Iran So Far Only to Come Back

Iran. Iran. Iran.

The country that cannot stay out of the news. Why are they so hell-bent on irritating the Western world. Why must their President (mind you I didn't say leader) say the most inflammatory things? All these questions make me think.. why do they dislike us so much?

Well, the problem with those questions is that we, as Americans, have a unique place in the world that no one but perhaps some Western European nations enjoyed. I am talking about being the number one dog in the neighborhood.

For the United States the "neighborhood" is the majority of the world and all of the areas the US has serious interests. This is the mentality of American Exceptionalism, the thought that America is special and there never has been nor will there ever be anything like it. While there is some truth to this claim if you buy into it there are plenty of dangers. American exceptionalism rejects the idea that we can learn from other 'empires' and civilizations that also enjoyed success beyond what had been imagined. Simply patting ourselves on the back for having the luck of being born into this country at this point in history is not going to be enough to sustain the hard work of previous generations (and a little luck).

What does all that have to do with Iran?

I'll tell ya! There is a saying that even the most insane person believes they are sane and the rest of us are the crazy ones. It is beneficial to look through Iran's eyes in order to understand their actions. The first thing that we must realize is that while we here in the US use a metric of global consequences, Iran (along with most of the world) uses the metric of regional power. Iran is looking wearily at its neighbors as well as the global implications of its actions. This is the sort of thing that led Saddam Hussein to refuse admitting he had no WMDs, he was afraid of an Iranian invasion.

Iran's regional neighbors such as the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, and Egypt all have a stake in the failure of Iran. This can be seen in a semi-binary fashion if one takes the Sunni-dominated versus Shi'ite-dominated leaderships of each nation. Iran over the years has made many enemies amongst its neighbors and now that the United States and Europe have put it in their bull's-eye those who felt slighted are licking their chops for revenge. (Sound familiar? It is basically what Iran has done with Iraq)

This neighborhood brawl has created a stir because with disagreement comes rhetoric. It is important to note that Iran's President is perhaps the 15th or 20th most powerful political figure in their system. He can afford to make populist hoopla, deny history, and threaten nations he has no chance of even scratching. When we listen to him it would be as if we took Representative Dennis Kucinich as the spokesman of the Democratic Party every time he opened his mouth, or if we believed that Micheal Savage was the mouthpiece of the Republican Party. Both make a difference and have a following but they are by no means important in the final product of political decision-making.

Ignore him. What is going on in Iran goes far beyond the yammering of a rhetoric-spewing, election-fixing, ill-dressed maniac. Let us look beyond him to the nation of Iran and its true political structure. That is what will truly enlighten our path to understanding Iran's nuclear policies and allow the global community to ensure they do not turn to violence.

Iraq and Her Suiters.. Cheating on the US

When you take your eye off the ball chances are you are gonna get a pitch thrown right into your face. When the cat is away the mice will play. Ah... you get the point.

The United States is beginning to lose its grip.. in the past couple months we've seen that allover the world things are happening that wouldn't happen at any other time except Election season in the US. You think Mugabe would be beating up his rivals, Georgia could be invaded and then partially-occupied, Serbians would muscle their neighbors, or Iraq would be openly cavorting with Iran if the United States was at full strength in terms of foreign relations? Probably not.. or at least not as openly as they are doing it now. I've said it before.. I'll say it again, this President Bush has undone so much of what his father did its like one Bush wiped out his father's legacy and then dragged it through the mud. Sad.


Back to the issue at hand... Iraq... and China. Now what would China want with a bunch of sand and Arabs? Perhaps they want one-humped Arabian camels to complement their two-humped ones? No.. perhaps they want a bunch of goo that is beneath the sand and is one of the major supplies needed to run a regional or global superpower? Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! That's right!

Iraq signed a three billion dollar ($3B) oil contract with China to export crude and service one of their oil fields as a continuation of a deal made with Saddam Hussein in 1997. The Chinese national oil company will first import oil at a laughably low amount then eventually more than quadrupling that amount. China is the first country (besides the US) to sign a deal with Iraq on oil fields and exports since the Iraq War began. Scary. It seems the best way into the "loyal" Iraqi government's heart is a whole lotta green paper. The oil contract according to officials and sources on both sides is just the tip of the iceberg with China looking to drain every drop of oil out of Iraq as quickly as it can to feed its exploding demand for the stuff. China has turned up its foreign policy charm since 2005 in the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia trying to get its hands on natural resources to keep the dragon at home satiated as it grows at a phenomenal rate - an average of 9.9% since 1978! China had approached the Iraqis before but the Iraqis backed off at the last moment about the oil issue because of problems with the oil revenue sharing plan and US pressure to keep all the oil contracts coming their way (or at least to Halliburton.. which is now Headquartered in Dubai). China, however, is relentless when it sees something it wants.. even if it means waiting until the perfect moment when the US have their sights all set at home instead of abroad.

If you've read this blog in the past you might accuse me of just repeatedly attacking the Iraqi government or perhaps the Chinese one.. this is not the case. The Chinese government has every right and logical reason to seek to secure resources as it vies to become stronger and perhaps a superpower... however it is the role of the United States to if not deter competition to keep up and stay far ahead for their own national interests. The Iraqi government deserve my complaints and ire because they are seemingly getting a free pass only because they were installed by a country that just happens to have 130,000 troops around and it would look really bad to throw them out after you hailed them as modern saviors to democracy and Thomas Jeffersons of the Middle East.... they are more like Benedict Arnolds, and even he had more honor and dignity.

Iraq has taken advantage of the loss of American focus to sign deals with Iran, Russia, China, and a withdrawal plan with the US. Sounds like someone is ready to move out.. and play with the big boys. Some call the US an empire and Iraq a colony but it looks like this colony is already cheating with our adversaries.. and all it has left for the US is a flirty "good bye!"

Links:
China hails three-billion-dollar oil deal with Iraq - AFP
China, Iraq reach $3 billion oil service deal - AP

W decides maybe it is time to pull-out of Iraq

Folks, I gotta tell you, it is a confusing crazy world in politics. I guess that's just the nature of politics but keeps getting crazier and crazier.

There are just so many crazy stories today about Iraq, the Iraq War, and US foreign policy in the region that it almost boggles the mind that we have an administration that is so at odds with reality and itself that it seems to contradict and sabotage itself at every corner. It is as if the delusions of this Bush Administration have come to a head.. unsure of what to do or how to do it they have become desperate for some kind of action without regard to party platform, sane policy, responsibility, or ethics. (Although one could argue that they have never cared about the last three items)

Here are the Headlines that grabbed my attention.. and when you put them altogether you realize what kind of a desperate lame-duck sham we are being treated to:

1. Iraqis: Agreement near on US troop withdraws
2. Cleric al-Sadr may end cease fire if no US withdrawal timetable released Friday
3. McCain: Obama wants to 'forfeit' war
4. Former Bin Laden driver given lenient 66 month sentence
   

Ready? Here we go.

Let's start with the first two headlines. First, it may come as a surprise to you that the Bush Administration is about to complete something they call a "Security Agreement" (although it is quite the opposite) whereby the US promises to remove all Combat troops by October 2010 and the rest of all by 2013. Very, Very Surprising... That's not what you'd call a "time horizon" or a "series of benchmarks" that's what you call a strict TIME LINE. The pact also includes strict dates for the hand-over of the Green Zone (end of 2008) and the removal of all troops from cities (June 30, 2009). Talk about switching from full-speed ahead to full reverse! I know that some of you are jumping for joy at the sudden move to pull out entirely.. but it does come at a considerable cost to our long-term security, the stability of Iraq, and the balance of the Middle East. I felt like President Bush just threw up his hands and said "OK, fine! We'll do what the people want!" without really thinking it through. Even the most liberal and sane politicians who are experts on foreign policy and international relations (I'm not looking at you Kucinich! Biden step up, man, you deserve it) talk about creating time-lines without such strict dates, adding loads of benchmarks with conditional statements galore. This pact according to sources at the Baghdad Embassy and reports from the Iraqi Foreign Ministry has one big clause that basically says if the security situation changes much then the deal is off. Let me tell you: Iran, Iraqi PM Al-Maliki and various other Shi'ite politicians are going to swear everything is perfectly OK until the American Troops leave completely then they will decide to have their way with their own citizens a la Saddam. The fact that Cleric, political leader, and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr is lobbying and threatening both Iraqi and American officials with violence should be a sure sign that something is a little rotten about the deal. If the Bush Administration does agree to this deal whoever the next President and his Secretaries of State and Defense should work to totally overhaul it within their first month in office.

Onto item #3, McCain calling out Obama on 'forfeit[ing]' the war through his timetable plan. Look McCain, if you should be scolding someone it should be the Dubya! He's the one who is saying one thing (for 5 years) and then doing the complete opposite! Then 'W' is stabbing you in the back by taking the decision right out of your hands.. its like he has absolutely no confidence in your winning the election! At least Obama's plan (which I've talked about before) includes talk of benchmarks and the security environment instead of the simple-minded rigidity of the current Security Pact. Oh, and Obama - you shouldn't be happy about this either. If both sides agree then you go in and change it or review it, it makes you look really petty unless you have a super-PR plan in place.

Finally, item #4. In the AP report and their headline "Stunningly lenient sentence for former bin Laden driver" it gives the impression to the reader that the bin Laden driver, Salim Hamed, is getting off easy. He isn't. The tribunal convicted him of supporting terror by driving Osama around and occasionally acting as his body guard and found him innocent of planning anything or purposefully harming the United States. Given that, he does need to be punished. It is never enough to say "Oops, I didn't know my boss was a bad guy." Ignorance does not equal innocence however, given the fact that this man has been held without his human rights, tortured, and treated as though he is sub-human I consider this man to have already served his time. His sentence according to the judge was 66 months, the defendant then received permission to speak and apologized to the court and the American people claiming he had no idea whatsoever that Bin Laden was planning something like that. The Judge then said that the sentence could be completed in as little as 5 months if the defendant is cooperative. Of course, that set the extreme right-wingers right off their rockers... but let's face it, lets say someone is held without bail or being notified of their rights or what they are being charged with for say... SIX YEARS and then a trial finally occurs and that someone is then told they are guilty.. but not as bad as previously thought... then sentenced for 5 and a half years. If it was anywhere in the US we'd be asking at the very least how this guy can get those extra 6 months of his life that were robbed of him back. Oh yeah.. and don't forget, even after this fella finishes his sentence he probably won't be released! Shame.. Shame on us. Remember, this nation was built on the promises of Liberty and Justice... not Revenge or Vindictefullness.

Strong Moderate (with a little help from Flaming Moderate)



Links
Iraqis: Agreement near on US troop withdraws - AP
Cleric may end cease fire if no US withdrawal timetable released Friday - AP
Stunningly lenient sentence for former bin Laden driver - AP
McCain: Obama wants to 'forfeit' Iraq war - AP

Who owns us?

Recently I read an interesting post on whohijeckedourcountry.blogspot.com which lead me to this very interesting article titled How much oil it'd take to buy the US by Scott Burns of MSN Money. [Part of this post was a response to that post and entry]


He argues that basically the United States is worth 400 Billion barrels of oil or so.. which is approximately the amount of oil that Saudi Arabia and Iran have combined. So basically both of those countries "own" us and he believes that oil has basically become an international currency that is more powerful and telling than Dollars, Euros, or overall buying power.

I, however, still think China "owns" us. First off, they along with foreign nations hold about 44% of US public debt. As of the latest data released (April 2005), China owns 502 Billion Dollars worth of debt, that is 20% of the total debt held by other nations, the 2nd most of any single country (Japan is 1st). So why is it that China is the one I've singled out? Because with so many of the countries on the loooong list of creditors holding US debt, China is the most independent - they don't import very much from the US besides boatloads of cash. Considering we both run a yearly trade deficit of over 60 Billion Dollars (and that number keeps increasing by a few billion every year) and the Chinese Central Bank keeps is aggressively buying US debt, you should be concerned. The more debt that they own the more sway they hold over US policy towards themselves and soon towards others within areas they wish to influence.

What about all those Oil states and the sway they hold with their oil money? Couldn't they organize and influence the US in a far stronger fashion? Nope, because the Gulf states and most other oil producing countries are socio-political messes already under the control/influence of the US, Russia or China.

Furthermore, the two countries picked the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Iran can agree on only one thing: they hate each other. So no chance of them two getting ahead.


The big blaring flaw with Mr. Burns' argument about oil currency is that it can only be used one way and only once. Unlike Gold or a precious metal which can be hoarded then sold later once oil is used.. it is gone. So the oil currency is not a zero-sum game.. but a negative-sum game. In addition to natural resources like oil the true "currency" of nations lies in things like geography, human workforce, innovation, and governments. I don't mean to detract from the absolutely enormous value and importance that sweet crude oil has on nations but to think of it as a "currency" is dangerous and economically unsound.

So until something radically changes make out all checks to "People's Republic of China".

Strong Moderate

Feel free to comment! Just stay respectful.

Links:

International Monetary Fund - US Economic Data
Brillig - Debt Clock
Burea of Economic Analysis, US Dept of Commerce - US International Transactions Account Data

When The Wrong People Like You...

This friend is nothing to boast about...


I am talking of course about Senator Obama's recent semi-endorsement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki this week in Der Speigel, a German Newspaper.

You may hear from the Obama campaign that a semi-endorsement by al-Maliki is a true triumph of Obama's international appeal and a show of his foreign policy prowess.. those statements are wrong. Flat out wrong. The withdrawal plan Obama has been talking about for the past.. year or two seems like a pretty good idea.. until you get an endorsement on it from al-Maliki. Why my change of opinion on the plan? The endorsement.

Which leads to the question: Is Al-Maliki really that bad?

Simple Answer: Yes.

More complicated answer: Propping up and promoting PM Nour Al-Maliki is perhaps the one of the biggest mistakes of this Bush Administration. Now it seems natural for the Bush Administration in their simple-mindedness to take a Shi'ite to head the government.. but obviously beyond that fact they didn't do any vetting or research. This man LIVES for Iran and a united Shi'ite front of Persians (Iranians) and Arabs (Iraqis). He is only glad to see US troops getting out of the country because it will mean he will have more latitude and freedom in the targeted killing of Sunnis all in the name of the War on Terror and battling Al-Qaeda.

His power base comes mostly from Shi'ite clerics like Moqtada al-Sadr and al-Sistani who are very clear that they wish Iraq to be a nation for Shi'ites and Shi'ites ONLY. This kind of political alignment is hardly a testament to good will, political reconciliation or national unity.

Furthermore, you cannot trust this man any further than you can throw a dozen used car salesmen. He'll say anything to stay in power and keep international aid money coming his way. That aid money.. mostly goes to pad his and his cronies pockets and as much as 70% of arms bought "for the Iraqi National Army" in fact find their ways to militias run by his Shi'ite thug friends. Sure, he puts on a show every now and then to prove he's actually 'tough' on these militia criminals but in fact every time the outcome is the same, a 'truce' is announced and back to the status quo they go!

Well, I would hate to just rant and demolsih on al-Maliki, as I just did, for too long.. I should probably conserve some energy to spend on offering solutions. (I know, I know.. typical political bloggers and pundits are just suppose to whine without giving alternatives or solutions.. but I'm not your typical political enthusiast)

Solution(s): According to the Obama website, Sen. Obama's plan is basically two movements at once: combat troops out in 16 months, political pressure up to push progress. Instead Obama should focus on a series of benchmarks and goals to remove troops at varying speeds from differing areas depending on the political progress of his "diplomatic surge." The quick removal of troops is not exactly going to ratchet up the pressure on a government whose Interior Ministry basically exists to send out death squads and then protect them as government employees. It is Barack Obama's goal to "end the war" as soon as he is elected but instead taking a page out of this Bush Administration's book by blindly trying to do that, he should direct the military leaders on the ground there of his intentions to begin the removal of all non-essential combat troops and reserves and then listen to where from and when to remove them. The US needs to have a strong presence in the Iraq in order to at least slow down the total influence of Iranian politics on the Iraqi government.

Remember Barack, what this nation needs is a change of politics not just a change of policy.



Link: Original Article about Al-Maliki's Endorsement of the Obama plan - Der Speigel

Link: Analysis of Al-Maliki's Comments to Der Speigel - CNN

Something Strange in Syria... and Suspicous in the US

Today the Pentagon, White House and CIA all came out with their report about the Israeli air strike on Syria. They now claim that the building bombed was probably a nuclear reactor meant for "non-peaceful purposes" that was mere weeks away from being operational. Something about the
whole situation is a little fishy.

First of all, it is illegal and an act of war to violate the airspace of a sovereign country (and bomb it, incidentally) but of course legality and such things are of no real concern for the Israeli government so we move on...

The real issue at hand here however is "why now?" Eight months after the "Operation Orchard" bombing why would the CIA and others suddenly come forward with this information, especially since the White House and others response to it at the time was "No Comment"? Is the White House trying to: 1) ramp up support for some kind of military mis-adventure, 2) try to sabotage their own 6-party talks with North Korea, whom they allege were the technicians behind the nuclear facilities, 3) or perhaps trying to sabotage any hopes of Syria and their neighbor, Iraq, having any positive relations (because obviously Syria is waaay worse then Iraq's cozying up to Iran). All the options seem quiet depressing and just stupid, strange, and/or suspicious.

Another question that should be posed is why, if the US Intelligence system could pinpoint a "WMD-lab truck" in Iraq back in 2003 did our intelligence services not catch this allegedly nearly finished nuclear facility until the Israelis informed us they were going to bomb it. The CIA states that they have been tracking this facility since 1997 when North Korean and Syrian officials met near the site of the nuclear facility which means this site should have been under surveillance for the past eleven years. Doesn't this mean that Syria probably would have been a better candidate for invasion in 2003? They at least had a facility supposedly being built that was almost capable of creating nuclear materials, which is much further along than Saddam ever got. I guess this just goes to prove that these neo-conservatives have been obsessed with invading Iraq ever since their 1998 letter to President Clinton asking him to intervene with troops into Iraq.

Once again we are forced to sigh and ponder how an administration could become so obsessed with their own fantasy of democratic triumph and American victory that they forgot to truly weigh the matter...

Links:

CNN Story Here

UPDATE
CNN Story on reaction to the story Here

Sadr clarifies his call for "open war"

"Does this make me look menacing.. dangerous, even?"

In a case of "the-enemy-of-my-friend-is-my-enemy-but-actually-he-likes-my-friend-and-hates-me" Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr clarified his threat of war. He proclaimed that his war would only be on the "occupiers" of Iraq (pretty much the Americans at this point). He told his supporters, through a letter read by a top aide, during a Friday prayer in Sadr City, Baghdad that his 'war' would not be directed towards "our Iraqi brothers -- no matter what their nationality, race or sect. The blood of Iraqis are forbidden on you."

So, you see the surge IS working. It is allowing the Iraqi sects and factions to all come together.. in hate of the US occupation force. Not exactly what we were looking for, but a victory is a victory, take it as it comes. Let us not forget that it was the Mehdi Army militia that provided security and bodyguards for current Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki.

Politically al-Maliki has been trying to aid al-Sadr as much as possible in their plan for Shi'ite dominance and close ties to Iran while also trying to seem like a "good guy" for the Bush Administration. The Prime Minister has also been quoted as telling a group of Senators off-the-record that he is working to "kill all these damn troublemakers.. the Sunnis, of course", sounds like a real fair-minded guy.

Something tells me this al-Sadr fellow isn't going to go away under US pressure alone especially with such strong support within the Iraqi government (his movement is backed by about 30% of its legislators and has influence over the Interior and Transport Ministries), the Iranian government (material and spiritual support.. by the boatload), and huge support from Shi'ites allover Iraq who view him as a People's Hero.

Well.. Let's hope his "open war" plan never comes to fruition, because if last weeks skirmishes between the Mehdi Army and US-backed Iraqi troops (before a few hundred of them surrendered their weapons and joined the Mehdi Army) was a preview, it won't go too well for US troops.

Links:
CNN Here