Letter from Iran

(The better informed everybody becomes the greater the chance that war can be prevented and propaganda can not distort reality. With a couple of clicks you can do your part by simply forwarding this to others.)

(SORRY FOR THE FORMATTING BUT I AM IN AN INTERNET CAFE AND I JUST CAN NOT GET IT TO WORK RIGHT. OR IRANIAN.COM HAS MADE CHANGES TO THE SITE AND I AM TOO DUMB TO FIGURE IT OUT.)

_____________________________________ 

Who Speaks For Iranian-Americans?

. 

 By MJ Rosenberg . 

//politicalcorrection.org/fpmatters/201203270010

.  Sohrab Ahmari, the neocons' favorite Iranian, is very much in the mold of the neocons' favorite Iraqi, Ahmad Chalabi.  His sidekick is Peter Kohanloo, a law student in Boston and self-described organizer within the Iranian-American community.  Ahmari and Kohanloo have every right not to share the views of most Iranian-Americans and they clearly don't.

Earlier this month in Commentary, Ahmari made clear that his personal preference, like that of Commentary, is for regime change precipitated by a U.S. bombing campaign. .Later he proposes "completely dismantling major state apparatuses," promising that the Iranian version of de-Ba'athification would not backfire as it did in Iraq. Of course, "dismantling" such state institutions as the Revolutionary Guard and the Basji (Mobilization) forces would require occupying the country — a contingency Ahmari passes over — but which the U.S. military, Iranians, Iranian-Americans and everyone else who knows anything about Iran dismisses as either impossible or insane.  

.

But that is how neocons think. Force works every time. It is, however, definitely not how Iranian-Americans think. .

(Are not Ahmari and Kohanloo the trolls that bombard Iranian.com’s comment sections with Bomb Iran advertising?)

 

Ahead of Revived Talks, US Wavers: Diplomacy or Sanctions for Iran?  By Jasmin Ramsey  //www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=107232 . "Take the sanctions pressure and turn it into a useful diplomatic tool to begin serious diplomatic negotiations with Iran," Thomas Pickering said at a Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing in the Capitol on Wednesday..  "Don't expect there will be a quick resolution of issues, because the gulf of mistrust is so enormously deep.", said Carl Bildt, Sweden's foreign minister and a serious advocate for diplomacy with Iran.  

.

Others who testified before the Senate committee were extremely pessimistic about the possibility of successful diplomacy with Iran, or at least while Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei holds power.  

.

"Herein lies our policy conundrum: No nuclear deal with Tehran can be made without Khamenei, but it appears almost equally unlikely that any deal can be made with him," according to Karim Sadjadpour, a policy analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  

.

According to Pickering, the idea that pursuing regime change in Iran can bring about positive results is "far fetched and highly unlikely", because U.S. history with "changing regimes has been pretty parlous".
.
Since the Iranian perception that the United States has a policy of regime change appears to hinder progress in dealing with Iran's nuclear program, "the U.S. will need to consider how and when that policy, or the Iranian perception of it, should come off the table," he added.  

.

Pickering ended his remarks today by quoting an Iranian "friend" involved in Tehran's foreign policy. "The historical record shows that every time we have been ready, you have not been, and every time you have been ready, we have not been."
.
"Maybe," Pickering suggested, "we can emerge from that position of the past to begin with some small things – that we can find a way to pull the curves of mutual interest together, rather than have them continue to bend apart."

.

 .

How the New American Empire Really Works

. 

by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

. 

//www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/27/how-the-new-american-empire-really-works/

. 

America’s wars are very expensive.  Bush and Obama have doubled the national debt, and the American people have no benefits from it. No riches, no bread and circuses flow to Americans from Washington’s wars.  So what is it all about?

. 

The answer is that Washington’s empire extracts resources from the American people for the benefit of the few powerful interest groups that rule America. The military-security complex, Wall Street, agri-business and the Israel Lobby use the government to extract resources from Americans to serve their profits and power. The US Constitution has been extracted in the interests of the Security State, and Americans’ incomes have been redirected to the pockets of the 1 percent.  That is how the American Empire functions.

. 

The New Empire is different.  It happens without achieving conquest.

 .

In the New Empire success at war no longer matters.  The extraction takes place by being at war.  Huge sums of American taxpayers’ money have flowed into the American armaments industries and huge amounts of power into Homeland Security. The American empire works by stripping Americans of wealth and liberty.

. 

This is why the wars cannot end, or if one does end another starts.. 

.

What if Israel bombs Iran?

 

By Gary Sick, Special to CNN

. 

//edition.cnn.com/2012/03/30/opinion/sick-israel-iran/

. 

Most experts agree that the Iranian nuclear program cannot be eliminated ultimately without an actual military presence on the ground and forcible regime change.

The biggest threat, however, would not be the first day or even the first week after an Israeli attack. The greatest threat might well be the first year or more after an attack, particularly if a major economic crisis was accompanied by growing evidence that Iran had proceeded underground and out of sight of the international community to produce a nuclear weapon.

.

That would make our present situation, before any attack, look wonderfully attractive by comparison.  

(More of Gary Sick below who I’d say is one of the most level headed Iran experts in the United States, and one that actually qualifies as an Iran expert.)

 

It Takes Two to Tango

. 

Interview of Gary Sick by Mohammad Ataei

. 

//www.irdiplomacy.ir/en/news/20/bodyView/1898875/It.Takes.Two.toTango.html

.Gary Sick: Basically, the United States has the view that it would be unacceptable for Iran to actually have a nuclear weapon, and the Israelis have said that they think it should be unacceptable for Iran to have even the capability of building a nuclear weapon. And basically, in my point of view, Iran already has the capability to build a nuclear weapon, if it decides to do so. So the real discussion here is that basically Iran has said it would not build a nuclear weapon -- and I think the president has recognized that and takes it seriously, and he’s now looking for a diplomatic solution to the problem. I think Israel is less interested in diplomacy and negotiation and is more interested in confrontation with Iran. So that’s the basic difference between the two sides.  

.

Gary Sick: It has been my view very much from the beginning that first of all, Israel could not stop Iran’s nuclear program by itself no matter what it did, but in fact a strike by Israel against Iran, even a successful strike, probably would not completely hit all targets that would have to be hit. Secondly that would almost certainly inspire a nationalistic response from Iran and its people would gather around the government and support it. Three, it would almost convince Iran to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and kick out the IAEA inspectors and actually decide to build a nuclear weapon, which they have said they would not do. So in fact a strike makes everything worse than it was before and my analysis is that Israel will in fact follow its own national interest and since this is very much against Israel’s national interests, it would not launch a unilateral strike.

. 

IRD: Some people say that the Iranian Leadership believes that suspending the nuclear program would not help anything and once they do that, the US would press on other things such as the human rights issue and Iran’s support for terrorism -- and Hezbollah and Hamas; and that’s why they think any suspension of the program would not help. Do you think this is a correct understanding?.

Gary Sick: I understand where that comes from, and there has been a series of broken agreements between the US and Iran in the past, but it goes both ways: Iran has backed away in some cases from what we thought were assurances. The United States has certainly backed away from its own commitments from time to time. So this suspicion is there. The reality is that if a practical negotiation succeeds in finding a solution to the nuclear program, it’s going to be much easier for Iran and the US to begin to address some other issues that exist. There are people in the US who actually are unwilling to deal with Iran under any circumstances and who would in fact continue to make requirements and then place new burdens on Iran even after an agreement. There are people in Iran who also think that you can not possibly be able to negotiate with the US. Basically, those hardliners on both sides actually reinforce each other; so they end up talking to each other and actually make the situation worse. There are a number of people in both Iran and the United States who have a real interest in finding a way to improve the relationship between the two sides. Those people need to be given an opportunity to function. As it is now, most of the dialogue is between the hardliners and that is not a way of solving the problem.

.

Gary Sick: AIPAC and the representatives of the Israeli position are working towards no negotiations and towards war.

IRD: Obama recently wrote a letter to Ayatollah Khamenei, which has been described as half threatening and half respectful and conciliatory. If that is so, what you think Obama tried to say by sending that letter to the Iranian leader?

Gary Sick: I think in fact it would be almost impossible to write a letter and not to mention that there are sanctions there installed by the UN Security Council. If you want to regard those steps there is no way to avoid that. So Iran and the US have very strong differences of opinion on the subject. I remember the Cuban missile crisis with the Soviet Union, when President Khrushchev sent a very strong note to the United States in which there were very severe threats, but there was also a small indication of a promise to get out. The United States simply ignored the threats and answered the part that was positive. I would strongly urge the leader and others in Iran to take that approach to look for a positive way to get out of our problems rather than always examining the negative side which is inevitably going to be there when countries are in dispute with each other.

IRD: If Obama is reelected, how he will he deal with the Iranian case in his second term?

I do think that he has made it very clear that he is interested in an engagement with Iran that did not work the first time around for a combination of reasons which were partly Iranian and partly American. But he is prepared to pursue a negotiating strategy. That’s the best thing that we have got right now. But it takes two to tango. The US can’t do it by itself and Iran can’t do it by itself, and basically the two sides are going to have quit listening only to their hardliners and actually listen to the people who are interested in finding some positive outcome. That’s easier said than done, but I think it is important.

.

  _____________________________________

Consequences to Expect if The US invades Iran

. 

By Brandon Smith.   

 

//www.activistpost.com/2012/02/consequences-to-expect-if-us-invades.html   

.

Let’s be honest, quite a few Americans love a good war, especially those Americans who have never had to bear witness to one first hand.  War is the ultimate tribally vicarious experience.  Anyone, even pudgy armchair generals with deep-seated feelings of personal inadequacy, can revel in the victories and actions of armies a half a world away as if they themselves stood on the front lines risking possible annihilation at the hands of dastardly cartoon-land “evil doers”.  They may have never done a single worthwhile thing in their lives, but at least they can bask in the perceived glory of their country’s military might..   In the case of the wars in the Middle East, the common public argument boils down to one of “self defense”.  “They are coming to get us!”  At least, that is what we are constantly told.  And I’m sure that some Americans out there truly believe this.  However, in their heart of hearts, others instead relish the idea of imposing their world views and philosophical systems upon others, even if it means using cluster bombs and predator drones. . The relentless drive for war in the Middle East is not about “spreading democracy”.  It is not about terrorism.  It is not about oil (at least for the most part).  It is not about Israel (at least, not the Israeli people).  It is not even about corporate profiteering by the Military Industrial Complex.  War in the Middle East is about changing the way our country and our world operates, culturally, socially, financially, and politically.  War opens doors to social re-engineering that could never be accomplished otherwise.  War creates fear, panic, rage, and allows dystopian fallacies to reign supreme.  War, unjust and dishonorable war, makes countries weak, and ripe for violent change.. 

Iran is not a threat to our way of life, and never has been.  But, war in Iran could easily upset the core of our entire country, and leave us wayward strangers in the land we were born.

.

.

Reacting to War Drums in the Gulf: A Conversation with James Russell

. 

 //www.susris.com/2012/03/28/reacting-to-war-drums-in-the-gulf-a-conversation-with-james-russell/ . 

(This next article is really for the hardcore reader of foreign policy so I’ll just provide the link and leave it you to explore as reading it and finding nuggets to highlight is too much of a heave.)

 

. Ghosts of Iraq Haunting C.I.A. in Tackling Iran

.

By James Risen  . //www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/world/middleeast/assessing-iran-but-thinking-about-iraq.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1333281602-JA5GHvcjGjNarruyXVDIAg&pagewanted=all  . Today, analysts and others at the C.I.A. who are struggling to understand the nuclear ambitions of Iran are keenly aware that the agency’s credibility is again on the line, amid threats of new military interventions. The intelligence debacle on Iraq has deeply influenced the way they do their work, Top intelligence officials have said that analysts believe that Iran has been moving to expand its infrastructure and technological ability to become a nuclear power, but that the Iranian leadership has not made a decision to build an atomic bomb.  “It’s one thing to have the prime minister of another country come to town and say time is short, but it’s another thing to have the vice president go to Langley and pressure people,” he said, referring to former Vice President Dick Cheney’s repeated visits to C.I.A. headquarters before the Iraq war.  In late 2007, Michael McConnell, then the director of national intelligence, took a new National Intelligence Estimate — the consensus of analysts at the government’s 16 intelligence agencies — to the White House to brief President George W. Bush about the report’s startling new findings.   Officials at the White House, still stung from the criticism on Iraq, quickly realized that they would face a firestorm of protest if they did not make the findings public, according to former administration and intelligence officials.

. 

A classified version of the new assessment would go to the Congressional intelligence committees, where lawmakers would see that analysts had reached a sharply different conclusion about Iran than they had two years earlier, when they had concluded that Iran’s weapons program was still under way.

. 

News of the shift would probably leak to the news media, and White House officials feared that the administration would then be accused of suppressing intelligence on Iran, just as it had been criticized for doing on Iraq, according to the former officials.

. 

White House officials also worried that they would be accused of tainting the intelligence process, so they pressed Mr. McConnell to have the intelligence community write and issue its own declassified summary. Some senior intelligence officials who rushed to write the document over a weekend objected to disclosing their conclusions, but to no avail. “I was told that I didn’t get it; this wasn’t a request,” one official recalled.

. 

Once published, the report created an uproar. Conservative critics blasted C.I.A. officials, saying that the intelligence community was freelancing and trying to influence the political debate, and to make up for its shortcomings on Iraq by now trying to stop a war with Iran. Among them was Mr. Bolton, who dismissed the 2007 assessment as “famously distorted” and called on Congress to investigate its politicization.

Stung by those attacks, and the aftershocks of the poisonous political debate over the role of the intelligence community on Iraq and Iran, officials at the C.I.A. and other agencies did not release a public version of the 2010 assessment on the Iranian nuclear program, which concluded that while Iran had conducted some basic weapons-related research, it was not believed to have restarted the actual weapons program halted in 2003.

Thomas Fingar, who was chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the time of the 2007 assessment on Iran, said that analysts had to be willing to make tough calls based on fragmentary evidence, and not get distracted by what he called the rare instances of political pressure or their own previous lapses.

 

.

(There you have it folks the first edition of 1391. In a couple of weeks Iran will be in the full swing of Spring and it’s a great time to travel into the countryside as the trees glisten and shine and a new beginning overwhelms. Let’s hope those in a position of power find a way to prevent war and discover a way to solve these huge problems.)