Iran: the pangs of power

a visit by Dr. R. Sudarshana to Iran
Travelmag

The account by which Sudarrshan describes the visit to Iran in this article is very interesting. The following passage is from the essay when he met an ordinary Iranian lady and had a short conversation with her:

‘Do you know of the atomic energy problems of your country?’, I asked.
‘Of course’ she said. ‘Look at the way we are living in utter poverty. It is like begging in a gold mine because although you dig, you are not allowed to use it’.
‘Pardon me! What has that got to do with atomic energy? You don’t sell that to make money in this country’. I clarified.
She looked at me with puzzled eyes and jerked her head down with a loosely hung lower lip. ‘I know that, sir’ she said, ‘All I said is that we can use the atomic energy for electricity so that we can sell the oil instead of using it all ourselves.’
I was shocked at her high level of common sense and at my dumbness that I couldn’t figure it out myself.
‘See my family’ she continued. ‘Everyone is like this in Iran except for those who can be dishonest. We lost everything in the revolution 30 years ago. You know, we had a good life and I remember my parents being so happy. Then after that, we lost everything in that bloody endless war with Iraq. Now the Americans want to bomb us. What do we have? We have a little oil in the country and we use it all. Now I gather that they don’t want to allow us to use atomic energy’.
She looked honest and innocent. I popped in a provocative question.
‘Don’t you think your country may also be doing something wrong?’
This time Bougardi retorted.
‘It all depends on how you make up your mind while looking at us, sir. If you look at us through your jaundice eye, we are culprits and we are hiding. If you look at us from the God’s eye, you will know how innocent we are. After all, what is there to hide in this country? We are exposed and naked. Poor people have nothing to hide’.

>>> continued @ Travelmag

US - UK responsible for collapse of Iraq health Services

David Wilson on his study on the collapse of the Iraq's health care services and after demonstrating the degree of damage caused as a rdirect result of invation concludes that it is time for the occupation to end and for those responsible for the invasion and all that has taken place in Iraq as a direct result of military action and civil negligence to be brought to account.

In the report, which is prepared for the London-based Stop the War Coalition, it quotes from the latest Lancet report as,"Iraq is an unequivocal humanitarian emergency. Civilians are being harmed by our presence in Iraq, not helped. We need a new set of principles to govern our diplomacy and military strategy--principles that are based on the idea of human security and not national security, health and wellbeing and not economic self-interest and territorial ambition."

Where Have All the Doctors Gone?
The Collapse of Iraq's Health Care Services
By DAVID WILSON

The Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) contains specific provisions pertaining to the delivery of healthcare services in occupied territories. Article 55 states: To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territories are inadequate.

Article 56 states: To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishment and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties.

As occupying powers, the 'Coalition' forces in Iraq are in breach of Articles 55 and 56 of the Geneva Conventions. There has been an abject failure to carry out even minimal humanitarian duties. Indeed the healthcare system in Iraq has massively deteriorated since the start of the war. From a public health point of view, an end to occupation is vital for the life-chances and good health of the population of this country. Until this takes place Iraq will remain a place of 'social breakdown', a country of the dead, the dying and the despairing. ...

>>> continue @ Counterpunch

Iran is not a dictatorship, says Scott Ritter

After visiting Iran on September, Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector in Iraq in the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), said in a radio interview that contrary to what American and western media are advocating Iran is not a dictatorship but a very modern and pro-Western nation.

Ritter told Democracy Now radio in the US on Monday 16 October that he has been to dictatorships in the Middle East, he has been to nations that have a high security profile but Iran is not one of these nations.

"I'm a former intelligence officer who has stated some pretty strong positions on Iran, and yet I had full freedom of movement in Iran with no interference whatsoever," he added.
Ritter was able to do his agenda in Iran and interview senior government officials, senior military officials, senior intelligence officials, and to visit sites that were deemed sensitive.
He concluded from this visit that, "the American media has gotten it wrong on Iran. It's a very modern, westernized, pro-Western, and surprisingly pro-American country that does not constitute a threat to the United States whatsoever."

In this interview he gave a full account of his argument that what the Bush administration is thinking of about Iran is a regime change only and nothing else. He argued that "The path that the United States is currently embarked on regarding Iran is a path that will inevitably lead to war. Such a course of action will make even the historical mistake we made in Iraq pale by comparison."...

For listening to the 17 minute interview or reading the transcript:
>>> continue @ Democracy Now

Declining US Empire cannot tolerate Iran

The following is a very good piece of analysis by Michael T. Klare on the mentality of the people at the Bush administration circle whom Kate refer to as members of the declining empire who are not ready to accept the reality. "How dare they stand up to us in that way?" Michael says that White House officials must be saying to one another in private today. And: "We'll teach them a thing or two! - Just you watch!"

Beware Empires in Decline
Michael T. Klare | October 13, 2006

Foreign Policy In Focus

I believe that the common wisdom in Washington regarding military action against Iran is wrong. Just because American forces are bogged down in Iraq, and Condoleezza Rice appears to enjoy a bit more authority these days, does not mean that "realism" will prevail at the White House. "

The common wisdom circulating in Washington these days is that the United States is too bogged down in Iraq to consider risky military action against Iran or - God forbid - North Korea. Policy analysts describe the U.S. military as "over-burdened" or "stretched to the limit." The presumption is that the Pentagon is telling President Bush that it can't really undertake another major military contingency.

Added to these pessimistic assessments of U.S. military capacity is the widespread claim that a "new realism" has taken over in the administration's upper reaches, that cautious "realists" like Condoleezza Rice have gained the upper hand over fire-breathing neoconservatives. Ergo: No military strike against Iran or North Korea.

But Kale is not buying any of this. ...

>>> Continued @ Foreign Policy In Focus

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world-security studies at Hampshire College, a Foreign Policy In Focus columnist, and the author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum (Metropolitan Books, 2004).

Israeli filmmaker uses BBC on war against Iran

On this revealing article, Jonathan Cook exposes the identity of the filmmaker behind the recent BBC documentary entitled "Will Israel bomb Iran?"

He says, the Israeli government's fingerprints are all over this BBC "documentary". And that is hardly surprising because the man behind this "independent" production is Israel's leading film-maker: Noam Shalev.

He adds, At this potentially cataclysmic moment in global politics, it is good to see that one of the world's leading broadcasters, the BBC, decided this week that it should air this documentary.
The good news ends there, however. Because the programme addresses none of the important issues raised by Israel's increasingly belligerent posture towards Tehran.

It does not explain that, without a United Nations resolution, a military strike on Iran to destroy its nuclear research programme would be a gross violation of international law.

It does not clarify that Israel's own large nuclear arsenal was secretly developed and is entirely unmonitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or that it is perceived as a threat by its neighbours and may be fuelling a Middle East arms race.

Nor does the programme detail the consequences of an Israeli strike on instability and violence across the Middle East, including in Iraq, where British and American troops are stationed as an occupying force.

And there is no consideration of how in the longer term unilateral action by Israel, with implicit sanction by the international community, is certain to provoke a steep rise in global jihad against the West.

So why did the BBC buy this blatant piece of propaganda? ...

>>> Continued @ CounterPunch

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His book, Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State, is published by Pluto Press. His website is www.jkcook.net

655000 death in Iraq since the invasion in 2003

A Lancet report

Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta,

Shannon Doocy, Les Roberts

Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey


An estimated 655 000 more Iraqis have died as a consequence of the March 2003 military invasion of Iraq than would have been expected in a non-conflict situation, according to an Article.

Background: An excess mortality of nearly 100 000 deaths was reported in Iraq for the period March, 2003 September, 2004, attributed to the invasion of Iraq. Our aim was to update this estimate.

Methods: Between May and July, 2006, we did a national cross-sectional cluster sample survey of mortality in Iraq.

50 clusters were randomly selected from 16 Governorates, with every cluster consisting of 40 households. Information on deaths from these households was gathered.

Findings: Three misattributed clusters were excluded from the final analysis; data from 1849 households that contained 12 801 individuals in 47 clusters was gathered. 1474 births and 629 deaths were reported during the observation period. Pre-invasion mortality rates were 5.5 per 1000 people per year (95% CI 4.3-7.1), compared with 13.3 per 1000 people per year (10.9-16.1) in the 40 months post-invasion. We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654 965 (392 979-942 636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2.5% of the population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601 027 (426 369-793 663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire.

Interpretation: The number of people dying in Iraq has continued to escalate. The proportion of deaths ascribed to coalition forces has diminished in 2006, although the actual numbers have increased every year. Gunfire remains the most common cause of death, although deaths from car bombing have increased.

>>> Continue @ Lancet

UK Government: the human rights situation in Iran deteriorated

Launch of the 2006 Annual Report on Human Rights

Published by Foreign and Commonwealth Office

12 October 2006

FCO published its new annual human rights report in 358 pages today and in pages 63 to 66 described the situation in Iran for the past year. However, there are other references to human right situation in Iran in other pages of the report such as the box on page 195 about the juvenile execution in Iran.

Its overview reads:
The past 12 months have seen a continued deterioration in the human rights situation in Iran. There have been repeated serious violations of freedom of expression and association.

Officials who were implicated in internal repression in the 1980s and 1990s have been appointed as government ministers. While sporadic efforts have been made by some authorities in Iran to improve the administration of justice, we continue to be concerned at the lack of effective action to

reform laws, institutions and official practices. The future does not look positive. There appears to be a real reluctance on the part of the Iranian government to

undertake the necessary human rights reforms. Talk of respect for human rights needs to be matched by a demonstrable commitment to improving the human rights situation. ...

>>> Continued @ full report

Bush's Nuclear Apocalypse

Chris Hedges
10/09/06
TruthDig

The aircraft carrier Eisenhower, accompanied by the guided-missile cruiser USS Anzio, guided-missile destroyer USS Ramage, guided-missile destroyer USS Mason and the fast-attack submarine USS Newport News, is, as I write, making its way to the Straits of Hormuz off Iran. The ships will be in place to strike Iran by the end of the month. It may be a bluff. It may be a feint. It may be a simple show of American power. But I doubt it.

War with Iran a war that would unleash an apocalyptic scenario in the Middle East is probable by the end of the Bush administration. It could begin in as little as three weeks. This administration, claiming to be anointed by a Christian God to reshape the world, and especially the Middle East, defined three states at the start of its reign as the Axis of Evil. They were Iraq, now occupied; North Korea, which, because it has nuclear weapons, is untouchable; and Iran. Those who do not take this apocalyptic rhetoric seriously have ignored the twisted pathology of men like Elliott Abrams, who helped orchestrate the disastrous and illegal contra war in Nicaragua, and who now handles the Middle East for the National Security Council. He knew nothing about Central America. He knows nothing about the Middle East. He sees the world through the childish, binary lens of good and evil, us and them, the forces of darkness and the forces of light. And it is this strange, twilight mentality that now grips most of the civilian planners who are barreling us towards a crisis of epic proportions.

Chris Hedges is former Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times and author of the bestseller "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" reports on Bush's plan for Iran, and how a callous war, conceived by zealots, will lead to a disaster of biblical proportions.

>>> Continue @ TruthDig

Meet the "Whack Iran" Lobby

News: Exiles peddling shaky intelligence, advocacy groups pressing for regime change, neocons bent on remaking the Middle East. Sound familiar?

By Daniel Schulman
October 6, 2006

Exiles peddling back-channel intelligence, upstart advocacy groups pressing for regime change, administration hawks intent on remaking the Middle East - the scene in Washington is looking eerily familiar as the Iran standoff grows more tense. Instead of Ahmad Chalabi, we have the likes of Iran-Contra arms-dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar. A new Iran directorate inside the Pentagon features some of the same people who brought you the Iraq intel-cherrypicking operation at the Office of Special Plans. Whether calling for outright regime change or pushing "democracy promotion" initiatives to undermine the Iranian government, an expanding cast of characters has emerged to promote confrontation between the U.S. and Iran. What follows is an abridged list of the individuals and organizations agitating to bring down the mullahs.

>>> Continued @ Mother Jones

The March to War: Naval build-up in the Persian Gulf

A report by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

October 1, 2006

GlobalResearch.ca

The March to War: Naval build-up in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.

Editor's note

We bring to the attention of our readers, this carefully documented review of the ongoing naval build-up and deployment of coalition forces in the Middle East.

The article examines the geopolitics behind this military deployment and its relationship to "the Battle for Oil".

The structure of military alliances is crucial to an understanding of these war preparations.

The naval deployment is taking place in two distinct theaters: the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.

Both Israel and NATO are slated to play a major role in the US-led war.

The militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean is broadly under the jurisdiction of NATO in liaison with Israel. Directed against Syria, it is conducted under the façade of a UN peace-keeping mission pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1701. In this context, the war on Lebanon must be viewed as a stage of a the broader US sponsored military road-map.

The naval armada in the Persian Gulf is largely under US command, with the participation of Canada.

The naval buildup is coordinated with the planned air attacks. The planning of the aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued. While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.

These war plans must be taken very seriously.

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity.

In the weeks ahead, it is essential that citizens' movements around the world act consistently to confront their respective governments and reverse and dismantle this military agenda.

What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called "Homeland Security agenda" which has already defined the contours of a police State.

It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America and Western Europe. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 1 October 2006

>>> Main report @ GRC

US Moving Forward on Plans for Bombing Attacks in Iran

18 September 2006
A new report

In a new report for The Century Foundation, Retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner warns that some in the Bush administration are making the case for air strikes aimed not only at setting back Iran's nuclear program, but also at toppling the country's government. He says that these officials are undeterred by the concerns of military leaders about whether such attacks would be effective.

"If this uncertainty does not appear to worry the proponents of air strikes in Iran it is in no small part because the real U.S. policy objective is not merely to eliminate the nuclear program, but to overthrow the regime,"he writes. 'It is hard to believe, after the misguided talk prior to Iraq of how American troops would be greeted with flowers and welcomed as liberators, but those inside and close to the administration who are arguing for an air strike against Iran actually sound as if they believe the regime in Tehran can be eliminated by air attacks.
"In The End of the Summer of Diplomacy: Assessing U.S. Military Options on Iran," Gardiner explains that the policymakers' plan is to use targeted air strikes to kill the leadership and enable the people of Iran to take over their government. The assumption is that more reasonable, U.S. friendly, leadership will emerge. But, Gardiner says, the plan is dangerously flawed and would more likely yield very different results.
"No serious expert on Iran believes the argument about enabling a regime change," he reveals. "On the contrary, whereas the presumed goal is to weaken or disable the leadership and then replace it with others who would improve relations between Iran and the United States, it is far more likely that such strikes would strengthen the clerical leadership and turn the United States into Iran's permanent enemy."

Gardiner also argues that the administration's frequent efforts to link Iran and al Qaeda may represent an effort by the Oval Office to authorize air strikes on Iran without first consulting Congress. "This linkage of Iran and al Qaeda fits neatly into the broader effort to sell a strike to the American people," he wrote. "But more importantly, it opens the way for an argument that a strike on Iran was part of the global war on terrorism already authorized by the Congress. In other words, approval by Congress does not necessarily have to be part of the calculation of when an attack could take place."

Gardiner identifies what he considers to be some high probability immediate consequences of air strikes on Iran. These include an Iranian strike against Israel, the targeting of U.S. forces in Iraq, and Iran's channeling more weapons to hard-line Shiite militias in Iraq. Longer-term consequences could include a spike in oil prices and a backlash among other Arab states in the region against the United States.

According to Gardiner's report, the administration is not seriously seeking diplomatic solutions to the Iran nuclear issue. "From diplomacy to sanctions, the administration is not making good-faith efforts to avert a war so much as going through the motions, eliminating other possible strategies of engagement, until the only option left on the table is the military one," he writes.
Sam Gardiner is a retired Air Force colonel who has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, Air War College, and Naval War College. He was recently a visiting scholar at the Swedish Defense College.
>>> get the main report@ The Century Foundation