United for Peace of Pierce County, WA - We nonviolently oppose the reliance on unilateral military actions rather than cooperative diplomacy.

The tail is wagging the dog and the dog can't decide what to do about it.  --  "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told Israeli leaders Jan. 20 that the United States would not participate in a war against Iran begun by Israel without prior agreement from Washington, according to accounts from well-placed senior military officers," Gareth Porter reported for IPS on Wednesday, citing "a military source" who "got it" from "active and retired senior flag officers".[1]  --  On Thursday, David Ignatius of the Washington Post wrote that U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta "believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June."[2]  --  According to Ignatius, "the White House hasn’t yet decided precisely how the United States would respond if the Israelis do attack."  --  On Thursday, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said:  "[T]here is a wide global understanding that Iran must be prevented from becoming nuclear and . . . that in the event that sanctions won’t reach the intended result of stopping the military nuclear program, there will be need to consider action," the Associated Press reported.[3]  --  The occasion for this warmongering was a "strategy conference" in the "posh seaside suburb" of Herzliya, where, for the first time, Israeli Vice Premier Moshe Yaalon, head of the strategic affairs ministry and a former commander of the military, said that "Iran’s attempt to develop 6,250-mile missiles [enough to reach the U.S.] became apparent in the aftermath of a mysterious explosion several months ago at what he described as a missile research and development site in Iran," Karin Laub said.  --  Regarding this outlandish claim, "American officials questioned its accuracy," the New York Times reported Friday.[4]  --  Oh, and by the way, a Big Lie is still a lie.  --  It bears repeating that, as John Glaser patiently explained on Jan. 28:  "there’s no evidence [an Iranian nuclear weapons] program exists."[5] ...

The U.S. has pulled out of Iraq and has announced it is pulling back in Afghanistan, but is its policy to reculer pour mieux sauter?  --  On Wednesday a "bipartisan" task force dominated by Iran hawks issued a 76-page report arguing that "Washington should increase its naval deployments to Gulf, scale up the frequency and size of its military exercises there, and augment the offensive strike capabilities of its Gulf Arab allies, in order to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear program," Jim Lobe reported for IPS.[1]  --  The belligerent report outlined a war plan for the U.S., urging that "an initial U.S. military attack should target Iranian communications systems and air-defense and missile sites, facilities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Iranian and IRGC navies, sites related to Iran's missile and biological or chemical weapons programs, munitions storage facilities, and airfields, aircraft, and helicopters on the ground or in the air.  If, as a result of retaliation by Tehran or its allies in the region, it was deemed necessary to escalate the conflict, Washington should expand its target list to include Iranian tanks and artillery units, power generation plants, and electrical grids, transportation infrastructure, and manufacturing plants and refineries."  --  BACKGROUND:  The Bipartisan Policy Center has been pushing aggression against Iran for some time.  --  The director of its National Security Initiative is Michael Makovsky, who is also the center's foreign policy director.  --  Makovsky, with a MBA in finance from Columbia Business School and a Ph.D. in diplomatic history from Harvard, is a prominent neoconservative; in 2007 Yale UP published his book on Winston Churchill's relation to Zionism, entitled Churchill's Promised Land.  --  Makovsky worked for Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres after graduating from college, took Israeli citizenship after finishing his education in the U.S., and has served in the Israeli military.  --  He also worked in Paul Wolfowitz's and Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans in the run-up to the Iraq war.  --  Justin Raimondo devoted a column to Michael Makovsky and the Bipartisan Policy Center in 2009.[2] ...

"More than 100,000 U.S. troops waging a fierce counterinsurgency against a resurgent Taliban will end combat operations in Afghanistan in 2013 -- a year earlier than planned," Canada's Globe and Mail reported Tuesday.[1]  --  The Los Angeles Times said the intention behind the announcement, made by U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on the eve of a NATO summit in Brussels, was "to head off a push by allies to pull out their forces more quickly."[2]  --  Bloomberg indicated that the decision came despite (or perhaps because of?) a recent (classified) National Intelligence Estimate according to which "the Taliban remain resilient and determined to re-impose their brand of harsh Islamic rule on the country, and that Afghan forces and the civilian government are still plagued by corruption and ineffectiveness."[3]  --  The New York Times called Panetta's announcement "a major milestone toward ending a decade of war in Afghanistan."[4]  --  Elisabeth Bumiller noted that "The United States and other NATO countries support [ISAF] forces at a cost of around $6 billion a year, but financial crises in Europe are causing countries to balk at the bill." ...

The development of the euro crisis is turning the 2012 French presidential election into a referendum on an undemocratic fiscal union pact that would impose austerity "debt brakes" on the constitutions of euro zone countries and which would, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was good enough to point out, "be binding and valid forever.  Never will you be able to change them through a parliamentary majority," the London Telegraph reported Monday.[1]  --  "But while signed by President Sarkozy, the new treaty, signed by all E.U. countries except Britain and the Czechs, will not be ratified by French MPs before presidential elections in April."  --  And the candidate now favored to win the French presidency, Socialist François Hollande, has "declared his intention to tear up the agreement" because "the new treaty will outlaw Socialist plans for higher spending."  --  If France were to fail to ratify the fiscal pact, it would certainly break down, "because the country is the euro's second-largest economy and has a track record of high public spending.  'Without France changing its constitution in the name of fiscal discipline, why would any else in the euro?' said an E.U. diplomat."  --  As Honor Mahony pointed out on an E.U. Observer blog, for Angela Merkel "The debt brake is the major domestic hook" that enables the German leader to maintain political support for her controversial policies at home.[2]  --  But the undemocratic diktat imposed on other countries by Berlin is inevitably "alienating her E.U. allies."  --  "She appears to be reaching the outer limits of good will," Mahony said after Monday's E.U. summit in Brussels.  --  Even the Financial Times of London, which is generally supportive, took umbrage at the "political crassness" of a German proposal to empower an E.U. commissioner to overrule Greek decisions on taxation and public spending:  "There is truth in the German view of fiscal discipline. But it is not the whole truth, nor nothing but the truth. . . . [Athens's] warning against forcing a choice between help and national dignity is one all should heed."[3]  --  The clearest statement we've seen of what is going on was posted on the WSWS website:  The E.U. fiscal treaty means that "Governments will essentially be denied the possibility of ameliorating the deepening social crisis through fiscal measures.  Instead, in order to ensure the repayment of their debts to the banks, they will be forced to take draconian deficit reduction measures, primarily by slashing spending on welfare provisions, education, housing, infrastructure, public sector employment, pensions, and health care."[4]  --  "The summit had been preceded by a propaganda campaign by European leaders who promised substantial financing for economic stimulus and job creation," Stefan Steinberg noted.  --  "On Monday, it was announced that unemployment across the continent had reached its highest level since the introduction of the euro." ...

On Saturday, February 4, 2012, a Northwest Regional March and Rally for Clemency for Leonard Peltier will take place in Tacoma.  --  A march will begin from Portland Ave. Park at 12:00 noon, followed by a 1:00 p.m. rally at the Federal Court House in downtown Tacoma (1717 Pacific Ave.).  --  More details below.[1] ...

On Sunday the New York Times profiled Gingrich supporter Sheldon Adelson, (the 78-year-old Adelson and his 66-year-old wife Israeli wife have given the former House speaker and candidate for the Republican presidential nomination $17 million so far).  --  Adelson is a "Las Vegas casino magnate" who is "worth as much as $22 billion, presides over a global empire of casinos, hotels, and convention centers whose centerpiece is the Venetian in Las Vegas," Mike McIntire and Michael Luo said.[1]  --  They described Adelson as "a formidable and determined striver who lifted himself out of childhood penury in working-class Boston," a man both sentimental and generous but whose "rise has not been without controversy" (e.g. a lawsuit in which his two sons accused him of cheating them, a lawsuit that bankrupted a Las Vegas newspaper columnist who criticized Adelson, a lawsuit against a former employee he accused of spreading lies about him, suspicions of corrupt payments to foreign officials, etc.  --  In politics, Adelson is far to the right, opposing labor unions and favoring oil interests.  --  He is also a "fervent Zionist who opposes any territorial compromise to make way for a Palestinian state" and has a "hawkish outlook" like his "close friend," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, McIntire and Luo said.  --  Adelson also owns an Israeli newspaper that has been used to tout Newt Gingrich's calls for aggression against Iran, the New York Times noted in an earlier article.[2]  --  "[W]hen Mr. Gingrich declared in a December interview that Palestinians are an 'invented' people -- meaning they had no historical claim to have their own state and that they remain committed to destroying Israel -- it inspired a new round of enthusiasm for him among [i.e. donations to him from] many conservative American Jews," Nicholas Confessore and Eric Lipton said.  --  Whether Americans who call themselves "social conservatives" are so naive that they cannot see through a billionaire casino owner bankrolling an American candidate because he supports Israeli warmongering in the name of morality, as a New York Times blog piece on Sunday suggested,[3] remains to be seen....

The IAEA inspection team that arrived in Iran on Sunday "is likely to visit an underground enrichment site near the holy city of Qom, 80 miles south of Tehran, which is carved into a mountain as protection from possible airstrikes," the Associated Press reported.[1]  --  AFP reported that "The official IRNA news agency reported the mission would go to Fordo, but there was no IAEA confirmation."[2] ...

Iran's parliament is expected to vote Sunday on a bill immediately banning crude oil sales to Europe, AP reported Saturday.[1]  --  Reuters said such a law "could halt exports of oil to the European Union as early as next week."[2]  --  Iran's Press TV reported that an Iranian "lawmaker said the bill may undergo further modifications as some Iranian parliamentarians believe that oil exports to E.U. should be stopped for five years."[3]  --  The New York Times said Friday that Iran had also "advised Arab oil producers that any attempt by them to replace Iranian exports would be considered unfriendly."[4]  --  "International oil markets appeared to shrug off the news, with benchmark prices changing little," Rick Gladstone said.  --  But Voice of Russia, Russia's state radio service, reported Saturday that "The IMF predicts a 20-30% increase in the cost of oil" and said that "Europe might be facing quite a headache as its oil refineries were designed to refine Iranian oil, and what’s more, a particular brand of it."[5]  --  According to the London Financial Times, however, some analysts say "any ban should have little overall impact on global oil markets, which are currently well-supplied -- partly thanks to the quick recovery in Libyan production over the last few months."[6]  --  "Analysts say the biggest casualty of an immediate ban could be Iran itself, which will be forced to find alternative markets for about 600,000 barrels a day of exports, or about a quarter of the Middle East’s total oil exports," Najmeh Bozorgmehr and Guy Chazan said.  --  According to a Reuters analysis published Thursday, there may even be more oil available in 2012 as a result of the standoff, with "downward pressure on prices," though European refiners are expected to suffer.[7]  --  In part, this may result from an Iranian suspension of oil deliveries to Europe due under buyback contracts, according to which investments in oil field projects are paid back in oil.  --  Ahmad Qalebani, the head of the National Iranian Oil Co., said that Iran would suspend delivery of oil under buyback contracts, thus hurting European oil companies, Reuters said.[8]  --  For example, "Italy's Eni says it is owed $1.4-1.5 billion in oil for contracts in Iran dating from 2000 and 2001."  --  The E.U. sanctions against Iran's oil had exempted such shipments....

In a remarkable educational video posted on YouTube, economist Robert Reich, formerly Secretary of Labor (1993-1997), debunked seven endlessly repeated falsehoods concerning the U.S. economy and budgetary policy.[1]  --  COMMENT:  You gotta love this guy! ...

Having decided that its 30,000-pound bunker-buster bomb is too small to bomb Iran, the Pentagon is "stepping up efforts to make it more powerful," the Wall Street Journal reported Saturday.[1]  --  "[T]he Pentagon deems the MOP upgrades to be a matter of some urgency," Adam Entous and Julian E. Barnes said.  --  This month a request was submitted to Congress "for funding to enhance the bomb's ability to penetrate deeper into rock, concrete, and steel before exploding." --  (Currently, the "20.5 foot-long [bunker buster] carries over 5,300 pounds of explosive material.  It is designed to penetrate up to 200 feet underground before exploding.")  --  So far about $330m has been spent on building "about 20" of these ultra-large bunker busters, which are made by Boeing, and the Pentagon now wants to spend $30m more.  --  In an interview with the *Wall Street Journal* Thursday, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said "that he expected the bomb to be ready to take on the deepest bunkers soon."  --  "Boeing received a contract in 2009 to fit the weapon on the U.S.'s B-2 Stealth Bomber.  The Air Force began receiving the first of the bombs in September, a time of growing tensions with Iran.  The Air Force has so far contracted to buy 20 of the bombs, and more deliveries are expected in 2013, after additional tests are made."  --  A "former senior U.S. official who is an expert on Iran" said that "some Pentagon war planners believe conventional bombs won't be effective against Fordow and that a tactical nuclear weapon may be the only military option if the goal is to destroy the facility.  'Once things go into the mountain, then really you have to have something that takes the mountain off,' the official said."  --  BACKGROUND:  According to ABC News, the Pentagon requested funds for developing the bunker buster in 2007, and then requested more funds for procuring and testing four of the bombs in 2009, with more funds allocated to adapting it to the B-2 stealth bomber.  --  In 2010, Scotland's Sunday Herald reported that "Hundreds of powerful U.S. 'bunker-buster' bombs are being shipped from California to the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for a possible attack on Iran"; these were smaller bombs, weighing up to 2,000 pounds each.  --  In late 2009, the Obama administration send 55 5,000-pound GBU-28 bunker busters to Israel (this was first reported by Newsweek and later independently confirmed by a diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks)....

On Wednesday a long article that will appear in Sunday's New York Times Magazine was posted online.  --  In it, Ronen Bergman, a writer Yedioth Ahronoth and author of The Secret War With Iran wrote:  "After speaking with many senior Israeli leaders and chiefs of the military and the intelligence, I have come to believe that Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012."[1]  --  Bergman cited Matthew Kroenig, Stanton nuclear security fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and special adviser in the Pentagon from July 2010 to July 2011, as authority for the assertion that "United States has asked Israel not to attack Iran and to provide Washington with notice if it intends to strike.  Israel responded negatively to both requests.  It refused to guarantee that it will not attack or to provide prior notice if it does.”  --  COMMENT:  This article appears to sympathize with those who oppose an Israeli attack on Iran, but it accepts the premises of those who favor such an attack.  --  In the very first paragraph of the article, Ehud Barak's assertion that "The Iranians are, after all, a nation whose leaders have set themselves a strategic goal of wiping Israel off the map," which is false, stands uncontradicted.  --  In fact, not only did the president of Iran never say this, the words he did say alluded to something said by the Ayatollah Khomeini: “Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." --  This means: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."  --  Arash Norouzi, co-founder of the Mossadegh Project, who calls the notion that Ahamdinejad declared that Israel “must be wiped off the map” the “rumor of the century.”   --  He points out that Khomeini and Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime, which, he says, “is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map.  --  In 2006, Jonathan Steele published a refutation of this persistent Big Lie in the London Guardian, which Prof. Juan Cole of the Univ. of Michigan praised as "a good piece."  --  And in an article posted on the CounterPunch web site, Prof. Viriginia Tilley, an associate professor of political science at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, New York, analyzed the propadanda device, noting that, “Iran is not threatening Israel with destruction.  Iran's president has not threatened any action against Israel. . . . By the logic that dominates Western mainsteam coverage of Ahmadinejad, every momento mori would constitute a murder threat."  --  Ironically, the world press has devoted much more attention to whether the Iranian president said that Israel should be "wiped off the map" than to the many Palestinian villages that actually have been wiped off the map....

In a column published Wednesday in the London Independent, Robert Fisk reviewed the "Israeli version" of the history Iran's nuclear program.  --  He noted while a number of Israeli leaders claim Iran is on the verge of possessing nuclear weapons, "reporters do not mention that Shimon Peres, as Israeli Prime Minister, said exactly the same thing in 1996.  That was 16 years ago.  And we do not recall that the current Israeli PM, Benjamin Netanyahu, said in 1992 that Iran would have a nuclear bomb by 1999."[1]  --  Moreover,  "when Ayatollah Khomeini . . . took over Iran in 1979, he ordered the entire nuclear project to be closed down because it was 'the work of the Devil.'  Only when Saddam invaded Iran -- with our Western encouragement -- and started using poison gas against the Iranians (chemical components arriving from the West, of course) was Khomeini persuaded to reopen it."  --  BACKGROUND:  These assertions are supported by Gordon Corera's Shopping for Bombs (Oxford UP, 2006), where we read:  "[A]fter the revolution in 1979 and the overthrow of the Shah, the nuclear program fizzled -- Iran's new leader Ayatollah Khomenei rejected contact with the West, including science and technology, and saw nuclear weapons as the work of the devil and un-Islamic.  The Shah's half built facilities began to rust.  The contracts for nuclear technology and construction were cancelled and a brain drain began, as educated professionals and scientists headed for the West.  Before 1979 the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran was estimated to have employed more than forty-five hundred scientists, but soon after the revolution that figure was down to only eight hundred.  Sensing the new regime's weakness, Iraq's leader Saddam Hussein launched an attack on Iran in September 1980. . . . Iraq began to deploy chemical weapons . . . In all, Iraq would use more than one hundred thousand bombs, rockets, and shells armed with chemicals during the eight-year war.  In response, Iran began to develop its own chemical weapons program.  And at the same time, it began to look once more at the nuclear option" (p. 61).  --  Gordon Corera is a BBC correspondent....

Depending on your source, the embargo on Iranian oil imports imposed Monday by the E.U., which will take full effect in July, are a "hope of reducing the risk of a military strike against Iran, probably by Israel,"[1], "part of efforts to ratchet up pressure on the Persian Gulf nation’s nuclear program,"[2], or an "embargo" that is "an act of economic war that heightens the danger of a slide into military hostilities in the Persian Gulf."[3]  --  But since an Iranian state-owned company holds a 10% stake in a natural-gas project in the Caspian Sea, BP is slated to get an exemption from U.S. sanctions because the sanctions aren't supposed to affect efforts "to bring gas from Azerbaijan to Europe and Turkey" or to affect Europe's "energy security and independence from Russia" — are you following this?  —  the Wall Street Journal said.[4]  --  COMMENT:  It's beginning to look to us (though what do we know?) like some people somewhere have decided that now (i.e. the near future) is the time to do in the allied régimes in Syria and Iran.  --  Everyone knows that that's been a goal of the U.S. national security state for a very long time, and we get the feeling that some people somewhere have decided that the stars are not going to align themselves any better than they already have to permit this to come about.  --  So little by little the pieces and the people appear to be moving into place to make this happen.  --  Didn't we read just the other day that "The U.S. is considering closing its embassy in Damascus amid concerns about the security of the staff there"? ...

Reviewing the events of 2011, Human Rights Watch's annual world report, released Sunday, concluded that Iraq is intensifying a harsh crackdown on freedom of expression and assembly.[1]  --  The organization's Middle East director said the country "is quickly slipping back into authoritarianism."[1]  --  “Despite U.S. government assurances that it helped create a stable democracy," she said, "the reality is that it left behind a budding police state.”  --  Reporting on the statement, the Associated Press refrained from mentioning the fact that the U.S. called its war in Iraq "Operation Iraqi Freedom" -- indeed, it never mentioned the war at all.  --  But AP did report that "'Iraqis are quickly losing ground on the most basic of rights, including the right to free speech and assembly,' said Samer Muscati, an Iraq researcher for [Human Rights Watch].  'Nowadays, every time someone attends a peaceful protest, they put themselves at risk of attack and abuse by security forces or their proxies.'"[2] ...

On Saturday U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told sailors on the USS Enterprise ("the Big E") heading (in March, with the other ships in its "strike group") for the Persian Gulf that the U.S. is committed to maintaining eleven aircraft carriers despite budgetary pressures, the Associated Press reported.[1]  --  "The USS Enterprise, which is based in Norfolk, Va., was built 50 years ago as the first nuclear-powered carrier, and is now the oldest active duty ship in America's Naval fleet.  The ship's upcoming deployment will be its 22nd and final tour, after which it is scheduled to be deactivated.  It is being replaced by the USS Gerald R. Ford, which is the first in a new class of technologically advanced carriers.  There will be about a 33-month gap before the Ford is commissioned, but Congress has granted a waiver allowing the Navy to drop to 10 carriers for that period of time," because "Congress . . . has passed a law requiring the Defense Department to maintain 11 of the ships."  --  AP said that Panetta would spend the night on the carrier.  --  Reuters, which calls the Persian Gulf "the Gulf," said that "Panetta's trip to the Enterprise came as its strike group ran drills confronting a hostile, hypothetical nation named 'Garnet.'"[2]  --  The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA) said Panetta promised whatever the budget "cuts," the U.S. military would "remain capable of taking on any aggressor and focused on the Middle East, all while adding renewed focus in the Pacific."[3]  --  BACKGROUND:  In addition to the eleven nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, each carrying about 5,680 personnel and 85-90 aircraft, the U.S. Navy also maintains nine other amphibious assault ships that can be used as aircraft carriers:  the USS Peleliu (carrying 2,805 personnel, 6 attack planes, 29 helicopters), and eight Wasp-class vessels (designed to carry 1,208 personnel, a contingent of 1,894 marines, 6-20 attack aircraft, and 20-42 helicopters): the USS Wasp, the USS Essex, the USS Kearsarge, the USS Boxer, the USS Bataan, the USS Bonhomme Richard, the USS Iwo Jima, and the USS Makin Island.  --  In 2012, all are currently in active service.  --  Construction of the first of a new class of aircraft carriers (Ford-class) began in 2007 at Newport News and the completion of the USS Gerald R. Ford is planned for 2015.  --  So far two others (each costing about $9bn) have been authorized for construction.  --  COMMENT:  No other nation's military maintains more than two aircraft carriers....

Soldiers from the U.S. and other coalition countries "are being killed in increasing numbers by the very Afghan soldiers they fight alongside and train, in attacks motivated by deep-seated animosity between the supposedly allied forces," the New York Times reported Friday.[1]  --  A new coalition report (originally distributed as unclassified, later changed to classified, but still, apparently, accessible on the Internet) "makes clear that these killings have become the most visible symptom of a far deeper ailment plaguing the war effort : the contempt each side holds for the other, never mind the Taliban," Matthew Rosenberg said.  --  In fact, the report "played down the role of Taliban infiltrators in the killings" and called the problem one the "magnitude of which may be unprecedented between ‘allies’ in modern military history."  --  Thus despite official condemnations, "chat-room and Facebook posts by Marines and their supporters were full of praise for the desecration" of Taliban bodies that came to light last week....

On Wed., Jan. 25, from 7:00 p.m to 8:30 p.m., the World Affairs Council of Tacoma will inaugurate a new Travel Talk program with a presentation by Prof. Patrick O'Neil of the University of Puget Sound on "Understanding Iran."[1]  --  Prof. O'Neil's talk will take place at the Varsity Grill in downtown Tacoma.[1]  --  This event is free and open to the public; food and beverages will be available for purchase....

In dramatic testimony published Thursday and translated below, two Swiss reporters who accompanied Gilles Jacquier, the French journalist who died on Jan. 11 in Syria, gave an account of the mysterious circumstances of his death in Thursday's Le Courrier (Geneva), translated below.[1,2,3,4,5,6] ...

"Striking down the judicial precedent that established the legal supremacy of right over wrong more than two centuries ago, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned Right v. Wrong," the Onion reported Wednesday.[1] ...

Emanuele Ottolenghi, 42, who has a Ph.D. in political science from Jerusalem University and taught Israel Studies at the Oxford Center for Hebrew and Jewish Studies and at the Middle East Centre of St. Antony's College, Oxford University, before moving first to the AJC-founded Transatlantic Institute and then to the neoconservative think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, is an Iran hawk and an important advocate of the economic war currently being waged against Iran.  --  On Tuesday this friend of Michael Ledeen urged readers of the Wall Street Journal not to "believe Iran's hype" about escalation in the Persian Gulf and instead to celebrate "the ultimate weapon in the Western sanctions toolkit," viz. Iran's being "squeezed out of the oil market without a significant long-term spike in oil prices."[1]  --   "Tehran, in other words, has no arrows left in its quiver," he said.  --  "Iran's economy critically depends on oil exports. . . . Iran's fragile and deteriorating circumstances -- rampant inflation, currency in free-fall and high unemployment, just to mention a few problems Tehran cannot control -- make the regime very vulnerable to such measures.  In particular, an oil embargo could destabilize the regime by unleashing a domestic backlash susceptible to revive a beleaguered internal opposition."  --  BACKGROUND:  The prospect of the collapse of the Islamic Republic has been a perennial object of delectation for neoconservatives like Ottolenghi.  --  In his Iran: The Looming Crisis: Can the West Live with Iran's Nuclear Threat? (Profile Books, 2010), Ottolenghi wrote that "sanctions should be integrated into a broader effort aimed at helping Iran's domestic opposition to oust the regime."  --  In October 2010, in a piece called “Free Iran,” he commiserated with the Iranians affected:  “As the weight of economic sanctions begins to crush Iran's economy, it is more important than ever that we reach out to ordinary Iranians to let them know that our disagreement is with the regime, not the people, and that their freedom is the best guarantee for our security . . . For too long, Western democracies have spoken to the regime as if its oppressed subjects did not matter.  The time has come to speak directly to the people of Iran and promise them that their human rights will be our cause too."  --  Or, as Lewis Carroll put it:  "'O Oysters, come and walk with us!' / The Walrus did beseech. / 'A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk, / Along the briny beach: / We cannot do with more than four, / To give a hand to each.' / The eldest Oyster looked at him, / But never a word he said: / The eldest Oyster winked his eye, / And shook his heavy head -- / Meaning to say he did not choose / To leave the oyster-bed. / But four young Oysters hurried up, / All eager for the treat: / Their coats were brushed, their faces washed, / Their shoes were clean and neat -- / And this was odd, because, you know, / They hadn't any feet. / Four other Oysters followed them, / And yet another four; / And thick and fast they came at last, / And more, and more, and more -- / All hopping through the frothy waves, / And scrambling to the shore. / The Walrus and the Carpenter / Walked on a mile or so, / And then they rested on a rock / Conveniently low: / And all the little Oysters stood / And waited in a row. / 'The time has come,' the Walrus said, / 'To talk of many things: / Of shoes -- and ships -- and sealing-wax -- / Of cabbages -- and kings -- / And why the sea is boiling hot -- / And whether pigs have wings.' / 'But wait a bit,' the Oysters cried, / 'Before we have our chat; / For some of us are out of breath, / And all of us are fat!' / 'No hurry!' said the Carpenter. / They thanked him much for that. / 'A loaf of bread,' the Walrus said, / 'Is what we chiefly need: / Pepper and vinegar besides / Are very good indeed -- / Now if you're ready, Oysters dear, / We can begin to feed.' / 'But not on us!' the Oysters cried, / Turning a little blue. / 'After such kindness, that would be / A dismal thing to do!' / 'The night is fine,' the Walrus said. / 'Do you admire the view? / It was so kind of you to come! / And you are very nice!' / The Carpenter said nothing but / 'Cut us another slice: / I wish you were not quite so deaf -- / I've had to ask you twice!' / 'It seems a shame,' the Walrus said, / 'To play them such a trick, / After we've brought them out so far, / And made them trot so quick!' / The Carpenter said nothing but / 'The butter's spread too thick!' / 'I weep for you,' the Walrus said: / 'I deeply sympathize.' / With sobs and tears he sorted out / Those of the largest size, / Holding his pocket-handkerchief / Before his streaming eyes. / 'O Oysters,' said the Carpenter, / 'You've had a pleasant run! / Shall we be trotting home again?' / But answer came there none -- / And this was scarcely odd, because / They'd eaten every one." ...