As we've also lamented about here before, this is Michael R. Gordon we're talking about -- the same one who so energetically hawked the yellow cake fabrication story for us with Judy Miller of the NYTimes, in the run up to the invasion of Iraq -- the same one who so early on was pushing the "Pentagon" stories of Iraq somehow being behind all the troubles in Iraq.

and another familiar echo -- the corresponding spike in energy futures and a dive in the financial markets:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080620/oil_prices.html

"Whenever you get Israel and Iran within the same sentence, you have a price reaction," said Jim Ritterbusch, president of energy consultancy Ritterbusch and Associates in Galena, Ill.

(to put a fine spin on the matter)

When is a major US political figure going to have the courage to make the obvious link between sabre rattling (re. Iran -- whether by Israeli or American politicians) and the price of oil & our weakening economy?

Ah but wait, I can already hear another deja vu argument -- back in 2003, didn't various neocons argue that we should invade Iraq sooner rather than later -- so that the spikes then over oil could return to "normal?"

Instead of attacking US targets following an attack by Israel on Iran perhaps Iran should sue the US citing the Alabams Claims for providing the weaponry that allowed the Israelis to carry out the attack . The US might complain but the law would probably be on Iran's side

Americans do your job its your responsibility. Don't just talk, the world get sick and tired of your feedless talk that change nothing you making some money from media books and radio shows go act now you have Senators who should speak on your behalf, show the world your democracy stick with those good guys who waiting your support,weakup enough its enough there are no excuses from now.

In 2005, before John Conyers became chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary, he introduced a bill to explore impeaching the president and was asked by Lewis Lapham of Harpers why he was for impeachment then. He replied:

"To take away the excuse that we didn't know. So that two, or four, or ten years from now, if somebody should ask, 'Where were you, Conyers, and where was the U.S. Congress?' when the Bush administration declared the Constitution inoperative ... none of the company here present can plead ignorance or temporary insanity [or] say that 'somehow it escaped our notice.'"

And seldom mentioned is the voluminous book published by Conyers himself, Constitution in Crisis, containing a wealth of relevant detail on the crimes of the current executive.

Conyers' complaint that there is not enough time is a dog that won't hunt, as Lyndon Johnson would say.

Bomb Iran? What's to Stop Bush?

"Right now, as whenever there is an increased risk of an act of war being launched against Iran by the US or Israel, there is a heightened risk that matters might spin out of control. The stability of the global system as well as the lives of 160,000 US servicemembers in Iraq are put in direct risk.

Stop the madness. Stop the war. Start the diplomacy of real engagement and real problem-solving-- now."

Out of his own, big, stirring mouth president Ahmadinejad has virtually ensured Israel will attack Iran's nuclear facilities if Iran does not come to the party after 4 YEARS OF NON STOP DIPLOMACY, cease enriching uranium and cease threatening Israel's existence.

It's that simple, really.

Another possibility is that the alleged exercises, whether they really occurred or not, could simply be intended as a psy-ops to intimidate Iran.

Really, I find it difficult to imagine the US condoning an Israeli attack, or launching its own. The Iranians could lower the boom on the US economy, as well as a good part of the world economy, by destroying Saudi oil production in a barrage of rockets and missiles.

Has anyone noticed that Japan's Prime Minister has just recently called for dialogue with Iran which, he said, should not be isolated. The Japanese are totally vulnerable on the oil issue. see: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91BP5EO0&show_article=1

I agree with Patrick. This is more likely to be a bit of extremely expensive - not to mention irresponsible - chest-thumping from the Israelis. It seems unlikely that even the grossly overrated Israeli army would advertise its intentions so obviously.

These are the advisers on Obama's senior working group on national security.

* MADELEINE ALBRIGHT - Served a secretary of state in former President Bill Clinton's administration and was a top adviser to the campaign of Obama's former rival, Hillary Clinton.

* DAVID BOREN - The former governor and senator from Oklahoma chaired the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

* WARREN CHRISTOPHER - Was Bill Clinton's first secretary of state and also served as deputy secretary of state in the Carter administration.

* GREG CRAIG - Was a former senior adviser to Albright in the Clinton administration and later led the team defending Bill Clinton against the impeachment charges involving Clinton's affair with a White House intern. Despite long ties to both Bill and Hillary Clinton, Craig was an early supporter of Obama and has been part of his inner circle of advisers.

* RICHARD DANZIG - Served as secretary of the Navy under Bill Clinton and is an expert on counterterrorism.

* LEE HAMILTON - The former Indiana congressman co-chaired the blue-ribbon commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks and was a lead author of Iraq Study Group report that offered recommendations on Iraq to President George W. Bush in 2006.

* ERIC HOLDER - Was deputy attorney general in Bill Clinton's administration and is working with Caroline Kennedy, daughter of slain President John F. Kennedy, in helping to guide Obama's search for a vice presidential running mate.

* ANTHONY LAKE - Was national security adviser to Bill Clinton and has been part of the inner circle of Obama's campaign.

* SAM NUNN - A former senator from Georgia who chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee, Nunn has long been viewed as a leading Democratic voice on foreign policy and some have speculated he might be looked at by Obama as a potential running mate.

* WILLIAM PERRY - Was secretary of defense under Bill Clinton.

* SUSAN RICE - The former assistant secretary of state for African Affairs is Obama's senior foreign policy adviser.

* TIM ROEMER - The former Indiana congressman was a member of the 9/11 commission.

* JAMES STEINBERG - Was deputy national security adviser to Bill Clinton.

It's difficult for me to envision what a "authoritative, high-level US-Iranian negotiation" would consist of, and what its objectives would be.

This is all about US hegemony in the ME -- the modified Carter Doctrine that posits that not only outside forces but also ME countries need to pledge fealty to the US. The nuclear matter is a red herring to distract from the real issue.

Not only does Iran not have an ongoing nuclear weapons program but its nuclear enrichment program is completely legal. Nevertheless, the UN has been used as a political pawn by the US to call for a halt to Iran's NPT-compliant activity and invoke sanctions (which might be considered an act of war). Is there such a thing as world law, as opposed to using the UN as a lackey for US interests? The UN has been co-opted by the West and is of no constructive use.

Nuclear enrichment is not only condoned but also encouraged by the NPT: "Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty."
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm

Russia, China and India are not going to save America's bacon in this matter. They are not going to exert their considerable power to keep America from falling into its self-made political/military abyss, and they have been neutered by the UN.

So what's to negotiate? The US and Britain want to control Iran like the good old days of the Shah, and Iran wants to remain the power that it is in the ME. There is no way to negotiate that. Differences like that are what wars are for.

Yes, Don, influential circles in the US and Britain may indeed still seek all these things you mention. But they can't get them.

Figuring out a way to let them climb down from the unsustainable tree of their own bellicose rhetoric is what the UN is for.

Helena,
Well, we differ. The purpose of the UN security council has long been to promote US world (not Just World) interests. The evidence here is the neutering of the UN in its illegal promotion of sanctions on a country which (especially compared to others) has done nothing wrong or illegal.

By the way your analysis of the current situation on the ground (ex-UN) is exceedingly astute. You never cease to amaze me! Your understanding of military matters (particularly for a Quaker woman, if I might say) exceeds that of many accepted military analysts, in my opinion.

Anyhow, I repeat the question: So what's to negotiate?

Don, thanks for the compliment. Yes, we differ on the UN thing.

Re the compliment-- I mch enjoy singing "I ain't gonna study war nor more!" along with the rest of my f/Friends. But actually, I believe it's important that some of us in the peace movement study it very closely.

"Know the enemy," so to speak. Or rather, know the mindset and thinking of those of our actual and potential friends who are still caught up in delusions that violence can solve their problems.

Helena,
You don't want to answer my question -- I'm offended (hah ha).

Negotiation agenda:

(1) Resumption of diplomatic recognition between the two governments, including a reciprocal pledge not to interfere in the internal affairs of the other;

(2) De-escalation of the tensions in and over Iraq, (this one conducted in conjunction with Iraq, its other neighbors, and the UN);

(3) Measures to restore confidence in the integrity of Iran's nuclear programs within the framework provided by international law and agreements;

(4) Ending of the US-UN sanctions against Iran and Iran's full reintegration into the world economy;

(5) Other issues of shared concern.

with all due respect to the people leaving their feedback to helena's original post, there's an awful lot of gum flapping going on in the absence of hard information. so it goes in the echo chamber of the blogosphere but so much of this uniformed commentary is off the mark.

up front, let me say i don't believe it would be wise to attack iran's nuclear facility. but let's stop hyperventilating for a moment and ask ourselves whether israel really intends to launch an attack. shaul mofaz notwithstanding, what you're seeing folks, is classic sabre rattling designed to concentrate the efforts of the US & the Europeans vis a vis iran. as a sovereign state, israel's well within its rights to prepare itself for any eventuality and if this turns up the pressure on tehran, that serves a valid foreign policy objective. but an all out attack on iran? fuggedaboutit...it ain't gonna happen. this isn't iraq. and the israelis happen to be a helluva lot smarter than the americans, who walked into the mother of all fuc*-ups in iraq w/o knowing very much about the region.

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2008/06/israeli-propagandists-can-leak-anything.html

June 20, 2008

Israeli propagandists can leak anything to the New York Times and they will guarantee to put it on the front page. It must be nice. *

* http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/washington/20iran.html

-- Asad AbuKhalil

This could also be another example of making the unthinkable thinkable by endless repitition. Constant discussion of the subject, whether positive or negative, has the effect of dulling the senses of the great masses who hear nothing but the key words. Israel has shown itself a master of this technique. With the complicity - wittingly or unwittingly - of the MSM (and, of course the neocon community), it does work. If there is such an attack, the level of outrage will be considerably dulled by the publicity campaign.

Re: Negotiation agenda:

Comment: These items don't require negotiation because the US and/or Iran can just do them. Mainly they require a change of behavior on the US side.

(1) Resumption of diplomatic recognition between the two governments, including a reciprocal pledge not to interfere in the internal affairs of the other; Comment: Un-declare Iran from the Axis of Evil and resume normal diplomatic relations (but the US will never agree not to interfere in Iran's internal affairs).

(2) De-escalation of the tensions in and over Iraq, (this one conducted in conjunction with Iraq, its other neighbors, and the UN); Comment: all the tension comes from the US/Israeli side, so just end it by working with Iran to build a stable Iraq which is in everyone's interest, stop the belligerent talk and naval activities, and also cease supporting the MEK terrorists in Iran.

(3) Measures to restore confidence in the integrity of Iran's nuclear programs within the framework provided by international law and agreements; Comment: The "lack of confidence" (really a destructive imperative) in the IAEA is all from the uS side starting back with the disdain shown by the US toward the UN and ElBaradei in 2002. So, US, just stop it.

(4) Ending of the US-UN sanctions against Iran and Iran's full reintegration into the world economy; Comment: Again, no negotiation necessary; just do it.

The US is not inclined to do any of these things because it seeks (1) obeisance toward Israel/AIPAC , (2) hegemony in the ME and (3) everlasting turmoil, the better to foster a military state.

WEEKEND
June
14
2008

San Mateo Daily Journal

Home
Local News
State / National / World
Sports
Opinion / Letters
Business
Arts / Entertainment
Lifestyle
About Us

Letters to the editor

War: What is it good for?
Editor,

“A long-delayed Senate committee report endorsed by Democrats and some Republicans concluded that President Bush and his aides built the public case for war against Iraq by exaggerating available intelligence and by ignoring disagreements among spy agencies about Iraq’s weapons programs and Saddam Hussein's links to Al Qaeda,” said Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane.

War is rarely necessary and never glorious. That’s one thing Americans should have learned from their experiences in Vietnam, and from seeing the daily horror and carnage of that war televised in their living rooms every night.

The U.S. government sure learned from it. They learned not to allow TV cameras to show so many dead or wounded GIs, or even enemy soldiers. They learned it’s safer to restrict photographers and TV crews to shots of awesome artillery barrages, powerful tanks, aircraft carriers and modern bombers taking off with their lethal payloads-the weapons of war, not their effects.

They don’t show the death and devastation in the little rural villages once full of farmers, the crippled children who happened to pick up cluster bombs, the charred corpses that are now called “collateral damage.” After all, showing such things would detract from the glory of war.

Ted Rudow III,MA

Menlo Park

One thing that puzzles me, quite honestly, is this:
What is the benefit TO ISRAEL, of publicizing this rehearsal? If they are really going to do the bombing, the publicizing of the rehearsal only puts the enemy, in this case, Iran, much more in the alert than if the rehearsal was done secretly.
If you want to attack an enemy, you don't spread the word to the world...
Also, what good is it to the Pentagon and the neo-cons, to publicize this? The same argument about secrecy being the key to success applies. Any lay reader of Sun-Tzu's or Clausewitz knows this.
So, what is the logic of the Israelis and the Pentagon leaking this, in cohoots, of course. I just can't figure out ANY advantage of doing it, EVEN if they don't intend to bomb Iran - just the N.Y.T. article evidently has put Iran in a higher state of alert, has given Iran support of all the Iranians, plus all the liberals in the world, etc.
By the way, why is it "unacceptable" that Iran has a nuclear weapon program, if Israel has 250 Nuclear heads ready to blow up all the Arab States in the World? What kind of cynical morality is this that all the Europeans and the U.S. try to sell us?
Anyway, as I said, no strategist in his own mind would EVER do a public gesture like this. Only an insane strategist would ever think that Iran would ever be scared by it and backtrack in a nuclear program. Iran is not Luxembourg, with all due respect to Luxembourg and Monaco...
So, the answer can only be Hubris, lack of knowledge about Iran and its History, its People,Culture, etc. The U.S. is famous for this lack of knowledge in the Pentagon, but the Israelis usually are a little more informed. But both the U.S. and Israel in this case seem to be a serious case of Dementia and Reality Denial, not to call it Stupidity...

The sabre rattling may be useful to look what Iran is going to move on their chess board, where are the assets to be protected, and this activity may be something US and Israel is watching now; some info may be gained, although imperfect, but maybe better than what they have now