PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> Sociopolitic: May 2006

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Iran : What's Really Going On?


For some time now the mainstream media have been regurgitating the finger-wagging, threat-filled discourse of the Bush administration in regards to Iran's reported efforts to enrich uranium, and possibly to develop the technology which will enable them to produce nuclear weapons.

As recently as Saturday the N.Y. Times published a story exploring the United States' position on engaging in talks with Iranian leadership, namely President Ahmadinejad, on the issue of their nuclear aspirations. Although the title of the Times story by Steven R. Weismann ( U.S. Debating Talks With Iran On Nuclear Issue, N.Y. Times , 5/27/06) implies that U.S. leadership is actively considering the possibility of talks with Iran, the body of the article makes it clear that top government officials do not want to pursue this option, despite the pleadings and recommendations of European diplomats as well as past and present U.S. foreign policy experts.

The Times piece suggests that the possibility of direct talks with Iran "is so politically delicate within the Bush administration that officials who described the emerging debate would discuss it only if granted anonymity." Apparently State Department officials have even refused to talk about the issue. European diplomats such as Germany's foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and the EU's foreign policy chief Javier Solana have reportedly urged Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice to make contact with Iran on this issue (N.Y. Times , 5/27/06).

Thus far the U.S. position has been that initiating talks with Iran would be a sign of "weakness." Further, senior administration officials have expressed concern that talking with Iran is not a good idea because they are not certain that Iranian leadership would respond positively, and might even rebuff them; and that a rebuff from Iran is to be avoided at all costs (N.Y. Times, 5/27).

Are these legitimate concerns when faced with an issue as important as nuclear proliferation and protecting not only America, but the world, from any possible nuclear threat? These comments from U.S. leadership seem to be a smokescreen for the true issue here, namely, if the U.S. did engage in talks with Iran, in good faith, and in sincerity, they might actually be able to come up with a reasonable compromise and/or solution to the current stand-off. If such a compromise or solution were reached, then it would become more difficult, if not impossible to continue to demonize Iran and include them in the "Axis of Evil," depicting them as a nation to be feared, and perhaps, like Iraq, dismantled.

In a recent speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Vice President Dick Cheney hinted at, without explicitly saying, that American military intervention or overthrow of the government of Iran could be options:

"For our part, the United States is keeping all options on
the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the
regime..... And we join other nations in sending that regime
a message: We will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons."

(Cheney Warns of 'Consequences' for Iran on Nuclear Issue ,
N.Y. Times, 5/8/06)


For his part, President Bush has said (in response to reports that the U.S. has been planning an attack on Iran) that military intervention by the U.S. is "wild speculation" and added that:

"The doctrine of prevention is to work together to prevent the Iranians from having a nuclear weapon. I know here in Washington prevention means force. It doesn't necessarily mean force. In this case it means diplomacy." (BBC News, updated 4/10/06).

If indeed, prevention means diplomacy, then why are the U.S officials refusing to talk to Iran? It appears this is another case of Bush saying one thing and then doing (or not doing in this case) something completely different. He says diplomacy is being pursued, and yet the administration is refusing to sit down and talk with Iran.

According to the Times article of 5/27 Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have opposed direct talks, "even through informal back channels."

While it is true that U.S. relations with Iran have been strained and characterized by distrust for some time now -- going back to the hostage crisis of 1979 -- with so much at stake, and with so much international support and backing for diplomacy, one would think that the U.S. could overcome such prejudice. Indeed, even decades of the Cold War didn't prevent U.S. leadership from subsequently engaging the leadership of the former Soviet Union.

As former deputy secretary of state under Colin Powell, Richard L. Armitage , has pointed out:


"Diplomacy is much more than just talking to your friends. You've got to talk people who aren't your friends, and even people you dislike. Some people in this administration think that diplomacy is a sign of weakness. In fact, it can show that you're strong." (Times, 5/27)


The most logical explanation for the U.S. leaderships' refusal to sit down at the table with Ahmadinejad and Iran is that, as stated previously, a "solution" or resolution is not what they actually want. Just as they do not really want to end the war in Iraq, and thus the occupation of that country, they similarly do not want to reach an accord or agreement with Iran.

Presently, the demonization of Iran, and particularly of President Ahmadinejad, serves the neo-con agenda. A little investigation however reveals the exaggeration and misinformation used by the U.S. leaders and the mainstream media in their campaign against Iran's president. For instance, in regards to Ahmadinejad's comment in the Fall of 2005 that "Israel must be wiped off the map", there has been alot of ink spilled and many outrageous comparisons made. The mainstream media has taken this comment out of context and used it to create an image of Ahmadinejad as a madman , a religious zealot, a little Hitler, who is bent on destroying Israel.

Most media outlets failed to mention that this comment was made at a conference entitled a "World Without Zionism." An article by Dan Murphy in The Christian Science Monitor from 11/1/05 ("What's behind Iranian leader's anti-Israel rant") explores the background and history of Ahmadinejad's comment. Murphy points out that "in the context of modern Iranian history, the fiery rhetoric of the populist leader at 'World Without Zionism' conference was hardly surprising." Murphy also says that Ahmadinejad's supporters are drawn to him because of "the zeal with which he advocates both anti-imperial claims and social justice goals of Iran's Islamic revolution(.)"

Murphy also quotes William Beeman, an anthropology professor at Brown University ( and author of 'The Great Satan' vs. The Mad Mullahs:' How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other) who explains that Ahmadinejad is "appealing to his base and his base are a group of people who are involved with a revolutionary rhetoric." Murphy also quotes Columbia University Iran expert Gary Sick, who likens Ahmadinejad's appeal to voters to the appeal of President Bush in the United States.

It is also significant that shortly after his inflammatory comments about Israel that Ahmadinejad "appeared to backpedal" and reportedly told the state news agency that "political steps are the only ones that can solve the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis." (Christian Science Monitor, 11/1/05). Further, Ahmadinejad has also stated that it is not the Jewish people or Israel in general that he has a problem with, but with Zionism.

Ahmadinejad, whom the same article referred to as "a sort of Middle Eastern Hugo Chavez minus the full control to put his ideas into action" is hardly a man the entire Western World should fear as the next Adolf Hitler.

For these reasons, we need to look elsewhere to discover the roots of America's stance on Iran and nuclear weapons, and the refusal to open dialogue on the issue. In a recent article Zoltan Grossman (The U.S., Iran, & Khuzestan, Z Magazine, January, 2006) suggests that a confrontation with Iran has "long been in the cards." He points out that the Project for the New American Century claims that Iran "may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has."

Grossman takes a historical look at American and British dealings with Iran and sees a pattern of imperialistic policy;

"British troops occupied Khuzestan during World War II, but after the war Iranians grew more concerned that Westerners had a stranglehold on their oil wealth. In 1951 the Iranian nationalist leader Mohammad Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry based mainly in Khuzestan (including Anglo-Iranian holdings), drawing the wrath of Western powers. Two years later a CIA-engergized coup ousted Mossadegh and installed Shah Reza Pahlevi, who opened Khuzestan to a U.S. -British oil concession. " (Z Magazine, 1/06).

Grossman goes on to detail how in 1978 Arab oil workers went on strike against the Shah and played a big role in the Iranian Revolution that toppled him in 1979. Subsequently, Saddam Hussein was encouraged by Western powers in his brutal invasion of Khuzestan in 1980, and ended up occupying the oil region in the west.

So, we can see that the United States history with Iran is much deeper and exploitative than is typically portrayed in the American media, who invariably focus on the taking of U.S. hostages without refering to the background of this event. It is not hard to see how Iran could and would be afraid of the government of America and their imperialistic agenda. They have lived through and experienced it.

In terms of the region's more recent history, it was undoubtedly true that Iran was pleased to see Saddam Hussein toppled and removed from power, however, the violence, destruction and ongoing carnage being perpetrated in Iraq by Bush & Co. probably hits a little too close to home for the Iranians to feel safe and secure. A BBC news report suggested recently that having witnessed two major wars in neighboring Afghanistan and Iraq, the Iranian people are increasingly fearful that they may face a similar fate if the nuclear crisis is not solved by diplomatic means.

Respected American journalist Seymour Hersh recently created a stir at home when he published a story about U.S. intentions in Iran (The Iran Plans : Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb? , The New Yorker, 4/17/06). In the piece Hersch reported that the Bush administration had "increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack." He added that "teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic minority groups."

This alleged activity, if true, would of course have contradicted claims Bush had made about diplomacy being the means by which America would dissuade Iran from continuing their plans to enrich uranium and perhaps build a nuclear weapon/s. But maybe Iran's uranium enrichment and potential nuclear capabilities are not what concerns and interests America the most about this country. To return to the discussion of American political strategy in the region, it is significant that a "high ranking diplomat" in Vienna was quoted by Hersh as saying:

"This is much more than a nuclear issue. That's just a rallying point, and there is still time to fix it. But the Administration believes it cannot be fixed unless they control the hearts and minds of Iran. The real issue is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years." (The New Yorker, 4/17/06)


Hersh also quoted a senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror who stated that:

"The White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war. The danger (is that) it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to have nuclear capability." (The New Yorker, 4/17/06)

This quote is very significant, and I believe tells us in the most accurate and succinct manner, what is really going on right now between the United States and Iran. It is my contention that the push of Ahmadinejad to develop nuclear capabilities is not about his religious convictions and the Imam Mahdi, not really about the general technological development of Iran (though no doubt this would benefit the people) , and not about punishing or getting rid of Israel. Quite simply, the possession of a nuclear weapon/s would act as a deterrent to the United States or Israel or any of their allies invading and/or occupying Tehran. It is in fact amazing to me that this fairly obvious theory hasn't been put out front by any of the major media outlets (at least not that I have read or heard; if someone finds this point prominently presented in a major media organ please share it).

Is it not ridiculously hypocritical for the United States of America (who possesses 30,000 tons of chemical weapons and the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on the globe) to chastise another country, any country, about their national defense and deny them the right to protect their sovereignty by moving to develop nuclear technology as a deterrent to potential attack and/or occupation?

In a story from 5/16/06 Zia Mian (America, Iran and the Nuclear Option, ZNet) discusses the current state of affairs and highlights America's global military dominance and how both nuclear weapons and the nuclear option counteract that power, explaining that the spread of nuclear weapons to certain parts the world jeopardize America's ability to impose its' otherwise overwhelming military power. The story also quotes former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski from a piece in the Los Angeles Times. He says:

"If there is another terrorist attack in the United States, you can bet your bottom dollar that there also will be immediate charges that Iran was responsible in order to generate hysteria in favor of military action."

Brzezinski is further quoted as saying:

"If undertaken without formal congressional declaration of war, an attack would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the president. Similarly, if undertaken without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, either alone by the United States or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrators as international outlaw(s). (L.A Times, 4/17/06)

If past actions are any indication of future behavior, then it is true that we indeed have something to fear. In the current debate over Iran and their reported nuclear program we are again, just like Iraq, not being told the truth. We do have something to fear. The twist is that what and who should be feared is alot closer to home than most Americans would ever imagine.

Posted by Rogue Scoop at 12:21 PM | | Comments

Thursday, May 25, 2006

What's next with the NSA , the CIA
and the telecoms?


If it weren't enough that average American citizens were being spied on by the government, and their personal phone records and calling patterns were being sold, shared, or otherwise handed over to the NSA by major telecommunications companies, and that Gen. Michael V. Hayden, (the man who once headed the National Security Agency, and by most reports played a large role in the creation of the government's controversial domestic eavesdropping program) is about to become the next director of the CIA, we now find out that President Bush has "bestowed upon his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations." (Business Week Online, 5/24/06).

Yesterday, in a diary entitled "Negroponte Can Waive SEC Rules for "National Security"(www.dailykos.com) frequent poster SusanG cites an article from Business Week Online which tells us that publicly traded companies such as AT&T and Verizon and those implicated in the Fourth Amendment privacy rights controversy can be shielded from SEC reporting requirements, all in the name of national security.

SusanG suggests that this latest legal mandate is another maneuver designed for the benefit of Bush's cronies "or to cover up (the) administration's illegal and unconstitutional acts." I would have to agree with her. There seems no end to the systematic stripping of our civil liberties and constitutional rights that is being perpetrated by the current administration. Not only are our rights being violated, but now steps are being taken to protect those who are allegedly participating in the crimes.

It is interesting to note that although Verizon recently publicly denied having turned over phone records to the NSA (including what numbers its' customers had dialed and when), it did not deny that MCI Inc., the company Verizon acquired in January, had provided such data. Further, AT&T reportedly had also not, as of 5/17/06, denied having released customer calling records (L.A. Times, 5/17/06).

Essentially, the government continues to take steps to monitor our daily lives and activities, while we average citizens are losing recourse to information about such monitoring. The flow of information is increasingly becoming one way. The corporations who are the de facto policy makers of this country, and increasingly the world, do not have to answer to us or anyone.

Of course this recent development with Bush granting Negroponte the power to issue reporting waivers to corporations is no surprise. It is another stone in the ever-growing wall of secrecy and deceit being erected around this countrys' social and political power structure. The CIA and the NSA also continually prove themselves to be more than adequate masons. Indeed, the aforementioned Business Week article cites Security-law experts who suggest that the waving of reporting requirements for companies could be used to mask the funding of secret CIA or Pentagon assignments.

For his part, during his recent confirmation hearing Gen. Hayden defended the NSA spying program but refused to provide details on the nature of the program, saying that he would address this in a closed session with senators later that day (L.A. Times, 5/19/06). His attitude seemed to be one of avoidance and retreat, stating that the "CIA needs to get out of the news - as a source or subject- and focus on protecting the American people by acquiring secrets and providing high-quality all source analysis." (Times, 5/19/06).

My questions are; a) how does acquiring data on the calling patterns of millions of Americans "protect" us? (whether acquired by the NSA or the CIA), and b) how does providing corporations protection from reporting their involvement in such activities "protect" us? I think these questions need to be answered.

National Security is becoming a multi-purpose fire blanket for the executive branch and the CIA when they are called to task for inappropriate or even illegal actions, and the so-called Rule of Law is no longer immune to being smothered and extinguished. Therein resides the real danger-- when the very system designed to ensure our freedoms is turned against us, where are we left to turn?

Posted by Rogue Scoop at 9:02 AM | | Comments

Monday, May 22, 2006

Review of Rivers and Tides

Directed by Thomas Riedelsheimer


"Art for me is a form of nourishment. I need the land. I need it."
- Andy Goldsworthy


Just recently, I experienced Andy Goldsworthy in the process of constructing his art, and it was truly invigorating. Although it was secondhand, through the documentary film Rivers and Tides, I couldn't help but feel as if I was standing or crouching beside him in nature as he assembled, laid out, and built his myriad of environmental sculptures.

The film, directed by Thomas Riedelsheimer, was released in 2001, but because the primary themes are patterns in nature, temporality, and the transmutations of time, seeing it some five years after its' initial release hardly seems to diminish its' impact or relevance.

Goldsworthy is a British photographer and artist living in Scotland who produces works from ice, driftwood, bracken, stones, snow, dirt, leaves, and flowers. Energized by the land, Goldsworthy collects these objects in their original setting, and, utilizing found tools, attaches, moves and arranges them in varying contexts, often in a highly original and fascinating manner. He seems to take a childlike joy in playing with forms, in altering our perceptions. The resulting pieces or scenes often appear as if they have grown from the ground or otherwise spontaneously appeared in nature.

In carefully spaced voiceover narration and interviews with the director Goldsworthy reveals that the two biggest influences on his work are the sea and the river. Indeed, we see various twisting, winding, serpentine, flowing forms which are presumably derived from these sources. For his part, director Riedelsheimer does an admirable job of maintaining a distance from his subject, and this accentuates the impact of the images. Whether orchestrated by Goldsworthy or Riedelsheimer, the composition in most frames is incredibly tasteful, and by good fortune or design, the lighting is often nothing short of breathtaking.

One senses a decidedly Eastern flavor in Goldsworthy's craft, and indeed, his comments on his work echo Taoist and Buddhist philosophical perspectives. At times however, he slips into an awareness of his standing as internationally respected artist, and seemingly catering to critics and gallery owners, produces semi-pretentious statements such as "I haven't simply made the piece to be destroyed by the sea. The work has been given to the sea as a gift, and the sea has taken the work and made more of it than I could have ever hoped for."

Despite rare moments like this where Goldsworthy comes off sounding contrived, the predominant impression one gets of him is that of a simple man who is striving to maintain, and/or reconnect to his archaic roots on a daily basis. Often, to find pristine open fields, beaches, and serene forests in which to work, Goldsworthy will travel, but he nonetheless professes a deep bond with his home base. We see him mingling with sheep and longhaired cows in the Scottish countryside where he lives, and he betrays a sincere respect for the complex functioning of the ecosystem.

In this day and age of increasing concerns with the threats to the planet represented by man's exploitation and disruption of the biosphere, Goldsworthy's message revives our long neglected impulses towards harmony and unity with nature.

If through his art he can spread a renewed appreciation for the delicate balance of our organic surroundings, then his work is much more than ephemerally aesthetic. At its' best it will inspire us to recover the respect for this living and breathing rock that we all inhabit.

Posted by Rogue Scoop at 10:02 AM | | Comments

Thursday, May 04, 2006

Review of Theme Time Radio Hour
hosted by Bob Dylan

on xm satellite radio (Channel 15, 40)

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, but a good DJ does help.

Bob Dylan began his much anticipated hosting of Theme Time Radio Hour on xm radio by suggesting that "if you want to know about the weather, just look outside." In his latest incarnation and public persona of DJ and music fan Dylan chose rather to look back and inside the deep, rich cavern which is American music , with a special emphasis on roots music pre 1960.

The stated "theme" of the hour was that of "weather" and each of the songs Dylan handpicked in some way uses nature and atomospheric phenomena as a metaphor for the human condition. Of course, Dylan the artist beautifully highlights and frames these sonic moments in a manner that would make Shelley and Keats proud.

Dylan's voice was understated yet enchanting, providing unique insights into the inspiration and social fabric surrounding many of the songs played. Unbeknownst to many casual fans of his music Dylan is as well versed in the History of American music as any scholar or academic, and after nearly fifty years of touring and travelling, has insights and access to tidbits through his many personal contacts and encounters which few if any academic types can lay claim to. He preceded the playing of "I Don't Care If the Sun Don't Shine" by Dean Martin by saying "We forget how much Elvis wanted to be Dean," and framed the potent 1953 classic "Just Walking In the Rain" by The Prisonaires by telling the the dark tale of how the song's author Johnny Bragg (who along with the other Prisonaires was an inmate at Tennessee State Prison) was sentenced to 99 years in prison for rape, explaining however that this was in the Jim Crow south and a questionable charge at best. Bob added that Bragg was released but later was confined a second time after being considered to have violated his parole because he was simply seen in a car with a white woman, who happened to be his wife.

There was a generous helping of R & B with a heavy southern flavor, and it was particulary sweet to hear "It's Raining" by the Soul Queen of New Orleans, Irma Thomas, as well as "Uncloudy Day" by the Staple Singers. Dylan's admiration for "Pops" Staples was evident as he introduced this soulful piece. Other songs with rain as a the subject were "Raining In My Heart" by blues great Slim Harpo, and "Stormy Weather" by the Doo-Woopers The Spaniels.

As the show progressed the mix became more eclectic, with songs by Jimi Hendrix ("The Wind Cries Mary"), Judy Garland ("Come Rain, Come Shine"), Stevie Wonder (an Italian version of "Place In the Sun") and Frank Sinatra ("Summer Wind").

There was obviously great thought and planning put into the program. It seemed Dylan wanted to cover a broad range of musical genres in this segment. There were no calls taken from listeners and no emails answered (as had been previously advertised by xm). This would have been fun to hear, and perhaps listener interaction will be a part of future shows.

Dylan sounded thoroughly comfortable and at home in this arena. Since he himself has such a deep appreciation (as well as knowledge) of all kinds of music, this love can't help but shine through. He reminds us that a DJ is not just a functionary, but can be an artist in his or her own right -- presentation, staging and delivery are indeed a creative process.

Before signing off Bob left us with this cryptic nugget; "If you think the summer sun is too hot, just remember that you don't have to shovel it."

Posted by Rogue Scoop at 3:17 PM | | Comments