http://news.antiwar.com/2013/03/05/centcom-chief-rejects-diplomacy-says-iran-must-be-brought-to-its-knees/
Mattis conceded that he is “paid to take a rather dim view of the Iranians,” which is putting it mildly, and sought to stop short of criticizing the administration’s current tack, saying he “basically” supports the current direction vis-a-vis Iran.
The new report reflects on the program, and the failures both large and small that have left so many major public works projects in ruins, conceding that “fraud and mismanagement” fueled the now-legendary disaster.
This is likely true, with some of the more Islamist factions of the rebellion more or less openly operating as auxiliaries of al-Qaeda, as with Jabhat al-Nusra. Though assorted nations sending arms claim to be very careful not to arm these factions, they always seem awash in weaponry, even as the more moderate factions gripe about their own shortages.
Centcom Chief Rejects Diplomacy, Says Iran Must Be ‘Brought to Its Knees’
Insists Sanctions Aren't Working, But 'Open' Warfare Just One Alternative
by Jason Ditz, March 05, 2013
Speaking to Congress today, Central Command leader Gen. James Mattis insisted sanctions are not successful against Iran, and suggested that diplomacy had been all but useless, insisting that Iran’s “history of deceit” meant they could never be trusted at any rate.
Mattis conceded that he is “paid to take a rather dim view of the Iranians,” which is putting it mildly, and sought to stop short of criticizing the administration’s current tack, saying he “basically” supports the current direction vis-a-vis Iran.
Rather he said the goal was for Iran to be “brought to its knees” and that “open” warfare was just one of a few different options that he is considering to that end, though he insisted there was a plan ready to go on attacking Iran. He did not specify what the other options were, but the US had been engaged in covert warfare against Iran for years.
Mattis went on to hype the “threat” posed by Iran’s “nuclear industry,” insisting that the nation could be the spark that sets off a disastrous region-wide conflict. Given the general’s own comments, it seems a safe bet that the US would be the ones firing the first shots in any such conflict.
and does Pakistan need to be brought to its knees as well........
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0305/Will-the-US-block-an-Iran-Pakistan-gas-pipeline
Next week Iran and Pakistan will begin work on a $7.5 billion gas pipeline that the US has been fighting tooth and nail to stop in all manner of proxy methods.
On 11 March, Pakistani officials braved the “international community” by announcing that “groundbreaking” work on the 780-kilometer pipeline would begin on the Pakistani side of the border, marking the start of construction by an Iranian-Pakistani consortium.
Just prior to the announcement, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran.
The Pakistani portion of the pipeline will cost around $1.5 billion. This is the key here because the 900-kilometer Iranian portion of the pipeline is already nearing completion.
The pipeline will go ahead largely because Pakistan’s energy crisis dictates that it must. And even US sanctions won’t prevent it, and threats emanating fromWashington (largely through the US mainstream media) are only working to increase already volatile anti-American sentiment in Pakistan. (Related article: RUSSIA-ISRAEL: New Oil & Gas Geopolitics in the Mediterranean)
The US State Department has warned of sanctions, but is keeping a low profile on direct threats until the pipeline deal is sealed. It’s still working the back rooms to stop the deal, but Iran is working even harder—namely by putting up the bulk of the funding for the Pakistani portion of the pipeline.
So far, while the US has promised to offer Pakistan a better deal than a pipeline with Iran, we haven’t seen anything concrete that can compete with this type of energy security. After all, the pipeline will bring Pakistan some 21.5 million cubic meters of gas a day.
The US had been hoping to lure Pakistani into an alternative pipeline deal – the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline, which would bypass Iran. The TAPI pipeline, however, is a stop-and-start project that has its own security issues to deal with: it would be either targeted by the Taliban or the Taliban would have to be figured in as benefactors, which would mean much for the conflict in Afghanistan. Even the most optimistic observers put a completion date at around 2018.
Washington remains adamant that the pipeline is a violation of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. But Islamabad is unmoved by the threats and President Zardari has intimated that the pipeline deal will go through despite external influence.
"Nobody has the power to halt this project," he was quoted by The Express Tribune newspaper in Pakistan as saying. (Related article: TURKEY-ISRAEL: Gas Pipeline Rumors Are Geopolitically Tectonic)
Of course, it’s not an easy time for Zardari, whose five-year term is coming to an end, leaving open a window of opportunity for external influence in the election process to various ends. Pakistan's parliament is due to dissolve in two weeks in preparation for elections that will tentatively be held in mid-May.
There are other ways to sabotage this pipeline as well. The pipeline runs through some extremely insecure territory in Balochistan, which is likely to become a new (old) frontline in regional pipeline wars in the immediate-medium-term future.
The US and Saudi Arabia are willing to go quite far in derailing this project. They’ve already succeeded to some extent. Originally, the pipeline was meant to include India and was dubbed the “Peace Pipeline”.
Under pressure from Washington (plus a controversially generous gift of civilian nuclear technology access), India backed out in 2009.
So with India out of the equation, all attention turned to another front to derail this pipeline—Balochistan. The US and Saudi Arabia are both fomenting separatism in Balochistan, which is a convenient venue for stirring up trouble. The Pakistani province has huge gas reserves and vast mineral resources, coupled with an ongoing, armed dispute between economically, culturally and socially marginalized Balochi nationalists who have serious grievances against Pakistan's Punjab-dominated federal government.
Iran has a problem with Balochi separatists, the latter occasionally clashing with Iranian forces in Baloch-dominated regions across the border. The US is hoping that if the Balochis are empowered to step up the conflict, Iran could be forced to back down from its pipeline plans in light of the security situation. So far, this proxy war in Balochistan has been a major hindrance to Iran, but the end result is that it has only further inspired the pipeline plans.
http://news.antiwar.com/2013/03/05/final-report-60-billion-iraq-reconstruction-accomplished-little/
Final Report: $60 Billion Iraq Reconstruction Accomplished Little
SIGIR: Decade-Long Scheme Ended With Failure
by Jason Ditz, March 05, 2013
What is expected to be the final report from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) has come out, taking a final look at a scheme that started a decade ago and spent $60 billion. The verdict: failure.
The new report reflects on the program, and the failures both large and small that have left so many major public works projects in ruins, conceding that “fraud and mismanagement” fueled the now-legendary disaster.
US programs sought to do big things, bankrolling projects seemingly at random, with little care toward whether they were needed, wanted, or sustainable. So determined were officials to spend big that even modest proposals, like a principal’s request for $10,000 to upgrade his school, were met with several times that amounts of cash being thrown at scheme through official channels and not even a fraction of the work ever being done.
Officials tried to dismiss the failure, however, insisting that many of the programs fell apart because the Iraqi government refused to give US occupation forces the sort of enduring legal immunity that would’ve kept them there long-term, and forced planners to scrap a lot of plans that weren’t going to be finished in time.
http://news.antiwar.com/2013/03/05/us-general-warns-against-sending-weapons-to-syria/
US General Warns Against Sending Weapons to Syria
Announces He Is 'Quietly Planning' for Syria Invasion
by Jason Ditz, March 05, 2013
Speaking to Congress, Centcom Commander General James Mattis warned against plans to arm the assorted rebel factions in Syria, saying that the situation is “too complex” to send weapons and that the US couldn’t count on those weapons not ending up in the hands of US enemies.
This is likely true, with some of the more Islamist factions of the rebellion more or less openly operating as auxiliaries of al-Qaeda, as with Jabhat al-Nusra. Though assorted nations sending arms claim to be very careful not to arm these factions, they always seem awash in weaponry, even as the more moderate factions gripe about their own shortages.
Yet the complex and even-worsening situation in Syria apparently didn’t scare Gen. Mattis off from the prospect of a US or international invasion, and he conceded that he has been “quietly planning” with allies for the possibility of an invasion.
Mattis went on to claim that the US has some unspecified means to “disrupt” the Syrian government’s chemical weapons arsenal, and could effectively prevent their transfer or use. This is in stark contrast to estimates only a few months old from Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, who said it was “almost unachievable” to prevent any chemical attack.
No comments:
Post a Comment