Vigil

Thanks, Tk Yeah, I heard something along those lines as well. Yeah, the Mods have a habit of doing that to Armenians. See I do not understand why they ban them for being nationalistic? I mean I am not "nationalistic" and in fact I am far from a nationalist. I have learned long ago that the age of Alexander’s, Napoleons, and Genghis Khans are over, but the era of Capitalists is in its infancy. The neo-capitalist is the neo-nationalist. The best guess I can come up with is that the modern society, which is predominantly controlled by the media, has made being ethnocentric the equivalent of being racist. Anyways I do not want to derail this thread, but I am going to research this a bit more, thanks.

The only reason I ask is because they were in the Asia minor. I never knew the Guals had a presense in the Asia Minor.

Galatian - a native or inhabitant of Galatia in Asia Minor (especially a member of a people believed to have been Gauls who conquered Galatia in the 3rd century) Do they have a relationship with ancient Armenians?

(at picture) America-hye, you gotta admit it is funny.

Armen, sorry, I did not want to derail you're thread. Mods, just delete my post and we can go back to pretending like nothing ever happend. Armen, please continue with you're ideas and suggestions.

Oh, yeah, so my family comes from Van that mean I am a Jew. Dam, I need to convert now.

Sorry, Armen, I am paranoid *&$%! Yeah, its good to know what they are up to.

So, is it me are Jews writing history in their own image? They make it seem like Armenians were these backwards pagan people that were "civilized" once Jews came to Armenia. Yeah, we were ruled by Jews also.

The Unexpected Discovery of Vestiges of the Medieval Armenian Jews Posted to Kulanu's listserv by Kevin Brook in December 2001 "The Unexpected Discovery of Vestiges of the Medieval Armenian Jews" by Kevin Alan Brook Published in "Los Muestros: The Sephardic Voice" Issue No. 45 (December 2001), pages 15-16. Introduction In 1996, an unexpected and remarkable archaeological discovery of Jewish significance was made by an Armenian bishop, Abraham Mkrtchyan. The bishop came upon a number of large inscribed gravestones in a river and an adjoining forest at the edge of Eghegis, in the Siwniq region of southeastern Armenia. These stones, which were shaped from granite into oblong cylinders, contain Hebrew and Aramaic inscriptions and are the first known physical evidence of a Jewish community in Armenia prior to modern times. The community existed contemporaneously with Jewish communities in neighboring regions like Georgia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Dagestan, the Crimea, and Ukraine. It may have consisted of about 150 people, according to Frank Brown, writing in the Jerusalem Report ("Stones from the River"). The stone inscriptions contain dates ranging from the middle of the 13th century to 1337. An archaeological team was assembled from Israeli and Armenian experts, thanks in large part to Bishop Mkrtchyan. Israeli participants included the archaeologist Michael E. Stone (of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem), the archaeologist David Amit (of the Israel Antiquities Authority), the Armenologist and photographer Yoav Loeff, and the archaeological assistant Sheila Bishop. Igor Dorfmann also participated. Armenians who helped with the research and excavation work included not only Bishop Mkrtchyan but also Mayis Mkrtchyan, Hussik Melkonian, Niwra Hagopian, Gohar Muradyan, Aram Topchyan, and several others. A preliminary survey of the Jewish cemetery took place during October 2000. The second phase of excavation took place in May 2001. The third phase is scheduled to take place in the spring of 2002. Archaeological evidence for Armenian Jewry To date, over 62 Jewish gravestones have been located at various sites in Eghegis -- including the Jewish cemetery, the foundation of a mill, and the lower support of a foot-bridge. At the cemetery, some of the stones are positioned on open graves while others are on sealed graves. A number of the stones had magnificent ornamentation. Some of the symbols on the Jewish gravestones -- like a spiral wheel -- were also in use on Armenian Christian stonecrafts around the same time. It is most interesting that the same decorative motifs were shared by Jews and Christians. While some of the inscriptions were worn down over the centuries, a lot of them are decipherable. Here are some examples: A gravestone dated the 18th of Tishrei of the common era year 1266 contains an inscription dedicated to the memory of "the virgin maiden, the affianced Esther, daughter of Michael. May her portion be with our matriarch Sar[ah]..." The opposite side quotes "Grace is a lie and beauty is vanity" from Proverbs 31:20 of the Hebrew scriptures and continues with a statement that Esther was "God-fearing". This stone was found in the bank of a flour mill. A gravestone in the bank of the same flour mill read "Rachel, daughter of Eli, may her repose be in the Garden of Eden." Rachel's stone also contains geometric ornamentation. A gravestone recorded the death of Baba bar David in the month of Tamuz in 1600 (the equivalent to the year 1289 of the common era). The other side of this stone reads "A good memorial and rest for the soul" in Aramaic. One gravestone includes a Hebrew blessing of Aaron the Priest from the ancient Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. There is a gravestone containing an emotional statement from a father mourning his son's passing. In this inscription, the father claims that the soul is eternal and cites passages from the Book of the Prophet Isaiah that relate to the resurrection of the dead. It is evident from the gravestones that many typical Hebrew names were in use among the Jews of medieval Armenia. The archaeologists learned that the cemetery of the Orbelian royal family of Armenia, at the other side of Eghegis, had gravestones made of the same material and in a similar style as the Jewish gravestones. Michael Stone thinks it is possible that an identical workshop had produced both the Jewish and the Christian stones. At the time of Jewish settlement in Eghegis, the city was an important commercial, cultural, intellectual, and governmental center, serving as a provincial capital. Apparently, Jews were wealthy and important members of the society at Eghegis, though Armenian Christians predominated in the city's population. The Mongols ruled Armenia during the period of Jewish habitation. On the wall of an Armenian church outside of Eghegis, an inscription mentions that the plot of land where it stands was purchased from a Jew. Written evidence for Armenian Jewry Traces of Jewish settlement in medieval Armenia are also found in written records. The Armenian philologist Aram Topchyan located record books of monasteries that refer to property transfers to Jews. The medieval Armenian historian Movses of Khorene wrote that King Tigran II the Great, king of Armenia (95-55 B.C.E.), settled thousands of Jews from Syria and Mesopotamia in Armenian cities (including Armavir and Vardges) during the 1st century before the common era. It appears that some of these earliest Jewish settlers later converted to Christianity. The Armenian vardapet T'ovma of Metsob explicitly declared in "The History of Tamerlane and His Successors" that captured Jews brought to Armenia had converted to Christianity and subsequently become princes and kings in Armenia and Georgia. The Roman historian Josephus wrote that Judean Jews were taken by the Armenian king Artavazd II (55-34 B.C.E.) and resettled in the Van region of Armenia, again during the 1st century B.C.E., but some years after Tigranes's resettlement. A Jewish presence in Van persisted for many centuries. There may have also been Jews in Eruandashat and Nakhichevan. Jacob Neusner wrote that a large Jewish population existed in the central Armenian city of Vagharshabat. Itzhak Ben-Zvi speculated that Jews from Adiabene, a part of northern Mesopotamia that was ruled by Jewish kings during part of the 1st century of the common era, may have resettled in Armenia. This possibility was also raised by Neusner in his article "The Jews in Pagan Armenia". Neusner thought that the royal family of Adiabene might have arrived in Armenia during the reign of the Roman emperor Trajan (98-117 C.E.). The significance of a reference in the Jerusalem Talmud's Gittin Tractate to an ancient Jewish scholar named "R. Jacob the Armenian" is not known. The "Cambridge Document", discovered by Solomon Schechter in the late 19th century and also known as the "Schechter Letter", the "Schechter Text", and the "Letter of an Anonymous Khazar Jew", discusses how Jewish men fled either through or from Armenia into the Khazar kingdom in ancient times, escaping from "the yoke of the idol-worshippers". Some words, phrases, and sentences in the document were lost to the ravages of time. The document related how the Jews "intermingled with the gentiles" of Khazaria so that they "became one people". Norman Golb's excellent reconstruction of the document (as published in his co-authored 1982 book "Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century") nevertheless had to leave open the question of where the Jews had come from originally. While one gets the impression upon reading Golb's summary of the document on page 102 and his footnotes on pages 106 and 107 that Golb assumed that the Jews had in fact come from Armenia and that Armenia was illiterate and pagan, this is far from established fact. Armenia was actually Christian since the 4th century and had its own alphabet since the 5th century, and the Khazars were not really a cohesive entity until after Armenia was already literate and monotheistic. Golb's co-author, Omeljan Pritsak, offered the suggestion on page 130 that these Jews had been persecuted in Sassanian Iran, rather than in Armenia, and this is more plausible. I asked Michael Stone what he thought of the document. Stone responded that the document probably refers to Jews migrating through Armenia, rather than from Armenia, because not only were the Armenians Christians rather than pagans, but there is no evidence that the Armenians persecuted Jews in the time of the Khazars. So, it turns out that the "Cambridge Document" probably has no bearing upon the existence of an ancient Jewish community in Armenia. What was the fate of the Armenian Jews? While there are no definite answers yet, many scholars have attempted to answer the question. Abraham Poliak, a 20th-century Israeli historian, claimed that part of Armenian Jewry merged into Kurdish Jewry. Neusner argued that the Adiabenian Jews of Armenia could have adopted Christianity just as did countless of their coreligionists in other parts of the northern Middle East. What is known is that the Persian king Shapur II (309-379 C.E.), who conquered Armenia towards the end of his reign, deported many Jews from Armenia to Persia. But what about those Jews who remained in Armenia and kept their Judaism for a long period of time? Iosif Abgarovich Orbeli reported that members of Van's peasantry regarded the citizens of Van to be Jews as late as the start of the 20th century. Perhaps some modern Armenians, especially those living in Van, are descended from Jews. Researchers like Michael Stone wonder whether some Armenians living in the Eghegis region today may also have Jewish ancestors. The present-day Jewish community of Armenia does not have deep roots in Armenia, having arrived during the 20th century from Georgia, Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. Prospects for future research Much research remains to be done. Experts think that Jews might have also lived in Dvin (an ancient capital of Armenia) as well as in Ani (once called "the city of 1001 churches"), though this has not yet been demonstrated. The full extent of Jewish settlement in old Armenia is not yet known. Might other graveyards -- or even synagogues -- be located in the future? Scholars also wonder whether Armenian Jews played a significant role in trading between Armenia and other countries. Suggested readings Brown, Frank. "Stones from the River." The Jerusalem Report (September 24, 2001), pp. 44-45. Golb, Norman and Pritsak, Omeljan. Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century. Ithaca, NY, USA: Cornell University Press, 1982. Lewy, Daphna. "The Lost Jews of Armenia." Ha'aretz (February 4, 2001). Neusner, Jacob. "The Jews in Pagan Armenia." Journal of the American Oriental Society vol. 84 (1964), pp. 239-240. Neusner, Jacob. Judaism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism in Talmudic Babylonia. Atlanta, GA, USA: Scholars Press, 1990.

Armen, are you posting these articles because you agree with them? I know about the how Commander Dro collaborated with the Nazi regime, but if you read that one article I posted in the history section about Turkey's role during WW2 you will see that trying to state that Armenians are "anti-Semitic" is hogwash. Almost one million Armenians served for under the red army during WW2. If Turkey is so "pro Jew" then why does it still keep the gold the Swiss banks laundered in Turkish banks? Why did it sell chromate to Nazi Germany? Why did it stay neutral until it was evident that Nazi Germany would lose the war? It was not even till the last 3 months of the war that Turkey tried to bring Jews into Turkey. Turks are a bunch of hypocrites and now I understand why I mistrust them. Historically, Armenians have always been the least "anti-semetic" people. However, Jews are really taking the entire medieval Jewish community in Armenian findings to new heights. They are now claiming that some Armenians are of Jewish descent and that we need to return ancient property to them. I REALLY MISTRUST JEWS, sorry, I will post some articles. Anyways, what is the point of these articles?

Is this a joke? What will they say next?

Armenia will never be in the game because Armenia has nothing to offer to the United States except her willingness to kneel in favor American interests. The only reason the United States wants to coerce Armenia to join the monopoly is only because it wants to isolate the other regional power, which for now is Russia. My entire argument is not that Armenia has something to offer, but rather, Armenian national interests will only become second to the United States consumer needs. The United States economy is heavily based on foreign oil, which, ultimately, influences her foreign policy. Historically, the United States has a track record of dropping allies or creating new alliances based on her need for foreign oil and Armenia is no exception. However, Russia is playing a defensive game and or trying to pick up the pieces of a shattered empire. The only reason Russia views United States as a threat is because the United States is moving in on territory that has been under the regional influence of Russia. In short, the United States just views Armenia as a bargaining chip to solidify her relationship with Azerbaijan. If Armenia kneels to the will of the United States then by default Artsahk and or AG claims go down the drain as well. Furthermore, the fact that Turkey and Israel have a strong influence over the United States is another factor to consider. If we cut our ties with Russia for the Untied states we shall soon find ourselves under the direct influence of her allies as well. So, do not be suprised if Israel and Turkey (NATO) begin using Armenia for military assaults on Iran. Well, just because the U.S. is imperialistic does not mean we have to succumb to her will. Furthermore, countries like Iran, how ever much Islamic they may be, have successfully stopped her. They have stopped the U.S. so well that they are ignoring the U.S. by working through Russia in order to gain western technology. Now, you may say that "well, Russian technology is obsolete", but keep in mind that the United States will provide the same if not a worse degree of technology to developing nations. Furthermore, much of the outdated and obsolete arms and technology are sold through the U.S.'s regional partners like Turkey and Israel. So, my question to you is do you think Turkey and Israel will sell any reliable military and or technology that will benefit Armenia? I mean if we have to ignore Russia that would only mean that like Georgia we would have to buy our gear from Israel and Turkey, so, do you think they would support a strong Armenia? See here is what you fail to understand is that Russia does not place a limit on what is sold to Armenia due to the fact that Armenia is not a threat to Russia, but a strong military Armenia is a direct threat to Turkey, Azerbaijan, Israel, and now Georgia (Due to regional disputes occurring in SO). This is why Russia is willing to strengthen Iran's regional power by providing her with the means to create nukes. Armenia can flourish more quickly by clinging to Russia as opposed to the U.S. This is evident by the shear fact that Azerbaijan an oil producing nation has a more unstable economy compared with a landlocked Armenia. In fact Georgia has not improved her economy ever since she started working with the U.S. My point is that just because the U.S. is a more developed nation as opposed to Russia does not mean that the U.S. will provide a more rapid way towards a self sufficient Armenia. How am I thinking in very maximalistic and rigid categories? The U.S. will use Armenia as a bargaining chip or have you forgotten what happened to the regimes in Iran and Iraq? The United States will always push for the national interests of Turkey, Israel, Azerbaijan, and Georgia before those of Armenia. My entire argument is that once Armenia joins the U.S. it will be last in line. Please, explain what dozen "factors" I am pushing aside? Are ignoring the fact that the U.S. was "upset" at Armenia for vetoing Turkey's turn to head the MINSK group next year? Yes, I am pretty sure you ignorant to the fact that the U.S. will always push for Turkish interests over the Armenian. Armen, at this point it is much safer to bet on Russia then America. Yeah, they are using very “carefully and designed strategies” like butchering an Armenian officer in cold blood. Armen, can you please explain why the "democratic" U.S. has overlooked this action and in fact has gone on to label Azerbaijan as a democratic nation? Isn’t this a signal to you that the U.S. holds a bias view towards Armenia? I agree with you that Armenia has to be flexible, but at this point it still needs Russia and Iran. Furthermore, the recent U.S. opposition towards the AG should be an indication that Turkey and Israel still hold a strong influence on the U.S.'s foreign policy.

In this scenario, Armenia is screwed both ways. If Armenia sides with the United States, we lose, and if Russia succumbs to Azerbaijan, we lose. The better of the two evils in this case would be to play the Untied States and Russia into the middle and pick the side with the less losses. In both scenarios our national interests will be used as a bargaining chip, however, keep in mind that the oil interests of the United States have more influence over the foreign policy of the United States opposed to the geopolitical interests of Russia. Russia only wants to strengthen her influence in that region to counter the aggressive imperialistic actions of the Untied States. The United State is across the Atlantic, it has no right to meddle in the affairs of parts of the world that are not directly connected to her. Armen, does Armenia need to have a dialogue with the United States? Yes, of course, but would Armenia benefit by siding with the United States as opposed to Russia? No, the scenario would not be much different. If Russia is pro Azerbaijan, equally, the United States is pro Turkey and Israel. Turkey will influence the United States to support Azerbaijan on one end, while Russia’s fear of isolation will force her to support Azerbaijan on the other.

The way I see it is that as long as the United States depends on foreign oil, by default, it will always side with Armenia's geopolitical rivals. If Armenia sides with the United States, Armenia will eventually be used as a bargaining chip to fill America's belly. So, in the short run you will see Artsahk (Karabagh) being returned to Azerbaijan and in the long run you will see Turkish influence increasing in Armenia. I don't know about you, but I would rather be under the supervision of Russia rather then Turkey. Furthermore, Russia needs Armenia more then the United States. The United States has no reason to be in the Caucasus like equally Russia has no right to influence Mexico to geopolitically drift from the United States. By joining with the United States we will solidify her monopoly over the Caucasus, thus, if Armenia succumbs to whoring herself out to America we shall soon find ourselves fighting over the scraps of Israel, Turkey, and the United States. Naturally, the larger portion of the scraps will be given to Azerbaijan and Georgia first, while the "left over of the left over" will be given to Armenia. Basically, if we join the "United States" bandwagon we will be last in line. Armenia must remain with Russia or else our national interests will become only second to the oil interests of the United States.

Hello Arsen, welcome to the boards. Yes, that thread is a bit strange.

Just don't camp my posts like Stormig, thanks in advance.

Mods, if you feel this has no relation to Armenia then feel free to move it, thanks. I would like to remind any member, who may think I am "paranoid" and reading too much into this, that it only took the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand to set off the chain events which, ultimately, lead to WW1, WW2, and the Cold War. If a "paranoid" person like me were to make the public aware of world events much of the conflicts during this century could have been avoided. So, in theory, the bombing of a nuclear power plant could, quite possibly, lead to another world war and or a nuclear holocaust. If Israel attacks Iran, Iran will have no choice but to retaliate. This will eventually trigger a chain of events that may force Israel to ask the "big brother" (AKA United States) for help and once the United States gets involved, so, will Russia. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with "Arabs". This just goes back to my point about the bias foriegn policy of the United States and the aftermath of it.

WHERE DOES THE ARTICLE MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT ARABS? This is related to Armenia because of the fact that the only factor opposing Turkish interests is Russian and Iranian bilateral geopolitical moves. Furthermore, Iranians are not "Arabs" and or "Semites", but Jews are. I am not supporting Arabs, but rather I am supporting Iran our only regional ally. I would find articles from CNN and or BBC, but, unfortunately, they have a bias view on the geopolitical moves of Israel and allies.

Will Iran Be Next? by Mark Gaffney: mhgaffney@aol.com 05/08/03: (Information Clearing House) Those who have hoped that a U.S. military victory in Iraq would somehow bring about a more peaceful world are in for a rude awakening. The final resolution of this war and the U.S. occupation of Iraq will likely not be the end, rather, only the prelude to a succession of future crises: in Kashmir, Syria, North Korea, and Iran. This article will focus primarily on the latter case. In the coming months the United States and its ally Israel will either accede to the existence of an Iranian nuclear power program, or take steps to prevent it. At the eye of the storm is Iran’s nuclear power plant at Bushehr, on the Gulf coast, currently under construction. The reactor is scheduled for completion later this year. Its nuclear fuel rods will then be delivered. By June 2004 it should be fully operational. The controversial project has been in the works for more than a quarter century. As it nears completion, tensions between Iran and the U.S./Israel are sure to rise. Iran is a signatory of the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which affirms the right of states in good standing to develop nuclear power for peaceful use. Although there is no evidence Iran has yet violated the NPT, the U.S. and Israel believe that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. This is the crux of the problem. And two recently discovered Iranian nuclear sites, at Arak and at Natanz, have only heightened suspicions. It is very possible--some would say probable--that the U.S., possibly in conjunction with Israel, will launch a "preventive" raid and destroy the Bushehr reactor before it goes on line. Such a raid would be fateful for the region and the world. It would trigger another Mideast war, and possibly a confrontation with Russia, with effects that are difficult to predict. A war with Iran might bring about the collapse of the NPT, lead to a new arms race, and plunge the world into nuclear chaos. Such a crisis holds the potential to bring the world to the nuclear brink. This article will review the background, and provide an analysis. I will discuss the reactor at Bushehr first, then the other suspect sites. The Reactor at Bushehr The Bushehr nuclear plant has a long history. Launched in 1974, the project was the showcase of the late Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi. The original plan called for the construction of two 1200-1300 megawatt reactors on the southern Iran coast, side by side. The contractor was the Siemens company, a well-known German firm. The project was 85% finished at the time of the 1979 Iranian revolution, when work was halted. During Iran’s subsequent war with Iraq the unfinished reactors were bombed repeatedly, and severely damaged. After the war Iran attempted to persuade Siemens to finish the project, without success, due to increased proliferation concerns and heavy U.S. pressure on Germany. U.S. support for the Shah’s dictatorial regime undoubtedly set the stage for the 1979 Islamic revolution, when radical students, backed by the Ayatollah Khomeini, seized the U.S. embassy and held American diplomats hostage for 444 days. The resulting break in U.S.-Iran relations has never healed. During the 1981-1988 Iran-Iraq war the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein, who was perceived as a bulwark against revolutionary Shi’ism, just as Hitler, many years before, was mistakenly perceived by some in the West as a bulwark against Soviet communism. Nevertheless, the U.S. supplied both sides with arms. During the war, the U.S. policy was: let them destroy each other--a policy that was unworthy of a Christian nation. At the start of the Bush Presidency there were signs that relations with Tehran might improve. Positive statements by Secretary of State Colin Powell were reciprocated by Iran’s foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi. Then came Bush’s "axis of evil" speech, which dashed hopes of a thaw. The current U.S. policy of vilification has been attributed to Pentagon hawks and to Israeli PM Ariel Sharon’s supporters in the Bush administration. Last November, Sharon called upon the U.S. to bring about regime change in Tehran, after first dealing with Iraq. (Mansour Farhang, "A Triangle of Realpolitik" The Nation, March 17, 2003) And similar statements have been made by rightist commentators in the U.S. press. The U.S. blocked several attempts by Iran to enlist a contractor to complete the Bushehr reactor; until, finally, in 1995, after ten years of shopping, Iran signed a $800 million deal with Victor Mikhailov, chief of Minatom, the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy. The Russians agreed to finish reactor-1, and have been on site ever since. The project has been plagued by technical problems and repeated delays. The Russian engineers were compelled to modify the original German design. But, apparently, all of the problems have now been overcome, and reactor-1, slightly downsized to 1000 Megawatts, is finally nearing completion. It will go on line as early as December 2003. But reactor-1 is only the beginning. Iran envisions as many as five additional 1000 megawatt reactors. Iran has received nuclear technology from China, Russia, and several other nations. But Russia has been the principal supplier since the mid-90s . The Russians have stubbornly resisted U.S. pressure to cancel the project. Russia, perennially strapped for cash, desperately needs the foreign exchange. One Minatom official claimed that the project had already generated 20,000 Russian jobs, with the promise of more to come. Russians foresee an expanding nuclear relationship, and have rejected U.S. enticements. Moscow clearly regards its commerce with Iran as a matter of national pride/prestige. Russia has also refused the U.S. demand for special inspections. The Russians point out that the reactor will be subject to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) oversight. The IAEA visited Bushehr and other suspect sites after the first Gulf War, and as recently as February 2003, with no violations reported. Washington remains unconvinced, however. While all of Iran’s nuclear facilities are subject to IAEA oversight, Iran has refused, thus far, to accept the new safeguards introduced in 1993 to overcome past failings. The strengthened protocols are "capable of detecting future Iraqs," according to Khidhir Hamza, a former Iraqi nuclear scientist. Iran’s refusal has undermined confidence. (Khidhir Hamza, "Inside Saddam's secret nuclear program," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September/October 1998) Russia did agree to drop the most objectionable part of the deal, the transfer of gas centrifuge technology. The light water reactor will be fueled with low enriched uranium (LEU) supplied by Russia. LEU fuel is not suitable for bombs. Moscow also made another concession: it agreed to return the reactor’s spent fuel to Russia for storage. This will greatly reduce the risk of a diversion of plutonium. To allow for this the Russian government had to modify existing Russian law. (Christine Kucia, "Russia, Iran Finalize Spent Fuel Agreement," Arms Control Today, January/February 2003) After failing to block the deal outright, President Clinton imposed sweeping sanctions on Iran to prevent the sale of dual-use technologies. Some of Iran’s procurement activities had raised eyebrows in Washington. The U.S. also lobbied others to join in the embargo, with only limited success. Germany and France took umbrage at the policy. The Iranian government has flatly denied the charges of proliferation. The Iranians have also protested the punitive U.S. treatment, which they regard as a violation of their right under article IV of the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) to develop nuclear power for peaceful use. In May 1995 Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani told ABC News that Iran was not seeking nuclear weapons. Rafsanjani challenged the critics to produce evidence of a secret bomb program. As recently as December 2002 the current Iranian president Mohammad Khatami stated that his country’s willingness to return the spent fuel to Russia shows good faith, and demonstrates that his country has no intention of developing nuclear weapons. Iranian officials have stressed that the Bushehr reactor is urgently needed to fill a shortfall of electric-generating capacity. Iran, like other countries, needs electricity for development. Israel and the U.S. have not been mollified. Israeli officials questioned why Iran, blessed with an abundance of oil, needs reactors for electrical generation. And recent statements by Secretary of State Colin Powell echoed this theme. The point is well taken. Iran’s leaders are badly informed if they believe nuclear power is the long-term solution to their energy needs. Nuclear power is inappropriate for Iran for the same reasons that it is inappropriate for any state, including the U.S. The reasons include the grave risks of nuclear accidents and terrorism, as well as the unresolved waste disposal problem—not to mention the diabolical possibility, however remote, that spent fuel might be diverted for reprocessing and bombmaking. The Iranians need to understand that such a diversion would ultimately threaten them. The U.S. Record Nevertheless, the critics, especially those in the U.S., have conveniently forgotten the central role the U.S. played over many years in touting the "many peaceful applications of nuclear energy." The critics need to be reminded that it was the U.S., no one else, who, beginning in the 1950s, aggressively promoted the miracle of cheap and inexhaustible nuclear energy for world economic development. That "vision" was conceived in Washington, not Tehran. Are we now to hold the Iranians responsible because the failed U.S. policy succeeded too well? Are the Iranians to blame because they internalized the false values that Washington strove mightily to inculcate worldwide? The Iranians are not alone. In recent years China and India have also purchased reactors from Russia. And China has even begun exporting reactor technology. China and Russia are both driven by the need for foreign exchange. In this they mirror past policy decisions born in the U.S.A. We must be honest about this. Despite the optimistic forecasts of the early years, and the promises of an end to world poverty, the U.S. Atoms for Peace program was not motivated by altruism. From the outset, Washington’s atomic program was driven by self-interest. The U.S. nuclear industry figured to cash in on the "vision." The export of safe and clean nuclear technology was to become a major growth industry. Little or no thought, until much later, was given to the dark underside, the grave risks and many hidden costs. No one thought to ask whether the nuclear path itself might be the problem. In the words of Amory Lovins, "Atoms for Peace was one of the stupidest ideas of our time, conceived in a spirit of political daydreaming, commercial euphoria, and scientific amnesia." In our enthusiasm to promote nuclear we happily supplied know-how, including research reactors, all with indirect military utility, to just about anyone, including Israel, the Shah, and many others. If the "hard path" still radiates prestige in world capitols, we in the U.S. have only ourselves to blame. The heady promises of cheap, clean and unlimited electricity for economic development have become sand in an hourglass that is about to run out. Had we in the U.S. wisely acknowledged that our commitment to nuclear was a mistake, had we renounced the nuclear path, had we launched a Manhattan Project, urgently needed, to convert the U.S. economy to run on clean hydrogen fuel and other renewables, we would now be in a position of world leadership. Unfortunately, it never happened. One searches the U.S. record in vain for moral high ground. The half-life of President Clinton’s 1994 decision to supply North Korea with two light-water reactors will haunt Washington for years to come. Clinton’s reactor deal with Pyongyang made a mockery of his opposition to Russia’s similar assistance to Iran. Clinton’s policy position that Russian light-water reactors are dangerous, while ours are safe, was laid to rest by a 1999 Congressional study which revealed that the spent fuel from the reactors planned for North Korea would not be as "proliferation resistant" as claimed. Sufficient plutonium for as much as fifty bombs/year could be extracted from the waste. Despite the report, construction of the North Korean reactors started last year, and continues, though it is a safe bet they will never be completed. The Bush-Cheney White House likes to blame Clinton. But the Bush-Cheney record is no better. During the run-up to the last presidential election V.P. candidate Dick Cheney vigorously touted the benefits of nuclear power. As late as May 2001 Cheney was promoting the next generation of nuclear reactors as safe, and also good for the environment, since they emit few greenhouse gases. I should add: the V.P. made a point of explicitly rejecting conservation and renewable alternatives. Then came 911, and the slow dawning realization of the true risks of nuclear terrorism. As my friend Harvey Wasserman at Greenpeace likes to point out, had the two planes hit the Indian Point nuclear reactor located just a few miles north of Manhattan instead of the World Trade Towers, most of New England today would be a toxic wasteland, rendered uninhabitable for thousands of years. This is the plain truth, no exaggeration. Unfortunately, reality is in short supply at the White House. The facts have not yet penetrated what Seymour Hersh calls the advisory "cocoon" around the president. The Bush policy is: never speak ill of industry. Despite 911, there has been no retreat from nuclear by the U.S., here where it counts most, however well-advised such a retreat might be. Regarding nuclear weapons, the U.S. record is just as bleak. In February 2003 there was a White House leak--probably intended--that next summer President Bush will convene a conference of experts to discuss the next generation of U.S. nuclear weapons. (Julian Borger, "U.S. Plan For New Nuclear Arsenal: Secret Talks May Lead to Breaking Treaties," The Guardian UK, February 19, 2003) The leak was no surprise, given the change in U.S. military doctrine announced last September to a policy of preemptive attack. That change paved the way for the "preventive" invasion of Iraq, which has effectively frozen further U.S.-Russian nuclear arms reductions. The shift in military doctrine was unprecedented, yet stirred hardly a ripple in the U.S. media. Most Americans probably do not even know that it happened, or do not understand the significance. The fact that the U.S. government has embraced a first-strike nuclear posture is America’s best-kept open secret. No doubt, the next generation of U.S. nukes will be smarter and leaner, designed not for deterrence but for actual use. And, no doubt, we will be told that their purpose is defensive, i.e., to save the lives of U.S. servicemen and women. Tell a small lie and you only make people suspicious. Tell a whopper and they fall at your feet. Arak and Natanz Events took a dangerous turn in August 2002 when an Iranian opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), staged a press conference in Washington DC and reported the existence of two previously unknown nuclear facilities in Iran. The first, located at Arak, 150 kilometers south of Tehran, is believed to be a plant for manufacturing heavy-water. The other, at Natanz, about 100 kilometers north of Esfahan, is probably a uranium-enrichment facility. Neither is operational yet--both are under construction. Satellite photoanalysis of the Natanz site shows that part of the facility is being constructed below ground, and hardened with thick concrete walls. (Click here for photos and commentary) Days later, Iranian officials acknowledged the sites. They also announced long-range plans for a complete nuclear fuel cycle. The Iranians, in other words, intend to develop their own fuel processing capability. The country has an abundance of uranium ore. In March 2003 Iranian officials announced the completion of a fuel fabrication plant near Esfahan that will soon start production. (Paul Kerr, "IAEA ‘Taken Aback’ By Speed Of Iran’s Nuclear Program," Arms Control Today April 2003) All of this raises troubling questions about Iran’s nuclear intentions. Heavy-water is used as a moderator in some reactors. The problem is that this type of reactor lends itself to the production of plutonium for bombs. Israel is known to have made the plutonium for its nuclear arsenal in a reactor of this kind. The reactor at Bushehr was specifically designed to use light-water to make recovery of plutonium more difficult. Why, then, do the Iranians need heavy-water, when light-water reactors could supply the needed electricity with greater transparency? A heavy-water plant implies a heavy-water reactor. As of yet, however, its location remains unknown. Also: Why does Iran need a uranium-enrichment plant, given that Russia will provide LEU fuel for the Bushehr reactor, and could do the same for future reactors? Why are buildings at Natanz being constructed underground? Why are they being hardened? The fact that Iran is building a uranium-enrichment facility means that Iran already has gas centrifuge technology. Who supplied it? While there is no evidence that Iran has violated the NPT--yet--the facts are alarming. The NPT stipulates that each signatory must work out a safeguards arrangement with the IAEA. Both of the recently disclosed nuclear sites will be subject to IAEA inspections. However, Iran’s agreement does not require inspections of a new facility until six months prior to the first arrival of nuclear material. The facilities at Arak and Natanz appear to be considerably more than six months from completion; hence, no violation. Still, questions remain. Why did Iran inform the IAEA about these plants only after the NCRI forced the issue? The fact that Iran intends to make its own LEU will make transparency more problematic. Even if Natanz is inspected regularly, what would stop Iran from enriching uranium to weapons-grade, i.e., 90%+, at a hidden facility? Clearly, Iran’s leaders are playing a dangerous game, staying within the letter of the NPT, yet building up a nuclear infrastructure that could be used to make bombs in the future. Israel’s record The Israelis have charged that Russia’s nuclear commerce with Iran is politically motivated: aimed at the U.S. presence in the Gulf. While there is probably some truth to this, the same criticism could be leveled at Israel. During the Apartheid years Israel engaged in massive nuclear commerce with Pretoria, with effects that were felt throughout southern Africa. The alliance included trade in uranium, transfers of weapons technology, and cooperation in staging at least one joint nuclear test--for which Israel has never been held accountable. (See my book Dimona the Third Temple, 1989, chapters four and five) The relationship flourished for more than a decade. And though it did not survive the dissolution of Apartheid, the Israeli government simply shifted venues. India became the latest partner of convenience. By the year 2000 Israel’s nuclear commerce with India reportedly reached $500 million per year. (Yossi Melman, "India's Visiting strongman Wants to Expand Nuclear Cooperation with Israel," Ha'aretz, June 16, 2000) The relationship with India has continued to expand, and is surely causing grave concerns in Islamabad. If the recent reports are correct that Pakistan supplied gas centrifuge technology to North Korea in exchange for missiles, this means an arms race is currently raging out of control in southern Asia. ("U.S. Says Pakistan Gave Technology to North Korea," The New York Times, Oct. 18, 2002) Such a move by Pakistan smacks of desperation. The prospect of future transfers of Pakistani gas centrifuge technology is frightening. But Israel’s role in all of this, making a bad situation worse, has never been discussed, or even mentioned, in American discourse, insofar as I know. It is simply assumed that Israel can do as it pleases. Israel’s nuclear trade with India raises serious questions, not the least of which is whether Israel could be destabilizing the Indian sub-continent. I should add: the U.S. record in South Asia is no better. U.S. nonproliferation policy vis-a-vis Pakistan over many years has been a model of inconsistency and short-term expedience. The facts are disgraceful, and reveal Washington’s total lack of seriousness about limiting the spread of nuclear weapons. U.S. policy has been more consistent in the case of Iran, probably because there is no official relationship. Under U.S. pressure, Russia agreed to drop several missile technology deals with Tehran in the late 1990s, a positive move. (Scott Peterson, "Russian nuclear know-how pours into Iran," Christian Science Monitor, June 21, 2002) Still, the Israelis complain that Russian assistance, including missile guidance technology, has continued. Especially troubling is the specter of "loose" Russian scientists, which prompted the Clinton administration to slap sanctions on several Russian scientific institutions/companies. (Aluf Benn, "The Russian–Iranian Connection," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January/February 2001) While the slow and halting development of an Iranian intermediate range missile is cause for concern, given Israel’s tiny size, hence its unique vulnerability, similar charges, again, could be leveled at Israel, which acquired French missile technology as early as 1963. Israel’s Jericho missile makes Iran’s efforts look primitive. Israel even has a space program, and has been launching satellites since 1988. The U.S. has sought to thwart the transfer of Russian missile technology to Iran. But did the U.S. similarly try to block Israel’s acquisition from Germany a few years ago of three Dolphin-class submarines capable of launching conventional and nuclear-tipped cruise missiles? Did the U.S. even complain? Of course not. As I’ve observed, it is assumed that Israel can do as it pleases. The 1,720-ton diesel-electric submarines are among the most technically advanced subs of their kind in the world. Each can be equipped with four cruise missiles, which Israel reportedly tested in the Indian Ocean in 1999. (Uzi Mahnaimi and Matthew Campbell, "Israel Makes Nuclear Waves with Submarine Missile Test," London Sunday Times, June 18, 2000) The subs will cruise the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, and, ominously, the Persian Gulf--which tends to confirm the views of the late Israeli scholar, Israel Shahak, a leading dissident, who argued that Israel’s strategic goal is hegemony from Morocco to Pakistan. (See Israel Shahak, Open Secrets, 1997, chapters four and eight) The prospect of nuclear-armed Israeli subs patrolling the coasts of Iran and Pakistan is disturbing. The forward deployment of Israeli nukes is unprecedented, and dangerous. It can only inflame tensions in the region. As early as 1983 a U.S. Naval commander, E.V. Ortlieb, warned against the forward deployment of nukes, which can put a naval officer in the unenviable position of having to use his weapons, or face losing them. (E.V. Ortlieb, "Forward Deployments: Deterrent, or Temptation?", Proceedings, U.S. Naval Institute, December, 1983) Even if Israel makes a determined effort to avoid a confrontation on the high seas, the Israeli patrols could still trigger a crisis. Accidents do happen, as we know from two recent incidents: the unfortunate collision near Pearl Harbor of a U.S. Navy submarine with a Japanese fishing boat, and the mid-air encounter of a U.S. spy plane with a Chinese fighter while on patrol off the coast of China. If such snafus can happen to the U.S., they can certainly happen to Israel, and in circumstances that are far from congenial. Has the U.S. protested Israel’s forward deployment of nukes on the high seas? Of course not. Washington does not protest weapons that (officially) do not exist. The U.S. government has never acknowledged that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, even though the world knows otherwise, thanks to the whistleblower, Mordechai Vanunu. (London Sunday Times, Oct. 5, 1986) The continuing policy of denial can only hinder efforts to "rein in" Israel in the event of a nuclear crisis. One could hardly imagine a more explosive mix. Israel’s decision to patrol Persian Gulf waters with nuclear-armed subs seems perversely calculated to strengthen Iranian fundamentalists while undermining moderates who would prefer to denuclearize the Middle East and pursue a less costly and much less risky path of negotiations and military disengagement. Of course, President Bush’s decision to invade neighboring Iraq, and the continuing presence of the nuclear-armed U.S. fleet in the Gulf have, no doubt, produced the same effect, probably magnified several times. Current U.S/Israeli policies have all the earmarks of a self-fulfilling prophecy. President Bush lied to Congress when he presented forged documents about Iraq’s alleged nuclear weapons program. (Seymour Hersh, "Who Lied to Whom?", The New Yorker, March 20, 2003) The documents were phony. But that didn’t matter. The president got his sanction for war. Bush went on to invade a nation that did NOT have nukes (Iraq), while studiously ignoring the provocations of North Korea, which included nuclear taunts. The men around Bush were determined to follow their Iraqi playbook. North Korean leader Kim Jong-il spoiled everything by inconveniently rearing his ugly head out of turn. Consider the resounding signal that Bush’s war sent like a shot ‘round the world. We were told that the war’s purpose was to roll back Iraqi WMD (none of which have so far been found). But the actual message was different. Indeed, as the U.N. chief inspector Hans Blix pointed out, Bush sent precisely the wrong signal. The actual message is that the U.S. only attacks countries that cannot defend themselves. Under the circumstances, who could blame Iran’s leaders if they should take the actual message to heart, and decide tomorrow to withdraw from the NPT, as North Korea has done, and openly develop nuclear weapons? Who could blame them for concluding that their best chance to avert U.S. aggression is to arm themselves with nukes as soon as possible? At this juncture it seems unlikely that Iran can allay the current high level of distrust and avoid a confrontation simply by agreeing to the strengthened IAEA protocols. Inspections anywhere, anytime are certainly needed, and a step in the right direction. But this will probably not be enough. What would stop Iran in the future from bolting the NPT, and building bombs? A Sane Solution to the Current Crisis The cases of Iran and North Korea reveal the fundamental weakness of the NPT. If the nonproliferation regime is to survive, sweeping reforms must be introduced. The sane path would be for the U.S. to immediately convene an international conference, at which all of the signatories would sit down (in concert with the U.N.) and hammer out a resolution of the impasse. This might be achieved by: 1. Revoking the withdrawal clause (under article X); and 2. Providing a robust mechanism for common security. Drastic action would be needed, because the only effective way to provide for common security would be to replace the U.N. Security Council veto with a simple 2/3 majority vote in the event of an overt nuclear threat/attack. This would enable the Security Council to swiftly come to the assistance of a member state. The absence of such a provision has long plagued the U.N., and probably explains why India and Israel refused to sign the NPT in 1968. In the absence of credible security guarantees, both opted to provide for their own security needs. And Pakistan was compelled to follow suit simply to match rival India. The key to a new global security framework would depend upon success in persuading the current non-signatories to realize the many benefits of common security at a tiny fraction of the immense costs and risks of building and maintaining a nuclear deterrent. (Avner Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, 1998, pp. 123-7, 287-9; also see William Epstein, The Last Chance, 1976, p. 222) The two reforms would work together in synergy. The revocation of the withdrawal clause is also essential, because the commitment to non-proliferation must be made irreversible. Locking states into the NPT would create strong incentives to remain honest. The threat of U.N. sanctions would be a powerful deterrent. Of course, to win the support of member states like Iran for such reform, Israel, Pakistan and India would have to enter into the discussions, agree to sign a strengthened treaty, open their nuclear sites to inspection, and begin to deconstruct their nuclear arsenals. If this sounds like fantasy, the alternative future, i.e., nuclear terrorism, is positively surreal. The above proposal--I recognize--is no substitute for global conversion to clean hydrogen fuel and renewable wind and solar. But it would have the salutary effect of buying time for the NPT: it would create a breathing space in which a transition to clean energy might proceed. Such a proposal is reasonable. Yes, and for this reason it probably has no chance of gaining serious consideration in the Bush White House. The men around the president have already demonstrated their contempt for international treaties and for the hard work of negotiations. Diplomacy? That’s for wimps and hand wringers. The administration has already rejected out of hand the Kyoto protocols for climate change, and has refused to participate in the International War Crimes Tribunal. It has scrapped its own ABM treaty, and shredded the U.N. Charter. So it is probably too much to expect that Bush would attempt, at this date, to strengthen the NPT through existing legal frameworks. Nor is it likely, in any event, that the U.S. would voluntarily surrender its U.N. veto, even to prevent nuclear war. The U.S.--recall--has itself refused to rule out nuclear first use. How ironic that the Bush administration would view a robust mechanism for global security as a hindrance to unilateralism! The only remaining question is: what treaty will Bush trash next? The NPT? Tensions in the Gulf will mount in the coming months. The reactor at Bushehr could be the flash-point. Israeli officials have warned that they will not tolerate their enemies to develop nuclear power, even for peaceful use. The shock waves of a raid on Bushehr would be felt far beyond the Mideast. Ramifications The precedent for such a raid occurred on June 7, 1981, when Israeli PM Menachem Begin ordered an attack on the Osirak nuclear plant near Baghdad. Within hours a squadron of Israeli F-15s and F-16s reduced Osirak to smoking rubble. The reactor was scheduled to go on line within days or weeks. Much of the world responded by condemning Israel. The reactor had been under French contract, and, like Bushehr, was also subject to IAEA inspections. Most believed, at the time, that Iraq was in full compliance with the NPT. While there is no evidence Iraq planned to secretly divert plutonium from the reactor for reprocessing and weapons, after the 1991 Gulf War U.N. Special Committee (UNSCOM) inspectors discovered massive evidence of a clandestine Iraqi uranium-enrichment program, involving calutrons (cyclotrons). At which point, many observers dropped their former criticism and began to praise the Israeli logic of preemption. Today, those "lessons" have become official U.S. military doctrine. The problem is that the evidence does not support the conclusion. The discovery by UNSCOM of the secret Iraqi bomb program showed the efficacy NOT of preemption but of inspections. Although U.S. intelligence agencies may have been aware that the Saudis were secretly funding an Iraqi bomb program, the calutrons appear to have escaped detection by U.S. surveillance. Saddam’s uranium-enrichment program was completely untouched during the war, despite massive U.S. bombing. The calutrons were found and destroyed because the international community, i.e., the U.N., made a firm commitment to inspections. And this success story, which remains untold and largely unknown in the U.S., happened despite the Clinton policy of regime change, which often conflicted with the U.N.’s stated mission of disarming Iraq. (Milan Rai,War Plan Iraq, 2002) Israel’s 1981 raid may even have prodded Saddam Hussein to launch (or accelerate) his clandestine bomb program. Certainly the raid did not prevent an Iraqi bomb. For similar reasons, a solo raid on Bushehr would not block Iran from developing nukes, and might even provoke a decision in Tehran to do so. A raid on Bushehr would likely be the opening salvo in another "preventive" war: a series of air attacks aimed at Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Israel could not mount such a campaign by itself, for geographic and logistical reasons. It would require full U.S. involvement. Not surprisingly, Israel’s hard-line supporters have sought for many years to persuade Washington of the need for just such a military solution to the Iranian "problem." No sooner did the dust settle following the first Gulf War than the lobbying began in earnest. And many of those who led the charge currently hold high positions in the Bush government. Need I mention that such a war would only confirm to the world what many in the region have long believed: that U.S. Mideast policy is not only about oil. It is also about serving the narrow interests of a recalcitrant Israel. (Israel Shahak, Open Secrets, 1997, chapters four and eight) Such an air war would be launched from bases in neighboring Iraq, and from carriers in the Gulf. Israel might join in the attacks. U.S-Israeli military cooperation increased after 911. Since 1997 the Israeli Air Force has conducted annual training exercises in Turkey, presumably to prepare for just such a war. Turkey has rugged terrain similar to Iran’s. According to Noam Chomsky, before the current conflict some 10% of the Israeli Air Force was permanently based in Turkey. (personal communication, April 16, 2003) Would such an air war succeed? Yes, perhaps, then again, maybe not. In their current state of hubris the men around the president obviously believe they can accomplish anything with U.S. military power, now supreme on the planet. However, our leaders are not infallible. For every action there is a reaction, and, all too often, unintended consequences. Such a war would undoubtedly be perceived by the world as a serious escalation, and would likely produce a new anti-U.S coalition. Various states, in defiance of U.S. threats, might even come to Iran’s assistance. The common border shared by Russia and Iran raises the stakes. To understand why, we need only consider how the U.S. would respond to a foreign attack on, say, Mexico. The Russians might supply Iran with advanced military arms, ground-to-air missiles, etc. Pakistani strong-man Pervez Musharraf would face growing pressure at home to assist a fellow Islamic state. With assistance from Russia and/or Pakistan, the Iranians might reconstitute their nuclear program in deep tunnels carved out of the country’s rugged mountains, impervious to bombardment. To insure military success, the U.S. might be compelled to launch commando assaults with special forces, or even invade and occupy the country. Notice, this implies regime change, precisely what Ariel Sharon has advocated. Such a path--I hasten to add--would be insane, for reasons that should be apparent to anyone who can find Iran on a map. Iran is not Iraq! Iran is five times larger, a rugged mountainous country of sixty-five million people. What if invading U.S. forces should meet return fire, in kind? One shudders at the reaction in Washington should the Iranians turn on U.S. troops the same depleted uranium weapons that the U.S. has been using with such horrible effect on others. That would bring George W. Bush eyeball-to-eyeball with Vladimir Putin, the obvious supplier, and who knows, possibly with Pervez Musharraf. Lest we forget, both are nuclear-armed (unlike Saddam Hussein) and capable of defending themselves. The assumption that Putin will back down in a crisis on his own border could be a serious miscalculation. If U.S. hawks insist on victory, and escalate, events could spin out of control... To prevent such a catastrophe we must all work together. We must stop Bush’s next war BEFORE it starts. ******* Mark Gaffney is a researcher, writer, poet, environmentalist, anti-nuclear activist, and organic gardener. Mark was the principal organizer of the first Earth Day in April 1970 at Colorado State University. Mark’s first book was a pioneering 1989 study of the Israeli nuke program: DIMONA THE THIRD TEMPLE. From 1989-1993 Mark helped National Audubon Society inventory and map Oregon’s remaining old growth forests. Mark’s forthcoming book is a radical study of early Christianity: SECRETS OF THE NAASSENE SERMON. Mark can be reached for comment at mhgaffney@aol.com

The Armenian Land Question--Misunderstood Terrain By David B. Boyajian Geography, someone once said, is destiny. If so, the present geography of Armenia poses major challenges for its future. Small and landlocked, Armenia is outflanked by Turkey to the west and Azerbaijan to the east. To the north, unreliable Georgia controls Armenia's routes to the Black Sea and Russia. To the south, thankfully, lies friendly Iran. Unfortunately, the Iranian provinces just to Armenia's south contain millions of Azeris who might someday blockade Armenia by forming an autonomous pan-Turkic corridor from Turkey to Azerbaijan. To endure and prosper, Armenia must somehow break out of its geographical straightjacket by reclaiming the lands of historical Western Armenia, which, as we know, lie mostly within what is now called eastern Turkey. That territory was the primary site of the 1915-1923 Genocide, and much of it was to be incorporated into the Armenian Republic in 1920 by the Treaty of Sevres, which Turkey signed but later renounced. Perhaps four times the size of the current Republic of Armenia, the treaty territory constitutes about 15 percent of present-day Turkey. Significantly, it included a coastline on the Black Sea. Why Land? Today that coastline would provide Armenia with a direct sea route to Europe and Russia. Georgia would lose the potential to deny Armenia access to much of the outside world, and Armenia would be less vulnerable to a Turkish land blockade. Armenia's economy and national security would be strengthened. Eventually Armenia might develop an ocean-going navy, including submarines that could endow the country with a stealthy, survivable defense capability. Present-day Armenia with its limited, rocky soil has trouble feeding itself. Regaining its well-irrigated, traditional breadbasket in Western Armenia would clearly be beneficial. Recouping territory is also simple justice, restoring what Turks took from Armenians in the carnage of 1915 and by centuries of massacre, deportation, confiscation, onerous taxation, abduction, rape, and forced Islamization. Says political scientist Khatchik Der Ghougassian, Turkey in 1915 "intended to redefine the geopolitical situation by eliminating Armenians from Asia Minor. Thus, a response to the Genocide must deprive Turkey of the geopolitical map it made possible by committing genocide." Additionally, Turkey has come to believe that it can get away with killing huge numbers of Armenians and seizing their land. It bodes ill for Armenia's future if Turkey is not made to unlearn that lesson. But there are misconceptions about how and when Armenia can regain territory. Regaining Territory Contrary to what some may think, no serious Armenian analyst has ever suggested that Armenia can march over the Turkish border next week and retake what rightfully belongs to it. Armenian land can be resettled only in the long term, perhaps decades from now. The most plausible scenario is war, unfortunately, though not necessarily between Armenia and Turkey. Instability breeds war, and there are few regions more unstable than eastern Turkey where, for instance, on and off warfare between Kurds and the central government has taken place for centuries. Though the most recent war ended in 1999, some Kurdish groups (Pkk/Hadek/Kongra- Gel) just announced a resumption of that conflict. Future military cooperation between Armenians and Kurds, perhaps with Russian assistance, and a subsequent division of the spoils--even if less than Armenians would like--is a possibility. Also possible is a conflict between Turkey and Russia, who have fought at least eight wars in the last three centuries. Some of the battlegrounds were in eastern Turkey. During World War I, for instance, the Russian Army advanced deep into the Western Armenian heartland. Only the Russian Revolution brought about a withdrawal. A similar scenario, with Armenia itself possibly retaking some territory, cannot be ruled out. Neither should one underestimate the ability of Armenians themselves to retake land. Against all odds, Armenians not only won the battle for Karabagh in 1993, but also captured a buffer zone of about 2,000 square miles within what is now Azerbaijan, where comparatively few Armenians lived at the time. Currently, the West and Turkey's only route into Azerbaijan and the Caspian region that avoids their Russian and Iranian adversaries is through unstable Georgia. Were Georgia to become further destabilized, Armenia would, in theory, possess considerable leverage as the only remaining route. Might some land concessions then be offered Armenia in return for its cooperation? Resettlement Issue Another misconception is that Armenians could never repopulate Western Armenia since surviving among its several million Turks and Kurds would be unrealistic. Again, no serious analyst has ever suggested, nor would Armenians consider, repopulating territory while it remained under Turkish control. Armenia or a friendly power would need to administer the territory for it to be safe for resettlement. What about the Turks, Kurds, and others, many of part Armenian descent, who now occupy homes, property, farms, and towns in eastern Turkey that 90 years ago were Armenian? Admittedly, the question has no simple answer. There are, however, many precedents for large-scale population movements. For example: . Azerbaijan's attack on Karabagh more than a decade ago led hundreds of thousands of Azeris in Armenia and Armenians in Azerbaijan to flee in opposite directions. This was a tragedy, yet a peace accord may someday allow many of these people to return to their homes or be compensated. . After their war ended in 1922, Greece and Turkey "exchanged" 1.5 million people--most Greeks in Turkey were sent to Greece, while lesser numbers of Turks in Greece returned to Turkey. . Kurds are currently repopulating districts in northern Iraq from which the former regime had removed them, though not always in ways that are fair to the present Arab residents. . The Council of Europe is demanding that as many as 100,000 Meshket Turks, whom Stalin deported from Georgia to Central Asia, be settled near Armenians in Georgia's Javakhk region. Turks deserve to be resettled, but not Armenians? No one underestimates the difficulties. Even in 1920, the Sevres Treaty in hand, the destitute survivors of the Genocide and the impoverished Armenian Republic would have encountered difficulty in returning to and administering their land. Indeed, Turkey confiscated Armenian property and nearly eradicated Armenians in 1915 precisely to make it hard for the survivors and other Armenians to ever return. To totally dismiss the goal of Armenian resettlement is, therefore, to reward Turkey for having created the problem in the first place. Ultimately, the criminal, not the victim, bears responsibility for setting things right. Armenians do not, of course, wish hardship on others. Still, Armenia deserves a measure of justice and security. If Turkey wants to talk about that, Armenians have always been willing to sit down at the table. The Future Admittedly, just holding onto Armenia and Karabagh now is difficult, especially in view of the menacing Turkish-Georgian-Azeri axis backed by the US. Frankly, it is even conceivable that Turkey, in its ongoing drive into the Caucasus and Central Asia, will someday overrun a piece of Armenia before the latter gets even one inch of its territory back. Armenia's present state of affairs does not, however, preclude us from considering how best to address the land issue in the future. Some Armenians have, unfortunately, convinced themselves that even mentioning the land issue is too provocative. As if the Genocide and subsequent land theft were not themselves the ultimate provocations. Remember, too, that Turkey--a relative newcomer to the region, incidentally, and nowhere near as old as the Armenian nation--is itself beset by political and economic problems and nearly surrounded by less than friendly nations including Greece, Cyprus, Iran, Russia, and others. Just as few foresaw the independence of Armenia and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, no one can predict whether or how the land issue will be resolved. Ottoman Turkey has, however, been shrinking steadily for hundreds of years. Moreover, as it occupies Armenian territory and rules over Kurds, Turkey can still be regarded as an empire. Be they Roman, Byzantine, British, or Soviet, empires inevitably contract and fall.

Bellthecat, you are as much of a "Islam hater" as any of those "white nationalists" and don't deny it because I can find many comments that you and some other half assed "intellectuals" made that is as a prejudice as anything said by a "white nationalist'. I don't hate Muslims, Christians, and Buddhists, but rather just mistrust Jews. If a "white national" wants to bomb Tel-Aviv I do not care nor would I stop him or her. Equaly, I do not care if they want to deny Africans asylum in their country because at the very end it is their country. Likewise, I would not want them to interfere with the national agendas of Armenia, unless, it directly relates to them. The only problem I have is when a "Turk" goes on sites like Stormfront preaching how Armenians are "black" and Turks are "white". Turks have no relation to Europeans and Whites, but Armenians do. It is high time we use this to our advantage instead of clinging to groups that have absolutely no power on the world stage. When I mean groups I am talking about ethnic groups not countries. When I went to high school and saw Armenians acting "black" it was disgusting. At the same time Asians used this weakness to their advantage to camp the asses of "white" Americans. A Asian that physically has no resemblance to a "white man" was with "whites", not because "whites" treated him any better then "blacks", but because a Asian could learn more from a "white man" and, eventually, this would allow Asians to move up the social/economic ladder. Instead, by acting and promoting the slave mentality of the ghettofied "black man" we are only moving down the social ladder, not because we are actually "black" or "ghettofied", but because we think like a ghettofied "black man". If I had a chance to see a Armenian with a "otar" it should at least be a white otar rather then a black otar. However, in no way do I want this to happen at all, but it is the better of the two evils. Again, another "intellectual" that has no idea what the "real world" is about. Your just promoting the Jewish defense mechanism by labeling any that mistrusts and criticizes the actions of Jews a "anti-Semite" or "terrorists". Bellthecat, can you please explain to then why Arabs mistrust Jews as well? They sure as hell are not "white"? If a "white national" is going to hate an Armenian they better hate them based on facts not on Turksih fabrications. Oh, Domino, Stormig, and or the other "intellectuals" do not bother replying because I am not going to respond to you're comments. Furthermore, you already are a bunch of media "vetses" in my book.

Gamavor, now, you have the bigger "penis". /clap I bet you would know. Why don't you take your own advice and sit on one and rotate.

I find this article hypocritical, but do not ask me unless you want a long reply.

Domino, quit putting fuel on the fire. I was not trying to insult Armen and my views are not wrong because if they were you would see America accepting the genocide instead of it continually denying it. If you disagree with me and yourself why you don’t vote for Bush? Furthermore, I do not care if you "gang up against certain views" because I am not here to earn the admiration of a few members and or become a socialite. You are a typical intellectual, so, in part I do not blame you're somewhat "liberal" attitude towards the world. However, "intellectuals" are not the ones that are running the world; but rather, men of action are. At best the greatest achievement an “intellectual” will ever achieve is earning the admiration of fellow “intellectuals”.

Armen, I support everyone’s opinions on this thread. We are all friends and or Armenians and care about our country, but I am not upset or mad at you, rather, I am just sick of the "politics" and "bullshit" of some countries. I am sorry if I offended you and I appreciate you supporting me. The way I write is a bit "aggressive" and sometimes I get so involved in the discussion that I lose focus on the matter at hand. Sorry, force of habit. I agree. I agree I agree Sorry, I may have misunderstood your perspective on the subject. Yes, you are right we need to remain as neutral as we can, but the only alternative to Russia is Turkey, which is why I am supporter of pro-Russian relations. This thread, so far, has been a progressive thread and I respect everyone’s view and or opinions. I just do not want Armenians and or Armenia to be used by anyone. God knows, in the past our plights have been used to benefit other nations. We need to start thinking about ourselves and try to distance ourselves from any regional conflict because of the fact that no one really has "paid attention" to our needs unless they have benefit from it. This is what Armenians fail to realize in that everybody is out on their own in this world, even though, you may try to push for "world peace" at the very we will always confront one another for resources. The entire fiasco of the Armenian Church incident should not be used as a justification for Armenians to wage war against "terror" because of the fact that the only countries that face this are the ones that ally themselves with Zionists interests. However, the way world events are leading and the media manipulation by the "elite media" is slowly turning this war into another Crusade. If indeed this is another Crusade like they are making it seem like it is. The first thing that should be done is taking back Constantinople, instead, of forfeiting this jewel of Christianity. Anyways, I just hope Armenians do not get involved in this conflict. We do not need to confront Arabs when we are already facing Turks. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if something more sinister was behind these bombings. This will be my last post on this subject.