Netanyahu Claims Israel Fine With Iran Having Civilian Nuclear Program

Insists Iran's Civilian Infrastructure 'Completely Unnecessary'

by Jason Ditz, 

Speaking over the weekend during a visit to Italy, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed Israel has no problems with Iran having a civilian nuclear program, and that the objections to the P5+1 nuclear deal are purely because of “military implications.”

This is paradoxical, of course, as Israeli intelligence has repeatedly affirmed that Iran only has a civilian nuclear program to begin with, and Netanyahu has been harping on about it as an “existential threat” to Israel for decades irrespective of that.

The attempt at splitting the difference appears to be a function of Netanyahu trying to appear less unreasonable during a visit to Europe, with his visits to the US much more belligerent about Iran in general, with little concern about the “why” of hostility toward Iran, something his party has long treated as an end unto itself.

Netanyahu went on, however, to complain that Iran’s civilian nuclear infrastructure is “completely unnecessary” and shouldn’t be allowed, going on to say that Iran’s ability to enrich its own uranium was “vital to manufacturing nuclear weapons.”

Despite Netanyahu claiming the deal allows Iran to “expand” its enrichment, it actually doesn’t, and indeed the whole reason Iran has insisted on having the ability to enrich fuel for its own nuclear facilities is because, amid intense Israeli and US pressure, Iran has often struggled to obtain the fuel from abroad.

http://news.antiwar.com/2015/08/30/netanyahu-claims-israel-fine-with-iran-having-civilian-nuclear-program/

Massive Antiwar Protests in Tokyo Over PM’s Attempt to Revamp Military

Abe Seeks to Be Able to Deploy Military Abroad

by Jason Ditz,

Years of agitating by Japanese PM Abe Shinzo for a legal workaround for the nation’s post-WW2 ban on overseas military adventures had long been met with little public comment within Japan, but as the effort nears fruition it has provoked a major backlash, with a massive antiwar protest in Tokyo.

Organizers put the number of demonstrators at 120,000 as people took to the streets in front of parliament, a fierce new antiwar force in a nation which hasn’t been in a war in generations and indeed has a relatively politically passive population.

Abe’s efforts have been backed by the United States, ironically the same nation that imposed the restrictions on Japan after WW2 in the first place, with officials imagining that, like Britain, Japan could become a sidekick nation in America’s various military adventures, allowing the US to claim more international support and drag other nations into these costly conflicts.

That’s not sitting well with a lot of Japan’s youth, who are of course the ones who are going to start getting deployed abroad to fight all these new wars. The idea of “collective self-defense” isn’t sitting well, in no small part, because of how broadly the more warlike “partners” Japan would define self-defense.

Though Abe and supporters are presenting this as helping allies when they are under attack, the reality is that this would’ve almost certainly been used to shoehorn Japan into such non-defensive operations as the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. or the current ISIS war.

http://news.antiwar.com/2015/08/30/massive-antiwar-protests-in-tokyo-over-pms-attempt-to-revamp-military/

Bombing Syria: What's in it for Australia?

By CJ Werleman

 Australia’s isolation from its western (white) allies has bestowed on the Australian people a deep insecurity that long ago metastasised into a permanent siege mentality - the belief that “uncivilised” hordes from the Asian continent will invade, conquer, and colonise the Australian mainland the same way the British usurped indigenous Australians 227 years ago.

For the first half of the 20^th century, Australia turned to its colonial master - Great Britain - for its national security blanket. For much of the first half of the 20^th century, Britain was the world’s unrivaled naval superpower, which assured Australians that no potential foe would "mess with the South Pacific" - equivalent of Texas.

When the natural resource hungry imperialist Japan swept China, and the respective colonial militaries of Thailand, Burma, and the Philippines aside, only Singapore and the British military stood between the Japanese military and Australia.

Long story short: British guns were pointed the wrong way. Expecting a naval invasion, British artillery faced the sea, but the Japanese invaded overland via the Malay Peninsula. And when the British signed the surrender of Singapore on 15 February 1942, what was once Australia’s security blanket had been fretted away into a flimsy white sheet.

Out of strategic necessity, Australia promptly adopted a new big brother: the United States of America.

For the past 70 years, Australia has acted like the wimpy kid who sucks up to the schoolyard bully for the purpose of ensuring his own protection. While the US media lavishes accolades and praise on Israel and Britain for their respective “special relationship” with the United States, Australia is the only country to have followed the US into every international conflict it has fought since and including World War II.

When the US invaded the Korean Peninsula, Australian troops were there. When the US invaded Vietnam, Australian troops were there. When the US invaded Iraq in 1990, well, you guessed it - Australian troops were there, and my countrymen were also there in Afghanistan, Iraq 2003, and Iraq 2014.

Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, a conservative, was so lock step with the US Administration during the early years of the War on Terror, that some in the liberal press anointed Howard with the embarrassing, yet comically accurate, nickname - “Bonsai” - as in a "little Bush". Get it?

Living up to his nickname, Bonsai Howard, speaking at an Asia-Pacific Summit, boasted Australia is America’s “sheriff” in the South Pacific region.

"I suppose America wants a puppet of its own in this region whom they can trust who will do whatever they wish,” responded Malaysian Deputy Defense Minister Shafie Apdal.

There was no justifiable or valid reason for Howard to follow Bush into a war of choice that was Iraq. All it did was put a target on Australia’s back. Australia’s involvement in Iraq made it precipitously more dangerous for Australian tourists abroad – and several al-Qaeda led attacks specifically targeted against Australian interests and people in Indonesia in the years 2002 to 2009 speaks to that assertion.

The right-wing led argument for supporting the US invasion of Iraq was built upon the contention that read, “If we (Australia) don’t support America over there, America might not support Australia the day the ‘enemy’ comes here.” An absurd argument given Australia and the US share a NATO like treaty (ANZUS), and equally absurd given a number of US dependent military allies sat out the Iraq invasion – including Canada, France, and Germany.

When America rings, Australia answers.

A couple weeks ago, the Australian prime minister’s phone received an incoming call from the office of the US president once again. Obama asked Prime Minister Tony Abbott, a conservative, to increase its commitment towards the fight against the Islamic State (IS) group.

Australia already has six fighter jets and a number of support aircraft involved in the effort to defeat IS, and Abbott has said he is “seriously considering” Obama’s request to expand its role into Syria, and that he’ll make his decision in a “couple of weeks”.

A decision that, as Australian journalist Peter Hartcher contends, has already been made. “In truth, Australia engineered the request from the Obama administration, according to sources involved,” writes Hartcher. “In the customary way, the matter was closely coordinated in secret well before the formal American request arrived last week.”

In other words, the Australian prime minister is so eager to please his American master that he has orchestrated and engineered a narrative that allows Australia to actually volunteer for what amounts to an air invasion of Syria.

In a recent interview, Abbott illustrated his argument for expanding Australia’s airstrikes against IS: "Whether it's operating in Iraq or Syria it is an absolutely evil movement and in the end, when they don't respect the border, the question is why should we?"

Wait, what? I can think of at least one reason why we should “respect the border.” That reason is a little notion commonly known as international law. You know, it’s actually quite illegal to invade a sovereign nation. But Australia’s equivalent of secretary of state, Julie Bishop, echoed Abbot’s line of reasoning when she said, "Under the principle of collective self-defence of Iraq and its people, the coalition have extended that self-defence into Syria because the border between Syria and Iraq is no longer governed."

It’s extraordinary that Australia’s political leaders are suddenly so indifferent to international borders given said leaders have been incessantly banging on about Australia’s “immigration crisis” – a manufactured pseudo-crisis manufactured by the right to whip Australia’s deep rooted fear of brown-skinned immigrants.

Allow me to put it bluntly: Australia is an isolated Pacific island at the bottom of the earth that shares a border with dolphins and fish. It will never have an “immigration crisis”.

In returning to the overarching point, however, what can Australia possibly gain by bombing yet another country in the Middle East? I mean, what’s in it for us? And more importantly, why aren’t an overwhelming number of Australians asking, “What’s bloody in it for us?”

You don’t need to be a military analyst to know that America is the world’s unrivalled military superpower taking on a terror group that gets around the mostly desert wasteland of Iraq and Syria in the back of pick-up trucks. A Toyota Hi-Lux is the IS equivalent of a F-18 fighter jet. If America needs our airplanes to defeat an enemy like this – maybe Australia needs to remember Singapore – and then appoint China as its new big brother.

Moreover, there is no shortage of fighter jets and bombers in the region. US allies Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and Qatar are armed to the teeth with US manufactured military aircraft. These allies can see the Islamic State from their backyard. Australia can’t even see New Zealand from its.

Notwithstanding the fact that US led coalition airstrikes against ISIS have been ineffective. In an interview with VICE News, Paul Stanley, director for a private security firm in Iraq, said, “The air campaign has the appearance of being reactive and opportunistic… but the overall impression is that they are not the force multiplier that was anticipated."

Australian airstrikes in Syria would be especially counterproductive given the Iran nuclear deal has opened a path to diplomacy with the Assad regime – an opening that has already kick started talks between Assad, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia.

Clearly, Australian military involvement in Iraq and Syria offers no measurable or tangible benefit to the US led coalition effort to defeat ISIS. Clearly, there is no measurable or tangible benefit to Australia for bombing another country in the Middle East.

Clearly, Australia’s ever reliable eagerness to please its military minder is yet another reminder that Australia remains an insecure country ever fearful of its brown skinned neighbours.

CJ Werleman is the author of Crucifying America, God Hates You. Hate Him Back, Koran Curious, and is the host of Foreign Object. Follow him on twitter: @cjwerleman

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42749.htm

Turkey Duped the US, and ISIS Reaps Rewards

But the real losers are the Kurds, the only force to have effectively resisted the jihadis in Syria

PATRICK COCKBURN

The disastrous miscalculation made by the United States in signing a military agreement with Turkey at the expense of the Kurds becomes daily more apparent. In return for the use of Incirlik Air Base just north of the Syrian border, the US betrayed the Syrian Kurds who have so far been its most effective ally against Islamic State (ISIS, also known as Daesh). In return for this deal signed on 22 July, the US got greater military cooperation from Turkey, but it swiftly emerged that Ankara’s real target was the Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iraq. Action against ISIS was almost an afterthought, and it was hit by only three Turkish airstrikes, compared to 300 against the bases of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).

President Barack Obama has assembled a grand coalition of 60 states, supposedly committed to combating ISIS, but the only forces on the ground to win successive victories against the jihadis over the past year are the ruling Syrian-Kurdish Party (PYD) and its People’s Protection Units (YPG). Supported by US air power, the YPG heroically defeated the ISIS attempt to capture the border city of Kobani during a four-and-a-half month siege that ended in January, and seized the ISIS crossing point into Turkey at Tal Abyad in June.

The advance of the Syrian Kurds, who now hold half of the 550-mile Syrian-Kurdish border, was the main external reason why Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan offered the US closer cooperation, including the use of Incirlik, which had previously been denied. The domestic impulse for an offensive by the Turkish state against the Kurds also took place in June when the pro-Kurdish People’s Democratic Party (HDP) won 13 per cent of the vote in the Turkish general election, denying Mr Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) a majority for the first time since 2002. By strongly playing the Turkish nationalist and anti-Kurdish card, Mr Erdogan hopes to win back that majority in a second election on 1 November.

There are signs of a growing understanding in Washington that the US was duped by the Turks, or at best its negotiators deceived themselves when they agreed their bargain with Ankara. Senior US military officers are anonymously protesting in the US media they did not know that Turkey was pretending to be going after ISIS when in practice it was planning an offensive against its 18 million-strong Kurdish minority.

Further evidence of misgivings in Washington came last week with an article in The New York Times entitled “America’s Dangerous Bargain with Turkey” by Eric S Edelman, former US ambassador to Turkey and under-secretary for defence policy, who is normally regarded as a neo-con of good standing. He accuses Mr Erdogan of unleashing “a new wave of repression aimed at Kurds in Turkey, which risks plunging the country into civil war” and he goes on to suggest that this might help the AKP win back its majority, but will certainly undermine the fight against ISIS. He says: “By disrupting logistics and communications between the PKK in Iraq and the PYD in Syria, Turkey is weakening the most effective ground force fighting the Islamic State in Syria: the Kurds.”

In fact, there is growing evidence that the Turkish government has gone even further than that in weakening US allies opposing ISIS in Syria, Arab as well as Kurd. For several years the US has been trying to build up a moderate force of Syrian rebels who are able to fight both ISIS and the Syrian government in Damascus. The CIA-run initiative has not been going well because the Syrian military opposition these days is almost entirely dominated by ISIS, which holds half Syria, the al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, and the equally sectarian Sunni Ahrar al-Sham.

But in July, the US plan to create such a moderate force was humiliatingly knocked on the head when Jabhat al-Nusra attacked and kidnapped many of this US-trained force as they entered Syria from Turkey. It now seems certain that Nusra had been tipped off by Turkish intelligence about the movements of the US-backed unit known as “Division 30”. Turkey apparently did this because it does not want the US to have its own surrogate in Syria. According to an investigation by Mitchell Prothero of the McClatchy news organisation, citing many Syrian sources in Turkey, the Turkish motive was to destroy the US-run movement, which was intended to number 15,000 fighters targeting ISIS. Its disintegration would leave the US with no alternative but to train Turkish-sponsored rebel groups whose primary aim is to topple Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. The article quotes a Syrian rebel commander in the Turkish city of Sanliurfa, 30 miles north of the Syrian border, as saying that the Turks “don’t want anything bad to happen to their allies – Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham – along the border, and they know that both the Americans and the Syrian people will eventually recognise that there’s no difference between groups such as Nusra, Ahrar and Daesh.”

How does ISIS itself assess the new US-Turkish accord? Its fighters may find it more difficult to cross the Syrian-Turkish border, though even this is uncertain. But it will be relieved that its most effective enemy in Syria, the PYD, will in future be restrained by Turkish pressure. Its PKK parent organisation is coming under sustained attack from Turkish forces in south-east Turkey and in the Qandil Mountains of Iraq.

The destruction of one of the most famous temples at Palmyra by ISIS last week, and the decapitation of the site’s most famous archaeologist a few days earlier, are a show of strength and acts of defiance very much in the tradition of the Islamic State. The aim is to dominate the news agenda, which can easily be done by some spectacular atrocity, and thereby say, in effect, “you may hate what you are seeing, but there is nothing you can do to stop it”.

And this is demonstrably the case not just in Syria but in Iraq. ISIS captured Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province in Iraq on 17 May and Palmyra five days later on 22 May. In neither case has there been an effective counter-attack. ISIS is still winning victories where it counts, and faces no real threat to its existence.

The US campaign against ISIS is failing and the US-Turkish deal will not reverse that failure and may make it more complete. Why did US negotiators allow themselves to be deceived, if that is what happened. No doubt the US air force was over-eager for the use of Incirlik so it would not have to fly its planes from Jordan, Bahrain or carriers in the Gulf.

But there is a deeper reason for America’s inability to confront ISIS successfully. Ever since 9/11, the US has wanted to combat al-Qaeda-type movements, but without disturbing its close relations with Sunni states such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the Gulf monarchies. But it is these same allies that have fostered, tolerated or failed to act against the al-Qaeda clones, which explains their continuing success.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/turkey-duped-the-us-and-isis-reaps-rewards-10478720.html

Behind the Congressional Disagreements Over the Iran Nuclear Deal

by ISMAEL HOSSEIN-ZADEH

The hysterical campaign launched against the Iran nuclear deal by the flag-waving militarist partisans in and around the US congress has terribly obfuscated the issues included in the deal. Not surprisingly, the campaign has created a number of misconceptions regarding both the actual contents of the deal and the main disagreements between the advocates and opponents of the deal.

One such misconception is that the deal is, or must be, more advantageous to Iran than the US and Israel; otherwise, the simple logic goes, there would not be so much opposition to it. Such impressions, created simply by all the hue and cry on the part of the opponents of the deal are patently false. Even a cursory reading of the nuclear agreement reveals that, as I pointed out in a recent article on the issue, it is highly skewed against Iran. Not only does the agreement downgrade and freeze Iran’s peaceful nuclear technology, it also limit the scope of the county’s scientific research and development, jeopardize its national security or defense capabilities and, perhaps most importantly, undermine its national sovereignty.

So, considering the fact the deal represents a big win for the US and its allies and, by the same token, a major loss for Iran, why all the uproar against it?

A number of reasons can be thought of for all the war party’s feverish hullabaloo. The main reason, however, seems to be that while the deal obviously represents a fantastic victory for the US and its allies, it nonetheless falls short of what the war party projected and fought for, that is, devastating regime change by military means, similar to what was done to Iraq and Libya.

The second misconception that the war party’s vehement opposition to the nuclear deal has created is that their ultimate goal vis-à-vis Iran is significantly different from that of the Obama administration and other proponents of the deal. In reality, however, the difference between the opponents and proponents of the deal is largely tactical; strategically, both factions pursue the same objective: regime change in Iran.

While the advocates of the deal have in recent years switched their tactics from direct military intervention and regime change from without to soft-power methods of regime change from within, the opponents of the deal continue to insist that overwhelming military force and escalating economic strangulation are the more effective means of regime change in Tehran, that is, regime change from outside.

This does not mean that the advocates of the nuclear deal have ruled out the military option altogether—by no means. As President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and otheradministration officials have frequently pointed out, the military option is on the tablewhen/if needed, that is, if Iran fails to carry out all the punishing obligations under the nuclear deal.

The tactical switch by the proponents of the deal from military to soft-power methods of regime change did not come about overnight, or by an epiphany. For over thirty years since the 1979 revolution in Iran, which significantly undermined the U.S. influence in that country and elsewhere in the region, these proponents, like their counterparts in the war party, pursued policies of regime change from outside. These included instigation of and support for Saddam Hussein to invade Iran, training and supporting destabilizing terrorist organizations to attack Iran from all corners of the country, constant war and military threats, efforts to sabotage the 2009 presidential election through the so-called “green revolution,” and systematic escalation of economic sanctions.

Not only did these evil schemes fell short of their nefarious goal of “regime change” in Iran, they in fact drove the country to become a major power in the region.

In the face of the brutal economic sanctions and constant military threats, Iran embarked on a relatively radical path of a public/state-guided economy that successfully provided both for the war mobilization to defend its territorial integrity and for respectable living conditions of its population. By taking control of the commanding heights of the national economy, and effectively utilizing the revolutionary energy and dedication of their people, Iranian policy makers at the time also succeeded in taking significant steps toward economic self-reliance, which further thwarted the geopolitical plans of the US and its allies to bring Iran to its knees, or to overthrow its government.

Having thus failed at its plots of “regime change” from without, a major faction of the US ruling class, headed by the Obama administration, now seems to have opted for regime change (or reform) from within; that is, through political and economic rapprochement with Iran—using the nuclear negotiations as a starting point, or transitional channel.

What has made this option more promising in recent years is the rise of well-organized, Western-oriented neoliberal capitalist class in Iran whose chief priority seems to be the ability to do business with their counterparts in the West.

Many of the once revolutionary leaders who successfully managed the 1980-88 war economy have now become business entrepreneurs and prosperous capitalists. Having effectively enriched themselves in the shadow of the public sector economy, these folks are now ready to do business American style, that is, follow the neoliberal/austerity model of economics.

It is thus understandable why major factions within Iran’s ruling circles, represented largely by the Rouhani administration, have no stomach for a regimented, war-like economy; and why they support the highly disgraceful compromises made by Iran’s nuclear negotiators to the United States and its allies. For the rich and powerful elites of these circles issues such as nuclear technology or national sovereignty are of secondary importance to self-enrichment, or profit motive.

It follows that the Obama administration and other US advocates of the nuclear deal opted for negotiation with Iran only after they came to the realization that (a) continuing on the path of regime change from outside tended to be ineffective, or even counterproductive, and (b) the rise of a pro-US, collaborationist capitalist class in Iran increasingly promised to be a more effective vehicle of spreading the US influence in Iran and, ultimately, of regime change from within.

Indeed, the Obama administration’s recent approach of relying primarily on business/market forces of regime change, or modification, without ruling out the military option is likely to be more effective in achieving its goal than the war party’s reckless insistence on escalating sanctions and military threats.

The effectiveness of this approach lies in the fact that, as pointed out earlier, the nuclear deal would significantly limit Iran’s military and defense capabilities. The deal would also avail the US extensive knowledge of Iran’s economic, technological, security, and military capabilities and, therefore, vulnerabilities. This means that if at any time in the future Iran defies or resists the heavy-handed imperialistic designs of the United States, the US can then employ its war machine more effectively as it would have the necessary information on strategic places or targets to be attacked or bombarded.

This is no speculation or conspiracy theory. It is, indeed, a scenario projected by the Obama administration officials and other advocates of the nuclear deal as they promote it ahead of the next month’s critical vote in Congress. “In meetings on Capitol Hill and with influential policy analysts, administration officials argue that inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities under the deal will reveal important details that can be used for better targeting should the U.S. decide to attack Iran” [1].

Commenting on this ominous depraved scheme, Representative Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told Michael Crowley of the Politico, “It’s certainly an argument I’ve heard made. . . . We’ll be better off with the agreement were we to need to use force” [2].

To see how this menacing projection is not simply an abstract or partisan argument, suffice it to remember the fact that this is exactly what was done to Iraq and Libya. In both cases, the United States and its allies used disingenuous negotiations with Saddam Hussein and Muammar al-Qaddafi as pretexts to collect information about their military/defense capabilities and, then, used the information thus acquired for targeted bombardment and effective invasion.

References

[1] Michael Crowley, The ultimate argument in favor of the Iran deal: The agreement would make it easier to bomb Iran, administration officials have told lawmakers.

[2] Ibid.

Ismael Hossein-zadeh is Professor Emeritus of Economics (Drake University). He is the author of Beyond Mainstream Explanations of the Financial Crisis (Routledge 2014), The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave–Macmillan 2007), and the Soviet Non-capitalist Development: The Case of Nasser’s Egypt (Praeger Publishers 1989). He is also a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/28/behind-the-congressional-disagreements-over-the-iran-nuclear-deal/

Sanctions on Russia help ISIL

Unable to find work, Central Asian guest workers returning home to no opportunities are vulnerable to recruitment

by Richard Lourie

The good news is that the sanctions on Russia seem to be working. The bad news is that those sanctions also seem to be helping the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

Sanctions are designed to inflict pain in order to change behavior. There is no question that pain is being inflicted on Russia. It runs the gamut from the unavailability of French cheese to delays in developing the oil resources of the Arctic. However, the Russians who consume French cheese are the urbane types who are usually anti-Putin, though many have become more fiercely patriotic as the pressure mounts from the West. Note that the French cheese manufacturer is also hurt by the sanctions, not to mention the French shipbuilders who will not get any more contracts from Mistral assault carriers after canceling out on the first 1.2 billion-euro contract.

So far, at least, the bottom line is that the pain is being inflicted, but Russian behavior hasn’t changed.

But how are the sanctions helping ISIL? Part of it is simple math and is exemplified by the former Soviet republic of Tajikistan. A bit smaller than Wisconsin, Tajikistan has 8 million people, more than a third of whom live beneath the poverty line. For that reason, more than a million young Tajik men have travelled to Russia in search of jobs. They do the work — repairing streets, construction, shoveling snow, driving cabs — that Russians are reluctant to do. Last year, the remittances they sent home accounted for 36 percent of Tajikstan’s GDP, a frighteningly high percentage. (Tajikstan sends the most young men to Russia but some of the other “stans” send them as well, with “Tajik” becoming something of a shorthand for guest workers there.)

The sanctions that have inflicted pain on the Russian economy mean there is less work for the Tajik guest workers to do. Something like 200,000 have returned home: Forty percent less moneyis being sent back than in previous years. That alone means a 16 percent drop in GDP. Nearly a quarter of a million young men are returning to Tajikistan to a situation that will only be made worse by their arrival. They will find no opportunities at home and will thus be vulnerable to the appeal of the Taliban and ISIL. 

A Central Asian version of the Arab Spring with ISIL playing a role is very much in the cards.

Some Tajikistanis have already joined the Taliban in Afghanistan, easily crossing the 850-mile-long border with that country. ISIL’s appeal is spreading quickly throughout the former Soviet Union, though repressive leaders also exploit the danger to justify crackdowns. Most of the Chechen rebels, Russia’s arch-enemies, have sworn allegiance to ISIL.

Tajik President Emomali Rahmon, speaking at a summit of the Commonwealth of Independent States in Moscow said that “the flurry of activity” of the Taliban and ISIL now “poses a threat to the whole Commonwealth.” In addition, to fighting the actual ISIL threat, the leaders of Tajikistan and the other Central Asian countries will often exaggerate that threat in order to receive more aid from the great powers and also to justify any crackdown they may impose on domestic opponents.

The U.S. has given Tajik security forces 80 all-terrain vehicles to patrol the mountainous border with Afghanistan. The Russians already have a serious presence there, a motorized rifle division that is now being beefed up from 6,000 to 9,000. The first gun battle between ISIL and authorities took place in Tajikistan’s neighbor Kyrgyzstan in July.

Even more ominous was the disappearance in mid-May of the head of Tajikistan’s Special Assignment Police Force, Col. Gulmuro Khalimov. When he reappeared on May 27 it was in an ISIL video in which he promised to wage violent jihad against Tajikistan.  He taunted his fellow countrymen as “the slaves of non-believers” and hurled them a challenge: “I am ready to die for the Caliphate — are you?”

This all could appear as minor events in distant lands, except that Central Asia could easily go up in flames soon. The leaders of the two largest Central Asian countries — Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan — are men in their mid seventies who have been ruling since Soviet times and have neither male heirs nor known successors. Turmoil, especially in Kazakhstan, which borders China’s western border and is critical to Chinese trade, could cause serious problems to China’s economy and thus the world’s. A Central Asian version of the Arab Spring with ISIL playing a role is very much in the cards. 

Richard Lourie, the author of “The Autobiography of Joseph Stalin,” is just finishing a book on Vladimir Putin and his Russia.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera America's editorial policy.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/8/sanctions-on-russia-help-isil.html

Dick Cheney’s staggering Iran hypocrisy: Why we need to ignore his sinister war games at all costs

The former vice president is saying whatever he can to torpedo negotiations with Iran. Here's what he's not saying

MARCY WHEELER

The photo accompanying a Washington Post article published yesterday, which reported on a letter signed by nearly 200 Generals and Admirals opposing the Iran deal, showed Lt. General William “Jerry” Boykin. This matters because Boykin took part in Operation Eagle Claw, the failed 1980 attempt to rescue the Americans taken hostage in the embassy in Iran. More recently, Boykin played key roles running the Bush Administration’s covert operations, ultimately serving as one of DOD’s top intelligence officials. He’s best known for a 2003 speech he gave in uniform, pitching the War on Terror as a crusade against Satan. “We’re a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christians. … And the enemy is a guy named Satan.” Boykin’s inclusion on the letter associates the opposition to the Iran deal with his Islamophobia, though the vast majority of those who signed the letter have no such stain on their record.

Two other signatories — John Poindexter and Richard Secord — offer perhaps a more troubling indicator of how familiar the propaganda campaign against a nuclear deal with Iran is. Both men were key players in — and then National Security Advisor Poindexter was tried for — the Iran-Contra scandal. Thus, these two men, who claim that an agreement to forestall nuclear weapons would “enable Iran to become far more dangerous [and] render the Mideast still more unstable,” were key players in doing just that, back when they armed Iran in the 1980s.

Again, most signers of the letters aren’t notorious for their extra-legal efforts to sow chaos in the Middle East for fun and — in Secord’s case — profit, but the involvement of Poindexter and Secord taint the effort nonetheless.

Above and beyond the involvement of these unscrupulous figures, there is one attempt to defeat the Iran deal that actually does discredit all others: former Vice President Dick Cheney’s plan to give a speech at American Enterprise Institute on September 8, one week before Congress will vote on the deal.

Before joining the Bush Administration, Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney opposed sanctions against Iran because American businesses would be “cut out of the action” (Halliburton is still one of the biggest likely beneficiaries of the easing of Iran sanctions).

Cheney spent much of the Obama Administration thwarting negotiations with Iran at a much earlier stage in its nuclear program. Had those negotiations happened then, they might have mitigated the concerns he and others now express about the nuclear deal. Indeed, as Poindexter had years earlier, Cheney’s office reportedly worked back channels to undercut the Iranian regime just as negotiations began.

Cheney’s real contribution to the Iran situation he claims to despise, however, was in championing a war against Iraq to undercut Weapons of Mass Destruction — including a nuclear program — that didn’t exist. The war created a vacuum of power in the region and a Shia-led government in Iraq, both of which Iran managed to exploit to increase its regional posture. While railing against Iran, Dick Cheney made it stronger. At the same time, the Bush (and Obama) Administration’s successful regime change in Iraq and Libya, but not in North Korea, showed the value of a nuclear program as a deterrent against US-led regime change.

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/28/dick_cheneys_staggering_iran_hypocrisy_why_we_need_to_ignore_his_sinister_war_games_at_all_costs/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

10 Disgraced Iraq War Architects Who Are Desperately Trying to Undo Obama's Iran Deal

The nuclear deal is simply an attempt to clean up the mess the Iraq war architects made.

By Zaid Jilani / AlterNet

There is a fierce battle going on in Washington, with progressive and pro-diplomacy organizations facing off against pro-Israel organizations to prevent a veto-proof vote to kill President Obama's deal with Iran.

These anti-deal organizations are joined by a number of hawkish figures whose last great foreign policy foray was America's last diplomatic catastrophe: the Iraq war. Here are 10 Iraq war supporters now trying to kill our best chance for a just peace with Iran:

1. George W. Bush: The president who invaded Iraq has apparently learned nothing from the experience, arguing in April that Obama negotiating with Iran was “naive.”
2. Bill Kristol: Kristol, a long-time GOP apparatchik who today is a board member of the anti-deal Emergency Committee for Israel, was one of the biggest proponents of the Iraq war. “We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators,” he said in March 2003. From his perch at The Weekly Standard, Kristol has asked lawmakers to “kill the deal.”
3. David Frum: Frum was a Bush administration speechwriter who coined the term “Axis of Evil” to describe the governments of Iraq, Iran and North Korea, in order to justify the war push. Today, Frum not only opposes the Iran deal but has suggested that Obama is engaged in antisemitic rhetoric for calling out lobbyists who are trying to sink the agreement.
4. Lindsey Graham: Graham said war with Iraq was the “only reasonable option”; today he says the deal is like throwing a “can of gasoline” on a fire.
5. John McCain: Graham's fellow senator McCain said Iraq was “the right war for the right reasons” as he offered full-throated backing to the adventure. McCain mocks Obama's diplomatic effort, saying the Iran agreement is an attempt by the Obama administration to seek “nirvana."
6. Dick Cheney: Cheney, who represents the warmongering arm of the warmongering Republican Party, was a mastermind of the Iraq war. He has claimed the deal would put us closer to nuclear war than at any time since World War II, and plans to give an address against the agreement next month.
7. Joe Lieberman: The former Democratic vice presidential candidate who turned against his own party over the Iraq war has stepped up to lead so-called United Against Nuclear Iran, after the last chairman of the group stepped down because he decided to support the deal.
8. Benjamin Netanyahu: The Prime Minister of Israel was outside the government in 2002, but he was still called to testify, telling lawmakers he had no doubts about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. He is now claiming diplomacy with Iran threatens the entire world.
9. Eli Lake: Lake was a reporter for UPI, arguing about the threat of fantasy Iraqi WMD. Today, Lake is a one-man propaganda operation at Bloomberg View, claiming that Obama is practicing the “politics of fear” in order to achieve peace, rather than the war Lake supported.
10. AIPAC: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the main pro-Israel lobbying group, lobbied on behalf of the Iraq war. Today, it is engaged in a no-holds-barred fight to kill the Iran deal, with the donors it has arrayed into an outside group pledging to spend as much as $40 million.

The irony of all this is that the Iraq war set up the diplomatic arrangements we are finalizing today. The war in Iraq expanded Iranian influence, and the West's negotiations with Iran are partly a result of a nuclear program that was ramped up in the wake of U.S. wars with Iran's neighbors. There is also added pressure to deal with Iran on the mutual interest of containing ISIS, which would likely never have emerged but for the Iraq war. The nuclear deal is simply an attempt to clean up the mess made by the Iraq war architects themselves.

Zaid Jilani is an AlterNet staff writer. Follow @zaidjilani on Twitter.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/10-disgraced-iraq-war-supporters-who-are-desperately-trying-undo-obamas-iran-deal?sc=fb

Israel won't bomb Iran but US had nothing to do with it

Washington has been absent from Israeli deliberations on Iran.

Geoffrey Aronson

Geoffrey Aronson is a specialist in Middle East affairs.

There is one central player remarkably absent from the recent revelations concerning Israel's decision not to bomb Iranian nuclear sites in 2011 and 2012 - the United States. According to Ehud Barak, former prime minister and defence minister, the US was not a factor when key decisions against a strike were made.

Israel is a notoriously self-centred political culture. But even so, the revelation that the US' views were not centre stage in the two critical meetings, when Israel's political and security establishments debated the merits of war against Iran, is unprecedented.

Washington may not have been in the room when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Defence Ehud Barak failed to win over political and security colleagues.

But Netanyahu had, nonetheless, reserved a key role for the US in implementing his twin goals: to deal a devastating strike against Iran's nuclear infrastructure and to cripple Iran's power to contest Israeli (nuclear) hegemony throughout the region.

Reason to be confident

Indeed, Netanyahu - had he made a decision to hit Iran - considered the US a key player, whether it wanted to be or not. He depended on forcing the US to accommodate the Israeli fait accompli and join the regional war against Tehran that was certain to result.

Bibi had reason to be confident of his ability to move the US in his direction. He saw US President Barack Obama as an easy mark. If Bibi made the decision to go to war, he counted on his ability to force Obama to join Israel in a joint campaign against the ayatollahs.

The Israeli prime minister had taken the measure of the US president and was confident that Washington could be "played" through a determined Israeli desire to create facts on the ground that Obama would have little choice but to support.

Netanyahu points to a graphic of a bomb as he addresses the 67th United Nations General Assembly at the UN headquarters in New York in 2012 [Reuters]

Sound familiar? It should. This was the lesson Bibi learned from his victory over Obama's disastrously unsuccessful demand to freeze settlements between 2009 and 2010 - a lesson that, to this day, plays a central role in Netanyahu's extraordinary efforts to push US policies in Israel's direction.

On two occasions - first in 2010 and again in 2011 - Netanyahu and Barak failed to win the approval of key political and security officials for a strike against Iran before it entered a "zone of immunity" that would imperil Israel's ability to destroy Iran's progress towards a bomb.

"Ultimately, you need the [Israeli army] chief," Barak said in the recordings featured on Israeli television last week, after approval by the military censor. "The [Israeli army] chief has to say that there is operational capability... The answer was not a positive one."

Signals on Iran

One year - and a new chief of staff later, the situation changed. According to Barak, in a meeting held at Mossad headquarters, Chief of Staff Benny Ganz "said the capability was there. You know all the limitations, everything - all the risks. Bibi, me and [then-foreign minister Avigdor] Lieberman supported the operation", but unexpected opposition from cabinet members prevailed.

"If they hadn't changed their minds," Barak said, "there would have been a majority of five or six, and then we may have convened the full cabinet to take a decision, and there would have been an operation".

Netanyahu and Barak are two veteran leaders well-schooled in the ways of Washington. It is hard to believe that they were prepared to roll the dice without at least a cautionary green light from Washington, where the signals on Iran were famously marked by indecision.

The failure of the White House, Congress, and the Pentagon during this critical period to communicate unambiguous opposition to an Israeli strike only encouraged Bibi's confidence in winning - or forcing - US support for whatever Israel decided.

Bibi had good reason to be confident. He was used to defying the US - and winning. The seminal issue in this regard was the Obama administration's signature call for a settlement freeze.

In Washington, policymakers would prefer to forget the disastrous efforts to make a permanent and complete freeze on Israeli settlement construction in the occupied West Bank and to make East Jerusalem the Obama administration's new, central foreign policy goal.

But no one from Pyongyang to Damascus could fail to be impressed by the Obama administration's lack of commitment to achieving this policy objective it had set for itself. If Washington was unable to get a friend and ally like Israel to adopt its agenda, then why should its adversaries?

Israel's security doctrine

At a Washington press conference with a visiting Netanyahu on May 18, 2009, Obama declared that: "Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward."

New Secretary of State Hilary Clinton set the standard for this initiative 10 days later when she explained that Obama was demanding "a stop to settlements - not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions. We think it is in the best interests of the effort that we are engaged in that settlement expansion cease. That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly".

Over the next year, however, it transpired that Netanyahu was more determined to continue settling than Obama was to stop it.

Netanyahu naturally concluded that a president who lacked the commitment to prevail - on settlements and the larger issue of negotiating a peace agreement with the Palestinians - would not be able to derail whatever policy Israel adopted towards Iran, the other main pillar of Israel's security doctrine.

Netanyahu has lost his bet on Iran. Obama, at long last, appears to have denied Israel, in the words of US Senator Diane Feinstein, the power to "determine when and where the United States goes to war".

As the end of his presidency approaches, Obama is demonstrating the kind of leadership and commitment on Iran that is sorely lacking on Palestine. But even as he is denied the ability to make war on Iran, Netanyahu continues to win big on Obama's other legacy issue: settlements, the jewel in the crown of Israeli policy for almost half-a-century.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy. 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/08/israel-won-bomb-iran-150828055312791.html