Bush, Iran and World War III

By Jeralyn, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 01:50:00 AM EST
Tags: Iran, Nuclear Weapons, Pakistan (all tags)

Share This:

I see while I was out today President Bush made the statement:

If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it'd be a dangerous threat to world peace," Bush said. "So I told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested" in ensuring Iran not gain the capacity to develop such weapons. "I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously," he said.

In the mail today, I received an unsolicited advance copy of the book released Tuesday, Deception: Pakistan, the United States and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons by Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark.

From the inside jacket:

The startling story of America's role -- over three decades and five administrations -- in aiding and abetting the nuclear ambitions of the "Axis of Evil."

In President George Bush's State of the Union Address in 2002, he pinpointed three nucleaer hot spots as threats to the free world: Iraq, Iran and North Korea. What he did not admit was America's role in facilitating the spread of nuclear weapons to these "axis of evil" powers and the key critical part played by a U.S. ally: The Pakistani military government and its front man, the nuclear scientist A.Q.Khan. The authors investigated and explain how Pakistan betrayed the West building a nuclear arsenal with mostly U.S. aid money and selling the technology to countries hostile to the West, while more recently giving shelter to the resurgent Taliban and al-Qaeda.

The authors conclude that Pakistan is still the greatest nuclear threat out there.

The book retails for $28.95 and weighs 2 1/2 pounds which means a $3.15 shipping charge, using media rates.

If you'd like the book (as I probably won't get to read it, too far afield for me) at no cost, email me or leave a commnt. If you were a donee today to TalkLeft, it's your's free, including shipping. If you didn't donate, you can still get the book free and just pay the $3.15 shipping charge and then I'll mail it to you.

There's only one book, and while I'll try to be fair, the decision will not be based on contributions to this site or any monetary considerations. It will be based on who among you I think, from your prior comments on the site, share the values I try to promote here and who among you I sense has a clear interest in the topic.

You can e-mail me here, don't send money, I'll let you know when if it's yours, and then you can tell me where to ship it to. If you'd like more info on the book, check out the Amazon listing below:

< Utah Judge Orders Journalist to Write Story or Be Held in Contempt | The Power of Doing Nothing >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Bush, Iran and World War III | 22 comments (22 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

While Bushie's WWIII comment is bad enough, (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by scribe on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 09:52:23 AM EST

the TradMed is busily ignoring the context.

Earlier this week, Putin made a visit to Iran, following directly upon a visit to Germany. Both were "summits" with the countries' respective leaders.

One of Putin's main concerns when in Germany was the Iran situation and, particularly, where the Germans stood with respect to the Americans and the whole Iranian nuke dispute. The other, raised by Merkel, was construction of a major pipeline in the Baltic region. To supply the rest of Europe.

The other day, before arriving in Iran, Putin made quite clear in a public statement that the Americans had better not use the territory of states formerly part of the Soviet Union as a base or jumpiung off point for any attack on Iran.

And, Putin also made a statement, though not quite as clear, to the effect that Russia had commercial interests in Iran which the West must respect.

Of course, when Bushie was growing up (in years like 1980, a year he said yesterday he cannot remember) the big threat that was going to nuke America in a bolt out of the blue was, um, Soviet Russia. Last anyone looked, they still have lots of nukes, on missiles and bombers (the same model that they just started flying on long patrols) and subs.

Of course, from Putin's perspective, his reconquest for the Russian government of control over the Russian oil and gas reserves is likely to be a much more effective and usable lever to bend and twist the West and America to meet and embrace the Russian will. Around the turn of the year, we can expect another round of gas shutoffs to W. Europe as Putin on the one hand and Ukraine and Belarus haggle over transit fees and such (the pipelines run through their territory). It happens every year.

But, yesterday, when Bushie started talking about WWIII, I kind of doubt he was talking at Iran.

Iran/Russia Joint Statement (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by squeaky on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 10:55:38 AM EST

The USG Open Source Center translates from Russian the joint statement of President Putin and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Highlights include a joint call for a timetable to be set for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq; Russian investment in the Iranian energy sector (which the US opposes and says it would punish by boycotts); further consultations between Iran and the Shanghai Cooperation Council; and a peaceable resolution of the dispute over Iran's nuclear energy research program.

13. Russia and Iran advocate the development of equal and constructive cooperation between member and observer states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization on matters of mutual interest.

juan Cole

China and Russia are stepping up to the plate. We will see what a wimp the bully becomes when it is not just a small country with no air power or substantial denfenses to repel US forces.

No wonder he is relying on propaganda and fearmongering. He is terrified that his PNAC is toast.

And Vladdy Putin says: (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by scribe on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 02:23:38 PM EST

Georgie: From Russia, with Love.
Just for you, we'll develop a whole new nuclear weapon. He announced that after the announcement of a successful test-firing of a Topol (SS-27) ICBM (Designed to be invulnerable to US ABM technology, too!).

In a phone-in broadcast live on state television, Putin told servicemen at the Plesetsk nuclear missile base that Russia would build another nuclear submarine next year and was also planning a "completely new" atomic weapon, about which he did not elaborate.
"We have grandiose plans and they are absolutely realistic," Putin said, speaking hours after the military announced the successful test firing of a Topol intercontinental ballistic missile.
He called the US intervention in Iraq a "dead end" and called on Washington to set a deadline for the withdrawal of troops.
Saying that Iraq was invaded because of its oil wealth, Putin assured one caller that Russia could not suffer the same fate. To think so, he said, was "political erotica."
Putin then swiped at Washington's tough stand on Iran, saying Russia's insistence on negotiations over its nuclear power programme was better than "threats, sanctions or even force."

Vlad got the drift of your message, George. Did you get the message he sent?

[ Parent ]

And Hillary (none / 0) (#3)
by Edger on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 11:03:38 AM EST

is not helping the situation at all...

"Neocon" vs. Iran? (video from The Real News)

[ Parent ]

Spin (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by squeaky on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 12:45:09 PM EST

Whether or not you like Clinton she is not the same as Bush, not even close. For me Clinton is way too conservative, but to call her a neo-con... I think you are stretching quite a bit.

[ Parent ]

It's hyperbole. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Edger on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 02:49:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Quite (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by squeaky on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 02:54:41 PM EST

Now comparing the ghool to the chimp........

[ Parent ]

Ghouls swinging from trees... grunt (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Edger on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 03:49:31 PM EST

Good Punchline (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by squeaky on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 04:01:49 PM EST

The joke writes itself. GOP

[ Parent ]

: Or (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Edger on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 04:28:01 PM EST

Don't Think About It!
Bush President

[ Parent ]
: No Joke. (none / 0) (#18)
by Edger on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 09:14:14 AM EST

Gropin' Old Perverts

[ Parent ]

"Accuracy is always professional", (none / 0) (#5)
by scribe on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 02:14:41 PM EST

even when you call the other lawyer a twit, on the record. ("So, that's what led to the adversary's unsuccessful sanctions motion," he concluded.)

But, more seriously, that principle also applies here. As to Goldwater Girl, one of her primary advisors is Mr. Mark Penn, a PR dude who also just happens to represent, um, Blackwater and, um, does lots of union-busting as part of his core business.

And, as to her foreign policy team, one of the lead guys on the Mid-East (whose name escapes me now, and I'm too lazy to hunt it up) was an original signer of the PNAC document which called for, um, ousting Sadaam and starting the mess we're in now.

[ Parent ]

Michael O'Hanlon (none / 0) (#7)
by squeaky on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 02:29:36 PM EST

I still don't get that. And he was not an origianl signer but signed on later.

[ Parent ]

: I get it (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by jondee on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 03:38:34 PM EST

But, I almost wish I didnt.

[ Parent ]

You poor deluded people... (1.00 / 0) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 09:43:45 PM EST

Of course Bush's comments were directed at Putin.

Let us hope that Putin will not read anything of great importance into the caterwauling of the Left and will not be encouraged to be more of a problem than he has been.

I find it amusing that those who so stridently claim to be for peace may actually be a great influence for the opposite.

Why amusing? (none / 0) (#15)
by Peaches on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 09:46:37 AM EST

If the blessed Peace makers really are encouraging the warmongers of the opposing side the consequences in your view would be most dire, would they not?

You and Bush are referring to WWIII with Russia Nuclear holocaust and all. What could be amusing about that?

I think it could only be amusing if you did not really believe your rhetoric that those who wish for peace and criticize the warmongers on our side, actually encourage more war. If I am wrong, there's nothing funny at all about the consequences. I suspect encouraging peace and criticizing those calling for more is not wrong, however and your amusement makes me think you know that as well.

Just got my last tomatoes out last weekend. My Okra went to the beginning of October. Nothing but lettuce, Kale, potatoes, carrots and broccoli left and the freezer, cupboards and cellar are filled with the bounty from this years garden. Now, I just have to plant the garlic and apply the compost and start planning for next year.

[ Parent ]

Why amusing? (1.00 / 1) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 11:13:50 AM EST

As in to keep from crying.

BTW - I am finally getting around to reading "A History of the English Speaking Peoples Since 1900," by Andre Roberts. I highly recommend it, but only to those on the Left who have had a recent physical, including a thorough heart stress test. It proves that neo cons weren't invented 10 years ago, and that making statements that encourage the enemy has been around for a long time. (Don't tell Edger or Squeaky.)

My Okra is still producing, and will to frost. Of course the cold weather veggies have been long gone... Overall the garden was a huge success.. We left at least 100 pounds of fat between the rows, and froze/canned/dried at least that much for consumption this fall and winter. We just put away 20 pints of pickled beats this week. I love them with pinto beans, raw onions and cornbread as a high protein light supper. Cornbread has no fat. ;-)

[ Parent ]

Here's what Publishers Weekly had to say (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Dark Avenger on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 02:45:57 AM EST

about the tome in question:

His rambling, disjointed survey celebrates their achievements in science, technology, sports and Big Macs, but the book is mainly an apologia for an allegedly benign Anglo-American imperialism. The author defends virtually every 20th-century British or American military adventure, from the conquest of the Philippines to the Vietnam War, finishing with a lengthy justification of the invasion of Iraq; his villains are domestic critics and leftist intellectuals whom he calls "appeasers" and who sap the English-speaking peoples' resolve by propagandizing for totalitarianism (also Mel Gibson, whose anti-British movies sabotage English-speaking peoples' solidarity). Roberts writes in a bluff, Tory style, mixing bombast with jocular Briticisms like a running leitmotif of whimsical geopolitical wagers placed at London clubs. Lively but unsystematic, sometimes insightful but always one-sided, this is less a history than a chest-thumping conservative polemic.

and about the author, from the New Republic:

How should this American Empire exercise its power? One useful tactic, Roberts believes, is massacring civilians. The Amritsar massacre is one of the ugliest episodes in the history of the British Raj. In 1919, British Brigadier General Reginald Dyer opened fire on 10,000 unarmed men, women, and children who were peacefully protesting, and around 400 died. Dyer was even repudiated by the British government. As Patrick French, an award-winning historian of the period, explains: "The biographies of Dyer show that he was clearly mentally abnormal, and there was no way he should have been in charge of troops."
Yet Dyer has, at last, found a defender--Andrew Roberts. After the massacre, Roberts notes, "[I]t was not necessary for another shot to be fired throughout the entire region". He later comments: "Today's reactions to Dyer's deed are of course uniformly damning ... but if the Amritsar district, Punjab region or southern India generally had carried on in revolt, many more than 379 people would have lost their lives."

and

In 2001, Roberts spoke to a dinner of the Springbok Club, a group that regards itself as a shadow white government of South Africa and calls for "the re-establishment of civilized European rule throughout the African continent." Founded by a former member of the neo-fascist National Front, the club flies the flag of apartheid South Africa at every meeting. The dinner was a celebration of the thirty-sixth anniversary of the day the white supremacist government of Rhodesia announced a Unilateral Declaration of Independence from Great Britain, which was pressing it to enfranchise black people. Surrounded by nostalgists for this racist rule, Roberts, according to the club's website, "finished his speech by proposing a toast to the Springbok Club, which he said he considered the heir to previous imperial achievements."

Gotta tell ya, PPJ, you know how to pick 'em.

[ Parent ]

hahahaha (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by squeaky on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:00:32 PM EST

No wonder this book is on ppj's recommended list. It is so him.

[ Parent ]

: Here are a few select items (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by Dark Avenger on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 01:19:36 PM EST

from the TNR essay I quoted from earlier:

Andrew Roberts describes himself as "extremely right wing" and "a reactionary," and, in Great Britain, the 44-year-old has long been regarded as a caricature of a caricature of the old imperial historians.
........................................

He sucks up to the English aristocracy to the point that Tatler, the society journal, says, "[H]is adolescent crush on the upper classes is matched by virtually no one else in this country."
................................................

Much of Roberts's advice to Bush is based on similarly skewed and surreal misreadings of history. For example, he has advised Bush to adopt "the whole idea of mass internment," saying: "I think it is the way the administration of Iraq should go." At his lunch with Bush, according to economist Irwin Stelzer, who was present, Roberts cited Ireland as a place where internment worked.
Every major historian of Ireland--across the political spectrum--says the opposite is the case. When internment was introduced in Northern Ireland in 1971, violence vastly increased--and it only fell when it was abolished. The decision by the British to grab Catholics on the flimsiest evidence and hold them without trial is universally regarded as the greatest recruiting gift the Irish Republican Army was ever handed. "Roberts has no track record as a historian of Ireland," says Brendan O'Leary of the University of Pennsylvania, an expert on both Ireland and counterinsurgency techniques. "If he did, he would know that there is a total historical consensus that internment was a catastrophe."
Bush's court historian
I might add that as the child and grandchild of a mother and grandparents who were in a Japanese Imperial Army "Civilian Relocation Camp" in Shanghai, China, (1943-1945) I find anyone who approves of such things vile, disgusting, and not worthy of civilized discourse.
Who will join me in condemning this sycophantic wingnut?

[ Parent ]
: Squeaky the smear king. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Edger on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 01:45:49 PM EST

Why do you keep pointing it out when ppj smears himself anyway? ;-)

[ Parent ]

Barbara Slavin (none / 0) (#19)
by Edger on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 10:07:33 AM EST

USA Today Diplomatic Correspondent, released a new book this week: Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the US and the Twisted Path to Confrontation.

Enter George W. Bush. He had the best chance to patch up relations after 9-11 and he blew it. The U.S. and Iran both opposed the Taliban and Iran believed Bush and Cheney, as ex-oilmen, would lift sanctions. Unknown to many, the U.S. and Iran held secret, one-on-one high-level talks in Paris and Geneva from the fall of 2001 through May 2003, talks led on the U.S. side by Ryan Crocker and Zalmay Khalilzad.
In early May 2003, through Swiss intermediaries, the Iranians also presented an offer for comprehensive negotiations (reprinted in the annex to my book). Bush, full of hubris over Iraq, did not even give the Iranians the courtesy of a reply. The Europe talks ended, meanwhile, after yours truly wrote about them on the front page of USA TODAY and al-Qaeda bombings took place in Saudi Arabia that the White House said were linked to al-Qaeda detainees in Iran.
The Iranians did not give up, however. In late 2005 and through the spring of 2006, Ali Larijani, their new national security adviser, sought backchannel talks with Steve Hadley. Larijani went so far as to publicly accept a prior U.S. offer of talks on Iraq in March 2006. Supreme leader Khamenei publicly endorsed the talks, something he had never done before. Again, Bush sawed off the limb. The upshot: Larijani was weakened, Khamenei humiliated and Iran accelerated its nuclear program and its intervention in Iraq.
There is much more, including an intelligence assessment in early 2003 that invading Iraq would spur the two members of the Axis of Evil with real nuclear programs -- Iran and North Korea -- to intensify their efforts. Also the fact that the White House did not even ask the intelligence community for an assessment of the regional impact of toppling Saddam before invading.
It simply assumed that all would go well and that Tehran would be the next evildoer to fall. Instead of dividing our enemies by negotiating with Iran, the Bush administration has united them. And now -- like the child who shot his parents and complains he's an orphan -- the White House blames Iran for taking advantage of the strategic opportunities the United States has provided.
It's useful though quite troubling to be reminded that our current problems with Iran were entirely self-inflicted by this administration.

-- Steve Clemons, The Washington Note

If Bush attacks Iran we know where the responsibility for the global catalcysm falls: Simpletons? Check. Lunatics? Check. Fanatical neocon ideologues? Check.