Sabre Rattling in the Persian Gulf

And these very Indians have kicked Paki a$$ in every war...LOL!

Haha,

An injun itching to pick a fight


(courtesy Atif2)

‘Gulf states to aid attack on Iran’

Daily Times Monitor

LAHORE: Three Arab states would be willing to allow the Israeli air force to enter their airspace in order to reach Iran in case of an attack on its nuclear facilities, the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Siyasa reported on Sunday.

According to the report, a diplomat from one of the gulf states visiting Washington on Saturday said Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates have told the United States that they would not object to Israel using their airspace, despite their fear of an Iranian response.

Al-Siyasa also reported that NATO leaders are urging Turkey to open its airspace for an attack on Iran as well and to also open its airports and borders in case of a ground attack.

British newspaper The Daily Telegraph reported on Saturday that Israel is negotiating with the US over permission for an “air corridor” over Iraq, should an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities become necessary.

Tomato price hike an enemy plot: Nejad

TEHRAN: Iran’s president said on Sunday the country’s enemies had hatched a range of plots to push the Islamic Republic to give up its disputed nuclear programme, including driving up the price of tomatoes and other food. But Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said such tactics would not work, Iran’s ISNA news agency quoted him as saying. Rising prices, particularly the cost of tomatoes which form an important ingredient in Iranian food, have prompted growing public criticism of Ahmadinejad’s government. The president has often dismissed complaints as media exaggeration. “In order to harm us, they (enemies) make plots, for instance they come and push tomato prices up in the market. They think we will give up our ideals with their plots,” Ahmadinejad said in a speech in which he said Iran would not reverse its atomic plans. The latest official figures show inflation running at about 16 percent but economists say official figures underplay what Iranians pay for basic food in shops because they are based on a broader basket of goods that includes some subsidised items. “Of course, God willing, the problem of meat, chicken and tomatoes will be solved. One should be aware that our revolution is like a bulldozer ... the enemies think by throwing a few small stones and sand they can stop this bulldozer,” Ahmadinejad said. “Come and buy them from the fresh fruit and vegetable market next door to us. Why are you buying them from expensive places?” said the president, who won over many voters in the 2005 presidential race with his down-to-earth style. reuters

Tomato price hike an enemy plot: Nejad

TEHRAN: Iran’s president said on Sunday the country’s enemies had hatched a range of plots to push the Islamic Republic to give up its disputed nuclear programme, including driving up the price of tomatoes and other food. But Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said such tactics would not work, Iran’s ISNA news agency quoted him as saying. Rising prices, particularly the cost of tomatoes which form an important ingredient in Iranian food, have prompted growing public criticism of Ahmadinejad’s government. The president has often dismissed complaints as media exaggeration. “In order to harm us, they (enemies) make plots, for instance they come and push tomato prices up in the market. They think we will give up our ideals with their plots,” Ahmadinejad said in a speech in which he said Iran would not reverse its atomic plans. The latest official figures show inflation running at about 16 percent but economists say official figures underplay what Iranians pay for basic food in shops because they are based on a broader basket of goods that includes some subsidised items. “Of course, God willing, the problem of meat, chicken and tomatoes will be solved. One should be aware that our revolution is like a bulldozer ... the enemies think by throwing a few small stones and sand they can stop this bulldozer,” Ahmadinejad said. “Come and buy them from the fresh fruit and vegetable market next door to us. Why are you buying them from expensive places?” said the president, who won over many voters in the 2005 presidential race with his down-to-earth style. reuters

An extract from the RiverBend Blog, a girl blogger inside Iraq, often quoted by Juan Cole.

The Rape of Sabrine...
February 20, 2007

And yet, as the situation continues to deteriorate both for Iraqis inside and outside of Iraq, and for Americans inside Iraq, Americans in America are still debating on the state of the war and occupation- are they winning or losing? Is it better or worse.

Let me clear it up for any moron with lingering doubts: It’s worse. It’s over. You lost. You lost the day your tanks rolled into Baghdad to the cheers of your imported, American-trained monkeys. You lost every single family whose home your soldiers violated. You lost every sane, red-blooded Iraqi when the Abu Ghraib pictures came out and verified your atrocities behind prison walls as well as the ones we see in our streets. You lost when you brought murderers, looters, gangsters and militia heads to power and hailed them as Iraq’s first democratic government. You lost when a gruesome execution was dubbed your biggest accomplishment. You lost the respect and reputation you once had. You lost more than 3000 troops. That is what you lost America. I hope the oil, at least, made it worthwhile.

welfare queen: you have done no such thing...sunni shia undying love...yeah..right...

#42

haha ... I think I have made my point. You may stop googling it now. Look for something else.

:~)

#44 by SR

Thanks. :~)

Re: # 37 zeemax {``...What Ahmedinejad talked about, ... was `erasing the map` of Israel, and not `wiping Israel off the map`...``}

Perhaps you are trying to say what Virginia Tilley has said most eloquently in the article titled Putting Words in Ahmadinejad`s Mouth.

Professot Tilly writes, ``The most infamous quote, ``Israel must be wiped off the map``, is the most glaringly wrong. In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never used the word ``map`` or the term ``wiped off``. According to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually said was ``this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.``

What did he mean? In this speech to an annual anti-Zionist conference, Mr. Ahmadinejad was being prophetic, not threatening. He was citing Imam Khomeini, who said this line in the 1980s (a period when Israel was actually selling arms to Iran, so apparently it was not viewed as so ghastly then).

...SR

Why They Hate Each Other
Thursday, Feb. 22, 2007
Why They Hate Each Other
By Bobby Ghosh / Baghdad

It has come to this: the hatred between Iraq`s warring sects is now so toxic, it contaminates even the memory of a shining moment of goodwill. On Aug. 31, 2005, a stampede among Shi`ite pilgrims on a bridge over the Tigris River in Baghdad led to hundreds jumping into the water in panic. Several young men in Adhamiya, the Sunni neighborhood on the eastern bank, dived in to help. One of them, Othman al-Obeidi, 25, rescued six people before his limbs gave out from exhaustion and he himself drowned. Nearly 1,000 pilgrims died that afternoon, but community leaders in the Shi`ite district of Khadamiya, on the western bank, lauded the ``martyrdom`` of al-Obeidi and the bravery of his friends. Adhamiya residents, for their part, held up al-Obeidi`s sacrifice as proof that Sunnis bore no ill will toward their Shi`ite neighbors across the river.

Eighteen months on, one of the men who jumped into the river to help the Shi`ites says al-Obeidi ``wasted his life for those animals.`` Hamza Muslawi refuses to talk about how many he himself saved, saying it fills him with shame. ``If I see a Shi`ite child about to drown in the Tigris now,`` says the carpenter, ``I will not reach my hand out to save him.`` In Khadamiya, too, the narrative about Aug. 31 has changed. Karrar Hussein, 28, was crossing the bridge when the stampede began. Ask him about al-Obeidi, and his cheerful demeanor quickly turns sour. ``That is a myth,`` hisses the cell-phone salesman. ``That person never existed at all. He was invented by the Sunnis to make them look good.`` Rather than jumping in to help, he claims, the people of Adhamiya laughed and cheered as Shi`ites drowned.

The bridge connecting the two neighborhoods is now closed for security reasons--just as well, since the chasm between them is too wide for any man-made span. Mortars fired from the cemetery behind Abu Hanifa, a Sunni shrine in Adhamiya, have caused carnage in the bustling markets of the western bank. There are more mortars going in the opposite direction; on a recent afternoon, the sound of an explosion on the Sunni side of the river is greeted with cheers by worshippers at a Shi`ite shrine in Khadamiya.

Those cheers are just one sign of how much venom has seeped into Sunni-Shi`ite relations in the year since their simmering conflict was brought to a boil by the bombing of Samarra`s golden-domed shrine. The bloodlust is no longer limited to extremists on both sides. Hatred has gone mainstream, spreading first to victims of the violence and their families--the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have lost loved ones, jobs, homes, occasionally entire neighborhoods--and then into the wider society. Now it permeates not only the rancorous political discourse of Baghdad`s Green Zone but also ordinary conversations in homes and marketplaces, arousing a fury even in those who have no obvious, pressing grievance. Neither Muslawi nor Hussein has suffered personal loss, but they are relatively able to tap into the same loathing that motivates the Shi`ite militias and Sunni jihadis. ``The air has become poisoned [by sectarianism], and we have all been breathing it,`` says Abbas Fadhil, a Baghdad physician. ``And so now everybody is talking the same language, whether they are educated or illiterate, secular or religious, violent or not.``

Worse, there are clear signs that Iraq`s malice has an echo in other parts of the Middle East, exacerbating existing tensions between Sunnis and Shi`ites and reanimating long-dormant ones. In Lebanon, some Hizballah supporters seeking to topple the government in Beirut chant the name of radical Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose militia is blamed for thousands of Sunni deaths. In Sunni Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt, sympathy for Sunnis in Iraq is spiked with the fear, notably in official circles, of a Shi`ite tide rising across the Middle East, instigated and underwritten by an ancient enemy of the Arabs: Iran.

For those who follow Iraq from afar, the daily stories of sectarian slaughter are perplexing. Why are the Shi`ites and Sunnis fighting? Why now? There are several explanations for the timing of the outbreak of hostilities, each tied to a particular interpretation of how events unfolded after the fall of Saddam Hussein: flawed American postwar policies, provocation by foreign jihadis, retaliation by militias like al-Sadr`s Mahdi Army, the ineptitude of Iraqi politicians and, lately, Iranian interference. But the rage burning in people like Muslawi and Hussein has much deeper and older roots. It is the product of centuries of social, political and economic inequality, imposed by repression and prejudice and frequently reinforced by bloodshed. The hatred is not principally about religion. Sunnis and Shi`ites may disagree on some matters of dogma and some details of Islam`s early history, but these differences are small--they agree on most of the important tenets of the faith, like the infallibility of the Koran, and they venerate the Prophet Muhammad. Despite the claims by some Arab commentators, there is no evidence that Iraq`s Shi`ite extremists are trying to convert Sunnis, or vice versa. For Iraqi fighters on both sides, ``their sect is nothing more than a uniform, a convenient way to tell friend from enemy,`` says Ghanim Hashem Kudhir, who teaches modern Islamic history at Baghdad`s Mustansiriya University. ``What binds them is not religion but common historical experience: Shi`ites see themselves as the oppressed, and they see Sunnis as the oppressors.``

Sunnis and Shi`ites are fighting for a secular prize: political domination. The warring sects, says a U.S. official in Baghdad, ``are simply communities ... striving to gain or regain power.`` Without an understanding of the roots of the rage that drives people like Muslawi and Hussein, any plan--American or Iraqi, military or political--to stabilize Iraq is doomed to failure. And that power struggle in Iraq, whether it draws neighboring countries into a wider sectarian conflict or forces a realignment of alliances, has the potential to radically alter the Middle East.

I. ORIGINS

ISLAM`S SCHISM BEGAN IN A.D. 632, immediately after the Prophet Muhammad died without naming a successor as leader of the new Muslim flock. Some of his followers believed the role of Caliph, or viceroy of God, should be passed down Muhammad`s bloodline, starting with his cousin and son-in-law, Ali ibn Abi Talib. But the majority backed the Prophet`s friend Abu Bakr, who duly became Caliph. Ali would eventually become the fourth Caliph before being murdered in A.D. 661 by a heretic near Kufa, now in Iraq. The succession was once again disputed, and this time it led to a formal split. The majority backed the claim of Mu`awiyah, Governor of Syria, and his son Yazid. Ali`s supporters, who would eventually be known collectively as Shi`at Ali, or partisans of Ali, agitated for his son Hussein. When the two sides met on a battlefield near modern Karbala on Oct. 10, 680, Hussein was killed and decapitated. But rather than nipping the Shi`ite movement in the bud, his death gave it a martyr. In Shi`ite eyes, Hussein is a just and humane figure who stood up to a mighty oppressor. The annual mourning of Hussein`s death, known as Ashura, is the most poignant and spectacular of Shi`ite ceremonies: the faithful march in the streets, beating their chests and crying in sorrow. The extremely devout flagellate themselves with swords and whips.

Those loyal to Mu`awiyah and his successors as Caliph would eventually be known as Sunnis, meaning followers of the Sunnah, or Way, of the Prophet. Since the Caliph was often the political head of the Islamic empire as well as its religious leader, imperial patronage helped make Sunni Islam the dominant sect. Today about 90% of Muslims worldwide are Sunnis. But Shi`ism would always attract some of those who felt oppressed by the empire. Shi`ites continued to venerate the Imams, or the descendants of the Prophet, until the 12th Imam, Mohammed al-Mahdi (the Guided One), who disappeared in the 9th century at the location of the Samarra shrine in Iraq. Mainstream Shi`ites believe that al-Mahdi is mystically hidden and will emerge on an unspecified date to usher in a reign of justice.

Shi`ites soon formed the majority in the areas that would become the modern states of Iraq, Iran, Bahrain and Azerbaijan. There are also significant Shi`ite minorities in other Muslim states, including Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Pakistan. Crucially, Shi`ites outnumber Sunnis in the Middle East`s major oil-producing regions--not only Iran and Iraq but also eastern Saudi Arabia. But outside Iran, Sunnis have historically had a lock on political power, even where Shi`ites have the numerical advantage. (The one place where the opposite holds true is modern Syria, which is mostly Sunni but since 1970 has been ruled by a small Shi`ite subsect known as the Alawites.) Sunni rulers maintained their monopoly on power by excluding Shi`ites from the military and bureaucracy; for much of Islamic history, a ruling Sunni élite treated Shi`ites as an underclass, limited to manual labor and denied a fair share of state resources.

The rulers used religious arguments to justify oppression. Shi`ites, they said, were not genuine Muslims but heretics. Devised for political convenience, this view of Shi`ites solidified into institutionalized prejudice. Sunnis likened reverence for the Prophet`s bloodline and the Shi`ites` fondness for portraits of some of the Imams to the sin of idolatry. Shi`ite rituals, especially the self-flagellation during Ashura, were derided as pagan. Many rulers forbade such ceremonies, fearing that large gatherings would quickly turn into political uprisings. (Ashura was banned during most of Saddam Hussein`s rule and resumed only after his downfall in 2003.) ``For Shi`ites, Sunni rule has been like living under apartheid,`` says Vali Nasr, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of The Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape the Future.

But religious repression was uneven. Sunni Caliphs in Baghdad tolerated and sometimes contributed to the development of Najaf and Karbala as the most important centers of Shi`ite learning. Shi`ite ayatullahs, as long as they refrained from open defiance of the ruling élite, could run seminaries and collect tithes from their followers. The shrines of Shi`ite Imams in Najaf, Karbala, Samarra and Khadamiya were allowed to become magnets for pilgrimage.

Sectarian relations worsened in the 16th century. By then the seat of Sunni power had moved to Istanbul. When the Turkish Sunni Ottomans fought a series of wars with the Shi`ite Safavids of Persia, the Arabs caught in between were sometimes obliged to take sides. Sectarian suspicions planted then have never fully subsided, and Sunni Arabs still pejoratively label Shi`ites as ``Persians`` or ``Safavis.`` The Ottomans eventually won control of the Arab territories and cemented Sunni dominance. The British, the next power in the Middle East, did nothing to change the equation. In the settlement after World War I, they handed the newly created states of Iraq and Bahrain, both with Shi`ite majorities, to Sunni monarchs.

II. SADDAM`S LEGACY

WHEN SADDAM HUSSEIN ASSUMED POWER in Baghdad in 1979, Iraq`s Shi`ites had enjoyed a couple of decades of respite under leaders who allowed them some measure of equality with the Sunnis. Then came Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini`s 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran. Fearing a similar uprising in Iraq, Saddam revived some old repressions and ordered the murder of Iraq`s most popular ayatullah, Mohammed Bakr al-Sadr, uncle of Muqtada. Shi`ites made up a majority of those killed in Iraq`s war with Iran, which lasted from 1980 to 1988, but after it ended they were once again shut out of most senior government and military positions. With the defeat of Saddam`s army in the 1991 Gulf War, Shi`ites saw a chance to rise against the dictator. But they received no protection from the allied forces, and Saddam was able to smash the revolt. By some estimates, more than 300,000 Shi`ites were killed; many were buried in mass graves. For the rest of his reign, Saddam kept the Shi`ites firmly under his thumb. Several popular clerics were killed, including Muqtada`s father. Saddam ordered the murder of Sunnis too, but there was a crucial difference. ``When Saddam killed a Sunni, it was personal--because of something that person had done,`` says author Nasr. ``But when it came to killing Shi`ites, he was indiscriminate. He didn`t need a specific reason. Their being Shi`ite was enough.``

Remarkably, despite the profound imbalance in political power and the legacy of repression, many individual Iraqis forged business, social and personal relationships between the sects. In Baghdad and other cities, most neighborhoods built in the modern era were mixed. Residents of Adhamiya and Khadamiya were able to reach across the Tigris and socialize. Mohammed al-Shammari, an Arabic-literature professor, fondly remembers evenings with friends in Khadamiya, followed by dinner and late-night revelry in Adhamiya, where shops and restaurants stayed open later. ``Nobody asked us if we were Shi`ite or Sunni,`` says al-Shammari. ``And we never thought to ask each other. I have friends I didn`t know were Shi`ite until quite recently.`` Among the urban educated classes, it was considered unsophisticated and politically incorrect to ask people their sect, though there are other ways to find out (see box). Some of the people mentioned in this article agreed to be interviewed only if their names were changed. Many of Iraq`s tribes have always included clans from both sects. Sunni-Shi`ite marriages were commonplace, especially among the educated urban population. In the winter of 2002, when Fattah, a Shi`ite computer technician, asked the father of his Sunni girlfriend Zahra for permission to marry her, there was no hesitation. The couple was married a few days before the start of the war, and Zahra says, ``Many of the guests were themselves mixed couples.``

III. THE IMPLOSION

FOR TWO YEARS AFTER SADDAM`S FALL, such ties were strong enough to keep widespread sectarian violence at bay. There were provocations: Sunni jihadi groups, such as Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi`s al-Qaeda, began a bombing campaign against Shi`ite targets. But many Shi`ite extremists, rather than lashing out at Sunnis, sometimes joined them in the insurgency against the Americans and their allies. When Muqtada al-Sadr`s Mahdi Army rose against the U.S. in the summer of 2004, it was supported by the Sunni insurgency. That fall some of al-Sadr`s fighters joined Sunnis in the battle of Fallujah. Al-Sadr portrayed himself as a defender of Arabs, not Shi`ites alone. Even the hard-line Sunni clerics` group, the Association of Muslim Scholars, hailed him as an Iraqi hero; Sunni politicians spoke of a political alliance with the Mahdi Army.

Inter-sect relations, political and personal, began to fray with the approach of Iraq`s first post-Saddam election in January 2005. Sunni parties boycotted the poll, allowing a Shi`ite coalition to sweep to power. With an assertiveness that at times bordered on arrogance, the Shi`ite-led government inflamed Sunni resentment. An especially sore point was the mass recruitment into the police and the military of Shi`ite militiamen, some of whom used the immunity of their uniforms to avenge old grudges against Sunnis. Sunni terrorism groups stepped up their bombing campaign, which convinced Shi`ites that the former ruling class was never going to accept its reduced status. By the time U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad persuaded Sunni parties to take part in a second general election in December 2005, the two sects were some distance apart.

Then came Samarra. The operation carried the Jordanian-born al-Zarqawi`s fingerprints, but Iraqi Sunnis were the ones who would endure the bloody fallout. For many Shi`ites, this was an atrocity too far. They turned to militias such as the Mahdi Army to avenge the desecration of the site, and those militias ran amuck, slaughtering Sunnis and attacking many of their mosques. After the first, furious convulsion of violence, the militias began a more systematic campaign of kidnap and execution. The bodies of their victims, bearing signs of bestial torture, were often tossed into sewers or garbage dumps. Jihadi groups responded in kind. The U.S. military had passed on most security responsibilities to Iraqi forces, but they proved unable to halt the killings. Worse, they were frequently accused of joining in the fighting, usually on the side of the militias. Last fall two U.S.-Iraqi joint security operations failed to stanch the bloodletting.

Saddam`s execution became another flash point. Even Sunnis who had little sympathy for Saddam were incensed that the government chose to hang him at the hour of morning prayers on one of the most sacred Muslim holidays (Iraqi Sunnis celebrated the holiday one day before the Shi`ites). The choice seemed to confirm suspicions that Shi`ite political dominance would be a constant humiliation. ``It was their way of telling us, `We`re in charge now, and you are so weak that even your holy days have no meaning anymore,``` says media analyst Kadhim al-Mukhdadi. ``That morning I gave up hoping that things would get better.``

He is not alone in that hopelessness. Sectarian lines have been drawn through mixed neighborhoods. Where Shi`ites are in the majority, Sunni families have been forced to leave for fear of death. Sunnis have responded with their own sectarian cleansing. A large portion of the mostly Sunni middle and upper classes has fled the country; Jordan and Syria together now have nearly 2 million Iraqi expatriates. Inter-sect marriages have become less and less common. Zahra`s father has refused to give his younger daughter permission to follow in her sister`s footsteps and marry a Shi`ite. ``He is the same man,`` Zahra says in her father`s defense. ``But the situation around him has changed. Now if he allows a daughter to marry a Shi`ite, people will ask questions.``

IV. A WIDER WAR

IN IRAQ, THE SUNNI-SHI`ITE WAR CAN sometimes seem no more than a series of concurrent battles between neighborhoods such as Adhamiya and Khadamiya. The people fighting may have no conception of any greater plan. The wider Muslim world, however, tends to focus on the big picture. Shi`ites are now politically dominant in Iraq, and Iran is the leading Shi`ite power. So in most Arab capitals, the sectarian war in Iraq is increasingly blamed on Iran. Taken along with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad`s nuclear ambitions, Iran`s sponsorship of the Shi`ite Hizballah militia in Lebanon and its backing of Hamas, Iran`s supposed meddling in Iraq is proof to Arab leaders that their old Persian rivals are determined to reshape the Middle East to suit their own interest.

As early as 2004, Jordan`s King Abdullah warned of a rising Shi`ite ``crescent`` running from Iran through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon. Although the Shi`ite-led government in Baghdad had the backing of the U.S., in many Arab eyes it represented the expansion of Iran`s influence. Sunni Arab leaders have begun to ratchet up their rhetoric against Shi`ites in general and Iran in particular. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in 2006 said, ``Most of the Shi`ites are loyal to Iran and not to the countries they are living in.`` After a storm of protest from Iraq and elsewhere, Mubarak claimed he had been referring only to matters of religion. In the predominantly Sunni Palestinian territories, supporters of Fatah have taken to branding their Hamas rivals as a Shi`ite organization. In January, Saudi Arabia`s King Abdullah informed a Kuwaiti newspaper that he had told an Iranian envoy that Iran was interfering in Iraq and endangering the region. King Abdullah also accused Iran of wanting to spread Shi`ism in Sunni countries.

But both sides are responsible for stoking tensions. Religious leaders of the Wahhabi sect, often backed and bankrolled by members of the Saudi royal family, contribute to the spread of sectarian violence by preaching a hard-line form of Sunni Islam that condemns all other strains as heresy. In Pakistan, moderate Muslims blame Wahhabi madrasahs as well as Iranian-funded Shi`ite seminaries for the escalation of Sunni-Shi`ite violence that has claimed more than 4,000 lives in the past two decades. In the latest attacks, three separate suicide bombings killed 21 during the Ashura rituals in January. In Lebanon, sectarian tensions have risen after years of relative calm. Hizballah, the Shi`ite militia, won praise from Sunnis when Israeli forces left Lebanon in 2000. But after the assassination in February 2005 of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, a Sunni, intra-Muslim antagonism began to harden. Sunnis blamed Hizballah`s patron, the Syrian government, for the killing. While faulting Hizballah for provoking last summer`s war, many Lebanese Sunnis stood with Hizballah in the face of Israel`s onslaught against the country. But any residual Sunni admiration for Hizballah vanished by the end of the year, when Hizballah led a campaign to bring down the government of Hariri`s longtime friend Fouad Siniora.

Iraq`s Sunnis, for their part, have grown adept at playing to wider Middle Eastern concerns about Iran`s influence in the region. Sunni politicians stoke these anxieties in the hope that Arab pressure on the Iraqi government will force it to give Sunnis a greater share of power. ``If the Arab states don`t come to our help, they will find [Iran] at their gate,`` says Mohammed Bashar al-Faidi, a spokesman for the Association of Muslim Scholars. ``For the sake of the entire Muslim community worldwide, the beast has to be destroyed in Iraq.`` For leaders of terrorist groups, the fear of a regionwide Shi`ite ascendancy serves as a useful fund-raising tool as well as recruiting propaganda. Radical Sunni preachers and TV talk-show hosts across the Arab world are inflaming sentiments by accusing Iraq`s ``Persians`` of ethnic cleansing. In January, an editorial in al-Ahram, a newspaper widely seen as the voice of the Egyptian state, declared, ``Iran is working actively toward spreading the Shi`ite doctrine even in countries that do not have a Shi`ite minority.`` Iran, in turn, has accused Sunnis of issuing fatwas authorizing the killing of Shi`ites.

V. THE UNBRIDGEABLE CHASM

MOST IRAQIS, CAUGHT UP IN THEIR OWN terrors, have little time for the angst of the wider Islamic world. Those who can look past the daily horrors see an even more frightening future, in which their children carry today`s hatreds into the next generation. With thousands being killed on either side, the nationalist, secular slogans that were long taught in Iraq`s schools have lost much of their meaning. And children do not get too many lessons in secularism at home. ``When we were kids, my parents taught us that Shi`ites had the wrong idea about Islam but were just misguided, not bad people,`` says Ayesha Ubaid, 26, a Sunni doctor`s assistant whose late husband was a Shi`ite. ``But now I hear my brothers and sisters-in-law telling their children, `Those people killed our uncle and two cousins and stole our ancestral home.``` Her son Mohammed, 8, returned from school one afternoon and angrily asked, ``Why did you marry an infidel?``

Ubaid lives with three brothers and their families. In November, they all moved to Adhamiya from Shulla, a mostly Shi`ite neighborhood where she was born. ``I knew every brick of every house on my street,`` she says. ``When we left, some of our neighbors cried and promised they would protect our house with their lives. But the next day, a Shi`ite family took the place, and nobody stopped them.`` Ubaid says she had considered raising Mohammed as a Shi`ite, out of respect for her husband. But now, she says, ``that would be inviting disaster.`` Still, Ubaid says that in her new neighborhood, she feels as safe as it is possible to be in Baghdad.

Will she stay that way? With a large supply of luck, Operation Imposing Law, the new security operation enabled by President George W. Bush`s ``surge`` of U.S. troops, may halt the sectarian fighting in Baghdad long enough for Shi`ites and Sunnis to start mending fences. If all goes according to plan, the Iraqi government will use the respite from violence to launch a massive economic program that will create jobs and improve civic services like electricity and water supply. If the government can do that, says veteran Shi`ite politician Abu Firas al-Saedi, ``people won`t immediately start hugging each other and become best friends again--but at least if they are busy working and making money, they will have time to forget the past.`` In this optimistic view, the militias won`t take their fight from Baghdad to other Iraqi cities, where the U.S. presence is minimal, and any security gains in Baghdad will quickly spread elsewhere.

Conceivably, all that might happen. As Operation Imposing Law got under way on Feb. 14, there were some signs that Shi`ite militias might be reducing their attacks on Sunnis. Al-Sadr has ordered his Mahdi Army to lie low and avoid direct confrontation with American troops. Al-Sadr himself and several of his top commanders are believed to have left for Iran. But few in Baghdad doubt that he will be back. ``He is just bending to the wind because he knows his fighters can`t face the Americans,`` says Hussain al-Moed, a rival Shi`ite cleric. ``But he also knows that the Americans will leave. The Mahdi Army can afford to wait.`` Sunni jihadis have kept up their bombing campaign despite the security operation--and if they continue to strike against Shi`ite neighborhoods, the Mahdi Army may return to the fight.

It`s too early to tell if the new operation will damp down sectarian tensions. ``There are more ways in which this could go wrong than go right,`` says political analyst Tahseen al-Shekhli. ``We have seen too many plans fail to have any faith in this one.`` Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a lifelong Shi`ite partisan, has shown little patience for Sunni grievances and has failed to start an oft-promised national reconciliation process. So despite his professed conviction that the security operation is working, chances remain high that it will eventually falter, brought down by the inability of Sunnis and Shi`ites to find a political settlement or the reduction of U.S. forces that is bound to happen one day.

And then all hell would be let loose. Iraq is a country where almost every household has at least one AK-47. If there is no Sunni-Shi`ite rapprochement, a full-blown civil war would raise the daily death toll from the scores to the hundreds--to say nothing of the escalation that would come if neighboring countries became involved, Iran backing the Shi`ite militias, Arab states sponsoring the Sunnis. Such a war could continue for years, with each sectarian community splitting into smaller factions led by rival warlords. In Baghdad, the ethnic cleansing would continue to its logical conclusion, with the city split into a Shi`ite east and a Sunni west.

If it came to that, no bridge, no crossing, would convince the residents of Adhamiya and Khadamiya that they had dreams in common. Just as Muslawi and Hussein look back at the stampede over the bridge in 2005 and see different pasts, so Iraq`s Sunnis and Shi`ites may now be contemplating a future that they cannot share. There could be no more bitter legacy of the Bush Administration`s fateful decision to go to war in Iraq.

With reporting by Charles Crain / Baghdad, Scott MacLeod / Beirut, Aryn Baker / Kabul, Ghulam Hasnain / Karachi

#41 by zeemax on February 23, 2007 9:16am PT

welfare queen: the shias got together and elected the sunni monarchy and that`s how baharain is an example of shia-sunni brotherhood, right?

#40

Aah .. you`re good at googling but never enough ... lol ..

Abey, you just proved my point once again. Sunni ruling family over a shia people. Haha.

umm...the bahraini monarchy is sunni, isn`t it?

#36

Idiotic ...

Bahrain ordered nine UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters in an estimated $252 million deal

Abey ignoramus ... Bahrain is Shia ... so why`re they scared of fellow Shia Iran?

Haha ... as I always say .. Code cooleys are not expected to get it.

They`re all scared of losing their little sheikhdoms .. whether shia or sunni.

#35

... yep it`s through sheer hatred that Shia Iran supports Sunni Hamas plus Sunni insurgents in Iraq ... isn`t that what your amrikan says? Or is it Iran is supporting Shia insurgents ... but hey .. I thought Shias are on the amrikan side in the Government and its only Sunnis who are insurgeofyiing with Sunni Al-kayda`s help .. so why`re Shia Iranians helping them?

... forget it. Code cooleys are not expected to get it.

Of all the dumb hype over a bad translation! Itching for a fight for nothing.

What Ahmedinejad talked about, and I`ve read some authentic translations from Farsi, was `erasing the map` of Israel, and not `wiping Israel off the map`.

There`s a huge difference here. What he meant was to erase the State of Israel from M.E`s map, and not nuking all its` inhabitants. Meaning a `singe state solution` , instead of the `two-state solution` which the majority of Palestinians do not accept.

Love means having to buy billions of $$ of weapons you`ll never use


February 23, 2007
Arab States, Wary of Iran, Add to Their Arsenals but Still Lean on the U.S.
By HASSAN M. FATTAH

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates, Feb. 22 — As fears grow over the escalating confrontation between Iran and the West, Arab states across the Persian Gulf have begun a rare show of muscle flexing, publicly advertising a shopping spree for new weapons and openly discussing their security concerns.

Typically secretive, the gulf nations have long planned upgrades to their armed forces, but now are speaking openly about them. American military officials say the countries, normally prone to squabbling, have also increased their military cooperation and opened lines of communication to the American military here.

Patriot missile batteries capable of striking down ballistic missiles have been readied in several gulf countries, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, analysts say, and increasingly, the states have sought to emphasize their unanimity against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“There has always been an acknowledgment of the threat in the region, but the volume of the debate has now risen,” said one United Arab Emirates official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the subject. “Now the message is there’s a dialogue going on with Iran, but that doesn’t mean I don’t intend to defend myself.”

The Persian Gulf monarchies and sheikdoms, mostly small and vulnerable, have long relied on the United States to protect them. The United States Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain; the United States Central Command is based in nearby Qatar; and the Navy has long relied on docking facilities in the United Arab Emirates, which has one of the region’s deepest water ports at Jebel Ali.

The United States, too, has begun a significant expansion of forces in the gulf, with a second United States aircraft carrier battle group led by the John C. Stennis now in the Persian Gulf and with minesweeping ships.

The expansion has helped calm fears among gulf governments that the United States could pull out of the region in the future, even as it has raised concerns about a potential American confrontation with Iran, accidental or intentional.

As tensions with Iran rise, many gulf countries have come to see themselves as the likely first targets of an Iranian attack. Some have grown more concerned that the United States may be overstretched militarily, many analysts say, while almost all the monarchies, flush with cash as a result of high oil prices, have sought to build a military deterrent of their own.

“The message is first, ‘U.S., stay involved here,’ and second, ‘Iran, we will maintain a technological edge no matter what,’ ” said Emile el-Hokayem, research fellow at the Henry L. Stimson Center, a research center based in Washington. “They are trying to reinforce the credibility of the threat of force.”

Military officials from throughout the region descended this week on the Idex military trade fair, a semiannual event that has become the region’s largest arms market, drawing nearly 900 weapons makers from around the world. They came ready to update their military capacities and air and naval defenses. They also came armed with a veiled message of resolve.

“We believe there is a need for power to protect peace, and strong people with the capability to respond are the real protectors of peace,” said Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the president of the United Arab Emirates and ruler of the emirate of Abu Dhabi, at the exposition. “That is why we are keen to maintain the efficiency of our armed forces.”

The Persian Gulf has been a lucrative market for arms. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Oman spend up to 10 percent of their gross domestic product on the military, amounting to nearly $21 billion, $4 billion and $2.7 billion, respectively, estimates John Kenkel, senior director of Jane’s Strategic Advisory Services.

If they follow through on the deals announced recently, it is estimated that countries like the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman and Saudi Arabia will spend up to $60 billion this year. The biggest buyer in 2006, according to the defense industry journal Defense News, was Saudi Arabia, which has agreed to buy 72 Eurofighter Typhoon combat jets for $11 billion. It also has a $400 million deal to upgrade 12 Apache AH-64A helicopters to the Longbow standard. The kingdom also reportedly plans to acquire cruise missiles, attack helicopters and tanks, all for a total of $50 billion.

Kuwait reportedly bought 24 Apache Longbow helicopters, while the United Arab Emirates has continued to take delivery of 80 F-16 Block 60 fighters, with plans to buy air tankers, missile defense batteries and airborne early warning systems. Bahrain ordered nine UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters in an estimated $252 million deal, while Oman reportedly bought 30 antitank rocket launchers in a $48 million purchase and is planning a naval overhaul.

“It is a message to enemies that ‘We are taking defense seriously,’ ” Mr. Kenkel said, emphasizing that the new arms were for deterrence.

“If the U.S. ever does pull back, these countries in the gulf have realized, they may have to fend for themselves,” Mr. Kenkel said. “As the Boy Scouts say, always be prepared.”

The most marked change is in the public nature of the acquisitions, which previously would have been kept secret, many analysts here said, itself a form of deterrence.

“They have been doing these kinds of purchases since the ’90s,” said Marwan Lahoud, chief executive of the European missile maker MBDA. “What has changed is they are stating it publicly. The other side is making pronouncements so they have to as well,” he said, speaking of Iran’s recent announcements about its weapons capacity.

Senior United States military officials say gulf countries have become more nervous as Iran has conducted naval maneuvers, especially near the Straits of Hormuz, the main artery through which two-fifths of the world’s oil reaches markets.

“A year ago you could have characterized the interaction with the Iranians as professional,” said Vice Adm. Patrick Walsh, departing commander of the Fifth Fleet. “What’s different today has been the number and amount of exercises and the proximity of those exercises to the Straits of Hormuz themselves.”

The exercises were among the reasons for the expansion of Navy forces in the region, he said, but have also raised alarm about the potential for accidents to lead to an unintended war.

Admiral Walsh said that American warships remained in international waters, and that Iranian and American ships kept close watch on one another. Some critics of the Bush administration have alleged that the increased military presence in the gulf risks igniting a conflict.

Admiral Walsh said the increased American presence was aimed at o reassuring gulf states that the United States remained committed to their security, but also welcomed their efforts to build deterrence.

“We have found that we need to be physically present to prevent such armed behavior,” he said of the Iranian maneuvers. “We’re mindful we’re not giving up any water, but also being careful not to take a provocative stance.”

70 iraqis dead today

killed by an overabundance of sunni-shia love perhaps?

The U.S. seems to be over hyping the Iran nuclear program. Read the following report from today`s Guardian Unlimited. It is reminiscent of the run up to Iraqi war.
Mohammad Gill

---

US intelligence on Iran does not stand up, say Vienna sources


· Tip-offs did not lead to signs of banned activity
· IAEA report raises pressure for new sanctions

Julian Borger in Vienna
Friday February 23, 2007
The Guardian

A Tehran student supports the nuclear programme
A Tehran student supports the nuclear programme. Photograph: Behrouz Mehri/AFP/Getty

Much of the intelligence on Iran`s nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by American spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, according to diplomatic sources in Vienna.

The claims, reminiscent of the intelligence fiasco surrounding the Iraq war, coincided with a sharp increase in international tension as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was defying a UN security council ultimatum to freeze its nuclear programme.

That report, delivered to the security council by the IAEA director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, sets the stage for a fierce international debate on the imposition of stricter sanctions on Iran, and raises the possibility that the US might resort to military action against Iranian nuclear sites.

Article continues
At the heart of the debate are accusations, spearheaded by the US, that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons. However, most of the tip-offs about supposed secret weapons sites provided by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have led to dead ends when investigated by IAEA inspectors, according to informed sources in Vienna.

``Most of it has turned out to be incorrect,`` said a diplomat at the IAEA with detailed knowledge of the agency`s investigations. ``They gave us a paper with a list of sites. [The inspectors] did some follow-up, they went to some military sites, but there was no sign of [banned nuclear] activities.``

``Now [the inspectors] don`t go in blindly. Only if it passes a credibility test.``

One particularly contentious issue concerned records of plans to build a nuclear warhead, which the CIA said it found on a stolen laptop computer supplied by an informant inside Iran. In July 2005, US intelligence officials showed printed versions of the material to IAEA officials, who judged it to be sufficiently specific to confront Iran.

Tehran rejected the material as forgeries and there are still reservations about its authenticity in the IAEA, according to officials with knowledge of the internal debate inside the agency.

``First of all, if you have a clandestine programme, you don`t put it on laptops which can walk away,`` one official said. ``The data is all in English which may be reasonable for some of the technical matters, but at some point you`d have thought there would be at least some notes in Farsi. So there is some doubt over the provenance of the computer.``

IAEA officials do not comment on intelligence passed to the watchdog agency by foreign governments, saying all such assistance is confidential.

A western counter-proliferation official accepted that intelligence on Iran had sometimes been patchy but argued that the essential point was Iran`s failure to live up to its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty.

``I take on board on what they`re saying, but the bottom line is that for nearly 20 years [the Iranians] were violating safeguards agreements,`` the official said. ``There is a confidence deficit here about the regime`s true intentions.``

That deficit will be deepened by yesterday`s IAEA report. It concluded bluntly: ``Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities``, in defiance of a December UN ultimatum to stop. The report noted that Iran had continued with the operation of a pilot enrichment plant.

Furthermore, the report said that Iran had informed the agency of its plan to install 18 arrays, or cascades, of 164 centrifuges in an underground plant by May - a total of nearly 3,000. At the moment, Iran`s centrifuges are being used to make low-enriched uranium, but if they were switched to making highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium, they could produce enough for a bomb in less than a year.

Dr ElBaradei`s report said that Iran had so far not agreed to the IAEA installing remote monitoring devices in the enrichment plant to keep constant tabs on what the Iranians were doing with them.

Furthermore, the IAEA still has a string of questions about the Iranian programme that remain unanswered. Until they are, the agency will not give Iran a clear bill of health.

One of the ``outstanding issues`` listed in yesterday`s report involves a 15-page document that appears to have been handed to IAEA inspectors by mistake in October 2005. That document roughly describes how to make hemispheres of enriched uranium, for which the only known use is in nuclear warheads. Iran has yet to present a satisfactory explanation of how and why it has the document.

Last night Iran, which says its nuclear fuel programme is designed only to produce electricity, remained defiant. ``Regarding the suspension mentioned in the report, because such a demand has no legal basis and is against international treaties, naturally, it could not be accepted by Iran,`` Muhammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran`s Atomic Energy Organisation, told Reuters in Tehran. Mr Saeedi said the report showed that returning to talks was the best way to resolve the dispute.

The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said he was ``deeply concerned``. ``I urge again that the Iranian government should fully comply with the demands as soon as possible and engage in negotiations with the international community so that we can resolve this issue peacefully.``

#30

An Alawite Shia married to a Sunni woman president of a 75% Sunni country ..

hehe ... sure there`s a divide.

(The country is Syria since code coolies are not supposed to know)

Haha ....

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

50+ people dead everyday in iraq in sunni-shia violence and there`s no divide...

mmmkay..

Zeemax #28,

Very true. Same goes for the Hindu/Muslim divide - there isn`t one and some people
seem to think there is. Kya karein...

#27 by SR

You just broke some injun hearts .. who keep spewing taunts about the shia/sunni divide when there`s none. The Israelis know that, but these injuns don`t.

:~)

``The masses of the Arab - indeed the entire Muslim world, both Sunnis and Shiites, will rally around Iran. The Sunni heads of state, who are embracing Israel now in secret, will run away in panic. We shall be left alone to face the revenge that will come sooner or later. Will we be able to rely on the heirs of Bush, who may be less reckless and more inclined to listen to world public opinion, which will inevitably blame us for this whole adventure?``

These are the words of a patriotic Jewish citizen of Israel, an original Aliyah, a member of the Knesset (Israeli parliament) and a contemporary of Ben Gurion. To read his complete article about the dangers of the coming war with Iran, Click here

...SR

bjkumar:

I hope you are right.

If one dispassionately assesses the Iraq war, it has failed on all counts. There were no wmds; the experiment with democracy has produced awful schism in the Iraqi society; and there is no reduction in terrorism. In fact, it has significantly increased. I think it`s time for the U.S. to pull the plug on war and to give a chance to peaceful negotiations.

I like your logic on Iranian nuclearization also. If the Middle East were free of nuclear weapons then there could be a strong argument for stopping Iran going nuclear. Two of its neighboring countries, India and Pakistan, are nuclear and Israel, a Middle Eastern country, is nuclear too. But then as I noted in my earlier post, there is no logic in politics.

Too much power is a double-edged sword. The U.S. should be careful how it handles its power. So far, power has done U.S. no good.

Be well,

Mohammad Gill

Dr. Gill, from all indications, GWB respects the will of his nation and he is mindful of and only works within the mandate given to him. Therefore, in my view, last November’s election results obviate any Iran-attack scenario, short of another 9/11-like event. Whatever be the President’s own feelings on this issue, his hands are tied by the US Congress – which always reflects the will of the electorate. The Iranians and others know it too and are trying to take advantage of it – the welfare of the population(s) concerned is of no concern to anybody, unfortunately.

I have now become quite pessimistic about Iraq remaining united as one country. Perhaps it never was one country in spirit and was held together through the sheer force of dictatorship anyway.

I am also pessimistic that a nuclear-armed Iran can be prevented – perhaps it has been a certainty the day Pakistan exploded its own – just like India developing that capability was a given ever since China did it.

#23 by zeemax on February 20, 2007 11:55am PT


if you care about your islamic brothers living and dying, what`re you doing leading a life of a paki in the UK...go on..do what your wife did...

.....and malik99 ...

Don`t worry about hamidm2. He`s not concerned about anyone living or dying ... but just the two-car garage (or is it three?)

#21 by malik99

Actually .. I`m scared that a lot more americans will die. Those 19-20 year olds who never knew what the fkk it was all about ...

hamidm # 10 ``i would be happy to pay an extra 1% this april 15th if we can get rid of the ayatollahs and other bearded vermin that threaten civilization``

Iraq war has so far cost nearly $3000 to every american citizen. While this may not be much to hamidm, it is a lot for majority of americans - 40 million of whom live below poverty line. Also, the cost of loss of lives, 3100 dead american soldiers so far, is something that will surely never figure into hamidm`s 1% on april 15th. That is something only impoverished americans will have to work out.

author writes ``After the experience with the Iraq war and the cooked-up evidence pertaining to the weapons of mass destruction for which Iraq was invaded, the American public has become wary of the administration`s intentions in the Middle East. It does not have stomach for another war``

Actually American public does have stomach for another war. And another. And another.

Anyone remembers Gulf of Tonkin lie? It was the manufactured incident in 1964 whereby American government lied that its ships were attacked by North Vietnamese and used that incident to escalate genocide of Vietnamese. One would think that that incident which resulted in the deaths of nearly 50,000 Americans until eventual American withdrawal would have made American public wary of their government for the next 100 years. But unfortunately, when the US government decided it wanted to attack Iraq, it successfully fooled American public once again.

So I would say that if the US government some day really decides to attack Iran, it would create ample circumstances and accompanying propaganda such that by the time it actually launches its missiles, majority of Americans would be supporting it.

Lets have a moment of silence for 3100 dead American soldiers. It was the deaths of these soldiers, and not the 650,000 dead Iraqis, that resulted in American public to rethink their government - however temporary this rethinking maybe.

#18

Yep read that as Seymour Hersh :~)

#17 by zeemax

Is that Seymour Hersh or is this guy a different one?

#15 by freethinker

What your friend said is the Samuel Hersh scenario. He`s been saying this since a couple of years based on his inside knowledge of the Bush administration. According to him, the Lebanon attack was a part of the move towards Iran.

However, the plan `A` went wrong on several counts such as Hizbullah could not be destroyed, Iran could not be drawn into the Lebanon war, and Iraq could not be stabilized. So it`s plan `B` in effect now i.e. allegations of Iran supplying explosive materials to Iraqi resistance. Also, another bogeyman in the form of Al-Quds Force has been created alongside Al-Qaida which doesn`t seem to work in case of Shia Iran, therefore a `Shia` Al-Qaida is now born.

You may find Samuel Hersh`s interview from January 2005 interesting.

Re: # 15

Well, may be the war in iraq is NOT a ``setback`` as people claim... as far as Bush is concerned, he taught the bedouins a lesson in general and saddam in particular... he neutralized another potential arab ``strongman`` who could have proved to be a larger threat down the road... sure things didn`t work out entirely as per the plan... but hey, war is messy and un-predictable, right?... I mean - why would sunnis and shias butcher each other like hyenas, instead of working together to build a nation, they are all muslims, right?... Bush rescued the country from iron grips of a mad dictator and handed it over to the people ... it ain`t his fault if iraqis are too dumb to realize the ``gift`` he gave them... :)

Anycase - now iraq is done, more or less.... why not take care of iran?... Iranians are spoiling for a fight anyway... right?... Yet another mideast madman has publicly threatened to wipe israel off the map, right?... so where is the problem?... :)

Political predictions are at best risky. Unlike scientific predictions which are logical, political predictions are many a time devoid of any logic. People making such predictions are influenced by their personal biases and wishful thinking.

A couple of months back, I was at a friend’s house for a social call. As it happens frequently, we were in a political discussion after a few social pleasantries. It started when my friend said without any rhyme or reason that President Bush was going to invade Iran. I thought such an event very unlikely particularly when the people had given a majority to the Democrats (who were clamoring for pulling the troops out of Iraq) both in the House and the Senate (although it’s only nominal). I had said the Democrats wouldn’t approve any such action. We argued for some time and then changed the topic.

This was at the time when George Bush had not yet implicated Iran for her support of the Shiites in Iraq. My friend’s reasoning was simple. He said George Bush would attack Iran and try to annihilate its nuclear capability before leaving the White House.

True enough, Bush came out in the public with his accusation of Iran after only a few days. The possibility of attack on Iran which seemed unlikely at that time is now hovering on the horizon. Howsoever illogical such an action may be, it cannot be ruled out.

In a perceptive article (Guardian Unlimited, February 19, 2007), Gary Younge wrote, “George Bush is a man of conviction and clearly a hard man to change. When reality confronts his plans he does not alter them but instead alters his understanding of reality…he stands with a tight band of followers, both deluded and determined, understanding each setback not as a sign to change course but as further proof that they must redouble their efforts to the original goal.

And so we watch the administration’s plans for a military attack against Iran unfold even as its official narrative for the run-up to the war in Iraq unravels and the wisdom of that war stands condemned by death and destruction. As though on split screens, we pass seamlessly from reports of how they had to get us into the last war, to scenes of carnage as a result of the war, to shots of them lying us into the next one.”

So, the unlikely might still actually happen.

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 11 for a moment there I thought you were beginning to make sense. Then it came in flash....there was something there which your strategic training has missed out.
USA and the west defeated in Iraq? Why becoz youthink they were not able to bring western style democracy there.

No. wrong answer Romair. This is exactly what they wanted. Total chaos. Now the iraqis will be butchering each for a few more generations. The arabs will looking at their navels for a few more generations while the west gets its oil from Kurdistan and the marsh arabs. while the sunnis in the middle get sand in their eyes. Man the west has won. They have got what they wnted, it is the rest who will made to look like a bunch of fools when they will handed a baby which cannot be tamed and is unruly.

speaking of iran, pakis are 4 on 4 now...heard the iranians summoned the paki ambassador after the bomb blasts in iran...so now pakiland has spread islamic terrorism to iran, afghanistan, india and china...

#11 by bulleya on February 19, 2007 12:47pm PT


i used to think that in the end, people have to be defeated in the battlefield to be put in their place


Your army lost in Kargil and was put in it`s rightful place as the rulers of Pakiland....

.....one has to be amazed at the actions of george bush.......he just got his balls handed to him in iraq.......and now he is thinking of attacking iran.......i suppose stupidity knows no bounds.......there will always be a % of americans who will support him......i used to think that in the end, people have to be defeated in the battlefield to be put in their place......george bush and his policymakers seem to break that theory.......the usa has been defeated in iraq, but is still looking to attack other countries.......quite amazing!!

.....state terrorism knows no bounds........

.......iran will be a much tougher nut to crack than iraq......it is more than three times the size in terms of population and geography.......it has a standing military, which has fought quite a few battles.........it is a cohesive society with a long history and an elected govt......and most of all it can attack the gulf areas......all iran has to do is to start bombing the entrance to the persian gulf........the price of oil will go up to $100/barrel, and americans will themselves say uncle........in the process, countries like pakistan will be heavily affected as they will have to pay higher prices for oil.......

....i think somewhere along the line, there will be some information discovered which will indicate that bush was lying all along..i.e. he sent in american soldiers and got them killed, knowing fully well there were no wmds in iraq........it will be a huge scandal........

anyways, in this fight, as in iraq and lebanon, i am on the side of the maulvis........i have to say, when it comes to battling superpowers-gone-mad no one does it better than the maulvis.........nasrullah nearly collapsed olmert`s govt.......sadr has collapsed bush`s govt........and i have a feeling the iran maulvis will only collapse it further..........

jazak-allah......

.... i, for one, am willing to pay with my tax dollars for regime change in tehran - i would be happy to pay an extra 1% this april 15th if we can get rid of the ayatollahs and other bearded vermin that threaten civilization ......... i am also willing to chip in another 0.5% for more troops in iraq and another 0.5% for regime change in riyadh ......... so what is the total ?... 2% ? ....... that`s it - that is all i am willing to pay for now and i think it is enough to get the job done if the american people have the will to stick with it ........... if we don`t do it now, we will have to do it later

``I was also against the war in yugoslavia too...`` (Arjun2) -- that`s what I mean by `closet commie`.....also too......:) gotcha!......:)

The evacuation of Americans from Iraq, inevitably means the evacuation from the whole middle east - there is no other way around it. If any one thinks that Americans would safely retreat from Iraq, sit in neighboring Gulf countries and control the region through remote control, then he must live in fools paradise. Americans have perpetrated a genocide in Iraq causing the death of three quarter of a million human beings, a lot of sacrifices have been made by the people of Iraq and thinking that they would not come chasing americans down is plain naive.

The powers that be in Us, that is, the invisible power elite know this very well. So the failure of the ``non-binding`` bill on Iraq in the houses with Democart majority is the evidence, who controls this country. This is the gukking oldest trick in the history of parliaments - pass the bill through lower house, and fail it in upper house. This obsolves Democrates of their election promises and give them a fig leaf. Message to their constituents ` Oh we wanted to fulfill our campaign promises but democarcy got in the way``. What lagangaybazi?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#5 by nasah on February 19, 2007 9:07am PT


so you WERE a closet commie


no..you`re the commie...as much as I support the war on the islamofascists in afghanistan, i`ve always been against the iraq war(and the upcoming iran war)...Of course, I was also against the war in yugoslavia too...

Re: # 3

Is that you Arjun2.....? -- what a great post! -- n what a surprise! -- or Chowk staff messed you up.

I knew it....so you WERE a closet commie -- welcome to the sunshine of the L world -- btw it does NOT take one to identify one....:)

Iran is just stretching it, gaining time for another 6 months or so before baby bush becomes a complete lame duck. Then they`ll forge ahead with their programme. There`s absolutely no chance of an Iran war. The americans don`t have a stomach for it after Iraq.

good article ..

you have to hand it to these neocon madarchods..what they lack in intelligence, they make up in cojones...these fuckers, instead of disappearing under a rock after iraq, are now pushing for a war with iran...

unfortunately, war is inevitable....the american public supports easy wars and the politicians are always too eager to give the people what they want......especially the kind of war they have planned for iran..the nintendo war..aerial bombing with good JDAM footage that makes CNN ``breaking news``..you`ll be surprised how much hitlery and the GOP nominee try to outdo each other call for war...dems and gop are peas in a pod..they`re all for war that looks good on CNN....an easy war makes them look ``strong on security``..whatever that means(and if i hear it out of joe LIEberman`s mouth, i`ll puke..)...

All this is a high tension propaganda war nothing else. Intense pressure was brought on North Koreans and one say there was success. US is trying the same here too.

But it is reasonable to assume that a WMD in the hands of a repressive and undemocratic state, be it N.Korea, Iran or Pakistan- is always worrysome.

Kamath

``The Iranians are coming`` -- ``the Iranians are coming`` -- the liar boy from crawford texas who cried wolf one too many times.