May 15, 2012| News | John Glaser

In the news section, Jason Ditz tells us that the State Department is preparing to remove the Iranian dissident group Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK) from their official list of terrorist organizations. This, after years of praise and advocacy from elite members in American politics, from Ed Randell to John Bolton to Howard Dean and Rudy Giuliani. These types of people collected payments from the MeK for their advocacy to get the group removed from the State Deparment’s list, which amounts to “material support” for terrorist groups, a felony. Of course, such well-connected, high-society types don’t get prosecuted for unlawful behavior unless it involves betraying the sanctity of marriage. And the fact that the U.S. government secretly trained MeK fighters in recent years and is now being employed by Israel to conduct acts of terrorism inside Iran probably won’t increase the likelihood of such prosecutions.

Interestingly, Glenn Greenwald has dug up the following bit of history. A document written by the Bush administration in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, still in the archives of the White House’s website, seeks to justify the war on the basis of Saddam’s support for the very “terrorist” group we are now supporting!

Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.

This makes flagrantly clear that, as Greenwald writes, “the application of the term ‘Terrorist’ by the U.S. Government has nothing to do with how that term is commonly understood, but is instead exploited solely as a means to punish those who defy U.S. dictates and reward those who advance American interests and those of its allies (especially Israel).”

For another example, think back to the height of Obama’s war in Libya. Preeminent AEI jingo Marc Thiessan tried to justify ousting Gadhafi because, of course, he was a committed terrorist. After all, Theissan wrote, Gadhafi was:

the man who blew up Pan Am 103 over Scotland, killing 270 people; destroyed a French passenger jet over Niger, killing 171 people; bombed the La Belle discotheque in West Berlin, killing two U.S. soldiers and injuring more than 50 American servicemen; established terrorist training camps on Libyan soil; provided terrorists with arms and safe haven…

See how easy that is? Theissan and other supporters of the war went through this rap sheet repeatedly, refusing to highlight the fact that the NATO-backed rebels had direct ties to al-Qaeda and had themselves committed serious acts of “terror.”

So a terrorist is whoever our military and political leadership say it is. Until they begin to collude with them, then they’re not terrorists anymore.

1 Comment

May 15, 2012| News | Eric Garris

From Jamal Abdi, Policy Director, National Iranian American Council

Congress is planning to vote today to make war with Iran more likely.

This afternoon, the House of Representatives is going to consider H.Res.568 – a resolution that significantly lowers the threshold for war with Iran.

It is no coincidence that this vote is taking place just a week before the U.S. and Iran resume negotiations that many in the pro-war camp want to sabotage.

We need your help today to stop this push for war.

Please take a moment to call to your Member of Congress to tell him or her to vote NO on H.Res.568 and to demand language stating that there is no authorization for war with Iran.

Your Representative needs to hear from you and others who oppose war with Iran before they take this vote.

Please call 1-855-68 NO WAR (1-855-686-6927) to contact your Member of Congress and tell them to stand up against the push for war.

Here is a quick script you can use:

• My name is _______ and I’m calling from [your city]. I’d like to talk to your foreign policy advisor. (Ask to leave a message if they are not available.)

• I am very concerned about the prospect of another war in the Middle East with Iran. I’m asking that you oppose House Resolution 568, because it aims to block diplomacy and make war with Iran inevitable. I ask that you vote no on this resolution when it comes up for a vote today and to demand language stating that there is no authorization for war with Iran. Please have the courage to speak out publicly against the push for war and in support of a diplomatic resolution to resolve the nuclear standoff and other critical issues like human rights in Iran.

• Thank you.

We also have full talking points that you can use below. You can also use your zip code to find your Member of Congress here.

Why Is This Resolution Dangerous?

1. H.Res.568 significantly lowers the threshold for going to war. This resolution effectively calls for a military attack on Iran when Iran when it obtains a “nuclear weapons capability” – an undefined term that, by some interpretations, could already apply to Iran, not to mention Brazil, Japan, the Netherlands, and any country with a civilian nuclear program. We should not stake questions of war and peace on such shaky foundations.

2. H.Res.568 sets conditions for going to war without stating that it is not an authorization for using military force. Given the resolution’s unambiguous statement ruling out containing a nuclear-capable Iran, this resolution could be construed by this President or a future President as an authorization of force for launching military action against Iran that would have devastating consequences. At the absolute minimum, the resolution should clarify that it is not an authorization of force, and does not provide a legal authority for the President to initiate war against Iran.

3. H.Res.568 dangerously confuses U.S. policy. While supporters of the resolution have repeatedly claimed, “President Obama has stated that it’s unacceptable for Iran to obtain a nuclear capability,” this is not true. President Obama has never used the “nuclear capability” phrasing, speaking instead of Iran “getting,” “obtaining” or “acquiring” a nuclear weapon as the U.S. red line. The presence of international nuclear inspectors in Iran and U.S. intelligence gathering operations make it nearly impossible for Iran to build a nuclear weapon undetected. U.S. and Israeli intelligence has been clear: Iran has yet to decide whether to actually build a bomb—our aim must be to use diplomacy to implement the verification measures to guarantee Iran cannot take this step.

4. H.Res.568 undermines diplomacy and takes peaceful options off the table. The U.S. and Iran are scheduled to hold negotiations on May 23, along with the rest of the P5+1 (Permanent 5 Security Council members plus Germany). These talks hold the potential to achieve real progress in curbing Iran’s nuclear program—with Iran’s Supreme Leader for the first time publicly endorsing negotiations and signaling that Iran is prepared to make key concessions to cap its enrichment in accordance with U.S. national security interests. This hawkish bill could undermine those talks by signaling to Iran that the U.S. is committed to war. Diplomacy is the only way to prevent war, prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon, and put mechanisms in place to effectively address human rights abuses in Iran and create space. Congress should support diplomacy, not undermine it.

Officials warn against H.Res.568

Senator Dianne Feinstein warned this resolution would interfere with current diplomatic efforts with Iran: “I really believe that these negotiations should proceed without any resolutions from us right now….This is a very sensitive time. Candidly, I think diplomacy should have an opportunity to work without getting involved in political discussions about a resolution.”

Colin Kahl, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East cautioned: “I think that all of us in this town need to be very careful of taking positions, whether its up on the Hill or out there, that box in our negotiators from being able to find a diplomatic solution….That’s what concerns me about the resolution.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell, warns: “This resolution reads like the same sheet of music that got us into the Iraq war, and could be the precursor for a war with Iran….it’s effectively a thinly-disguised effort to bless war.”

6 Comments

May 14, 2012| News | Jason Ditz

Justin has already written about this in great detail, but I thought I’d put up an image comparison between the AP’s “drawing” and a detonation nanodiamond explosion chamber.

Given that Iran is known to have a perfectly legal, 100% non-nuclear, 100% civilian detonation nanodiamond program that they invested heavily in, and given that the detonation chambers for these nanodiamonds looks remarkably like the drawing the AP provided, isn’t it more reasonable to assume that whoever “totally saw something” and described it to the guy who drew it actually just saw one of these?

4 Comments

May 14, 2012| News | John Glaser

At Foreign Policy, James Traub wonders whether we might be causing outrage and creating enemies through our drone war in Yemen.

As Barbara Bodine, a former ambassador to Yemen, notes, “Right now we don’t have a Pakistan-like reaction. But at first we didn’t have that reaction with Pakistan either. This is something that builds. And folks in Yemen know what’s going on in Pakistan. This will play into the broader narrative of the drones we use in Pakistan and Afghanistan.” Another lesson learned from Afghanistan is that even a counterinsurgency effort designed to protect civilians and promote good government will provoke nationalist resistance. People on the ground will see the intervention as against them, not for them (which explains why, according to WikiLeaks cables, President Saleh publicly insisted that the Yemeni air force had launched the strikes). Counterinsurgency, which seemed so promising all of two or three years ago, now looks like an illusory, or at least oversold, solution to the war on terror. How long before we say the same of drones?

First of all, to describe the U.S. war and occupation in Afghanistan as a project “designed to protect civilians and promote good government” is to have a severely warped view of what’s been going on there over the past decade. Overall violence and civilian casualties have increased for five years in a row and promoting good governance is laughable in the context of the inordinately corrupt Karzai government and its savage security forces. But Traub seems to acknowledge that this “counterinsurgency” campaign has been a failure, so we’ll leave that aside.

Traub writes this piece in the context of Obama’s recent decision to allow the CIA and JSOC to employ “signature strikes,” to bomb groups of individuals that they cannot even identify and who present no imminent threat that the administration is willing to establish. Even though Traub seems to be recognizing that the drone war in Yemen may be similarly “oversold,” he’s not getting off the train just yet. “There are no cost-free military solutions,” he posits, presuming there is a military solution to begin with. “But when does the cost exceed the value?” he asks.

The frequency of strikes is already much greater than most of us realize. A report by the Britain-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism counts 21 definite or possible drone strikes in Yemen over the last two months; a Yemeni government official has said that the United States has been launching an average of two strikes a day since mid-April. The danger of producing more militants than we kill in Yemen hardly seems hypothetical.

Plenty of informed voices have been singing this tune for years (not to mention this very site). And ever since Obama approved “signature strikes” in Yemen, these narratives of blowback have become more pronounced.

Gregory Johnsen, a Yemen expert at Princeton University (who Traub actually quotes), recently wrote, “Body bags are not a good barometer for success in a war like this. I would argue that U.S. missile strike[s] are actually one of the major — not the only, but a major — factor in AQAP’s growing strength.”

Jeremy Scahill, reporting for Nation, exposed in February after visiting Yemen how U.S. airstrikes that kill civilians and those ill-defined as militants – along with support for the brutal Yemeni government  - foments anti-Americanism and fuels international terrorism.

As Charles Schmitz, a Yemen expert at Towson University in Maryland, told the Los Angeles Times, “The more the U.S. applies its current policy, the stronger Al Qaeda seems to get.”

“U.S. involvement is far more than ever in Yemen. We have no evidence that all those being killed are terrorists,” Abdul Salam Mohammed, director of Abaad Strategic Center, told CNN. “With every U.S. attack that is conducted in Yemen al Qaeda is only growing in power and we have to ask ourselves why that is happening.”

“Drones are a weapon of terror in many ways, and the kind of hostility this is going to breed may not be worth the counter-terrorism gains,” says Barbara Bodine, who was U.S. ambassador to Yemen from 1997 to 2001.

Understanding blowback is an elementary part of understanding U.S. foreign policy. Yet in the pages of Foreign Policy, that understanding is only now just barely rearing its head.

2 Comments

May 14, 2012| News | John Glaser

Human Rights Watch:

The 76-page report, “Unacknowledged Deaths: Civilian Casualties in NATO’s Air Campaign in Libya,” examines in detail eight NATO air strikes in Libya that resulted in 72 civilian deaths, including 20 women and 24 children.

…the absence of a clear military target at seven of the eight sites Human Rights Watch visited raises concerns of possible laws-of-war violations that should be investigated.

Human Rights Watch called on NATO to investigate all potentially unlawful attacks and to report its findings to the UN Security Council, which authorized the military intervention in Libya.

2 Comments

May 14, 2012| News | John Glaser

Common Dreams:

Former US President George W Bush, his Vice-President Dick Cheney and six other members of his administration have been found guilty of war crimes by a tribunal in Malaysia.

…Transcripts of the five-day trial will be sent to the chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, the United Nations and the Security Council.

A member of the prosecution team, Professor Francis Boyle of Illinois University’s College of Law, said he was hopeful that Bush and his colleagues could soon find themselves facing similar trials elsewhere in the world.

The eight accused are Bush; former US Vice President Richard Cheney; former US Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld; former Counsel to Bush, Alberto Gonzales; former General Counsel to the Vice President, David Addington; former General Counsel to the Defense Secretary, William Haynes II; former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo.

The men were tried in abstentia and the conviction seems to have focused on the issue of torture as opposed to the war of aggression against Iraq.

3 Comments

« Previous Entries