Ukraine, Turkey, Kurdistan Conflicts, A Tale of Two Realities, Iran-Iraq War, Dana Gas and Egypt

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Regarding the Iran-Iraq war. In a past blog entry of August 24, 2005 I quoted from a French book from 1981 regarding initiation of the Iran-Iraq conflict. In a current entry at the uruknet website, more is quoted from this very same source. I will link to the uruknet entry, first, and, then, after, I will link to a blog entry of my own from March 10, 2006, with some further commentary as well as an embedded link refering back to the August 24, 2005 book quotes. It's unfortunate that the entire book is not available on line, since there's much more background and historical context, including the contested area in the South called Arabistan. However, I'm very glad uruknet posted at least alittle more from this book. First link, www.uruknet.de/?p=m32038&hd=&size=1&l=e
For some further commentary on this subject from my blog entry from March 10, 2005, which includes embedded link back to my blog of August 24, 2005, www.karlmarxwasright.blogspot.com/2006/03/what-really-happened-to-shah-of-iran.html
Extending from the previous material and other entries, a translation (a thank you note for the effort of translating) which HELPS to shed some light on the current situation, "Entrapped," www.uruknet.de/?p=m32023&hd=&size=1&l=e
and, from an Arab source, this time, basically, recapitulating the information on some of my previous blogs, www.arablinks.blogspot.com/2007/04/advice-for-iraqi-resistance-on-us.html
In addition, the Arab Baath Socialist Party's own statement on the matters, above, www.uruknet.de/?p=m32064&hd=&size=1&l=e
By the way, a personal note as to the question surfacing regarding the American use of a neutron bomb in Iraq. I am definitely NOT a military specialist. As a matter of fact, I don't even know the names and differences between one gun and another and what they do. HOWEVER, I happen to recall a talk I heard awhile back regarding a "new" weapon PRIOR to the FIRST Gulf War that was to be possibly tested at that time. I cannot presently recall it's name for sure, but, I believe it is/was a "fuel air explosive???" However, I remember it functioned SIMILAR to a neutron bomb but was NOT a neutron bomb. Apparently, as I recall, it killed EVERYTHING that moved, breathed, crawled and was alive underneath it, but, left the structural edifices standing. The way it worked had something to do with creating an enormous explosion/fire in the atmosphere that sucked oxygen from the ground, thus suffocating and incinerating everything alive underneath but left structures standing. Could this be the weapon instead of a neutron bomb to which everyone is referring?? I can also tell everyone who is/was the person who gave the talk to which I referred, above. His name is David F. Noble and the last time I heard he is/was a Professor of History, I believe, at York University in Canada. (He was then living and working near here, instead, which is why I heard him). For those who might be interested in his works or contacting him, here's a wikipedia reference ( I do NOT recommend wikipedia, however, this is a SNAPSHOT link), www.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_F._Noble
Or, do a search for yourself under his name.
Regarding my above heading a "Tale of Two Realities," I am, of course, referring to the ongoing, economic "internationalization and privatization of Iraq" moving ahead as if oblivious to the direction of the military realities exploding on the ground with more explosions, dislocations and destablization in the offing vis-a-vis Turkey and Kurdistan, as well as Ukraine and elsewhere. In case the reader STILL doesn't get it after voluminous information on my blogs, I can hit you/her/him/them over the head with a blunt instrument, "Iraq PM Calls for International Help to Rebuild," www.petroleumworld.com/story07041202.htm
Developments are fluid, ongoing, dynamic, so, I can only highlight a few points.
On the Turkish elections and Kurdistan, for example, "US-Kurdish Rift Emerges on Kirkuk Referendum Timing," www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=70448
Then, "Turks [that is, private Turkish companies] Are Reconstructing Northern Iraq" www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=70442 and, lastly, exemplifying THE fundamental contradiction represented by the above and the following, "Top [Turkish] General Talks Today," www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=70504
As an aside, there's an English translation from a Turkish language source, Hurriyet, suggesting the following, "Barzani Bribed Former Iraq Justice Minister," regarding the deportation of Arabs from Kirkuk, www.uruknet.de/?p=m32053&hd=&size=1&l=e
However, there's no question on which side in Turkey stands the US Fascist state. With private business, naturally. The economic state of Turkey be damned! And, likewise, the economic state of Iraq! Both of which have been and are being privatized, destroyed, sold out, sold off and deconstructed as I write. "For whom the State tolls/toils, NOT for thee my fellow working class."
As an aside about privatization, in consideration of my previous blogs documenting US labor/union pension fund investment in this process, there was an interesting article, ironically, in the Turkish press gleaned from the Independent, about pension fund and privatization in Canada. Here's the link, "Pension Fund Set to Lead World's Largest Leverage Buyout," regarding Bell Canada, www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=70443
As for the "battle for Ukraine," well, that's being reported ad nauseum. Try some international and Russian websites. For starters, www.rian.ru (English).
Meanwhile, in the ongoing saga of Dana Gas and Crescent Oil of the UAE which I've been following since its emergence, Dana has recently expanded into Egypt, with the distinct possibilities of supplying gas to Israel and well beyond, www.ameinfo.com/111787.html (If you happen to be unfamiliar with the Dana Gas, Crescent Oil saga, go to my blog of March 27, 2007 and work backwards, www.karlmarxwasright.blogspot.com/2007/03/crescent-dana-gas-internationalizing.html Previous links contained in that blog entry).
ALL of this, of course, merely being the extension, continuation, realization of economic plans after the dissolution of the Soviet Union to transform this highly nationalized, energy rich and strategic region into a center, pivotal point of a privatized, commodified and capitalized "Middle East Free Trade Zone," a critical component of the larger, greater global economic transformation.
So, along these lines, let me end on two opposite notes. First, the Pakistanis militant trade unionists, "Meeting in Solidarity with Airbus Workers in Multan," www.ptudc.org/content/view/120/36 A refreshing antidote to the American AFL-CIA.
And, lastly, an HYPOTHESIS on the "Eagle Group of Iraq." Since I have so far been unable to ascertain from any public sources available on the internet WHO precisely constitutes (private individuals and/or corporations) the "Eagle Group of Iraq" in what can only be described as a potential EXTRAORDINARILY lucrative oil bonanza, agreement between Canada's Heritage Oil Company, Mr. 5% Gulbenkian, and the KRG, Kurdistan Regional Govt, then, let's suppose, for example, it turns out that the Eagle Group of Iraq is none other than either Talabani and/or Barzani himself/themselves??!!! I challenge anyone reading this to disprove my HYPOTHESIS by publicly PROVIDING me (or others) the exact names of the investors and/or individuals who compromise the "Eagle Group of Iraq."

The case is prepared

Israeli media denials of past army war crimes are easily countered, writes Ibrahim Nafie

---

Israel's media is denying the killing of Egyptian prisoners of war (POWs) at the hands of the Shaked Commando unit in 1967. It says that the documentary shown on Israeli television has no mention of POWs, that those killed were mainly guerrillas, and that Egypt's media and parliamentarians are blowing the matter out of proportion for political reasons.

I beg to differ. The killing of Israeli POWs is not a new thing and several Egyptian groups and organisations have brought it up repeatedly in the past. Also, Israeli commanders have admitted to the killing of Egyptian POWs in both the 1956 and 1967 wars. Even in the 1973 war, there is a possibility that the same thing happened again. So this is not a political matter. It is a legal issue that needs to be dealt with under international law and in keeping with the Geneva Conventions. We're not trying to score political points nor do we wish this matter to impact on the diplomatic ties or peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

Arabs Against Discrimination (ADD) keeps records of all the crimes committed by Israel against the Palestinians and the Lebanese. The ADD has extensive files on these crimes and is willing to offer them to any authority pursuing the matter legally.

When Israel's Channel One aired The Shaked Spirit -- the documentary containing these allegations of war crimes -- the ADD recorded the film and translated it into Arabic. It also obtained a copy of the book on which the documentary was based and translated it to Arabic. The ADD is also archiving Israeli reactions to the case that may also help any authority pursuing legal action.

The ADD files establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Shaked Commandos, led by Benyamin Ben Eliezer, killed Egyptian POWs. The book on which the documentary was based is called The Shaked Unit: Prevention and Current Security in the History of the Israeli Army. It was written by Uri Milstein and Dov Doron and was published in 1994. It contains numerous testimonies indicating that Egyptian POWs were killed during the 1967 war.

One member of the Shaked Commando unit, Yehuda Malamid, says: "Each time we got a report that Egyptians were hiding in the sand, we landed from the plane near them and liquidated them. Some of them were carrying weapons and others perhaps hid their weapons when they saw us. We killed no less than 250 in three days."

nother member of the same unit says, "we had to liquidate them before they turn into a fifth column in Gaza. Light aircraft were used to locate them and alert helicopters. We killed many of them without batting an eyelid." The book, the film, and the live testimony of Egyptian survivors offer ample evidence in the case. I would therefore suggest that an Egyptian committee of experts be formed to follow up on the matter. The ADD is in a position to provide it with all the documents it may need.

© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Al-Ahram Weekly Online

On Point on Hezbollah

Related
Augustus Norton on Hezbollah’s Social Services
---
Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007.

Sources

Yesterday, NPR’s On Point aired an hour-long show about my article from this month's magazine, Parties of God: The Bush Doctrine and the rise of Islamic democracy (excerpted online). Other guests included Augustus Richard Norton, professor of international relations at Boston University, and author of the new book Hezbollah: A Short History; Anthony Shadid, correspondent for the Washington Post; and Gidi Grinstein, a former Israeli peace negotiator and president of the Re'ut Institute.

As I told host Tom Ashbrook in summing up the story, “In this part of the world we frequently ask if the Islamic world is ready for democracy, and there's this suggestion that they're not quite mature enough or ready for it--when in fact what we might be asking is whether the West is ready for Islamic democracy, because for more than the past decade, there's been a real flowering of Islamic political parties across the Middle East.”

“It's difficult to see how you're going to lead to real democratic reform,” said Shadid, “and real democratic change in these countries . . . without some kind of engagement with Islamic movements.” Shadid recently wrote two terrific pieces (piece 1, piece 2) on the Mubarak regime’s repression of Egyptian democratic movements. “They represent such large constituencies,” he said, “but at this point you don't see any real signal from the Americans that they're willing to engage or have a desire to engage them.”

Click here to hear the show.

* * *

[More Washington Babylon]
[Contact Ken Silverstein]
[About Washington Babylon]

This is On Point on Hezbollah by Ken Silverstein, published Wednesday, March 21, 2007. It is part of Washington Babylon, which is part of Harpers.org.

Video: 1967 mass murder of unarmed Egyptians by Israelis

Video: 1967 mass murder of unarmed Egyptians by israelis
---
Normally I embed videos here.

Google, the owners of this blogging service, have been sued by Viacom, "Zionist-owned Viacom sues Google.

These cowards responded by making it impossible to embed any Google-owned YouTube videos.

Who says the Israel Lobby doesn't call the shots in America?

Related
AIPAC launches attack on state pension funds

War crime row : Israeli troops killed 300 Egyptian prisoners of war in 1967

Last update - 11:19 05/03/2007

Ben-Eliezer cancels Egypt visit amid row over 1967 war charges

By Haaretz Service and news agencies

Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer has cancelled his scheduled visit to Egypt in the wake of a row over media reports - denied by Ben-Eliezer - that during the 1967 Six-Day War, troops under his command executed 250 captured Egyptian soldiers.

Ben-Eliezer was to have met with Egyptian Chief of Intelligence Omar Suleiman Thursday. An aide to Ben-Eliezer confirmed the cancellation on Monday.

The allegations arose from media reports of material included in "Ruach Shaked" [The Spirit of Shaked] a documentary film by Israeli journalist Ron Edelist. The film aired on Israel Channel 1 television last week.




Advertisement

The reports said that Ben-Eliezer's Shaked commando unit executed 250 Egyptian prisoners-of-war in the Sinai peninsula immediately after the cessation of hostilities, rather than transfer them to prison camps. The reports sparked outrage in Egypt.

Edelist said in remarks broadcast Monday that the media reports misrepresented the material in the film. He said the dead were not Egyptian POWs, but Palestinian fedayoun fighters, and that they were killed in battle, not executed.

"The Egyptians are speaking of murder, of 250 of their soldiers." In fact, Edelist told Army Radio, "This was not murder, this was in the course of a battle."

Edelist said the Shaked commandos were fighting a Palestinian commando battalion, with which the Shaked unit had fought a number of gun battles prior to the war.

"What happened was that there were (Israeli) fighters waging battle against a retreating (Palestinian) commando battalion," Edelist said. "During this battle, you could say there was excessive use of force, (but) it was all in the context of war: Not prisoners,
not prisoner-of-war camps, not people who put their hands up."

According to Edelist, hardline opposition elements in Egypt had misrepresented the facts and the message of the film in order to attack Israel's peace with Egypt.

Ben-Eliezer's spokesman, Ronen Moshe, said Monday that the allegations were untrue, but the minister and his Egyptian hosts decided to put off his visit anyway.

"In light of the atmosphere, which is unsuitable for a visit, the two sides decided to postpone the visit to another date in the near future," Moshe said.

MP calls for resumed state of war
On Sunday, Egypt's deputy foreign minister for legal affairs, Abdel Aziz Seif al-Nasr, said Egypt had summoned Israeli ambassador Shalom Cohen to demand an explanation for the contents of the documentary. Two ruling party lawmakers demanded the ambassador's expulsion, calling him a dog and an apostate. Another called in a special parliamentary session for a declaration of war on Israel.

Egypt also asked its ambassador in Tel Aviv to obtain a copy of the film from the Israeli government, al-Nasr said.

Salaam al-Ruqi'i, an independent Egyptian lawmaker from the Sinai peninsula, said: "The only way this can be eased is through a declaration of a state of war."

"We are still finding mass graves of Egyptian soldiers, and two months ago we extracted the remains of unarmed Egyptian soldiers and civilians from Sinai."

Reports of wartime executions in the Sinai peninsula have surfaced before. In 1995, a retired IDF officer told a newspaper of the killing of 49 Egyptian prisoners of war during the 1956 Sinai Campaign. An Israeli inquiry concluded that both Egyptian and IDF troops had killed prisoners.

IDF historian Arieh Yitzhaki said more than a decade ago that his research showed Israeli troops killed 300 Egyptian prisoners of war in 1967. Israel said soldiers on both sides committed atrocities.

Elliot Abrams’ uncivil war

Is the Bush administration violating the law in an effort to provoke a Palestinian civil war?

Deputy National Security Advisor, Elliott Abrams — who Newsweek recently described as “the last neocon standing” — has had it about for some months now that the U.S. is not only not interested in dealing with Hamas, it is working to ensure its failure. In the immediate aftermath of the Hamas elections, last January, Abrams greeted a group of Palestinian businessmen in his White House office with talk of a “hard coup” against the newly-elected Hamas government — the violent overthrow of their leadership with arms supplied by the United States. While the businessmen were shocked, Abrams was adamant — the U.S. had to support Fatah with guns, ammunition and training, so that they could fight Hamas for control of the Palestinian government.

While those closest to him now concede the Abrams’ words were issued in a moment of frustration, the “hard coup” talk was hardly just talk. Over the last twelve months, the United States has supplied guns, ammunition and training to Palestinian Fatah activists to take on Hamas in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank. A large number of Fatah activists have been trained and “graduated” from two camps — one in Ramallah and one in Jericho. The supplies of rifles and ammunition, which started as a mere trickle, has now become a torrent (Haaretz reports the U.S. has designated an astounding $86.4 million for Abu Mazen’s security detail), and while the program has gone largely without notice in the American press, it is openly talked about and commented on in the Arab media — and in Israel. Thousands of rifles and bullets have been poring into Gaza and the West Bank from Egypt and Jordan, the administration’s designated allies in the program.

At first, it was thought, the resupply effort (initiated under the guise of “assist[ing] the Palestinian Authority presidency in fulfilling PA commitments under the road map to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism and establish law and order in the West Bank and Gaza,” according to a U.S. government document) would strengthen the security forces under the command of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Officials thought that the additional weapons would easily cow Hamas operatives, who would meekly surrender the offices they had only recently so dearly won. That has not only not happened, but the program is under attack throughout the Arab world — particularly among America’s closest allies.

While both Egypt and Jordan have shipped arms to Abu Mazen under the Abrams program (Egypt recently sent 1,900 rifles into Gaza and the West Bank, nearly matching the 3000 rifles sent by the Jordanians), neither Jordan’s King Abdullah nor Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak believe the program will work — and both are now maneuvering to find a way out of it. “Who can blame them?” an administration official told us recently. “While Mubarak has no love for Hamas, they do not want to be seen as bringing them down. The same can be said for Jordan.” A Pentagon official was even more adamant, cataloguing official Washington’s nearly open disdain for Abrams’ program. “This is not going to work and everyone knows it won’t work. It is too clever. We’re just not very good at this. This is typical Abrams stuff.” This official went on to note that “it is unlikely that either Jordan or Egypt will place their future in the hands of the White House. Who the hell outside of Washington wants to see a civil war among Palestinians? Do we really think that the Jordanians think that’s a good idea. The minute it gets underway, Abdullah is finished. Hell, fifty percent of his country is Palestinian.”

Senior U.S. Army officers and high level civilian Pentagon officials have been the most outspoken internal administration critics of the program, which was unknown to them until mid-August, near the end of Israel’s war against Hezbollah. When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld learned about it he was enraged, and scheduled a meeting with President Bush in an attempt to convince him the program would backfire. Rumsfeld was concerned that the anti-Hamas program would radicalise Muslim groups among American allies and eventually endanger U.S. troops fighting Sunni extremists in Iraq. According to our reports, Rumsfeld was told by Bush that he should keep his focus on Iraq, and that “the Palestinian brief” was in the hands of the Secretary of State. After this confrontation, Rumsfeld decided there was not much he could do.

The Abrams program was initially conceived in February of 2006 by a group of White House officials who wanted to shape a coherent and tough response to the Hamas electoral victory of January. These officials, we are told, were led by Abrams, but included national security advisors working in the Office of the Vice President, including prominent neo-conservatives David Wurmser and John Hannah. The policy was approved by Condoleezza Rice. The President then, we are told, signed off on the program in a CIA “finding” and designated that its implementation be put under the control of Langley. But the program ran into problems almost from the beginning. “The CIA didn’t like it and didn’t think it would work,” we were told in October. “The Pentagon hated it, the US embassy in Israel hated it, and even the Israelis hated it.” A prominent American military official serving in Israel called the program “stupid” and “counter-productive.” The program went forward despite these criticisms, however, though responsibility for its implementation was slowly put in the hands of anti-terrorism officials working closely with the State Department. The CIA “wriggled out of” retaining responsibility for implementing the Abrams plan, we have been told. Since at least August, Rice, Abrams and U.S. envoy David Welch have been its primary advocates and the program has been subsumed as a “part of the State Department’s Middle East initiative.” U.S. government officials refused to comment on a report that the program is now a part of the State Department’s “Middle East Partnership Initiative,” established to promote democracy in the region. If it is, diverting appropriated funds from the program for the purchase of weapons may be a violation of Congressional intent — and U.S. law.

The recipients of U.S. largesse have been Palestinian President Abu Mazen and Mohammad Dahlan, a controversial and charismatic Palestinian political leader from Gaza. The U.S. has also relied on advice from Mohammad Rashid, a well-known Kurdish/Palestinian financier with offices in Cairo. Even in Israel, the alliance of the U.S. with these two figures is greeted with almost open derision. While Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has hesitantly supported the program, many of his key advisors have made it clear that they want to have nothing to do with starting a Palestinian civil war. They also doubt whether Hamas can be weakened. These officials point out that, since the beginning of the program, Hamas has actually gained in strength, in part because its leaders are considered competent, transparent, uncorrupt and unwilling to compromise their ideals — just the kinds of democratically elected leaders that the Bush Administration would want to support anywhere else in the Middle East.

Of course, in public, Secretary Rice appears contrite and concerned with “the growing lawlessness” among Palestinians, while failing to mention that such lawlessness is exactly what the Abrams plan was designed to create. “You can’t build security forces overnight to deal with the kind of lawlessness that is there in Gaza which largely derives from an inability to govern,” she said during a recent trip to Israel. “Their [the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority] inability to govern, of course, comes from their unwillingness to meet international standards.” Even Middle East experts and State Department officials close to Rice consider her comments about Palestinian violence dangerous, and have warned her that if the details of the U.S. program become public her reputation could be stained. In fact, Pentagon officials concede, Hamas’s inability to provide security to its own people and the clashes that have recently erupted have been seeded by the Abrams plan. Israeli officials know this, and have begun to rebel. In Israel, at least, Rice’s view that Hamas can be unseated is now regularly, and sometimes publicly, dismissed.

According to a December 25 article in the Israeli daily Haaretz, senior Israeli intelligence officials have told Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that not only can Hamas not be replaced, but that its rival, Fatah, is disintegrating. Any hope for the success of an American program aimed at replacing Hamas, these officials argued, will fail. These Israeli intelligence officials also dismissed Palestinian President Abu Mazen’s call for elections to replace Hamas — saying that such elections would all but destroy Fatah. As Haaretz reported: “Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin told the cabinet Sunday [December 24] that should elections be held in the Palestinian Authority, Fatah’s chances of winning would be close to zero. Diskin said during Sunday’s weekly cabinet meeting that the Fatah faction is in bad shape, and therefore Israel should expect Hamas to register a sweeping victory.”

Apparently Jordan’s King Abdullah agrees. On the day this article appeared, December 25, Abdullah kept Palestinian President Abu Mazen waiting for six hours to see him in Amman. Eventually, Abdullah told Abu Mazen that he should go home — and only come to see him again when accompanied by Hamas leader and Palestinian Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh. Most recently, Saudi officials have welcomed Haniyeh to Saudi Arabia for talks, having apparently made public their own views on the American program to replace Hamas. And so it is: one year after the election of Hamas, and one year after Elliot Abrams determined that sowing the seeds of civil war among a people already under occupation would somehow advance America’s program for democracy in the Middle East, respect for America’s democratic ideals has all but collapsed — and not just in Iraq.

Posted: January 7th, 2007 under CF REPORTS, Hamas, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Neocons, Palestinians, Bush Administration.
Comments: 3 | Permalink | home

Egyptians offer to represent Beit Hanun victims at The Hague

Last update - 07:14 06/12/2006

By Lily Galili, Haaretz Correspondent

Representatives of the Egyptian Bar Association have offered to represent the victims of the Israeli artillery barrage in Beit Hanun at the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

On Sunday, representatives of the Egyptian Bar Association contacted Beit Hanun's mayor, Muhammad al-Kafarne, and offered their services.

The mayor has asked the families of the victims to authorize a transfer of power of attorney, so the Egyptian lawyers can proceed with bringing the case before the International Court.

Ghasen Qassem, a relative of the mayor, who lost his elder brother in the November 8 artillery attack on the Gaza town, has delayed the power of attorney authorization because of efforts underway to receive compensation from Israel for the deaths.

Two weeks ago, the families of the victims sought the assistance of attorney Ehud Segev, asking him to represent them in a suit against the State of Israel and in their demand for compensation for the deaths of their loved ones.

The family members argue that once Israel admitted that the incident was a mistake, and even recognized the unusual nature of the incident, it became obliged to grant the families financial compensation.

Meanwhile, a special committee at the Defense Ministry began an initial evaluation of the families' request.

Since the artillery attack that killed 19 Palestinian civilians in their homes, the issue has remained at the center of attention of various rights organizations.

Lessons of Suez and Iraq

12/4/06

By Farhang Jahanpour
fjahanpour@btinternet.com


November marked the 50th anniversary of the Suez crisis, when Britain, France and Israel decided to attack Egypt and unseat Gamal Abdel-Nasser, the nationalist Egyptian leader. This was one of those seminal moments in the mid-twentieth century that had momentous geopolitical consequences for the world, and especially for the Middle East.


When the West first promised and then reneged on its promise to help the construction of the Aswan Dam, Abdel-Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal to use its revenue to build the dam, as was within his right. As the result of the strategic importance of the canal to Western interests, Britain, France and Israel decided to remove the Egyptian leader and undo the nationalisation of the Suez Canal, as they had done only three years previously when Dr Mohammad Mosaddeq had nationalised Iranian oil and was toppled as the result of a British-CIA coup.


In 1875, Isma'il Pasha had been forced to sell his country's share in the canal to the United Kingdom, and the Convention of Constantinople (1888) declared the canal a neutral zone under British 'protection'. The Suez Canal had been important in the British and French colonial penetration of Africa. For this reason it was considered important by them to keep the canal out of Egyptian control. The French thought that by suppressing a nationalist Arab leader they could hold on to what was left to them in North Africa. Israel, then only eight years old, saw a chance to humble the most important Arab state, and gain some territory as well. Israel's Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion had wider ambitions than Suez. He dreamed of annexing southern Lebanon up to the Litani River, take the West Bank, which belonged to Jordan, and give the rest of Jordan to Iraq, then in the hands of a Hashemite king.


So it was that the three powers cooked up a secret deal that involved Israel seizing the Sinai, with the British and French grabbing the Suez Canal. On October 29, 1956, Israel invaded the Egyptian-controlled Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula and made rapid progress towards the Canal Zone. On 30th October Britain and France vetoed a USSR demand for an Israel-Egypt ceasefire, and instead mounted air strikes on Egypt. On November 5, Anglo-French forces landed at Port Said. The 3rd Battalion of the British Parachute Regiment dropped 668 British paratroopers at El Gamil Airfield, clearing the area and establishing a secure base for incoming support aircraft and reinforcements, and 470 French paratroopers landed at two bridges on the canal.


That ill-considered invasion had a number of disastrous and long-term consequences, which are still with us.


First of all, it confirmed the view of many people in the Middle East that the state of Israel that had been recently created, as the result of massive US pressure on the UN, on Palestinian lands was indeed a colonial project and served the interests of imperialist powers. It also created a precedent for Israel to attack Arab countries, something that still continues as we can see from the latest barbaric attack on Lebanon and the ongoing incursion and killings in Gaza.


Its second outcome was that it marked the end of European empires and European domination of the Middle East, and their replacement by the American super-power. After the end of the Second World War the United States had emerged as the strongest power, but it found that most of the Middle East was under European domination. It had managed to get a share of the Persian oil after the coup against Dr Mosaddeq in 1953 and later on achieved the lion's share of oil concessions in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Persian Gulf.


President Dwight Eisenhower's opposition to the invasion, which resulted in its speedy collapse, made the United States the uncontested super-power after the Second World War. The lesson that the French learned from that episode was that they could not trust the United States and had to go it alone. Shortly afterwards, they developed their independent nuclear deterrent. The lesson that the British leaders learned from that event was that they should stick closely to the United States and should not try to act independently, something that has been most clearly demonstrated by Tony Blair.


Its third consequence was to provide a fantastic propaganda boost to the Soviet Union when Nikita Khrushchev threatened to intervene on behalf of Egypt against Western imperialism and portrayed himself as the friend of the Arabs. That event encouraged Egypt, Syria, Libya and later Iraq to cut their links to the West and turn towards the Soviet Union, something which continued more or less till President Sadat's time in Egypt and till the end of the Cold War in the case of Libya and Syria. That event greatly strengthened the Soviet Union.


In fact, coming only a few days after the Hungarian uprising that had started on 26th October, it provided an excuse to the Soviet Union to brutally crush that uprising on November 10th, and thus prolong the oppressive domination of the Soviet Empire over Eastern Europe for another 35 years. At the Politburo meeting of 30th October it was almost unanimously decided to allow Imre Nagy, the new Hungarian leader, to ride out the storm. However, in the wake of the Anglo-French and Israeli attack on Egypt, Khrushchev decided to crush the Hungarian uprising.


The fourth consequence of that failed attack was to strengthen Nasser and make him a hero in the eyes of the Arab world. It gave rise to Arab nationalism and strong anti-Western feelings that persist to the present day.


The fifth consequence was that only two years later it encouraged the Ba'thists to topple the pro-Western monarchy in Iraq and install a revolutionary and brutal government that continued until just three years ago.


But perhaps the most disastrous and enduring outcome of that ill-fated event was that it undermined faith in Western democracies among the people in the Third World. The deception and the lie by seemingly honourable and reputable Western leaders persuaded many that all those claims of democracy, civilisation and higher ethical standards were false and empty. At first, the excuse was that as Israel had attacked the Suez Canal from Sinai, Britain and France entered the conflict in order to separate the Israelis from the Egyptians. Later, it became clear that the plot had been hatched by Britain, France and Israel at Sèvres, on the outskirts of Paris, to carry out Operation Musketeer to invade Egypt.


One can argue that in many ways the consequences of the ill-fated invasion of Iraq are going to be more serious and more enduring. The Suez fiasco resulted in the resignation of the Prime Minister Anthony Eden, something that has not happened in our time. However, despite the high-sounding reasons such as the establishment of democracy and liberating the Iraqi people, which were put forward as afterthoughts when earlier reasons were proved false, the Iraqi invasion was about domination and intimidating other states. In a recent book, titled After Suez, Adrift in the American Century, Martin Woollacott compares the two episodes and writes: "Like Suez, the intervention in Iraq in 2003 was intended not only to bring down a hostile leader but to have an exemplary effect on the whole region. Like Suez, it was intended to demonstrate a capacity to dominate and control."


The Suez invasion had those dreadful consequences because it was based on a lie, there was a moral breakdown. The consequences of the illegal war in Iraq will be more disastrous – not only for Iraq with its half a million dead, destroyed infrastructure, unemployment, the looted treasures, humiliation, sectarian warfare, continued violence and probable break-up of the country– but for us and for the rest of the world as well. Already, close to 3,000 US and Coalition forces have been killed and tens of thousands wounded, and the US reputation in the rest of the world has been shattered. The failure of the Iraqi venture will not only be due to poor planning, an inadequate number of troops, corruption, embezzlement, torture, etc, but also because like the Suez crisis it too was based on a set of lies and deception.


We have not forgotten that only a few years ago, the Western media was full of what has turned out to be completely false propaganda about Iraq. Not only was Andrew Gilligan driven out of the BBC for quoting Dr David Kelly as saying that the intelligence had been 'sexed up', but the editor of the Today Program, the Director General and the Chairman of the BBC were also forced to resign for a report that turned out to be correct.


There were literally hundreds of articles in most reputable and even in liberal Western newspapers that alleged the existence of weapons of mass destruction as a matter of fact. The following article by Michael R. Gordon and Judith Miller in the New York Times provides just one example of many such articles:


"… More than a decade after Saddam Hussein agreed to give up weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today. In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium. American officials said several efforts to arrange the shipment of the aluminum tubes were blocked or intercepted but declined to say, citing the sensitivity of the intelligence, where they came from or how they were stopped. The diameter, thickness and other technical specifications of the aluminum tubes had persuaded American intelligence experts that they were meant for Iraq's nuclear program, officials said, and that the latest attempt to ship the material had taken place in recent months.

The attempted purchases are not the only signs of a renewed Iraqi interest in acquiring nuclear arms. President Hussein has met repeatedly in recent months with Iraq's top nuclear scientists and, according to American intelligence, praised their efforts as part of his campaign against the West… "The jewel in the crown is nuclear," a senior administration official said. "The closer he gets to a nuclear capability, the more credible is his threat to use chemical or biological weapons. Nuclear weapons are his hole card. "The question is not, why now?" the official added, referring to a potential military campaign to oust Mr. Hussein. "The question is why waiting is better. The closer Saddam Hussein gets to a nuclear weapon, the harder he will be to deal with."


Such statements were not limited to the media. In his radio address to the nation on 8 February 2003, just over a month before the invasion of Iraq, the president categorically asserted:


"The Iraqi regime has actively and secretly attempted to obtain equipment needed to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Firsthand witnesses have informed us that Iraq has at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents -- equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery.
The Iraqi regime has acquired and tested the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction. It has never accounted for thousands of bombs and shells capable of delivering chemical weapons. It is actively pursuing components for prohibited ballistic missiles. And we have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."


We have not forgotten the 'dodgy dossier', with an introduction by the British Prime Minister Tony Blair alleging that Saddam could launch his weapons in 45 minutes, information that was allegedly provided by Iyad Allawi, who was later installed as Iraq's prime minister. The following day a British tabloid newspaper devoted its first page to an article with the heading "45 minutes from Armageddon."


We had the Secretary of State Colin Powell's audio-visual performance at the UN. Unfortunately, many of the reasons given for the invasion have now proved to have been non-existent. Other embarrassing details keep popping up like unquiet ghosts--the aluminium tubes, the Niger uranium, the Prague meeting between Atta and Iraqi intelligence, the alleged ties to Al Qaeda, the trailers that were supposedly used as mobile laboratories for chemical weapons, the drones that could be used to spread chemical weapons, the huge stockpiles of chemical weapons under some hospitals, etc.


Not only have weapons of mass destruction not been found, the establishment of democracy has also proved more elusive than anticipated. It is clear that one cannot impose democracy by dropping bombs and missiles on others. Referring to last year's election in Lebanon, President Bush said: "We cannot accept that there can be free democratic elections in a country under foreign military occupation." He was referring to the presence of a number of Syrian troops who had incidentally been invited by the Lebanese government to protect the Christian minority. I believe President Bush is right. Even the best elections under military occupation must be regarded suspect. The same is true about Iraq or any other country under occupation.


In fact, lying and violence seem to be complimentary to each other. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote: "Anyone who proclaims violence as his method inexorably must choose lying as his principle." James Madison was referred to as the "father of the Constitution," and he also helped frame the Bill of Rights. His warning to the American people at the dawn of the republic has proved very prescient:


"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it compromises and develops the germ of every other. As the parent of armies, war encourages debts and taxes, the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the executive is extended ... and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people...'


Not only do wars bring death and mayhem to the countries that fall victim to them; they also boomerang and afflict the countries that initiate them. The quality of life, civil society, the rule of law, individual freedoms all suffer as the result of foreign adventures. The Patriot Act has robbed many Americans of many rights that they held dear. They have suddenly discovered that their emails will be read, that their telephone calls will be monitored, that even the books that they borrow from libraries will be scrutinised. Now we have the strange phenomenon of the US Congress passing a bill about the extent to which suspects can be tortured, and empowering the president to set the limits to torture, in contravention of the Geneva Convention.


There have been many restrictions on the lives of the British people that were formerly unimaginable. Richard Thomas, the watchdog entrusted by the government to protect people's privacy, recently sounded a strong warning that Britain is "waking up to a surveillance society that is all around us". The information commissioner warns that technology is already being extensively and routinely used to track and record the everyday activities and movements of Britons, whether they are working, resting or playing. He also warns that such "pervasive" surveillance is likely to spread in the coming years.


The invasion of Iraq failed the moment it started, because it undermined international rule of law and replaced it with the law of the jungle. The unilateral invasion, without UN sanction, has made a mockery of international regulations, and can only encourage other countries to violate those laws. It has increased anti-American and anti-Western sentiment not only in the Muslim world, but throughout the world. A recent poll showed that in Europe and even among America's closest allies, the British, a majority of people believe that President Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-il of North Korea or President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad of Iran. Only Osama bin Laden got a higher ranking.


But perhaps the greatest damage caused by the illegal invasion of Iraq has been the intensification of Islamic militancy and international terrorism. Instead of creating a democratic oasis in the heart of the Middle East, Iraq has become a training ground for terrorists. In the same way that terrorists trained in Afghanistan caused havoc in the rest of the world, culminating in the horrendous events of 9/11, the terrorists that are being trained in Iraq could cause mayhem in the region and beyond. America's brutal invasion of Iraq far from intimidating other countries and making them compliant to American wishes, has persuaded many countries that if they wish to avoid the same fate as that of Saddam Husayn they have to get stronger and stand up to the West. The ongoing nuclear impasse in North Korea and Iran is the best example of that way of thinking.


Far from rearranging the Middle East to American and Israeli liking and resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict, the plight of Israel is now more precarious than ever before. The failure of Israel's devastating invasion of Lebanon has shown the limits to the use of force, and indeed the growing strength of Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon has made the any meaningful and lasting settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict less likely, if not impossible.


The future may have many more surprises in store as the result of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, which we cannot predict at the moment. In the same way that the Suez venture sounded the death knell of European empires, the invasion of Iraq that has over-stretched American forces and depleted her treasury could herald the beginning of the end of the United States as the sole super-power. The brief period of the unipolar US hegemony that came about after the collapse of the Soviet Union might give way once again to a multilateral world order, in which US power is checked by China, India, EU and maybe Russia.


What is certain is that resort to force to bring about regime change and occupation has failed, and the international community must try to find other ways of resolving conflicts. Violence always breeds more violence. Mahatma Gandhi said that he would accept that violence would prevail over violence only if someone could prove to him that darkness would prevail over darkness and could expel darkness. In fact, he said that violence was not natural and instinctive to man. If it were, there would not be any need for war academies and barracks to teach violence and train killers. Violence, hate and anger are destroying us. Non-violence is very powerful, its strength comes from public support.


Many far-sighted politicians and even military leaders are seeing the futility of this continuing cycle of violence. In an interview last month the head of the British Army General Richard Dannatt said with great clarity and honesty that "our presence [in Iraq] exacerbates the security problems". His remarks have opened the floodgates to debate both in Britain and in the United States. In the Untied States the report by all the 13 intelligence organisations has admitted that the war is already lost and that continued occupation will only prolong the agony. Many leading American generals are now openly voicing their unease about the deteriorating situation.


A CNN poll suggests that only 20% of Americans think the war is being won, barely half the figure for a year ago. The loss of both the House and the Senate in the recent mid-term elections has shown that the vast majority of Americans have seen the futility of continued bloodshed and demand change. The change of Donald Rumsfeld, the hard-line US defence secretary, and his replacement by the pragmatic and realist Robert Gates is a very good sign indeed and may start healing some of the wounds. The new commission formed under James Baker has forced even President Bush and Vice-President Cheney to admit that the mantra about 'staying the course' is no longer valid, and they are already looking for ways of getting out of the quagmire. All this is too late for half a million Iraqis who have lost their lives as the result of that neocon-driven war, but it may lead to the resumption of a more pragmatic and a less ideological policy in Washington.


Nevertheless, the Iraqi debacle will prove to be a more costly venture for Britain than Suez and a greater disaster for the United States than Vietnam. We may not have seen the end of the tragedy yet.


About the author: Farhang Jahanpour, a British national of Iranian origin, is a former Professor and Dean of the Faculty of Languages at the University of Isfahan, and a part-time tutor in the Department of Continuing Education at the University of Oxford, where he teaches courses on religion and politics in the Middle East. Dr. Jahanpour also spent 18 years at the BBC Monitoring Service covering the news from Iran, the Middle East and North Africa.

Note: This article was first published by The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research