U.S. War with Iran: It's Not Over

Many people heaved a sigh of relief when the Washington Post reported last week that the Bush Administration learned in September that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program several years ago.

The thinking was: "They can't possibly justify a war on Iran now. Whew!"

They would be wrong.

When a zealot hasn't had a new idea since 1986, they don't let go of it easily. Mere facts do not impede a well-fantasized plan of glory. So we have observed the concept being floated that Iran's uranium enrichment is enough of a reason to intervene in Iran. Watch out for that one, it is not going to die an easy death.

Iran is here to stay. We need to learn how to work things out. What the last forty years SHOULD have taught us is that the United States cannot control the government of another country without long-term grief. The purpose of government is talk to other governments to get business done. Beating a drum and calling for blood has its appeal, but is not governance. Nor is it leadership.

War with Iran - Ahmadinejad Calls the Bluff

In his own deft way, Ahmadinejad is calling the bluff of the West by pretending that none of the threats of war from France and the U.S. are happening at all. You may remember that the French Foreign Minister claimed that the only way to eliminate Iran's nuclear threat would be war if strong sanctions weren't imposed. That's not the same as calling for an outright war, but in diplomat-speak the mere mention of the term "war" is significant. It is a clear first step to the real thing, and not to be taken lightly.

Another significant point is that the threat came from France. Such verbal bullying we have come to expect from a cowboy President who had never been to Europe before his election. Not from France, who is not known for such things. France is not thought to be in goose-step with the Bush Administration either. So it shows there is a real coalition building in the West for war with Iran. That's serious.

Ahmadinejad's nonchalant rhetoric is probably aimed at trying to calm his population down and improve their self-esteem by another laughing round at the West. Thumbing your nose at the big guy always has a great feeling to it. He's also throwing the fear back at the West. Now the West has to react to its own words since Iran isn't giving us any pushback. Let's see if the mention of war continues.

Russia, Iran and Bush

So the great thing about Bush getting his head out of his ass is that he is finally talking to the people he needs to talk to. One of them is Putin.

Remember the 43rd Munich Security Conference? Remember how Econo-Girl went on and on about it? Putin said many important ideas there, one of them being that Russia and the U.S. should work together to get Iran in line. And that is what is happening now.

Econo-Girl predicts that Iran will become much less defiant in the future. In a way, Ahmadinejad was playing the old Cold War game of pitting the United States against Russia. Now that we are in agreement, Iran will not be able to avoid listening.

Nuclear Iran: Cheney's Empty Threats

War with Iran has been averted. Thank God.

Now the Iranians are acting up with their usual attitude since they know we aren't really going to attack them. How do we know this? A quote from Scotland on Sunday:

"Responding to Cheney's comments, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the US was not in a position to take military action against it and urged Washington and its allies to engage in dialogue.

"We do not see America in a position to impose another crisis on its tax payers by starting another war in the region," Mottaki said."

So when Vice President Cheney tells the world that "all options are on the table" he really isn't telling the truth. The U.S. doesn't have the option of military action in Iran.

A New Yorker article claims that the U.S. is increasing covert operations into Iran in a way that could spark a war. That is possible. It would be a way of getting us into a war with Iran while the Administration blames Iran for the whole thing. It would be typical of them.

Iran and Nuclear Weapons: What Happened?

A few short days ago, Ahmadinejad was willing to negotiate about nuclear issues. Now he spits in the eyes of the United Nations again. With hope and baited breath, the western press adds a few paragraphs about dissent on the issue within Iran. What has happened?

From Econo-Girl's perspective, Britain's decision to withdraw troops from Iraq means that Bush will not get his little war with Iran. And of course, as soon as a loud-mouthed bully gets a little breathing room, he starts being obnoxious again, like he never was scared before. But scared he was.

And doubtless Admadinejad was a little jealous of all the stuff North Korea got for being a little cooperative. He wants some toys, too. But this entire episode demonstrates clearly that Ahmadinejad is not insane, and that he doesn't really want a war. So he's not stupid, either.

Atomic Israel: Putin Speaks

Putin demonstrated for the world the role Russia could play in resolving global conflicts by pressuring Iran into becoming more agreeable to compromise regarding its nuclear program. And it worked.

Econo-Girl has done hours of research to find the best summation of Putin's speech to the security conference in Munich. Click on the title to this post to see it. This blog will focus on what Putin said at the Munich Security Conference and what he meant by it.

Today, we are going to look at Putin's message to Iran.

He stated that Russia has been minimally cooperating with Iran militarily so as not to have them feel isolated. But Putin claimed that nuclear materials in Iran are coming from Europe and Asia, not Russia. He mentioned that while the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. made an agreement to destroy short and medium range missiles, countries including North and South Korea, Israel and Iran did not. New agreements need to be made to face this reality.

Putin also remarked that Iran should be more responsive to the IAEA.

And then guess what? Iran signaled that the fight over their nuclear program could be resolved by dialog.

Russia is giving Iran military support. And when Putin gets up in a major international security conference and mentions that Iran should cooperate more with international inspectors, Iran listens.

The timing of Iran's willingness to compromise on its nuclear program cannot be dismissed as mere coincidence. Think about it. For a few years Europe and the U.S. have been cajoling Iran, threatening Iran, nagging Iran to stop enriching uranium. Now they are willing to talk about it. That's a big step forward, and a step at least a little related to Putin's speech.

It is important that Putin mentions this point in a speech that highly criticizes U.S. unilateralism. Putin demonstrated that by Russia's participation in the pressure on Iran, the level of Iranian cooperation changes. He shows the world, if they care to look, how much could be accomplished if Russia was brought to the table as a partner.

The response of the U.S. Secretary of Defense Gates was a dismissive snort mocking the cold war. Of course what is said and what is believed are two different things. But it would be a mistake not to listen to Putin now.

After that, he addresses a series of issues that could be topics for further global cooperation: nuclear energy, poverty and corruption related to it, international law, genocide and nuclear disarmament.

Econo-Girl will try to address each issue in its turn.

Compare the Two Stories

My God, Econo-Girl hasn't been this surprised since Pravda called U.S. intervention in Kosovo "unwarranted."

In doing research on Putin's speech before the 43rd Munich Security Conference, Econo-Girl has found three great articles, all linked on Google News. The nature of what happened at that conference is important enough to warrant several posts.

From Xinhua's China View, (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-02/10/content_5724866.htm), a direct reporting of Putin's remarks on the effects of unbridled U.S. military aggression on the insecurity level of the world.

Excerpt: "We are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations ... the United States has overstepped its national borders in every way," said Putin at a high-profile security conference in southern German city of Munich.

"The legitimate use of force can only be done by the United Nations, which cannot be replaced by EU or NATO," he said."

Putin went on to say the insecurity caused by U.S. use of force leads other nations to want nuclear weapons. The content of Putin's speech will be addressed in other posts.

Now look at another article on the same conference: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L10161072.htm. You will notice that Putin is not mentioned at all. The stated purpose of this newswire is to "alert humanitarians to emergencies." The writer talks about how diplomats are whispering in hallways about offering incentives to Iran to behave itself. A few blunt threats did that just fine before the conference was over.

If humanitarian emergencies is your focus, why would you ignore Putin's insight on global destabilization? Econo-Girl is no Putin fan, but he raises some very interesting points that are very much worth discussing.

The People's Daily Online (http://english.people.com.cn/200702/11/eng20070211_349165.html) quotes Putin as saying,

' "We should not corner Iran into a hostile environment," Putin said at a high-profile security conference held in the southern German city of Munich.

There is no evidence, after all, that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, he said.'

If you are writing an article about diplomats drafting incentives to get Iran to stop its nuclear program, wouldn't a mention of the above comment be fitting?

The comparison of news articles from various news outlets is an analysis all its own. Thank God for the Internet and ready access to the People's Daily.

Atomic Israel: Iran, Iraq and War

The question isn't "Is Iran Supporting the Iraq Insurgency?" It's the kind of crap they would do, and Econo-Girl has no information to say they aren't. The question is "Why is the U.S. advertising this?"

The U.S. could be setting the stage for a real confrontation with Iran to let them know their rhetoric against Israel needs to calm down a few notches. Reminding them of what a real problem could look like in the headlines of the world's leading newspapers is a great way to get it across.

Or maybe the Administration has been planning a war with Iran all along. All the intelligence agencies agree, and that's suspicious right off the bat. The logic expressed in the New York Times article is something like "We were wrong before and we admit that. So you got to believe us now." OK, so you finally admitted the obvious when it was impossible to do anything else. That doesn't give you credibility.

One thing is certain: a lot of this bandying of headlines could stop if we would just have some kind of dialog with Iran directly. Remember, you don't have to be able to look into someone's eyes and declare you can do business with this man, to do business with this man. You just need to get over yourself.

See "Deadliest Bomb in Iraq Is Made by Iran, U.S. Says " today in the New York Times.

A Promise of Terror?

Here we go again, only this time Iran is saying it. The message is: Iran will fight back with terror attacks if its nuclear program is attacked.

What Iran is missing in their analysis is that they will no longer exist. They will have nothing to strike back with, or for. What they will be counting on is expats getting angry and doing the suicide bombing thing on their behalf. And that may happen. But Iran will no longer exist. The land itself will be a wasteland.

And in the end, continued existence is the point.

Atomic Israel: Olmert Speaks

Olmert is now assuring the world and the Israelis that nuclear measures will not be needed in checking Iran's nuclear ambitions. Essentially dismissing Ahmadinejad as a blowhard, he calls the Iranian leader's atomic claims dubious. Certainly there is a track record to back that up. Ahmadinejad tops Econo-Girl's list of obnoxious loudmouths.

Econo-Girl's opinion is that Olmert is signaling an out for Iran and trying to put a lid on the crazies in the U.S. who are pushing for a nuclear showdown. It's great the way people always want somebody else to be blown up.

Here's what their analysis lacks: in WWII, we were the ONLY ONES WITH A NUCLEAR WEAPON. Now, many nations have them. So the hothead deciding to use one will be destroyed themselves. That makes the North Korean nuclear threat far more serious than the Iranian one. The one thing the Iranians don't have is a suicidal cult of personality. Beneath the rhetoric, they can be negotiated with.

Click on the title to this post to see the article Econo-Girl is referring to.

Atomic Israel: Chirac Speaks

Jacques Chirac was chatting with reporters when commenting that Iran would be leveled if they used a nuclear weapon. So the world does not need to fear Iran's nuclear capability. They need to worry about Syria and Saudi Arabia.

Chirac chased reporters after the interview to tell them the comment was off-the-record. Econo-Girl is not entirely convinced that is so. Was it instead another balloon being floated in the international press warning of retaliation against Iran's nuclear moves? That's what Econo-Girl thought when she heard it. And she is not the only one, it seems.

The Crisis Action coalition in Great Britain now warns against the U.S. or Great Britain striking against Iran before trying diplomacy. Well, we all know how well diplomacy has worked with Iran in the past.

"The analysts said it would also create an al-Qaida backlash of terror attacks in the invading countries and retaliation by oil-producing countries." Click on the title to this post for the full story.

An al-Qaida backlash of terror attacks? Are we really going to alter our foreign policies based on such gangster threats? Are we going to cede loss of control of our own country such that we will be swayed by the mention of a terror attack? If we did, the September 11 bombers would have been successful. Let's make them fail instead.

Iran: Inflation and Sanctions

Well this seems to be Ahmadinejad's week all right. The cost of tomatoes has tripled, the UN Security Council passed a resolution condemning Iran's nuclear program, three thousand people a month are dying from pollution in Tehran, housing prices are skyrocketing - it's hard to imagine what else could happen to get the guy down.

Americans of a certain age will remember the political kiss of death that inflation was to Jimmy Carter.

Let's try to step into Ahmadinejad's shoes.

1. Ahmadinejad is facing open discontent from Iranians because of his loudmouth antics. They feel Iran has already suffered enough from isolation, why is this guy adding to it? Iranians correctly feel that isolation leads to a worse economy;
2. Kids and older people are dying from not being able to breathe because of the pollution;
3. The UN Security Council passed a resolution against Iran's nuclear program;
4. Inflation has kicked in, which always gets an electorate angry.

So what does Ahmadinejad do? He decides to test missiles and start military maneuvers. This guy just doesn't get it. He isn't listening to his people and he isn't listening to the world. Not a recipe for political success.

Econo-Girl is most interested in how Ahmadinejad will react when he is voted out of office. Will he threaten the Iranians with military action too?

Atomic Israel

So how is it different when Israel raises the atomic threat, than when Iran does it?

Well, let's see. Iran has a history of being taken over by political nutballs and using extreme rhetoric against its adversaries that usually don't lead to anything.

Israel has a history of attacking with little or no warning and engaging in extreme military responses.

So when Israel, or someone with credibility, hints that Israel will use nuclear force to eliminate Iran's nuclear potential, the globe shudders. Especially when delivered through a media vehicle like Britain's The Sunday Times.

Quickly Israel has moved to deny any such idea. Click on the title to this post to see an article in The Australian.

But remember, the world of diplomacy is primarily one of words. Just the suggestion that Israel would attack Iran in this manner will have an effect. Maybe it will temper the Big Mouth In Tehran into worrying more about his own political base.

If that's the case, then it wouldn't be such an unproductive balloon.