Madmen and Nukes

Imminent logic

Quickly, let’s just go over the latest logic for Gulf War II.

In case you hadn’t heard, clearly upset about John Kerry’s growing popularity (opinion polls put Kerry in the White House), President Bush came out of his cocoon on the weekend and agreed to a rare interview on NBC’s Meet the Press – something Dubya is usually loathe to do.

He explained away his war in Iraq thus:

“Saddam Hussein was dangerous, and I’m not just going to leave him in power and trust a madman. He had the ability to make weapons.”

Asked if US troops were being welcomed in Iraq, he said: “I’m not exactly sure, given the tone of your questions, we’re not.”

Over 500 US troops dead? “We are in a war against these terrorists who will bring great harm to America, and I’ve asked these young ones to sacrifice for that.”

“There is going to be ample time for the American people to assess whether I made good calls,” he promised, but “there is no such thing, necessarily, in a dictatorial regime, of ironclad, absolutely solid evidence.”

Eh?

Then came the perfect defence of pre-emption: “it is essential that when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become imminent. It’s too late if they become imminent.”

As Ronald Reagan said about Colonel Gaddafi: “He counted on America to be passive. He counted wrong.”

Memos & Mission statements

The rules of the game have shifted, folks. Want some ironclad, absolutely solid evidence?

Well here it is.

As Bush was performing for the cameras, US officials in Baghdad were intercepting a 17-page memo written by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, for his al-Qaida colleagues. (“It was a mission statement, not a memo!”)

The memo was shared with the New York Times. It urges al-Qaida operatives to trigger a “sectarian war” in Iraq.

Just listen to this: “an attack on Iraq’s Shiite movement could rescue the movement, according to the document. The aim, the document contends, is to prompt a counter-attack against the Arab Sunni minority.”

Clear enough for you?

OK. Let’s not hear any more talk of brotherhood, please .

The idea is to attract Sunni Arabs to the Islamic fascists. The war against the moderate Shi’a must start at “zero hour” before democracy takes root in the country. Yes, the Americans are handing over power to the Iraqi people. Yes, Islamists must kill Iraqi people before the infidel US hands over the reins.

As the Diary was being written, 100 innocent people had been killed by terrorists in Iraq in two days.

As the memo dictated, Iraqis, particularly those looking for work with the new coalition, are now the targets. It is believed the memo was on its way to bin Laden and co. when it was discovered in Baghdad.

In a moment of supreme hypocrisy, the memo calls the Americans “the biggest cowards that God has created”.

To quote at length:

“The solution, and only God knows, is that we need to bring the Shia into the battle. It is the only way to prolong the duration of the fight between the infidels and us. If we succeed in dragging them into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis who are fearful of destruction and death ... So if you agree with it, and are convinced of the idea of killing the perverse sects, we stand ready as an army for you to work under your guidance and yield to your command ... We were involved in all the martyrdom operations – in terms of overseeing, preparing and planning – that took place in this country. Praise be to Allah, I have completed 25 of these operations, some of them against the Shia and their leaders, the Americans and their military, and the police, the military and coalition forces.”

Enough said.

All revved up

This week marked the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Islamic revolution in Iran.

Hundreds of thousands took to the streets of Tehran in celebration. According to the Diary’s best sources, Don Rumsfeld was not among them. Chants of “Death to America” rang out around the city and effigies of George W. Bush dressed as Rambo were set ablaze.

There’s nothing like a positive and healthy expression of national pride.

President Mohammad Khatami – symbol of moderation in western eyes – told the crowds that the country faced a “fork in the road” (which is at least better than a knife in the street). Iran, he said, can:

1. imitate the west and abandon its identity
2. go extremist and fight the infidel (etc.)
3. skip merrily down the “path of the Islamic republic and of reforms”

According to the BBC, there was “little applause” following Khatami’s speech. Seems like the crowd were hardliners, holding up, as they were, placards of Ayatollah Khomeini and Ayatollah Ali Khameinei.

The timing, of course, is beautiful. The country, as you’ll know, is currently caught in gridlock after the ruling Guardian Council banned 2,530 reformists from standing in the upcoming elections. The last few weeks have seen protests, resignations and sit-ins by liberal parliamentarians and their supporters. This week, supreme leader Khameinei ordered an end to complaints about the bans. Khatami was forced to acquiesce. “Elections are a symbol of democracy,” he said, “if they are performed correctly.”

Can’t argue with that.

All this in the week the one and only Prince Charles touched down in Iran for a goodwill chat with Khatami, described by Britain as “a completely non-political visit.”

Yeah, right.

(As the Diary was being published, UN inspectors found a new centrifuge uranium design type in Iran. This is not good.)

Piecing the jigsaw

Actually, this has been a bumper week for strange British diplomacy.

Two weeks ago, the Diary focused on Libya, new-found ally of western interests after it opened up its WMD programme to international dismantlers.

Well this week, Libyan foreign minister Abdul Rahman Mohammed Shalgam trekked to London and took tea with prime minister Tony Blair and foreign secretary Jack Straw.

What next, Kim Jong-il invited to Buckingham Palace?

The meetings marked the first cabinet-level contact between Great Britain and Libya for over twenty years.

“This shows you that you can get somewhere by dialogue, rather than confrontation,” chirped Edward Chaplin of the foreign office (a remark which may not have been appreciated by the White House).

“We’ve gradually seen the pieces of the jigsaw falling into place,” a ‘senior British official’ told the BBC.

The talk is of Tony Blair visiting Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi in a desert tent within the next six months – a truly amazing turnaround.

Foreign minister Shalgam put on quite a show in London (the BBC called the news conference “a minor masterpiece of diplomatic choreography”). “You can accuse but you cannot lie,” Shalgam told the press. Libya did not produce actual WMDs because “if you have flour, water and fire, you do not necessarily make bread.”

Oh, right.

Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi, keen to get there first, was in Tripoli this week meeting Gaddafi. The Libyan leader wants Berlusconi to try and convince Washington to lift sanctions against his country. Berlusconi responded by offering Gaddafi the Venus of Cyrene.

Not the real one. An ancient Greek statue. But it’s the thought that counts.

Chattering farces

Back in Washington, Bush sought to shore up his position as war leader in a tough speech on nuclear proliferation.

The extraordinary events in Pakistan over the last few weeks – in which Abdul Qadeer Khan (“father” of the bomb) was found guilty and then pardoned of selling nuclear technology and secrets to a worldwide network including Libya, North Korea and Iran – have focused minds and, perhaps, brought multilateralism back onto the agenda.

Bush and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, are almost eye-to eye on this one. Bush has proposed a limit the number of countries permitted to produce nuclear fuel. ElBaradei is deeply concerned at the level of proliferation uncovered by the Libyan case and now that of Pakistan and is calling for quick action. “If the world does not change course,” he says, “we risk self-destruction.”

The existing Non-proliferation Treaty relies on honesty, trust and the gentleman’s word. Countries that promise not to produce bombs can have nuclear power plants. Bush argues that, with the example of Iran, North Korea (described by a ‘senior official’ in the NYT as having “cynically exploited loopholes in the existing treaty”), the 1970 treaty is obsolete, unworkable, and unrealistic.

Not that he wants to open that can of worms, however. Instead, he will rely on the Nuclear Suppliers Group not to sell technology to the bad guys.

Bush was saying: you can either be Iraq or Libya, the choice is yours. If you choose to be Iraq, we’re comin’ after you. If you choose to be Libya, you get the gravy.

But what about that Iraq issue? The NYT quoted one White House official as saying, “Bush is not looking to fight another war anytime soon.” A ‘European official’ believes that “Pre-emption was an idea created for Iraq. It has now died in Iraq.”

Meanwhile, John Bolton, US under-secretary of state for arms control sheds another light on matters. “After the [Iraq] war, I certainly wondered what impact the search for weapons would have on our credibility. But while the chattering classes may chatter, I see no damage to our working with many other countries on these issues.”

Oh, of course! It’s all the fault of the “chattering classes”!

Figures of the week

494-86
The French parliament votes for and against a ban on religious symbols (including the wearing of the Islamic headscarf) in state schools.

Quotes of the week

“We nipped the proliferation in the bud, we stopped the proliferation. That is the important part. It’s not the punishing of the man which is important. It is stopping the proliferation which is important.”
Pakistan’s president, Pervez Musharraf, explaining why he pardoned Abdul Qadeer-Khan after the scientist confessed to engaging in nuclear proliferation.

“It was extremely sensitive. One couldn’t outright start investigating as if he’s any common criminal.”
Musharraf again, explaining why it took him so long to investigate Khan’s activities.

“Elections are the best means to enable any people to set up a state that serves their interests.”
Lakhdar Brahimi, head of the United Nations delegation to Iraq

“Fairly normal.”
US defense secretary Don Rumsfeld’s description of US-Euro relations.

“I will leave the palace 7 February 2006.”
Haiti’s president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, refusing to resign his office.

“I think every American should be very concerned for themselves that our intelligence is not as good as it should be.”
Bill O’Reilly, presenter on America’s Fox News

Contact the Diary: Dominic.Hilton@openDemocracy.net