From the ABC

Iran to spend millions foiling US 'meddling'
Iran's Parliament has approved spending $13.6 million to counter what it calls "plots and acts of meddling" by the United States.
The Parliament's action is in response to the US administration, which has recently set aside $75 million for what it calls "advancing democracy in Iran".
A commentary by Iran's state-run news agency said the US money is for conducting psychological warfare and funding what it calls "tools of espionage" against Iran.
The Parliament has now approved a budget of almost $13.6 million in next year's Budget.
It said the money will be spent to help foil plots and act of meddling by the US.
It is not clear how the money will be spent.

Gus note:
Sabre Foundation (US )
Sabre has made great strides in extending its book donation programs in the Islamic.... etc...

From the BBC

New 'cold war' looms with Iran

By Paul Reynolds
World Affairs Correspondent, BBC News website

The United States is developing the concept of a "cold war" with Iran.

Iran has taken a more hardline stance since Ahmadinejad's election

It would be a third way between trying to engage with the hard-line government there and attacking its nuclear facilities with the risk of major conflict.

The idea is that regime or policy change could be effected by the Iranian people themselves.

However such a cold war might turn into a hot war if Washington decided this approach would not stop Iran from developing the technology needed for a nuclear bomb.

Shift in UK approach

Britain is paying a supporting but limited role, with the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw making a major speech on Iran saying: "Iran is going in the wrong direction" and "Iran and the Iranian people deserve better."

He said: "Our message is that we want the Iranian people to enjoy the benefits of civil nuclear power and we support their aspirations for a freer, more democratic and prosperous Iran."

etc, read more at the BBC

From the NY Times

By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: March 16, 2006
WASHINGTON, March 15 — An updated version of the Bush administration's national security strategy, the first in more than three years, gives no ground on the decision to order a pre-emptive attack on Iraq in 2003, and identifies Iran as the country likely to present the single greatest future challenge to the United States.

The strategy document declares that American-led diplomacy to halt Iran's program to enrich nuclear fuel "must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided," a near final draft of the document says. But it carefully avoids spelling out what steps the United States might take if diplomacy fails, and it makes no such direct threat of confrontation with North Korea, which boasts that it has already developed nuclear weapons.

When asked about the omission in an interview today, Stephen J. Hadley, President Bush's national security adviser and the principal author of the new report, said "the sentence applies to both Iran and North Korea."

Yes Gus, the boy lunatic is still at it.

Perhaps the rest of the world should adopt his doctrine of "pre-emtion"? 

"Iran Threatens U.S. Interests"

is one of the headlines on the Washington Post web site...

If one reads the small print one sees:
"Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says the United States' global interests will suffer if his nation is attacked.
– Molly Moore and Fred Barbash 10:48 a.m. ET"

Errr.... then when one opens the article

"""Khamenei: Iran Will Harm U.S. Interests if Attacked
By Molly Moore and Fred Barbash
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 26, 2006; 10:48 AM

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, today threatened to harm U.S. interests "worldwide" if the United States launches an attack.

In a meeting with a group of workers reported by IRNA, the Iranian wire service, Khamenei said the "U.S. administration should know that they will suffer two times if they dare to inflict any damage on Iranian interests."""
read more overthere
-----------------
Yes, "Ourmedia" knows how to manipulate the headlines to psychologically push us out of the legitimacy of the information. The "tit-for-tat" is clear, but "Ourmedia" makes sure the "tit" always comes first as the guilty one...
And the underlying tone is: How dare he to threaten our goodies when we're about to cook his goose? (mixed metaphors, but who cares).

Whoa, I have become less annoyed at the dummy clowning routine of the US administration. I have seen the pulsing light at the end of its red nose, and the stupid propeller on top of its silly hat is actually spinning in the wind. I smile.

As North Korea has agreed in principle to dismantling its nuclear capability, I cannot be anything else but "surprised". Mind you, we already get the Rices of this world, jumping on the table and doing a pole dancing routine, claiming that "we" succeeded by patient, clear and tough diplomacy in which we try not to enforce a regime change but a change of attitude in the regime — like in Libya. Good for you I thought, but there she confirms and proves my point that I have tooted all along, way before the war in Iraq — that proper negotiations are better than wrecking the furniture.

Then, I cannot help but think that the Chinese would have done most of the negotiations, while the Yanks would have done most of the talking. The Japanese would have been cautious, not to say something contentious. If the Russians were there, they simply watched the wind blow.

Then, I cannot help but think that, having dealt with Iraq the way they did, the Yanks may have put a seven of spades up their sleeve, while they bluffed with a two, a four and two threes (see cartoon at top of this line of blogs) in hand.

I thought North Korea, not oblivious to the mess Iraq is now, may have chosen not so much to avoid a full-blown conflict, which they did not want, even if it could be a way to capture glory in defeat, but decided to avoid being molested by the US with the inevitable ensuing lingering mess presented to the world as a fine example of crap in Iraq. And the benefit they are getting is not dissimilar to the previous administrations deal, with a smile and a pat on back from the biggest bully. What else can one want?

And then I woke up...
---------------
From the Guardian
"But it immediately stirred up the wrath of neo-conservative politicians in Washington, who believe the US conceded too much, and the scepticism of Asian diplomats, who say the most difficult decisions about de-nuclearisation have yet to be made.

The initial phase of the deal is an attempt to wind back the nuclear clock on the peninsular to the situation that existed until 2002, when the last agreement broke down.

Potential problems also loom over North Korea's abduction of Japanese citizens in the 1970s and 80s. Leaders in Tokyo said they support the nuclear deal and, over the next 60 days, have promised to start talks aimed at normalising relations with North Korea. But they refuse to supply energy or other aid until the abduction issue is settled."
---------------------
Gus: ...clouds. But then these clouds in the sky may be laden with welcomed rain. All we have to do is start sowing, planting and weeding. No Roundup please. Iraq is enough... actually Iraq is too much. The US administration and our chief-porkyist stepped way out of line. Iraq should have been "breakthroughed" with "patient, clear and tough diplomacy" from the start: no 650,000 dead. No mess, little fuss. Win win. Too late for that.

From our ABC
Early Iraq withdrawal would 'benefit terrorists'

By Geoff Thompson

The most senior military adviser to US President George W Bush says an early withdrawal of troops from Iraq would embolden terrorists around the world.

The chair of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, is visiting Jakarta to discuss military ties with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

At a press conference he was asked whether the withdrawal of US and allied troops from Iraq would embolden the Jemaah Islamiah terrorist network in Indonesia and elsewhere in the region.

General Pace said he could not draw a direct linkage between the two events but said the issue was a concern.

"Anytime that we would step back from the obligation to help others be free works to the betterment or to the benefit of terrorists," he said.

General Pace said the US and its allies should first help the Iraq Government get on its feet.

---------------

Gus: as the US administration and our rodent ratus claim that "blah blah would blah blah the terrorists", I can see another 50 years of grief ahead, with US occupation still at full bore and losing the customary 1,000 soldiers a year on average. By then thus the US troop fatalities would be 56,500, the Iraqi fatalities would be around 2 millions, may be 3 millions, if there were a strong revolt against the occupiers. The number of injured US troops would be hovering around 200,000. New troops would be green behind the ears, but no matter what "the job will be done the following year", 2058. Patience, my fellow Americans. But the same crap would still be there...

Hopefully, the oil will have run out by the year 2022, thus the Americans "would decide" the job is done, despite degenerating mayhem. ...Or of all clever things, the US would see by 2015, that we have to stop using oil for comfort as the climate change is really hitting the fan... Either way, terrorism will still be there (Jemaah Islamiah would have changed its name to "general mayhem exporters inc." despite all the US troops, actually in spite of all the US troop), our rodent (long time retired) may have been buried in glorious pomp and circumstances.

Gradually removing troops from Iraq is the only option... At least we would not be to blame for trouble, if trouble there is. And my feeling is that the trouble will abate with the troops gone, even if it seems to get worse for a little while. Then Iraq can choose its own destiny, with a bit of DIPLOMATIC help...

From our ABC

Early US withdrawal would cause catastrophe: PM

The Federal Government has been hammering home its warning against a premature withdrawal from Iraq.

Australia's troop deployment was the primary focus in Question Time as Labor accused Prime Minister John Howard of having no exit strategy from Iraq.

The Opposition says the recent Iraq Study Group report in the US endorses a staged withdrawal from the country.

But Mr Howard says leaving too early would cause a catastrophe.

"It would have serious security implications for this country, a humiliated weakened America after a withdrawal from Iraq, depicted as a defeat would be bad news for the world and bad news for the security of Australia," he said.

Mr Howard says nominating benchmarks is very unwise.

He says the Labor leader lacks the courage to say what the consequences of early withdrawal from Iraq would be, but Mr Rudd has again questioned Mr Howard's courage.

"Prime Minister given that another 100 Iraqi civilians will die today adding to the 61,000 who have died so far following this failed invasion in iraq, when will the Prime Minister have the courage and the decency to admit that he has got this war radically wrong from day one?" he said.

Mr Howard told Parliament he will keep defending the decision to go to war.

"My answer is no it was not wrong and I stand by that decision and I will continue to be accountable in the bar of public opinion in Australia I have never hidden from the responsibility that I took," he said.

Earlier, the Foreign Affairs Minister criticised the reasoning behind Labor's plan to withdraw troops from Iraq.

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd is rejecting government claims that withdrawing from Iraq next year would be a disaster.

He says at the centre of the violence is a political dispute that the United States and Australia cannot solve.

"A civil war lies at the core of this, Mr Howard hasn't had the courage to admit there's a civil war going on," he said.

Mr Rudd says the Baker-Hamilton Report in the US outlines a staged withdrawal process.

-----------------------

Gus: Of course a premature complete withdrawal would be a disaster but no withdrawal at all will be a greater catastrophe. Unless one makes noises about getting out of iraq and stops talking about "when the job is done", the job will never be done... The Baker-Hamilton report makes a few sensible recommendations, although most of them are patronising and geared to suit the US, but they also indicate the concept that US troops should not be left in Iraq forever or with an open ended mandate (although it also indicate a work-load for US troops that could take 20 years to fully implement, not the two or three years it hopes for). But what does the moronic president do? He sends more combat troops... Sure the "terrorists" and the insurgents will batten down the hatches (according to the Guardian, The radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr is said to have fled Iraq and sought shelter in Iran ahead of a US crackdown aimed at ending the violence in the country.Mr Sadr and his senior Mahdi army commanders left Baghdad two weeks ago after the prime minister, Nouri al Maliki, said he could not guarantee their safety, a senior Iraqi official said. The cleric is thought to be in Tehran, where he has family) but when the storms is passed (two, ten years, who knows) the simmering problem will come back like it did in Iran, with the Shah... At the moment, with the US in full control of Iraq despite the Iraqi government being there (the US has officials in most department of the Iraqi government supervising and guiding the events, including the Oil Ministry) unless the independent diplomatic recommendations are followed by the US, the US have buckleys chance of taming the shrew.

If there is no trouble where the Aussie troops are, what are they doing there? Preventing trouble to brew? playing marbles? Helping the reconstruction? shooting Minister's bodyguards? Making sure the wheat deals are signed? How long 'til the troops are attacked for real?... 'til Iraq's population grow into complete mutual love? yes, That will take 500 years...

The US troops in Iraq are part of the continuing problem... By slowly but surely withdrawing them, the Iraqi people will know that it's their show, rather than Uncle Sam's.

From the ABC

Iraq mission 'won't take decades', Howard says

Prime Minister John Howard says Australian troops will not stay deployed in Iraq for decades.

Mr Howard is in New Zealand and says he cannot and will not name a date for troops to be withdrawn, and believes service families understand that.

But Mr Howard says the debate is getting into the realm of the absurd when people start talking about a deployment lasting for decades.

"Well it certainly won't take decades and you know that and Mr Rudd knows that," he said.

"I think the Australian people don't deserve to have their intelligence insulted by people like Mr Rudd suggesting it's going to last decades, I think they understand it's impossible for me to pinpoint exactly when the commitment is going to end."

---------------------

Gus: sure "decades" sounds drastic, but would 20 years sounds better? We're already 4 years into this debacle... another 6 years of it and we looking at ONE decade already... I know one decade does not make several... But what are we expecting? that the calm is restored by 2013 and then we ship out?... And then Iraq falls into the hands of political fundamentalists? Do we accept a bit of sharia law in the political system?...

Even in 2014, there will still be around 50,000 US troops and about 300 Aussie troops in Iraq... And that is a minimum, and the situation won't be rosy at most time... Bringing back another 50,000 troops will be tempting.

By adding violence, via war, to the already loaded hatred/acceptance of Saddam into the Iraqi people's heart, we have multiplied a problem beyond the solution that we think it should be. Confusion reigns and with double agents doing the bidding of some and others, what a mess... Deliberate mess? The whole political construct of the Iraqi society has to be re-thought and only the Iraqi can do that, on their own. Any interference from outside has to be perceived as intrusion, invasion — even if it is genuine help...

It's time to start treading on eggshells and walk backwards in deference to the Iraqi government, which by all measure will need new elections soon. If the first elections were trying to smooth corners, the next ones will be rather hard up.

It's time for the Iraqi to start walking by themselves, as difficult as it may be...