The weather has turned quite lovely as we move into November and this week-end has some wonderful refreshing breezes. The forecast of good breezes encouraged a colleague to spend much of the week-end kite surfing. And the new more temperate weather is signaled as well by the arrival in stores of outdoor furniture. I have purchased tables and chairs for my balcony so I can enjoy the weather and contemplate the bay. The weather is also a harbinger of what can be rather chilly months in winter and, on the advice of another colleague, I purchased a portable heater, just now appearing in the stores. By January apparently they run out and with no heating (only cooling) in the apartment building the heater plays a critical role for a short time.
Last week an excursion around Qatar took us north and west to view remains of forts that dot the landscape. The forts we visited were in ruins or reconstructed but they serve to remind us of the history of the island and presence of pirates in this part of the world.
“the Al-Khalifa family left Qatar for Bahrain in 1783 [leaving] something of a power vacuum that led to a whole series of minor sheikhs claiming suzerainty of the area. The most famous of these transitory sheikhs was Rahmah ibn Jabir al-Jalahimah, whom the British regarded as little more than a pirate and directed considerable Naval effort to curbing his, and rival pirates, excesses.”
You can read more about this pirate in the Pirate’s Own Book: Authentic Narratives of the Most Celebrated Sea Robbers, edited by Charle Elms, with a new version published by the Maritime Research Society now available through Amazon.com.
"Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions," Cheney said in a speech to the Washington Institute for Near East Studies. He said Iran's efforts to pursue technology that would allow them to build a nuclear weapon are obvious and that "the regime continues to practice delay and deceit in an obvious effort to buy time." If Iran continues on its current course, Cheney said the U.S. and other nations are "prepared to impose serious consequences." The vice president made no specific reference to military action. "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," he said.
Cheney's words seemed to only escalate the U.S. rhetoric against Iran over the past several days, including President Bush's warning that a nuclear Iran could lead to World War III.
And in a recent issue of Time, Scott MacLeod, reporting from Doha, coincidently underscoring my awareness of proximity to Iran, wrote
The prospect of war with Iran is beginning to look real. The hardening of positions in both Tehran and Washington over the past week has brought relations to their lowest point since the Iran hostage crisis that began in 1979. Both sides insist that they seek no military conflict, but tensions on issues ranging from Iran's nuclear program to influence in Iraq and the Arab-Israeli peace process is turning their differences into all-out regional power struggle. Last week, Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice criticized Iran's "emboldened foreign policy" and "hegemonic aspirations," while asserting that the U.S. will continue to be engaged on economic, political and security issues in the Middle East. "We are there to stay," she declared. …
Cheney, like Bush and Rice, stopped short of advocating a new U.S. policy to aggressively pursue regime change, as in Afghanistan and Iraq. But the Vice President pointed the Administration in that direction. He castigated "the nature of the regime"; said that Iranians have a "right to be free from and oppression, from economic deprivation and tyranny"; and declared that "America looks forward to the day when Iranians reclaim their destiny." Cheney's indictment of Iran's regime as one that deserves to be eliminated could be read as another point of U.S. pressure, designed to entice Iranian leaders to accept the U.S. offer to negotiate a peaceful end to the crisis. But such rhetoric, instead, may prove the point of Iran's hard-liners, that there is really nothing for the U.S. and Iran to talk about.
Particularly chilling is Pat Buchanan’s comment, noted on Hardball and repeated in Maureen Dowd’s column:
“Cheney and Bush are laying down markers for themselves which they’re going to have to meet. I don’t see how ... Bush and Cheney can avoid attacking Iran and retaining their credibility going out of office.”
The prospect of Bush/Cheney unleashing another attack and one they believe can be and must be handled by bombing alone is frightening. As Paul Krugman recently wrote,
Meanwhile, the idea that bombing will bring the Iranian regime to its knees — and bombing is the only option, since we’ve run out of troops — is pure wishful thinking. Last year Israel tried to cripple Hezbollah with an air campaign, and ended up strengthening it instead. There’s every reason to believe that an attack on Iran would produce the same result, with the added effects of endangering U.S. forces in Iraq and driving oil prices well into triple digits.
Countering the rhetoric quoted here, is the news from DeepJournal and other sites, that Chuck Hagel has sent a letter to the President. The letter, which was disclosed by Steven Clemons, director of the national strategy program at the New America Foundation, on his influential blog, comes amid increased speculation over the likelihood of a US military attack against Iran next year.
"Unless there is a strategic shift," according to Hagel's letter, which was also sent to other top administration officials, including Pentagon chief Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, "I believe we will find ourselves in a dangerous and increasingly isolated position in the coming months." "Now is the time for the United States to actively consider when and how to offer direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with Iran," it went on, adding that such a move should be combined with continued efforts with US allies to press Iran through economic sanctions, including a third United Nations Security Council resolution. "An approach such as this would strengthen our ability across the board to deal with Iran," it went on. "Our friends and allies would be more confident to stand with us if we seek to increase pressure, including tougher sanctions, on Iran. It could create a historic new dynamic in US-Iran relations, in part by forcing the Iranians to react to the possibility of better relations with the West."
As we move closer to the 2008 elections, I will find it hard to keep Buchanan’s comment from my mind, much as I hope that the request of Chuck Hagel to enter into talks with Iran will prevail. Just as Samuel Johnson related that "when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully," so my proximity to Iran concentrates my mind wonderfully.
Last week an excursion around Qatar took us north and west to view remains of forts that dot the landscape. The forts we visited were in ruins or reconstructed but they serve to remind us of the history of the island and presence of pirates in this part of the world.
Pirates figure large beginning in ancient society where it was considered a ‘profession’ much as farming. In the 18th-19th centuries, the whole southern stretch of the Gulf region including Qatar was known as the pirate coast. The forts on Qatar built of sun-dried mud brick and faroush (sea rock quarried locally) although strung along the northwest and northern coast could not have withstood much attack nor can they be considered part of a defense system. They were symbols of power as well as places of refuge and had features in common, such as a base wall (maybe up to 2 meters) of faroush, capped by mud brick and covered with a coating of mud. They had a combination of towers, some round, some square and some rectangular, with no apparent reason for the choice or number. The British first became involved with Qatar over pirates in the late 18th century when, as the British Empire website reports,
“the Al-Khalifa family left Qatar for Bahrain in 1783 [leaving] something of a power vacuum that led to a whole series of minor sheikhs claiming suzerainty of the area. The most famous of these transitory sheikhs was Rahmah ibn Jabir al-Jalahimah, whom the British regarded as little more than a pirate and directed considerable Naval effort to curbing his, and rival pirates, excesses.”
You can read more about this pirate in the Pirate’s Own Book: Authentic Narratives of the Most Celebrated Sea Robbers, edited by Charle Elms, with a new version published by the Maritime Research Society now available through Amazon.com.
Today the only pirates in Qatar are software pirates. According to a 1999 report, “at 63 percent, the Middle East and Africa region had the second highest regional piracy rate in the world. South Africa, Israel and Turkey represent 55 percent ($213 million) of the total dollar losses in the region. The countries with the highest piracy rates in the region are Lebanon (93 percent), Oman (93 percent), Bahrain (89 percent), and Qatar (87 percent).”
But pirates are tame compared to current gulf threats. Although the recent rhetoric of George Bush and Dick Cheney regarding Iran is a continuation of rhetoric over the last few years (as a simple google search reveals), it underscores for me my postion as I look out over the bay in Doha, east to the United Emirates, and watch ships heading north in the direction of Iran. Last week’s trip around Qatar with a stop at the lovely port of Al Ruwais on the north tip had us looking directly across the water at Iran. Within the last few weeks Cheney, as reported by CNN, once again re-iterated his intentions.
But pirates are tame compared to current gulf threats. Although the recent rhetoric of George Bush and Dick Cheney regarding Iran is a continuation of rhetoric over the last few years (as a simple google search reveals), it underscores for me my postion as I look out over the bay in Doha, east to the United Emirates, and watch ships heading north in the direction of Iran. Last week’s trip around Qatar with a stop at the lovely port of Al Ruwais on the north tip had us looking directly across the water at Iran. Within the last few weeks Cheney, as reported by CNN, once again re-iterated his intentions.
"Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions," Cheney said in a speech to the Washington Institute for Near East Studies. He said Iran's efforts to pursue technology that would allow them to build a nuclear weapon are obvious and that "the regime continues to practice delay and deceit in an obvious effort to buy time." If Iran continues on its current course, Cheney said the U.S. and other nations are "prepared to impose serious consequences." The vice president made no specific reference to military action. "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," he said.
Cheney's words seemed to only escalate the U.S. rhetoric against Iran over the past several days, including President Bush's warning that a nuclear Iran could lead to World War III.
And in a recent issue of Time, Scott MacLeod, reporting from Doha, coincidently underscoring my awareness of proximity to Iran, wrote
The prospect of war with Iran is beginning to look real. The hardening of positions in both Tehran and Washington over the past week has brought relations to their lowest point since the Iran hostage crisis that began in 1979. Both sides insist that they seek no military conflict, but tensions on issues ranging from Iran's nuclear program to influence in Iraq and the Arab-Israeli peace process is turning their differences into all-out regional power struggle. Last week, Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice criticized Iran's "emboldened foreign policy" and "hegemonic aspirations," while asserting that the U.S. will continue to be engaged on economic, political and security issues in the Middle East. "We are there to stay," she declared. …
Cheney, like Bush and Rice, stopped short of advocating a new U.S. policy to aggressively pursue regime change, as in Afghanistan and Iraq. But the Vice President pointed the Administration in that direction. He castigated "the nature of the regime"; said that Iranians have a "right to be free from and oppression, from economic deprivation and tyranny"; and declared that "America looks forward to the day when Iranians reclaim their destiny." Cheney's indictment of Iran's regime as one that deserves to be eliminated could be read as another point of U.S. pressure, designed to entice Iranian leaders to accept the U.S. offer to negotiate a peaceful end to the crisis. But such rhetoric, instead, may prove the point of Iran's hard-liners, that there is really nothing for the U.S. and Iran to talk about.
Particularly chilling is Pat Buchanan’s comment, noted on Hardball and repeated in Maureen Dowd’s column:
“Cheney and Bush are laying down markers for themselves which they’re going to have to meet. I don’t see how ... Bush and Cheney can avoid attacking Iran and retaining their credibility going out of office.”
The prospect of Bush/Cheney unleashing another attack and one they believe can be and must be handled by bombing alone is frightening. As Paul Krugman recently wrote,
Meanwhile, the idea that bombing will bring the Iranian regime to its knees — and bombing is the only option, since we’ve run out of troops — is pure wishful thinking. Last year Israel tried to cripple Hezbollah with an air campaign, and ended up strengthening it instead. There’s every reason to believe that an attack on Iran would produce the same result, with the added effects of endangering U.S. forces in Iraq and driving oil prices well into triple digits.
Countering the rhetoric quoted here, is the news from DeepJournal and other sites, that Chuck Hagel has sent a letter to the President. The letter, which was disclosed by Steven Clemons, director of the national strategy program at the New America Foundation, on his influential blog, comes amid increased speculation over the likelihood of a US military attack against Iran next year.
"Unless there is a strategic shift," according to Hagel's letter, which was also sent to other top administration officials, including Pentagon chief Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, "I believe we will find ourselves in a dangerous and increasingly isolated position in the coming months." "Now is the time for the United States to actively consider when and how to offer direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with Iran," it went on, adding that such a move should be combined with continued efforts with US allies to press Iran through economic sanctions, including a third United Nations Security Council resolution. "An approach such as this would strengthen our ability across the board to deal with Iran," it went on. "Our friends and allies would be more confident to stand with us if we seek to increase pressure, including tougher sanctions, on Iran. It could create a historic new dynamic in US-Iran relations, in part by forcing the Iranians to react to the possibility of better relations with the West."
As we move closer to the 2008 elections, I will find it hard to keep Buchanan’s comment from my mind, much as I hope that the request of Chuck Hagel to enter into talks with Iran will prevail. Just as Samuel Johnson related that "when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully," so my proximity to Iran concentrates my mind wonderfully.
