Important Political News

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

In recent years Egypt's press has been allowed more room. A feisty independent newspaper began publishing last year and politically partisan weekly papers have launched one broadside after another against President Hosni Mubarak.
But Egyptian journalists allege a government backlash is under way and they're pushing back. Sunday, at least 24 daily and weekly papers withheld publication, and a rowdy demonstration of about 500 journalists and supporters was held at the parliament building in downtown Cairo, with one banner sarcastically declaring "Viva corruption. Down with freedom of the press."

The press boycott follows the recent sentencing of two journalists to a year in prison for the crime of defaming Mubarak and his family. It comes as lawmakers prepared to vote on a proposed new press law Sunday that would double libel fines and also allow the continued use of libel laws against critics of the president and journalists who write in detail about the finances of public officials.

In 2004, Mubarak had promised to do away with prison sentences for libel. "Nobody in Egypt will be imprisoned again for their opinions," Press Syndicate Chairman Galal Aref said at the time. But Ibrahim Eissa, editor of the independent weekly Al Dustour, and colleague Sahar Zaki are evidence that promise hasn't been kept. They were sentenced for an April article that outlined a lawsuit against Mubarak and his family charging the president- his wife Suzanne and his son Gamal, presumed by many here to be Mubarak's heir apparent - of "wasting the government's resources," "squandering foreign aid," and turning "Egypt into a monarchy."

The two journalists were also fined $1,750. The lawyer who filed the lawsuit, Mohammed Sulaiman, received an identical sentence. Two other journalists have been sentenced on un- related charges this year, and a number of pro-democracy bloggers have also been detained without charges or trial.

"In terms of reform, the genie is out of the bottle," says Hugh Miles, a Cairo-based journalist and author of "Al Jazeera: How Arab TV News Challenged the World." "It is clear journalists are getting cracked down upon. Old scores are being settled by the government and, as we see with Eissa, this is the way they are going after them."

The government says the new press law will stop the publication of baseless allegations and protect the public's rights.

To be sure, local television and radio news - which reach millions more Egyptians than newspapers - have always remained tightly controlled, and the Egyptian government has also brought suits against pan-Arab broadcasters like Al Jazeera. The station's bureau chief, Hussein Abdel Ghani, is currently facing a charge of "propagating false news" which threatened "national security."

While the demonstrations Sunday were largely peaceful, riot soldiers and plainclothes security forces surrounded protesters as they marched through downtown Cairo and punched some when they arrived at the press syndicate building.

"I was hit by a guy in plainclothes as I was standing near the entrance to the press syndicate," says democracy activist Bassem Khalifa.

The moves against the press are among a series of measures pursued by the government recently that appear to limit democratic outlets and criticism. Ayman Nour, Mubarak's most popular challenger in last year's presidential election, was sentenced to five years in prison in December on a charge he forged documents when he registered his political party.

Dozens of prodemocracy demonstrators have been arrested this year under the government's sweeping security law, as have hundreds of members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the most powerful opposition bloc in parliament. The Egyptian government said Sunday 27 members of the group were arrested for meeting to prepare for an upcoming teachers association election.

Even the National Democratic Institute and International Republican Institute - two US-funded agencies that lead American efforts to promote democracy abroad - were banned from work in the country in June because the foreign ministry said their paperwork wasn't in order.It was a slap in the face to the US government, which provides Egypt with about $2 billion in aid each year.

Mr. Miles believes the Egyptian press could well end up winning this fight. "The reform movement has a lot of momentum as we have seen over the past few months through the support for judicial freedom and journalists," he adds. Others aren't so sure.

Though journalists are still clamoring for reform, the press bill before parliament appears to be a step backward. The bill includes six-month jail terms and hefty fines for journalists convicted of libel. The independent newspaper, Sawt Al Omma, wrote that the law "defends corrupt people and punishes journalists instead."

[Rasputin]

آمريکا جديد ترين ناو جنگی مجهز به سيستم دفاع موشکی خود را به ژاپن فرستاده است و می گويد اين اقدام بر اساس برنامه گردش ادواری ناوگان دريايی اين کشور انجام می شود.
ناو جنگی "يو اس اس ماستين" که در سال ۲۰۰۳ به بهره برداری رسيده به پيشرفته ترین سيستم دفاع موشکی ضد باليستيک نيروی دريايی مجهز است.

اين کشتی روز شنبه ۸ ژوئيه با ۳۰۰ خدمه به بندر يوکوسوکای ژاپن، محل استقرار ناوگان هفتم نيروی دريايی آمريکا فرستاده شده است.

ناو آمريکايی زمانی به ژاپن اعزام می شود که هفت آزمايش موشکی اخير کره شمالی موجب نگرانی عميق ژاپن و آمريکا شده است.


دستور ويژه ای به ما ابلاغ نشده است. ماموريت ما در ژاپن بر اساس برنامه گردش ادواری نيروی دريايی آمريکاست.


کاپيتان ادوارد کشمن

برنامه گردش ادواری

به گفته مقامات نظامی آمريکا استقرار دائمی اين ناو در ژاپن به آزمايش های موشکی کره شمالی ارتباطی ندارد.

ادوارد کشمن، کاپيتان يو اس اس ماستين، می گويد تصميم مأموريت جديد او مدت ها پيش اتخاذ شده است:

"ما از وضعيت کره شمالی آگاهيم. دستور ويژه ای به ما ابلاغ نشده است. ماموريت ما در ژاپن بر اساس برنامه گردش ادواری نيروی دريايی آمريکاست."

ناظران می گويند نگرانی آمريکا در منطقه شرق آسيا از کره شمالی فراتر می رود و شامل چين هم می شود.

عدم شفافيت بودجه نظامی چين کشورهای همسايه آن را به ويژه نگران کرده است.


دونالد رامسفلد

رقابت نظامی

وزارت دفاع آمريکا، پنتاگون، از چين به عنوان کشوری که بالاترين توانايی بالقوه برای رقابت نظامی با آمريکا را دارد یاد می کند.

دونالد رامسفلد وزير دفاع آمريکا ماه پيش هشدار داد که برنامه چين برای مدرنيزه کردن ارتش اين کشور تنش نظامی در شرق آسيا را تشديد می کند:

"برخی رفتارهای چين می تواند موجب پيچيدگی روابط آن با ساير کشورها شود. عدم شفافيت بودجه نظامی چين کشورهای همسايه آن را به ويژه نگران کرده است."


کره شمالی دست به هفت آزمايش موشکی زد

چين اين نگرانی ها را بی اساس می داند.

اما آقای رامسفلد که اخيرا از همسايگان اين کشور ديدار کرده می خواهد حضور نظامی کشورش در شرق آسيا تقويت شود.

نيروی دريايی آمريکا برنامه انتقال بيشتر ناوهای جنگی خود از پايگاه های اين کشور در اقيانوس اطلس به پايگاه های واقع در اقيانوس آرام را به اجرا گذاشته است.

قرار است پنتاگون ماه آينده ناو جنگی ديگری را هم که به مجهز به پيشرفته ترين سيستم دفاع موشکی است به ژاپن اعزام کند.

[Rasputin]

يک فروند هواپيمای مسافربری متعلق به خطوط هواپيمايی بين المللی پاکستان در مسير پرواز داخلی سقوط کرده و تمامی سرنشينان آن جان خود را از دست داده اند.
روز دوشنبه، 10 ژوئيه، مقامات پاکستانی اعلام کردند که يک فروند هواپيمای مسافربری دو موتوره از نوع فوکر با چهل و پنج سرنشين که در مسير داخلی از شهر مولتان عازم لاهور و اسلام آباد، پايتخت، بود دقايقی پس از برخاستن از باند پرواز فرودگاه دچار آتش سوزی شد و سقوط کرد.

شاهدان عينی گفته اند که پس از سقوط هواپيما، ماموران پليس محل سقوط هواپيما را به محاصره در آورد و آتش نشانان برای خاموش کردن آتش به محل اعزام شدند.

امدادگران کوشيده اند اجساد سرنشينان را که به شدت سوخته از ميان لاشه هواپيما خارج کنند.

گفته می شود که هواپيمای دو موتوره فوکر هنگام سقوط چهل و يک مسافر و چهار خدمه داشت.

يک مقام محلی کشته شدن تمامی سرنشينان هواپيما را تاييد کرده و گفته است که دو قاضی دادگاه عالی، دو افسر عاليرتبه ارتش، يک افسر عاليرتبه پليس و يکی از کارمندان ارشد شرکت هواپيمايی بين المللی پاکستان از جمله سرنشينان هواپيما بوده اند.

علت سقوط هواپيما هنوز معلوم نشده اما امکان بروز نقص فنی از جمله موارد در دست تحقيق است.

برخی از شاهدان عينی گفته اند که هنگام برخاستن هواپيما از باند پرواز شعله های آتش را که از آن زبانه می کشيد مشاهده کرده اند.

يک مسئول شرکت هواپيمايی پاکستان گفته است که حدود دو دقيقه پس از برخاستن هواپيما، ارتباط آن با برج مراقبت قطع شد.

در همانحال، برخی از شاهدان عينی گفته اند که هواپيما پس از برخورد با خط انتقال نيرو، در مزرعه ای در نزديکی فرودگاه سقوط کرد و منفجر شد.

[Rasputin]

به گزارش روزنامهى هرالدسان، نيكلاس برنز، معاون امور سياسى وزير امور خارجهى آمريكا در گفتوگو با شبكهى تلويزيونى ان.بى.سى مدعى شد: ايرانيها در ارزيابى اشتباه كردند. آنها فكر ميكردند ميتوانند آمريكا را از متحدين اروپايياش و روسيه و چين دور كند، اما ما قادر بودهايم، ائتلافى متحد را ميان آن كشورها ايجاد كنيم.

برنز افزود: آنها بايد مذاكرات با ما را انتخاب كنند يا اقدام بيشتر در شوراى امنيت انجام خواهد شد.

معاون امور سياسى وزارت امور خارجهى آمريكا مدعى شد: صادقانه بگويم فكر ميكنم آنها به گوشه رانده و منزوى شدهاند؛ كشورهاى اندكى هستند كه از آنها دفاع ميكنند و گزينههاى آنها رو به پايان است.

وى گفت: ما فكر ميكنيم اين سياست ديپلماسى شكيبا و ايجاد ائتلافى چند جانبه براى تقويت فشار عليه آنها كارايى دارد و اين مسير صحيحى است كه آمريكا بايد برود.

پنج عضو دايم شوراى امنيت و آلمان در نشستى در وين توافق كردند مجموعهاى از پيشنهادات را به ايران ارايه دهند و تهران در ازاى پذيرش آن برنامهى هستهيياش را تعليق كند. اين مجموعه 16 خرداد سال جارى به تهران ارايه شد.

ايران اعلام كرده است هفتهى آخر مرداد ماه به اين پيشنهاد پاسخ خواهد داد.

[Rasputin]

در حالی که تنها شش روز به آغاز اجلاس سران هشت کشور صنعتی جهان موسوم به "گروه ۸" باقی مانده، آمريکا آمادگی خود را برای همکاری هسته ای با روسيه اعلام کرده است. دولت آمريکا می گويد حاضر است به روسيه اجازه دهد تا ضايعات هسته ای ناشی از سوخت اتمی کشورهای دیگر را که توسط شرکت های آمریکایی تولید شده، وارد و نگهداری کند.
به گفته کارشناسان این طرح ميلياردها دلار برای روسيه به ارمغان خواهد آورد.

کاخ سفيد در مقابل خواستار حمایت روسيه از آمریکا در قبال ایران شده است.

فردريک جونز، سخنگوی شورای امنيت ملی آمريکا، روز یکشنبه گفت کشورش برای نهایی کردن يک موافقت نامه هسته ای صلح آميز با روسيه آمادگی دارد به شرط اينکه مسکو تهران را برای آنچه او "جلوگيری از دستيابی ايران به سلاح اتمی" خواند، تحت فشار قرار دهد.

روسيه از دهه ۱۹۹۰ در پی کسب موافقت آمريکا برای نگهداری سوخت اتمی به مصرف رسیده سایر کشورها بوده است. ولی آمريکا که با کمک روسيه به ايران برای احداث نيروگاه هسته ای بوشهر مخالف بود، با این درخواست مسکو موافقت نمی کرد.

انتظار می رود جورج بوش و ولاديمير پوتين، رهبران آمريکا و روسيه در حاشيه اجلاس سران گروه ۸ که قرار است بين ۱۵ تا ۱۷ ژوئيه در شهر سن پيترزبورگ روسيه برگزار شود، رسما خبر آغاز مذاکرات جديد هسته ای را اعلام کنند.

ديويد آلبرايت فيزيکدان اتمی و رئيس موسسه پژوهشی علوم و امنيت بين الملل می گويد هرچند واشنگتن با ساخت راکتور بوشهر موافقت کرده است، ولی مناقشه هسته ای ايران مانعی در راه همکاری اتمی روسیه و آمریکاست:

"درآمد روسيه از ساخت نيروگاه اتمی بوشهر حدود يک ميليارد دلار بوده و اگر راکتور ديگری هم برای ايران احداث کند يک ميليارد دلار ديگر بدست خواهد آورد. اما موافقت نامه سوخت مصرف شده با آمريکا ۲۰ ميليارد دلار ارزش دارد. آمريکا اورانيوم غنی شده کشورهای زيادی را تأمين می کند و آنها نمی توانند سوخت اتمی مصرف شده را بدون رضايت آمريکا به کشور ديگری منتقل کنند. روسيه از اين واقعيت اطلاع دارد که مناقشه هسته ای ايران مانعی بر سر همکاری اتمی با آمريکاست."

آمريکا و روسیه که درصدد بهره برداری بيشتر از انرژی اتمی هستند و از ذخيره و بازيافت اورانيوم به مصرف رسیده در راکتورهای هسته ای حمايت ميکنند، منافع مشترک اقتصادی دارند.

اما سناتور جمهوریخواه جان مک کين که دولت آقای پوتين را غير دموکراتيک می خواند و پيشتر خواستار تحريم اجلاس سران گروه ۸ از سوی آمريکا شده بود به همکاری اتمی با روسيه خوش بين نيست:

"روس ها به ايران کمک کرده اند و ما نبايد از طريق همکاری هسته ايی که منفعت چندانی برای ما ندارد به دولت روسيه برای سرکوب رسانه های گروهی و محدود کردن آزادی های فردی پاداش دهيم. به نظر من حتی اگر ما در اجلاس سن پيترزبورگ شرکت کنيم، بايد با مقامات روسی به صراحت درباره نگرانی های خود صحبت کنيم."

سناتور دموکرات کريس داد نگرانی های آقای مک کين درباره عملکرد دولت روسیه را تأييد می کند ولی معتقد است همکاری با اين دولت به نفع آمريکا خواهد بود:

"در درازمدت رابطه ما با روسيه می تواند بسيار با اهميت باشد، به ويژه اگر بتوانيم اين حس را در اين کشور ايجاد کنيم که نياز به همکاری نزديک با ايران ندارد. من درباره همکاری هسته ای با روسيه خوشبينم و معتقدم که در بلند مدت بسيار با ارزش خواهد بود."

کارشناسان توافق هسته ای این دو کشور را تحولی مثبت برای حفاظت از ضايعات خطرناک هسته ای و جلوگيری از گسترش سلاح های اتمی در جهان ارزيابی کرده اند.

با اين همه انتظار می رود سازمان های طرفدار محيط زيست در روسيه با همکاری هسته ای اين کشور با آمريکا مخالفت کنند.

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

يک دادگاه فدرال آمريکا سانسور فيلم های هاليوود در 'دی وی دی' و نوارهای ويديوئی را غيرقانونی اعلام کرد. اين حکم قانون مصوب کنگره آمريکا را به چالش می کشد.
بر اساس حکم اين دادگاه فدرال که در ايالت يوتا واقع است، حذف صحنه ها و عبارات سکسی و خشونت بار از فيلم حق معنوی کارگردان آن را نقض می کند.

تعدادی از شرکت های آمريکايی مانند 'کلين فليکس' اقدام به ويرايش، سانسور و ضبط مجدد فيلم های هاليوود می کنند.

کنگره آمريکا در سال ۲۰۰۵ قانون 'سانسور فيلم های دی وی دی' را تصويب کرد.

'صدمه غيرقابل جبران'

اما به موجب حکم ريچارد مچ، قاضی فدرال، سانسور فيلم 'صدمه غيرقابل جبرانی' به خلاقيت هنری کارگردان آن وارد می کند.

شرکت کلين فليکس که موظف به تحويل فيلم هايش به هاليوود شده به حکم دادگاه اعتراض کرده است و می خواهد به دادگاه استيناف شکايت کند.

اين شرکت ۹۰ شعبه در سراسر آمريکا دارد که بيش از نيمی از آنها در ايالت يوتا قرار دارند.

يوتا يکی از ايالت های مذهبی آمريکاست و فروش بليط بخت آزمايی در آن ممنوع است.

سانسور فيلم تايتانيک

بحث درباره قانونی بودن سانسور فيلم های هاليوود زمانی آغاز شد که يک شرکت آمريکايی درسال ۱۹۹۸ اقدام به حذف صحنه عريان شدن 'کيت وينسلت' از فيلم تايتانيک کرد.

اين عمل با اعتراض شديد سينمای آمريکا روبرو شد که می گويد چنين سانسورهايی حق معنوی کارگردان نسبت به اثر هنری خود را نقض می کند.

حکم جديد دادگاه فدرال شامل فيلم های به نمايش گذاشته در سينماها و اماکن عمومی نمی شود.

اين دسته فيلم ها در گروه های متفاوتی طبقه بندی می شوند و به همين دليل قابل ويرايش هستند.

[Rasputin]

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have shut the door on pomp and pageantry of billionaires. Yachts, private planes and big acreage houses in the choicest of locations were a billionaire's definition of high life so far.

Not any more though. The new definition demands how much of one's money is available for humanity at large. Whatever Microsoft did in the last twenty five so years of its existence in terms of monopolistic business practices, antitrust violations and unfair or unlawful business practices have all been washed away with a huge donation of most of his Microsoft stock to Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, founded in 2000.

Warren Buffett recently topped another $32 billon and added a new shine to the huge coffers. In an interview with Fortune magazine, Berkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren Buffett announced he will give nearly $31 billion -- most of his wealth -- to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The value of Mr. Buffett's gift of 10 million shares is currently worth about $30.7 billion, based on Friday's market closing price of Berkshire Hathaway stock. Mr. Buffett will also contribute shares to four family nonprofit organizations. In all, he will donate about 85% of his Berkshire Hathaway stock to charity.

Mr. Gates, a member of Berkshire Hathaway's board, released a statement thanking Mr. Buffett for his generosity. "We are awed by our friend Warren Buffett's decision to use his fortune to address the world's most challenging inequities, and we are humbled that he has chosen to direct a large portion of it to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation," said Mr. Gates in a news release from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. "The impact of Warren's generosity will not be fully understood for decades. As we move forward with the work, we do so with a profound sense of responsibility. Working with Warren and with our partners around the world, we have a tremendous opportunity to make a positive difference in people's lives."

According to the Fortune article, Mr. Buffett's decision to start giving his fortune to charity while he is still alive was driven by the death of his wife, Susan, in 2004. Buffett says that she "would really have stepped on the gas," for charitable giving.

Laxmi Mittal and Abramovich are left with a steep wall to climb. So far it was amassing wealth that made news; with Buffett and Gates's philanthropy, it is giving that is going to make new waves of sorts. Roman Arkadievich Abramovich, listed by Forbes Magazine as the richest Russian, 2nd richest person in Britain and the 11th richest person in the world with an estimated fortune of $18.2 billion, he is most famous outside of Russia as the owner of Chelsea F.C., an English Premiership football club. Abramovich is also known as a fan of Formula One and is often seen in the paddock at races; he owns a private Boeing 767-300 (registration P4-MES) known as "The Bandit" due to its paint scheme, as well as several Eurocopter helicopters based on his superyachts, Le Grand Bleu, Extasea and Pelorusin. He recently purchased the cherished car registration "VIP1" for £285,000.

Notoriously renowned for the 20-page invitation cased in silver for his daughter's wedding and the Rs 200 crore celebration near Paris in Palace Versailles, after five months of playing hardball in European boardrooms and chancelleries, a relaxed and expansive Lakshmi Mittal won over the Luxembourg European steel champion Arcelor's shareholders who voted by an overwhelming majority to reject the proposed merger with Russian oligarch, Alexei Mordashov's Severstal.

There are two kinds of billionaires now : the unassuming and modest who talk more about philanthropies and then the Roman Abramovich and Mittal kind. The Mittals and Abramovichs would now have to learn a new trade on the ropes summarized by Andrew Carnegie's at best, "Anybody who dies rich, dies disgraced."

Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, the richest of the rich, symbolize this ethic -- they are busy giving away most of their fortune while they are still alive. This is the most intricate of acts and most splendid, men typically in no way leave their holdings; the way Gates and Buffett washed their hands off theirs, signals an end to an epoch of charges of corporate greed and manipulation. Antitrust and illegal practices of Microsoft are now a distant past. As far as Microsoft becomes big to be a tool of help to the poor at large, no crime of monopoly and antitrust will ever stick. Rather, being a billionaire now is complex business; it is how much one gives away that matters and no more what one has.

Thanks Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffett for rewriting the ethics of billionaire conduct.

The result :

"I admire the efforts by Buffett and Gates to help those in need a lot," Chan said. "Like Buffett and Gates, I want to help people, but I don't have as much money as they do."

Jackie Chan announced Wednesday he has bequeathed half of his fortune to charity, saying he looks up to philanthropists like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. Chan disclosed the terms of his will when asked about tycoon Warren Buffett's recent $37-billion US donation at a news conference on a tiger conservation campaign.

[Rasputin]

No, the abysmal failures in Iraq have not dissuaded Washington from embarking on yet another adventure. George W. Bush and his warmongering allies are preparing themselves for another major incident in the Middle East. This time Iran is the main challenge in the establishment of the New world order and a direct target.

The 'Nuclear Crisis' is artificial. The 'war against terror' is total deceit. The fig leaf of 'freedom and democracy' has not fooled anyone. The globe devouring monster is adamant that it can use 'the end of history' to plough the earth. It is determined to make the new century, a new American Century and it has set up its first camp right next to Middle Eastern oil fields. Overwhelmed by illusions of victory, this superpower has no qualms to burn down whatever is left of the countries of this region (1). What can be done to confront this monster? Can one restrain it from engulfing on yet another disastrous adventure in the Middle East? Can one save the world from the dreadful consequences of such an event? Is it futile to seek another horizon? Are such attempts total illusions? This article is an attempt at finding some answers to these questions and it starts with examining the political and theoretical backgrounds.

The current world situation is the result of a historical conjuncture . The culmination of the structural crisis of capitalism (2) accompanied by an increasing ineffectiveness of the existing world command system (what is left over after the cold war) and an acceleration of the crisis of hegemony between central capitalist states are the key characteristics of the global development in its current stage. All these processes take place in a context of an authoritarian capitalist globalisation, an internationally restructured labour force and a highly strung post '11 the September 2001'.This background has allowed the most rabid and dangerous political tendencies of the world capitalism to appear on the scene and get involved in the nitty gritty details of one of the most dangerous eras in human history (3).

The current occupants of the White House are placed at the head of such currents. On the very day they came to power, these forces announced that one cannot save the world capitalist order form deathly crises unless one used dramatic surgery. They rewrote the strategic national security of the United States on the basis of redrawing the international political map and the establishment of a new world order. They did not hide the fact that they were seeking a hierarchical system of operation in International relations and legal systems, capable of institutionalising the United State's military and economic superiority into a new Empire . (4)

The new world order is imposing conditions where the slavery of the global labour force is guaranteed and a model of development capable of globalising the most barbaric forms of expropriation is established. The new world order aims to sanctify privatisation of all public services and establish a model of accumulation by the dispossesssed (5) or in the words of George Caffenzis allows 'daylight robbery to replace hidden theft'(4).

In addition, this policy must guarantee to deliver the domination of US multinationals on world markets and to maintain their control over the main production and exchange circuits as well as on the key reproduction fields. Wherever possible it unilaterally breaches international treaties and agreements, redefines the role of international institutions, abolishes national borders and the right of other nation-states sovereignty. (7)

For many years the prescribed solutions of neo conservatives for a regeneration of the world political order had evolved from being a mere notion or a declaration. Their executive plans of a 'new American century' ( was prepared long before neo conservative Republicans took power in the year 2000. In these plans the final aim was what had already been declared by the Nixon administration: complete control of the Middle East and winning the big prize. In a world where guaranteed access to cheap oil is one of the essential preconditions of production and reproduction, any power that controls the Middle East, posesses one of the most essentials levers to control the world. Victory in the cold war placed the United in such a position being able to lay claim to the entire Middle East as war trophy. 11th of September 2001 created a golden opportunity to raise the flag of a 'war on terrorism' and the deployment of the war machine in Afghanistan and Iraq , leading to the occupation of both countries.

Iran is the next strategic step. The incorporation of this country in the jurisdiction controlled by US's world empire and its reorganisation in accordance with Middle East in a new world order (9) is the immediate goal of the current stage. Currently war is the main architect and violence the ultimate weapon (10). Despite all this, the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan will not necessarily be repeated. Not only because these experiences have not achieved the desirable results or that they have incurred colossal costs, but because Iran is a different type of target with its own specific geographic, political and social characteristics. Indications are that the United States has chosen a more complicated route than in the previous two adventures for achieving its aims in Iran. Many scenarios are being followed simultaneously, and the US is operating with considerable flexibility in its choice of tactics. Here it might be useful to point out some of the peculiarities in the tactics used in dealing with Iran.

First : Use of the military option in Iran will not necessarily mean military occupation (or at least full military occupation). In addition to targeting economic military targets with the aim of weakening the regime's defensive capabilities, military strikes can work as part of a plan supported by certain neo conservative figures close to Cheney and Rumsfeld (lead by Michael Leaden and allies in American Enterprise): carving up Iran into smaller territories, then gradually devouring it piece by piece or taking over some parts of it. No doubt sooner or later the attraction of such plans will tempt other politicians in Washington. Undoubtedly such the occupation of the regions bordering Iran's Western border will not only give Washington control of the oil and gas resources of OPEC's second largest oil producer, but it will also be a significant step towards the overthrow of the Islamic Republic Regime. The successful execution of this plan can cause the regime to face serious difficulties regarding essential resources. On the other hand, it would deprive the Iranian regime of one of its most potent weapons, the use of Shia Fundamentalist groups inside Iraqi territories (11). Current reports suggest show that this plan has gone far beyond a mental exercise and practical steps towards its execution are under way (12).

Second: Following basic principle such as reducing speed, cost and level of operational complexity do not mean that the White House elite will commit the same mistakes they made in Iraq when contemplating an attack on Iran, embarking on a war where "military victory was its start rather than its end" (13). This time regime change is not the only aim. Destruction of independent social resistance as well as total submission of Iran to the new capitalist project following the overthrow of the regime is an important part of this plan. The choice of means and methods is such that the overthrow of the Islamic regime will lead to the coming to power of a subservient, 'desirable' government. Such considerations have leaded the Bush administration to be more cautious and seek diplomatic tricks and the activities of security services and propaganda machinery.

Today the emphasis on diplomatic solutions is than ever at the forefront. Despite all this, it should be noted that the Bush administration has less use than ever before for diplomacy except where it provides justification for military action and reduces its adverse consequences (14). When it comes to dealing with 'rogue states' diplomacy is merely a lever to force them to the edge of the abyss and bring them down. Diplomacy here does not mean bartering or giving reciprocal guarantees. It is a method for burning the opponent's winning cards, breaking its political and ideological legitimacy (providing it has one) and finally throwing into the paws of the war machine (15).

One can understand US-Iran relations with such a definition of the current place and role of diplomacy. On the one hand the United States has placed Iran at the heart of the 'axis of evil' and openly declared war against it. On the other hand, when the US deemed it useful for its long term ends, the administration has made contact with rulers of the Islamic Republic regime, notably before military attacks against Afghanistan and Iraq, engaging them in such plans. The aim behind such contacts was principally to seek the support of Iran's Islamic regime to defeat resistance in these countries and to help the establishment of an order favourable to the United States. Whenever the Islamic regime has responded positively to such approaches (usually in secret and through intermediaries) and done whatever was asked of it -- interceding or spying - the ultimate response has been more or less the same: the Iranian regime is aggressive and unreformable and remains a threat to international security. As long as such a regime exists, it is a danger and a threat, even if they do everything they are told, there will be no "amnesty" (16).

[Rasputin]

Moreover when it comes to direct military intervention, it is necessary to seek the diplomatic support of other powerful states and to create an international consensus on this issue. The more widespread the support for US adventurist policies in the Region, the less the political and economic costs of such a venture. This time learning the lesson from Iraq, the US administration is avoiding unilateral military engagement and tries to find new allies. Washington hopes that by amending the 'hub and spoke' relations (17) within the wheel of its international relations, it can find new allies for 'pre-emptive' strikes.

US support for dialogue and negotiations between European Union states and Iran is in line with such a policy. Washington has approved of negotiations covering a limited agenda of 'Iran's nuclear dossier' and with no other function than conveying the political stance of one side to the other. In the absence of any genuine US security guarantees to the Iranian regime, it was obvious from the beginning that these talks will lead nowhere. As a result, by siding with such discussions the US administration was able to rally its European allies while paving the way for the one way path leading to reporting Iran to the National Security Council, and pressuring the Islamic regime.

The removal of 'reformists' from the Iranian government circles and their replacement by pseudo-fascist, militarist groups, has no doubt improved the prospects of success for the Bush administration. With Ahmadinejad's government in power, Washington has found an active ally in Tehran. An ally not only capable of precipitating the defeat of such negotiations but prone to create a psychological war-like atmosphere, events that might lead to economic sanctions, limited military strikes and finally total war.

A two-pronged propaganda was has been unleashed by the White House strategists. Within the US and its allies the obvious task is to create the psychological and political conditions necessary for launching this third direct military intervention in the Middle East. The backbone of the propaganda is, as always, based on fear, the threat of terrorism and Iran's nuclear program. Such statements as "Iran is the biggest threat to world security since the second world war' (1 and such claims as "Iran's nuclear program poses a threat equal to the dangers posed by the Bolshevik revolution and the coming to power of Hitler' (19) are becoming commonplace and intended at intensifying the pressure.

The reversal of the relation between 'regime change' and the 'nuclear crisis' is one of the achievements of the propaganda war unleashed by the US and its allies. The obedient mass media must act smartly to manufacture a 'nuclear crisis' from the regime's nuclear program (20). They must also disguise the fact that precipitation towards access to nuclear technology is a reaction of fear and weakness by a regime threatened by an important world power (21).

Inside Iran the propaganda war follow two separate trajectories: The way is being paved for a 'colour revolution' while instigating separatist ethnic movements. The Bush administration tries to use the dissatisfaction and hatred felt by the majority of the population towards Islamic regime, the sense of oppression and injustice imposed by this regime for over 3 decades to pave the way for another 'colour revolution'. It is using old colonial methods such as inciting regional, ethnic and religious hatred, to create an atmosphere of despair and lack of political confidence - the old Yugoslav scenario of encouraging the partition of Iran (22).

A Pentagon-orchestrated revolution is finding a more suitable arena to work in a country where a large gap is developing between the Islamic regime and the majority of the population, whose needs and demands are being ignored, and the regime's resort to militarist repressive solutions to survive. Under such circumstances one can even envisage a scenario where the psychological/political warfare inside Iran will favour military intervention allowing the US administration to appear as a liberator capable of deceiving sections of the population. This plan will carpet bomb the Iranian regime while calling on the majority of the population to join the imperialist project and rise against this regime (23).

There is no doubt that in advancing its propaganda inside Iran, espionage and intelligence networks have an active role. For many months now intelligence agencies have been active, in alliance with the corporate mass media, on two separate fronts: amongst the political opposition inside and outside Iran as well as amongst Iran's national minorities. American intelligence services have increased their activities in this arena, they have not only encouraged the activities of groups under their influence (from the Mojahedin to separatist regional, national groups) but also dispatched specialist forces to specific regions in the country, setting up military bases (24). It is not surprising that in addition to setting up audio- visual media networks we see waves of sabotage, kidnapping, bombings in Khouzestan and Baluchistan (25).

Now assuming that the Bush administration has embarked on the third stage of its plan to colonise the Middle East, it should be said that it is deploying more complicated and diverse methods than in the past. Assuming that a future darker than Afghanistan and Iraq awaits the Iranian people we should return to the principle question of this article: Can one stop Bush's attempts to impose sovereignty in the Middle East and stop another disastrous war?


The peoples of Iran and the Middle East have been placed in a perilous situation. Yet they don't face a blind destiny. One can say this with confidence. Stopping Bush's war machine, defeating his domineering intentions are difficult but not impossible.

If nothing is done, the Middle East is a scene of eternal tragedy, enslavement and captivity. The principle players are fundamentalists of all shapes and sizes Islamists, Jewish or Christian fundamentalists, nationalist and racist groups, a dozen corrupt dictatorial governments and finally the agents and operators of major oil cartels and arms manufacturers. In such a scenario, the player capable of overthrowing injustice, darkness and dictatorship appears absent. One cannot see a force capable of expressing the wishes and the interests of the masses and this is a serious problem facing the Middle East. The more one avoids confronting this reality, in the name of 'wisdom' or 'realism' the worse the situation will get and the more inevitable the prospect of a major disaster. As long as this shortcoming exists one cannot imagine a Middle East capable of standing up to the US aggression, capable of protecting itself from war, destruction and annihilation.

One cannot depend on regional states performing miracles. We can obviously set aside the members of the Empire's club, those who in reality act merely as second hand contractors. However, one should not be optimistic about those states that do not fit in this circle. Not only are these states no different from the others in the region when it comes to repression and dictatorship (often they are amongst the worst), but when confronted by imperialist offensives, they have neither the willingness nor the resolution to stand up to it. Nor do they have the necessary popular base and capability needed for such a confrontation. Amongst the regimes of the region, it would be difficult to find a single example that would not sell its independence and all its citizens' belongings and livelihoods, at the offer of an imperialist 'breathing space. Even when such regimes face the abyss and they are forced to defend themselves, they don't give up the hope for deals and negotiations and they do not miss any opportunity for seeking 'diplomatic initiatives' (26). Rather than their anti-imperialist rhetoric, the problem of these regimes is their incompetence and inability at playing a sufficiently useful role as servants of the 'New order'. Iran's Islamic regime is a perfect example of such regimes.