Iran: Three Questions

[H2O Man]

I think that one of the more important issues that faces voters in the upcoming 2016 elections is the relationship between the United States and Iran. It is obviously an on-going issue, and one we should be concerned with from now until Election Day. More, it is one of the things that demonstrates that House and Senate contests are extremely important, so much so that we can’t afford to only think in terms of the White House.

The now infamous letter from the 47 jackasses has been -- and will continue to be -- discussed here on DU:GD. These discussions suggest that it is indeed possible for most all of us to agree on some issues. And that is surely a good thing.

I’m old enough to remember “Iranian hostage crisis” in the years 1979 through 1981. The business with the shah, and later, the Iran-Contra scandal. My library has quite a few books on the Iran-Contra scandal, with several books focusing on that topic exclusively, and more with it being one of numerous issues examined.

Although the groups of crimes known as the Iran-Contra scandal are as important as the wide range of crimes known collectively as “Watergate,” it really has not received the scrutiny it deserves. The reasons it is devalued, in my opinion, are wide-ranging: Nixon was an unattractive easily portrayed as a “crook,” while at least for many, Reagan had a Teflon-image. More, Watergate could be packaged as a simple, limited crime (though it was not), while Iran-Contra was extremely complex. More, both the Iranian and Central American issues would involve allies of the US (or, of the republican party). And, on top of that, the Iran-Contra scandal documented the strange and unhealthy dynamics that can come into play when the religious belief system of elected and non-elected officials influences foreign policy.

I have made an attempt to learn more about Iran, in order to more fully understand why a segment of government officials -- primarily, but not exclusively, the necroconservates -- are obsessed with that nation. I find history, politics, and sociology fascinating. I am admittedly not a fan of government based upon religion, and particularly a fundamental religious strain. Yet, I try to keep an open mind.

Perhaps the single most important book on this in my library is Ken Pollack’s “The Prsian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America” (Random House; 2005). It has helped me, for example, to understand the CIA’s coup that inserted the shah into power, and how that influenced events surrounding the later hostage crisis. (Safe to say that most Iranians were other than grateful for the CIA’s selecting a dictator for them.)

Richard Ben-Veniste’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes: Exposing the Truth from Watergate to 9/11” (Thomas Dunne Books; 2009) shows some of the connections between Watergate and Iran-Contra. However, I do not think it fully exposes them; nor does it document just how the failure of the system to thoroughly prosecute those involved, would create the fertile ground for the criminality of the Bush-Cheney administration.

John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt’s “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Freign Policy” ( Farrar, Straus, and Giroux; 2007), examines the curious relationship between Iran, Israel, and the US. This is important, both in the strange events from Iran-Contra (with the US shipping arms to Iran, with Israel’s assistance), to events as recent as the republicans having a foreign leader lobby with the House to abort President Obama’s efforts to avoid a war against Iran.

And James Mann’s “Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet” (Penguin; 2004) examines some of the necroconservatives, who have played central roles in the US’s relentless military actions in the Middle East.

There are literally dozens of others on my book shelves, that provide additional important information on the often tense relationship between the US and Iran. I’ve even got one by a right-wing, fundamental Christian ex-military man, who is obsessed with what he clearly views as a religious duty to destroy the “evil” enemy of the “Christian” United States. And he is hardly alone in his diseased belief system that defines political reality through a biblical looking-glass.

I’m curious: first, are there other books and resources that you would recommend as valuable reads for understanding this conflict? Second, do you think that there are (republican) people in positions of political power, who are intent upon starting a war with Iran? And, third, do you believe this is an important issue facing our country today? Thank you.

Peace,
H2O Man

[H2O Man]

1. Okay, listen ....

we need to go one-at-a-time here. I can't hear while everyone is typing.

[Raine1967]

2. I would like to kick this; I have some ideas about this but am in the middle of dinner.

I would really like to see this discussion continue.

[H2O Man]

3. It is a topic

that should be of interest to everyone from the Democratic Party and Democratic Left. I'm not suggesting that everyone here, for example, would agree on the exact actions the US government should be taking. But I'm confident that no one here is in favor of an aggressive military action by the US against Iran.

Personally, I believe that President Obama has resisted pressure to attack Iran since he took office. I doubt that he is aware of the exact numbers of our military intelligence (or the "privately-owned forces&quot are going in and out of Iran currently. I'm not in support of some of the military actions he has taken in various other countries, but I do give him credit on something that too few average, grass roots citizens are aware of.

[Mosby]

4. the shia revival by vali nasr is a good read

Unfortunately there are lots of folks doing everything they can to downplay and minimize Iranian aggression, including many so called experts.

The reality is that Iran, via Hamas, Hezbollah and the Revolutionary Guard is one of the most aggressive, dangerous nations on the planet, right now they are trying to control positions on the Golan Heights border with Israel hoping thatin the future will be able to open up a new front to attack Israel like Gaza and Lebanon.

[H2O Man]

5. Thank you for

an interesting and thoughtful answer.

I've read about support for Hamas, Hezbollah, etc for years. I know that it isn't something just being made up for propaganda. It bothers me to see any of the people being killed in that general region of the world. And I include the "soldiers" on each side, who are involved in the violent acts. It's horrible.

There is, of course, too much propaganda and stirring the pot, here in this country.As odd as it might sound, the Iran-Contra bit showed that, at some level (the wrong one, though) -- people from Israel, Iran, and the US could find common ground to speak and do business. I think that most of the everyday people, despite some anxieties and fears of the "other," could begin to find more of that common ground. And begin the process that respects everyone's right to live. And have human rights.

I'm not confident that government can resolve the conflicts. But I am convinced that people can.

Again, thank you for your response. Much appreciated.

[Mosby]

7. the ME is a total cluster fuck right now

The last thing I want to see is another war.

Let's hope the negotiations with Iran conclude in a way that benefits every interested party.

Unfortunately I'm not very optimistic, Iran has already turned down offers by Russia to provide refined uranium for their "peaceful" nuclear program but maybe things will change. Let's hope.

[H2O Man]

9. "a total cluster fuck"

I definitely agree with that description. So many parts of the Middle East are at war, or preparing for it, encouraging it to spread.

I remember several years ago, getting a late-night phone call from my friend Rubin. He was in the Middle East with Nelson Mandela. They were talking to various mid-level (and lower-level) leaders about non-violent dispute resolution. And I remember Rubin's frustration with the under-handed actions of Bush-Cheney et al, who were promoting violence as the surest route to "peace."

In far too many nations, the very last people on earth who should be -- those who lack the capacity to resolve differences without violence, those who are willing, even eager to start violence -- are in positions of power. Some, like Bush and Cheney, have never experienced the hell of war first-hand, and are thus willing to send other people to kill and die. Others have experienced war, in a manner that damaged their ability to be fully human.

The US does have the human (and other) resources that could be invested in lowering the tensions, and resolving the tensions in the Middle East. Many of them are not found in the halls of Washington, or in the military. It's a shame that the citizens of our country haven't reached the level where they recognize this, much less are able to advocate (even demand) such a change in process.

[JonLP24]

16. I believe the CEO of Halliburton knew what he was doing

More or less his prediction in '94 turned out to be accurate but something else about the Gulf War was appealing.

Relevant parts of a very detailed & needed study regarding this

B. Military Privatization in the Persian Gulf

The restructuring of the U.S. military at the end of the Cold War forms a
crucial backdrop for the shift to a migrant labor workforce. While the broader
push to privatize governmental functions affected the military, how and where
privatization occurred also mattered. By shifting to a new center of gravity in the
Persian Gulf, the U.S. military restructured in ways that meshed with that region’s
political economy.

Over the past two decades, the U.S. military has privatized many of its functions,
especially those related to logistics and base support services. A major development
was the rise of the Army’s Logistics Civil Augmentation Program
(LOGCAP), which enabled the military to delegate wide-ranging authority for
logistics to private contractors. Instead of hiring private companies to provide
specific goods or services, the Pentagon awards LOGCAP contracts to large
companies (“prime contractors”) to supply logistical needs for entire missions on an
open-ended basis. In order to accomplish specific goals, prime contractors then issue
task orders to subcontractors, which may be U.S. or non-U.S. companies.

Contracts have been widely criticized for reimbursement structures that guarantee
a fixed percentage of profit, thus encouraging cost inflation, fraud, and waste
by prime contractors and subcontractors.37 The war in Iraq was mostly supported
through the LOGCAP III contract, managed by KBR. The current LOGCAP
IV contract relies on a handful of prime contractors rather than a single one: Operations
in Afghanistan are divided between Fluor (northern and eastern regions)
and DynCorp (west and south).38 The first significant military operation to run
on a LOGCAP contract was in Somalia in 1992, where prime contractor Brown
& Root (now KBR) arrived less than twenty-four hours after U.S. forces. Privatization
created a stronger incentive to reduce labor costs, providing an economic
rationale for relying on non-U.S. workers, although not necessarily for importing
migrant workers from third countries. In Kosovo, 90 percent of Brown & Root’s
workers were local, making it the biggest employer in the area.39

Military privatization, however, is not simply an abstract process that unfolds
in the same way across space and time. Crucial to understanding the rise of
TCN labor in particular was the post-Cold War military’s shift to a new center of
gravity: the Persian Gulf. The 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait marked a major
shift in the global U.S. military posture, with the deployment of large ground
forces to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as a counterbalance to both Iraq and Iran.
Since then, U.S. bases in the Gulf have been key staging areas for operations in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Unlike the major overseas hubs of the Cold
War military in Western Europe and East Asia, the Gulf economies were built in
large part on foreign migrant labor. Large numbers of noncitizens reside in Qatar
(86.5 percent of the population), the U.A.E. (70 percent), Kuwait (68.8 percent),
Bahrain (39.1 percent), and Saudi Arabia (27.8 percent).40 Indeed, the military
and police services of the Arab Gulf states themselves also make extensive use of
foreign labor, at both the rank-and-file and officer levels. The U.A.E. and Qatari
militaries employ large numbers of contractors from Pakistan, Egypt, and other

http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/62-1-3.pdf

I can say this from personal experience, the military itself is a significant but minority player in all this. The privatize & un-regulators saw a get rich quick in all this for sure, I'm not sure how benefiting private corporations puts more than campaign funds in your pocket. Naomi Klein made the case the Bush administration profited personally from the war but it was so long since I read it I can't remember how she argued how. I think Rumsfeld or others when they quit their jobs or sold their shares, etc so no "conflict-of-interest", they didn't do or mainly Rumsfeld didn't do so entirely. What it is clear they certainly helped their former companies profit enomoursly.

NY Times reported early in the Iraq war, all those former Generals & Admiral "military experts" all had ties to private contractors part of an organized propaganda campaign with one recorded requesting what to focus on or if there was anything you'd like me to downplay.

US would go so much further addressing humanitarian concerns, providing aid, using their Venezuela & Russia rhetoric on Saudi Arabia but it is clear the US privatizers love their capitalist ideas that they operated wars the same way Qatar built World Cup Stadiums. There is a reason US perceptions scores are the lowest in the region because they see US foreign policy for what it is, not what the US markets it as.

Regarding Iraq, long term strategic reasons is my guess as to the real reason of course with privatized oil production in mind but Iran & Saudi Arabia about a quarter of the world's oil supply is in those 2 countries. Assad, don't know too much regarding his oil policies but he is a contender for most qualified candidate for regime change unlike previous situations but US prior strategy & rhetoric must mean he doesn't play ball with his oil quite as easily as brutal monarchies of Jordan & Bahrain. Saudi Arabia is a little different. The Saudi Royal family & 200 of the wealthiest Saudi Nationals make up the "House of Saud".

[JonLP24]

17. Apologize for the dual posts

This is related to the other but deserves to be isolated on its own especially regarding the context of the OP

1990s

Following the end of Operation Desert Storm in February 1991, the Pentagon, led by then defense secretary Dick Cheney, paid Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root Services over $8.5 million to study the use of private military forces with American soldiers in combat zones.[21] Halliburton crews also helped bring 725 burning oil wells under control in Kuwait.[22]

In 1995, Cheney replaced Thomas H. Cruikshank, as chairman and CEO. Cruikshank had served since 1989.[23]

In the early 1990s, Halliburton was found to be in violation of federal trade barriers in Iraq and Libya, having sold these countries dual-use oil drilling equipment and, through its former subsidiary, Halliburton Logging Services, sending six pulse neutron generators to Libya. After having pleaded guilty, the company was fined $1.2 million, with another $2.61 million in penalties.[24]

During the Balkans conflict in the 1990s, Kellogg Brown-Root (KBR) supported U.S. peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Hungary with food, laundry, transportation, and other life-cycle management services.[25]

In 1998, Halliburton merged with Dresser Industries, which included Kellogg. Prescott Bush was a director of Dresser Industries, which is now part of Halliburton; his son, former president George H. W. Bush, worked for Dresser Industries in several positions from 1948 to 1951, before he founded Zapata Corporation.[26]
2000s

2000s
5 Houston Center in Downtown Houston, which at one time housed the headquarters of Halliburton

The Wall Street Journal reported in 2001 that a subsidiary of Halliburton Energy Services called Halliburton Products and Services Ltd. (HPS) opened an office in Tehran. The company, HPS, operated on the ninth floor of a new north Tehran tower block. Although HPS was incorporated in the Cayman Islands in 1975 and is "non-American", it shares both the logo and name of Halliburton Energy Services and, according to Dow Jones Newswires, offers services from Halliburton units worldwide through its Tehran office. Such behavior, undertaken while Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, may have violated the Trading with the Enemy Act. A Halliburton spokesman, responding to inquiries from Dow Jones, said "This is not breaking any laws. This is a foreign subsidiary and no U.S. person is involved in this. No U.S. person is facilitating any transaction. We are not performing directly in that country." Later David Lesar would book his own flights to the Tehran office through the UK arm of KBR. No legal action has been taken against the company or its officials.[27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton

I had to laugh when I came to the "Controversies" section after reading their history section which their entire history is a controversy

It is interesting regarding the statement which highlights to a T why the contractors or contracting war machine prefers to distance themselves from accountability & responsibility. Academi isn't officially Blackwater that changed their name, the bought Blackwater from Blackwater & the owners they were bought from kept all the naming rights, etc so Academi can point to that when they say they aren't Blackwater or not the same Blackwater as Blackwater but with John Ashcroft on the board of directors that doesn't improve their stock nor do the rest of the board with experience in the executive branch.

[JonLP24]

14. I'm not aware of the specifics of this or that

regarding Iran's use of nuclear technology but I doubt anyone is interrogated as much as they are over it & compromised repeatedly. The CIA was showing up with a Russian scientist in the 90s who knows why they turned down "offers by Russia". I remember Saddam Hussein turned down a nuke from the big black market dealer who is now in politics supposedly because he was suspicious it was a US-sting operation.

I know little to nothing about Russia offers but I do Iran does have a legitimate green energy or energy independence operation going on which is very diverse. It makes me pretty jealous though Iran does have many issues, nukes is the least of which given that Russia has helped with many things regarding their power plant. Impressive that less than 20% uses oil considering how much of the World's oil supply they're sitting on. All these countries have nukes, want nukes, black markets in Turkey & Georgia appear to deal in that stuff the last ones -- North Korea threw a parade celebrating the successful 3rd Nuclear Test. The VICE crew arrived when banners would constantly appear celebrating the launch, Iran does legitimately appear to have credibility especially when they assert their right to it publicly.

Besides, there are other sources in the same region especially when it comes to the global terrorists rather than the more regional terrorists and Israel has a stockpile they won't confirm or deny, its like such a huge secret that in all probability they have at-least 1 but they won't say if they have one or more. I don't know where all this is heading, it is very hard to read into things regarding nukes. Not to often does someone with 85% of their energy renewable claiming they want to use it for similar purposes and countries & individuals calling them liars.

[JonLP24]

13. Not to mention unregulated Shia militias in the new Iraq

This is an assumption on my part but given the top 5 most corrupt rankings & their brutal oppression of minority populations, I think the Iraq government has been more willing to provide & contribute because a government sponsored military implies oversight & accountability they'd prefer not to get involved in which is a similar reason reason why US wars predominantly operated by civilian contractors who use the Arabian Peninsula way to hire labor.

Most people seem to be unaware of this, they think the big problem is "mercenaries" and Blackwater renamed Academi which has John Ashcroft on the board of directors is pretty bad along with $350 million they receive but it is the cheap labor they import which they use & abuse & forget them when they should be receiving medals, not have their passports taken when they arrive.

[H2O Man]

25. Interesting.

I wish that you would expand upon the last sentence from your response.

[JonLP24]

31. Academi wiki page has the current stuff

Academi is an American training company, originally founded in 1997 by Erik Prince.[2][3] Formerly known as Blackwater,[4] the company was renamed US Training Center in 2009, and "Academi" in 2011 by new owners, after being sold.[5] The company was purchased in late 2010 by a group of private investors who changed the name to Academi and instituted a board of directors and new senior management. Prince retained the rights to the name Blackwater and has no affiliation with Academi. Blackwater received widespread publicity in 2007, when a group of its employees killed 17 Iraqi civilians and injured 20 in Nisour Square, Baghdad.[6][7]

Academi provides security services to the United States federal government on a contractual basis. The Obama administration contracted the group to provide services for the CIA for $250 million.[8] In 2013, Academi subsidiary International Development Solutions received an approximately $92 million contract for State Department security guards.[9]

In 2014, the company became a division of Constellis Holdings along with Triple Canopy and other security companies that were part of the Constellis Group as the result of an acquisition.[10][11]

Board of directors

Red McCombs (chairman)[60]
John Ashcroft[60]
Dean Bosacki[60]
Jason DeYonker[60]
Bobby Ray Inman[60]
Jack Quinn[60]
Russ Robinson[60]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi

Regarding in how it benefits them regarding public statements, I initially stumbled onto this new information when I came across a video at RT.com. I didn't watch it but the content described according to RT was protesters in Ukraine chanting "Blackwater!" "Blackwater!" claimed they went by the name "Greystone". Naturally, I searched for other sources to independently verify or just learn the context of the video which I'm sure can easily found on Youtube. There wasn't much except for the global .ca site, Washington post blog site who has staked in one side in a highly polarizing issue.

Greystone is one of those subcontractors of a contractor but they are distanced from each other officially but who knows really but out of the limited sources even reporting on this at all was ABC so I took a look at them which comes back pretty inconclusive except for a mention of from themselves of reporting that they were in business in "Russia" which isn't the same country as Ukraine but strikes me as very unlikely or unusual a private security contractor would be helping out Russia on behalf of US foreign policy.

Regarding my claim as to why the official Blackwater was kept from them by the person they purchased from who isn't known to have any part of "Academi" comes from this investigative report from ABC. I also overestimated the actual contract from the Obama administration by a $100 million though if you count the $92 in addition to their CIA contract it all comes pretty close to $350 million.

--------------------

Days after that, Academi posted a statement on its website in response to “irresponsible bloggers and an online reporter” who had “posted rumors that Academi employees (operating under the name Blackwater) are present in Ukraine.”

“They are not, and Academi has no relationship with any entity named Blackwater or with the former owner of Blackwater, Erik Prince,” the March 17 statement said. “Such unfounded statements combined with the lack of factual reporting to support them and the lack of context about the company, are nothing more than sensationalistic efforts to create hysteria and headlines in time of genuine crisis.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/greystone-firm-accused-disguising-mercenaries-ukrainians/story?id=23243761

I believe there was a typo or information was mistakenly combined in the same sentence of the wiki article. Blackwater Training Center was renamed US Training Center in addition to the companies' name change. Not the company itself was renamed US Training Center. Xe Services followed by Academi & there is Greystone & however they fit into all this.

[H2O Man]

34. Thanks!

Thank you for this, and your other contributions to this discussion. I appreciate it.

Later today, I'll have time to respond more.

[JonLP24]

37. Thanks

I tend to over-indulge on issues very closely related to this. Iraq struck me as a very fascinating & beautiful country in central regions, the mountainous regions up north I'm not too familiar with which is a significant part of Iran's geography -- saw it as a country I'd like to visit if there wasn't a war going on.

Larry Fitzgerald, the NFL players, travels the world during the off-season and remarked experiencing countries very different in how the media portrays them. Though I have no personal experience, Iran is often a country that fits. Some may be surprised to learn that tourism is a pretty big industry in Iran.

Iran is very problematic regarding the state sponsored religion & religious follows of other sects have second class citizen status, even their blasphemy law makes an exception for Sunni Islam but not quite as bad as Saudi Arabia in numerous other ways. A Seperation, a foreign film from Iran itself didn't fit into my preconceived notions & the split in the marriage was over something one party was unwilling to compromise on & the other party had the freedom to make the decision based on the reason however there is a twist regarding murder chargers of a third person who suffered a miscarriage without revealing too much but it deserves its 100% rotten rating & doesn't take sides & very humanizing portrayal of the subjects that has a focus on family, religion, middle class, political & culture issues relevant to Iran citizens. Grabs & holds you even though I doubt much English is spoken, if at-all.

Anyways, I understand very well the perspective Larry Fitzgerald speaks of that only a tiny minority has so I research & learn constantly civilian life, government, & politics as I best I can of countries that ignite that curiosity. I recommend VICE documentary of Nigeria, Shell, & the dirtiest & filthiest body of water I ever saw. Blangledesh and how it relates to climate change I highly recommend, I can't think of any other country that is more at risk with more than 250,000 homes damaged by flooding creating a very unhygenic & toxic environment in addition to the practically non-existent economic opportunities accelerated by the extinction of the farming industry. Pathetic & pitiful keeps pushing the idea that global warming is a hoax or treat it as if its as a moon landing conspiracy. A well financially backed global warming (Koch, Ann Rand Institute, ExxonMobile, etc) skeptic event that appears very scientific but I love VICE transitioned from the guy saying Antartica has a record number of ice to the field scientist with one of the two glaciers about the size of Texas falling apart as if on cue during the filming.

As you can tell, I tend to become more passionate than I would over domestic issues but all of it is very related, especially in how it involves US policy.

[Comrade Grumpy]

21. Thank you for articulating the Likudnik line on Iran.

"The reality is that Iran, via Hamas, Hezbollah and the Revolutionary Guard is one of the most aggressive, dangerous nations on the planet, right now they are trying to control positions on the Golan Heights border with Israel hoping thatin the future will be able to open up a new front to attack Israel like Gaza and Lebanon."

1. Hamas and Hezbollah are essentially national liberation armies. And both resulted from earlier Israeli aggressions. Hezbollah arose after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon; Hamas responds to the continuing occupation of Palestinian lands. Hezbollah is not invading Israel, but it certainly serves to let Israel know it will pay a price if it wants to invade Lebanon again. As for Hamas, well, maybe Israel should have stuck with the PLO.

2. "One of the most aggressive, dangerous nations on the planet." What a crock. Even if one were to concede that Hezbollah and Hamas, who have some Iranian backing, don't like Israel, that's a danger for Israel, not the US, and not the whole planet.

And speaking of "aggressive, dangerous nations," I will point out that Iran did not invade and occupy its neighbor Afghanistan, the United States did. And Iran did not invade and occupy its neighbor Iraq, the United States did. And that Iran did not attack Iraq in the 1980s, Iraq attacked Iran, with the backing of the US and Israel.

And while Iran occasionally makes aspirational, day dreamy noises about a world without Israel, it is Israel that is directly threatening to attack Iran, not the other way around.

3. "right now they are trying to control positions on the Golan Heights border with Israel." That is tendentious crap. The Iranians are helping their ally, the Syrian government, try to regain control of Syrian national territory currently in the hands of Al Qaeada-affiliated rebels.

4. In the fight against ISIS, Iran is showing how it is done. More power to 'em.

[H2O Man]

26. My impression is that

Iran does not appear to have a history of invading neighboring people, in recent centuries. I wonder if that is related to its having much of its territory intact, versus a western-made "country" like Iraq? I'm curious what your thoughts are on this.

I could be wrong, but I don't see much to suggest that Iran is an aggressive entity, or a threat to the United States.

[rgbecker]

32. Thanks Grumpy, for getting to the core.

The propaganda lines getting repetition on DU need to be cut off.

[Mosby]

49. it's a fact that Iran

Has it's proxies in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Gaza.

They aren't there to make friends.

[Comrade Grumpy]

63. Calling them "proxies" denies any agency whatsoever to those groups.

All of which have their own goals and interests.

They are allied with Iran.

"Proxy" is just another loaded term.

I guess the Al Qaeda affiliate Al Nusra would be Israel's proxy? You seem awfully concerned that Syria is doing something about them in the Golan Heights.

[ND-Dem]

57. +100

[sabrina 1]

43. Has Iran ever threatened to start a war with the US?

I am aware of the hostage taking, all got out alive. I am also aware of the US backed coup that installed the brutal Shah regime leading to the hostage crisis and the manipulation of that crisis, criminal manipulation, by the Reagan/Bush Sr gang.

My question really is, 'did Iran initiate conflict with the US, by 'threatening' or taking any kind of military action towards prior to the US backing of the Coup, or since then?

There are lots of far more brutal regimes around the globe, so why the focus on one that by comparison to say, Uzbekistan, currently an ally of the US, seems positively civilized?

[Mosby]

48. why the focus?

Because Iran has their fighters RIGHT NOW in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Gaza.

[sabrina 1]

62. So do we. WE invaded a country right on their borders. Do you think other countries have no rights

to defend their National Interests? Are we SUPERIOR beings who get to invade and ravage any country we slap a label on, while they have ZERO right to even worry about our WMDs falling on populations right next door?

I might be stupid or something, but I opposed the invasion of Iraq for all kinds of reasons, one of them being that it would make the US LESS safe. Because I did recognize the rights of other nations who might also feel threatened by our WMDs, since we showed no hesitation to use them, to feel the need to defend themselves from us

You didn't answer my question though The ONLY reason this country should ever go to war is to defend itself from imminent danger

What imminent threat is Iran to the THIS COUNTRY?

Protecting its borders is not a threat to us. We should not have given them reason to feel threatened, but we did.

[Comrade Grumpy]

64. We invaded TWO countries right on their borders. And we're droning another one. Busy, Busy.

It's tough fending off Iranian aggression.

[malaise]

6. Iran is a very important topic but the American right have long wanted war against Iran

They have never forgiven Iran for overthrowing the Western puppet.
Can't give you advice on books on the subject since you clearly read many of them already.
I agree with you that Iran-Contra has not been discussed objectively but sadly most of American foreign policies since Reagan is you're with us or you're against us and the neo-cons and war profiteers don't care about the human cost of this 'bomb, bomb. bomb' approach. I don't know if they have the numbers to start a war but
ReTHUGs are capable of whipping up both fear and the anti-Muslim hysteria.

Sadly I don't think progressives discuss US foreign policy enough - many believe it is unpatriotic to disagree with US foreign policy.

[H2O Man]

10. Great response.

You've nailed several important points. None is more important than how the general ignorance in America prevents the public from understanding the real dynamics in Iranian-US relations.

I've mentioned this a few times before on DU, over the years: I remember at the end of the Iranian Hostage Crisis, Dick Gregory saying that America was incapable of understanding the Islamic world, because it had never come to grips with the meaning of Malcolm X's life. And he meant, of course, Malcolm's entire life, not just segments of it. Wise man, Dick Gregory.

[malaise]

15. Your response is even better

The thing is WaterMan, the day they come to grips with the meaning of Malcolm X's life is the day institutional racism is dead.
Late last night I was thinking about the Frat chant, Ferguson and Iran and it hit me - how do the Frat boys have the right to free speech, but not Rev Wright or the Imam's.
You see rights and tolerance are issues that are both national and international and the day you're not promoting the establishment interpretation of reality, your free speech is villified or outlawed.

So the meaning of Malcolm's life is as much as threat at home as the Iranians' rights to sovereignty or Obama's Minister's right to interpret America through his own experience of institutional racism.

They literally told Obama to abandon Rev Wright.
And yes Dick Gregory is one wise man - a treasure.

[moondust]

8. Something I'd be interested in.

I'd like to see somebody sit down with each of these U.S.-educated Iranian leaders and question them about THEOCRACY, to include whether or not they believe that should be the future of Iran. The old revolutionaries will be dying off and there may be some hope for secularization/moderation with the younger generation of internationalists.

[H2O Man]

11. Thank you!

You raise such an important point! There are segments of the Iranian population that could come to power,who would not pose the "dangers" -- real or otherwise -- that we are told that the current leadership poses.

A US attack (be it by our military, our allies, or any combination) isn't likely to be the same as when Israel hit a target in Iraq years ago. Nor would we be "welcomed as liberators" if we destroy their cities.

It's strange: many people believe that they can use controlled violence to make positive change. But violence frequently builds to the point where it controls those same people. I'm not suggesting that there is never a need to use force. I recognize the right to self-defense. But I suspect that those in the US advocating violence aimed at Iran have no idea what they are attempting to start. I'm particularly troubled by the extent that some "christian" leaders -- adults who believe in Santa God and Stained-Glass Jesus -- base their positions on their religious belief system.

[Wounded Bear]

19. re: The whole religious angle...

It is worth noting that Saddam Hussein was largely a secular leader. The Baathists were not really that fanatical on religious matters until after the invasion, and the idea that Hussein would really have any dealings with a religious jihaddi organization like al Qaeda flies in the face of reality. Hell, not too long ago, Baghdad was known as the "Paris of the Middle East" where there was little religious persecution, at least on the surface.

After Saddam was ousted, several countries in the area, like Turkey for one example, had what were promising progressive movements curtailed, derailed, and outright arrested.

By invading and taking out Saddam, we have encouraged countless religous fanatics to join these militant jihaddi groups. Not to mention adding in the whole revenge factor.

[JonLP24]

20. There was no political sitaution beneficial to a group like ISIS

to enter given that Ba'th party in Iraq was dominated by Sunnis & friendly overall to the Sunni population. Baghdad's neighborhoods were more mixed than they are now though Shia were relegated in "Saddam City" now "Sadr City" however oppression or political imprisoning came down sectarian lines.

US installed Al-Maliki as Prime Minister who was a political leader of the opposition parties to Saddam Hussein who spent exile in Iran since the 70s who seem to couldn't wait to get his revenge with his liberal use of the new "anti-terrorism" laws to brutally oppress the minority populations which make up the northern half. The entirety of Fallujah conflicts 2004-2005 more conducive to the Al-Qaeda issue as well as jump starting the Iraq civil war. Regarding a lot of wars, especially the Yugoslavia wars and political environments typical of post-colonization is people tend to slide into their groups or identities that define them.

Al-Maliki created the vacuum, the homes of Sunni officials in government were raided at-least a handful times if not more. 1 was killed during these raids, the highest elected Sunni official fled a political prosecution thanks to the help of "Kurdistan" which the Iraq government was still smarting over last article I recently read & wish I remember where I found out because their KRG quote regarding Al-Maliki's oppression is terrific. ISIS takes over Mosul, 44 Sunnis get shot in the chest in jail. Then civilians are killed, a lot of tit-for-tat stuff that went back years but one side had the government's approval unofficial or not but they didn't get in the way. This went on for years, the protests started in 2011 simply demanding fair participation or land with a government to address their interests. Then came the 2014 ISIS offensive.

ISIS spents a lot of time fighting over control of its rivers & dams for very good reasons. Saddam used the water supply as a political weapon, flooding Shia crops or cutting them off to force them in line. ISIS has a functional system when you cooperate. Regarding Iraq, they easily could have avoided of all this--US shouldn't have staffed the new government almost entirely by appointments rather than trusting the people but now the northern half doesn't see it as legitimate which left a vacuum wide open while & heavily financed & organized group took advantage. Qatar, heavily involved in the post-Arab Spring, financing & organizing a Wahabbi cult to fill the power vacuum but overall oppressive leaders weren't helpful regarding all this.

I will point out something I found very, very interesting regarding Saddam Hussein.

A DAY THAT SHOOK IRAQ: SADDAM GRANTS "COMPLETE AND FINAL AMNESTY" TO ALL PRISONERS

ABU GHRAIB, IRAQ—It was a scene that sounds unthinkable and Iraq is still in a state of stunned jubilation. Thousands of people jammed the streets in front of one of Iraq's most notorious prisons today just moments after Iraqi President Saddam Hussein announced a "complete, comprehensive and final amnesty" for all prisoners, including those accused of political crimes and crimes against the state.

Earlier in the day word spread through Baghdad that the Iraqi president was going to address the nation with what several people said was "good news." Shortly after noon, regular programming on all of Iraq's television stations was interrupted by an announcement by Iraq's Information Minister Mohammed Sahaf.

"Prisoners, detainees will be set free immediately," Sahaf said in a statement attributed to the Iraqi President. He said the amnesty applied to "anyone imprisoned or arrested for political or any other reason."

In another decree, the amnesty was extended to Arab prisoners, excluding those held or sentenced on charges of spying for Israel and the United States.

Sahaf said the amnesty was intended as a gift to the Iraqi people for their support of Saddam in last week's referendum, in which the president claimed a 100-percent 'yes' vote.

http://www.iraqjournal.org/journals/021020.html

I don't know much about the referendum but many articles note the mass reunion celebrations, especially regarding the celebrations that took place of families reunited outside of Abu Gharib. US action created more problems than it solved & his execution at "Camp Justice"

[H2O Man]

28. Extremely important point.

Thank you for that!

While I do not have a high opinion of Saddam, I found it interesting how he was not a threat to the US when we were selling him weapons. But, once he outlived his usefulness, son of a gun: he was as bad as Hitler.

[leveymg]

36. The rising generation of Iranian leaders are less Americanized than those who graduated pre-'79.

That, may indeed be unfortunate for both countries, and presents a closing window of opportunity to get some heavy-lifting diplomacy done.

[moondust]

38. What makes you think that?

Yes, they have been exposed longer to the anti-American revolutionary fervor and propaganda, but if they bought into it why would they then want to go live and study for years with the "Great Satan" rather than, say, somewhere in Europe? Maybe they're more enlightened than the old guys, and by that I don't mean "Americanized."

[leveymg]

39. Try to get a student visa in Tehran these days.

US, UK, France, Germany . . . not likely. China, India, Russia, maybe.

Unfortunate, really.

[moondust]

40. You're saying

the US, UK, etc. won't grant visas to students in Iran but China, etc. will? Or the Iranian gov't won't allow students to go to US, UK, etc.?

[leveymg]

41. The former.

The generation that is in power understands America pretty well. That's a good thing.

[moondust]

44. ?

http://iran.usembassy.gov/education/student-visas.html

[leveymg]

45. That's the same boilerplate on all US consulates. But, try to actually get a visa there. . .

It doesn't exist, except in cyberspace.

[moondust]

46. Sanctions law covers energy and nuclear sectors.

(a) The Secretary of State shall deny a visa to, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall exclude from the United States, any alien who is a citizen of Iran that the Secretary of State determines seeks to enter the United States to participate in coursework at an institution of higher education (as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)) to prepare the alien for a career in the energy sector of Iran or in nuclear science or nuclear engineering or a related field in Iran.

http://www.nafsa.org/Resource_Library_Assets/Regulatory_Information/Sanctions_Law_Applies_To_Iranian_Students_Preparing_For_Energy_or_Nuclear_Sector_Careers_In_Iran/

Makes sense, but that wasn't signed into law until 2012. Don't know about other fields of study or what the guys in the picture above studied.

The Internet may also play a +/- role these days depending on how strict the censorship.

[JonLP24]

12. Saudi Arabia pushes the US strongly against Iran

They worked out a deal with Pakistan to where Pakistan can deliver a nuke on-demand to Saudi Arabia & blamed the US for this because they weren't tougher on Iran.

The embargo was when Saudi Arabia finally started using their oil as a political weapon due to their differences regarding their ally Israel, the weapons for oil was in response to that, US persuaded Israel with Syria worked out to keep prices lower to harm Iran & another sweeter was taking Saudi Arabia's side regarding Iran's despite over territory in Bahrain.

Saudi Arabia & Israel was a constant balancing act for the US in terms of trying to please both but when it came to Iran, all 3 lined up against them & especially (not too familiar with Israel regarding specifics) with Saudi Arabia pressuring the US to strong arm in Iran.

I think the bottom line with Iran has to do with willingness to play ball with of the 3 largest proven oil reserves. Let Shell & ExxonMobile have free reign relations would improve. Even today I doubt nukes has very little to do with it. Geopolitics of oil & the "shale gas boom" was a big game changer so I strongly believe there is an oil strategy at-play but it is still early to guess. Certainly countries that are allowed to import from Iran wanted more Iranian oil but there may be something long term at play here.

I'm wondering if a proxy war between Iran & Saudi is the eventual goal, especially with Canada moving up to #1 with Saudi Arabia falling to a very distant second but countries but you can see multinational access & US rhetoric to the rest of the top 5 (Venezuela, Nigeria, Mexico). Syria is the country were numerous foreign countries are fighting proxy wars, supporting rivals depending on the enemy or countries alligned even North Korea is in the mix.

Iraq is basically a country Iran took over almost entirely by accident, Iran's influence is strong in the new Iraq government & militias forces especially when minority government officials had their homes raided & one fled to Turkey in a political prosecution (who got the death penalty in a trial that took place without him), one was killed during those home raids. Iraq's new government came with some anti-terrorism laws which allows for indefinite detention & all kinds of reduced rights he liberally uses against minorities or widely against Sunni civilians. In Syria, Iraq & Iran are allied with Assad which Russia & North Korea boarded. There are also dozens of Shia militias there. The Arabian Peninsula allies are on board with predominantly Sunni rebel forces. Not much besides the US when it came to the Kurds in the east but I have admired the examples set by their unofficial government, they helped the highest elected Sunni official escape to Turkey. Have operated or supported refugee camps inside their unofficial borders which.

Back to US, Iran, & Saudi Arabia -- if anyone is more unhappy than the Republicans it is them so the US knows very well how much pleasing they'll have to do with Saudi Arabia but this may have to do with OPEC more than 1 or the either. We'll see but I think nukes is the smoke screen to all this, especially regarding who else has access to nukes & who can put them in the wrong hands. *cough* Pakistan *cough*

[CanSocDem]

18. Great thread.(eom) k&r

[H2O Man]

24. Thanks!

It's an interesting discussion. Considering that the Middle East is a topic that DUers can find lots to disagree on, I'm impressed that this conversation is going quite well.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Books you could read forever, go talk to some Iranians. Republicans, of course they want war and

Iran is easy to pronounce and has oil so that makes it great fodder for them. Do I think they have actual, specific, valid national security reasons to feel that war with Iran is prudent? No.
I do think it is an important issue that has been facing our country since prior to my birth. I think your analysis should include Saudi Arabia.

Here's a flashback for you.
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/iran-crisis-america-held-hostage-9049607

[H2O Man]

23. Both Jon and you

mention Saudi Arabia. If either one of you alone had, I'd know it's an important part for me (all of us) to take into account. When both of you do, then even more so.

Living in (very) rural upstate New York, I do not have many opportunities to talk to a wide range of people. And, with my current physical issues, I haven't been able to travel much, for some time now. However, I have had the pleasure of talking with a number of people from the Middle East over the years -- though relatively few Iranians, since my college days.

There are definite advantages to exposing one's self to al forms of education, formal and otherwise.

(If my memory serves me correctly, we are in about the same range of age. So, I suppose quite a few folks our age are thinking that we've heard a lot of the nonsense spurting out of Washington before.)

[JonLP24]

50. I think I'm much younger or pretty sure -- I'm 28

the reason why I mentioned the traveling opportunities is because I have been to Kuwait & traveled extensively inside Iraq (though 1 trip a little southeast of Mosul. I didn't go because I was duped or anything related to that, the combination of several things came together to convince me to do something I saw as the last thing I'd possibly do -- sign up for the military. I didn't want a job that involved killing but something that I easily recognized as something I could easily transition to a civilian career so semi-truck convoys (or heavy vehicle operator ) is what I ended up doing.

What I imagined it would be like wasn't close to at all as to what it was really like. The widespread use of "Haji" to refer to the local population or even the Third-Country Nationals. Bootleg copies of movies were "Haji copies" & the shops that sold them were "Haji shops". That bugged me as I never one into generalizing or stereotyping, luckily I had a rare Platoon Sergeant who was simarily bothered by it. Trash is often dealt with by littering, highways of manholes, potholes, mangled guard rails, & roadside litter with "M SR TAMPA" identifying what road you're on, we drove at night due to less visibility & curfew, I rarely saw anybody even the one time driving over the bridge in Baghdad on Halloween night, and continued through 3 traffic circles. I agree with the Paris comparison with Baghdad, driving over that bridge was a very beautiful sight but it was eery that nobody was outside in such a large city.

With that said, I had basically no opportunity to hear or interact with the local populations except for the shops at CSC Scania. However, the reason why or the thing that surprised me the most is how much labor is imported from India, Nepal, Philippines, countries in Africa and I did have lots of opportunities to hear from them given that 25-30 of them went with us on each convoy & was paid $300 a month to do the same thing but with fiberglass Merdecedes Semi-trucks, no weapon, or armor if they had a kevlar they acquired it from a soldier who gave them one & coming up with an "extra" Kevlar is would entirely be by accident or theft. Most of them & this seem to be very common is most of them would invite you to their truck, offer tea, offer twice in response to no which 2 nos was advised as rude in the in-briefings. Explained what the bottom of shoe means which gave me a good understanding why the Iraqi journalist specifically threw his shoe at Bush -- intended to insult in the worst way possible in the circumstances. He had a lot fans that showed up on his day in court.

I got to know a Nepalese very well who viewed America as the terrific place that he wanted to immigrate or live there so badly, I thought maybe he imagined as better than it really is, especially considering how America was treating him at the moment. I took a personal interest into it, tried at-first to inform others of the labor abuses but even a soldier who was there pointing this out has a hard time eliciting concern, much less outrage. Some responses were, "Oh, just like Mexicans" another was -- when I mentioned the bait & switch recruiters, "They remind me of Army recruiters". Not only was the pay cheap, living conditions very substandard & treatment abusive. They are ignored by the media & the Pentagon doesn't keep a tally of their casualties. US troops are awarded medals while TCNs--who did the vast majority of the work & ignored, not even acknowledged much less an official thanks. Not entirely but a large portion are Muslims that I wish Maher types were aware of because even though they were tricked into paying about $3,000 in recruiting fees for a $7,000 per year job in very dangerous areas that have their passports taken when they arrive & lived in a contractor compound -- a lot of them take in good stride, continue to be positive, & are very nice & generous. I want to improve military defense policy because that is symptomatic of the problems we have here at home & the public in terms of every single person I mention it to outside of DU didn't even know they existed.

The overall Iraq & regional history is a personal interest of mine because I do appreciate & wouldn't change the opportunity to see the 2 countries of Iraq & Kuwait for anything in the world. Kuwait, I couldn't say much about but you can tell a lot of money was spent on infrastructure. Parts of Kuwait City look like Miami, you could tell there is a lot of money in Kuwait. Iraq interested me more, mornings in central Iraq were something special in a way I can't describe.

That is just to better explain my position in this, I opposed it early just because of the recognized BS of the argument & the ridiculous Saddam & 9/11, I wanted to scream every-time I heard the two things linked together & the rare political discussions that did happen, 1 claimed that they actually did find WMDs & both were backing McCain & given that I was from Arizona did my best to talk those 2 out of it. 1 of the 2 was the wrestler I mentioned in the Mayweather-Pacquaio thread. One of my basic training friends believed we wouldn't have to go or buy the end of the year (2006) the war will be over due to political opposition but I felt differently regarding the Bush dynamic of government actions. Most or overall or preferred not to be in at-war. I remember many would under no circumstances re-enlist eventually re-enlist (those bonuses are hard to pass up -- I got a $20,000 bonus just for choosing 88M -- reenlistment bonuses for 88M were very high)

[H2O Man]

52. I know you are.

I meant the gentleman I was talking to.

[JonLP24]

53. Oops

Confused the we with the subject line & the nonsense out of Washington seemed to apply because how often & regular nonsense comes out of nonsense I've noticed in my experience but there is the further elaboration where I'm coming from.

The main thing I originally intended to point out with the Fitzgerald example is his experience in visiting many different countries was different than how the media portrays the country which I think is important. I didn't mean much more than that except to explain why Southwest Asia is a pet issue of mine.

[ND-Dem]

58. So the US military's privatized operations are using cheap imported 3rd world labor

from Africa, etc? Am I understanding you right? and they get paid & treated worse than locals or americans?

and what's 88M? are you familiar with the use of '88' by neo-nazis?

[JonLP24]

59. Mostly India & Nepal

Countries in Africa, not sure specifically which ones make up a large part of it. I posted sources down thread & the UCLA law review has an excellent detailed view of this.

I'm very unfamiliar with what 88 means to neo-Nazis.

88M -- Military Transport Operator
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjobs/a/88m.htm

[KG]

27. iran is a convenient bogeyman like NK for both parties to use to justify outragous defense spending

[H2O Man]

29. "Axis of Evil"

Do you think that the chances of the US and/or one of our allies attempting a military strike (or strikes) against Iran is increasing? (I ask, because some of my friends think that this would be too stupid a move, even for the neoconservatives to seriously try.)

Thanks!

[KG]

30. neocons? wouldn't put past the neo-libs. let's not pretend there aren't some dems that

would have signed onto cotton letter.

[H2O Man]

33. Right.

I use the word "neoconservative" in its original manner -- and the majority of the early movement were absolutely democrats. A great example of a 1970s neocon was Daniel Patrick Moynihan (who was equally comfortable serving Nixon, as JFK or LBJ).

In my opinion, there is a very good chance that there will be military aggression aimed at Iran after 2016. And I do not believe that one party would be 100% responsible.

[davidn3600]

47. Yeah but North Korea is a different animal...and we are officially still at war with them

That government truly is nuts, and a threat.

The Korean war never ended, no peace treaty signed. If they step across the DMZ, we are at war with that country automatically.

[leveymg]

35. Gary Sick, "October Surprise" (Times Books, 1992)

Review From Library Journal:
Piercing the shadowy netherworld of international espionage, Sick has written one of the most controversial and disturbing accounts of political intrigue to appear in recent years. In 1980, William Casey, then campaign manager of the Reagan-Bush ticket, without the knowledge or approval of the legitimate government, arranged a deal with the Iranian government that in return for military equipment, the Iranians would not release the 52 American hostages until Ronald Reagan was safely inaugurated. Sick offers no proof, nor does he try to, that George Bush took part in these talks, or that Reagan was aware of this international scam. What is critical and potentially devastating is that a party out of power subverted the democratic process for gain. Sick, with impeccable credentials as one of America's leading authorities on Iran, presents a thoroughly documented, convincing appraisal of what he describes as nothing less than a political coup. Highly recommended for current affairs collections. Previewed in Prepub Alert, LJ 10/15/91.

[PufPuf23]

42. A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East

http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805068848/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426367813&sr=1-3&keywords=the+war+to+end+all+peace

A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East is a book not about Iran nor about the 21st century but about WWI, the Middle East, and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire.

People, more specifically political leadership and monied or powered interests, do not change - they are assholes to most of us and the planet and want war as they stab each other in the back.

Good read. Thanks for the post. I hope the rhetoric continues as rhetoric and not war, specifically nuclear.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

51. I can think of less important questions facing voters, but to be honest, Iran isn't really important

to me.

#1 would have to be working to undo climate damage by coordinated efforts to stop using fossil fuels as quickly as possible.
#2 would be to 100% publicly funded politics, so that our politicians were not beholden to any donor or donors, and would quit voting in favour of whoever gave them the most money.

After that you go into anti-poverty measures like raising minimum wages, radical reform of the 'justice' system and police procedures to end structural racism issues and change the police from being enforcers of authoritarianism to being actual servants and protectors of the people, allowing the government to run businesses in competition with the private sector so as to raise revenue in a way that doesn't involve taxes, placing the needs of regular citizens above those of corporations (such as by suspending water contracts with bottled water manufacturers during droughts), reigning in the MIC and surveillance state, bringing our domestic war criminals to justice, and on and on and on. Worrying about Iran is wayyyyy down on my list.

(Edit: Obviously, I only really dealt with your third question.)

[JonLP24]

54. Misread or confused which post you replied that you wanted more details on

I thought it is the Academi name change or the Ashcroft.

In addition to the study which is more complete & explains more of the background CorpWatch & Al Jazeera appear to be one of the few sources that reported on this long-term. I think the best one to start with is what the labor contracted to build the largest US embassy which is located in Iraq.

A U.S. Fortress Rises in Baghdad:
Asian Workers Trafficked to Build World's Largest Embassy

(bait & switch recruiters)


John Owens didn’t realize how different his job would be from his last 27 years in construction until he signed on with First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting in November 2005. Working as general foreman, he would be overseeing an army of workers building the largest, most expensive and heavily fortified US embassy in the world. Scheduled to open in 2007, the sprawling complex near the Tigris River will equal Vatican City in size.

Then seven months into the job, he quit.

Not one of the five different US embassy sites he had worked on around the world compared to the mess he describes. Armenia, Bulgaria, Angola, Cameroon and Cambodia all had their share of dictators, violence and economic disruption, but the companies building the embassies were always fair and professional, he says. The Kuwait-based company building the $592-million Baghdad project is the exception. Brutal and inhumane, he says “I’ve never seen a project more fucked up. Every US labor law was broken.”

In the resignation letter last June, Owens told First Kuwaiti and US State Department officials that his managers beat their construction workers, demonstrated little regard for worker safety, and routinely breached security.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14173

(2005)

Invisible and Indispensable Army of Low-Paid Workers

This mostly invisible, but indispensable army of low-paid workers has helped set new records for the largest civilian workforce ever hired in support of a U.S. war. They may be the most significant factor to the Pentagon’s argument that privatizing military support services is far more cost-efficient for the U.S. taxpayer than using its own troops to maintain camps and feed its ranks.

But American contractors returning home frequently share horrible tales of the working and living conditions that these TCNs endure on a daily basis.

TCNs frequently sleep in crowded trailers, wait outside in line in 100 degree heat to eat “slop,” lack adequate medical care and work almost every waking hour seven days a week for little or no overtime pay. Frequently, the workers lack proper safety equipment for hard labor

<snip>

Adding to these hardships, some TCNs complain publicly about not being paid according to their contracts and they also accuse their employers of “bait-and-switch” recruitment tactics where they are falsely recruited for jobs in the Middle East and then pressured to work in Iraq. Once in Iraq, their passports are held to prevent them from escaping. All of these problems have resulted in labor disputes, including labor strikes and work stoppages at US military camps.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12675

The taking of passports is a pretty common thing reported on.

5 things you need to know about the U.S. military's war workers



"In December 2008, South Asian workers, two thousand miles or more from their homes, staged a protest on the outskirts of Baghdad. The reason: Up to 1,000 of them had been confined in a windowless warehouse and other dismal living quarters without money or work for as long as three months[...]

The men came to Iraq lured by the promise of employment by Najlaa International Catering Services, a subcontractor performing work for Houston-based KBR, Inc. under the Army’s Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) III contract.

Now, a cache of internal corporate and government documents obtained by POGO offer insight into this episode of alleged war zone human trafficking by companies working for the U.S.—and suggest that hardly anyone has been held accountable for what may be violations of U.S. law."

<snip>

The wars’ foreign workers are known, in military parlance, as “third-country nationals,” or T.C.N.s. Many of them recount having been robbed of wages, injured without compensation, subjected to sexual assault, and held in conditions resembling indentured servitude by their subcontractor bosses. Previously unreleased contractor memos, hundreds of interviews, and government documents I obtained during a yearlong investigation confirm many of these claims and reveal other grounds for concern. Widespread mistreatment even led to a series of food riots in Pentagon subcontractor camps, some involving more than a thousand workers."

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/fault-lines/FaultLinesBlog/2014/3/6/america-s-war-workersbackgroundreading.html

The above story links to something more specific to the assertions in the last part

Documents Reveal Details of Alleged Labor Trafficking by KBR Subcontractor

In December 2008, South Asian workers, two thousand miles or more from their homes, staged a protest on the outskirts of Baghdad. The reason: Up to 1,000 of them had been confined in a windowless warehouse and other dismal living quarters without money or work for as long as three months.

In a typical comment made by the laborers to news organizations at the time, Davidson Peters, a 42-year-old Sri Lankan man, told a McClatchy Newspapers reporter that "They promised us the moon and stars...While we are here, wives have left their husbands and children have been shut out of their schools” because money for their families back home had dried up.

The men came to Iraq lured by the promise of employment by Najlaa International Catering Services, a subcontractor performing work for Houston-based KBR, Inc. under the Army’s Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) III contract.

Now, a cache of internal corporate and government documents obtained by POGO offer insight into this episode of alleged war zone human trafficking by companies working for the U.S.—and suggest that hardly anyone has been held accountable for what may be violations of U.S. law.

http://www.pogo.org/blog/2011/06/documents-reveal-details-of-alleged-labor-trafficking-by-kbr-subcontractor.html

This is one of the most important articles in all of its reporting

After 12 years of war, labor abuses rampant on US bases in Afghanistan (article directly links to the executive order)

A year and a half after President Barack Obama issued an executive order outlawing human trafficking and forced labor on U.S. military bases, a five-month investigation by “Fault Lines” has found compelling evidence that these abuses remain pervasive at U.S. facilities in Afghanistan.

<snip>

At Camp Marmal, the most prominent Fluor subcontractor is Ecolog International. One current Ecolog employee we met, who didn’t want to be identified, said he paid $4,000 to an agent in his village for a job he was told would pay $1,200 per month. His recruiter told him the final papers would be signed in Dubai, a crucial stopping point for workers en route to Afghanistan. In Dubai he learned his salary would be only $500 per month. Because he had borrowed money at a high interest rate to pay his recruitment fee, he had no choice but to work for an entire year just to earn enough money to pay off his loan.

“We can call this bonded labor or human trafficking, because it all starts with false promises about what the job is, and they have to pay an amount to get the job,” Kavinamannil explains. “Debt will make you work anywhere. It doesn’t matter if it’s a war zone.” When we reached out to Fluor, which manages Camp Marmal, the company said it “provides hotlines to allow individuals to report anonymously any suspected instances of human trafficking” and holds its subcontractors to a “zero tolerance policy regarding trafficking in persons.”

Yet that Ecolog employee’s experience is fairly typical. Of 75 people “Fault Lines” contacted who work or used to work on U.S. bases across Afghanistan, 65 said they paid agents fees ranging from $1,000 to $5,000. Many said their monthly salaries, generally $400 to $800, ran several hundred dollars short of what they were promised. Some paid fees, only to be warehoused by an agent for months and never receive a job. Nearly everyone we talked to was still paying back loans.

According to a former human resources manager at a major subcontractor in Afghanistan, who asked to remain anonymous, subcontractors intentionally steer potential South Asian job candidates through third-party recruiters. The workers we spoke with confirmed this experience, saying that when they attempted to apply directly to companies like Ecolog, they received no response or were directed to apply through an agent.

<snip>

n other words, because taking fees from applicants is illegal, subcontractors outsource hiring to recruiters who are willing to pass a portion of their fees up the chain. As a result, applicants who pay recruiting fees are often indirectly paying their employer — the subcontractor — simply for the opportunity to work.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/3/7/after-12-years-ofwarlaborabusesrampantonusbasesinafghanistan.html

The reason why this article is important is the executive order specifically prohibits the things mentioned in the article. One of the things is fees but this is the difference the EO made

For these men, the U.S. military’s regulations to discourage trafficking have had no impact. “We’ve already paid the agents for the job,” explained a man named Kumaran, who said his agent — after collecting a hefty fee — made him sign a declaration stating he had not paid anything. “If we tell the U.S. military that we paid a fee, they’ll just send us back, and we’ll lose everything.”

[Jefferson23]

55. There are a number of links you may find of interest..it seems you already

cover a good deal of them. A few more to round out more of the recent history:
Great thread, btw.



U.S. Rejected Israeli Demand for Iran Nuclear Confession 3/2014
http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/03/u-s-rejected-israeli-demand-iran-nuclear-confession/

The Iranian Nuclear Weapons Programme That Wasn’t 4/2014
http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/04/iranian-nuclear-weapons-programme-wasnt/

Khamenei Remarks Show Both Sides Maneuvre on Enrichment 7/2014
http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/07/khamenei-remarks-show-both-sides-maneuvre-on-enrichment/

History of Key Document in IAEA Probe Suggests Israeli Forgery 10/2014
http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/10/history-of-key-document-in-iaea-probe-suggests-israeli-forgery/

The real problem of "getting to yes" with Iran 2/2015
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-real-problem-of-getti-by-Gareth-Porter-Iran_Negotiation_Nuclear_Sanctions-150214-304.html

Author: Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare
http://harpers.org/blog/2014/05/manufactured-crisis-the-untold-story-of-the-iran-nuclear-scare/

Noam Chomsky: Opposing Iran Nuclear Deal, Israel’s Goal Isn’t Survival — It’s Regional Dominance

snip*AMY GOODMAN: Well, Noam, let’s start with Netanyahu’s visit. He is set to make this unprecedented joint address to Congress, unprecedented because of the kind of rift it has demonstrated between the Republicans and the Democratic president, President Obama. Can you talk about its significance?

NOAM CHOMSKY: For both president—Prime Minister Netanyahu and the hawks in Congress, mostly Republican, the primary goal is to undermine any potential negotiation that might settle whatever issue there is with Iran. They have a common interest in ensuring that there is no regional force that can serve as any kind of deterrent to Israeli and U.S. violence, the major violence in the region. And it is—if we believe U.S. intelligence—don’t see any reason not to—their analysis is that if Iran is developing nuclear weapons, which they don’t know, it would be part of their deterrent strategy. Now, their general strategic posture is one of deterrence. They have low military expenditures. According to U.S. intelligence, their strategic doctrine is to try to prevent an attack, up to the point where diplomacy can set in. I don’t think anyone with a grey cell functioning thinks that they would ever conceivably use a nuclear weapon, or even try to. The country would be obliterated in 15 seconds. But they might provide a deterrent of sorts. And the U.S. and Israel certainly don’t want to tolerate that. They are the forces that carry out regular violence and aggression in the region and don’t want any impediment to that.

And for the Republicans in Congress, there’s another interest—namely, to undermine anything that Obama, you know, the entity Christ, might try to do. So that’s a separate issue there. The Republicans stopped being an ordinary parliamentary party some years ago. They were described, I think accurately, by Norman Ornstein, the very respected conservative political analyst, American Enterprise Institute; he said the party has become a radical insurgency which has abandoned any commitment to parliamentary democracy. And their goal for the last years has simply been to undermine anything that Obama might do, in an effort to regain power and serve their primary constituency, which is the very wealthy and the corporate sector. They try to conceal this with all sorts of other means. In doing so, they’ve had to—you can’t get votes that way, so they’ve had to mobilize sectors of the population which have always been there but were never mobilized into an organized political force: evangelical Christians, extreme nationalists, terrified people who have to carry guns into Starbucks because somebody might be after them, and so on and so forth. That’s a big force. And inspiring fear is not very difficult in the United States. It’s a long history, back to colonial times, of—as an extremely frightened society, which is an interesting story in itself. And mobilizing people in fear of them, whoever "them" happens to be, is an effective technique used over and over again. And right now, the Republicans have—their nonpolicy has succeeded in putting them back in a position of at least congressional power. So, the attack on—this is a personal attack on Obama, and intended that way, is simply part of that general effort. But there is a common strategic concern underlying it, I think, and that is pretty much what U.S. intelligence analyzes: preventing any deterrent in the region to U.S. and Israeli actions.

AARON MATÉ: You say that nobody with a grey cell thinks that Iran would launch a strike, were it to have nuclear weapons, but yet Netanyahu repeatedly accuses Iran of planning a new genocide against the Jewish people. He said this most recently on Holocaust Remembrance Day in January, saying that the ayatollahs are planning a new holocaust against us. And that’s an argument that’s taken seriously here.

NOAM CHOMSKY: It’s taken seriously by people who don’t stop to think for a minute. But again, Iran is under extremely close surveillance. U.S. satellite surveillance knows everything that’s going on in Iran. If Iran even began to load a missile—that is, to bring a missile near a weapon—the country would probably be wiped out. And whatever you think about the clerics, the Guardian Council and so on, there’s no indication that they’re suicidal.

AARON MATÉ: The premise of these talks—Iran gets to enrich uranium in return for lifting of U.S. sanctions—do you see that as a fair parameter? Does the U.S. have the right, to begin with, to be imposing sanctions on Iran?

NOAM CHOMSKY: No, it doesn’t. What are the right to impose sanctions? Iran should be imposing sanctions on us. I mean, it’s worth remembering—when you hear the White House spokesman talk about the international community, it wants Iran to do this and that, it’s important to remember that the phrase "international community" in U.S. discourse refers to the United States and anybody who may be happening to go along with it. That’s the international community. If the international community is the world, it’s quite a different story. So, two years ago, the Non-Aligned—former Non-Aligned Movement—it’s a large majority of the population of the world—had their regular conference in Iran in Tehran. And they, once again, vigorously supported Iran’s right to develop nuclear power as a signer of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. That’s the international community. The United States and its allies are outliers, as is usually the case.

And as far as sanctions are concerned, it’s worth bearing in mind that it’s now 60 years since—during the past 60 years, not a day has passed without the U.S. torturing the people of Iran. It began with overthrowing the parliamentary regime and installing a tyrant, the shah, supporting the shah through very serious human rights abuses and terror and violence. As soon as he was overthrown, almost instantly the United States turned to supporting Iraq’s attack against Iran, which was a brutal and violent attack. U.S. provided critical support for it, pretty much won the war for Iraq by entering directly at the end. After the war was over, the U.S. instantly supported the sanctions against Iran. And though this is kind of suppressed, it’s important. This is George H.W. Bush now. He was in love with Saddam Hussein. He authorized further aid to Saddam in opposition to the Treasury and others. He sent a presidential delegation—a congressional delegation to Iran. It was April 1990—1989, headed by Bob Dole, the congressional—
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/2/noam_chomsky_opposing_iran_nuclear_deal

The real story behind the Republicans’ Iran letter 3/13/2015
http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/real-story-behind-republicans-iran-letter-1104421078

Chomsky The Israel Lobby? ( Review of John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt )
Noam Chomsky
March 28, 2006
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060328.htm

[bananas]

56. The Federation of American Scientists and the Carnegie Endowment for Peace did a joint report

Iran’s Nuclear Odyssey: Costs and Risks
Ali Vaez, Karim Sadjadpour
April 2, 2013

It's in html and pdf format at the Carnegie website:
http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/04/02/iran-s-nuclear-odyssey-costs-and-risks/

It's only in pdf format at the FAS website (FAS keeps rearranging their site, had to go find it again):
http://fas.org/pub-reports/new-report-analyzing-irans-nuclear-program-costs-risks/

Here's a Reuters article about it:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/03/us-iran-nuclear-report-idUSBRE93200620130403

Iran's nuclear program entails huge costs, few benefits: report
By Yeganeh Torbati
DUBAI Tue Apr 2, 2013 8:11pm EDT

(Reuters) - Iran will pursue its nuclear quest although it has reaped few gains from a totem of national pride that has cost it well over $100 billion in lost oil revenue and foreign investment alone, two think-tanks said on Wednesday.

A report by the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Federation of American Scientists said Iran's atomic work could not simply be ended or "bombed away" and that diplomacy was the only way to keep it peaceful.

"It is entangled with too much pride - however misguided - and sunk costs simply to be abandoned," the report's authors, Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group and Carnegie's Karim Sadjadpour, said of Iran's five-decade-old nuclear program, which began under the U.S.-allied shah.

<snip>

"No sound strategic energy planning would prioritize nuclear energy in a country like Iran," the report said.

"Instead of enhancing Iran's energy security, the nuclear program has diminished the country's ability to diversify and achieve real energy independence."

<snip>

A couple of items from the report:

- Iran’s solar energy potential is estimated to be thirteen times higher than its total energy needs. By offering Iran cutting-edge alternative energy technologies, a positive precedent could be set for other nuclear-hopefuls.

- Despite aspirations to be self-sufficient, Iran’s relatively small uranium resources will inhibit the country from having an indigenous nuclear energy program.

[H2O Man]

60. Very good!

Thank you for this.

I don't think that there is much question that Iran's nuclear program is primarily aimed at gaining access to the same type of weapons that several in their neighborhood have. In fact, I believe that the purpose of the international negotiations President Obama is involved in are for: the create a 10-year delay in their effort to gain nuclear weapons.

I'd much prefer that no nation have such weapons. Knowing so many do, does not create a sense of safety and comfort for me. Still, I do not believe that if Iran eventually develops or acquires such weapons, that Iran would thus pose an existential threat to the US or our allies.

More, as the one article you quoted states, negotiations are now the best way to deal with anyone/ everyone's concerns.

[mmonk]

61. I think the day when multi-national corporate interests

no longer dictate US foreign policy, things eventually will curve towards less conflicts. After all, Iran tried democracy but we overthrew it and inserted the Shah. The consequences, they are ruled by Ayatollahs.

[DirkGently]

65. ME country refuses to play ball with U.S., Israel.

Iran isn't our enemy because Islam. Iran isn't our enemy because nukes. Iran is a relatively stable player in a strategically important region that reliably fails to do what we tell it to do.

We've been mucking with them for who-knows-how-long, notably foisting an unpopular dictator on them and then bailing him out when he failed.

In return, Iran mucks with Western / Israeli interests at every opportunity. Isn't that why we built up Iraq before then tearing it down?

Whether Republicans like McCain actually want war or are just delivering a level of belligerence they favor to keep the U.S. population worked up so we can frighten them isn't clear to me, but it is clear Iran has never been "after" the U.S. on the grounds of religious hatred or "Western decadence" or what have you.

Culture wars play well with the people here, but it's quite amazing how well the realpolitik players are able to convince Americans we might just need to spend billions, kill, and die because "them people over that hates our freedums!"

I know the Sunni / Shia thing is an element (and one I don't understand that well) but again it just feels like we play segments of foreign cultures against each other the same way we play our own culture against whatever foreign power is getting in the way of the money or the oil or whatever they've got that our oligarchs believe belongs to them.

[Octafish]

66. Spider's Web by Alan Friedman

Spider's Web: The secret history of how the White House illegally armed Iraq

President George H. W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker secretly shaped the American embrace of Saddam Hussein. Their idea was to turn Iraq into a "Regional Policeman" to counter Iran. Guess who gets the oil?

Nice talk with Amy Goodman and DemocracyNow!: http://www.democracynow.org/2003/12/17/spiders_web_the_secret_history_of

PS: Great OP and thread, H2OMan. Where'd all the PNAC Protectors go?