U.S. Fueling the Arms Race in The Middle East for the Economy and Control of Iran

Be aware of what is said in the news media about Iran. Note statements about Iran from Hillary Clinton, President Obama and others. Read between the lines when the news media discusses the middle east. Be aware as the public is groomed for the next war. The Military Iindustrial Complex is like a workplace bully, always looking for the next target. Sure Ahmadinejad is a jackass and the people in Iran would be better off without him(that is how people in Iran felt about GWB), but that will be the excuse, not the real reason for a war. This is not the whole story, Ahmadinejad wants a Middle Eastern union formed similar to the European Union and that would be a threat to U.S./Iraeli influence in the Middle East. One reason for his actions are the backing he gets because people in the Middle East are angry at the United States and Israel. I am concerned for the people of Iran. It is always the innocent who have to pay. Who is using who here? Is the U.S. using the right wing paranoia in Israel to fuel a war or is Israel using the U.S. corporate/economic needs for a war? I think both are a factor. The needs of the military contractors and the economy are being put above the needs of the people of the middle east and ultimately everyone else.

James Denselow on HuffPo:
Following the recent record-breaking deal to sell $60.5bn worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia, the Financial Times reported at the end of last month that the Pentagon proposed to sell weapons worth $4.2bn to Iraq, including 18 F-16 fighter aircraft, Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, laser-guided bombs and reconnaissance equipment.

This deal is the latest in a series that has seen Iraq purchase more than $5bn worth of US weapons since 2006, and inherit a significant amount of equipment left behind as part of the US redeployment. According to UPI, the Pentagon stated that the deal would make Iraq "a more valuable partner in an important area of the world as well as supporting Iraq's legitimate needs" regarding self-defense.

Jonathan Tasini on HuffPo:
...the upshot should be clear: the United States--and this is true of Republican and Democratic Administrations (i.e., Bush and Obama)--is dispensing weapons like candy without even making sure that the sales of the weapons advances anything but the bottom lines of the weapons industry.

Professor Stephen Zunes on HuffPo:
The Pentagon has announced a $60 billion arms package to the repressive family dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, the largest arms sale of its kind in history. Rejecting the broad consensus of arms control advocates that the Middle East is too militarized already and that the Saudis already possess military capabilities well in excess of their legitimate security needs, the Obama administration is effectively insisting that this volatile region does not yet have enough armaments and that the United States must send even more.

According to reports, Washington is planning to sell 84 new F-15 fighters and three types of helicopters: 72 Black Hawks, 70 Apaches and 36 Little Birds. There are also reports of naval missile-defense upgrades in the works.
Though supporters of such arms sales argue that if the United States did not sell weapons to the oil-rich kingdom, someone else would, neither the Obama administration nor its predecessors have ever expressed interest in pursuing any kind of arms control agreement with other arms-exporting countries. A number of other arms exporters, such as Germany, are now expressing their opposition to further arms transfers to the region due to the risks of exacerbating tensions and promoting a regional arms race.
The United States is by far the largest arms exporter in the world, surpassing Russia -- the second-largest arms exporter -- by nearly two to one.
******
This US insistence on countering Iran through further militarizing this already overly militarized region is particularly provocative. Not only has the United States refused to engage in serious negotiations with Iran regarding mutual security concerns, but it has discouraged its regional allies from pursuing arms control talks or other negotiations that could ease tensions between the Arab monarchies and the Islamic Republic. If the Obama administration were really interested in addressing its purported concerns regarding Iranian militarization, it would be willing to engage in more serious diplomacy to limit the procurement of conventional arms on a region-wide basis.

In addition to alleged worries about Iran as a military threat to the region, US officials have also tried to justify the arms package as a means to respond to Iran's growing political influence. However, most of Iran's enhanced role in the region in recent years is a direct consequence of the decision by the Bush administration -- backed by the current vice president, secretary of state, secretary of defense, and other leading Obama administration officials -- to overthrow the secular anti-Iranian regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and replace it with a new government dominated by pro-Iranian Shiite parties. Another key element of Iran's growing influence is the earlier US decision to oust the anti-Iranian Taliban of Afghanistan and replace it with a regime dominated by tribal war lords, a number of whom have close Iranian ties. Similarly, Iranian influence has also increased in the Levant as a direct consequence of US-backed Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, which have strengthened popular political support for Hamas and Hezbollah and their ties to Iran.
For an excellent analysis of the whole situation read his whole article.

Jeremy White on the HuffPo:
A few days ago the U.S. and Saudi governments announced a record breaking $60 Billion dollars in future arms sales. This comes as a great relief to the Obama administration who was faced with the prospect of massive layoffs in the defense sector as the Defense Department begins to roll back its budget. While these cuts will come slowly over the next few years,the more important issue for the defense industry is the lack of big ticket defense procurements in the pipeline. Defense budgeting usually looks five to ten years into the future and from what I have seen of these budgets there is simply not enough money coming their way to maintain the American defense sector at its current size. This is however nothing new. The American defense industry has essentially existed as a welfare system since the end of the Cold War. If you were to ask Ash Carter, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics, he would tell you (privately of course) that the DoD is personally paying the operating costs of several U.S. weapons factories that are not producing so much as a single bullet. In fact only one weapons plant has actually shuttered its doors since 1991.



PressTV:

EXPLORING THE TRUTH BEHIND US MILTARY BASES IN COLOMBIA

We have put sanctions on selling any equipment to Iran which would allow them to refine their oil. Sanctions on Iran are being increased to include fuel and south America could be their suppliers of energy. Somehow this is supposed to stop them from having nuclear weapons. I guess it is the money factor they make their assumptions on. Of course those who oppose US imperialism are going to cooperate with Iran. Hillary Clinton has recently stated that Latin American countries should not be dealing with Iran and said Iran is the leading promoter of terrorism. I am sure she says that because everyone knows there have never been any terrorist in South America(dripping with sarcasm) and none of them have been funded by the United States, no, of course not. Iran has been establishing trade relationships with Latin America and Mahmoud Ahmadinajad has visited Brazil, Venezuela, and Bolivia. Clinton said the US has no problem with China having business deals with Iran(what about the military assistance from China?), but does not want Iranian influence in South America. She further stated that those who have dealings with Iran will suffer consequences and those who don't will be supported by the US. That sounds like a threat to me.

"We need to make it absolutely an article of faith that any leader elected must not just further his own position and his power base(because this never happens in the US), , but respect the right of the people who elected him and build up the democracy so that democratic development and economic development can go hand in hand," Hillary Clinton said. In light of what has gone on with the economy, bailouts, backtracking by President Obama, continuation of Bush policies that hamper civil rights, the reality that we are not getting real health care reform, Obama's interference in the judicial system to allow war crimes to go unpunished, and our involvement with coups to get rid of democratically elected presidents in Latin America I guess all I can say is the pot sure likes to call the kettle black.

From the Air Force's Military Construction Budget for 2010 page 219:
Read it yourself and see what you think their real purpose in Colombia is. This is the original document apparently a second document has been released with some of the original wording removed or changed. It is clear this particular base is not about the war on drugs, that is a smoke screen. It is well known the growing of Poppies and Marijuana are about the poor people trying to make a living. Changing their circumstances is the way to reduce the drug trade.

Location (CSL) at Palanquero best supports the COCOM's Theater Posture Strategy and demonstrates our commitment to this relationship. Development of this CSL provides a unique opportunity for full spectrum operations in a critical sub region of our hemisphere where security and stability is under constant threat from narcotics funded terrorist insurgencies, anti-US governments, endemic poverty and recurring natural disasters.


Access to Columbia will further its strategic partnership with the United States. The strong security cooperation relationship also offers an opportunity for conducting full spectrum operations throughout South America to include mitigating the Counternarcotics capability. Palanquero is unquestionably the best site for investing in infrastructure development within Columbia. Its central location is within reach of Andean Ridge counter narco-terrorist operations areas; the superb runway and existing airfield facilities will reduce construction costs; its isolation maximizes Operational Security (OPSEC) and Force Protection and minimizes the U.S. military profile. The intent is to leverage existing infrastructure to the maximum extent possible, improve the U.S. ability to respond rapidly to crisis, and assure regional access and presence at minimum cost. Palanquero supports the mobility mission by providing access to the entire South American continent with the exception of the Cape Horn region if fuel is available, and over half of the continent unrefueled. Although the runway is fully capable of supporting strategic airlift and refueling airframes, the associated taxiway and ramp/apron areas are deficient and in their current configurations, severely limiting the extended operational capabilities of this location. Additionally, the operations and support facilities need to be expanded to service the U.S. aircraft anticipated in the area for future mission requirements. Limited operations could be accomplished with expeditionary resources utilizing the existing infrastructure, but sustained operations require minimal construction outlined in this document.


If these upgrades are not accomplished, it will severely limit the ability of USSOUTHCOM to support the U.S. Global Defense Posture (GDP) Strategy which directs development of a comprehensive and integrated presence and basing strategy aligned with the principles of developing relationships with partner nations, ensuring mutual benefits between US and partner nations, limited restrictions on U.S. freedom of action by partner nations and appropriate sharing of costs. Not funding this project will limit USSOUTHCOM to four other CSLs which are restricted to supporting aerial counter narcotics missions only and two other locations that, while not mission restricted, are too distant to accommodate mission requirements in the AOR.


Development of this CSL will further the strategic partnership forged between the U.S. and Columbia and is in the interest of both nations, and improves the U.S. ability to respond rapidly to crisis, and assuring regional access and presence at minimal cost. A presence will also increase our capability to conduct intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), improve global reach, support logistics requirements, improve partnerships, improve theater security cooperation, and expand expeditionary warfare capability.


This facility can be used by other components on an "as available" basis; however, the scope of the project is based on Air Force requirements. Palanquero will provide joint use capability to U.S. Army, Air Force, Marine, and U. S. Interagency aircraft and personnel in addition to building partner capacity of the Columbian forces.

http://www.centrodealerta.org/documentos_desclasificados/original_in_english_air_for.pdf
http://poorbuthappy.com/colombia/post/us-and-colombia-bases-deal-signed-but-what-are-the-real-intentions/
http://www.amcostarica.com/monday.htm

Here is another fabulous report from Al Jazeera,  about the U.S. bases going into Colombia.






Why do we continue to allow the poor and powerless to suffer for the sins of our societies? They put their lives on the line in military, don't get rescued during disasters, go without health care, and can't find jobs. I am just referring to the United States so far, if we think so little of our poor those in other countries are as we know even worse off. Why are we allowing a select few to have our resources when our lives could be so different? Why are we allowing our population to be dumbed down when we each as individuals can do something about that ourselves?