Time to reign in the neo-cons

.
When as conservative publication as The Economist makes a stand against Bush's apocalyptic aspirations, you know its time to take action. (I know this is a few weeks old but I've been sitting on it in my drafts box.)

Interestingly The Economist- unlike Jacques Chirac- considers a benuked Iran to be a threat. There are several opinions to be found on this matter but I find Chirac's the most rational. This position is backed up by the North Korean situation: If a despot as insane and callous about their own populace's welfare as Kim Jong Il won't start shooting off nukes for fear of reprisals then Iranians certainly won't. On the other hand, the chances of Israel or the US using nuclear weapons are far, far higher.

Another interesting point about the Economist article is their conviction regarding "Iran's apparent determination to build nuclear weapons". Now, I really dislike groundless speculation and I think that the press should not be repeating Bush's propaganda without any real evidence, which of course, there isn't. I believe that Iran has probably looked at the possibilities of 'going nuclear' but it would be pretty obvious to them that they are under intense scrutiny from foreign intelligence agencies and they wouldn't be able to conduct a serious secret weapons program for long. Instead I reckon they are bluffing in an attempt to utilise the spectacularly immoral deception of the Iraqi intelligence debacle to their own ends by using the ignorance and bigotry of the Neo-Cons to draw sympathy in the international forum. Canny and wise, no doubt as the neocons have blatantly fallen for it and are on a war footing. The Iranians have no weapons program. I am sure of it. They might have some documents that roughly describe how to make hemispheres of enriched uranium that can only be used to construct nuclear warheads but these are actually more likely to be US fabrications. Ultimately, if the US or Israel are stupid enough to rise to the Iranian bait and launch some pre-emptive strike then the Iranian cause will unite the- currently split- nation and most likely the rest of the middle east too in a concerted opposition to US imperialism. And rightly so.

Ohmygod! Bush is actually building a new army in the Middle East!

.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict/persian_gulf_4332.jsp

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=67774

People, this is some scary shit. Bush seems committed to attempting to repeat his earlier crimes. The world cannot stand by and let this happen again. How can this Cristo-fascist moron still be dictating American military policy?! Do the yanks just not care about the security of the rest of the world?

"the naval forces now gathering in the region include two carrier battle-groups and two expeditionary strike groups, with the possibility of yet another carrier battle-group, centred on the USS Ronald Reagan, being barely ten days away"

This means there are 3 carriers, several guided missile boats and more than 4000 marines as well as an attack submarine in the Persian Gulf. With Iraq's civil war continuing to rage and Afghanistan becoming a harder and harder operation to remain positive about, just what is Bush expecting to achieve by opening a 3rd front against a virtually unassailable enemy? The only way that Israel or the US can seriously expect to damage Iran's nuclear program is through the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons and if they cross that line then its goodnight to any chance of building world peace for a decade. Russia and China will not stand by and let Ameria bully their main oil supplier, and neither possess any better suited ideology for policing the world than the US.

Eye On Iran

.
Required reading for those who aren't keen on perpetuating the oxymoronic "war on terror":

• "For many people it is déjá vu: the present situation is reminiscent of the days leading to the Iraqi war, with exaggerated statements about Iran’s imminent danger, supported by orchestrated media campaigns preparing the public for sanctions culminating in an assault."

• "The prospect of a nuclear Iran causes acute concern not only in the United States and Israel, but also in Europe, the Middle East and most of the rest of the world. This report does not seek to quantify the likelihood of military action against Iran. It argues that the consequences of any possible future military action could be wholly counterproductive as well as highly dangerous. Diplomatic solutions to the Iranian nuclear issue must be pursued resolutely."

Eye on the Middle East

Jonathan Steele has a few well-chosen words on the Shrubbery's (Bush administration, that is) intentions towards our Persian friends.
His point about the British and French nuclear arsenals is particularly poignant in light of Tony's unilateral push to spend billions of pounds on weapons of mass destruction instead of advancing world peace or real solutions to climate change. I hate that little weasel.

More Guardian-stylee reporting (you know- that thing where you get presented with interesting facts and analysis) can be found here with a fascinating resume of the secret talks held between Israel and Syria that were- predictably- scuppered by the Shrubbery. Dick Cheney, in particular, seems to be the culprit here- there appear to be no depths to the man's inhumanity.