Reflections of Fidel: The Origin of Wars

Reflections of Fidel
The origin of wars

(Taken from CubaDebate)

I affirmed on July 4 that neither the United States nor Iran would give in; "one, due to the pride of the powerful, and the other, out of resistance to the yoke and the capacity to fight, as has occurred so many times in the history of humanity…"

In almost all wars, one of the parties wishes to avoid them, and sometimes, both. On this occasion, it would come about even though one of the parties does not wish it, as happened in the two World Wars in 1914 and 1939, with only 25 years of distance before the first outbreak and the second.

The slaughters were horrific, they would not have been unleashed without prior errors of calculation. The two parties were defending imperialist interests and they believed that they would obtain their objectives without the terrible cost that that implied.

In the case that concerns us: one of them is defending national, absolutely just interests. The other is pursuing illegitimate intentions and crude material interests.

If we analyze all the wars that have taken place, starting from the known history of our species, one of the parties has sought those objectives.

Any illusion that, on this occasion, such objectives will be reached without the most terrible of all wars is absolutely vain.

In one of the best articles published by the Global Research website on Thursday, July 1, signed by Rick Rozoff, he provides abundant indisputable arguments on the United States’ intentions, of which any well-informed person must be aware.

"...Victory can be attained when an adversary knows it is vulnerable to an instantaneous and undetectable, overwhelming and devastating attack without the ability to defend itself or retaliate," is what the United States thinks, according to the author.

"…A country which aspires to remain the only state in history to wield full spectrum military dominance on land, in the air, on the seas and in space."

"…To maintain and extend military bases and troops, aircraft carrier
battle groups and strategic bombers on and to most every latitude
and longitude. To do so with a post-World War II record war budget of $708 billion for next year."

It was "…the first country to develop and use nuclear weapons…"

"… the U.S. retains 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 2,200
(by some counts 3,500) more in storage and a triad of land, air and
submarine delivery vehicles."

"The non-nuclear arsenal used for disabling and destroying the air
defenses and strategic, potentially all major, military forces of other nations will consist of intercontinental ballistic missiles, adapted submarine-launched ballistic missiles, hypersonic cruise missiles and bombers, and super stealthy strategic bombers able to avoid detection by radar and thus evade ground- and air-based defenses."

Rozoff lists the many press conferences, meetings and statements of Joint Chiefs of Staff and high-ranking members of the government of the United States in the last few months.

He explains the commitments to NATO and the reinforced cooperation with Near East allies, primarily, read Israel. He says, "The U.S. is also intensifying space and cyber warfare programs with the potential to completely shut down other nations' military surveillance and command, control, communications, computer and intelligence systems, rendering them defenseless on any but the
most basic tactical level."

He speaks of the signing in Prague, on April 8 of this year, of the new START Treaty between Russia and the United States, which "does not contain any constraints on current or planned U.S. conventional prompt global strike capability."

He refers to countless news items on the subject and illustrates the intentions of the United States with one overwhelming example.
He notes that "…’The Department of Defense is currently exploring the full range of technologies and systems for a Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) capability that could provide the President more credible and technically suitable options for dealing with new and evolving threats.’"

I maintain the opinion that any president whosoever, not even the most expert military chief, would not have one minute to know what should be done if it was not already programmed on computers.
Imperturbably, Rozoff relates what the Global Security Network affirms in an analysis titled: "’Cost to test U.S. global-strike missile could reach $500 million,’" by Elaine Grossman.
"’The Obama administration has requested $239.9 million for prompt global strike research and development across the military services in fiscal 2011… If funding levels remain as anticipated into the coming years, the Pentagon will have spent some $2 billion on prompt global strike by the end of fiscal 2015, according to budget documents submitted last month to Capitol Hill.’"

"A terrifying scenario comparable to the effects of a PGS attack, in this case the sea-based version, appeared three years ago in Popular Mechanics:
"’In the Pacific, a nuclear-powered Ohio class submarine surfaces, ready for the president's command to launch. When the order comes, the sub shoots a 65-ton Trident II ballistic missile into the sky. Within 2 minutes, the missile is traveling at more than 20,000 ft. per second. Up and over the oceans and out of the atmosphere it soars for thousands of miles.
"’At the top of its parabola, hanging in space, the Trident's four warheads separate and begin their screaming descent down toward the planet.
"’Traveling as fast as 13,000 mph, the warheads are filled with scored tungsten rods with twice the strength of steel.

"’Just above the target, the warheads detonate, showering the area with thousands of rods-each one up to 12 times as destructive as a .50-caliber bullet. Anything within 3000 sq. ft. of this whirling, metallic storm is obliterated.’"

Rozoff immediately explains the April 7 statement of General Leonid Ivashov, joint chief of staff of the Russian armed forces, made in a column entitled "Obama’s nuclear surprise."

In that same column Ivashov, refers to the speech by the U.S. president in Prague last year: "The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War" – and his signing of the START II agreement in that same city on April 8, Rozoff quotes the author, who stated:

"’No examples of sacrificial service of the U.S. elites to mankind or peoples of other countries can be discovered in the U.S. history over the past century. Would it be realistic to expect the advent of an African-American president to the White House to change the country's political philosophy traditionally aimed at achieving global dominance? Those believing that something like that is possible should try to realize why the U.S. – the country with a military budget already greater than those of all other countries of the world combined – continues spending enormous sums of money on preparations for war.’"

"… ‘The Prompt Global Strike concept envisages a concentrated strike using several thousand precision conventional weapons in 2-4 hours that would completely destroy the critical infrastructures of the target country and thus force it to capitulate.’"
"’The Prompt Global Strike concept is meant to sustain the U.S. monopoly in the military sphere and to widen the gap between it and the rest of the world. Combined with the deployment of the missile defense supposed to keep the U.S. immune to retaliatory strikes from Russia and China, the Prompt Global Strike initiative is going to turn Washington into a modern era global dictator.’"

"’In essence, the new U.S. nuclear doctrine is an element of the novel U.S. security strategy that would be more adequately described as the strategy of total impunity. The U.S. is boosting its military budget, unleashing NATO as the global gendarme, and planning real-life exercise in Iran to test the efficiency of the Prompt Global Strike initiative in practice. At the same time, Washington is talking about the completely nuclear-free world.’"

In essence, Obama is trying to deceive the world by talking of a humanity free of nuclear weapons, which would be replaced by other extremely destructive ones, ideal for terrorizing state leaders and achieving the new strategy of total impunity.

The yankis believe that Iran’s rendition is already close. The European Union is expected to announce a sanctions package of its own to be signed on July 26.

The last meeting of the 5+1 took place on July 2, after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad affirmed that "his country would return to talks at the end of August with the participation of Brazil and Turkey."

A high-ranking EU official "stated that neither Brazil nor Turkey will be invited to take part in talks, at least not at this level."

"Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki stated that he was in favor of defying international sanctions and continuing with the enriched uranium program."

From Tuesday, July 5, in the face of the European reiteration that they are to promote additional measures against Iran, this country has responded that it will not negotiate until September.

Every day the possibilities of overcoming the insurmountable obstacle are reducing further.

What is going to happen is so evident that it can be foreseen in an almost exact form.

For my part, I must make a self-criticism; I committed an error in affirming in the June 27 Reflection that the conflict would break out on the Thursday, Friday or at the latest Saturday. It was already known that Israeli warships were navigating toward that objective together with the yanki naval forces. The order to search Iranian merchant ships was already given.

However, I did not realize that there was a prior step: confirmation of the negation of permission for the inspection of its mercantile fleet on the part of Iran. In analyzing the torturous language of the Security Council imposing sanctions on that country, I did not notice that detail to give the inspection order full effect. It was the only thing missing.

The 60-day period given by the Security Council on June 9 to receive information on compliance with the Resolution expires on August 8.

But something really most lamentable happened. I was working on the latest material on the delicate issue drafted by the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the said document did not contain two key paragraphs – the last two of the abovementioned resolution – which textually state:
"Requests within 90 days a report from the Director General of the IAEA on whether Iran has established full and sustained suspension of all activities mentioned in resolution 1737 (2006), as well as on the process of Iranian compliance with all the steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors and with other provisions of resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008) and of this resolution, to the IAEA Board of Governors and in parallel to the Security Council for its consideration;
"Affirms that it shall review Iran’s actions in light of the report referred to in paragraph 36 above, to be submitted within 90 days, and: (a) that it shall suspend the implementation of measures if and for so long as Iran suspends all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, as verified by the IAEA, to allow for negotiations in good faith in order to reach an early and mutually acceptable outcome;
(b) that it shall terminate the measures specified in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 12 of resolution 1737 (2006), as well as in paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of resolution 1747 (2007), paragraphs 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of resolution 1803 (2008), and in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24 above, as soon as it determines, following receipt of the report referred to in the paragraph above, that Iran has fully complied with its obligations under the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and met the requirements of the IAEA Board of Governors, as confirmed by the IAEA Board of Governors; (c) that it shall, in the event that the report shows that Iran has not complied with resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008) and this resolution, adopt further appropriate measures under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations to persuade Iran to comply with these resolutions and the requirements of the IAEA, and underlines that further decisions will be required should such additional measures be necessary…"

A compañero from the Ministry, after the exhausting work of many hours at the machine making photocopies of all the documents, fell asleep. My eagerness in seeking out information and exchanging points of view on these delicate issues, made it possible for me to discover this omission.

From my point of view, the United States and its NATO allies have said their last word. Two powerful states with authority and prestige did not exercise their right to veto the perfidious UN resolution.

It was the only possibility of gaining time to seek some formula for saving the peace, an objective that would have afforded them greater authority to continue fighting for it.

Today, everything is hanging from a tenuous thread.

My principal intention was to advise international public opinion of what was occurring.

I have in part achieved that by observing what was taking place, as a political leader who, for many years, has been confronting the empire, its blockades and its indescribable crimes. But I am not doing it out of revenge.

I am not hesitating to run the risks of compromising my modest moral authority.

I shall continue writing Reflections on the subject. There will be a number more after this one in order to continue going more profoundly into it in July and August, unless some incident occurs to trigger the deadly weapons currently pointed at each other.

I have very much enjoyed the final games of the World Cup and the volleyball games, in which our valiant team is marching at the head of its group in the World League of that sport.

Fidel Castro Ruz

July 11, 2010

8:14 p.m.

Translated by Granma International

Renewed Israeli Threat Against Iran: Report by Trita Parsi

Netanyahu and threat of bombing Iran - the bluff that never stops giving?

By Trita Parsi

April 7, 2009

The Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trita-parsi/netanyahu-and -threat-of-b_b_183822.html



In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed to have told President Barack Obama that either America stops Iran or Israel will. Not surprisingly, the interview sparked quite a controversy and only a day later, General David Petreus told the Senate Arms Services Committee that "the Israeli government may ultimately see itself so threatened by the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon that it would take preemptive military action to derail or delay it."

So once again, in spite of President Obama's best efforts, the military option was put back on the table and the atmosphere for dealing with Iran was turned into "Do as we say - or else..." Even if the President wants to give diplomacy a chance, disbelievers have been quick to limit Obama's options by seeking to set arbitrary deadlines for negotiations - or by threatening Israeli military action if America doesn't act with its military might.

Reality is, however, that talk of an Israeli military option is more of a bluff than a threat - but it is a bluff that never seems to stop giving.

Israel does not have the military capability to successfully eliminate Iran's nuclear program. Even the most successful bombing campaign would only set back the known program for a few years - without affecting any potential clandestine program. This is not classified information. Military experts are well aware of Israel's capabilities - and its limits.

Yet, the threat of military action, or rather the bluff, serves a purpose: Threats of military action militarizes the atmosphere. It creates an environment that renders diplomacy less likely to succeed - it may even prevent diplomacy from being pursued in the first place.

In the Iranian case, Netanyahu's tough talk undermines the Obama administration's prospects for diplomacy in the following ways.

Getting to the negotiating table has proven an arduous task for the US and Iran. Both sides are currently testing each other's intentions, asking themselves if the other side is serious about diplomacy or if the perceived desire for talks is merely a tactical maneuver to either buy time or build greater international support for more confrontational policies down the road. From Tehran's perspective, uncertainty about Washington's intentions during the Bush administration was partly fueled by the insistence of the military option remaining on the table. Tehran seemed to fear entering negotiations that could have been designed to fail, since that could strengthen the case for military action against Iran.

Today, talk of Israeli strikes has similar effects. Tehran has repeatedly failed to appreciate the policy differences between Washington and Tel Aviv, oftentimes seeing them as either a perfectly coordinated team or as a single entity. Consequently, explicit or implicit threats of Israeli military action reduce Tehran's confidence in Washington's intentions.

Furthermore, Iran's sense of a threat from the US (and in extension Israel) is believed to be one of the driving forces of Iran's nuclear program. Whether Iran seeks a weapon or a civilian program that provides Iran with a weapons capability, the program's existence provides Tehran with a level of deterrence against the perceived US threat. The Obama administration's approach seems to have been to reduce Iran's sense of threat in order to kick-start negotiations. The threat of Israeli military action does the opposite - it fuels Iranian insecurity and closes the window for diplomacy.

Moreover, Israel uses this threat to pressure Washington and the EU to act tough. This has been a cornerstone of Israeli policy towards Iran since the mid-1990s. Even though Israel is reluctant to put itself on the frontline against Iran, fearing that this would counter its message that Iran is the world's and not just Israel's problem, it also fears that the absence of Israeli pressure would cause the West to go soft on Iran. Hence, Israel keeps the pressure on the West - by threatening military action - in order for the West to keep pressuring Iran. However, under the current circumstances, Israeli pressure may compel the Obama administration to adopt a confrontational approach that is incompatible with the diplomatic strategy President Obama seems to prefer.

Finally, Netanyahu - as well as hawks in Washington - are using the threat of Israeli military action to create arbitrary deadlines for negotiations with Tehran combined with exaggerated expectations of what diplomacy must achieve. The message of Israeli hawks has been that it can only afford to give diplomacy "a few months," meaning that whatever sanctions and confrontation has failed to achieve with Iran in the past 30 years, must miraculously be obtained after only a few months of negotiations - otherwise Israel will take military action.

This logic does two things. First, it brings us back to the foreign policy approach of the Bush administration in which diplomacy was treated with suspicion and skepticism, and military confrontation was viewed as a policy option with guaranteed success. Second, it ensures that diplomacy fails by denying it the time and space it needs to succeed and by setting the bar too high.

This does not mean that Israel does not have legitimate reasons to fear Iran's nuclear advances - on the contrary. But what lies at the heart of Israel's maneuvers is not necessarily the fear of a nuclear clash, but the regional and strategic consequences nuclear technology in Iranian hands will have for Israel.

In spite of its rhetoric, Israel views the regime in Tehran as rational, calculating and risk-averse. Even those Israeli officials who believe that Iran is hell-bent on destroying the Jewish state recognize that Tehran is unlikely to attack Israel with nuclear weapons due to the destruction Israel would inflict on Iran through its second-strike capability.

The real danger a nuclear-capable Iran brings with it for Israel is twofold. First, an Iran with nuclear capability will significantly damage Israel's ability to deter militant Palestinian and Lebanese organizations. Gone would be the days when Israel's military supremacy would enable it to dictate the parameters of peace and pursue unilateral peace plans.

This could force Israel to accept territorial compromises with its neighbors in order to deprive Iran of points of hostility that it could use against the Jewish state. Israel simply would not be able to afford a nuclear rivalry with Iran and continued territorial disputes with the Arabs at the same time.

Second, the deterrence and power Iran would gain by mastering the fuel cycle could compel Washington to cut a deal with Tehran in which Iran would be recognized as a regional power and gain strategic significance in the Middle East at the expense of Israel. This has been a major Israeli fear since the end of the Cold War, when Israel's strategic utility to Washington lost considerable justification due to the absence of a Soviet threat. Under these circumstances, US-Iran negotiations could damage Israel's strategic standing, since common interests shared by Iran and the US would overshadow Israel's concerns with Tehran and leave Israel alone in facing its Iranian rival. The Great Satan will eventually make up with the ayatollahs and forget about the Jewish state, Israeli officials fear.

Netanyahu's threat of stopping Iran if Obama doesn't should be seen in light of the Israeli right's fear of a US-Iran deal. Talk of Israeli military action has not coincided with major advances in Iran's nuclear program, but rather with hints of an American preparedness to strike a compromise with Tehran that would grant it the dreaded know-how and limit Israel's strategic maneuverability.

The flaw in the Netanyahu's approach, however, is its underestimation of how US-Iran diplomacy can significantly alter Iran's posture towards the Jewish state and reduce the threat it faces from Tehran. Therein lies the opening for Israel's new prime minister that carries far greater promise for Israel's security than efforts to complicate Washington's path towards diplomacy.


Trita Parsi is president and co- founder of the National Iranian American Council and author of "Treacherous Alliances: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States."