By Dr. Elias Akleh* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Aggressive rhetoric and a push for Israel to attack Iran have been, lately, intensified in the American media. While senators are trying to get President Obama to officially support an Israeli attack on Iran, reporters of the mainstream media are trying to convince the average American that Iran's (non-existent) nuclear weapons program, half the globe away, is a threat to America, and the only viable way to stop Iran is through an Israeli "preventive" attack. They claim that the consequences of such an attack, warned by some military strategists as devastating, are "overblown".

Many Zionist-bought Senators assert that the Congress strongly rejects nuclear Iran and supports the use of all means to keep Iran from acquiring a bomb including through military actions. Reiterating this assertion during their visit to Israel last July, Senators McCain, Lieberman and Graham hinted that Israel could spearhead such an attack that would definitely draw American forces in the conflict to finish the job.

Ignoring the dire consequences of such a war specifically on the US, Israel, and the Middle East, and the whole world in general, 47 House Republicans had introduced and signed onto a resolution (HR 1553) declaring "support for Israel's right to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran... including the use of military force." It is understood that nuclear "tactical bombs" are to be used for such a military force to be effective. This resolution is now on its way through the Congress and Senators are under pressure to endorse it.

The mainstream media is doing its part to sell this war to the American citizens. Major articles about the subject were published by leading pro-Zionist, pro-war neoconservatives such as previous CIA agent Reuel Marc Gerecht, who published his exceptionally very long article "Should Israel Bomb Iran? -Better Safe than Sorry". Steven Simon and Ray Takeyh from Washington Post had also published their long article "A Nuclear Iran: Would America Strike to Prevent It?" Bill Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard and commentator on Fox News Channel published his article "A Period of Consequences; Our Dangerous Iran policy".

The common theme with these writers is their addressing of the alleged Iranian nuclear "threat" to the American people although half the globe afar. They claim that economic sanctions and the American diplomacy are ineffective and insist that a military action by the US, or perhaps Israel, would be a better solution than mere talks. The danger of these articles is that they greatly downplay Iranians' ability to defend themselves and to counter-attack effectively.

The writers encourage nuking of Iran as the only solution to "curtail its ambitions" . Gerecht asserts "an Israeli bombardment remains the only conceivable means of derailing or seriously delaying Iran's nuclear program and -equally important -traumatizing Tehran... (an Israeli) preventive strike remains the most effective answer to (Iran) having nuclear weapons."

Drawing the American forces in the conflict the writers misleadingly assert that US military, although engaged in two ongoing wars, is still fully capable of "carrying out such a mission." They dangerously and extremely minimize the effect of such an attack as "limited" , as if the Iranians would stand by and let the US or Israel obliterates their country and their citizens.

Similar to pre-2003 Iraqi situation, the US and Israel are using the threat of "non-existent" Iranian nuclear weapons to rally international support for a regime change in Iran. They are accusing Iran with the same grave violations that they themselves (US & Israel ) possess. Iran is being punished by severe economic sanctions based on Israeli and American unfounded accusation that Iran, a member of the NPT, is building an atomic bomb despite the November 2007 assertion of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), summarizing the unanimous opinion of all 16 secret services, that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program. The assertion stated: "We judge with high confidence that in fall of 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program... We assess with moderate confidence Tehran has not restarted its nuclear program as of mid 2007."

IAEA's reports confirm that there is no evidence that Iran is currently pursuing an atomic weapon program. Iran is criticized and is sanctioned for what the US and Israel think Iran would do, rather than for what Iran is doing. Iran is exercising its legitimate right, as per the NPT, of acquiring peaceful atomic technology.

The US itself possesses thousands of nuclear bombs, and although a member of the NPT, is still working on what is called nuclear tactical bombs. Israel on the other hand is not a member of the NPT, yet it is very well known that Israel has between 200-300 nuclear bombs as exposed by Mordechai Venunu, an Israeli atomic technician, who used to work in the Israeli atomic facility in Dimona. Former President Jimmy Carter mentioned in May 2008 that Israel has 150 nuclear bombs.

Although having democratic elections Iran is demonized as a religious dictatorship. Similarly, Israel, although having democratic elections, is a religiously dominated society aiming at fulfilling their religious prophesy of Greater Jewish Israel. The American foreign policy is greatly tainted by influential religious groups such as the Jewish AIPAC and Zionist Evangelican Christians. This influence can be easily seen in Bush's description of his wars as "crusades", and in the use, by main media, of terms such as "Islamofascist", "Islamic terrorists", "Islamic extremist" and other religiously pejorative words to describe the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Iran.

While giving themselves the right to invade, occupy, destroy and devastate Iraq and Afghanistan under the accusations that such countries are threatening the US half the globe across, the American administration and Israel deny Iranians same right to defend its borders when its neighboring country is occupied by another country that keeps threatening to nuke their country, and accuse them of supporting terrorists in Iraq.

Iranian president Ahmadinejad is labeled as a new Hitler with a mad pathologically terror-stricken anti-Semitic Jew-hating Islamofascist regime intending on expanding its authority over the Middle East. Israel is playing the role of always the victim in a self-defense mode rather than the instigator of hostilities, and considers any criticism of its terror as anti-Semitic. Israeli leaders are worst than Hitler for what they had done to the Palestinians. Their government is a Zio-Nazi regime based on religious superiority complex, and intent on wiping off all Arabs and Moslems in between the Nile and Euphrates, as they had done in Palestine, in order to build their Greater Jewish Israel to spread its authority not only on the Middle East but also on the whole world. Israel is anti-Arab (anti-Semitic), anti-Moslems, and, as will eventually become apparent, anti-Christian.

The American administration is the worst of them all. Since its establishment until the present day the US has been in a state of perpetual wars and genocide against other nations. Its military bases are spread all over the globe to control and to manipulate other countries under the guise of spreading freedom and democracy.

Iranian Ahmadinejad is falsely accused of denying the Jewish Holocaust and of threatening to wipe off Israel, when in reality all what he had suggested was a serious and open historical study of the Holocaust similar to any other historical event, and had stated that the Zionist regime in Israel would bring an end to itself due to its terrorist actions against others. Iran had never threatened to strike any other country, including Israel, unless it was attacked first. Israel, on the other hand, denies the Palestinian Nakba and Palestinian pogroms perpetrated by the Israeli army and by Israeli terrorist settlers. Besides wiping Palestine off the map Israel, backed by the American administration, is threatening to nuke Iran and wipe off Iranian cities and citizens in mass. The US is also denying it's genocidal and war crimes against other nations, the least of them is the annihilation of millions of indigenous American Indians and the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wiping off hundreds of thousands of people within few seconds. The Administration is still using the threat of nuclear strike against non-nuclear countries to force them to follow the American dictate.

The real goal of all these accusations is a regime change in Iran, similar to the Shah regime, that would allow the flocking of foreign corporations to exploit Iran's natural resources especially oil and gas. Since Israel has been complaining that one or two Iranian nuclear bombs pause an existential threat to its citizens, one would expect Israeli leaders and the American administration to be satisfied with the Iranian low enriched uranium swap tripartite deal, brokered by Iran, Turkey and Brazil.

Many political analysts fear that Israel might attack Iran before the end of this month (August). Israel has been preparing long for such an attack. Last July 2009 Israeli air forces had been training on bombing raids at Nellis Air Force base in Nevada, while the Israeli missile defense shield program was tested off the shores of the Pacific Ocean. Also in June 2009 two Israeli missile class warships and a German made Dolphin Israeli submarine with cruise missiles equipped with the most sophisticated nuclear warheads in the Israeli arsenal, had passed through the Suez Canal to be stationed in the Persian Gulf off the Iranian coast. Since the Israeli air forces need to fly through Iraqi air space the attack needs to happen before the US turns security control to the Iraqi forces end of August, and before Iran defuses the tension by swapping its nuclear fuel early September.

An Israeli strike would have a devastating effect on the whole world. Iran is a powerful country and has just added to its arsenal many domestically-built weapons such as Mersad anti-aircraft missile, Ghadir class mini-submarines, and the lethal Noor anti-ship missiles. There is a rumor that Iran had just acquired four S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems .

The Iranians are expected to counter attack with long range missiles against Israel. All the American aircraft-carriers in the Gulf are sitting ducks for the Iranian missiles. Iranians would also target all the American military bases in the Gulf. They would start supplying surface-to-air missiles to Taleban that would jeopardize American war in Afghanistan. Having a defense treaty with Iran, Syria and Turkey may be drawn into the conflict. Hezbollah and Hamas would hit Israel from North and South. The Iranians would definitely close the Strait of Hermuz blocking all the oil shipments. Blocking, for even few weeks, Iran's 7% of internationally traded oil plus another 40% of global oil exports from the Arab Gulf States would cripple the whole international economy.

An Israeli strike would ignite Armageddon in the Middle East, and it would spread to the rest of the world. The question that poses itself is: Is the American Congress really crazy to support such an Israeli strike?

* Dr. Elias Akleh is an Arab writer from a Palestinian descent born in the town of Beit Jala. His family was first evicted from Haifa after the "Nakba" of 1948, then from Beit Jala after the "Nakseh" of 1967. He lives now in the US, and publishes his articles on the web in both English and Arabic.

Related posts:

• Elias Akleh – US/Israel vs Iran Nuclear Chess Game
• The Biggest Threat to Peace in Middle East
• Dr. Elias Akleh: An International Crime Called Gaza

Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OT5uw1Fb_0

By David R. Henderson* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Many people who aren’t comfortable with the U.S. invading other countries reassure themselves with the belief that at least war creates jobs for Americans. But is military conflict really good for the economy of the country that engages in it? Basic economics answers a resounding “no.”

In a 1953 speech, President Dwight Eisenhower noted, “The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.” His point, quite simply: money not spent on the military could be spent elsewhere.

This also applies to human resources. The more than 200,000 U.S. military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan could be doing something valuable at home.

Why is this hard to understand? The first reason is a point 19th-century French economic journalist Frederic Bastiat made in his essay, “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen.” Everyone can see that soldiers are employed. But we cannot see the jobs and the other creative pursuits they could be engaged in were they not in the military.

The second reason is that when economic times are tough and unemployment is high, it’s easy to assume that other jobs could not exist. But they can. This gets to an argument Bastiat made in discussing demobilization of French soldiers after Napoleon’s downfall. He pointed out that when government cuts the size of the military, it frees up not only manpower but also money. The money that would have gone to pay soldiers can instead be used to hire them as civilian workers. That can happen in three ways, either individually or in combination: (1) a tax cut; (2) a reduction in the deficit; or (3) an increase in other government spending.

If taxes are cut, more money remains in the hands of taxpayers, who can use it to hire the people who were previously soldiers. If taxes aren’t cut but the deficit is, then the government doesn’t need to borrow as much. The money that the government would have borrowed is now available to hire these former soldiers. Finally, if neither taxation nor the deficit is cut, government has more money to hire these former soldiers in civilian pursuits.

Of course, those who get this money will not necessarily want to spend it on what these particular former soldiers produce. But a complex chain of substitutions will take place, and the former soldiers will gradually be reemployed. Consider the U.S. experience after World War II. Between 1945, when the war ended, and 1947, when substantial demobilization occurred, the military fell from about 11.4 million people to around 1.6 million, a drop of 9.8 million people. But the number of unemployed people increased by only 1 million, about 10 percent of those demobilized. To be sure, many women who had entered the labor force during the war to replace men who were drafted decided to return to work in the home. But the number of females in the labor force fell by only 2.4 million. And remember that before demobilization, the military employed a whopping 17 percent of the U.S. labor force. Today, it employs less than 1 percent, if we count active-duty military, and less than 2 percent if we count active-duty plus reserves. That smaller percentage makes laid-off troops that much easier to integrate into the civilian economy today.

Most people still believe that World War II ended the Great Depression. Their case makes sense on the surface. In 1941—essentially a peacetime year because Congress did not declare war until Dec. 8—the average unemployment rate was a hefty 9.9 percent. By 1944, the year of peak military spending, the unemployment rate was a piddling 1.2 percent.

But look deeper. The government imposed military conscription in 1940 and got the draft machinery moving early in 1942. Between 1940 and 1944, the size of the military increased by almost 11 million people. Of the 16 million who were in uniform at some time during World War II, 10 million were conscripted. They had “jobs” because the alternative was jail. And many of the 6 million who volunteered were what military manpower economists call “draft-induced.”

When we say that an economy is doing better than it was, we are saying that people are better off. Can we judge these workers in the military to be better off? No. The only way anyone has to figure out whether a person is better off having a job than being unemployed is to know that he chose the job. But conscription is the antithesis of choice.

To put all this into numerical perspective, the civilian labor force during World War II was only 54 to56 million. It’s not hard to reduce unemployment by 5 million people if you use conscription to raise the size of the armed forces by almost 11 million.

Next, consider Gross National Product. (The U.S. government didn’t switch to measuring Gross Domestic Product until the early 1990s.) Between 1941 and 1944, real GNP rose by 40 percent. But GNP during an all-out war is not the same as GNP during peacetime. GNP is defined as consumption spending, plus investment spending, plus government spending on goods and services. In fiscal year 1945, the government spent 38 percent of GNP on war alone. So, yes, GNP rose—but the increase is misleading.

The government-spending component of GNP went for guns, trucks, airplanes, tanks, gasoline, ships, uniforms, parachutes, and labor. What do these things have in common? Almost all of them were destroyed. Not just these goods but also the military’s billions of labor hours were used up without creating value to consumers. Much of the capital and labor used to make the hundreds of thousands of trucks and jeeps and the tens of thousands of tanks and airplanes would otherwise have been producing cars and trucks for the domestic economy. The assembly lines in Detroit, which had churned out 3.6 million cars in 1941, were retooled to produce the vehicles of war. From late 1942 to 1945, production of civilian cars was essentially shut down.

And that’s just one example. Women went without nylon stockings so that factories could produce parachutes. Civilians faced tight rationing of gasoline so that U.S. bombers could fly over Germany. People went without meat so that U.S. soldiers could be fed. And so on.

These resources helped win the war—no small issue. But the war was not a stimulus program, either in its intentions or in its effects, and it was not necessary for pulling the U.S. out of the Great Depression. Had World War II never taken place, millions of cars would have been produced; people would have been able to travel much more widely; and there would have been no rationing. In short, by the standard measures, Americans would have been much more prosperous.

Today, the vast majority of us are richer than even the most affluent people back then. But despite this prosperity, one thing has not changed: war is bad for our economy. The $150 billion that the government spends annually on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and, increasingly, Pakistan) could instead be used to cut taxes or cut the deficit. By ending its ongoing wars in Asia, not only would the U.S. government be adopting a more realistic foreign policy, but also it would be developing a more prosperous economy.

And war has another burdensome long-run cost that is rarely taken account of in the decision to get into a conflict: the cost of a permanently expanded government. As economist Robert Higgs notes in Crisis and Leviathan, war hurts economies by giving governments the opportunity and the excuse to take on new powers. These powers diminish after the war ends—but do not fall back to their earlier levels. During World War II, for example, the income tax, which previously had applied only to high-income people, was imposed even on those with low incomes. The federal government also introduced withholding to make it easier to collect tax money. After the war, income taxes remained a “normal” part of everyone’s life, and so did withholding. Flush with revenue, the government found other things to spend the people’s money on, including nuclear weapons, NATO, and welfare. This reduced economic well-being because a dollar spent by government typically produces much less value than a dollar spent by the person who earned it—Washington spends our money much less carefully than we do.

Whatever other reasons there may be for war, strengthening the economy is never one of them.

* David R. Henderson is an associate professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California and a research fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He was previously a senior economist with President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers. He blogs at www.econlog.econlib.org .

Related posts:

• Sculpture offends and ‘hurts’ poor little Israel
• New speech by President Obama for real change
• Updated: What makes Israel immune from retaliation?

Today is the DAY! Here is my the result of my quest in random order:

1. From Mauritian: The Carine's Page, Life of a Mauritian girl residing in Singapore.

2. From South Africa: Cherryflava pics, a blog edited and photographed by Jonathan Cherry. Shot mainly on location in Cape Town.

3. From American Samoa: Stuck in a Moment, a blog by Nicole Ashley, where she document all the randomness in her life.

4. From Argentina: A Handicapped Bitch in Recovery! he says: "Yes, I�M Out Of Rehab, Just Divorced, And Full Of Strength To Face This New Beginning.., Do You Wanna Walk Beside Me?"

5. From Mongolia: Mongolian Matters - Mens in Mongoli�, Life in the Land of the Blue Heaven - Belevenissen in het land van de Blauwe Hemel

Bonus:
From Tunisia: The lovely couple, Subzeroblue and Aquacool
From Papua New Guinea: ISLANDBABY
From Pakistan: daMomma Blog
From Palestine: Raising Yousuf: a diary of a mother under occupation
From Israel: Bloghead

Update! BlogDay2005 contributions by some bloggers I tagged (or I didn't, thanks everyone):

01. Abu Sinan
02. Mohamed, from Cairo
03. Ethan
04. Farid Zadi
05. thecutter of peacepalestine
06. Jeff Ooi
07. Neha (more here)
08. Paul Frankenstein (more here)
09. Rachel Barenblat the Velveteen Rabbi
10. Jewaira's Boudoir
11. Karim2k
12. UmQusai
13. umkahlil
14. Abu Aardvark
15. Farid Pouya
16. Paradoxic Pages
17. A Kuwaiti Online
18. Sugar Cubes
19. And Far Away
20. Subzero Blue
21. AquaCool
22. OceanCreep
23. Desert Island Boy
24. Israeli Watch
25. Rebecca
26. David

I'm extremely happy to see the result... Will keep updating the above list whenever another blogger posts her/his list.

01/09/05 - 1130 GMT - On http://technorati.com/tag/BlogDay2005, the tag search gives 305 posts, while searching Google for BlogDay2005 returned 22,800 result... Wow

Related posts:

• Blog Day 2005
• JordanPlanet; what next?
• My ‘BBC Arabic World Service’ Interview