Tag Archives: Iran

Iraq 3.0.

Despite the occasional bleat that no one wants war and that we are not seeking conflict in the Gulf, the United States continues to move closer and closer to some kind of clash with Iran. Administration officials are blaming the Iranian government for attacks against tankers owned by nations who still do business with Iran, citing non-existent evidence of sabotage by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard – evidence contradicted by the owners of the Japanese ship that was attacked. Right wing blowhards like Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas are advocating for strikes against Iran, and this is treated as a serious policy proposal. Various spokespeople for the administration’s ever-emerging policy even raised the possibility of the U.S. providing naval escorts for commercial ships in the Gulf, modeling it on the tanker war phase of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

Who says I'm blowing smoke out of my ass? It's the ship, damn it, the ship!

This last bit fascinated me. It’s so unusual for our leaders to even mention the Iran-Iraq war, I suspect largely because we had a dog in that fight … and the dog was named Saddam Hussein. (Also, one of the ships we sent to the Gulf on that particular mission was the U.S.S. Vincennes, which on July 3, 1988 shot down Iran Air flight 655, killing all 290 passengers on board, 60 of whom were children.) If this is the mark of a successful policy to be imitated, god help us. Few Americans will recall that Saddam Hussein started that war, in 1980, using chemical weapons liberally against the Iranians – weapons whose primary components were purchased from (West) Germany, I believe. One of the principal outcomes of the Iran-Iraq war was the invasion of Kuwait, subsequent Gulf War, then the 12-year strangulation and ultimate invasion of Iraq by the U.S.

This is to say that war can sometimes sound a lot simpler than it actually turns out to be. People like Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, of course, are driven by ideology and really don’t care if their war with Iran turns out to be a disaster. But aside from the very crucial questions of whether the policy is right or legal, I think it’s fair to say that this administration’s deliberate push from functional diplomacy to the brink of armed conflict is reckless and potentially catastrophic, given the current state of international affairs. We are desperately in need of action on the ensuing climate crisis, and these nutjobs are driving us into another pointless war, damn the consequences.

I strongly suggest you contact your congressional representatives and urge them to oppose this policy. The switchboard is 202-224-3121. You may also want to use the Stance app, which is very easy to use when phoning your house member and senators. Right now, it’s our best chance at heading off this madness.

luv u,

jp

Say what?

The more I watch TV talk shows, the more I realize that they live and die by a simple maxim: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. That’s the principle that puts John Brennan, Norman Podhoretz, Bill Kristol, Max Boot, and others of their ilk on centrist-liberal shows on MSNBC. I suppose it’s not all that surprising that the election of Donald Trump would result in the rise of a lowest common denominator resistance, such that open-throated advocates of the Iraq War and other disasters have spent the last three years nursing their reputations back to health, hour by hour, on Morning Joe and other platforms. I’m not the first, certainly, to point out that the left suffers under reactionary presidents as the broad opposition tends to focus all their energy on defense of existing policies under attack, at the expense of breaking new ground. That’s understandable … but do we really have to make common cause with Bill Kristol? Really?

This is the hashtag resistance on MSNBC.

Well, it’s worse than that. Because the corollary of this guiding principle is the notion that the friend of my enemy is also my enemy, and so, too, is the friend of that friend. We’re seeing that play out on the foreign policy front. This week, Rachel Maddow and others on MSNBC, in their desire to paint Vladimir Putin as this master manipulator, appear to have swallowed whole the ridiculous claim made by John Bolton and Mike Pompeo that Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro was set to flee his country, his plane idling on the runway, when Vladimir Putin told him to stay put. Maddow was chiding Trump for allowing himself to be duped by Putin; she almost sounded sympathetic to Bolton’s plight as yet another Trump administration principal who has been outflanked by his boss in public. I realize the whole bit is half played for laughs, but I fear irony is lost on today’s viewing public.

The same dynamic is playing out over North Korea. Bolton and Pompeo are obviously throwing a monkey wrench into the Korean peace process, while simultaneously trying to gin up conflicts and regime change in Iran, Venezuela, and ultimately Nicaragua and Cuba. Everyone on MSNBC, from commentators like Maddow down to newsreaders, are playing up claims that Kim Jong Un appears to be stepping away from any informal agreements regarding arms testing, suggesting that he’s taking Trump for a ride. So, in essence, they are advocating for returning to something like the confrontation of 2017, when we came within a whisker of war. That is insanity. Regardless of your opinion of Trump, we need to encourage a peaceful end to that confrontation and follow the lead of the South Korean president.

One can only hope that we can unseat Trump next year. If we fail, at the current rate, the hashtag opposition will likely go full-on neocon before 2022.

luv u,

jp

Fear and favor.

The Trump Administration almost gleefully declared Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization this week, setting a new precedent in this overtly imperial practice of terror designation by applying it to a branch of the armed forces of a sovereign nation. The first question that came to my mind was, did Trump do this at this particular moment as a last-minute favor to Netanyahu or as a sop to his buddy Mohammed bin Salman? Only Trump’s hairdresser knows for sure.

Not that the president’s penchant for prioritizing his personal interests is the sole motivation here. As the execrable Pompeo said, this is part of their strategy of placing “maximum pressure” on Iran, another step toward making military conflict with the Islamic Republic all but inevitable. Trita Parsi pointed out on Democracy Now! that one of the most serious effects of this decision would be to forestall any future opportunity to reduce the level of confrontation with Iran by effectively criminalizing any contact with large swaths of the Iranian government or civil society. It will also make reconciliation far more politically costly for future, hopefully more sane American leaders, while strengthening the hardliners in Iran. This strikes many as ironic, but it isn’t, really – this is similar to what the Bush II administration did with Mohammed Khatami. Republican presidents in particular much prefer hot-headed Iranian leaders like Ahmadinejad because they’re easy to demonize. This policy practically guarantees another hot head in Teheran.

The neocon lobe of Trump's tiny brain.

The frankly laughable Pompeo took the occasion of his announcement to rattle through a litany of Iran’s terroristic offenses over the decades, such as the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, carried out by a nascent Hezbollah. Naturally, every action taken by Hezbollah is attributed to Iran, but just to focus on this one example – in 1983, the U.S. was supporting Saddam Hussein in his then 3-year-old invasion of Iran, a conflict that killed upwards of 900,000 Iranians over eight years. Hezbollah had risen in opposition to the invasion of Lebanon by Israel, which was essentially supported by the United States. Say what you like about the bombing, we were not simply minding our own business in those days. Add to that the fact that we worked with British intelligence to bomb a mosque in Lebanon around that time, and then ask … who’s the terrorist?

One thing to remember with the Trump administration: there’s the personal venality and self-dealing of Trump himself, and then there’s the craven policies of the institutional Republican party. Often those things intersect in toxic ways, and I think this terror designation is one of those instances.

luv u,

jp

State of it, 2019.

I would be remiss not to comment, first of all, on the style and delivery of Trump’s second State Of The Union address this past Tuesday night. Plainly, he is terrible at reading from a teleprompter. I don’t know whether it’s a vision issue or some pathology further back in that thick skull of his, but man goddamn, what a horrible read. Beyond that, though, he obviously did not rehearse the speech to any significant degree. It was a rocky road, prosody-wise, for little lord Trump-leroy from beginning to end. An embarrassing performance all around.

As for the content, just a couple of points:

Really cares about those kids.Immigration. Beyond the same lies, distortions, and barely concealed bigotry that usually erupt from his festering maw, Trump used the well-worn SOTU practice of using guests as rhetorical human shields in his argument for the Wall, greater immigration enforcement, and so on. This time it was family members of a U.S. citizen victim murdered by an MS13 member. Of course, Trump could bring in dozens of such cases if he can find them, and it would no more prove his case than this sorry demonstration. People get murdered in America, including a relatively small number at the hands of immigrants. Crucially, his “get tough” policy makes these victims less safe. By rounding up undocumented aliens by the thousands, Trump’s agents are creating a strong disincentive for members of that community to call the cops when they either witness or become victimized by gang activity. Just more evidence that bigotry is not only wrong and immoral – it’s just effing dumb.

Iran Deal. Trump had just told an interviewer a few days ago that he wanted to keep troops on an American base in Iraq to “keep an eye on Iran” – something he apparently failed to discuss with the Iraqi government. Then, in this remarkably poorly-wrought SOTU address, the old man railed against the Islamic Republic, calling it the most prominent state sponsor of terror and accusing it of doing “bad things” in the region. He has adopted the broadly-used imperial rhetoric on Iran, attributing every action carried out by Hezbollah to Tehran. And, of course, they hate Hezbollah because it is an effective fighting force that restricts Israel’s ability to strike  Lebanon at will. That’s what we and the Israeli government call “terrorism”.  Of course, his withdrawal from the Iran nuclear accord just scotches what was a great deal for the U.S. – a pledge to restrain themselves while we continue to occupy countries on either side of them and threaten them daily. What’s to complain about there?

Oh, right. Obama did it. And John Bolton wants war. How could I have forgotten?

luv u,

jp

The century in review.

As you know, this is the week when every news and opinion broadcast, podcast, etc., typically does their year in review. There are, of course, economic reasons for this – they basically run clip shows or pre-taped round tables, which can occasionally be worth watching (Chris Hayes usually does pretty well with these) but are mostly pretty dull and awful. So, inasmuch as this is not, repeat, NOT a news blog or, really, an opinion blog in the traditional sense, I am breaking with this obnoxious practice and running with something I think is more useful …. the century in review. Meaning stuff that happened over the last 100 years, selected at random, and by “stuff” I mean historical and political stories that are, in essence, lost to history, particularly in the United States.

A neglected chapter.One such story is the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88). which I have mentioned previously in the blog over the years. This, in my opinion, is one of those seminal conflicts that set the stage for much that followed in this unfortunate region. The United States and U.S. allies in Europe and the Persian Gulf (particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE) played a central role in this horrendous war, a role which has virtually been expunged from pop culture history. One example is the History Channel article on the Iran-Iraq war. which does not mention the U.S. at all. This is remarkable in that the Reagan Administration avidly supported Saddam Hussein’s government from 1982 on, providing them with arms, DIA intelligence on Iranian targets, precursors to chemical weapons, biological agents, and so on.

The Iran Chamber Society provides a useful list of our various efforts to support Hussein’s war against Iran. Here are some highlights:

February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries.

December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq.

1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments.

November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do “whatever was necessary and legal” to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran.

November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq’s missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act.

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq.

(See the full list with references here.)

An excellent account of this war is given by Dilip Hiro in his book The Longest War. And as our president would say, by the way, Happy Christmas

 

The politics of out.

Well, I was half prepared to do a post on General Flynn this week, but with the advent of Trump’s apparently unilateral decision to pull U.S. forces out of Syria and the nearly apoplectic response, it seems more appropriate to concentrate on the broader matter of our foreign policy and how it plays out in what passes for our national conversation.

Look at the shiny, shiny thing.I think it’s worth saying at the outset that I have no idea of what our military’s mission is in Syria. I keep hearing that it’s essentially the same as the one we’re pursuing in Afghanistan – training and equipping a local force to fight the war for us – but that doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. It is, in fact, a formula for another unending deployment, one that has the support of most of the foreign policy voices in the media. Much of the criticism of Trump’s abrupt decision has been from a right militarist perspective, though one that is broadly shared, much like the criticism of his Korea policy. The only argument that has merit, in my view, is that we will be leaving the Syrian Kurds twisting in the wind – something we have done to the Kurds in past decades as well (ask Kissinger). Maybe that is worth keeping 2,000 plus U.S. troops in Syria, if protecting Kurdish fighters is in fact what they’re doing, but as always, we are pondering policy stacked on top of bad policy decades in the making.

The foreign policy talking heads that populate Morning Joe and other shows see this withdrawal as great news for Russia (aka Putin) and emboldening ISIS, Iran, Hezbollah, etc. No mention of the fact that the government we stood up in Iraq is now busily executing thousands Sunnis they breezily accuse of being in league with the Islamic State. That is next-generation ISIS in the making, folks, as that is the process the produced the first generation. These movements do not come out of nowhere. Al Qaeda was spawned by our intervention in Afghanistan in the 1980s, as was the Taliban. Hezbollah was the product of Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon. ISIS grew out of Sunni Iraqis who found themselves on the wrong side of the U.S. occupation and subsequent Shia-dominated central government. On and on.

The fact is, we need to change the political calculus around getting out of conflicts. We can discuss the best way to do that – by applying more diplomatic and economic pressure on actors like Turkey, etc., but we need to be able to end these wars. Trump is doing it for all the wrong reasons, in a haphazard and asinine way, but he’s doing it. That after helping to wreck Syria beyond repair. We just should never have been there in the first place … and we need to stop doing this shit.

luv u,

jp

Friends and enemies.

Our friends the Saudis are planning to execute a woman for being a dissident. It’s a little hard to imagine how you can be a woman in Saudi Arabia and NOT be considered a dissident, but there you have it. The method will be beheading, which, as I recall, Trump decried furiously during the 2016 campaign as an aberrant ISIS tactic drawn from the middle ages – no one has seen this in centuries! Actually, it’s the preferred method of execution in one of your favorite dictatorships, Mr. Trump. Still, it’s hard to blame the president for this relationship; we’ve been cozy with the Kingdom for decades, regardless of what they do, often bending our own foreign policy to suit their tastes (as long as it remains within the narrow limits of our own imperial policies).

New leaders, same old handshakeWhy? Is it just oil? Well, that’s a complicated issue. Sure, Saudi Arabia wouldn’t have been the center of attention for so long if their chief export had been nutmeg. Their ample supply of easy-to-extract, cheap-to-process crude oil was famously described by our policymakers as a source of enormous strategic power and perhaps the greatest material prize in the history of the world. But it’s that “strategic power” that is the key, as I’ve mentioned previously in these pages. We didn’t need Saudi oil in the 1950s and we don’t need it today, but we do need to have influence and a potential veto over it to maintain our leverage over other nations.

So Saudi is our “friend”, despite the fifteen 9/11 hijackers, and Iran is our “enemy”. Iran is Saudi’s enemy for a range of reasons, not least among them the fact that Saudi has a sizable Shia minority which they fear may be emboldened by a strong Iran. So that puts the Kingdom on the side of the U.S. government and the Israelis (another “friend”). Both Israel and Saudi would love to see us send our troops into Iran … because that’s what friends are for? It sounds chaotic to describe in this brief fashion, but there is a cold imperial logic to this framework – one that opposes secular Arab nationalism, opposes Shia resistance in all of its forms, and supports the enrichment of key U.S. based industries; namely fossil fuels and military technologies, both heavily subsidized by American taxpayers.

So it should come as no surprise that Trump supports an extremist state that beheads its citizens and flies planes into our buildings. In this sense, he’s a real traditionalist.

luv u,

jp

Rattling sabres.

The knives were out for Iran again this week … not that that’s all that different from other weeks in America. Trump dropped an open threat on Twitter, his preferred channel for delivering such messaging. I know he’s never read it, but his little all-cap tweet is a blatant violation of Article 2 (principle 4) of the U.N. Charter, which, ratified by the U.S., is the supreme law of the land:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Trump being diplomaticOf course, this principle gets violated all the time without consequence, particularly by our own leaders and those of our allied nations. Not sure how, exactly, this prohibition made its way into this document back in the day when the United States was the sole remaining power and the first-ever superpower in world history. We had an enormous hand in erecting this international order, putting ourselves at the very top of the global power structure in as much as we were the only nation to have emerged from the ravages of World War II stronger than before. Why would we include this principle only to violate it consistently for the next seventy years?

My point, I guess, is that this reckless sabre rattling is nothing new. What’s new is the fool in command. Trump is offensive in every manner you can name. I think he particularly grates on me because I’ve always hated reality television, and that more than anything else defines his public persona. After decades of avoiding reality shows like the plague, my fellow Americans elected a reality star president of the United States, and he is now doing his level best to turn our very reality into reality television. Now we not only have to watch the lousy show every day – we are bit players in the freaking show! From my perspective, it’s like drinking a pint of urine the moment you get out of bed in the morning. Pleasant.

What’s worse than that, though, is the empire crap. Posers like Pompeo and Bolton will use Trump to get their beloved war with Iran. That – and not so much the reality show BS – is what we need to concentrate our energy on.

luv u,

jp

Behind us all the way.

Apparently Bibi Netanyahu really, really wants us to start a war with Iran. That’s the ultimate goal of his little English-language TED talk this past week. As a piece of warmonger propaganda, it was pretty unconvincing, particularly in the post-Iraq war era, so it seems reasonable to assume that he was performing for an audience of one: that one named Trump. Iran lied, says Bibi, so Trump should tear up the JCPOA; tearing up the JCPOA means an end to diplomatic solutions, which means, ultimately, war.

Sage advice from our "friends"It’s a war that Bibi doesn’t want to fight, and with good reason. Sure, they have undeclared nuclear weapons – hundreds of them – but those are pretty much useless beyond their value as an end-of-the-world threat. The fact is, Israel can’t win a conventional war with Iran, and they know it. Iran would be a difficult adversary, as well as a vast territory to subdue and occupy – it has “strategic depth”, as Col. Lawrence Wilkerson has pointed out. But honestly, when was the last time Israel won an actual war? 1973? Don’t say Lebanon – sure, they drove the PLO out of Beirut (at an enormous cost to the population), but by no means did that end positively for them. Their armed forces have suffered from too much colonial population control – thugging the Palestinians, in essence. But they still want to overthrow the Iranian regime. That’s where we come in.

Bibi and his allies are happy to expend our blood and treasure on an insane war against Iran. Same with Mohammed Bin Salman (or “MBS” as our press affectionately calls him). He very much wants us to neutralize Iran, just as they were supportive of Saddam Hussein when he launched his eight-year war on Iran that ended in a bitter stalemate. You can see him and Bibi sitting in the stands, sharing the same muffler, cheering us on as we take to the field of battle. They’ll be behind us all the way (about five hundred miles behind us). While not formally allies, Saudi and Israel go way back. Israel did the oil kingdom a solid when they destroyed Nassar’s army in 1967. (Mohammed Bin Salman’s progenitors had been engaged in a regional struggle against Arab nationalism for a number of years as it was a direct threat to their illegitimate existence as autocratic rulers.)

Is the JCPOA flawed? Only inasmuch as it’s somewhat unfair to the Iranians. As long as Israel maintains a massive nuclear arsenal, there will be a strong incentive for them to develop a deterrent. That’s the inescapable logic of the nuclear age, whether or not you own up to your H-bombs. That said, the JCPOA is acceptable to Tehran and the rest of the world, so it should stand … regardless of what our “friends” want us to do.

luv u,

jp

Persian rug.

Trump and Macron had their meeting of the tiny minds this last week, and it doesn’t look good for the Iran nuclear deal (a.k.a. the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – JCPOA). The French president appears to think he can save it by expanding it, but that’s not likely to happen; Iran may be less than a democracy, but its leaders have constituencies just the same as ours do, and I can’t think the Iranian people are going to be willing to trust this process a second time – not when they’ve checked every box, met every requirement, and continued to suffer as Trump calls them every name in the book and hires a National Security Advisor who gave a regime change address to the terrorist MEK last year.

There are also the other parties to the agreement to consider, two of whom (Russia and China) are adamant against changing the deal. As Juan Cole has pointed out, the Russians are calling bullshit on Trump’s vacuous claim that the U.S. gave Iran $150 billion as a kind of signing bonus. I heard some cat calls about this on Facebook when the deal was struck, and it’s frankly laughable. These were Iranian assets in U.S. banks, unilaterally frozen by the U.S. government as punishment for stepping out of line. Whatever you may think of the government of Iran, any capitalist should understand that they have every right to that money. (Good luck finding that kind of capitalist in Washington D.C.)

The unknown countryIt’s not hard to see why Trump is on the same page as practically every political leader in America in treating Iran like a muck room rug. Israel wants us to attack them. Saudi wants us to attack them. The UAE wants us to attack them. And the majority of Americans are under the spell of the propaganda campaign about the incomparable evils of Iran. We’ve been fed this with a fire hose since the immediate aftermath of the Iranian revolution and the “hostage crisis” – basically my entire adult life. It has been reinforced over the intervening decades, through the Iran-Iraq war years (recall the “hostages” in Lebanon), the confrontations in the 90s, their inclusion in the “Axis of Evil”, and so on. Trump is a product of the same smear campaign.

Scuttling this deal will likely make the current confrontation with Russia deteriorate even further. Worse than that, it sets us on a short path to the war John Bolton has wanted practically forever. That war would make the Iraq conflict seem like a folk dance, and could easily trigger a response from other world powers.

In short, let’s keep the JCPOA. If it’s a bad deal, it’s only bad for the Iranians. It gives us way more than we deserve.

Peace in Korea? Just a brief coda – I’m very hopeful about the prospect for peace on the Korean peninsula. When the dust settles a bit, I’ll return to this very important question.

luv u,

jp