Bush calls for release of Americans held in Iran
The United States, as run by George Bush, is a kind of parallel universe where any action taken by the US is naturally good and for the benefit of all mankind, and anyone who opposes any American action must be against the spread of democracy.
How else do we explain the Bush White House's demand for the release of four Americans currently being held by Iran? Especially as it comes at a time when America are holding five Iranian detainees snatched whilst the US was trying to arrest Mohammed Jafari, the powerful deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, and General Minojahar Frouzanda, the chief of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
In a statement on the detainees, some of whom face espionage charges, Mr Bush said: "I strongly condemn their detention at the hands of Iranian authorities. They should be freed immediately and unconditionally."Now, we know from articles by Seymour Hersh that the Bush administration have people operating inside Iran aiming to topple Ahmadinejad's regime, could these be some of the people arrested?
The Guardian article goes on to state:
The arrests of academics Haleh Esfandiari and Kian Tajbakhsh, journalist Parnaz Azima and businessman Ali Shakeri, have proved awkward for Washington because they highlight a new $75m (£38m) programme for democracy activists in Iran. Tehran accuses the four of trying to carry out a soft revolution against the government. Three have been accused of espionage, a charge that carries the death penalty. Mr Shakeri has not yet been charged.So the answer is yes. These men are in Tehran as part of Bush's "soft revolution" against Iran and have been caught trying to undermine the Iranian government. What's annoying the Americans is that Tehran have now charged the individuals concerned and according to Bush "that represented an escalation on the part of the Iranians".
Stephen Hadley gave a hilarious account of why the Iranians were wrong to charge these men:
"It is not helpful to resolving these outstanding issues we have with Iran - whether it is Iran activity in Iraq that destabilises that nation, or progress on the nuclear issue - for Iran to be capturing innocent Americans who are in Iran on peaceful business, visiting relatives or other acceptable activity," Mr Hadley said. "It's an unfortunate development, and these people need to be let go promptly."I think the question of whether or not they were indulging in "acceptable activity" is much more central to the argument than Mr Hadley would wish. If they were indulging in attempts to weaken Ahmadinejad's government then there is certainly a case for the Ahmadinejad government finding this activity decidedly unacceptable.
Mr Bush said the four detainees had been working to improve relations between Iranians and Americans and posed no threat to Tehran. "Their presence in Iran - to visit or to conduct humanitarian work - poses no threat," he said.Only on planet Bush could such a statement be made with a straight face. If relations between Iranians and Americans could be improved by the collapse of Ahmadinejad's government, then there's a chance that Bush is being truthful, otherwise he's simply talking bunkum.
Of course, after the recent breakthrough talks between Iran and the US it's odd that Washington should be seeking to highlight tensions like this, unless - like myself - you suspect that the talks were merely a chance for Washington to give Tehran a warning so that she can tell her domestic audience that she "tried everything" to resolve issues with Tehran peacefully and that now conflict is the only reasonable course.
That certainly appears to be the opinion of Mohamed ElBaradei.
White House officials scrambled yesterday to demonstrate unified support behind a diplomatic policy towards Iran. Their task was made more challenging as the International Atomic Energy Agency chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, issued warnings about the "new crazies" in the administration who were pressing for military action. "I have no brief other than to make sure we don't go into another war or that we go crazy into killing each other," he told the BBC. "You do not want to give additional argument to new crazies who say 'let's go and bomb Iran'."The "crazies" who want to attack Iran are said to be making noises from the office of the Vice President. The Vice President, the only man with access to American intelligence who still believes a link existed between al-Qaeda and Iraq prior to the US invasion of that country - despite being told by US intelligence agencies that such a link is erroneous - now believes that the US should launch an aerial assault on Iran.
To this end he is now seeking - with the aid of Bush and Stephen Hadley - to present American spies seeking to undermine the Iranian government as people indulging in "peaceful business, visiting relatives or other acceptable activity".
It's simply fantastical. But that's the planet that the Bushites inhabit. If the US are doing it, then it must be good. And anyone who objects must be an enemy of democracy.
Click title for full article.
6 comments:
On one hand we have well known academics being held by the government of Iran on obviously trumped-up charges of espionage. On the other hand we have known Quds force members caught red-handed with evidence implicating them in actions against the coalition. Somehow, against the bounds of reason, you manage to draw a parallel, somehow finding it credible that these very well known academics and US citizens were actually clandestine spies, yet refusing to believe that the known Quds force members were up to anything other than issuing passports or something.
Ever heard the term useful idiot?
Ever heard the term useful idiot?
Oh yes, you are one Jason. Endlessly parroting whatever line the Bush administration are currently engaging in, whilst claiming - ludicrously - not to be a Republican as if this will lend credence to your pro-Bush rants.
You are as usual mistaken. I try to root my opinions in logic, fact, and personal experience. I am not affiliated with the Republican party or any other political party preferring to remain independent, and quite strongly disagree with the current administration on several issues, just as I have strongly agreed with the Clinton administration on several issues. Most of these positions I have held long before Bush was President, not recently picked up in some blog or newspaper article that happens to fit how I want things to be. Yours seem to come from none of the above. Instead, you endlessly parrot the extremist line where everything is the omnipotent Bush's and the US's fault, and sprinkle everything with liberal doses of hyperbole and hysteria. You believe that anybody who doesn't support your wild and radical rants is automatically pro-Bush, a neocon, or whatever weak pejorative you try to label, completely dismissing the fact that the sane and rational might just simply not buy what you're selling. That said, I prefer to not make this personal and instead stick to the subject matter.
I still don't see how you can draw a sound parallel between the hostage taking of well known civilian academics, and the detainment of known military Quds force members caught red-handed engaging in hostile acts in a combat zone. I don't understand how anything the terror-exporting Iranian regime states is taken as credible, yet anything any member of the US states is automatically rejected. That seems to fly in the face of rationality (I almost said objectivity, but don't see any reason I should be expecting that here).
I still don't see how you can draw a sound parallel between the hostage taking of well known civilian academics, and the detainment of known military Quds force members caught red-handed engaging in hostile acts in a combat zone.
Firstly, the Iranians captured were not "caught red-handed engaging in hostile acts in a combat zone"; indeed, they were not even the people the US had gone to arrest.
They were taken because Mohammed Jafari and General Minojahar Frouzanda - the original US targets - were not there.
And I have no idea what the American-Iranians were actually doing in Iran, although I notice that the Guardian did point out that the arrests of "academics Haleh Esfandiari and Kian Tajbakhsh, journalist Parnaz Azima and businessman Ali Shakeri, have proved awkward for Washington because they highlight a new $75m (£38m) programme for democracy activists in Iran.
This is clearly hinting that they were involved in undermining the government of Ahmadinajad.
And why do you say they are "obviously trumped-up charges of espionage"?
You don't know what they were doing. You are saying the charges are obviously trumped up because that is what you choose to believe. You simply cannot know that.
Firstly, the Iranians captured were not "caught red-handed engaging in hostile acts in a combat zone"
The fact that Quds forces are operating in Iraq is an inherently hostile act, just as any US military or intelligence personnel found operating inside Iran would be considered an inherently hostile act. When they were captured it was noted:
The intelligence analyst said the men were Iranian agents who were trying to change their appearance and flush documents down the toilet when U.S. officials burst in on them.
Two more were previously captured by the US and released by the Iraqis. It was found then that "the captured Iranians had detailed weapons lists, documents pertaining to shipments of weapons into Iraq, organizational charts, telephone records and maps, among other sensitive intelligence information".
And why do you say they are "obviously trumped-up charges of espionage"?
While I of course can't be certain, logic seems to dictate. For one, the Iranians have a history of taking hostages and threatening to put them on trial for espionage. For another, if we're going to send spies into Iran, I'd like to think we'd be smart enough not to send well-known individuals. That kind of seems to go against the whole "spy" thing.
The intelligence analyst said the men were Iranian agents who were trying to change their appearance and flush documents down the toilet when U.S. officials burst in on them.
This was from the briefing which was so secret that none of the briefers were allowed to be identified. I think most of us treated that briefing as highly suspicious. I certainly wouldn't take as gospel anything said by people who refuse to be identified.
And why do you say they are "obviously trumped-up charges of espionage"?
While I of course can't be certain, logic seems to dictate.
I don't think logic dictates anything of the sort. Why did the Guardian say that this "proved awkward for Washington because they highlight a new $75m (£38m) programme for democracy activists in Iran."
Surely logic would dictate that we are being given a large hint that the people captured were involved in this programme for democracy activists?
Post a Comment