admin
on Sierra Leone.
I hold no brief for Taylor but am concerned why well-known war criminals like George W Bush and Tony Blair trudge the world as free men when pip squeaks like Taylor are gaoled?
So international law is like a spider’s web that catches only flies and mosquitoes while letting bigger vermin like rats and mice pass through. A case in point is Iran’s nuclear programme where the country with the biggest stockpile of nukes accuses Iran of intending to build a nuclear bomb, and even threatens to go to war over it without even a whimper from the United Nations, which, we are told is ‘‘committed to saving the world from the scourge of war.’’
US president Barack Obama has informed the Iranians they have one “last chance” to avoid attack. They must suspend higher uranium enrichment, close down the Fordow enrichment facility, and “surrender” their stockpile of uranium enriched to 20 per cent purity. Iranian officials respond matter-of-factly that such demands are “irrational
Seasoned US analysts seem to agree with the Iranian assessment. Stephen M Walt writes in Foreign Policy, “For the life of me, I can’t figure out what the Obama administration is thinking about Iran . . . I’m puzzled.” Gary Sick, writing for CNN, predicts dire consequences of an attack on Iran and seems to question its wisdom. So why is Obama being so confrontational? So irrational?
Obama tries to position himself in the middle, chiding Republican opponents for “loose talk” about war while assuring Israeli prime minister Netanyahu that the US will move in “lock step” with Israel. But what is the logic of offering Iran a “last chance” to stop doing what it is legally entitled to do? The only logic I can see here — and it is a perverse form — resides in the assumption that as the bombs start to fall Washington will be able to say, “We were patient, we went that last mile, and gave them their opportunity, but they defied the international community and so we (or Israel) had to attack.” It is 2003 all over again.
Recall that Obama was elected in large part due to his opposition to the war in Iraq. In a 2002 speech he declared that he opposed “the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”
But he never really denounced the campaign of lies, or expressed moral indignation at the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, the uprooting of millions, the spread of ethnic and sectarian conflicts following the US attack rather, he saw the war as a “strategic blunder.” Still, he was widely regarded as the “anti-war” candidate.
Once elected, however, he proved to be a virtual Bush clone in foreign affairs. He chose hawkish Hilary Clinton (who had strongly supported the attack on Iraq and defended her position until late in her campaign) as Secretary of State, to the applause of the neocons who correctly anticipated that she would provide continuity with their own regime-change policies. He ordered US troops out of Iraq, but he can’t take credit for the withdrawal. It occurred in accordance with the agreement between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government worked out in 2008.
On Iran, Obama made it clear from his very first post-election Press conference that he would maintain a policy of confrontation. Asked about Ahmadinejad’s message congratulating him on his election, he side-stepped the question but sternly declared that “Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon” is “unacceptable.” And ever since his administration has promoted the assumption that Iran has a secret, active military nuclear program which must be stopped by any means necessary. Exactly like George W Bush, Obama has repeatedly stated that he leaves “no options off the table” including military force. How have we reached this “last chance” interval?
The irrationality is in fact mind-boggling. How is it that while the entire US intelligence community has on the basis of exhaustive research and analysis concluded — twice — that Iran terminated its (incipient) program of research in 2003 and does not have a nuclear weapons program and while the Joint Chiefs of Staff is firmly opposed to an attack on Iran and while the IAEA has repeatedly reported no evidence for diversion of enriched uranium for military purposes — Obama can still treat Iran’s civilian program as an imminent danger? And threaten war?
Since 9/11 we have seen how powerful campaigns of misinformation can shape public opinion. Hermann Goering’s observation (that if you tell people they’re under attack you can always drag the people along to support a military response) has been repeatedly confirmed. When no evidence of weapons of mass production or al-Qaeda ties surfaced, the administration brushed it off as the result of “faulty intelligence” and urged people to look forward, not backward.
This is what Obama said too, as he took office. He was urged by some to have the Justice Department prosecute those responsible for the criminal war based on lies. “We need to look forward, not backwards,” he replied. He then moved forward to accelerate the Afghan War, increasing US troops from around 10 000 to over 90 000. He moved on to bomb Pakistan and Yemen with drones, to bomb Libya to achieve regime change, and is now threatening Syria. The current administration is as bloody as the last one.
Online Reporter