Sunday, April 29, 2007


Read Michael Klare's companion piece here. Mother Jones and a couple of other online publications have published the piece.

Tomgram: Klare and Constantino, Where is the USS Nimitz?
May 3, 2007
Tomdispatch.com

At a news conference on Monday involving the President and European leaders, this exchange took place:

"Q: …[Y]our Secretary of State is going to a conference [on] Iraq where the Foreign Minister from Iran is going to be present. Do you expect her to have conversations with the Foreign Minister of Iran? What will she talk about? And if she does have a conversation, is there going to be a change of U.S. foreign policy?
"PRESIDENT BUSH: Should the Foreign Minister of Iran bump into Condi Rice, Condi won't be rude. She's not a rude person. I'm sure she'll be polite.

"But she'll also be firm in reminding this representative of the Iranian government that there's a better way forward for the Iranian people than isolation... [I]f, in fact, there is a conversation, it will be one that says if the Iranian government wants to have a serious conversation with the United States and others, they ought to give up their enrichment program in a verifiable fashion. And we will sit down at the table with them, along with our European partners, and Russia, as well. That's what she'll tell them."

So that, as far as we know, is the full diplomatic component of the Bush administration's Iran policy. Every nuance of that policy is regularly covered in the press. Take, for instance, a recent New York Times piece by Kirk Semple and Christine Hauser ("Iran to Attend Regional Conference"). It focused on Secretary of State Rice's comments on her willingness to talk with the Iranians, should she happen to "bump into" them. ("I would not rule it out.") Included in the piece was a brief version of the American laundry list of complaints about Iranian interference in Iraq ("The American military has said that some elements in Shiite-dominated Iran have been giving Shiite militants in Iraq powerful Iranian-made roadside bombs, as well as training in their use…"). Also mentioned was a knotty issue between the two countries -- the American kidnapping of five Iranian officials in Kurdish Iraq. ("…Mohammad Ali Hosseini said Tehran's decision to attend the conference was not linked to any deal having to do with five Iranians who were detained in January by American troops in Irbil…").

But something was missing -- as it is regularly from American reporting on the U.S./Iranian face-off. The Bush administration is, at this very moment, sending a third aircraft carrier, the USS Nimitz, to the Persian Gulf. Although the three carriers and their strike forces will add up to a staggering display of American military power off the Iranian coast, American journalists aren't much impressed. Evidently, it's not considered off the diplomatic page or particularly provocative to mass your carrier battle groups this way, despite the implicit threat to pulverize Iranian nuclear and other facilities. Journalistically speaking, this is both blindingly strange and the norm on our one-way planet. If Iranians send the materials to make some roadside bombs into Iraq (as the Bush administration, at least, continually claims is the case), it's a huge deal, if not an act of war; but put the most powerful fleet in history off the Iranian coast. No sweat.

By the way, talk about a foreign policy based on standing on one massive foot (or rather one massive combat boot)!

Since our media seems to have more or less forgotten about the Nimitz and all those ships gathering in the Gulf, Tomdispatch asked Michael Klare to give us an update on the situation. In a rare TD double feature, Renato Constantino, whom I like to think of as the Eduardo Galeano of the Philippines, then looks at our strange, warped history of "relations" with Iran and offers another kind of update -- on American memory. Of course, if we really remembered our revolving history with Iran and Iraq, we would all be spinning like tops.

Tom


FOREVER IRAN
Tomdispatch.com
May 3, 2007

On the Fortuitous Poverty of Memory
Renato Redentor Constantino

An opening benediction:

Hallowed Homeland, great Fatherland,
Bless the star-spangled armada massing today in the Persian Gulf.
Bless the gallant, nuclear-powered cavalry.
They have come once more near the place of the malefactors called Iranians to punish purveyors of fell deeds.
Glorious, indispensable nation,
Bless your cruisers, destroyers, and submarines.
Part the sea for the steel raiment of the USS Nimitz, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, and the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier battle groups.
Purify your soldiers so they may do the bidding of the red, white and Bush.
Bring them to temptation but lead them away from the epiphany of remembrance.
The men do not care to remember,
And the women would rather forget,
And the innocent bombs, they know not what they do.

Twenty stark years ago, on May 17, 1987, a double act of Exocet missiles skimmed through the air and slammed into the American Perry-class frigate the USS Stark.

The first Exocet antiship missile punched into the warship "at 600 miles per hour and exploded in the forward crew's quarters." The warhead failed to detonate but managed to smash through seven bulkheads and spit 120 pounds of blazing rocket fuel into the ship's bunks.

Half a minute later, the second missile exploded, creating a 3,500-degree fireball that turned most of the 37 American victims of the attack into ash. The ship burned for two days, according to the celebrated British war reporter Robert Fisk, who replowed the soil of the incident in his fine memoir, The Great War for Civilization. "Even after she was taken in tow," wrote Fisk, "the fires kept reigniting."

"Memory is a complicated thing," says Barbara Kingsolver in her novel Animal Dreams. "It's a relative of truth but not its twin."

The deadly missile attack on the USS Stark was unleashed by a Mirage F-1 jet -- flown by an Iraqi pilot who mistook the U.S. warship for an Iranian vessel. At that moment, Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran were in the seventh year of a war that had begun in 1980 with a surprise Iraqi invasion.

The act of aggression that claimed the lives of the Stark's precious men and women in uniform elicited a fierce barrage of angry denunciation from the United States. The assault was despicable, villainous, and depraved. These were the words of a bellicose U.S. establishment and they were aimed -- at Iran.

Glory to the gospel of perpetual dividends. This was the 1980s, after all; a time when the Reagan administration was still busy fondling Saddam Hussein.

There would be no counter-strike at Iraq, of course. Not then. And the angriest criticism would come from Secretary of State Caspar Weinberger, who described the attack as "indiscriminate." "Apparently," said Weinberger, the Iraqi pilot "didn't care enough to find out what ship he was shooting at."

"We've never considered them hostile at all," was the way President Ronald Reagan described Saddam's military. "They've never been in any way hostile... And the villain in the piece is Iran."

The Iraqi attack on the USS Stark and the loss of American lives proved an opportunity, which America's high and mighty, Democrats as well as Republicans, immediately seized upon. Responding to the great loss of lives "in a spasm of rage at the one country that had nothing to do with the American deaths," Republican Senator and ex-Secretary of the Navy John Warner denounced Iran as "a belligerent that knows no rules, no morals." In language that hinted of military action, Democratic Senator John Glenn slammed Iran as "the sponsor of terrorism and the hijacker of airliners."

It was the first and only successful cruise missile attack on a U.S. Navy warship. Iraqi officials determined that the American frigate was inside their "forbidden zone" and never produced the plane's pilot. The captain of the USS Stark was relieved of his command and his executive officer was disciplined for "dereliction of duty."

A little over a year after the attack, on July 3, 1988, two surface-to-air missiles are fired by the USS Vincennes, an Aegis-class cruiser, reportedly inside Iranian territorial waters at the time, at Iran Air flight 655. The first missile cut the civilian airliner in half. All 290 passengers and crew aboard the Iranian airbus were killed.

In her coffin, reported Fisk, who, at the time, was in the Iranian port city of Bandar Abbas where the human remains of flight 655 were collected, Leila Behbahani was still in the same garments and bracelets that she had worn when she was fished out of the water minutes after the Vincennes brought down the passenger plane -- a green dress and white pinafore, two bright gold bangles on each wrist, white socks, and tiny black shoes. Leila was three-years old. There were 66 children on board the aircraft.

The Pentagon claimed that the Vincennes shot down the Iranian plane because it appeared the pilot was attempting to fly it into the warship -- even though the USS Sides, a frigate in the area, recorded the airliner climbing, not diving.

Glory to the Homeland.

When the Vincennes returned to San Diego, its homeport, the ship was given a hero's welcome, while the members of the crew were "all awarded combat action ribbons." The air warfare coordinator of the ship won the Navy's Commendation Medal "for heroic achievement" for the "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire." Citizens in Vincennes, Indiana, raised money to build a monument -- not to the dead Iranians but to the ship that shot them down. #


[Note: All the accounts of the missile attack on the USS Stark and the downing of Iranian flight 655 are from Robert Fisk's harrowing book The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East. A memorable quote resulting from the act of terror came from George H.W. Bush, who was then Ronald Reagan's vice president: "I will never apologize for the United States of America. I don't care what the facts are," said Bush in response to the atrocity. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher weighed in to support the U.S. The destruction of the passenger plane, she said, was "understandable."]

Copyright 2007 Renato Redentor Constantino

3 comments:

bill payne said...

Recent publication reveals that Zibgniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter, and others incited Saddam Hussein to attack Iran through then Jordanian King Hussein I bin Talal.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/voidjudgments/voidjudgments.htm#brzezinski

The Kamuning Republic said...

Hi Bill. I've been away for a while. My apologies for the very late reply. I visited the site you referred to. There's a lot more than meets the eye. Thanks for dropping by.

r

samir said...

hi red,

The Nimitz is going to be 16 km of the Indian coast (East). The debate going on is whether there is a threat of radiation exposure. Not whether the Nimitz is carrying nuclear arms (neither cinfirm or deny). The crew of the nimitz are going to come on land to clean a beach and paint a school. Drop by for a snack