Telling Bush the Truth Is Costly
A salute is due Adm. William Fallon, who tried to prevent a wider war with Iran.
After serving one year as commander of U.S. Central Command, Fallon has resigned, saying he was quitting because his differences with official U.S. policy had become a “distraction.”
But there is a widespread perception that he was pushed out by the neo-conservatives among President Bush’s aides, especially Vice President Dick Cheney, because of Fallon’s reluctance to go along with the administration’s hawkish moves toward Iran.
Cheney, who took five consecutive draft deferments to stay out of the Vietnam War, does not mind keeping the U.S. in the Iraqi quagmire he helped create. The same goes for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the presumptive GOP presidential candidate, who said that leaving Iraq is not a U.S. option.
McCain once said the U.S. could stay in Iraq for 100 years.
As head of Centcom, Fallon’s command ran from the Mediterranean to South Asia and included Iraq, where he ran afoul of Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander there.
Petraeus would maintain the 130,000 pre-surge U.S. troop-level in Iraq, probably till the end of the Bush presidency. Fallon was concerned that keeping so many troops in Iraq could leave the U.S. unprepared for any new crises that might occur elsewhere.
Petraeus is scheduled to report on the war in Iraq to Bush in early April and, in view of the lessened violence there, is expected to present his usual upbeat assessment of how things are going. Petraeus plays ball and gives the president the answers he wants.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, also on the team, indicated Fallon was right to quit.
“Admiral Fallon reached this difficult decision on his own,” said Gates. “I believe it was the right thing to do, even though I do not believe there are, in fact, significant differences between his views and administration policy,” Gates added.
The Pentagon chief, who has held top jobs in government for years, is a survivor who learned long ago to ride the right horse.
He praised Fallon, saying he was “enormously talented and very experienced, and he does have a strategic vision that is rare.”
While the differences between Fallon and the bellicose White House were well known, they came to a head in an article in the April issue of Esquire magazine written by Thomas Barnett, a former professor at the Army War College.
Barnett wrote that if Fallon left his job anytime soon, it could signal that Bush intends to go to war with Iran.
Gates called that assertion “just ridiculous.”
“Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president’s policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time,” Fallon said in a statement. He said it would be “best to step aside and let our military leaders move beyond this distraction.”
Fallon appears to be a military man with peaceful intentions. The Esquire article quoted him: “What America needs is a combination of strength and willingness to engage.”
The change of command in the Persian Gulf also comes as a time when the U.S. is marking the fifth year in a mindless war with no end in sight.
Fallon was a rarity in the top military ranks. To tell the truth to the commander in chief often has a price.
Ask Gen. Colin Powell, former secretary of state, who sacrificed his credibility when he spoke to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, and delivered a pack of falsehoods to justify the U.S. attack on Iraq.
Powell later called it a “blot” on his career.
Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. E-mail: helent@hearstdc.com.
Copyright 2008 Hearst Newspapers
RE: After serving one year as commander of U.S. Central Command, Fallon has resigned, saying he was quitting because his differences with official U.S. policy had become a “distraction.” But there is a widespread perception that he was pushed out
Actually the odds are quite good that when someone “resigns” that they were asked to do so - especially if they had a difference of opinion with their boss.
Sadly,”resigning” is not often the worse of it.
Let’s not forget all the Democratic toadies who voted for this mindless war, including Hillary Clinton.
Here we have the public and 75% want out of Iraq. Our insane clown leaders not only don’t want to leave Iraq, they want to start another war with Iran.
I suggest we move towards a government, of and by the people. That way we could have some sort of influence on the direction of our country. Oh ya, that is what we are already supposed to have, but we don’t.
At this time if someone in our government were to utter a truth I wouldn’t believe them, we are past that point.
Our leaders, I believe, are not are leaders. We have to find a way to send a clear message to those who are really running things that we don’t want to play this game anymore.
People need to say to Bush:
Mr president, I am glad I live in a country where I am free to call you a fucking idiot without reprisal.
Hey! How did my name get on the terrorist watch list?
75% want out of Iraq and Vice President Cheyney says, “So?”. That’ll tell you how much luck we’ve had so far sending “a clear message to those who are really running things.” The message to me is clear that, despite the rhetoric about “democracy” our view don’t matter in the least to those who are running things.
As to what to do about it . . . I don’t know. Violent revolution isn’t the answer — remember the Branch Dividians? The Powers That Be feel justified in doing anything they can to any group who tries to thwart them. Electing Democrats isn’t the answer . . . obviously.
Maybe climate change and the peak oil crisis and the oncoming financial collapse will hurt those who are running things as badly as they will the rest of us . . . maybe
Dear Helen
I admire you so much.
Why were you holding hands with George Bush and kissing him
at the Gridiron Club?
yuck!
It’s like kissing a mass-murderer…it’s EXACTLY like kissing a
mass-murderer.
Cindy Sheehan
Actually, Colin Powell read the summary of the 2002 NIE report to the UN. Unfortunantly for Powell and unknown to him, that NIE report had been altered by the then Director of the CIA George Tenent who altered it at Bush’s orders.
The factual NIE report had stated that indeed the UN inspectors were totally correct, Saddam had no WMDs, had never purchased uranium from Africa or anyplace else, Saddam had no connection to Osama bin Laden, had absolutely nothing to d with 9-11 and was no threat to the security of the US or to anyone else. All of that was changed to state the opposite and the UN and our congress heard the lies, Colin Powell took the blame for voicing them and nothing has ever been done about that MOST serious crime of Bush and Tenent.
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Powell had advised President Bush several times, that invading Iraq would be a serious mistake. Of course as Helen notes in her article here, arguing with Bush or Cheney is a serious mistake. Powell was the scapegoat to deliver the false NIE report and was then replaced by Ms. Rice.
as a commissioned officer, adm. fallon was not free to speak his mind as clearly and comprehensively as he might have liked. we’ll know soon enough whether he intends to continue as the loyal opposition (a position left open by the forfeiting Ds), or was simply tired of office politics and hoping for a relatively quiet retirement.
Hi there Cindy, how ya doin? Helen held hands with and kissed Bush. Yuck is right.
Well, that’s what the Italians do with their most hated enemies, before they cut their balls off. If you ever have the opportunity, read Winston Churchill’s book, “The Island Race”. It was a Pulitzer Prize winner. You will see that most of us have a good deal of good Italian blood in us and Helen is very adept with the knife and often uses it on the proper victems.
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States mistakenly sent Taiwan four fuses used in triggers for nuclear weapons in the fall of 2006 and only discovered the mistake last week, the Pentagon said Tuesday.
I wonder if GWB knows he has helecopter batteries installed in all his WMDs.
Well, I think Gen. Powell knew exactly what he was saying to the UN. Its not a matter of him not having seen some changes to a full report while he just read the summary.
I recently saw a quote from Col. Wilkerson (Powell’s chief aide, I hope I spelled his name correctly), that said something like “Anytime I took something out 48 times, they put it back in 49 times.”
That tells me there was considerable discussion between Powell’s office and the neocons about what the UN testimony would say. Powell, and his chief aide, knew exactly what portions of that testimony were questionable at best.
The difference between Powell and Fallon is that Powell would always suck-up to advance his career. That’s true from My Lai to Iraq and all points in between.
—
BTW, the general rule for serving officers is that they should resign if they’ve been given an order they don’t feel like they can carry out. That’s the ‘honorable’ course for an officer who’s been given a ‘dishonorable’ order. Field Marshal von Runstead did that with Hitler in Russia in 1941.
The president tells a lie, mainstream media repeats the lie unchallanged, many of the public wants to believe the lie because it knows that truth is unbearable, and the war continues.
The reason that most of the support for the war comes from religious people is that they are taught not to question authority. Don’t question the bible, and don’t question the president.
Well, the truth is the truth, regardless of how many people believe it or don’t believe it.
Thank you Helen for speaking up, I only wish that more of your colleagues would have spoken up in a timely manner.
Well ~COMARC~ evidently you are privey to some inside info from Powell’s office that most are probably unaware of, or you are just assuming. I just happen to believe what Powell has said on the issue.
That top secret NIE report was not privey to Colin Powell until after it had been altered without his knowledge and de-clasified for publication. So for you to state that “YOU THINK” he knew exactly what he was saying is not germane to the issue. Of course he knew exactly what he was saying. He was NOT aware that he was reading purposeful lies as he spoke to the UN and to our Congress.
One of my friend’s was talking about another friend saying her father knew Colin Powell and has dinners with him regularly. I responded that she shouldn’t go around telling people about it because it isn’t a matter of pride to wine and dine with a liar.
Of course you never have lied? How noble of you.
The point of this article is not Colin Powell of course, it’s that Bush is a liar and insured lies were uttered, so as to have the god given right to invade Iraq and he does not wish to hear the truth from anyone.
Dear Kem
I am doing fine…I hope you are, too.
Colin Powell could have stopped this and I cast much blame on him. He lied and he knew he was lying. He tried to be factual, but in front of the U.N., he knew he wasn’t and he did it anyway…he had much respect at that point and he gave credibility to the lies by repeating them.
Read his auto-biography of how he set grass huts on fire with his cigarette lighter in Vietnam…he is nothing but a war criminal, too.
Love
Cindy
Bush now has to act as though his lies weren’t lies. To do this the present form of his self-delusion exudes a type of demeanor that mimics righteousness. It could even perhap make someone like Helen Thomas actually kiss him even though the kiss would, of course, merely be perverted ritualistic etiquette as, I’m sure, many kisses are at high-class functions in Washington D.C.
There are parents of dead soldiers who stand by Bush to this day. They need to believe that their children’s deaths meant something. They Need this. So one of the reasons Bush keeps lying is to keep those mothers sedated. The act produces a sort of righteousness reflex in him and allows the lie to be folded under one more time, the truth neat and out of sight.
But it is still there and one day George W. Bush will wake up to a real nightmare of truth that I wouldn’t wish on any human being.
Helen,
I’ve seen Cheney say he doesn’t ‘do’ quagmires so you’ll need to amend that comment but other than that, your article is a site for sore eyes, and so are you.
All the best.
Here’s another interpretation of Fallon’s retirement, suggesting it had more to do with Iraq than with Iran: http://www.voltairenet.org/article155950.html
Watch “Bush’s War” on PBS Frontline. The first part was last night. Tonight it continues.
~BEFORKIDS~ does not need any of your advice or comments ~RIVERMAN~ It is disgusting to see one such as YOU even mention her name here. Write aobut Kem all you wish, but leave that good lady out of your stupid rants.
I do hope no one else acknowledges ~Riverman~ here. All he is attempting to do is detract from the issue, ____ as usual.
Yeah ~Cindy~ I agree with you there, Powell was wrong to even accept a position on Bush’s cabinet and his hands are not clean, but I do believe he was set up by Bush and Cheney on reading of the altered 2002 NIE report. Bush is an insane destroyer and he does not care who he destroys to have his way. BTW, that is one reason you must be very cautious as you fight Pelosi. She’s just as vicious. You take good care.
“Fallon appears to be a military man with peaceful intentions.”
No, Helen. If he were a peaceful man, he wouldn’t join an organization for whom killing is the number one priority.
Peaceful people work for peace. Being in the military, by definition, is working for war.
This guy isn’t a hero - he’s 5 years late. And a mass murderer to boot.
“A salute is due Adm. William Fallon, who tried to prevent a wider war with Iran.”
Sorry, Helen, you whiffed on this one. Adm. Fallon DID NOT try to PREVENT an ILLEGAL mass murdering of Iranians.
His only disagreement was on the appropriate time. From the Esquire interview regarding “war” with Iran:
“Get serious. These guys are ants. WHEN the time comes, you crush them.”
WHEN - got it? Not IF!!! But WHEN.
Yes, let’s all salute Adm. Fallon, who considers 75 million Iranians living in a country over 4,000 years old nothing more than “ants” to be “crushed.”
Jesus Christ, if he’s now one of the “good guys,” we’re really totally royally screwed.
Willo wonders:
We have to find a way to send a clear message to those who are really running things that we don’t want to play this game anymore.
******************
Starve the war beast by:
Eliminating all shopping except necessities for survival.
Eliminating all travel except for totally unavoidable.
Eliminating all commercial TV (and most non-commercial TV) and therby halting the conditioning of commercials to keep us buying things.
As much as we can shrink the economy is how much we we reduce the capacity of Bushco to make war.
I followed Civiletti’s link to the “Voltaire Network” and just read a hair-raising account of what, purportedly, has gone on behind the scenes relative to Admiral Fallon’s resignation. It was written by Thierry Meyssan in French, and translated. Does anyone here know if this guy is at all credible? If he is, by all means read his article; it’s mind-boggling.
“Being in the military is working for war.”
Sorry ~MCTHFG~, but there are rational reasons for any nation to have a strong military. Our military was set up years ago to protect our nation and that is what they often did, going back to the war of 1812.
The military had also been used by politicans all too often for evil intent, but young men do not, by and large, choose to attend the military academies, or join the service for that reason. Would you or I, or any others be free to blog comments here if we had no military?
Solution to oil wars:
Give each Iraqi an equal share of their oil stock and leave.
Solution to Israeli warmongering:
End aid and embargo until they stop endangering the world.
And once more ~FRANK~ blogs and spams his same “Ants” bullshit.
A question to Admiral Fallon was, what would happen if Iran ever attacked another country? Fallon replied they would be crushed like ants. That does not mean Admiral Fallon thinks of any people as ants.
~Frank~ is taking that comment completely out of context of the entire conversation. We should applaud Fallon’s denial of the Bush “Cartel” and their policies regarding Iran.
What useful purpose is there to attack anyone who is at least partially on our side, if not entirely in regard to the potential war with iran?
“Fallon was concerned that keeping so many troops in Iraq could leave the U.S. unprepared for any new crises that might occur elsewhere.”
Perhaps that’s the plan all along. When a terrorist attack happens here, and all of our troops are overseas preventing an attack on our homeland, (remember, we’re fighting them there so we won’t have to fight them here) who is going to enforce marshall law under Directive 51? Can you say Blackwater?
Thank you civiletti for the reference:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article155950.html#nb3
This article predicts what has been happening in Iraq since Fallon resigned and the article was written (mid-March). It also suggests a vast, hidden complex of maneuverings amongst key nations of which we ordinary slobs are kept ignorant. Check out the second footnote on White House madness toward a “second Pearl Harbor,” sacrificing the 5th fleet no less, in order to have the excuse to take out Iran. Fallon was a key player in negotiating to reduce tensions all round, including in Iraq–until his work was destroyed by the neocons. To save his “honor” (negotiations involving Iran, Iraq, Russia, China) Fallon felt he had to resign. The Baker group in 06 was the first effort to manage and reduce the war, similar to efforts Fallon was involved in, all useless against the power of the maniacs currently leading the US.
As for FRANKS reading of the Esquire ‘interview’( a lot of indirect quotation mixed in with direct quotes - a less than reliable format )it seems quite correct. The question was ‘What if it comes to war?’ This in the CONTEXT could only mean war between the US and Iran which then led to the macho ‘ants’ remark.
peterrb2, 4:12 pm: Since you also read the piece re Admiral Fallon thru civiletti’s link, and appear to believe the astonishing details written there, do you have any idea who the author is, and if the site is really credible?
Anyone else here read it? Please, if you have an informed opinion, give us the scoop. Thanks!
Adele
Strange that when CNN reported on the new sins that he (ie Anderson) left a few out. I am pro choice and pro affordable daycare - so let’s not get into that one. But there are a few on the list that I actually find myself agreeing with:
The new list is designed to make the faithful take into account how their lives impact others in a globalized world. It includes:
* “Bioethical” violations such as birth control.
* “Morally dubious” experiments such as stem cell research.
* Drug abuse.
* Polluting the environment.
* Aggravating social injustice by contributing to the widening gap between rich and poor.
* Excessive wealth.
* Creating poverty.
“You offend God not only by stealing, taking the Lord’s name in vain or coveting your neighbour’s wife, but also by wrecking the environment, carrying out morally debatable experiments that manipulate DNA or harm embryos,” Girotti said.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/03/10/deadly-sins.html
I guess frankenfoods is also out.
I remember Colin Powell saying that he was duped in an interview on the CBC but can’t find it. Colin is old school which means that he remains loyal to his employer until the day after he quits. Thus, he can say that he was only lying (ie toeing the party line) during the period that he was thinking about quitting but had not done so yet - and, for the most part, to himself as well as the American people.
One of the scams at the time was saying that the US government had inside information that it felt was too sensitive to share and those arguing that Iraq did not have WMD were just not privy to this information.
The US government proclaims to this day that it has inside information on Maher Arar the the Canadian government was not privy to.
The US government proclaims that it has inside information on - oh, forgot my third example, but you get the picture.
I am getting the feeling that McCain plans to run on “honesty” rather than policy. One thing that everyone seems sick of is all the lying Bush and Cheney did. No one likes McCain’s policies as much as they know of them, but he comes across as honest - and someone convinced Steve and his minions that it was in their best interest to try to tarnish Obama’s and Clinton’s credibility - and get the Dems to stop talking about NAFTA - two birds with one stone.
* Stephen Harper hates being called Steve.
PS. I am finding it great that there is actually another person who posts here who is more out if it than I am sometimes when I post after being exposed to airfreshioner.
Though have to laugh at this “unconditional love” bullshit. Self love is preservation not conceit.
Day of Infamy: The March 20, 2008 US Declaration of War on Iran
By John McGlynn
Global Research, March 24, 2008
japanfocus.org
March 20, 2008, destined to be another day of infamy. On this date the US officially declared war on Iran. But it’s not going to be the kind of war many have been expecting.
No, there was no dramatic televised announcement by President George W. Bush from the White House oval office. In fact on this day, reports the Washington Post, Bush spent some time communicating directly with Iranians, telling them via Radio Farda (the US-financed broadcaster that transmits to Iran in Farsi, Iran’s native language) that their government has “declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people.” But not to worry, he told his listeners in Farsi-translated Bushspeak: Tehran would not get the bomb because the US would be “firm.”
Over at the US Congress, no war resolution was passed, no debate transpired, no last-minute hearing on the Iran “threat” was held. The Pentagon did not put its forces on red alert and cancel all leave. The top story on the Pentagon’s website (on March 20) was: “Bush Lauds Military’s Performance in Terror War,” a feel-good piece about the president’s appearance on the US military’s TV channel to praise “the performance and courage of U.S. troops engaged in the global war on terrorism.” Bush discussed Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa but not Iran.
But make no mistake. As of Thursday, March 20 the US is at war with Iran.
So who made it official?
A unit within the US Treasury Department, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which issued a March 20 advisory to the world’s financial institutions under the title: “Guidance to Financial Institutions on the Continuing Money Laundering Threat Involving Illicit Iranian Activity.”
FinCEN, though part of the chain of command, is better known to bankers and lawyers than to students of US foreign policy. Nevertheless, when the history of this newly declared war is someday written (assuming the war is allowed to proceed) FinCEN’s role will be as important as that played by US Central Command (Centcom) in directing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In its March 20 advisory FinCEN reminds the global banking community that United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSC) 1803 (passed on March 3, 2008) “calls on member states to exercise vigilance over the activities of financial institutions in their territories with all banks domiciled in Iran, and their branches and subsidiaries abroad.”
UNSC 1803 specifically mentions two Iranian state-owned banks: Bank Melli and Bank Saderat. These two banks (plus their overseas branches and certain subsidiaries), along with a third state-owned bank, Bank Sepah, were also unilaterally sanctioned by the US in 2007 under anti-proliferation and anti-terrorism presidential executive orders 13382 and 13224.
As of March 20, however, the US, speaking through FinCEN, is now telling all banks around the world “to take into account the risk arising from the deficiencies in Iran’s AML/CFT [anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism] regime, as well as all applicable U.S. and international sanctions programs, with regard to any possible transactions” with – and this is important – not just the above three banks but every remaining state-owned, private and special government bank in Iran. In other words, FinCEN charges, all of Iran’s banks – including the central bank (also on FinCEN’s list) – represent a risk to the international financial system, no exceptions. Confirmation is possible by comparing FinCEN’s list of risky Iranian banks with the listing of Iranian banks provided by Iran’s central bank.
The “deficiencies in Iran’s AML/CFT” is important because it provides the rationale FinCEN will now use to deliver the ultimate death blow to Iran’s ability to participate in the international banking system. The language is borrowed from Paris-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a group of 32 countries and two territories set up by the G-7 in 1989 to fight money laundering and terrorist financing. As the FinCEN advisory describes, in October 2007 the FATF stated “that Iran’s lack of a comprehensive anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regime represents a significant vulnerability in the international financial system. In response to the FATF statement, Iran passed its first AML law in February 2008. The FATF, however, reiterated its concern about continuing deficiencies in Iran’s AML/CFT system in a statement on February 28, 2008.”
Actually, the February 28 FATF statement does not comment on Iran’s new anti-money laundering law. The statement does say, however, that the FATF has been working with Iran since the October 2007 FATF statement was issued and “welcomes the commitment made by Iran to improve its AML/CFT regime.” Moreover, the February 28 statement, for whatever reason, drops the “significant vulnerability” wording, opting instead to reaffirm that financial authorities around the world should “advise” their domestic banks to exercise “enhanced due diligence” concerning Iran’s AML/CFT “deficiencies.” In linking its March 20 advisory to the recent FATF statements, apparently FinCEN cannot wait for FATF or anyone else to evaluate the effectiveness of Iran’s brand new anti-financial crime laws.
Anyway, the “deficiencies in Iran’s AML/CFT” is probably the main wording FinCEN will use to justify application of one its most powerful sanctions tools, a USA Patriot Act Section 311 designation (see below).
Hammering away at Iran’s state-owned banks is central to US efforts to raise an international hue and cry. Through its state-owned banks, FinCEN states, “the Government of Iran disguises its involvement in proliferation and terrorism activities through an array of deceptive practices specifically designed to evade detection.” By managing to get inserted the names of two state-owned banks in the most recent UN Security Council resolution on Iran, the US can now portray the cream of Iran’s financial establishment (Bank Melli and Bank Saderat are Iran’s two largest banks) as directly integrated into alleged regime involvement in a secret nuclear weaponization program and acts of terrorism.
To inject further alarm, FinCEN accuses Iran’s central bank of “facilitating transactions for sanctioned Iranian banks” based on evidence (which for various reasons appears true) gathered by Treasury and other US agencies that the central bank has facilitated erasure of the names of Iranian banks “from global transactions in order to make it more difficult for intermediary financial institutions to determine the true parties in the transaction.” The central bank is also charged with continuing to “provide financial services to Iranian entities” (government agencies, business firms and individuals) named in two earlier UN Security Council resolutions, 1737 and 1747. In defense, Iran’s central bank governor recently said: “The central bank assists Iranian private and state-owned banks to do their commitments regardless of the pressure on them” and charged the US with “financial terrorism.”
So what does all this bureaucratic financial rigmarole mean?
What it really means is that the US, again through FinCEN, has declared two acts of war: one against Iran’s banks and one against any financial institution anywhere in the world that tries to do business with an Iranian bank.
To understand how this works requires understanding what FinCEN does. This means going back in history to September 2005, when the US Treasury Department, based on the investigatory work of FinCEN, sanctioned a small bank in Macau, which in turn got North Korea really upset.
FinCEN’s mission “is to safeguard the financial system from the abuses of financial crime, including terrorist financing, money laundering, and other illicit activity” (FinCEN website).
Under Section 311 of the USA Patriot Act the US Treasury Department, acting through FinCEN, has been provided with “a range of options that can be adapted to target specific money laundering and terrorist financing concerns.” Specifically, Section 311 contains six “special measures” to significantly increase the powers of the Treasury (and other US government agencies) to block alleged terrorist financing activities. As explained by a Treasury official during April 2006 testimony before Congress, the most punitive measure requires:
“U.S. financial institutions to terminate correspondent relationships with the designated entity. Such a defensive measure effectively cuts that entity off from the U.S. financial system. It has a profound effect, not only in insulating the U.S. financial system from abuse, but also in notifying financial institutions and jurisdictions globally of an illicit finance risk.”
On September 20, 2005 FinCEN issued a finding under Section 311 that Banco Delta Asia (BDA), a small bank in the Chinese territory of Macau, was a “primary money laundering concern.” BDA was alleged to have knowingly allowed its North Korean clients to use the bank to engage in deceptive financial practices and a variety of financial crimes (such as money laundering of profits from drug trafficking and counterfeit US $100 “supernotes”).
By publicizing its allegations, FinCEN let the world know that BDA was now at risk of having all “correspondent relationships” with US banks severed, a disaster for any bank wanting to remain networked to the largest financial market in the world. Frightened BDA customers reacted by staging a run on the bank’s assets.
In the interest of self-preservation, BDA was forced to act. After a quick conference with Macau financial authorities the bank decided to freeze North Korean funds on deposit.
It just so happened that the day before the FinCEN finding was made public the US and North Korea, working through the Six-Party talks process (also involving host China, Russia, South Korea and Japan), had formally agreed on a new diplomatic roadmap that promised to lead to a denuclearized and permanently peaceful Northeast Asia. But because of Treasury’s BDA sanctions, North Korea was now labeled an international financial outlaw and the Six Party process stalled.
Other banks began severing their business ties with North Korea, leaving the country more isolated than ever from global commerce and finance. These other banks had no choice. Treasury repeatedly made clear that any bank that continued to do business with North Korea was another potential Patriot Act Section 311 target.
In anger, North Korea withdrew from the Six-Party process. It required 18 months of negotiations before a diplomatic and financial approach was devised that left BDA blacklisted but allowed North Korea to regain access to its frozen funds and rejoin Six Party negotiations.
Neither FinCEN nor anyone else at Treasury has ever publicly produced any evidence in support of the financial crime allegations against BDA and North Korea (articles by this author on BDA, North Korea and Treasury’s lack of proof can be found at the Japan Focus website).
If Treasury was eventually forced to back off in the BDA case (apparently because the Bush administration changed its policy priorities), it had discovered that Patriot Act Section 311 could really shake things up.
The “real impact” of the BDA-North Korea sanctions, as Treasury undersecretary Stuart Levey told members of the American Bar Association in early March 2008, was that “many private financial institutions worldwide responded by terminating their business relationships not only with [BDA], but with North Korean clients altogether.” Levey and his Treasury colleagues had come up with a way to go beyond governments to use the global banking sector to privatize banking sector sanctions against an entire country (this, by the way, is presidential candidate John McCain’s proposed strategy for dealing with Iran as described in the Nov/Dec 2007 issue of the journal Foreign Affairs ). This “key difference” in the “reaction by the private sector” was an exciting revelation. Through a little extraterritorial legal arm-twisting of the international banking community the US was able to put “enormous pressure on the [North Korean] regime – even the most reclusive government depends on access to the international financial system,” said Levey. Washington now had “a great deal of leverage in its diplomacy over the nuclear issue with North Korea.” Turning to the present, Levey informed the gathering of US lawyers that “we are currently in the midst of an effort to apply these same lessons to the very real threat posed by Iran.” However, “Iran presents a more complex challenge than North Korea because of its greater integration into the international financial community.”
Stuart Levey
Over the past two years Levey and other Treasury officials have been crisscrossing the globe to make it abundantly clear in meetings (described by Treasury as opportunities to “share information”) with banking and government officials in the world’s key financial centers that dealing with Iran is risky business. Levey frequently claims that major European and Asia banks, once they hear the US pitch, freely decided to cooperate with anti-Iran banking sanctions for reasons of “good corporate citizenship” and a “desire to protect their institutions’ reputations.”
But these meetings include quite a bit of browbeating. This can be deduced from some of Levey’s public statements, such as his testimony to Congress. On March 21, 2007 Levey told the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs that unilateral US financial sanctions “warn people and businesses not to deal with the designated target. And those who might still be tempted to work with targeted high risk actors get the message loud and clear: if they do so, they may be next.” Also, the possibility of becoming a Patriot Act Section 311 sanctions victim (which means exclusion from the US market) probably comes up at the meetings, as this part of his testimony indirectly suggests: “Our list of targeted proliferators is incorporated into the compliance systems at major financial institutions worldwide, who have little appetite for the business of proliferation firms and who also need to be mindful of U.S. measures given their ties to the U.S. financial system.”
Reportedly, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has also been involved in high-level meetings around the world concerning Iran, which presumably includes presentations on the arsenal of US financial sanctions. The message he imparts is unknown, but hints of the likely content can be found in public statements. Among Treasury officials Paulson has used the most dramatic language by making the argument that not only is Iran a danger to the international community but that this danger permeates virtually all of Iranian society. In a June 14, 2007 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations he first makes the point that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is a “paramilitary” organization “directly involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts, as well as funding and training other terrorist groups.” Then he offers the alarming revelation that the IRGC “is so deeply entrenched in Iran’s economy and commercial enterprises, it is increasingly likely that if you are doing business with Iran, you are somehow doing business with the IRGC.” With such language, Treasury lays the groundwork for applying financial sanctions against the entirety of Iran. All this makes clear that the growing coalition of bankers against Iran the US likes to trumpet may not be such a willing group.
Some indication of how unwilling can be found in the pages of Der Spiegel (English edition). In July 2007 the German news magazine reported that “anyone wishing to do business in the United States or hoping to attract US investors had best tread softly when it comes to Iran. Germany’s Commerzbank stopped financing trade with Iran in US dollars in January, after the Americans piled on the pressure.” One German banker interviewed said: “German financial institutions feel the United States government has been engaging in ‘downright blackmail’.” The magazine goes on to report: “Anti-terror officials from the US Treasury are constantly showing up to demand they cut their traditionally good relations with Iran. The underlying threat from the men from Washington is that they wouldn’t want to support terrorism, would they?”
Also, an April 2007 report from the UK’s House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee states that the Confederation of British Industry indicated “strong concern” about Patriot Act provisions and other US extra-territorial sanctions. The Committee recognized the need for “vigorous action” in response to terrorist threats but also “endorse[d] the condemnation by the EU of the extra-territorial application of US sanctions legislation as a violation of international law.”
Thus the US will need help from European government leaders to overcome resistance among major European financial institutions to US-led financial sanctions. Such help has already come from German Chancellor Angela Merkel. During her recent state visit to Israel, Merkel told the Knesset that Iran was global enemy number one. “What do we do when a majority says the greatest threat to the world comes from Israel and not from Iran?” she asked. “Do we bow our heads? Do we give up our efforts to combat the Iranian threat? However inconvenient and uncomfortable the alternative is, we do not do that.” Iran is public enemy #1 in the world, and everyone – including the European banking establishment it would seem – has to accept that.
To summarize to this point: (1) the March 20 advisory represents a US declaration of war by sanctions on Iran and a sanctions threat to the international banking community, (2) the US has various unilateral financial sanctions measures at its command in the form of executive orders and Patriot Act Section 311 and (3) the BDA-North Korea sanctions were, at least in retrospect, a test run for Iran.
If the US succeeds, an international quarantine on Iran’s banks would disrupt Iran’s financial linkages with the world by blocking its ability to process cross-border payments for goods and services exported and imported. Without those linkages Iran is unlikely to be able to engage in global trade and commerce. As 30% of Iran’s GDP in 2005 was imports of goods and services and 20% was non-oil exports (World Bank and other data), a large chunk of Iran’s economy would shrivel up. The repercussions will be painful and extend well beyond lost business and profits. For example, treating curable illnesses will become difficult. According to an Iranian health ministry official, Iran produces 95% of its own medicines but most pharmaceutical-related raw materials are imported.
With a financial sanctions war declared, what happens next? There have been some hints.
On February 25 the Wall Street Journal reported that Treasury was considering sanctioning Iran’s central bank (known as Bank Markazi). “The central bank is the keystone of Iran’s financial system and its principal remaining lifeline to the international banking system,” explains the Journal. “U.S. sanctions against it could have a severe impact on Iranian trade if other nations in Europe and Asia choose to go along with them.” In anticipation of future events, the Journal notes: “U.S. officials have begun trying to lay the groundwork for a move against the central bank in public statements and meetings with key allies.”
So look for the following to happen in the coming weeks: FinCEN will probably issue a Patriot Act Section 311 finding that Iran’s central bank is a “primary laundering concern.” The “deficiencies in Iran’s AML/CFT” wording lifted from the FATF statement will be a key reason for that finding. The finding may be accompanied by a formal decision to cut off Iran’s central bank from the US financial market, or such a decision could come later. Of course, an actual or threatened cut-off has no immediate financial implications for Iran since no Iranian-flagged bank is doing business in the US, except possibly to allow shipments from the US of humanitarian provisions of food and medicine, which, if they exist, probably terminate with the March 20 FinCEN announcement.
But a Section 311 designation of Iran’s central bank would have a powerful coercive effect on the world’s banks. For any bank in Europe, Asia or anywhere else that goes near the central bank once the 311 blacklist is on, it would be the kiss of death for that bank’s participation in the international banking community, as it was (and remains today) for BDA. Not only would that bank be barred from the US financial market, it would also be shunned by European and Japanese financial markets, as government and private banking officials in those markets are likely to cooperate with Washington’s intensifying sanctions campaign.
What about China, now one of the world’s major financial centers (two Chinese banks ranked among the top 25 in The Banker’s 2007 survey of world banks) and a major trading partner for Iran?
China and Japan “were the top two recipients of exports from Iran, together accounting for more than one-quarter of Iran’s exports in 2006,” according to an analysis of International Monetary Fund (IMF) trading statistics contained in a December 2007 US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on Washington’s anti-Iran sanctions regime. On the import side, the GAO found that in 2006 “Germany and China were Iran’s largest providers of imports, accounting for 23 percent of Iran’s imports.” Airtight global banking sanctions imposed on Iran would presumably make the financial administration of this trade next to impossible.
Will China bend to US sanctions wishes? Early signs suggest the answer is yes.
In December 2007 ArabianBusiness.com reported that Chinese banks were starting to decline to open letters of credit for Iranian traders. Asadollah Asgaroladi, head of the Iran-China chamber of commerce, was quoted as saying that China’s banks did not explain the refusal but “if this trend continues it will harm the two countries’ economic cooperation and trade exchange.” In February, ArabianBusiness.com found that China’s cutbacks in its banking business with Iran was affecting a joint automobile production arrangement.
Such disruptions in the Chinese-Iranian banking relationship are minor. Meanwhile, Beijing keeps insisting that peaceful diplomacy with Iran is the best policy and that the only sanctions needed are those mandated under the three UN Security Council resolutions already on the books. Thus, to make China cooperate with Washington’s unilateral banking sanctions, the US and the EU, reports the Financial Times, are apparently using a tag-team strategy.
On February 12 the FT told readers that “the US believes that tighter EU sanctions will put pressure on other nations that do more business with Iran - China for example - to curb their activities.” Therefore, explained an anonymous diplomat apparently from the US: “We will be pushing the EU to go further than the Security Council,” a move intended, the diplomat said, to “gold plate” Security Council requirements.
To explain this move the FT provided an example of “gold plating” from 2007, when the EU implemented UN Security Council resolutions 1737 and 1747 on Iran.
In similar language to the current text on Banks Saderat and Melli, the UN had called for “vigilance and restraint” concerning the movements of individuals linked to Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes and members of its Revolutionary Guard. But in implementing the resolutions, the EU subjected all the named individuals to a travel ban - a much tougher measure.
Reading between the lines, the intention behind “gold plating” Security Council resolutions is to put pressure on China to bow to a more aggressive US-EU sanctions program. In the case of the most recent Security Council resolution on Iran, 1803, which put sanctions on two Iranian banks, FinCEN rolled two “gold plating” actions into one. It combined the Security Council’s naming of the two banks with the October and February FATF statements to justify its March 20 warning to the world that Iran’s entire banking system is a danger. Whether the EU will follow FinCEN’s action, and how China will respond to any of this, remains to be seen.
In short, the US has in effect declared war on Iran. No bombs need fall as long as the US strategy relies solely on financial sanctions. But if the US Section 311 designates Iran’s central bank as a financial criminal, the impact will be the financial equivalent to the first bombs falling on Baghdad at the start of the US-UK invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
In a 1996 publication written for the National Defense University, Harlan Ullman and James Wade introduced a military doctrine for “affecting the adversary’s will to resist through imposing a regime of Shock and Awe to achieve strategic aims and military objectives.”
Former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld made Shock and Awe famous by invoking it as the US strategy in the attack on Iraq in March 2003 (though weeks later Ullman was claiming Rumsfeld was misapplying the doctrine).
But Shock and Awe’s authors (apparently with something like Vietnam or the 1993-1994 Somalia fiasco in mind) also envisioned that “[i]n certain circumstances, the costs of having to resort to lethal force may be too politically expensive in terms of local support as well as support in the U.S. and internationally.” Consequently, they wrote:
“Economic sanctions are likely to continue to be a preferable political alternative or a necessary political prelude to an offensive military step . . .In a world in which nonlethal sanctions are a political imperative, we will continue to need the ability to shut down all commerce into and out of any country from shipping, air, rail, and roads. We ought to be able to do this in a much more thorough, decisive, and shocking way than we have in the past . . . Weapons that shock and awe, stun and paralyze, but do not kill in significant numbers may be the only ones that are politically acceptable in the future.”
It was only a matter of finding a sanctions strategy systematic enough to make this more obscure portion of the Shock and Awe doctrine operational. What Ullman and Wade could not have imagined was that Washington’s global planners would use extraterritorial legal powers and its financial clout to coerce the global banking industry into accepting US foreign policy diktat. North Korea was a test-run for the new strategy of Shock and Awe financial sanctions. As Washington Post columnist David Ignatius put it in February 2007, “[t]he new sanctions are toxic because they effectively limit a country’s access to the global ATM. In that sense, they impose — at last — a real price on countries such as North Korea and Iran.”
What then will the impact be of this US-Iran banking standoff? For the US, almost no impact at all. Treasury bureaucrats will spend some time and a little taxpayer money making phone calls, checking computer screens and paper trails to monitor global banking compliance with sanctions. The cost of financially ostracizing Iran will be a bargain for US taxpayers compared with the eventual $3 trillion cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars estimated by Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard financial expert Linda Bilmes.
Iran, however, will become another Gaza or Iraq under the economic sanctions of the 1990s, with devastating impact on economy and society. That Iran’s complete financial and economic destruction is the goal of US policy was spelled out by the State Department the day before the FinCEN announcement.
During a daily press meeting with reporters on March 19, the State Department’s spokesperson was asked about a deal recently signed between Switzerland and Iran to supply Iranian natural gas to Europe. After condemning the deal, the spokesperson explained that the US is opposed to any “investing in Iran, not only in its petroleum or natural gas area but in any sector of its economy” and questioned rhetorically the wisdom of doing business with Iranian “financial institutions that are under UN sanctions or could become under sanctions if it’s found that they are assisting or aiding or abetting Iran’s nuclear program in any way.” A clearer expression of US desires is hardly possible.
John McGlynn is an independent Tokyo-based economic and financial analyst. His three reports on the US use of financial sanctions against North Korea in the Banco Delta case are available at 1, 2, 3. Email: jmcgtokyo@yahoo.com
——————————————————————————–
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright John McGlynn, japanfocus.org, 2008
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=8429
——————————————————————————–
© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007
It’s called speaking truth to power, and it often comes at a heavy price on the dawg.
Same thing happened to Generals Shinseki and Taguba. But, unlike the sleazy, pliable Colin Powell, they haven’t sold their souls for high office.
Sorry Kem the war of 1812 was the Americans trying to grab a lot of Canada from the French..and you lost that one..
it was never about defense, oh sorry i meant to say British colonies ..now Americans
That’s true ~Johnny~, but our history books don’t tell that part of the War of 1812, or Madison’s War. He and the Republicans wanted Florida also. My point was, nations do need a strong military, and young men join for nobel or patriotic reason; sadly the elected usually use them for greedy reasons.
Fallon’s resignation scares the hell out of me… frankly, I wouldn’t put it past these maniacs in the White House to attack Iran just a few days or weeks before the election in November, then execute Directive #51 which keeps Bush in power until such time as he feels suits him to retire.
If that were to happen, I would be ready and willing to join a mass march on Washington D.C. with pitchforks and torches like the villagers in an old Frankenstien movie.
They have tried very hard to get Iran to invade Iraq, but fortunately the Iranians have had better sense than that so far… all they have to do is wait until Bush & Company runs America bankrupt and they can just stroll into Iraq virtually unopposed.
Bush and his lackeys are nothing but “front men”. The real power are Israel’s Likudites and their neocons. These criminals are totally out of control.
What do they fear the most? The Internet, Patriots in our military like Mr. Fallon and Obama, who has them in a panic.
Our coming war againts Iran and ensuing financial collapse just might be the final tipping point in galvanizing the nation to bring these criminals to justice and restore our Republic!
Peter Montana
Hey numbnuts … I’m talking to you willybill, wtf are you doing? See the button on the bottom of edit box? It’s called “Submit Comment”. Do you know what a comment is? It isn’t posting a whole damn article from someplace else. Geez.
Kem Patrick - QUOTE That’s true ~Johnny~, but our history books don’t tell that part of the War of 1812, or Madison’s War. He and the Republicans wanted Florida also. My point was, nations do need a strong military, and young men join for nobel or patriotic reason; sadly the elected usually use them for greedy reasons.UNQUOTE
Our Founders were against a standing army —
and Eisenhower was certainly directing us to challenge and question the MIIC — Military Industrial Intelligence Complex — he was leaving us with.
We needed to hold onto a “free press” to do that;
we have failed because our laws which humanized capitalism were changed by a bought-out Congress.
As taxpayer dollars pass into the hands of a privatized army and privatized government, we have a power shift away from a people’s government.
Helen — Thank you for what you have been doing —
but I think you have to admit that a lot of water has gone over the damn and it’s pretty late now!
Hi Cindy — Love ya —
Civiletti.thanks for the link..it is very interesting. With all of the ‘behind the scenes’ negotiations it appears that they seldom make plans for reaching peaceful agreements or settlements with anyone. They are like children playing king of the hill and constantly changing sides depending on the best friend of the day. Besides there is no profit from Peace. Bush/Cheney have their own private little war, apart from the ‘war on terror.’ That is just a smoke screen for their ambitions and priorities and there isn’t room for Peace of any kind. So, war it is and will be until the end of time.
‘Ask Gen. Colin Powell, former secretary of state, who sacrificed his credibility when he spoke to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, and delivered a pack of falsehoods to justify the U.S. attack on Iraq.
Powell later called it a “blot” on his career.’
A “blot”??? It’s called criminal conspiracy and mass murder, you evil motherfucker.
Yes we would, only he or she would be speaking a different language.
Of course! Hitler’s generals telling him the truth was costly to them also.