Mar 30, 2007

The End of Iraq (6)

By Peter Galbraith

Bush wanted a yes man, who'd thank him

President Bush had one overriding concern. Iraq's new leaders should be publicly grateful to the United States. As he told Bremer in a May 19 meeting of the NSC, "It's important to have someone who's willing to stand up and thank the American people for their sacrifice in liberating Iraq. I don't expect us to pick a yes man. But at least I want someone who will be grateful." Actually, Bush did want a yes man, and one who would thank him. He made this point three times at the NSC meeting devoted to Iraq's new government.

Meanwhile, Brahimi [U.N. envoy] settled on Hussein Shahristani, a nuclear sci­entist who headed Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission, as his choice for prime minister. Shahristani, a Shiite close to the main Islamic parties, was a man of unquestioned courage and integrity. He had refused to help Saddam develop a nuclear bomb, a stance for which he had been imprisoned in Abu Ghraib prison for eleven years, much of it in soli­tary confinement. That same integrity kept him from promising to de­liver the ingratiating comments about America that Bush wanted. Carrying out the president's instructions, Bremer vetoed Shahristani.
Bremer and Blackwill also vetoed Adel Abdul Mehdi, a talented economist and moderate on matters of religion ...
They also refused Ibrahim Jaafari, the medical doctor ...­
...

Bremer, however, decided the president had to be a Sunni Arab ...
Talabani and Barzani [leaders of Kurdistan] were furious. For more than a year, the American had lectured them about the importance of being Iraqi. Now, they were being told their ethnicity disqualified them from Iraq's top jobs. Insult was added to injury when the Americans and Brahimi chose as Iraq's interim president Sheik Ghazi al- Yawar, a Sunni Arab businessman from one of the country's largest tribes who had no previous political experience. Ghazi met Bush's overriding criteria for Iraq's new leaders. According to Bremer, "the president sent word to me that he'd been fa­vorably impressed by Ghazi's open thanks to the Coalition for over­throwing Saddam."
The End of Iraq, page 142-144.

The End of Iraq - part 1
The End of Iraq - part 2
The End of Iraq - part 3
The End of Iraq - part 4
The End of Iraq - part 5

To be continued...
Pictures and titles in this article are not from the book "The End of Iraq".

Mar 23, 2007

Palestine Peace Not Apartheid (5)

By Jimmy Carter
The Israeli Apartheid - part 2

The Israeli Apartheid - part 3

(The Gaza Strip)
Living among 1.3 million Palestinians, the 8000 Israeli settlers were controlling 40 percent of the arable land and more than one-half the water resources, and 12000 troops were required to defend their presence.
Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, page 168.


A life in constant fear


They [Palestinians in Gaza] are being strangled since the Israeli "withdrawal",
surrounded by a separation barrier that is penetrated only by Israeli-controlled checkpoints, with just a single opening (for personnel only) into Egypt's Sinai as their access to the outside world. There have been no moves by Israel to permit transportation by sea or by air. Fishermen are not permitted to leave the harbor, workers are prevented from going to outside jobs, the import or export of food and other goods is severely restricted and often cut off completely, and the police teachers, nurses, and social workers are deprived of salaries.
Per capita income has decreased 40 percent during the last three years, and the poverty rate has reached 70 percent. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food has stated that acute malnutrition in Gaza is already on the same scale as that seen in the poorer countries of the Southern Sahara, with more than half of all Palestinian families eating only one meal a day.

This was the impact of Israel's unilateral withdrawal, even before Israel's massive bombardment and reinvasion in July 2006 after being provoked by Hammas militants.
Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, page 175-176.

To be continued...
Pictures, maps and titles in this article are not from the book "Peace Not Apartheid".

Mar 20, 2007

The Words None Dare Say: Nuclear War

By George Lakoff

The stories in the major media suggest that an attack against Iran is a real possibility and that the Natanz nuclear development site is the number one target. As the above quotes from two of our best sources note, military experts say that conventional "bunker-busters" such as the GBU-28 might be able to destroy the Natanz facility, especially with repeated bombings. On the other hand, they also say such iterated use of conventional weapons might not work, e.g., if the rock and earth above the facility becomes liquefied. On that supposition, a "low yield" "tactical" nuclear weapon, say, the B61-11, might be needed.

If the Bush administration, for example, were to insist on a sure "success," then the "attack" would constitute nuclear war. The words in boldface are nuclear war, that's right, nuclear war - a first strike nuclear war.

We don't know what exactly is being planned - conventional GBU-28s or nuclear B61-11s. And that is the point. Discussion needs to be open. Nuclear war is not a minor matter.

The Euphemism

As early as August 13, 2005, Bush, in Jerusalem, was asked what would happen if diplomacy failed to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear program. Bush replied, "All options are on the table." On April 18, the day after the appearance of Seymour Hersh's New Yorker report on the administration's preparations for a nuclear war against Iran, President Bush held a news conference. He was asked:
"Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?"
He replied: "All options are on the table."

The President never actually said the forbidden words "nuclear war," but he appeared to tacitly acknowledge the preparations - without further discussion.

Vice-President Dick Cheney, speaking in Australia last week, backed up the President:
"We worked with the European community and the United Nations to put together a set of policies to persuade the Iranians to give up their aspirations and resolve the matter peacefully, and that is still our preference. But I've also made the point, and the president has made the point, that all options are on the table."

Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain, on FOX News, August 14, 2005, said the same:
"For us to say that the Iranians can do whatever they want to do and we won't under any circumstances exercise a military option would be for them to have a license to do whatever they want to do ... So I think the president's comment that we won't take anything off the table was entirely appropriate."

But it's not just Republicans. Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards, in a speech in Herzliyah, Israel, echoed Bush:
"To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table. Let me reiterate - ALL options must remain on the table."

Although, Edwards has said, when asked about this statement, that he prefers peaceful solutions and direct negotiations with Iran, he has nonetheless repeated the "all options on the table" position - making clear that he would consider starting a preventive nuclear war, but without using the fateful words.

Hillary Clinton, at an AIPAC dinner in New York, said:
"We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table."

Translation: Nuclear weapons can be used to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

Barack Obama, asked on 60 Minutes about using military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, began a discussion of his preference for diplomacy by responding: "I think we should keep all options on the table."

Bush, Cheney, McCain, Edwards, Clinton, and Obama all say indirectly that they seriously consider starting a preventive nuclear war, but will not engage in a public discussion of what that would mean. That contributes to a general denial, and the press is going along with it by a corresponding refusal to use the words.
...

More Euphemisms

The euphemisms used include "tactical," "small," "mini-," and "low yield" nuclear weapons. "Tactical" contrasts with "strategic"; it refers to tactics, relatively low-level choices made in carrying out an overall strategy, but which don't affect the grand strategy. But the use of any nuclear weapons would be anything but "tactical." It would be a major world event - in Vladimir Putin's words, "lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons," making the use of more powerful nuclear weapons more likely and setting off a new arms race. The use of the word "tactical" operates to lessen their importance, to distract from the fact that their very use would constitute a nuclear war.

What is "low yield"? Perhaps the "smallest" tactical nuclear weapon we have is the B61-11, which has a dial-a-yield feature: it can yield "only" 0.3 kilotons, but can be set to yield up to 170 kilotons. The power of the Hiroshima bomb was 15 kilotons. That is, a "small" bomb can yield more than 10 times the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb. The B61-11 dropped from 40,000 feet would dig a hole 20 feet deep and then explode, send shock waves downward, leave a huge crater, and spread radiation widely. The idea that it would explode underground and be harmless to those above ground is false - and, anyway, an underground release of radiation would threaten ground water and aquifers for a long time and over a wide distance.

To use words such as "low yield" or "small" or "mini-" nuclear weapon is like speaking of being a little bit pregnant. Nuclear war is nuclear war! It crosses the moral line.
...
The journalistic point is clear. Journalists and political leaders should not talk about an "attack." They should use the words that describe what is really at stake: nuclear war - in boldface.

Then there is the scale of the proposed attack. Military reports leaking out suggest a huge (mostly or entirely non-nuclear) airstrike on as many as 10,000 targets - a "shock and awe" attack that would destroy Iran's infrastructure the way the U.S. bombing destroyed Iraq's infrastructure. The targets would not just be "military targets." As Dan Plesch reports in the New Statesman, February 19, 2007, such an attack would wipe out Iran's military, business, and political infrastructure. Not just nuclear installations, missile launching sites, tanks, and ammunition dumps, but also airports, rail lines, highways, bridges, ports, communications centers, power grids, industrial centers, hospitals, public buildings, and even the homes of political leaders. That is what was attacked in Iraq: the "critical infrastructure." It is not just military in the traditional sense. It leaves a nation in rubble, and leads to death, maiming, disease, joblessness, impoverishment, starvation, mass refugees, lawlessness, rape, and incalculable pain and suffering. That is what the options appear to be "on the table." Is nation destruction what the American people have in mind when they acquiesce without discussion to an "attack"? Is nuclear war what the American people have in mind? An informed public must ask and the media must ask.
...

Renewed strength" is just the Bush strategy in Iraq. At a time when the Iraqi people want us to leave, when our national elections show that most Americans want our troops out, when 60% of Iraqis think it all right to kill Americans, Bush wants to escalate. Why? Because he is weak in America. Because he needs to show more "strength." Because if he knocks out the Iranian nuclear facilities, he can claim at least one "victory." Starting a nuclear war with Iran would really put us in a worldwide war with fundamentalist Islam. It would make real the terrorist threat he has been claiming since 9/11. It would create more fear - real fear - in America. And he believes, with much reason, that fear tends to make Americans vote for saber-rattling conservatives.
...

What we are seeing now is the conservative message machine preparing the country to accept the ideas of a nuclear war and nation destruction against Iran. The technique used is the "slippery slope." It is done by degrees. Like the proverbial frog in the pot of water - if the heat is turned up slowly the frog gets used to the heat and eventually boils to death - the American public is getting gradually acclimated to the idea of war with Iran.

* First, describe Iran as evil - part of the axis of evil. An inherently evil person will inevitably do evil things and can't be negotiated with. An entire evil nation is a threat to other nations.
* Second, describe Iran's leader as a "Hitler" who is inherently "evil" and cannot be reasoned with. Refuse to negotiate with him.
* Then repeat the lie that Iran is on the verge of having nuclear weapons - weapons of mass destruction. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei says they are at best many years away.
* Call nuclear development "an existential threat" - a threat to our very existence.
* Then suggest a single "surgical" "attack" on Natanz and make it seem acceptable.
* Then find a reason to call the attack "self-defense" - or better protection for our troops from the EFPs, or single-shot canister bombs.
* Claim, without proof and without anyone even taking responsibility for the claim, that the Iranian government at its highest level is supplying deadly weapons to Shiite militias attacking our troops, while not mentioning the fact that Saudi Arabia is helping Sunni insurgents attacking our troops.
* Give "protecting our troops" as a reason for attacking Iran without getting new authorization from Congress. Claim that the old authorization for attacking Iraq implied doing "whatever is necessary to protect our troops" from Iranian intervention in Iraq.
* Argue that de-escalation in Iraq would "bleed" our troops, "weaken" America, and lead to defeat. This sets up escalation as a winning policy, if not in Iraq then in Iran.
* Get the press to go along with each step.
* Never mention the words "preventive nuclear war" or "national destruction." When asked, say, "All options are on the table." Keep the issue of nuclear war and its consequences from being seriously discussed by the national media.
* Intimidate Democratic presidential candidates into agreeing, without using the words, that nuclear war should be "on the table." This makes nuclear war and nation destruction bipartisan and even more acceptable.

Read the entire article here.

Mar 17, 2007

The True Nature of Ancient Persia

First Declaration of Human Rights by Cyrus the Great, inscribed in cuneiform on a clay cylinder discovered in 1879, now on display in the British Museum. Cyrus the Great (585-529 BC), the Iranian emperor, defined the First Declaration of Human Rights on this cylinder. Cyrus is admired more as liberator than a conqueror of his vast empire because of his respect for human rights and the humane treatment of those he ruled. He is "anointed" in the Bible (Is. 45:4) as a liberator of God's people (Is.45:15) and the chosen one (Is. 48:15-15). Professor Richard Frye of Harvard University said; "Surely the concept of One World, the fusion of Peoples and Cultures into oneness was one of his important legacies".

Modern translation:

I am Kourosh (Cyrus), King of the world, great king, mighty king, king of Babylon, king of the land of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four quarters, son of Camboujiyah (Cambyases), great king, king of Anshân, grandson of Kourosh (Cyrus), great king, king of Anshân, descendant of Chaish-Pesh (Teispes), great king, king of Anshân, progeny of an unending royal line, whose rule Bel and Nabu cherish, whose kingship they desire for their hearts, pleasure. When I well -disposed, entered Babylon, I set up a seat of domination in the royal palace amidst jubilation and rejoicing. Marduk the great god, caused the big-hearted inhabitations of Babylon to .................. me, I sought daily to worship him.

At my deeds Marduk, the great lord, rejoiced and to me, Kourosh (Cyrus), the king who worshipped him, and to Camboujiyah (Cambyases), my son, the offspring of (my) loins, and to all my troops he graciously gave his blessing, and in good sprit before him we glorified exceedingly his high divinity. All the kings who sat in throne rooms, throughout the four quarters, from the Upper to the Lower Sea, those who dwelt in ..................., all the kings of the West Country, who dwelt in tents, brought me their heavy tribute and kissed my feet in Babylon. From ... to the cities of Ashur, Susa, Agade and Eshnuna, the cities of Zamban, Meurnu, Der as far as the region of the land of Gutium, the holy cities beyond the Tigris whose sanctuaries had been in ruins over a long period, the gods whose abode is in the midst of them, I returned to their places and housed them in lasting abodes.

I gathered together all their inhabitations and restored (to them) their dwellings. The gods of Sumer and Akkad whom Nabounids had, to the anger of the lord of the gods, brought into Babylon. I, at the bidding of Marduk, the great lord, made to dwell in peace in their habitations, delightful abodes.


May all the gods whom I have placed within their sanctuaries address a daily prayer in my favour before Bel and Nabu, that my days may be long, and may they say to Marduk my lord, "May Kourosh (Cyrus) the King, who reveres thee, and Camboujiyah (Cambyases) his son ..."


Now that I put the crown of kingdom of Iran, Babylon, and the nations of the four directions on the head with the help of (Ahura) Mazda, I announce that I will respect the traditions, customs and religions of the nations of my empire and never let any of my governors and subordinates look down on or insult them until I am alive. From now on, till (Ahura) Mazda grants me the kingdom favor, I will impose my monarchy on no nation. Each is free to accept it , and if any one of them rejects it , I never resolve on war to reign. Until I am the king of Iran, Babylon, and the nations of the four directions, I never let anyone oppress any others, and if it occurs , I will take his or her right back and penalize the oppressor. And until I am the monarch, I will never let anyone take possession of movable and landed properties of the others by force or without compensation. Until I am alive, I prevent unpaid, forced labor. To day, I announce that everyone is free to choose a religion. People are free to live in all regions and take up a job provided that they never violate other's rights. No one could be penalized for his or her relatives' faults. I prevent slavery and my governors and subordinates are obliged to prohibit exchanging men and women as slaves within their own ruling domains. Such a traditions should be exterminated the world over. I implore to (Ahura) Mazda to make me succeed in fulfilling my obligations to the nations of Iran (Persia), Babylon, and the ones of the four directions.


Read more:
Cyrus in the Judeo-Christian tradition
Cyrus the Great in the Qur'an
The Truth behind '300'
Persian Empire
Engineering an Empire - The Persians (Part 1)
Engineering an Empire - The Persians (Part 2)
Engineering an Empire - The Persians (Part 3)
Engineering an Empire - The Persians (Part 4)
Engineering an Empire - The Persians (Part 5)

Mar 16, 2007

Palestinians Must Redefine Struggle

By Ramzy Baroud

March 15, 2007

It’s never easy, although a sure assertion, to maintain that the Palestinian front, at home as well as abroad remains as fragmented and self-consumed, thus ineffective, as ever before, but most notably during the disastrous post-Oslo period.

Such a realization wouldn’t mean much if the inference is concerned with any other polity; but when it’s made in regards to a nation that is facing an active campaign of ethnic cleansing at home, and an international campaign of sanctions and boycott – as shameful as this may sound – then, the problem is both real and urgent.

Palestinians in the West Bank, especially in areas that are penetrated by the imposing Israeli imprisonment wall – mostly in the north and west, and increasingly everywhere else - are losing their land, their rights, their freedoms and their livelihood at an alarming speed, unprecedented in their tumultuous history with the Israeli military occupation. The 700 kilometre wall, once completed, will further fragment the already splintered West Bank – Israel’s settlement project since 1967 has disfigured the West Bank using Jews-only bypass roads, military zones and so forth, to ensure the viability of the country’s colonization scheme, but rendered Palestinian areas disunited and isolated, thus the entire two state solution, under the current circumstances simply inconceivable.

Gaza, which Yitzhak Rabin had once wished would sink into the sea, and which Israel has laboured to dump on any one foolish enough to take responsibility for it - so long as it’s not part of any comprehensive agreement that would include Jerusalem and the West Bank - maintains its ‘open air prison’ status. Palestinians there are being reduced to malnourished refugees, manipulated into violence and discord, a spectacle that Israel is promoting around the world as an example of Palestinian lack of civility, and their incapacity to govern themselves.

Occupied East Jerusalem has completely surrendered territorially to the Israeli colonial scheme; the Israeli government insistently refuses to consider Jerusalem as an issue that warrants negotiations; nothing to talk about, according to Israeli officials who see Jerusalem as their state’s undivided and eternal capital. Vital movement from and into Jerusalem is increasingly impossible for West Bank Palestinians. Muslim and Christian properties in the city are interminably threatened, targeted or desecrated. The most recent targeting of al-Haram al-Sharif - underground digging and similar Israeli schemes - is intended to further exasperate Muslim fury, and emphasize the point that Israel retains the upper hand in its relations with the Palestinians.

Other major issues such as settlements, water, refugees, borders, etc, continue to be dictated by Israel’s unilateral actions, while the Palestinian role is relegated to that of the hapless, submissive and often angry victim. It goes without saying that if such decisive matters go largely unchallenged by a solid, popular Palestinian strategy, one mustn’t be surprised if other issues: such as the need to restructure the progressively more fragmented Palestinian national identity, the need for a powerful, sustained and articulate Palestinian voice in the media and an influential body that unites and channels all Palestinian efforts around the world to serve a clear set of objectives, are receiving little or no attention whatsoever.

It must also be acknowledged, as uncomfortable as this may be to some, that the Palestinian democratic experience is rapidly succumbing to Israeli pressures, American meddling – tacitly or otherwise coordinated with Arab as well as other governments – and the fractious Palestinian front that has been for decades permeated with ideological exclusivism, cronyism, and corruption. Though one cannot help but rail against the American government’s abortion of what could have been the prize of Arab democracy, still, the joint American-Israeli anti-democratic scheme would’ve faced utter defeat if Palestinian ranks where united, rather than self absorbed.

The Palestinian Liberation Organization, since its formation by the Arab League in 1964, but most significantly since its reformation in the early 1970s under Palestinian leadership, was for long regarded as the main body that eventually brought to the fore the Palestinian struggle as – more than a mere question of a humanitarian issue that needed redress – a national fight for freedom and rights. There was, more or less, a national movement that spoke and represented Palestinians everywhere. It gave the Palestinian struggle greater urgency, one that was lost, or willingly conceded by Arafat on the White House lawn in September 1993, and again in Cairo, May 2004.

Aside from snuffing out the Palestinian national project, reducing it to self autonomous areas, rendering irrelevant millions of Palestinians, mostly refugees, scattered around the world – thus demoting the international status of the PLO into a mere symbolic organization, Oslo had given rise to a new type of thinking in the rank of Palestinians adopted by those who see themselves as pragmatic and whose language is that of real politic and diplomacy. This, as it transpired, revealed itself as the most woeful case of self-defeatism that continues to permeate most Palestinian circles whose new ‘strategy’ is confined to the acquiring of qualified funds from European countries, which eventually dotted the West Bank with NGOs, mostly without a clear purpose, examined agenda and no coordination. Involving oneself in such useless projects is ineffectual, while rejecting them without a clear alternative can be equally frustrating, if not demoralizing. An official within the Abbas circle chastised me during a long airplane ride once for subscribing to the Edward Said’s school, whose followers, I was told, wish to parrot criticism from the outside, and refrain from “getting their hands dirty”, i.e. getting involved in the Palestinian Authority’s institution building, and so forth.

While such a claim is utterly fabricated, no viable institution can possibly come out of the current setting: an amalgam of a most violent occupation and the utter internal corruption, sanctioned, if not fed by both Israel and the US government. The truth is that there have been no serious collective Palestinian efforts to redress the mistakes of Oslo and to breathe life into the PLO. (The Intifada was a popular expression of Palestinians disaffection with Oslo and the occupation, but, alone, it can hardly be considered a sustainable strategy). Neither a religious movement like Hamas, nor a self exalted one like Fatah, is capable of approaching this subject alone, nor are they individually qualified to alter the Palestinian course, which seems to be moving in random order.

The problem is indeed more exhaustive than a mere ideological or even personal quarrels between two rival political parties; rather, it’s an expression of a prevailing Palestinian factionalism that seems to consume members of various Palestinian communities regardless of where they are based. My frequent visits and involvement in many activities organized by Palestinian groups seem to leave me with the same unpleasant feeling: that there is no collective national strategy, but incoherent actions undertaken mostly by groups, however well intended, whose work never boasts a unified national agenda.

With the absence of centrality everywhere, individuals hoping to fill the vacuum are offering their own solutions to the conflict, once more without any serious or coordinated efforts and without a grassroots constituency, neither in the Occupied Territories nor among major Palestinian population concentration in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, etc. Others like the Geneva Initiative enthusiasts find it acceptable to negotiate a solution on Palestinians’ behalf – without any mandate whatsoever - and obtain sums of money to promote their ideas, though the whole enterprise is run by a few individuals, who has no representations or sustained grassroots work among what one would expect to be their primary constituency, Palestinians themselves.

Oslo has lost its relevance as a ‘peace’ treaty, but the individualism it imposed on Palestinians still prevails; its legacy was that of self-preservation, instead of the collective good, and in my mind, no Palestinian party, including Hamas is immune from subscribing to its luring values. To avoid further debacles, Palestinians must ditch their factionalism and quit thinking of their relationship with their struggle in terms of funds, ideology (though flexible to fit political interests) or religious interpretations. They are in urgent need of strenuous efforts to formalize a new collective strategy that pushes for specific principles which can only be achieved through national consensus. Waving flags in the face of passers by, and the proverbial ‘preaching to the choir’ alone will lead nowhere. Individual ‘initiatives’ will further confuse the Palestinian ranks. Only a consistent, cohesive and reasonable strategy that emanates from the Palestinians themselves can engage international public opinion - with the hope of breaking the patronage system that unites the West, especially the United States to Israel - can possibly slow down the Israeli army bulldozers currently carving up the West Bank into a system of cantons, and high walled prisons. Reforming and revitalizing the PLO is not an option - it is a must.-

Ramzy Baroud is a veteran Palestinian-American journalist and former Al-Jazeera producer. Ramzy Baroud taught Mass Communication at Australia's Curtin University of Technology, and is Editor-in-Chief of the Palestine Chronicle.

The End of Iraq (5)

By Peter Galbraith
Americans Incompetence - part 1

Americans Incompetence (2)

Although President Bush proclaimed America's mission was to bring the blessings of freedom to the Iraqi people, his administration was reluctant to trust them with democracy.
...
Specifically, the Administration proposed to limit the choices of the peoples of Iraq by having the country's permanent constitution writ­ten by Iraqis selected by the Americans. The hand-picked Iraqis would then be assisted by American constitutional advisors who would en­sure that the constitution included Western-style human rights pro­tections, incorporated a system of checks and balances, preserved the unity of the country, centralized control of oil, and promoted eco­nomic and social policies liked by American conservatives. The constitution would be submitted to the Iraqi peoples in a referendum. They would then be faced with the choice of either accepting the constitu­tion and regaining sovereignty, or rejecting it and having a prolonged
occupation. The scheme reflected the extraordinary ambitions of the Administration's neoconservative would-be nation-builders who wanted to leave their ideological imprint on Iraq. It was also undemocratic.

Highest Religious Authority and the Leader of the Hawza (Najaf)


In 2003, the most influential man in Iraq turned out not to be the American viceroy, Jerry Bremer, but a frail seventy-three-year-old Shi­ite cleric who lived in a modest house near the shrine of Ali in Najaf. An Iranian by birth and citizenship, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani was determined that the Bush Administration not prevent Iraq's Shiite reli­gious leaders from creating an Islamic state if, as Sistani knew full well they would, their voters wanted one.
Sistani adopted a straightforward position: Iraq's constitution should be written by elected Iraqis and, as a corollary, the United States should transfer power to an elected government, not an appointed one. He wanted elections held as soon as possible, but not later than 2004 and with the occupation ending immediately afterward.
Bremer came up with one strategy after another to avoid meeting Sistani's demand. As a result, the Iranian cleric became the champion of Iraqi democracy while the American administrator appeared un­willing to trust the Iraqi people. To make matters worse for the Ameri­cans, Sistani won every battle with Bremer. Bremer and the Bush Administration came across not only as undemocratic but also as weak.
The End of Iraq, page 136-137.

To be continued...
Pictures and titles in this article are not from the book "The End of Iraq".

Mar 12, 2007

UN Financial Sanctions on Iran: Political Confrontation, Iran's Response to US Threats

By Prof. Akbar E. Torbat


The UN Security Council 60 days’ grace period for the sanctions imposed on Iran ended on February 21, 2007. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported on Feb 22, that “Iran has ignored the U.N. Security Council resolution 1737 to freeze its uranium enrichment program and has expanded the program by setting up hundreds of centrifuges.” Iran argues that it produces low level enriched uranium for nuclear fuel use, but the West claims Iran plans further enrichment suitable for making atomic bombs.

Iran contends that it has “inalienable right” under Article IV of Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapon Treaty to develop, research, and produce nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and therefore the Council’s resolution mainly pushed by the United States is not justified. Iran has indicated repeatedly that it will not suspend its uranium enrichment operation as a precondition for negotiations. As the Council resolution deadline passed on Feb 21, 2007, the US – Iran political observers wonder what will happen next. The Five permanent members of the council and Germany started a meeting on Feb 26, to discuss the course of action they will take regarding the nuclear standoff. It is expected that the US may push the Council members for further sanctions; however some Council members may oppose it. In that case the US will probably increase its own financial pressures on Iran.

Measures by the US and its allies

Iran has been under US unilateral measures and sanctions more or less since 1979. In 1995, US imposed comprehensive trade and investment sanctions on Iran, which were followed by extra-territorial sanctions in 1996. The extra-territorial sanctions, which had not been seriously implemented, are now put to action in case by case basis. Coincided with the UN resolution, the US has increased its financial squeeze on Iran beyond the UN recommended measures. It has blocked American companies in dealing with several Iranian Banks, including Bank Saderat and Bank Sepah, which are accused of sending money to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Until now US allies have had mixed reactions to the UN resolution. Germany, that is the largest exporter to Iran, is not apparent to put any economic pressure on Iran. Cutting its exports to Iran, which are mainly industrial machineries can worsen the already high rate of unemployment in Germany.

France also has major commercial ties with Iran and it is not expected to push for punishing the country. France is a major exporter of automobile and its accessories to Iran. Cutting export to Iran will add to unemployment in France. Furthermore, the French oil company Total, is engaged in a major oil project in Iran. The company substituted for the US’s Connoco that could not sign the intended Siri oil filed contract when the US sanctioned Iran in 1995. Moreover, France’s banks, including BNP Paribas have about 20 percent share of Iranian foreign borrowings. Up to now, French companies have not shown any noticeable change in their dealings with Iran.

Meanwhile, the European Union and Japan announced few days before the UN’s deadline that they will support the Council resolution. On February 12, the European Union released a draft resolution stating that it will adopt the UN resolution 1737. EU 25 member countries have over 30 billion euro exports per year to Iran and only very small portion of the exports could be curtailed due to the sanctions.

Stuart Levy, the Treasury’s Undersecretary, has been shuttling Europe in the past few months to convince the European banks to cut their ties with Iran. Some major European banks such as USB AG based in Zurich, Credit Suisse Group, and Standard Chartered of the UK have indicted that they will curtail their financial dealings with Iran. However, it is not anticipated that the European banks will cut their ties with Iran, unless their home countries devise a concrete policy for financial sanctions on Iran, and that is not likely. At the same time, Japan announced that it will freeze the financial assets of 10 Iranian entities and 12 individuals who may be involved in Iran’s nuclear program effective Feb. 17, 2007. Japan is the largest importer of Iranian oil, and has participated in the development of Azadegan oil field despite of US objection. Therefore, it is not expected that Japan will take any further measures to harm Iran.

Thus far, the UN resolution has been seen to be symbolic in nature and will not have any major impact that can damage the Iranian economy.

Other Countries Reactions

Russia’s Vladimir Putin in a speech at the Munich Security Conference in February this year strongly criticized the US unilateralism in the world international affairs. He said a unipolar world will lead to more wars and international conflicts. The theme of the speech indicated that Russia is worried about the US military build up in its backyard and will likely take measures to oppose it. Consequently, it is not anticipated that Russia will impose any pressure on Iran. Despite of US opposition, in the last two years, Russia has sold to Iran about 1 billion dollar worth of weapons, including the sophisticated Tor-M1 missile systems. Few days before the UN deadline, Russia that is completing the Bushehr nuclear power plant in southern Iran, indicated that the delivery of the plant may be delayed due to Iranian nonpayment. However, Iran said it has honored its contractual $25 (19 euro) million monthly payments and the only problem was payment in euro instead of US dollar. Russia’s action seemed to be a political gesture right before the UN deadline. Russia wanted to show that it is imposing pressure on Iran right before the UN ultimatum deadline.

China as well has very good economic relations with Iran. In the past few years, China has signed several oil contracts with Iran, and currently Sinopec, the Chinese oil company, is negotiating a $16 billion contract to develop Iran’s giant Yadavaran oilfield. Furthermore, China is ranked Iran’s second exporter and importer. Because of its sizable trade relations with Iran, it doesn’t seem that it will harm Iran under the United States pressures. Because both Russia and China have veto power at the Security Council, they will probably oppose any further Council’s sanctions against Iran.

What's more, Italy and Spain also have good economic relations with Iran. They have signed oil contracts with Iran. India too signed a pipeline deal with Iran last month that gives Iran annual revenues of about $10 billion per year. Although India has indicated that it will comply with the UN resolution 1737, but this is not a significant factor in its good trade relations with Iran. Furthermore, Iran’s trades with other countries in the region, Latin America, and Africa have rapidly increased in recent months.

As it appears, further sanctions could be only imposed by the US and its Anglo Saxon allies. Such sanctions of course may put strains on the Iranian economy, but their impact will be mild. Iran is taking some counter measures of its own to deal with the expected economic pressures.

Iran's response

Due to long time US trade and investment sanctions, Iran has been able to adjust its economy to certain degree under the sanctions. Despite of the US extra-territorial sanctions, Iran has been able to attract about $20 billion investment from other countries in its oil and gas development projects since 1995.

In order to absorb private investments in its oil and gas projects, Iran has recently relaxed the state control over its downstream oil development projects and has opened them to private sector. The upstream that includes the oil and gas reserves will remain under control of the government.

In the last several years, Iran has signed major contracts with international oil companies to lure their investment. According to an article in daily newspaper Kayhan, in just past year, Iran has awarded about $4 billion worth of oil and gas contracts to domestic and foreign private sector.

To get better prices and sell its oil in non-dollar currencies, Iran plans to launch an international oil bourse (exchange) next month in the island of Kish located in the Persian Gulf. At this bourse, oil and its derivatives contracts will be traded in Iranian rial, euro and other major currencies. Iran’s Economic and Finance Minister Davoud Danesh-Jafari believes that Iran’s bourse will enhance competitive prices for oil and its derivatives. However, success of the bourse will depend on cooperation of other counties. At present, oil is traded in US dollar in New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) as well as in London International Petroleum Exchange (IPE). Iran’s oil bourse will threaten the supremacy of these exchanges. It is anticipated that some major oil producing countries will participate in this bourse, because NYMEX and IPE are not currently working in their favor. Also, Iran’s petroleum bourse might be opened during Saturdays and Sundays, which are working days in the Middle East and its time zone is in the mid way between Europe and East Asia’s time zones. The new petroleum bourse can create an oil market that is open 7 days a week around the clock. If the bourse is successful, it can reduce demand for Eurodollar (that is dollar deposits outside the United States) and can contribute to popularity of euro.

Furthermore, Iran has already converted most of its international dollar reserves to euro, other major currencies, and gold. According to the Head of Central Bank Ebrahim Sheibani, Iran’s dollar reserves are down to less than 30%. So far Iran has not had any problems to open letter of credits for its imports in foreign banks. Also, Iran has pre-sold its petrochemical exports to foreign countries until 2009.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has recently issued a directive emphasizing privatization of some of the state owned industries under Article 44 of the Iranian constitution. This article limits participation of private sector in basic industries, but leaves place for private sector in some industries when beneficial to the national economy.

The private banking industry growth is the most visible in the private sector. In the last couple of years, formation of private banks has been encouraged in order to increase deposits in the banking system. At present, Iran’s private banks’ deposits are about 10% of state banks but they are growing rapidly according to an article published on February 18 in the daily newspaper, Iran. Almost half of Iran’s bank deposits are established in the greater Tehran. As a result, establishment of private banks throughout other regions is expected to attract more of people’s savings and will facilitates liquidity in the country in the wake of international financial sanctions.

Political Confrontation

On the political front, the US has threatened Iran with possible use of military force if diplomatic and economic sanctions do not change Iran’s decision to continue with its uranium enrichment.

In the past couple of weeks, the US has accused Sepah-e Ghods, a unit associated with Sepah-e Pasdaran, of supplying weapons to anti occupation forces in Iraq. The US so far has not directly targeted the clerical leaders of Islamic Republic namely Supreme Leader Khamenei and former president Rafsanjani. Instead, the US has pointed at President Mahmood Ahmadinejad who has stayed firm against US pressures. It appears US is building a case to justify use of military force against Iran. The US is trying to link Ahmadinejad and his affiliated Sepah-e Pasdaran with supplying weapons to anti-US militants in Iraq. Ahmadinejad has popularity among Iran’s underprivileged class who were disappointed with former clerical presidents due to their inability to enhance economic welfare for the poor. It is unlikely that US can cause Ahmadinejad to be deposed by any means.

In the mean time, Iran has accused the US and Britain for supporting ethnic minority rebels such as Blotches and Kurds against the Islamic Republic. Iran has said that the explosives and arsenal used in a car bomb by the terrorists in Zahedan in late February came from the US. Experts believe, any use of military force against Iran could disrupt the flow of oil in the Persian Gulf and will cause a significant increase in oil prices. That will have a serious impact on the economies of oil importing countries and may shake the world financial markets. In fact, after the UN deadline, oil prices have increased. Some analysts believe, the collapse of the US stock market on February 27, 2007 was partly related to the concerns about possible US military action against Iran. After market close on the same day, Secretary Condoleezza Rice suddenly changed her position on Iran and said US supports Iran’s participation in a conference that is planned in mid-march for stabilizing Iraq sectarian violence. Washington desire to attend the conference alongside Iran is a turnaround from previous position of no dialogue with Iran about the situation in Iraq.
How the two countries’ conflicts will be resolved only time will tell.

Akbar E. Torbat teaches at California State University – Dominguez Hills and has published various articles in academic journals concerning the US – Iran economic relations.

Mar 11, 2007

Losing Focus: Peace and Justice Movement in Britain at Crossroad

By Ramzy Baroud
Thursday 08th of March 2007


Growing up in a Palestinian refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, it was a very familiar encounter: Israeli soldiers storming our house accompanied by shouts of terror and a barrage of insults. Such recollections make me shudder to this day.

Just the mere summoning of those memories of my childhood in the Nuseirat refugee camp haunting me not only in childhood but in my adulthood as well, shall most likely accompany me for the rest of my life - almost instantaneously forcing me to relive my mother’s agonizing cries, my father’s pleas for the welfare of his children, my brothers and I clutching to each other as the soldiers try to break us a part, the physical degradation, the verbal abuse, then the utter silence when the soldiers finally leave, the sounds of the engines fading away into the camp’s darkened roads, followed by far away screams from some other family in some other place, as the tragic scenario faithfully repeats itself.

My family’s house was positioned in a location that was simply a nightmare, since it stood at the helm of the camp’s main square, often referred to as Red Square by locals, remembering the many Palestinians killed in and around it while protesting the occupation during the uprising or Intifada of 1987. Israeli soldiers began their nightly hunts for terrorists, i.e. stone throwing kids, from that central point. My house was often the first in the soldiers’ route: it was there where they initiated their formidable mission. As horrifying as it was, it was a most predictable routine: we would turn all lights off in anticipation, my parents would take their positions to open the door as quickly as possible once the loud banging at the door commenced; once the Israeli jeeps’ engines were turned off, it was the matter of a few seconds before it all began: a fury of pounding at the door; “who is it?” my dad would ask, as if he suspected anyone else but the tormenting soldiers: their reply was always the same, always as confident as it was terrifying; “Yahoud”, they would reply.

I grew up making the association between “Yahoud”, the Arabic word for “Jews”, and the horror my family and had experienced. When my cousin Wael was shot dead in his teenage years, while on his way to study with me- it was the “Yahoud” who killed him. When my childhood friend Raed Munis was shot repeatedly as he dug a grave for a neighbor of ours, shot just an hour earlier, he was killed by the “Yahoud”. When my mother was struck in the chest repeatedly by the butt of an Israeli soldier’s machine gun, a beating that led to her untimely death 50 days later, that too was carried out by the “Yahoud”.

Palestinians in the Occupied Territories ascribe all of these practices to the “Yahoud”, simply because this is how Israel wishes to define itself, a Jewish state. As a child, in my many many terrifying encounters with the army, this is, without exception, how they chose to address themselves. Thus, every inch of land that was stolen from Palestinians in the last 40 years of occupation was done in the name of the “Yahoud” and their security; every settlement erected on a poor Palestinian farmer’s orchard, every life that was taken, every brick of every wall that was built and continues to be constructed over confiscated Palestinian land in defiance of international law was also done in the name of the “Yahoud”. Palestinians, thus - most Arabs and Muslims and others as well - hold the “Yahoud” responsible for their plight, not out of their ingrained and inherent anti-Semitism, as some so shrewdly or naively choose to believe, but because on the basis of its Jewishness Israel excused all of its inexcusable actions. If someone is to blame for this, it is Israel, not its detractors. It’s as simple as that.

But, of course, it’s not always as simple as that. When I moved to the US, I realized, correctly that the term “Yahoud” is not befitting, for the old connotations of the name cannot be accepted in Western societies where Jews have historically been a recurring victim, and where a large number of activists and fellow writers, of which many became close friends of mine are also Jewish. A distinction between a Jew and a Zionist was indeed an imperative, though not always easy, for Israel extorts much needed financial, political, moral and other forms of support relying primarily on Jewish constituents in North America and Western Europe. Many of the latter demonstrate their allegiance to Israel in more ways than one can recall. Unfortunately, in the minds of many, being Jewish requires one to unquestionably support the “Jewish State”. Most publications that define themselves as Jewish in the Western hemisphere seem more absorbed by Israeli politics, Israel’s security, and so forth, than engaged in their own political and cultural realms. The relationship has in fact become so blurred that it’s becoming nearly impossible and most confounding to set apart the anti-occupation activist from the anti-Zionist from the anti-Semitic. Naturally Israel and its supporters embrace, if not contribute to this confusion in most underhanded ways: labeling at a whim whomever is critical of the Israeli occupation, be it a respected Harvard Professor or a former President as anti-Semitic. Israel’s crowd hurl such designations so very often that many people prefer to steer clear from the whole matter, failing to take a moral stance on an issue that has for long irked the conscience of humanity and has contributed to global instability in countless ways.

However, instead of confronting the Zionist scheme that has brought such untold harm to the image of one of the greatest and oldest monotheistic faiths by holding Israel and its associates to account, there is a growing an alarming trend where members of the peace and justice movement have themselves fallen into the ominous trap: engaging in most ruinous and consuming scuffles, isolating members and entire groups for allegedly being anti-Semitic. While taking a moral stance against racism in all of its forms is a requisite to for any genuine peace and justice activist, the intense debate in some instances is reaching such grievous points that is threatening to tear apart the peace and justice movement.

A most notable example is the quarrel in the United Kingdom between members of Jews against Zionism and those of Deir Yassin Remembered; the former, accusing members of the latter of anti-Semitism, is endorsing a motion at an upcoming conference of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign that would ostracize the Deir Yassin group from the peace and justice movement. Members of both groups have spoken out strongly against the maltreatment of Palestinians in the past and both have a lot to offer PSC and its various activities. However, the motion, but the entire episode is a continuation of an alarming trend that began in the US several years ago, and has consumed activists, distracting them from the real fight. Moreover, it is dangerously compromising constructive dialogue and freedom of speech, the lack thereof has historically sidelined the pro Palestinian voice for decades. If members of both groups are unable to work jointly and sort out their differences through dialogue, then they should refrain from taking their fights to the public, as has been the case in Britain, in ways that are demoralizing the entire movement. It also ought to be noted that as far as Israel is concerned, any criticism of its occupation of the West Bank, no matter how polite or subtle, is an unforgivable form of anti-Semitism; thus there is no need for any member of the peace and justice movement to exasperate the Israeli witch hunt. Indeed, Israel is more than capable of prolonging such campaigns on its own.

There are many Palestinian children who are still huddling inside their homes in fear of the encroaching tanks and the hordes of unforgiving soldiers, who continue to commit untold atrocities in the name of the “Jewish State”; it’s those depraved individuals and the government that has assigned them to their vile mission, who deserve to be isolated and labeled; it’s Israel who must be held to account, by Jewish and non Jewish individuals and groups alike, to end its exploitation of the Jewish people and their religion.

I believe that the action of a true peace and justice activist must stem from concern for humanity, not from racism and prejudice; however, to suppress freedom of expression, settle personal grievances at the expense of a most colorful and ideologically diverse movement, thus the honorable cause it stands for, is to do an immense disservice to all of us concerned with bringing to a halt a most bloody and raging conflict in the Middle East

According to the World Food Program (WFP) forty-six percent of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are food insecure; the Israeli wall is snaking around the West Bank at an astonishing speed; human rights violations are committed against vulnerable Palestinians with impunity in broad day light with tacit or explicit support from various Western countries led by the United States; there is no time to be wasted: all energies must be channeled in so prudent a way to stop Israel’s inhumane treatment of the Palestinians and end the occupation. I plead to all of you, to work for peace, to redress injustice or at least to do nothing that would jeopardize the work of the peace and justice movement, neither in Britain, nor anywhere else.

Ramzy Baroud is a veteran Palestinian-American journalist and former Al-Jazeera producer. Ramzy Baroud taught Mass Communication at Australia's Curtin University of Technology, and is Editor-in-Chief of the Palestine Chronicle.

Mar 9, 2007

Palestine Peace Not Apartheid (4)

By Jimmy Carter
The Israeli Apartheid - part 1

The Israeli Apartheid - part 2

(During Carter's and his wife's Rosalynn's regular visits to the Middle East in the first ten years after leaving the White House)
There was a unanimous complaint among Palestinian political leaders and others that the worst and most persis­tent case of abuse was in Hebron, about twenty miles south of Jerusalem, where the biblical patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are buried. About 450 extremely militant Jews have moved into the heart of the ancient part of the city, pro­tected by several thousand Israeli troops.


The division of the center of Hebron in 1997. The green zone is Israeli and the yellow zone is Palestinian. 99.7% of the population is Palestinian.

Heavily armed, these settlers attempt to drive the Palestinians away from the holy sites, often beating those they consider to be "tres­passers," expanding their area by confiscating adjacent homes, and deliberately creating physical confrontations. When this occurs, the troops impose long curfews on the 150,000 Palestinian citizens of Hebron, prohibiting them from leaving their own homes to go to school or shops or to participate in the normal life of an urban community. The Palestinians claimed that the undisguised purpose of the ha­rassment was to drive non-Jews from the area. The United Nations reported that more than 150 Israeli checkpoints had been established in and around the city.

... any manufactured goods or farm products were not permitted to be sold in Is­rael if they competed with Israeli produce, so any surplus had to be given away, dumped, or exported to Jordan. The fruit, flowers, and perishable vegetables of the more activist families were often held at the Allenby Bridge until they spoiled, and in some areas the farmers were not permitted to replace fruit trees that died in their orchards. Their most an­guished complaints were about many thousands of ancient olive trees that were being cut down by the Israelis. Access to water was a persistent issue. Each Israeli settler uses five times as much water as a Palestinian neighbor, who must pay four times as much per gallon. They showed us photographs of Israeli swimming pools adjacent to Palestinian villages where drinking water had to be hauled in on tanker trucks and dispensed by the bucketful. Most of the hilltop settle­ments are on small areas of land, so untreated sewage is dis­charged into the surrounding fields and villages.
Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, page 120-121.

Since 1980, with the Likud Party in control of the government, the taking of Arab land had been greatly accelerated, and the building of Jewish set­tlements in the West Bank had become one of the govern­ment's top priorities. Benvenisti [Meron Benvenisti, former Israeli deputy mayor of Jerusalem, who was devoting his full time to a definitive analysis of Israel's policies in the occupied territories] added that the number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank had been previously limited but that new policies and present trends meant that the fur­ther annexation of substantial occupied areas was probably a foregone conclusion.
Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, page 125.

To be continued...
Pictures, maps and titles in this article are not from the book "Peace Not Apartheid".

Mar 4, 2007

The End of Iraq (4)

By Peter Galbraith
The End of Iraq - part 1
The End of Iraq - part 2
The End of Iraq - part 3

Americans Incompetence (1)

At the end of April, Rumsfeld told Garner that his services were no longer required. John Sawers, the British ambassador to Egypt who was in Baghdad as the eyes and ears of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, cabled Downing Street about the change: "Garner's outfit, ORHA [Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance], is an unbelievable mess. No leadership, no strategy, no coordination, no structure, and inaccessible to ordinary Iraqis. ...Garner and his top team of 60-year-old retired Generals are well-meaning but out of their depth." The British used professionals in Iraq and saw the occupation disaster much sooner than the ideologues in the Pentagon and the White House. Blair, uniquely, was a foreigner that the Bush Administration could not afford to ignore.

Bremer is awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, December 14, 2004

To replace Garner, Rumsfeld contacted L. Paul Bremer III, known as Jerry ...
Bremer had never been to Iraq, did not speak Arabic, had never served in a post-conflict society, and had no experience in nation building. And he had less than two weeks to "read into" his new assign­ment, a process of oral and written briefings that normally lasts several months even for a routine ambassadorial assignment such as the Netherlands. For a full year before the war, the State Department had spent millions of dollars working with Iraqi exiles and experts to pre­pare a fifteen-volume blueprint for how Iraq might be governed after the war. The Administration was so disorganized and so faction ridden that the Defense Department (for which Bremer would work and which handled his briefings) did not tell him that this State De­partment study existed. He would learn of it in the press sometime after arriving in Baghdad.
...
Bremer arrived in Baghdad on May 12, 2003. On May 16, he in­formed the Iraqi Leadership Council that there would be no interim government and no early handover of power. This came exactly eleven days after Jay Garner-speaking for the United States-had announced that the core of an interim government would be in place by May 15. The same day, Bremer issued Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 1. It banned persons serving in the top four levels of the Ba'ath Party from holding government employment, now and in the future. On May 23, Bremer signed CPA Order Number 2. It dissolved Iraq's army, its air force, its navy, its secret police, its intelligence services, the Republican Guards, the Ba'ath Party militia, and the Ministry of Defense.

For eighty years, Sunni Arabs were the guardians of Iraqi unity, keeping the country together by force. The American invasion ended Sunni Arab rule. Now, in a few strokes of a pen, Bremer completed Iraq's revolution by destroying the pillars on which Sunni Arabs had relied to rule Iraq-the military, the security services, and the Ba'ath Party.
Although he did not know it, Bremer had sealed Iraq's fate as a uni­tary nation. All the king's horses and all the king's men could not put Humpty Dumpty back together again. This did not stop Bremer from spending the next fourteen months trying to do just that.
The End of Iraq, page 117-119.

Bremer's decision to assume all power for himself rather than trans­fer authority to an Iraqi government was probably the most fateful of his decisions. Every Iraqi leader, including the most pro- American, says it was Bremer's decision to keep power that changed the United States from being seen by many as liberator to being universally regarded as an occupier.
The End of Iraq, page 122.

To be continued...
Pictures and titles in this article are not from the book "The End of Iraq".