No nukes for Iran

By now you've heard about the Iran nuclear arms agreement with the US and five other countries. If not, the basic terms are Iran agrees to curtail its nuke enrichment programs in return for an easing of the crippling international sanctions they've been living under for what seems like forever. Seems like a pretty good deal to me. It offers some relief to the Iranian people who suffer the most under sanctions and the beautiful country of Iran doesn't get bombed into glass ashtrays.

Of course, all the people who thought bombing Iraq was the most brilliant idea ever, namely neo-cons and Republicans hate this deal. They're carrying on like it's the end of the world as we know it. One imagines they would have liked it better if a Republican administration had brokered it, but maybe not. Those warmongers never lose their taste for blood shed by other people.

I would have preferred Iran end its quest for nuclear energy generation as well. But then I would prefer that for everybody, especially the US. In any event, it's only a six month trial period. That will go by fast but I'll take a few months of  peace over imminent war any time.

Act Now! No Time to Lose!

By Capt. Fogg

Henry Kissinger -- the name could be a metonym for dishonest defense of imperialism and reckless disregard for the consequences of military action, and so it's no surprise to hear him tell us to ignore the consensus of all 16 US intelligence agencies that there is no evidence Iran is building or is about to build nuclear weapons.

Yes, of course they could all be wrong and there is always the argument from cliche that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but even in a nation of emotionally disturbed amnesiacs like the US, some might want to remember our useless attack and occupation of Iraq for which we continue to suffer and will continue to suffer for a very long time. In case you don't remember, that country had no nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or the materials or technology needed to produce huge, heavy nuclear prototypes much less the probably fictional "suitcase" bombs we were told could be smuggled into the US at any moment. Act now!

On CNN's GPS with Fareed Zakaria yesterday, Kissinger told us he was "uneasy" with the intelligence and that we should ignore it as we ignored the lies about Iraq and make the presumption that a bomb was forthcoming.

“I am very uneasy with the so-called intelligence report that say we don’t know whether they are actually working on nuclear weapons. I think we should start from the premise that they are undergoing all this in order to achieve a military capability. I don’t think that is a disputable point.”

I think it is disputable in the extreme, considering that we're listening to a war criminal involved in and culpable for massacres, invasions and genocides in Indochina, East Timor, Chile, Cyprus and Bangladesh talking about fomenting yet another dubious and probably disastrous war.

Kissinger and warmongering toadies like Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu tell us we have no time to lose; that the time to attack is now as Former Secretary of State Rice once told us. Shoot first and pretend there is no question to ask, lest the "smoking gun" of evidence turn out to be a mushroom cloud. Frankly I think we have everything to lose, including our future and any basis upon which to base the proposition and pose of being a force for good in this world.

I run from Iran

Don't know what to say about the nuke facilities in Iran except I'm really glad it's Obama dealing with the problem and not Bush and Cheney. Thinking Obama handled it rather brilliantly. Via LanceMannion, this from Sully describes it well.

Obama has known about this facility from day one. At Cairo, he reached out the Muslim world, undermining the Iranian regime's ability to engage in arm-waving, fear-mongering anti-Americanism. He built himself a triumvirate with Brown and Sarkozy, who actually have an intelligence presence in Iran. He used that presence to build an airtight case. He cut a deal with the Russians. He reached out to Iran, knowing that they would likely reject or ignore his overtures. Then, when Ahmadinejad comes to New York, having to face Western journalists, Obama announces the the existence of the Qom facility, turning the spotlight on Iran when they are unable to hide behind state-controlled media. Obama, cool and calm, pulled off a near-perfect diplomatic pincer.

Apparently they've known since 06 and I'm guessing the only reason they couldn't do anything about it was our former Swaggerer in Chief couldn't drum up any international support on taking action. I do think military action would be deadly.

Jake Tapper posted a good explanation on that. He says, "So why not just take out the facility (beyond the obvious desire to avoid a huge conflagration in the region)? 1. Bombing one facility wont acheive the larger goal: ending Iran's nuke ambitions. And 2, if they keep getting caught by good intel, they may ultimately conclude their ambitions are futile. As opposed to being bombed and digging in more determined than ever. And SteveHynd adds, Its in Qom, Jake. Centre of Shia. One missed missile, or crashed plane, and the Muslim world explodes.

Probably good to remember when we get pissed at Obama for not fixing the problem we find most important right away, that he has to deal with all the problems at once and it's not so easy to prioritize. Only so many hours in any day and he's just one man, who looks more tired every time I see him in the news.

[More posts daily at The Detroit News]

Friday in Tehran

Although, outside of the green gravatars, it has pretty much dropped off the radar in the blogosphere here, the situation in Iran remains volatile. The Iranians aren't backing down from confronting their government. Juan Cole has an eyewitness account of a demonstration last Friday.

Everytime Ansari mentioned the Supreme Leader, the crowd booed. Everytime he referred to the opposition as traitors, chants of "liar, liar" started. When he mentioned that everyone should listen to the advice and dictates of the Supreme Leader, chants of "Death to the dictator" were loudly shouted. When he derailed America and Britian for muddling in Iran's affairs, the crowd erupted in chants of "Down with Russia" (because Russia immediately recognized the re-election of Ahmadinejad and congratulated him). As he spoke of the recent killings of Muslims in China, the crowd chided him and the system for its hyprocrisy. Though there was a visible show of force by the Basij and supporters of Ahmadinejad, almost all the women were decked in green ribbons or scarfs, and many men had on green shirts or hats. The women had all gathered on one side of Qods and wouldn't let the crowd remain silent during Ansari's speech. Many had climbed onto large trash bins or light posts and led the entire streets in chants---all were decked in green and in the face of the Basij, people put their arms in the air, with the peace/victory sign.

Read the whole thing. Riveting. If only Americans had the same courage, we might be able to "change how DC works" for real.

[More posts daily at The Detroit News]

Random Thought

A year ago, and for years prior to that, all these wingers who are so worked up now about the crackdown on the Iranian protesters were demanding on a near daily basis that the US bomb the whole country into glass ashtrays. They would have suffered a whole lot more if we had nuked them, as they desired.

[More posts daily at The Detroit News]

Not newsworthy

Remember how during the Bush years, the media elevated every single Democratic complaint about GOPer policies into a major news item? Me neither. But that all changed when the majority shifted. Michael O'Brien posts a stand alone item highlighting the blathering of Sen Kit Bond (R-Idiot).

Demonstrations in the wake of Iran's presidential election are a sign that country's dissidents want the U.S. to get involved in the disputed contest, Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) asserted Monday.

Bond, the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, pushed back against President Obama's claim that the election is not a U.S. issue, and urged the administration to speak out more forcefully in favor of Iranian dissidents.

"We didn't have anything to do with this uprising; we're not trying to tell them who they should select," Bond said on CNBC Monday morning. "But when they have such obvious election fraud and the violence with which they are dealing with…the way they've done it is unacceptable."

"They want us, they are appealing to us to recognize it," We need to recognize the legitimate aspirations of the American people."

Not sure if the reference to the aspirations of the American people is a typo or whether Bond really said that, as if our aspirations make a wit of difference to the Iranians. O'Brien posts it without any other context or comment. Needless to say, it pushed my cranky button. I left this comment.

I wouldn't be so irritated by your giving a forum to this useless blather if you at least noted at the end that Mr. Bond offered no actual evidence of anyone of significance asking for US meddling.

And as an aside, one wonders what Mr. Bond's reaction would have been if say, Iran's Supreme Leader had publicly stated that US anti-war demonstrations are a sign that Americans want Iran to get involved in our domestic disputes.

If this was an isolated instance, I wouldn't have bothered to say anything, but I'm really sick of the media treating every blessed moronic utterance coming from the GOP as having some earth shaking importance. I'm bloody tired of "horserace journalism." It's lazy and it's not helpful. As an aside, I will give the Hill some props though for allowing comments without registration.

[More posts daily at The Detroit News]

Iranian protesters set the bar

I still haven't been able to bring myself to watch any of the videos of the violence in Iran. The few stills I've seen have been upsetting enough. But there are plenty of first hand accounts coming in from all quarters. Roger Cohen, for NYT has a good "on the scene" read. It's interesting that the movement is being driven to a large extent by women, who egg on the men to stay involved. And the theme chant of "Allah-u-Akbar," God is Great, continues to thunder from the rooftops every evening. Let freedom ring.

This is clearly bigger than just a stolen election. It's looking like a full-fledged revolution to me and from all accounts, the consensus seems to be that Supreme Ruler Khameneni is in deep trouble. I think his thuggish response to the protests is what changed their focus from the election to the greater problems with the system. A belief bolstered by Mousavi's latest statement. But you should be reading smarter people than me for that analysis.

Meanwhile, now that the government crackdown is killing and injuring people, Obama issued a brief statement that was pitch perfect.

I continue to be awed by the courage of the demonstrators and encouraged by their tenacity. I agree with Sully on the greater import of this.

Empowered by new information technology, chastened by the apocalyptic conflicts of the last few years, determined to shift course away from civilizational warfare, the people of many countries are grasping for a new order and a new peace. It will not be easy; and it will not be short. But it is the only path worth taking.

And these Iranians are now leading the rest of us.

They set a high bar for activism and all citizens of the world who wish to break the yoke of corporate driven imperialism that currently strangles civil society for self-serving political ends would do well to follow their lead. [graphic]

[More posts daily at The Detroit News]

Tehran is bleeding

I can't bring myself to follow the events today. The crackdown is brutal. From the bits and pieces I've been reading it's ugly. Tear gas, water cannons, boiling water poured from helicopters. I think a lot of people are going to die. Moussavi says he's ready to be a martyr if necessary. Goddess be with them all.

I hear Twitter is the place to be, but if you don't tweet, Memorandum has a lot of coverage from various points of view. Needless to say the neo-cons, judging from their headlines and the response from my wingnut fan club at DetNews, are calling for US intervention. Saner minds are just following the events as horrified onlookers. All I feel certain of right now is this is still far from over and I'm really glad that Obama is president and not Mad McCain.

[More posts daily at The Detroit News]

The silent revolution

The protesters in Iran just knock me out. Their commitment, courage and the discipline it takes for hundreds of thousands to tacitly agree to march in silence is awe inspiring. It gives me goosebumps. I only wish Americans would take their example to heart. There's no reason we couldn't do this. We have much less to risk. Apparently the violence against the protesters is much greater in the more rural areas outside of Tehran but our government doesn't issue shoot to kill orders here.

Meanwhile, the political ramifications of the ongoing demonstrations become more interesting every day. From a emailer to Juan Cole:

As I mentioned in my previous email, today made it very clear that the dynamics of the movement are constantly evolving. From the first march where the only focus was on Mousavi/ people’s vote to Mousavi, today’s slogans touched on issues of freedom/justice/innocent people dying for a just cause. The posters of Mousavi of day one have given way to posters expressing deeper themes, and the deeper problems that exist in this country. “Democracy does not equal Dead Student”, “Stop Killing Us”, “We are not rioters”, “Silence is not acceptance”, “The key to victory: Calmness, Hope and Patience”.

If only we weren't so disgustingly complacent here, we could challenge the corruption in our own system too and very probably win. Sadly, Americans don't seem to put much value on the greater good as long they feel personally secure. In a way it's too bad we ousted the GOPers. If they were still in power, the country would be so thoroughly screwed up that it might have driven those who are now still comfortably off, into the streets too.


[More posts daily at The Detroit News]

Tehran still smouldering

I was busy with personal stuff today so I'm off to a late start but the big buzz is still about Iran. The only thing that seems clear to me at this point is that you can't depend on the major media to get the story straight. For instance, the WaPo piece at the top of Memeorandum claiming to "prove" Ahmadinejad might have really won the election in a landslide has already been rather thoroughly debunked by Juan Cole.

Meanwhile, the best up to the minute aggregation is going on at HuffPo, where Nico Pitney has been liveblogging for the last couple of days. He's updating constantly with tips from observers at the scene, photos and some excellent videos. Also I haven't been following Sully myself, but I've heard that he's been doing extensive coverage and has a post aggregating all his links.

I remain impressed with the courage and conviction of the Iranian protesters who are now risking their lives to continue their civil actions. Of course, fascinating as it is, the real question is what does it all mean for US policy. The way I see it, it doesn't matter so much whether the Ahmadilooney remains in power. I've seen some headlines suggesting he'll come out stronger from this, but I don't see how. It looks to me like his credibility with the hardliners has been diminished by his awkward handling of the situation and it's going to be difficult to rouse the masses into an anti-American fervor because Obama has already established he's reaching out in friendship to the Islamic community and has rejected the Bush regime's focus on imperialism. Tim F expands on that theme with a post well worth reading.

On a different note, I hear that Americans who want to show their support for the protesters are being encouraged to wear something green.

Update: One last thought, I'm really glad Obama is president and not McCain. The last thing the Iranians need is for the US to meddle in this.

[More posts daily at The Detroit News]

Tehran Burning

Michael Totten has the best video from the scene that I've run across yet. It looks like tens of thousands of Iranian youths have taken to the streets. They are so many, the government security officers are running away from them. And as Totten notes, they're not chanting "'Death to America' or 'Death to Israel,' but 'Death to the Government.'" As an aside here, I have to offer a belated apology to Totten. When he first quit his job to go report from the Middle East, I mocked him as just another right wing, warmongering hack looking to push the GOP propaganda and cash in on the gullible rubes. But although I think that he sometimes omits certain perspectives from his narratives to favor a more right wing view, in general he has evolved into a good and neutral reporter. I've been impressed with his work in the last year or so that I've started reading him again.

But back to the point, the government had blocked most avenues of electronic communication yesterday but they neglected to shut down Twitter and the Iranians used this "silly" social network to organize a huge rooftop protest. Reports say the shouts of "Allah O Akbar" were deafening at 4:00am and the action is being compared to the 1979 revolution.

Certainly the circumstantial evidence points to election fraud. Juan Cole has a list of weird anomalies and the huge margins for Ahmadinejad in Mousavi strongholds surely suggest a hasty hamfisted attempt to skew the count. Meanwhile, Steve Clemmons' source is predicting there will be blood at the highest levels." He's talking about the possible death of Mousavi or the assassination of Ahmadinejad and Khamenei.

Still too soon to predict the final outcome but as I watch this unfold I can't help but think how different the world would be today if Americans had shown this same level of outrage in 2000 and 2004 when our own election results were as seriously suspect. Otherwise, I don't have much more to say but of course, there's no lack of commentary at Memeorandum.

[More posts daily at The Detroit News]

Election Fallout in Iran

I can't say I'm surprised to hear the Ahmadilooney won Iran's election yesterday. The big question of course, is was the win legitimate? Considering the big build-up, a 2-1 margin on a first ballot seems a bit suspect to me.

The Guardian makes a case for the legitimacy of the vote, noting that outside Tehran the support for the government is strong. But reading The Lede's live coverage of the voting would also suggest that readiness for change was brewing more strongly than only within 30% of the voting population.

MyDD has a good roundup of links that are following the fraud allegations being made by the only viable losing candidate, Moussavi, and his supporters. I don't know enough about the integrity of the process there to say for sure, but my gut tells me that there was probably some manipulation. For one thing 538's analysis showed that it should have been closer and they're usually right on target. Granted they may have relied too much on western press coverage that is being widely said to have been too optimistic, but this is certainly odd if it's true.

U.S. analysts find it "not credible" that challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi would have lost the balloting in his hometown or that a third candidate, Mehdi Karoubi, would have received less than 1 percent of the total vote, a senior U.S. officials told FOX News.

Makes me wonder if they use touch screen balloting. In any event, I'm thinking the outcome isn't as significant to US interests as the reaction of the Iranian people will be. I'm already seeing some reports of protests in the streets. This story, as they say, is still developing. Much more commentary, as always, at Memorandum.

[More posts daily at The Detroit News]

A Last Throw of the Dice...?

I rarely read the US press anymore as I find that, when the biased reporting isn't downright outrageous, it is often just plain silly. It's also frequently behind the times. I read first about Tony Snow on the BBC Online. It was another hour before I saw the first article from a US source.

New Zealander, Bob Rigg, writing freelance for The Asia Times, sums up the US strategy in Iraq-Iran very nicely. In 13 paragraphs, his summary puts it in a perspective that even I might understand.

...architects of the Project for a New American Century, including luminaries such as John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.

The neo-conservative scenario was clear: a devastating military strike would knock out Iraq's powerful armed forces, and its population would welcome US liberators with open arms. The US would then immediately strike at Iran...Before the world could collect its wits, both Iraq and Iran would have been under direct US control. But the best laid plans of mice and men ...

He explains how the Middle Eastern countries, instead of kowtowing to the US since the invasion of Iraq, are doing exactly the opposite. They are flexing their muscles and becoming bolder.

...its [US] pre-eminence has been eroded by misguided neo-conservative adventures in the Middle East, and by the emergence of a new international constellation of powerful and assertive states, including in the region. Their assertiveness has increased in proportion to the decline in the political and moral standing of the US, which is now less in control of the world and the Middle East than at any time since the turn of the new century.

This entire master plan for control of Middle Eastern oil reserves, which has been in play and passed down from one administration to the next since the Shah, finally settled in the incapable hands of one George W. Bush. He surrounded himself with those who were already involved in the plan, indeed I'm sure they are the same ones who worked behind the scenes to insure his election, and he gave them free reign to finally complete it.

But now that the plan is falling apart, what with the Iraqi government demanding a timetable, the American public strongly against expansion, the economy going in the toilet while Bush continues to spend millions daily in Iraq, and the incompetence and impotence of the Bush White House, he is becoming desparate to make something happen before he leaves office. Or I should say, the powerful repubs who pull his strings, fearful that the Bush clone, McCain isn't going to pull off the election, are scrambling to position the US so there will appear to be no alternative other than war with Iran.

I think we better be careful in these final days of Bushco just what we believe about Iran, Iraq, Israel, Syria and everyone else in that region. The propoganda and fabrications are going to get heavy. I don't think ANY major decisions should be allowed in these final few months before the next president. The chances of Bush actually improving the situation are nil. He hasn't done one positive thing for the country yet. Don't believe he is going to start now.

Mom - he's threatening me!

By Capt. Fogg

Perhaps if we had not, like Dr. Pavlov's dogs, been trained to growl at the mention of Iran, we could perceive just a bit of cant in the news reports of Iranian pugnaciousness today.

Iran tests missiles, vows to hit back if attacked, shouts the Reuters report and similar headlines blare in the papers today. What would we do if we were threatened with attack? What would Canada do? Indeed what have we been doing but testing our weapons and threatening apocalyptic destruction on any who attack us?

Iran has some missiles with a 1200 mile range, but by all accounts they have only rudimentary guidance systems. The warheads of course are conventional explosives and without pinpoint accuracy, their overall effects would be far less than a Tomahawk cruise missile or two. Anyone they might be aimed at in anger has nuclear retaliatory capability and advanced multiple delivery systems. Iran would stand no chance in any conventional confrontation. Iran knows this very well.

I'm no fan of heavy-handed theocracies, but even a milquetoast with his back against the wall can be forgiven for saying "if you hit me I'll hit you back" as pathetic as it might sound. The only thing more pathetic is using that as an excuse to bully him further. Considering the anti Iran rhetoric, The West's history of meddling with their elected governments and our covert operations within their borders; considering our constant threats of annihilation, what would any country do? Indeed what can any country at odds with US desires do these days but cringingly comply with our increasingly bellicose demands to disarm and assume the position?

Whether or not Iran's current government is a substantial threat to us or to our allies, such as they are, by continuing to demonize and disrespect any country refusing to pledge fealty, we continue to cultivate our image as a brutal bully, concerned only with feeding our addictions and ego and completely confused as to why everyone hates us.

Cross posted from Human Voices

We can't wait

By Libby

Fat lot of good this will do after they bomb Iran. Impeach first, ask questions later. These cretins don't think like normal people. Hell, they don't even think like humans.

And speaking of sub-humans, Rush Limbaugh is still an asshole. But you knew that already. [mainly via]

Quick bytes - triple decker sandwich edition

By Libby

I've been plagued with an inexplicable fatigue this week and just can't quite get going in the mornings. I think it's the anxiety dreams I've been having. I sleep a lot but I never feel rested when I wake up. So while I'm trying to reach coherency levels, here's a some short videos to enlighten your day.

Via Avedon, I'm sure you've all heard about Bush's great sacrifice already, but this really puts it in perspective.

I also agree with her that John Edwards opening his endorsement of Obama by praising Hillary was a classy move. It makes me feel better about the chances of healing the rift between the two camps in time to mount a united offense against the truly offensive candidate in this race, McNasty McCain.

Meanwhile, I'm increasingly concerned that Bush and Cheney are going to bomb Iran before they skulk out of the Village. Spencer has a great video on this that ends with a link to an online petition to register your concern with your Congresslizards. Please take the thirty seconds to sign on and potentially save the world.

The lies of war

By Libby

I was cruising through my archives of unposted links and found these old ones I never deleted. Last year on this day we found out that the Bush administration didn't just lie to get us into this war, they lied to us about the war. At House hearings a soldier testified that he was ordered to lie about Pat Tillman's death and Jessica Lynch testified that the Pentagon lied about her capture and rescue.

In response to this and the Democrats publicly stating the Iraq occupation was a disaster, Tom DeLay, himself newly indicted for money laundering, the White House and the Very Serious Villagers who support them like "man of the people" David Broder accused anti-occupation Americans of treason.

Steve Benen, never at a loss for words, dug up the ultimate DeLay quote in response to that, an eloquent dissent on the war -- in Kosovo. It remains the perfect argument for leaving Iraq.

Who would have thought I would be looking back on these days with fondness now? Leftopia was such a nicer place when we were all working together to fight the machine instead of bickering over who gets to run it this time. I was thinking today that it's not so much that I hate this primary going on for so long, it's that I hate what it's doing to Leftopia. It's taking all the fun out of it.

Meanwhile, the war drums for Iran keep getting louder. While nearly everyone is poring over polls and running modeling to predict who is going to win six months from now, the White House is steadily building yet another deceitful narrative about imminent danger and quietly putting the players in place that could, and would, act on their lies. I wonder how much all those predictions will matter if the October surprise is a little air strike.

Could be

by Capt. Fogg

I guess the idea is to keep the lies coming so fast and furious that rebuttal is useless. I guess the idea is just to keep saying things, no matter how factually or logically untrue they might be so that the faithful will continue to have something to hold on to as the lies get shot down one by one.

Sure the administration has denied any connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein or that he had a nuclear weapons program or had chemical weapons factories and the means to deliver all that stuff to Festus Missouri in a suitcase, but they keep saying it anyway; they keep basing arguments on it and they keep getting people to believe their war was necessary.

The McClatchy website today quotes Bush as saying on a Radio Farda broadcast that Iran has "declared they want a nuclear weapon to destroy people" and that the Islamic Republic could be hiding a secret program. [italics mine] Of course they never actually declared any such thing and the phrase could be doesn't accompany the caveat that could be covers everything from the likely to the ludicrous. I could be the Easter Bunny. Saddam could have had invisible nuclear bomb factories and George Bush could be an honest man too.

"they've hidden programs in the past and they may be hiding one now. Who knows?" says Bush. The US has gone to war under false pretexts in the past and they may do it again, say I.

If George Bush had not turned the nuclear inspection program in Iraq into a passion play we would not have had this war and it could be that we could have contained Saddam quite well at a ten thousandth of the cost, which would have allowed him to continue to keep al Qaeda out of Iraq and us to concentrate on crippling the group that planned the 9/11 attack rather than the economy and our civil liberties. Could have - it's a fun game. You can do almost anything.

Cross posted from Human Voices

Hold the crow

By Libby

My friend Joe Tobacco says he's a southern Democrat. I'm not sure what that means. I stopped reading him for a while because when he started getting a lot of links from Insty and Malkin and the other big fringers, his posts started sounding a little like they were playing to that choir. But he seems to have settled back into moderation again and I've been checking in more regularly. He asks if those of us who predicted that Bush would bomb Iran and who posit that the Deciderer might decide it's in the interests of national security not to vacate the office are embarrassed now? I told him I would be happy to be embarrassed but I wouldn't be dining on crow until 1-20-09, thanks all the same.

I'm looking forward to a heaping helping on that day and I'll swallow it gladly, but in the interim Avedon flagged this interesting Freudian slip at the WaPo.

That is the problem Bush faces as he prepares to deliver his seventh and probably final State of the Union address tonight.

It seems the seeds of doubt are planted in unexpected places and like the corpse lily, one never knows where or when they might bloom.

The Hormuz Hoax, part II

By Capt. Fogg

George W. Bush wants a war with Iran so badly that I have to be suspicious of any news item that relates to Iranian matters, particularly when the information comes from the US government. When I first heard the mysterious voice saying

"I am coming to you ... You will explode in a few minutes."

something sounded wrong about it. It's not only that the voice seemed to be putting on a deliberately thick accent, it certainly wasn't coming from a speed boat pounding through the swells at 30 knots or more as the video seemed to indicate; no effect on the voice of the impact of the hull against the water, no background noise of roaring engines or wind. I spend a lot of time on the radio, both from my boat and from my amateur station. I can tell the difference. It's unusual, but not unknown for such behavior to be found on the Amateur Radio bands and less often on the police and public service bands. On CB radio, it's almost standard procedure. When such people are identified, the punishment can be rather severe and the perpetrators are very often teens who are using dad's radio equipment when he's not around. Of course the VHF marine channels used by everything from pleasure boats to battleships are not immune to abuse.

Now the Navy Times is blaming the incident on a mysterious pirate radio operator or operators who have been doing just this sort of thing on the Marine VHF channel 16 for decades at all hours of the day and night. It seems in fact, to be happening all over the world and is often attributed to the mythical "Filipino Monkey." Someone with a radio on shore or on another ship gets his kicks from listening to conversations, interrupting with obscenities and making threats. According to many radiomen, female voices on the radio often elicit vulgar comments from these people. All ships and most boats are required to monitor channel 16 and so it is difficult to claim that the transmission was intended for one vessel or another and impossible to know where it originated, particularly in crowded shipping lanes like the straights of Hormuz. Such radios can be bought at any marine supply store without having to show any identification or license.

We were shown the audio and video of the boats simultaneously said Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead, because “ it gives you a better idea of what is happening” not because there is really any evidence that the voice came from the boats. Can it be that we have just narrowly escaped fulfilling Bush's dream of a massive air attack on Iran using this random and meaningless incident as an excuse? We've been fooled in just this way before at the cost of millions of lives and we have a president with a record of fooling us again and again.

Cross posted from Human Voices