Category: News

A few months ago I pointed to an important piece in Foreign Affairs by Micah Zenko and Michael A. Cohen who argued that despite the constant fear-mongering and threat inflation in America, we are actually very secure and face very few, very minor external threats. I especially liked their explanation of why this threat inflation comes about. I called it the public choice of U.S. warfare:

Warnings about a dangerous world also benefit powerful bureaucratic interests. The specter of looming dangers sustains and justifies the massive budgets of the military and the intelligence agencies, along with the national security infrastructure that exists outside government — defense contractors, lobbying groups, think tanks, and academic departments.

See Zenko interviewed on these ideas further:

As Less Antman said recently, “Drowning people in fear is the key to power.”

Headlines are awash today with the breaking news that Iran is continuing to send arms to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, despite UN sanctions prohibiting such transfers.

Forget the usual counter-narrative double standard about how the U.S. supports its own brutal dictators and yet we never hear about that in the mainstream media. No, I do that enough. There is a much more direct contradiction here.

The Obama administration is also sending arms into Syria, only they are being sent to an unorganized, unreliable, unaccountable group of rebel fighters, at least some of whom have ties to “al-Qaeda.” The UN Security Council has not specifically sanctioned such activity as they have arms sales to the Syrian regime, but a resolution was vetoed in February that would have allowed such aid to the rebels and the UN envoy to Syria Kofi Annan explicitly warned against Western intervention on behalf of the rebels because, he said, it would make the conflict much worse.

I’ve been arguing for months that all of the meddling in Syria – the U.S., Britain, France, the Gulf states, Russia, Iran – is one of the central forces prolonging the conflict.

The Iranians sending arms to the Syrian regime is rightly pointed out as a reckless policy which is probably helping to worsen the humanitarian suffering in the country. But the U.S. is being equally reckless. Numerous experts have spoken out against aiding the rebels. Ed Husain, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations has argued such aid could get into the hands of extremists. George Washington University professor and Middle East expert Marc Lynch has argued that “arming the Syrian opposition, would likely spread the violence and increase the numbers of Syrian dead without increasing the likelihood of regime collapse.” Also, as we saw in Libya, “fighting groups will rise in political power, while those who have advocated nonviolence or who advance political strategies will be marginalized.” The potential for this aid to the opposition – direct, indirect, lethal, and non-lethal – to  escalate the violence and exacerbate the suffering is very, very high. Yet the headlines say Iran is “flouting” international norms in a madcap scheme to militarize the conflict.

The fact that the Obama administration refused to come out and announce that we would be sending arms, directly or indirectly, to Syrian rebels speaks for itself. If this were a constructive policy, why would the administration have kept it so quiet and why would they be doing it through various unsavory Sunni dictatorships in the Persian Gulf who have themselves employed systematic repression to quell pro-reform protests?

In the name of the war on drugs, the U.S. has murdered a number of civilians, including two pregnant women and two children in Honduras. Dan Kovalik at Huffington Post:

According to the Honduran newspaper, Tiempo, as well as the Honduran human rights group, COFADEH, the agents of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), dressed in military uniforms, killed at least four and possibly six civilians in a raid which took place on Friday, May 11. The victims included two pregnant women and two children. The newspaper Tiempo did not pull any punches, writing that those killed “were humble and honest citizens.” Apparently, the DEA agents fired from helicopter gunships upon a boat carrying civilians on the Patuca back to their community of Ahuas which itself is located in the Mosquito coast of Honduras. According to Tiempo, the DEA mistakenly fired upon the civilian boat because it was well-lit while the intended target — a boat carrying drug traffickers — was floating down the river without its lights on.

Last week I wrote about how over 600 U.S. soldiers are stationed in Honduras in a bid to “promote stability,” which in Washington-speak means wreak havoc. The Obama administration chose to support the illegal military coup in Honduras in 2009, which ousted democratically elected Jose Manuel Zelaya. The coup leaders continued to receive U.S. aid as American military and DEA presence in the country began to expand. This began a descent into what Dana Frank, professor of history at the University of California, called “a human rights and security abyss.” Hundreds of people, including the political opponents of the state and dozens of journalists, have been killed by U.S.-supported and trained security forces and overall drug war efforts there have led the country to attain the prestigious title of the highest homicide rate in the world, rivaling the war zone in Afghanistan.

COFADEH, the Committee of the Families of the Disappeared of Honduras, had this to say about U.S. policy in Honduras and Latin America generally:

… a foreign army [i.e., the U.S. army] protected under the new hegemonic concept of the “war on drugs,” legalized with reforms to the 1953 Military Treaty, violates our territorial sovereignty and kills civilians as if it was in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Syria.

Two pregnant women, two children and two adult males were killed by shots fired from helicopter gunships piloted by U.S. soldiers on a boat on River Patuca returning to their community. They were workers in the local lobster and shellfish diving industry.

… [T]he “failed state” of Honduras gave way to the foreign military occupation under the script of the “war against the drug cartels,” similar to what has happened in the past eight years in Mexico, Colombia and Guatemala.

In Mexico, just to recap, the U.S. has supported efforts by the Calderon government to militarize the approach to the drug war, leading to heightened violence and almost 50,000 mostly civilian deaths in a matter of years. In Colombia, the U.S. has supported paramilitaries who regularly commit massacres, leading to untold numbers of dead since the start of ‘Plan Colombia,’ and a corrupt government that has rolled back the rights of its citizens. In Guatemala, U.S. support and training for the Guatemalan military Kaibiles continues despite the militia’s ties to atrocities and drug cartels, and the history of U.S. intervention in Guatemala during the Reagan years is far worse than anything going on now.

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.

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.”

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?