Between The Lines, Week Ending Dec. 14, 2007
After months of ratcheting up hostile rhetoric against Iran, with the implicit threat of military action, President Bush’s repeated assertion that Tehran was developing nuclear weapons hit a brick wall. On Dec. 3, 16 U.S. intelligence agencies released a National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, that found with high confidence that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003 and the program remains frozen.
While the new intelligence report states the U.S. does not know Iran’s long-term intentions toward the production of nuclear weapons, the declassified paper contradicts a 2005 National Intelligence Estimate, which found that Iran was determined to develop nuclear arms. Responding to the report that directly challenges his aggressive approach to Iran, President Bush maintained his position that all options are on the table for dealing with Tehran — and added that the Islamic nation continues to be a danger if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley stated that the U.S. will continue to pursue sanctions against Iran. Iran has long maintained that its current effort to enrich uranium is designed solely for its civilian nuclear power program.
Between The Lines Scott Harris spoke with Stephen Zunes, professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and author of the book, “Tinder Box: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism.” He assesses the political fallout resulting from the new intelligence report and whether the NIE’s conclusions about Iran’s nuclear program will reduce the possibility of a U.S. military strike against Tehran.
Category: Middle East
Middle East Overview
Hillary Clinton Can’t be Trusted on Iraq
Alternet Dec. 13, 2007, by Stephen Zunes [source]
Public opinion polls have consistently shown that the majority of Americans — and even a larger majority of Democrats — believe that Iraq is the most important issue of the day, that it was wrong for the United States to have invaded that country, and the United States should completely withdraw its forces in short order. Despite this, the clear front-runner for the Democratic Party nomination for president is Senator Hillary Clinton, a strident backer of the invasion who only recently and opportunistically began to criticize the war and call for a partial withdrawal of American forces.
Hillary Clinton on Iraq
Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS December 12, 2007, By Stephen Zunes
Public opinion polls have consistently shown that the majority of Americans – and even a larger majority of Democrats – believe that Iraq is the most important issue of the day, that it was wrong for the United States to have invaded that country, and the United States should completely withdraw its forces in short order. Despite this, the clear front-runner for the Democratic Party nomination for president is Senator Hillary Clinton, a strident backer of the invasion who only recently and opportunistically began to criticize the war and call for a partial withdrawal of American forces… [source is no longer available]
The Failure of Annapolis
Foreign Policy In Focus, Dec. 5, 2007, By Stephen Zunes
Also at Antiwar.com and AmericanTaskForce.org
Despite the best efforts by the Bush administration of putting a positive spin on the recently-completed summit in Annapolis to restart the “Performance-Based Road Map to Peace,” there is little reason to expect that it will actually move the Israeli-Palestinian peace process forward as long as the United States insists on simultaneously playing the role of chief mediator and chief supporter of the more powerful of the two parties.
Broken Peace Process
Foreign Policy In Focus, November 26, 2007, By Stephen Zunes [source]
There’s little reason to hope for a breakthrough at the Middle East peace summit in Annapolis, unless there is a fundamental shift in U.S. policy in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And there’s little evidence to suggest such a change is forthcoming.
Pakistan’s Dictatorships and the United States
Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS, December 12, 2007 [source]
In his 2005 inaugural address, President George W. Bush declared that the United States would support democratic movements around the world and work to end tyranny. Furthermore, he pledged to those struggling for freedom that the United States would “not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors.” Despite these promises, the Bush administration—with the apparent acquiescence of the Democratic-controlled Congress—has instead decided to continue U.S. support for the dictatorship of General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president.
The United States and the Kurds: a brief history
October 25, 2007: To add to the tragic violence unleashed throughout Iraq as a result of the U.S. invasion of that country, the armed forces of Turkey have launched attacks into the Kurdish-populated region in northern Iraq to fight guerrillas of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK). Taking advantage of the establishment of an autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq, the PKK has been escalating their raids into Turkey, prompting the October 17 decision by the Turkish parliament to authorize military action within Iraq.
Iraq: Five Years Later, We Can’t Forgive or Forget
Alternet and Foreign Policy In Focus October 16. 2007
Last week marked the fifth anniversary of the congressional vote granting President George W. Bush unprecedented war-making authority to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing. Had a majority of either the Republican-controlled House or the Democratic-controlled Senate voted against the resolution or had they passed an alternative resolution conditioning such authority on an authorization from the United Nations Security Council, all the tragic events that have unfolded as a consequence of the March 2003 invasion would have never occurred…
Support for Iraq Partition: Cynical and Dangerous
National Catholic Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007
and Foreign Policy In Focus, Oct. 12, 2007
The Senate is marking the fifth anniversary of its lamentable vote authorizing the U.S. invasion of Iraq by advocating a path that would only increase that country’s enormous suffering. On September 26, the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate voted 75–23 in support of an amendment that calls for a “federal” solution to the internal conflicts in their country, which has been widely interpreted as a call for the de facto partition of the country. The resolution, sponsored by Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman and Democratic presidential candidate Joseph Biden of Delaware, was backed by every Democratic senator except Russell Feingold (who voted against it) and Barack Obama (who wasn’t present for the vote.)
Five Years Later, We Can’t Forgive or Forget
Foreign Policy In Focus, October 11, 2007
By Emily Schwartz Greco, Stephen Zunes
This week marks the fifth anniversary of the congressional vote granting President George W. Bush unprecedented war-making authority to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing. Had a majority of either the Republican-controlled House or the Democratic-controlled Senate voted against the resolution or had they passed an alternative resolution conditioning such authority on an authorization from the United Nations Security Council, all the tragic events that have unfolded as a consequence of the March 2003 invasion would have never occurred…
My Meeting with Ahmadinejad
Foreign Policy In Focus, September 28, 2007, by Stephen Zunes.
I was among a group of American religious leaders and scholars who met with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in New York. In what was billed as an inter-faith dialogue, we frankly shared our strong opposition to certain Iranian government policies and provocative statements made by the Iranian president. At the same time, we avoided the insulting language employed by Columbia University president Lee Bollinger before a public audience two days earlier. The Iranian president was quite unimpressive. Indeed, with his ramblings and the superficiality of his analysis, he came across as more pathetic than evil…
Annotate This… President Bush’s Sept 13 Speech to the Nation on Iraq
Foreign Policy In Focus | September 14, 2007
By Erik Leaver, Stephen Zunes
Instead of charting a new direction for U.S. policy in Iraq, President Bush’s speech to the nation last evening was an impassioned plea to the American public to stay the course. But much of Bush’s argument for staying the course was based on spin instead of reality. In this edition of Annotate This… Stephen Zunes and Erik Leaver analyze Bush’s statements and offer an alternative interpretation of the situation on the ground. [source]
The U.S. Role in the Gaza Tragedy
Foreign Policy In Focus | June 26, 2007
By Emily Schwartz Greco, Stephen Zunes
There is much blame to go around regarding the tragic turn of events in the Gaza Strip. While Hamas is the most immediate culprit, responsibility also rests with Fatah, Israel – and the United States… [source]
The Peace Movement Addresses Israel-Palestine (Finally)
Foreign Policy In Focus | June 14, 2007
In my Inbox last Friday was an email from Peace Action, the country’s largest peace group, encouraging its members to join the thousands of peace and human rights activists from across the country in the June 10 march in Washington against the Israeli occupation. This otherwise unremarkable letter served as an important reminder that U.S. support for the Israeli occupation is finally becoming an issue for the mainstream of the peace movement… [source]
Jerusalem: Endorsing the Right of Conquest
Foreign Policy In Focus, June 8, 2007, By John Feffer, Stephen Zunes
Also at Antiwar.com, lucistrust.org, and TheSaker.si
In a flagrant attack on the longstanding international legal principle that it is illegitimate for any country to expand its territory by military means, the U.S. House of Representatives, by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, passed House Concurrent Resolution 152 congratulating Israel for its forcible “reunification of Jerusalem” and its victory in the June 1967 war…
The Democrats’ Support for Bush’s War
Foreign Policy In Focus | May 31, 2007, By Erik Leaver, Stephen Zunes
The capitulation of the Democratic Party’s congressional leadership to the Bush administration’s request for nearly $100 billion of unconditional supplementary government spending, primarily to support the war in Iraq, has led to outrage throughout the country. In the Senate, 37 of 49 Democrats voted on May 24 to support the measure. In the House, while only 86 of the 231 Democratic House members voted for the supplemental funding, 216 of them voted in favor of an earlier procedural vote designed to move the funding bill forward… [source]
U.S. Role in Lebanon Debacle
Foreign Policy In Focus | May 18, 2007, by Stephen Zunes
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert continues to resist pressure that he resign following the publication late last month of the interim report by a special Israeli commission on Israel’s war on Lebanon last summer. Military chief Dan Halutz has already been forced to step down and Defense Minister Amir Peretz has announced he will also be resigning shortly…
The Democrats and the “Human Shields” Myth
Foreign Policy In Focus, May 17, 2007, by Stephen Zunes
Also at Common Dreams and TheFreeLibrary.com.
Israelis from across the political spectrum, emboldened by the interim report from the government’s Winograd Commission, which investigated Israel’s ill-fated assault on Lebanon, are expressing regrets over last summer’s conflict with their northern neighbor. Uproar over the way a relatively minor border incident managed to escalate into a full-scale war is leading to demands for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s resignation…
Bring ‘Em Home, Bring ‘Em Home
Foreign Policy In Focus, May 14, 2007
by Emily Schwartz Greco, Stephen Zunes
Bruce Springsteen belts out an old peace movement standard. I first heard it while driving home from work on a college FM station. It was a song I had forgotten about but had known, with slightly different opening lyrics, in my childhood…
Washington Takes Aim at Syria
Foreign Policy in Focus/Institute for Policy Studies, May 2, 2007
While Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s willingness to meet with Syrian foreign minister Walid al-Muallim during last week’s conference on Iraq is a welcome sign, most signals coming out of Washington in recent months are far more ominous. Indeed, the strident opposition by the Bush administration of the visit by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic members of Congress to Syria last month is not just another indication of the administration’s pathological opposition to engaging in dialogue with governments it doesn’t like. It may be a sign that the Bush administration is considering military action against Syria, either directly or through its proxy Israel.