Our Values

There are many people who believe that the stated priority given to promoting freedom and democracy in the Middle East is just so much hot air designed to obfuscate the real motivations behind British foreign policy.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the British government's involvement and support for the BAE deal to sell 72 Typhoon fighter jets to the Saudi government. This billion pound arrangement to sell highly sophisticated military aircraft to a regime which is corrupt, non-democratic, staunchly authoritarian, a serial abuser of human rights and a regular practitioner of torture cannot be explained by reference to the rhetoric of the "war" on terror. It can only be explained through the prism of narrow national interest considerations coupled with an admission that the promotion of democracy is not the dominant foreign policy influence claimed by the rhetoric.

There are those who will quite happily agree with this assessment and argue that it is nevertheless right to support this deal precisely because governments should pursue their narrow national interest above all other considerations. I don't have any complaint about that; disagreement yes, but no complaint. There is an entirely separate argument to be had as to the best way to promote the national interest. I'd argue that this deal is likely to be damaging to the national interest, particularly in the longer term,. I'd further argue that decisions taken in pursuit of the national interest are often based on a narrow short term views and are often harmful in the longer term (politicians generally don't do long term very well).

I do have a complaint when the government insists that it is absolutely committed to promoting democracy and opposing oppressive regimes and refuses to accept that selling powerful military equipment to a regime like the House of Saud flatly contradicts that assertion. The result is that the entire premise of the foreign policy debate as framed by the government is built on a myth. This is not only starkly hypocritical but it also effectively negates the ability of the people to meaningful debate foreign policy with the government.

It is, ironically, entirely undemocratic.

Consequences

Yesterday, Bush drew parallels between the Iraq and Vietnam wars. I presume that a few spoilt brats in the National Guard, those with influential fathers perhaps, have managed to avoid being sent to Iraq too so he does have a point.

Bush played up the consequences of US withdrawal from Vietnam but failed to mention the consequences of US participation.

Let's just take one of those consequences. The US military dropped approximately 20 million gallons of Agent Orange and other "herbicides" over Vietnam during the course of the war. Here are some photos of the effects of Agent Orange on the Vietnamese population. More than 30 years after the war, parts of Vietnam are still highly contaminated and people are still suffering as a result.

The American government has set up a programme to help US veterans who've been affected by exposure to Agent Orange. Under the heading "Agent Orange and Birth Defects", the government website highlights the fact that "The Veterans’ Benefits Act of 1997 granted benefits for children of Vietnam veterans who were suffering from spina bifida". Despite that, the US government has resisted paying compensation to Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange.

In 2005, when Vietnamese victims tried to take the manufacturers of the chemical to court, the case was dismissed. The judge ruled that they had not proved that Agent Orange caused birth defects and illness. This despite the fact that in 1984, several chemical companies paid $180m (£93m) to settle a lawsuit with US war veterans, who said that their health had been affected by exposure to the substance.

Perhaps there's some scientific reason why American veterans are more susceptible to the ill effects of Agent Orange than the Vietnamese people who had the stuff dropped on themselves, their animals, their farmland and their water. Any scientists out there want to tell me what it is?

There are some signs that the US government may be slowly moving on this, due, no doubt, to the softening of relationships between the two countries rather than any humanitarian concern for the victims. Give it another 10 or 20 years and some sort of reparation might be on the cards for those who're still alive.

And perhaps, in another 30 years time, people will again draw parallels between Iraq and Vietnam.

Over at the Ministry of Truth, splendid work on banners to support the We Can't Turn Them Away campaign.



How you can help:

1. Watch the video.
2. Write to your MP.
3. Let us know if you get a response.
4. Sign the petition.
5. Join the list of supporters.

We Can't Turn Them Away

Last week, Neil Clark wrote an extraordinary piece on Comment is Free opposing the campaign to pressure the government into giving political asylum to Iraqi employees of the British. Unsurprisingly to most, but shockingly for Nick Cohen, an overwhelming number of comments condemned Neil's position. CiF had to shut down the thread after only three hours.

The central thesis of Cohen's book is that liberal people have turned their backs on the victims of totalitarian movements. How then does he explain the enormous response to Clark's article? It's clear that "liberals" lined up in droves to argue that our government should protect these Iraqis who are at particular risk from death squads. Is this not exactly the sort of thing which Cohen maintains no longer happens? It seems pretty clear that in the real world, Clark's view is very much a minority one.

In any event, Clark's article didn't make sense to me so I decided to see if I could narrow down the reason why he arrived at the conclusion he did. On his website, he has now written a number of posts attempting to defend his stance. After reading them, I did try to engage with Neil in the comments to the last of those posts and he did offer one reply. My next question, however, has not seen the other side of the moderation queue. My guess is that the Blogger gremlins ate it; this seems to happen surprisingly often when you ask awkward questions of certain bloggers.

There's lot's of stuff there but ultimately, it all boils down to this from the original article:

If more Iraqis had followed the example of the interpreters and collaborated with British and American forces, it is likely that the cities of Iran and Syria would now be lying in rubble.

The argument is that if Iraq had stabilised as the Bush administration thought it would, they'd have then moved on to invade other countries in the Middle East. In effect, by working with the occupying forces, the "quislings" were aiding and abetting the neo-con project.

It is certainly true that the Bush administration did want to use military force to reshape the entire Middle East. The "axis of evil" rhetoric was not just rhetoric. General Wes Clark recalled asking another general at the Pentagon whether the administration was still set on invading Iraq back in late 2001. The answer:

“Oh, it’s worse than that... I just got this down from upstairs” -- meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office -- "...This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."

Given the scale of their ignorance as to what would happen when they invaded Iraq, however, this plan was never realistic. The neo-con project, as was, was defeated the day Bush ordered the invasion. It is important to keep attacking the simplistic notions of the neo-con "Bombing for Freedom" brigade and yes, many neo-cons still want to take military action against Iran but they have been hugely weakened both politically and militarily. The sweeping land invasions they'd dreamt of are still alive only in the heads of the most deluded armchair generals.

With that in mind, in the anarchy of post-Saddam Iraq, attempts to limit human suffering should be given top priority. Iraqis have already suffered far more than pampered Westerners like ourselves can ever understand.

Furthermore, despite the many failings of this catastrophic war, Iraqis should not be punished for attempting to help turn their country into a stable, peaceful, tolerant democracy. You could argue that some were naive for believing that the coalition could deliver what it promised but that goal itself does have value. Who could possibly blame Iraqis who had suffered under Saddam from attempting to help build a better country by working with the coalition? Understandably, they just did what they believed was best for themselves, their families and their country. After failing to deliver on its promises, the government of this county owes a specific duty of care to these people.

It has been argued that the government owes a duty of care to all Iraqis whose lives are in danger because of the invasion. I agree in principle but it simply, tragically, isn't realistic to suggest that the government would offer asylum to the approximately 4 million people who've been displaced by the violence in Iraq.

The We Can't Turn They Away campaign is a practical effort to achieve what is hoped to be a realistic goal. It's about saving the lives of as many people as possible in the aftermath of this most bloody of interventions. Please do consider writing to your MP before it's too late.

How will Gordon Brown's review help this family?

From The Times:

Mohammad, 25, father of a six-month-old son, was the first interpreter to be killed — or at least his was the first killing to be recorded — since Gordon Brown promised to review the Government’s refusal to give interpreters special help in seeking asylum.

Two sentences in the Times report provide a clear snapshot of the state of security in Basra today.

Threats from the militia forced Alaa to move to the base permanently three months ago. He could not even leave to attend his brother’s funeral yesterday.

Tim is compiling a list of supporters of the campaign to save Iraqi employees from torture and death. Please do consider getting involved if you're not.

What's Wrong With That?

Here's yet another post bashing the US, UK and Israeli governments. He never writes about China's human rights abuses. Typical America hating leftist...

It's an old chestnut but it does seem surprisingly common considering just how easy it is to refute. It's all about degrees of separation; as a UK citizen, my first concern is to the UK government's policies and actions. In a democracy, it is every citizens right, you might even say duty, to try to ensure that their government lives up to certain standards of behaviour. Scrutiny and criticism of your democratically elected government is not only acceptable, its an essential part of the democratic process.

From that key principle, it's easy to see why the closest allies of your democratically elected government should also be subjected to greater scrutiny than distant governments over which your own has little or no influence. It's a sort of responsibility chain; the closer to home, the more responsible you are and the more influence you can generally exert. In short, it's about trying to keep your own house in order.

This above is so obvious that it feels a bit silly typing it but it does appear that it needs to be said. Anyway, for the reasons above, I feel the need to mention the latest report from the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[T]he committee, in its report entitled Global Security: The Middle East, said a quicker response from the government in July last year "could have led to reduced casualties amongst both Israeli and Lebanese civilians whilst still working towards a long-term solution to the crisis".

It called some of Israel's military actions in Lebanon during the war "indiscriminate and disproportionate".

It particularly highlighted the attacks on United Nations observers and the dropping of more than 3.5 million cluster bombs (90% of the total) in the 72 hours after the UN Security Council passed the resolution which effectively ended the war.

So the committee has concluded that the British government, by refusing to call for an immediate ceasefire, helped enable the continuation of the conflict. At the time, Blair waffled as people died. And why did the government adopted the policy it did when it refused to call for an immediate ceasefire?

From the full report (article 100):

At the time of the conflict, many believed the United States was obstructing calls for an immediate ceasefire to give Israel a chance to defeat overwhelmingly Hezbollah's militia. The BBC journalist Ed Stourton raised this theory with John Bolton, who had been the US Ambassador to the United Nations at the time of the war. Mr Stourton asked him if the US had been "deliberately obstructing diplomatic attempts" to bring an end to the war so that "Israel could have its head." Mr Bolton asked "what's wrong with that?" and added that he was "damn proud of what we did."

We wrote to Dr Howells to ask him about Mr Bolton's comments. In his reply, he asserted: The UK was certainly not involved in collusion with either the US or Israel to support the continuation of hostilities or to block a ceasefire. Whilst I cannot speak for the US position [on] this matter, I do not believe they acted differently.

The committee offers three possible reasons for this discrepancy.

1. Mr Bolton misled Stourton by suggesting that the US blocked diplomacy at the UN because it wanted to give Israel the opportunity to destroy Hezbollah.
2. The US did indeed block attempts to find a quick diplomatic solution to bring about a ceasefire, but that the UK was not made aware of this collusion with Israel.
3. The UK was in fact brought into, or at least aware of, the efforts to obstruct the diplomatic process.

The committee does not reach a conclusion as to which possibility might be the truth but it seems unlikely that Bolton would have lied. To what end? In fact, giving the Israelis the time and space and cluster bombs so that they could teach Lebanon a lesson fits exactly with the type of thinking which is so common in the Bush administration. It also ties in exactly with what Ehud Olmert said as hostilities began: "Lebanon is responsible and Lebanon will bear the consequences of its actions".

Given the above quotation, it is perhaps unsurprising that a UN report found that there was "a significant pattern of excessive, indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force by the IDF against Lebanese civilians and civilian objects, failing to distinguish civilians from combatants and civilian objects from military targets... Further, the Commission is convinced that damage inflicted on some infrastructure was done for the sake of destruction." It is hard to avoid concluding that the Israeli government decided to adopt a policy of collective punishment against the Lebanese people in an attempt to pressure them into doing something about Hezbollah.

What's wrong with that? Well, morals aside, it's specifically outlawed by Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The British government, silent during the conflict, has remained silent in its aftermath. It has not condemned the dropping of 3.5 million cluster bombs after the conflict was essentially over nor has it condemned the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure for no useful military purpose. That continuing silence can only be seen by Israel and indeed by the rest of the world as a tacit approval of the actions of the Israeli government and the IDF. It seems to me that there is something very wrong with that.

IRAQN

Since John Bolton was ousted from his position as US ambassador to the UN, he appears have taken up permanent residence in the Newsnight studios. Last night, complaining that the IAEA under Elbaradei has refused to say exactly what the neo-cons want him to say on Iran, Bolton came out with this:

"All that Elbaradei has said, and he is an apologist for Iran, in effect, is that he doesn't have evidence of the programme. I think the intelligence is there for all to see."

Has a familiar ring to it, wouldn't you say? Hands up all those who remember being called an apologist for Saddam back in the day.

Bolton was, of course, one of the cheerleaders for the war against Iraq. And he was in the lead in the Bush administration's attempt to block Elbaradei's reappointment as head of the IAEA in 2005. Being good at the job and displaying integrity in the face of enormous pressure is not acceptable when it exposes the extent to which political dogma overrides the facts in the Bush Whitehouse. Fortunately, Bolton lost. For the record, 34 of the 35 members of the IAEA board member countries supported Elbaradei's reappointment. Only one was opposed.

In the now traditional ironic style, the war on Iraq which Bolton was so enthusiastic about has actually strengthened the position of the Iranian regime to unprecedented levels. Bolton should have himself shot for aiding the enemy.

And Iran, unlike Iraq, could theoretically acquire the ability to build nuclear weapons in the not too distant future. Whether they are attempting to, as Elbaradei rightly points out, remains open to doubt. Not for Bolton and chums, of course, but for rational people not blinded by ideology.

There are plenty of commentators who argue that after the monumental disaster of Iraq, the US would not possibly take military action against Iran. I disagree. It is important to realise that Bolton, and indeed the Bush regime generally, are absolutely unable to learn from their own mistakes because they are almost entirely impervious to the facts.

And if that doesn't scare you, you're a lot braver than me.

Irresponsibility

This week, the House of Commons will vote on whether the UK will commit to spending billions of pounds of our money over many years on a new nuclear weapons delivery system.

The government's argument is essentially that we need to maintain our own weapons of mass destruction to protect us against unknown unknowns. That's is a genuine argument but, as you may be aware, I don't believe that the debate we're having, if it can even be described as a debate, has made any attempt to seriously consider the implications of such an approach.

Taking the decision to retain nuclear weapons as a protection against potential future threats is very different from maintaining a deterrent against a specific existing threat as was the case during the Cold War. To do this now, almost twenty years after the end of the Cold War, would be to make a very public admission that the UK does not believe that nuclear disarmament is a realistic goal.

Maybe that's true. But if it is, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, with it's very clear commitment to work towards complete disarmament - the carrot given to the non-nuclear weapons states by the nuclear weapons one's - is a busted flush. Even now, before a decision on renewal, it is hard to argue that the UK is abiding by its obligation under Article VI of the treaty to "pursue negotiations in good faith on... a Treaty on general and complete disarmament". To take the decision to renew now would be to confirm categorically that the UK has no intention of disarming for decades to come.

That, ultimately, is the message which renewal of the UK's nuclear weapons systems at this time would send to the rest of the world. And that should be a major part of the debate. Instead, Des "I can't believe he's our Defence Secretary" Browne and the rest of the government have attempted to stifle that discussion at every opportunity.

In the name of protecting our freedoms, of course.

According to the BBC, many Labour MPs are opposed to taking this decision. I hope they've got their smear defences up and running because questions will almost certainly be asked of their mental health.One of the strangest things about the debate over the UK's nuclear weapons is that those who argue that the UK should no longer have nuclear weapons are somehow considered to be a radical, dangerously naive, irresponsible minority.

Here for the record is the list of current non-nuclear weapons states:

# Afghanistan
# Albania
# Algeria
# American Samoa
# Andorra
# Angola
# Anguilla
# Antarctica
# Antigua and Barbuda
# Arctic Ocean
# Argentina
# Armenia
# Aruba
# Ashmore and Cartier Islands
# Atlantic Ocean
# Australia
# Austria
# Azerbaijan

# Bahamas, The
# Bahrain
# Baker Island
# Bangladesh
# Barbados
# Bassas da India
# Belarus
# Belgium
# Belize
# Benin
# Bermuda
# Bhutan
# Bolivia
# Bosnia and Herzegovina
# Botswana
# Bouvet Island
# Brazil
# British Indian Ocean Territory
# British Virgin Islands
# Brunei
# Bulgaria
# Burkina Faso
# Burma (Myanmar)
# Burundi

# Cambodia
# Cameroon
# Canada
# Cape Verde
# Cayman Islands
# Central African Republic
# Chad
# Chile
# Christmas Island
# Clipperton Island
# Cocos (Keeling) Islands
# Colombia
# Comoros
# Congo, Democratic Republic of the
# Congo, Republic of the
# Cook Islands
# Coral Sea Islands
# Costa Rica
# Cote d'Ivoire
# Croatia
# Cuba
# Cyprus
# Czechia (Czech Republic)

# Denmark
# Djibouti
# Dominica
# Dominican Republic

# East Timor
# Ecuador
# Egypt
# El Salvador
# Equatorial Guinea
# Eritrea
# Estonia
# Ethiopia
# Europa Island

# Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)
# Faroe Islands
# Fiji
# Finland
# French Guiana
# French Polynesia
# French Southern and Antarctic Lands

# Gabon
# Gambia, The
# Gaza Strip
# Georgia
# Germany
# Ghana
# Gibraltar
# Glorioso Islands
# Greece
# Greenland
# Grenada
# Guadeloupe
# Guam
# Guatemala
# Guernsey
# Guinea-Bissau
# Guinea
# Guyana

# Haiti
# Heard Island and McDonald Islands
# Holy See (Vatican City)
# Honduras
# Hong Kong
# Howland Island
# Hungary

# Iceland
# Indian Ocean
# Indonesia
# Iraq
# Ireland
# Italy

# Jamaica
# Jan Mayen
# Japan
# Jarvis Island
# Jersey
# Johnston Atoll
# Jordan
# Juan de Nova Island

# Kazakhstan
# Kenya
# Kingman Reef
# Kiribati
# Korea, South
# Kuwait
# Kyrgyzstan

# Laos
# Latvia
# Lebanon
# Lesotho
# Liberia
# Libya
# Liechtenstein
# Lithuania
# Luxembourg

# Macau
# Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of
# Madagascar
# Malawi
# Malaysia
# Maldives
# Mali
# Malta
# Man, Isle of
# Marshall Islands
# Martinique
# Mauritania
# Mauritius
# Mayotte
# Mexico
# Micronesia, Federated States of
# Midway Islands
# Moldova
# Monaco
# Mongolia
# Montserrat
# Morocco
# Mozambique
# Myanmar (Burma

# Namibia
# Nauru
# Navassa Island
# Nepal
# Netherlands Antilles
# Netherlands
# New Caledonia
# New Zealand
# Nicaragua
# Niger
# Nigeria
# Niue
# Norfolk Island
# Northern Mariana Islands
# Norway

# Oman

# Pacific Ocean
# Palau
# Palmyra Atoll
# Panama
# Papua New Guinea
# Paracel Islands
# Paraguay
# Peru
# Philippines
# Pitcairn Islands
# Poland
# Portugal
# Puerto Rico

# Qatar

# Reunion
# Romania
# Rwanda

# Saint Helena
# Saint Kitts and Nevis
# Saint Lucia
# Saint Pierre and Miquelon
# Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
# Samoa
# San Marino
# Sao Tome and Principe
# Saudi Arabia
# Senegal
# Seychelles
# Sierra Leone
# Singapore
# Slovakia
# Slovenia
# Solomon Islands
# Somalia
# South Africa
# South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
# Southern Ocean
# Spain
# Spratly Islands
# Sri Lanka
# Sudan
# Suriname
# Svalbard
# Swaziland
# Sweden
# Switzerland
# Syria

# Taiwan
# Tajikistan
# Tanzania
# Thailand
# Togo
# Tokelau
# Tonga
# Trinidad and Tobago
# Tromelin Island
# Tunisia
# Turkey
# Turkmenistan
# Turks and Caicos Islands
# Tuvalu

# Uganda
# Ukraine
# United Arab Emirates
# Uruguay
# Uzbekistan

# Vanuatu
# Venezuela
# Vietnam
# Virgin Islands

# Wake Island
# Wallis and Futuna
# West Bank
# Western Sahara

# Yemen
# Yugoslavia

# Zambia
# Zimbabwe

Here's the list of what I'll call potentials:

# Iran
# Korea, North

And here's the list of nuclear weapons states:

# China
# France
# India
# Israel
# Pakistan
# Russia
# United Kingdom
# United States

So there you are. The radical, dangerously naive, irresponsible minority is maybe just a little bit bigger than those leading the debate in the UK would have us believe. And, at the risk of sounding overly dramatic, I firmly believe that the decisions we make today will have a significant impact on similar lists drawn up by our children in decades to come.

That's the debate we should be having and the one the government seems desperate to avoid. Instead, we've got Browne and Blair trying to frighten us into submission with bogeymen who don't even exist yet.

And there's an irony here. Foreign policy blowback is now a well recognised phenomenon. It is not a stretch to suggest that the government's actions today might actually create the conditions which could give rise to these future bogeymen. And, as recent experiences have already shown us, a self-fulfilling prophet will still claim that he was right.

You don't need to be a prophet to know that that won't be part of the debate.

Strawmen For Adults

18 Doughty Street's fearless campaign to attack strawmen in full public view continues apace. Iain is pleased. Look at that straw fly!

The strawman that Iain and co. are proudly thrashing this week is that everyone on the left hates Bushmerica. It's hardly an original construction, it has to be said. In fact, you've got to wonder whether they had to pay royalties to the Republican Party for use of that battered old thing. Surely not. Look at the state of it.

Still, let's get into the spirit of things and add a couple more blows to the mix

The Little One

1. I am opposed to the foreign policies of Anthony Charles Lynton Blair.
2. I am not opposed to the existence of the United Kingdom.

There's a difference, you see. I strongly suspect I'm not the only person on the left who realises this.

The Ironic One

Using accusations of anti-Americanism in an attempt to stifle, disparage or misrepresent political dissent is, well, unAmerican. Well it is, isn't it?


There are lots of "adult" reasons why 18 Tory Street's "attack ad" is unconvincing. The whole premise of the thing is wrong on many levels. In fact, it's just the sort of thing you could imagine the Swift Boat Veterans for the Tories doing.

By the way, viewing the video in question will confirm beyond doubt that Beau Bo D’Or was bang on the money.

Tree Hugging Hippy Crap

Yesterday, the U.S. government published their latest National Intelligence Estimate.

The intelligence community judges that the term 'civil war' does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qaida and Sunni insurgent attacks on coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence.

"None the less, the term 'civil war' accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilisation, and population displacements."

The 16 separate U.S. intelligence services who together compile the report, on the record, said that Iraq's civil war is only one of the problems facing the country.

I guess all 16 agencies have been infiltrated and subverted by those dastardly Bush hating liberal media types...

There was also supposed to be a briefing on Iranian "meddling" in Iraq yesterday but that has been postponed (via).

The NIE downplays Iranian involvement in Iraq's sectarian violence.

The involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq's internal sectarian dynamics.

Bloody appeasers...

Blowback Redux

There's a good article over at CiF on the possibility that Ahmadinejad is on his way out.

I'm going to flesh out the comment I left there to address a couple of points.

Those arguing that Ahmadinejad current position demonstrates the success of Bush's confrontational approach are being marvellously selective in their analysis. As I've already said, any realistic assessment of Bush's approach to Iran should start with the "axis of evil" speech in 2002. At that time, Iran's President was Khatami, a relative moderate who introduced the concept of "Dialogue Among Civilizations".

After the invasion of Iraq and in the face of continuing hostile rhetoric, Ahmadinejad was elected in 2005. Now, there are signs that Iran's Supreme Leader is getting ready to dump Ahmadinejad. At best, another reformer similar to Khatami will take his place. More likely, it'll be a traditional Islamic conservative.

At very best, Iran in 2007 will be a bit like it was in 2002 when the sabre rattling started. And Iran's Supreme Leader, who has a lot more power than the President, has been the same all the way through. Only by deliberately selecting evidence to fit your theory could you argue that Bush's actions have been successful. If Bush had agreed to the proposed dialogue with Khatami back in 2003, then things might have been different.

(On a slight tangent, Ahmadinejad's rise and fall are both partly explained by domestic Iranian issues, particularly the economy. It is amusing to see the way this is played up and/or down to fit the theory. Support for Ahmadinejad in 2005 was caused by domestic issues, not the hostile posture of the U.S. government. Waning support in 2007 is caused by that same hostility, not his failure to deliver on the promises he made on domestic issues. Hmm, a model of consistency there... In reality, there's a bit of both in both.)

On the other side, those arguing that Ahmadinejad is just misunderstood are mistaken. Leaving aside the recent barrage of anti-Iran propaganda (*waves at Con Coughlin*) Ahmadinejad is still not one of the good guys. He's a liability to the Iranian people and most Iranians realise that. He's on his way out, a good thing for the people of Iran, unless Bush and co. launch a military attack and rally Iranians behind their President.

For anyone who doubts this would happen, look at Bush's popularity among Americans post-9/11. After the attacks, his approval ratings jumped by about 30%. People from all sides of the political spectrum were lining up to express their support for the President. A similar thing will happen if the U.S. takes military action against Iran.

But most Iranians do not share the views of their current President. The anti-Western sentiment caused by the CIA sponsored coup against Mossadegh in 1953 and the subsequent British and American support for the Shah is still strong but it does not have the resonance it once did. For most of Iran's relatively youthful population, the coup was a long time ago.

Now, as Iran's well educated young population looks to move their country forwards, Bush's hostility threatens to create a whole new wave of anti-American sentiment. Unsurprisingly, Bush and his advisers have learnt nothing from the years of self-serving Western support for the Shah and the enormous blowback which it caused.

A Diplomatic Solution

Newsday: The misunderstood Islamic divide

In what is viewed here as another example of the Bush administration's flawed understanding of basic forces in the Middle East, the president in his State of the Union address Tuesday lumped together Shia and Sunni militant groups as posing the same threat to America.

"The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat," President George W. Bush said. "They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale."

ABC News: Potential New Evidence of Iran Providing Weapons to Iraqi Insurgents

Out of all the enemies the United States faces in Iraq, the most troubling ones come from Iran, and according to U.S. officials, the Pentagon will soon present evidence that Iran is providing deadly weapons to insurgents.

Washington Post: Bush OKs Countering Iranians in Iraq

President Bush has authorized U.S. forces in Iraq to take whatever actions are necessary to counter Iranian agents deemed a threat to American troops or the public at large, the White House said Friday.

"It makes sense that if somebody's trying to harm our troops, or stop us from achieving our goal, or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, that we will stop them," Bush said. "It's an obligation we all have ... to protect our folks and achieve our goal."

New York Post: How to Fight Iran

THE American carrier the USS John Stennis and its strike group are headed to the Persian Gulf to join another carrier group in a show of force meant to make Iran rethink its nuclear program. It may be a prelude to war.

The conventional wisdom is that there are "no good options" in dealing with Iran. Most commentators see one of two scenarios, both nightmares: a large, bloody and expensive ground invasion and occupation that would cause oil to spike through the roof or a monthslong aerial bombardment of Iran's estimated 1,500 nuclear-related targets that would trigger a worldwide terrorist backlash. (Alternately, the Israelis could do it for us and set the Middle East ablaze.)

Yet there is a third option, of which our show of force with two carrier groups could be the opening move: a naval and air campaign to topple the ayatollahs without a single U.S. soldier's setting foot on Iranian soil.

Front Page: Constitutional Authority to Attack Iran

It may be too much to expect George W. Bush to be another FDR, but it is not too much to hope that our current President will emulate Harry Truman—who dropped two atomic bombs in order to end the war in the Pacific and prevent countless more American deaths, and who knew that the buck stops in the Oval Office.

Bush has denied that he intends to take military action against Iran itself. He said that it was "a presumption that's simply not accurate".

On 10th March 2003 Blair wrote that "no decision has been taken to launch military action against Iraq".

On 12th March 2003, he again wrote that "no decision has been taken to launch military action against Iraq".

On 14th March 2003, he wrote that "no decision to launch military action against Iraq has been taken".

On 18th March 2003, he asked the House of Commons to rubber stamp his decision to go to war.

The war started on 20th March.

Just to be clear, it is impossible to be sure of Bush's intentions but it seems unlikely that an attack on Iran is days away.

But it should also be borne in mind that any U.S. attack on Iran would be different to the invasion of Iraq. As a ground invasion is not an option, there wouldn't be the need for a long build up to manoeuvre troops into position. Much of the equipment and manpower needed to launch an air attack is already in place and the second American carrier group will arrive in the region in a matter of weeks. And faced with an unfriendly Congress, Bush is highly unlikely to seek Congressional approval in advance. The actual attack, if/when it comes, is likely to come out of the blue.

For all the differences, all the sign are that public opinion is being prepared for some sort of military action against Iran just as it was before the invasion of Iraq.

That Con Man Again

As some readers may know, The Telegraph's Con Coughlin has something of a history when it comes to spreading the unsubstantiated claims of the security services and hiding the real source of the story from his readers. In a story about Colonel Gadafy's son, he wrote that the story had been supplied to him by a "British banking official" when he meant to write that it had been supplied by "MI6 agents". It is impossible to say whether he deliberately misled his readers; perhaps he has a faulty keyboard.

The truth of this only came to light when the Telegraph, in hot water because they couldn't substantiate their claim in court, was forced to admit the real source of the story.

With that in mind, Con has been making a lot of noise today about a connection between North Korea and Iran. His article on the subject is on the front page of the Telegraph. Links to an opinion piece and a pretend blog post are also featured on the Telegraph's interwebs. (What chance do you think my comment on Con's "blog" has of making it past the moderator?) The Telegraph also ran a leader on the story.

Con also appeared on the Today programme this morning to repeat the claims. (Thanks to J for the link.)

Con's source is "a senior European defence official".

Hmm...

Before giving any credence whatsoever to Con's assertions, it may be be a good idea to see whether anyone from the British government is prepared to go on the record to confirm these claims.

Remember, Bush never explicitly claimed that Saddam was involved in the September 11th terrorist attacks. The administration used implication and spin to send the message. Friendly journalists were encouraged and/or exploited to make claims which the administration knew they themselves couldn't substantiate.

Back in 2002, one journalists was taken to task by Warren Bass, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, for publishing a book "overblowing Iraq's link to the war on terrorism". The author of the book made a number of claims which didn't stand up to scrutiny or were based on dubious unidentified sources. Can you guess which journalist it was?

Pedantic note: It's not MI6, it's SIS. I've used MI6 because that's what was used in the article.

This week's post have all been rather serious in nature. How about a little light relief to lighten the mood?

Brownie: The truth that dare not speak its name is that on Iran, Bush and Blair have played a blinder.

Gene: But let's not forget... even if Ahmadinejad is forced out, the struggle for freedom in Iran will be far from over.

No, stop. My sides...

Brownie's "blinder" is that it is possible that the situation in Iran might revert back to something like the one which existed in 2002 when Bush described the country as part of the "axis of evil".

That is, Ahmadinejad might be replaced by a "moderate"" like the previous President. Khatami did try to reform Iranian society but was hampered by the relative lack of power of the President in Iran's political system. He also introduced the concept of a dialogue of civilisations. When he stepped down in 2005 (having served his maximum two terms), the hardline Ahmadinejad was elected to replace him.

Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, now appears to be worried by the failures of Ahmadinejad's economic policies and concerned that his belligerent rhetoric is making it more difficult for Iran to implement their nuclear programme (which he maintains is for peaceful purposes only). There are signs that he may have withdrawn his support for the President.

But, Gene reminds us, even if that happened and Ahmadinejad was removed, that shouldn't mean that Bush and Blair should tone down their own "struggle for freedom" rhetoric.

Blinder!

Man, those guys crack me up.

Relax? Don't Do It

Many people now believe that the Bush administration desperately wants to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. In fact, almost everyone would agree that that's what they want to do.

Many people are also concerned by recent signs which suggest that the Bush administration has already started down the road towards making it happen. There are others, however, who argue that whatever Bush's intentions might be, this desperately unpopular lame duck President doesn't have the authority to make it happen. "Relax" they say, "Congress would not allow it".

Given everything we know about the Bush administration, the last thing we should do is relax.

Let's start at the beginning. Pat Buchanan, for all that there's a very clear agenda behind this article, is essentially right about the Democrats. Back in 2002/03, the Democrats cheered Bush into launching a disastrous war of choice in much the same way that the Tories cheered Blair. Neither opposition party, neither legislature in fact, has a record to boast of when it comes to opposing Bush and Blair's rush to quagmire in Iraq. Neither is now in the lead in demanding that Bush and Blair be held to account for their actions.

The comforting thought now is that although Congress did not oppose Bush over Iraq, the political climate today is very different to the one which existed in 2002/03. Indeed, it is precisely because of Iraq that Bush's words and actions are now subject to far greater scrutiny and scepticism. The strategies which the administration employed to justify that war will not work again this time. For those reasons, it is argued, Bush won't be having his military action against Iran, whether he wants it or not.

That the political climate has changed in Congress and in the U.S. as a whole is beyond dispute. After Bush's speech. Ron Paul, a Republican member of Congress, said he was concerned that "a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran". He also noted that "speculation in Washington focuses on when, not if, either Israel or the U.S. will bomb Iran".

Walter Jones, a another Republican Congressman, has introduced a Joint Resolution demanding that Bush seek Congressional approval before ordering any use of military force against Iran. From the Buchanan article:

The day after Bush's threat to Iran, Jones introduced a Joint Resolution, "Concerning the Use of Military Force by the United States Against Iran." Under HJR 14, "Absent a national emergency created by attack by Iran, or a demonstrably imminent attack by Iran, upon the United States, its territories, possessions or its armed forces, the president shall consult with Congress, and receive specific authorization pursuant to law from Congress, prior to initiating any use of force on Iran."

That this resolution is the work of one of the men who brought Freedom Fries to Congress is as potent a sign of the changed political climate as you'll ever find. How could Bush possibly get what he wants in the face of such opposition even from within his own party?

Well, Bush almost certainly believes that he has the authority to order military action against Iran without the express approval of Congress. This again from the Pat Buchanan article:

On ABC last Sunday, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, while denying Bush intends to attack Iran, nonetheless did not deny Bush had the authority to escalate the war -- right into Iran.

George Stephanopoulos: "So you don't believe you have the authority to go into Iran?"

Stephen Hadley: "I didn't say that. That is another issue. Any time you have questions about crossing international borders, there are legal questions."

Any doubt how Attorney General Gonzales would come down on those "legal questions"? Any doubt how the Supreme Court would rule?

No, I don't think there is.

Bush has made a mockery of the accepted limits of Presidential power under the Constitution almost from the very start of his Presidency.

Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.

Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law.

[...]

On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia, where the US military is advising the government in its struggle against narcotics-funded Marxist rebels.

After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he did not have to obey any of the Colombia restrictions because he is commander in chief.

Even if Congress approves the resolution put forward by Freedom Fries Jones, even if the Bush administration utters not one word of opposition to it, there's no reason to believe that Bush wouldn't simply issue a signing statement to the effect that it was unconstitutional and that he could therefore ignore its provisions.

There is, rather, every reason to believe that he considers previous Congressional support for the "war" on terror to be all the authorisation he needs to conduct whatever military action he deems necessary anywhere in the world.

White House press secretary Tony Snow said he was not aware of any consultations with Congress before the assault.

This was the first overt U.S. military action in Somalia since 1994. and the first Congress knew of it was when they heard it on the news. When Bush claims to be "decider in chief", he's not messing around.

In truth, it would be very difficult for Congress to stop the Bush administration from getting what it wants on Iran. To be absolutely certain, Bush and Cheney would need to be removed from office before the crisis/excuse/manufactured incident occurs (take your pick). The question is, does Congress have the bottle to take out Bush and Cheney in a pre-emptive strike? Could they possibly do it without conclusive evidence of the administrations intentions, evidence the administration is extremely unlikely to provide? Now there's an irony.

There may be a handful of members of Congress with the courage to attempt this but no more than that. The vast majority of them, career politicians first and foremost, will not. Instead, they'll simply position themselves so that they can't personally be blamed for Bush's actions. Freedom Fries Jones, who undoubtedly knows the President's attitude towards Congressional restrictions on his role as commander in chief, has got his positioning in nice and early. "I tried to stop him, it wasn't my fault..."

Public opinion may not have any effect on the Bush administration but it does have an effect on most members of Congress. If there's any way to stop Bush, it's to make members of Congress understand that simply adopting the posture of opposition is not enough.

Here's Ron Paul's fatalistic assessment again: "Speculation in Washington focuses on when, not if, either Israel or the U.S. will bomb Iran". That's not good enough. Now is not the time to relax.

Blair is in trouble if even John "dodgy dossier" Scarlett won't back him up. Stinky.

Nicole Belle at Crooks and Liars points out that even some Republican have openly expressed concern that Bush may be planning to create a Gulf of Tonkin type incident in order to justify military action against Iran.

So it's not just us leftie moonbats who're worried.

The linked article on Bush's proposed replacement for John Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence is also worth reading.

Repeat until Believable

Edward Pearce on Blair:

"The point about Blair is that he combines maximum assurance with maximum delusion." The comment, made privately by the leader of a Labour council, is the exact and perfect judgment. No other analyst need apply.

Indeed but here's a little bit more analysis anyway. This particular topic has been covered here before but if the PM is going to continue to say it, it seems only fair to continue to point out that he's talking utter garbage.

In his "warfighter" speech, he argued that this country must continue to be willing to participate in the illegitimate use of violence as a means to combat the illegitimate use of violence of others. He didn't phrase it that way of course but that's essentially what he said. He also blamed the media, the public and the military for that fact that the policy wasn't working.

He said:

They now know that if a suicide bomber kills 100 completely innocent people in Baghdad, in defiance of the wishes of the majority of Iraqis who voted for a non-sectarian government, then the image presented to a Western public is as likely to be, more likely to be, one of a failed Western policy, not another outrage against democracy.

The majority of Iraqis voted for a non-sectarian government?

If you are a dedicated sophist, you could just about argue that there's a tiny sliver of truth in that but sophistry and the power of Blair's delusions and pronouncements have no impact on the real world. Blair's refusal to accept that may be one of his most alarming traits.

The reality is that the vast majority of Iraqis voted along sectarian lines. Even Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, could not avoid concluding that "it looks as if people have preferred to vote for their ethnic or sectarian identities". It's not in any way controversial.

And yet Blair continues to make these absurd claims, lies in fact, and the majority of MPs and activists in the Labour Party continue to let him. And the Tories, the party who did/didn't support the war (delete as appropriate), are not exactly doing a sterling job of holding him to account either. When our PM can repeatedly lie about the situation in Iraq without facing any consequence whatsoever, is it any wonder confidence in politicians is at an all time low?

Still, I suppose that's all our fault too. If only we were the credulous, unquestioning fools Blair would like us to be, our democracy would be in the best of health.

An Army of Frothers

Right, I will change the record shortly but one more post on Iran for now.

Via a comment by redpesto, my attention is drawn to one Andrew McCarthy writing for the National Review's The Corner. From what I've read elsewhere, the Iranian government building raided in Irbil may not have been an officially designated consulate but the Iranians presence was certainly fully authorised by the Kurdish authorities. McCarthy, however, accepts that it was a consulate.

He writes:

[T]he raid on the Iranian consulate in Iraq's Kurdish region has to be welcome news. We would certainly regard that as an act of war if the tables were turned.

Hurray for acts of war!

To fully understand where McCarthy is coming from, I'll first go back to quoting something I wrote before Bush made his speech. It concerns the anonymously leaked claims that the Iranians are aiding both sides of the sectarian conflict in Iraq in order to provoke instability.

If he [Bush] goes on record with these claims, I'll be extremely surprised and I'd still want the captured documents made available to independent experts for translation and corroboration before giving any weight to them. It is, however, far more likely that he will insinuate that the claims are true without actually saying so directly. Frothing warmongers will then complain that he didn't go far enough, that he should have made the case explicit, that he should have published the captured intelligence, without considering possibility that he didn't do any of these things for the very good reasons that the intelligence doesn't actually exist.

Hopefully, we're now all up to the speed with the fact that Bush made no explicit reference to these claims and have understood the implications of that omission.

But what did McCarthy make of Bush's speech? He was underwhelmed. While welcoming Bush's words, he did not think Bush went far enough.

Under the Bush Doctrine as articulated in September 2001, it [material support for America's enemies] is supposed to be met with a vigorous American response because we deem rogue regimes to be just like the terrorists they abet. Patently, in the case of Iran and Syria, we have not done that. In turning away from the Bush Doctrine in this most essential of its potential applications, we have turned away from the blueprint for winning the war — not the Battle of Baghdad but the War on Terror.

In the raging sectarian warfare, Iran promotes jihadists of both Sunni and Shiite stripe. Plainly, it sees its interest in a destabilized Iraq.

Actions, the old saw tells us, speak louder than words. Given our actions, and what they imply about our sentiments, it’s going to take a lot more than last night’s rhetoric to make an impression on Iran and Syria.

Froth, froth, bomb, bomb, kill kill.

If I could be bothered to wade through all the bile, I'm quite sure I could find many more examples of this sort of war drumming in other neo-con publications today. It's not that McCarthy is involved in some deep dark conspiracy (at least, I very much doubt he is), just that his own prejudices make it easy for the Bush administration to manipulate him.

Sometimes, for all that I try, it is simply impossible to avoid saying I told you so. But it's not that difficult to predict this sort of thing when exactly the same tactic was used before the invasion of Iraq.

Cowboy Diplomacy Rides Again

As far as I can tell, the British media doesn't really seem to have grasped the importance of the Iranian angle to Bush's escalation speech. I've been banging on about it here but it doesn't seem to have been given the coverage it deserves in the British media.

It's almost enough to make a person wonder whether he's barking up the wrong tree.

But then again.

Only this president, only in this time, only with this dangerous, even messianic certitude, could answer a country demanding an exit strategy from Iraq, by offering an entrance strategy for Iran.

Only this president could look out over a vista of 3,008 dead and 22,834 wounded in Iraq, and finally say, “Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me” — only to follow that by proposing to repeat the identical mistake ... in Iran.

Only this president could extol the “thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group,” and then take its most far-sighted recommendation — “engage Syria and Iran” — and transform it into “threaten Syria and Iran” — when al-Qaida would like nothing better than for us to threaten Syria, and when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would like nothing better than to be threatened by us.

This is diplomacy by skimming; it is internationalism by drawing pictures of Superman in the margins of the text books; it is a presidency of Cliff Notes. And to Iran and Syria — and, yes, also to the insurgents in Iraq — we must look like a country run by the equivalent of the drunken pest who gets battered to the floor of the saloon by one punch, then staggers to his feet, and shouts at the other guy’s friends, “Ok, which one of you is next?”

Full transript here (via).

And there's more (via a comment by rick). And more. And more. And a bit more. I could go on but you probably get the picture.

And there are some British voices who have noticed too. Our old friend Con Coughlin is all for this escalation against Iran. Well, who would have thought it?

In a previous post, I suggested that Blair might understand that British involvement in attacks on Iran would be a step too far for him. I may have been over-optimistic. Perhaps it's just a coincidence that Blair is today making a speech on the need for continued support for American policy and stressing the need for British armed forces to "be war fighters" and for us to "pay the cost of that fight, whatever it may be".

Or perhaps it isn't.

By the way, Olbermann, for all that he's often bang on the money on Bush's many failings, made a rather grotesque claim in his special comment. A vista of 3,008 dead and 22,834 wounded in Iraq? I think you'll find the vista is far more littered with corpses than that, Keith. Or do only Americans count?