9 US GIs Killed in Afghan Heli Crash as Violence Grows

A helicopter crash in Zabul near Qandahar in southern Afghanistan left 9 American troops dead and 3 other persons (one an American civlian) wounded. The troops were likely a special operations unit aiming to reduce the power of the Taliban in the outskirts of this major city. NATO denied Taliban claims to have shot down the helicopter with rocket propelled grenades, saying that there was no evidence that the vehicle came under fire.

NBC News has video:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

With a later death of another US soldier, the death toll for the year rose to 530 NATO troops. The NYT reports that violence for the preceding quarter is up 69% in Afghanistan during the past year, and roadside bombings are up 82%. Suicide bombings have doubled, and assassinations by sniper have also increased greatly.

While it is true that the troop casualties in Afghanistan and the scale of the insurgency are much less than in Iraq at the height of the war there, it is also indisputable that the depth, breadth and violence of the insurgency in Afghanistan is far great in summer 2010 than it had been in summer 2009. You want to look at trends, not just snapshots. Moreover, many US troops have suffered through multiple rotations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are fatigued. That is, looking at the current Afghanistan statistics in a vacuum disregards the lived experience of US troops and the toll that multiple long rotations are taking on them and their families.

Pajhwok News Agency reports that there are still an estimated 1,000 illegal armed cells in Afghanistan, five years after the Afghanistan government formed a Ministry of Defense unit, the Disarmament of Illegal Armed Groups (DIAG). Although it has captured 50,000 weapons and rolled up 730 major and twice that many small militant cells, DIAG still faces 1000 armed outlaw bands. DIAG says that 100 districts had been pacified, though its spokesman could not guarantee that any of those rendered peaceful had not been subject to backsliding.

Meanwhile, the NYT says it has seen an advance copy of Bob Woodward’s new book on Obama’s wars. It reports that special envoy Richard Holbrooke does not believe that the big counter-insurgency strategy can succeed. There is also an allegation that President Hamid Karzai may suffer from bipolar disorder. Finally, the book argues that Obama is deadly serious about withdrawing from AFghanistan beginning summer 2011, and that Gen. David Petraeus is fooling himself if he thinks he can convince Obama to give him more time. Obama is said to have remarked, “I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.” He thought he had two years to wrap up Afghanistan before the public turned against him. He probably miscalculated.

  • Share/Bookmark
Print
Posted in Afghanistan | 2 Comments

Obama dismisses Iran War Prospects, overrules Clinton

The Obama administration is clearly trying to send signals to Iran during the General Assembly session of the United Nations that Washington is open to engagement and just wants Iran to be more transparent about its nuclear power research program. Reuters reports:

‘ “The door is open to them [Iran] having a better relationship with the United States and with the international community,” White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said.

“However, in order to walk through that door, Iran is going to have to demonstrate its commitment to show its peaceful intent around its nuclear program, and meet its obligations to the international community,” he told reporters in a briefing.’

President Obama addressed the Iran issue on CNBC Monday, saying:

‘ “Iran having a nuclear weapon would be a real problem. We passed the toughest sanctions against Iran, ever. They are having an effect. We continue to be open to diplomatic solutions to resolve this, we don’t think that a war between Israel and Iran, or military options, would be the ideal way to solve this problem. But we are keeping all our options on the table. “

That is about as categorical as a president can get with regard to a thorny, evolving problem. Those so critical now of Obama should remember that John McCain actually sang a ditty about bombing Iran, and that it was entirely possible that had he won, he and Mama Grizzly would have recklessly opened a third front, further destroying our economy and what is left of our civil liberties.

The only one in the administration who doesn’t seem to be on the engagement page at the moment is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She told ABC News on Sunday,

“And I can only hope that there will be some effort inside Iran, by responsible civil and religious leaders, to take hold of the apparatus of the state . . . When you empower a military as much as they have to rely on them to put down legitimate protests and demonstrations, you create a momentum and unleash forces that you do not know where they will end up.”

Clinton sounded an awfully lot like she was calling for regime change. In fact, the comment reminded me of George H.W. Bush’s call for responsible Iraqis to remove Saddam Hussein, made during the Gulf War in 1991. Iraqis, emboldened, staged a revolution in 16 of Iraq’s 18 provinces, with the Shiite Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, then based in Iran, leading the charge in the south, and Kurds rebelling in the north. Bush senior then stood by and allowed Saddam to viciously suppress this rebellion, which he had seemed to call for, with, allegedly, 60,000 killed by the Baath army.

That is, if Clinton is going to say things like that, she should be prepared for them to have significant consequences in Iran, and should be prepared to stand by any “responsible leaders” who answer her call.

Perhaps aware of the gravity of the comment, she had her press secretary retract it the next day :

Philip Crowley, a State Department spokesman, asked if she intended to call for regime change, replied, “No.”

“She was simply questioning the relationship between some elements of the regime and the growing importance of the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) and military elements within the Iranian hierarchy … The military elements, security elements have taken a more prominent role in terms of the suppression of people’s ability to assemble, to demonstrate, to engage in political activity . . .”

In other words, Crowley interprets her as wanting to see Iran’s civilian leadership push back against what she characterizes as a creeping soft coup by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps. But since the IRGC is among the main pillars of the presidency of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it is a little disingenuous to suggest that Clinton wasn’t calling for him to be unseated.

I am suspicious of the trope of Iran as a military dictatorship, since demonization of a country on those grounds is typical of American war propaganda. Iran has been hard to depict in that light, given that it is ruled by civilian ayatollahs and an elected president and legislature. While it may be that the IRGC has grown in power in recent years, I think it is certainly the case that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei could dismiss the present Revolutionary Guards commander, Mohammad Ali Jafari, and install someone else at the top, and the other officers and the rank and file would acquiesce in it. Ergo, no military coup has taken place.

Obama’s careful statement at the CNBC town hall on Monday may have been intended to do damage control, as administration members prepare to try to open a back channel to Tehran at the UN.

Obama’s statement came a day after this exchange on NBC’s “Meet the Press” with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who seems determined to redeem himself for helping launch the Iraq War on false intelligence by haunting the Republican Party with his keen sense of conscience, a specter party leaders thought they had long since banished to the netherworld.

‘ MR. GREGORY: In Iran, a path toward confrontation is possible, and I wonder what you think is worse — an Iran with a nuclear weapon, or the fallout of an attack on Iran by either the U.S. or Israel to prevent it having a nuclear weapon?

GEN. POWELL: I don’t think the stars are lining up for an attack on Iran, either by Israel alone or Israel in concert with the United States or the United States alone. I don’t think that’s going to happen. I’ve heard nothing to suggest that we would be interested in doing that or think it will be useful, even though the option is always on the table.

I think eventually we will have to deal with the reality that sanctions may not change the views of the Iranians on these issues and, therefore, let’s see if we can find a way to see if Iran can have a nuclear program that is fixed on power production — low level enrichment of their materiel so that is not on a track to become a weapon.

Now, people will say that’s naive. Once you know how to do that, you can then enrich up to weapons capability. But I think if you take them at their word, “trust but verify,” Reagan’s old sign — if you take them at their word, and they say they are not interested in the weapon, just power.

Then put in place a set of sanctions that would be devastating to them if they violate that agreement and then put in place an IAEA inspection regime and the National Atomic Energy Administration inspection regime that will keep them below that. And get Russia and China and everybody else to agree to it, then you might have to live with an Iran, and you might be able to live with an Iran that has a nuclear power capability but rigid enforcement constraints have been put in so they can’t move up to a weapons-grade program and the production of a nuclear weapon.

Now at the same time, what can they do with a nuclear weapon compared to what we could do in return? I don’t think it is — you know, they are interested in remaining in power. The easiest way for them to lose power is to seriously threaten or use such a weapon.’

Powell, as former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has numerous contacts among serving officers in the Pentagon and at CENTCOM HQ in Tampa, and when he says he’s “heard nothing” it likely means that the generals don’t want a war with Iran and haven’t been instructed to prepare for one (hint: Obama would do the instructing). If Powell is acting as a spokesman for significant elements in the officer corps, they could be trying to signal through him that they are prepared to live with a nuclear Iran, just as they had lived with a nuclear Soviet Union– in preference to opening yet another front with a military that is already over-stretched.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, contrary to what The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Golberg recently attempted to imply, likely doesn’t have the cojones to attack Iran on his own, without a green light from Washington. He thinks Bill Clinton eased him out of power the last time he was prime minister, for obstructing the Oslo peace process and for trying to poison Khaled Mashaal to death. Moreover, Israel does not have the technical ability to strike Iran and get its pilots back.

The Neocons will just have to wait a few years for their war, if they get it at all. If they get it, the rest of us won’t like what it does to our country and our lives.

  • Share/Bookmark
Print
Posted in Iran | 28 Comments

100,000 Children at Risk in Pakistan, Sindh Flooding Continues

5 more villages were drowned in Sindh on Monday, and more people were cut off from the outside world by waters splashing down from a full lake that could well overflow and wreak yet more damage on Sindh Province.

Iran’s PressTV has video:

Meanwhile, UNICEF is warning that 100,000 children made homeless by the floods are in danger of starving to death for lack of food.

Please donate via Oxfam America for urgent Pakistan relief work.

  • Share/Bookmark
Print
Posted in Pakistan, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Witches, Exorcisms, and Billionaire Pickpockets

Because the main point of the Republican Party is to throw more money to the super-rich, the poor thing has to find something else to talk about that will take peoples’ minds off this central message, which can’t appeal to more than one percent of the population. It seems to me that this unpalatable campaign message accounts for the party’s propensity to throw up lunatics as its leaders. Since no one would vote for their pockets to be picked by avaricious billionaires, the party gives us bread and circuses and bearded ladies. And witches and exorcisms. Get us talking about anything but the real point, which is to make the rich richer and the rest of us poorer (in which it has largely succeeded). Well, at least if they are going to rob us blind, they are entertaining muggers:

Cenk reacts to Christine O’Donnell’s admission of the youthful indiscretion of Satanism.

And, a trip down memory lane– Sarah Palin’s exorcism, which apparently did not work.

  • Share/Bookmark
Print
Posted in US Politics | 7 Comments

50 Dead, 128 wounded in Iraq Attacks

As Iraq continues to muddle along with no new government all these months after the March 7 parliamentary elections, insurgents struck in the capital.

The London pan-Arab daily al-Hayat reports in Arabic that Sunday witnessed a series of massive bombings in Baghdad that left 160 dead or wounded, the worst toll since 17 August.

In al-Liqa’ quarter of the al-Mansur neighborhood in Sunni-dominated west Baghdad, a car bomb killed 21 persons and wounded 70 others. Seconds later, two car bombs were detonated simultaneously in Sahat Adan in the mostly Shiite quarter of Kadhimiya in north Baghdad, killing 19 and wounding 65. The bombing in al-Mansur appears to have targeted Asia Cell, a cellphone company; it destroyed an entire office building completely and inflicted severe damage on a neighboring edifice, as well as burning out 20 automobiles. The explosion in Sahat Adan sought to destroy a building used for security meetings. Residents blamed the police for exposing them to this danger by using a house in a residential area for this purpose, when they know they are a target for insurgents.

In addition, eight mortar shells were fired into the Green Zone in downtown Baghdad where government offices and the US and British embassies are situated, behind blast walls. Mortar shells were also fired at the Shiite shrine district of Kadhimiya.

Three roadside bombs were also set off in the capital. One near Rusafa wounded 7 persons. Sticky bombs were used to assassinate Awakening Council leader Mu’ayyad al-A’dhami in al-Ghazaliya and Foreign Ministry official and tribal leader Shaikh Salih al-’Ulwani of the Al-Bu ‘Ulwan tribe.

An Iraqi official downplayed the day of violence in the capital, saying that over all, the number of violent attacks had fallen over the past 2 months. He criticized government officials who had spoken of a spike in attacks. But in fact, AFP notes that “Violence appears to have risen again across Iraq in recent months, with July and August recording two of the highest monthly death tolls since 2008, according to government figures.” (Of course, the number of attacks could have fallen even as the deadliness of those attacks that did take place increased)

Al-Hayat’s anonymous security official also insisted that all of Baghdad is under the authority of the government security forces, while the terrorists control no territory. He dismissed the mortaring of the Green Zone as a hit and run attack from a mobile base.

In Fallujah, once an insurgent stronghold, a suicide bomber in the center of the city killed 6 persons and wounded 14. The attack may have been retaliation for a joint Iraqi Army and US military sweep of the city center in search of an ‘al-Qaeda’ leader last Wednesday, in which a firefight broke out that left 7 civilians dead.

Although President Obama announced the formal end of US combat in Iraq for August 31, in fact US troops still pair with their Iraqi counterparts to carry active war-fighting, as at Fallujah last Wednesday. In Baqubah a week ago, the US provided helicopter gunship support to Iraqi army units fighting with Muslim extremists.

Meanwhile, Australian journalist Michael Ware says he has videotape of US soldiers committing a ‘small war crime’ by summarily killing an armed boy who was not an insurgent. The footage belongs to CNN, which declined to air it as ‘too graphic.’ Ware is suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome after nearly a decade of covering the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars. He is known for challenging then Republican presidential hopeful John McCain’s overly rosy view of Iraq security in 2007.

  • Share/Bookmark
Print
Posted in Iraq | 7 Comments

Davidson: Martin Peretz And The Dangers of Obsessive Love

Lawrence Davidson writes in a guest column for Informed Comment

Martin Peretz is editor-in-chief of The New Republic. He acquired that position by simply buying the magazine in 1974. Although he resold it to a group of investors in 2002, they were, and apparently remain, his ideological soul mates for he continues to this day to be the magazine’s executive editor.

Peretz’s New Republic is a far cry from the original magazine. The origin of The New Republic goes back to 1914 when it was established by Herbert Croly and Walter Lippman. From the first the magazine was liberal and progressive. Between the First and Second World Wars it took a stand against the growing ideological enmity that bred the Red Scares and their accompanying violations of the civil rights of Americans. In the 1950s it took a principled stand against both Soviet tyranny and the McCarthy witch hunts. In the 1960s the magazine took a position opposing the Vietnam War. Little of this survived Peretz’s remaking of The New Republic. Within a year of gaining control he fired most of the staff and shifted the editorial direction toward the center/right. The new New Republic supported Reagan’s foreign adventures, including alliances with terrorists such as the Contras, and later both Persian Gulf Wars. Sometimes the magazine would selectively back Democrats. It backed Al Gore (a personal friend of Peretz) for president and waxed elegant about the likes of Joseph Liberman. One progressive policy the magazine decided to support was universal health care. Peretz claims to be a life-long supporter of the Democratic Party but that has not stopped the ultra conservative National Review from touting The New Republic as “one of the most interesting magazines in the United States.”

One of the reasons we can get this mixed bag of positions from Peretz’s New Republic is because domestic policy is but a secondary interest of the editor-in-chief. “I care most about foreign policy” Peretz admits, and there is one aspect of foreign policy toward which he is down right obsessive. That aspect is U.S.-Israeli relations. In more ways than one he keeps declaring that “I am in love with the state of Israel.” And how does he tell the world of his love? Mainly through the pages and blog of The New Republic. He has made it into his mouthpiece, his vehicle for declaring his abiding passion for “Zion.”

Peretz In Love

It should be made clear that Peretz’s love of Israel is no ordinary love. It is not like, say, the love the founding fathers must have held for the new United States. No, Peretz’s love is of another order of intensity. It is that sort of passionate and blinding love that defeats reason. For instance, it has caused him to get Israel and the U.S. all mixed up. According to Peretz support of Israel is a litmus test of American good citizenship, “Support for Israel is deep down, an expression of America’s best view of itself.” I suspect that he got this sentiment from Louis Brandeis, the first leader of the Zionist Organization of American as well as the first Jew appointed to the Supreme Court. Back in 1918 Brandeis declared that to oppose Zionism was to be disloyal to the U.S (See Lawrence Davidson, America’s Palestine, page 225, Note 23).

One fellow who failed the litmus test is Charles W. Freeman Jr., the man Barack Obama momentarily considered for his chief of the National Intelligence Council. Peretz wrote at the time that Freeman was utterly unsuitable for the post. Why? Because he had raised questions about America’s uncritical support of Israel–an act which Peretz characterized as “an offense.” By committing this “offense” Freeman had “questioned the loyalty and patriotism of not only Zionists and other friends of Israel” but also “the great swath of American Jews and Christian countrymen who believed that the protection of Zion is the core of our religious and secular history….” This is the way Peretz sees the world. And it is, of course, a severely distorted view. When you get so intense about, so in love with, a foreign nation that you insist this outside entity represents “the core of our religious and secular history” you have, as the saying goes, really gone over the top. Peretz has turned the United States and its national interests into a suburb of Tel Aviv.

In some of my earlier analyses I tried to show that “Zion” is in fact a racist place that does not resemble contemporary America, but rather America before the introduction of civil rights legislation. In today’s Israel, Arab Israelis are systematically discriminated against. Yet, a person who loves blindly will fail to see the faults of his or her lover. He or she may well adopt those faults as virtues and spend an inordinate amount of energy justifying the lover’s sins and castigating all who would be critical. And so it is with Martin Peretz. One way he has shown his perverse and obsessive love of Israel is by taking its anti-Arab line as his own. That has turned him toward bigotry.

Back on March 6, 2010 Peretz said, “I can’t imagine any venture requiring trust with Arabs turning out especially well. That is, you will say my prejudice, but some prejudices are built on real facts, and history generally proves me right. Go ahead, prove me wrong.”* Such wholesale stereotyping is, to use Peretz’s term, an offense against everyone who has ever had a good Arab friend, who is successfully married to an Arab man or women, and to the very long and successful diplomatic relations the United States has had with such countries as Saudi Arabia and Jordan. And by making this common sense observation I have, at least strongly suggested, that what Peretz spouts is indeed wrong, and grievously so. But there is no doubt that this nonsense reflects his true feelings. And, it is his obsession with Israel that makes him see the world in this way.

On September 4, 2010 Mr. Peretz, again using The New Republic blog, returned to his prejudicial ways. “But frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. And among those Muslims led by the Imam Rauf [leader of those seeking to create the Muslim religious center near ground zero] there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood. So yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.” Here, Martin Peretz presents himself as a walking and talking example of how one is almost always wrong when one indulges in gross simplifications and categorizations from the “gut’ or otherwise. And his advocacy of stripping first amendment protections from a single group of people is despicable and dangerous (he later tepidly apologized). Consider that:

1. The Imam Rauf has consistently demonstrated himself to be a moderate and sensible man. He has publically denounced radicalism in all religions and called on moderates to keep control of the leadership of religious movements.

2. How does Peretz know that “hardly one’ of the Imam’s supporters “has raised a fuss” about violence? Those supporters number in the thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands. Has he checked them all out?

3. The notion that “routine and random bloodshed…defines their [Muslim] brotherhood” is just the lowest sort of stereotyping. If I asserted that the quite routine and random bloodshed caused by Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories defined the “brotherhood” of Judaism, Peretz would go ballistic. Both statements can be properly labeled specious nonsense.

4. Martin Peretz has the First Amendment right to wonder out loud in a fashion that can only undermine the First Amendment. He can even legally do so in an atmosphere of growing and volatile Islamophobia, although in my estimation that is a bit like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Such public assertions certainly puts him in the running for the title of demagogue, but he is probably to impassioned to care. Occasionally, when he is called to task by a major national organ like the New York Times he will back off in a sort of resentful and ill-tempered way, like a little bully confronted by schoolmaster. But you know that he does not mean it when he says he is sorry. You know he is insincere because, by consistently speaking first and thinking later (if at all), he wears his feelings on his sleeve.

The Harvard Connection

This latest outburst of Mr. Peretz happens to coincide with a ceremony in his honor planned by Harvard University. It seems that Peretz was once an assistant professor at the prestigious school and money plus contacts have subsequently taken him beyond that to the status of a school benefactor. We are here reminded of the recent conference on anti-Semitism held at Yale during which radical Zionists put on a display of bigotry disguised as academic research. Now it is Harvard’s turn to host a someone who negatively stereotypes a whole people. It might well be that some of the Harvard bureaucracy are embarrassed at having to fete Peretz (though they did once choose Lawrence Summers as their president) but they seem to feel they are stuck with him, and so they cover their position with appeals to free speech. Even Harvard has a First Amendment right to reward a man whose stated desire is to deny the First Amendment rights of an entire American religious minority. According to Harvard’s publically issued defense, going ahead with the ceremony makes the place “ultimately stronger as a university” engaging in “the robust exchange of ideas.” Well, its their party.

Conclusion

Martin Peretz is a good example of that subset of Americans whose single-minded dedication to Israel makes them, for all intents and purposes, agents of a foreign power. Indeed, in his willingness to pronounce his affection in the most indiscrete way, Peretz can be seen as their spokesman. These folks get very upset when you describe them this way, but that is because they have so mixed up America and Israel that, in their minds, there is no real difference between the two. As the Bard once said, “love is blind and lovers cannot see what petty follies they themselves commit.” Alas, these follies are far from petty.

I once had the dubious pleasure of appearing in a debate with Mr. Peretz. I remember him as a small man of nervous temperament. He had a tendency to handle challenges to his position by speaking very fast and very loudly so that you could not get a word in edgewise. Based on this behavior “I had in my gut the sense” that he was quite capable of going hysterical. Such people usually self-destruct over time and maybe that will be Martin Peretz’s fate. I do hope so.

———-
*There has been some question about the first quote of Marty Peretz cited in my recent piece. The quote is “I couldn’t quite imagine any venture requiring trust with Arabs turning out well.” You won’t find this in the posting now on The New Republic because, according to commenters at his wikipedia article, “Peretz later edited his piece without comment” changing the line to read “any venture like this in the Arab world.” This is one of his many speak first and think later manuevers. LD

Lawrence Davidson is Professor of History at West Chester University, West Chester, Pa and author most recently of Foreign Policy, Inc.: Privatizing America’s National Interest (2009).

  • Share/Bookmark
Print
Posted in Islamophobia | 7 Comments

Ahmadinejad as Cyrus the Great?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stopped off in Syria for consultations with his ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Asad, this weekend, on his way to New York for the United Nations General Assembly session. Ahmadinejad will make an appearance on Larry King Live on Tuesday.

Although his fate seemed up in the air only a little over a year ago, Ahmadinejad comes to New York with a substantially strengthened position.

It is no accident that Ahmadinejad has even revived a discourse of Iranian imperial greatness by referring to Cyrus the Great. He was asked about the Cyrus Cylinder in the British Museum, which Iran wants back is now exhibiting after an initial tiff.

‘ As for the Cyrus Cylinder… What is the story behind this? 2500 years ago, there was a dictatorship in Iraq that imprisoned people, maimed them, and tortured them. The religion of these people was the divine religion of Moses. The disciples of this prophet were a minority. The minority was imprisoned by this brutal, murderous dictatorship, and they were enslaved. So they were in total desperation.

One of our kings replaced that dictatorship with a just regime. His name was Cyrus. People in the Babylon of that time wanted assistance from Cyrus. They said, “You preach justice, come and help us out. The dictator won’t let us pray, he won’t let us do anything.” I want to make a historical parallel here. Cyrus conquered Babylon and freed people from the brutal regime of Babylon.

However, while going there to free the people, he did not hurt a soul. He does it in a way that the dictatorship in Babylon falls apart. And then he issues the Declaration of Human Rights.’

This discourse met with a firestorm of protest from clerical critics, who insist on rooting Iran’s identity solely in Islamic sources. But the ingredients are there for a new Iranian nationalism reflecting Iran’s influence in places like Shiite Iraq after the fall of the Baath Party and Saddam Hussein (likened here to Nebuchadnezzar), and Ahmadinejad is positioning himself as its champion. Of course, he is very much subordinate to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, but you couldn’t tell it by his speeches.

While Ahmadinejad’s enemies in the US Congress, especially those closest to the Israel lobbies, had hoped to pressure Iran by cutting off its gasoline imports, it turns out that the regime is not in fact vulnerable on that score. The government imported no gasoline last month, having simply used its petrochemical facilities as refineries and imposed some rationing. While some observers exulted that this move by Iran was a sign that sanctions were working, that sentiment seems ridiculous to me. If gasoline sanctions were supposed to hurt Iran, and Tehran showed that they could not, how is that a victory? It is like a boxer boasting he can knock out the heavy weight champion, and then when the champ just puts up his gloves and consistently blocks the feeble blows, boasts that he put the fighter on his guard.

In fact, Iran is building up refinery capacity over the next five years, with an expectation of doubling gasoline production. It has a huge cushion domestically, since at the moment gasoline is heavily subsidized and just costs pennies up to a certain amount per month. But prices are being raised on consumption beyond the ration, which limits growth in consumption. It is not sure that raising prices further would even hurt the regime with the public, since it can so obviously be blamed on the United States and so borne as a price of national independence.

One source of regime strength has been continued strong pricing for petroleum. Iran nowadays produces about 3.6 million barrels a day of oil, of which it typically exports about 2.3 mn. b/d (it is the world’s second largest exporter). As a result of the global economic near-depression, prices fell to as low as $33 a barrel at some points early in 2009, and as late as July 2009 they were $56 /b. But in late 2009 and through 2010, demand soared again, as China and India turned in impressive growth. Asian demand has sent the price back up to around $70 a barrel. The price of Iran’s heavy crude was $74 a barrel in the first two quarters of 2010, but had only been about $54 a barrel in the same period in 2009.

At anything over $50 a barrel, the regime is sitting pretty. $70 is a great cushion for the Islamic Republic, and if Germany’s recent growth spurt is a harbinger for Europe this coming year, prices could firm further. Any US or Israeli military action toward Iran would only cause prices to skyrocket, ironically strengthening Iran further.

Hopes that global economic sanctions would harm Iranian banking and so make it harder for Iran to export petroleum seem to me completely forlorn. There is every reason to expect oil-thirsty Asia to ignore the US and UNSC sanctions if the alternative is slowed growth or disgruntled drivers. Petroleum is easily smuggled, especially if it is refined into gasoline, and easily turned into cash. The Baath regime in Iraq faced among the strictest sanctions ever visited on a country, and which probably killed 500,000 children, but the Baath party was unfazed and managed to sock away billions from gasoline smuggling. The regime was in no danger of falling spontaneously even after a decade of such treatment, such that Bush had to invade to overthrow it. Iran has more friends than Iraq did and a more favorable political and geographical position.

Iran’s exports to Japan jumped in August, and it has also increased exports to China. So those two countries are finding ways of paying for the oil despite US pressure on banks. Even supposed US allies such as Afghanistan and Iraq are doing a booming business with Iran (and ironically, the US sort of needs them to, if they are to be stabilized.) Afghanistan seems increasingly dependent on Iran for its internet services, and, indeed, dependent on an internet firm owned by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. (Bad for me– Iran blocks this blog, and it cannot be received in those parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan that get internet service from Iran).

I suppose US and UN sanctions can keep Iran from getting as rich as it otherwise might, but if oil prices rise over the coming years, the West is highly unlikely to be able to stop Iran from benefitting substantially from the increased revenue.

Ahmadinejad only a little over a year ago faced massive and repeated protests in the streets of Tehran, his capital, over the obvious irregularities in the announced voting results of the June, 2009, elections. Observers wondered if his regime might be toppled. But for the government to fall would have required a split in the security forces, which never took place. Other sections of the Iranian elite, including the ranks of the grand ayatollahs and the high civilian politicians, did split. But the opposition leaders, Mirhossain Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, ultimately proved unwilling to lead a genuine political revolution, nor could they attract the loyalty of enough military officers and ordinary people to do so. The security forces stood firm with Ahmadinejad and the popular ferment on the streets has subsided into a behind-the-scenes human rights movement that seems to have little prospect of early success, though it could be significant over the medium term.

Regionally, Iran is sitting pretty. Iran benefits from the good will generated for it in the Muslim world by its strong support for the Palestinians (especially Hamas in Gaza). Reckless Israeli moves, including the Gaza War, the attack on the Mavi Marmara civilian aid ship, and continued colonization of Palestinian land, have increased Iran’s stature in the region.

Iran’s other client, Hizbullah of Lebanon, is part of that country’s national unity government. The Sunni Prime Minister of Lebanon, Saad Hariri, moved closer to Syria in recent weeks after long years in which he blamed Damascus for the 2005 assassination of his father, a stance that split Lebanon into pro-Syrian and anti-Syrian factions. Even if Hariri’s motives might be to facilitate a break between Syria and Iran, backed by Saudi Arabia, the step could backfire. With Beirut making up with Damascus, Hizbullah may be strengthened, and a Tehran-Damascus-Beirut-Ankara sphere of friendship and economic exchange emerge.

Iran has excellent relations with Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, in contrast to the security problems it had faced from the Taliban in the 1990s. Indeed, it allegedly has many high Afghan officials on its payroll. The US has proved so far unable to unseat the Shiite-dominated government in Iraq in favor of ex-Baathist Iyad Allawi. Pro-Iranian Shiites are likely to play an important role in any government that is formed. Turkey has stood with Iran, declining to support increased sanctions and running interference for Tehran with regard to its civilian nuclear energy research program. Iran is still close to Syria. The Arab street has decided that it is not afraid of an Iranian nuclear warhead.

The US has been reduced to arming Saudi Arabia to the teeth, with a $60 billion arms deal, as its main way of responding to the powerful Iranian diplomatic position in the region. That is, after a period of direct US intervention in the Gulf region during the past 20 years, the US appears to be moving back to the proxy strategy of Nixon-Kissinger in the 1970s– a sign of relative weakness in the region.

Ahmadinejad comes to New York, not as a wounded leader under internal and external siege, but as the confident representative of a fiercely independent Iran, the hydrocarbon treasures of which allow it to withstand Washington’s mere sanctions and opprobrium. Mahmoud the Great?

  • Share/Bookmark
Print
Posted in Iran | 21 Comments

Light Turnout, Closed Polling Stations, Attacks Mar Afghanistan Elections

Turnout in the Afghanistan parliamentary elections was disappointingly light, some 40% below expectations, according to Euronews. Some 10 percent of polling stations that had been intended to be used simply did not open because of fears of Taliban attacks. Those closures were on top of the 10 percent or so that it had already been decided would not open, because they were in Taliban-held territory.

Would that not be 20% of polling stations closed?

Reports of some voters voting multiple times are coming in.

Afghanistan National Army and NATO units fought with Taliban who attempted to stage attacks on polling stations. NATO and US air strikes killed dozens of Taliban fighters, and there were civilian casualties. The Taliban fired mortar shells and rockets in some localities. At least 10 persons were killed in Taliban attacks.

A Taliban rocket scored a direct hit on a polling station in the eastern Pushtun city of Jalalabad, according to Russia Today.

ITN has video:

And Russia Today has more:

  • Share/Bookmark
Print
Posted in Afghanistan | Leave a comment

Afghanistan Elections face Violence, Kidnappings, Fraud

As Afghans went to the polls Saturday morning, Taliban slammed a rocket into the area of the capital where the Radio and Television building stands. It caused no casualties. Pajhwok News Agency reports that 40 private hospitals in Kabul have made plans for extended hours because of the election, which they clearly expect to be marred by violence.

Graeme Smith reports on the parliamentary elections in Afghanistan, pointing to the potential for fraud. President Hamid Karzai stole his own election last year, and he has taken over and appointed cronies to the Electoral Complaints Commission. That body was the only one that even tried to make a stand against Karzai’s ballot-stuffing, and it is no longer independent of the presidency. At the same time, printing presses are working overtime to produce phony ballots.

Karzai has faced minor rebellions from the lower house of parliament over issues such as cabinet appointments. The speaker of the house, Yunus Qanuni, is an ethnic Tajik who had been among the leaders of the Northern Alliance, and has often crossed swords with Karzai (a Pushtun). Smith quotes Karzai as saying, “We want to send a team to the Afghan parliament which will not be against the Afghan government.” That is, the point of the elections from Karzai’s point of view may well be to install a compliant debating club full of yes-men.

Smith also suggests that in the southern city of Qandahar, turn-out may be as low as 5 percent. Even notables who had been committed to the earlier elections are saying they won’t bother to vote this time, since they were disgusted by the fraudulent presidential elections last year. Aljazeera Arabic’s correspondent in Qandahar is reporting on Saturday morning that turnout is very light in that city, confirming Smith’s suggestion.

A BBC correspondent says he had to be helicoptered to Ghazni from Kabul because it was too dangerous to attempt the two-hour drive.

The Afghan Islamic Press for September 17, 2010, reports, via a translation by the USG Open Source Center, that in Herat, a bomb went off near the home of a candidate for parliament, but caused no casualties.

In a western district of Herat province, gunmen kidnapped a candidate for parliament and three other people, demanding $80,000 in ransom.

In a district of Qunduz, a roadside bomb hit the car of another candidate for parliament. Mawlawi Abdollah Qarlaq told AIP: “A mine hit my vehicle in the Tajekan Village of the Qarlaq area of Archi District yesterday evening. One of my friends was wounded, but I survived unhurt.”

In Laghman Province, Taliban kidnapped another candidate for parliament, Mawlawi Hayatollah Forqani.

Aljazeera English has video on the election:

  • Share/Bookmark
Print
Posted in Afghanistan | Leave a comment

Dude, You Have no Quran

  • Share/Bookmark
Print
Posted in Islamophobia | 2 Comments