‘Retribution, swift vengeance, eternal malice were in her whole aspect, and spite of all mortal men could do - the said solid white buttress of her forehead smite the ship’s starboard bow.’
(apologies to Moby Dick)
It seems that a global consensus against Senator Hillary Clinton is forming, after her razor-thin victory in Indiana and significant defeat in North Carolina.
This editorial from Lebanon’s Daily Star not only lambastes Hillary for pandering - pointedly in regard to her threat to ‘obliterate’ Iran - but it uses her bad example as a way of pointing out a glaring deficiency in Democratic government as it is presently conducted.
“Whatever she does in the future, nothing will erase her demonstration of the worst aspects of American politics - particularly her recent statement that she would ‘obliterate’ Iran if it ever threatened Israel with nuclear weapons … The context of her threatening statement is telling, in that it exposes the weak link in America’s democratic system - or any democratic system: the inclination of candidates running for public office to pander to the basest prejudices, sentiments and fears of the voting public.”
“The United States and Iran may disagree about many things; but for one to use threats of obliteration as a policy toward the other strikes us as a rather crude and offensive strategy, especially for a world power.”
One interesting question to ponder is whether Hezbullah’s takeover on Friday of much of Beirut, will also put an end the the independence of the pro-West Daily Star.
EDITORIAL
May 8, 2008
Lebanon - The Daily Star - Original Article (English)
In the coming days or weeks, Hillary Clinton’s fate as a presidential hopeful will be decided. But whatever she does in the future, nothing will erase her demonstration of the worst aspects of American politics - particularly her recent statement that she would “obliterate” Iran if it ever threatened Israel with nuclear weapons. The substance of the New York senator’s words are hard to evaluate due to the hypothetical nature of the damage she threatens to impose. Were she ever to become president and order such an attack, many other Americans would have to agree with the decision in order for it to be implemented, particularly the top military brass.
The context of her threatening statement is telling, in that it exposes the weak link in America’s democratic system - or any democratic system: the inclination of candidates running for public office to pander to the basest prejudices, sentiments and fears of the voting public. Clinton has been a particularly dynamic panderer this year, jumping on every opportunity to make her appear to be a woman of the people, whether drinking shots of whisky or calling for gas-tax holidays. In this case, she chose to play on widespread American opposition to Iran, which is in turn a function of several factors. In American politics these days, Iran is the bad guy par excellence, whether for its role in Iraq, its strategic ambitions in the Middle East, its nuclear policy, its rhetorical threats against Israel, or to its a general assertion of Islamist identity and politics. Americans also remain angry at Iranians for overthrowing the Shah in 1979 and then taking and holding Americans hostages for many months.
Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Washington Post recently that, in the face of the advancing nuclear programs in both Iran and North Korea, the “era of nonproliferation is over.”
This week the President of Iran was strutting around his nation’s main uranium enrichment facility, claiming installation of 6,000 new centrifuges in addition to the existing 3,000 there–an ill-advised nose-thumbing gesture in the direction of the US and Israel.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a chronic sufferer from the need for attention on the world stage, who has been in remission since his visit to the UN last fall. With this latest turn for the TV cameras, he is showing symptoms of an acute and, for his regime, possibly life-threatening new outbreak.
Dick Cheney immediately made the diagnosis on right-wing talk radio. The Iranian President, he told Sean Hannity, is “a very dangerous man” who “has repeatedly stated that he wants to destroy Israel” and believes that “the highest honor that can befall a man is that he should die a martyr in facilitating the return of the 12th Imam. It’s a radical, radical point of view.”
“The Bucharest summit has shown that NATO - or Europe and the West in general, is in more difficulty that it at first appeared. … The well-concealed disagreements about the participation of NATO members in operations in Afghanistan demonstrate the failure of the military Alliance, and its ambiguous position as an accessory to the American war machine.”
How do the Russians view the three remaining U.S. presidential aspirants? After explaining that there isn’t a hair’s breath of difference between President Bush and John McCain on the issue of Russia, Novosti political affairs analyst Dmitry Gornostayev writes, “The Democrats think the same way as McCain. No, not on health care, abortion, the withdrawal of troops from Iraq or the right to carry firearms - God Forbid! - on these issues they are prepared to argue until they’re hoarse. But in regard to Russia (I dare say a marginal issue for American voters), there is a complete consensus.” Gornostayev concludes, “The words, of course, may differ - but action is always in one in the same direction. You ask what political bias is worse - Republican or Democratic? The two are equally as bad.”
By Dmitry Gornostayev
Translated By Igor Medvevev
March 27, 2008
Russia - Novosti - Original Article (Russian)
NEW YORK: What the President keeps to himself, his nominee reveals. Of course, if John McCain is elected President of the United States, he will not repeat what he just said to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council. The President of the United States is not the person to repeat that the G8 should “expel Russia,” or speak of the need to “address the dangers posed by a revanchist Russia.”
Before the 2000 election and even during the first few months of his presidency, George W. Bush also criticized Russia. He his first step in regard to Russia as head of state was to expel a large group of Russian diplomats from the United States. However, when he realized it would be necessary to meet the president of Russia, he had to reverse himself. It was then that he glanced into the eyes of Vladimir Putin and was able to “get a sense of his soul.” At least that’s what he told the world, and of course, his own voters, whom several months before he had been desperately trying to convince of the contrary.
If it is Senator McCain who will be President, he too will need to come up with a nice story about a sudden recovery of insight. But strictly speaking, this isn’t all that important. Neither does it matter if it’s McCain or one of the pair of Democrats that is elected. The Senator’s critical remarks about Russia, which incidentally were only a small part of his speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, seem to contain two fundamentally important points. The First is tactical and the second, strategic.
First, let’s address his tactics.
It’s not at all accidental that his tough criticism of Moscow coincided with a statement by Bush about his intention to travel to Russia to discuss differences over U.S.-Russian relations with outgoing President Vladimir Putin . Both or them - McCain and Bush - express the ideas of the political clan that still calls the shots in American foreign policy, the neoconservatives. Despite the different ways the two men express themselves, their philosophies on relations with Russia are essentially the same: to weaken Russia, and if that’s not possible, to deter it (incidentally, we shouldn’t be carried away by Russian pride in this regard - American policymakers are much more afraid of China).
It’s obvious that both of these statements constitute a single logical and tactical step - to assert at the highest levels the inevitability of deploying an anti-ballistic missile emplacement within Europe [in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Bush said in his speech, “I think a lot of people in Europe would have a deep sigh of relief if we’re able to reach an accord on missile defense. And hopefully we can.” By these comments, it’s clear under what conditions Bush will seek to conclude an agreement. This sounds rather nice when compared to the tenor of McCain’s remarks: “Rather than tolerate Russia’s nuclear blackmail or cyber attacks, Western nations should make it clear that the solidarity of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is indivisible and that the organization’s doors remain open to all democracies committed to the defense of freedom.”
Is the United States imagining a world in which Russia poses a threat, or is it actually a threat? Mikhail Taratuta, the former host of a Russian television show about America writes for Russia’s Kommersant newspaper, ‘Sociologists, psychologists and psychiatrists make reference to a notion called a “second reality.” This isn’t reality itself, but rather a person’s perception of reality. … When we hear that the real objective of America and the West is to pull Russia down and keep it on its knees, how should we interpret this? Is it a cynical lie put forward for some sinister political purpose - perhaps to mobilize society to create the image of an enemy? Or are these the sincere words of people living in a “second reality,” where we already visited once upon a time?
By Mikhail Taratuta*
Translated By Igor Medvedev
March 24, 2008
Kommersant - Russia - Original Article (Russian)
Sociologists, psychologists and psychiatrists make reference to a notion called a “second reality.” This isn’t reality itself, but rather a person’s perception of reality. Thirty years ago when I first went to America, I was confident that I would find all the signs of a decaying West as detailed in the Soviet press - unemployment, the suffering of working people, and so on. Read the rest of this entry »
Who does the Kremlin favor to be the next U.S. President? Is it John McCain, the hard-nosed hawk who grew to maturity during the Cold War? Or is it Hillary Clinton - the militarily well-studied Senator from New York? Nope - it seems that, according to this op-ed article from Russia’s Kommersant newpaper, Barack Obama is the best bet for Russia - although only marginally so. Konstantin Kosachev who is chairman of the Duma’s Foreign Affairs Committee, writes, ‘Barack Obama looks like the candidate that can be expected to take the greatest strides toward Russia, since unlike McCain, he’s not infected with any Cold War phobias, and unlike Clinton, he won’t be tied down by the old habits of his advisors.’
By Konstantin Kosachev*
Translated By Igor Medvedev
February 7, 2008
Kommersant - Russia - Original Article (Russian)
The bet by Democrats that Americans want to change everything from U.S. policy to their leader’s sex and race may be fully justified. But I wouldn’t focus exclusively on the intrigues of the Democratic race. After all, the race won’t be decided until November, and the competition won’t be between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but between a Democrat and a Republican. And it is still too early to write the Republicans off.
From the Russian point of view, the choice is not a pleasant one. Senator McCain, who is known for comments on Russia that run along the lines of “Carthage must be destroyed,” is certainly no gift. His desire to expel Russia from the G8, like many other of his positions that are in the style of the Cold War, are sincere. Traditionally it has been felt that we [Russia] get along better with Republicans, but apparently this senator-veteran seems ready to break that stereotype.
Our problem with the Democrats is that (in our view), they place too much emphasis on ideologically-driven human rights issues. However under the current administration, Washington’s ideology-based foreign policy probably exceeds that of their domestic opponents. It’s clearly time that we stopped “fearing” the Democrats, especially in terms of the inevitable “democratic moralizing” by a Democratic president. For a country that has made its democratic choice, such calculations are largely unimportant.
In terms of attitude toward Russia, neither the declarations of Hillary Clinton nor those of Barack Obama go beyond the traditional views of the American establishment. Both candidates say they recognize the need to cooperate with Russia. But how sincere these statements are is difficult to judge. We know that Clinton has retained many people from her husband’s team that have no particular love for Russia. Obama, as they say, is not shy about communicating with Zbigniew Brzezinski [considered a Kremlin foe].
Political chaos in Pakistan could bring nuclear headaches for the US, and what our government is doing to prop up a failing regime recalls efforts three decades ago on behalf of our old ally, the Shah of Iran.
The McClatchy Newspapers report: “The Bush administration is pressing the opposition leaders who defeated Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to allow the former general to retain his position, a move that Western diplomats and U.S. officials say could trigger the very turmoil the United States seeks to avoid.
“U.S. officials, from President Bush on down, said this week that they think Musharraf, a longtime U.S. ally, should continue to play a role, despite his party’s rout in parliamentary elections Monday and his unpopularity in the volatile, nuclear-armed nation.”
Pressuring the newly elected anti-Musharraf majority to retain our iffy friend may turn out to be the kind of mistake we made in the late 1970s on behalf of the Shah before and after he was deposed in Iran. Despite Jimmy Carter’s misgivings, he was persuaded by Henry Kissinger and his oil friends to let the old US ally come here, which resulted in occupation of the American Embassy in Tehran for 444 days and the ongoing hostility with Iran.
While in recent days, the news has been that Poland has accepted the stationing of a base of missile interceptors as part of America’s anti-missile shield, according to this op-ed from columnist Roman KuŸniar of Poland’s Gazeta Wyborcza, the debate inside Poland continues, and it still isn’t clear how it will turn out. KuŸniar writes, ‘The compensation should be calculated not in billions of dollars, but in providing Poland with the same standard of security that we had before the base’s installation, no matter how much it will cost the United States … Washington must also understand that if our expectations are not met and Warsaw resists caving into pressure from Washington and America’s friends in Poland and decides against locating such a base in our country, this will not mean a retreat from its close alliance with the United States.’
By Roman KuŸniar
Translated By Halszka Czarnocka
January 29, 2008
Poland - Gazeta Wyborcza - Original Article (Polish)
Poland is in the middle of difficult negotiations about its possible role in the American ballistic missile defense program WATCH . And just when our government faces the difficult task of rationalizing Poland’s position, a growing wave of criticism has arisen to try and hurry things up and take the government to task over its conduct.
How important an issue is America’s missile-defense shield to Eastern Europeans? According to this frustrated op-ed from Romania’s Ziarul newspaper, given the increasingly shrill nuclear threats coming from Moscow, Romania must demand more from Washington to assure its own security - just as Poland and others already have.
“The government of Romania had absolutely no reaction when ‘Putin’s Mace,’ General Yuri Baluyevsky, struck us with a nuclear slap right in the forehead … which proves that the chair under Defense Minister Melescanu’s ass is more important to him than the American anti-missile shield …”
By Igor Drag, Translated By Marcel Iliescu. January 23, 2008
Romania - Ziarul - Original Article (Romanian)
Two days ago, Russia, in the voice of General Yuri Baluyevsky, the chief of the Russian General Staff who is also known as “Putin’s mace,” threatened NATO in general, and the Czech Republic, Poland, and Bulgaria in particular, with nuclear bombing. Not even 24 hours had passed before NATO responded: A group of former high-ranking American [and European] military officials argues that a preemptive attack with nuclear weapons represents an “indispensable” tool for NATO . So what have some others who have had their “ears pulled” by Putin done? Read the rest of this entry »
Did it take a thousand untruths to get us into Iraq? Not quite.
According to a new study by two non-profit journalism organizations, “President George W. Bush and seven of his administration’s top officials…made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.”
The orchestrated campaign has been documented by the staffs of the Fund for Independence in Journalism and the Center for Public Integrity to create a data base of deception.
Some of the highlights:
.On August 26, 2002, Dick Cheney made a speech saying “there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” The CIA had no idea of the basis for that claim…
Just under the radar screen of most of the American media, comments and threats from the Russians have set our East European allies on edge. In this somewhat alarming op-ed from Romania’s Ziarul newspaper, the author frets, “The Russian Defense Minister said that to ‘defend the sovereignty of Russia and its allies,’ the Russian state could use nuclear weapons against NATO allies like Romania, the Czech Republic, Poland and Bulgaria. Hello NATO, have you heard this? Hello E.U., have you heard this? Do you understand that Romania is now a Russian nuclear target? BAAAA!!”
By Igor Drag, Translated By Marcel Iliescu, January 22, 2008
Romania - Ziarul - Original Article (Romanian)
While Defense Minister Melescanu talks nonsense about Romania not having enough heart and blood to keep troops in Iraq, and while the same Melescanu walks parade-style walk through the Ministry of Justice’s domain, hindering the release of National Anti-corruption Agency files calling into question the fairness of the trial process, what’s has the world come to?
It’s raining, some would say. It’s raining declarations about how Romania could soon be one of Europe’s most important “mushroom plantations” [a reference to the mushroom clous of a nuclear blast]. Read the rest of this entry »
My childhood was haunted by the monster known to South Carolinians in that time and place as "the atom bum." I lay awake nights worrying about a nuclear strike the same way children of earlier generations worried about the monsters under their beds or the crazy son the mean old man up the road reputedly kept locked up in the attic. It was my Boo Radley, but one I would never really come to terms with. We heard—from whispered rumors on the
playground of things overheard on the evening news or from adult
conversations— that if it fell on our heads it would leave a crater
stretching to the next small town; we heard about shadows on walls in Japan;
we heard about radiation burns and radiation sickness and the poisoning of the air and water.
During a brief period—I don’t know what prompted it or why it
stopped—we used to have "bum" drills, where we’d hide under our
desks. What good would hiding under a desk do? I asked my teacher.
She told me to hush up and get back under the desk, but then admitted she didn’t know.
During the late seventies, when I was a teen-ager, post-apocalyptic fiction abounded. (The best were–if you’re
looking for something to read– were Walter Miller’s A Canticle for Leibowitz and Russell Hoban’s beautiful but challenging Riddley Walker.)
After the Cold War receded, people didn’t talk about it so much for awhile. But of course it’s never really gone away.
It’s with a certain sense of inevitability that I now read in The Guardian that "five of the west’s most senior military officers and strategists," have put together a manifesto warning NATO that it needs to face up to the nuclear option if it wants to be able to Read the rest of this entry »
Are the Saudis - who feel more threatened by a resurgent Iran than almost anyone else - buying President Bush’s rhetoric about the pressing nature of the Iranian threat? According to this op-ed article from one of Saudi Arabia’s largest newspapers, the Kingdom is wary of any non-diplomatic solutions to the standoff with Iran, which is far less immediate than continued Israeli attacks on the Palestinians.
“We in the Saudi Kingdom were the first Arabs to establish relations with the United States, thus exposing ourselves to threats from the Soviet Union and its allies … we recognize the value of this relationship … But we refuse to be a tool to spark war and tension with Iran or any other country.”
By Youssef El-Kwelit
Translated By Ahmed Naoual
January 12, 2008
Saudi Arabia - Al-Riyadh - Original Article (Arabic)
Bush was greeted in Israel with great joy and jubilation because people there knew in advance that he would willingly and forcefully utter the name of the pure Jewish state. On the Palestinian side, his arrival was met with demonstrations in Gaza and shock in the West Bank. Thanks to the visit, Olmert became more popular while optimism in Abbas shriveled.
In the Gulf, tension between Iranian gunboats and American battleships are on the cusp of degenerating into armed clashes WATCH . And whether it’s Bush’s goal on his trip to make an opening in the closed wall of peace, the goal is not made easier when Israel’s conditions to achieve it depend on ending alleged terrorism in Gaza where [Hezbullah] rockets have been sent to Israel as a way of greeting the U.S. President. This position would have us believe that Israel’s Apaches [attack helicopters] and tanks, which have been striking and invading, have been sent to hand out sweets to Palestinian children, offer Christmas and Muslim New Year gifts and lift the siege on medicines, food and electricity and heating fuel.
In the other Arab countries he is touring, President Bush is visiting people who awaiting the results of his peace initiatives. Even if we assume that Bush has a different mission in mind on his visit to the Gulf - namely blockading Iran and dealing with its intentions to obtain nuclear weapons by stimulating the Gulf countries to stand in absolute solidarity with his country - the alleged danger from Iran doesn’t minimize the real and enduring danger from Israel - a country already on the world list of the 10 nuclear-armed countries.
[Editor’s Note: The author is referring to the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program, which concluded that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003 ].
If the President wants Arabs to stand in solidarity with his positions, he should prioritize and begin with the issue of peace before tackling a danger that was recently revealed by U.S. intelligence to be far from real, at least for the near future.
How concerned are people across the Persian Gulf about the Iranian threat? Judging from this op-ed article from Kuwait’s leading Arabic newspaper, Al-Seyassah, President Bush’s criticism of Iran during his current visit will likely fall on receptive ears.
“Since the fall of the Shah all the way up to the present day, the international community and nations of the Gulf region have sat mute in the face of the greed and expansionist dreams of the Mullah regime … Because of a lack of firmness and deterrence, what was once a meek lamb has transformed into a voracious wolf.”
By Yousef Jamal*
Translated By James Jacobson and Nicolas Dagher
January 13, 2008
Kuwait - Al-Seyassah - Original Article (Arabic)
Since the fall of the Shah all the way up to the present day, the international community and nations of the Gulf region have sat mute in the face of the greed and expansionist dreams of the Mullah regime. This is a scourge for the people of the Gulf and presages catastrophe. Because of a lack of firmness and deterrence, what was once a meek lamb has transformed into a voracious wolf. While once the options to counteract the Mullah regime were numerous, by ignoring their extremist policies we have limited the room to maneuver and exacerbated the crisis in the region and beyond.
But through a gradual understanding of the extremist and obscurantist leaders of this dictatorial regime - political, religious and military - the global community has come to understand the gravity of its oppressive system. The entire world has woken up to the terrorist ideology of this regime. The global community now understands the threat it poses to humankind and its plan to further penetrate and influence stable societies around the world, spread chaos and instability and establish hotbeds of influence [in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, for example] to achieve Iranian goals.
The most important revelations were made public by Iran’s domestic resistance, which disclosed Tehran’s nuclear program, the repressive domestic institutions of the mullahs and their many human rights abuses to the outside world. This reinvigorated domestic opposition within Iran and has helped isolate the regime, contributing to curtailing its role from that of a predatory wolf to a one of a fearful rabbit.
Among other objectives, the purpose of American President George Bush’s tour of the Middle East is to contain Iranian influence in the region; provide assurances to the Gulf States in regard to the dangers of Iranian expansion; and clip the wings of the regime in that area.
Now that Bush Administration is drawing to a close, is American influence irretrievably on the wane? According to this editorial from the NRC Handelsblad of The Netherlands, ‘Across the globe, America has lost its popularity and authority … the American century is coming to an end. Aspiring superpowers are hot on America’s heels.’
EDITORIAL
Translated By Jan de Nijs
December 27, 2007
The Netherlands - NRC Handlesblad - Original Article (Dutch)
The United States has hit a rough patch. Economically, the party is over. It confronts a crisis in the mortgage markets. The federal deficit continues to grow. The dollar has lost its leading position. London has overtaken New York as the world’s leading financial center. And European anti-trust laws are rapidly becoming the global standard, replacing American rules and regulations. In the meantime, the Iraq War is costing $275 million a day. The total estimated cost for the Iraq War at the end of 2008: $611 billion. And at the same time, the war in Afghanistan continues to grind on.
These are a few examples of “imperial overstretch”: America’s military might is being stretched beyond the limit. As a result, George W. Bush’s last year in office has been one of a “shrinking presidency.” In his home country, he has lost his authority. Officials from his government are being prosecuted and punished for abuses of power. On top of that, a judicial inquiry into the destruction of evidence of illegal interrogation procedures by the CIA has been launched. Read the rest of this entry »
Does the assassination of Benazir Bhutto signal the collapse of American policy in the region? According to the editorial board of the NRC Handelsblad of The Netherlands, not quite …
“… the assassination of Bhutto is an unprecedented setback for the United States. If Pakistan with its fifty warheads crumbles, the entire region around the only Islamic nuclear power runs the risk of disintegrating.”
EDITORIAL
Translated By Meta Mertens
December 29, 2007
The Netherlands - NRC Handlesblad - Original Article (Dutch)
In the for the time being the only Islamic nuclear power in the world, it is situated in a chaotic region, and an assassination has been committed for which everyone in that country can be responsible. Because of the combination of nuclear bombs, geopolitics and paranoia, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is much more dangerous than previous political assassinations in Pakistan. Bhutto was no lily-white politician. A cloud of corruption and tribalism hung over her. She was not averse to bargaining, not even with her key opponent, General Musharraf. And in her administrative career - she was prime minister twice - she left little of lasting value behind her.
Nevertheless, after her return from exile in October, she was the very embodiment of opposition against Musharraf, who had been written off for the presidential polls on January 8th. What the judges and lawyers were unable to do with their demonstrations this year, she could possibly accomplish. Bhutto was the personification of a potential civil and secular government, which could bring an end to the military regime and build a barrier against Islamic fundamentalism. Moreover, she was a political safety isle for President Bush, who desperately needs new initiatives now that his foreign policy in the region appears to be coming apart.
For all of these reasons, the assassination of Bhutto (the fourth killed in her family) goes beyond the interest of the victim herself. Pakistan as a state is balanced on the edge of an abyss. The presidential elections of January 8th will be boycotted by the remaining opposition candidates [they have since changed their minds]. Regional and tribal antagonisms, fueled by religious fundamentalism and/or economic interests, will be encouraged.
There is little chance that the perpetrators behind the perpetrator will ever be found. The instigators can hide themselves in Islamic circles that reside along the Afghan-Kashmir border. They can hide within the army, where the late General Zia ul Haq (who had Bhutto’s father Ali Bhutto tried and executed) is admired by soldiers who aspire to an Islamic state. And in any event, the state security services, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), is still a spider in this web.
Since the intervention of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in 1979, the ISI has been allowed to play a larger and increasingly notorious role. For ten years, Pakistan acted as a broker for the U.S. The service trained the Islamic resistance movement. The Taliban are the by-product of this. After 9/11, Pakistan again became a bridgehead for the United States, this time against the religious students [Taliban] in Afghanistan.
Beyond supplying billions of dollars in military aid, is it time for the United States and Europe to get more directly involved in Pakistan’s battle against extremists? According to this editorial from Germany’s Financial Times Deutschland, a failure to do so could lead to nuclear-armed Taliban in Pakistan.
“Now after the murder of Bhutto, the West must become more engaged: those who want to prevent another Afghanistan – but this time a nuclear armed one – must put Pakistan at the very top of their list of priorities.”
EDITORIAL
Translated By Ulf Behncke
December 28, 2007
Germany - Financial Times Deutschland - Original Article (German)
Up to now, the situation in Pakistan appeared to be on a better trajectory. After weeks of unrest, the situation in the country had calmed down somewhat. President Pervez Musharraf had lifted the state of emergency and abandoned the post of army chief of the nuclear nation. The murder of Bhutto again throws Pakistan into chaos.
Initially, hopes had risen that parliamentary elections scheduled for early January could stabilize the country. In a single stroke, all of these hopes have been squelched. The deadly attack on opposition leader Benazir Bhutto will strengthen those who have no interest in calming the situation. If the assassin – most likely from the radical Islamic milieu – intended to plunge Pakistan into chaos once more, things have gone as planned.
It’s not yet clear what the long-term consequences will be of this symbolic triumph for the terrorists. What is apparent, however, is that the enemies of a democratic form of government have taken an important step toward the Talibanization of Pakistan. If the authoritarian ruler Musharraf fails to get a grip on the situation, another permanent crisis looms in this already-troubled region.
Does the most recent U.S. intelligence report on Iran’s nuclear program demonstrate once again the politicization of American espionage? According to this op-ed article from Le Figaro by the director and research director of the French Research Center on Intelligence, ‘The new NIE is a fake. Iran continues to pursue its nuclear weapons program, but the Americans have decided to backtrack to save face. Confronted with catastrophic consequences for the balance of power in the Middle East, Washington abandoned the military option. This [NIE] is deliberate American disinformation.’
By Éric Denécé and Alain Rodier, director and research director, respectively, of the Research Center on intelligence Matters (a Paris-based research institute).
Translated By James Jacobson
December 20, 2007
France - Le Figaro - Original Article (French)
On December 3, the Directorate of National Intelligence (DNI), a body attached to the White House that centralizes information provided by all American intelligence agencies, issued a report (a National Intelligence Estimate or NIE ) which guessed that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons program in the autumn of 2003. This document, drafted in mid-2007, says that for the immediate future, Iran in not a nuclear threat, and that the Iranian regime is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than the U.S. had thought back in 2005. But the report stressed that Teheran continues to enrich uranium for civilian purposes, and it estimates that if the Iranian military effort were launched again, the country could produce nuclear warheads between 2010 and 2015.
This is a radical about-face. Released in 2005, the previous NIE on the Iranian nuclear program emphasized Teheran’s determination to acquire nuclear weapons. It was on the basis of this report that President Bush called for more sanctions and was contemplating the use of force against Teheran.
The NIE is a summary of what the various U.S. intelligence agencies forecast on topics of major interest. It is drafted at the request of the political authorities or members of Congress and is not the result of a jointly-executed analysis. The report is prepared by DNI analysts. The text is then circulated to the agencies concerned to collect their input. This is a process that necessarily takes several months. Sometimes the services that supply intelligence on the subject don’t even recognize their contributions to the final report.
The intelligence at the heart of this NIE comes mainly from intercepted telephone conversations between Iranian military officials, in which they complain about the decision to halt weapons development. These wiretappings were allegedly collected by the Government Communications Headquarters , the British eavesdropping service.
In the world of intelligence, it is customary to attribute to the interception services, information obtained from human sources that one wants to protect. Along these lines, it is legitimate for one to consider the case of Ali Reza Asghari, the Revolutionary Guard general who defected at the beginning of the year .
SEVERAL ASSUMPTIONS CAN BE FORMULATED
It is important to treat the content of this report with great caution. Indeed since the end of 2002, the politicization of American intelligence, which has been under constant pressure from the authorities, has prompted the presentation of the facts based on points of view that favor the political objectives of the White House or the Pentagon. A few examples: the creation of the Office of Special Plans in order to justify the war in Iraq; the masquerade February 2003 session at the United Nations, where despite the presence of director George Tenet beside Colin Powell, members of the CIA were shocked by the assertions of the Secretary of State WATCH ; the revelation of the real position [outing] of CIA officer Valérie Plame in order to undermine her husband, a diplomat whose report pointed out that Iraq didn’t acquire uranium from Nigeria, and so on. Examples of the manipulation of the facts by American authorities are legion. As a result, several assumptions can be made about the effect sought by releasing this latest NIE.
![[The Telegraph, U.K.]](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/graphics/2007/08/16/ixd16big.gif)
![[The Telegraph, U.K.]](http://worldmeets.us/images/condiputinmissilepocket_telegraph.gif)
![[Al-Jarida, Kuwait]](http://www.aljarida.com/AlJarida/Resources/ComicsPictures/1013012008.jpg)
![[The Times, U.K.]](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00261/car385_261741a.jpg)
![[The Telegraph, U.K.]](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/graphics/2007/12/29/ixd29big.gif)
