"Slowly it comes, step by step, inch by inch..."
The "Did they or didn't they?" non-story of the Israeli commando raid and air strike upon a Syrian nuclear weapons lab just keeps chugging along, and the U.S. media keeps treating it as little better than a Loch Ness Monster sighting.
The New York Times reported yesterday (Sunday, 14 October) that "Israel’s air attack on Syria last month was directed against a site that Israeli and American intelligence analysts judged was a partly constructed nuclear reactor, apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel" and that "White House press secretary, Dana Perino, said Saturday that the administration would have no comment on the intelligence issues surrounding the Israeli strike. Israel has also refused to comment."
On Thursday, 11 October, Hugh Naylor reported in The New York Times that "Ahmed Mehdi, the Deir ez Zor director of the Arab Center for the Studies of Arid Zones and Dry Lands, a government agricultural research center" told a group of journalists that "no nuclear weapons program or Israeli attacks occurred there," contrary to the reports of Israeli journalist Ron Ben-Yishai published in Yediot Aharonot, who "suggested that the government facility here was attacked during the incursion." Mehdi insisted, "'There was no raid here - we heard nothing.'“
The New York Times also reported on Wednesday, 10 October that in Washington, Vice President Dick Cheney's group is insisting that the Israeli intelligence regarding a North Korean-supplied nuclear reactor/nuclear weapons laboratory in Syria is credible and that the U.S. should not waste its time in nuclear proliferation talks with North Korea; Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's faction doesn't believe that Syria was an imminent threat and that the Israeli raid should not be allowed to derail the talks with the North Koreans.
(The current issue of Rolling Stone -- the "2007 Hot Issue" -- has a one-paged column flagged "Iran War Watch," which states that Cheney still has enough juice to tip the scales towards, at minimum, air strikes against Iran, but the article isn't available on the magazine's web site as of this writing.)
Peter Galbraith wrote in last Sunday's (7 October) edition of The Times (UK) that George W. Bush's "continuing effort to bolster support for the Iraq war" plays right into the hands of "Iran’s hardmen." He offers this bit of analysis:
"Of all the unintended consequences of the Iraq war, Iran’s strategic victory is the most far-reaching, as the history of the region illustrates.
"In establishing the border between the Ottoman empire and the Persian empire in 1639, the Treaty of Qasr-i Shirin demarcated the boundary between Sunni-ruled lands and Shi’ite-ruled lands. For eight years of brutal warfare with Iraq in the 1980s, Iran tried to breach that line but could not. The Reagan administration supported Saddam precisely because it feared the consequences of an Iraq dominated by Iran’s allies.
"The 2003 US invasion of Iraq accomplished what Khomeini’s army could not. Today, Shi’ite-controlled lands extend to the borders of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Iran and its Iraqi allies control the Middle East’s third and second largest oil reserves. Iran’s influence now extends to the borders of the Saudi province that holds the world’s largest oil reserves."
Regarding what is looking very much like "Gulf War 2: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut," Galbraith cites a sorry tale of U.S. hubris that has received scant attention over here but which was reported last year on the BBC's World Service and Radio 4, as part of their Uncovering Iran series of programmes (specifically by Gordon Corera in a one-off programme titled "Mixed Messages and Secret Diplomacy" that aired on 25 September 2006; unfortunately, the audio is not archived on the Radio 4 web site):
"The US and international press are full of speculation that Dick Cheney, the vice-president, wants Bush to attack Iran before his term ends. From an Iranian perspective, all this smoke could indicate a fire.
"Four years ago there was enough common ground for a deal. In May 2003 the Iranian authorities sent a proposal through the Swiss ambassador in Tehran for negotiations on a package deal in which Iran would freeze its nuclear programme in exchange for an end to US hostility.
"The Iranian paper offered 'full transparency for security that there are no Iranian endeavours to develop or possess WMD [and] full cooperation with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] based on Iranian adoption of all relevant instruments.'
"The Iranians also offered support for 'the establishment of democratic institutions and a nonreligious government' in Iraq; full cooperation against terrorists (including 'above all, Al-Qaeda'); and an end to material support to Palestinian groups such as Hamas. In return, they asked that their country not be on the terrorism list or designated part of the 'axis of evil'; that all sanctions end; that America support Iran’s claims for reparations for the Iran-Iraq war as part of the overall settlement of the Iraqi debt; that they have access to peaceful nuclear technology; and that America pursue anti-Iranian terrorists.
"Basking in the glory of 'mission accomplished' in Iraq, the Bush administration dismissed the Iranian offer.
"When this abrupt rejection of the Iranian offer began to look blatantly foolish, the administration moved to suppress the story. [emphasis added] Flynt Leverett, who had handled Iran in 2003 for the US National Security Council, tried to write about it in The New York Times and found his article crudely censored by the NSC, which had to clear it.
"Four years later, Iran holds a much stronger hand while the mismanagement of the Iraq occupation has made the United States’ position incomparably weaker."
(To be fair, Michael Hirsh in his web-only column for Newsweek of Wednesday, 3 October referenced Iran's back-channel overtures to the U.S. in 2003 to end its nuclear program, "its support for Hizbullah and Hamas and terrorism in general, stabilizing Iraq," and to discuss a "'two-state approach' to the Israeli-Palestinian issue;" Hirsh notes that this overture "was ignored by the White House." I can't help but wonder why Newsweek didn't publish this information in the print edition of its magazine.)
The latest wild card? According to today's (Monday, 15 October) edition of The Times, the Kremlin is claiming that "A gang of suicide bombers were plotting to assassinate President [Vladimir] Putin...during his trip to Tehran for a summit of Caspian Sea nations tomorrow." It should come as no surprise to anyone that "Iran dismissed the report last night...as 'completely without foundation'."
The funny thing is, Russia has been pretty much on Iran's side (it's hard to say what else you can call their 2005 deal to supply nuclear fuel to Iran's Bushehr reactor...) in its quest to acquire nuclear power (which is not necessarily the same thing as Russia being on-side for Iran's aspirations for nuclear weapons, although French president Nicolas Sarkozy probably would've been hard-pressed to tell the difference after being rebuffed by Putin on Tuesday, 10 October...). But when huge oil and natural gas reserves are concerned -- and, in Russia's case, warm water ports -- straaaaaaange things are bound to happen.
Any bets that the various states' jockeying for an early position in the presidential primaries leading up to the U.S. presidential elections of 2008 will be rendered moot by Bush and Cheney?
The New York Times reported yesterday (Sunday, 14 October) that "Israel’s air attack on Syria last month was directed against a site that Israeli and American intelligence analysts judged was a partly constructed nuclear reactor, apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel" and that "White House press secretary, Dana Perino, said Saturday that the administration would have no comment on the intelligence issues surrounding the Israeli strike. Israel has also refused to comment."
On Thursday, 11 October, Hugh Naylor reported in The New York Times that "Ahmed Mehdi, the Deir ez Zor director of the Arab Center for the Studies of Arid Zones and Dry Lands, a government agricultural research center" told a group of journalists that "no nuclear weapons program or Israeli attacks occurred there," contrary to the reports of Israeli journalist Ron Ben-Yishai published in Yediot Aharonot, who "suggested that the government facility here was attacked during the incursion." Mehdi insisted, "'There was no raid here - we heard nothing.'“
The New York Times also reported on Wednesday, 10 October that in Washington, Vice President Dick Cheney's group is insisting that the Israeli intelligence regarding a North Korean-supplied nuclear reactor/nuclear weapons laboratory in Syria is credible and that the U.S. should not waste its time in nuclear proliferation talks with North Korea; Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's faction doesn't believe that Syria was an imminent threat and that the Israeli raid should not be allowed to derail the talks with the North Koreans.
(The current issue of Rolling Stone -- the "2007 Hot Issue" -- has a one-paged column flagged "Iran War Watch," which states that Cheney still has enough juice to tip the scales towards, at minimum, air strikes against Iran, but the article isn't available on the magazine's web site as of this writing.)
Peter Galbraith wrote in last Sunday's (7 October) edition of The Times (UK) that George W. Bush's "continuing effort to bolster support for the Iraq war" plays right into the hands of "Iran’s hardmen." He offers this bit of analysis:
"Of all the unintended consequences of the Iraq war, Iran’s strategic victory is the most far-reaching, as the history of the region illustrates.
"In establishing the border between the Ottoman empire and the Persian empire in 1639, the Treaty of Qasr-i Shirin demarcated the boundary between Sunni-ruled lands and Shi’ite-ruled lands. For eight years of brutal warfare with Iraq in the 1980s, Iran tried to breach that line but could not. The Reagan administration supported Saddam precisely because it feared the consequences of an Iraq dominated by Iran’s allies.
"The 2003 US invasion of Iraq accomplished what Khomeini’s army could not. Today, Shi’ite-controlled lands extend to the borders of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Iran and its Iraqi allies control the Middle East’s third and second largest oil reserves. Iran’s influence now extends to the borders of the Saudi province that holds the world’s largest oil reserves."
Regarding what is looking very much like "Gulf War 2: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut," Galbraith cites a sorry tale of U.S. hubris that has received scant attention over here but which was reported last year on the BBC's World Service and Radio 4, as part of their Uncovering Iran series of programmes (specifically by Gordon Corera in a one-off programme titled "Mixed Messages and Secret Diplomacy" that aired on 25 September 2006; unfortunately, the audio is not archived on the Radio 4 web site):
"The US and international press are full of speculation that Dick Cheney, the vice-president, wants Bush to attack Iran before his term ends. From an Iranian perspective, all this smoke could indicate a fire.
"Four years ago there was enough common ground for a deal. In May 2003 the Iranian authorities sent a proposal through the Swiss ambassador in Tehran for negotiations on a package deal in which Iran would freeze its nuclear programme in exchange for an end to US hostility.
"The Iranian paper offered 'full transparency for security that there are no Iranian endeavours to develop or possess WMD [and] full cooperation with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] based on Iranian adoption of all relevant instruments.'
"The Iranians also offered support for 'the establishment of democratic institutions and a nonreligious government' in Iraq; full cooperation against terrorists (including 'above all, Al-Qaeda'); and an end to material support to Palestinian groups such as Hamas. In return, they asked that their country not be on the terrorism list or designated part of the 'axis of evil'; that all sanctions end; that America support Iran’s claims for reparations for the Iran-Iraq war as part of the overall settlement of the Iraqi debt; that they have access to peaceful nuclear technology; and that America pursue anti-Iranian terrorists.
"Basking in the glory of 'mission accomplished' in Iraq, the Bush administration dismissed the Iranian offer.
"When this abrupt rejection of the Iranian offer began to look blatantly foolish, the administration moved to suppress the story. [emphasis added] Flynt Leverett, who had handled Iran in 2003 for the US National Security Council, tried to write about it in The New York Times and found his article crudely censored by the NSC, which had to clear it.
"Four years later, Iran holds a much stronger hand while the mismanagement of the Iraq occupation has made the United States’ position incomparably weaker."
(To be fair, Michael Hirsh in his web-only column for Newsweek of Wednesday, 3 October referenced Iran's back-channel overtures to the U.S. in 2003 to end its nuclear program, "its support for Hizbullah and Hamas and terrorism in general, stabilizing Iraq," and to discuss a "'two-state approach' to the Israeli-Palestinian issue;" Hirsh notes that this overture "was ignored by the White House." I can't help but wonder why Newsweek didn't publish this information in the print edition of its magazine.)
The latest wild card? According to today's (Monday, 15 October) edition of The Times, the Kremlin is claiming that "A gang of suicide bombers were plotting to assassinate President [Vladimir] Putin...during his trip to Tehran for a summit of Caspian Sea nations tomorrow." It should come as no surprise to anyone that "Iran dismissed the report last night...as 'completely without foundation'."
The funny thing is, Russia has been pretty much on Iran's side (it's hard to say what else you can call their 2005 deal to supply nuclear fuel to Iran's Bushehr reactor...) in its quest to acquire nuclear power (which is not necessarily the same thing as Russia being on-side for Iran's aspirations for nuclear weapons, although French president Nicolas Sarkozy probably would've been hard-pressed to tell the difference after being rebuffed by Putin on Tuesday, 10 October...). But when huge oil and natural gas reserves are concerned -- and, in Russia's case, warm water ports -- straaaaaaange things are bound to happen.
Any bets that the various states' jockeying for an early position in the presidential primaries leading up to the U.S. presidential elections of 2008 will be rendered moot by Bush and Cheney?