Blogger “MDC,” who works as a defense analyst by day, has the best write-up I’ve seen yet on Iran’s recent movement towards a suspension of its enrichment program. The context, the roadblocks, and the reasons why are all considered. A must-read.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen has stated that a strike against Iran would be ‘extremely stressful’ for the US. I’ll say it would — though of course, he’s talking about a different sort of stress.

There have been a number of reports lately (and significant evidence) suggesting that Israel is gearing up for a strike against Iran. Just to take one example, more than 100 F-15 and F-16 fighters recently participated in exercises over the Mediterranean which were apparently intended, among other things, to send the message that Israel is ‘prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter.’ (International Herald Tribune)

As BBC News’ Justin Webb notes, it seems apparent that Adm. Mullen does not want an attack on Iran at this time, and is fighting hard behind the scenes to prevent it. While Mullen believes that Iran ‘is on a path to get nuclear weapons and…that’s something that needs to be deterred,’ he thinks that ‘the solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behaviour, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure.”‘ (BBC News)

Like many others who are concerned with the looming debacle, he wants ‘a dialogue’ between the US and Tehran. (BBC News) While he believes that Iran ‘is on a path to get nuclear weapons and…that’s something that needs to be deterred,’ he thinks that ‘the solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behaviour, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure.”‘ (BBC News)…. Did I mention he recommends a dialogue between the US and Tehran?

Read the rest of this entry »

What’s behind the resistance of Iraqis to the U.S. Iraq Security deal - is it a matter of patriotism or sectarianism?

Criticizing Iraqi leaders for fanning public suspicion by not releasing the details of the security deal with the U.S. to the public, Malum Abu Ragheef writes for Iraq’s Sotal Iraq newspaper:

“If for political and tactical reasons, the American administration won’t announce the terms of the Convention; if some of the terms of the deal adversely affect Iraqi “sovereignty and dignity”; and if as Nouri al-Maliki has said, talks are at a standstill, then why doesn’t the Iraqi government or it’s representatives at the talks reveal to the Iraqi people the items that they say so detrimentally affect Iraqi sovereignty and dignity, to help win popular support for the government’s position so that all can understand how the government defines its “sovereignty and dignity”? … Do we truly live in the era of transparency and democracy, as our esteemed government leaders, members of Parliament and party leaders claim? Or is this only talk - the sowing of seeds of illusion within the minds of this pitiful people, whose field of dreams is desolate and barren, and for whom the hoped-for heaven is instead a living hell?”

Ragheef goes on:

“Someone should explain the meaning of the absolute secrecy that has surrounded the draft Convention - and the meaning of the non-disclosure of the names of those on the negotiating team … Are negotiators afraid to shoulder the blame, or are they concerned they can’t stand up to the Arabic or Iranian backlash? The legs of the negotiators tremble when it comes to accepting responsibility for their actions.”

Ragheef then explains why opposition to the deal exists in the first place. According to Ragheef, the country desperately needs the presence of U.S. forces:

“… not only to repel the conflicting ambitions of Arabs, Turks and Iranians, but also to prevent a civil war, the flame of which has yet to be extinguished. For there are thousands who continue to blow on the embers - embers that are mainly due to the presence of political Islam at the head of the state and the spread of sectarian thinking in politics, culture and different types of Arab media.”

Ragheef concludes:

“That attitude of some parties, politicians and religious authorities are just an echo of the sectarian forces outside of Iraq, that don’t care about Iraq nor the people of Iraq, except to the extent that it’s in harmony with their wasteful, selfish interests. Hence we can understand why so many are opposed to the Iraqi-American agreement, because their opposition isn’t based on the national interest. Rather, they oppose it on the basis of sectarian motivations, decided by people outside of Iraq.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Beyond the headlines, we occasionally get “soft” news about how the post-9/11 world really is, as we do today in disturbing narratives about the unseen wars in Iran and Pakistan–patterns of secrets and lies that Americans and their representatives in Washington either don’t fully know or want to talk about publicly.

In the New Yorker, Seymour Hersh details a new “major escalation of covert operations against Iran…designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership” as part of a literal tug of war in the White House and Congress on how to deal with the nuclear threat from Tehran.

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports “a secret plan to make it easer for the Pentagon’s Special Operations forces to launch missions into the snow-capped mountains of Pakistan to capture or kill top leaders of Al Qaeda,” a plan that exists only on paper as a result of Washington indecision and in-fighting.

Until the Bush Administration departs next January, it will be easy enough to blame all this dangerous confusion on their certified bunglers, but how well will successors of either party in a country that prides itself on government transparency be equipped to navigate this shadowy world of shifting alliances among violent splinter groups?

Read the rest of this entry.

When I first saw this story on the news this morning I got that same old sinking feeling.

Iran ready to strike at Israel’s nuclear heart

Iran has moved ballistic missiles into launch positions, with Israel’s Dimona nuclear plant among the possible targets, defence sources said last week.

The movement of Shahab-3B missiles, which have an estimated range of more than 1,250 miles, followed a large-scale exercise earlier this month in which the Israeli air force flew en masse over the Mediterranean in an apparent rehearsal for a threatened attack on Iran’s nuclear installations. Israel believes Iran’s nuclear programme is aimed at acquiring nuclear weapons.

The sources said Iran was preparing to retaliate for any onslaught by firing missiles at Dimona, where Israel’s own nuclear weapons are believed to be made.

Just a brief review… North Korea was a member of the “Axis of Evil” during this decade. (Of course, the odds of us actually attacking somebody who really does have nukes was pretty low.) The original policy toward the North Koreans by the current administration was to refuse to have any direct negotiations with them nor even take party in multi-lateral talks as equals. It was “our way or the highway” squared. The result? North Korea detonated a nuke. It finally took China along with the other parties in the six-way talks to make some ground, resuling in North Korea finally opening up a bit and destroying the cooling tower of their nuke plant. (A move which, even now, the Bush administration will still only give a grudging nod of the head to, while continuing to rattle our swords.)

Iran, by all accounts, has no nukes at this time and remains a target of aggressive diplomacy. (To use the word in the very loosest sense.) Clearly they anticipate an attack on their facilities by either the United States or, via our proxy, Israel. Seeing them move long range missles into position like this - some of which are multiple warhead with the ability to strike five targets - seems to be a fairly clear message.

We’ve gotten fairly spoiled these last few decades with the concept that we can launch long range missiles at targets around the world with impunity, since nobody would dare strike back at us. The Iranians don’t seem to buy into this theory. They have the ability to - at a minimum- strike back directly at Israel. The United States is already stretched across a war on two fronts, the Iran knows that China and Russia will be more sympathetic to them than to us or Israel. They also have a ready supply of potential forces inside of Iraq who are more than cozy with the Iranian regime, combined with a large supply of United States soft targets right over their border.

While there are a number of policy positions held by John McCain which I admire, (particularly his energy policy) his continuation of the Bush administration’s policies toward Iran are a reminder of my concerns regarding a potential McCain administration. The continued “Bomb, bomb Iran” attitude of arrogance only feeds into this potential crisis. And if Israel truly harbors plans to start a war with Iran that we would have to go in and finish, we are far past the time when we should be taking a fresh look at our policy toward Israel.

If there is anyone remaining in Washington who can get a leash on Israel’s military plans, the time is fast approaching for us to do this. We simply can not afford this sort of madness.

Just as it has in the United States, Barack Obama’s strategic ambiguity in regard to the Middle East and foreign policy in general has definitively shown up on Europe’s radar screen.

For Germany’s Die Welt, Lord George Weidenfeld writes of Obama’s recent speech to AIPAC - the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee:

“The candidate of American Democrats, Barack Obama, is campaigning with the help of the American Jewish lobby. Going further than many presidential candidates before him; Obama calls for an ‘undivided Jerusalem’ and threatens to do ‘everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.’”

Then highlighting the source of the global confusion, Weidenfeld continues:

“Confusing for many voters are the contradictory statements that Obama has made about the most controversial foreign policy issues. On the question of the moment: “How should we deal with Iran?,” Obama offers ambiguous answers. Before liberal students, he portrays himself as a true pacifist. However, before the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC - the acronym for the praised or damned Jewish lobby - he declares with the deepest conviction that there will be no limits when it comes to preventing Iran from manufacturing nuclear weapons.”

But Weidenfeld cautions that after the campaign, whoever wins will have to engage in ‘intellectual decontamination’ to clarify where the winner truly stands.

Read the rest of this entry »

There has been a . . . um, surge of revisionist thinking lately over the Iraq war in general and the Surge strategy in particular, and you may find yourself climbing aboard the Mission Finally Accomplished bandwagon.

If so, then you’d better fasten your seatbelt because you’re forgetting the past, are going skin deep on the present and giving short shrift to the treacherous future. That is something that I will not do, which is why my own Iraq war mea culpa is still on ice and likely to stay that way.

The past includes President Bush thumbing his nose at the generals who pleaded for more troops and all of the strategies that he proffered. Each and every one of those schemes put politics ahead of policy, the result of which was the catastrophic first four-plus years of the war.

The future involves getting what troops there are out of Iraq safely. This will be a feat since the White House, ever living in the present, has no post-Surge strategy and it has been obvious for quite some time that Bush plans to dump the whole mess on his successor.

As it is, the present itself is problematic.

If you ignore virtually all of the benchmarks that the U.S. once set for the Al Maliki regime, Iraq is doing pretty well and the Surge has indeed resulted in some significant military successes. But even here appearances are deceiving.

Sectarian violence is down, but that has less to do with a kinder and gentler Iraq than the binge of pre-Surge ethnic cleansing, throwing up walls around Baghdad neighborhoods and imposing harsh curfews there and in other cities.

The Iraqi army is making gains, including its offensive against the Mahdi Army in Basra (insert obligatory text here about the Iraqis accomplishing in a few weeks what the hapless Brits couldn’t do in a few years), but at the first sign of trouble U.S. helicopter gunships come rumbling to the rescue.

And despite the mea culpas, mainstream media happy talk and high-fiving of right-wing zealots over the “success” of the Surge, the U.S. withdrawal — whether it comes sooner or later — probably will not be on its terms and the end game may well resemble a classic Gordian knot:

As long as U.S. troops stay, Iraq will remain unstable. Yet the more stability the Baghdad government has, the greater the pressure will be for U.S. troops to leave.

Nevertheless, the best hope of long-term stability is a long-term U.S. troop presence, but that impinges on Iraqi national sovereignty.

Iraqis are just as proud of their sovereignty as are Americans of their own. A result of this is that the status-of-forces agreement being negotiated between Washington and Baghdad is stillborn in its present form.

No matter the when or wherefore of a withdrawal, the U.S. will be pretty much in the same position as it was in the pre-2003 invasion except that Saddam Hussein has been replaced by a Shiite-dominated government with close ties to Iran.

And Iran will have further strengthened its position as the dominant regional player in the course of a war that killed many tens of thousands of people, made refugees of millions more and bankrupted the U.S. economy.

Incidentally, the wild card in all of this is not Iran, Moqtada al-Sadr or Barack Obama. It is Israel, which has a hair so far up its ass over Iran that it could draw the U.S. into a war that would make the worst foreign policy disaster in American history seem like small beer.

Those hoping that the ’surge’ in Iraq has brought anything resembling long-lasting stability are likely to be disappointed, according to one of Iraq’s most prolific columnists, Fateh Abdulsalam.

Writing for Iraq’s Azzaman newspaper, Abdulsalam suggests that the government’s four-year policy of coddling and cooperating with militias and ‘falling into the orbit of foreign powers’ has resulted in a nation as ungovernable as it is insecure.

Abdulsalam writes in part:

“There is a clear and resurgent determination to carry out attacks within Baghdad and some of the provinces. These attacks serve to re-ignite the conflict between religious communities that had only recently settled down. This is the reality created by ‘politicians’ and ‘parties’ that took four years to wake-up to the fact that this method of seed-planting doesn’t germinate very well politically.”

He then questions the wisdom of the joint U.S.-Iraqi nationwide security crackdown:

“What’s the point of operations with fancy names if the chaos roars back as soon as police and military forces are withdrawn? … If government leaders and their counterparts across the table in Parliament are caught up in the orbit of other countries [Iran]; and if their proposals fail serve the nation during its current trials; all steps taken to put Iraq on a safe and secure path will fail to take hold. The impact of such steps won’t survive even an hour after they’re completed.

Read the rest of this entry »

These two headlines from Think Progress sum it all up:

– Kristol: Bush Might Bomb Iran If He ‘Thinks Senator Obama’s Going To Win’

– Bolton: Israel Will Attack Iran After U.S. Election But Before Inauguration, Arab States Will Be ‘Delighted’

So they both said on Fox News yesterday morning. (Of course.)

They and the warmongering neocons of their ilk have said much the same thing before, of course: There will be military action undertaken against Iran. What is new is the immediacy, in terms of the specific timing of an attack on Iran, of their warmongering rhetoric.

I don’t know if either one is right, that is, that either the U.S. or Israel will bomb Iran — the U.S. if Obama wins (and, presumably, if McCain wins, too), Israel after the election (supposedly with the approval of the monolith known as “the Arab states”) — but what is clear is that they are both pushing for war and talking about it as if it were a foregone conclusion.

What is also clear, according to Krazy Kristol’s own admission, is that a McCain presidency would be Bush III (and worse). Here’s Steve Benen’s response: “As Bill Kristol sees it, if John McCain wins in November (or the White House believes McCain will win in November), Still-President Bush is content leaving a confrontation with Iran to the future. If Barack Obama wins, or appears poised to win, Bush may go ahead and force the issue… All of this is, of course, a friendly reminder that when it comes to sticking to the status quo, and offering more of the same on international relations, Bush is counting on John McCain delivering four more years just like the last eight.”
Read the rest of this entry »

What is Iran’s take on the new long-term security agreement being negotiated between Washington and Baghdad?

Teheran’s leadership charges that beyond insuring that Iraq becomes a legal launching pad for American attacks on neighboring countries and depriving of its sovereignty, the deal is also part of President Bush’s scheme to persuade a war-weary America that Iraqis want the U.S. to stay, thereby allowing him to ’steal’ another election - but this time for John McCain. Referring to the White House push for the security deal, Ardeshir Ommani writes for Iran’s tightly-controlled, state-run Tehran Times: Read the rest of this entry »

In the great competition now taking place between Iran and the United States for influence in Iraq, who’s ahead? Centering his column around the long-term security agreement now under negotiation with the United States, Fateh Abdusalam writes for Iraq’s Azzaman newspaper:

“It seems that Iran’s project to compete with America for the approval of Iraq’s shattered heart is slowly gaining impetus. Politicians and nationalists are busy discussing the security agreement with the United States, which has met with categorical Iranian refusal even before an Iraqi one. … Read the rest of this entry »

While most of Europe celebrates the fast-impending end of the Bush presidency, the painful truth is that, according to Joachim Fritz-Vannahme who writes for Germany’s Die Zeit:

“What most people know but prefer to overlook is that it wasn’t one man alone who widened the gap between the two sides of the Atlantic, and that the bogeyman Bush often either approved or facilitated Europe’s own decisions.” Read the rest of this entry »

Does anyone in Europe - let alone in the United States - care about George W. Bush’s farewell visit to Europe?

Beyond the fact that no one mentioned the painful rupture over Iraq, this seems to be the key matter at hand in this whimsical French look at President Bush’s final visit to France as America’s commander-in-chief.

Capturing the mood for France’s Rue 89 newspaper and taking a dig at the American media over how little coverage Bush’s visit has received in the U.S., Guillemette Faure relates this exchange between two American reporters:

“– I’ve rarely seen a presidential trip so quiet. These beautiful cities and nothing happens …

– It makes me feel a little guilty. Such a high cost and so little to write …”

Faure goes on:

“Berlin, Rome, Paris, London and Belfast … The American press has provided few details about the European trip of the “Lame Duck,” as all presidents are called at the end of their mandate. Read the rest of this entry »

According to Maria Appakova of Russia’s Novosti news service, the already highly difficult task has become nearly impossible after the recent leaking of details of the treaty Washington is pushing for.

Appakova writes:

“The most controversial paragraphs of the “draft treaty” cited by the media provide for the establishment of about 50 U.S. military bases; immunity for American troops and contractors from Iraqi laws; freedom of action for the United States in conducting arrests and taking military action without prior consultation with Iraqi authorities; Read the rest of this entry »

About a week ago, the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant carried a story with a tantatalizing title, “Secret Plan: The U.S. to Stay in Iraq for Years.” The (translated) story, which can be read in its entirety at watchingamerica.com, starts out as follows:

“The Bush administration wants to use 50 military bases in Iraq for an indefinite period of time. Washington also wants to continue to control Iraqi airspace in the future. American military must be able to continue to conduct military operations in Iraq undisturbed and without approval from Iraq.”

And continues,

“The U.S. and Iraqi governments are presently secretly negotiating a treaty that will make all this possible. The agreement should be signed by the end of July. This is reported by the British newspaper The Independent on Thursday on the basis of anonymous sources who are knowledgeable of the negotiations.”

Well, what a difference a week makes. This Tuesday, Spain’s El Comercio carried a story interestingly titled “Cómo irse de Iraq y quedarse.” (How to Leave Iraq, and Stay There.”) The piece reports on what everybody knows by now, that:

“Such a plan consists of signing as far ahead as possible– if it can be done, in July–a security and cooperation agreement with the Iraqi government. One that will give the U.S. Army the possibility to stay in the country indefinitely and which will replace their role of occupier with that of partner, when the UN mandate regarding the American presence…expires at the end of the year.”

But, what is interesting about this piece, and as the “tongue-in-cheek” title promises, is the political spin and fallout that is now raging about this “secret treaty.” El Comercio:

“If all goes according to Washington’s plan, President Bush will be able to say, without lying, that the invasion of Iraq has ended well, in military and geo-strategic terms, which is what is most important to a superpower with global interests.”

On the political doubletalk, El Comercio continues:

“Nor is it reassuring to hear the U.S. Ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, say that there will be no permanent bases in Iraq. This is resolved by placing such bases in a temporary “lease” status, as is the current model elsewhere.”

The angst that Iran has about this “secret treaty” is also widely reported. Iran’s leaders are afraid that the U.S. will use its military bases in Iraq, and the U.S.’ unrestricted use and control of Iraqi airspace, to launch an attack against Iran.

According to El Comercio:

“Yesterday [June 9], the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, had to listen to Iran’s spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Jamenei, say that of all the problems facing Iraq, the major one is the U.S. interference in its affairs through its military and security power. Al-Maliki was ending a difficult three-day stay in Teheran, where he lived in exile for many years, and where he tried very hard—it seems in vain—to convince his Shiite neighbor that it has nothing to fear from such an agreement, and that he will never permit that Iraq be used as a base from which to launch an eventual U.S. attack—something that no one is ruling out today.”

The proposed agreement is politically very controversial, both in Iraq and in the U.S. A majority of the Iraqi parliament recently wrote to Congress rejecting a long-term security pact with the U.S. unless the proposed agreement includes a specific timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. military troops.

In the U.S., it has been soundly criticized by Democrats who are accusing the Bush administration of trying to tie the hands of the next president by committing to continue to protect Iraq with U.S. forces.

Yesterday, USA Today, discussed the not-so-secret treaty and confirmed that “The United States has requested long-term access to military bases, freedom of movement for U.S. troops, authority to detain suspects and immunity for U.S. personnel–including private contractors–from prosecution in Iraqi courts.”

Well, it appears that McCain’s “one hundred years in Iraq” may yet become a reality.

What does the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad think of Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee who has suggested a willingness to sit down at the table with the widely reviled Iranian leader? This editorial from the Islamic Republic’s state-run Iran News Daily is as notable for what it doesn’t say as for what it does. According to the daily, which seems to carefully avoid the issue of talks, “Obama was the right candidate with the right message at the right time. In fact, his message and ‘dream candidacy’ has resonated with many around the world, including in the Islamic world and people in our own nation.” Read the rest of this entry »

Here’s a really good question for you. Why is George W. Bush helping Saudi Arabia build nukes?

Here’s a quick geopolitical quiz: What country is three times the size of Texas and has more than 300 days of blazing sun a year? What country has the world’s largest oil reserves resting below miles upon miles of sand? And what country is being given nuclear power, not solar, by President George W. Bush, even when the mere assumption of nuclear possession in its region has been known to provoke pre-emptive air strikes, even wars?

If you answered Saudi Arabia to all of these questions, you’re right.

Apparently our Secretary of State has already signed an agreement to provide the Saudis with assistence in developing a “peaceful nuclear power program” and they are moving forward with it. This, as the editoial points out, is in the middle of a country which could probably power the entire Middle East with a decent number of solar panels. Consider the following:

1. Saudi Arabia is far from innocent in any number of questionable international incidents. (Where were those 9/11 highjackers from again?) They have a horrible human rights record and are in the middle of one of the most tumultuous areas on the planet.

2. Even if you assume that the King’s government is nothing but sweetness and light, is there any way to assure us that a future revolution won’t overthrow them and put nuclear technology in the hands of more questionable actors? (Naw… never happen. Huh? What does Pakistan have to do with anything?)

3. The Saudis don’t have to refine uranium and build an actual bomb. All they need to do is lose control of some spent fuel rods and the locals will be able to assemble a dirty bomb. (No, you can’t put uranium in your shoes, but nice try.)

Are not all of the points above exactly the same arguments we’ve been hearing about Iran lately? And are they not the same reasons being given from some quarters as to why we (or Israel) should bomb the Iranians if they go any further in their nuclear ambitions?

I have long felt that we will never be able to stop the spread of such technology indefinitely. Countries who are determined will eventually develop it on their own. But by the same token, we don’t have to go out of our way to push it into their hands. And, if nothing else, we should at least present a consistent foreign policy. If Iran can’t have nuclear reactors, handing them to the Saudis is questionable to say the least.

In a nation founded by the owners of Black slaves, a Black man now has a better than even chance of being elected President. And, according to this op-ed written by Ángel Guerra Cabrera of Mexico’s La Jornada:

“The United States will not emerge from its deep structural crisis or its demented warmongering course without major surgery, even within the system. That requires first and foremost the dismantling of Bushism - a difficult task that will take awhile, and Obama is the only candidate with the support and the indispensable social energy to do it … provided they let him reach the White House.”
Read the rest of this entry »

Leave it to the deaf, dumb and blind president of the United States to help drive already out-of-control oil prices into the stratosphere by further upsetting the always delicate balance in the Middle East through another round of saber rattling.

It is not unreasonable to conclude at this point that George Bush is so inept that he literally cannot do anything right beyond handing the grieving parents of an Iraq war casualty a medal and folded American flag without dropping them.

The Iraq war has been unique in American history in that the president has worked hard to make it sacrifice free and has largely succeeded. But now we all are feeling the effects of a war without end at the pump and supermarket checkout line even if most of us have not made the connection.

Don’t expect John McCain to do the math for us because he’s too busy beating the bomb Iran war drum with the president. Besides which, $5 gas and spiking food prices are justified because we’re making the Middle East safe for democracy, right?

Analysts described the global oil market as “hysterical” and “shooting itself in the foot” after oil futures jumped a staggering $11 a barrel on Friday to set yet another new record at over $138 a barrel.

This development, combined with still more bleak economic news as the unemployment rate surged to 5.5. percent in May, the biggest increase in more than two decades, further fanned recession fears. Some 330,000 Americans have lost their jobs because of Bush economic policies since the year began, while government unemployment figures do not include the millions of Americas who have run out of benefits and are no longer looking for work.

But while the U.S. may not be technically in recession according to some economic parameters, that is of cold comfort to consumers.

Consider this while you pump $50 worth of gas to fill your thrifty Honda hybrid or $120 to top off your macho-man Chevy pickup truck: Rising inflation continues to eat into your paycheck like the rust around the wheel wells of the car you can’t afford to trade in because you’re so deeply in hock to mortgage and credit card companies. As it is, wages grew at less than a 1 percent rate on an inflation-adjusted basis in the first quarter of the year.

Read the rest of this entry »

Are Iraqis passing up the ‘chance of a lifetime’ by rejecting the proposed long-term security agreement with the United States? That is the conclusion of Khadir Taahar, one of Iraq’s most pro-American op-ed writers.

Taahar writes for Iraq’s Kitabat newspaper:

“As expected, the demagogues have begun shouting hostile ideological slogans without taking a moment to consider the advantages that the United States offers a devastated country like Iraq. Read the rest of this entry »