With Palestinian talks going nowhere, Iran jumps to top of in-tray for new PM
Ehud Olmert's announcement that he will step down from his party's leadership may be hardly surprising given the problems generated by corruption allegations and plummeting poll ratings.
His departure from the Israeli political scene leaves not only uncertainty about who will succeed him as Kadima leader - and who will win the next election - but also unresolved and highly sensitive questions about the great issues of war and peace in the Middle East.
Iran and the US: Key Issues from an American Perspective
for a dialog between the US and Iran. Few, other than ideological hard-liners on both sides, are likely to oppose the need to talk at some level. The last few years of needless war scares have also shown how important a mix of informal diplomacy and formal policy level statements can be. One has to wonder what would have happened if the US and Iran had not continued to communicate through second track diplomacy by various unofficial groups, informal contacts between officials on both sides, and the efforts of Secretary Rice, Secretary Gates, and various senior US commanders to make it clear that the US continued to pursue diplomatic options and was not preparing for war.
If nothing else, any form of dialog helps avoid needless misunderstandings and tensions. Informal talks by private citizens and "experts" can address issues that officials cannot openly deal with, and at least clarify the most contentious and controversial issues on both sides. Informal or "unofficial" official contacts can deal with many lower level issues and incidents. Limited official talks - like the tripartite talks between Iran, Iraq, and the US -- can go further, often defusing potential sources of conflict or easing the situation in high risk areas like Iraq and Afghanistan.
TOYAKO, Japan, July 9
(Reuters) - The United States
said on Wednesday Iran
should immediately halt development of ballistic missiles and stop conducting
tests if it wanted to gain the trust of the world.
The comments came after Tehran test-fired
nine long- and medium-range missiles; including one it previously said could
reach Israel and U.S.
bases in the region.
Iran should "refrain from further missile tests if they truly seek
to gain the trust of the world", White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe
said in Japan where U.S. President George W. Bush was attending the Group of
Eight summit.
It's been on the minds of antiwar activists and war
critics since 2003. And little wonder. If you don't remember the pre-invasion of
Iraqneocon quip,
"Everyone wants to go to Baghdad.
Real men want to go to Tehran..."
– then take notice. Even before American troops entered Iraq, knocking off Iran was already "Regime Change:
The Sequel." It was always on the Bush agenda and, for a faction of the
administration led by Vice
President Cheney, it evidently still is.
Add to that a series of provocative statements by
President Bush, the Vice President, and other top U.S. officials and former
officials. Take Cheney's daughter Elizabeth, who recently
sent this verbal message to the Iranians: "[D]espite what you may be
hearing from Congress, despite what you may be hearing from others in the administration
who might be saying force isn't on the table... we're serious." Asked
about an Israeli strike on Iran,
she said: "I certainly don't think that we should do anything but support
them." Similarly, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton suggested
that the Bush administration might launch an Iranian air assault in its last,
post-election weeks in office.
FACTBOX-How might Israel attack Iran's nuclear sites?
01 Jul 2008 09:02:17 GMT
Source: Reuters
July 1
(Reuters) - A large-scale Israeli air force drill over the Mediterranean sea
last month has stoked speculation that Israel might attack arch-foe Iran's
nuclear facilities. Though Israel's
conventional military is widely assumed to be too small to destroy the Iranian
nuclear programme outright, a successful attack could still delay by years Tehran's bid to develop
technologies with bomb-making potential.
Following is an overview of
Israeli armed forces and the tactics they might employ in any future conflict
with Iran.
AIR
Israel has around 500 combat-ready
warplanes, including advanced U.S.-made F-15 and F-16 jets capable of reaching
western Iran for a bombing run -- further, should aerial refueling be an
option.
Onboard stealth and radar-jamming
equipment could allow the warplanes to overfly hostile Arab territory en route
to a sneak attack in Iran,
and withstand ground fire.
Of
course, if Seymour
Hersh is right, in a pretty real sense the Bush administration has already
attacked Iran.
Under the auspices of a presidential finding promulgated last fall or winter,
special operations forces and other operatives are inside Iran trying to
stir up and capitalize on the kind of discontent that just might lead to regime
change. It would be funny if it weren't more tragic to consider that the United
States, based on its actions, has evolved into some kind of bizarre caricature
of the dying Soviet empire, blundering about, spreading money and weapons and
operatives around to try to subvert (the acolytes would say "liberate,"
just as the Soviet ideologists and propagandists did) various regimes that we
consider dangerous or vulnerable or both.
Because advocates
of the policies the U.S.
seems to be following would speak to him only of high degrees of classification
or in generalities, Hersh ended up having his most fruitful conversations with
critics of the apparently disjointed and ill-thought-out activities your tax
dollars (or your grandchildrens') are paying for. His perspective may be a
little one-sided; there just might be a plausible strategy behind the
expenditure of some $400 million. But critics of throwing it around among Ahwazi Arab, Baloch, and other
dissident groups and seeking better intelligence about Iran's nuclear
programs make a pretty
good case that, at best, it is most likely money wasted, and could have
untoward consequences.
The U.S. presidential campaigns have tended to focus the national security debate on the war in Iraq and the pursuit of al-Qaeda and other terrorist threats. But some experts also say it is critical to place more attention on shoring up security in the U.S. homeland, and to step up preparation for an expected increase in natural disasters. Stephen E. Flynn, CFR’s senior fellow for national security studies, writes in the March edition of Foreign Affairs it is critical for the next president to empower civilians and local governments with the means to protect themselves better.
Climate change presents a serious threat to the security and prosperity of the United States and other countries.
Recent actions and statements by members of Congress, members of the UN Security Council, and retired U.S. military officers have drawn attention to the consequences of climate change, including the destabilizing effects of storms, droughts, and floods. Domestically, the effects of climate change could overwhelm disaster-response capabilities. Internationally, climate change may cause humanitarian disasters, contribute to political violence, and undermine weak governments.
In this Council Special Report, Joshua W. Busby moves beyond diagnosis of the threat to recommendations for action. Recognizing that some climate change is inevitable, he proposes a portfolio of feasible and affordable policy options to reduce the vulnerability of the United States and other countries to the predictable effects of climate change. He also draws attention to the strategic dimensions of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that sharp reductions in the long run are essential to avoid unmanageable security problems. He goes on to argue that participation in reducing emissions can help integrate China and India into the global rules–based order, as well as help stabilize important countries such as Indonesia. And he suggests bureaucratic reforms that would increase the likelihood that the U.S. government will formulate effective domestic and foreign policies in this increasingly important realm.
The result is an authoritative, well-written, and practical paper that merits careful consideration by members of Congress, the administration, and other interested parties in the United States and internationally.
Joshua W. Busby is an assistant professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs and is affiliated with the RobertS.StraussCenter for International Security and Law, both at the University of Texas at Austin. In 2004, Dr. Busby and Nigel Purvis of the Brookings Institution contributed a paper for the UN High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change titled “The Security Implications of Climate Change for the UN System.” A forthcoming article, “Who Cares About the Weather? Climate Change and U.S National Security,” will appear in Security Studies.
Dr. Busby has been a research fellow at the Brookings Institution, HarvardUniversity’s BelferCenter for Science and International Affairs, and PrincetonUniversity’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. His work has appeared in International Studies Quarterly and Current History, among other publications. He served in the Peace Corps in Ecuador from 1997 to 1999. Dr. Busby is a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. He has a BA from both the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill and the University of East Anglia, where he was a British Marshall Scholar, and he received his MA and PhD from GeorgetownUniversity.
+ نوشته شده توسط رضا ر ضایی (مصدق) در یکشنبه 19 خرداد1387 و ساعت
16:36 |
The present armed struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan have little in common with the major wars of the last three centuries. Nor does nation building in either place go forward in the peaceful conditions of the post-World War II reconstruction of Germany and Japan. Dr. Holliday gives the name Warfare to this poorly understood intermediate state between war and peace. Using Warfare's characteristics, he identifies shortcomings in America's Iraqi policy and, more controversially, advocates creation of new legal codes and practices more responsive to terrorist challenges. — JLA
The Russian writer Leo Tolstoy and a host of war's philosophers since the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia have thought of war and peace as dichotomous conditions. The current so-called 'War on Terror,' being neither traditional war nor peace, now forcefully calls attention to that fallacy. To be victorious in the struggle with terrorists, the United States must abandon the old duality and become adept at managing a new trilogy of war-warfare-peace. Properly understood, that new trilogy offers broad general principles for better managing and resolving conflict and cooperation, both within and between states.
Throughout history examples of armed violence distinct from both war and peace—warfare—have occurred. In the past, as at present, insurgents ignored both domestic and international law and used any means available to undermine those in authority within a state. Philosophers who regard that behavior as a “new kind of war”—or as a simple evolution of traditional war resulting from technological changes (Fourth Generation War)—make a serious error. The current struggle with Islamic terrorists simply enhances, with advantages drawn from changes in transportation and communications, the insurgents' ancient methods of warfare. Formerly waged within the territory of a single state, that warfare, now associated with radical Islam, emerges here and there around the world.
Despite long experience and much study, little agreement has emerged regarding what to call such conflicts or how best to wage them. Many names have had recent, brief currency: unconventional war; revolutionary warfare; irregular warfare; internal war; insurgency; counter insurgency; civil war; subversive war; war within a population; revolutionary war; guerrilla war; intrastate war; insurrection; rebellion; revolt; internal security; internal defense; stability; law and order; nation building; state building; small war; peacemaking; peacekeeping; global war on terror; and now long war. Though repeatedly defined and redefined little of use has emerged from this terminological and definitional briar patch.
I've just finished watching one of the most disturbing documentaries ever produced. It's called 'Jesus Camp' (Heidi Ewing, Rachel Grady/Magnolia) and deals with non-denominational ultra-fundamentalist Christian church groups and one of the bizarre, psychotic camps they send their children to for two weeks of intense brain washing. I label it as such as one who has been inside the ultra-fundamentalist Christian community and not as an outsider merely perplexed at practices or spiritual/religious activities foreign to me. Since I extricated myself from the ultra-fundamentalists some ten years ago, things have clearly gone from worse to abominable. Maybe Rosie O'Donnell wasn't being too radical when she said fundamentalist Christianity is as dangerous here in America as fundamentalist Islam is elsewhere in the world. And for me to cough up the slightest acknowledgement of a Rosie O'Donnell statement is really saying something, it barely makes it to the tips of my typing fingers without inducing a small stroke.
Let me say at the outset that there are many wonderful, inspiring, decent Christian camps for kids run by churches that are harmless, that foster intelligent inquiry and respect for the individual while instilling deeply cherished values. But what you will see in 'Jesus Camp' is so abusive, so cultic, so depraved you may not make it through the whole DVD. I had to stop it several times just to sigh and pray. You will see little children being indoctrinated with irrefutable mind control techniques and the use of emotional contagion and peer-group/group-think manipulations so dastardly, so underhanded and blatantly hypnotic that tears will likely come to your eyes, if rage doesn't settle in first.
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click hereif you are interested in contributing.
"Ding-dong, the witch is dead," cheerlead the proponents of the Conventional Wisdom (CW) in the Beltway's reality-based community these days - the "witch" being President Buscheney's plan to bomb Iran, which was supposed to be the next chapter in the neo-conservative narrative.
Unfortunately, this CWers' (pronounced se-wers) don't-worry-be-happy spinning is based not on reality but on a lot of wishful thinking masquerading as a larger-than-life Realpolitik axiom, that is, the realist "surge" in Washington is working!
On a macro-level, this realist faith has helped construct a fairy-tale-like narrative in which Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Pentagon chief Robert Gates have mounted a courageous and effective bureaucratic and political campaign against the neo-con remnants in the George W Bush administration now that Rummy (Donald Rumsfeld) the matinee idol, Paul "Wolfie" Wolfowitz of Arabia, "The f**ing stupidest guy on the face of earth," and the man-with-the-bad-toupee who'd been given the pink slip.
We are being asked to believe that Gates, who, as the former chief spook once upon a Cold War. had pressured the CIA's analytical division to exaggerate the Soviet menace to fit the ideological perspective of Reagan's neo-cons, has been transformed into President Bush's Elliot Richardson and that "Mushroom Cloud" Condi's pair of black knee-high boots are going to walk all over her boss' Dick Cheney.
How else would you explain the "dramatic" changes in the administration's policies on North Korea (sending love letters to nutty Kim) and Israel/Palestine (did we say A-N-N-A-P-O-L-I-S?), not to mention the "thaw" in the relationship with those who were once bashed as Old Europe (Germany) and Cheese-Eating-Monkeys (the French)?
According to the CWers these are all signs that the so, so Brilliant Condi and Very Cool Bob have gained the upper-hand in the struggle over Bush's foreign policy as Cheney has been forced to spend his time gushing over his miracle-of-the-sperm-bank grandkid instead of, say, nuking someone somewhere or doing regime-changes around the world.
The United Nations Security Council has agreed to tighten economic
sanctions against Iran following Iran's continued refusal to suspend its ongoing program of uranium enrichment. This decision follows the release of a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that also documents the expansion of Iran's enrichment activities. While the administration of President Bush has strongly pushed for the imposition of these new sanctions, there is good reason to question whether or not the Security Council action represents the best policy to deal with Iran's nuclear program.
With the IAEA now able to ascertain that the Iranian explanations about both the origin and use of its enrichment program are consistent with the information available to the IAEA, there no longer remains a technical justification for demanding the suspension of Iran's ongoing uranium enrichment activities. The IAEA has declared that it can account for all declared nuclear material in Iran and that it has adequate inspection and verification controls in place for the totality of Iran's declared enrichment program. The IAEA notes that it does not have conclusive evidence of any proscribed activities taking place inside Iran (documents made available to the IAEA by the United States, derived from sources of questionable origin, have been rejected by the Iranians as fabrications.)
The best mechanism for achieving a level of verifiable confidence concerning Iranian nuclear activities would be the implementation of additional inspection protocols which the IAEA states are necessary for its work in Iran. Iran would likely agree to the additional protocol if the Security Council reversed its demand for the unconditional suspension of uranium enrichment. A previous offer made by Iran to the international community in March 2005 reinforces this point. The original reasoning behind the suspension of uranium enrichment was based on the IAEA's inability to establish the scope and purpose of Iran's uranium enrichment programs. The IAEA is now in a position to do so. There is no longer any viable technical excuse for suspension, and any continued requirements for such must be judged to be political in nature.
The current U.S. policy on Iran, as articulated by the Bush administration, centers its goals on the issue of regime change in Tehran; the nuclear dispute is simply used as a facilitator for isolating Iran economically and politically. This approach pollutes the credibility of any multilateral solution to the problem of Iran's nuclear enrichment program endorsed by the United States, such as the current suspension demands of the Security Council, while making it virtually impossible for Iran to embrace any meaningful path toward moderation. This policy suppresses the forces of moderation and reform within the civil and theocratic branches of the Iranian government and can only lead Iran and the U.S. down a path of increased friction and probable conflict.
The next presidential administration should seek to divorce the United States from any policy seen as supporting regime change inside Iran. This could be accomplished simply by endorsing the commitment made by the U.S. in the 1980 Algiers Accord (which ended the hostage crisis) not to interfere, directly or indirectly, militarily or politically, in the internal affairs of Iran. Such a statement, backed by a decision to suspend all economic sanctions pending the implementation by Iran and the IAEA of an additional protocol of inspections (at which time the sanctions would be lifted), would help build a foundation of trust upon which further dialogue between the U.S. and Iran could be conducted. The U.S. could reiterate a zero-tolerance policy regarding the militarization of nuclear activity in Iran while allowing further policy direction to be dictated by a more natural course of events.
The lifting of economic sanctions against Iran would unshackle the forces of moderation inside that nation. Given the technical and economic shortfalls inherent in the Iranian nuclear program, there is every reason to believe that Iran would gravitate toward policies that make sense economically, such as the current offers of co-enrichment and international support put forward by both Russia and the European Union. Time, in this case, is an asset, not an enemy. Even Israel, a staunch opponent of Iran's nuclear program, concurs that Iran is years away from having a nuclear weapon. The next president of the United States must have both the courage and the leadership to forge a new policy direction with Iran, and the patience and fortitude to allow such a policy to bear fruit.
+ نوشته شده توسط رضا ر ضایی (مصدق) در یکشنبه 26 اسفند1386 و ساعت
4:48 |
Last night I attended a talk by Stephen Kinzer, who is one of the speakers at our upcoming June 6-8 conference “Restoring the Republic 2008: Foreign Policy & Civil Liberties.” The talk was held at the Washington, D.C., campus of the University of California and was part of a 22-city tour by Kinzer entitled “The Folly of Attacking Iran.”
Kinzer delivered one of the most fantastic, captivating talks I’ve ever heard. Drawing on his great book All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, which has just been reprinted with a new introduction, Kinzer provided a fascinating 40-minute encapsulation of the CIA’s 1953 coup in Iran and the long-term blowback that resulted from the coup.
Kinzer carefully explained the process by which the CIA was able to oust the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, from office, reinstalling the Shah of Iran into power.
Mossadegh had persuaded the Iranian Parliament to nationalize the nation’s oil, an act that was not well-received by the British Empire, given that it owned most of it. Bucking the British Empire was considered a real no-no, especially by smaller countries that were expected to behave like British colonies.
Faced with the possibility of adverse action by the United Nations, Mossadegh traveled to the United States, where he figured that his opposition to the British Empire would be well-received by a nation that was born out of opposition to the British Empire. His rousing speech to the United Nations succeeding in preventing UN action against Iran. In a train trip to Washington to meet with President Truman, he stopped to visit the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia and then insisted on visiting George Washington’s home at Mount Vernon. He was later named Time magazine’s Man of the Year.
British officials were intent on getting rid of Mossadegh in order to get their oil back. But Mossadegh was able to stymie their efforts by throwing British diplomats out of the country. The British turned to the United States to accomplish the dirty deed. Led by a flamboyant agent named Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of Theodore Roosevelt, the CIA hired gangs of thugs and bribed the Iranian news media to foment an environment of chaos and violence that led up to the coup. Mossadegh was removed from power, and the brutal dictator the Shah of Iran, who hated American values but who would do what U.S. officials told him to do, took over.
That was the root of the anger and resentment that finally boiled over in the 1979 Iranian Revolution in which U.S. officials were taken hostage. Kinzer related a fascinating story about one of the a high-ranking U.S. diplomats that were taken hostage. After a year in jail, one of his captives opened the door to his cell and the U.S. diplomat began screaming and berating him, exclaiming that civilized people don’t take innocent people hostage. After patiently listening to the man’s tirade, the Iranian told the man that he had no right to complain, given that the United States had taken his entire country hostage in 1953 and had held it hostage ever since.
Kinzer then carefully outlined the long-term consequences of the Iranian coup, including the U.S. government’s partnership with Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. Kinzer then pointed out the obvious lesson — that U.S. interventions into other countries produce horrific long-term consequences, including for the American people.
It was a fascinating, gripping talk. Kinzer’s passion and commitment to getting America back on the right track exuded through his talk. I cannot recommend his books highly enough:
The title of Kinzer’s talk at our upcoming conference is “Regime Change: Promise and Peril.” His speech will definitely be one of the highlights of the conference, which promises to be one of the finest, most important conferences in the history of the libertarian movement.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
+ نوشته شده توسط رضا ر ضایی (مصدق) در یکشنبه 26 اسفند1386 و ساعت
4:39 |
President of Near East Support Services, a consulting firm focusing on international affairs.
Ambassador Akbar Ahmed, holder of the Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at AmericanUniversity, has written a profoundly personal and moving analysis of the anguish and ideological deformations through which the Islamic world is currently passing. Journey into Islam is a spiritual odyssey reaching far back into Professor Ahmed's own past while detailing his dreams for the Muslim world of today and tomorrow. Professor Ahmed's vision, unrealizable as he himself realizes it probably now is, is one of a reborn, pluralistic, tolerant and cosmopolitan Muslim world, rooted in a restored understanding of the monotheistic commonalities shared by the three Abrahamic faiths. The author is a social scientist with the soul of a poet who has probably done more than any other scholar resident in the West to combat the egregious stereotypes and hate-mongering that are all too common in public-policy circles today. While readers of this book may rejoice that such an individual moves among us, they will also most likely come away from it depressed by the probability that history is moving in the very opposite of the direction that Professor Ahmed desires.
Born in British India, raised in Pakistan, and educated in the UK, Akbar Ahmed has been living in the United States since 2000. He is an authority on the Pashtun tribes of Afghanistan and Pakistan and the author of such books as Islam under Siege: Living Dangerously in a Post-Honor World, Discovering Islam: Making Sense of Muslim History and Society, Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity: The Search for Saladin, and After Terror: Promoting Dialogue among Civilizations. Professor Ahmed has served as high commissioner of Pakistan to Great Britain and has held appointments at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton as well as at Harvard and CambridgeUniversities.
Dr. Sullivan is president of the consulting firm Near East Support Services. He holds an honorary position as associate at the Center for Middle Eastern and North African Studies at the University of Michigan.
A recent extended visit to Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt leaves little room for optimism about the geopolitical stability of the Levant or the likelihood of Middle East peace. Most Arabs believe that more bad times are coming to the region, including another Israeli-Hezbollah war, which many now expect to erupt as early as the summer of 2008. The assassination on February 12, 2008, of Imad Mughniyyah, Hezbollah’s chief of military operations and its most powerful figure, was a dramatic escalation that has altered the calculations of all the players in the region.1 In fact, one astute analyst in the area states that the Mughniyyah assasination had a “clear Israeli touch,” and may be the “opening salvo in the next Israeli-Hezbollah war.” As early as February 5, 2008, tensions along the Lebanese-Israeli border were already rising as a result of the killing by Israeli troops of a Lebanese drug smuggler working on behalf of Hezbollah and collecting intelligence on its behalf within Israel. To all of this, sources in the Middle East believe that Hezbollah will be obliged to respond, probably in a major way. Any new conflict between Hezbollah and Israel will almost certainly harm all of the states between the eastern Mediterranean and Iran and will have a disastrous impact on U.S. national interests. Lights should be burning late in Washington as planners develop alternative scenarios for how best to contain any new and perhaps broader conflict in the Fertile Crescent.
This site is devoted to the cause of non-interventionism and is read by libertarians, pacifists, leftists, "greens," and independents alike, as well as many on the Right who agree with our opposition to imperialism. Our initial project was to fight for the case of non-intervention in the Balkans under the Clinton presidency and continued with the case against the campaigns in Haiti, Kosovo and the bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan. Our politics are libertarian: our opposition to war is rooted in Randolph Bourne's concept that "War is the health of the State." With every war, America has made a "great leap" into statism, and as Bourne emphasizes: " . . . it is during war that one best understands the nature of that institution [the State]." At its core, that "nature" includes the ever-increasing threat to individual liberty and the centralization of political power.
Antiwar.com is one project of our parent foundation the "Randolph Bourne Institute." It is a program that provides a sounding board of interest to all who are concerned about US foreign policy and its implications.
In 1952, Garet Garrett, one of the last of the Old Right "isolationists," said it well:
"Between government in the republican meaning, that is, Constitutional, representative, limited government, on the one hand, and Empire on the other hand, there is mortal enmity. Either one must forbid the other or one will destroy the other."
This is the perception that informs our activism, and inspires our dedication. Non-interventionism abroad is a corollary to non-interventionism at home. Randolph Bourne echoes this sentiment: "We cannot crusade against war without implicitly crusading against the State." Since opposition to war is at the heart of our philosophy, and single-issue politics is the only avenue open to us, Antiwar.com embodies the politics of the possible.
Our dedication to libertarian principles, inspired in large part by the works and example of the late Murray N. Rothbard, is reflected on this site. While openly acknowledging that we have an agenda, the editors take seriously our purely journalistic mission, which is to get past the media filters and reveal the truth about America's foreign policy. Citing a wide variety of sources without fear or favor, and presenting our own views in the regular columns of various contributors, we clearly differentiate between fact and opinion, and let our readers know which is which.
The pressing need for "citizen experts" is the reason we set up Antiwar.com. In this process, the site evolved very quickly into an online magazine and research tool designed to keep the American people and the world informed about the overseas plans of the American government. The history of our site and of American foreign policy demonstrates the demand for such experts.
The founders of Antiwar.com were active in the Libertarian Party during the 1970s; in 1983, we founded the Libertarian Republican Organizing Committee, to work as a libertarian caucus within the GOP. Today, we are seeking to challenge the traditional politics of "Left" and "Right." At present, none of the existing parties or activist groups offers an effective vehicle for principled libertarian politics. Yet, even in the absence of a party of liberty, we cannot abstain from the struggle. We strive to lead the non-interventionist cause and the peace movements that many respected institutions have forgotten.
Forged in the experience of the first Balkan war, Antiwar.com has become the Internet newspaper of record for a growing international movement, the central locus of opposition to a new imperialism that masks its ambitions in the rhetoric of "human rights," "humanitarianism," "freedom from terror" and "global democracy." The totalitarian liberals and social democrats of the West have unilaterally and arrogantly abolished national sovereignty and openly seek to overthrow all who would oppose their bid for global hegemony. They have made enemies of the patriots of all countries, and it is time for those enemies to unite - or perish alone.
Antiwar.com represents the true pro-America side of the foreign policy debate. With our focus on a less centralized government and freedom at home, we consider ourselves the true American patriots. "America first!" regards the traditions of a republican government and non-interventionism as paramount to freedom - a concept that helped forge the foundation of this nation.
THE FUTURE
Antiwar.com is already fighting the next information war: we are dedicated to the proposition that they (war hawks and our leaders) are not going to be allowed to get away with it, unopposed and unchallenged. The War Party is well-organized, well-financed, and very focused. They know what they want: a renewal of the Cold War, increased military spending, and a globalist mission that would project American power from the Middle East to the Korean peninsula and all points in between. And they know how to get it: mobilizing special interest groups and key corporate allies in a propaganda war designed to win the hearts if not the minds of the American people. The antiwar forces, on the other hand, are not so well-positioned: everyone is for peace, in theory at least, but there is no one group of Americans especially disposed to work for it, outside of small religious groups such as the Quakers and the Catholic Worker movement.
Lacking a centrally-coordinated leadership, without financial resources of any significance, and incredibly diverse, the organized opposition to the first Balkan war was unfocused and of limited effectiveness. Currently, the antiwar movement against a war on Iraq is considered anti-American and left-wing. However, we are changing this perception by leading the cause of the patriotic peace movement, which understands the true costs of war. Unfortunately, the organizations pushing for actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and other areas around the world are stronger and even more focused. Antiwar.com is an integral part of the movement against these groups and for peace by disseminating accurate news and commentary.
Antiwar.com is dedicated to building an awareness to the globalist and interventionist forces that would enslave us all in a New World Order on which the sun never sets. But we can't do it without you. Tell your friends about Antiwar.com, spread the word and also help us do our job by bringing items to our attention. We are always looking for material, and we welcome your suggestions, whether of links or in the form of original articles submitted to the editors.
Antiwar.com is a ward of the nonprofit Randolph Bourne Institute. Your contribution to Antiwar.com is tax-deductible. Your contributions, whether a one-time donation or a monthly pledge, will make the difference between success and failure. While the propaganda machine of the War Party is well-oiled with money, Antiwar.com carries on the fight with little in the way of resources - except the intellectual resources to bring the facts to light. But we can't do it without your material support. To find out how, just click on the secure credit card form at the bottom of this page: you can strike a blow against the War Party, and cast your ballot for peace by making a contribution today.
+ نوشته شده توسط رضا ر ضایی (مصدق) در یکشنبه 26 اسفند1386 و ساعت
2:56 |
Ambassador Donald Mahley, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Threat Reduction, Export Controls gave this speech at George Washington University on January 24, 2008.
The State of Space Security
Let me first thank Professor Logsdon and the other conference sponsors for the opportunity today to offer you some observations about United States space policy.
CONTINUITY IN U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY SPACE POLICY
U.S. national security space policy is best characterized by continuity across many years and Presidential administrations. Continuity includes the U.S. commitment to basic principles first advanced by the United States at the outset of the Space Age, including our support for the Outer Space Treaty and other elements of international law, which we believe provide the legal authority to respond to the emerging challenges of the Twenty-First Century.
Although the United States is determined to keep sufficient flexibility for its national security interests, we also recognize that some emerging external challenges require new forms of international cooperation with allies, friends and other responsible spacefaring nations to protect the free access to, and operations through, space.
FREE ACCESS TO, AND USE OF, SPACE
Such national security space cooperation builds upon a firm foundation of mutually shared principles. The most important of these is support for the free access to, and use of, outer space by all, and I repeat all, nations for peaceful purposes. This principle was first advanced by President Eisenhower in the late 1950s and formed the basis for key precepts of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.
IN TRADITIONAL international conflicts, the side with the stronger military force tended to win. In today's information age, it is often the party with the stronger story that wins.
Thus in addition to their shooting and killing, Israel and Hezbollah are struggling to shape the narrative that will prevail as the fighting stops. They are locked in a struggle over soft power -- the ability to get what you want by attraction rather than coercion.
The ability to combine hard and soft power into a winning strategy is smart power and, thus far, Hezbollah seems ahead on that score. All that Hezbollah needs to win is not to lose, and to be able to tell the story that it was the only Muslim force brave enough to stand up to Israel.
Sadly, the struggle over soft power did not have to turn out this way. When Hezbollah kidnapped Israeli soldiers and launched rockets across the border, the actions were condemned by many Lebanese and criticized by Sunni Arab governments such as Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Today that public criticism has vanished, and Hezbollah is lauded for resisting Israel.
Israel used its hard military power in a manner that bolstered Hezbollah's soft power and legitimacy in Arab eyes, including many Sunnis who were originally skeptical of a Shi'ite organization with ties to non-Arab Iran. We know that terrorist organizations most often lose popular support by their own excesses -- witness the drop among Jordanians in the soft power of Al Qaeda in Iraq, led by Abu Musab al -Zarqawi, after the organization bombed a wedding in an Amman hotel.
Israel had to use force in response to Hezbollah's attack to reestablish the credibility of its deterrence, but it misjudged the scale and duration of its hard-power response.
The New Realism and the Rebirth of American Leadership
Published February 8, 2007
Speaker: Bill Richardson, Governor, State of New Mexico
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson', a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, gave this February 2007 foreign policy speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Thank you very much for that kind introduction.
In recent years, America's foreign policy has been guided more by dogma than by facts, more by ideology than by history.
More by wishful thinking than by reality.
This administration's lack of realism has led us to a dangerous place. In an era of terrorism, they have squandered our military power, undermined our diplomatic leverage, and depleted our treasury. Theyhave emboldened our enemies and isolated us from our friends. They have confused our moral compass and compromised our national security.
We need to take a different path. A path based on reality, not unilateralist illusions.
A path that understands that the gravest dangers that threaten us today do not threaten only us -- and that therefore to pursue our national interest and meet these challenges we must work with our friends, our enemies, and everyone in between.
This is a path not of hard words, but of hard work. A path of moral strength, not pious judgments. A path of strong diplomacy, backed up by a strong military and strong alliances.
This is the path of American leadership.
A path that I believe can lead to an Axis of Reason to confront urgent global problems.
President Bush doesn't seem to understand that success in foreign policy requires both a strong military and smart diplomacy. Because while diplomacy without power is weak, power without diplomacy is blind.
The U.S. presidential campaigns have tended to focus the national security debate on the war in Iraq and the pursuit of al-Qaeda and other terrorist threats. But some experts also say it is critical to place more attention on shoring up security in the U.S. homeland, and to step up preparation for an expected increase in natural disasters. Stephen E. Flynn, CFR’s senior fellow for national security studies, writes in the March edition of Foreign Affairs it is critical for the next president to empower civilians and local governments with the means to protect themselves better.
Flynn says in 2008 nine out of ten Americans live in places deemed a high risk for natural disasters but few are equipped to deal such events. He faults U.S.
Climate change presents a serious threat to the security and prosperity of the United States and oth