Tortured Logic

First, lets look at the main points of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear program (thanks to Ray McGovern who wrote here)

• We judge that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program...
• We assess with moderate confidence Tehran has not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007.
• We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely...
• We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame.
• We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.

The same NIE also has the following in bold:

This NIE does not assume that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons. Rather, it examines the intelligence to assess Iran’s capability and intent (or lack thereof) to acquire nuclear weapons, taking full account of Iran’s dual-use uranium fuel cycle and those nuclear activities that are at least partly civil in nature.

Now look at the Presidents comments:

Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon

So, I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program. And the reason why it's a warning signal is that they could restart it

In just these few words, the deeply racist nature of the establishment becomes painfully clear. It also leads to the dark and inescapable conclusion that even a million new Intelligence Reports will be completely useless against a barbaric, racist and genocidal policy.

As Arthur Silber points out in his very informative and insightful blog

The decision to go to war is one of policy, and the intelligence -- whatever it is alleged to show -- is irrelevant. Don't argue in terms of intelligence at all. If you do, you'll lose. The administration knows that; many of its opponents still haven't figured it out, even now.

United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, H.R. 5682

Key provisions of the bill are (from Associated Press release)

1. Allows U.S. shipments of civilian nuclear fuel and know-how to India, providing an exemption to American law that bans nuclear trade with countries such as India that have not submitted to full international inspections
2. Requires Indian safeguards and inspections at 14 civilian nuclear plants. Eight military plants would be off-limits.
3. The United States and India must obtain an exception for India in the rules of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an assembly of nations that export nuclear material.
4. Indian officials must also negotiate a safeguard agreement with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The rationale that is presented for public consumption mainly consists of the 2 points below (both very bogus as explained below)

1. Nuclear energy is a great way to satisfy India's energy needs

There are far better ways to improve India's energy sectors. These could include making India's existing electricity grid more efficient, restructuring the country's coal industry, and expanding the use of renewable energy sources. This point was made by Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in congressional testimony.

According to Dr Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and one of the leading technical nuclear experts in the United States, nuclear energy will by 2020 fill maybe about 12 percent of India's energy needs. This is fairly trivial in comparison to the energy needs that could be satisfied in other ways that are more beneficial to India. The Indian government had previously joined the process of creating a "peace pipeline" to bring natural gas from Iran through Pakistan to India as well as creating energy deals with Western China. In addition to satisfying India's energy needs much better than nuclear energy, it would have had an immeasurable side-effect -- peace and stability in a region that is certainly one of the most dangerous on the planet. However, under pressure from the US and the lure that the US could satisfy India's energy needs through nuclear power resulted in Manmohan Singh making a concession to the US. What Manmohan Singh did is remarkably significant -- he removed then Indian Petroleum Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar (who supported the peace pipeline) from his post prior to Bush's India visit.

2. This is a partnership between 2 beacons of democracy and will help fight terrorism and extremism.

Conventional wisdom dictates that India and US are strong democracies and that this pact will strengthen the relationship between the two countries. Additionally, a common justification is that India and United States are natural allies that value diversity and oppose extremism.

However, reality is quite different. The extremism in India has been quite blatant since the rise of the proto-fascist BJP which was responsible for severely destabilizing the country during its long and torturous rein. And the less that is said about the finance and corporate driven, lobbyist corrupted, public relations campaigns also known as "elections" in the US, the better. The extremism in US foreign policy is much maligned throughout the globe.

The truth of the matter is that the US is less concerned about India's energy needs (which it knows nuclear energy will not satisfy) than it is about its geo-political dominance in the region. The US needs India to maintain its global hegemony and as a counterweight against Iran and China.

The US needs a local policeman in the region to safeguard its interests there. Any talk about India being a counterweight to terrorism and extremism is extremely cynical and self-serving. As a nice side-benefit, all the military co-operation between the 2 countries will result in billions of dollars of revenue for the US military-industrial complex (after all, the US needs to dispose its munitions, what better way to do this than to relax restrictions on arms trade between India and the US backed by an "agreement"). The United States would at this point supplant Russia and China as the leading arms supplier to India. This will almost certainly be followed by a relaxation of rules on foreign investment in India will in all likelihood completely devastate a majority of the population that is already greatly impoverished.

Regional arms race implications

Already, China feels threatened by Washington’s ballistic missile defense program and by growing Indo-U.S. military collaboration. If present trends continue (taking into account Japan), Asia could witness two new arms races -- one between Japan and China, and the other between China and India. (see Nuclear Clouds Gather Over Asia)

Bleak Future

Instead of relying on nuclear energy and cozying up with the United States, India should have instead seeked to foster relationships with its Asian and Middle Eastern neighbors and promote peace, stability as well as continue developing strong economic ties with them. This would have benefited the entire region and would have no doubt gone a long way in satisfying India's energy needs. India's current strategy is unfortunately to strengthen relationships with the US which will inevitably have a disastrous impact on non-proliferation, impede indigenous development, create distrust with its neighbors and overall make the world a very dangerous place. India, the founder of the non-aligned movement is rushing headlong into a compromising alliance with the the United States which has a proven track record as brutal superpower.

Expect to see an endless, meaningless debate regarding the technical details of the various points in the agreement without a rational understanding of its implications on India's energy needs, self-reliance, non-alignment and and global stability. 2006 ends on a bleak note.

Collapse Gap

Collapse Gap (a sarcastic take on 'Missile Gap', 'Space Gap' and the like) is an interesting talk by Dmitry Orlov regarding possible consequences of an impending economic collapse in the United States and the preparedness levels compared to the USSR when it suffered its own economic collapse. While I hope this never comes to pass, Orlov certainly makes many telling observations.

Closing the 'Collapse Gap': the USSR was better prepared for peak oil than the US

National Space Policy & Arsenal of Hypocrisy Video

The first full revision of the National Space Policy (aka Star Wars, aka America's war on the Universe) was released at 5 p.m. on the Friday before Columbus Day (2006), with no public announcement.
Some of the key points:

• Deployment of offensive weapons systems in space
• Reject future arms-control agreements that might limit U.S. flexibility in space
• Preemptive attacks and unilateral actions around the world to protect corporate interests like oil and other diminishing resources

See the full text of this Policy here
See the Washington Post coverage
CBC article

The Space Policy revision is yet another (major) step in a long series of actions that started during the 2nd World War. A very good discussion of the topic can be seen in the 'Arsenal of Hypocrisy' video. So I implore you, drop whatever you're doing, grab your favorite beverage, lean back (or forward in this case) and be prepared to spend the next hour watching this excellent and startling video by Randy Atkins where Bruce K. Gagnon (who is Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space) and a few others talk about the extreme dangers of the Space Program and the Military Industrial Complex
The entire hour long video can be viewed here

What is a "responsible" nation ?

Apparently, any nation that has ALREADY developed nuclear weapons (NWS -- Nuclear Weapons State) can arbitrarily declare itself as "responsible". The countries that have currently developed nuclear weapons (in chronological order) are United States (1945), Russia (1949), UK (1952), France (1960), China (1964), India (1974), Pakistan (1998), North Korea (2006). Presumably, each of these states started off as "rogue" nations but as soon as they developed nuclear weapons, they magically transformed themselves into "responsible" nations. The fact is, nations with nuclear weapons have double-standards. They can have their weapons but no one else can. And if anyone tries to develop their own, they are immediately classified as "rogue" nations. An example of the hypocrisy is the case of India and Pakistan who were censured for causing nuclear instability in the region, but are now criticizing North Korea for doing the same. India, Pakistan, United States and all the other NWSs are not inherently more or less responsible than North Korea.

The reason most nations are currently developing nuclear weapons is because that is the only way they can avoid being intimidated (or even attacked outright) by the NWSs. It is extremely unlikely that the United States will attack any country that has nuclear weapons. This has been proven over and over by the US when it attacks defenseless countries.

NWSs are "responsible" for proliferation of nuclear weapons all over the globe and for creating severe instability. And how can a nation that has actually used nuclear weapons (the pioneer) claim to be "responsible" ?

Check out the timeline of the Doomsday Clock to get any idea of the severity of the problem. Unless, the proliferation stops soon, its time to start singing "Two Minutes To Midnight"