Frigate to patrol in Mideast

[CHIMO]

Canadian warship to do six-month tour in tense region

Mission to disrupt terrorist trafficking in arms, people

OTTAWA—A Canadian warship will sail to the Middle East next month as Canada revives an anti-terror mission at a time of heightened tensions in the region, the Toronto Star has learned.

The frigate HMCS Ottawa will serve a six-month tour of duty in the Arabian Sea region, where it will join the United States navy in operations meant to disrupt terrorist trafficking in weapons and people, military officials confirmed yesterday.

The frigate's 225 officers and sailors will be working under America's Operation Enduring Freedom, Washington's campaign against terrorism.

"The Ottawa will conduct surveillance patrols and maritime interdiction operations in order to control sea-based activity in the area," said Lieut. Adam Thomson, a Canadian Forces spokesperson.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1156542610772

U.S. May Curb Iran
If the U.N. Security Council won't penalize Tehran for its nuclear program, the White House may forge an alliance to do so.
By Maggie Farley, Times Staff Writer
August 26, 2006

UNITED NATIONS — With increasing signs that several fellow Security Council members may stall a United States push to penalize Iran for its nuclear enrichment program, Bush administration officials have indicated that they are prepared to form an independent coalition to freeze Iranian assets and restrict trade.

The strategy, analysts say, reflects not only long-standing U.S. frustration with the Security Council's inaction on Iran, but also the current weakness of Washington's position because of its controversial role in a series of conflicts in the Middle East, most recently in Lebanon.

Under U.S. terrorism laws, Washington could ramp up its own sanctions, including financial constraints on Tehran and interception of missile and nuclear materials en route to Iran, Bolton said, and the U.S. is encouraging other countries to follow suit. "You don't need Security Council authority to impose sanctions, just as we have," he said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran26aug26,0,2595288.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[CHIMO]

1. UN General Assembly Hears Bush, Ahmadinejad Trade Criticism

UN General Assembly Hears Bush, Ahmadinejad Trade Criticism

PHYLLIS BENNIS: Well, it was very interesting to watch yesterday, Amy. In President Bush's speech, which interestingly was book-ended by the Brazilian President Lula and South African President Mbeki, who both used their time at the UN podium for very different purposes, President Bush stood out with trying to frame what he is calling a new ideological divide in the world. It's no longer a world, he’s telling us, between communism and capitalism. It’s no longer even the axis of evil. His new language is the world divided between moderates and extremists. And he talked a lot about democracy, although not in the same language that he has in the past, and called on the world to support the moderates. The problem is, of course, he was also talking about how people must respect elected leaders. And he keeps coming up against the fact that those who are elected in the Middle East, whenever elections are held at all, tend to be not the people that he considers moderates. So there was this very interesting sort of reframing of his so-called global war on terrorism to be framed as a war for moderation against extremism.

What was interesting, I thought, in terms of his references to Iran, he made a fairly generalized threatening, in tone, statement: Iran must abide by the Security Council resolution. But he stopped right there. He did not go on to talk about any particular moves that the U.S. would take. He didn't threaten greater economic sanctions coming from the Security Council, because it's becoming clearer and clearer that he is not going to be able to win a serious sanctions motion. French President Jacques Chirac yesterday took the opportunity to distance himself from the Bush administration, essentially saying that the most important thing is to get back to negotiations with Iran and that Chirac was perfectly prepared to go ahead with negotiations, even before any sort of suspension of uranium enrichment on the part of Iran, something very different from the U.S. side.

Ahmadinejad's presentation was far less about the particulars of the conflict between Iran and the U.S. on the question of nuclear power, but rather on the question of U.S. control and domination of the Security Council and the undemocratic nature of the United Nations, a longstanding challenge at the UN. What this may refer to, I’m afraid, is that the U.S. may be in the process of giving up a focus on the United Nations as the key venue for working out their escalating attacks on Iran, if they feel that they are simply not going to get the support they want, do what they did regarding Iraq, which was to deem the Security Council and the UN as a whole, in general, to be what they called irrelevant and go ahead on a unilateral basis.

That would be reflected in the new stories that have come out in the last couple of days in Time magazine and elsewhere, indicating that there have in fact been orders preparing to deploy U.S. Navy warships towards Iran with the goal being not necessarily a direct military strike, but rather a naval blockade of Iranian oil ports, which, of course, constitute an act of war. In that situation, the danger, of course, is that if there was, for example, imagine, a week or so of a U.S. blockade of Iran’s ports, Iran knows, its government and its people know, that that's an act of war. Most Americans don't know that a blockade is considered an act of war. And if Iran responded militarily, which unfortunately would be their right under Article 51 of the UN Charter calling for self-defense rights, the Bush administration would very likely call that an unprovoked attack on peaceful U.S. ships and would respond militarily, claiming to be responding in self-defense. That's, I think, a very serious danger that we face right now. And seeing Bush at the United Nations choosing not to use that rostrum as a podium for escalating threats, direct threats, against Iran, it makes the danger of a unilateral military move right now all the greater.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/20/1412242