Hearings on the Chicago Iran Resolution
Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) - 14 May 2008
Summary: Professor Norma Moruzzi: I travel regularly to Iran, most recently last year. This morning I received an email from Iran about the Chicago City Council hearings. This underlines the importance of this effort. People in Iran are watching. source: Huffington Postread more

Planned US Israeli Attack on Iran: Will there be a War against Iran?
Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) - 14 May 2008
Summary: We are at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. These war plans coincide with a parallel process of economic restructuring and a deepseated Worldwide economic depression. War and globalization are intimately related processes. The militarisation of the Middle East and Central Asia supports the extension of the global "free market" system into new frontiers. In turn, the war has heightened the economic crisis. The civilian economy is collapsing, overshadowed and undermined by the dynamic growth of the military industrial complex, which in a very real sense produces "weapons of mass destruction. source: Global Researchread more

Britain?s rich get richer even as recession begins to bite
UKWatch.net - 14 May 2008
The choice of headline to mark 20th aniversary of the Sunday Times Rich List will hardly have given the newspaper?s editor sleepness nights: ?Rich Get Richer under New Labour.? The same headline would suffice for each of the past 10 years. But this time the uninterupted growth of wealth amongst the already super-rich takes place amidst a period of extreme economic turbulence, during which the living standards of working people have fallen sharply. As Sunday Times journalist Philip Beresford?s opening gambit illustrates: ?Even as the storm clouds gather, Britiain?s super-rich have never been richer.? Not only are the super-rich utterly impervious to the extortionate recent rises in the cost of living, but their wealth grows whether economic conditions are favourable or not. While house prices in the UK have begun to fall, reports in the media detail how the rarified West London housing market of the international super-rich is insulated from such downward pressures and continues to climb?albeit at a slightly slower rate. The accumulated wealth of those on the rich list has grown to 412.8 billion, an increase of almost 53 billion from last year. Growth has fallen by more than a quarter, from last year?s rate of 20 percent, to 14.7 percent. Of this year?s top 10, only three were born in Britain. Indian-born number one Lakshmi Mittal?s wealth grew by an astonishing 44 percent, mainly by virtue of swallowing up more international steel producing facilities through mergers. Such business manoevres usually result in consolidation and redundency notices for staff who find their jobs duplicated. In his new book on international elites David Rothkopf observes, ?The rise of nation states produced national ruling classes. It would be odd if the current integration of the world economy did not produce new global elites?business people and financiers who run global companies.? Writing in his Observer column about Rothkopf?s new publication, Will Hutton noted how Prime Minister Gordon Brown has surrounded himself with former employees of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. Jonathan Powell, former premier Tony Blair?s chief of staff, has joined Morgan Stanley and Blair himself receives a large stipend from Goldman Sachs. The Sunday Times then addresses itself to the relatively tragic fate of British-based billionaires. Whilst the international super-rich are, in the words of the Sunday Times, ?getting richer quicker,? by contrast British-born billionaires with substantial UK investments suffered from the economic slowdown far more than their international counterparts. Falls were expected in fortunes reliant upon British retail, property and investment. British-born Sir Philip Green, who owns BHS and TopShop, saw his wealth decline by 10 percent?losing 570 million in one year. Richard Branson lost 400 million off a previous 2.7 billion due in no small measure to the drop in Virgin Media?s share value. Vincent Tchenguiz, a British investor and property dealer, suffered a 76 percent fall in his wealth. Rupert Murdoch?s flagship newspaper complains (in what will be seen as a warning by the Brown government) that ?whereas we used to lead the field with the near-20 percent growth rates, our 14.7 percent increase this year seems positvely pedestrian.? Rich list lead writer Beresford points to contemporary increase of 22.6 percent in the wealth of the world?s super-rich and of a staggering 26.6 percent increase amongst Europe?s super-rich over the last year. Beresford then complains about the new single payment of 30,000 annual tax levied on those deemed to be non-domicile (not resident) in Britain?irrespective of their actual wealth?despite this being little more than loose change for those on its list. The UK?s non-domicile rule in fact still allows the international super-rich to make London their home without paying taxes on earnings from abroad. And they pay very little or nothing on their British-based profits. But Beresford is worried about bigger things to come. He notes that the storm clouds are gathering and worries that the super-rich have become a ?convenient target,? writing, ?In times of economic uncertainty, the gulf between rich and poor is rarely ignored by those looking for a convenient scapegoat.? By way of defence, the Sunday Times hails the money donated by a few of the super-rich to charity. The degree of wealth disparity in the UK is astounding and Beresford is not the only commentator to note the increasing hostility towards the super-rich. A couple of days after the publication of the list, Dominic Lawson opened his weekly column in the Independent newspaper by stating, ?If there is a bloody Bolshevik revolution in this country, I think I can guess the inflamatory pamphlet which will be waved by the people putting the wealthy up against the walls and shooting them. It will not be the Communist Manifesto. It will be the Sunday Times Rich List.? Though decrying what he described as the ?politics of envy,? Lawson states that ?The 2008 edition, published just a couple of days ago, was more eye poppingly voyeuristic than ever: 110 pages of non-stop salivation over fortunes which the rest of us could only dream about.? He then notes that the Archbishop of Cantebury, Rowan Williams, was interviewed only days prior to the rich list publication, telling BBC interviewer John Humphreys, ?The more you have a disproportion between what people are earning and what they are worth, the more we have astronomical sums with no clear rationale behind them, the less credibility the whole thing has.? Williams added that the enormous disparities between the super-rich and ordinary working people brings about ?a degree of envy and cynicism … that leads people to feel alienated from the rest of society.? Lawson?s derision is not directed against inequality, but at those like Williams who presume to draw attention to the elephant in the room. The Archbishop?s sin is to make the obvious connection between the gargantuan wealth accumulated at the one pole of society with the increasing immiseration and insecurity at the other. Willliams, writes Lawson, ?is one of those who believes that over the past decade under New Labour the least well off have got poorer as the rich got richer, and that the latter fact is in some way responsible for the former.? Lawson spends the rest of his column arguing that inequality, regardless of repeated academic research findings, is not really growing. And besides, he pleads, any attempt to redistribute wealth through taxation is self-defeating. But such statements?the mantra of Thatcher, Blair and Brown?ring increasingly hollow. In the UK millions of working people live a life of perpetual financial insecurity and crippling debts. They suffer the daily ignonimy of waiting nervously for the latest bank or mortgage statement, or looking on as petrol gauges and pay-as-you go utility meters tick over. Newpapers, even the upmarket broadsheets, are full of advice for readers about how to tighten their belts, how to reduce debt and avoid bankruptcy or how to save money on household shopping and utility bills. While house prices rose and credit was readily available, the Labour government and a supportive media was able to dazzle sufficicent numbers of people with the illusion of rising living standards. No longer. Gordon Brown has constructed an economy built on unsustainable levels of debt. Not for nothing did Guardian economics editor Larry Elliott call his book on Blair and Brown?s economic policies Fantasy Island. That some commentators are now worried by the vulgar worshiping of money represented by the Sunday Times Rich List is out of fear of the social and political struggles that will inevitably be provoked by the onset of recession.

The Iran risk, again
UKWatch.net - 14 May 2008
The risk of a conflict between the United States and Iran is, unexpectedly and in a new context, acquiring fresh force. True, the current scenario has elements of the familiar – the recent deployment of two US carrier-battle groups in the Gulf, a pointed reminder to the Tehran government of the extent of Washington’s naval power; and a continuation of arguments over Iranian nuclear ambitions, including inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the imposition of a third layer of sanctions by the United Nations Security Council. What makes the latest phase of tension between Washington and Tehran different, however, is the influence on US calculations of its predicament in Iraq and Afghanistan – and, in particular, of the upsurge in violence in March-April 2008 in Basra and Baghdad. Several columns in this series have discussed the possibility of a US-Iran confrontation being sparked by a minor incident, possibly a provocation by either side or by Israel (see “Israel, the United States and Iran: the tipping-point” [13 March 2008]). Such fears seemed to recede with the publication on 3 December 2007 of the US’s national-intelligence estimate NIE) – Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities [1] – which gave a more cautious assessment of the state of Iran’s nuclear expertise and ambitions. The widespread conclusion was that the report made US military action against Iran less likely, though the potential for provocation or unintended escalations clearly remained. Now, however, the systematic planning for US air-strikes that was prominently discussed is again on the agenda – and the target this time is not Iran’s nuclear facilities, but Pasdaran-e Inqilab (Revolutionary Guard [2]) forces that are accused of supporting insurgents in Iraq (see Michael Smith, “United States is Drawing Up Plans To Strike on Iranian Insurgency Camp [3]”, Sunday Times, 4 May 2008). What has brought the United States political and military leadership back [3] to this point, as in another part of its universe the presidential-election race consumes so much of the media’s attention? The cost of failure The answer begins with the apparent success of the US military “surge” in Iraq, announced by George W Bush in the wake of his rejection of the Iraq Study Group report of December 2006. The surge, entailing the phased deployment of additional contingents of American troops over the period February-July 2007, had (in combination with other factors and measures) some effect in reducing insecurity in certain parts of Iraq. This was generalised by a number of analysts and commentators into an argument that the entire dynamics of the conflict in Iraq were being reshaped in favour of peace and security (to be followed, it was hoped, by an internal political settlement). This evolving argument was always open to challenge on the basis of a closer inspection of what was happening on the ground in Iraq – and the assessments of senior US officials in the country tended in any case always to be more cautious than the surge’s neo-conservative cheerleaders at home. But the events of spring 2008 is making the case for progress in Iraq look ever more threadbare. The attempt by forces loyal to the Nouri al-Maliki government to take control of the port city of Basra had a drastic effect in this regard. The Saulat al-Fursan (Operation Knights Charge) campaign of 25-31 March 2008, backed by US forces, was designed to oust the Mahdi army militias around the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. A period of intense fighting largely failed to secure this objective, and in turn provoked armed combat in Baghdad too; these included repeated attacks on the highly fortified “green zone”, many of them originating from the fringes of the Shi’a stronghold of Sadr City. In response, US and Iraqi government forces have been engaged in sustained assaults on parts of Sadr City in a major operation that began in the third week of April 2008 and is still unfinished. These assaults have involved the use by US forces of air-strikes, helicopter gunships and even surface-to-surface missiles in efforts to force supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr to retreat from the areas they control that are closest to the green zone. Hundreds of Iraqis, many of them civilians, have been killed; many more have been forced to flee [6] the area. As a result of these and other operations, the US military death-toll [6]in Iraq has also been rising. The number of soldiers killed in February-April 2008 was greater than for equivalent period since mid-2007, and much higher than in the period when the surge seemed to be having its greatest effect. The Mahdi army militias that support Muqtada al-Sadr have mounted strong resistance to the combined US-Iraqi government assault; the sandstorms of 3-4 May in Baghdad provided them with the cover needed to launch further mortar-attacks on the green zone. To complicate matters worse for the US, Sunni militias have also been active. A double suicide-bombing near Baghdad on 1 May killed thirty people and injured sixty-five; and Sunni insurgents killed ten Iraqi soldiers on 5 May (Sholnn Freeman, “10 Iraqi Soldiers Die in Drive-By Attack [7]”, Washington Post, 6 May 2008). More broadly, US military sources cite recent evidence that the al-Qaida movement in Iraq is undergoing a revival following its reversals of late 2007; they conclude that it is planning a new series of bomb-attacks, especially in Baghdad (see Liz Sly, “Al Qaeda Revival in Iraq Feared [8]”, Chicago Tribune, 20 April 2008). This compounds the problems for a US military already facing combat with a freshly active network of Sadrist militias and with renewed operations by Sunni insurgents. This is a delicate situation for the US, and some distance from the fleeting optimism of the postsurge period. It means that there is now very little likelihood that the Pentagon will be able to withdraw any further troops from Iraq after summer 2008, by when the surge’s full effects will have been allowed to run their course. This is a severe problem for an overstretched US military, since such withdrawals are seen as a prerequisite of sending reinforcements to Afghanistan to fight a resurgent Taliban (see “No US Troop Increase in Afghanistan Without Deeper Cuts in Iraq: Pentagon [9]”, AFP, 7 May 2008). Indeed, Afghanistan itself continues to present great difficulties for the US and its Nato allies in the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf). The attempted [10] assassination of Hamid Karzai in the heart of Kabul on 27 April – the fourth such attempt on the life of the Afghan president – reflects the change of Taliban strategy towards a different style of asymmetrical warfare (see “Afghanistan’s Vietnam portent [10]”, 17 April 2008). This incident was followed on 29 April by a suicide-bombing in Jalalabad, to the east of the capital, aimed [11] at an opiumeradication team; it killed nineteen people and injured dozens more. In response to a range of challenges in Afghanistan – including the proliferating opium-poppy crop, now being harvested by farmers in many of the Taliban-controlled districts – many Nato contingents are constrained by national rules of engagement. As a result, Washington is exerting strong pressure for US military forces to take over the leadership of Isaf across the south of the country (see Gordon Lubold, “U.S. To Heighten Afghan Role? [12]”, Christian Science Monitor, 25 April 2008). The Pentagon thus has a clear idea of the necessity of its taking charge in Afghanistan. But from the US’s own perspective, little progress there will be possible unless it can reinforce its troops there. There may now be around 61,000 coalition forces in Afghanistan, the majority of them American, which represents a significant expansion since autumn 2006; but even this has failed to halt or reverse the Taliban’s spreading influence. For a George W Bush administration in its last months in office, surveying a bleak international landscape in which the grand ambitions of the “war on terror” are very far from achieved, the accumulated result of this unsettlement and pressure is intense frustration that it is not in control. The vaunted success of the surge in Iraq is being reversed; the security situation in Afghanistan is deterioriating; and both trends are happening just as the presidential-election campaign is approaching top gear. The signs of war This, by a roundabout but remorseless route, is the heart of the answer to the “why Iran again, and why Iran now?” question. The default American establishment position when faced with problems in Iraq is often in any case to blame Iran. The pattern has been repeated in the past week, with a litany of complaints that Iran is involved in supporting the Shi’a militias. Iran undoubtedly does provide backing to some of the militias. But it is equally notable that Muqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi army have tended to distance themselves from Tehran, and that the Nouri al-Maliki government itself maintains strong political links – reflected in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [13]‘s visit to (and warm welcome [14] in) Baghdad in March 2008. Moreover, the Iraqi government is cautious about making strong claims for the closeness of the Iran connection (see Leila Fadel & Shashank Bengali, “Iraq Backs Off Allegations that Iran is Behind Violence [15]”, McClatchy Newspapers, 4 May 2008). Washington, however, often seems impervious to such important complexities (see Patrick Cockburn, “Who is Iraq’s ?Firebrand Cleric’? [16]”, Mother Jones, 31 March 2008). So there have been repeated allegations that Iran is fomenting conflict in Iraq, extending now to reports that Hizbollah instructors are training Iraqi insurgents (see Michael R Gordon, “Hezbollah Trains Iraqis in Iran, Officials Say [17]”, New York Times, 5 May 2008). The Iranians have reacted by withdrawing from discussions with the Americans on security in Iraq. This is at the very time when the chair of the US joint chiefs-of-staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, has gone on record that military options are being considered because of Tehran’s “increasingly lethal and malign influence” in Iraq (see Ann Scott Tyson, “U.S. Weighing Readiness for Military Action Against Iran [18]”, Washington Post, 26 April 2008). These developments do not make a conflict with Iran inevitable. They do, however, suggest that “something” is being considered. The most likely action might be some kind of “demonstration” air-strike against a Revolutionary Guard base close to the Iraqi border. This need not be imminent; it might well be deliberately timed for late summer. A US decision to launch such a high-profile, symbolic and calculated attack would also explode into the middle of the campaign for the presidency. The more likely beneficiary would be John McCain rather than his Democratic challenger, since any escalation of tensions with Iran tends to mobilise public and media sentiment behind the Republican, establishment and military currents in American politics. A military confrontation with Iran, however limited in Washington’s design, will have incalculable consequences in the region (see “America and Iran: the spark of war [18]”, 20 September 2007). Iran – as earlier columns in this series have suggested – is an agent in this overall situation, and will respond in accordance with its own perceived interests by using the range of possibilities at its command (see “The United States and Iran: the logic of war [18]”, 1 February 2007). The attack will also reinforce the position of Iran’s hardliners. In January 2009, the new US president will be obliged to pick up the pieces of a complex conflict that American action against Iran will have exacerbated But the desired domestic political effect will be secured, in the prolongation of Republican control of the White House. And the “long war” will have entered a new and even more dangerous phase. Links: [1] http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2007/nie_iran-nucle… [2] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/pasdaran.htm [3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3868063.e… [4] http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/paulrogers.htm [5] http://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=9780745641966 [6] http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/08/iraq.main/ [7] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/05/AR200805… [8] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-iraq-qaeda_slyapr20,1… [9] http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080506/pl_afp/usafghanistanmilitary_080506… [10] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article3828536.ece [11] http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-04-29-voa66.cfm [12] http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0425/p01s03-wosc.html [13] http://www.president.ir/eng/ [14] http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/03/africa/iran.php [15] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/35794.html [16] http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2008/03/who-is-iraqs-firebrand-cler… [17] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/world/middleeast/05iran.html [18] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/25/ST20080425…

Behind the BBC’s Good News from Basra
UKWatch.net - 14 May 2008
The Today programme?s reporting of the assault on Basra and Baghdad’s Sadr City by the Iraqi government, backed by US and British troops, tanks and warplanes, has descended to the base assertion that our side is good, their side is bad. Evan Davis, Today’s new presenter, introduced a section on Basra on May 2 which opened with an resident of Basra describing Moqtada Sadr’s Mahdi Army as “very ill-educated, basically criminals” and welcoming the renewed invasion by western forces. Davis then turned to Major General Barney White-Spunner, the UK?s senior officer in Iraq: “So it sounds like fairly good news from Basra?” “That’s certainly our view,” White-Spunner replied. Davis pressed for more good news: “Are the gains sustainable, I suppose is the question isn’t it? Or do you think if you don’t get to mend the sewers very well people are going to become discontented again and we’ll start getting back to more street disorder?” White-Spunner took his cue and talked unchallenged about the ?excellent work? UK troops were doing, about ?development?, ?aid distribution?, ?humanitarian work?, ?sensitivity? to local needs and so on. The interview was almost as cosy as editorial meetings of The Field magazine or Baily’s Hunting Directory, where White-Spunner works when not occupying foreign lands. Meanwhile, Iraqi government troops were parading the bodies of dead Mahdi fighters like trophies and beating up prisoners. On the same day as White-Spunner?s Radio 4 interview a huge crowd of Shia Muslims protested against Iraq?s US-backed prime minister al-Maliki in Baghdad’s Sadr City, urging him to end the bloody confrontation with the Mahdi Army. The British media routinely portrays supporters of Moqtada Sadr as ?militia?, ?extremists?, ?men in black?, ?rogue gunmen? and ?death squads?. Yet, up until last September, Moqtada Sadr’s group was part of the Iraqi government. The US offensive has relied heavily on the Iran-backed Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, many members of the armed wing of which, the Badr Organisation, have been battling the Sadr-led resistance. The US demonises the Mahdi Army because Sadr is resolutely opposed to the occupation. Moreover, many Shia view the Mahdi in part as a charitable organisation and are often grateful for the security it provides. Sadr’s organisation gives money to families of Shia dead and injured, resettles displaced families and offers funds for any victim of American weapons in Sadr City. Evoking comparisons with Hezbollah, Sadr’s movement “has established itself as the main service provider in the country,” says a recent report by Refugees International. Every month the Mahdi army distributes rations of rice, cooking oil, sugar, tea and other staples, much of it provided by the Iraqi Red Crescent, to thousands of Baghdad’s poorest families. As the Financial Times put it last month, the clashes between the government and the Mahdi army reveal a class division at the heart of the Shia community. Sadr represents the angry, dispossessed Shia masses of Iraq who suffered under Saddam. ?What we?ve seen over the past few weeks is a real class struggle open up with no political means for bridging the gap,? the International Crisis Group told the FT. ?Sadr?s followers don?t care if he?s an ayatollah or not. They just want him to win for them the wealth and prosperity they feel should be theirs,? a US official told the paper. The British media’s last line of attack is that British troops are defending women’s rights. But abuse of women was widespread in Basra before the British were driven out of the city last autumn. The US-backed government has brought right-wing Islamists to power, unleashing attacks against women. The resistance in battling the occupation. But for the BBC’s flagship news programme our boys are just doing good, building sewers and helping reconstruction. This is far from the case ? the British and US armies are building a sewer of bloodshed and sectarian hatred in Iraq.