It's Been A While

Since I felt like writing about our county’s condition; and I can’t say that I am happy about where we are today or that I am comfortable about where we appear to be headed. It seems America is riding in a small lifeboat, lurching badly on an angry ocean of upheaval, lies, distrust, discord, and angst.

Candidate Trump promised to shake up Washington, and to drain the swamp. I’m sorry to say, but he has succeeded beyond even his wildest dreams of shaking things up in Washington; and as for draining the swamp, he appears instead to have aroused every alligator within several thousand miles. I believe there is a lack of common courtesy or even decency in Washington, including in the White House; and I fail to comprehend how our country has managed to become so childish. On both national and international levels, our country’s reputation and honor are being trashed daily, even hourly; and there seems no clear reason for this outlandish style of governing. Although President Trump likes to blame any bad news on the “Fake News,” I don’t think that is accurate; honest reporters tell the news as it is happening, that is, they report the facts and the words said; that honest reporting may not be what the president wants to see or hear, but facts are not to be trifled with, downplayed or excused away. Facts are exactly that, facts; they cannot be changed to fit the President’s wishes.

We are approaching the end of year three of the Trump presidency, and I don’t see America as being better off than we were before Mr. Trump was elected President. The current occupant of the White House has caused great harm to our standing in the world, both by his actions and his words. He has succeeded in distressing our Allies, and in bringing out the worst in the behavior of common Americans.

America has been a world leader for democracy since the end of the Second World War. Our State Department has worked to build and strengthen our relationships with our allies, not only for support in case of war, but also in matters of trade, in dealing with humanitarian crises, and in actions relating to rogue states or stateless terrorist organizations. The Trump administration has been in isolationist overdrive, pulling out of treaties on pressing environmental issues, Iranian nuclearization, and trade with our Pacific Rim allies and our North American neighbors. Most recently, and perhaps most damaging to our standing in the world, President Trump reneged on the working agreement with the Kurdish forces that helped the United States in the war with ISIS.

Here in the United States, decades of hard work, and the sacrifice of many lives, have gone into the process of improving the relations of Americans of different races. It is work that is not complete now, not by a long shot, but progress has been made in the acceptance of our neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin. That is, until the Trump presidency. Even during his campaign for President, and since his election, Mr. Trump consistently fans the flames of racial and ethnical division. He has used the bully pulpit to deride and disparage any peoples he can; people of color, women, academics, political opponents, and immigrants of any nationality; but most consistently, the people of Mexico and South America.  This race-baiting and xenophobic behavior has empowered those who, like the KKK, are afraid of “others,” and who see a conspiracy behind every tree or news report. President Trump apparently does not understand that he is the President of all American citizens, not just the ones he likes.

One thing our current President does understand well is the power of the spoken word. Don Miguel Ruiz, who writes about the philosophy of the ancient Toltec Indians, describes The First Agreement thusly:

“Be impeccable with your word. Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean. Avoid using the word to speak against yourself or to gossip about others. Use the power of your word in the direction of truth and love.”

Mr. President, please speak with integrity. Be impeccable with your word.  

Thank you for reading; as always, your comments are welcome.

R. M. “Bob” Hartman

On Playgrounds, Oil, and Bombs

Each of us has a desire to create our lives, as we want them to be and to have others see everything as we do. As we mature, we realize this is not how life works. We learn to compromise, discuss, listen, play by the rules, and negotiate. We tend to avoid those who have not reached this level of maturity and we regard them as bullies. I am sure you can remember such a schoolyard bully, perhaps thinking to yourself; someday he will get what is coming to him. Sadly, governments can also become bullies.

In 1933, The Imperial Government of Persia granted at 60-year lease to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), a company now known as British Petroluem, to develop the Persian oil fields in return for a percentage of profits to Persia (Iran). Over time, the Iranians felt they were not receiving all the monies due them and, in 1951, the Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, nationalized the oil industry. The International Court of Justice ruled in 1952 that it had no jurisdiction in the matter, as the agreement was between Iran and a company, not between Iran and the United Kingdom. The governments of Britain (under Churchill) and the United States (under Eisenhower) decided it was in their national best interests to force Iran to honor the 1933 agreement. At first, a boycott of Iranian oil was used to cause econmic unrest; but that failed to produce the desired result. The two superpowers then decided it was time to change Iran’s elected government, with the knowledge and very reluctant support of Shah Mohammad-Reza.

The coup d’etat, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad Coup, was organized using the assets of MI6 (British) and the CIA (US). On August 15, 1953, these plans were set into operation. It appeared at first to be a failure; Mosaddegh appeared to still be in control, and the Shah of Iran, Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi left the country. Using paid thugs, on-ground MI6/CIA operatives set a second plan into operation; Mosaddegh was arrested on August 20th; and the Shah returned on August 22nd, accompianed by Alan Dulles, the director of the CIA. Upon returning to the Peacock Throne, the Shah strengthened his regime by placing political opponents under surveillance and repressing dissident movements ruthlessly, with the help of the SAVAK or secret police. (The CIA helped to establish the SAVAK upon the return of the Shah.) In 1955, the CIA assigned Major General Norman Schwarzkopf, Sr. to train the senior SAVAK agents. The Shah remained in power until his overthrow in January 1979 by the Islamic Revolution. During his reign, the Shah did much to improve Iran, most notably by public education (however, this created a great number of educated, unemployed citizens). He championed woman’s suffrage; the enlargement of industry, including technology; a free school nutrition program, and diplomatic and cultural relationships with other nations. During this time, he enjoyed considerable support from the United States, with an emphasis on financial and military aid (which began to decline during his last three years of power). His reign was not entirely benign however; there was dissatisfaction with his “western enlightenment”, particularly from the Islamic fundamentalists. Politically, his greatest error was in the establishment of a one-party policital system, the Rastakhiz Party, the citizens could either be a member of the party, or they could leave the country.

This history explains, perhaps, why the Iranian citizens hold western governments, and particularly the United States, in very low regard. Perhaps, from an Iranian point of view, this explains the “Iranian Hostage Crisis” at the end of President Carter’s term of office. In light of this history, perhaps we can understand (I didn’t say agree with) why the Islamic Revolution in Iran was so widely accepted by the citizens of Iran.

Recent history has shown that the administrations after the fall of the Shah have displayed a decidely anti-western bias. The western governments have become increasingly concerned about Iran’s potential development of a nuclear weapon, and rightfully (perhaps hypocritically) so. As Paul Harvey used to say, “here’s the rest of the story.”

We gave them that technology, that nuclear knowledge. We did it at the highest level of government, and we have been doing it since 1957, under President Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” program. In 1967, under President Johnson, we provided Iran with 5.545 kg of enriched uranium and 112 g of plutonium. I mentioned earlier that the Shah had brought advanced tecnology to his country. Try this one on for size: in the 70’s, the Shah proposed 20 nuclear power plants. That’s right, a country with some of the world’s largest oil and gas reserves wanted 20 nuclear plants! An advertisement announcing this ran in US magazines, sponsored by the nuclear industry in the United States. In 1974, Kraftwerk Union (a subsidary of Seimens AG, a German company) began construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant. In 1975 MIT (yes, THAT MIT) contracted to train Iran’s nuclear engineers! Did you hear that on the nightly news?

Co-operation with all western governments and companies stopped with the Islamic Revolution in 1979. That did not stop the Iranian nuclear programs however, they just switched vendors, to Russia and China. In 1990, Russia and Iran began discussions for completion of the Bushehr nuclear plant. China, in 1993, provided Iran with a turn-key HT-6B Tokamak fusion reactor, which was installed at the Plasma Physics Research Centre of Azad University. Iran and China informed the IAEA of plans for a nuclear enrichment facility in Iran in 1996, but China withdrew from the project, under U.S. diplomatic pressure. Yes, Virginia, diplomacy does work. Bill Clinton was President.

From 1996 until December of 2002 very little detail has been published about the Iranian nuclear programs. In December of 2002 the United States accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons and Iran, denying the claim, responded by offering "full transparency for security that there are no Iranian endeavors to develop or possess WMD." This offer was made through the Swiss Ambassador to the United States. The United States, under President George W. Bush, refused the offer and criticized the Swiss Ambassador for making the presentation. Iran installed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as President in August 2005 and we are off to the races. Ahmadinejad was a holocaust denier, who stated that Israel had no right to exist, and that he would use whatever means necessary to remove Israel from the face of the earth. Additionally, he proclaimed that Iran had the right to create and use nuclear weapons, because Israel had them. This rhetoric, coupled with a certain degree of paranoia in Washington, precluded any real talks from occurring between the U.S. and Iran until August 2013, when Hassan Rouhani became President of Iran. Almost immediately, the rhetoric cooled and serious negotiations regarding the reduction of nuclear capability and the lifting of sanctions began. These negotiations (drafted by Iran, the United States, Britain, China, Russia, France and Germany) concluded in December 2013, with an agreement that would allow international inspection; Iran would stop enriching urianum beyond the point required for use as fuel in nuclear power plants, and would remove or destroy all uranium enriched beyond that point. In return, limited sanctions would be lifted; some humanitarian aid would be allowed into Iran and certain financial assests currently frozen would be released. Additionally, Iran would be able to sell oil on the world stage again.

In Ronald Reagan’s words, “Trust, but verify.” This is what the agreement from Geneva allows. The sanctions currently imposed upon Iran have been effective in almost collapsing Iran’s economy, and the current Iranian government knows that. Sanctions would be lifted in agreed-upon stages, and only after Iran proves that it is performing as agreed. If the government of Iran does not comply strictly to the terms of the Geneva accord, the sanctions come back full force, and Iran is back to stage one. So where does this leave us?

On January 12, 2014, Iran announced to the world that on January 20, 2014 it would begin reducing its stockpile of super enriched uranium, as the first step in the Geneva agreement. That date, January 20, 2014, begins the 6 month timetable for Iran to complete it’s reduction program and meet all the terms of the agreement. The Geneva agreement also requires that Iran continue to allow IAEA inspectors full access as Iran proceeds with its nuclear power program, with the caveat that further lifting of sanctions is dependant upon strictly following the Geneva agreement, international guidelines and not devloping nuclear weapons.

This sounds like a great win for world acceptance of international establishments like the IAEA and a great win for President Obama’s diplomatic efforts. Some in Congress, on both sides of the isle, greeted this news with an unexpected response: they are pushing for even tougher sanctions against Iran, to show Iran we mean business. Of course they say these new tougher sanctions will not be put in place unless Iran does not comply with the Geneva accords. Others believe this action, at this time, would be detrimental to continued improvement in Iran’s behaviour. President Obama has promised he will veto any new sanction legislation passed by Congress if Iran is in compliance with the Geneva accords.

Perhaps it is time for the United States Congress to stop being the playground bully. Remember, we started this whole mess back in 1953 when we overthrew a democratically elected government. Let us now take the high road, let us allow Iran time to show the world it can and will co-operate on the world stage, that it can follow the Geneva accords, and let us cool off this potential world flash point.

It’s time for the United States to undo some of the damage we did in 1953. It is time to stop being the bully.

Your thoughts and comments are appreciated, and welcome. I enjoy, and look forward to, a good discussion.

ARZM..do you know what it means?

An article in the Salt Lake Tribune (Sunday December 12, 2010) is of great interest, not only to people in Utah, but also those in South Dakota, Wyoming, and Texas; with a much broader ripple effect to the United States security and that of it’s allies. A Canadian company, Uranium One, holds title to 10,000 acres of uranium claims in those states; and in Utah that includes a town (Ticaboo), the Shootaring Canyon mine and uranium mill. While the mill is not in operation at this time, the exploration for uranium has been ongoing, and the mill is kept in a state of readiness until the price of U3O8 increases to approximately $7.50 per pound, (as of December 14, 2010 $6.80 and rising) at which time it becomes economically feasible to re-start the mill, which employees a “crushing and leaching’ method of extraction, where the raw material is mined in conventional fashion and then leached on the surface, as described below.

In Wyoming, their projects include the Willow Creek, Moore Ranch, JAB and Antelope projects. These projects ship “Loaded Resin” to Willow Creek for drying into U3O8 which is Triuranium octoxide, the base material, known commonly as “yellowcake”, for much of the world’s nuclear power plants. It can be converted to use a nuclear material for non-peaceful purposes. Uranium One’s projects and processing mills in Wyoming are in operation at this time. The properties in Texas and South Dakota are not in operation at this time, however, like their sister projects in Wyoming, these will be developed as “wells” into which a leaching solution is pumped, then the leach material and the Triuranium octoxide are pumped to the surface and processed into loaded resin and shipped for drying. This leaching process, known as ISL or in situ leaching, is a relatively “benign” process as far as current studies report. Unlike less developed nations (Kazakhstan) which use an acid as the leach material, the projects in the United States are limited to an alkaline leach, usually a mix of sodium bicarbonate and carbon dioxide. United States protocols demand test wells driven on the perimeter of the sites to monitor ground water affects from the ISL processes. If we make the presumption that the processes are as safe as U.S. government studies say they are, where is the concern?

The first concern is water supply to the mines and wells. In the western United States, water is a valuable commodity, and using it in leaching processes makes it unsuitable for consumption until properly treated, adding costs to the project. The second environmental concern is of the disposal of the overburden, or waste materials produced by conventional shaft mining, as well as “well mining”. The overburden material is radioactive, and a byproduct of the material is Radon Gas. The effects of “small amounts” of Radon Gas dispersed into the atmosphere are not currently known. In situ leaching does affect ground water, and according to Uranium One, the leaching material is maintained to a neutral value, much the value of common vinegar. Ground water monitoring “insures” the PH value of the leaching material.

So, again, what is the concern? Uranium One has been sold to a Russian mining company, Atomredmetzolo (ARZM), a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom, the Russian nuclear agency (similar in form to our NRC). Although four members of Congress petitioned the U.S. Treasury Department to disallow the sale of Uranium One’s assets to ARZM, Treasury has approved Uranium One’s planned sale to ARZM, as have the NRC and the Utah division of Radiation Control. The Utah DRC approval was based on “written documentation that there would be no changes in the operations.” This email –yes email- documentation said, and I quote, “ decisions with regard to the day-to-day operations of the Shootaring Mill will be made by the management of Uranium One Exploration U.S.A. Inc., in coordination with Scott Schierman as the Corporate Radiation Safety Officer for the Shootaring Canyon Mill…”

The problem is with the ultimate parent “company”, which is the Russian nuclear agency, Rosatom, which has been accused, and never cleared, of selling nuclear material (yellowcake) to Iran for its’ nuclear program.

So, we have put one of our national resources, uranium, up for sale to the Russian government, who can use the product for whatever it likes, including selling yellowcake to nations that are working not in the best interests of the United Sates. In the process, we are diverting a scarce national resource, water, into the manufacture of products that could, conceivably, be used against us in warfare.

There is something wrong with this picture!

It's Over, We Hope

The second longest war in the history of the United States is, at least in theory, drawing to the end. The last combat brigades have left the country of Iraq, without achieving many of the goals originally outlined, save the ouster of Saddam Hussein’s government, an act which made physical living conditions worse for the majority of the civilian population; and the protection of the oil fields. President Obama has announced the end of combat operations, sans aircraft carrier and “chauffer driven” fly in.

Originally created as the British Mandate of Mesopotamia as a result of the First World War by the League of Nations in 1921, and increased to its present geography in 1925, the Republic of Iraq was granted independence in 1932. Saddam Hussein assumed the office of President in 1979 after a coup (22 July 1979) in which he ordered the arrest and eventual execution of the “fifth column”, a group of Ba’ath party members he suspected were not loyal to him.

Until the overthrow and exile of Mohammad Reza Shah of Iran, and the return to power of Ayatollah Khomeini, (1979) the United States had supported Iran, financially and militarily, to be its ally in the Mideast strategy of containing the Soviet Union. Iraq, concurrently, had been an ally of Russia, receiving aid from the Soviets, financially and militarily. Saddam had begun the process of modernization of Iraq, while the deputy (vice-president) of Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr (whose resignation was orchestrated by Saddam and the leaders of the Ba’ath party as a result of his attempts to join with Syria to create a large Arab National state); Saddam used oil revenues created by the nationalization of the foreign business interests in 1972 to fund massive infrastructure projects and provide free education to citizens, including women. The “Energy Crisis” of 1973 greatly increased the revenues flowing into Iraq and this furthered his programs of modernization.

The shift in the Mideast balance of power in 1979 as a result of the Islamic Revolution in Iran caused the United States to re-examine its relationship with Iraq, and diplomatic overtures were successful. President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, spoke with Hussein in Iraq in 1980, telling him “we see no fundamental incompatibility between the United States and Iraq..we do not feel American-Iraq relations need to be frozen in antagonisms”, which resulted in a strategic alliance between United States and Iraq, with aid flowing from the United States to Iraq. Under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the aid exceeded $80 billion during the two president’s terms, (1) including “dual-use” chemical and biological materials.

For seven years, 4 months, and 30 days we have been involved in a foreign civil crisis of our own making. We helped put the Ba’ath party into power in 1963, following an unsuccessful CIA- backed coup in 1959, in which Saddam Hussein was a major player. His failure to wait until the President of Iraq, Abd al-Karim Qasim, was in a position to be shot- by Saddam- and Saddams’ capture thereafter, put Saddam in jail. He was released in 1962; and began his immediate rise to power in the Ba’ath party. In 1963, again in a move backed by the CIA, the Ba’ath party executed a coup, successfully, and they came to power. In exchange for CIA help and money, the United States received models of soviet MIG fighters and tanks, which we had not seen before; these models helped us develop new anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons. Abd al-Karim Qasim was dead, his senior advisors executed, and the Ba’athists were in control of the government of Iraq.

The United States, however, was more focused on its puppet, the Shah of Iran, and Iraq fell out of the window of US operations. Iraq approached the Soviet Union for aid and assistance, which Moscow was more than pleased to supply, to counter the American-friendly Iran. Until 1979, the fall of the Shah of Iran, and the return of and rise to power of Ayatollah Khomeini, the United States played the Iran card to the hilt. The game changed with the taking of hostages during the Carter administration, and we (the US) felt we needed a new ally in the Middle East. We turned our attention to Iraq; at a very fortunate time, as the USSR was in its death throes, and Iraq wanted to continue modernization, even westernization. Saddam opened his arms, and we opened our treasure chest, to the tune of $80 BILLION in aid and military supplies, which Iraq desperately needed during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). This aid included so-called “dual-use” chemical and biological materials such as nerve gas, West Nile Virus, anthrax, bubonic plague, mustard gas, sarin and VX.(2) Meantime, in a strange, convoluted action, the United States supported the Iranians with arms in the Iran-Contra movements to support the anti-communist guerrillas in Nicaragua (3). At the end of the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq had depleted most of its financial reserves, and needed money to support itself; it looked at Kuwait and its relatively large oil reserves as an appropriate source of revenue. The US government, when made aware of Iraq’s intentions, instead of telling them NO, sent April Glaspie to meet with Saddam Hussein on April 25, 1980. Here is the pertinent portion of the official transcript of that meeting:
“Transcript from Hussein/Glaspie meeting
Saddam Hussein: As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie: What solutions would be acceptable?
Saddam Hussein: If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab, our strategic goal in our war with Iran, we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (including Kuwait) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. (Secretary of State) James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?. (Saddam smiles)”

This resulted in the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, and the first incursion of coliation forces into the Middle East (in the current time period). So why did we go to war with Iraq a second time? Was it the “possesion of weapons of mass destruction”, which was refuted by the US-led Iraq Survey group, the alleged financial support of Palestin suicide bombers, the human rights issues, to obtain the oil and gas supplies, or to install a democracy in the Middle East, or all of the above? We, the general population of the United States, are left to draw our own conclusions concerning the true cause of the invasion.

Here are some hard facts about this war:
The cost of human lives has been staggering: over 4,600 coliation servicemen/women killed as well as 1,300 plus contractors; over 42,000 soldiers and contractors were wounded. Iraq military casulities range between 68,000 and 100,000. An unknown number of civilians were killed, although estimates from various sources point to civilian death toll ranges of 95,000 to 103,000.

Why? And what have we gained or learned for this conflict? We did succeed in removing from power a dictator who abused human rights, and replaced him with a weak, ineffective, allegedly corrupt government that does not have the support of the population at large. Additionally, we secured the oil fields and put into place long term agreements with this new government that should allow US and British oil-based interests to profit for years to come. We should have learned that the Middle East is a region historically bound in conflicts of religion and tribal control; as westerners, we have no appreciation or understanding of how these important these conflicts are, how they play out in this region. In our attempt to install democracy, we have downplayed the significance of tribal and religious influence on the lives of the population, and have again made the same mistakes of the colonial rulers; we have taken populations that are not inter-related, interconnected, and imposed upon them our view of how they should relate and connect. Is this not supreme ignorance on our part, an arrogance that we know what is best for other peoples, and they should follow our example? We failed, miserably in my opinion, to learn from history: no foreign power has ever been suscessful in control or rule in the Middle East, therefore we repeated the same mistakes. I won’t deny that Saddam Hussein was a dictator, or that he should not have been removed from power, but given the ability and willingness of the population to revolt, as has occurred there many times, I have no doubt that he would have fallen without our intervention.

Saddam is gone, to be a footnote in history. I hope that our leaders, now and in the future, learn from this tragedy and never repeat this type of error in judgement. I hope..but I am not holding my breath.

Sources
1 Peter W. Galbraith ; 2006 (31 August 2006). "The true Iraq appeasers - The Boston Globe
2 New York Times, August 18, 2002
3 Tower Commission report to the President, February 1987