[Peace-discuss] Chicago Tribune prepares to invade Iran

[C. G. Estabrook]

Davis Hanson is a joke, an awful hack who has written shameless 
propaganda for the Bush wars, cloaked in his pretensions as an ancient 
historian.  This is a good example -- racist incitement pretending to be 
analysis.  But the media are being flooded with this stuff.  It more and 
more seems that Bush & Co. want an attack on Iran to be the climax of 
their second administration, as the invasion of Iraq was the climax of 
their first.  (And these could be read as support for my current dark 
imaginings, that what the US & Israel will try is an Inchon/Normandy 
sort of landing on the Iranian coast, say at Bushehr, which the British 
occupied in the 19th and 20th centuries.) --CGE


David Green wrote:
> Relearning lessons in the war on terror
> 
> By Victor Davis Hanson, a senior fellow and historian
> at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University:
> Tribune Media Services
> Published August 25, 2006
> 
>>From the recent Israel-Hezbollah war in southern
> Lebanon to the jihadists in Iraq's Sunni Triangle to
> the repeated efforts by Islamists across the globe to
> trump Sept. 11, 2001, what old lessons about terrorism
> are we in the West finding ourselves having to
> relearn?
> 
> First, death is the mantra of terrorists. In urban
> landscapes, they hide among apartment buildings, use
> human shields and welcome all fatalities--friendly or
> hostile, combatant or civilian. Death of any kind,
> they think, makes the West recoil but allows them to
> pose as oppressed victims.
> 
> Their nihilistic hatred intimidates, rather than
> repels, third parties--whether "moderate" Arabs,
> Europeans who back off from peacekeeping in Lebanon,
> or the Western public at large. Our enemies call Jews
> "pigs" and "apes" and employ racist caricatures of
> America's African-American secretary of state.
> Meanwhile, we worry about incurring charges of
> "Islamophobia," when we should be stressing our
> liberal values and unabashedly contrasting Western
> civilization with the 7th Century barbarism of the
> jihadists.
> 
> Second, windfall petrol-dollar profits (now around
> $500 billion annually) financially fuel radical Islam.
> Iranian cash allowed Hezbollah to acquire the
> sophisticated weaponry needed to achieve parity in
> ambushes with the Israel Defense Forces. Unless the
> U.S. can find a way to force oil prices back down
> below $40 a barrel, Islamists may eventually be better
> equipped with weapons they buy than we are with
> munitions we make.
> 
> Third, as Israel's experience in Lebanon demonstrated,
> air power alone can never defeat terrorists. Precision
> bombing is a tempting option for Westerners since it
> ensures few if any of our own casualties. But
> jihadists, through the use of human shields and biased
> photographers, are able to portray guided weapons as
> being as indiscriminate as carpet-bombing.
> 
> Fourth, the use of old shoot-and-scoot
> missiles--Katyushas, Qassams and worse to come--is
> altering the strategic calculus, as they now number in
> the many thousands. The fear of Hezbollah's near
> limitless mobile launchers enabled terrorists to put
> whole Israeli cities in bomb shelters and almost shut
> down the country's economy.
> 
> Fifth, intelligence remains lousy. The lapses are not
> just an American problem but stymie the Israeli Mossad
> as well. The latter had little idea of the anti-tank
> weapons and impenetrable bunkers of Hezbollah a few
> miles from the border.
> 
> Under the jihadists' code of vigilante justice, local
> informants suspected of supplying tips to Westerners
> are almost instantly and publicly executed. We, on the
> other hand, flay ourselves over targeted wiretaps.
> 
> Sixth, there is little evidence of either the efficacy
> or morality of the vaunted "multilateral" diplomacy.
> The French have steadily downsized their proposed
> contribution to the UN peacekeeping force in southern
> Lebanon. Cash-hungry Russia sold its best weapons to
> terrorists. And oil-hungry China supplies Iran with
> missiles.
> 
> And seventh, the reputation of the international media
> in the Middle East for both accuracy and fairness has
> been lost. In the recent war in Lebanon, news agencies
> were accused by bloggers of publishing staged photos,
> and one agency, Reuters, was embarrassed when it found
> out-- thanks again to the work of bloggers--that one
> of its freelancers had doctored war-zone photos.
> 
> Journalists rarely interviewed or filmed Hezbollah
> soldiers. In the Middle East, reporters are scared
> stiff of Islamic fundamentalists, but not the Israeli
> or American military.
> 
> Despite the enormous advantages of Western militaries,
> there is no guarantee we can keep ahead of
> terrorists--especially since they are becoming more
> adept while we seem tired and unsure about whom, why
> and how we should fight.
> 
> So far, the U.S. has been able to dodge the latest
> terrorist bullets. So far, Afghanistan and Iraq are
> clinging to their newfound democracies. So far, Israel
> has been able to survive Hamas and Hezbollah, and
> these groups' state sponsors in Iran and Syria.
> 
> But unless we in the West adapt more quickly than do
> canny Islamic terrorists in this constantly evolving
> war, cease our internecine fighting and stop
> forgetting what we've learned about our enemies--there
> will be disasters to come far worse than Sept. 11.
> 
> ____________________________
> 
> Squeezing Iran (editorial)
> 
> Published August 27, 2006
> 
> Years of bargaining with Iran has yielded the exact
> opposite of what was sought: Iran now seems more
> determined than ever to join the nuclear club. The UN
> Security Council's deadline for Iran to freeze its
> uranium enrichment program passes on Thursday. Tehran
> has refused to comply. The U.S. and others have
> signaled they will push for sanctions right after the
> deadline.
> 
> Question: Can tough economic sanctions persuade Tehran
> to surrender its nuclear dreams?
> 
> Yes, strong sanctions might work. Applied to the right
> pressure points, economic leverage can squeeze a
> government where it hurts--in the economy. That pain
> can translate into political pressure, forcing leaders
> to change course.
> 
> But it is never easy.
> 
> History suggests that more often than not, such
> sanctions fail. They fail because politics, profits
> and corruption often trump the greater good. They fail
> because there are always profiteers waiting to smuggle
> goods into an embargoed country. And they fail because
> there are always countries willing to reap profits by
> doing business under the table.
> 
> The central questions now: How much economic pain are
> Iranians prepared to absorb for the sake of becoming a
> nuclear power? How much pain is the rest of the world
> willing to inflict--and suffer--to stop them?
> 
> Put another way, which is scarier: $4-a-gallon gas or
> a nuclear Iran?
> 
> The Security Council is likely to start with
> relatively mild actions, limiting travel visas for
> officials, for instance, or banning equipment that
> could be used in Iran's nuclear industry.
> 
> The U.S. has been working with European banks to curb
> financial activities in Iran, even in the absence of a
> Security Council resolution. In May, the Washington
> Post reported that a Treasury Department task force
> had developed a plan to "restrict the Tehran
> government's access to foreign currency and global
> markets, shut its overseas accounts and freeze assets
> held in Europe and Asia." A spooked Iranian government
> has reportedly been transferring funds out of some
> European banks, fearing a freeze.
> 
> Such sanctions often take years to work. Iran may be
> able to build a bomb by the end of the decade, if not
> sooner.
> 
> The fastest and most effective way to squeeze Iran is
> to target its oil and gas industries. Iran is the
> world's fourth leading oil producer, after Saudi
> Arabia, Russia and the U.S. It accounts for about 5
> percent of the world market. It is believed to have
> earned about $49 billion selling oil and natural gas
> from March 2005 to March 2006--more than double its
> take of four years ago, the Wall Street Journal
> reported. Crimp that pipeline and Iran will notice
> immediately. Of course, so will everyone else. Some
> estimate that would send oil prices soaring to $100 or
> more a barrel.
> 
> The other sensitive Iranian target: gasoline. Iran has
> vast oil reserves but it lacks sufficient refinery
> capacity and must import more than a third of its
> gasoline, mainly from Europe and India. (It also
> subsidizes gasoline so that Iranians pay about 40
> cents a gallon.) A gas embargo could cripple much of
> the country's industry, if it were stringently
> enforced.
> 
> But there's also a strong chance that such drastic
> actions would boomerang. Instead of undercutting the
> mullahs, harsh economic punishment could anger
> Iranians and help the regime rally the country. Many
> Iranians support the country's nuclear ambitions out
> of national pride.
> 
> Iran is flush with oil cash and swaggering on the
> world stage. But it is not invulnerable. Its economy,
> even with all that oil money, is shaky because it is
> under the stifling control of the central government.
> Inflation and unemployment are running in the double
> digits.
> 
> Anything less than the Security Council's complete
> resolve to stop Iran's nuclear program through tough
> sanctions is destined to fail. Russia and China, with
> billions of dollars in trade and investment with Iran,
> are likely to be reluctant to join the U.S. and its
> allies in placing a great deal of economic and
> diplomatic pressure on Tehran. They must be convinced
> to join the rest of the world on this.
> 
> The price of failure will be extraordinarily high.
> Failure will leave just two options, neither in the
> least appealing: living with a nuclear Iran or
> mounting a military strike to stop it. 
> 
> Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune 
> 
> __________________________________
> 
> U.S. can be team player, for a while
> Multilateralism works, but it has its limits
> 
> Charles Krauthammer, a syndicated columnist based in
> Washington: Washington Post Writers Group
> Published August 28, 2006
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The cowboy has been retired.
> Multilateralism is back. Diplomacy is king. That's the
> conventional wisdom about President Bush's second
> term: Under the influence of Secretary of State
> Condoleezza Rice, the administration has finally
> embraced "the allies."
> 
> This is considered a radical change of course. It is
> not. Even the most ardent unilateralist prefers
> multilateral support under one of two conditions: (1)
> there is something the allies will actually help
> accomplish, or (2) there is nothing to be done anyway,
> so multilateralism gives you the cover of appearing to
> do something.
> 
> The six-party negotiations on North Korea are an
> example of the second. North Korea went nuclear a long
> time ago. Our time to act was during the Bush 41 and
> Clinton administrations. Nothing was done. And nothing
> can be done now. Once a country has gone nuclear,
> there is no return. The nukes themselves act as a
> deterrent against military measures. And no diplomat,
> however mellifluous, is going to talk a nuclear North
> Korea into dismantling the one thing that gives it any
> significance in the world.
> 
> Like most multilateral efforts, the six-party talks
> give only the appearance of activity, thereby
> providing cover to a hopelessly lost cause. Nothing
> wrong with that kind of multilateralism.
> 
> Lebanon is an example of the other
> category--multilateralism that might actually
> accomplish something. The U.S. worked assiduously with
> France to draft a Security Council resolution that
> would create a powerful international force, and thus
> a real buffer, in southern Lebanon. However, when the
> Lebanese government and the Arab League objected,
> France became their lawyer and renegotiated the draft
> with the U.S. The State Department acquiesced to a far
> weaker resolution on the reasonable grounds that since
> France was going to lead and be the major participant
> in the international force, we should not dictate the
> terms under which the force would operate.
> 
> But we underestimated French perfidy. (Overestimating
> it is mathematically impossible.) Once the resolution
> was passed, France announced that instead of the
> expected 5,000 troops, it would be sending 200. The
> French defense minister explained that they were not
> going to send out soldiers under a limited mandate and
> weak rules of engagement--precisely the mandate and
> rules of engagement that the French had just gotten us
> to agree to.
> 
> This breathtaking duplicity--payback for the Louisiana
> Purchase?--left the State Department red-faced. (It
> recouped somewhat when, Thursday night, France agreed
> to send an additional 1,600 troops.) But the setback
> was minor compared to what we face with Iran.
> Hezbollah in southern Lebanon is a major irritant, but
> a nuclear Iran is a major strategic threat.
> 
> The problem is not quite as intractable as North Korea
> because Iran has not crossed the nuclear threshold.
> And American diplomacy has, up until now, been
> defensible. Secretary Rice's June initiative,
> postponing Security Council debate on sanctions, was
> meant to keep the allies on board. It offered Iran a
> major array of economic and diplomatic incentives
> (including talks with the U.S.), with but a single
> condition: Iran had to verifiably halt uranium
> enrichment.
> 
> Iran's answer is in. It will not. Indeed, on the day
> before it sent its reply to the UN, Iran barred
> inspectors with the International Atomic Energy
> Agency, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, from the
> uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz. Our exercise
> in multilateralism has now reached criticality. We
> never expected Iran to respond positively. The whole
> point in going the extra mile was to demonstrate
> American goodwill and thus get our partners to support
> real sanctions at the Security Council.
> 
> But this will not work. The Russians and Chinese are
> already sending signals that they will allow Iran to
> endlessly drag out the process. Even if we do get
> sanctions imposed on Iran, they undoubtedly will be
> weak. And even if they are strong, the mullahs will
> not give up the glory and dominion (especially over
> the Arabs) that come with the bomb, in exchange for a
> mess of pottage.
> 
> Realistically speaking, the point of this multilateral
> exercise cannot be to stop Iran's nuclear program by
> diplomacy. That has always been a fantasy. It will
> take military means. There will be terrible
> consequences from such an attack. These must be
> weighed against the terrible consequences of allowing
> an openly apocalyptic Iranian leadership from
> acquiring weapons of genocide.
> 
> The point of the current elaborate exercise in
> multilateral diplomacy is to slightly alter that
> future calculation. By demonstrating extraordinary
> forbearance and accommodation, perhaps we will have
> purchased the acquiescence of our closest
> allies--Britain, Germany and, yes, France--to a
> military strike on that fateful day when diplomacy has
> run its course.
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss