. Besides arms contracts worth four billion dollars, Russia has also invested heavily in Syrian infrastructure, energy and tourism – totalling 19.4 billion dollars in 2009. This includes building a natural gas processing plant near Homs and technical support for the Arab gas pipeline. A Russian oil company announced in January that it would spend 12.8 million dollars drilling wells near the Iraqi border. Ultimately, in the race with the West for allies and proxies, Syria is Russia’s only ally in the Arab world.

Both Russia and China also see the ‘ceding’ of Syria to the West as an invitation to extend NATO and US power further into the Asian continent and thus threatening their general geopolitical interests. For Iran, Syria is one of its most critical allies. It is Iran’s main ally in the Arab world and is central to its ‘arc of resistance’ model. Although Iran– along with Russia and China – has become frustrated with Asad’s lack of movement on reforms, it will not abandon Syria unless it can make a deal with the opposition. In the current state of affairs this is, however, highly improbable. To strengthen its support for Syria, Iran recently signed a free trade agreement with the country. Despite these expressions of support, Iran’s assessment is that if matters continue along the current trajectory, the Asad regime will not be able to survive until the end of 2012. Iran also held secret talks with members of the Syrian opposition in order to assess their positions, strength and possibilities for their being willing to work with Iran in the future.

The international situation, then, has seen very firm camps on the Syrian issue, and there is not likely to be much movement in allegiances in the near future.

The possibility – which gets mentioned every so often – of foreign military intervention remains very remote. No western country is keen to go that route – particularly after the messy situation in Libya. France, which had made such noises for a while, has backtracked and regards its involvement in any intervention as harmful to its interests. Western countries would be happier to have Turkey intervene, but Turkey is not even moving on the idea of a buffer zone. Neighbouring Syria, Turkey is concerned about the impact of a war in Syria on its own house. Despite harsh words from some in the Turkish government, the opposition to Syria is not universal within Turkish society, the Turkish political scene or the Turkish army.

Currently in the uprising

The past weeks have seen fierce fighting in the Idlib province with high death tolls resulting. Most fatalities are of armed people – defectors and soldiers, with others being mostly civilians caught in the crossfire. A large number of soldiers have been killed in the fighting, and the army has also lost a number of vehicles and equipment.

None of this, however, points to any possibility of a military victory by the opposition over the state. The Syrian army has still not used its strongest units in areas like Idlib and Homs. It is likely that, despite the confidence of the state that it will prevail, it is not willing entirely to discount the possibility that its army might be confronted by foreign forces and thus does not want to exhaust all its forces on internal battles. Furthermore, the areas where fighting is taking place –notably Homs – are not under the control of the opposition. Skirmishes are frequent; deaths occur on both sides, but by no stretch of the imagination are these areas incontestably in the hands of any opposition formation.

In broader terms, the internal opposition remains split. While there is some coordination of protests exercised by the LCC, there is not a general cohesiveness within the opposition. The internal opposition is also split between those who support dialogue with the state (notably long-time dissenters from the left and nationalist groups) and those who oppose any dialogue and wantonly the downfall of the regime (such as those in the LCC). The vastness of the country also makes coordination difficult.

The external opposition seems to have found some sense of organisational coherence within the Syrian National Council which has, of late, been very active on the diplomatic front. However, not all is rosy within the SNC. The organisation is plagued by internal bickering, criticism that it has an Islamist bent and, because of the many exiles in its ranks, is not representative of the protesters in Syria. There remain differences between the various components of the coalition, with the dominant group – the Muslim Brotherhood – using its position to ignore other groups and deal directly with SNC president Burhan Ghalioun. Furthermore, there is currently a re-evaluation within the SNC regarding its position on the Arab League plan. The regime’s signing of the plan – with most of its amendments taken on board – has somewhat undermined the SNC’s position and caused it to reassess how it relates to the League and to the League’s attempts at facilitating dialogue between the regime and the opposition. The SNC has, thus far, been keener on some forms of intervention (diplomatic and even, possibly, military) by western powers and Turkey than action by the League. Indeed, the SNC currently seems to be in a position where, rather than determining a programme and agenda for which it can win support, is looking to western proposals that it can support. The SNC’s recent conference in Tunis emerged with some concrete resolutions, mainly with regard to building its internal structures. The conference established bureaus for foreign relations, human rights and revolutionary support, among others. Interestingly, its vision for a future Syria includes an important role for the military. Indeed, among the discussions at the conference were how the military might be won over and the possibility of having Asad hand over power to the military while he goes into exile. Some SNC members claim they have already made contact with senior military officers who have agreed to defect if provided with protection. This is significant as it indicates an acceptance by the SNC that the Syrian military is central to a resolution of the crisis and to the future in Syria – despite the fact that it is this same military that is daily killing protesters and that the military is an integral part of the regime.

While there is – at a public level – respectful discussion between the SNC and the FSA, indications are that the relationship between the military opposition and the SNC is a difficult one. One indication of this is the fact that no FSA representatives were invited for the SNC conference in Tunis. In summary, neither the state of the uprising and armed conflict nor the state of the opposition can lead one to believe that there is impending change form that quarter.

A disturbing turn in the uprising has been the increasingly sectarian expressions that have emerged, with sectarian attacks, killings and other brutalities now having become a usual part of the battle between the regime and the opposition.

Regime support

Despite seven months of sustained protests and fighting, it is clear that the Syrian nation as a whole has not risen up against the regime. On the one hand, there is a large number of people who oppose the regime but are concerned about the repercussions for the country of a revolution-type scenario. On the other hand, the regime still has substantial active support. Large demonstrations continue to be held in support of Asad and the government, and this support for the regime shows no sign of altering radically any time soon. The business community and clergy maintain their support. Asad got a boost earlier this month when a range of clerics – of various Christian denominations, Sunni Muslim, Shi’a Muslim and Alawi – publicly expressed support for him and confidence in his ability to maintain stability in Syria. There is also no indication that the army or the security forces – or even significant sections of either – will switch sides. Defections in the army are of a small number of mostly junior soldiers rather than officers.

Conclusion

Despite all kinds of movement, diplomatic activity and internal unrest in Syria, there is not much likelihood that entrenched positions – within and without the country – will change soon. If it continues along the current trajectory, the Syrian crisis will be a protracted one, and talk of either overthrowing the regime or of returning the country to calm within the next few months are fanciful. A situation is developing within Syria of extreme polarisation, with sectarianism rife and violence becoming an accepted option for many.

Faced with such a scenario, there seems to be little potential for a breakthrough in the crisis. Any breakthrough will be dependent on certain conditions:

• Acceptance by all sides that the only possible way forward is dialogue and negotiating Syria out of its crisis. Some opposition groups – especially the SNC – reject dialogue with the regime. In a similar vein the regime rejects the idea of talking to the SNC. Such hard-line positions will sink the country further into a morass rather than extricate it from the situation.
• An understanding that, at the very least, such dialogue will result – immediately – in political pluralism, greater exercise of freedoms by the population and civil society, and greater control over the work of the security forces.
• An acceptance that a precondition for future movement will entail the end of one-party rule.

The most real possibility for a breaking of the impasse is not one that is attained by Syrians but one reached through an internationally-agreed solution that involves Russia, the United States, Iran and Qatar. Indications are that Russia and the US have already begun discussions about a mutually-agreed way to resolve the Syrian crisis. Iran and Qatar (representing the pro-regime and pro-opposition blocs respectively) will watch these developments with keenness and will be useful to convince their respective Syrian partners to accept a deal.

By Afro- Middle East Centre

December 2011

Relations between the Turkish and Iraqi governments have deteriorated sharply. In a speech to parliament on Monday, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, the head of a Sunni Islam-based religious party, accused his Iraqi counterpart, Nouri al-Maliki, the leader of a Shiite-coalition, of promoting sectarian violence against the Sunni minority in Iraq.

Erdogan warned: “Maliki should know that if you start a conflict in Iraq in the form of sectarian clashes it will be impossible for us to remain silent. Those who stand by with folded arms watching brothers massacre each other are accomplices to murder.”

Erdogan was responding to complaints by Maliki that Turkey has been interfering in Iraqi domestic politics through its support for the largely Sunni-based Iraqiya coalition, which is engaged in a fierce power struggle with the government in Baghdad.

The implications of Erdogan’s statement are unmistakable. They amount to a direct threat that Turkey will support an intervention into Iraq on the same pretext of “defending civilians” used to justify the NATO-led intervention to oust Gaddafi regime in Libya. In the case of Iraq, intervention would be justified with the allegation that Maliki is persecuting the country’s Sunnis.

The Turkish stance toward Maliki is inseparable from the broader US-backed drive to refashion geopolitical relations in the Middle East and, above all, to shatter the regional influence of Iran. US allies such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other Gulf state monarchies—all dominated by Sunni elites—have lined up with Washington against Shiite-ruled Iran. They are using inflammatory sectarian language to try to galvanise support for a policy that threatens to trigger a regional war.

The Syrian regime, which is a longstanding Iranian ally and based on an Alawite Shiite ruling stratum, has been targeted for “regime change.” The current Iraqi government, while it is the direct creation of the American invasion and occupation of Iraq, is also viewed as unacceptable by the regional US allies. The Shiite factions forming the Maliki government have longstanding ties with the Iranian religious establishment. Maliki has refused to support an ongoing US military presence in Iraq or economic sanctions, let alone military aggression, against Syria and Iran.

Iraqiya, which was part of the ruling coalition, campaigned aggressively to weaken the political dominance of the Shiite parties in the lead-up to the withdrawal of US combat troops in December. Sunni leaders accused Maliki of reneging on an agreement to preside over a “national unity” government and pressured him to place the main security ministries under the direction of Iraqiya head Ayad Allawi.

Allawi, a secular Shiite, had been a long-time American collaborator before the US invasion and was installed by the US in 2004 as the “interim” prime minister of Iraq. He sanctioned the military repression of the Sunni population and atrocities such as the destruction of the largely Sunni city of Fallujah. Despite this history, he was adopted by the Sunni elites as their main representative after the effective collapse of the anti-occupation insurgency. His qualifications are his hostility to the Shiite religious parties, his anti-Iranian Arab nationalism and his close connections to Washington.

Attempts to elevate Allawi, with clear support from the US, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, have suffered something of a shipwreck. Maliki and his Shiite-based Da’wa Party, which was repressed by the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein, responded with a pre-emptive strike against the challenge to their grip on power.

Hundreds of ex-Baath Party members, particularly former senior military officers, have been rounded up and detained. Allawi alleged this month that more than 1,000 members of his and other parties opposed to Maliki had been arrested in recent months. He claimed they had been subjected to torture to extract false confessions of committing “terrorism.” There has been a growing number of indiscriminate bombings of civilian areas and religious events by suspected Sunni extremists. Last week, 34 men accused of terrorism were executed in a single day.

In the most high-profile case of alleged Sunni “terrorism,” the bodyguards of Iraqiya Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi—one of the country’s highest ranking politicians—were detained and allegedly tortured. They were paraded on national television in late December to accuse the Sunni leader of personally directing a sectarian death squad.

Hashemi has only escaped arrest by taking refuge in the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq. He has been charged with crimes that carry a death sentence.

Maliki responded to a walkout of Iraqiya ministers from his cabinet by having their offices locked and stripping them of their political responsibilities. The Iraqi parliament has continued to sit despite a boycott by most Iraqiya members.

Last Friday, the Iraqiya deputy governor of the majority Sunni province of Diyala, who agitated last year for regional autonomy, was seized by secret police operating under Maliki’s command. He has been charged with “terrorist activities.”

The present crisis could rapidly lead to the eruption of civil war and potentially fracture Iraq along sectarian lines, drawing in other regional powers such as Turkey and Iran. The majority of the 300,000-strong Iraqi military are Shiites. While poorly trained and equipped, they have a degree of allegiance to Maliki’s government.

A confrontation is looming between the Maliki government and the autonomous Kurdish region in the north. Last week, a Shiite politician advocated an economic blockade of the Kurdish region unless Vice President Hashemi was handed over for trial. The Kurdish government has its own 200,000-strong armed forces.

Following the 2003 invasion, the US fostered sectarian divisions as a means of undermining the previous Baathist elite and blocking a unified resistance by ordinary working people against the occupation and collapse of living standards. Now the US is encouraging its regional allies to back the Sunni and Kurdish elites against the Maliki government, with reckless indifference for the rapidly escalating violence.

By James Cogan

26 January 2012

WSWS.org

It was a few minutes past eleven. I woke up “early” to start preparing for my school exams that were due to start in a couple of weeks. It was a lovely morning, warm and sunny. The December sunlight filtered through the curtained windows and so beautifully decorated the carpeted floor.

Everything was completely normal, except that the sky seemed clearer than usual with the absence of the Israeli unmanned drones that would fly and buzz in the sky above. No abnormal signs, no reason to worry, and not a single harbinger of an impending war.

My mom was away for the weekly shopping. My sisters, who had been halfway through their day, were back home from school and were already seated before the television, watching cartoons. I made myself a cup of tea and, as is my habit, started to count the pages I had to finish studying that day. Very soon, I was immersed in my book.

A little while later, and all of a sudden, all hell broke loose. I can’t even remember how it all started. It just happened. There was no beginning, and there was no end.

The bombs rained down from every direction. I felt the floor beneath my feet shake so terribly. The entire building shook back and forth with every falling bomb. It seemed as if all the bombs had been dropped in my neighborhood, just next to where I lived.

The bombing was so horrendously ear-piercing. My heart skipped many a beat. Wide-eyed and petrified, my sisters stood transfixed next to me, tightly clutching my arms. I wanted to calm them down, but not until I calmed down myself first. Not until I could get myself to think clearly, and not until I could understand what was happening in the first place.

This is probably how it began. But this is one simple and detached account of one who was sipping his tea and enjoying the sunlight at his home when this all happened. For many others it was the end.

When I later watched the videos of the first locations to be targeted with the first bombs, I saw numerous bodies lay lifelessly on the ground, many repulsively disfigured — defaced, limbs chopped, torn apart, yet many, thankfully, were in complete shape — but still they were bereft of life.

Horror and agony in the streets

While I was on the rooftop disinterestedly trying to film a few scenes of the aftermath of each of the bombings that would not cease for twenty-two days, mothers, not far from where I stood, were grievously bewailing the deaths of their sons; daughters were sobbing in agony over the loss of their fathers; little children were scared stiff and crying out in horror. Some were running scared for their lives in the streets, and others were lying beneath the rubble, powerless and surrounded by the dead bodies of their siblings.

Typical of all wars, electricity was soon cut off and water was no longer in abundance. Cooking gas and bread became scarce. Basic needs became like priceless luxuries. Dreams, ambitions and hopes were shattered and lost, only to be replaced by survival which becomes everyone’s ultimate goal in war times.

The thought of dying alone

I joined crowds of people queuing up at six in the morning to buy a bag of bread. I saw others in front of oil shops fighting and pushing one another to buy a small amount of kerosene heating oil.

I stayed amongst crowds of people for hours on end in the gas station, hopelessly trying to get our cylinder half-filled with gas — filling a gas cylinder entirely at that time was an unthinkable wish. I developed a daily ritual of testing the amount of water inside our water tank by knocking its sides while leaning my ears against them. I spontaneously joined in the joyous celebrations when the electricity came back on.

I had grown an arcane love for the dark and an unusual appreciation of time. I cherished company and abhorred being alone like never before, for nothing scared me back then as much as the thought of dying alone.

Personal stories behind shocking statistics of death

Nothing yet had made me more dejected than how I became engrossed with following ever-changing statistics. The humanness of the victims was unthinkingly reduced in my mind to mere numbers which were drastically, and always more shockingly, on the rise.

The memory of the first statistics of more than eighty persons killed in the first wave of bombings has been engraved in my mind forever. As I look back on it now, I believe it was an extremely helpful, though selfish, tactic unconsciously devised to help me through the day in my right mind by getting around the insufferable pain of knowing the personal stories behind every one of these numbers.

Nonetheless, every now and then, a few stories would jump out from behind the numbers, and everyone would inevitably listen to them, many against their will, and perhaps soon, they would start to narrate them in a casual manner.

Only this explains the comment by the uncle of a Kashimiri friend in London on the way I spoke of bombings when he asked me about life in Gaza.

He wondered at how casually I talked of bombings as though they were a common thing that didn’t worry me. I told him a common story about little children in Gaza who would be playing in the streets when some bombing hit the nearby area. Their reaction would be to either totally ignore the bombing and carry on playing, or they would stop their game, cheer loudly and clap their hands, as if bombing were reason for one to be happy.

After three years, the 22 days are still engraved

Now it has been three years, and I’m still capable of evoking every minute detail of the twenty-two days which have become an experience I recall with feelings of sadness, anger, pain and a little bit of confusing pride, the reason for which I cannot understand.

The thunderous bombings, the creepy gunfire, the hovering Apache helicopters always sending a chill down the spine. The glass shattering, our neighbor’s wailing, mourners chanting “La Ilaha Illa Allah” (there is no God but God). The smell of kerosene heating oil stuck in my nose, the unnerving hums of our kerosene stove. The large, intricate clouds from the white phosphorus bombs, spreading through the sky like spider webs. My spite toward our neighbors’ generators, the fragile short periods of silence, the gloomy faces filling the green or blue condolence tents. The endless statements of the Ministry of Health’s spokesman.

These and a whole host of other memories form a rare experience. Perhaps it is that we survived that lies behind that odd sense of pride.

By Mohammed Suliman

28 December 2011

@ The Electronic Intifada

Mohammed Suliman is a 22 year old Palestinian student and blogger from Gaza. Mohammed currently undertakes graduate studies at the London School of Economics. He blogs at Gaza Diaries of Peace and War as well as at The Electronic Intifada, and can be followed on Twitter @imPalestine