Obama 338, 52%; McCain 200, 47%!

“What is the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull”, Sarah Palin asked at the Republican National Convention. To which she provided an answer - lipstick. And to which the GOP crowd went nuts.

The knee-jerk reaction by the GOP pundits to the claim of many, including regular Joe’s, that Sarah Palin is neither prepared nor qualified to be a president of the US, is that Barack Obama is likewise unprepared. And in fact they escalate the argument even further in suggesting that governor Palin has more executive experience than both Obama and Biden. Which is technically true. What is missing however, from this absurd and superficial analysis is that she is the governor of one the least populated States in the Union. But what is really omitted in this notion is something neither media nor Democratic strategists and pundits are allowed to say, so I will: difference between Obama and Palin is presence and absence of brain, respectively.

The conservative movement, for whatever it’s worth now and whatever is left of it, has prided itself and subsequently voted on imagery for the last several decades, beginning with Nixon, continuing massively with Reagan and culminating in Bush jr. It is not to say that Republicans are supported exclusively by red-necks and religious fanatics, but it’s without a doubt the anchor of the Republican base. The other component, of course, are the real conservatives - intellectual free market fundamentalists who believe that taxes don’t belong in America and that raising them is tantamount to socialism. And these true conservatives don’t mind at all having the religious fanatics under the same tent with them, because there is no conflict of interest. After all, the religious evangelicals and red-necks have successfully converted to capitalistic Christianity, substituted prophets for profits and while railing against scientific Darwinism, embrace social Darwinism and justify it on the basis of Christ’s teachings. And it is these people that governor Palin is posing as the champion of.

You see, governor Palin, a former Ms. Alaska runner-up, is a regular hockey mom, who is not an elitist (allegedly), who doesn’t like academics and didn’t go to Harvard Law School. She instead learned “real” American values in the deep woods of Alaska and acquired foreign policy experience through binoculars from her front porch observing Russia. She also speaks plain language, doesn’t engage in nuances, opposes abortion at all cost, believes in Biblical version of genesis and has no tolerance for homosexuals. On the other side is a black man, from an elitist Harvard Law School, who is “pro-abortion”, anti-American and the scariest of all - a socialist! Scared enough yet…?

It is true that Barack Obama has very limited experience in government. He spent years being a community organizer after which he became a state legislator; and then beat an inviable candidate for the US Senate seat of Illinois. But what was Lincoln’s experience when he became president of the US and then a prominent member of Mount Rushmore? What was Reagan’s? Clinton’s? The argument that one is not qualified to be the president of the US is not born out of experience, but rather out of intelligence. Barack Obama is not just an astute politician, but a highly intelligent person. He is cool-headed, thinks in nuances and doesn’t engage in knee-jerk reactions to deep and complex problems. He is 100% opposite to Sarah Palin and for that matter, John McCain. Moreover, the president is surrounded by hundreds of close advisers, and if Barack Obama becomes president his chief adviser would be Joe Biden, one of the most experienced Senators and international relations expert in the US. And that IS the difference between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama.

It only took two paragraphs for the contributor and columnist, Lisa Schiffren, of the National Review Online to insert the word “Marxism” and attach it to Obama and anyone that supports his ideas on the economy, in her article. As Carl Sagan used to say, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. But then again, the conservatives use the dirty words like “Marxism”, “terrorism” and other “isms” so sparingly that there is nothing extraordinary about their claims anymore; such mantra has incorporated itself into the standard linguistic usage within the conservative circles. What’s even less surprising is that the pop icons of conservatism almost never substantiate their claims with evidence. The only evidence is the sensationalist slogans, which are preached to the faith-based crowd where the dogmatic doctrine is: “someone said it, it must be true”.

The article of course represents the last ditched effort to reverse the momentum of the 2008 presidential election by making vague allusion to Joe “the plumber”. While it may represent a powerful argument for some, it is nonetheless a self-fulfilling prophecy. Keep repeating it and maybe some will believe it. However, what’s more embarrassing is that she didn’t even bother to do the research on the so-called Joe “the plumber” whose name happens to be Sam and who is not a plumber!

The reason why McCain so attached himself to “Joe the plumber” is because he is desperate to put a name on his cause - that is, cutting taxes for the rich. Obama’s proposal consists of raising the highest income bracket from 35% to 39% - known as pre-Bush taxes. That’s a modest increase on the wealthiest of Americans and is not a number that represents hampering of job creation. But to Lisa Schiffren, it’s outright “Marxism” and “welfare state”. Do conservatives ever intend to make an argument from genuine logical construction, as opposed to what it is now - knee jerk reactions? Is there ever going to be an end to hearing about the notion that Democrats want to spread the wealth around with someone else’s money and that they will sit down and talk to the terrorists? I don’t mind having a civil and honest debate about economy, national security, health care, civil liberties and foreign policy. But I do mind hearing meaningless slogans over and over again beyond which conversation stops and then just recycles itself with identical talking points.

When Lisa Schiffren and another brilliant right-wing mind, Stephen Moore, reared their heads (in the words of another brilliant mind - Sarah Palin) on the Bill Maher show, I thought I was watching a comedy act from these clowns. Not only did they fail to make an argument, let alone a counter-argument, but even their old talking points fell flat. They couldn’t make a case for the simplest of concepts. But what Lisa Schiffren did manage to do in her article is to refer to Temple University, in which she debated a law professor, as a “bastion of ambient academic Marxism”. Oh, now I am persuaded by the big words…

The rest of the article of course continues its predicted course. Barack Obama is presented as the prophet sent by Karl Marx himself to socialize and destroy America along with its imaginary “Joe the plumbers” who earn more than $250,000 a year. What is becoming more and more predictable by the day however, is that Barack Obama will be our next president and a commander-in- chief!

There we have it folks, Obama is down across all polls, including the very ones where he had leads up to 10 points. All across the board, the school girl, no-nothing, state-college-educated creationist moron from Alaska is winning the popularity contest, a de facto term for US presidential election, for John McSame. So why am I mad at the liberal so-called base? Because they should have known what the evil forces of the Republican Party… excuse me, THE Republican Party, were going to throw at Obama - inexperienced, liberal wimp, can-do-nothing, cheap talker elitist from Harvard. And this is just the warm-up act…

What would they have thrown at Joe Biden? Chris Dodd? These were truly safe candidates who would be able to fight off these attack, and they simply wouldn’t stick. But NO, the liberal base needed someone who can deliver the speech of a lifetime and someone who is physically attractive. I guess Joe Biden and Chris Dodd were too conservative and Hillary carried a heavy baggage.

I am no conservative Democrat. In fact I am a registered Independent. But I am the kind of independent of the Noam Chomsky school of thought. For those who may not be aware of who that is, it basically means to be to the left of Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader combined. But above all, I am a pragmatist; and that’s why I supported Joe Biden. He is a man of deep character, great family, a lot of experience and a champion of middle class America. And to excite the base, he could have chosen either Hillary or Barack Obama. Instead, the Dem. ticket as it stands now, is in reverse. The GOP has it the way it should be - guy on top.

And now, in the year which should be no doubt Democratic, there is a very real possibility that another Republican will get at least 4 more years to further wreck this country. There is no doubt that Rovian acolytes would find to throw something at Biden as well, but it wouldn’t stick as well as it does to Obama.

I surely hope Obama can still pull out a victory this Fall, but with less than 60 days left and Palin still brining excitement to the GOP ticket, it is difficult to see a clear path to victory.

Like McCain taking a big risk with the MILF, which so far is paying generous dividends, I say Obama takes one too: reverse the ticket and put Biden on top.

I am joking of course… or am I?

I cannot brag to be a passionate reader of the Jerusalem Post newspaper; after all, it’s a preference of Dick Cheney and is therefore a right-wing newspaper - which it factually is. In fact, one can know that from a very simple and casual observation: there is a section (tab) titled “Iranian Threat”, at the top of the web site’s homepage. However, I do frequently read it for the purposes of seeing how different newspapers dispense their news as well as to get exposed to an entire spectrum of opinion.

And in that section one can usually find latest news, developments as well as columns, editorials and opinions about this topic. And though it may be a right-of-center news source, it does present a relatively diverse discourse on the topic, which is not frequently seen in the American media, especially in conservative newspapers.

For example, reading it today I encountered two very thoughtful opinion pieces on Iran: one is by Sheldon Schorer, titled, “What to do about Iran”, and second is by Elliot Jager, titled, “Power & Politics: How not to understand Ahmadinejad”.

What is interesting about both pieces is that neither tries to portray Iran in a positive light. Both admit that Iran is dangerous if it acquires nuclear weapons, a notion that is common among most people in the world and one that is shared by even Noam Chomsky (although there is disagreement over exactly what danger or threat Iran would present). However, they abstain from the “mushroom cloud” and other doomsday scenarios argument.

Mr. Schorer centers his opinion piece by asking the appropriate question of diplomacy: “What is the model that could work with Iran?” - referring to the model of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He begins to answer this question by first pointing out that military option “is an extreme measure, and one that would not be employed as a preemptive measure against an ambiguous threat”. Interestingly, he calls it an “ambiguous” threat, implying that even Israel cannot determine with certainty that Iran presents a clear and direct danger/threat to it. In his view, military preemption should only be exercised when it is “absolutely necessary as a response to overt, and not merely threatened, aggression”, a position consistent with Israeli and American doves and certainly one favored by Barack Obama.

The second option, one of limited military strike, wouldn’t work, according to Mr. Schorer, because it “may not end the Iranian threat, and may even exacerbate the situation”, a notion of almost universal agreement within the expert community. One’s basic awareness of internal Iranian politics and history would immediately suggest that Iranians would almost certainly coalesce around their leaders (no matter who is in power) to thwart the invaders, as happened during the 1980-1988 war with Iraq. That wouldn’t only strengthen its current regime, but would also “provoke the extremists in Iran and elsewhere in the Islamic world, to rededicate their efforts to attack the United States at home and abroad”, in the words of Mr. Schorer.

So what does Mr. Schorer prescribe as the model? A Cold War model. He admits that it’s a “comprehensive and difficult approach”, because it “views negotiations as a vehicle for restructuring global associations and not just as a conference to discuss surrender terms”. In other words, when Barack Obama says that he would meet with Iranian leaders without pre-conditions, it doesn’t mean he would actually deal with Iranians on bilateral basis and cave in to their demands. He says, “this means organizing the ‘good guys’ in the world into an alliance that will isolate Iran, thereby demonstrating to Iran that it has more to gain by joining the world community than by opposing it.” And this IS the approach favored by Barack Obama as well as senior Democrats and Republicans like Joe Biden, Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel - chairman, ranking member and member of the the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, respectively. And by the way, Barack Obama is also a member of this committee and is the chairman of its subcommittee. And in over 2 decades in the Senate, John McCain has not served on Foreign Relations Committee once!

Elliot Jager’s opinion piece is written with a different flavor and direction in mind. He focuses on Iran, Ahmadinejad and the rest of the Iranian leadership in their relation to Israel, particularly its rhetoric and propaganda against the Jewish state. Mr. Jager recounts the events of the Holocaust and the systemic, brutal and harsh reality that Adolf Hitler created for the Jewish diaspora during Germany’s extermination years. He then compares Hitler to Ahmadinejad and 1940’s Germany to today’s Iran. His conclusions may be startling for the right-wingers, but they happen to represent the mainstream of scholarship within the expert community.

In his comparison, Mr. Jager remarks that, “Like Hitler, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a lunatic. Unlike the fuehrer, his leadership is not undisputed; he is not worshiped by frenzied masses, and no one suggests he will be Iran’s leader-for-life”. Although the Iranian leadership occasionally engages into rhetorical propaganda by pronouncing to “wipe Israel off the map”, Mr. Jager’s assessment is sober about this. He says,

But we can only speculate about whether Iran’s leaders are genuinely apocalyptic - and thus immune to standard nuclear deterrence. We can only speculate about whether their desire to destroy Israel is paramount, akin to Hitler’s determination to destroy European Jewry at all costs.

To address the critics that are quick to connect Iranian statements (which by no means are universal within Iran either) with its potential actions, Mr. Jager replies,

In that case, I wonder why the Iranians haven’t simply procured an off-the-shelf nuclear weapon from North Korea or Pakistan. And why have they not attacked Israel with other types of weapons of mass destruction - like chemical and bacteriological - already presumably at their disposal?

Furthermore, Mr. Jager implicitly addresses those commentators that constantly beat the drums of “appeasement” every time Obama and his supporters talk about negotiation with Iran. Mr. Jager points out that Hitler simply could be neither appeased nor stopped from his march onto the world stage. The case is not even remotely similar with Iran. He says,

The opposite is the case today. Hard-hitting sanctions offer a very real prospect of success. In fact, the mild sanctions now in place have already contributed to the regime’s unpopularity; driven it to ration petrol (Iran’s refining capacity is limited, so gasoline has to be imported); and resulted in a 26 percent inflation rate. It may be that the best - not to mention safest - way to bring the mullahs to their knees is via the economic and political isolation of Iran.

Perhaps our own American alarmists devoid of relevant knowledge of either historical background and/or current situation ought to spend 10 minutes online reading Israeli news sources, opinion and scholarship to allay their fears of another Holocaust.

After reading Benny Morris’s article in the Op-Ed section of the New York Times of July 18th, 2008, I immediately had 2 questions: is this the same Benny Morris, a prominent Israeli historian and a scholar who produced groundbreaking work on Israeli-Arab conflicts and who is credited as being the most famous historian of the group of “New Historians”, who revised Israeli history and uncovered a plethora of official government documents which portrayed early Israeli history in a more negative light? And if yes, then how could a scholar of such immense proportions give way to such ludicrous arguments as the ones he provided for the NY Times (and therefore for the world) in which he not only advocated attacking Iran, but argued that it’s a better option than the ONLY other option left: nuking Iran?

It is well known that Benny Morris, who has been associated with being part of the “radical left” has switched his political views and has since been making commentary more consistent with the right-wing ideology. Nonetheless, aside from his support for ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, the recent article in the NY Times went a level beyond even those atrocious positions and is simply speaking, disturbing.

When one looks at the article, it becomes clear from the outset that Benny Morris intended neither to produce new evidence nor rhetoric in support for bombing Iran. Let’s examine closely some of those old, party-line arguments:
1. “Western intelligence agencies agree that Iran will reach the “point of no return” in acquiring the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in one to four years. Which leaves the world with only one option if it wishes to halt Iran’s march toward nuclear weaponry: the military option…”
Nowhere in this statement or anywhere else in the rest of the article does Benny Morris even hint of diplomatic means. He mentions nothing of the talks US has been having with Iran through back-channels, nor of the impending talks scheduled to take place at Geneva between Iranian nuclear negotiator and EU, the day after the article was published. Only one option exists for Morris - a military one.

2. After briefly suggesting that the White House is unlikely to launch another war in the Middle East against Iran, Morris says,
“Which leaves only Israel — the country threatened almost daily with destruction by Iran’s leaders.”
What is this threat exactly? Iranian rhetoric? Propaganda? Political statements made by Iranian leaders? While this type of argument is expected from the Bush administration and high school students, it’s not to be expected from a scholar who has written books and articles analyzing in detail the actual threat posed by Arab countries in 1967 and 1973. In fact, Benny Morris has suggested himself in the works of his, that neither Egypt, nor Syria, nor Jordan represented threats to Israel prior to 1967 war. Those countries actually amassed a large amount of troops at Israel’s border and there were many military indicators that a war was about to break out. Those were also the days of limited (if any) US support.
Iran doesn’t share borders with Israel, has neither military preparedness nor potential means to go to war with Israel and more importantly has no incentive or reason whatsoever for war against Israel. The only “war” Iran is capable of waging against Israel is via its proxy military groups in Hamas and Hezbollah, which is done for reasons having nothing to do with Iran’s “desire” for Israel’s destruction. Almost all serious foreign affairs experts agree that Iranian propaganda directed at Israel is produced for domestic political consumption in order to raise nationalistic spirit of Iranians and to get positive publicity from other Arab states in the region in order to break from its historic detachment, if not outright isolation in the region. And its support for militant groups like Hamas and Hezbollah is intended to gain leverage in diplomatic negotiations in the future, as Israel has done in its own history with the capture of the Golan Heights, Sinai, Gaza and West Bank. Furthermore, today US provides extraordinary and historically unprecedented military, economic and diplomatic support for Israel and Iran is well aware that should they fire a singular rocket even remotely close to Israeli borders, they would be wiped off the map by Israel and the US. This argument is not just a case of lacking a shred of evidence or any substance whatsoever, but is a case of clear lunacy directed at the largely unaware American audience. And Benny Morris knows it!

3. But Benny Morris leaves the most sensationalist and baseless argument for the end in which he argues that Iran cannot be militarily deterred like Soviet Union was during the Cold War by MAD (mutually assured destruction). He says,

Given the fundamentalist, self-sacrificial mindset of the mullahs who run Iran, Israel knows that deterrence may not work as well as it did with the comparatively rational men who ran the Kremlin and White House during the cold war. They are likely to use any bomb they build, both because of ideology

Israel knows? How does Israel know? Again no evidence is provided since we are supposed to just believe it based on the fact that it is Iran’s “ideology”. What exactly that ideology is, is not provided or explained by the author. Presumably ideology is death and therefore we are supposed to believe that the majority of the 70 million people in Iran wish for death - of Israel and themselves. This line of reasoning can only be directed at the fearful and unknowing American populace who watch Fox and CNN and are provided with nothing of substance to at least reduce the frequency with which this argument is provided by the mainstream media and its loyal commentators and so-called “analysts”.

So should it be a surprise that someone of such scholarly credentials has written an article supported by nothing more than party-line, baseless arguments heard in the American mainstream media? To answer this question, it’s crucial to note the timing of this piece.

The publication of this article came on the eve of a highly publicized and high level meeting at Geneva between a top American diplomat and an Iranian nuclear negotiator. US hasn’t engaged Iran since 1979 (barring some low level, largely unpublicized meetings), the year of Islamic Revolution in Iran, which overthrew a US-installed dictator, the Shah. Realizing that for all practical purposes military option is off the table for the Bush administration (despite occasional public rhetoric to the contrary) coupled with the fact that its time is running out, Bush decided to put his diplomatic foot forward and engage Iran on the nuclear issue. While the pre-negotiation talks ended inconclusively, the fact that an American official was present at the meeting is an indication of a shift in rhetoric, if not policy. Iran on its part recognizes that neither Israel nor US have an appetite for another war, which will surely lead to further destabilization in the Middle East, complicating internal affairs in Iraq, peace process between Israel and Palestinians, normalization of relations with Syria and truce with Hamas. This gives Iran some room for minimal maneuvering during negotiations, which simply means they have some leeway in not making every possible concession that EU-US will demand. Hence, Benny Morris’s article serves chiefly one purpose: sending a warning to Iran that should they not cooperate in not giving up their uranium enrichment and possible military nuclear ambitions, Israel is ready to attack despite the high costs it will incur to itself and the US.

Simply speaking, this is a case of psychological warfare between Iran and US/Israel as part of a game theory. Iran, like Israel and US, knows that war is the worst case scenario for both sides: Israel’s peace process will be derailed, Iraqi chaos will worsen, hurting the US interests, and Iranian internal affairs will further hurt the economy and its population, which may lead to utter chaos and possible revolution against its clerical, theocratic regime. In order for either side to achieve the best case scenario for itself, concessions by the other side must be made, which is highly unlikely to happen. Which leaves the middle of the road scenario - both sides make concessions and diplomatic relations are established, leading to normalization of relations (which US already initiated through back-channels) and resolution of the nuclear issues.

So in summary, it is not surprising that Benny Morris, who is well aware of all the recent diplomatic developments (probably in a very high detail) would write such an acidic editorial for the NY Times. It was simply the latest and perhaps a conclusive rhetorical warning being sent to Iran before serious negotiations take place. Hence, it is neither unusual nor surprising. In fact, if anything, it’s a sign of positive developments between the West and Iran. And while Benny Morris “predicted” Israeli strike in the next “4 to 7 months”, the truth of the matter is its intention was to provide a public warning to Iran signaling that saber-rattling period is over.

Here is George W. Bush, the 43rd president (allegedly) of the US, addressing Israeli parliament (Knesset) earlier this year:

And then this headline from International Herald Tribune (global version of NY Times): ” U.S. envoy to join meeting with Iranian”

Many charged that George W. Bush was referring to Barack Obama via analogy when he addressed the Knesset, in which Obama is the appeaser and Iran is the supposed appeasee (a word I am sure Bush coined and used). Well, for the first time in my blog I am willing to defend Bush against the baseless media attacks and say this: he was not referring to Barack Obama; he was referring to himself!

On Wednesday, July 9th, 2008 Iran fired off 9 medium and long range missiles, signaling retaliatory response if attacked by US or Israel. Predictably, Iran immediately drew an international rebuke, as New York Times headline reads. The White House rhetorical response was swift and harsh and filled with the same vitriolic bellicosity seen in the past. The White House deputy press secretary noted that Iran’s conduct was in violation of UN Security Council Resolution. What was conveniently omitted is that threatening a country (Iran), like US-Israel has done in the past 5 years, and particularly in the last several months, with rhetoric, military exercises, building bases on the Iranian border, stationing of troops and aircraft carriers on the borders, is in violation of the UN Charter.

However, what’s more interesting is that the same response was not provided by the US towards Israeli military exercises over the Mediterranean. In fact, the US military experts simply noted that they were likely targeted at Iran. No reprimanding or condemnation of any sort was spoken of. Indeed, other experts have later calmly explained that the exercises themselves were nothing more than psychological warfare, or as in geopolitical world is normally termed, bargaining tool. That Iran’s testing of missiles was a response to consistent threats by US and Israel is hardly mentioned in the mainstream press.

However, there may be a bigger twist here than Iran simply responding to Israeli military air theater last month. While many experts suggested that Israel’s public air show was designed to pressure Iran to concede to US-Israeli pressure to give up its uranium enrichment activity, other experts noted that Iran wouldn’t be able to retaliate to US-Israeli strike in as harsh a way as Iran is signaling. Writing about it in Asia Times Online, Gareth Porter points to pro-Israeli commentators and policy planners, who work for pro-Israel think tank Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), saying in 2 major Israeli newspapers that essentially Iranian response would be weak. It’s worth noting the inherent contradiction in this notion: Israel and its right-wing supporters have for years portrayed Iran as an “existential threat” to Israel’s very survival, citing its awesome military strength and prowess as well as potential nuclear capacity. Yet in the context of attacking Iran, all of a sudden an existential threat mutates into a weak regional power, unable to respond to US-Israeli attack.

Hence the news that Iran demonstrated its ballistic capabilities today should be of no surprise to either Israel or the United States, given rising tensions between these countries and suggestions by various commentators that Iran is incapable of solid retaliation. It also stands to reason that this latest Iranian maneuver is, like Israel’s military exercises, nothing more than a show produced for political domestic and Israeli consumption utilized to persuade the public that Iran is capable of inflicting military damage if attacked. It can also be seen as galvanizing Iranian populace, whose nationalistic character is extremely strong, into preparing for mobilization against what Iranian leadership perceives as its staunch enemies in Israel and the United States.

The Washington chatter of the possibility of war with Iran has been going on for several years now, but is has not come to fruition just yet. However, the last few months the Bush administration began to move somewhat aggressively towards this mission.

It began with the resignation of Admiral Fallon, who was vehemently opposed to military confrontation with Iran. This was the first signal to Iran that US was serious about seeking punitive action against Iran’s nuclear independence. Then Israel practiced defensive drills just in case Iran attacked Israel (reasons for that scenario not explained). And then as recently as the first week of June, Israel carried out an offensive military exercise, which was said to be directed at Iran, as the F-16 and F-15 fighters flew a distance of 900 miles, which is the approximate distance between Israeli bases and Natantz, where Iranian nuclear plant is located. But just as important indicator of the impending war with Iran may be the much rushed diplomatic maneuvers executed by Israel and US in preparation for war.

Israel has made swift moves, primarily behind closed doors, to open bilateral negotiations with Syria, in Turkey, over the status of the Golan Heights. This disputed territory has been captured by Israel during the 1967 War and remains under Israeli control, which is seen chiefly as a negotiation leverage with Syria. As recently as last week, Israel agreed to an Egyptian-brokered, 6 month cease-fire deal between Israel and Hamas and Israel is seeking bilateral negotiation with Lebanon.

Meanwhile in the US, the Bush administration seeks to strike SOFA and SFA deals with Iraq by July, which would provide legal means for US soldiers to remain in Iraq. More importantly, the Bush administration is also looking to make the accord’s language ambiguous enough to allow the legal interpretation to justify military confrontation with Iran. And to supplement this, Congress may pass the Iran War Resolution (Resolution 362), which may lead to a naval blockade of Iran. When done unilaterally, absent a UN Security Council Resolution, this move is considered a declaration of war. Of course all this is being done in the background of 4 rounds of UN sanctions against Iran.

Why are Israeli moves indicators of confrontation with Iran?
Although these are my own speculations, I think they are merited by historical and political reasoning. Syria is considered a strategic partner of Iran (not an ally), while Hamas and Hezbollah are Iranian proxies from whom they get much training and weapons. By signing a peace deal with Syria, Israel is eliminating Syria as a possible Iranian aid during the war. Seeking negotiation with Lebanon is a sign of reaching out to Lebanese government in order to empower them against the possibility of Hezbollah’s involvement during the war. Since Hezbollah controls southern Lebanon and is continuously fighting the Lebanese government to stay relevant and powerful in Lebanon’s politics, Israeli’s motivation is to give diplomatic support to Lebanese government to put pressure on Hezbollah. And finally, the truce deal signed with Hamas is to prevent Hamas from being unleashed during the war with Iran. And in case Hamas breaks the deal, which I would suppose Israel fully expects, it provides a diplomatic, international support - or pretext- for Israel to go into Gaza and eliminate the threat. Since Hamas won elections in 2006 and took over Gaza, Israel sought to destroy it. However the timing for it wasn’t right and should Hamas participate in war with Iran, Israel will not hesitate to move into Gaza.

This should be quite an October Surprise… this time for the world.

“We’re not seeking permanent bases in Iraq. That’s been a clear matter of policy for some time”, said Tom Casey, a State Department spokesperson on January 24th, 2008, as reported in Asia Times Online. But clearly he wasn’t referring to the legal language that is being crafted right now into SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) which will ensure that the statement is in fact technically accurate, but in a real world not even remotely close to the truth. Indeed this was corroborated by Mary Beth Long, an assistant defense secretary, when US Senator Jim Webb called to ask what ‘permanent’ means. According to her, “…the word ‘permanent’ probably refers more to the state of mind contemplated by the use of the term”. Which in plain English is translated to: it depends how you interpret it. Is being in Iraq 10 years permanent? How about 100? A million? This legal chicanery was quickly observed by Iraqi officials who noticed that the document being worked out currently contains “…neither a time limit on access to Iraqi bases nor any restrictions on the US to ‘conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security”. Which means the Bush administration officials are purposely leaving it open precisely to establish permanence in every sense of the word. Although the document makes references to military operations as ‘temporary’, “the absence of any time limit makes that seemingly reassuring term meaningless…”

However Bush’s political partisanship and politicization of the war doesn’t just stop in Iraq. His political football continues at home as well where he plans to make SOFA an ‘executive accord’, effectively bypassing Senate ratification process where he knows he will face political difficulty, if not outright opposition. Moreover, the language being crafted is meant to also deflect potential criticism at home, which given the mainstream media’s standards of investigative journalism, is not only possible, but highly likely.

But wait, there is more… The initial draft also contains specific language to address the concern that SOFA may provide legal pathway to war with Iran. To that, the document rebuffs those claims by inserting the statement that the US “does not seek to use Iraqi territory as a platform for offensive operations against other states”. Those ambiguous ‘other states’ is Iran. But what’s more ambiguous is the term ‘offensive’. Why was it even included in the document? Couldn’t they just leave it out to make it “military operations”? The answer is clearly no. Bush is interested in war with Iran at least as a possibility, and since his constituency (American people) opposes it… along with US Congress, Iraq, Iran and the world (except Israel), the only way to do it would be to leave another intentional loophole in the SOFA document. Since according to the initial draft it would be illegal to launch any “offensive” operations, it leaves a huge void as to the argument that US is responding to Iran defensively. Hence it signals to Iran: stop influencing Iraqi politics and meddling in its internal affairs (presumably American affairs) or we strike - legally!
And to corroborate this hypothesis, there is more evidence. The US also wants to control Iraqi skies up to 29,000 feet, as I reported earlier here. Talk about democracy and Iraqi sovereignty…

But if SOFA is not enough, there is arguably a more powerful circumstantial evidence that the Bush administration is seeking military (primarily) permanence in Iraq. In his blog TomDispach.com, Tom Engelhardt called the erection of huge military complexes as “the greatest story never told”. His description of these military installations remind one of colonization:

Pentagon built a series of fortified American towns, each some 15 to 20 miles around, with many of the amenities of home, including big name fast-food franchises, PXes, and the like, in a hostile land in the midst of war and occupation.

Although officials refuse to use the word ‘permanent’ in relations to the bases, “in fact, in relation to any U.S. base on the planet, they have been built to long outlast the Bush administration itself”, he says. Hence if Barack Obama wins the presidency in 2008, it will be anything but easy to challenge American military presence in Iraq, much less to initiate a withdrawal.

Can’t you see Bush’s idiotic wink on his face already?