Ex-US President Condemns Prime Minister Blair

This article has been extracted from The Telegraph, UK

Compliant and subservient: Jimmy Carter's explosive critique of Tony Blair
By John Preston and Melissa Kite
(Filed: 27/08/2006)

Tony Blair's lack of leadership and timid subservience to George W Bush lie behind the ongoing crisis in Iraq and the worldwide threat of terrorism, according to the former American president Jimmy Carter.

"I have been surprised and extremely disappointed by Tony Blair's behaviour," he told The Sunday Telegraph.

"I think that more than any other person in the world the Prime Minister could have had a moderating influence on Washington - and he has not. I really thought that Tony Blair, who I know personally to some degree, would be a constraint on President Bush's policies towards Iraq."

In an exclusive interview, President Carter made it plain that he sees Mr Blair's lack of leadership as being a key factor in the present crisis in Iraq, which followed the 2003 invasion - a pre-emptive move he said he would never have considered himself as president. Mr Carter also said that the Iraq invasion had subverted the fight against terrorism and instead strengthened al-Qaeda and the recruitment of terrorists.

"In many countries where I meet with leaders and private citizens there is an equating of American policy with Great Britain - with Great Britain obviously playing the lesser role.

"We now have a situation where America is so unpopular overseas that even in countries like Egypt and Jordan our approval ratings are less than five per cent. It's a shameful and pitiful state of affairs and I hold your British Prime Minister to be substantially responsible for being so compliant and subservient."

The outspoken attack by the former Democratic president shows the extent of the alienation between the Labour Party and its traditional Democrat allies in America. It will embarrass the Prime Minister on his return from his summer family holiday in Barbados and comes as Mr Blair prepares to make a defiant speech warning his party that it risks losing the next election if it does not unite behind him.

As friends of the Prime Minister mounted frenzied briefings in his defence yesterday, the Downing Street spin machine appeared to run out of control. A statement first put out on Friday was reissued, in which Mr Blair made a desperate defence of his Government, insisting that "after nearly a decade in office the PM is convinced that his Government has the experience and authority to meet these challenges".

Later officials at Downing Street admitted that they had simply redated the identical statement before sending it out to the press.

At 81, Mr Carter - the 39th American president, from 1977 to 1981, and the winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize - plainly has no intention of sitting on his porch and nodding quietly away as the sun goes down over his peanut farm. He has just published a book, Faith and Freedom, in which he savages the American administration for leading the country into insularity and intolerance.

"We've never before had an administration that would endorse pre-emptive war - that is a basic policy of going to war against another country even though our own security was not directly threatened," he said. In his book, President Carter writes: "I have been sorely tempted to launch a military attack on foreigners."

But had he still been president, he says that he would never have considered invading Iraq in 2003. "No," he said, "I would never have ordered it. However, I wouldn't have excluded going into Afghanistan, because I think we had to strike at al-Qaeda and its leadership. But then, to a major degree, we abandoned the anti-terrorist effort and went almost unilaterally with Great Britain into Iraq."

This, Mr Carter believes, subverted the effectiveness of anti-terrorist efforts. Far from achieving peace and stability, the result has been a disaster on all fronts. "My own personal opinion is that the Iraqi people are not better off as a result of the invasion and people in America and Great Britain are not safer."

Asked why he thinks Mr Blair has behaved in the way that he has with President Bush's belligerent regime, Mr Carter said he could only put it down to timidity. Yet he confessed that he remains baffled by the apparent contrast between Mr Blair's private remarks and his public utterances.

"I really believe the reports of former leaders who were present in conversations between Blair and Bush that Blair has expressed private opinions contrary to some of the public policies that he has adopted in subservience."

Israel: US Settlers Assaulting American Citizens

This article has been extracted from www.ynetnews.com
Associated Press Published: 08.30.06, 01:16

Americans are unsafe in the Gaza Strip, and those in the Palestinian area should leave immediately, the US State Department said Tuesday.

Continuing or possible violence in Israel, it said, also makes it necessary for Americans to avoid locations associated with US interests or official US buildings, the State Department said Tuesday in an updated travel warning.

Even Americans and other people working to help the Palestinians should be wary, the warning said.

"In recent months, citizens of Western nations, including Americans, involved in pro-Palestinian volunteer efforts were assaulted and injured in the Occupied Territories by Israeli settlers and harassed by the (Israeli army). Those taking part in demonstrations, nonviolent resistance, and direct action are advised to cease such activity for their own safety," it said.

The department said security has improved in northern Israel , as a ceasefire seems to be preventing rocket firing from Hizbullah .

"While the cessation of hostilities largely has been honored by both sides, the situation remains tense and a possible resumption of sporadic violence cannot be ruled out," the warning said.
'Conditions of lawlessness' It cited security problems for Americans in Gaza and the West Bank, all territories controlled by the Palestinians.

"Violent demonstrations and armed conflicts between supporters of the Hamas and Fatah factions, and clashes between the Israeli army and Palestinian militants have increased in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank," it said.

"Overall conditions of lawlessness prevail in the Gaza Strip, including the recent kidnapping of journalists. Areas of violent conflict shift rapidly and unpredictably," The State Department said.

Fox News correspondent Steve Centanni from Washington, DC and his cameraman Olaf Wiig of New Zealand were freed by Palestinian gunmen on Sunday after being held captive for two weeks in the Gaza Strip.

Israel: Why did Armored Corps fail in Lebanon?

This article has been extracted from www.ynetnews.com
Hanan Greenberg
Published: 08.30.06, 00:36

Why did the safest tank in the world not withstand the second Lebanon war? Too many times during the recent war, the man in the tank was defeated. The Armored Corps is examining itself, and revealing that the failure derives from budgets cuts, but also from improper use of the tanks in enemy territory, as a result of inexperience of soldiers in the field.

Fifty Israel Defense Forces tanks were damaged during the 34 day war in Lebanon , 30 soldiers and officers from the corps were killed and more than 100 were injured, including two battalion commanders. These are the statistics from the recent conflict.

Was it possible to have decreased the number of casualties? Subsequent investigations exposing details of earlier preparations underscore this question.

A senior defense establishment official told Ynet: "Some 350 to 400 tanks took part in the battles in Lebanon, and we can already posit that they stood against a few thousand antitank missiles, most of them with excellent penetration capacities."

According to the official, "it is possible to see from this that Hizbullah operatives were familiar with the tanks, their characteristics, they knew when and where to shoot in order to inflict the most damage."

Conditions in the armored corps prior to the war were not the best: many soldiers dealt with day-to-day security issues outside of the tanks, instead of undergoing significant field training in the tanks, similar to what they underwent in Lebanon.

Additionally, the corps did not receive top priority among senior defense establishment officials. Budget cuts took a heavy toll on armored units. According to the official, the armored vehicles were not used properly.

"In the battles in Lebanon, the tanks did not move and shoot. They remained 'static'. Instead of taking advantages of the tank's many capabilities, they underscored the tank's weakness, leading to heavy damages," said another senior official, who stated that the capabilities of the IDF's newest tank – the Merkava-4 – were barely utilized in the war.

"Our tanks are the most armored in the world, but there's no such thing as 100 percent protected. Only if you take advantage of their capabilities, can you ensure minimal damages," he explained.

The conditions for the armored corps were so harsh that the official referred to the tanks as "a person with one hand tied behind his back that turns his cheek to be slapped. Then people ask why he was hurt."

No budget, no smoke shield
Another depressing statistic: Twenty-two tanks sustained hits that penetrated their steal armor (in ten of the tanks, there were 23 fatalities; in the rest, severe damage was caused to the vehicle). Forty-four percents of the tanks hit by missiles had their armor penetrated. During the first Lebanon War , this happened to 47 percent of the tanks and in the Yom Kippur war, 60 percent.

In the last two days of the war, in the battles in Wadi Sluki and Marjayoun, 14 tanks were hit. The IDF decided that five of the tanks could not restore five of these tanks, two of which had been damaged by underbelly explosives (one of them a Merkava-4) and three of which had been demolished by antitank missiles.

In addition to cuts in the Armored Corps' procurement budget (down from NIS 1 billion to some NIS 750 million – about USD 170 million), many of the tank systems 'disappeared.' For example, the mortar shells field. The launching barrel remained, but no shells were purchased.

In addition, reserve soldiers called up to the war were astonished to discover that they are meant to enter Lebanon without a smoke shield in the tank. Shielding the area where the tank is stationed makes it possible to disguise it and prevent the enemy from firing on it. Due to the budgetary cuts, this option was prevented from the soldiers in the field.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
What hapens to all the money the US invests in Isreal? (reported to be $10m a day). What about all the investment made from European countries such as Germany (re: nuclear Subs) - where is all the money going to? Is Israel concealing the money for a rainy day by building up its war chest?

Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to making friendship with is neighbouring countries instead of holding on to their lands and trying to force them to become friendlier to Israel? Wouldn't it be better if the US and the European countries invested the monies in those neighbouring countries, helping their people develop, instead of helping the dictators that confirm to US foreign policy?

Britain 'is now biggest security threat to US'

This article has been extracted from The Daily Telegraph, UK
By Francis Harris in Washington
(Filed: 29/08/2006)

Britain now presents a greater security threat to the United States than Iran or Iraq, an American magazine said yesterday.

In an article on Islamists headlined "Kashmir on the Thames", the New Republic painted Britain's Muslim communities as a breeding ground for violent extremism.

Citing recent opinion poll evidence suggesting that one in four British Muslims believed that last year's London Tube bombings were justified, the magazine said: "In the wake of this month's high-profile arrests, it can now be argued that the biggest threat to US security emanates not from Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan, but rather from Great Britain, our closest ally."

The magazine, with a circulation of 60,000-a-week, has its roots on the Democratic Left although in recent years it has backed much of President George W Bush's foreign policy. The claim is the latest in a series of hostile reassessment of Britain by Americans in the wake of the alleged plot to bring down transatlantic airliners.

Many have been appalled both by the existence of enthusiastic jihadis in British cities and by the call from some of their leaders for a change in the country's foreign policy.

Other publications and the think-tanks that shape public debate in America have also issued stern criticism both of Britain's Muslims and of the Government. Nile Gardiner, of the Right-wing Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Telegraph yesterday that Americans were coming to view Britain as "a hornet's nest of Islamic extremists" and thought it posed ''a direct security threat to the US".

He said that if British-based terrorism continues, America is likely to respond harshly.
"A major concern would be the tightening of travel restrictions unless the authorities start to crack down on Islamist militancy," he said. More than four million Britons enter America annually using the visa waiver programme. Any change would force Britons wishing to visit the US into lengthy queues at American diplomatic missions.

Mr Gardiner said the issue had not yet acquired a head of steam in Congress, but that another plot, or a "successful" attack by British Muslims on an American target, would be likely to spur an immediate response.

Investor's Business Daily has already demanded an end to the programme because it "allows Pakistani Britons to dodge security background checks".

Much of the outraged American response this month was sparked by the call from Muslim leaders for a change in British foreign policy. The letter from six Muslim MPs and 38 community leaders said "current British Government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad".

The theme was taken up by the Wall Street Journal, which said: "It is typical of some of Britain's so-called moderate Muslims, who seem less concerned with fighting extremists in their midst than in excusing them."

The newspaper went on to attack Tony Blair's government for "cultivating and promoting such pseudo-moderate Muslim organisations". The BBC and the Foreign Office, described as "a preserve of Arabists", were also lambasted both for quoting extremists and allowing them into Britain.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought the US government didn't meddle with other government’s domestic policies? Maybe I'm wrong!

It’s a shame that right wing America has been outraged that the Muslim community spoke against UK foreign policy. Maybe if the US government allowed its people & media full freedom of speech (without anyone being called unpatriotic) they would be allowed to do the same in the US? Maybe the US is not as democratic as it seems?

With regards to the poll where “one in four British Muslims believed that last year's London Tube bombings were justified” – All Muslims condemn violence. A lot of people died on the July 7th, lets not forget that some of them were Muslims. The results from the poll seem false and illogical.

America Revisited: Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina

A year ago to this day, Hurricane Katrina swept into Gulf coast of USA and killed many people, damaged properties, made thousand of people homeless and destroyed many businesses.

Deaths by state
Alabama 2
Florida 14
Georgia 2
Kentucky 1
Louisiana 1,577*
Mississippi 238
Ohio 2
Total 1,836
Add'l missing 705
*Includes out-of-state evacuees counted by Louisiana

Years of under-investment in its people and its defences against "potential" natural causes, showed how ineffective the government was against Mother Nature.

Images of seas of black faces begging for help that took days to arrive, and stories of sheriffs from adjacent white suburbs turning desperate evacuees away at gunpoint as they tried to flee New Orleans, horrified the nation.

People were also shocked to see some residents looting for food and water (as well as non-essential items). Many looters were armed and did not care who they harmed. It was a dog eats dog situation. The police had to move in quickly and had to resort to using weapons to control these people and bring stability to the areas.

The area was also hit with scandels during the reconstruction period when contracts were being awarded to favourable people and some of them were mis-using the funds and were found to be making false claims.




You would expect something like this to happen in a war torn region such as the Lebanon, but you would be firmly wrong. Since the ceasefire in Lebanon, there have been no reports of shops being looted or of any fighting amongst its people. People of Lebanon are living in hard times, most of them returning back to their home have found out that their homes have been destroyed or cluster bomblets are awaiting for them at the residence.

People have been united, looking after its other. Hezbullah are working day and night to clear debris and retrieve rotten bodies hiding underneath the rubbles left by the IDF. They have also started to process claims for compensation from the estimated 15,000 householders who lost their homes to Israel's bombing.

Hezbullah the enemy of Israel is a terrorist organisation according to a few countries (USA, UK, Australia, Canada, Netherlands & Israel) but not according to The UN’s Deputy Secretary-General, Mark Malloch Brown, while acknowledging that “Hezbollah employs terrorist tactics,” he says that it is unhelpful to call it a terrorist organization; the United States and the international community, in his view, would do well to respect it as a legitimate political party.

Kofi Annan: Stop the Blockade in Lebanon and Release the Two Captured Sodiers

Lebanon
United Nations chief Kofi Annan visited Lebanon during the weekend and has called on Israel to lift its blockade of Lebanon and urged Hezbollah to free two captured Israeli soldiers.

Speaking after talks in Beirut, he said he was working for an immediate end to the sea and air blockade and the troops should be handed over to the Red Cross.

The Lebanese prime minister said he and Mr Annan discussed the issue of Lebanese prisoners held in Israel, as well as Shebaa Farms - territory held by Israel but claimed by Lebanon with Syria's support.

Discussions also focused on the deployment and role of 15,000 UN peacekeepers in Lebanon. Unifil-2, a force of 15,000 soldiers, including 7,000 from European Union states to replace the existing small Unifil contingent, is due to be deployed to maintain the fragile ceasefire.

UN Troop Pledges
France - leadership and 2,000 troops
Italy - 2,000 - 3,000 troops
Bangladesh - two battalions (up to 2,000 troops)
Malaysia - one battalion
Spain - one mechanised battalion
Indonesia - one battalion, an engineering company
Nepal - one battalion
Denmark - at least two ships
Poland - 500 troops
Finland - 250 troops
Belgium - 302 troops, later rising to 392
Germany - maritime and border patrols but no combat troops
Norway - 100 soldiers

The UN hopes to have some of the troops on the ground within a week, although the EU says it will be two to three months before the whole force is deployed.

Later, Hezbollah supporters booed Mr Annan as he toured southern Beirut, a stronghold for the Shia movement which was heavily bombarded during the Israeli offensive.

He is not the only leader to be hated. Tony Blair has been warned not to come to Lebanon. People there are very disappointed with Blair. He has not been forgiven for standing by US President George Bush in declining to call for an early and unconditional ceasefire in the month-long conflict in Lebanon.

Whilst Mr Annan is doing his bit as UN general secretary, Civil Rights leader Jesse Jackson has also been visting Lebanon, Syria and all neighbouring countries to try and get the release of the catured soldiers. Rev. Jackson has a good record of getting captured soldiers released, in 1983 he traveled to Syria and secured the release of a captured American pilot, who was shot down on his way to bomb Syrian positions in that country. - Lets pray that Rev. Jackson has another successful misson in the Middle East and gets the two soldiers released from Hezbullah as well as the release of hundreds of Lebanese people captured by the Israelis during their illegal occupation of Lebanon from 1982-2000 - Lets not forget them!

Israel
A row of tents has been pitched in the rose garden outside the office of the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, in Jerusalem. For the past few days, a group of Israeli reserve soldiers has taken up camp here. They have just returned from the war in Lebanon and they are angry.

During the conflict, 117 soldiers were killed - 50 of them were reservists. Because of Israel's small population of about 6.4 million citizens, the army depends heavily on the reserves in times of war. Most reservists supported the fight against Hezbollah and were happy to do their duty in battle. But now that the war is over, they say Israel's political and military leaders were ill-prepared and indecisive during the campaign.

Israeli Prime Minster Ehud Olmert has admitted there were failures in his country's ground offensive against Hizbollah. And he has announced the start of a public inquiry into the war but rejected the option of a more powerful state investigation.

Israel in Lebanon: The misuse of Cluster bombs

The following article has been extracted from CNN:

U.N.: Cluster bombs litter south Lebanon/ U.S. State Department investigates whether Israel broke agreements
Saturday, August 26, 2006 Posted: 0416 GMT

Homes, gardens and highways across south Lebanon are littered with unexploded cluster bombs dropped by Israel, the U.N. said Friday, and the U.S. State Department has reportedly launched an investigation.

"There are about 285 cluster bomb locations across south Lebanon, and our teams are still doing surveys and adding new locations every day," said Dalya Farran, spokeswoman for the U.N. Mine Action Coordination Center, which has an office in the southern port city of Tyre. "We find about 30 new locations per day," she said.

This week, the U.S. State Department began investigating Israel's use of American-made cluster bombs in south Lebanon, and whether their use violated secret agreements with Washington, The New York Times reported Friday.

Since a U.N.-brokered cease-fire took hold August 14, eight Lebanese have been killed by exploding ordnance, including two children, and 38 people have been wounded, according to a U.N. count.

"A lot of them are in civilian areas, on farmland and in people's homes. We're finding a lot at the entrances to houses, on balconies and roofs," Farran said. "Sometimes windows are broken, and they get inside the houses."

The State Department's Office of Defense Trade Controls launched an investigation into Israel's use of three types of American weapons, anti-personnel munitions that spray bomblets over a wide area, The New York Times reported. The Israeli army said all the weapons it uses "are legal under international law, and their use conforms with international standards."

The newspaper quoted several current and former U.S. officials as saying they doubted the probe would lead to sanctions against Israel, but that it might be an effort by the Bush administration to ease Arab criticism of its military support for Israel. The U.S. has also postponed a shipment of M-26 artillery rockets -- another cluster weapon -- to Israel, the paper said.

During the 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah, Israel said it was forced to hit civilian targets in Lebanon because Hezbollah fighters were using villages as a base for rocket-launchers aimed at Israel. Some 850 Lebanese died in the fighting, compared to 157 Israelis.

Lebanon's south is also riddled with land mines, laid by retreating Israeli soldiers who pulled out of the region in 2000 after an 18-year occupation. Hezbollah has also planted mines to ward off Israeli forces. Lebanon has long called for Israel to hand over maps of the minefields.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear that Israel used the “made in USA” cluster bombs against civilians in Lebanon. But will the world protest against Israel? The answer is no. Israel always seems to be an exception to the rule. The US and UN can make as much sound bites as they want to but in the end no action will be taken against Israel.

Cluster bombs are a dirty way to kill people. Cluster bombs are useful against tanks, massed conventional forces and other purely military targets but they should never be used in populated areas - by nature they kill indiscriminately.

Cluster bombs, in particular the bomblets (they sound cute don’t they?) are the mess left behind for people to find when they return to their homes when the war is over. The small size and bright colours of some bomblets (sometimes resembling marbles) make them attractive to passers-by, especially small children.



A lot of people have died in the war, Israeli casualties have been dominated by death of soldiers whilst Lebanese casualties have been dominated by women and children. With thousands of unexploded bomblets scattered across Lebanon the civilian deathtoll will undoubtedly increase.


Facts you might not know:
1. Cluster bombs can be launched from the air or rocket launchers. They open in mid-air and send out loads of mini-bombs. Cluster bombs contain as many as 200 smaller bomblets and up to 30% of these fail to explode on impact but, like landmines, remain deadly for many years. They get less stable with each passing year. They can explode at the slightest touch

2. It is estimated to take 6 months to one year for the UN weapons clearance team to clear the cluster bombs. The Mine Action Service had a presence in southern Lebanon long before this year's fighting, clearing mines and unexploded ordnance from previous conflicts.

3. Cluster bombs can be deceiving: Eighteen months ago, in western Afghanistan, a 15-year-old boy picked up what he thought was a packet of food - it blew his head off. Sayyid Ahmad Sanef believed the bright yellow object lying on the ground near his home was one of the 37,000 plastic humanitarian aid packages of the same colour dropped on Afghanistan by UN.

4. Agreements governing Israel's use of U.S. cluster bombs date back to the 1970's when they were first supplied, and are understood to require that they be used only against organized armies in conventional war situations.

5. Charges against Israel are not unprecedented; the Reagan administration imposed a six-year ban on sales of cluster weapons to Israel in the 1980's, after a congressional inquiry found that they had been used improperly in Israel's 1982 Lebanon invasion.

6. There have also been a number of U.S. inquiries over the years, all of them apparently inconclusive, into charges of Israeli violations of the 1976 Arms Export Control Act, which requires that American-supplied weapons be used in legitimate self-defence.

Weekly Round up: Terror plots, Sex scandals and Mathematics that don’t add up!

Slightly later than anticipated, but worth the wait...

UK
Summer Holiday
The UK prime minister has just returned from his holiday in Barbados but whilst he was there the Barbadian Prime Minister had in fact done the reverse and came to sunny Birmingham for his honeymoon. I know which destination I’d choose!

Terror Plot
12 people have been charged, of which eight are accused of conspiracy to murder and preparing to commit an act of terrorism. Prosecutors say the plot involved smuggling liquid components of explosives aboard aircraft.

Investigators have found bombing-making chemicals, including hydrogen peroxide and electrical components during their searches, said Peter Clarke, chief of Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist department.

Debate on integration
Ruth Kelly (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government) has admitted that the Government has begun to question whether the long-standing policy of multiculturalism has encouraged some immigrant communities to shut themselves off from British life. A new Commission on Integration and Cohesion yesterday in the wake of last year's July 7 bombings in London, and one of its principal tasks will be to examine extremism.

As stated in previous posts they should look at the UK's foreign policy. Once this is corrected they can then tackle institutional racism, followed by under-investment of ethnic minorities in the U.K. (particularly looking at jobs and education). These are the items that need to be dealt, and funded - so starting dealing with these issues!

Europe
Airport/ Airline Crisis
More chaos at Airports around the world, firstly 12 men were detained in the Netherlands after a US Northwest Airlines flight had a security alert. They have all been released without charge; the Netherlands provided no formal apologies to India.

UN troops in Lebanon/ Israel boarder
European nations have pledged up to 7,000 troops to form the core of a beefed-up peacekeeping mission in Lebanon capable of enforcing the fragile truce between Israel and Hezbollah.

The commitments account for more than half the extra soldiers needed to bring the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) up to a maximum mandated strength of 15,000, from its current count 2,000. Prior to the announcement Israel was reluctant of Islamic countries representing the majority of UNIFIL troops.

Middle East
Sex scandal in Israel
As soon as the ceasefire was announced in Lebanon, Israel’s president was locked in a sex scandal, the justice minister quit over a purported stolen kiss, the prime minister is haunted by a property deal and the country's top general is under fire for stock trading – It make you wonder If the length of the war had anything to do with their scandals.

Nuclear Submarines Purchased
Israel purchased 2 nuclear submarines from Germany. With the current standing regarding Iran’s nuclear programme it is obscured that the international community has authorised this sale. Surely now, all other countries will be more keen to get their own nuclear weapons, should we not be encouraging countries to disarm? What kind of message are we sending to the so-called “axis of evil” countries? What use are nuclear weapons against terrorists that don’t belong to any peculiar state? – Whom are you going to bomb?

Israel Soldier killed in the Lebanon
An IDF solider was killed and three other injured accidentally when they walked into a minefield in southern Lebanon near the Shaba Farms. It is known that the Israeli army had planted the minefield years ago to prevent terrorists from infiltrating, and military officials said it was possible that the mines shifted in the ground due to changes in weather and terrain. Another possibility is that the company made navigational mistakes during its routine return from Lebanon to Israel and accidentally ended up inside the minefield.

USA
Review of Casualty reports
The US Army is reviewing casualty reports on American soldiers killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere since 2001, due to a response to complaints that it has not always given families accurate information.

The step follows high-profile mistakes in telling families the circumstances of soldiers' deaths.
The best-known is that of Cpl. Pat Tillman, the one-time NFL star from San Jose, Calif., who quit football to join the U.S. Army Rangers and was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan in April 2004. Tillman's family was originally told he had been killed by enemy fire. Five weeks later, they learned he was shot dead by fellow Rangers after an ambush.

That would mean the review would cover some 2,000 reports. Nearly 1,800 Army soldiers have died in Iraq since 2003. More than 230 have died in Afghanistan, according to an Associated Press.

Future President of US celebrates Israeli war crimes
This news piece escaped my attention. It happened last month but is worth a full review (if requested).

New York’s Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton gave a speech to a rally staged by Zionist organizations last month. When Lebanon and its civilians were being bombed ruthlessly by the Israelis, she made the following comments:

“We will stand with Israel because Israel is standing up for American values as well as Israeli ones,” the New York Democrat proclaimed at the New York City rally.

Clinton also declared: “I want us here in New York to imagine, if extremist terrorists were launching rocket attacks across the Mexican or Canadian border, would we stand by or would we defend America against these attacks from extremists?”

Yeah right, I can see the US bombing apartment buildings in Montreal, demolish Toronto’s international airport, incinerate entire Canadian families in their homes and on the highways, and turn the population of southern Ontario into refugees!


Other news
With all the terrible news happening around the world, I though I’d report a nice story (although it is quite bizarre)

This doesn’t add up…
Grigori Yakovlevich Perelman, a Russian mathematician has done the unthinkable by solving the famous Poincaré conjecture, which has been regarded for one hundred years as one of the most important (and most difficult) open problems in mathematics.


But the genius has refused the world highest honour “The Fields Medal” and refused its £530,000 prize.

He went on to say that the prize "was completely irrelevant for me. Everybody understood that if the proof is correct then no other recognition is needed."

Israel Buys 2 German Nuclear Submarines

Extracted from the The Jerusalem Post

By YAAKOV KATZ
Aug. 22, 2006 23:58 Updated Aug. 23, 2006 13:52

In the face of Iran's race to obtain nuclear power, Israel signed a contract with Germany last month to buy two Dolphin-class submarines that will, according to foreign reports, provide superior second-strike nuclear capabilities, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The submarines will be assembled in Germany and provided with a propulsion system allowing them to remain underwater for far longer than the submarines currently in the Israel Navy's fleet.

According to sources close to the deal, the submarines will be operational in the near future.

The Post has also learned that the navy is considering installing a Fixed Underwater Sonar System (FUSS) off the coast to detect foreign submarines.

In 1993, Iran bought two Russian Kilo-class submarines and eight mini-submarines from North Korea, although officials said this was not the only reason the system was being considered. In 2005, Israel spotted a Western submarine snooping off its shore.

The contract signing was said to have come after a long dispute over the price and financing of the submarines. According to the details obtained by the Post, Israel will purchase the two Dolphins, manufactured by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft AG, for $1.27 billion, a third of which will be financed by the German government.

The navy already has three Dolphin-class submarines. They are the most expensive weapon platforms in the IDF's arsenal. Germany donated the first two submarines after the first Gulf War and split the cost of the third with Israel. The three submarines currently in the navy's possession employ a diesel-electric propulsion system, which requires them to resurface frequently to recharge their batteries.

The new submarines - called the U212 - will be fitted with a new German technology in which the propulsion system combines a conventional diesel lead-acid battery system and an air-independent propulsion system used for slow, silent cruising, with a fuel cell equipped with oxygen and hydrogen storage.

The submarines will also incorporate specifications gleaned from Israeli experience. The Dolphins currently in the navy's fleet were tailor-made for Israel's needs and reportedly have considerable operational capability. They are designed for a crew of 35 and can support 10 passengers. They have a maximum speed of 20 knots, a range of 4,500 kilometers and, according to Jane's Defense Weekly, the capability to launch cruise missiles carrying nuclear warheads.

"With the new German technology," an official close to the deal said, "the new submarines will be able to remain submerged for much, much longer than the older Dolphin models."

News of the impending deal first emerged in November after Der Spiegel reported that chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's outgoing government had agreed to sell Israel two submarines at a heavily discounted price.

Prior to then, the German government had repeatedly turned down the request, supposedly because of reports the navy had outfitted the older submarines with Israeli-made, sea-launched cruise missiles.

Sensitive armament sales need approval from Berlin's Security Council. Several months ago, however, the German government, now headed by Chancellor Angela Merkel, approved the deal after, sources told the Post, no significant public opposition was voiced.

Closure of the deal followed on the heels of a warming in German-Israel ties. In 2005, the countries agreed for the first time to hold joint ground manoeuvres. In June, the INS Eilat missile ship participated for the first time in a NATO exercise in the Black Sea, together with German Navy.

UK: EU Migration - The Scare Mongering Has Begun

The UK's population has grown to 60 million for the first time, Government figures confirmed yesterday. The key trigger behind the spike in population growth has been the net international migration - the difference between migration into and out of the UK.

The migration of citizens from nations which joined the European Union in May 2004 has been the driving force behind the increase. Migrants are helping to boost the UK's population not only through the number of adults but also through the number of births. Migrants now account for about 2 per cent of the UK's 30 million-strong workforce, contributing an estimated £2.5bn a year to the economy.

Being part of the European Union requires commitment to four key “freedoms” in its treaty: (i) Free movement of goods, (ii) Free movement of services, (iii) Free movement of workers and (iv) free movement of capital. Unless the U.K. withdraws from the Union it will be legally bound to all the freedoms.

Yes, there is a lot of bureaucratic red tape, the Common Agricultural Policy is inefficient & endless Structural Funds are given to poorer countries to build their infrastructures, but if all pros and cons are taken into consideration, the U.K. has been a net gainer by being a member.

More and more British companies are investing abroad, more and more British people are also migrating abroad; some parts of Europe have become a “Little Britain” such as Costa del Sol, the Algarve, and many parts of the south of France & Italy. Yes, the British are moving to those parts of the region, buying up houses and land and pushing up the prices of affordable homes for local residents – so yes, the European Union gives freedom to every member country.

Whilst business have been grateful & benefited from the skills offered by economic migrants, other parts of society feel that there is too much, so much so that the media in the U.K. have been driving an aggressive message against. In the past it the right wing politicians and the media have aimed at Asian and African immigrants but now they are also specialising in European issues, particularly the concerns of Romanians and Bulgarians joining the EU.

One argument they make is that although many EU migrants are registered, there are far more that are unregistered or are self-employed (mostly in the building trade). Jobs like these are very low paid and squeeze British workers out of the market. Some of the workers are taken on because employers can get away paying them wages below the required minimum wage, also they could bypass giving them benefits that they would otherwise be entitled to.

Maybe we need to raise the issue of state benefits. Do they encourage workers to not work and hence immigrants that come to the country simply fill the gaps?

If we look at the jobs that the EU migrants are taking (Factory workers, Kitchen and catering assistants, Cleaner, domestic staff, Waiter, waitress, Care assistants and home carers, Labourer, building) you can see why the British workers does not want to take them.

Sir Digby Jones (former director of CBI) made the right statement: “As Like many Western countries, we in Britain have grown complacent. We have to get off our backsides and do the jobs that need doing.”

He is indeed correct. Lets not forget how immigrants not just from Europe but the rest of the world come here at a young age, they are more likely to be single and healthy and place less burden on the state. They work hard and pay takes which contribute to our pensions. We seem to forget that. We also forget that the EU migrants are depriving their own country with the best skilled labour force. Poland is one of many countries that have a shortage of talented, skilled labour force.

Yes, there should be a limit to entrants into the UK but unless a proper discussion takes place to changes in EU legislation, the UK is legally bound to take anyone that is a EU citizen.

Here is an extract from the Independent, which illustrates some of the scare mongering attacks by British media:




Lies, damned lies and immigration
By Jonathan Brown and Andy McSmith
Published: 22 August 2006

The headlines ... and the truth
* HALT THE TIDE OF EU MIGRANTS ... HIV CHILDREN BRINGING TIMEBOMB TO BRITAIN - Sunday Express, 20/8
Claim: Britain is confronted with an HIV time bomb when Romanian teenagers descend on our over-stretched health service.
Reality: There are 15,850 Romanians with HIV/Aids, according to the UN. Two thirds were infected while living in children's state institutions during the late 1980s. The infection rate is 0.7 per cent of the population - slightly less than in the UK.

* EAST EUROPE MIGRANTS HELP TAKE JOBLESS TO SIX-YEAR HIGH - Daily Mail, 17/8
Claim: Unemployment has soared to its highest level for more than six years as thousands of workers arrive from eastern Europe.
Reality: While the unemployment rate rose last month, the number of people in work grew by 42,000 over the three months to March 2006 and by 240,000 over the year, to reach 28.94 million - the highest number of people in work since records began in 1971.

* MIGRANTS GET BRITS' PAY SLASHED BY 50 PER CENT - The Sun, 18/8
Claim: Earnings of British builders and other manual workers have slumped by 50 per cent as a flood of east European migrants drives down wages.
Reality: The annual growth rate in average earnings excluding bonuses, was 3.9 per cent in June 2006, up 0.1 per cent on the previous month. Including bonuses wages grew by 4.3 per cent, up 0.2 per cent on the previous month.

* UNCHECKED IMMIGRATION IS PUTTING BRITONS OUT OF WORK - Daily Telegraph, 18/8
Claim: The unprecedented influx of newcomers has had an impact on the availability of social housing.
Reality: The shortage of homes in Britain pre-dates the arrival of east European workers. Accession state workers do not qualify for council housing.

* CHEERS, WE'RE COMING TO RIP YOU OFF - People 20/8
Claim: Mafia chiefs in Bulgaria are plotting to flood Britain with heroin, prostitutes and guns when they join the EU in January.
Reality: The Centre for the Study of Democracy, a Sofia-based think-tank, found the crime rate in Bulgaria was lower than the European average with crime rates falling by half between 2001 and 2004. It is now safer than Denmark and Australia.

* HOW THE NEW FAGINS ARE BRINGING CHILD SLAVERY TO BRITAIN - Sunday Telegraph 4/6
Claim: The UK is likely to surge up the league of favoured destinations for trafficked women and children once Romania and Bulgaria join the EU next year.
Reality: The US State Department recently welcomed Bulgarian efforts to crack down on trafficking, offering witnesses protection and allowing suspects to be extradited to stand trial abroad. The number of trafficking convictions in Bulgarian courts increased nearly fivefold in 2005 - up to 34.

* NHS AND SCHOOLS 'AT RISK FROM SURGE IN EU IMMIGRANTS' - The Times 31/07
Claim: A leaked government report warned that schools and hospitals will struggle to cope with an influx of people from eastern Europe.
Reality: Immigrants make up 8 per cent of the workforce but contribute 10 per cent of the UK's GDP. Ernst & Young reports they are net tax contributors - rather than a burden - to the public purse, easing the pensions bill through tax and keeping interest rates at least 0.5 per cent lower - equivalent to £500 a year on the average mortgage.

* IMMIGRANTS TO FLOOD IN - Daily Star 24/07
Claim: Britain will be swamped by up to 145,000 poverty-stricken migrants from Bulgaria and Romania who are expected to flock here once they join the EU.
Reality: Think-tank the IPPR estimates 56,000 will arrive from both countries in the first year - 41,000 of them from Romania. A Bulgarian government survey revealed only 2.9 per cent of its nationals planned to migrate.

Recommended Read:
Book: European economic integration and sustainable development: institutions, issues and policies. by Robert BARRASS, and Shobhana MADHAVAN. London: McGraw Hill, 1996.

Home Office Report: Accession Monitoring Report, May 2004 – June 2006

Bosnia Revisited: Mass Grave Yields over 1000 Bodies

Last weekend, forensic experts had finished exhuming remains from what they said was the biggest mass grave from the Bosnia war. The team unearthed 144 complete and 1,009 partial skeletons at the site in Kamenica, a village in eastern Bosnia near the border with Serbia.




The grave contained victims of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre. The Serb forces separated thousands of men and boys (approximately 8,000) from the women and killed them, dumping the bodies in mass graves. The Kamenica mass grave also contained bodies of women, elderly men and children, as well as a large number of shells and bandages. The bodies had been brought to Kamenica from elsewhere to conceal the evidence.

"Kamenica is the biggest mass grave" found since the 1992-1995 war, said Murat Hurtic, a member of the forensic team. "For 10 years, this mass grave was not covered. The grass grew over the bones because the perpetrators filled the pit with bodies so much that they could not cover it with earth". Thousands of victims have been exhumed from about 60 mass graves around Srebrenica, while more than 2,500 have been identified by DNA analysis.

The massacre is the only event from the Bosnian war classified as genocide by the UN war crimes tribunal in The Hague.

The two men accused of masterminding the massacre, former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and his military commander Ratko Mladic, have been in hiding for the last 11 years. - Source: BBC

The Yugoslav wars was one of the greatest tragedies in the world, simply because it was on Europe’s doorsteps, it happened in very modern times and it was stoppable. The war particularly in Bosnia can never be forgotten.

The war can be summarised by the following words “Ethnic Cleansing”, “unprofessional conduct of UN troops” and “War Criminals in hiding”.

A lot of people were delibrately killed, women and young girls were raped, houses burned down, people driven out, places of worship destroyed, cemorories vandelised. Latest figures reveal that approximately half of Bosnia's 4,4 million inhabitants were displaced during the war.

The UN and NATO troops were badly deployed. Can we forget the cowardace faced by the Dutch UNPROFOR troops in Srebrenica? They were there to protect the Bosnian Muslims but when they were surrounded by the Serbs - instead of fighting back they proceeded to hand the Muslim refugees over to the Serbs. Not a single shot was fired by the Dutch troops. The Serbs separated the men and boys and we know what happened next. It was ironic that afterwards the Serbs laid a party for the Dutch troops and they were seen to be enjoying themselves drinking and celebrating with the Serbs.

Whilst fighting the Serbs, little is mentioned of how the presence of UN troops generated the growth of the sex industry. Women were trafficked from all across Europe mostly via Serbia to serve the troops. Many countries such as the UK provided special clinics for the troops to check for sexual transmitted diseases - So the people we went to fight against were providing services to our troops!

And finally, why have all the war criminal not been captured yet? The biggest of them all Slobodan Milosovic died of a heart attack during his trial (most people think it was suicide) but all the others have remained in hiding, most likely in Serbia. Should we not be sanctioning against Serbia until they find these criminals. Should we be contemplating Serbia joining NATO and the European Union with blood on its hands? Maybe by joinig the EU, it will stop another massacre happening within Europe’s backyard.

Additional Reading:
Video Clip from BBC Storyville on YouTube: Genocide in Bosnia
BBC: Timeline: Siege of Srebrenica
Advocacynet: Rebuilding Srebrenica
Truthnews: Bosnia, Rwanda, and UN Peacekeeping
Amnestry International USA: Sex trade in Kosovo

Amnesty International: Israel targeted civilians

Article Extracted from Yahoo News
Wednesday August 23, 08:13 AM

Amnesty says Israel targeted civilians

LONDON (Reuters) - Rights group Amnesty International accused Israel on Wednesday of deliberately targeting civilians during its campaign against Hizbollah in Lebanon and said the Jewish state may be guilty of war crimes.

Not only were food shops purposely destroyed by shelling and air attacks, Amnesty said, but aid convoys were deliberately blocked and hospitals and public utilities like water and power plants put out of action to force people to flee.

"The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of public works, power systems, civilian homes and industry was deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy rather than collateral damage," Amnesty said.

Israel says it did not target civilians and had warned non-combatants to leave south Lebanon. It also accused Hizbollah of launching rockets from civilian areas.

Amnesty called for the United Nations to quickly set up an independent inquiry into breaches of international humanitarian law it says were committed by both sides.

"In the context of the attacks on Lebanon's infrastructure, Israel has specifically violated the prohibition on indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks," it said.

"Israel may also have violated other prohibitions, including that on direct attacks against civilian objects. These violations are war crimes," Amnesty added.

War Crimes?

In a report "Israel/Lebanon: Deliberate destruction or 'collateral damage'", Amnesty said that between July 12 and August 14 when a fragile U.N.-brokered ceasefire came into force, Israel carried out more than 7,000 air attacks against 7,000 targets.

At the same time the Israeli Navy mounted a further 2,500 bombardments and long-range artillery fired an untold number of shells into southern Lebanon.

The attacks killed more than 1,100 people -- of whom one-third were children -- with more than 4,000 injuries and 970,000 people or one quarter of the population forced to flee north.
"Many of the violations examined in this report are war crimes that give rise to individual criminal responsibility," Amnesty said.

It said the Lebanese government estimated 31 key facilities from airports to power plants and water and sewage treatment plants had been completely or partially destroyed, as had 80 bridges and 94 roads.

More than 25 fuel stations and 900 other businesses had been hit, with more than 30,000 homes, offices and shops razed to the ground.

"Israeli government spokespeople have insisted that they were targeting Hizbollah positions and support facilities, and that damage to civilian infrastructure was incidental or resulted from Hizbollah using the civilian population as a 'human shield'," Amnesty said.

"However, the pattern and scope of the attacks, as well as the number of civilian casualties and the amount of damage sustained, makes the justification ring hollow," it added.

Total estimated damage is put at $3.5 billion dollars (1.8 billion pounds) -- $2 billion for buildings and $1.5 billion for infrastructure.

Mutiny on Monarch Airlines!

Article extracted from Daily Mail online

Mutiny as passengers refuse to fly until Asians are removed
By CHRISTOPHER LEAKE and ANDREW CHAPMAN
12:08pm 20th August 2006

British holidaymakers staged an unprecedented mutiny - refusing to allow their flight to take off until two men they feared were terrorists were forcibly removed.

The extraordinary scenes happened after some of the 150 passengers on a Malaga-Manchester flight overheard two men of Asian appearance apparently talking Arabic.

Passengers told cabin crew they feared for their safety and demanded police action. Some stormed off the Monarch Airlines Airbus A320 minutes before it was due to leave the Costa del Sol at 3am. Others waiting for Flight ZB 613 in the departure lounge refused to board it.

The trouble in Malaga flared last Wednesday as two British citizens in their 20s waited in the departure lounge to board the pre-dawn flight and were heard talking what passengers took to be Arabic. Worries spread after a female passenger said she had heard something that alarmed her.

Initially, six passengers refused to board the flight. On board the aircraft, word reached one family. To the astonishment of cabin crew, they stood up and walked off, followed quickly by others.

The Monarch pilot - a highly experienced captain - accompanied by armed Civil Guard police and airport security staff, approached the two men and took their passports. Half an hour later, police returned and escorted the two Asian passengers off the jet.

Soon afterwards, the aircraft was cleared while police did a thorough security sweep. Nothing was found and the plane took off - three hours late and without the two men on board.

Monarch arranged for the two to spend the rest of the night in an airport hotel and flew them back to Manchester later on Wednesday.

Read Full Article: The Daily Mail

This all sound like a comedy sketch from the film “Airplane”. Monarch Airlines and the pilots of flight ZB 613 should be ashamed of themselves, so should the passengers that remained silent. It was nice to hear that the two passengers remained calm under the circumstances and did not cause trouble.

Yes, we are living in uncomfortable times, but do we have to stoop so low that we cannot trust fellow passengers because of the colour of their skins and because they feel comfortable talking in a language other than English?

Were the two victims not searched rigorously like everyone else at Malaga airport? If the two looked suspect, why were they allowed to board the plane?

The captain as a principle should have told the rebel passengers to find alternative travel arrangements rather than kick the two innocent passengers.

What next? Different flights for Asians and non-Asians? Different terminals at the airports? Different buses, Different parks, Different schooling – could be the beginning of apartheid in Britain? Speak up sensible people, don’t become a silent witness!

Good Muslims Become Bad Muslims: Iran

In a previous article Bad Muslims Become Good Muslims: Libya I wrote how Libya, a terrorist country turned good and became a friend of the west . Today we will be looking at Iran.

Why is there so much ill feeling against the American Government by the people & Governments of Iran? and Why does the United States not trust Iran?

To answer this question we have to go back in time, we need to go back to the first world war. Iran was a neutral country but was occupied jointly by the British & Russian forces. In 1921 the British felt that they did not like the way the country was run and so they replaced Ahmed Shah Qajar (monarch of Iran) in a coup d'état and replaced him with its own pupet monarch Reza Shah Pahlavi, establishing the Pahlavi dynasty.

The British interest in Iran was mainly oil related, something the Iranian government had no control over. Iran was a British possession in all but name. The oil revenues from Iran was one the main reason Britain enjoyed the golden years of growth in the 1950’s and 60’s.

Nikki R. Keddie, a historian wrote in his book: modern Iran: Roots and results of Revolution (1981):

“Iran…[had] no say in the [oil] company, not even the right to see its books, …[and was] paying high prices for Iranian oil. …The AIOC [Anglo-Iranian Oil Company] paid much more money in income taxes to the British government than it did in royalties to the Iranian government…”

Under the new dynesty, Iran began to modernize and establish a central government and reasserted its authority over the tribes and provinces. Unfortunately the new Monarch was not always looking after “British interests” and so in 1941 was forced to abdicate, replaced by his son, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi.

The new monarch, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi initially took a very hands-off role in government, and allowed parliament to hold a lot of power. Elections were held, prime ministers came and went but the most significant of them was Dr Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh (an European educated lawyer) was elected Prime minister In 1951, After his predessior General Haj-Ali Ramza was assassinated.

Mossadegh saw what was happening with the oil situation and tried to negiotiate higher oil royalties but failed. In 1951 the Iranian parliament decided to nationalise Irans Oil industry and seized control of the British Oil company (something known as the Abadan Crisis). The British government saw this as a disaster and blocked all routes for Iran to sell oil to any other country. The oil was Irans main income and Britain was the main consumer. The economic blockade caused a real hardship for all citizens of Iran.

The shah saw the hardship and forced Mossadegh briefly from power in 1952 but Mossadegh was quickly re-elected by an overwhelming majority. The popularity of Mossadesh frightened the Shah and he chose to leave the country. Mossadegh declared Iran a republic and continued the nationalisation process.

So where was the American involement?

As Britain was losing grip in Iran it asked the US government to help it initiate a coup to overthrow the Iranian government. The Truman administration in 1952 rejected it because it believed it had no right to interfere with a democratically elected country and its domestic policies. It was a bitter blow for the British government.

In 1953 a new administration took office in the White House. The British government again tried its luck and this time presented President Eisenhower with false details that the Mossadegh government of Iran could initiate an oil crisis and become a communist threat. President Eisenhower agreed to help and provided One Million dollars for funds.

The CIA immediately started its work. Its first objective was to destabilise the Iranain government internally. CIA agents were sent to Iran and begain stirring up trouble by injecting false information so that there would be hatred against Mossadegh. They also went to find Iranian backers for the coup and found support from General Zahedi.

The CIA contacted the Shah but coud not convince him to sign the C.I.A.-written decrees firing Prime Minister Mossadegh and appointing General Zahedi as prime minister. The Shah had severe doubts on whether the army would support him in a showdown. The CIA contacted the Shah’s sister (who was based in France) and convinced her to persuade him to follow the CIA plan. The plan worked in what was known as Operation Ajax.

The Shah returned to Iran. He told Prime Minister Mossadegh to step down from office but when he refused the Prime Minister was arrested (for high treason) and put under house arrest until his natural death. Martial law was delared and this lastred for 16 years.

In return for the US support the Shah agreed, in 1954, to allow an international consortium of British (40%), American (40%), French (6%), and Dutch (14%) companies to run the Iranian oil facilities for the next 25 years, with profits shared equally. The international consortium agreed to a fifty-fifty split of profits with Iran but would not allow Iran to audit their accounts to confirm the consortium was reporting profits properly, nor would they allow Iran to have members on their board of directors.

Iran became closer to the West, joining the Baghdad Pact and receiving military and economic aid from the US. Whilst the Shah remained in power, $18 billion worth of arms was sold to Iran.

The CIA also set up (and trained) a secret police service called SAVAK to keep the Shah in power. The Shah became a ruthless dictator and resorted to “torture” to political opposition. In total the CIA injected $5 million to Iran to help the government they had installed consolidate power.

It was assumed that for every $1 the United States spent on Iranian oil they received $2 on Arms sales and exports of American goods - not bad business. In addition, the shah was extorting punitive taxes from the impoverished Iranian people, and these taxes were used to buy more US goods.

As Iran became more prosperous from oil royalties, the benefits of the wealth were only consumed by a few. This led to growth in anti-monarchy resentment, particularly from religious clergies and organisations. The Islamic clergy, headed by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (who had been exiled in 1964), were becoming increasingly vociferous.

With growing resentment from his citizens, the shah finally declared martial law in September 1978. The Shah recognised the erosion of his power-base and was persuaded by his Prime Minister to leave Iran on January 16, 1979. The Shah never came back and died in exile.

The Shah’s government did not stay in power very long. An alliance led by the Ayatollah Khomeini took over the country in February 11, 1979 and the Ayatollah was elected Iran's Supreme Leader.

The new government began a nationalisation programme and restored Islamic traditions in culture and law. Western influences were banned and many of the pro-West migrated. The rest is history.

Some key points after Ayatollah Khomeini came into power:

(1) The Islamic government of Ayatollah Khomeini supported terrorist attacks against American interests largely because of the long American history of supporting the shah.

(2) The US government claimed in public to be an enemy of the new ‘Iranian government’, yet it gave this government $5.5 billion after it seized the US embassy in Tehran.

(3) During the Iran-Iraq war, the US backed Iraq financially and militarily but allowed Israel to sell American arms to Iran to balance the power!. At the same time the Reagan Administration continued to replenish Israel’s stockpile of American-made weapons (something known as the Iran-Contra affair).

The US Congress looked into the affair and the New York Times summarised in 1999, that:
“Soon after taking office in 1981, the Reagan Administration secretly and abruptly changed United States policy and allowed Israel to sell several billion dollars’ worth of American-made arms, spare parts and ammunition to the Iranian Government. . .
…The change in policy came long before the Iranian-sponsored seizure of American hostages in Lebanon began in 1982. . .” – basically arms were sold to make money and not used as a tool to release hostages!

(4) Ayatollah Khomeini died on June 3, 1989, and an elected body of senior clerics chose Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to be his successor.

(5) Iran is currently in the news because of its aim to obtain nuclear power. During 2005 and 2006, there were claims that the United States and Israel were planning to attack Iran. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.

(6) There have been claims by journalists (Scott Ritter, Seymour Hersh and Raw Story) that the US military (or its agents) had secretly entered into Iranian territory (from June 2005 - June 2006) and carried out acts of violence and information gathering.

(7) To this day the US government have not formally apologised to the Iranians government for its part in overthrowing a democratically elected government and replacing it with a dictator.

The closest they came was when Madeline Albright (then Secretary of State) made a statement in March 2000. "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons," she said. "But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."

A simple apology might lead to negotiations between the US and Iran. This will resolve any misunderstandings and bring friendship between the two nations. If Libya was given a second chance by the US why not Iran? The current President of Iran has been very transparent. He has a Blog, he has been interviewed by CBS American News and has also written an eight page letter to President Bush.

He is clearly trying to open negotiation (even though it may seem he is publicity seeking), Why is the US wasting the opportunity for peace and stability? Why are we not giving peace a chance? It can only lead to the speculation that the British & American governments are looking for a second helping. Lets no repeat history!

More info:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3362443.stm

http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/guide-iraniraq.htm

Book: Nikki R. Keddie: modern Iran: Roots and results of Revolution (1981)

President Bush: “Shut Up, You’re Crap!”

It’s been a funny end to the week. It started positively with Prime Minister Blair going on holiday and an immediate ceasefire taking place in Lebanon. (I wonder if there is a correlation?)

During the Midweak the news became a bit sour, trivial stories becoming major events i.e. airport and airline scare stories found out that there is a lack of training of airport security staff, there is a lack of up-to-date technology to detect liquid bombs and in general there is a lack of investment by airports authority. But to the common man it seems that this was too much of a big fuss and the Government was spinning this story to divert news from other matters.

News stories became better at the begining of the weekend when The Deputy Prime Minister of Great Britain came out privately and said that President Bush was crap and this followed by comments made by the China's ambassador to the United Nations telling the United States to "shut up and keep quiet" on the subject of Beijing's growing military spending. Read below for more details:

The “Crap” Statement
Taken from The Independent, Published: 18 August 2006

The remark is said to have been made at a private meeting in Mr Prescott's Whitehall office on Tuesday with Muslim MPs and other Labour MPs with constituencies representing large Muslim communities. Muslim MPs wanted to press home their objections to British foreign policy and discuss ways of improving relations with the Muslim communities.

Although he denies it in public, Harry Cohen who was in the same meeting said that Mr Prescott had definitely used the word "crap" about the Bush administration.

"He was talking in the context of the 'road map' in the Middle East. He said he only gave support to the war on Iraq because they were promised the road map. But he said the Bush administration had been crap on that. We all laughed and he said to an official, 'Don't minute that'." Mr Cohen added: "We also had a laugh when he said old Bush is just a cowboy with his Stetson on. But then he said, 'I can hardly talk about that can I?'

It seems that he was not the only Member of Parliament that shared that view. The Independent asked a group of Labour MPs what they though of John Prescott's outburst

Ian Davidson Glasgow South West MP
"I think that John Prescott is to be commended for the quality of his political analysis. His comment on American policy is brief and accurate. Britain has got to ensure that it is no longer seen as simply being the glove puppet of the United States."

Glenda Jackson Hampstead and Highgate MP
"I entirely endorse his view. This is why Parliament should be recalled. This government is failing miserably as far as our approach towards the Middle East is concerned. We are simply... bag carriers for Bush and all his policies have been a disaster."

David Crausby Bolton North East MP
"One of the most disappointing aspects of the Iraq resolution is that we stuck our neck out and supported the Americans... on the understanding that the road map would be there but it's not been delivered at all. It's virtually been forgotten."

Ann Cryer Keighley MP
"I have no doubt that there is a very large number of Labour MPs who will be agreeing with what John Prescott is alleged to have said. I agree with it. There is huge concern and this goes right across the Labour back bench."

Jim Sheridan Paisley and Renfrewshire North MP
"I think he is right. I don't think the Americans have given the road map the priority it deserves and until you solve the problem of Palestine, other problems are going to appear. Every time Palestine comes up the agenda it gets... put on the back-burner."

Peter Kilfoyle Liverpool Walton MP
"What he is reported to have said reflects the views of many people in the Labour Party. It may not go down well in international diplomacy... but in the Labour Party it will be welcomed as a rare flash of honesty from a senior member of the Government."

Ken Livingstone Mayor of London
"I have no idea what John Prescott did or did not say since it was a private conversation, but... the current US administration has been a disaster for the American people and has done untold damage not only to international relations but to the environment."

Jon Trickett Hemsworth MP
"The actions and language of the British Government are actively hindering the prospects for peace in the Middle East; simultaneously enhancing the threat from terrorism... Our historic influence with Arab countries has been squandered."

John Austin Erith and Thamesmead MP
"If John Prescott did say it, then it touches a chord with many of us... American foreign policy is a major contributor to the crisis in the Middle East... and its failure to ensure adherence to UN resolutions regarding Palestine, and its failure to progress the road map."

Martin Salter Reading West MP
"It is abundantly clear that the Bush administration has been less than enthusiastic in pursuing the Middle East road map, and indeed many of its policies have actually inflamed the situation rather than sought to resolve this long-standing conflict."

The Bush administration reacted to John Prescott's frank assessment of the President's abilities by saying he had been called worse in the past and would likely be called worse in the future.
In other words – Were not bothered!


The “Shut Up” Statement
Taken from Yahoo World News, Published: 18 August 2006

China's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva Sha Zukang responded to a BBC radio interview about jitters within the Bush administration about Beijing's spiralling military budget, Sha said the United States itself accounts for half of the entire world's military spending.

"The China population is six times or five times that of the United States," he said. "Why blame China? ... It's better for the US to shut up and keep quiet. It's much, much better."

His voice rising, Sha continued: "It's the US's sovereign right to do whatever they deem good for them -- but don't tell us what is good for China. Thank you very much!"

Some basic facts:
In March the National People's Congress (parliament), approved a 14.7-percent increase in military spending to 35 billion dollars (27 billion euros) this year.

Although this is paltry compared to the 419 billion dollar (325 billion euro) US defence budget in 2006, the Pentagon last year estimated that China's defence spending was two to three times the publicly announced figure – Big Deal!

Ahmadinejad & Iran - The Missed Opportunity for Friendship

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the flamboyant president of Iran has been in the news lately.
This time he was promoting his own blog in where he criticises the US for opposing Iran's nuclear programme and asks readers to vote on whether they think Israel is trying to trigger a new world war.

In the blog, which can be read in various languages at http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/ he states how his dislike of the United States began while still at school, when he became enraged by Washington's interference in Iranian domestic affairs. More of the history of Iran & USA will be explained in later posts.

President Ahmadinejad is seen as a controversial figure, criticised by Western governments for his stance on Israel, supporter of Hezbollah, and controversial comments he has made about the Holocaust and the legitimacy of Israel's existence.

With regards to President Ahmadinejad's comments addressed in Persian that "Israel must be wiped off the map” seems to be widely misquoted by politician & the news media.

Juan Cole (University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History) said "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" but "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."

More statements & contradictory views can be found here: Wikipedia

Recently, he did an interview with Mike Wallace of CBS news. CBS were criticised by some American public to be unpatriotic for airing the interview. It seems that anything against American policy is deemed not fit to publish or broadcast. Well-done CBS.

The full script can be read here: CBS News

Earlier this year, he also sent President Bush an eight-page letter. The letter, the first written communication between the leaders of the two countries in 27 years, criticised the American Government for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, detainee abuse in Guantanamo Bay and Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, and for its support of Israel. He also praised various Muslim prophets and their teachings (including Jesus of Nazareth a prophet in Islam P.B.U.M and to Moses P.B.U.M.).

Letter in PDF: Letter to President Bush

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dismissed the letter as "offering nothing new" and the White House said there would be no formal written reply.

Did he make a mistake? Maybe he has done what no one is supposed to do in his position, ask questions!

The United States may not agree with the contents of the letter or agree with President Ahmadinejad’s view but surely this was a missed opportunity to build a relationship with Iran. It was not long ago that we feared the Libyans and hated them, but after opening talks with Libya, Colonel Gaddafi has become our new friend. Maybe President Ahmadinejad would like a similar relationship – Lets not miss the opportunity, lets give friendship a chance.

Bad Muslims Become Good Muslims: Libya

What is the definition of good Muslims and a bad Muslims? To the United States bad Muslims it seems, are countries like Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) that killed Kurdish communities in Iraq that tried to form their own independence. Good Muslims on the other hands are countries like Turkey that does the same. The goal of creating a Kurdish country from a Kurdish state may bring problems in the future (oil related) but that’s a story for another day.

Today’s story is of a bad Muslim country that became good - I’m talking about Libya, a country that became independent in 1951 following decades of occupation from the Italian government.

Libya was a Kingdom, and maintained a pro-Western stance. There was a close relationship with America and Britain; both countries maintained military base rights in Libya. The pro western relationship with the non-active part in the Arab-Israeli dispute led to frustrations amongst the citizens.

In 1969, Colonel Gaddafi took over the country in a coup d’état and closed the American and British bases. He also partially nationalised foreign oil and commercial interests in Libya.

He used oil funds during the 1970s and 1980s to promote his ideology outside Libya. He played a key role in promoting oil embargoes as a political weapon for challenging the West, hoping that an oil price rise and embargo in 1973 would persuade the West, especially the United States, to end support for Israel.

But his ideology did not stop there. Libya started committing mass acts of state sponsored terrorism including bombing of a discotheque in Berlin that killed two American servicemen. The United States responded by launching an aerial bombing attack against targets near Tripoli and Benghazi. But that did not stop Libya retaliating. In1988, two Libyan intelligence agents blew up an American airline in Lockerbie, Scotland killing 270 people. The following year a French airline that was scheduled to fly from the Congo to Chad was bombed killing 170 people on board.

The UN Security Council passed a resolution asking Libya to surrender the suspects, cooperate with the Pan Am 103 and UTA 772 investigations, and pay compensation to the victims' families and cease all support for terrorism. Libya's refused and so sanctions were imposed.

The sanctions bought enormous strain to the country and the support for terrorism appeared to have decreased. Colonel Gaddafi quickly began to rebuild his relationships with the west.

The Libyan government announced its decision to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programmes and pay almost 3 billion US dollars in compensation to the families of Pan Am flight 103 as well as UTA flight 772.

UN sanctions were lifted in September 2003 but there are still problems:

(1) Libyan people still do not have the right to change their government. Freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, and religion are restricted. Independent human rights organizations are prohibited.
(2) According to the U.S. Department of State’s annual human rights report for 2004, Libya’s authoritarian regime continued to have a poor record in the area of human rights. Some of the numerous and serious abuses on the part of the government include poor prison conditions, arbitrary arrest and detention, prisoners held incommunicado, and political prisoners held for many years without charge or trial. The judiciary is controlled by the state, and there is no right to a fair public trial. – Sounds a bit like Guantanamo Bay!

With the intension of getting rid of all its WMD, France agreed with Libya to develop a significant nuclear power program.

The US State Department announced that it would restore full diplomatic relations with Libya. The State Department also stated that Libya would be removed from the list of nations that support terrorism.

The UK also made strides offering "a hand in partnership" to states giving up terror and banned weapons. The partnership was so strong that the UK invited Libya to train its military at the Sandhurst military School.



The offer of military cooperation, and the confirmation that British Aerospace have been in negotiations with Libya, has led to speculation that arms deals have been made. Lets hope that the arms sale and military training don’t come back to haunt us directly or indirectly.

Cuba - the untold story

Fidel Castro reached his 80th birthday on Sunday, recovering from the intestinal surgery he had two weeks ago, he survives as the one of the world's longest-ruling leaders, and has outlasted nine US presidents during his time.

Castro became Cuban president 47 years ago after leading the overthrow of (US backed dictator) Fulgencio Batista. Then Cuba, a developing country; was a playground for playboys, where gambling and prostitution was rife. The distribution of wealth was only between a few; many people were living in poverty and this had led to calls for something to be done. In fact it was claimed that before the revolution, non-Cubans controlled 75% of Cuban land.

When the revolution took place, many Cubans (mostly upper/ middle class that suffered from the revolutionary laws) fled to the United States and settled in Miami. Most of them were hoping for a quick return to Cuba but the US attempt to overthrow Castro did not materialise in The 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion.

A trade embargo was placed against Cuba by the United States and because of this Castro forged alliances with the Soviet Union during the Cold War period. The trade embargo hit Cuba very hard. The country relies heavily on imports, but such is the sway of American power, the US imposes sanctions against any country that trades with Cuba.

The United Nations General Assembly voted many times for an end to the United States' economic embargo against Cuba but time after time three nations kept voting against the motion - the US, Israel and the Marshall Islands.

An embargo is something that we normally do in times of war. Sometimes we use an embargo against a country whose misconduct has been condemned by the international community, but that is not the case with Cuba.

What have they done wrong, why are they not given a chance? Does Cuba posses a threat to the United States?

The old Soviet Union has long gone. There are no more missiles aimed at the US. In fact the United States have a famous naval base in Cuba that has more weaponry than the Cuban Government - oh yes, Guantanamo Bay. I don’t need to tell you what it is being used for now!

Is it because the Cuban government is communist and is a threat to Capitalism? There’s no restriction for China (the new most favoured US trading nation) or Vietnam and any other communist countries (what's left of them).

Is it because those who fled Cuba after the revolution (and their children, many who have never been to Cuba) are a powerful lobby and dictate a strong voting power in Florida?). Florida is a key seat in the US and the growing population of Hispanics may dictate the US foreign policy towards Cuba. Maybe they are waiting for Castro to die before doing anything?

Whatever the reason it needs to stop. The childish games have caused enough suffering to the Cuban people, especially children. Lift the trade embargo, this will help the Cuban people economically & socially, it will also help farmers in the USA increase business, it might also make Americans popular in the world stage! for sure, it is the only way foreword, it is the right thing to do.

Some facts that you might not know:
(1) As a schoolboy, Castro wrote to US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt asking him for a ten-dollar bill. In 1940 Fidel wrote in his letter: "I have not seen a ten dollars bill green American and I would like to have one of them".

(2) Castro studied law at Havana University from 1950-1952, where he read the works of Karl Marx and discovered his passion for politics.

(3) Cuban officials said in 1999 that Castro had been the subject of 637 assassination plots (mostly from the CIA).

(4) Castro gave up smoking cigars for health reasons in the mid-1980s. Despite giving up cigars, Castro still gives boxes of Habanos to friends and favoured visitors.

(5) Due to the US trade embargo - basic items such as powdered milk (for babies) had to be purchased from as far away as New Zealand.

(6) In 1989, the World Health Organization extolled Cuba's health care system as a "model for the world." It was considered much better than any developed country such as the UK or USA.

(7) In the recent earthquake in Pakistan, Cuba sent 2,260 medical staff (including 1,430 doctors) to work in the worst hit areas, setting up approximately 32 medical camps. The US government (an ally of Pakistan) donated 1 medical camp.

(8) Cuba was ready to send a similar medical help to the victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans – but the American Government (who were very under resourced) declined any help from Cuba.

(9) 200 million children in the world sleep in the streets today. None of them are Cuban.

(10) Cuba has a low illiteracy rate, low infant mortality and high life expectancy than most of its neighbouring countries.



For more information visit: Global Exchange

Could the White House be linked to the "planned" Lebanese Invasion?

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said today that he is solely responsible for the offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon. He said he would not apologise, and asserted that the month long war undermined the guerrillas.

In a previous article “Israel in Lebanon: I love it when a plan comes together!” I wrote that the war in Lebanon was planned long before hezbullah captured the two soldiers and today, highly acclaimed journalist Seymour Hersh wrote a piece in the New Yorker magazine about the possibility of the White House having full knowledge of the planned attack by Israel. It is an interesting read.

WATCHING LEBANON
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH www.newyorker.com
Washington’s interests in Israel’s war.
Issue of 2006-08-21, Posted 2006-08-14

In the days after Hezbollah crossed from Lebanon into Israel, on July 12th, to kidnap two soldiers, triggering an Israeli air attack on Lebanon and a full-scale war, the Bush Administration seemed strangely passive. “It’s a moment of clarification,” President George W. Bush said at the G-8 summit, in St. Petersburg, on July 16th. “It’s now become clear why we don’t have peace in the Middle East.” He described the relationship between Hezbollah and its supporters in Iran and Syria as one of the “root causes of instability,” and subsequently said that it was up to those countries to end the crisis. Two days later, despite calls from several governments for the United States to take the lead in negotiations to end the fighting, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that a ceasefire should be put off until “the conditions are conducive.”

The Bush Administration, however, was closely involved in the planning of Israel’s retaliatory attacks. President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney were convinced, current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials told me, that a successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign against Hezbollah’s heavily fortified underground-missile and command-and-control complexes in Lebanon could ease Israel’s security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American preëmptive attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations, some of which are also buried deep underground.

Israeli military and intelligence experts I spoke to emphasized that the country’s immediate security issues were reason enough to confront Hezbollah, regardless of what the Bush Administration wanted. Shabtai Shavit, a national-security adviser to the Knesset who headed the Mossad, Israel’s foreign-intelligence service, from 1989 to 1996, told me, “We do what we think is best for us, and if it happens to meet America’s requirements, that’s just part of a relationship between two friends. Hezbollah is armed to the teeth and trained in the most advanced technology of guerrilla warfare. It was just a matter of time. We had to address it.”

Hezbollah is seen by Israelis as a profound threat—a terrorist organization, operating on their border, with a military arsenal that, with help from Iran and Syria, has grown stronger since the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon ended, in 2000. Hezbollah’s leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, has said he does not believe that Israel is a “legal state.” Israeli intelligence estimated at the outset of the air war that Hezbollah had roughly five hundred medium-range Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 rockets and a few dozen long-range Zelzal rockets; the Zelzals, with a range of about two hundred kilometres, could reach Tel Aviv. (One rocket hit Haifa the day after the kidnappings.) It also has more than twelve thousand shorter-range rockets. Since the conflict began, more than three thousand of these have been fired at Israel.

According to a Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of both the Israeli and the U.S. governments, Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah—and shared it with Bush Administration officials—well before the July 12th kidnappings. “It’s not that the Israelis had a trap that Hezbollah walked into,” he said, “but there was a strong feeling in the White House that sooner or later the Israelis were going to do it.”

The Middle East expert said that the Administration had several reasons for supporting the Israeli bombing campaign. Within the State Department, it was seen as a way to strengthen the Lebanese government so that it could assert its authority over the south of the country, much of which is controlled by Hezbollah. He went on, “The White House was more focussed on stripping Hezbollah of its missiles, because, if there was to be a military option against Iran’s nuclear facilities, it had to get rid of the weapons that Hezbollah could use in a potential retaliation at Israel. Bush wanted both. Bush was going after Iran, as part of the Axis of Evil, and its nuclear sites, and he was interested in going after Hezbollah as part of his interest in democratization, with Lebanon as one of the crown jewels of Middle East democracy.”

Administration officials denied that they knew of Israel’s plan for the air war. The White House did not respond to a detailed list of questions. In response to a separate request, a National Security Council spokesman said, “Prior to Hezbollah’s attack on Israel, the Israeli government gave no official in Washington any reason to believe that Israel was planning to attack. Even after the July 12th attack, we did not know what the Israeli plans were.” A Pentagon spokesman said, “The United States government remains committed to a diplomatic solution to the problem of Iran’s clandestine nuclear weapons program,” and denied the story, as did a State Department spokesman.

The United States and Israel have shared intelligence and enjoyed close military coöperation for decades, but early this spring, according to a former senior intelligence official, high-level planners from the U.S. Air Force—under pressure from the White House to develop a war plan for a decisive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities—began consulting with their counterparts in the Israeli Air Force.

“The big question for our Air Force was how to hit a series of hard targets in Iran successfully,” the former senior intelligence official said. “Who is the closest ally of the U.S. Air Force in its planning? It’s not Congo—it’s Israel. Everybody knows that Iranian engineers have been advising Hezbollah on tunnels and underground gun emplacements. And so the Air Force went to the Israelis with some new tactics and said to them, ‘Let’s concentrate on the bombing and share what we have on Iran and what you have on Lebanon.’ ” The discussions reached the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, he said.
“The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits,” a U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel said. “Why oppose it? We’ll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran.”

A Pentagon consultant said that the Bush White House “has been agitating for some time to find a reason for a preëmptive blow against Hezbollah.” He added, “It was our intent to have Hezbollah diminished, and now we have someone else doing it.” (As this article went to press, the United Nations Security Council passed a ceasefire resolution, although it was unclear if it would change the situation on the ground.)

According to Richard Armitage, who served as Deputy Secretary of State in Bush’s first term—and who, in 2002, said that Hezbollah “may be the A team of terrorists”—Israel’s campaign in Lebanon, which has faced unexpected difficulties and widespread criticism, may, in the end, serve as a warning to the White House about Iran. “If the most dominant military force in the region—the Israel Defense Forces—can’t pacify a country like Lebanon, with a population of four million, you should think carefully about taking that template to Iran, with strategic depth and a population of seventy million,” Armitage said. “The only thing that the bombing has achieved so far is to unite the population against the Israelis.”

Several current and former officials involved in the Middle East told me that Israel viewed the soldiers’ kidnapping as the opportune moment to begin its planned military campaign against Hezbollah. “Hezbollah, like clockwork, was instigating something small every month or two,” the U.S. government consultant with ties to Israel said. Two weeks earlier, in late June, members of Hamas, the Palestinian group, had tunnelled under the barrier separating southern Gaza from Israel and captured an Israeli soldier. Hamas also had lobbed a series of rockets at Israeli towns near the border with Gaza. In response, Israel had initiated an extensive bombing campaign and reoccupied parts of Gaza.

The Pentagon consultant noted that there had also been cross-border incidents involving Israel and Hezbollah, in both directions, for some time. “They’ve been sniping at each other,” he said. “Either side could have pointed to some incident and said ‘We have to go to war with these guys’—because they were already at war.”

David Siegel, the spokesman at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, said that the Israeli Air Force had not been seeking a reason to attack Hezbollah. “We did not plan the campaign. That decision was forced on us.” There were ongoing alerts that Hezbollah “was pressing to go on the attack,” Siegel said. “Hezbollah attacks every two or three months,” but the kidnapping of the soldiers raised the stakes.

In interviews, several Israeli academics, journalists, and retired military and intelligence officers all made one point: they believed that the Israeli leadership, and not Washington, had decided that it would go to war with Hezbollah. Opinion polls showed that a broad spectrum of Israelis supported that choice. “The neocons in Washington may be happy, but Israel did not need to be pushed, because Israel has been wanting to get rid of Hezbollah,” Yossi Melman, a journalist for the newspaper Ha’aretz, who has written several books about the Israeli intelligence community, said. “By provoking Israel, Hezbollah provided that opportunity.”

“We were facing a dilemma,” an Israeli official said. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert “had to decide whether to go for a local response, which we always do, or for a comprehensive response—to really take on Hezbollah once and for all.” Olmert made his decision, the official said, only after a series of Israeli rescue efforts failed.

The U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel told me, however, that, from Israel’s perspective, the decision to take strong action had become inevitable weeks earlier, after the Israeli Army’s signals intelligence group, known as Unit 8200, picked up bellicose intercepts in late spring and early summer, involving Hamas, Hezbollah, and Khaled Meshal, the Hamas leader now living in Damascus.

One intercept was of a meeting in late May of the Hamas political and military leadership, with Meshal participating by telephone. “Hamas believed the call from Damascus was scrambled, but Israel had broken the code,” the consultant said. For almost a year before its victory in the Palestinian elections in January, Hamas had curtailed its terrorist activities. In the late May intercepted conversation, the consultant told me, the Hamas leadership said that “they got no benefit from it, and were losing standing among the Palestinian population.” The conclusion, he said, was “ ‘Let’s go back into the terror business and then try and wrestle concessions from the Israeli government.’ ” The consultant told me that the U.S. and Israel agreed that if the Hamas leadership did so, and if Nasrallah backed them up, there should be “a full-scale response.” In the next several weeks, when Hamas began digging the tunnel into Israel, the consultant said, Unit 8200 “picked up signals intelligence involving Hamas, Syria, and Hezbollah, saying, in essence, that they wanted Hezbollah to ‘warm up’ the north.” In one intercept, the consultant said, Nasrallah referred to Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz “as seeming to be weak,” in comparison with the former Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Barak, who had extensive military experience, and said “he thought Israel would respond in a small-scale, local way, as they had in the past.”

Earlier this summer, before the Hezbollah kidnappings, the U.S. government consultant said, several Israeli officials visited Washington, separately, “to get a green light for the bombing operation and to find out how much the United States would bear.” The consultant added, “Israel began with Cheney. It wanted to be sure that it had his support and the support of his office and the Middle East desk of the National Security Council.” After that, “persuading Bush was never a problem, and Condi Rice was on board,” the consultant said.

The initial plan, as outlined by the Israelis, called for a major bombing campaign in response to the next Hezbollah provocation, according to the Middle East expert with knowledge of U.S. and Israeli thinking. Israel believed that, by targeting Lebanon’s infrastructure, including highways, fuel depots, and even the civilian runways at the main Beirut airport, it could persuade Lebanon’s large Christian and Sunni populations to turn against Hezbollah, according to the former senior intelligence official. The airport, highways, and bridges, among other things, have been hit in the bombing campaign. The Israeli Air Force had flown almost nine thousand missions as of last week. (David Siegel, the Israeli spokesman, said that Israel had targeted only sites connected to Hezbollah; the bombing of bridges and roads was meant to prevent the transport of weapons.)

The Israeli plan, according to the former senior intelligence official, was “the mirror image of what the United States has been planning for Iran.” (The initial U.S. Air Force proposals for an air attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear capacity, which included the option of intense bombing of civilian infrastructure targets inside Iran, have been resisted by the top leadership of the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps, according to current and former officials. They argue that the Air Force plan will not work and will inevitably lead, as in the Israeli war with Hezbollah, to the insertion of troops on the ground.)

Uzi Arad, who served for more than two decades in the Mossad, told me that to the best of his knowledge the contacts between the Israeli and U.S. governments were routine, and that, “in all my meetings and conversations with government officials, never once did I hear anyone refer to prior coördination with the United States.” He was troubled by one issue—the speed with which the Olmert government went to war. “For the life of me, I’ve never seen a decision to go to war taken so speedily,” he said. “We usually go through long analyses.”

The key military planner was Lieutenant General Dan Halutz, the I.D.F. chief of staff, who, during a career in the Israeli Air Force, worked on contingency planning for an air war with Iran. Olmert, a former mayor of Jerusalem, and Peretz, a former labor leader, could not match his experience and expertise.

In the early discussions with American officials, I was told by the Middle East expert and the government consultant, the Israelis repeatedly pointed to the war in Kosovo as an example of what Israel would try to achieve. The NATO forces commanded by U.S. Army General Wesley Clark methodically bombed and strafed not only military targets but tunnels, bridges, and roads, in Kosovo and elsewhere in Serbia, for seventy-eight days before forcing Serbian forces to withdraw from Kosovo. “Israel studied the Kosovo war as its role model,” the government consultant said. “The Israelis told Condi Rice, ‘You did it in about seventy days, but we need half of that—thirty-five days.’ ”

There are, of course, vast differences between Lebanon and Kosovo. Clark, who retired from the military in 2000 and unsuccessfully ran as a Democrat for the Presidency in 2004, took issue with the analogy: “If it’s true that the Israeli campaign is based on the American approach in Kosovo, then it missed the point. Ours was to use force to obtain a diplomatic objective—it was not about killing people.” Clark noted in a 2001 book, “Waging Modern War,” that it was the threat of a possible ground invasion as well as the bombing that forced the Serbs to end the war. He told me, “In my experience, air campaigns have to be backed, ultimately, by the will and capability to finish the job on the ground.”

Kosovo has been cited publicly by Israeli officials and journalists since the war began. On August 6th, Prime Minister Olmert, responding to European condemnation of the deaths of Lebanese civilians, said, “Where do they get the right to preach to Israel? European countries attacked Kosovo and killed ten thousand civilians. Ten thousand! And none of these countries had to suffer before that from a single rocket. I’m not saying it was wrong to intervene in Kosovo. But please: don’t preach to us about the treatment of civilians.” (Human Rights Watch estimated the number of civilians killed in the NATO bombing to be five hundred; the Yugoslav government put the number between twelve hundred and five thousand.)

Cheney’s office supported the Israeli plan, as did Elliott Abrams, a deputy national-security adviser, according to several former and current officials. (A spokesman for the N.S.C. denied that Abrams had done so.) They believed that Israel should move quickly in its air war against Hezbollah. A former intelligence officer said, “We told Israel, ‘Look, if you guys have to go, we’re behind you all the way. But we think it should be sooner rather than later—the longer you wait, the less time we have to evaluate and plan for Iran before Bush gets out of office.’ ”

Cheney’s point, the former senior intelligence official said, was “What if the Israelis execute their part of this first, and it’s really successful? It’d be great. We can learn what to do in Iran by watching what the Israelis do in Lebanon.”

The Pentagon consultant told me that intelligence about Hezbollah and Iran is being mishandled by the White House the same way intelligence had been when, in 2002 and early 2003, the Administration was making the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. “The big complaint now in the intelligence community is that all of the important stuff is being sent directly to the top—at the insistence of the White House—and not being analyzed at all, or scarcely,” he said. “It’s an awful policy and violates all of the N.S.A.’s strictures, and if you complain about it you’re out,” he said. “Cheney had a strong hand in this.”

The long-term Administration goal was to help set up a Sunni Arab coalition—including countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt—that would join the United States and Europe to pressure the ruling Shiite mullahs in Iran. “But the thought behind that plan was that Israel would defeat Hezbollah, not lose to it,” the consultant with close ties to Israel said. Some officials in Cheney’s office and at the N.S.C. had become convinced, on the basis of private talks, that those nations would moderate their public criticism of Israel and blame Hezbollah for creating the crisis that led to war. Although they did so at first, they shifted their position in the wake of public protests in their countries about the Israeli bombing. The White House was clearly disappointed when, late last month, Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, came to Washington and, at a meeting with Bush, called for the President to intervene immediately to end the war. The Washington Post reported that Washington had hoped to enlist moderate Arab states “in an effort to pressure Syria and Iran to rein in Hezbollah, but the Saudi move . . . seemed to cloud that initiative.”

The surprising strength of Hezbollah’s resistance, and its continuing ability to fire rockets into northern Israel in the face of the constant Israeli bombing, the Middle East expert told me, “is a massive setback for those in the White House who want to use force in Iran. And those who argue that the bombing will create internal dissent and revolt in Iran are also set back.”

Nonetheless, some officers serving with the Joint Chiefs of Staff remain deeply concerned that the Administration will have a far more positive assessment of the air campaign than they should, the former senior intelligence official said. “There is no way that Rumsfeld and Cheney will draw the right conclusion about this,” he said. “When the smoke clears, they’ll say it was a success, and they’ll draw reinforcement for their plan to attack Iran.”

In the White House, especially in the Vice-President’s office, many officials believe that the military campaign against Hezbollah is working and should be carried forward. At the same time, the government consultant said, some policymakers in the Administration have concluded that the cost of the bombing to Lebanese society is too high. “They are telling Israel that it’s time to wind down the attacks on infrastructure.”

Similar divisions are emerging in Israel. David Siegel, the Israeli spokesman, said that his country’s leadership believed, as of early August, that the air war had been successful, and had destroyed more than seventy per cent of Hezbollah’s medium- and long-range-missile launching capacity. “The problem is short-range missiles, without launchers, that can be shot from civilian areas and homes,” Siegel told me. “The only way to resolve this is ground operations—which is why Israel would be forced to expand ground operations if the latest round of diplomacy doesn’t work.” Last week, however, there was evidence that the Israeli government was troubled by the progress of the war. In an unusual move, Major General Moshe Kaplinsky, Halutz’s deputy, was put in charge of the operation, supplanting Major General Udi Adam. The worry in Israel is that Nasrallah might escalate the crisis by firing missiles at Tel Aviv. “There is a big debate over how much damage Israel should inflict to prevent it,” the consultant said. “If Nasrallah hits Tel Aviv, what should Israel do? Its goal is to deter more attacks by telling Nasrallah that it will destroy his country if he doesn’t stop, and to remind the Arab world that Israel can set it back twenty years. We’re no longer playing by the same rules.”

A European intelligence officer told me, “The Israelis have been caught in a psychological trap. In earlier years, they had the belief that they could solve their problems with toughness. But now, with Islamic martyrdom, things have changed, and they need different answers. How do you scare people who love martyrdom?” The problem with trying to eliminate Hezbollah, the intelligence officer said, is the group’s ties to the Shiite population in southern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and Beirut’s southern suburbs, where it operates schools, hospitals, a radio station, and various charities.

A high-level American military planner told me, “We have a lot of vulnerability in the region, and we’ve talked about some of the effects of an Iranian or Hezbollah attack on the Saudi regime and on the oil infrastructure.” There is special concern inside the Pentagon, he added, about the oil-producing nations north of the Strait of Hormuz. “We have to anticipate the unintended consequences,” he told me. “Will we be able to absorb a barrel of oil at one hundred dollars? There is this almost comical thinking that you can do it all from the air, even when you’re up against an irregular enemy with a dug-in capability. You’re not going to be successful unless you have a ground presence, but the political leadership never considers the worst case. These guys only want to hear the best case.”

There is evidence that the Iranians were expecting the war against Hezbollah. Vali Nasr, an expert on Shiite Muslims and Iran, who is a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and also teaches at the Naval Postgraduate School, in Monterey, California, said, “Every negative American move against Hezbollah was seen by Iran as part of a larger campaign against it. And Iran began to prepare for the showdown by supplying more sophisticated weapons to Hezbollah—anti-ship and anti-tank missiles—and training its fighters in their use. And now Hezbollah is testing Iran’s new weapons. Iran sees the Bush Administration as trying to marginalize its regional role, so it fomented trouble.”

Nasr, an Iranian-American who recently published a study of the Sunni-Shiite divide, entitled “The Shia Revival,” also said that the Iranian leadership believes that Washington’s ultimate political goal is to get some international force to act as a buffer—to physically separate Syria and Lebanon in an effort to isolate and disarm Hezbollah, whose main supply route is through Syria. “Military action cannot bring about the desired political result,” Nasr said. The popularity of Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a virulent critic of Israel, is greatest in his own country. If the U.S. were to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, Nasr said, “you may end up turning Ahmadinejad into another Nasrallah—the rock star of the Arab street.”

Donald Rumsfeld, who is one of the Bush Administration’s most outspoken, and powerful, officials, has said very little publicly about the crisis in Lebanon. His relative quiet, compared to his aggressive visibility in the run-up to the Iraq war, has prompted a debate in Washington about where he stands on the issue.
Some current and former intelligence officials who were interviewed for this article believe that Rumsfeld disagrees with Bush and Cheney about the American role in the war between Israel and Hezbollah. The U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel said that “there was a feeling that Rumsfeld was jaded in his approach to the Israeli war.” He added, “Air power and the use of a few Special Forces had worked in Afghanistan, and he tried to do it again in Iraq. It was the same idea, but it didn’t work. He thought that Hezbollah was too dug in and the Israeli attack plan would not work, and the last thing he wanted was another war on his shift that would put the American forces in Iraq in greater jeopardy.”

A Western diplomat said that he understood that Rumsfeld did not know all the intricacies of the war plan. “He is angry and worried about his troops” in Iraq, the diplomat said. Rumsfeld served in the White House during the last year of the war in Vietnam, from which American troops withdrew in 1975, “and he did not want to see something like this having an impact in Iraq.” Rumsfeld’s concern, the diplomat added, was that an expansion of the war into Iran could put the American troops in Iraq at greater risk of attacks by pro-Iranian Shiite militias.

At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on August 3rd, Rumsfeld was less than enthusiastic about the war’s implications for the American troops in Iraq. Asked whether the Administration was mindful of the war’s impact on Iraq, he testified that, in his meetings with Bush and Condoleezza Rice, “there is a sensitivity to the desire to not have our country or our interests or our forces put at greater risk as a result of what’s taking place between Israel and Hezbollah. . . . There are a variety of risks that we face in that region, and it’s a difficult and delicate situation.”

The Pentagon consultant dismissed talk of a split at the top of the Administration, however, and said simply, “Rummy is on the team. He’d love to see Hezbollah degraded, but he also is a voice for less bombing and more innovative Israeli ground operations.” The former senior intelligence official similarly depicted Rumsfeld as being “delighted that Israel is our stalking horse.”

There are also questions about the status of Condoleezza Rice. Her initial support for the Israeli air war against Hezbollah has reportedly been tempered by dismay at the effects of the attacks on Lebanon. The Pentagon consultant said that in early August she began privately “agitating” inside the Administration for permission to begin direct diplomatic talks with Syria—so far, without much success. Last week, the Times reported that Rice had directed an Embassy official in Damascus to meet with the Syrian foreign minister, though the meeting apparently yielded no results. The Times also reported that Rice viewed herself as “trying to be not only a peacemaker abroad but also a mediator among contending parties” within the Administration. The article pointed to a divide between career diplomats in the State Department and “conservatives in the government,” including Cheney and Abrams, “who were pushing for strong American support for Israel.”

The Western diplomat told me his embassy believes that Abrams has emerged as a key policymaker on Iran, and on the current Hezbollah-Israeli crisis, and that Rice’s role has been relatively diminished. Rice did not want to make her most recent diplomatic trip to the Middle East, the diplomat said. “She only wanted to go if she thought there was a real chance to get a ceasefire.”

Bush’s strongest supporter in Europe continues to be British Prime Minister Tony Blair, but many in Blair’s own Foreign Office, as a former diplomat said, believe that he has “gone out on a particular limb on this”—especially by accepting Bush’s refusal to seek an immediate and total ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. “Blair stands alone on this,” the former diplomat said. “He knows he’s a lame duck who’s on the way out, but he buys it”—the Bush policy. “He drinks the White House Kool-Aid as much as anybody in Washington.” The crisis will really start at the end of August, the diplomat added, “when the Iranians”—under a United Nations deadline to stop uranium enrichment—“will say no.”

Even those who continue to support Israel’s war against Hezbollah agree that it is failing to achieve one of its main goals—to rally the Lebanese against Hezbollah. “Strategic bombing has been a failed military concept for ninety years, and yet air forces all over the world keep on doing it,” John Arquilla, a defense analyst at the Naval Postgraduate School, told me. Arquilla has been campaigning for more than a decade, with growing success, to change the way America fights terrorism. “The warfare of today is not mass on mass,” he said. “You have to hunt like a network to defeat a network. Israel focussed on bombing against Hezbollah, and, when that did not work, it became more aggressive on the ground. The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different result.”