The Big Lie: ‘Iran Is a Threat’

This is a very interesting view point from this author. I do not know what my view point is but i do think that they are a big threat to our country. Having said that, i do not think that we need to go and invade them.

As written by Scott Ritter from the RINF website.

Iran has never manifested itself as a serious threat to the national security of the United States, or by extension as a security threat to global security. At the height of Iran’s “exportation of the Islamic Revolution” phase, in the mid-1980’s, the Islamic Republic demonstrated a less-than-impressive ability to project its power beyond the immediate borders of Iran, and even then this projection was limited to war-torn Lebanon.

Iranian military capability reached its modern peak in the late 1970’s, during the reign of Reza Shah Pahlevi. The combined effects of institutional distrust on the part of the theocrats who currently govern the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the conventional military institutions, leading as it did to the decay of the military through inadequate funding and the creation of a competing paramilitary organization, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command (IRGC), and the disastrous impact of an eight-year conflict with Iraq, meant that Iran has never been able to build up conventional military power capable of significant regional power projection, let alone global power projection.

Where Iran has demonstrated the ability for global reach is in the spread of Shi’a Islamic fundamentalism, but even in this case the results have been mixed. Other than the expansive relations between Iran (via certain elements of the IRGC) and the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, Iranian success stories when it comes to exporting the Islamic revolution are virtually non-existent. Indeed, the efforts on the part of the IRGC to export Islamic revolution abroad, especially into Europe and other western nations, have produced the opposite effect desired. Based upon observations made by former and current IRGC officers, it appears that those operatives chosen to spread the revolution in fact more often than not returned to Iran noting that peaceful coexistence with the West was not only possible but preferable to the exportation of Islamic fundamentalism. Many of these IRGC officers began to push for moderation of the part of the ruling theocrats in Iran, both in terms of interfacing with the west and domestic policies.

The concept of an inherent incompatibility between Iran, even when governed by a theocratic ruling class, and the United States is fundamentally flawed, especially from the perspective of Iran. The Iran of today seeks to integrate itself responsibly with the nations of the world, clumsily so in some instances, but in any case a far cry from the crude attempts to export Islamic revolution in the early 1980’s. The United States claims that Iran is a real and present danger to the security of the US and the entire world, and cites Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear technology, Iran’s continued support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran’s “status” as a state supporter of terror, and Iranian interference into the internal affairs of Iraq and Afghanistan as the prime examples of how this threat manifests itself.

On every point, the case made against Iran collapses upon closer scrutiny. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), mandated to investigate Iran’s nuclear programs, has concluded that there is no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Furthermore, the IAEA has concluded that it is capable of monitoring the Iranian nuclear program to ensure that it does not deviate from the permitted nuclear energy program Iran states to be the exclusive objective of its endeavors. Iran’s support of the Hezbollah Party in Lebanon - Iranian protestors shown here supporting Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah during an anti-Israel rally - while a source of concern for the State of Israel, does not constitute a threat to American national security primarily because the support provided is primarily defensive in nature, designed to assist Hezbollah in deterring and repelling an Israeli assault of sovereign Lebanese territory. Similarly, the bulk of the data used by the United States to substantiate the claims that Iran is a state sponsor of terror is derived from the aforementioned support provided to Hezbollah. Other arguments presented are either grossly out of date (going back to the early 1980’s when Iran was in fact exporting Islamic fundamentalism) or unsubstantiated by fact.

The US claims concerning Iranian interference in both Iraq and Afghanistan ignore the reality that both nations border Iran, both nations were invaded and occupied by the United States, not Iran, and that Iran has a history of conflict with both nations that dictates a keen interest concerning the internal domestic affairs of both nations. The United States continues to exaggerate the nature of Iranian involvement in Iraq, arresting “intelligence operatives” who later turned out to be economic and diplomatic officials invited to Iraq by the Iraqi government itself. Most if not all the claims made by the United States concerning Iranian military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been backed up with anything stronger than rhetoric, and more often than not are subsequently contradicted by other military and governmental officials, citing a lack of specific evidence.

Iran as a nation represents absolutely no threat to the national security of the United States, or of its major allies in the region, including Israel. The media hype concerning alleged statements made by Iran’s President Ahmadinejad has created and sustained the myth that Iran seeks the destruction of the State of Israel. Two points of fact directly contradict this myth. First and foremost, Ahmadinejad never articulated an Iranian policy objective to destroy Israel, rather noting that Israel’s policies would lead to its “vanishing from the pages of time.” Second, and perhaps most important, Ahmadinejad does not make foreign policy decisions on the part of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is the sole purview of the “Supreme Leader,” the Ayatollah Khomeini. In 2003 Khomeini initiated a diplomatic outreach to the United States inclusive of an offer to recognize Israel’s right to exist. This initiative was rejected by the United States, but nevertheless represents the clearest indication of what the true policy objective of Iran is vis-à-vis Israel.

The fact of the matter is that the “Iranian Threat” is derived solely from the rhetoric of those who appear to seek confrontation between the United States and Iran, and largely divorced from fact-based reality. A recent request on the part of Iran to allow President Ahmadinejad to lay a wreath at “ground zero” in Manhattan was rejected by New York City officials. The resulting public outcry condemned the Iranian initiative as an affront to all Americans, citing Iran’s alleged policies of supporting terrorism. This knee-jerk reaction ignores the reality that Iran was violently opposed to al-Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan throughout the 1990’s leading up to 2001, and that Iran was one of the first Muslim nations to condemn the terror attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.

A careful fact-based assessment of Iran clearly demonstrates that it poses no threat to the legitimate national security interests of the United States. However, if the United States chooses to implement its own unilateral national security objectives concerning regime change in Iran, there will most likely be a reaction from Iran which produces an exceedingly detrimental impact on the national security interests of the United States, including military, political and economic. But the notion of claiming a nation like Iran to constitute a security threat simply because it retains the intent and capability to defend its sovereign territory in the face of unprovoked military aggression is absurd. In the end, however, such absurdity is trumping fact-based reality when it comes to shaping the opinion of the American public on the issue of the Iranian “threat.”

Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of numerous books, including “Iraq Confidential” (Nation Books, 2005) , “Target Iran” (Nation Books, 2006) and his latest, “Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement” (Nation Books, April 2007).


What is your opinion?
Blogroll Me!

Judge Orders Bush Administration to Issue Global Warming Report

Taken from the RINF website.

By Karen Gullo
The Bush administration violated U.S. law by failing to produce a study on the impact of global warming and must issue a summary by March, a federal judge ruled.

District Judge Saundra Armstrong in Oakland, California, said the U.S. government “unlawfully withheld action” required under the Global Change Research Act of 1990 to update a research plan and scientific assessment of climate change.

The law mandates the research plan should be revised every three years and the assessment every four years. The last research plan was in 2003 and the last assessment was published in 2000. Greenpeace International and two other environmental groups who say the U.S. government suppresses science on climate change sued in November seeking a court order to produce the reports.

“As the research plan is now more than a year overdue, the court orders that a summary of the revised proposed research plan be published in the Federal Register no later than March 1,” Armstrong said in the order today. The scientific assessment must be produced by May 31, she said.

The administration will review the ruling before commenting, said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. Calls to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and Martin LaLonde, a Justice Department attorney involved in the case, weren’t immediately returned.

President George W. Bush, citing economic reasons, in March 2001 rejected the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty among industrialized nations that would have required cuts in carbon dioxide emissions and other gases linked to global warming.

Government `Wrong’

The Bush administration said in court filings that it determined “only recently that the initiation of a process to revise the research plan has become necessary and advisable” and that the government has discretion about how to handle the revised reports, which Armstrong said was “wrong.”

The reports may be completed by the end of the year, government lawyers said in court filings.
“This is the first court order specifically rebuking the Bush administration for suppressing climate change science,” said Matthew Vespa, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the groups that sued. “The report will provide updated information that all federal agencies will have to look at when assessing the impact of climate change.”

The case is Center for Biological Diversity v. Brennan, 06-7062, U.S. District Court, for the Northern District of California (San Francisco).


What is your opinion?
Blogroll Me!

Doctor: G Bush has symptoms of presenile dementia

As written by Alex Beam

It is an article of faith with millions of Americans, most of them on the left, that George W. Bush is stupid. Many reasonable people think his policies are ill-advised, but millions more insist Bush must be a moron because he sounds stupid.




The president’s tortured “Bushisms” are chronicled daily and have been collected in books. Two of the more notorious are “I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family” and “Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream.”

But something doesn’t compute. Fred Smith, the founder of Federal Express and a Yale pal of both Bush and John Kerry, says Bush is five times smarter than people think he is. Cynics deride what passes for scholarship at the Harvard Business School, but the course work for the two-year MBA isn’t easy. A grading curve forces a small number of students to fail, and Bush didn’t fail.

So why does Bush sound stupid? One doctor thinks he shows signs of “presenile dementia,” or an early onset of Alzheimer’s disease.

This summer, Joseph Price, a self-described “country doctor” in Carsonville, Mich., was reading a long article in The Atlantic about Bush’s speaking style. Author James Fallows alluded to Bush’s malapropisms and to speculation that Bush had a learning disorder or dyslexia. But those conditions generally manifest themselves in childhood. Furthermore, Fallows wrote, “through his forties Bush was perfectly articulate.”

Dr. Price’s children happened to have given him a daily tear-off calendar of “Bushisms” for Christmas. “They are horrible, but they are also diagnostic,” Price says. When he read that Bush had spoken clearly and performed well while debating Texas politician Ann Richards in 1994, Price thought: “My God, the only way you can explain that is by being Alzheimer’s.”

In a letter to be published in The Atlantic’s October issue, Price calls presenile dementia “a fairly typical Alzheimer’s situation that develops significantly earlier in life. . . . President Bush’s `mangled’ words are a demonstration of what physicians call `confabulation’ and are almost specific to the diagnosis of a true dementia.” He adds that Bush should be “started on drugs that offer the possibility of retarding the slow but inexorable course of the disease.”

Yes, I asked for a second opinion. University of Massachusetts neurology professor Dr. Daniel Pollen thinks it is bootless to speculate about Bush’s condition without a formal neuropsychological assessment. “I think it’s unfair to say somebody has or does not have a dementia as an analysis based on his public utterances,” says Pollen, who is not a Bush supporter. Noting that Bush spoke well in his debates with both Richards and Al Gore, Pollen adds that Bush’s “peak performances are not in the range I would consider for anybody to have Alzheimer’s disease in the near future.”

Suppose Price is right. What effect might his observation have on the 2004 election? Absolutely none. The White House isn’t going to start speculating about an incipient medical condition that might make the president look bad. When I forwarded Price’s comments to the White House, it sent me Bush’s 2001 and 2003 physical exams, which show normal neurological functions. “There is nothing to suggest that there has been any change from those reports,” says White House spokeswoman Erin Healy.

There is ample precedent for papering over presidents’ medical shortcomings. Stanford Medical School professor Herbert Abrams and others have argued that Ronald Reagan was incapacitated from the day he was shot in March of 1981 through the succeeding seven years of his presidency. In their 1988 book, “Landslide,” Jane Mayer and Doyle McManus report that one White House staffer considered Reagan’s condition so bad in 1987 that he suggested invoking the transfer-of-power provisions of the 25th Amendment. That idea went nowhere fast.

As for the Democrats, they have no incentive to medicalize a condition they so enjoy teeing off on: Bush’s seemingly goofy stupidity. Kerry suggests that Bush’s bicycle has training wheels; Kerry’s wife suggests that people who oppose her husband’s health schemes are idiots. The Democrats would rather feel superior to their opponents than beat them, and so far they are doing a very good job.

What is your opinion?
Blogroll Me!