Is This What We're Fighting For?

The topic below was originally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal, as well as the Wild Wild Left, Independent Bloggers Alliance, The Peace Tree and Worldwide Sawdust. A picture is worth a thousand words. This is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Iraqi counterpart Jalal Talabani together in Baghdad, today. Americans are fighting, suffering post traumatic stress disorder, permanent injuries, dying and killing innocent civilians to help establish an Islamic Shiite fundamentalist axis in the Gulf. Likely Republican nominee John McCain promises more of the same. Hillary Clinton enabled President Bush and John McCain to pursue this strategic calamity out of sheer political expediency. Yet Clinton has the temerity to suggest she has superior credentials to be commander and chief? Both Clinton and McCain represent more of the same. It's time for a change. Enough said.

An Interview With Iranian Expert and Journalist Barbara Slavin

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal as well as The Peace Tree, the Independent Bloggers Alliance and Worldwide Sawdust. Barbara Slavin, senior diplomatic correspondent for USA Today since 1996 and author of the recently published book, Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S., and the Twisted Path to Confrontation (St. Martin’s Press), writes that, “Iran and the United States are like a once happily married couple that has gone through a bitter divorce. Harsh words have been exchanged – husband and wife have come to blows and employed others to inflict more punishment. Apologizing is hard and changing behavior even harder. This relationship is unequal, with one side or the other feeling more vulnerable at any given time and afraid the other will take advantage of concessions.” Currently, the public faces of both nations, presidents George W. Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have been content to throw rhetorical bombs and raise the diplomatic temperature – increasing the likelihood of war. Indeed, at times it appears that conservative hardliners in both countries are eager for conflict as a means to maintain their respective grips on power. The journey from the CIA backed coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected leader Mossadeq in 1953 and replaced him with the Shah, to the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and current tensions is replete with ill conceived schemes that damaged both nations. Slavin, using her extensive contacts among the powerful inside Iran and the United States, documents missed opportunities for reconciliation between both countries during the administrations of the first President Bush as well as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The combination of her remarkable access to people such as Madeline Albright, Condelezza Rice, Iranian reformers like former President Mohammad Khatami, longtime establishment figures such as Ali Rafsanjani, as well as dissidents like Akbar Ganji and everyday citizens, allows Slavin to shed sunlight on a nation most Americans know very little about. She is also the first newspaper reporter from the United States to interview Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Slavin has accompanied three secretaries of State on their official travels and reported from Iran, Libya, Israel, Egypt, North Korea, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and Syria. She is also a regular commentator for U.S. foreign policy on National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting System's Washington Week In Review and C-Span. This month, she joined the U.S. Institute of Peace as a Jennings Randolph fellow, to continue her research on Iran. Slavin also serves as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Prior to joining USA Today, Slavin was a Washington-based writer for The Economist and the Los Angeles Times, covering domestic and foreign policy issues, including the 1991-93 Middle East peace talks in Washington. From 1985-89, she was The Economist's correspondent in Cairo. During her career, Slavin has traveled widely in the Middle East, covering the Iran-Iraq war, the 1986 U.S. bombing of Libya, the political evolution of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism. Earlier in the 1980s, Slavin also served as The Economist's correspondent in Beijing and reported from Japan and South Korea. Prior to moving abroad, she worked as a writer and editor for The New York Times Week in Review section and a reporter and editor for United Press International in New York City. Slavin agreed to a podcast interview with me about her book, Iran and their turbulent relationship with the United States. Please refer to the media player below. Our conversation is just under thirty minutes. This interview can also be accessed via the Itunes Store by searching for “Intrepid Liberal Journal.”

Iran has a long history of using pastels!

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeAgain, Ahmadinejad’s idiot comments about the non-existance of Gays in Iran is just as stupid as damn near anything Reich Marshal Bush has to say. Of course, it could be a back-handed compliment. Ahmadinejad may have meant there were no Gays in Iran because they all went courageously to Iraq to fight the occupiers. Nah.

Who Is The White Man in Ahmadinejad’s Court?

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeI have been reading a lot of translations of Ahmadinejad's speeches and they parallel Bush's speeches. I find it amazing the two can both be so disconnected from reality or skilled in propaganda. Maybe they have the same strategist? Maybe Karl Rove is lending Mahmoud a helping hand? Seriously, Bush has made America more like Iran than any Iranian ever could.

The Unholy Triangle: George Bush, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and al Qaeda

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal as well as crossposted at The Peace Tree and Worldwide Sawdust. Foreign Affairs published a sobering article by Bruce Riedel in their May/June issue entitled, “al Qaeda Strikes Back.” Riedel, a Senior Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution retired last year after 29 years with the CIA. Essentially, Riedel outlines al Qaeda’s resurgence while the Bush Administration has undermined our geopolitical position with their foolish war in Iraq. Hardly a dove, Riedel believes it is essential to our national security for al Qaeda to be “decapitated.” I agree with him. al Qaeda is a clear and present danger as a manifestation of radical Islam. Among the failings of the Bush Administration is how their incessant fear mongering has jaded Americans about the very real dangers of terrorism that still exist. What’s required is tough minded, realistic leadership that neither exaggerates dangers for political gain nor ignores threats as President Bush did in August 2001. The last thing this country should do is hand our enemies what they want: war with Iran. Riedel issues the following warning: “The biggest danger is that al Qaeda will deliberately provoke a war with a ‘false-flag’ operation, say, a terrorist attack carried out in a way that would make it appear as though it were Iran's doing. The United States should be extremely wary of such deception. In the event of an attack, accurately assigning blame will require very careful intelligence work. It may require months, or even years, of patient investigating to identify the plotters behind well-planned and well-executed operations, as it did for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and the 1996 attacks on the U.S. barracks at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton were wise to be patient in both those cases; Washington would be well advised to do the same in the event of a similar attack in the future. In the meantime, it should, of course, continue do its utmost to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and from fomenting violence and terrorism in the Middle East by using tough diplomacy and targeted sanctions. And it should not consider a military operation against Iran, as doing so would only strengthen al Qaeda's hand -- much as the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have.” I have a different take on Riedel’s warning. To be blunt, the Bush Administration will not be “deceived” by a “false flag” from al Qaeda. Rather, Bush and Cheney are hoping for a pretext to avoid a humiliating withdrawal from Iraq. With Republicans ready to jettison the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy in September, a war with Iran would be quite timely and convenient. Another false flag may be weapons smuggling into Iraq through Iran by operatives sympathetic to al Qaeda. Either way it is important to remember the antipathy that exists between Iran and al Qaeda. Iran has sponsored al Qaeda’s rival Hezbollah in Lebanon. After 9/11, Iran cooperated with Washington against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan out of their strategic self-interest. They view al Qaeda as a threat to their hegemony as well potential catalysts to instability on their borders. Tragically, the world is at the mercy of an unholy triangle as the motivations of Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Bush Administration and al Qaeda are converging. Ahmandinejad is besieged with problems. He’s terrified of dissent as domestic dissatisfaction with his regime intensifies. A war with the “Great Satan” would be a welcome distraction, as Iranians will surely rally to him if attacked. al Qaeda of course thrives on instability, chaos and any act that reinforces America’s image as an imperialist at war with the Islamic people. They’re laying in the high weeds to capitalize on instability in Gaza and Lebanon as well as exploit vulnerabilities in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration is sucking wind and hemorrhaging support. The Republican Party is poised to pull the plug on Iraq in September. Bush and Cheney are desperate to avoid withdrawal and defeat in Iraq on their watch. A war with Iran would make extricating ourselves from Iraq nearly impossible. Of course our military, stretched to their limit in Afghanistan and Iraq is in no shape to prosecute any war with Iran. But the Bush Administration may be thinking that a controlled air war can be managed and strengthen their political position. As we’ve also seen, the Bush Administration is not overly concerned with details such as blowback, the fog of war and the heavy lifting of managing the aftermath once hostilities are initiated. Perhaps they’re also hoping war with Iran will distract from the publicity surrounding their scandals. These people are eminently capable of deluding themselves that a controlled air war is viable and just the tonic for their problems. Ultimately what I’m wondering is this: is America stupid enough to allow it? At this point I have little faith in the Democratic Party’s congressional leadership. It also doesn’t appear that the frontrunners for their party’s 2008 presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton nor Barak Obama possess the intestinal fortitude to stand up to aggression against Iran. They’ll sit back and see which the way the wind blows. I don’t like cynicism and believe it’s important to work for a truly progressive majority that is sensible and mature. I will not abandon my efforts as an activist to accomplish the ideals I believe in. However, as much as I prefer optimism, we’re on a collision course with calamity. It’s like watching a pile up happening in slow motion on the freeway while George Bush, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Bin Laden crash their cars after binge drinking at an all night keg party.