Hi. Here is a no-frills, astute essay on another middle-east crisis, the best such analysis I've seen - thanks to Jeff Blankfort. A just-received, relevant item about India is appended to the above.
The second article speaks for itself but also preps for this week's return to facing our own corruption. May we live in peace (transl.) Ed The Panic about Iran - William Pfaff on 2006/1/25 12:20:00 Paris, January 24, 2006 - Why is all the pressure being mounted against Iran when both Washington and Jerusalem unofficially concede that there is nothing to be done to prevent Iran's government from continuing along its present course of nuclear development. The contradictions in western official and unofficial discourse about Iran and its nuclear ambitions are so blatant that one might suspect disinformation, but it probably is simply the cacophony of single-minded bureaucracies working at cross purposes, an effect of the multiple lobbies involved and of U.S. domestic political exploitation, and the paradox of American policy itself, whose non-proliferation efforts actually provoke nuclear proliferation. The Washington official line seems meant to build pressure for UN Security Council sanctions on Iran, even while conceding that nothing practical is expected to result, and that nothing can be done about Iran's resumption of nuclear processing. Iran at present is doing no more than it has a right to do in international law. The cross-fire of public pronouncements draws attention to the inherent cynicism of the western position. The United States and the other Security Council members can have nuclear weapons, and Israel, Pakistan and India (non-Security Council members), can have them too, but you - Iran --can't proceed with your (currently) non-military program. The United States is even in discussion with weapons-builder India to supply nuclear materials (for strictly peaceful purposes, of course). All of this piles up in righteous Iranian eyes as evidence that Iran needs to go beyond its present program and actually build nuclear weapons. National prestige and pride are involved, obviously - and nationalism is probably the most powerful of all political forces. Military strategy is also involved. So far as anyone in the non-western world can see, Iraq's mistake in 2003 was not to have a nuclear bomb or two in working order. That would have kept the U.S. at bay, just as uncertainty about North Korea's nuclear arms inhibits U.S. policy in the Far East. Iran already possesses non-nuclear deterrents to American attack, which Iraq did not, and they are probably strong enough to keep both the U.S. and Israel away from Iranian nuclear sites. Iran can close down a major part of Middle Eastern oil shipments by closing the Hormuz strait. It has combined Revolutionary Guard and army ground forces three times the total of the American forces now active in Iraq, where Teheran also has influence on the Shi'ite clerical leadership, which holds the key to Iraq's future. Nuclear weapons proliferation in the non-western world is an old American preoccupation, but it is directly linked to Third World perceptions of the threat of American military intervention. The main if not the only advantage nuclear weapons provide a country such as Iran is deterrence of intervention by the United States or Israel. The urge to possess these weapons is directly reciprocal to American non-proliferation pressures, and the threat of attack. (The India-Pakistan case is an exception to these generalizations, since there the perceived threats are strictly bilateral, and the two countries have simply replicated for themselves, at great cost, the balance of terror that existed between the United States and the Soviet Union during the cold war.) Possession of the bomb would also bring comfort and prestige to Iran in dealing with its near neighbors, which include nuclear-armed Pakistan and Russia, as well as Israel. In theory, a threat of aggressive use of nuclear weapons exists, but in the Middle East it is accompanied by the certainty of overwhelming Israeli (or even American) retaliation. Warnings by American politicians that "rogue states" might attack Israel, the United States, British bases on Cyprus, or Western Europe, are manipulation or propaganda. Individual Moslems may welcome martyrdom, but nations, even Moslem nations, do not. Israel, with its conventional and mass destruction arms, is amply capable of assuring its own military deterrence and defense, whatever the ex-mayor of Teheran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, thinks or says. However it cannot expect long-term security without diplomatic and political resolution of its conflict with the Palestinians. As Israeli leaders know, solving that problem is chiefly up to Israel. Forty years of American involvement have mainly enabled the Israelis to avoid doing so. The danger of terrorist-held nuclear weapons exists, if barely. This would be possible only with a nuclear state's complicity. The political plausibility of any government giving terrorists control of such weapons is next to nil, considering the risks involved for the benefactor state. The technical and logistical complexity of such an operation would also be great. There are serious problems in international affairs and there are baroque ones; this one is baroque. --- India changes tune, defends Iran By Jawed Naqvi NEW DELHI, Jan 27: India on Friday distanced itself from US-led calls to isolate Iran at next week's meeting of the IAEA after controversial remarks on the issue by Washington's envoy to Delhi enraged the nation as seldom seen before. The Indian foreign ministry, facing a barrage of criticism for apparent obsequiousness towards Washington that ranged from allies in the Left Front to former prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, appeared to have rowed back from its recent bonhomie with the United States. "During the past two weeks, India has been undertaking active consultations with all key members of the IAEA Board of Governors and with Iran, in order to avoid confrontation and to promote the widest possible consensus on handling the Iran nuclear issue," a spokesman for the Indian foreign ministry said. He explained that in all the consultations, India has urged "that Iran's right to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy for its development consistent with its international obligations and commitments should be respected". The spokesman said: "Iran's willingness to work together with the IAEA to remove any outstanding issues, about its nuclear programme should be welcomed." In this regard, the agency should be allowed to proceed according to its work programme and submit a detailed report, he said. India, he said, also welcomes all initiatives, "including from Russia, which could enable a consensus to be reached on this issue and urges further intensive efforts in that direction". In the bargain India appealed to "all concerned countries (to) avoid confrontation and work in the spirit of seeking a mutually acceptable solution". The Indian clarification, which came in response to a question, coincided with comments by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that India should be ready to make hard choices ahead. Earlier this week, US Ambassador David Mulford, in apparent eagerness to clinch a civil nuclear energy deal with India before President George W. Bush arrives here on March 1, said the move could die in the US Congress if India did not vote against Iran at the February 2 IAEA meeting. The Indian Express, which supports the deal, cautioned: "India and the US are raucous democracies. Public statements from either side quickly feed into the domestic politics of the other and complicate the negotiations between the two governments. India and the US have made much progress in the last few years because they have learnt one hard lesson from the wasted decades of the past: avoid hectoring each other in public. Mulford's remarks are an awful deviation from that sensible rule." Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government is already under considerable pressure from the Left as well as sections of the Congress to reverse its IAEA vote, the Express wrote. "By linking the implementation of the nuclear pact and the Iran vote, Mulford has undercut the prospects of India moving forward on both." The Hindu said: "In publicly warning India, on Republic Day eve, to vote against Iran or else, (Mulford) has outrageously crossed the line of diplomatic propriety, inviting condemnation from political players ranging from the Left to Atal Bihari Vajpayee. "But he has also done India a service by letting the cat out of the bag, if it was ever fully in. In his interview to the Press Trust of India, he has spotlighted the pitiful terms of the bargain struck by the Manmohan Singh government with Washington under the signboard of civilian nuclear cooperation," The Hindu said. "Who can, after Mr Mulford's egregious forthcomingness, doubt that the bargain requires India to behave like a marionette - forced at every turn of major international events to go against its own national instincts and interests for fear of offending Washington? Today it is a fatwa on Iran, tomorrow it will be a diktat on India's plan to separate its civil and military nuclear facilities, which Mr. Mulford has found to fall short of 'minimum standards'." The Asian Age, commenting on Mr Mulford's faux pas, observed: "Sometimes when you say something often enough, you start saying it in your sleep. This is what appears to have happened to US Ambassador to India David C. Mulford who stunned his own, and definitely Manmohan Singh's, governments with his recent interview to a news agency." *** http://www.forward.com/main/printer-friendly.php?id=7249 The Forward (Formerly, the Jewish Forward) Founded in 1897, published weekly in New York The Passion of the Texans By Ami Eden January 20, 2006 As the law moves in on a pair of Texans - ex-Enron boss Ken Lay and ex-House majority leader Tom DeLay - now would be a good time for anybody who has anxiety over negative stories about Jews to start squirming. Lay, who is set to go on trial January 30 in Houston, faces seven counts of conspiracy and fraud stemming from allegations that he misled investors as Enron was spiraling toward bankruptcy. Speculation is rampant that DeLay - who already has been indicted by a grand jury in Travis County, Texas, for allegedly violating state campaign-finance laws - could find himself ensnared in the mushrooming anti-corruption probe in Washington. Some observers, including New York Times columnist Frank Rich, already have begun to connect the dots between the two scandals. And as the legal noose around Lay and DeLay tightens, at least one parallel in their defense strategies will become increasingly clear: Both men are blaming their troubles on former Jewish allies who have confessed to crimes and agreed to cooperate with government investigators in return for lighter sentences. Lay says he was duped by Andrew Fastow, Enron's former chief financial officer. Fastow, who is expected to serve as a key witness in the case against Lay, pleaded guilty in 2004 to conspiring to conceal the company's debt and stealing millions of dollars in the process. Meanwhile DeLay has been trying for months to downplay his ties to Jack Abramoff - even before the disgraced lobbyist pleaded guilty earlier this month to mail-fraud conspiracy and tax evasion charges, and reportedly began cooperating with Justice Department officials investigating corruption on Capitol Hill. If the Texas lawmaker is to be believed, Abramoff was lying to clients when he suggested that DeLay's office was for sale. But don't blame Lay and DeLay if Abramoff and Fastow come off looking like a pair of Judases in separate productions of "The Passion of the Texan." The uncomfortable truth is that these guys make Michael Milken, who pleaded guilty to securities fraud during the 1980s insider-trading scandals, look like a complex and sympathetic figure. Milken's defenders have cast him as a Robin Hood-type outsider forced to take risks and bend rules to help investors and businessmen break the WASP grip on Wall Street. Abramoff and Fastow can make no such claim: They were sitting at the table of power when they committed their crimes. It is, of course, bigoted and unfair to tar Jews for the misdeeds of their co-religionists. But that's what antisemites do - and in this case their job is easier, thanks to Abramoff, Fastow and their sycophantic supporters in the Jewish community. Both men made their Judaism part of the story by publicly sharing some of their ill-gotten fortunes with Jewish charitable causes and then playing the religion card when the legal situation started heating up. Making matters worse, both Abramoff and Fastow found rabbis and organizations willing to take their dollars and to stand by them even after it should have been clear that the donations were tainted. Abramoff and his supporters frequently have painted the yarmulke-clad lobbyist as a philanthropist who spent his millions bankrolling the Jewish day school that he founded. He did this while keeping afloat two kosher restaurants and supporting Toward Tradition, an organization led by Rabbi Daniel Lapin. Toward Tradition is dedicated to fostering ties between Jews and evangelical Christians. A few backers have tried to downplay Abramoff's misdeeds, citing his support for Jewish causes and suggesting that he was the victim of liberal media bias. Fastow was not as egregious as Abramoff in wearing his Judaism on his sleeve (or head). But like the disgraced lobbyist, Fastow assumed the macher mantle with the help of his stolen money. He chaired a major fund-raising dinner for Houston's Holocaust museum and reportedly shared some of his booty with his local synagogue, Congregation Or Ami. When Fastow's mounting legal problems began attracting reporters, the disgraced Enron official sent them to Or Ami's religious leader, Rabbi Shaul Osadchey. The rabbi stood by his longtime congregant, describing Fastow as a mensch to several media outlets. These days, neither the synagogue nor the Holocaust museum is willing to discuss whether it returned any donations from Fastow and his family. Still, despite Abramoff's and Fastow's heinous crimes, Enron's collapse and the growing D.C. scandal are not stories about one bad apple corrupting the bunch. Both men were operating in corrupt systems - and while they may have been the greatest economic beneficiaries of these dirty enterprises, the men in charge were Lay and DeLay. Enron was already developing a corrupt culture by the time Fastow showed up, as Kurt Eichenwald's must-read account of the scandal, "Conspiracy of Fools," makes clear. When things got worse, there were many players at various levels who were willing to lie and cheat customers, shareholders and outside financial institutions, if not steal outright from the company. So far, in addition to Fastow, 15 ex-Enron officials have pleaded guilty. As for DeLay, he opened the door to Abramoff's crimes and other Republican abuses with his infamous K Street Project, an attempt to turn the entire lobbying industry into a subsidiary of the GOP-controlled Congress. And as DeLay's various ethical and legal problems suggest, the former majority leader didn't need Abramoff to teach him how to dance around the rules in pursuit of power. In the end, if Abramoff and Fastow stood out, it was only in their lack of restraint and the scale of their thievery. They were serious symptoms of a wider problem, not the disease itself. Let's just hope the blame for their crimes isn't contagious. Ami Eden is executive editor of the Forward. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
