Sunday Food for Thought: The Economy of Fear

It was just a quick news blurb on CNN this past Friday morning: following Thursday's announcement by the former head of Chevron's public policy committee, Condi Rice, of tougher US sanctions against Iran - the freezing of bank assets and the delegation of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist entity, the price of oil had risen to a 30-something year high of $92/barrel.

There's no doubt that Rice is an intelligent woman but when you add manipulation and a staunch right-wing ideological bent to that equation, as we've seen for years now, the sum is dangerous. And while conservatives and Republicans say they won't raise your taxes, they always find a way to make you pay in the end. Rising oil prices = increased taxes for the government. Rising oil prices = increased transportation costs = higher food and goods prices. Rising oil prices = increased heating costs. Pretty simple. Taxed to death by stealth while the top wage earners and biggest corporations get the tax cuts and business booms for the military-industrial complex. An ever increasing debt - well, you get the picture. And while Bush claims that the economy is supposedly doing "great", the average Joe and Jane sure aren't feeling it. Quite the scam they have going.

Anyway, back to Condi. When she appeared before the House Foreign Affairs committee last week, they really should have handed out bibs for all of the drooling that went on about the fact that she was actually there. One starstruck/dumbstruck congressperson was quite amazed that, having seen her on his teevee a couple of days prior in another country, she was there - right in front of him! I guess he's never heard of "airplanes".

As one who hasn't put much stock in all of these news reports about how Condi is on the outs with Cheney over his warmongering against Iran - that she acts as some sort of balance to keep him from going over the edge - I listened carefully to her answer to one question: what did she think of his "escalating rhetoric". Now, being the diplomat she is (that's where her intelligence comes in very handy - she's a master of blathering on without saying much of anything, obviously in love with her ideas and the sound of her own voice), she craftily said nothing against Cheney. She did say, however, exactly what I've thought all along: that she believes in "diplomacy with teeth". In other words, she and Cheney play good cop/bad cop to get what they want and she serves as a glorified messenger girl - delivering Cheney's "teeth" with a faux smile wherever she goes. This is important: she's obviously very much on side with Cheney's plans for Iran.

The White House has obviously gotten the opposite message out in an attempt to pretend that Condi is doing what a US secretary of state is supposed to do ie. encouraging intelligent discourse as opposed to bombing the hell out of a country. They've carefully constructed the illusion that Condi has reformed since her Iraq/smoking gun/mushroom cloud talking point days. There's still smoke coming from her these days though: smoke and mirrors. The only thing that's changed is her job title.

Let's take a look at a bit of a reality check from the IAEA's Mohammed ElBaradei about what's going on in Iran. (Rice didn't mention the IAEA once in her testimony this past week that I recall. No need to wonder why.)

Via the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Sunday he had no evidence Iran was working actively to build nuclear weapons and expressed concern that escalating rhetoric from the U.S. could bring disaster.

"We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization," said Mohamed ElBaradei, who leads the International Atomic Energy Agency. "That's why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks."

"But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran this month of "lying" about the aim of its nuclear program. She said there is no doubt Tehran wants the capability to produce nuclear weapons and has deceived the IAEA about its intentions.
[...]
ElBaradei said he was worried about the growing rhetoric from the U.S., which he noted focused on Iran's alleged intentions to build a nuclear weapon rather than evidence the country was actively doing so. If there is actual evidence, ElBaradei said he would welcome seeing it.

"I'm very much concerned about confrontation, building confrontation, because that would lead absolutely to a disaster. I see no military solution. The only durable solution is through negotiation and inspection," he said.

"My fear is that if we continue to escalate from both sides that we will end up into a precipice, we will end up into an abyss. As I said, the Middle East is in a total mess, to say the least. And we cannot add fuel to the fire," ElBaradei added.

Meanwhile, Condi makes the slide into that abyss - Bush's WW3 - sound like a Sunday afternoon picnic at grandma's. They're on top of it. No big deal. Enjoy the popcorn. As an added bonus, all of this abyss talk excites those folks who anxiously await the rapture ie. Bush's base. They're pretty disillusioned with him and his party right now since they didn't get Roe v Wade reversed or a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. They need something to make them get out to the polls in '08, as do the wealthy industrialists and the big guns in the oil patch.

Ordinary Americans have already been screwed over six ways from Sunday and, since they haven't started a revolution in the streets to take down the government yet (when both major parties are being absolutely useless), what's another war? I don't even know what "American values" are anymore. Sitting around and watching the tube while your country is being destroyed before your very eyes? That's all I can come up with. As for so-called concerned congresspeople, I can count those on less than ten toes and the Pelosi "impeachment is off the table" caucus is a disgrace to democracy - unless you believe that democratic principles consist of running away and hiding whenever the nasty Republicans call you "weak on terror".

It's been predicted that $100/barrel oil might be a psychological breaking point. Really? It inches ever closer to that mark with every threat Cheney/Rice/Bush make towards Iran and I'm not seeing any inkling of panic on the streets yet. I imagine, when that news blurb comes, the majority of Americans will just once again grit their teeth and put up with it. I guess that's what happens when you don't live in an open democracy anymore. You just give up. For a while, at least.

Related:

Target Iran part 1
Yet More Condi Rice Diplomacy
Condi Rice, Imperial Cheerleader
Iran Adapts to Economic Pressure - Oil Market Could Help It Weather U.S. Sanctions (ah...the irony)

Update: This is encouraging but what will the follow up look like? Thousands in US anti-war protests
 
 

Iran: The Truth is in the Details

When it comes to media reporting on what's supposedly going on in Iran, it's been proven time and time again that you have to read beyond the headlines to find out what's really going on.

Take this story in the Independent, for example, (which is disappointing, since that newspaper is usually a top notch source of information):

Iran defies UN to join nuclear club

Iran announced yesterday that it has taken a step forward in its nuclear programme by moving to industrial scale enrichment, thereby defying three United Nations resolutions and setting itself on a collision course with the United States.

Case closed, right?

Wrong.

The reporter relied on rantings by President Ahmadinejad on Sunday in which he announced, "With great honour, I declare that as of today our dear country has joined the nuclear club of nations and can produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale."

And that might just be believable if the IAEA had actually confirmed those claims, but it hasn't:

The UN watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, still has to verify the move. In the past, announcements of some advances have proved premature - and the programme is believed to be fraught with technical problems.

And then there's this faulty logic:

Later Iranian officials refused to specify to journalists the number of centrifuges they've begun operating, a key indicator of how far their nuclear weapons programme has progressed, leading some diplomats to query whether the claim might be at least partly a bluff.

That's not a key indicator of anything and if the author of that article had any journalistic principles, he would avoid such hasty conclusions while listening to those diplomats.

Even the White House bought Ahmadinejad's proclamations without any proof - not that they've ever been concerned about proof before.

"We are very concerned about Iran's announcement that they entered an industrial stage of nuclear fuel production," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the White House National Security Council. "Iran continues to defy the international community and further isolate itself by expanding its nuclear program, rather than suspending uranium enrichment."

If Iran is indeed violating UN resolutions, there's a diplomatic way to deal with that which involves a process that begins with verification. People may have been fooled by Condi's warnings about Iraq's "mushroom cloud" and her so-called "smoking gun" before. They're not going to be fooled again.

Fool me once, shame on you Fool me--can't get fooled again ...
- The Decider

Related: According to Angus-Reid:

Many adults in the United States believe a military conflict with Iran could develop within the next year, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 55 per cent of respondents think it is likely that the U.S. will be at war with Iran.

And just how,exactly, are they going to make sure that doesn't happen, especially since the Democrats backed down from their demand last month that Bush seek congressional approval before he decides to attack Iran? No wonder congress's approval ratings are currently lower than Bush's.
 

Gaddafi, Iran, The US and Nuclear Power

One longstanding criticism of Iran's pursuit of nuclear energy from the US government has been this talking point stressed by the state department back in 2004:

Speaking to reporters, spokesman Richard Boucher remarked:

"We don't see the economic or any other rationale for a country like Iran to try to generate power with nuclear energy, given that... they flare off way more gas every year than they could get energy from nuclear power plants of the kind that they're talking about."

The Bush administration is now doing everything it possibly can at the UN to stop Iran's program over fears that it may be used to produce nuclear weapons. (The IAEA scolded the Bush administration back in September 2006 saying part of its case against Iran is "outrageous and dishonest.")

Now, considering that the state department apparently believes that countries with vast oil resources don't really need nuclear power, what are we to make of this news?

TRIPOLI – The United States will help Libya generate nuclear electricity, the North African country said on Monday, in an announcement appearing to herald a further improvement in ties with the West.

There was no immediate comment from Washington, which has been repairing ties with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi since he began a series of moves in 2003 aimed at ending decades of international isolation for his oil and gas exporting country.

Libya's official Jana news agency said an agreement between the two countries would be signed shortly.

It would include building a nuclear power plant, helping develop water desalination capacity, joint research and technical projects and training Libyan technicians in the United States.
[...]
Fears over finite oil and gas supplies and climate change have pushed nuclear power into the limelight as a way of producing energy and cutting emissions of carbon dioxide, blamed for global warming.

Libya has proven oil reserves of 39 billion barrels, enough for 60 years at current production rates. Its largely unexploited gas reserves are estimated at 53 trillion cubic feet.

Gaddafi, who Ronald Reagan once called "the mad dog of the Middle East" back in the day when he was busy supporting terrorists, has undergone an apparent conversion in his advancing years so he's now on the US's "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" list.

But, wait a minute, as recently as 2005 it was reported that Libya was allegedly getting uranium hexafluoride from North Korea after Gaddafi said he'd given up his weapons programs:

The nuclear material that North Korea may have exported to Libya was uranium hexafluoride. This is not fissile material but can be enriched into weapons-grade material if it is fed into nuclear centrifuges. Thus, it is considered material that could eventually be used in weapons, making the discovery of the sale disturbing to U.S. officials.

No big deal though, since the US government always acts based on its own interests in the end:

CAIRO, May 15 [2006] -- The normalization of U.S.-Libya relations is a natural marriage of an American administration desperate for friends and oil in the Middle East and a government that needs to open its economy to the outside world, Arab and exiled Libyan observers said Monday.

The announcement was called proof that promotion of democracy is no longer a top priority of the Bush administration, which is grappling to hold Iraq together and has turned attention toward building alliances against a hostile Iran over its nuclear program. Libya has been ruled by Moammar Gaddafi since he seized power in 1969.
[...]
The United States lifted its economic embargo against Libya in 2004, and since then, at least six U.S. oil companies have resumed drilling and exploration that had been suspended in 1986. Libya possesses the world's eighth-largest oil reserves, but the U.S. embargo had driven down production by keeping new equipment and technology out of the country.

Since Gaddafi is cooperating with the IAEA inspections and has surrendered Libya's components (the power of which the Bush administration vastly overestimated in 2004) one question still remains: why is there a double standard in dealing with Iran?

March 5, 2007

Dr. ElBaradei said that to date in Iran, the Agency had "not seen any diversion of nuclear materials... nor the capacity to produce weapons usable materials". He said that these were also "important elements in assessing the situation, assessing the risk, and understanding how to address the Iranian question".

The Director General reiterated his call for a "timeout" regarding the Iranian nuclear issue, saying he hoped talks could resume on the matter. "That´s the only way in my view to achieve a durable solution to the issue."

There hasn't been a "time out" of course. The US government is forcefully seeking a second UN security council resolution to impose more sanctions on Iran, which has become a very hard sell, and Iran's president is now saying that he wants to address the UN security council about his program.

Meanwhile, the official Bush administration position remains a refusal to talk to Ahmadinejad unless he stops enriching uranium while it continues an embargo on Iran's banks as well. Iran's government considers that tactic as "harassment" while Hans Blix called in February for those who are aggressively pushing for more sanctions to stop "humiliating" Iran by demanding that it cease its programs before it will be dealt with:

His warning came as top members of the UN Security Council met in London to consider additional sanctions on Iran for its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment, a key nuclear process.

He said the package of economic and political incentives put forward in June 2006 by the US and key European countries, which was later endorsed by the council, did not mention the key issue of security guarantees for Iran or adequately address the possibility of US diplomatic recognition if Tehran renounces enrichment.

"The first incentive, I think, is to sit down with them in a direct talk rather than saying to them 'you do this, thereafter we will sit down at a table and tell you what you get for it'," Mr Blix said.

"That's getting away from a humiliating neo-colonial attitude to a more normal (one). People have their own pride whether you like them or don't," he told a media briefing ahead of a conference on Weapons Threats and International Security organised by a Washington-based research institute on domestic and international challenges.
[...]
"This is in a way like telling a child, first you will behave and thereafter you will be given your rewards," he said.

"And this, I think, is humiliating. The Iranians have resisted all the time saying, no, we are willing to talk, we are willing to talk about the suspension of enrichment, but we are not for suspension before the talks. I would be surprised if a poker player would toss away his trump card before he sits down at the table. Who does that?" he asked.

The stalemate continues.

They talked to Gaddafi. Why won't they talk to Ahmadinejad?

Related:
Military action against Iran would backfire on Israel, report warns
Libyan Nuclear Weapons
Flashback to 2004: IAEA Leader's Phone Tapped