[Mb-civic] The Panic about Iran...India won't play along....+The Passion of the Texans

[ean at sbcglobal.net]

Excellent article about Iran, apended by an update on India's involvement, and 
then another article about Lay and DeLay and corruption.  All worth the time.


The Panic about Iran - William Pfaff
on 2006/1/25 12:20:00
Paris, January 24, 2006 -

Why is all the pressure being mounted against Iran when both Washington
and Jerusalem unofficially concede that there is nothing to be done to
prevent Iran's government from continuing along its present course of
nuclear development.

The contradictions in western official and unofficial discourse about Iran
and its nuclear ambitions are so blatant that one might suspect
disinformation, but it probably is simply the cacophony of single-minded
bureaucracies working at cross purposes, an effect of the multiple lobbies
involved and of U.S. domestic political exploitation, and the paradox of
American policy itself, whose non-proliferation efforts actually provoke
nuclear proliferation.

The Washington official line seems meant to build pressure for UN Security
Council sanctions on Iran, even while conceding that nothing practical is
expected to result, and that nothing can be done about Iran's resumption
of nuclear processing. Iran at present is doing no more than it has a
right to do in international law.

The cross-fire of public pronouncements draws attention to the inherent
cynicism of the western position. The United States and the other Security
Council members can have nuclear weapons, and Israel, Pakistan and India
(non-Security Council members), can have them too, but you - Iran --can't
proceed with your (currently) non-military program. The United States is
even in discussion with weapons-builder India to supply nuclear materials
(for strictly peaceful purposes, of course).

All of this piles up in righteous Iranian eyes as evidence that Iran needs
to go beyond its present program and actually build nuclear weapons.
National prestige and pride are involved, obviously - and nationalism is
probably the most powerful of all political forces.

Military strategy is also involved. So far as anyone in the non-western
world can see, Iraq's mistake in 2003 was not to have a nuclear bomb or
two in working order. That would have kept the U.S. at bay, just as
uncertainty about North Korea's nuclear arms inhibits U.S. policy in the
Far East.

Iran already possesses non-nuclear deterrents to American attack, which
Iraq did not, and they are probably strong enough to keep both the U.S.
and Israel away from Iranian nuclear sites.

Iran can close down a major part of Middle Eastern oil shipments by
closing the Hormuz strait. It has combined Revolutionary Guard and army
ground forces three times the total of the American forces now active in
Iraq, where Teheran also has influence on the Shi'ite clerical leadership,
which holds the key to Iraq's future.

Nuclear weapons proliferation in the non-western world is an old American
preoccupation, but it is directly linked to Third World perceptions of the
threat of American military intervention. The main if not the only
advantage nuclear weapons provide a country such as Iran is deterrence of
intervention by the United States or Israel. The urge to possess these
weapons is directly reciprocal to American non-proliferation pressures,
and the threat of attack.

(The India-Pakistan case is an exception to these generalizations, since
there the perceived threats are strictly bilateral, and the two countries
have simply replicated for themselves, at great cost, the balance of
terror that existed between the United States and the Soviet Union during
the cold war.)

Possession of the bomb would also bring comfort and prestige to Iran in
dealing with its near neighbors, which include nuclear-armed Pakistan and
Russia, as well as Israel.

In theory, a threat of aggressive use of nuclear weapons exists, but in
the Middle East it is accompanied by the certainty of overwhelming Israeli
(or even American) retaliation. Warnings by American politicians that
"rogue states" might attack Israel, the United States, British bases on
Cyprus, or Western Europe, are manipulation or propaganda. Individual
Moslems may welcome martyrdom, but nations, even Moslem nations, do not.

Israel, with its conventional and mass destruction arms, is amply capable
of assuring its own military deterrence and defense, whatever the ex-mayor
of Teheran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, thinks or says. However it cannot expect
long-term security without diplomatic and political resolution of its
conflict with the Palestinians. As Israeli leaders know, solving that
problem is chiefly up to Israel. Forty years of American involvement have
mainly enabled the Israelis to avoid doing so.

The danger of terrorist-held nuclear weapons exists, if barely. This would
be possible only with a nuclear state's complicity. The political
plausibility of any government giving terrorists control of such weapons
is next to nil, considering the risks involved for the benefactor state.
The technical and logistical complexity of such an operation would also be
great. There are serious problems in international affairs and there are
baroque ones; this one is baroque.

---

India changes tune, defends Iran
By Jawed Naqvi

NEW DELHI, Jan 27: India on Friday distanced itself from US-led calls to
isolate Iran at next week's meeting of the IAEA after controversial
remarks on the issue by Washington's envoy to Delhi enraged the nation as
seldom seen before.

The Indian foreign ministry, facing a barrage of criticism for apparent
obsequiousness towards Washington that ranged from allies in the Left
Front to former prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, appeared to have
rowed back from its recent bonhomie with the United States.

"During the past two weeks, India has been undertaking active
consultations with all key members of the IAEA Board of Governors and with
Iran, in order to avoid confrontation and to promote the widest possible
consensus on handling the Iran nuclear issue," a spokesman for the Indian
foreign ministry said.

He explained that in all the consultations, India has urged "that Iran's
right to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy for its development
consistent with its international obligations and commitments should be
respected".

The spokesman said: "Iran's willingness to work together with the IAEA to
remove any outstanding issues, about its nuclear programme should be
welcomed." In this regard, the agency should be allowed to proceed
according to its work programme and submit a detailed report, he said.

India, he said, also welcomes all initiatives, "including from Russia,
which could enable a consensus to be reached on this issue and urges
further intensive efforts in that direction".

In the bargain India appealed to "all concerned countries (to) avoid
confrontation and work in the spirit of seeking a mutually acceptable
solution".

The Indian clarification, which came in response to a question, coincided
with comments by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that India should
be ready to make hard choices ahead.

Earlier this week, US Ambassador David Mulford, in apparent eagerness to
clinch a civil nuclear energy deal with India before President George W.
Bush arrives here on March 1, said the move could die in the US Congress
if India did not vote against Iran at the February 2 IAEA meeting.

The Indian Express, which supports the deal, cautioned: "India and the US
are raucous democracies. Public statements from either side quickly feed
into the domestic politics of the other and complicate the negotiations
between the two governments. India and the US have made much progress in
the last few years because they have learnt one hard lesson from the
wasted decades of the past: avoid hectoring each other in public.
Mulford's remarks are an awful deviation from that sensible rule."

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government is already under considerable
pressure from the Left as well as sections of the Congress to reverse its
IAEA vote, the Express wrote. "By linking the implementation of the
nuclear pact and the Iran vote, Mulford has undercut the prospects of
India moving forward on both."

The Hindu said: "In publicly warning India, on Republic Day eve, to vote
against Iran or else, (Mulford) has outrageously crossed the line of
diplomatic propriety, inviting condemnation from political players ranging
from the Left to Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

"But he has also done India a service by letting the cat out of the bag,
if it was ever fully in. In his interview to the Press Trust of India, he
has spotlighted the pitiful terms of the bargain struck by the Manmohan
Singh government with Washington under the signboard of civilian nuclear
cooperation," The Hindu said.

"Who can, after Mr Mulford's egregious forthcomingness, doubt that the
bargain requires India to behave like a marionette - forced at every turn
of major international events to go against its own national instincts and
interests for fear of offending Washington? Today it is a fatwa on Iran,
tomorrow it will be a diktat on India's plan to separate its civil and
military nuclear facilities, which Mr. Mulford has found to fall short of
'minimum standards'."

The Asian Age, commenting on Mr Mulford's faux pas, observed: 
"Sometimes
when you say something often enough, you start saying it in your sleep.
This is what appears to have happened to US Ambassador to India David C.
Mulford who stunned his own, and definitely Manmohan Singh's, 
governments
with his recent interview to a news agency."

***

http://www.forward.com/main/printer-friendly.php?id=7249

      The Forward  (Formerly, the Jewish Forward)
Founded in 1897, published weekly in New York

The Passion of the Texans
By Ami Eden
January 20, 2006

      As the law moves in on a pair of Texans - ex-Enron boss Ken Lay and
ex-House majority leader Tom DeLay - now would be a good time for 
anybody
who has anxiety over negative stories about Jews to start squirming.

      Lay, who is set to go on trial January 30 in Houston, faces seven
counts of conspiracy and fraud stemming from allegations that he misled
investors as Enron was spiraling toward bankruptcy. Speculation is rampant
that DeLay - who already has been indicted by a grand jury in Travis
County, Texas, for allegedly violating state campaign-finance laws - could
find himself ensnared in the mushrooming anti-corruption probe in
Washington.

      Some observers, including New York Times columnist Frank Rich,
      already
have begun to connect the dots between the two scandals. And as the legal
noose around Lay and DeLay tightens, at least one parallel in their
defense strategies will become increasingly clear: Both men are blaming
their troubles on former Jewish allies who have confessed to crimes and
agreed to cooperate with government investigators in return for lighter
sentences.

      Lay says he was duped by Andrew Fastow, Enron's former chief
      financial
officer. Fastow, who is expected to serve as a key witness in the case
against Lay, pleaded guilty in 2004 to conspiring to conceal the company's
debt and stealing millions of dollars in the process.

      Meanwhile DeLay has been trying for months to downplay his ties to
Jack Abramoff - even before the disgraced lobbyist pleaded guilty earlier
this month to mail-fraud conspiracy and tax evasion charges, and
reportedly began cooperating with Justice Department officials
investigating corruption on Capitol Hill. If the Texas lawmaker is to be
believed, Abramoff was lying to clients when he suggested that DeLay's
office was for sale.

      But don't blame Lay and DeLay if Abramoff and Fastow come off
      looking
like a pair of Judases in separate productions of "The Passion of the
Texan." The uncomfortable truth is that these guys make Michael Milken,
who pleaded guilty to securities fraud during the 1980s insider-trading
scandals, look like a complex and sympathetic figure.

      Milken's defenders have cast him as a Robin Hood-type outsider
      forced
to take risks and bend rules to help investors and businessmen break the
WASP grip on Wall Street. Abramoff and Fastow can make no such claim: 
They
were sitting at the table of power when they committed their crimes.

      It is, of course, bigoted and unfair to tar Jews for the misdeeds of
their co-religionists. But that's what antisemites do - and in this case
their job is easier, thanks to Abramoff, Fastow and their sycophantic
supporters in the Jewish community.

      Both men made their Judaism part of the story by publicly sharing
      some
of their ill-gotten fortunes with Jewish charitable causes and then
playing the religion card when the legal situation started heating up.
Making matters worse, both Abramoff and Fastow found rabbis and
organizations willing to take their dollars and to stand by them even
after it should have been clear that the donations were tainted.

      Abramoff and his supporters frequently have painted the
      yarmulke-clad
lobbyist as a philanthropist who spent his millions bankrolling the Jewish
day school that he founded. He did this while keeping afloat two kosher
restaurants and supporting Toward Tradition, an organization led by Rabbi
Daniel Lapin. Toward Tradition is dedicated to fostering ties between Jews
and evangelical Christians. A few backers have tried to downplay
Abramoff's misdeeds, citing his support for Jewish causes and suggesting
that he was the victim of liberal media bias.

      Fastow was not as egregious as Abramoff in wearing his Judaism on
      his
sleeve (or head). But like the disgraced lobbyist, Fastow assumed the
macher mantle with the help of his stolen money. He chaired a major
fund-raising dinner for Houston's Holocaust museum and reportedly shared
some of his booty with his local synagogue, Congregation Or Ami. When
Fastow's mounting legal problems began attracting reporters, the disgraced
Enron official sent them to Or Ami's religious leader, Rabbi Shaul
Osadchey. The rabbi stood by his longtime congregant, describing Fastow as
a mensch to several media outlets. These days, neither the synagogue nor
the Holocaust museum is willing to discuss whether it returned any
donations from Fastow and his family.

      Still, despite Abramoff's and Fastow's heinous crimes, Enron's
collapse and the growing D.C. scandal are not stories about one bad apple
corrupting the bunch. Both men were operating in corrupt systems - and
while they may have been the greatest economic beneficiaries of these
dirty enterprises, the men in charge were Lay and DeLay.

      Enron was already developing a corrupt culture by the time Fastow
showed up, as Kurt Eichenwald's must-read account of the scandal,
"Conspiracy of Fools," makes clear. When things got worse, there were many
players at various levels who were willing to lie and cheat customers,
shareholders and outside financial institutions, if not steal outright
from the company. So far, in addition to Fastow, 15 ex-Enron officials
have pleaded guilty.

      As for DeLay, he opened the door to Abramoff's crimes and other
Republican abuses with his infamous K Street Project, an attempt to turn
the entire lobbying industry into a subsidiary of the GOP-controlled
Congress. And as DeLay's various ethical and legal problems suggest, the
former majority leader didn't need Abramoff to teach him how to dance
around the rules in pursuit of power.

      In the end, if Abramoff and Fastow stood out, it was only in their
lack of restraint and the scale of their thievery. They were serious
symptoms of a wider problem, not the disease itself.

      Let's just hope the blame for their crimes isn't contagious.

      Ami Eden is executive editor of the Forward.


-- 
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list, 
option D (up to 3 emails/day).  To be removed, or to switch options 
(option A - 1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day, option D - 
up to 3x/day) please reply and let us know!  If someone forwarded you 
this email and you want to be on our list, send an email to 
ean at sbcglobal.net and tell us which option you'd like.


"A war of aggression is the supreme international crime." -- Robert Jackson,
 former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice and Nuremberg prosecutor

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060129/c581f5c5/attachment-0001.htm