Washington Post article on 9/26 encampment demo in front of White House to defend Iran
Antiwar Protesters Decry Handling of Iran
By Michael E. Ruane, Washington Post, Sept. 26, 2007; A11
A group of antiwar protesters demonstrated outside the White House yesterday to condemn what they termed the government's "demonization" of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and said they think the Bush administration is preparing the public for an attack on Iran.
The 25 protesters, most of them from the Troops Out Now Coalition, walked in a circle on the sidewalk north of the White House, chanting "Get out of Iraq! Stay out of Iran!" and holding signs that read: "Don't Terrorize Iran" and "Don't Appease Israel."
They dismissed the criticisms this week of the Iranian president, saying the United States had criticized Saddam Hussein before invading Iraq.
"There's a hysteria in the media emanating from New York . . . against the president of Iran," coalition spokesman Larry Holmes said. "We're here in response to what's been going on in New York: the Columbia debate, the front pages of the tabloids, the electronic media, demonizing the president. And we know what it's about.
"We know that the government is in very advanced stages of planning for a war in Iran. They've got a naval armada" in the Persian Gulf, he said. "The Pentagon's got its plans. And now we see the psychological preparation."
The Iranian president has been criticized this week for questioning the Holocaust and saying there are no homosexuals in Iran.
Referring to Ahmadinejad's controversial statements, Holmes said: "I don't think it's relevant. I think that's an interesting philosophical discussion about theology, about social views, that you have over coffee."
Yesterday's protest is part of week-long antiwar rally that will culminate Saturday in a march scheduled to begin at noon from a coalition camp on the west side of the U.S. Capitol.
Spokesmen said the events are aimed mainly at stopping the war in Iraq and what they called injustice at home. The march route was being worked out, organizers said. The National Park Service said the group's permit suggests that between 2,000 and 5,000 marchers are expected.
"The focus here is stop the war at home and abroad," coalition spokesman Dustin Langley said Monday. "We think there's a real connection between the fact that they're spending $750 million a day on the war and people here die because they don't have access to health care."
The march comes after a large antiwar protest Sept. 15 and precedes an antiwar, anti-global warming rally scheduled for next month. The coalition says there have been numerous marches because the war has not ended and because antiwar groups might have different targets.
"Repeated protests are even more important than whether we get half a million people out here," Langley said. "It may just be important to be here and just dog them because they're lying to us."
**********************
For details about the Encampment & the Sept 29 March on Washington see:
Troops Out Now Coalition
Encampment Blog
By Michael E. Ruane, Washington Post, Sept. 26, 2007; A11
A group of antiwar protesters demonstrated outside the White House yesterday to condemn what they termed the government's "demonization" of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and said they think the Bush administration is preparing the public for an attack on Iran.
The 25 protesters, most of them from the Troops Out Now Coalition, walked in a circle on the sidewalk north of the White House, chanting "Get out of Iraq! Stay out of Iran!" and holding signs that read: "Don't Terrorize Iran" and "Don't Appease Israel."
They dismissed the criticisms this week of the Iranian president, saying the United States had criticized Saddam Hussein before invading Iraq.
"There's a hysteria in the media emanating from New York . . . against the president of Iran," coalition spokesman Larry Holmes said. "We're here in response to what's been going on in New York: the Columbia debate, the front pages of the tabloids, the electronic media, demonizing the president. And we know what it's about.
"We know that the government is in very advanced stages of planning for a war in Iran. They've got a naval armada" in the Persian Gulf, he said. "The Pentagon's got its plans. And now we see the psychological preparation."
The Iranian president has been criticized this week for questioning the Holocaust and saying there are no homosexuals in Iran.
Referring to Ahmadinejad's controversial statements, Holmes said: "I don't think it's relevant. I think that's an interesting philosophical discussion about theology, about social views, that you have over coffee."
Yesterday's protest is part of week-long antiwar rally that will culminate Saturday in a march scheduled to begin at noon from a coalition camp on the west side of the U.S. Capitol.
Spokesmen said the events are aimed mainly at stopping the war in Iraq and what they called injustice at home. The march route was being worked out, organizers said. The National Park Service said the group's permit suggests that between 2,000 and 5,000 marchers are expected.
"The focus here is stop the war at home and abroad," coalition spokesman Dustin Langley said Monday. "We think there's a real connection between the fact that they're spending $750 million a day on the war and people here die because they don't have access to health care."
The march comes after a large antiwar protest Sept. 15 and precedes an antiwar, anti-global warming rally scheduled for next month. The coalition says there have been numerous marches because the war has not ended and because antiwar groups might have different targets.
"Repeated protests are even more important than whether we get half a million people out here," Langley said. "It may just be important to be here and just dog them because they're lying to us."
**********************
For details about the Encampment & the Sept 29 March on Washington see:
Troops Out Now Coalition
Encampment Blog
Nicaraguan leader rails at U.S. hegemony
By ALEXANDRA OLSON, AP, Sept. 25, 2007
UNITED NATIONS - Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega accused the U.S. of imposing a worldwide dictatorship and defended the right of Iran and North Korea to pursue nuclear technology in a speech Tuesday before the U.N. General Assembly meeting.
Ortega also angrily denounced President Bush for criticizing Cuban leader Fidel Castro during his speech earlier in the day.
Ortega, who took office in January, said little had changed since he last addressed the world body as the Marxist leader of Nicaragua's Sandinista-run government two decades ago.
"The presidents of the U.S. change. And they may come to office with the greatest of intentions and they may feel that they are doing good for humanity, but they fail to understand that they are no more than instruments of one more empire in a long list of empires that have been imposed on our planet," Ortega said, waving his arms.
Ortega had started off addressing the central theme of this year's General Assembly meeting — climate change — but he quickly launched into a tirade against global capitalism, meandering from his notes and speaking well beyond his allotted 15 minutes.
The world is under "the most impressive, huge dictatorship that has existed — the empire of North America," he said. An "imperialist minority is imposing global capitalism to impoverish us all and impose apartheid against Latin American immigrants and against African immigrants."
He said the United States, as the only country to have used nuclear bombs in a war, was in no position to question the right of Iran and North Korea to pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
"And even if they want nuclear power for purposes that are not peaceful, with what right does (the U.S.) question it?" Ortega added.
During his election campaign, Ortega pledged to maintain ties with Washington but he also has reached out to Iran and Venezuela, which are courting allies in their fight against U.S. influence. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Nicaragua in January, and Ortega went to Iran in June.
Earlier Tuesday, leftist Bolivian President Evo Morales defended his own nation's ties with Iran, saying he is eager for Iranian help in developing the natural gas industry. Ahmadinejad plans to travel to Bolivia on Wednesday to sign cooperation accords with Morales, then travel to Venezuela to meet with leftist President Hugo Chavez.
Ortega's speech recalled last year's U.N. speech by Chavez, who caused a storm by calling Bush the "devil." Chavez is not attending this year.
Ortega did not directly insult Bush. But he came to the ailing Castro's defense moments after Bush declared that "in Cuba, the long rule of a cruel dictatorship is nearing its end." Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque walked out of the assembly in protest.
"And we heard from the president of the United States this morning a total lack of respect when he spoke of Cuba," Ortega said. "Fidel Castro has shown great solidarity with humanity."
End the War - Keep War Funding Off The Floor!
What if Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi refused to present a bill on the floor of Congress to fund the criminal U.S. occupation of Iraq? The possibility of a Bush veto would not be an issue.
Although there are billions of dollars still in the pipeline, Bush and the Pentagon, faced with a new political reality, would be forced to begin making plans for withdrawal.
As Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has full control over which pieces of legislation make it onto the floor of House to be voted on. The Democratic Party majority in Congress could just sit on any war spending bill and there would be no funds for the war
Funding for war in Iraq could be stopped at any number of steps in either the House or Senate.
According to the U.S. constitution spending bills have to originate in the House of Representatives. Congress has control over executive branch by having decisive control of funds for war.
Not only does the Speaker of the House control the legislation put on the floor for a vote, the Democrats, as the majority party, currently control the chair of all committees in both houses of congress. The Appropriations Committee could also just not bring the funding bill out of committee.
As the new majority Speaker of the House, one of Nancy Pelosi’s first acts was to declare that Impeachment proceedings against President Bush were ‘off the table’. This meant she would refuse to allow this burning issue to come to the floor of House. If instead as House Speaker, Pelosi were to declare that war funding is ‘off the table’, funding for war would not be possible.
When millions of people voted for Democratic Party politicians, who claimed to be anti-war last November, this is exactly the kinds of legislative actions they expected a Democratic, supposedly anti-war majority in Congress to take.
It is important to confront the direct fraud that the Democratic majority in Congress is putting forth in their complicity on voting to fund the war.
Even though they control the majority in both houses even since election they have given endless excuses about how they do not have the votes to do what they promised to do.
The Democrats claim that because they do not have a 2/3 majority they are powerless to over rule Bush's veto on the war funding. So they must pass a bill that Bush would approve. They could simply refuse to present a bill for ANY war funding.
They clearly have the Constitutional authority, the legislative power and political mandate.
But it will take a massive determined, angry and independent movement to force the conciliatory Democratic majority in Congress to put Impeachment on the table and take war funding off the table.
The Democrats with endless help from the corporate media have presented a hand wringing theatrical fraud about their lack of sufficient votes to take any action against the war.
Spending bills originates in House Appropriations Committee. Dave Obey (D Wisc). Obey could also simple refuse to move funding for the war out of committee. This is the fate of many hundreds of bills introduced into Congress each your. Most bills ‘die in committee’.
The Appropriations Committee has a Sub-committee on Defense chaired by John Murfa (D-PA), who says he wants to bring troops home He could do this by refusing to bring forward funding for the war.
At every stage Congress could act to stop funding the war.
After a funding bill is approved in the House of Representatives it moves to the Senate. Senator Robert Byrd, D-VA, head of the Senate Appropriations committee and so eloquently opposed to war could just refuse to move the bill thru the Senate Appropriations Committee. Harry Reid, Senate Majority leader could refuse to bring a bill to the Senate floor. Any of these measures would also ‘kill’ the multi-billion dollar war funding bill.
There would be no need to have a 60% majority to stop a Republican filibuster nor would the supposed anti-war Democrats need a 2/3 majority to overcome a presidential veto.
JUSTIFYING COLLABORATION
To further justify their collaboration on the war, members of Congress use their supposed concern for U.S. troops as a human shield. They are hiding behind soldiers and the threat that if they cut off funds U.S. soldiers would wake up tomorrow and not have food, water, even have funds to pull out.
This is also a fraud. The Pentagon does not live pay check to paycheck like working people do. The budget and supply process is decided months and years in advance. There is a long supply chain – planning and allocation are known many months in advance.
The Pentagon is using the funds for Iraq war to plan and prepare new wars against Iran. Half the U.S. navy has moved to within striking range of Iran. More than 10,000 sites have been targeted by Pentagon planners.
Congress and media know the determination of corporate America is to stay in Iraq for a generation or more.
As Congress again votes before the October 1 deadline to continue the war a political challenge is being prepared by the Troops Out Now Coalition. The greatest contribution of the Encampment scheduled to take place directly in front of Congress from Sept 22 to 29 is to show the kind of independent mass action that is needed to really end the war. Learning through bitter experience about the role of both capitalist parties is an essential part of the struggle to end the war.
Donate | Volunteer | Let us know you're coming to the Encampment
Full details, flyers, buses & more: Troops Out Now Coalition
www.TroopsOutNow.org
Although there are billions of dollars still in the pipeline, Bush and the Pentagon, faced with a new political reality, would be forced to begin making plans for withdrawal.
As Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has full control over which pieces of legislation make it onto the floor of House to be voted on. The Democratic Party majority in Congress could just sit on any war spending bill and there would be no funds for the war
Funding for war in Iraq could be stopped at any number of steps in either the House or Senate.
According to the U.S. constitution spending bills have to originate in the House of Representatives. Congress has control over executive branch by having decisive control of funds for war.
Not only does the Speaker of the House control the legislation put on the floor for a vote, the Democrats, as the majority party, currently control the chair of all committees in both houses of congress. The Appropriations Committee could also just not bring the funding bill out of committee.
As the new majority Speaker of the House, one of Nancy Pelosi’s first acts was to declare that Impeachment proceedings against President Bush were ‘off the table’. This meant she would refuse to allow this burning issue to come to the floor of House. If instead as House Speaker, Pelosi were to declare that war funding is ‘off the table’, funding for war would not be possible.
When millions of people voted for Democratic Party politicians, who claimed to be anti-war last November, this is exactly the kinds of legislative actions they expected a Democratic, supposedly anti-war majority in Congress to take.
It is important to confront the direct fraud that the Democratic majority in Congress is putting forth in their complicity on voting to fund the war.
Even though they control the majority in both houses even since election they have given endless excuses about how they do not have the votes to do what they promised to do.
The Democrats claim that because they do not have a 2/3 majority they are powerless to over rule Bush's veto on the war funding. So they must pass a bill that Bush would approve. They could simply refuse to present a bill for ANY war funding.
They clearly have the Constitutional authority, the legislative power and political mandate.
But it will take a massive determined, angry and independent movement to force the conciliatory Democratic majority in Congress to put Impeachment on the table and take war funding off the table.
The Democrats with endless help from the corporate media have presented a hand wringing theatrical fraud about their lack of sufficient votes to take any action against the war.
Spending bills originates in House Appropriations Committee. Dave Obey (D Wisc). Obey could also simple refuse to move funding for the war out of committee. This is the fate of many hundreds of bills introduced into Congress each your. Most bills ‘die in committee’.
The Appropriations Committee has a Sub-committee on Defense chaired by John Murfa (D-PA), who says he wants to bring troops home He could do this by refusing to bring forward funding for the war.
At every stage Congress could act to stop funding the war.
After a funding bill is approved in the House of Representatives it moves to the Senate. Senator Robert Byrd, D-VA, head of the Senate Appropriations committee and so eloquently opposed to war could just refuse to move the bill thru the Senate Appropriations Committee. Harry Reid, Senate Majority leader could refuse to bring a bill to the Senate floor. Any of these measures would also ‘kill’ the multi-billion dollar war funding bill.
There would be no need to have a 60% majority to stop a Republican filibuster nor would the supposed anti-war Democrats need a 2/3 majority to overcome a presidential veto.
JUSTIFYING COLLABORATION
To further justify their collaboration on the war, members of Congress use their supposed concern for U.S. troops as a human shield. They are hiding behind soldiers and the threat that if they cut off funds U.S. soldiers would wake up tomorrow and not have food, water, even have funds to pull out.
This is also a fraud. The Pentagon does not live pay check to paycheck like working people do. The budget and supply process is decided months and years in advance. There is a long supply chain – planning and allocation are known many months in advance.
The Pentagon is using the funds for Iraq war to plan and prepare new wars against Iran. Half the U.S. navy has moved to within striking range of Iran. More than 10,000 sites have been targeted by Pentagon planners.
Congress and media know the determination of corporate America is to stay in Iraq for a generation or more.
As Congress again votes before the October 1 deadline to continue the war a political challenge is being prepared by the Troops Out Now Coalition. The greatest contribution of the Encampment scheduled to take place directly in front of Congress from Sept 22 to 29 is to show the kind of independent mass action that is needed to really end the war. Learning through bitter experience about the role of both capitalist parties is an essential part of the struggle to end the war.
Donate | Volunteer | Let us know you're coming to the Encampment
Full details, flyers, buses & more: Troops Out Now Coalition
www.TroopsOutNow.org
The Whispers of War
By Dan Ephron and Mark Hosenball, Newsweek, Oct. 1, 2007 issue
Sam Gardiner plays war for a living. A former Air Force colonel who helped write contingency plans for the U.S. military, Gardiner has spent the 20 years since his retirement staging war-simulation exercises for military and policy wonks within and on the fringes of government (he keeps his client list confidential). Lately, more of his work has focused on Iran and its nuclear program. Gardiner starts by gathering various experts in a room to play the parts of government principals—the CIA director, the secretary of State, leaders of other countries—and presents them with a scenario: Iran, for example, has made a dramatic nuclear advance. Then he sits back and watches the cycle of action and reaction, occasionally lobbing new information at the participants.
In Gardiner's war games, the conduct of Iran's nemesis, Israel, is often the hardest to predict. Are Israeli intelligence officials exaggerating when they say Iran will have mastered the technology to make nuclear weapons by next year? Will Israel stage its own attack on Iran if Washington does not? Or is it posturing in order to goad America into military action? The simulations have led Gardiner to an ominous conclusion: though the United States is now emphasizing sanctions and diplomacy as the means of compelling Tehran to stop enriching uranium, an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities could end up dragging Washington into a war. "Even if Israel goes it alone, we will be blamed," says Gardiner. "Hence, we would see retaliation against U.S. interests."
How far will Israel go to keep Iran from getting the bomb? The question gained new urgency this month when Israeli warplanes carried out a mysterious raid deep in Syria and then threw up a nearly impenetrable wall of silence around the operation. Last week opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu chipped away at that wall, saying Israel did in fact attack targets in Syrian territory. His top adviser, Mossad veteran Uzi Arad, told NEWSWEEK: "I do know what happened, and when it comes out it will stun everyone."
Official silence has prompted a broad range of speculation as to what exactly took place. One former U.S. official, who like others quoted in this article declined to be identified discussing sensitive matters, says several months ago Israel presented the Bush administration with reconnaissance images and information from secret agents alleging North Korea had begun to supply nuclear-related material to Syria. Some U.S. intelligence reporting, including electronic signal intercepts, appeared to support the Israeli claims. But other U.S. officials remain skeptical about any nuclear link between Syria and North Korea. One European security source told NEWSWEEK the target might have been a North Korean military shipment to Iran that was transiting Syria. But a European intelligence official said it wasn't certain Israel had struck anything at all.
While the Bush administration appears to have given tacit support to the Syria raid, Israel and the United States are not in lockstep on Iran. For Israel, the next three months may be decisive: either Tehran succumbs to sanctions and stops enriching uranium or it must be dealt with militarily. (Iran says its program is for peaceful purposes only.) "Two thousand seven is the year you determine whether diplomatic efforts will stop Iran," says a well-placed Israeli source, who did not want to be named because he is not authorized to speak for the government. "If by the end of the year that's not working, 2008 becomes the year you take action."
In Washington, on the other hand, the consensus against a strike is firmer than most people realize. The Pentagon worries that another war will break America's already overstretched military, while the intelligence community believes Iran is not yet on the verge of a nuclear breakthrough. The latter assessment is expected to appear in a secret National Intelligence Estimate currently nearing completion, according to three intelligence officials who asked for anonymity when discussing nonpublic material. The report is expected to say Iran will not be able to build a nuclear bomb until at least 2010 and possibly 2015. One explanation for the lag: Iran is having trouble with its centrifuge-enrichment technology, according to U.S. and European officials.
Twice in the past year, the United States has won U.N. Security Council sanctions against Tehran. More measures might come up at Security Council discussions later this year, and recently French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner warned that European nations might impose their own sanctions. One U.S. official who preferred not to be identified discussing sensitive policy matters said he took part in a meeting several months ago where intelligence officials discussed a "public diplomacy" strategy to accompany sanctions. The idea was to periodically float the possibility of war in public comments in order to keep Iran off balance. In truth, the official said, no war preparations are underway.
There are still voices pushing for firmer action against Tehran, most notably within Vice President Dick Cheney's office. But the steady departure of administration neocons over the past two years has also helped tilt the balance away from war. One official who pushed a particularly hawkish line on Iran was David Wurmser, who had served since 2003 as Cheney's Middle East adviser. A spokeswoman at Cheney's office confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Wurmser left his position last month to "spend more time with his family." A few months before he quit, according to two knowledgeable sources, Wurmser told a small group of people that Cheney had been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz—and perhaps other sites—in order to provoke Tehran into lashing out. The Iranian reaction would then give Washington a pretext to launch strikes against military and nuclear targets in Iran. (Wurmser's remarks were first reported last week by Washington foreign-policy blogger Steven Clemons and corroborated by NEWSWEEK.) When NEWSWEEK attempted to reach Wurmser for comment, his wife, Meyrav, declined to put him on the phone and said the allegations were untrue. A spokeswoman at Cheney's office said the vice president "supports the president's policy on Iran."
In Iran, preparations for war are underway. "Crisis committees" have been established in each government ministry to draw up contingency plans, according to an Iranian official who asked for anonymity in order to speak freely. The regime has ordered radio and TV stations to prepare enough prerecorded programming to last for months, in case the studios are sabotaged or employees are unable to get to work. The ministries of electricity and water are working on plans to maintain service under war conditions. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has also sent envoys to reach out to European negotiators recently, in the hopes of heading off further sanctions or military action.
The question may not be whether America is ready to attack, but whether Israel is. The Jewish state has cause for worry. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vows regularly to destroy the country; former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, considered a moderate, warned in 2001 that Tehran could do away with Israel with just one nuclear bomb. In Tel Aviv last week, former deputy Defense minister Ephraim Sneh concurred. Sneh, a dovish member of Israel's Parliament and a retired brigadier general, took a NEWSWEEK reporter to the observation deck atop the 50-story Azrieli Center. "There is Haifa just over the horizon, Ben-Gurion airport over there, the Defense Ministry down below," he said, to show how small the country is. "You can see in this space the majority of our intellectual, economic, political assets are concentrated. One nuclear bomb is enough to wipe out Israel."
But can the Israelis destroy Iran's nuclear program? Gardiner, the war-gamer, says they would not only need to hit a dozen nuclear sites and scores of antiaircraft batteries; to prevent a devastating retaliation, they would have to knock out possibly hundreds of long-range missiles that can carry chemical warheads. Just getting to distant Iran will be tricky for Israel's squadrons of American-made F-15s and F-16s. Danny Yatom, who headed Mossad in the 1990s, says the planes would have to operate over Iran for days or weeks. Giora Eiland, Israel's former national-security adviser, now with Tel Aviv's Institute of National Security Studies, ticked off the drawbacks: "Effectiveness, doubtful. Danger of regional war. Hizbullah will immediately attack [from Lebanon], maybe even Syria." Yet Israelis across the political spectrum, including Eiland and Yatom, believe the risk incurred by inaction is far greater. "The military option is not the worst option," Yatom says. "The worst option is a nuclear Iran."
The idea of a pre-emptive strike also has popular support. When Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ordered the raid on Syria earlier this month, his approval rating was in the teens. Since then, it has jumped to nearly 30 percent. And though Olmert may not believe Israeli warplanes can get to all the targets, he might be willing to gamble on even a limited success. "No one in their right mind thinks that there's a clinical way to totally destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities," says the well-placed Israeli source. "You strike at some and set the project back. You play for time and hope Ahmadinejad will eventually fall."
Alternatively, Israel might count on Tehran to retaliate against American targets as well, drawing in the superpower. To avoid that outcome, Gardiner believes, Washington must prevent Israel from attacking in the first place. "The United States does not want to turn the possibility of a general war in the Middle East over to the decision making in Israel," he says. Does not want to, certainly—but might not have a choice.
With Rod Nordland in Jerusalem, Christopher Dickey in New York and John Barry in Washington
Sam Gardiner plays war for a living. A former Air Force colonel who helped write contingency plans for the U.S. military, Gardiner has spent the 20 years since his retirement staging war-simulation exercises for military and policy wonks within and on the fringes of government (he keeps his client list confidential). Lately, more of his work has focused on Iran and its nuclear program. Gardiner starts by gathering various experts in a room to play the parts of government principals—the CIA director, the secretary of State, leaders of other countries—and presents them with a scenario: Iran, for example, has made a dramatic nuclear advance. Then he sits back and watches the cycle of action and reaction, occasionally lobbing new information at the participants.
In Gardiner's war games, the conduct of Iran's nemesis, Israel, is often the hardest to predict. Are Israeli intelligence officials exaggerating when they say Iran will have mastered the technology to make nuclear weapons by next year? Will Israel stage its own attack on Iran if Washington does not? Or is it posturing in order to goad America into military action? The simulations have led Gardiner to an ominous conclusion: though the United States is now emphasizing sanctions and diplomacy as the means of compelling Tehran to stop enriching uranium, an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities could end up dragging Washington into a war. "Even if Israel goes it alone, we will be blamed," says Gardiner. "Hence, we would see retaliation against U.S. interests."
How far will Israel go to keep Iran from getting the bomb? The question gained new urgency this month when Israeli warplanes carried out a mysterious raid deep in Syria and then threw up a nearly impenetrable wall of silence around the operation. Last week opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu chipped away at that wall, saying Israel did in fact attack targets in Syrian territory. His top adviser, Mossad veteran Uzi Arad, told NEWSWEEK: "I do know what happened, and when it comes out it will stun everyone."
Official silence has prompted a broad range of speculation as to what exactly took place. One former U.S. official, who like others quoted in this article declined to be identified discussing sensitive matters, says several months ago Israel presented the Bush administration with reconnaissance images and information from secret agents alleging North Korea had begun to supply nuclear-related material to Syria. Some U.S. intelligence reporting, including electronic signal intercepts, appeared to support the Israeli claims. But other U.S. officials remain skeptical about any nuclear link between Syria and North Korea. One European security source told NEWSWEEK the target might have been a North Korean military shipment to Iran that was transiting Syria. But a European intelligence official said it wasn't certain Israel had struck anything at all.
While the Bush administration appears to have given tacit support to the Syria raid, Israel and the United States are not in lockstep on Iran. For Israel, the next three months may be decisive: either Tehran succumbs to sanctions and stops enriching uranium or it must be dealt with militarily. (Iran says its program is for peaceful purposes only.) "Two thousand seven is the year you determine whether diplomatic efforts will stop Iran," says a well-placed Israeli source, who did not want to be named because he is not authorized to speak for the government. "If by the end of the year that's not working, 2008 becomes the year you take action."
In Washington, on the other hand, the consensus against a strike is firmer than most people realize. The Pentagon worries that another war will break America's already overstretched military, while the intelligence community believes Iran is not yet on the verge of a nuclear breakthrough. The latter assessment is expected to appear in a secret National Intelligence Estimate currently nearing completion, according to three intelligence officials who asked for anonymity when discussing nonpublic material. The report is expected to say Iran will not be able to build a nuclear bomb until at least 2010 and possibly 2015. One explanation for the lag: Iran is having trouble with its centrifuge-enrichment technology, according to U.S. and European officials.
Twice in the past year, the United States has won U.N. Security Council sanctions against Tehran. More measures might come up at Security Council discussions later this year, and recently French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner warned that European nations might impose their own sanctions. One U.S. official who preferred not to be identified discussing sensitive policy matters said he took part in a meeting several months ago where intelligence officials discussed a "public diplomacy" strategy to accompany sanctions. The idea was to periodically float the possibility of war in public comments in order to keep Iran off balance. In truth, the official said, no war preparations are underway.
There are still voices pushing for firmer action against Tehran, most notably within Vice President Dick Cheney's office. But the steady departure of administration neocons over the past two years has also helped tilt the balance away from war. One official who pushed a particularly hawkish line on Iran was David Wurmser, who had served since 2003 as Cheney's Middle East adviser. A spokeswoman at Cheney's office confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Wurmser left his position last month to "spend more time with his family." A few months before he quit, according to two knowledgeable sources, Wurmser told a small group of people that Cheney had been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz—and perhaps other sites—in order to provoke Tehran into lashing out. The Iranian reaction would then give Washington a pretext to launch strikes against military and nuclear targets in Iran. (Wurmser's remarks were first reported last week by Washington foreign-policy blogger Steven Clemons and corroborated by NEWSWEEK.) When NEWSWEEK attempted to reach Wurmser for comment, his wife, Meyrav, declined to put him on the phone and said the allegations were untrue. A spokeswoman at Cheney's office said the vice president "supports the president's policy on Iran."
In Iran, preparations for war are underway. "Crisis committees" have been established in each government ministry to draw up contingency plans, according to an Iranian official who asked for anonymity in order to speak freely. The regime has ordered radio and TV stations to prepare enough prerecorded programming to last for months, in case the studios are sabotaged or employees are unable to get to work. The ministries of electricity and water are working on plans to maintain service under war conditions. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has also sent envoys to reach out to European negotiators recently, in the hopes of heading off further sanctions or military action.
The question may not be whether America is ready to attack, but whether Israel is. The Jewish state has cause for worry. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vows regularly to destroy the country; former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, considered a moderate, warned in 2001 that Tehran could do away with Israel with just one nuclear bomb. In Tel Aviv last week, former deputy Defense minister Ephraim Sneh concurred. Sneh, a dovish member of Israel's Parliament and a retired brigadier general, took a NEWSWEEK reporter to the observation deck atop the 50-story Azrieli Center. "There is Haifa just over the horizon, Ben-Gurion airport over there, the Defense Ministry down below," he said, to show how small the country is. "You can see in this space the majority of our intellectual, economic, political assets are concentrated. One nuclear bomb is enough to wipe out Israel."
But can the Israelis destroy Iran's nuclear program? Gardiner, the war-gamer, says they would not only need to hit a dozen nuclear sites and scores of antiaircraft batteries; to prevent a devastating retaliation, they would have to knock out possibly hundreds of long-range missiles that can carry chemical warheads. Just getting to distant Iran will be tricky for Israel's squadrons of American-made F-15s and F-16s. Danny Yatom, who headed Mossad in the 1990s, says the planes would have to operate over Iran for days or weeks. Giora Eiland, Israel's former national-security adviser, now with Tel Aviv's Institute of National Security Studies, ticked off the drawbacks: "Effectiveness, doubtful. Danger of regional war. Hizbullah will immediately attack [from Lebanon], maybe even Syria." Yet Israelis across the political spectrum, including Eiland and Yatom, believe the risk incurred by inaction is far greater. "The military option is not the worst option," Yatom says. "The worst option is a nuclear Iran."
The idea of a pre-emptive strike also has popular support. When Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ordered the raid on Syria earlier this month, his approval rating was in the teens. Since then, it has jumped to nearly 30 percent. And though Olmert may not believe Israeli warplanes can get to all the targets, he might be willing to gamble on even a limited success. "No one in their right mind thinks that there's a clinical way to totally destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities," says the well-placed Israeli source. "You strike at some and set the project back. You play for time and hope Ahmadinejad will eventually fall."
Alternatively, Israel might count on Tehran to retaliate against American targets as well, drawing in the superpower. To avoid that outcome, Gardiner believes, Washington must prevent Israel from attacking in the first place. "The United States does not want to turn the possibility of a general war in the Middle East over to the decision making in Israel," he says. Does not want to, certainly—but might not have a choice.
With Rod Nordland in Jerusalem, Christopher Dickey in New York and John Barry in Washington
Iran Closes Some Border Crossings To Iraq
CBS News, Sept. 24, 2007
(CBS/AP) A Kurdish official says Iran closed major border crossings with northern Iraq on Monday to protest the U.S. detention of an Iranian official the military has accused of weapons smuggling.
At least four border gates had been closed, with just one remaining open in a move that will severely curtail trade between the two countries, the governor of the Kurdish province of Sulaimaniyah, Dana Ahmed Majeed, told The Associated Press.
At least four border gates have been closed and one remains open, the governor of the Kurdish province of Sulaimaniyah, Dana Ahmed Majeed, told The Associated Press. The move threatens the economy of Iraq's northern region - one of the country's few success stories.
In Tehran, the public relations department in Iran's Interior Ministry said no decision had been taken to shut the border.
But Kurdish authorities said the Iranians began shutting down the crossing points late Sunday near the border towns of Banjiwin, Haj Omran, Halabja and Khanaqin.
The move came four days after U.S. troops arrested an Iranian official during a raid on a hotel in Sulaimaniyah, 160 miles northeast of Baghdad.
U.S. officials said he was a member of the elite Quds force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards that smuggles weapons into Iraq. But Iraqi and Iranian leaders said he was in the country on official business and with the full knowledge of the government.
"This closure from the Iranian side will have a bad effect on the economic situation of the Kurdish government and will hurt the civilians as well," said Jamal Abdullah, a spokesman for the autonomous Kurdish government. "We are paying the price of what the Americans have done by arresting the Iranian."
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, also has protested the detention Thursday by U.S. troops of the Iranian in the Kurdish city of Sulaimaniyah. Talabani demanded the Iranian's release, warning the arrest could affect relations between the two neighbors.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said the man, who has been identified as Mahmudi Farhadi, was in charge of border transactions in western Iran and went to Iraq on an official invitation.
The U.S. military said the suspect was being questioned about "his knowledge of, and involvement in," the transportation of EFPs and other roadside bombs from Iran into Iraq and his possible role in the training of Iraqi insurgents in Iran. No charges against the Iranian have been filed yet.
In other developments:
*A suicide truck bomber blew up his vehicle Monday by an Iraqi security checkpoint near a northern city, killing five people, including two Iraqi soldiers and a police officer, the city's mayor said. Seventeen civilians were also wounded in the explosion which took place at the checkpoint at the entrance of the village of Ashiq, some 16 miles east of Tal Afar, said mayor Najim Abdullah. Several houses and shops were also damaged in the blast.
*A woman from Baghdad who was the only confirmed case of cholera in the Iraqi capital has died, bringing the number of deaths from the disease in the country to 11, the World Health Organization said Monday. Dr. Naeema al-Gasseer, the WHO's representative in Iraq, said the woman died Sunday. She was found to have cholera after she turned up last week at the hospital with a severe case of diarrhea. Iraq has a total of 1,652 confirmed cases of cholera, with more than 29,000 registered cases of acute watery diarrhea.
*The U.S. Congress should stop funding the Iraq war to force President Bush and the Iraqi government to "change course," Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said Sunday on CBS' Face The Nation. "No matter how heroically and dedicated the performance of our young men and women and their officers are in Iraq - which it has been - they cannot referee successfully a sectarian civil war," Clinton told Bob Schieffer. (Read more)
Also Monday, the U.S. military said U.S. troops killed one suspected militant and detained four others said to be involved in kidnapping operations run by Iranian-backed Shiite militias during a raid in eastern Baghdad.
Monday's raid in the Shiite neighborhood of Sadr City came on the heels of accusations that Iran is smuggling surface-to-air missiles and other advanced weapons into Iraq for use against American troops, and increasing protests by Iraqi officials over Farhadi's detention.
His arrest has taxed relations between Iraq and the U.S., already strained after the shooting deaths of 11 civilians at Nisoor Square in Baghdad on Sept. 16 - allegedly at the hands of Blackwater USA security contractors.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has said the Blackwater incident was among several "serious challenges to the sovereignty of Iraq" by the company, adding he will take the case up in discussions with President Bush in New York, when the two meet on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly.
Al-Maliki also condemned the Iranian's arrest, saying he understood Farhadi had been invited to Iraq.
"The government of Iraq is an elected one and sovereign. When it gives a visa, it is responsible for the visa," al-Maliki told The Associated Press in an interview Sunday in New York. "We consider the arrest ... of this individual who holds an Iraqi visa and a (valid) passport to be unacceptable."
The military said the suspects targeted in Monday's raid were believed to be Iranian-backed rogue Shiite fighters. During the raid, U.S. troops were engaged with at least one armor-piercing explosively formed penetrator, or EFP, weapons that the military says have been brought in from Iran and killed hundreds of American troops in recent months.
Tehran denies the allegations, saying it is promoting stability in Iraq, not fueling the violence.
Sadr City is a stronghold of the Mahdi Army. The militia is nominally loyal to the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr but disaffected factions have broken off from the group in recent months to battle U.S. troops in the neighborhood.
U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Mark Fox said Sunday that American soldiers were continuing to find Iranian-supplied weaponry including the Misagh 1, a portable surface-to-air missile that uses an infrared guidance system.
Other advanced Iranian weaponry found in Iraq includes the RPG-29 rocket-propelled grenade, 240 mm rockets and EFPs, Fox said.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denied his country was aiding Shiite militias in an interview with CBS' 60 Minutes that aired Sunday.
"We don't need to do that. We are very much opposed to war and insecurity," Ahmadinejad told 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley in the interview aired Sunday.
Ahmadinejad arrived in New York Sunday to attend the U.N. General Assembly. "The insecurity in Iraq is detrimental to our interests."
Rising tensions between Iran and the United States have worried Iraqi officials - many of whom are members of political parties with close ties to Tehran.
(CBS/AP) A Kurdish official says Iran closed major border crossings with northern Iraq on Monday to protest the U.S. detention of an Iranian official the military has accused of weapons smuggling.
At least four border gates had been closed, with just one remaining open in a move that will severely curtail trade between the two countries, the governor of the Kurdish province of Sulaimaniyah, Dana Ahmed Majeed, told The Associated Press.
At least four border gates have been closed and one remains open, the governor of the Kurdish province of Sulaimaniyah, Dana Ahmed Majeed, told The Associated Press. The move threatens the economy of Iraq's northern region - one of the country's few success stories.
In Tehran, the public relations department in Iran's Interior Ministry said no decision had been taken to shut the border.
But Kurdish authorities said the Iranians began shutting down the crossing points late Sunday near the border towns of Banjiwin, Haj Omran, Halabja and Khanaqin.
The move came four days after U.S. troops arrested an Iranian official during a raid on a hotel in Sulaimaniyah, 160 miles northeast of Baghdad.
U.S. officials said he was a member of the elite Quds force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards that smuggles weapons into Iraq. But Iraqi and Iranian leaders said he was in the country on official business and with the full knowledge of the government.
"This closure from the Iranian side will have a bad effect on the economic situation of the Kurdish government and will hurt the civilians as well," said Jamal Abdullah, a spokesman for the autonomous Kurdish government. "We are paying the price of what the Americans have done by arresting the Iranian."
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, also has protested the detention Thursday by U.S. troops of the Iranian in the Kurdish city of Sulaimaniyah. Talabani demanded the Iranian's release, warning the arrest could affect relations between the two neighbors.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said the man, who has been identified as Mahmudi Farhadi, was in charge of border transactions in western Iran and went to Iraq on an official invitation.
The U.S. military said the suspect was being questioned about "his knowledge of, and involvement in," the transportation of EFPs and other roadside bombs from Iran into Iraq and his possible role in the training of Iraqi insurgents in Iran. No charges against the Iranian have been filed yet.
In other developments:
*A suicide truck bomber blew up his vehicle Monday by an Iraqi security checkpoint near a northern city, killing five people, including two Iraqi soldiers and a police officer, the city's mayor said. Seventeen civilians were also wounded in the explosion which took place at the checkpoint at the entrance of the village of Ashiq, some 16 miles east of Tal Afar, said mayor Najim Abdullah. Several houses and shops were also damaged in the blast.
*A woman from Baghdad who was the only confirmed case of cholera in the Iraqi capital has died, bringing the number of deaths from the disease in the country to 11, the World Health Organization said Monday. Dr. Naeema al-Gasseer, the WHO's representative in Iraq, said the woman died Sunday. She was found to have cholera after she turned up last week at the hospital with a severe case of diarrhea. Iraq has a total of 1,652 confirmed cases of cholera, with more than 29,000 registered cases of acute watery diarrhea.
*The U.S. Congress should stop funding the Iraq war to force President Bush and the Iraqi government to "change course," Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said Sunday on CBS' Face The Nation. "No matter how heroically and dedicated the performance of our young men and women and their officers are in Iraq - which it has been - they cannot referee successfully a sectarian civil war," Clinton told Bob Schieffer. (Read more)
Also Monday, the U.S. military said U.S. troops killed one suspected militant and detained four others said to be involved in kidnapping operations run by Iranian-backed Shiite militias during a raid in eastern Baghdad.
Monday's raid in the Shiite neighborhood of Sadr City came on the heels of accusations that Iran is smuggling surface-to-air missiles and other advanced weapons into Iraq for use against American troops, and increasing protests by Iraqi officials over Farhadi's detention.
His arrest has taxed relations between Iraq and the U.S., already strained after the shooting deaths of 11 civilians at Nisoor Square in Baghdad on Sept. 16 - allegedly at the hands of Blackwater USA security contractors.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has said the Blackwater incident was among several "serious challenges to the sovereignty of Iraq" by the company, adding he will take the case up in discussions with President Bush in New York, when the two meet on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly.
Al-Maliki also condemned the Iranian's arrest, saying he understood Farhadi had been invited to Iraq.
"The government of Iraq is an elected one and sovereign. When it gives a visa, it is responsible for the visa," al-Maliki told The Associated Press in an interview Sunday in New York. "We consider the arrest ... of this individual who holds an Iraqi visa and a (valid) passport to be unacceptable."
The military said the suspects targeted in Monday's raid were believed to be Iranian-backed rogue Shiite fighters. During the raid, U.S. troops were engaged with at least one armor-piercing explosively formed penetrator, or EFP, weapons that the military says have been brought in from Iran and killed hundreds of American troops in recent months.
Tehran denies the allegations, saying it is promoting stability in Iraq, not fueling the violence.
Sadr City is a stronghold of the Mahdi Army. The militia is nominally loyal to the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr but disaffected factions have broken off from the group in recent months to battle U.S. troops in the neighborhood.
U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Mark Fox said Sunday that American soldiers were continuing to find Iranian-supplied weaponry including the Misagh 1, a portable surface-to-air missile that uses an infrared guidance system.
Other advanced Iranian weaponry found in Iraq includes the RPG-29 rocket-propelled grenade, 240 mm rockets and EFPs, Fox said.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denied his country was aiding Shiite militias in an interview with CBS' 60 Minutes that aired Sunday.
"We don't need to do that. We are very much opposed to war and insecurity," Ahmadinejad told 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley in the interview aired Sunday.
Ahmadinejad arrived in New York Sunday to attend the U.N. General Assembly. "The insecurity in Iraq is detrimental to our interests."
Rising tensions between Iran and the United States have worried Iraqi officials - many of whom are members of political parties with close ties to Tehran.
Ahmadinejad: Iran Not Walking Toward War
Iranian Leader Tells Scott Pelley His Country Does Not Need Nuclear Weapons
CBS News, TEHRAN, Sept. 23, 2007
Watch the full interview.
(CBS) The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, knows how to infuriate the Western world and he did it again last week when he asked to visit ground zero. Ahmadinejad plans to be in New York this week for the U.N. General Assembly meeting. The man who questions the truth behind the Holocaust is expected to demand, once again, the elimination of Israel.
60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley spoke with Ahmadinejad on Thursday in the garden outside his office in Tehran. Pelley spoke to the president about America's angry reaction to his plan to visit the World Trade Center site. The president told 60 Minutes, in light of the objections, he wouldn't press for it.
"Sir, what were you thinking?" Pelley asked. "The World Trade Center site is the most sensitive place in the American heart, and you must have known that visiting there would be insulting to many, many Americans."
"Why should it be insulting," Ahmadinajad said.
"Well, sir, you're the head of the government of an Islamist state that the United States government says is a major exporter of terrorism around the world," Pelley replied.
"We obviously are very much against any terrorist action and any killing. And also we are very much against any plots to sow the seeds of discord among nations," Ahmadinejad said. "Usually you go to these sites to pay your respects. And also to perhaps to air your views about the root causes of such incidents."
Ahmadinejad told Pelley the U.S. and Iran could be friends, but 60 Minutes wanted to know about the growing evidence that Iranian weapons and bomb components are being used against U.S. forces in Iraq.
"It is an established fact now that Iranian bombs and Iranian know-how are killing Americans in Iraq. You have American blood on your hands. Why?" Pelley asked.
"Well, this is what the American officials are saying. Again, American officials wherever around the world that they encounter a problem which they fail to resolve, instead of accepting that, they prefer to accuse others," the president replied. "I'm very sorry that because of the wrong decisions taken by American officials, Iraqi people are being killed and also American soldiers. It's very regrettable."
"The American Army has captured Iranian missiles in Iraq. The critical elements of the explosively formed penetrator bombs that are killing so many people are coming from Iran. There's no doubt about that anymore. The denials are no longer credible, sir," Pelley pointed out.
"Very good. If I may. Are you an American politician? Am I to look at you as an American politician or a reporter? This is what the American officials are claiming," Ahmadinejad replied. "If they accuse us 1,000 times, the truth will not change."
"Are you saying that it is not the policy of this government to send weapons into Iraq? Sir, forgive me, you're smiling, but this is a very serious matter to America," Pelley said.
"Well, it's serious for us as well. I daresay it's serious for everyone," Ahmadinejad told Pelley. "It seems to me it's laughable for someone to turn a blind eye to the truth and accuse others. It doesn't help. And the reason that I'm smiling, again, it's because that the picture is so clear. But American officials refuse to see it."
Asked if he could very simply and directly say that Iran is not sending weapons to Iraq, Ahmadinejad said, "We don't need to do that. We are very much opposed to war and insecurity…"
"Is that a 'No,' sir?" Pelley asked.
"…by Iraq. It's very clear the situation. The insecurity in Iraq is detrimental to our interests," Ahmadinejad said.
President Ahmadinejad is 50, with a wife and three grown kids. He's the son of a blacksmith, said to be very religious and incorruptible. He was elected two years ago largely by rural and poor voters. Back in the 1980's, during Iraq's ruinous invasion of Iran, he was reportedly an elite Army intelligence officer in the war with Saddam Hussein.
"Mr. President, you must have rejoiced more than anyone when Saddam Hussein fell. You owe President Bush. This is one of the best things that's ever happened to your country," Pelley said.
"Once the dictator was toppled, many people were happy," Ahmadinejad agreed. "But the American government did not appropriately use this golden opportunity. They should have left the Iraqi people to go their own way and to determine their own fate."
But the issue that threatens war between Iran and the U.S. is Iran's determination to keep enriching uranium, even though the United Nations Security Council demands that it stop. Ahmadinejad claims Iran only wants nuclear energy but the Bush administration says he's pursuing a bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency -- the IAEA -- is trying to resolve the dispute.
In the past, Ahmadinejad has said Iran has 3,000 centrifuges in a line producing highly-enriched uranium. Does Iran have more now?
"No. Our plan and program is very transparent. We are under the supervision of the Agency. Everything is on the table," Ahmadinejad said. "We have nothing to hide."
"It's been hidden for more than 15 years. You've been operating a secret nuclear program. It's nothing-if it's not secret," Pelley remarked.
"Who is saying that?" the president asked.
"Well, the IAEA. You've, in fact, agreed with the IAEA to confess what you've done in secret over the past years. It is not transparent, sir," Pelley pointed out.
"The Agency is supposed to supervise and ask questions and we respond," Ahmadinejad said. "And our activities are very peaceful."
"For the sake of clarity, because there is so much concern in the world about this next question, please give me the most direct answer you can. Is it your goal to build a nuclear bomb?" Pelley asked.
"What are you driving at?" the president replied.
"Simply that, sir. Is it the goal of your government, the goal of this nation to build a nuclear weapon?" Pelley asked.
"What do you think that the nuclear technology is only limited in a bomb? You can only build a bomb with that?" Ahmadinejad said.
"I appreciate the differences, sir," Pelley said. "But the question is limited to the bomb."
"Well, you have to appreciate we don't need a nuclear bomb. We don't need that. What needs do we have for a bomb?" the president replied.
"May I take that as a 'No,' sir?" Pelley asked.
"It is a firm 'No.' I’m going to be much firmer now, in political relations right now, the nuclear bomb is of no use; if it was useful it would have prevented the downfall of the Soviet Union; if it was useful it would resolved the problem the Americans have in Iraq," Ahmadinejad said. "The time of the bomb is passed."
"At the moment, our two countries may very well be walking down the road to war. How do you convince President Bush, how do you convince other nations in the West…," Pelley said.
"What two parties are walking towards war?" the president asked.
"Iran, the United States, Western countries," Pelley said.
"Well, it's wrong to think that Iran and the U.S. are walking towards war. Who says so? Why should we go to war?" Ahmadinejad asked. "There is no war in the offing. Again, this is psychological warfare if you have difference of opinion you can use logic to resolve your differences."
Asked what trait he admires in President Bush, Ahmadinejad paused.
"What do you admire about him? Is there anything, any trait?" Pelley asked.
"As an American citizen tell me what trait do you admire?" the president asked Pelley.
"Well Mr. Bush is without question a very religious man for example, as you are," Pelley replied.
"What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people, please tell me, does Christianity tell its followers to do that?" Ahmadinejad asked.
"I take it you can’t think of anything you like about President Bush," Pelley remarked.
"Well, I'm not familiar with the gentleman’s private life. Maybe in his private life he is very kind or determined man," the president said.
"I asked President Bush what he would say to you if he were sitting in this chair. And he told me-quote-speaking to you, that you’ve made terrible choices for your people. You’ve isolated your nation you’ve taken a nation of proud and honorable people and made your country the pariah of the world. These are President Bush’s words to you," Pelley said. "What’s your reply?"
"Well, President Bush is free to think as the pleases and to say what he pleases," Ahmadinejad said. "I don’t think that President Bush has said these things. Rather I prefer to think that this is your impression of what the president said."
"I’m quoting the president directly, for the record," Pelley remarked.
"This is a direct quote, so well, this tells me that there is a great divide between us," Ahmadinejad said.
"President Bush has pledged that you will not be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon and will use military force if necessary," Pelley said.
"I think Mr. Bush, if he wants his party to win the next election, there are cheaper ways to go about this. I can very well give him a few ideas so that the people vote for him. He should respect the American people. They should not bug the telephone conversations of their citizens," the president said. "They should not kill the sons and daughters of the American nation. They should not squander the taxpayers' money and give them to weapons companies. And also help the people, the victims of Katrina. People will vote for them if they do these things. What I'm saying, I am being very sincere here. I'm a Muslim. I cannot tell a lie."
"But when I ask you a question as direct as 'Will you pledge not to test a nuclear weapon?' you act, you dance all around the question. You never say 'Yes.' You never say 'No,'" Pelley points out.
"Well, thank you for that. You are like a CIA investigator. And you are…," Ahmadinejad replied.
"I am just a reporter. I am a simple average American reporter," Pelley said.
"This is not Guantanamo Bay. This is not a Baghdad prison. Please, this is not a secret prison in Europe. This is not Abu Ghraib," Ahmadinejad said. "This is Iran. I'm the president of this country!"
CBS News, TEHRAN, Sept. 23, 2007
Watch the full interview.
(CBS) The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, knows how to infuriate the Western world and he did it again last week when he asked to visit ground zero. Ahmadinejad plans to be in New York this week for the U.N. General Assembly meeting. The man who questions the truth behind the Holocaust is expected to demand, once again, the elimination of Israel.
60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley spoke with Ahmadinejad on Thursday in the garden outside his office in Tehran. Pelley spoke to the president about America's angry reaction to his plan to visit the World Trade Center site. The president told 60 Minutes, in light of the objections, he wouldn't press for it.
"Sir, what were you thinking?" Pelley asked. "The World Trade Center site is the most sensitive place in the American heart, and you must have known that visiting there would be insulting to many, many Americans."
"Why should it be insulting," Ahmadinajad said.
"Well, sir, you're the head of the government of an Islamist state that the United States government says is a major exporter of terrorism around the world," Pelley replied.
"We obviously are very much against any terrorist action and any killing. And also we are very much against any plots to sow the seeds of discord among nations," Ahmadinejad said. "Usually you go to these sites to pay your respects. And also to perhaps to air your views about the root causes of such incidents."
Ahmadinejad told Pelley the U.S. and Iran could be friends, but 60 Minutes wanted to know about the growing evidence that Iranian weapons and bomb components are being used against U.S. forces in Iraq.
"It is an established fact now that Iranian bombs and Iranian know-how are killing Americans in Iraq. You have American blood on your hands. Why?" Pelley asked.
"Well, this is what the American officials are saying. Again, American officials wherever around the world that they encounter a problem which they fail to resolve, instead of accepting that, they prefer to accuse others," the president replied. "I'm very sorry that because of the wrong decisions taken by American officials, Iraqi people are being killed and also American soldiers. It's very regrettable."
"The American Army has captured Iranian missiles in Iraq. The critical elements of the explosively formed penetrator bombs that are killing so many people are coming from Iran. There's no doubt about that anymore. The denials are no longer credible, sir," Pelley pointed out.
"Very good. If I may. Are you an American politician? Am I to look at you as an American politician or a reporter? This is what the American officials are claiming," Ahmadinejad replied. "If they accuse us 1,000 times, the truth will not change."
"Are you saying that it is not the policy of this government to send weapons into Iraq? Sir, forgive me, you're smiling, but this is a very serious matter to America," Pelley said.
"Well, it's serious for us as well. I daresay it's serious for everyone," Ahmadinejad told Pelley. "It seems to me it's laughable for someone to turn a blind eye to the truth and accuse others. It doesn't help. And the reason that I'm smiling, again, it's because that the picture is so clear. But American officials refuse to see it."
Asked if he could very simply and directly say that Iran is not sending weapons to Iraq, Ahmadinejad said, "We don't need to do that. We are very much opposed to war and insecurity…"
"Is that a 'No,' sir?" Pelley asked.
"…by Iraq. It's very clear the situation. The insecurity in Iraq is detrimental to our interests," Ahmadinejad said.
President Ahmadinejad is 50, with a wife and three grown kids. He's the son of a blacksmith, said to be very religious and incorruptible. He was elected two years ago largely by rural and poor voters. Back in the 1980's, during Iraq's ruinous invasion of Iran, he was reportedly an elite Army intelligence officer in the war with Saddam Hussein.
"Mr. President, you must have rejoiced more than anyone when Saddam Hussein fell. You owe President Bush. This is one of the best things that's ever happened to your country," Pelley said.
"Once the dictator was toppled, many people were happy," Ahmadinejad agreed. "But the American government did not appropriately use this golden opportunity. They should have left the Iraqi people to go their own way and to determine their own fate."
But the issue that threatens war between Iran and the U.S. is Iran's determination to keep enriching uranium, even though the United Nations Security Council demands that it stop. Ahmadinejad claims Iran only wants nuclear energy but the Bush administration says he's pursuing a bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency -- the IAEA -- is trying to resolve the dispute.
In the past, Ahmadinejad has said Iran has 3,000 centrifuges in a line producing highly-enriched uranium. Does Iran have more now?
"No. Our plan and program is very transparent. We are under the supervision of the Agency. Everything is on the table," Ahmadinejad said. "We have nothing to hide."
"It's been hidden for more than 15 years. You've been operating a secret nuclear program. It's nothing-if it's not secret," Pelley remarked.
"Who is saying that?" the president asked.
"Well, the IAEA. You've, in fact, agreed with the IAEA to confess what you've done in secret over the past years. It is not transparent, sir," Pelley pointed out.
"The Agency is supposed to supervise and ask questions and we respond," Ahmadinejad said. "And our activities are very peaceful."
"For the sake of clarity, because there is so much concern in the world about this next question, please give me the most direct answer you can. Is it your goal to build a nuclear bomb?" Pelley asked.
"What are you driving at?" the president replied.
"Simply that, sir. Is it the goal of your government, the goal of this nation to build a nuclear weapon?" Pelley asked.
"What do you think that the nuclear technology is only limited in a bomb? You can only build a bomb with that?" Ahmadinejad said.
"I appreciate the differences, sir," Pelley said. "But the question is limited to the bomb."
"Well, you have to appreciate we don't need a nuclear bomb. We don't need that. What needs do we have for a bomb?" the president replied.
"May I take that as a 'No,' sir?" Pelley asked.
"It is a firm 'No.' I’m going to be much firmer now, in political relations right now, the nuclear bomb is of no use; if it was useful it would have prevented the downfall of the Soviet Union; if it was useful it would resolved the problem the Americans have in Iraq," Ahmadinejad said. "The time of the bomb is passed."
"At the moment, our two countries may very well be walking down the road to war. How do you convince President Bush, how do you convince other nations in the West…," Pelley said.
"What two parties are walking towards war?" the president asked.
"Iran, the United States, Western countries," Pelley said.
"Well, it's wrong to think that Iran and the U.S. are walking towards war. Who says so? Why should we go to war?" Ahmadinejad asked. "There is no war in the offing. Again, this is psychological warfare if you have difference of opinion you can use logic to resolve your differences."
Asked what trait he admires in President Bush, Ahmadinejad paused.
"What do you admire about him? Is there anything, any trait?" Pelley asked.
"As an American citizen tell me what trait do you admire?" the president asked Pelley.
"Well Mr. Bush is without question a very religious man for example, as you are," Pelley replied.
"What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people, please tell me, does Christianity tell its followers to do that?" Ahmadinejad asked.
"I take it you can’t think of anything you like about President Bush," Pelley remarked.
"Well, I'm not familiar with the gentleman’s private life. Maybe in his private life he is very kind or determined man," the president said.
"I asked President Bush what he would say to you if he were sitting in this chair. And he told me-quote-speaking to you, that you’ve made terrible choices for your people. You’ve isolated your nation you’ve taken a nation of proud and honorable people and made your country the pariah of the world. These are President Bush’s words to you," Pelley said. "What’s your reply?"
"Well, President Bush is free to think as the pleases and to say what he pleases," Ahmadinejad said. "I don’t think that President Bush has said these things. Rather I prefer to think that this is your impression of what the president said."
"I’m quoting the president directly, for the record," Pelley remarked.
"This is a direct quote, so well, this tells me that there is a great divide between us," Ahmadinejad said.
"President Bush has pledged that you will not be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon and will use military force if necessary," Pelley said.
"I think Mr. Bush, if he wants his party to win the next election, there are cheaper ways to go about this. I can very well give him a few ideas so that the people vote for him. He should respect the American people. They should not bug the telephone conversations of their citizens," the president said. "They should not kill the sons and daughters of the American nation. They should not squander the taxpayers' money and give them to weapons companies. And also help the people, the victims of Katrina. People will vote for them if they do these things. What I'm saying, I am being very sincere here. I'm a Muslim. I cannot tell a lie."
"But when I ask you a question as direct as 'Will you pledge not to test a nuclear weapon?' you act, you dance all around the question. You never say 'Yes.' You never say 'No,'" Pelley points out.
"Well, thank you for that. You are like a CIA investigator. And you are…," Ahmadinejad replied.
"I am just a reporter. I am a simple average American reporter," Pelley said.
"This is not Guantanamo Bay. This is not a Baghdad prison. Please, this is not a secret prison in Europe. This is not Abu Ghraib," Ahmadinejad said. "This is Iran. I'm the president of this country!"
Three Somali government soldiers killed in fierce battle
By Aweys Yusuf, Reuters, Sept. 24, 2007
MOGADISHU (Reuters) - At least three Somali government soldiers were killed this weekend in some of the worst fighting in the capital since opposition figures vowed war on Ethiopian troops supporting the interim government.
The gunbattles late on Sunday took place in northern Mogadishu, a stronghold of Islamist insurgents fighting what they see as Ethiopia's occupation of their Horn of Africa nation.
Clan militia have also joined the ranks resisting efforts by the government to restore effective central rule to Somalia after warlords ousted a military dictator in 1991.
"Three government soldiers, including the unit leader, were killed in the fighting and three others were wounded," said a policeman, who did not want to be identified.
He also said a government technical -- Somalia's version of a tank -- was burned.
Allied Somali-Ethiopian troops who ousted a rival Islamist movement in the New Year were out in force at the scene of the battles early on Monday, the police source said.
"We admitted four government soldiers last night. They were wounded in last night's gun battle," Dahir Dhere, a medical officer at Medina hospital, told Reuters.
Last month, Somali opposition leaders said their newly formed "Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia" rejected talks with the government unless Ethiopia removed its troops.
The group also demanded the withdrawal of 1,600 Ugandan peacekeepers, the vanguard of a planned 8,000-strong African Union (AU) mission to replace the Ethiopians.
Paddy Ankunda, the spokesman for the Ugandan AU contingent, told Reuters on Monday its modest successes should be an embarrassment to countries that have failed to send forces.
In a separate incident, unknown gunmen killed a prominent businessman in southern Mogadishu on Sunday, witnesses said.
"The gunmen entered his shop and forced him outside where they shot him dead," one witness said.
Last week, a U.N. independent expert on human rights said Mogadishu residents were more afraid than ever before of being killed and arrested in the city which for 16 years has been a byword for chaos and violence.
And in the relatively peaceful north of the country, troops from the breakaway Somaliland republic and nearby Puntland, a semi-autonomous region, clashed over territory they have fought over for year, residents said. No one was hurt, they added.
MOGADISHU (Reuters) - At least three Somali government soldiers were killed this weekend in some of the worst fighting in the capital since opposition figures vowed war on Ethiopian troops supporting the interim government.
The gunbattles late on Sunday took place in northern Mogadishu, a stronghold of Islamist insurgents fighting what they see as Ethiopia's occupation of their Horn of Africa nation.
Clan militia have also joined the ranks resisting efforts by the government to restore effective central rule to Somalia after warlords ousted a military dictator in 1991.
"Three government soldiers, including the unit leader, were killed in the fighting and three others were wounded," said a policeman, who did not want to be identified.
He also said a government technical -- Somalia's version of a tank -- was burned.
Allied Somali-Ethiopian troops who ousted a rival Islamist movement in the New Year were out in force at the scene of the battles early on Monday, the police source said.
"We admitted four government soldiers last night. They were wounded in last night's gun battle," Dahir Dhere, a medical officer at Medina hospital, told Reuters.
Last month, Somali opposition leaders said their newly formed "Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia" rejected talks with the government unless Ethiopia removed its troops.
The group also demanded the withdrawal of 1,600 Ugandan peacekeepers, the vanguard of a planned 8,000-strong African Union (AU) mission to replace the Ethiopians.
Paddy Ankunda, the spokesman for the Ugandan AU contingent, told Reuters on Monday its modest successes should be an embarrassment to countries that have failed to send forces.
In a separate incident, unknown gunmen killed a prominent businessman in southern Mogadishu on Sunday, witnesses said.
"The gunmen entered his shop and forced him outside where they shot him dead," one witness said.
Last week, a U.N. independent expert on human rights said Mogadishu residents were more afraid than ever before of being killed and arrested in the city which for 16 years has been a byword for chaos and violence.
And in the relatively peaceful north of the country, troops from the breakaway Somaliland republic and nearby Puntland, a semi-autonomous region, clashed over territory they have fought over for year, residents said. No one was hurt, they added.
The New Military Frontier: Africa
by Frida Berrigan, Foreign Policy In Focus, Sept 19, 2007
A U.S. Army captain in Africa waxes philosophical. It’s like the old saying, he opines; “give a man a fish, he’ll eat for a day, teach him how to fish and he’ll eat forever.”
Is he talking about skills-building, or community empowerment? No: Captain Joseph Cruz goes from channeling the musician Speech from the American hip-hop group Arrested Development back to his military-approved talking points: “the same can be said about military to military training and that’s why we do it.”
The Delta company soldier is one of 1,800 based in Djibouti at an old French Foreign Legion base, and he is comparing lessons in small naval patrol boat tactics, approaches to counter terrorism operations, and how to use an M-16 rifle, to teaching a man to fish.
It is not just the Djiboutians who are receiving these lessons — members of the Ethiopian, Ugandan and Kenyan armed forces have also been on “fishing trips” with the U.S. military.
Most Americans have never heard of Djibouti, and fewer can pronounce it correctly, but here — far from the bombed bridges of Baghdad and the flourishing poppy fields of Afghanistan — is the third front of the war on terrorism. As Rear Admiral Richard Hunt, the Commander of Combined Joint Taskforce-Horn of Africa (or CJT-HOA, in inimitable military style), explains: “Africa is the new frontier that we need to engage now, or we are going to end up doing it later in a very negative way.”
As part of the CJT-HOA these soldiers are also building schools, digging wells and sanitizing slaughterhouses. Their work is delineated by the four Ps and the three Ds: Prevent conflict, promote regional stability, protect coalition interests and prevail against extremism in East Africa and Yemen through diplomacy, development and defense.
Amid the commemorations, tributes, and critiques that cluster around the September 11 anniversary, we should not lose sight of how the war on terrorism is militarizing Africa. With under-tapped oil reserves, vast stretches of ungoverned space, impoverished populations and pandemics of AIDS/HIV and other diseases, Africa is now on Washington’s radar screen. The National Security Strategy for the United States, 2006 says: “Africa holds growing geo-strategic importance and is a high priority of this administration.” But the most significant way that high priority status is being expressed is through commitments of military aid, training, troops and equipment.
The U.S. base in Djibouti is just one plank in a new platform of military engagement in Africa. There is also the Trans Sahara Counter Terrorism Initiative (TSCTI), which Congress funded at $500 million over six years in 2005. There are also increased naval maneuvers in West Africa’s Gulf of Guinea, and establishment of a P3 Orion aerial surveillance station in Algeria.
And now, as though the Pentagon does not have enough on its plate, President George W. Bush has established United States African Command (AFRICOM) as the newest U.S. military sphere of influence. The command brings together most of the continent (Egypt will remain under CENTCOM) for the first time, and according to President Bush it “will enhance our efforts to bring peace and security to the people of Africa and promote our common goals of development, health, education, democracy, and economic growth in Africa.”
But the administration is mostly trying to define AFRICOM by what it is not:
Theresa Whelan, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs, says: “Africa Command is not going to reflect a U.S. intent to engage kinetically in Africa. This is about prevention. This is not about fighting wars.” At another point, Whelan also said “This is not about a scramble for the continent.”
“We are not at war in Africa. Nor do we expect to be at war in Africa. Our embassies and AFRICOM will work in concert to keep it that way,” notes Jendayi Frazer, Assistant Secretary of State for Africa.
Despite these reassurances, many African nations view this move with a healthy dose of skepticism. They are expressing this view by shutting their doors. AFRICOM is temporarily based in Germany, but commanders hope to make the move to the region by fall 2008. The military seems to be favoring a “lily pad” approach of small bases across West Africa and the Horn region so as to not commit significant troops or lend credence to African concerns of a U.S. occupation. But where are these lily pads going to go?
Zambia has said no. In early September, President Levy Mwanawasa said that within the Southern African Development Community (a network of fourteen nations) “none of us is interested” in hosting the command. The South Africa Defense Minister Mosiuoa Lekota has refused to meet with U.S. General William “Kip” Ward, who will command AFRICOM. Lekota said recently, “Africa has to avoid the presence of foreign forces on her soil.”
But, some countries are viewing AFRICOM as an opportunity. The United States has already secured access agreements with Senegal, Mali, Ghana, Gabon and Namibia. And the United States’ close ally Liberia has aggressively promoted of the Command. President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf penned a widely cited and circulated op-ed for AllAfrica.Com that hyped the Command as an opportunity for African nations. She has lobbied hard for AFRICOM to come to Liberia. The United States is also looking at Sao Tome and Principe, Equatorial Guinea, Kenya, Djibouti, and Ethiopia as possible locations.
In case none of these options work out, the Navy has a novel (and very expensive) idea to forgo land completely and house AFRICOM on a high-tech joint command and control ship that would circumnavigate the region.
Even as these discussions continue, some African nations are receiving significant increases in military aid and weapons sales; most of these increases have gone to oil-rich nations and compliant states where the U.S. military seeks a strategic toehold. The Center for Defense Information recently completed “U.S. Arms Exports and Military Assistance in the “Global War on Terror;” an analysis of increases in military aid since September 11, 2001. The report compares the military aid and weapons sales in the five-year leading up to 2001 and the five years since.
For example: since September 11, Kenya, which the State Department describes as a “frontline state” in the war on terrorism, has received eight times more military aid than in the preceding five years.
Djibouti, which has opened its territory to U.S. forces, received forty times more military aid, and an eightfold increase in the value of weapons transfers.
Oil-rich Algeria, where the surveillance equipment is based, has received ten times more aid and a warm embrace from Washington.
Nigeria, the fifth largest supplier of oil to the United States, is slated to receive $1.35 million in Foreign Military Financing for 2008 despite persistent human rights abuses.
Mali is described as an “active partner in the war against terrorism” by the State Department and is a good example of a little military aid going a long way. The desert nation is slated to receive just $250,000 in International Military Education and Training (IMET funding) and no Foreign Military Financing in 2008. But, Mali participates in both the Regional Defense Counter Terrorism Fellowship Program and the Anti-terrorism Assistance program, receiving additional funding through these programs. Aid comes in other forms too. Just this week, a U.S. C-130 military transport plane dropped food aid to Malian soldiers as they pursued armed members of the Tuareg ethnic group. This sort of assistance is not documented or quantified in any ledger or report but — if repeated regularly — could significantly increase the Malian military’s capabilities.
U.S. arms sales to Ethiopia, which has one of Africa’s largest armies, have roughly doubled and military aid has increased two and a half times. But the nation has not received military Humvees since 2002, when it used them against its own people. During protests following the May 2002 elections, the Ethiopian military fired on crowds from the Humvees, killing 85 people. The U.S. sold the Humvees to Ethiopia for counter-terrorism operations. Will the other military assistance Ethiopia receives be similarly abused?
It is always heartening (and non-threatening) to hear soldiers speaking of their mission in altruistic terms. “The hope is to prevent another Iraq or Afghanistan by giving back,” says John Harris, commander Command Senior Enlisted Leader of CJT-HOA. But, the soldiers are not there to make friends. The base had been used twice to launch incursions into Somalia (without the permission or even knowledge of the Djiboutian government).
Richard Lugar (R-IN), one of the wise men in the Senate, commented during an AFRICOM hearing that the Pentagon enjoys far greater resources than the State Department. He observed, “This imbalance within our own structure will be reflected in AFRICOM initially — hopefully not perpetually.” There is no indication that humanitarian investments will outpace military contributions any time soon — especially when the justification for aid remains the war on terrorism.
The Congressional Research Service’s latest accounting of the Global War on Terrorism, of which AFRICOM would be a part, puts the cost at $611 billion since 2001, not including additional recent requests of $147 billion and another $50 billion.
For less than that $808 billion spent in the last six years, we could provide universal primary education, reduce infant mortality by two thirds and provide universal access to potable water and not just for the United States, but also for the world. These Millennium Development Goals have languished with sporadic investment and big promises, while military solutions to problems are funded robustly.
Reexamining this imbalance seems like a crucial first step. And the battle for African hearts and minds will not be won if it’s clear that it is being waged more for the sake of U.S. strategic interests than African needs.
FPIF columnist Frida Berrigan is a senior program associate at the Arms and Security Project of the New America Foundation.
A U.S. Army captain in Africa waxes philosophical. It’s like the old saying, he opines; “give a man a fish, he’ll eat for a day, teach him how to fish and he’ll eat forever.”
Is he talking about skills-building, or community empowerment? No: Captain Joseph Cruz goes from channeling the musician Speech from the American hip-hop group Arrested Development back to his military-approved talking points: “the same can be said about military to military training and that’s why we do it.”
The Delta company soldier is one of 1,800 based in Djibouti at an old French Foreign Legion base, and he is comparing lessons in small naval patrol boat tactics, approaches to counter terrorism operations, and how to use an M-16 rifle, to teaching a man to fish.
It is not just the Djiboutians who are receiving these lessons — members of the Ethiopian, Ugandan and Kenyan armed forces have also been on “fishing trips” with the U.S. military.
Most Americans have never heard of Djibouti, and fewer can pronounce it correctly, but here — far from the bombed bridges of Baghdad and the flourishing poppy fields of Afghanistan — is the third front of the war on terrorism. As Rear Admiral Richard Hunt, the Commander of Combined Joint Taskforce-Horn of Africa (or CJT-HOA, in inimitable military style), explains: “Africa is the new frontier that we need to engage now, or we are going to end up doing it later in a very negative way.”
As part of the CJT-HOA these soldiers are also building schools, digging wells and sanitizing slaughterhouses. Their work is delineated by the four Ps and the three Ds: Prevent conflict, promote regional stability, protect coalition interests and prevail against extremism in East Africa and Yemen through diplomacy, development and defense.
Amid the commemorations, tributes, and critiques that cluster around the September 11 anniversary, we should not lose sight of how the war on terrorism is militarizing Africa. With under-tapped oil reserves, vast stretches of ungoverned space, impoverished populations and pandemics of AIDS/HIV and other diseases, Africa is now on Washington’s radar screen. The National Security Strategy for the United States, 2006 says: “Africa holds growing geo-strategic importance and is a high priority of this administration.” But the most significant way that high priority status is being expressed is through commitments of military aid, training, troops and equipment.
The U.S. base in Djibouti is just one plank in a new platform of military engagement in Africa. There is also the Trans Sahara Counter Terrorism Initiative (TSCTI), which Congress funded at $500 million over six years in 2005. There are also increased naval maneuvers in West Africa’s Gulf of Guinea, and establishment of a P3 Orion aerial surveillance station in Algeria.
And now, as though the Pentagon does not have enough on its plate, President George W. Bush has established United States African Command (AFRICOM) as the newest U.S. military sphere of influence. The command brings together most of the continent (Egypt will remain under CENTCOM) for the first time, and according to President Bush it “will enhance our efforts to bring peace and security to the people of Africa and promote our common goals of development, health, education, democracy, and economic growth in Africa.”
But the administration is mostly trying to define AFRICOM by what it is not:
Theresa Whelan, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs, says: “Africa Command is not going to reflect a U.S. intent to engage kinetically in Africa. This is about prevention. This is not about fighting wars.” At another point, Whelan also said “This is not about a scramble for the continent.”
“We are not at war in Africa. Nor do we expect to be at war in Africa. Our embassies and AFRICOM will work in concert to keep it that way,” notes Jendayi Frazer, Assistant Secretary of State for Africa.
Despite these reassurances, many African nations view this move with a healthy dose of skepticism. They are expressing this view by shutting their doors. AFRICOM is temporarily based in Germany, but commanders hope to make the move to the region by fall 2008. The military seems to be favoring a “lily pad” approach of small bases across West Africa and the Horn region so as to not commit significant troops or lend credence to African concerns of a U.S. occupation. But where are these lily pads going to go?
Zambia has said no. In early September, President Levy Mwanawasa said that within the Southern African Development Community (a network of fourteen nations) “none of us is interested” in hosting the command. The South Africa Defense Minister Mosiuoa Lekota has refused to meet with U.S. General William “Kip” Ward, who will command AFRICOM. Lekota said recently, “Africa has to avoid the presence of foreign forces on her soil.”
But, some countries are viewing AFRICOM as an opportunity. The United States has already secured access agreements with Senegal, Mali, Ghana, Gabon and Namibia. And the United States’ close ally Liberia has aggressively promoted of the Command. President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf penned a widely cited and circulated op-ed for AllAfrica.Com that hyped the Command as an opportunity for African nations. She has lobbied hard for AFRICOM to come to Liberia. The United States is also looking at Sao Tome and Principe, Equatorial Guinea, Kenya, Djibouti, and Ethiopia as possible locations.
In case none of these options work out, the Navy has a novel (and very expensive) idea to forgo land completely and house AFRICOM on a high-tech joint command and control ship that would circumnavigate the region.
Even as these discussions continue, some African nations are receiving significant increases in military aid and weapons sales; most of these increases have gone to oil-rich nations and compliant states where the U.S. military seeks a strategic toehold. The Center for Defense Information recently completed “U.S. Arms Exports and Military Assistance in the “Global War on Terror;” an analysis of increases in military aid since September 11, 2001. The report compares the military aid and weapons sales in the five-year leading up to 2001 and the five years since.
For example: since September 11, Kenya, which the State Department describes as a “frontline state” in the war on terrorism, has received eight times more military aid than in the preceding five years.
Djibouti, which has opened its territory to U.S. forces, received forty times more military aid, and an eightfold increase in the value of weapons transfers.
Oil-rich Algeria, where the surveillance equipment is based, has received ten times more aid and a warm embrace from Washington.
Nigeria, the fifth largest supplier of oil to the United States, is slated to receive $1.35 million in Foreign Military Financing for 2008 despite persistent human rights abuses.
Mali is described as an “active partner in the war against terrorism” by the State Department and is a good example of a little military aid going a long way. The desert nation is slated to receive just $250,000 in International Military Education and Training (IMET funding) and no Foreign Military Financing in 2008. But, Mali participates in both the Regional Defense Counter Terrorism Fellowship Program and the Anti-terrorism Assistance program, receiving additional funding through these programs. Aid comes in other forms too. Just this week, a U.S. C-130 military transport plane dropped food aid to Malian soldiers as they pursued armed members of the Tuareg ethnic group. This sort of assistance is not documented or quantified in any ledger or report but — if repeated regularly — could significantly increase the Malian military’s capabilities.
U.S. arms sales to Ethiopia, which has one of Africa’s largest armies, have roughly doubled and military aid has increased two and a half times. But the nation has not received military Humvees since 2002, when it used them against its own people. During protests following the May 2002 elections, the Ethiopian military fired on crowds from the Humvees, killing 85 people. The U.S. sold the Humvees to Ethiopia for counter-terrorism operations. Will the other military assistance Ethiopia receives be similarly abused?
It is always heartening (and non-threatening) to hear soldiers speaking of their mission in altruistic terms. “The hope is to prevent another Iraq or Afghanistan by giving back,” says John Harris, commander Command Senior Enlisted Leader of CJT-HOA. But, the soldiers are not there to make friends. The base had been used twice to launch incursions into Somalia (without the permission or even knowledge of the Djiboutian government).
Richard Lugar (R-IN), one of the wise men in the Senate, commented during an AFRICOM hearing that the Pentagon enjoys far greater resources than the State Department. He observed, “This imbalance within our own structure will be reflected in AFRICOM initially — hopefully not perpetually.” There is no indication that humanitarian investments will outpace military contributions any time soon — especially when the justification for aid remains the war on terrorism.
The Congressional Research Service’s latest accounting of the Global War on Terrorism, of which AFRICOM would be a part, puts the cost at $611 billion since 2001, not including additional recent requests of $147 billion and another $50 billion.
For less than that $808 billion spent in the last six years, we could provide universal primary education, reduce infant mortality by two thirds and provide universal access to potable water and not just for the United States, but also for the world. These Millennium Development Goals have languished with sporadic investment and big promises, while military solutions to problems are funded robustly.
Reexamining this imbalance seems like a crucial first step. And the battle for African hearts and minds will not be won if it’s clear that it is being waged more for the sake of U.S. strategic interests than African needs.
FPIF columnist Frida Berrigan is a senior program associate at the Arms and Security Project of the New America Foundation.
War means a windfall for CEOs
President Bush's military buildup and the conflict in Iraq have meant soaring profits for defense contractors and big paychecks for CEOs. But should we be concerned?
By Michael Brush, MSN Money, Sept 19, 2007
While policymakers in Washington wrangle over how much progress we've made in Iraq, one thing is clear: The war on terror is making some people rich.
President Bush's military buildup has caused defense-contractor revenue to double, triple and even more during the past five years, and their executives have reaped huge bonuses and stock windfalls as the companies' share prices have jumped.
Take a look:
CEOs at top defense contractors have reaped annual pay gains of 200% to 688% in the years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
The chief executives at the seven defense contractors whose bosses made the most pocketed nearly a half-billion dollars from 2002 through last year.
The CEOs made an average of $12.4 million a year, easily more than the average corporate chief. Since the start of the war, CEOs at defense contractors such General Dynamics (GD, news, msgs), Halliburton (HAL, news, msgs) and Oshkosh Truck (OSK, news, msgs) have made, on average, more in four days than what a top general makes in a whole year, or $187,390.
Defense contractor CEOs are enjoying these big rewards partly because much of the war effort is being outsourced by an administration that believes private companies do things better than the public sector, say researchers at the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy.
"In the most privatized war in history, lucrative opportunities abound for chief executives of defense contractors, " says Sarah Anderson of the Institute for Policy Studies.
$19.5 million a year
General Dynamics CEO Nicholas Chabraja tops the list of defense-contractor chiefs who have made the most money during the 2002-2006 defense buildup. Between 2002 and 2006, he pocketed $97.9 million, or an average of $19.6 million a year.
Sales at General Dynamics have increased 76% from 2002 to 2006, largely because of bigger Department of Defense spending. The company got just 41% of its $10.2 billion in revenue from Defense Department spending in 2000. That grew to more than 70% by 2004-2005, and it stood at 62% of the company's $17 billion in overall revenue last year. In 2006, revenue from the Defense Department was $10.5 billion, up from $4.2 billion in 2000, according to company and government documents.
Those contract awards helped General Dynamics stock more than double to $80 a share from $39 at the start of 2002. In the same time frame, the S&P 500 Index ($INX) has advanced 28%. The big stock advance allowed Chabraja to collect $21.5 million by cashing out stock options last year. General Dynamics, which supplies technology that goes into combat systems used by several branches of the military, was the fourth-largest Defense Department contractor last year.
David Lesar at Halliburton made $79.8 million, or nearly $16 million a year, from 2002-2006. During this time, Defense Department revenue at his company grew from just 4% in 2001 to 40% in 2004. That year, the company got nearly $8 billion in defense contracts out of total revenue of $19.9 billion.
Who earned the most
Virtually all of that money was for logistical support, engineering and construction services provided by Halliburton' s Kellogg, Brown and Root division, which was spun out earlier this year to trade as KBR Inc. (KBR, news, msgs). Those contracts helped drive Halliburton stock from $5 at the start of 2002 to more than $40 last year. The gains allowed Lesar to reap $13.6 million just by cashing in options last year, and $14.7 million the year before.
Lockheed Martin Chief Executives Vance Coffman and Robert Stevens together earned $64.8 million from 2002 to 2006. Stevens has also realized more than $19 million so far this year by cashing in options. He replaced Coffman as CEO in August 2004.
Lockheed Martin's Defense Department-related revenue increased from $17 billion in 2002 to $26.6 billion in 2006, a 57% increase. The stock has more than doubled to $100 from $47 at the start of 2002. Lockheed Martin was the top Defense Department contractor last year.
Talk back: What's your view on companies that profit from the Iraq war?
For the rest of the highest-paid defense contractors, see the chart below summing up the pay of those who earned the most. To calculate pay levels, I examined company documents and the Institute for Policy Studies CEO pay database. Pay includes salary, bonus, value realized on exercising and vesting stock options, nonequity incentive plan compensation, long-term incentive stock and "other" pay. Companies had to get more than 40% of their revenue from the Defense Department in one of the past three years to make the list.
Highest defense contractor CEO pay 2002-2006 (in millions) Company CEO 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total pay '02-'06 Average annual pay '02-'06
General Dynamics (GD, news, msgs)
Nicholas Chabraja
$15.25
$9.27
$31.53
$9.85
$32.01
$97.90
$19.58
Halliburton (HAL, news, msgs)
David Lesar
$7.30
$4.17
$11.43
$26.60
$30.33
$79.83
$15.97
Lockheed Martin (LMT, news, msgs)
Vance Coffman/Robert Stevens
$25.34
$13.70
$6.73
$4.50
$14.51
$64.77
$12.95
Boeing (BA, news, msgs)*
W. James McNerney Jr.
$4.15
$3.81
$3.99
$28.43
$15.62
$55.99
$11.20
Alliant Techsystems (ATK, news, msgs)
Daniel Murphy
$10.53
$16.77
$1.87
$1.71
$15.85
$46.73
$9.35
Engineered Support Systems**
Gerald Potthoff
$1.61
$3.54
$39.73
$0.72
--
$45.61
$11.40
Oshkosh Truck (OSK, news, msgs)
Robert Bohn
$8.74
$9.13
$3.77
$18.15
$3.86
$43.64
$8.73
*McNerney took over in 2005. Before that, pay covers interim CEO James Bell and CEOs Phil Condit and Harry Stonecipher.
**Does not include pay for 2006 because company was taken over.
Sources: Institute for Policy Studies CEO pay database and analysis by Michael Brush of company filings.
The biggest pay raises
While CEOs at the biggest defense contractors naturally got the most pay, those at smaller companies saw some of the biggest increases.
Robert Bohn, chief of Oshkosh Truck, which sells military vehicles, has seen his pay go up nearly eightfold. He earned an average of $1.1 million in 2000-2001, but that shot up to $8.7 million a year on average for 2002-2006. Bohn had his best year in 2005, when he made more than $18 million -- chiefly by cashing in options for a net gain of $14.7 million after his company's stock tripled from the start of 2002.
Oshkosh Truck has seen better profits in part because of a big increase in Defense Department contracts. Back in 2002, the company got 35% of its revenue from Defense Department contracts. That rose to 45% of its $2.26 billion in revenue in 2004 and 50% of its $2.96 billion revenue in 2005. Oshkosh Truck got $4.7 billion in Defense Department contract revenue during 2002-2006, or 38% of its revenue for that time. The contract flow has helped propel Oshkosh Truck stock to $55 a share recently, from $12 at the start of 2002.
6 others who saw big gains
The next biggest beneficiary in terms of pay gains was Joseph Kampf, chief executive of Anteon International. The company, which was bought by General Dynamics in mid-2006, provides and maintains information systems, and carries out intelligence and high-tech simulated military training.
Anteon saw its Defense Department revenue almost triple to $939 million last year from $317 million in 2000.
The company's good fortune helped Kampf increase his annual from an average of $643,000 a year in 2000-2001 to $4.2 million a year on average for 2002-2005. He had a bonanza year in 2005, when he netted $7.8 million by cashing out options and earned $9 million all told.
Talk back: What's your view on companies that profit from the Iraq war?
For the other five biggest winners in terms of pay gains, see the list below. CEOs had to work at companies that got more than 40% of their revenue from Defense Department contracts in one of the past three years to make this list.
A spokesman for Edo Corp. (EDO, news, msgs) says CEO James Smith had a relatively modest level of pay, or $193,000, when he took the top position at two companies that merged in 2000 to form Edo. The stock has advanced in part because of a turnaround Smith oversaw, the spokesman says, and his higher income in recent years rewarded him for the turnaround.
Defense contractor CEO pay 2002-2006 versus 2000-2001 (in millions) Company CEO Average annual pay '00-'01 Average annual pay '02-'06 Annual pay increase, '02-'06 from '00-'01
Oshkosh Truck (OSK, news, msgs)
Robert Bohn
$1.11
$8.73
688%
Anteon International*
Joseph Kampf
$0.64
$4.25
560%
Alliant Techsystems (ATK, news, msgs)
David Miller/Daniel Murphy
$2.11
$9.35
343%
Armor Holding**
Jonathan Spiller/Warren Kanders
$1.72
$6.84
298%
L-3 Communications (LLL, news, msgs)***
Frank Lanza/Michael Strianese
$1.38
$4.21
205%
Edo Corp. (EDO, news, msgs)
James Smith
$0.54
$1.38
154%
General Dynamics (GD, news, msgs)
Nicholas Chabraja
$7.92
$19.58
147%
Stewart and Stevenson Services*
Max Lukens
$0.58
$1.42
143%
Pay includes salary, bonus, value realized on exercising and vesting stock options, nonequity incentive plan compensation, long-term incentive stock and "other" pay.
*Does not include pay for 2006 because company was taken over.
**Spiller's pay for 2000-2002, Kanders' thereafter. The company has also been taken over recently.
***Strianese took over in June 2006.
Sources: Institute for Policy Studies CEO pay database and company filings
Good connections
It may come as no surprise that many of these companies where top managers have done the best also have board members or executives with a military background.
Alliant Techsystems (ATK, news, msgs) Chief Executive Daniel Murphy retired from the Navy with the rank of vice admiral in 2000, following a 30-year career. A director, Martin Faga, served in the Department of Defense as assistant secretary of the Air Force for space.
Oshkosh director Frederick Franks was an Army commander during Operation Desert Storm and retired from the Army in 1994. L3 Communications (LLL, news, msgs) Director John Shalikashvili served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997. And General Dynamics Director Paul Kaminski served as undersecretary of the Department of Defense for Acquisition and Technology from 1994 to 1997.
But wait a minute. If the stocks of all these defense contractors have done so well, and they have, then why begrudge the CEOs their pay? A 2006 study by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy titled "Executive Excess 2006: Defense and Oil Executives Cash in on Conflict" cites three reasons:
Extravagant executive compensation at these companies isn't in keeping with the spirit of shared sacrifice that our country has always called for in time of war.
Those rich pay levels may drain talent from the military services.
Third, high profits and above-average pay for execs at defense contractors creates the risk -- or at least the appearance -- that a war might be prolonged for profit motives
The study's conclusion is this: "The vast potential for war profiteering should be of even greater concern during this war because of the extent to which the war and the reconstruction effort have been privatized."
At the time of publication, Michael Brush did not own or control shares of companies mentioned in this column.
More from MSN Money:
Who's profiting from the Iraq war?
Why politicians are worth buying
Are you investing in terrorism?
Invest in uranium? Not yet
Does military service still pay?
By Michael Brush, MSN Money, Sept 19, 2007
While policymakers in Washington wrangle over how much progress we've made in Iraq, one thing is clear: The war on terror is making some people rich.
President Bush's military buildup has caused defense-contractor revenue to double, triple and even more during the past five years, and their executives have reaped huge bonuses and stock windfalls as the companies' share prices have jumped.
Take a look:
CEOs at top defense contractors have reaped annual pay gains of 200% to 688% in the years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
The chief executives at the seven defense contractors whose bosses made the most pocketed nearly a half-billion dollars from 2002 through last year.
The CEOs made an average of $12.4 million a year, easily more than the average corporate chief. Since the start of the war, CEOs at defense contractors such General Dynamics (GD, news, msgs), Halliburton (HAL, news, msgs) and Oshkosh Truck (OSK, news, msgs) have made, on average, more in four days than what a top general makes in a whole year, or $187,390.
Defense contractor CEOs are enjoying these big rewards partly because much of the war effort is being outsourced by an administration that believes private companies do things better than the public sector, say researchers at the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy.
"In the most privatized war in history, lucrative opportunities abound for chief executives of defense contractors, " says Sarah Anderson of the Institute for Policy Studies.
$19.5 million a year
General Dynamics CEO Nicholas Chabraja tops the list of defense-contractor chiefs who have made the most money during the 2002-2006 defense buildup. Between 2002 and 2006, he pocketed $97.9 million, or an average of $19.6 million a year.
Sales at General Dynamics have increased 76% from 2002 to 2006, largely because of bigger Department of Defense spending. The company got just 41% of its $10.2 billion in revenue from Defense Department spending in 2000. That grew to more than 70% by 2004-2005, and it stood at 62% of the company's $17 billion in overall revenue last year. In 2006, revenue from the Defense Department was $10.5 billion, up from $4.2 billion in 2000, according to company and government documents.
Those contract awards helped General Dynamics stock more than double to $80 a share from $39 at the start of 2002. In the same time frame, the S&P 500 Index ($INX) has advanced 28%. The big stock advance allowed Chabraja to collect $21.5 million by cashing out stock options last year. General Dynamics, which supplies technology that goes into combat systems used by several branches of the military, was the fourth-largest Defense Department contractor last year.
David Lesar at Halliburton made $79.8 million, or nearly $16 million a year, from 2002-2006. During this time, Defense Department revenue at his company grew from just 4% in 2001 to 40% in 2004. That year, the company got nearly $8 billion in defense contracts out of total revenue of $19.9 billion.
Who earned the most
Virtually all of that money was for logistical support, engineering and construction services provided by Halliburton' s Kellogg, Brown and Root division, which was spun out earlier this year to trade as KBR Inc. (KBR, news, msgs). Those contracts helped drive Halliburton stock from $5 at the start of 2002 to more than $40 last year. The gains allowed Lesar to reap $13.6 million just by cashing in options last year, and $14.7 million the year before.
Lockheed Martin Chief Executives Vance Coffman and Robert Stevens together earned $64.8 million from 2002 to 2006. Stevens has also realized more than $19 million so far this year by cashing in options. He replaced Coffman as CEO in August 2004.
Lockheed Martin's Defense Department-related revenue increased from $17 billion in 2002 to $26.6 billion in 2006, a 57% increase. The stock has more than doubled to $100 from $47 at the start of 2002. Lockheed Martin was the top Defense Department contractor last year.
Talk back: What's your view on companies that profit from the Iraq war?
For the rest of the highest-paid defense contractors, see the chart below summing up the pay of those who earned the most. To calculate pay levels, I examined company documents and the Institute for Policy Studies CEO pay database. Pay includes salary, bonus, value realized on exercising and vesting stock options, nonequity incentive plan compensation, long-term incentive stock and "other" pay. Companies had to get more than 40% of their revenue from the Defense Department in one of the past three years to make the list.
Highest defense contractor CEO pay 2002-2006 (in millions) Company CEO 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total pay '02-'06 Average annual pay '02-'06
General Dynamics (GD, news, msgs)
Nicholas Chabraja
$15.25
$9.27
$31.53
$9.85
$32.01
$97.90
$19.58
Halliburton (HAL, news, msgs)
David Lesar
$7.30
$4.17
$11.43
$26.60
$30.33
$79.83
$15.97
Lockheed Martin (LMT, news, msgs)
Vance Coffman/Robert Stevens
$25.34
$13.70
$6.73
$4.50
$14.51
$64.77
$12.95
Boeing (BA, news, msgs)*
W. James McNerney Jr.
$4.15
$3.81
$3.99
$28.43
$15.62
$55.99
$11.20
Alliant Techsystems (ATK, news, msgs)
Daniel Murphy
$10.53
$16.77
$1.87
$1.71
$15.85
$46.73
$9.35
Engineered Support Systems**
Gerald Potthoff
$1.61
$3.54
$39.73
$0.72
--
$45.61
$11.40
Oshkosh Truck (OSK, news, msgs)
Robert Bohn
$8.74
$9.13
$3.77
$18.15
$3.86
$43.64
$8.73
*McNerney took over in 2005. Before that, pay covers interim CEO James Bell and CEOs Phil Condit and Harry Stonecipher.
**Does not include pay for 2006 because company was taken over.
Sources: Institute for Policy Studies CEO pay database and analysis by Michael Brush of company filings.
The biggest pay raises
While CEOs at the biggest defense contractors naturally got the most pay, those at smaller companies saw some of the biggest increases.
Robert Bohn, chief of Oshkosh Truck, which sells military vehicles, has seen his pay go up nearly eightfold. He earned an average of $1.1 million in 2000-2001, but that shot up to $8.7 million a year on average for 2002-2006. Bohn had his best year in 2005, when he made more than $18 million -- chiefly by cashing in options for a net gain of $14.7 million after his company's stock tripled from the start of 2002.
Oshkosh Truck has seen better profits in part because of a big increase in Defense Department contracts. Back in 2002, the company got 35% of its revenue from Defense Department contracts. That rose to 45% of its $2.26 billion in revenue in 2004 and 50% of its $2.96 billion revenue in 2005. Oshkosh Truck got $4.7 billion in Defense Department contract revenue during 2002-2006, or 38% of its revenue for that time. The contract flow has helped propel Oshkosh Truck stock to $55 a share recently, from $12 at the start of 2002.
6 others who saw big gains
The next biggest beneficiary in terms of pay gains was Joseph Kampf, chief executive of Anteon International. The company, which was bought by General Dynamics in mid-2006, provides and maintains information systems, and carries out intelligence and high-tech simulated military training.
Anteon saw its Defense Department revenue almost triple to $939 million last year from $317 million in 2000.
The company's good fortune helped Kampf increase his annual from an average of $643,000 a year in 2000-2001 to $4.2 million a year on average for 2002-2005. He had a bonanza year in 2005, when he netted $7.8 million by cashing out options and earned $9 million all told.
Talk back: What's your view on companies that profit from the Iraq war?
For the other five biggest winners in terms of pay gains, see the list below. CEOs had to work at companies that got more than 40% of their revenue from Defense Department contracts in one of the past three years to make this list.
A spokesman for Edo Corp. (EDO, news, msgs) says CEO James Smith had a relatively modest level of pay, or $193,000, when he took the top position at two companies that merged in 2000 to form Edo. The stock has advanced in part because of a turnaround Smith oversaw, the spokesman says, and his higher income in recent years rewarded him for the turnaround.
Defense contractor CEO pay 2002-2006 versus 2000-2001 (in millions) Company CEO Average annual pay '00-'01 Average annual pay '02-'06 Annual pay increase, '02-'06 from '00-'01
Oshkosh Truck (OSK, news, msgs)
Robert Bohn
$1.11
$8.73
688%
Anteon International*
Joseph Kampf
$0.64
$4.25
560%
Alliant Techsystems (ATK, news, msgs)
David Miller/Daniel Murphy
$2.11
$9.35
343%
Armor Holding**
Jonathan Spiller/Warren Kanders
$1.72
$6.84
298%
L-3 Communications (LLL, news, msgs)***
Frank Lanza/Michael Strianese
$1.38
$4.21
205%
Edo Corp. (EDO, news, msgs)
James Smith
$0.54
$1.38
154%
General Dynamics (GD, news, msgs)
Nicholas Chabraja
$7.92
$19.58
147%
Stewart and Stevenson Services*
Max Lukens
$0.58
$1.42
143%
Pay includes salary, bonus, value realized on exercising and vesting stock options, nonequity incentive plan compensation, long-term incentive stock and "other" pay.
*Does not include pay for 2006 because company was taken over.
**Spiller's pay for 2000-2002, Kanders' thereafter. The company has also been taken over recently.
***Strianese took over in June 2006.
Sources: Institute for Policy Studies CEO pay database and company filings
Good connections
It may come as no surprise that many of these companies where top managers have done the best also have board members or executives with a military background.
Alliant Techsystems (ATK, news, msgs) Chief Executive Daniel Murphy retired from the Navy with the rank of vice admiral in 2000, following a 30-year career. A director, Martin Faga, served in the Department of Defense as assistant secretary of the Air Force for space.
Oshkosh director Frederick Franks was an Army commander during Operation Desert Storm and retired from the Army in 1994. L3 Communications (LLL, news, msgs) Director John Shalikashvili served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997. And General Dynamics Director Paul Kaminski served as undersecretary of the Department of Defense for Acquisition and Technology from 1994 to 1997.
But wait a minute. If the stocks of all these defense contractors have done so well, and they have, then why begrudge the CEOs their pay? A 2006 study by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy titled "Executive Excess 2006: Defense and Oil Executives Cash in on Conflict" cites three reasons:
Extravagant executive compensation at these companies isn't in keeping with the spirit of shared sacrifice that our country has always called for in time of war.
Those rich pay levels may drain talent from the military services.
Third, high profits and above-average pay for execs at defense contractors creates the risk -- or at least the appearance -- that a war might be prolonged for profit motives
The study's conclusion is this: "The vast potential for war profiteering should be of even greater concern during this war because of the extent to which the war and the reconstruction effort have been privatized."
At the time of publication, Michael Brush did not own or control shares of companies mentioned in this column.
More from MSN Money:
Who's profiting from the Iraq war?
Why politicians are worth buying
Are you investing in terrorism?
Invest in uranium? Not yet
Does military service still pay?
Fernando Gonzalez has been moved to another prison
Fernando González has been moved to a different prison, in the state of Indiana. The prison is Terre Haute Federal Correctional Institute.
Please be sure and write him, using this new address:
Rubén Campa
#58733-004
FCI Terre Haute
P.O. Box 33
Terre Haute, IN 47808
(NOTE: the envelope should be addressed to "Rubén Campa," but address the letter inside to Fernando)
Free the Five website
Contact Us
email: info@freethefive.org
phone: 415-821-6545
web: http://www.freethefive.org
Please be sure and write him, using this new address:
Rubén Campa
#58733-004
FCI Terre Haute
P.O. Box 33
Terre Haute, IN 47808
(NOTE: the envelope should be addressed to "Rubén Campa," but address the letter inside to Fernando)
Free the Five website
Contact Us
email: info@freethefive.org
phone: 415-821-6545
web: http://www.freethefive.org
Student Tasered for Armed Madhouse Question to Kerry
"[Palast] said you won the 2004 election - isn't that amazing?
There were multiple reports of disenfranchising of Black voters on the day of the election in 2004 in Florida and Ohio. ... How could you concede the election on the day?"
by Greg Palast, Sept 18, 2007
Watch the Video
We warned you: 'Armed Madhouse' is a dangerous book. Yesterday, Andrew Meyers, a University of Florida student was attacked by five cops, zapped with tasers and arrested after demanding that Senator John Kerry answer the question.
Meyers, just released from jail and now facing five years in prison for resisting arrest, held up a copy of the book and began,
Student to John Kerry: "I want to recommend a book to you. It's called 'Armed Madhouse by Greg Palast.' He's the top investigative journalist in America."
Kerry: "I have the book. I've already read it."
Student: "... In this book, it says there were 5 million votes and you won the election. ... How could you concede the election on the day?"
Meyers, a telecommunications student at the Gainesville campus, asked related questions including a query as to why Kerry refused to vote for impeachment. When he passed his alloted one minute mic time, five cops jumped him, threw him to the ground, shot him with taser shockers.
Kerry, true to character, stood immobile.
Now, I've given many talks. And some questioners have taken too long at the mic. But I've never done the Stalin thing of cops and electronic beating to limit the discussion. (Yes, it's true that Randi Rhodes recently threatened me with a taser when I've monopolized the mic in her studio.)
The Washington Post reported only that Meyers was holding a "mysterious yellow book." VERY mysterious.
I would note that enchained student was busted in Alachua County, Florida, where, six years ago, I uncovered massive, systematic and utterly illegal disenfranchisement of Black voters - ordered by Gov. Jeb Bush's office just before the 2000 election. ("Florida's Disappeared Voters," February 2001, The Nation.) Alachua remains under federal scrutiny for its long history of racial bias against Black voters.
I must admit I feel some appreciation for Meyers, especially because, even while he was being shot with untold amps of electricity, until he was handcuffed, he would not let go of his mysterious yellow book, 'Armed Madhouse.'
Hear the update live tonight on the new "Palast Report" on Air America Radio. The Palast Report will now broadcast every Tuesday night, at 9:30pm, on Richard Greene's new weeknight show, "Clout."
And get America's most SHOCKING book, the New York Times bestseller, ARMED MADHOUSE: From Baghdad to New Orleans -- Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild (Penguin 2007).
Subscribe to Palast's writings and view his investigative reports for BBC Television's Newsnight, at www.GregPalast.com.
There were multiple reports of disenfranchising of Black voters on the day of the election in 2004 in Florida and Ohio. ... How could you concede the election on the day?"
by Greg Palast, Sept 18, 2007
Watch the Video
We warned you: 'Armed Madhouse' is a dangerous book. Yesterday, Andrew Meyers, a University of Florida student was attacked by five cops, zapped with tasers and arrested after demanding that Senator John Kerry answer the question.
Meyers, just released from jail and now facing five years in prison for resisting arrest, held up a copy of the book and began,
Student to John Kerry: "I want to recommend a book to you. It's called 'Armed Madhouse by Greg Palast.' He's the top investigative journalist in America."
Kerry: "I have the book. I've already read it."
Student: "... In this book, it says there were 5 million votes and you won the election. ... How could you concede the election on the day?"
Meyers, a telecommunications student at the Gainesville campus, asked related questions including a query as to why Kerry refused to vote for impeachment. When he passed his alloted one minute mic time, five cops jumped him, threw him to the ground, shot him with taser shockers.
Kerry, true to character, stood immobile.
Now, I've given many talks. And some questioners have taken too long at the mic. But I've never done the Stalin thing of cops and electronic beating to limit the discussion. (Yes, it's true that Randi Rhodes recently threatened me with a taser when I've monopolized the mic in her studio.)
The Washington Post reported only that Meyers was holding a "mysterious yellow book." VERY mysterious.
I would note that enchained student was busted in Alachua County, Florida, where, six years ago, I uncovered massive, systematic and utterly illegal disenfranchisement of Black voters - ordered by Gov. Jeb Bush's office just before the 2000 election. ("Florida's Disappeared Voters," February 2001, The Nation.) Alachua remains under federal scrutiny for its long history of racial bias against Black voters.
I must admit I feel some appreciation for Meyers, especially because, even while he was being shot with untold amps of electricity, until he was handcuffed, he would not let go of his mysterious yellow book, 'Armed Madhouse.'
Hear the update live tonight on the new "Palast Report" on Air America Radio. The Palast Report will now broadcast every Tuesday night, at 9:30pm, on Richard Greene's new weeknight show, "Clout."
And get America's most SHOCKING book, the New York Times bestseller, ARMED MADHOUSE: From Baghdad to New Orleans -- Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild (Penguin 2007).
Subscribe to Palast's writings and view his investigative reports for BBC Television's Newsnight, at www.GregPalast.com.
Judge won't release only jailed Jena 6 defendant
By Howard Witt, chicagotribune.com, Sept. 21, 2007
HOUSTON - The judge overseeing the racially-charged case of the Jena 6 declined Friday to release the only one of the six black teenagers still being held in jail, despite the fact that the youth's conviction for aggravated second-degree battery was vacated a week ago by an appeals court, family members and court sources confirmed.
Ruling just a day after tens of thousands of demonstrators marched through the streets of the small central Louisiana town of Jena to protest the prosecution of the six black high school students for beating a white classmate, LaSalle Parish District Judge J.P. Mauffray declined a defense motion for a writ of habeus corpus that sought to have Mychal Bell, 17, released. A second judge also turned down a defense motion seeking to have Mauffray recused from the case.
Bell has been jailed since the beating incident last December, unable to post $90,000 bond. That bond was rendered moot when Bell's battery conviction was overturned by Louisiana's Third Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept. 14, which ruled that Bell, who was 16 at the time of the incident, should have been tried as a juvenile. The local district attorney prosecuting the case, Reed Walters, has vowed to appeal that ruling, and to press ahead with his cases against the other five youths, who are free on bond.
But Bell remains in jail, and under the jurisdiction of juvenile court, because he is now being prosecuted as a juvenile on a count of conspiracy in connection with the beating. Mauffray's ruling Friday means he declined to set any conditions for Bell's release.
Last month, Mauffray declined a defense motion seeking a reduction in Bell's bond, citing the existence of several previous juvenile convictions for battery and damage to property in Bell's record.
Defense attorneys and Bell's family members all declined to speak about the case on the record, citing strict confidentiality rules governing juvenile proceedings in Louisiana. But Bell's defense team, which replaced a court-appointed public defender who offered no defense on the teenager's behalf during his criminal trial, have vowed in the past to appeal every adverse ruling in the case.
The Jena case has drawn national protests because of the perception of many African Americans that blacks are treated more harshly than whites in the town's criminal justice system.
The tensions in Jena stemmed from an incident a year ago at the local high school, when three white students hung nooses from a tree in a perceived threat directed at black students. After the school superintendent dismissed the nooses as a prank, angering black students and their parents, a series of fights between white and black youths ensued, both on and off the campus.
Walters declined to lodge serious criminal charges against white youths who attacked blacks in two incidents. But when the six black teenagers jumped the white student at the school, beating him and knocking him unconscious, Walters initially charged them with attempted murder, later reducing the charge to aggravated second-degree battery. The white youth was treated and released at a local hospital and attended a school ceremony several hours after the beating incident.
hwitt@tribune.com
HOUSTON - The judge overseeing the racially-charged case of the Jena 6 declined Friday to release the only one of the six black teenagers still being held in jail, despite the fact that the youth's conviction for aggravated second-degree battery was vacated a week ago by an appeals court, family members and court sources confirmed.
Ruling just a day after tens of thousands of demonstrators marched through the streets of the small central Louisiana town of Jena to protest the prosecution of the six black high school students for beating a white classmate, LaSalle Parish District Judge J.P. Mauffray declined a defense motion for a writ of habeus corpus that sought to have Mychal Bell, 17, released. A second judge also turned down a defense motion seeking to have Mauffray recused from the case.
Bell has been jailed since the beating incident last December, unable to post $90,000 bond. That bond was rendered moot when Bell's battery conviction was overturned by Louisiana's Third Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept. 14, which ruled that Bell, who was 16 at the time of the incident, should have been tried as a juvenile. The local district attorney prosecuting the case, Reed Walters, has vowed to appeal that ruling, and to press ahead with his cases against the other five youths, who are free on bond.
But Bell remains in jail, and under the jurisdiction of juvenile court, because he is now being prosecuted as a juvenile on a count of conspiracy in connection with the beating. Mauffray's ruling Friday means he declined to set any conditions for Bell's release.
Last month, Mauffray declined a defense motion seeking a reduction in Bell's bond, citing the existence of several previous juvenile convictions for battery and damage to property in Bell's record.
Defense attorneys and Bell's family members all declined to speak about the case on the record, citing strict confidentiality rules governing juvenile proceedings in Louisiana. But Bell's defense team, which replaced a court-appointed public defender who offered no defense on the teenager's behalf during his criminal trial, have vowed in the past to appeal every adverse ruling in the case.
The Jena case has drawn national protests because of the perception of many African Americans that blacks are treated more harshly than whites in the town's criminal justice system.
The tensions in Jena stemmed from an incident a year ago at the local high school, when three white students hung nooses from a tree in a perceived threat directed at black students. After the school superintendent dismissed the nooses as a prank, angering black students and their parents, a series of fights between white and black youths ensued, both on and off the campus.
Walters declined to lodge serious criminal charges against white youths who attacked blacks in two incidents. But when the six black teenagers jumped the white student at the school, beating him and knocking him unconscious, Walters initially charged them with attempted murder, later reducing the charge to aggravated second-degree battery. The white youth was treated and released at a local hospital and attended a school ceremony several hours after the beating incident.
hwitt@tribune.com
People's Peace Delegation to Iran reports
July 20-30, 2007: Tehran - Shiraz - Yazd - Esfahan - Qom
Co-sponsored by the Virginia Anti-War Network & The Richmond Defender newspaper
The Delegation produced the following four reports during their 11-day journey through five cities in the Islamic Republic of Iran, from July 20 through July 30, 2007.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Day one of the People's Peace Delegation to Iran's 12-day, 1,750-mile journey through the Islamic Republic of Iran saw this band of five land safely, if exhausted, in Tehran on the morning of July 20, 2007. Met by the tour guide who escorted them to their hotel to clean up and then headed them over to the University of Tehran for the Friday Prayer service, which are a big thing in Iran. They don't spend money on big mosques, but find public spaces to hold these large gatherings. Some 10,000 attended the prayers at the University. The group was allowed in as “journalists” which meant they were taken to a second story balcony that overlooked the proceedings – the woman in the delegation was taken to a separate section for women where she was warmly received, treated like a sister. She wore a black veil as required. The delegation was free to photograph the services, but asked for security reasons, not to photograph a section where government officials were seated.
All were given earphones that provided instant translation of what was said. Two Imams, spiritual leaders, gave sermons – one on anger as an attribute given by God to help defend family and religion, but that can get out of hand and be self-defeating; and the other was a presentation on the political situation between the U.S. And Iranian governments.
After the services were completed they were taken back to the hotel to sleep off some of their jet lag and later that evening went out for their evening meal. Joined by their guide and one other person, $30 paid for a delicious lamb stew dinner for 7, including the tip. The delegation was then off to the airport for the 1.5 hour flight to Shiraz, a city in central Iran – the southernmost point of the delegation's tour.
Anyone who noticed that they were foreign, and from the U.S., was very friendly. The delegation talked to people as they moved around the city and they sensed no animosity to the people of the U.S. and no sense that the U.S. government would actually attack their country. One delegation member said that he felt like he was walking around in Queens NY – people look like they are from everywhere, they dress in every way you can think of – from punk rock youth to traditional black chadoor-clad matron; you can buy kabob on the street, see young people on cell phones, people rushing from place to place. Tehran is a vibrant, active, major metropolitan city. (Report based on phone conversation with Phil Wilayto.)
Saturday, July 21, 2007
In a country that is two-thirds desert a garden is considered paradise and as the delegation walks through the gates of one such paradise, in the southern city of Shiraz, the children on a school trip engulf us attempting the handful of English words they know.
“Hello” they yell with a child’s innocence.
“Hello” we all would say back.
Quickly they respond with a “where are you from?
“America” we say with a smile.
“Oh, oh I love Am-ree-ka!”
This conversation will continue with each of the several children getting to practice their English while we get to attempt a political discussion that is normally met with confused looks of a person lacking the English or a response of “I do not think much about politics.” Phil jokes that this could be the national greeting. Expressing the affection that is given to us here may be impossible to explain in a text or even by the spoken word without one seeing it for themselves.
This interaction is a reprieve for the members of the delegation who spent morning walking through the ruins of Persoplis hearing twenty-five hundred years of history while the sun bakes us in 110-degree weather. Our day was full and after a few days of travel that, took us from Washington to London and finally landing in Tehran we were lagging but enthusiastic. The enthusiasm was carried from the Friday prayers at Tehran University strait through our late night flight and arrival in Shiraz where our day of listening to history would begin.
Amin, our guide, is even struck by the heat several times saying, “Wow, it is hot,” though forgoing the “chief” that he usually seems to enjoy calling us. The evening heat is much more manageable without the sun as we go to some mosques and then to dinner where we get to meet some family members of Rostam, our Iranian colleague back home. The conversation is pleasant and their English is far better than any of our Farsi.
Many in the delegation are surprised to hear how little the Iranians even consider war between our two countries and this is confirmed with our dinner conversation. One of the young women, Marziyee says, “they don’t even think of it at all” when talking about her classmates at Shiraz University. She goes on to say that the difference between Iran and the United States is that “here we do not believe it if it is on the news where in America you do.”
Our trip will continue for many more days but if the reception is this warm then the heat of the days may be its only rival. We will hit the road today heading north back toward Tehran.
(report by Geoff Millard)
Monday, July 23, 2007
Salam!
That's "hello" in Farsi, the national language of Iran, but most people we meet say "'ello!" We're learning, if slowly.
Our five members of the People's Peace Delegation to Iran woke up yesterday morning in Shiraz, the south-central city of poets, roses, nightingales and, at one time, wine. Today our main goal was completing a 10-hour van ride through the Zaros Mountains and desert to the oasis city of Yazd, home of the country's largest community of Zoroastrians, followers of the major religion that preceded Islam in Iran.
A short while into our journey we stopped at the site of the tomb of Cyrus the Great, who in the fifth century B.C. established the first Persian Empire. Persepolis, where we visited Saturday, was Cyrus' ceremonial seat, where he received tributaries from the various nations in the Empire, but Necropolis was where he maintained his palace, a smaller but still grand greeting hall and the where he was buried. The structures are still impressive, but the depth of history was most profound. Geoff, our Iraq War veteran, was deeply moved by our guide's story of how Alexander the Macedonian (Greek) had burned Persepolis to the ground in retaliation for the Persians' destruction of a major Greek city, but spared Cyrus's tomb. In fact, he wept at the site, out of respect for this towering military and political leader.
Then we crossed the desert that lies between Shiraz and Yazd. The narrow, two-lane highway runs through a desert plateau between fiercely stark ad seemingly endless mountains. But a hundreds-year old system of wells and underground canals carries water from the mountains to Yazd, and along the way irrigates farms of wheat, rice, pomegranate and sunflowers.
This part of our journey was our first brief exposure to rural poverty, which while widespread does not seem to be abject. We are able to make some comparisons, because between us we have traveled to many countries in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia where extreme poverty is rampant -- not to mention parts of Richmond, Milwaukee and Washington, D.C.
Iran has been under U.S. - and U.N.-imposed sanctions for 28 years and some 70* percent of the population lives in poverty. But in our first four days here we have only seen two beggars and no homeless people. The reason, as explained by our guide and also confirmed by our own pre-trip research, is that the Iranian government maintains an extensive system of social programs for the impoverished, the people they call "the oppressed." Even the smallest villages we passed have free education through high school. (Colleges and universities are also free, but space is limited and admission is very competitive. Even so, some 60-65 percent of college undergraduates are women.)
Every village or industrial site we passed seemed in need of major repairs.
Crumbling brick and mud and straw walls are common. But there is also a lot of development. A new highway is being constructed between Shiraz and Yazd, to replace the narrow highway we were traveling on. We could see construction workers toiling in the 108-degree heat. The new highway will reduce the travel time between the two cities, important because as in the U.S., most goods are moved by truck. Plus, it will make travel safer. This last point came home pretty strongly several times when vehicles coming toward us and trying to pass other vehicles narrowly avoided meeting us head on.
After stopping at an oasis truck stop we finally arrived in Yazd. This is a thriving metropolis of half-a-million people northeast of Shiraz. It's an ancient city, one whose population is very devout. (The name "Yazd" means "holy.") One indication of that is that more women here wear chadors. The full-body coverings are not mandated by law -- a woman can instead wear a head scarf and "manteau," or thigh-length coat over slacks or jeans, but many women prefer the chador. As one English-speaking college student in Shiraz told Tyla, "Yes, it's hot, but it makes me feel safe."
This is a section that Tyla wrote for this report:
"I have been warmly welcomed at least a dozen times in the first three days of our trip by lovely Iranian adults and children. These strangers are now my friends. As I haven't yet mastered even a short phrase in Farsi, I have given them nothing but my smile, and they have said kind words to me and the other four on our trip. I'm carrying with me a sentiment of appreciation to so many kind Iranians and a wish to convey their warmth and hospitality to others in the U.S. who may not have the opportunity to visit Iran."
I don't really want to tell you where we are staying in Yazd. It's almost embarrassing -- a renovated former governor's mansion, with a banquet-like dining area, wood-paneled rooms with arched ceilings and stained glass windows and a garden of narrow, secluded walkways lit by lamplight. Water fountains, crying pet birds and a quarter-moon in the desert sky ... If you're looking for an inexpensive and beautiful visit to a wonderful and almost entirely crime-free land of phenomenally hospitable people, think about visiting Iran, we'd be happy to walk you through the process.
Today we visited several historical sites in Yazd, all of which are exquisitely beautiful and all helpful in learning about Iran's history and culture. But it is the conversations we have along the way that make up the soul of our journey. Many people speak some English, and we are learning a few words of Farsi. Most exchanges start with someone noticing we are speaking English. They shyly approach us and say "'ello." We answer "'ello, or "salam," and go from there. “Where are you from?” “U.S.A.” “Oh, Am-ri-ka.” Then smiles, laughs, handshakes, and our asking permission to take their pictures…
This will be hardest for most folks in the U.S. to accept, but we have been met with nothing but the warmest hospitality and kindness from everyone we have met -- working people, educators, college students, business people, everyone. Our guide says that it's because not many English-speaking foreigners visit Iran, and people are naturally curious. And I know many people at home have told us, "Sure, the people may be nice, but it's the government ..."
But children don't lie. And the children have been universally not just friendly, but fascinated, joyful, delightful and warm. I can't believe that anyone, government leader, teacher or parent, is teaching these kids to hate people from the U.S. It just ain't happening.
Of more concern to some of us on the delegation is that almost no one seems to be telling the people they are being targeted for a military attack. Just two people we've met so far have said they worry about such an attack from the United States. It's just not an issue here. A few people have explained that, first most people are focused on putting food on the table, not on major political issues. And second, this is a people who fought an eight-year war with Iraq - more than two times longer than U.S. involvement in World War Two. It was a war -- started by Saddam Hussein with backing from the U.S. -- that cost the country 500,000 lives; and was fought almost entirely on Iranian soil. Plus, they've survived 28 years of economic sanctions, and so don't seem particularly afraid of the thought of an attack. Plus, they are a nation of 70 million people, two thirds of whom are under the age of 35, more than ready to defend their country. So they think Washington would have to be crazy to start another war. Let's hope they are right.
On the other and, most people seem aware that Muslims and Iranians in particular are getting a bad rap in the U.S., and so they're very appreciative when we say we are here in part so we can go home and better explain to the U.S. public what Iran is really like.
Got to go -Yazd shuts down in mid-afternoon so folks can take a break during the hottest part of the day, but that time is almost up, and we're about to leave for a bazaar. More tomorrow -
And, please, to all our friends in the anti-war movement: Every time you raise the demand "U.S Out of Iraq," please remember to add "And no War on Iran!" If just some of you will do that, our 12-day, 1,750-mile journey through Iran will be a success. (drafted by Phil Wilayto with input from all delegation members.) – end –
* The poverty rate in Iran is officially 18%, but according to UNICEF 23% of the population live below the poverty line, according to the CIA website 40% live in poverty, and the World Bank's figure was 32.74% as of 1998. A UNISAP report acknowledged 70% as an absolute figure and 25% as a relative figure given the country's safety net - meaning most people get the nutriution they need to be healthy, and other assistance including free education.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Hi folks. Sorry it's been a few days since our last report, but sometimes it's hard to get to an Internet cafe or phone that takes our calling cards when you're on the road.
Yesterday we were in Isfahan, surely one of the most beautiful cities in the world. One and a half million trees for one and a half million people, a lovely river that runs through the center of town with picturesque bridges, endless parks and the stunningly beautiful Iman Square, the second largest such public space in the world.
It was also in Isfahan that we had perhaps our most significant meeting to date, with three veterans of the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988. We met in our hotel lobby with Habib Ahmadzadeh, a former Naval officer who fought through the entire war; Mohamad Reiza-Sharafoddin, who fought for four years; and Ahmad ali Pakdaman, a disabled eight-year veteran who lost his Father during the war when a U.S. warship, the USS Vincennes, shot down a civilian Iranian airplane.
The meeting was particularly poignant because two of our delegation members are also veterans: Tom Palumbo of Norfolk, Va., a member of Veterans for Peace; and Geoff Millard of Washington, D.C., member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and Veterans for Peace.
The shooting down of the Iranian "air bus" happened shortly after then-President Khatami had spoken before the Untied Nations, calling for more dialog between the countries of the world. M. Ahmadzadeh took it upon himself to write an e-mail to the captain of the Vincennes, trying to open a dialog. He also wrote 700 other U.S. Naval officers, suggesting that if members of the various militaries could talk directly to each other, then perhaps that could lessen the chances of war. He told us that 27 officers responded to his e-mail. Mr. Ahmadzadeh has written a book, translated into English, with his letter and some of the replies. He presented copies of the book, titled "The War Involved City Stories" to each member of our delegation, and included hand written poems for each member. His second book, "Chess with the Doomsday Machine," will soon be published in the U.S.. Mr. Ahmadzadeh said he planned to dedicate it to the People's Peace Delegation to Iran.
Mr. Reiza-Sharafoddin began making films as a student during the war, alternating stretches at his university with four years of military service. He is now working on a film about Mr. Ahmadzadeh's attempts to get a reply from the captain of the Vincennes. The war cost both sides more than 500,000 people, but it was fought entirely on Iranian soil, meaning there was incredible devastation of whole Iranian cities and towns.
Mr. Pakdaman, was also a student when the war broke out. His home city of Abadan was besieged for more than a year. He lost one eye, but kept fighting. He was also injured when Iraqi troops gassed the city. Later he was severely injured, losing his right arm, resulting in his being captured. After 30 months in prison camp- in Iraq, he was released in a prisoner exchange. That's when his father flew in from neighboring Dubai to see him. On the way back to Dubai, the air bus was hit. Mr. Pakdaman, missing one eye and one arm, volunteered to return to battle. The U.S. government said it was an accident and paid some compensation to the families of the nearly 300 people killed -- and then Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush gave the Vincennes captains seven medals for "bravery." "We were very surprised, "Mr. Ahmadzadeh. "It would be like giving Osama bin Laden a medal for attacking the World Trade Center." To date, the Vincnenes captain hasn't responded to Mr. Ahmadzadeh's letter.
Following these presentations, our tour guide translated into Farsi a statement the delegation had hammered out the night before in preparation for the meeting. It reads:
"The purpose of the People's Peace Delegation to Iran is, in some small way, to try and prevent a war between the United States and Iran. Terrible things happen in war, such as the shooting down of the Iran Air Bus by U.S. forces. We would like to express our deepest sympathy with the families of the martyrs of that tragedy, and we pledge to return home and promote an environment in which such tragedies will never reoccur."
Our meeting ended with warm handshakes, exchanges of e-mail addresses and a group photo of the five veterans, Iranian and U.S.
Find out more about the People's Peace Delegation to Iran, click here.
Co-sponsored by the Virginia Anti-War Network & The Richmond Defender newspaper
The Delegation produced the following four reports during their 11-day journey through five cities in the Islamic Republic of Iran, from July 20 through July 30, 2007.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Day one of the People's Peace Delegation to Iran's 12-day, 1,750-mile journey through the Islamic Republic of Iran saw this band of five land safely, if exhausted, in Tehran on the morning of July 20, 2007. Met by the tour guide who escorted them to their hotel to clean up and then headed them over to the University of Tehran for the Friday Prayer service, which are a big thing in Iran. They don't spend money on big mosques, but find public spaces to hold these large gatherings. Some 10,000 attended the prayers at the University. The group was allowed in as “journalists” which meant they were taken to a second story balcony that overlooked the proceedings – the woman in the delegation was taken to a separate section for women where she was warmly received, treated like a sister. She wore a black veil as required. The delegation was free to photograph the services, but asked for security reasons, not to photograph a section where government officials were seated.
All were given earphones that provided instant translation of what was said. Two Imams, spiritual leaders, gave sermons – one on anger as an attribute given by God to help defend family and religion, but that can get out of hand and be self-defeating; and the other was a presentation on the political situation between the U.S. And Iranian governments.
After the services were completed they were taken back to the hotel to sleep off some of their jet lag and later that evening went out for their evening meal. Joined by their guide and one other person, $30 paid for a delicious lamb stew dinner for 7, including the tip. The delegation was then off to the airport for the 1.5 hour flight to Shiraz, a city in central Iran – the southernmost point of the delegation's tour.
Anyone who noticed that they were foreign, and from the U.S., was very friendly. The delegation talked to people as they moved around the city and they sensed no animosity to the people of the U.S. and no sense that the U.S. government would actually attack their country. One delegation member said that he felt like he was walking around in Queens NY – people look like they are from everywhere, they dress in every way you can think of – from punk rock youth to traditional black chadoor-clad matron; you can buy kabob on the street, see young people on cell phones, people rushing from place to place. Tehran is a vibrant, active, major metropolitan city. (Report based on phone conversation with Phil Wilayto.)
Saturday, July 21, 2007
In a country that is two-thirds desert a garden is considered paradise and as the delegation walks through the gates of one such paradise, in the southern city of Shiraz, the children on a school trip engulf us attempting the handful of English words they know.
“Hello” they yell with a child’s innocence.
“Hello” we all would say back.
Quickly they respond with a “where are you from?
“America” we say with a smile.
“Oh, oh I love Am-ree-ka!”
This conversation will continue with each of the several children getting to practice their English while we get to attempt a political discussion that is normally met with confused looks of a person lacking the English or a response of “I do not think much about politics.” Phil jokes that this could be the national greeting. Expressing the affection that is given to us here may be impossible to explain in a text or even by the spoken word without one seeing it for themselves.
This interaction is a reprieve for the members of the delegation who spent morning walking through the ruins of Persoplis hearing twenty-five hundred years of history while the sun bakes us in 110-degree weather. Our day was full and after a few days of travel that, took us from Washington to London and finally landing in Tehran we were lagging but enthusiastic. The enthusiasm was carried from the Friday prayers at Tehran University strait through our late night flight and arrival in Shiraz where our day of listening to history would begin.
Amin, our guide, is even struck by the heat several times saying, “Wow, it is hot,” though forgoing the “chief” that he usually seems to enjoy calling us. The evening heat is much more manageable without the sun as we go to some mosques and then to dinner where we get to meet some family members of Rostam, our Iranian colleague back home. The conversation is pleasant and their English is far better than any of our Farsi.
Many in the delegation are surprised to hear how little the Iranians even consider war between our two countries and this is confirmed with our dinner conversation. One of the young women, Marziyee says, “they don’t even think of it at all” when talking about her classmates at Shiraz University. She goes on to say that the difference between Iran and the United States is that “here we do not believe it if it is on the news where in America you do.”
Our trip will continue for many more days but if the reception is this warm then the heat of the days may be its only rival. We will hit the road today heading north back toward Tehran.
(report by Geoff Millard)
Monday, July 23, 2007
Salam!
That's "hello" in Farsi, the national language of Iran, but most people we meet say "'ello!" We're learning, if slowly.
Our five members of the People's Peace Delegation to Iran woke up yesterday morning in Shiraz, the south-central city of poets, roses, nightingales and, at one time, wine. Today our main goal was completing a 10-hour van ride through the Zaros Mountains and desert to the oasis city of Yazd, home of the country's largest community of Zoroastrians, followers of the major religion that preceded Islam in Iran.
A short while into our journey we stopped at the site of the tomb of Cyrus the Great, who in the fifth century B.C. established the first Persian Empire. Persepolis, where we visited Saturday, was Cyrus' ceremonial seat, where he received tributaries from the various nations in the Empire, but Necropolis was where he maintained his palace, a smaller but still grand greeting hall and the where he was buried. The structures are still impressive, but the depth of history was most profound. Geoff, our Iraq War veteran, was deeply moved by our guide's story of how Alexander the Macedonian (Greek) had burned Persepolis to the ground in retaliation for the Persians' destruction of a major Greek city, but spared Cyrus's tomb. In fact, he wept at the site, out of respect for this towering military and political leader.
Then we crossed the desert that lies between Shiraz and Yazd. The narrow, two-lane highway runs through a desert plateau between fiercely stark ad seemingly endless mountains. But a hundreds-year old system of wells and underground canals carries water from the mountains to Yazd, and along the way irrigates farms of wheat, rice, pomegranate and sunflowers.
This part of our journey was our first brief exposure to rural poverty, which while widespread does not seem to be abject. We are able to make some comparisons, because between us we have traveled to many countries in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia where extreme poverty is rampant -- not to mention parts of Richmond, Milwaukee and Washington, D.C.
Iran has been under U.S. - and U.N.-imposed sanctions for 28 years and some 70* percent of the population lives in poverty. But in our first four days here we have only seen two beggars and no homeless people. The reason, as explained by our guide and also confirmed by our own pre-trip research, is that the Iranian government maintains an extensive system of social programs for the impoverished, the people they call "the oppressed." Even the smallest villages we passed have free education through high school. (Colleges and universities are also free, but space is limited and admission is very competitive. Even so, some 60-65 percent of college undergraduates are women.)
Every village or industrial site we passed seemed in need of major repairs.
Crumbling brick and mud and straw walls are common. But there is also a lot of development. A new highway is being constructed between Shiraz and Yazd, to replace the narrow highway we were traveling on. We could see construction workers toiling in the 108-degree heat. The new highway will reduce the travel time between the two cities, important because as in the U.S., most goods are moved by truck. Plus, it will make travel safer. This last point came home pretty strongly several times when vehicles coming toward us and trying to pass other vehicles narrowly avoided meeting us head on.
After stopping at an oasis truck stop we finally arrived in Yazd. This is a thriving metropolis of half-a-million people northeast of Shiraz. It's an ancient city, one whose population is very devout. (The name "Yazd" means "holy.") One indication of that is that more women here wear chadors. The full-body coverings are not mandated by law -- a woman can instead wear a head scarf and "manteau," or thigh-length coat over slacks or jeans, but many women prefer the chador. As one English-speaking college student in Shiraz told Tyla, "Yes, it's hot, but it makes me feel safe."
This is a section that Tyla wrote for this report:
"I have been warmly welcomed at least a dozen times in the first three days of our trip by lovely Iranian adults and children. These strangers are now my friends. As I haven't yet mastered even a short phrase in Farsi, I have given them nothing but my smile, and they have said kind words to me and the other four on our trip. I'm carrying with me a sentiment of appreciation to so many kind Iranians and a wish to convey their warmth and hospitality to others in the U.S. who may not have the opportunity to visit Iran."
I don't really want to tell you where we are staying in Yazd. It's almost embarrassing -- a renovated former governor's mansion, with a banquet-like dining area, wood-paneled rooms with arched ceilings and stained glass windows and a garden of narrow, secluded walkways lit by lamplight. Water fountains, crying pet birds and a quarter-moon in the desert sky ... If you're looking for an inexpensive and beautiful visit to a wonderful and almost entirely crime-free land of phenomenally hospitable people, think about visiting Iran, we'd be happy to walk you through the process.
Today we visited several historical sites in Yazd, all of which are exquisitely beautiful and all helpful in learning about Iran's history and culture. But it is the conversations we have along the way that make up the soul of our journey. Many people speak some English, and we are learning a few words of Farsi. Most exchanges start with someone noticing we are speaking English. They shyly approach us and say "'ello." We answer "'ello, or "salam," and go from there. “Where are you from?” “U.S.A.” “Oh, Am-ri-ka.” Then smiles, laughs, handshakes, and our asking permission to take their pictures…
This will be hardest for most folks in the U.S. to accept, but we have been met with nothing but the warmest hospitality and kindness from everyone we have met -- working people, educators, college students, business people, everyone. Our guide says that it's because not many English-speaking foreigners visit Iran, and people are naturally curious. And I know many people at home have told us, "Sure, the people may be nice, but it's the government ..."
But children don't lie. And the children have been universally not just friendly, but fascinated, joyful, delightful and warm. I can't believe that anyone, government leader, teacher or parent, is teaching these kids to hate people from the U.S. It just ain't happening.
Of more concern to some of us on the delegation is that almost no one seems to be telling the people they are being targeted for a military attack. Just two people we've met so far have said they worry about such an attack from the United States. It's just not an issue here. A few people have explained that, first most people are focused on putting food on the table, not on major political issues. And second, this is a people who fought an eight-year war with Iraq - more than two times longer than U.S. involvement in World War Two. It was a war -- started by Saddam Hussein with backing from the U.S. -- that cost the country 500,000 lives; and was fought almost entirely on Iranian soil. Plus, they've survived 28 years of economic sanctions, and so don't seem particularly afraid of the thought of an attack. Plus, they are a nation of 70 million people, two thirds of whom are under the age of 35, more than ready to defend their country. So they think Washington would have to be crazy to start another war. Let's hope they are right.
On the other and, most people seem aware that Muslims and Iranians in particular are getting a bad rap in the U.S., and so they're very appreciative when we say we are here in part so we can go home and better explain to the U.S. public what Iran is really like.
Got to go -Yazd shuts down in mid-afternoon so folks can take a break during the hottest part of the day, but that time is almost up, and we're about to leave for a bazaar. More tomorrow -
And, please, to all our friends in the anti-war movement: Every time you raise the demand "U.S Out of Iraq," please remember to add "And no War on Iran!" If just some of you will do that, our 12-day, 1,750-mile journey through Iran will be a success. (drafted by Phil Wilayto with input from all delegation members.) – end –
* The poverty rate in Iran is officially 18%, but according to UNICEF 23% of the population live below the poverty line, according to the CIA website 40% live in poverty, and the World Bank's figure was 32.74% as of 1998. A UNISAP report acknowledged 70% as an absolute figure and 25% as a relative figure given the country's safety net - meaning most people get the nutriution they need to be healthy, and other assistance including free education.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Hi folks. Sorry it's been a few days since our last report, but sometimes it's hard to get to an Internet cafe or phone that takes our calling cards when you're on the road.
Yesterday we were in Isfahan, surely one of the most beautiful cities in the world. One and a half million trees for one and a half million people, a lovely river that runs through the center of town with picturesque bridges, endless parks and the stunningly beautiful Iman Square, the second largest such public space in the world.
It was also in Isfahan that we had perhaps our most significant meeting to date, with three veterans of the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988. We met in our hotel lobby with Habib Ahmadzadeh, a former Naval officer who fought through the entire war; Mohamad Reiza-Sharafoddin, who fought for four years; and Ahmad ali Pakdaman, a disabled eight-year veteran who lost his Father during the war when a U.S. warship, the USS Vincennes, shot down a civilian Iranian airplane.
The meeting was particularly poignant because two of our delegation members are also veterans: Tom Palumbo of Norfolk, Va., a member of Veterans for Peace; and Geoff Millard of Washington, D.C., member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and Veterans for Peace.
The shooting down of the Iranian "air bus" happened shortly after then-President Khatami had spoken before the Untied Nations, calling for more dialog between the countries of the world. M. Ahmadzadeh took it upon himself to write an e-mail to the captain of the Vincennes, trying to open a dialog. He also wrote 700 other U.S. Naval officers, suggesting that if members of the various militaries could talk directly to each other, then perhaps that could lessen the chances of war. He told us that 27 officers responded to his e-mail. Mr. Ahmadzadeh has written a book, translated into English, with his letter and some of the replies. He presented copies of the book, titled "The War Involved City Stories" to each member of our delegation, and included hand written poems for each member. His second book, "Chess with the Doomsday Machine," will soon be published in the U.S.. Mr. Ahmadzadeh said he planned to dedicate it to the People's Peace Delegation to Iran.
Mr. Reiza-Sharafoddin began making films as a student during the war, alternating stretches at his university with four years of military service. He is now working on a film about Mr. Ahmadzadeh's attempts to get a reply from the captain of the Vincennes. The war cost both sides more than 500,000 people, but it was fought entirely on Iranian soil, meaning there was incredible devastation of whole Iranian cities and towns.
Mr. Pakdaman, was also a student when the war broke out. His home city of Abadan was besieged for more than a year. He lost one eye, but kept fighting. He was also injured when Iraqi troops gassed the city. Later he was severely injured, losing his right arm, resulting in his being captured. After 30 months in prison camp- in Iraq, he was released in a prisoner exchange. That's when his father flew in from neighboring Dubai to see him. On the way back to Dubai, the air bus was hit. Mr. Pakdaman, missing one eye and one arm, volunteered to return to battle. The U.S. government said it was an accident and paid some compensation to the families of the nearly 300 people killed -- and then Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush gave the Vincennes captains seven medals for "bravery." "We were very surprised, "Mr. Ahmadzadeh. "It would be like giving Osama bin Laden a medal for attacking the World Trade Center." To date, the Vincnenes captain hasn't responded to Mr. Ahmadzadeh's letter.
Following these presentations, our tour guide translated into Farsi a statement the delegation had hammered out the night before in preparation for the meeting. It reads:
"The purpose of the People's Peace Delegation to Iran is, in some small way, to try and prevent a war between the United States and Iran. Terrible things happen in war, such as the shooting down of the Iran Air Bus by U.S. forces. We would like to express our deepest sympathy with the families of the martyrs of that tragedy, and we pledge to return home and promote an environment in which such tragedies will never reoccur."
Our meeting ended with warm handshakes, exchanges of e-mail addresses and a group photo of the five veterans, Iranian and U.S.
Find out more about the People's Peace Delegation to Iran, click here.
Rice: U.S., France Seek Iran Sanctions
By DESMOND BUTLER, AP, Washington Post, Sept. 21, 2007
WASHINGTON -- The United States and France agree on how to pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday.
At a joint news conference Rice gave with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, both officials spoke of the need for new sanctions against Iran.
"I think that there's, essentially, no difference in the way that we see the situation in Iran and what the international community must do," Rice said.
Warm words between the two foreign policy counterparts marked a narrowing of differences since the days that Kouchner's predecessor, Dominique de Villepin, helped block a United Nations resolution sought by the United States on Iraq.
Since taking power in May, Kouchner's boss President Nicolas Sarkozy has set a very different tone of cooperation with the United States than Villepin and former President Jacques Chirac. But Kouchner's visit and France's recent moves on Iran seemed to illustrate that the change was more than tone.
The two countries were preparing the groundwork for a new U.N. Security Council resolution at a meeting in Washington on Friday of political directors from six major nations that have been trying to negotiate with Iran _ Russia, China, Britain and Germany, as well as France and the United States.
Afterward, speaking for the group, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said their discussions were serious and constructive. They will reconvene next Friday in New York, Burns said.
On Friday, Italy also called for sanctions.
"There is still room for a strong initiative that can on one end put pressure through sanctions, even more severe sanctions, and on the other end really offer the possibility for negotiations and agreement," Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema said in an interview on Italian state TV.
The French government's tougher line has brought it closer to the Bush administration, which has made a renewed U.S. push to tighten sanctions.
Rice said that she had also discussed Middle East peace efforts, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Lebanon. Standing next to Rice, Kouchner read a joint statement condemning the murder of Lebanese lawmaker Antoine Ghanem, killed in a powerful bomb blast two days ago. Ghanem, of the right-wing Phalange Party, was the fifth Christian to be killed in a wave of assassinations targeting anti-Syrian personalities.
"What is at stake, today, is the will of the murderers to disrupt the constitutional life of Lebanon, to deprive the Lebanese people and communities of their political rights in the framework of a united, sovereign and democratic Lebanon," Kouchner said.
During his two-day Washington visit, Kouchner has expanded on an earlier recommendation made by his boss, President Sarkozy, for tightening international sanctions against Iran.
Asked what kind of sanctions the United States would like to see through approved by the U.N. Security Council, Rice was vague.
"We have explored and have used various freezes on assets of individuals. We have used visa bans," she said. "I think that there are any number of ways that we can expand those efforts."
Kouchner also addressed his country's recent call for European Union sanctions against Iran. He said that European countries are discussing sanctions that would be targeted against banking and industrial interests in Iran.
In a speech Thursday, Kouchner said that France sees a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to global security.
"To those who say that we should handle Iran with kid gloves, since it could destabilize the region, I say this: look at its adventurism today and imagine what it would be like if Tehran thought itself one day protected by a nuclear umbrella," he said.
The tougher position has been welcomed in Washington, where Kouchner also met lawmakers, as well as Defense Secretary Robert Gates and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.
In the joint news conference, Rice noted improved relations.
"It's an excellent relationship," she said. "I think there are many, many things that France and the United States are going to be able to do together."
Kouchner agreed, but said differences remain.
"Having good relations doesn't mean that we are in complete agreement every day, everywhere," he said. "But we have excellent relations."
WASHINGTON -- The United States and France agree on how to pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday.
At a joint news conference Rice gave with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, both officials spoke of the need for new sanctions against Iran.
"I think that there's, essentially, no difference in the way that we see the situation in Iran and what the international community must do," Rice said.
Warm words between the two foreign policy counterparts marked a narrowing of differences since the days that Kouchner's predecessor, Dominique de Villepin, helped block a United Nations resolution sought by the United States on Iraq.
Since taking power in May, Kouchner's boss President Nicolas Sarkozy has set a very different tone of cooperation with the United States than Villepin and former President Jacques Chirac. But Kouchner's visit and France's recent moves on Iran seemed to illustrate that the change was more than tone.
The two countries were preparing the groundwork for a new U.N. Security Council resolution at a meeting in Washington on Friday of political directors from six major nations that have been trying to negotiate with Iran _ Russia, China, Britain and Germany, as well as France and the United States.
Afterward, speaking for the group, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said their discussions were serious and constructive. They will reconvene next Friday in New York, Burns said.
On Friday, Italy also called for sanctions.
"There is still room for a strong initiative that can on one end put pressure through sanctions, even more severe sanctions, and on the other end really offer the possibility for negotiations and agreement," Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema said in an interview on Italian state TV.
The French government's tougher line has brought it closer to the Bush administration, which has made a renewed U.S. push to tighten sanctions.
Rice said that she had also discussed Middle East peace efforts, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Lebanon. Standing next to Rice, Kouchner read a joint statement condemning the murder of Lebanese lawmaker Antoine Ghanem, killed in a powerful bomb blast two days ago. Ghanem, of the right-wing Phalange Party, was the fifth Christian to be killed in a wave of assassinations targeting anti-Syrian personalities.
"What is at stake, today, is the will of the murderers to disrupt the constitutional life of Lebanon, to deprive the Lebanese people and communities of their political rights in the framework of a united, sovereign and democratic Lebanon," Kouchner said.
During his two-day Washington visit, Kouchner has expanded on an earlier recommendation made by his boss, President Sarkozy, for tightening international sanctions against Iran.
Asked what kind of sanctions the United States would like to see through approved by the U.N. Security Council, Rice was vague.
"We have explored and have used various freezes on assets of individuals. We have used visa bans," she said. "I think that there are any number of ways that we can expand those efforts."
Kouchner also addressed his country's recent call for European Union sanctions against Iran. He said that European countries are discussing sanctions that would be targeted against banking and industrial interests in Iran.
In a speech Thursday, Kouchner said that France sees a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to global security.
"To those who say that we should handle Iran with kid gloves, since it could destabilize the region, I say this: look at its adventurism today and imagine what it would be like if Tehran thought itself one day protected by a nuclear umbrella," he said.
The tougher position has been welcomed in Washington, where Kouchner also met lawmakers, as well as Defense Secretary Robert Gates and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.
In the joint news conference, Rice noted improved relations.
"It's an excellent relationship," she said. "I think there are many, many things that France and the United States are going to be able to do together."
Kouchner agreed, but said differences remain.
"Having good relations doesn't mean that we are in complete agreement every day, everywhere," he said. "But we have excellent relations."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)