SPINNING IRAQ
IS IRAN NEXT?
DEAN CHALLENGED FOR DEM JOB

Democracy paid a visit to Iraq yesterday with the semblance (charade?) of a free and fair election featuring 111 different slates, and 7400 candidate who could barely campaign and were mostly unknown. 44 people died in violence. The absence of even more violence was taken for the presence of democracy. Can we believe the hype?

Sunday was the anniversary of the l968 Tet offensive. (Historical note: the US staged an election months earlier in South Vietnam, in September 1967, that was also deemed a big success by Washington at the time, a”breakthrough” for democracy.) Peter O’Neill notes another parallel in the San Franciso Chronicle. Yesterday marked the “33rd anniversary of a tragedy with disturbing parallels to those in Iraq — Bloody Sunday, when members of the British Parachute Regiment gunned down 14 unarmed civil-rights marchers in Derry, Northern Ireland.”

BUSHIES IN SEVENTH HEAVEN

To hear the Administration tell it, the electron was some kind of miracle. The NY Times: “President Bush declared the Iraqi election a triumphant moment in his effort to spur democracy throughout the Middle East.” Times columnist Bob Herbert is less rosy: “Iraqis may have voted yesterday. But they live in occupied territory, and the occupiers have other things on their minds than the basic wishes of the Iraqi people. That’s not democracy. That’s a recipe for more war.”

The Washington Post adds: “President Bush also hailed the election as a signal that Iraqis had rejected the extremist ideologies and terrorism that have threatened to unravel both U.S. policy and Iraq.” The Oil market has reacted by lowering prices. (The big business news of the day is the continued consolidation in the telecom world with SBC buying AT&T for a mere $16 billion.)

The CNN echo chamber carried this same spin (no surprise) although, on air, Lou Dobbs said he was being “very cautious.” This was CNN.com last night: “The first free Iraqi election in 50 years is being hailed as a success by Iraqis and members of the international community. The U.N.’s election organizer said he was pleased with the turnout while the U.S. State Department said the vote was “very transparent.” In Iraq, an election official said: “We directed to (terrorists) the message of elections and freedom and democracy.”

HARDBALL ECSTATIC

One of our readers, Evelyn vd Riet was watching Chris Matthews hardball it on MSNBC and questioned the conclusions reached: “Twice on Hardball Sunday evening (Jan. 30) Chris Matthews stated that voter turnout = 10 million. My understanding is that the population of Iraq is 25 million. Voter turnout = 10 million surely would mean that nearly every able bodied Iraqi registered AND voted. Your figure is not credible. Given the mayhem and fear in Iraq, I am astonished that anyone at this early stage is venturing a figure. Tomorrow will you be announcing final election results?”

BBC: BULL OR BULLISH?

“World leaders have praised the conduct of Iraq’s first multi-party elections for more than 50 years.

“President Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair — the leaders of the two nations which led the invasion of Iraq - hailed them as a resounding success.

“And UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Iraqis should be encouraged to take control of their own future.

“After what officials said was a higher turnout than expected, the next few days will be spent counting votes. Preliminary results are expected in about six days, with a full result not due for 10 days.”

AL JAZEERA

Now contrast this with Al Jazeera (who the NY Times reported yesterday is under pressure to sell the station by the Qatar government which is under pressure from the US which of course downplays the pressure because it contradicts Washington’s nominal commitment to a “free” press):

“Confusion surrounds turnout statistics in Iraq’s election, with the country’s election commission backtracking on a statement that 72% had voted and top politicians insisting the turnout was high.” This 72% was cited by many news outlets as i it was true. Saddam used to have elections in which he claimed a 99% turnout and support.

MEDIA COVERAGE MISSES THE STORY

As someone who has been monitoring the media coverage, I cam away convinced that no matter what happened western media and governments would see the silver lining even as Condoleeza Rice made clear yesterday American troops ain’t going nowhere. To my eye, what we have here is a basic continuity of the media narrative I dissect in my book Embedded and film WMD.

Juan Cole, the Iraq expert at the University of Michigan was dismayed by the coverage. Let me quote from his excellent JuanCole.com website.

“I’m just appalled by the cheerleading tone of US news coverage of the so-called elections in Iraq on Sunday. I said on television last week that this event is a “political earthquake” and “a historical first step” for Iraq. It is an event of the utmost importance, for Iraq, the Middle East, and the world. All the boosterism has a kernel of truth to it, of course. Iraqis hadn’t been able to choose their leaders at all in recent decades, even by some strange process where they chose unknown leaders. But this process is not a model for anything, and would not willingly be imitated by anyone else in the region. The 1997 elections in Iran were much more democratic, as were the 2002 elections in Bahrain and Pakistan.

“Moreover, as Swopa rightly reminds us all, the Bush administration opposed one-person, one-vote elections of this sort. First they were going to turn Iraq over to Chalabi within six months. Then Bremer was going to be MacArthur in Baghdad for years. Then on November 15, 2003, Bremer announced a plan to have council-based elections in May of 2004. The US and the UK had somehow massaged into being provincial and municipal governing councils, the members of which were pro-American. Bremer was going to restrict the electorate to this small, elite group.

“Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani immediately gave a fatwa denouncing this plan and demanding free elections mandated by a UN Security Council resolution. Bush was reportedly “extremely offended” at these two demands and opposed Sistani. Bremer got his appointed Interim Governing Council to go along in fighting Sistani. Sistani then brought thousands of protesters into the streets in January of 2004, demanding free elections. Soon thereafter, Bush caved and gave the ayatollah everything he demanded. Except that he was apparently afraid that open, non-manipulated elections in Iraq might become a factor in the US presidential campaign, so he got the elections postponed to January 2005. This enormous delay allowed the country to fall into much worse chaos, and Sistani is still bitter that the Americans didn’t hold the elections last May. The US objected that they couldn’t use UN food ration cards for registration, as Sistani suggested. But in the end that is exactly what they did.

“So if it had been up to Bush, Iraq would have been a soft dictatorship under Chalabi, or would have had stage-managed elections with an electorate consisting of a handful of pro-American notables. It was Sistani and the major Shiite parties that demanded free and open elections and a UNSC resolution. They did their job and got what they wanted. But the Americans have been unable to provide them the requisite security for truly aboveboard democratic elections.

“With all the hoopla, it is easy to forget that this was an extremely troubling and flawed “election.” Iraq is an armed camp. There were troops and security checkpoints everywhere. Vehicle traffic was banned. The measures were successful in cutting down on car bombings that could have done massive damage. But even these Draconian steps did not prevent widespread attacks, which is not actually good news. There is every reason to think that when the vehicle traffic starts up again, so will the guerrilla insurgency.”…

“Iraq now faces many key issues that could tear the country apart, from the issues of Kirkuk and Mosul to that of religious law. James Zogby on Wolf Blitzer wisely warned the US public against another “Mission Accomplished” moment. Things may gradually get better, but this flawed “election” isn’t a Mardi Gras for Americans and they’ll regret it if that is the way they treat it.”

Another perspective: Dilip Hiro on TomDispatch.com: “Starting with Saddam’s arrest in 2003, each of Washington’s rosy scenarios — in which a diminution of violence is predicted and a path to success declared — has turned to dust.”
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21109/

IS IRAN NEXT?

Last week, Dick Cheney hinted that Israel may be about to attack Iran, in part as a surrogate for the US. Dawn of Pakistan now reports: ” Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz has told French lawmakers that Iran is at “the point of no-return” on building nuclear weapons, according to a transcript of his remarks to the National Assembly made public on Friday.

“Mr Mofaz, who warned openly in London this week that Iran would not be permitted to build a nuclear bomb, has in the past said that Israel has operational plans in place for a strike against Iranian targets.

“Mr Mofaz told the French National Assembly’s defense commission that “he ardently hoped that a recourse to military action would not be necessary” in Iran, according the transcript of the Tuesday meeting.”

THE VIEW FROM IRAN

George Friedman explains on Stratfor.com: “”Now the question becomes Iran. But the Iran question is not the simplistic “next target” issue that has been framed by the media — or the Bush administration for that matter. The Iran question is far more complex, subtle and defining. It divides into two questions. First, once Iraq holds elections, what will Iran’s policy be toward Iraq’s new Shiite government? Second, since the Shiite-Sunni split is fundamental to the Islamic world, how will the United States manage and manipulate that divide?

“To approach these questions, we need to look at the world through Iran’s eyes. Iran has a single, overwhelming national security interest: protecting itself from encroachments by foreign powers. After World War II, the primary threat came from the Soviet Union. Another threat, both ancient and continual, came from Iraq. Under both the shah and the ayatollahs, Iraq constituted what became Iran’s major national security threat.

“The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s had a devastating effect on Iran. There is hardly an Iranian family that did not suffer a loss in that war. Iraq came out ahead in the war militarily, but had it simply defeated Iran, the result would have been catastrophic. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Iraq has been Iran’s nightmare.

“This is why the Iranians did not seriously object to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. To the contrary, the Iranians did everything they could to encourage and entangle the Americans in the war — including providing intelligence that triggered American responses. There was nothing more important for Iran than seeing Saddam Hussein’s regime collapse.

“For Iran, the best outcome of the war would be a pro-Iranian regime in Baghdad. The second best outcome would be chaos in Iraq. Both provide Iran with what it needs: a relatively secure frontier and an opportunity to shape events to the west. The third — and least acceptable — outcome would be a neutral Iraq. Neutrality is highly changeable. “