The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

[Taxloss]

In retaliation, suicide bombers trained by Tehran massacred civilians in Tel Aviv, London and New York

Timothy Garton Ash
Thursday April 20, 2006
The Guardian

May 7 2009 will surely go down in history alongside September 11 2001. "5/7", as it inevitably became known, saw massive suicide bombings in Tel Aviv, London and New York, as well as simultaneous attacks on the remaining western troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Total casualties were estimated at around 10,000 dead and many more wounded. The attacks, which included the explosion of a so-called dirty bomb in London, were orchestrated by a Tehran-based organisation for "martyrdom-seeking operations" established in 2004. "5/7" was the Islamic Republic of Iran's response to the bombing of its nuclear facilities, which President Hillary Clinton had ordered in March 2009.

Despite massive protests across the Islamic world, and in many European capitals, the US-led military operation had initially appeared to be successful. The US, supported by British and Israeli special forces, had bombed 37 sites, including underground facilities in which Iran was said to be on the verge of making a nuclear weapon using its own version of P-2 centrifuges. The model for these had been originally supplied by AQ Khan, the rogue Pakistani nuclear scientist. US forces had taken down Iran's air defences and destroyed much of its air force. Inevitably, there were civilian casualties - estimated by the Iranian government at 197 dead and 533 injured. A Pentagon spokesman insisted that "collateral damage" had been confined to "an acceptable level". He claimed Iran's nuclear weapons programme had been "knocked back to first base".

The US navy had also successfully broken an attempted Iranian naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the main arteries of the world's oil supplies. A US gunship had been damaged by an Iranian underwater missile attack, but with no loss of American lives. In panic on the oil markets, the price of crude oil had soared to more than $100 a barrel, but the Bush administration had built up America's strategic oil reserves and the new Clinton administration was able to draw on these. European economies were worse hit.

As experts had predicted, however, the biggest challenge for the west was Iran's ability to wage asymmetric warfare through Hizbullah, Hamas and its own suicide-bombing brigades. The Islamic Republic had for years been openly recruiting suicide bombers through an organisation described as the Committee to Commemorate Martyrs of the Global Islamic Movement. As early as April 2006, it had held a recruitment fair in the grounds of the former US embassy in Tehran, claiming it already had more than 50,000 volunteers for operations against "the al-Quds occupiers" (that is, Israel), "the occupiers of Islamic lands", especially the US and Britain, and the British writer Salman Rushdie. Recruits could also sign up through the internet (www.esteshhad.com) While Hizbullah and Hamas provided the infrastructure for the Tel Aviv bombings, the key to the attacks on London and New York was the recruitment of British and American Muslims through this group. The man who detonated the dirty bomb at Euston station, Bradford-born Muhammad Hussein, had been secretly trained by the Committee to Commemorate Martyrs at a camp in northern Iran.

More:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1757132,00.html

[rodeodance]

1. this is silly, Hil Clinton has advocated the use of nukes.

[Taxloss]

3. Then it's an optimistic version. Yikes.

I thought that was the pessimistic version.

[Montauk6]

2. Now, THIS is genius, PURRRRRRRE GENIUS!!!

Of course, the ultimate spin! Talking points that project in the future and assume Hilary is the President. Now, this could be the saving grace for the faltering GOP; the very thing to patch the big consovietive crack-up. With The Machine in tow, can you imagine the volumes of scandals and pre-investigations that could be started to distract the American people once again?

(I may hate their guts but I always tip my hat to sheer cleverness)

[Taxloss]

5. You think that Timothy Garton-Ash is in the pay of the GOP?

Do you think he imagines a third Republican term would be better?

[Montauk6]

7. Or maybe the Carlysle Group?

Hey, they bought out Dunkin Donuts; they'll buy anyone or anything!

[Taxloss]

8. He's a decent guy.

A smart guy. He's not gunning to Hillary. He's pointing out the fact that the USA is barrelling towards military action in Iran - with awful consequences - whoever is in power.

[rodeodance]

9. then he has had a real bad hair day!

[Montauk6]

10. I dunno... while I agree that the Dems don't always live up to the Loyal

Opposition standard, I grow equally weary of this "no matter who's in office" stuff. You saw this a lot with Counterpunch during the '04 campaign. Hell, Cockburn went as far as to claim that Kerry would've been FAR WORSE than Bush, not simply as bad but FAR WORSE. Yes, I wasn't happy with Kerry's waffling, I had to keep playing back his '71 testimony to keep motivated in voting for him at times. But to argue that Kerry, and now Hillary, would escalate the war, escalate the corporate cronyism bordering on downright rackateering, keep the PNAC gang and other neocons in the loop...? At the risk of naivete, I don't think so.

[Terran1212]

16. What are you talking about; the GOP would LOVE Hilary if she did that

[Montauk6]

21. You're assuming , of course, that there's anything Hillary could possibly

do to win the GOP's love.

[Duer 157099]

4. Is this guy just being snarky?

Or trying his hand as a psychic?

Or trying to convince his readers that it's better if we allow Bush to do it now?

And how the hell did Hillary become president anyway!!!

[Taxloss]

6. In answer: No, no, no, and I have no idea.

He is drawing attention to the extraordinary and seemingly irresistable trend towards attacking Iran that has appeared from nowhere, and pointing out that Democrats are politically hamstrung on the issue.

[ShortnFiery]

29. "And how the hell did Hillary become president anyway!!!"

The DLC needs to wake up from such a delusional wet dream.
She's a shoe-in for reelection to NY State senate but there's no way in hell that she could be repackaged enough for those SIGNIFICANT percentages of liberals to even consider voting for her.
If she's the nominee (or Bayh), my left wing a** is staying home. :P

[SaveElmer]

11. About the dumbest thing I have ever read...nt

[Terran1212]

13. Only because it's true

[SaveElmer]

14. Ridiculous in the extreme...

A wet dream for Hillary haters!

[Terran1212]

15. Hate her or love her she's never anti-war

[SaveElmer]

17. Of course she is...

She is just not a pacifist. Take a look at her statement to the Senate explaining her vote for the IWR, hardly a clarion call to war.

The article was a ridiculous cheap shot at a person they know would garner them readers.

[Terran1212]

18. I've seen her speak in person on the war and she's nothing but smiles

She's not a pacifist, no, I don't know many people who are, but she's almost the opposite.

She doesn't seem even interested in taking the position of the vast majority of her constituents.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. Look at her speech in January

I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not — must not — permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran — that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/01/18/news/14289.shtml

She's willing to use military force to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons. That's what makes the scenario plausible.

[SaveElmer]

22. She is entirely correct in her assessment of the danger...

And as someone who has seen up close how you deal with other nations, you never explicitly remove any option, whether you plan to use it or not.

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. So you presumably encourage articles like this

that say that it is still quite possible that a Democratic president would attack Iran. It add believablity to the threat you want to send to Iran, doesn't it?

[ShortnFiery]

31. "you never explicitly remove any option"

Even when the world's most respected and imminent PHYSICISTS claim that it will be the beginning for the END OF TIME!

Total planetary annihilation?

Armageddon should NOT be an military option. :grr: :nuke:

[SaveElmer]

33. Armageddon has been a military option...

Since 1945, and in fact is the only thing that kept us out of it during the cold war. Having said that, I do not believe there is any circumstance under which Hillary Clinton would use nuclear weapons to keep Iran from developing them. There is a difference between what you are willing to do, and what you tell your opponents what you are willing to do. It is stupid to tip half of your hand to your opponent before the "Game" (disclaimer: yes I know this is not a game, it is the only word that fit well into this sentance) starts.

[Taxloss]

36. I can't believe that you're pre-emptively justifying an HRC strike on Iran

Does Hillary have compromising photos of you or something? If the logic works for her, it works for Bush!

[SaveElmer]

37. You come to that conclusion only by ignoring what I said...

As is usually the case around here. What I said AGAIN, is that it is stupid to remove any option from the table when you are negotiating with an adversary. It is like telling your opponent in a poker game you won't raise on three of a kind. Hillary will not preemptively strike Iran, but it would be stupid to announce that to the Iranians.

This is the strategy employed with effect by many Presidents (except the current one).

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. So why is the article a 'ridiculous cheap shot'?

By your way of thinking, Clinton will welcome articles like this which back up her bluff.

[Terran1212]

12. Great satire!

The saddest part is I can actually see it happening.

[Demeter]

19. Bad Fiction and Worse Political Anaylsis

Maybe this guy should stick to straight out, factual journalism (now there's a good way to starve to death!)

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei fatwa against nuclear weapons

In the Iranian system the elected parliament and president have limited powers. By far the single most powerful person is Chief of State Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He has the final say. In addition to his political position--within the Shiite version of Islam he is what is known as a marja'a. Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq is also a a marja'a. A fatwa is a final religious decision absolutely binding on all Shiites within that marja'a's domain. All fatwas issued by a maja'a are written down and publicly announced. They carry almost as much weight as sacred scripture

Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons last August. Even if other mullahs or ayatollahs would disagree or make a contrary declaration - Ayatollah Khamanei's decision would over ride them and would be the final word in matters of the Iranian state and to any Shiite believers within Ayatollah Khamenei's domain which would include almost all Iranian Shiites.

This is the statement regarding Ayatollah Khamanei's fatwa which comes from the website of the Islamic Republic of Iran - link:

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0508104135124631.htm

Iran-Nuclear-Statement
Iran is a nuclear fuel cycle technology holder, a capability which is exclusively for peaceful purposes, a statement issued by the Islamic republic at the emergency meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) read here Tuesday evening.

The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons, it added.

The full text of the statement is as follows:
"Madam chair, colleagues,
"We meet when the world is remembering the atomic bombings of the civilians in Hiroshima (Aug 6) and Nagasaki (Aug 9) sixty years ago.

The savagery of the attack, the human suffering it caused, the scale of the civilian loss of life turning individuals, old and young, into ashes in a split second, and maiming indefinitely those who survived should never be removed from our memory. It is the most absurd manifestation of irony that the single state who caused this single nuclear catastrophe in a twin attack on our earth now has assumed the role of the prime preacher in the nuclear field while ever expanding its nuclear weapons capability.

"We as members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) are proud to underline that none of the NPT members of the NAM rely on nuclear weapons in any way for their security. That is not the case of many other states, who either possess nuclear weapons or are member of nuclear-armed alliances and it is such states that have taken on the self-assigned role of denying Iran its legal rights under the NPT to access the peaceful uses of nuclear technology in conformity with the treaty's non-proliferation obligations.

"Indeed, it is not only Iran but also many members of NAM that are denied the peaceful uses of nuclear technology by some of the NPT nuclear-weapon states and their allies through the mechanisms of export controls and other denial arrangements. In 1995, they adopted the so-called "Iran clause" under which they agreed to deny nuclear technology to Iran in any circumstances.

"You can then understand, why Iran after being denied nuclear technology in violation of the NPT, had no other option but to rely on indigenous efforts with precaution on full transparency and we succeeded in developing our nuclear technology. Iran is a nuclear fuel cycle technology holder, a capability which is exclusively for peaceful purposes.

"The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who took office just recently, in his inaugural address reiterated that his government is against weapons of mass destruction and will only pursue nuclear activities in the peaceful domain. The leadership of Iran has pledged at the highest level that Iran will remain a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT and has placed the entire scope of its nuclear activities under IAEA safeguards and additional protocol, in addition to undertaking voluntary transparency measures with the agency that have even gone beyond the requirements of the agency's safeguard system.



http://www.dontattackiran.org

----------------------------------
Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state.

snip:"Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring."
snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms

[yurbud]

24. Bill wasn't above launching some cruise missiles--why do you suppose

the more publicly hawkish Hillary will be more restrained in office?

[Capt_Nemo]

26. Timothy Garton-Ash is a reluctant blairite

But when push comes to shove he always stands by Blair.

This article is a "cover your arse" load of bullshit, where he is paving the way
for supporting Blair's involvement in an eventual nuking of Iran, by portraying
it as a course of action any US president would take, regardless of his/hers ideology.

It is a convenient way to keep in denial about Blair being a hardline neoconservative.

Fuck Garton-Ash, and fuck Blair.

On edit: I loathe almost as much the Brzezinsky/Clinton brand of imperialism as PNAC
(the difference is that the first is a realistic, pragmatic approach instead of
an ideologic idiocy destined to catastrophic failure) and I can picture Hillary
killing thousands of innocent civillians playing Brzezinsky's great game.
But to justify a preemptive nuclear strike by the Bush gang as sane policy in the grounds of a
"What Would Hillary Clinton Do" fantasy is the height of demagoguery and intelectual
dishonesty

[Taxloss]

27. I don't think he's justifying it at all.

I think that he's pointing out two important things:

1. Regime change in Washington might not stop an attack on Iran.

2. Iran has publicly built the capacity to respond asymmetrically, using "martyrdom operations", and that we cannot attack from a position of comfort.

These facts are important to remember. But I wish TGA had just stated them rather than prissying up this bit of prognostication.

[Capt_Nemo]

28. You're right about those two points

Where I have my reservations is about them being what TGA wants to convey with his article.

TGA is the kind of guy that blames Chirac for making Blair side with Bush on Iraq,
nevermind that the french were right and Bush was wrong.

I don't trust TGA's motives in writing this article.

Besides, whatever the point he wants make is, I stand by my comment that conjuring up a "What Would
Hillary Clinton Do" fantasy is the height of demagoguery and intelectual dishonesty.

P.S. Your Lovecraftian Kitty animated GIF rules!

[Taxloss]

30. I see your points completely.

Bear in mind that I didn't opine on the article, I just thought it would interest DU. Any Defence Correspondent is going to have to be fairly highly linked in the system, so I understand what you mean about his motives; but reading between the lines I think his message is "we can't rely on America".

The Kitty-Cthulu is a sort of alternative FSM. We followers of the old ones consider the FSM an upstart and want to project "compassionate Cthulu-worship" - a friendlier image for an evil deity. Join us now and get killed last when Ry'leh rises! I am of course joking.

[Capt_Nemo]

34. LOL!

"compassionate Cthulu-worship" :evilgrin:

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. Although he's not talking about a nuclear strike

He's just talking about a conventional strike on Iran's centrifuges. The thing is that there's very little difference between Hillary Clinton and Blair on this. But I don't think he's putting this forward as 'sane policy' - he's saying the consequences would be awful for us.

[Capt_Nemo]

35. Maybe that is what he's talking about, M_V,

but the way he goes about it with this kind of article is irresponsible to say the least.

Why doesn't TGA just makes public his own opinion about how should this be settled instead of indulging
in "what if's"?
It is that and the way he goes about commenting geopolitics in his articles that I find dubious.

[oblivious]

39. Iran has the world's second largest reserves of oil and gas.

That's all you ever need to know about war with Iran.

Threats to Israel? BS. Same rhetoric since 1979. It is not a threat.

Anti-American? Which country on earth is not these days?

Nuclear threat? More BS. No evidence whatsoever.

Iran has the second largest reserves of oil and gas on the planet. And America will have it. All the rest is propaganda.