Is Iran the Next US Target?

Could Western leaders pursue other options? What could they be, and why don't Western leaders seek to prevent or reduce international conflict?

Here we go again.

As they seek to wind things down to a manageable simmer of daily death in the streets of Iraq, the attention of those in power in the US is now turning toward Iran because of their nuclear development, their anti-US and anti-Israel stances and their influence in the region and their closeness to China and Russia. All things that make those in DC quake.

Israel may soon bomb Isfahan, site of a major Iranian nuclear power plant that can produce materials that can be made into weapons grade material, anyway if we don't do something first. So to protect Israel and to expand its control of the region, the US will do what it did with Iraq, lie to convince Americans that there is an imminent threat to us, then bring things to a crisis point then bomb and/or invade.

Here below, Rumsfeld states that they know for certain that bombs in Iraq are from Iran. Remember, they were certain about Iraq WMD too, and that turned out to be false. We should be cautious and suspicious of these people. They have not earned our trust.

These conflicts result from the win-lose perspective that those who dominate our culture view all relationships through. Whether in business, society at large, or in international relations, instead of first seeking ways that all sides can be safe and prosperous, challenges are seen as threats and responded to with threats in return.

Dominance is the goal, not a better world. This is the problem.

For example, China recently sought to buy a US oil company and was rebuffed. They will now go elsewhere, like South America or Asia to get the energy sources they require to fuel their growth. This is a lost opportunity for the US and another event that heightens tension rather than decreases it. Instead, the US could have acted with foresight and wisdom and worked to establish an energy sharing consortium with China, who we need to cooperate with so they will keep buying our debt to keep our economy going (until we get some fiscal sanity once again.) We could have begun working together to find and distribute energy in ways that all sides win. Instead, our leaders sow the seeds of future conflict.

Fear of the US and Israel is why Iran is seeking nukes. Instead of treating Iran as part of an "axis of evil" we should be trying to work with them to help them feel safe. What to do? We should leave Iraq, including all "enduring bases." If we meant to free Iraq, then do so now. Our presence there is perceived as a threat by Iran. The US should begin treating both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian issue with equality. This will send a positive message to the region and reduce tension for all, including Israel. The US should stop its current efforts to develop "tactical nuclear weapons" and re-commit to non-proliferation for all, not just those the US doesn't favor. The US should reach out to Iran diplomatically and with exchange of citizens to seek the fostering of a positive relationship with that nation so that it doesn't feel threatened and doesn't feel the need to develop nukes.

This is how the US could lower the threat without going to war, but our leaders think war is normal and that exercising power is how things get done. It is these beliefs which are basic assumptions which our leaders ascribe to and which support aggressive responses rather than wise responses. We have options, but our leaders are not open to them. Even the so-called "opposition" in the US political system is unable to see such possibilities. They behave is if they are two wings of the same party.

Imagine that your perspective is one that assumes war is normal and that war is just "the way it is," then making these boneheaded moves seems logical. Imagine that you own a defense contracting company that makes weapons or other materials of war, then finding a solution that would prevent later conflict with China or Iran would seem bad for business. Now imagine that war is seen as abnormal and considered a failure of leadership. From this perspective the US's shortsighted response to China's need for oil seems foolish and the response we are seeing with Iran looks like ignorant folly.

In a similar way, the US and other Western powers need to begin seeing international relations from a fresh perspective, a way that seeks win-win solutions rather than win-lose outcomes as we currently suffer through daily.

This is the change in values America must make if it is to survive. If our leaders are not open to these ideas, then we need new leaders. To achieve that, we need informed citizens who understand the benefits of seeking win-win solutions.

This rush toward global military dominance and empire is national suicide. We cannot bear the cost physically or financially. The negative effects are not worth the power gained, if it's you or your loved ones who must actually fight the fight in the streets of the Middle East, that is.

Keep on the lookout. Here comes another trumped up conflict that is avoidable, but our leaders don't seem much interested in avoiding them. Why should they, they are empowered and enriched through war.

Universal

Rumsfeld: Iraq bombs 'clearly from Iran'

Tehran denies involvement

Wednesday, August 10, 2005; Posted: 10:35 a.m. EDT (14:35 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/10/iran.iraq/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday that weapons recently confiscated in Iraq were "clearly, unambiguously from Iran" and admonished Tehran for allowing the explosives to cross the border.


Iran's defense minister denied the claims in a report carried by the state-run news agency IRNA.

According to Ali Shamkhani, Iran is playing no role in Iraqi affairs, including "its alleged involvement in bomb explosions."

The shipment of sophisticated bombs was confiscated in the past two weeks by U.S. and Iraqi troops in southern Iraq, senior U.S. officials said Monday.

Although he would not comment on whether the Iranian government was directly involved, Rumsfeld said, "it's notably unhelpful for the Iranians to be allowing weapons of those types to be crossing the border."

"What you do know of certain knowledge is the Iranians did not stop it from coming in," he said.

Rumsfeld said the weapons create problems for the Iraqi government, coalition forces and the international community.

"And ultimately, it's a problem for Iran," he added.

When asked if that was a threat of possible retaliation, Rumsfeld replied, "I don't imply threats. You know that."

"They (the Iranians) live in the neighborhood. The people in that region want this situation stabilized with the exception of Iran and Syria," he said.

The U.S. officials said the weapons were more lethal and more sophisticated than the bombs typically used by Iraqi insurgents.

After examining the truckload of weapons, intelligence analysts said the explosive parts are similar to those used by Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

While there is no evidence Iran's government sanctioned the weapons shipment, the analysts said it may indicate a rogue element inside Iran is making the weapons and trying to ship them to Iraq's insurgents.

Troops found the bombs inside crates seized near a border crossing on the Iraqi side, the officials said.

Three senior U.S. officials told CNN the weapons were made in such a way that their blast would have been focused in a single direction, thereby increasing their lethality.

One official said the shipment included "tens" of bombs.

Barbara Starr contributed to this report.

Related links:
http://news.google.com/?ncl=http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2005/08/10/afx2177173.html&hl=en

While Publicly Rejecting Torture, Bush Admininstration Secretly Supports it, Leads to Increased Terrorism.

Two interesting articles help flesh out (1) an emerging pattern of use of torture by the US to "protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice" (Bush) and (2) the resulting effect which is to radicalize even more individuals into doing terrorist acts.

These articles together show that the Bush Administration is obsessed with violence and war and, though publicly rejecting torture, is secretly using it wholeheartedly in the name of improving security, yet the clear result has been and continues to be an increase in terrorism.

I said from the start that declaring a "war on terror" would only have negative effects and that it was a bad idea. I am currently researching the topic in that same vein, and finding little positive coming from the idea of a war on terror. This is a clear and obvious form of cyclical violence that our leaders have energized and fully joined in since 9-11.

Americans who don't support these policies, yet remain silent, are implying their support through inaction. The "War on Terror" is destroying America by wasting its resources, its people, and its reputation on human rights. If you love freedom, you must somehow stand up against these polices. Every little thing helps.

The "War on Terror" must end if we are to have any hope of a better, more peaceful and prosperous future. Our leaders, and their ideas, are the main obstacle to peace and prosperity for the world. They are the problem.

Universal


http//www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080105I.shtml

Bush Defies Military, Congress on Torture
by Marjorie Cohn

Monday, August 1, 2005 -- After the grotesque torture photographs emerged from Abu Ghraib prison in April 2004, Bush said, "I shared a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated." He vowed the incidents would be investigated and the perpetrators would "be taken care of."

Bush seemed shocked to learn of torture committed by US forces. But then someone leaked an explosive Department of Justice memorandum that had been written in August 2002. The memo presented a blueprint explaining how interrogators could torture prisoners and everyone in the chain of command could escape criminal liability for war crimes. It said the President was above the law. That memo set the stage for the torture of prisoners in US custody.

Now we learn that, in early 2003, several senior uniformed military lawyers from each of the services voiced vigorous dissents to the policies outlined in the Justice Department's 2002 memo.

Major General Jack L. Rives, the Air Force deputy judge advocate general, wrote that several of the "more extreme interrogation techniques, on their face, amount to violations of domestic criminal law" as well as military law. In fact, Rives added, use of many of these techniques "puts the interrogators and the chain of command at risk of criminal accusations abroad." Rives was talking about the well-established concept of universal jurisdiction, according to which any nation has the authority to prosecute any person for the commission of war crimes.

The tactics proposed in the 2002 memorandum also troubled Rives because he felt the new interrogation policies threatened to undo progress the military had made since the Vietnam War. Accusations of war crimes committed by US forces during Vietnam damaged the military "culture and self-image," Rives wrote. Post-Vietnam military programs that emphasize compliance with the laws of war have "greatly restored the culture and self-image of US armed forces," according to Rives.

Moreover, Brigadier General Kevin M. Sandkuhler, a senior Marine lawyer, wrote that military lawyers believed the harsh interrogation system could have adverse consequences for American service members. These might include diminished "public support and respect of US armed forces, [as well as loss of] pride, discipline, and self-respect within the US armed forces." The interrogation regime could also jeopardize military intelligence-gathering and efforts to obtain support from allied countries.

The Justice Department "does not represent the services; thus," said Sandkuhler, "understandably, concern for service members is not reflected in their opinion."

But allegations of torture have persisted, even after these concerns were expressed. The continuing allegations have led influential members of Congress to propose amendments to a $491 billion defense bill that would prevent the mistreatment of prisoners.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has proposed an amendment to define who is an "enemy combatant" for purposes of detention and military trials of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. At present, Bush claims total discretion to make that determination.

Republican Senator John McCain, a prisoner of war for six years during the Vietnam War, proposes an amendment to set uniform standards for anyone detained by the Defense Department. It would limit interrogation techniques to those contained in the Army field manual, which is currently being revised.

McCain also proposes that all foreign nationals held by the US military be registered with the International Committee of the Red Cross, as required by the Geneva Conventions. This would prevent the holding of "ghost detainees."

The most significant amendment McCain advocates would prohibit the "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in US custody, consistent with our obligations under the Convention against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

As ratified treaties, including the Geneva Conventions and the Torture Convention, are part of US law, it shouldn't even be necessary to pass amendments enshrining already binding obligations.

Nevertheless, Bush has threatened to veto the spending bill "if legislation is presented that would restrict the President's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice."

These are Bush's buzz words for opposing any interference with his unfettered authority to order the torture of prisoners in US custody.

Bush persists in ignoring the warnings of our top military leaders, who believe American security is endangered by the harsh interrogation policies. And he threatens to defy Congress as well by opposing amendments that would hold him and his administration accountable for torture and inhuman treatment.

A group led by Democratic Senator Carl Levin seeks an amendment calling for an independent commission, like the 9/11 Commission, to investigate the Bush administration's interrogation policies and mistreatment of prisoners.

This amendment is probably the most threatening to Bush and his deputies. A truly independent investigation would likely uncover criminal liability all the way up the chain of command to the White House.


http//www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1540752,00.html

Suspect's Tale of Travel and Torture
by Stephen Grey and Ian Cobain
© 2005 Guardian Newspapers Limited

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 -- A former London schoolboy accused of being a dedicated al-Qaida terrorist has given the first full account of the interrogation and alleged torture endured by so-called ghost detainees held at secret prisons around the world.

For two and a half years US authorities moved Benyam Mohammed around a series of prisons in Pakistan, Morocco and Afghanistan, before he was sent to Guantánamo Bay in September last year.

Mohammed, 26, who grew up in Notting Hill in west London, is alleged to be a key figure in terrorist plots intended to cause far greater loss of life than the suicide bombers of 7/7. One allegation, which he denies, is of planning to detonate a "dirty bomb" in a US city; another is that he and an accomplice planned to collapse a number of apartment blocks by renting ground-floor flats to seal, fill with gas from cooking appliances, and blow up with timed detonators.

In an statement given to his newly appointed lawyer, Mohammed has given an account of how he was tortured for more than two years after being questioned by US and British officials who he believes were from the FBI and MI6. As well as being beaten and subjected to loud music for long periods, he claims his genitals were sliced with scalpels.

He alleges that in Morocco he was shown photos of people he knew from a west London mosque, and was asked about information he was told was supplied by MI5. One interrogator, he says, was a woman who said she was Canadian.

Drawing on his notes, Mohammed's lawyer has compiled a 28-page diary of his torture. This has been declassified by the Pentagon, and extracts are published in the Guardian today.

Recruits to some groups connected to al-Qaida are thought to be instructed to make allegations of torture after capture, and most of Mohammed's claims cannot be independently verified. But his description of a prison near Rabat closely resembles the Temara torture center identified in a report by the US-based Human Rights Watch last October.

Furthermore, this newspaper has obtained flight records showing executive jets operated by the CIA flew in and out of Morocco on July 22, 2002, and January 22, 2004, the dates he says he was taken to and from the country.

If true, his account adds weight to concerns that the US authorities are torturing by proxy. It also highlights the dilemma of British authorities when they seek information from detainees overseas who they know, or suspect, are tortured.

The lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, says "This is outsourcing of torture, plain and simple. America knows torture is wrong, but gets others to do its unconscionable dirty work.

"It's clear from the evidence that UK officials knew about this rendition to Morocco before it happened. Our government's responsibility must be to actively prevent the torture of our residents."

Mohammed was born in Ethiopia, and came to the UK at age 15 when his father sought asylum. After obtaining five GCSEs and an engineering diploma at the City of Westminster College in Paddington, he decided to stay in Britain when his father returned, and was given indefinite leave to remain. In his late teens he rediscovered Islam, prayed regularly at al-Manaar mosque in Notting Hill, and was a volunteer at its cultural center. "He is remembered here as a very nice, quiet person, who never caused any trouble," says Abdulkarim Khalil, its director.

He enjoyed football, and was thought good enough for a semi-professional career. "He was a quiet kid, he seemed deep thinking, although that might have been because his language skills weren't great," says Tyrone Forbes, his trainer.

In June 2001, Mohammed left his rented room off Golborne Road, Notting Hill, and travelled to Afghanistan, via Pakistan. He maintains he wanted to see whether it was "a good Islamic country or not". It appears likely that he spent time in a paramilitary training camp.

He returned to Pakistan sometime after 9/11, and remained at liberty until April 2002, during which time, US authorities believe, he became involved in the dirty bomb and gas blast plots. His alleged accomplice, a Chicago-born convert to Islam, Jose Padilla, is detained in the US. Mohammed says interrogators repeatedly demanded he give evidence against him.

Arrested in Karachi while trying to fly to Zurich, Mohammed subsequently entered a "ghost prison system" in which an unknown number of detainees are held at unregistered detention centers, and whose imprisonment is not admitted to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

His brother and sisters, who live in the US, say the FBI told them of his arrest in summer 2002, but they were unable to find out anything else until last February. In recent days, the Bush administration is reported to have lobbied to block legislation, supported by some Republican senators, to prohibit the military engaging in "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment", and hiding prisoners from the Red Cross.

Mohammed alleges he was held at two prisons in Pakistan over three months, hung from leather straps, beaten, and threatened with a firearm by Pakistanis. In repeated questioning by men he believes were FBI agents, he was told he was to go to an Arab country because "the Pakistanis can't do exactly what we want them to".

The torture stopped after a visit by two bearded Britons; he believes they were MI6 officers. He says they told him he was to be tortured by Arabs. At one point, he says, they gave him a cup of tea and told him to take plenty of sugar because "where you're going you need a lot of sugar".

He says he was flown on what he believes was a US aircraft to Morocco, while shackled, blindfolded and wearing earphones. It was, he says, in a jail near Rabat that his real ordeal began. After a fortnight of questioning and intimidation, his captors tortured him with beatings and noise, on and off, for 18 months. He says his torturers used scalpels to make shallow, inch-long incisions on his chest and genitals.

Throughout, he was accused of being a senior al-Qaida terrorist and accomplice of Padilla. He denies these allegations, though he says that while tortured he would say whatever he thought his captors wanted. He signed a statement about the dirty bomb plot. At one point, he says, interrogators told him his GCSE grades, and asked about named staff at the housing association that owns his rented room, and about a man who taught him kickboxing in Notting Hill.

After 18 months, he says, he was flown to Afghanistan, escorted by masked US soldiers who were visibly shocked by his condition and took photos of his wounds.

During five months in a darkened cell in Kabul, he says he was kept chained, subjected to loud music, and questioned by Americans. Only after he was moved to Bagram air base was he shown to the Red Cross. Four months later he was flown to Guantánamo.

Stafford Smith was first allowed to see him two months ago. He said there were marks of his injuries, and he is pressing the US to release the photos taken in Morocco and Afghanistan.

Asked about the allegations, the Foreign Office said the UK "unreservedly condemns the use of torture". After consulting with the Home Office, MI5, and MI6, a spokesman said "The British government, including the security and intelligence services, never uses torture for any purpose. Nor would Her Majesty's Government instigate or condone the use of torture by third parties.

"Specific instructions are issued to all personnel of the UK security and intelligence services who are deployed to interview detainees, which include guidance on what to do if they considered that treatment in any way inappropriate."

The FBI, the US justice department, the Moroccan interior ministry and the Moroccan embassy in London did not return calls. The CIA declined to comment.