The Last King of Scotland: Splitting the ‘Anglo’ in ‘Anglo-Zionist’

Dear friends,

It is my *huge* pleasure to share with you an analysis written by American Kulak.  I got it a few days ago exactly as he describes: no questions, no warnings, no heads-up, nothing but the article itself.  I *love* this "just do it" approach as it makes it easy for all sides to make good things happen.  And good his piece really is.  When I read it the first time I was absolutely delighted.  Not only was this first-rate analysis, it was also "deep".  AK draws an absolutely correct and spiritually valid parallel between Scotland and Novorussia and I can confirm that Russian history also records the ancient events AK mentions.  And, of course, any mention of the past of Europe when it was truly united into one Christian world by such figures as Saint Andrew, Saint Patrick, Saint Ambrose, Saint Martin (the Pope), Saint Bede or Saint Gregory and many others is dear to my heart and I rejoice each time their real lives are remembered in the West (and not only during Saint Patrick parades!).

I hope that American Kulak will contribute more articles to this blog on this immensely interesting and important topic or on any other topic he wants to look into.

Enjoy and kind regards to all,

The Saker

*******

The Last King of Scotland: Splitting the ‘Anglo’ in ‘Anglo-Zionist’

by American Kulak

This is my first contribution as a guest to the Saker’s blog and hopefully will not be the last. It is submitted in the spirit of the Saker’s admonition ‘if you want to do something [constructive to this online global community], just do it!’

My topic today is the Anglo-American or Western media’s increasing unease if not outright opposition to the looming independence vote in Scotland, where credible polling shows the momentum is clearly increasing behind a ‘YES’ vote for secession. A ‘NO’ vote in this case would mean the continuation of the United Kingdom and the union between Scotland, England and Wales passed by the English parliament in 1706 and ratified by the Scottish parliament of 1707.

Although many in the ‘Better Together’ campaign against Scottish secession have insisted in recent days that Scotland can receive more autonomy and control over its local tax revenues while still retaining the economic and military benefits of staying in the UK (this will sound familiar to those Saker readers who are reading Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s boasting that Novorossiya will remain in Ukraine and his government will not cede on square meter of 1922 Bolshevik ‘gifted’ ‘Ukrainian land’), it appears that hope is weak sauce. Fear of economic disruption or of long term subversion of the (Atlanticist, read what Saker calls ‘Anglo-Zionist’) European project is already being ramped up as the pro-unity forces in London and Brussels become more desperate.

On the one hand, Scotland’s push to secede has very little to do with the war in Ukraine and for Novorossiya. On the other hand they seem to have every bit to do with it because Catalan, Basque, northern Italian, and even Novorossiyan independence supporters are all backing Scottish independence on social media like Facebook and Twitter. The lone exception I’ve identified thus far being Graham W. Phillips, the British reporter who was expelled from Ukraine after being held hostage by the Kiev regime who slipped back across the border into Lugansk. Mr. Phillips identifies himself both as a supporter of Novorossiya and a Scotland-born British patriot, seeing no contradiction between the two. Graham remains opposed to Scottish secession and has expressed his opposition on his Twitter feed.

In spiritual and symbolic terms, there is indeed a connection between Novorossiya’s flag and that of Scotland -- the ancient cross of St. Andrew which is called the saltire or Scottish flag, a white X cross on dark blue. This flag also makes up Scotland’s contribution to ‘the Union Jack’ which mixes Scottish blue with the red of England’s St. George’s cross. St. Andrew the Apostle according to ancient Christian tradition dating to the undivided, pre-1054 Schism Church stretching from Ireland’s County Kerry in the West to Kiev in the East and Ethiopia and India to the South preached the Gospel from Spain all the way to the Greek-colonized Scythian lands that later converted to Orthodox Christianity under the Rus Prince Vladimir near what is today Kherson in Ukraine. The Holy Apostle Andrew according to tradition was martyred in Achaia (modern day Greece) on an X-shaped cross, because like St. Peter who died in Rome on an upside down Cross Andrew did not consider himself worthy to be crucified in the same manner as the Lord Jesus Christ. The X also corresponds to the Latin numeral for ten which in Biblical numerology derived from the ancient Hebrews represents the Ten Commandments God gave the ancient Israelites on Mount Sinai, symbolizing God’s Holy Law.

Today the St. Andrew’s cross is visible in the red and blue battle flag of Novorossiya seen on the shoulder patches of the Donbas soldiers, and on the naval ensign of the Russian Federation which flies over Sevastopol. This symbolism has not been lost on the Empire’s more clever shills. Indeed, when Novorossiya first debuted its flag two months ago paying tribute to both St. Andrew and the Anglo-Scottish industrialists who founded Donetsk as a coal-mining center in the 18th century Russian Empire, there was a great deal of snark on Twitter about it resembling the battle flag of the Confederate States of America (CSA). The snarkists, of course, having no idea about the St. Andrew’s heraldry preceding the CSA by centuries and inspiring the Scots-Irish settlers of the American South who chose it as their battle flag and whose war-like settler/soldier traditions were highlighted in former US Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb’s folk history, Born Fighting.

While there are many Saker readers who maintain that absolutely no geopolitical shifts can take place without a full consensus among the globalist Western elites that Saker refers to collectively as the ‘Anglo-Zionist’ empire and whose confabs at Bilderberg, Davos, and the recent NATO summit in Wales are well documented, the increasingly shrill propaganda directed against Scottish independence suggests otherwise. The BBC in particular has led the charge against a ‘YES’ vote, calling into question its phoney pretense to objectivity and highlighting ‘Auntys’ total subservience to the British Deep State. But the BBC and other British media have to be careful not to excessively offend their Scottish audiences. Meanwhile, American and Atlanticist ‘think tank’ agitprop against the Scots has often been crude and pathetic.

The online magazine Business Insider (which the Washington-based independent investigative journalist Wayne Madsen has linked to a smear campaign run against Madsen in mid-2013 by an ex-National Security Agency officer named John R. Schindler) recently ran an article claiming the departure of British nuclear ballistic missile and attack submarines from their base at Faslane, Scotland could leave the peninsula open to a Russian invasion. The article was widely panned in BI’s comments section as ridiculous propaganda. [http://www.businessinsider.com/scottish-independence-and-russian-submarine-invasion-2014-8]

The former London-based Henry Jackson Society neoconservative front man Michael D. Weiss, who now runs the pro-Kiev propaganda site The Interpreter Mag, tweeted “if Scotland secedes, then Europe can expect to see a foreign-policy Venezuela created overnight on the North Sea. Putin will rejoice.” [https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status/508962026690187264]

Not surprisingly considering their overlap on issues of anti-Russian foreign policy, NSA surveillance, and other matters, Weiss tweets a link to a more Business Insider article warning that Scotland will have to win ‘four bets’ to avoid being doomed to poverty as an independent state. [https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status/508961378678214656]

The World Affairs Journal, the bimonthly publication of the ‘former’ Central Intelligence Agency operative run quasi-NGO Freedom House, published an article by former Time magazine journalist Roland Flamini titled “European Disunion: Cameron, the EU and the Scots” which concluded with the lament: “If separatism triumphs in the referendum, David Cameron will be remembered as the prime minister who lost Scotland. He also faces the further prospect of being the man who led Britain out of the European Union.” [http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/european-disunion-cameron-eu-and-scots]
 
Note the prominent use of the word ‘separatism’ which has become a dirty word in Atlanticist circles since the Novorossiya uprising began in March. The same September/October issue of World Affairs Journal featured Peter Pomeranstev saying, “The channel [RT] has its fans in the West and has been nominated for an Emmy for its reporting on the Occupy movement in America. And it’s not just the left that’s applauding. Nigel Farage of the right-wing non-parliamentary [not for long - American Kulak] UK Independence Party is regularly featured in its newscasts.” Farage of course has been a vocal critic of the EU’s relentless eastward expansion, which he has blamed for sparking the Ukraine crisis and antagonizing Russia. Farage also believes the EU’s policies towards Romania and Bulgaria have led to an influx of impoverished job seekers from these countries at a time when the UK is already facing high unemployment and is one of the most crowded countries in Europe.
[http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/yes-russia-matters-putin%E2%80%99s-guerrilla-strategy]

The connection between Farage, who has half-heartedly campaigned for the ‘No’ side in Scotland this past week, and the Scottish secession vote isn’t clear. Except when one considers that Scotland’s secession will weaken the British Labour Party’s position in parliament, thereby allowing more Tories to split with their EUrocrat leadership and defect to UKIP. But the broader concern for the Empire’s ideologists is that Russia sympathizes with almost any group of European nationalists who wish to deviate from the NATO or EU party line, and European nationalists from Hungary to Greece are returning the favor by empathizing with Russia’s position on Crimea and the Donbas. It is noteworthy, for example, by its absence that Anglo-American media are not interested in reporting the foreign fighters fighting for Novorossiya, including a half dozen French veterans of combat in Afghanistan and Chad [https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1suDxke9jBQ], nor in interviewing the Swedish Nazi Mikael Skillt fighting for the openly Nazi Wolsfangel-armband-wearing Azov Battalion. The BBC did do one report that curiously even mentioned Novorossiya Armed Forces’ (NAF) allegations that Polish military contractors are fighting for Ukraine, a charge the Polish government denies, but this story was the exception that proved the rule. The internationalization of the Novorossiya war, the possibility that it could become a second Spanish Civil War if it drags on for months or years, is not something either Washington or London wishes their propaganda outlets to emphasize. Why? Perhaps Mr. Pomerantsev’s essay provides a clue.

After getting in his digs at Mr. Farage from his perch in London, Mr. Pomerantsev like many Russian liberals (who some Russians like Mark Sleboda refer to as liberasts for a perennial pedestal-lization of the West dating back to the late 19th century St. Petersburg liberals lampooned by Dostoevsky [https://twitter.com/MarkSleboda1/status/508675733489995776]) gets to the heart of his complaint about Russia’s support for nationalist parties dissenting from Anglo-American Empire politics in the West. That complaint is that the Kremlin is trying to cast doubt on whether it is Washington or Moscow that maintains ‘Captive Nations’:

“It is no accident that a recurring feature of RT programs is conspiracy theories, ranging from tales of the Bilderberg Group to lurid reporting on how Western media cover up their governments’ crimes. Appealing to the conspiracy mind-set (read: anti-Washington, anti-Anglo-American empire, and anti-central banking) reinforces the Kremlin’s underlying message that the Western model of democratic capitalism is a failure and a sham [hence the urgency with which people like Pomerantsev invoke Western economic ‘recovery’ from the crash of 2008 and the myth that the US and EU could crush the Russian economy with sanctions if they but had the will to do so]. In a recent paper titled “The Conspiratorial Mindset in an Age of Transition [transition to what, Eurocrats?], which looked at the rise of conspiracy theories in France, Hungary, and Slovakia, a team of researchers from leading European think tanks showed how supporters of the far-right parties the Kremlin supports in Europe are also the ones most prone to believing in conspiracies [read: any facts or events outside or parallel to the Anglo-American led media Narrative, like the evidence that Ukrainian forces shot down MH17], and that this factor was becoming more pronounced as trust in the power of national governments is eroded by globalization [read: people don’t trust governments that have completely handed over the people’s sovereignty to banker-led globalists by design] and populations turn to outlandish theories to explain crises [meaning Westerners no longer believe the mainstream media explanations or cheery economic numbers, but believe ‘their lying eyes’ that things are deteriorating culturally and economically across the Western world].”

Another article in the same issue, hidden behind a pay wall, written by Woodrow Wilson International Center scholar Alina Polyakova, laments “Strange Bedfellows: Putin and Europe’s Far Right”. [http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/strange-bedfellows-putin-and-europe%E2%80%99s-far-right ] In the portion of the article that isn’t pay-walled, Polyakova confidently calls Marine Le Pen and the Front Nacional in France “a far right party”, despite Le Pen now drawing more support from likely voters than current French President Francois Hollande if run-off elections were held this week. [http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6ecbb6c4-34d5-11e4-aa47-00144feabdc0.html]. Ms. Le Pen for her part has deflected the ‘radical right wing/fascist’ charges by appealing to socialist voters with calls for the preservation of France’s social welfare state, and insisting France can no longer remain a poodle of US foreign policy when it comes to Russia {her real crime in the eyes of the same Atlanticists who constantly downplay the anti-EU fascist elements in Ukraine so long as their members are fighting Russia’s proxies in Donbas]. She has also tied her anti-immigration and ‘France out of the EU’ positions to the defense of French secular values in the face of Islamism and EU political correctness, appealing to both the left and the right.

In the most telling sign that Ms. Le Pen believes she can win the presidency of France, she has even sent FN representatives to Israel to distance herself and the party from her father’s anti-Israel views, openly courting the votes of French Jews. It is of course, no accident that Ms. Le Pen is gaining support across the French political spectrum, if only as a protest candidate, while the US government is fining France’s BNP Paribas to the tune of $10 billion and trying to block the sale of the Mistral warships to Russia. Gaullism whether left or right wing is stirred up when French banks are used as Washington’s doormat and the creaky financial stability of France is put at risk by Washington and Brussels’ fanatical attachment to keeping the impoverished Greek, Spanish and Portuguese economies trapped in the euro straight jacket.

Perhaps in the back of their minds, the Empire’s ‘political technologists’ still hold that old bugbear of anti-Communism in Southeast Asia during the Cold War, the domino theory. If Scotland successfully votes to secede from the UK, and Britain’s pound sterling and banks take a beating in the subsequent fallout. With Royal Bank of Scotland, Deutsche Bank and other rotten derivatives-stuffed houses on the brink, the dominoes of rotten financial and political structures start to tumble across Europe. After Scotland, comes Catalonia. After Catalonia departs as the richest and most innovative part of Spain, the Spanish cry ‘no mas’ to continued Depression era levels of unemployment. The Lombards and Venetians move to more than symbolic independence. The Greeks, spurred by the Spanish example, finally throw out their austerity imposing eurocrat Quisling overlords, if necessary exiling Greek ‘technocrats’ with charges of massive financial fraud and embezzlement. Portugal’s too big to fail banks led by Espiritu Santu are finally allowed to fail, with rumors about the solvency of French and German banks including the aforementioned BNP Paribas and Deutsche Bank running wild.

The secession of Scotland is going to bring home awkward questions of identity to Britons: what does England now stand for, besides total subservience to Washington in return for ‘a seat at the table’ and a bloated financial sector in the City of London? What does it mean to be English in an age of open borders and mass immigration? How can English identity be preserved even if the faces or colors of those holding to the ideals that made the British Empire successful change, when so many young Muslim men are rejecting the UK’s diseased postmodern values in favor of fighting for ISIS in Syria?

On this side of the Atlantic, the question will continue to be where does the USA go from here as the cries for regionalism, Southern and Western state government defiance of Washington’s executive orders, and increasingly assertive ethnic identities roil the USA in places like predominantly black Ferguson, Missouri or an increasingly Mexican Los Angeles ruled over by a shrinking white elite? On the topic of immigration, for example, Texas is placing its National Guard troops on the border with some Texan lawmakers denouncing President Obama’s ‘executive actions’ on the non-deportation of undocumented Mexican migrants as unconstitutional, and thereby null and void. Meanwhile, California’s governor is basically nullifying the southern border through the announcement of ‘sanctuary cities’. The point is not which state is right or wrong. The point is both states are making policy assertions that contrast with either federal law either as it is written or as an administration chooses to (not) enforce it. This can only lead to further proclamations of the United States being more united than ever while real disunity festers along class, racial and regional lines.

The Brits are going crazy again

From the BBC website this morning:

Ship 'carrying Russian attack helicopters to Syria' halted off Scotland

The UK has made moves to stop a cargo vessel allegedly carrying refurbished Russian-made attack helicopters from completing its journey to Syria. The MV Alaed had its insurance withdrawn by The Standard Club in London while it was about 50 miles (80.4km) off Scotland's north coast.  The insurer said it had sought more information on the boat's cargo.  Withdrawal of insurance prevents the MV Alaed from sailing until its owner can secure new cover.  It is thought that the vessel has stopped off the Western Isles.  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) said it was unclear where the vessel would now go.  The Russian embassy in London has not yet commented.  The UK and US have raised concerns with Russia about shipments of weapons to Syria, which is subject to a European Union arms embargo.  In a statement, the FCO said: "We are aware of a ship carrying a consignment of refurbished Russian-made attack helicopters heading to Syria.  "The foreign secretary made clear to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov when they met on 14 June that all defence shipments to Syria must stop.

It sure looks like the USA's "poodle" is fancying itself as a fierce Rottweiler who will courageously protect the world from the Russian bear.  And you got the admire the macho language of the foreign secretary who "made it clear" to Lavrov that "all defense shipments to Syria must stop".

The fact that the British poodle is growling only because it has Uncle Sam to protect him from the Russian bear is apparently lost on the BBC.  As is the fact that no UNSC resolutions have banned the fulfillment of military maintenance contracts with Syria.

As for the Russians, they need to make sure that the Standard Club in London pays for its subservience to political interests and insure its ships elsewhere.  The Russian commercial fleet is very big, and by taking its business elsewhere it can probably hurt the SC where it counts: is pocket.

For the Brits and their traditional Russophobic hysteria all this is God sent: it's an opportunity to brown-nose its US patron and a way to put itself back on the map of big politics, or so they hope.  The real, meaningful bargaining and horse-trading over Syria did, of course, happen during yesterday's meeting between Obama and Putin.  The Brits were not invited.

The Saker

PS: also check out this piece on Mikhail Voytenko's excellent Maritime Bulletin.

What is wrong with the Brits as soon as they look at Russia?!

The Brits are going totally overboard with Russophobia.  Check out the intro to this Guardian article:

A brutal crackdown may be coming for Russia's renewed opposition. The growing sense of unrest in Russia may lead Vladimir Putin to take drastic and possibly violent action.

While they are at it, why don't they add that Putin may eat babies of breakfast, the Russian military may be about to nuke Monaco and that Russian Nazis may be busy planning the next Holocaust?

Amazing, even the US press does not hallucinate that way.   I mean, sure, the crazies at the Jamestown Foundation will continue to predict that a "resurgent Russia" will "threaten the world" with its huge army, bloody secret services, evil Mafia thugs, etc.  But that kind of crap has very little traction in the USA were most Americans - with the exception of the Zionists, of course - view Russia with a mix of curiosity and amused sympathy (at least that is my highly subjective observation).  But not so in the UK.

I don't know if Berezovsky and his minions are paying for these articles, but I frankly doubt it.  There seems to be a "Russophobic consensus" in the British elites, from the yellow press, to the government, to the think tanks, everybody just seems to fear and hate Russia on principle.  And a strong Russia is really the most loathed and feared one, of course.

I wonder if the Brits resent the fact that they lost the bulk of their empire while Russia did not?  Or is it because the UK is the USA's "poodle" whereas Russia is independent?  Or do the British elites feel that by going totally overboard with Russia bashing they will get brownie-points from their bosses in the USA and Israel?

I looked up this Julia Pettengill whose nightmares the Guardian saw fit to print and it turns out that she is the co-chair of the Russia Studies Centre at the Henry Jackson Society, which is the British equivalent of the US NED.  Ok. so we are dealing with professional Russia-bashers here, probably a front for the usual suspects (CIA/MI6).  Look at their homepage:

Clearly, these folks are serious about Russia and the so-called "opposition" (nevermind that it could not even get 10'000 people out in the streets of Moscow for something which they had planned as a "March of the Millions" [plural]).  As for Ms Pettengill, she also pens Russia-bashing articles for a wide spectrum of outlets including the Huffington Post and the Weekly Standard (some combination, no?).

Sadly, it appears that the West or, at least, the Anglo-West will get its way and that another Cold War with Russia is in the making.  With Putin in power for the next 6 years we can be quite confident that the Anglo-Zionist empire will not get its way at all.  Combine that with a full-spectrum weakening of the USA and its "allies" (poodles) and you get the all the ingredients for a new, resentful and vitriolic anti-Russia propaganda campaign by the Western corporate press.

The good news this time around is that the West's bark is now far more powerful than its rather lame bite.  Unlike Ms Pettengill, Vladimir Putin will not have any nightmares to scare him anytime soon.

The Saker

Britain admits 'fake rock' plot to spy on Russians

The Guardian reports:

Britain was behind a plot to spy on Russians with a device hidden in a fake plastic rock, a former key UK government official has admitted.

Jonathan Powell, former chief of staff to prime minister Tony Blair, admitted in a BBC documentary that allegations made by the Russians in 2006 - dismissed at the time - were in fact true.

"The spy rock was embarrassing," he said in the BBC2 documentary series, Putin, Russia and the West. "They had us bang to rights. Clearly they had known about it for some time and had been saving it up for a political purpose."

A diplomatic row was sparked six years ago after Russian state television broadcast a film claiming British agents had hidden a sophisticated transmitter inside a fake rock left on a Moscow street. It accused embassy officials of allegedly downloading classified data from the transmitter using palm-top computers.

The TV report showed a video of a man slowing his pace and glancing down at the rock before walking quickly away; another man was shown kicking the rock, while another walked by and picked it up. The Russian security service, the FSB, broadcast X-rays of a hollowed-out rock filled with circuitry and accused four British men and one Russian of using it to download information.

The FSB alleged that British security services were making secret payments to pro-democracy and human rights groups. Soon after the incident, then President Vladimir Putin forced the closure of many non-governmental organisations (NGOs) after introducing a law restricting them from receiving funding from foreign governments.

"We have seen attempts by the secret services to make use of NGOs. NGOs have been financed through secret service channels. No one can deny that this money stinks," said Putin. "This law has been adopted to stop foreign powers interfering in the internal affairs of the Russian Federation."

Britain's ambassador in Moscow at the time, Tony Brenton, denied the government had been involved in covert activities.

"All of our activities with the NGOs were completely above board," he said. "They were on our website, the sums of money, the projects. All of that was completely public."

The revelation comes at a sensitive time, with Putin renewing attacks on human rights and opposition activists as hostility to his premiership grows. He has repeatedly accused the west, namely the US, of using activists to plot to bring regime change to Russia.

"Putin, as a former spy and KGB agent, is trying to discredit us with the only methods he knows," said Lev Ponomaryov, a prominent human rights activist. "For any thinking person this rock meant nothing – it was simply a provocation, a cheap trick used by a former KGB agent."At the time Blair attempted to play down the allegations, and the Foreign Office denied any irregular relations with Russian NGOs. When asked about the incident, Blair smiled as he told journalists: "I think the less said about that, the better."

Iranian commander survives assassination

Press TV reports: An Iranian navy commander leading a unit that arrested 15 UK sailors in the Persian Gulf last year survives an assassination attempt.

The attack on Colonel Abolqasem Amangah, the commander of the Arvand Rud Navy Base in southern Iran, occurred while he was driving in the eastern Sorkh Hesar district of Tehran on Monday.

Two groups of unidentified assailants, a group on a motorbike and the other in a car, opened fire on the vehicle of the Iranian commander.

Amangah pulled his car over, took shelter, and managed to escape unhurt.

Security forces have launched an investigation into the incident.

On March 2007, the forces under command of Colonel Amangah, arrested 15 British sailors who trespassed on the Iranian territorial waters. The sailors were pardoned by the Iranian government and released later.

Secret move to upgrade air base for Iran attack plans

by Ian Bruce

The US is secretly upgrading special stealth bomber hangars on the British island protectorate of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, according to military sources.

The improvement of the B1 Spirit jet infrastructure coincides with an "urgent operational need" request for £44m to fit racks to the long-range aircraft.

That would allow them to carry experimental 15-ton Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs designed to smash underground bunkers buried as much as 200ft beneath the surface through reinforced concrete.
advertisement

One MOP - known as Big Blu - has already been tested successfully at the US Air Force proving ground at White Sands in New Mexico. Tenders have now gone out for a production model to be ready for use in the next nine months.

The "static tunnel lethality test" on March 14 completely destroyed a mock-up of the kind of underground facility used to house Iran's nuclear centrifuge arrays at Natanz, about 150 miles from the capital, Tehran.

Although intelligence estimates vary as to when Iran will achieve the know-how for a bomb, the French government recently received a memo from the International Atomic Energy Agency stating that Iran will be ready to run almost 3000 centrifuges in 18 cascades by the end of this month. That is in defiance of a UN ban on uranium enrichment and would be enough to produce a nuclear weapon within a year.

Diego Garcia, part of Britain's Indian Ocean Territory, has several current missions. US Air Force bombers and Awacs surveillance planes operate from its 12,000ft runway and the USAF Space Command has built a satellite tracking station and communications facility.

The Ministry of Defence says the US government would need Britain's permission to use the island for offensive action. It has already been used for strategic strike missions during the 1991 and 2003 Gulf wars against Iraq.

The UK "sovereign territory" has a garrison of 50 British and 3200 US military personnel.

The atoll, the largest in the Chagos Archipelago chain, lies about 1000 miles from the southern coasts of India and Sri Lanka. It is ideally placed for strategic missions in the Middle East.

The US Department of Defence request for special bomb racks was hidden in a £95bn request to the US Congress last week for extra emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The new Big Blu bomb is 20ft long, weighs 30,000lb and carries 6000lb of high explosives. It is designed to go deeper than even existing nuclear bunker-busting weapons.

The bomb is designed to be dropped from as great a height as possible to achieve maximum velocity and penetrating power, guided on to target by satellite and accurate to within a few feet.

Each B2 bomber would be able to carry only one weapon because of its weight. The B2s, normally based at Barksdale, Missouri, flew round-trip strikes against Baghdad in 2003, but would ideally be positioned closer to its targets for missions against Iran.

The Pentagon has drawn up contingency plans for a range of attacks on Iran. The likeliest is a five-day bombardment, aiming to disable nuclear facilities and all major airbases and radar facilities; the most devastating would involve air and cruise missile attacks on 1000 targets, including headquarters and barracks of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps, over more than a month.

The US branded the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organisation last week in the latest round of diplomatic sanctions against Tehran.

Ahmadinejad interview with Channel 4 - full transcript

Every question and answer from last night's Channel 4 News interview with Jon Snow and the Iranian president"

Q: Both the UK and the US have accused Iran of fighting a proxy war inside Iraq?

A: "I think the Americans and the British, they should correct themselves .... We know that there is a difference between Americans and the British. The British when they moved out of Barsa, it was a good gesture and we hope it will continue. We are the country that gets damaged a lot for Iraq's insecurity because we're two countries that are so connected for 1000s for years, we have lots of two way connections and our security depends on each others. Let me say one more another sentence; Iraq is a great nation.."

Q: There are factions in southern Iraq you support - is it a victory that the British left Basra?

A: "Do you think that you were defeated in Iraq by Iraqi people or by Iran?"

Q: By Iran. People supporting factions in the south of Iraq.

A: "It's a mistake of yours. That's why future decisions would be wrong as well. We hope responsible people should understand this. Iran is against any sort of insecurity and attack and Iraq is able to defend themselves."

Q: We find the division difficult between your influence in the south of Iraq and actual military involvement - some say we have British troops killed by bombs made in Iran...

A: "We have influence all over Iraq, because we have a good relationship; good history - sincere relations - in a lot of the country. They are very good friends of ours, we speak to each other in our private matters. We have good relationships with Shias and Sunnis; with both the President and the Prime Minister.."

Q: Can you use your influence in the release of current hostages?

A: "We can help solve many problems in Iraq. We can help secure Iraq. We can help the attackers go out; the invaders go out of Iraq. There won't be any need for these conflicts. We hope they recognise Iraqi peoples' rights, if they don't recognise Iraqi peoples' rights then this condition will continue."

Q: Nuclear and the UN - What will happen if there are sanctions?

A: "The problem is clear. We have to obey or agree with what ever was put to us but we didn't exercise all the rights that we had. The main problem is the {enmity or anonymity - translation unclear} of America. From the beginning we said everything should be solved by the agency and US opinion is now important for us ..."{ last seven words also unclear here}.."

Q: You do want a bomb don't you?

A: "We do not need a bomb. We are against a bomb actually. There are many reasons that we're against it. In our belief we are against bombs {and} from a political point of view it is not useful."

Q: Will you take me to your nuclear facility?

A: "Would the government of Britain let me inspect their atomic bases or Americans? Would they let us do it - to inspect their bases?"

Q: Hand on heart - you do not want a bomb?

A: "Americans and British - if they have it {nuclear facility} - what is the issue? Why have it? We don't need it {a bomb}."

Q: On the existence of Israel?

A: "If there is a general referendum by the people of Palestine, all would be solved. We think it is a human solution... We do not recognise Israel; they are attackers and illegal, but our method is human. I'll ask you where is Soviet Union now - isn't it gone, without war? Let the Palestinian people decide."

Q: But you speak with more determination. The collapse of Soviet Union was a surprise - you say you want is off the map (Israel).

A: "Because we are studying the region, the problems in the region properly. We do not deceive ourselves. We think that Israel is an invader and it is cruel and it hasn't got a united public. All other neighbouring countries are against it. It cannot continue its life."

Q: Do you regret denying the holocaust?

A: "I had two questions about holocaust. I am sorry that instead of answering academic questions they created a political issue of it. I had two questions. 1st - if the holocaust is a historic matter there should be research about it....."

Q: But documentation is enormous...

A: "I don't know why you are trying to blame me, my question is clear - if historic matter has happened then we should research this, there should be of course new things to discover about it - why don't they let us do it this? It is suspicious. My second question if there was holocaust, where did it happen, what was the Palestinian peoples' role in it? They didn't have any mistake in it. Why should they be punished, why should they be invaded, be killed...?"

Q: The majority of people in world will not agree.

A: "It is your mistake. If you make a referendum in Europe -you will see that people of Europe are with me. If as International associations will go to Europe and we get a vote you will see they are with us..."

Q: You will never cease nuclear enrichment?

A: "Why should we stop it while American and Britain does not cut it - what is the point?"

Q: You don't fear an American or Israeli bomb?

A: "There is no reason - no. There are those in America that are interested to use warfare and force but we do not believe in war and it is the last resort.

There is one question I want to ask you- why should the American programme not be stopped but our programme is dangerous, but Americans are not a danger?"

Q: When you were elected the poor believed you'd reduce their suffering - but with high unemployment - the poor are poorer - can you afford these conflicts with outside world?

A: "I am happy that you are speaking on behalf of my nation as well - where did you hear these things that people say these things? I have said these things before the elections as well. Our nation is strong enough and in all cities and provinces they say our people, that the government is there and there is no gap between the government and the people here."

Q: Contact between the US and Iran has so far been between ambassadors - one in Iraq and one here but negotiations have to be at top. Would it be useful for Gordon brown or Nicolas Sarkozy or Angela Merkel to be directly involved?

A: "We appreciate and we are on the side of negotiation. We do not have any problem with the British government for example... {unclear} ... but if something is forced upon us then we do not tolerate that. We prefer to make more {negotiations} now with Europeans because Europeans have had two wars and they have suffered the consequences."

Q: Can you say that no Iranians are involved in the killing of British solders?

A: "I should say this to the good British people about the things that happen .. {unclear} .. We are sorry for your soldiers to be killed, we think that peace should exist. Why should there be invasions so that people are killed? We want friendship. Our message is friendship to all - all nations all human beings - anybody who is killed, we are against that. Your soldiers, poor soldiers, they don't know where they are to be sent, they don't know which part of the world, why should they be killed? British youths should be in their own country, serving their own people. We want peace and friendship for all. We should help. This war should finish."

Brits Flee from Basra: Another Black Eye for US Boasts

By PATRICK COCKBURN

The withdrawal of British forces from Basra Palace, ahead of an expected full withdrawal from the city as early as next month, marks the beginning of the end of one of the most futile campaigns ever fought by the British Army. Ostensibly, the British will be handing over control of Basra to Iraqi security forces. In reality, British soldiers control very little in Basra, and the Iraqi security forces are largely run by the Shia militias.

The British failure is almost total after four years of effort and the death of 168 personnel. "Basra's residents and militiamen view this not as an orderly withdrawal but rather as an ignominious defeat," says a report by the Brussels-based International Crisis Group. "Today, the city is controlled by militias, seemingly more powerful and unconstrained than before."

The British military presence has been very limited since April this year, when Operation Sinbad, vaunted by the Ministry of Defense as a comparative success, ended. In the last four months the escalating attacks on British forces have shown the operation failed in its aim to curb the power of the militias.

The pullout will be a jolt for the US because it undermines its claim that it is at last making progress in establishing order in Iraq because Sunni tribes have turned against al-Qa'ida and because of its employment of more sophisticated tactics. In practice, the US controls very little of the nine Shia provinces south of Baghdad.

The British Army was never likely to be successful in southern Iraq in terms of establishing law and order under the control of the government in Baghdad. Claims that the British military could draw on counter-insurgency experience built up in Northern Ireland never made sense.

In Northern Ireland it had the support of the majority Protestant population.

In Basra and the other three provinces where it was in command in southern Iraq the British forces had no reliable local allies.

The criticism of the lack of American preparation for the occupation by Sir Mike Jackson, the former head of the British Army, and Maj Gen Tim Ross, the most senior British officer in post-war planning, rather misses the point.

Most Iraqis were glad to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but the majority opposed a post-war occupation. If the Americans and British had withdrawn immediately in April 2003 then there would have been no guerrilla war.

Soon after the British arrival, on 24 June 2003, British troops learnt a bloody lesson about the limits of their authority when six military policemen were trapped in a police headquarters between Basra and al-Amara. I visited the grim little building where they had died a day later. Armed men were still milling around outside. A tribesman working for a leader who was supposedly on the British side, said: "We are just waiting for our religious leaders to issue a fatwa against the occupation and then we will fight. If we give up our weapons how can we fight them?"

The British line was that there were "rogue" policemen and, once they were eliminated, the Iraqi security forces would take command. In fact, the political parties and their mafia-like militias always controlled the institutions. When a young American reporter living in Basra bravely pointed this out in a comment article he was promptly murdered by the police. One militia leader was quoted as saying: "80 per cent of assassinations in 2006 were committed by individuals wearing police uniforms, carrying police guns and using police cars."

Could any of this have been avoided? At an early stage, when the British had a large measure of control, there was a plan to discipline the militias by putting them in uniform. This idea of turning poachers into gamekeepers simply corrupted the police.

The violence in Basra is not primarily against the occupation or over sectarian differences (the small Sunni minority has largely been driven out). The fighting has been and will be over local resources.

The fragile balance of power is dominated by three groups: Fadhila, which controls the Oil Protection Force; the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, which dominates the intelligence service and police commando units, and The Mehdi Army, which runs much of the local police force, port authority and the Facilities Protection Force. One Iraqi truck driver said he had to bribe three different militia units stationed within a few kilometers of each other in order to proceed.

In terms of establishing an orderly government in Basra and a decent life for its people the British failure has been absolute.

Patrick Cockburn is the author of 'The Occupation: War, resistance and daily life in Iraq' a finalist for the National Book Critics' Circle Award for best non-fiction book of 2006.
-------

So the Brits have decided to cut and run from southern Iraq.

Makes me wonder what they know which made them do that?

Anyway, this is a very, very wise decision indeed. It is also a disaster for the Empire as now there are no more Imperial forces in southern Iraq to protect the roads between Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Baghdad (I can just imagine how angry CENTCOM must be). But kudos for the Brits - at least they will not continue dying for Israel. Iranian allies now have total control of the entire Basra region and southern Iraq. Yet another major - strategic - victory for Iran achieved without firing a single shot.

Brown Must Now Publicly Oppose Bush's War Drive On Iran

CASMII UK Press Release

29 August 2007

Brown Must Now Publicly Oppose Bush's War Drive On Iran

"I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities"

George Bush's address to war veterans in Nevada on 28th August was a carefully choreographed and unambiguous declaration of war on Iran.

Bush accused the Iranian government of being behind the insurgency in Iraq as well as assisting the Taliban in Afghanistan. He said "We must confront these dangers before it's too late ... We will fight them over there so we do not have to face them in the United States of America."

In the past year and especially with the failure of the so-called surge strategy, Iran has been blamed for the United States' failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has been demonised as the source of all ills in the Middle East, including Palestine and Lebanon. The US military briefing of 2nd July and 5th August accuse Iran of cooperation with AlQaeda and supporting the insurgency and the killing of American servicemen in Iraq. These accusations have not been backed by evidence and are in direct contradiction with earlier statements by Gen. David Petraus made as early as April 07.

Notable are also the recent statements by Afghan President, Karzai, and Iraqi PM, Al-Maliki who separately praised the positive contributions of Iran to the limited stability in their countries. Karzai called Iran a "helper and a solution". These remarks were sharply rebuked by the US.

The passage by the US Congress of an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill accusing Iran of "intolerable acts of hostility towards the US" and demanding the US government to take "Immediate action", and the unprecedented move by the American government to designate Iran's Revolution Guards as a "terrorist organization", provide the White House lawyers with a legal pretext for a direct US military attack on Iran without seeking further authorization from the Congress.

British Foreign Minister, David Miliband has admitted in an interview with the Financial Times on 8th July that there was no evidence of Iranian involvement in the violence and instability in Iraq.

Bush's repeated labelling of Iran as the "biggest sponsor of terrorism" and his demonisation of Iran's nuclear programme as casting "a shadow of holocaust" over the Middle East is reminiscent of Rice's infamous warning of the danger of Iraqi WMD and the threat of a "mushroom cloud over New York".

Following an IAEA's visit to Tehran on August 7 in which agreement on the modalities and timetable were reached to address all outstanding ambiguities regarding Iran's nuclear energy programme, it was announced on 27th August that "earlier statements made by Iran [about Plutonium experiments] are consistent with the Agency's findings, and thus this matter is resolved."

The agreement further states:

"The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use."

Bush and his Neoconservative backers disgraced and wounded at home and caught in the bloody quagmire of Iraq and Afghanistan are unlikely to be willing to leave office in 2008 with the legacy of failure and the perception of having made Iran the dominant power in the region. The end of Bush's presidency could also be an end to the NeoCons' dream of controlling the vast energy resources of Iran and the larger Middle East. In throes of defeat, war can be resorted to as the only option.

It was the opposition and outrage with Tony Blair's slavish pursuit of the US foreign policy and his taking Britain into the US imperial wars that led to his final ousting and replacement by Gordon Brown.

Gordon Brown must now honour his office by distancing Britain from the US's war plans for Iran and openly denouncing the military option. Anything but a clear denunciation of military attack on Iran will make him complicit in George W Bush's wars, the bearer of the legacy of the tragic bloodbath in Iraq as well as unleashing catastrophe in Iran and beyond.

For more information or to contact CASMII please visit http://www.campaigniran.org

Washington Post admits "British defeated in Basra"

As British Leave, Basra Deteriorates
Violence Rises in Shiite City Once Called a Success Story

By Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 7, 2007; A01

As British forces pull back from Basra in southern Iraq, Shiite militias there have escalated a violent battle against each other for political supremacy and control over oil resources, deepening concerns among some U.S. officials in Baghdad that elements of Iraq's Shiite-dominated national government will turn on one another once U.S. troops begin to draw down.

Three major Shiite political groups are locked in a bloody conflict that has left the city in the hands of militias and criminal gangs, whose control extends to municipal offices and neighborhood streets. The city is plagued by "the systematic misuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighborhood vigilantism and enforcement of social mores, together with the rise of criminal mafias that increasingly intermingle with political actors," a recent report by the International Crisis Group said.

After Saddam Hussein was overthrown in April 2003, British forces took control of the region, and the cosmopolitan port city of Basra thrived with trade, arts and universities. As recently as February, Vice President Cheney hailed Basra as a part of Iraq "where things are going pretty well."

But "it's hard now to paint Basra as a success story," said a senior U.S. official in Baghdad with long experience in the south. Instead, it has become a different model, one that U.S. officials with experience in the region are concerned will be replicated throughout the Iraqi Shiite homeland from Baghdad to the Persian Gulf. A recent series of war games commissioned by the Pentagon also warned of civil war among Shiites after a reduction in U.S. forces.

For the past four years, the administration's narrative of the Iraq war has centered on al-Qaeda, Iran and the sectarian violence they have promoted. But in the homogenous south -- where there are virtually no U.S. troops or al-Qaeda fighters, few Sunnis, and by most accounts limited influence by Iran -- Shiite militias fight one another as well as British troops. A British strategy launched last fall to reclaim Basra neighborhoods from violent actors -- similar to the current U.S. strategy in Baghdad -- brought no lasting success.

"The British have basically been defeated in the south," a senior U.S. intelligence official said recently in Baghdad. They are abandoning their former headquarters at Basra Palace, where a recent official visitor from London described them as "surrounded like cowboys and Indians" by militia fighters. An airport base outside the city, where a regional U.S. Embassy office and Britain's remaining 5,500 troops are barricaded behind building-high sandbags, has been attacked with mortars or rockets nearly 600 times over the past four months.

Britain sent about 40,000 troops to Iraq -- the second-largest contingent, after that of the United States, at the time of the March 2003 invasion -- and focused its efforts on the south. With few problems from outside terrorists or sectarian violence, the British began withdrawing, and by early 2005 only 9,000 troops remained. British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced further drawdowns early this year before leaving office.

The administration has been reluctant to publicly criticize the British withdrawal. But a British defense expert serving as a consultant in Baghdad acknowledged in an e-mail that the United States "has been very concerned for some time now about a) the lawless situation in Basra and b) the political and military impact of the British pullback." The expert added that this "has been expressed at the highest levels" by the U.S. government to British authorities.

The government of new Prime Minister Gordon Brown has pointed to the current relative calm in three of the region's four provinces -- barring Basra -- as evidence of success. According to one British official, Brown told President Bush when they met last week at Camp David that Britain hopes to turn Basra over to Iraqi control in the next few months. Although a further drawdown of its forces is likely, Britain will coordinate its remaining presence with Washington after an assessment in September by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq.

As it prepares to take control of Basra, the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has dispatched new generals to head the army and police forces there. But the warring militias are part of factions in the government itself, including radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr -- whose Mahdi Army is believed responsible for most of the recent attacks on the airport compound -- as well as the Fadhila, or Islamic Virtue Party, and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the country's largest Shiite party.

In March, Fadhila pulled out of Maliki's ruling alliance of Shiite parties in Baghdad after it lost control of the petroleum ministry to the Supreme Council. Last week, under pressure from the council, Maliki fired the Fadhila governor of Basra. Fadhila has refused to relinquish power over the governate or over Basra's lucrative oil refineries, calling the Maliki government "the new Baath" -- a reference to Hussein's Sunni-led political party -- and appealed the dismissal to Iraq's constitutional court.

Jockeying for political power in Baghdad has long since translated into shooting battles in Basra. The militias have shifted alliances with one another, as well as with the British and with Iran as they fight for control of neighborhoods and resources. With the escalation of street battles and assassinations, much of the population is confined to homes and is fearful of Islamic rules imposed by militias.

Although neighbor Iran's presence is pervasive -- with cultural influence, humanitarian aid, arms and money -- U.S. officials and outside experts think that the Iraqi parties are using Iran more than vice versa. Iraqis in the south have long memories of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, one U.S. official said, and when a southern Shiite "wants to tar someone, they call them an Iranian." He said the United States is "always very concerned about Iranian influence, as well we should be, but there is a difference between influence and control. It would be very difficult for the Iranians to establish control."

The ICG study described Iran, Britain and the United States as equally confused about what is happening in Basra. During a recent visit there, the U.S. official said, he was unable to meet with any local Iraqis outside the airport base or to travel beyond the secured route between the base and the palace. About 200 Americans are in and around the city, including those assigned to the embassy office, some civilian support personnel and contract security guards.

Basra's "security nightmare" has already had devastating effects on Iraq's economy, said Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of Michigan. Home to two-thirds of Iraq's oil resources, Basra is the country's sole dependable outlet for exporting oil, with a capacity of 1.8 million barrels a day. Much of Basra's violence is "over who gets what cut from Iraq's economic resources," a U.S. Army strategist in Iraq said.

Militias and criminal gangs are financed in part by stolen oil smuggled outside the country, even as Iraq lacks enough energy to provide electricity to many of its people. Both the oil industry and the port facilities -- providing Iraq's only maritime access -- have made Basra "a significant prize for local political actors," the ICG said.

The current U.S. security operation to "clear, hold and build" in Baghdad and its surroundings is almost a replica of Operation Sinbad, which British and Iraqi forces conducted in Basra from September 2006 to March of this year with a mission of "clear, hold and civil reconstruction." Although Operation Sinbad initially succeeded in lowering crime and political assassinations, attacks rose in the spring and British forces withdrew into their compounds.

In the early years of Iraq's occupation, British officials often disdained the U.S. use of armored patrols and heavily protected troops. The British approach of lightly armed foot patrols -- copied from counterinsurgency operations in Northern Ireland -- sought to avoid antagonizing the local population and encourage cooperation. A 2005 report by the defense committee of the House of Commons commended the British army's performance and urged the Ministry of Defense to "use its influence" to get the Americans to take a less aggressive approach.

In a recent BBC interview, Air Chief Marshal Jock Stirrup, chief of the British defense staff, insisted that Basra has been a success. But he acknowledged that judgment depended on "what your interpretation of the mission was in the first place," adding: "I'm afraid people had, in many instances, unrealistic aspirations."

The mission, he said, was simply to "get the place and the people to a state where Iraqis could run this part of the country, if they chose to."

No Evidence of Iran’s role in violence and instability in Iraq – confirms British Foreign Minister

by Mehrnaz Shahabi, Wednesday, July 18, 2007

(CASMII Columns)

David Milliband, British foreign secretary, confirmed in an interview (1) with the Financial times, 8th July, that there is no evidence of Iranian complicity in instability in Iraq or attacks on British troops:

Asked by the FT, “What do you think of Iran’s complicity in attacks on British soldiers in Basra”?, Miliband’s first response was, “Well, I think that any evidence of Iranian engagement there is to be deplored. I think that we need regional players to be supporting stability, not fomenting discord, never mind death. And as I said at the beginning, Iran has a complete right, and we support the idea that Iran should be a wealthy and respected part of the future. But it does not have the right to be a force of instability”. However, prompted more closely, “Just to be clear, there is evidence?”, he replied, “Well no, I chose my words carefully…”.

This confession came in the context of an implied accusation or a not so subtle suggestion of Iranian role in the instability in Iraq which seem to have stimulated the question “There is evidence?”, to which the reply “Well no …”; a possible disappointment, was nonetheless crystal clear: There is no evidence.

Contextually, this important admission by the British Foreign Minister of absence of any evidence linking Iran to the violence and instability in Iraq was preceded by the discussion about Iran’s nuclear programme and Britain’s readiness to impose another set of punishing sanctions on Iranian people, for Iran’s non-compliance with the security council’s resolutions which have no basis in international law, imposed based on supposed suspicions for which again, there is no evidence .

Confirmation of the absence of evidence was then followed by yet another confirmation that Britain is leaving the military option “on the table”, on pretexts for which, there is no evidence, either of Iran’s breach of non proliferation rules or its threat to international peace and security. This confirms that despite a change of faces and make up, Britain continues to tow the American foreign policy and is in danger of being dragged into another illegal and immoral war, contrary to the will of the British people, and contrary to the evidence of its own finding. Jack Straw rejected as madness, any idea of military attack on Iran. Yet, Miliband refused to remove the military option off the table.

Keeping open, submissively, the possibility of British participation in a US/Israeli war or to give at least political backing to such an adventure, supports the assumption that the transition from Blair to Brown is significant, not from the point of view of any fundamental difference between Blair and Brown and their respective cabinets, but because of popular opposition to Blair’s open warmongering and servitude to American foreign policy.

The transition to the new government is a victory for the popular opposition to war and will remain a victory only if, under popular pressure and demand, the Brown government categorically rejects and opposes the military option against Iran; that it rejects the sanction resolutions which cause Iranian people immense suffering, and as with Iraq, are used as a pretext for war; and demand that the British government uses any influence it might have on the US administration in support of the pursuit of bilateral dialogue between the US and Iran without precondition.

Silence of the Media

The financial Times itself did not linger on the admission by Miliband of absence of evidence. Relevantly so, two days previously the FT published a story alleging Iranian government’s cooperation with Al-Qaeda using Iranian territory for launching anti-coalition operations in Iraq, without any evidence. Across the mainstream media the response has been uniform silence. This revelation should have been greeted with relief and welcomed by those in Britain and the US who are genuinely concerned about the tragedy that this illegal invasion and occupation has brought upon the people of Iraq, the security and moral implications for the people of the US and the UK, the welfare and safety of the coalition troops and the establishment of peace and security in Iraq and the Middle East. Considering the orchestrated chorus of the war media finding shadows of Iranian culprits at every corner, from Palestine to Afghanistan to Iraq and beyond, sabotaging the ‘noble efforts at establishing peace, security and democracy in this dangerous region’, these warriors of the clash of civilisations have not found the absence of evidence of Iranian complicity in the violence in Iraq newsworthy!

Neither has the 8th July Associated Press story (3) of the released audio tape from Abu Omar al Baghdadi, the leader of an al-Qaeda umbrella group in Iraq, has elicited any response from the US government, or particular interest and analysis in the media. In this audio tape, Baghdadi, allegedly, threatens to wage war against Iran unless Iran stops supporting the Shiia government in Iraq, and declaring that “his Sunni fighters have been preparing for four years to wage a battle against Shiite-dominated Iran”. This absence of interest in the media, in the wake of the recent flood of propaganda accusing Iran of complicity with Al-Qaeda (2) (4) is remarkable in its degree of cynicism, not just towards Iran but towards genuine desire for peace and security internationally.

The US, with its army briefing of 2nd July by Bregadier General, Kevin Bergner, who made wild and serious accusations about Iranian complicity in Anti-Us insurgency and its collusion in killing the US servicemen, has understandably remained silent!

Because of course, both the confirmation of Iranian non-involvement in the violence in Iraq, and the Al-Qaeda’s alleged intention to wage a war against Iran should Iran continue to support the Iraqi government, debunks the myth of Iranian involvement and investment in the continuing instability in Iraq and exposes the alliance of interests between the US and Al-Qaeda around their deep hostility towards Iran.

For those with a genuine desire for peace, this clear confirmation of the absence of Iranian involvement in the violence and instability in Iraq would have signaled a better prospect for establishing security in Iraq, and a better prospect for a successful withdrawal of troops. This would have also indicated the possibility, at least as far as Iran’s willingness is concerned, for a fruitful outcome for the bilateral dialogue between Iran and the US, the consequences of which are far reaching in terms of prosperity and security for the people in the region and for peace and security internationally.

1. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b9b5b078-2d57-11dc-939b-0000779fd2ac.html

2. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9cc4d5f4-2be3-11dc-b498-000b5df10621.html

3. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070708/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_al_qaida_1

4. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2085192,00.html

UK Jews and Israelis behind anti-Israel boycott

Jewish Chronicle investigation reveals Jewish, Israeli academics justify their activity as part of struggle for Palestinian rights, ending Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories:

Named: boycott ringleaders

By By Bernard Josephs and Nicole Hazan

The JC today identifies the key players in the escalating British campaign to boycott Israel. Our investigation shows that many are Jewish or Israeli, and that they justify their stance as part of the struggle for Palestinian rights and ending Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.

A high proportion are deeply involved in UCU, the University and College Union, which last month sparked an international outcry by voting to facilitate a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.

Anti-boycott figures suggest that the campaign has been fuelled by a well-organised mix of far-left activists and Islamic organisations. In reality, the main proponents are a loosely knit collection of academics and trade unionists linked to groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Jews for the Boycotting of Israeli Goods, and Bricup, the British Committee for Universities of Palestine.

Israeli Haim Bresheeth, professor of media and culture at the University of East London, seconded the UCU motion, which called for consideration of the morality of ties with Israeli academia and for discussions on boycotting.

Prof Bresheeth told the JC that a boycott was not an easy decision. “I am Jewish and an Israeli, and I don’t wish harm on either side. But how long can this occupation go on?”

Characterising opposition to a boycott as insincere, he added : “What we are asking for is not violent. It is civil action against a military occupation.”

The proposer of the UCU motion was Brighton University philosophy lecturer Tom Hickey, who stressed that should the boycott go ahead, its target would be Israeli universities rather than individual academics. Another speaker for the UCU motion was Richard Seaford, professor of classics and ancient history at Exeter University, whose former pupils include JK Rowling. In 1990, he was a signatory to a campaign against Israel’s law of return. Last year, he refused to review a book for an Israeli journal because of “outrage” at Israel’s “brutal and illegal expansionism”.

Bricup has a large number of Jewish supporters, among them husband and wife Hilary and Steven Rose. Hilary, a professor of social policy at Bradford University, is Bricup’s co-convenor alongside Prof Jonathan Rosenhead. Her husband, an Open University biology professor, is the organisation’s secretary. They have been active in the boycott movement since 2002.

In an online article, Steven Rose wrote: “It really isn’t good enough to attack the messenger as antisemitic or a self-hating Jew rather than deal with the message that Israel’s conduct is unacceptable.”

Prof Rosenhead, of the London School of Economics, hails from a “solid Zionist and Jewish background”. Bricup, he said, had been involved in the discussions about the writing of the UCU motion. “The reaction from the community was what you would expect, but we are looking forward to the debate. It was a triumph that Israel came into existence —but not this Israel.”

Birmingham University lecturer Sue Blackwell, the figurehead of an unsuccessful attempt by UCU’s predecessor, the Association of University Teachers, to force a boycott, pushed through a UCU motion calling for a moratorium on European Union research grants to Israel. In her view, the UCU had put the boycott “back on the agenda”.
-------

(This makes me wonder whether there is any rational argument which can convince all the Jew-haters out there that Zionism or Judaism are not to be confused with the fact of being born Jewish)