Juan Cole: Iran supported the Iraq-US Security Agreement because they think they can trust Obama

i think professor cole may be spot on...

Omid Memarian explains Iran's turnaround on the Iraqi-US security agreement, which it was rejecting only last month.

McClatchy has more: "Reports from Iran's state news agency called an Iraqi Cabinet vote that advanced the security compact a "victory for the ruling party and its Kurdish partners," referring to the Shiite lawmakers who supported the agreement."

Me, I think the turning point was the election Obama. The Iranians would never have trusted McCain enough to hope for any good outcome from a security pact. But I think they are convinced that Obama really does want US troops out of Iraq, and that he wants to talk to Iran.

one thing's for goddam sure... even THINKING about placing your trust in bush or his gang of criminals would be sheer folly...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Just when I think there's nothing worth posting, I read about $120 a barrel oil

holy shit...

Oil futures have surpassed the once unthinkable price of $120 a barrel.

Oil reached its latest milestone on a mix of threats to overseas crude oil supplies. A threat by Kurdish rebels in Iraq to attack American interests has investors concerned. And an attack on an oil facility in Nigeria cut oil supplies.

Meanwhile, defiant comments by Iranian leaders about the country's nuclear program raised worries about broader conflict in the Middle East.

Light, sweet crude for May delivery rose to a trading record of $120.21 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

The falling dollar is also sending crude prices higher.

let me repeat that... holy shit...!

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Bush hypocrisy: Kurds in American Iraq have done much worse things to Turkey than Hizbullah did to Israel

juan cole...

The hypocrisy of the Bush case is obvious when it complains about Iran supporting Hizbullah and Hamas. The Kurds based in American Iraq have done much worse things to Turkey in the past month than Hizbullah did to Israel in June of 2006. Yet when Israel launched a brutal and wideranging war on all of Lebanon, destroying precious infrastructure and dumping enormous amounts of oil into the Mediterranean, damaging Beirut airport, destroying essential bridges in Christian areas, and then releasing a million cluster bomblets on civilian areas in the last 3 days of the war-- when Israel did all that, Bush and Cheney applauded and argued against a 'premature' cease-fire! Yet they are trying to convince Turkey just to put up stoically with the PKK terrorists who have killed dozens of Turkish troops recently and kidnapped 8 (again, more than the number of Iraeli troops that were kidnapped). Bush's coddling of the PKK in Iraq is not different from Iran's support for Hizbullah, except that the PKK is a more dangerous and brutal organization than Hizbullah.

Among the more fantastic charges that Bush made against Iran was that its government was actively arming and helping the Taliban in southern Afghanistan. In fact, the Taliban are extremist Sunnis who hate, and have killed large numbers of Shiites. Shiite Iran is unlikely to support them. [...] The neo-Taliban are being supported by Pakistan...

hypocrisy and lies in the bush administration are so rampant as to hardly be worthy of notice, were it not for the fact that they're deliberate attempts to justify the continual death and destruction perpetrated by the largest state sponsor of global terrorism...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Turkey, Iraq, Kurdistan, the Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK) and the U.S.

gee, why wait for a war with iran...? if you're looking for a tinderbox to ignite, here's one handed to you on a silver platter...

juan cole...

The Bush administration made a diplomatic 'full court press' with Turkish leaders to dissuade them from attacking the Kurdish Workers Party [PKK] guerrillas hiding out in Iraq after the killing of 17 Turkish troops and the capture of 8 others by the PKK on Sunday. Turkish Prime Minister Rejeb Tayyip Erdogan is alleged to have told US Secretary of State Condi Rice that the only way for the US to forestall a Turkish invasion is for its military to arrest the PKK leaders in Iraq themselves and to turn them over to Ankara.

Under all this American pressure, The PKK is said to be offering a conditional ceasefire with Ankara. The 'conditional' part doesn't seem very promising to me.

the "conditional" part evidently didn't seem very promising to turkey either...

BAGHDAD, Oct. 23 (Xinhua) -- Visiting Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan on Tuesday rejected the ceasefire offered by the Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK), saying there's no "ceasefire" with terror.

Babacan made the remarks at a joint press conference with his Iraqi counterpart Hoshyar Zebari after their talks over the crisis on the two countries' borders caused by the PKK rebels.

Babacan said a ceasefire should be reached between two countries or two armies but not with a terror group, which apparently indicates the PKK.

But the Turkish top diplomat pledged Turkey's respect to Iraq's integrity, saying the diplomatic means are still the emphasis of the solutions for the crisis.

On his part, Zebari pledged his Turkish counterpart again that Iraqi government will actively help Turkey to remove the threat posed by the PKK.

anybody got a match...?

[UPDATE]

so, now it's not only explosive, it's explosive²...

[O]ut of the public eye, a chillingly similar battle has been under way on the Iraqi border with Iran. Kurdish guerrillas ambush and kill Iranian forces and retreat to their hide-outs in Iraq. The Americans offer Iran little sympathy. Tehran even says Washington aids the Iranian guerrillas, a charge the United States denies. True or not, that conflict, like the Turkish one, has explosive potential.

hey, i bet darth's got a match...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Sunnis and Shiites unite on one thing - don't Balkanize us

notably absent from the joint statement are the kurds...

Iraq's political leadership, in a rare show of unity, skewered a nonbinding U.S. Senate resolution passed last week that endorses the decentralization of Iraq through the establishment of semiautonomous regions.

The measure, which calls for a relatively weak central government and strong regional authorities in Sunni Arab, Shiite and Kurdish areas, has touched a nerve here, raising fears that the United States is planning to partition Iraq.

"The Congress adopted this proposal based on an incorrect reading and unrealistic estimations of the history, present and future of Iraq," said Izzat Shahbandar, a member of former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's secular parliamentary bloc.

He was reading from a statement also signed by preeminent Shiite Muslim religious parties and the main Sunni Arab bloc.

He was reading from a statement also signed by preeminent Shiite Muslim religious parties and the main Sunni Arab bloc.

"It represents a dangerous precedent to establishing the nature of the relationship between Iraq and the U.S.A.," the statement said, "and shows the Congress as if it were planning for a long-term occupation by their country's troops."

The nonbinding measure was approved in Washington on Wednesday, and resentment appears to be building daily in Iraq. Passed by senators, 75 to 23, it supports a "federal system" that would create regions dominated by sect and ethnicity.

The measure was sponsored by Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, a Democratic candidate for president. Biden, along with Council of Foreign Relations president emeritus Leslie Gelb, has advocated that the country be divided up along ethnic, sectarian and regional lines.

Northern Iraq already has a semiautonomous region ruled by Kurds, but its leaders want to annex adjacent areas with dominant Kurdish populations.

the friend i visited in texas last week announced that she liked biden... not one to keep my counsel, i said i thought biden was a nitwit... sponsoring the measure does nothing to dispel that notion...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

There are two very clear options: Option A) Get everybody out by midnight tonight. Option B) Get everybody out by midnight tomorrow

spiegel interviews seymour hersh...

key points...

• We have this wonderful capacity in America to Hitlerize people.

• I have this theory in life that there is no learning. There is no learning curve. Everything is tabula rasa.

• I always thought Henry Kissinger was a disaster because he lies like most people breathe and you can't have that in public life.

• This guy [Bush] believes he's doing God's work.

• There are two very clear options [in Iraq]: Option A) Get everybody out by midnight tonight. Option B) Get everybody out by midnight tomorrow.

• The fuel that keeps the [Iraq] war going is us.

• [T]he president has accepted ethnic cleansing [in Iraq].

here's some of the meat...

Hersh: We have this wonderful capacity in America to Hitlerize people. We had Hitler, and since Hitler we've had about 20 of them. Khrushchev and Mao and of course Stalin, and for a little while Gadhafi was our Hitler. And now we have this guy Ahmadinejad. The reality is, he's not nearly as powerful inside the country as we like to think he is. The Revolutionary Guards have direct control over the missile program and if there is a weapons program, they would be the ones running it. Not Ahmadinejad.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Where does this feeling of urgency that the US has with Iran come from?

Hersh: Pressure from the White House. That's just their game.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What interest does the White House have in moving us to the brink with Tehran?

Hersh: You have to ask yourself what interest we had 40 years ago for going to war in Vietnam. You'd think that in this country with so many smart people, that we can't possibly do the same dumb thing again. I have this theory in life that there is no learning. There is no learning curve. Everything is tabula rasa. Everybody has to discover things for themselves.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Even after Iraq? Aren't there strategic reasons for getting so deeply involved in the Middle East?

Hersh: Oh no. We're going to build democracy. The real thing in the mind of this president is he wants to reshape the Middle East and make it a model. He absolutely believes it. I always thought Henry Kissinger was a disaster because he lies like most people breathe and you can't have that in public life. But if it were Kissinger this time around, I'd actually be relieved because I'd know that the madness would be tied to some oil deal. But in this case, what you see is what you get. This guy believes he's doing God's work.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So what are the options in Iraq?

Hersh: There are two very clear options: Option A) Get everybody out by midnight tonight. Option B) Get everybody out by midnight tomorrow. The fuel that keeps the war going is us.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: A lot of people have been saying that the US presence there is a big part of the problem. Is anyone in the White House listening?

Hersh: No. The president is still talking about the "Surge" (eds. The "Surge" refers to President Bush's commitment of 20,000 additional troops to Iraq in the spring of 2007 in an attempt to improve security in the country.) as if it's going to unite the country. But the Surge was a con game of putting additional troops in there. We've basically Balkanized the place, building walls and walling off Sunnis from Shiites. And in Anbar Province, where there has been success, all of the Shiites are gone. They've simply split.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is that why there has been a drop in violence there?

Hersh: I think that's a much better reason than the fact that there are a couple more soldiers on the ground.

SPIEGEL ONLINE:So what are the lessons of the Surge ... ?

Hersh: The Surge means basically that, in some way, the president has accepted ethnic cleansing, whether he's talking about it or not.

and check out what hersh has to say about his old employer, the new york times...

The First Amendment failed and the American press failed the Constitution. We were jingoistic. And that was a terrible failing. I'm asked the question all the time: What happened to my old paper, the New York Times? And I now say, they stink. They missed it. They missed the biggest story of the time and they're going to have to live with it.

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Ray Hunt, Iraq, Hunt oil, Halliburton, Kurdistan, production-sharing, the Bush family, and the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board

marcy (emptywheel) wheeler highlights the latest iraq profiteering venture...

Does it surprise you that the first company to sign an oil deal with Iraqi Kurds is Hunt Oil, a company with very close ties to Bush and our country's intelligence infrastructure?

Texas' Hunt Oil Co. and Kurdistan's regional government said Saturday they've signed a production-sharing contract for petroleum exploration in northern Iraq, the first such deal since the Kurds passed their own oil and gas law in August.A Hunt subsidiary, Hunt Oil Co. of the Kurdistan Region, will begin geological survey and seismic work by the end of 2007 and hopes to drill an exploration well in 2008, the parties said in a news release.

Nope. It doesn't surprise me, either. But I am interested in what it portends for long-term plans in Iraq.

First, some background. The Hunt family that owns Hunt Oil (it's privately held, so we don't get to scrutinize financial statements) is one of the big money Texas donors behind the Bush family political empire. Ray Hunt, the current chair of the company, is also on the board of Halliburton and the King Ranch, meaning he probably knows to duck when he goes quail hunting with Dick Cheney. Hunt is also on the board of trustees for Shrub's new presidential library, which has just announced its plans for a wacky democracy institute that will give cover for more imperialism around the world. Oh, and Hunt is also on PFIAB [President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board], which means he gets to review a huge amount of intelligence information and then refuse to reveal its classification and declassification activities--not to mention weigh in on whether or not the President's illegal intelligence activities are illegal or not.

It's also worth noting that one of Hunt Oil Company's planes has been spotted taking off and landing at a CIA training facility. *

In short, Hunt Oil Company is as wired in as oil companies get--which is saying something.

it's good to know that what we are occupying iraq for is paying off for those who decided we should go there...

and this is the giant bed they all sleep in...


Thanks to The Daily Show and Raw Story

* Between the 27th and 28th of November, 2006, a civil aircraft registered to Hunt Oil's holding company, Hunt Consolidated, Inc., made two visits to the CIA's Camp Peary training facility. Prior to flying into Camp Peary it made an overnight stop at Washington Dulles airport. It also made a briefer stop at Washington Dulles at the end of its visit.[4] The aircraft's registration number is N46F.

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

More Iraq thoughts (and one on Iran too)

[BUMPED]

the only way anything is going to change in iraq is getting bush and his criminal compadres OUT of office... bush has dug us in so far, has served up so much kool-aid to the faithful, and painted himself into such a tight corner, there's just no way he will let us leave... any draw-down will be purely cosmetic political salve...

i also don't believe that it's bush's intention to "hand it over to his successor" to "clean up the mess..." i think it's his intention to make SURE the next president - assuming there IS a next president and bush doesn't remain in office after suspending the elections and declaring martial law in the face of a "national emergency" - will find it impossible to extricate the u.s. without creating an even bigger mess, something that igniting a conflagration with iran could certainly do... actually, a full-blown conflict with iran could serve a dual purpose... besides making an incredible mess exponentially bigger, it could also serve as the basis for declaring that national emergency...

[UPDATE]

but, hey...! it doesn't HAVE to be iran that serves as the flashpoint...

from juan cole...

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari (a Kurd) warned Monday that 140,000 Turkish troops were massed at the border with Iraq. Ankara accuses Iraqi Kurdistan of giving safe harbor to PKK terrorists who are blowing up soldiers and others in Turkey's eastern Anatolia. The Turkish government and military have threatened to engage in hot pursuit and to make border incursions if necessary to deal with the PKK threat. Last Sunday, thousands of Turks demonstrated in Ankara against the PKK, Iraqi Kurdistan and the United States, which they blame for allowing Iraq to become a terrorist base against Turkey.

[UPDATE II]

i finally found the article i was looking for earlier that backs up my comment above about iran possibly being the flashpoint...

The U.S. navy has sent a third aircraft carrier to its Fifth Fleet area of operations, which includes Gulf waters close to Iran, the navy said on Tuesday.

"Enterprise (aircraft carrier) provides navy power to counter the assertive, disruptive and coercive behaviour of some countries, as well as support our soldiers and marines in Iraq and Afghanistan," a U.S. Navy statement said.

[UPDATE III]

the pentagon 'splains it all for us...

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman denied that US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has decided to up the number of carriers to three, and said the deployment of the Enterprise was part of a "routine swap."

"Has the department made a decision for 3.0 carriers in the Gulf? No. They haven't," Whitman said. "What Secretary Gates has said is still the current guidance with respect to the level of effort in the Centcom area of responsibility."

yeah... ok... whatever...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Why aren't the permanent bases in Iraq being addressed?

construction on the permanent bases began almost immediately after the invasion which says that the plans almost certainly existed well prior to march 2003... some serious investigative journalism (HA!) could turn up when those plans were created, and would add a significant piece to the national debate... i won't hold my breath...

a guest post on juan cole's site...

Gerald B. Helman "was United States Ambassador to the European Office of the United Nations from 1979 through 1981" and was among the coiners of the phrase "failed states."

[T]here remains the question of the permanent bases, a concept now being floated by the Administration but one which must have been in the minds of the White House and our military planners from the time when these massive installations were first projected. Congress should probe this one very carefully and insist that the Administration' s plans should be on the public record. Whatever their purposes, and certainly there has been little candor on the part of the Administration as to what these are, the bases will never be accepted either by the Iraqi people, of whatever faction (except the Kurds). It will violate every concept of independence, national pride and Arab identity that have been the hallmarks of the post-colonial period. Any Iraqi government that supported it would not only fail, but would be despised. Such bases might have the dubious benefit of uniting all Iraqis in opposition. Only a US Administration that expected to be greeted with flowers by the Iraqis could convince itself that those same Iraqis will tolerate such bases and that such bases could survive in hostile territory, with long and endangered supply lines.

you know, i know, we ALL know that those bases are intended to REMAIN in iraq, and WERE intended to remain in iraq from day one... both the bases and the over-the-top embassy complex clearly demonstrate that, if the u.s. has its way, iraq is and will remain a puppet state... why this issue has not figured more prominently in national discussion is a mystery to me...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Turkey (as long as we're talking about oil and secretive maneuvering)

besides doing an on-going bang-up job on the sibel edmonds story, luke at wot is it good 4 has been doing yeoman's work digging out and posting all the little-known garbage that is going on between the u.s. and turkey... here's from a post he put up today quoting mizgin's analysis of the turkey-kurdistan conflict...

It's not in the interests of the US to see a stable Turkey in the region, just as it may not be in the interests of the US to see a stable Iraq. As long as the Washington and Ankara regimes collaborate in the maintenance of a low-intensity conflict in Turkish-occupied Kurdistan, their Deep Staters will continue to maintain control of the region and its highly coveted energy resources, as well as to turn a few billion bucks through Deep State corporations . . . like Lockheed Martin.

this fits right in with my belief that the bush administration has worked diligently to foster global and regional conflict, violence, chaos, endless war, and death as a means to accomplish their agenda of accruing unfettered power and maintain access to unlimited rivers of cash... both of those are ever so much easier when fear and chaos reign...

note: googling lockheed martin produces this, their corporate slogan: Lockheed Martin - We never forget who we're working for... if THAT isn't a hoot, i don't know what is...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The 'fair" Iraq oil law - why the hell can't we get the TRUTH out of our media?

check this from today's nyt...

Iraqi Blocs Opposed to Draft Oil Bill

Kurdish and Sunni Arab officials are concerned over a draft
of a bill establishing a framework for the fair
distribution of oil revenues.

[...]

The draft law, which establishes a framework for the distribution of oil revenues, was approved by the Iraqi cabinet in late February after months of negotiations. The White House was hoping for quick passage to lay the groundwork for a political settlement among the country’s ethnic and sectarian factions.

[...]

The draft oil law would allow regions to enter into production-sharing agreements with foreign companies, which some Iraqis and critics of the Bush administration say could lead to foreigners reaping too much of the country’s oil wealth.

Iraqi officials say all contracts will be subjected to a fair bidding process, but there are fears that American companies could be favored.

here's the REAL STORY about iraq's oil law, contained in a post i made back in january... read it carefully and then decide if "fair distribution of oil revenues" comes within a country mile of being the truth...

it's a heckuva deal when you have the entire might of the taxpayer-supported united states goverment ready and willing to sacrifice people's lives in order to increase your opportunities for expanding business and increasing profits... you don't have to beat down or buy out the competition, you don't have to go through the tediousness of exploration and test drilling, you don't have a huge investment in new infrastructure, the economy is already in ruins so labor costs are laughably low... what's NOT to like...?

"Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days," Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson and Tim Webb report in the cover story [Britain's The Independent on Sunday].

According to the paper, the law "would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972."

"Supporters say the provision allowing oil companies to take up to 75 per cent of the profits will last until they have recouped initial drilling costs," the article continues. "After that, they would collect about 20 per cent of all profits, according to industry sources in Iraq. But that is twice the industry average for such deals."

reading things like this, i just get this incredible feeling of pride in my country... is the u.s. a great place, or what...?

then i posted this back in february...

more on iraq's oil law, the reason we went into iraq in the first place... of course, like everything else these days, it comes with the customary dose of cognitive dissonance...

inter press service news agency...

[The new oil law] specifies that up to two-thirds of Iraq's known reserves would be developed by multinationals, under contracts lasting for 15 to 20 years.

This policy would represent a u-turn for Iraq's oil industry, which has been in the public sector for more than three decades, and would break from normal practice in the Middle East.

According to local labour leaders, transferring ownership to the foreign companies would give a further pretext to continue the U.S. occupation on the grounds that those companies will need protection.

[...]

On Feb. 8, the labour unions sent a letter in Arabic to Iraqi President Jalal Talbani urging him to reconsider this kind of agreement.

"Production-sharing agreements are a relic of the 1960s," said the letter, seen by IPS. "They will re-imprison the Iraqi economy and impinge on Iraq's sovereignty since they only preserve the interests of foreign companies. We warn against falling into this trap."

[...]

The first draft was seen only by the committee of the Iraqi technocrat who penned it, nine international oil companies, the British and the U.S. governments and the International Monetary Fund. The Iraqi parliament will get its first glimpse next week.

[...]

There's no other country in the Middle East with the kind of oil reserves that Iraq has that would consider signing a production-sharing agreement," [Ewa Jasiewicz, a researcher at PLATFORM, a British human rights and environmental group that monitors the oil industry] said. "It's a form of privatisation and that's why those countries haven't signed these because it's not in their interests."

GOD-ROTTEN-DAMMIT... I'M SICK AND TIRED OF GETTING ONLY A TINY PART OF THE STORY... WHERE'S THE CONTEXT...? WHERE'S THE TRUTH...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Another nail in Hillary's coffin

at least as far as i'm concerned...

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced but significant military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

[...]

She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

oh, yes, by all means, let's not forget ISRAEL'S interests... we wouldn't want to do THAT... perish the thought...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments