How Colin Powell Showed That Torture Works
The Film Hollywood Should Make is About al-Libi’s Torture Helping Lead to Iraq War Disaster
By SAM HUSSEINI | CounterPunch | February 6, 2013
Ten years ago, Colin Powell made the case for invading Iraq before the United Nations Security Council. Many aspects of his case were clearly dubious at the time, but one notorious aspect desperately needs to be truly understood: Some of Powell’s argument for an Iraq link to al-Qaeda came from Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi who was tortured into giving such “evidence” — that is, he told the torturers what they wanted to hear so that the torture would stop.
This is particularly noteworthy as the movie Zero Dark Thirty has many liberals screaming “torture doesn’t work” — which, in a sense is totally true and at the same time exactly misses the point. Torture does work. It just doesn’t work in so far as its stated purpose (catching criminals, stopping evil plots) is concerned.
Former long-time CIA analyst Ray McGovern, has written that the al-Libi case was central to Powell keeping the alleged al-Qaeda link to Iraq in his UN speech:
Al-Libi’s stories misinformed Colin Powell’s U.N. speech, which sought to establish a “sinister nexus” between Iraq and al-Qaeda to justify invading Iraq.
Al-Libi recanted his claims in January 2004. That prompted the CIA, a month later, to recall all intelligence reports based on his statements, a fact recorded in a footnote to the report issued by the 9/11 Commission. …
The al-Libi case might help you understand why, even though information from torture is notoriously unreliable, President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the sycophants running U.S. intelligence ordered it anyway.
In short, if it is untruthful information you are after, torture can work just fine!
Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s own former chief of staff, similarly wrote:
“What I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002 — well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion — its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qaeda.
“So furious was this effort that on one particular detainee, even when the interrogation team had reported to Cheney’s office that their detainee ‘was compliant’ (meaning the team recommended no more torture), the VP’s office ordered them to continue the enhanced methods. The detainee had not revealed any al-Qaeda-Baghdad contacts yet. This ceased only after Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under waterboarding in Egypt, ‘revealed’ such contacts. Of course later we learned that al-Libi revealed these contacts only to get the torture to stop.
“There in fact were no such contacts.” [Wilkerson elaborated on this on Democracy Now Wednesday morning, should be posted here. He notes he and Powell agreed to drop the accusation of an al-Qaeda link to Iraq until they were given the “evidence” from al-Libi’s interrogation.]
I asked Powell about this in 2009 and he seemed remarkably defensive and uninterested in finding out if the words he uttered on the world stage were based on misinformation from torture:
Sam Husseini: General, can you talk about the al-Libi case and the link between torture and the production of tortured evidence for war?
Colin Powell: I don’t have any details on the al-Libi case.
SH: Can you tell us when you learned that some of the evidence that you used in front of the UN was based on torture? When did you learn that?
CP: I don’t know that. I don’t know what information you’re referring to. So I can’t answer.
SH: Your chief of staff, Wilkerson, has written about this.
CP: So what? [inaudible]
SH: So you’d think you’d know about it.
CP: The information I presented to the UN was vetted by the CIA. Every word came from the CIA and they stood behind all that information. I don’t know that any of them believe that torture was involved. I don’t know that in fact. A lot of speculation, particularly by people who never attended any of these meetings, but I’m not aware of it.
But my questioning was based on statements by Wilkerson, who was in the room. Presumably Powell is waiting for the CIA to call him and tell him directly that torture was used to extract some of the information he used.
This problem of torture yielding useful but false information was not unforeseeable. Professor As’ad AbuKhalil appeared on a news release I assembled the day after Powell’s notorious UN speech: “The Arab media is reporting that the Zakawi story was provided by Jordanian intelligence, which has a record of torture and inaccuracy.”
But the al-Libi story gets even worse. First off, al-Libi had initially cooperated with FBI officials when he was first questioned by them, giving them true and useful information without being tortured. Secondly, he was tortured by chief Egyptian spymaster Omar Suleiman, widely seen and the CIA’s man in Cairo, who attempted to take over from Mubarak when the longtime dictator finally stepped down because of the uprising in 2011 (Suleiman himself died in a Cleveland hospital in 2012).
After al-Libi recanted to the CIA, he was eventually shipped off to Libya where he died in a prison cell. The newspaper of one of Qaddafi’s son’s claimed it was a suicide. As Juan Cole wrote at the time: “The best refutation of Dick Cheney’s insistence that torture was necessary and useful in dealing with threats from al-Qaeda just died in a Libyan prison.”
Before his death, Human Rights Watch “briefly met with al-Libi on April 27 during a research mission to Libya. He refused to be interviewed, and would say nothing more than: ‘Where were you when I was being tortured in American jails.’”
After al-Libi’s death Human Right Watch stated: “The death of Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi means that the world will never hear his account of the brutal torture he experienced. So now it is up to Libya and the United States to reveal the full story of what they know, including its impact on his mental health.” Right after Al Capone investigates his own dealings.
Note that al-Libi died in Libyan custody when relations were quite chummy between Qaddafi and the U.S. It’s hard not to think this was part of a quid pro quo — the Qaddafi regime offs al-Libi to help the U.S. cover up the torture-war link and in exchange Qaddafi got (rather short-lived acceptance from part of the U.S. establishment.
If Hollywood — or any media for that matter — had any interest in communicating the realities of the modern Mideast and U.S. policy there, the story of al-Libi should be front and center.
Sam Husseini is communications director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, and founder of WashingtonStakeout.com.
Related articles
- “Pregnant, Chained to a Wall and Starved”, One of 136 Terror War Stories (ipsnews.net)
- Dark side of the moon (thehindu.com)
Israeli lies on Iranian nuclear program exposed
By Yusuf Fernandez | Press TV | February 5, 2013
In recent days, reports about an alleged Israeli-US bombing attack that would have allegedly destroyed a large portion of the Fordo nuclear enrichment plant in Qom were circulating in Western media. However, its falsehood was soon revealed by several sources.
The story first appeared on February 25th when an Iranian defector going by the pseudonym Reza Kahlili published an evidence-free article in the US site wnd.com, in which he claimed that the Fordo plant had been the target of a sabotage operation. The article claimed that a blast deep within Fordo had “destroyed much of the installation and trapped about 240 personnel deep underground”.
However, the first doubts came due to the personality of the author himself, as Kahlili, a defector, is widely considered as a liar because of his previous claims. He wrote some months ago that Iran actually had nuclear weapons.
Kahlili’s sole source was Hamid Reza Zakeri, another Iranian defector, who is also notorious for his lies against Iran. A US official has been quoted by some US media as saying that Zakeri was “a fabricator or monumental proportions”.
This is not the first time that defectors are used in order to launch false accusations against a country. In the run-up to the Iraq War in 2003, New York Times reporter Judith Miller (and some others) published several stories about Saddam Hussein´s non-existent weapons of mass destruction programs and these reports were used by the Bush administration as a pretext to launch the war. Later, all these allegations turned out to be false and the newspaper was forced to admit that Miller had based her reports on Iraqi defectors. In that sense, the case for the war on Iraq was built on a set of fabricated documents and deliberately manipulated intelligence that US media outlets uncritically reproduced.
Israel spreads the story
Shortly after the Fordo story appeared, Israeli sites and officials tried to make it pass as true. The website of the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot repeated the claim and it was later echoed by the Times of London, which added that the story had been confirmed by Israeli intelligence officials. “We are still in the preliminary stages of understanding what happened and how significant it is,” one Israeli official told the London Times. “Israel believes the Iranians have not evacuated the (Fordo´s) surrounding area. It is unclear whether that is because no harmful substances have been released, or because Tehran is trying to avoid sparking panic among residents.”
For his part, Israeli acting Defense Minister, Avi Dichter, reacted to the story by saying that indeed any explosion in Iran was “good news”.
Of course, Israeli officials always knew that the story was false but it is clear that they wanted to feed the notion that they -with US help- were conducting a successful secret war against Iran in order to reinforce their own extremist stance. However, as these stories are revealed as lies, the effect is counterproductive to them because they expose themselves, once again, as liars before the international community, especially on the Iran nuclear issue.
However, two senior Iranian officials dismissed reports of the explosion. Deputy head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Agency Seyyed Shamseddin Barbroudi said there had been no explosion at the Fordo facility, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA). The chairman of the Iranian parliament’s Committee for Foreign Policy and National Security, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, said they were “baseless lies” meant to impact talks on Iran´s nuclear program, reported IRNA.
The Iranians´ statements were then confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which claimed that there were no signs of any explosion whatever in Fordo. The IAEA has live cameras at the site and its inspectors regularly visit it, and, therefore, they would have known if it had been “in ruins with hundreds trapped within”. “We understand that Iran has denied that there has been an incident at Fordo. This is consistent with our observations,” IAEA spokeswoman Gill Tudor said.
The White House also rejected the report as unreliable. “We have no information to confirm the allegations in the report and we do not believe the report is credible,” spokesman Jay Carney said in a briefing with reporters. “We do not believe those are credible reports.”
The false diagram
The Fordo false explosion was not the only Israeli fabrication on the Iranian nuclear issue. On November 27th 2012, the Associated Press agency published a report claiming that it had discovered the existence of alleged evidence of “Iranian work on a nuclear bomb”. “Iranian scientists have run computer simulations for a nuclear weapon that would produce more than triple the explosive force of the World War II bomb that destroyed Hiroshima”, the agency said.
This evidence, according to AP, was a “graph” which the agency said was “leaked” to it by “officials from a country critical of Iran’s atomic program” to “bolster their arguments that Iran’s nuclear program must be halted before it produces a weapon”. Moreover, “an intelligence summary was provided with the drawing” claiming that “Iran is working not on isolated experiments, but rather on a single program aimed at mastering all aspects of nuclear arms development.”
Why did AP hide which country had delivered the diagram? It said that officials of that country wanted anonumity, so the agency gave it anonymity. However, everybody was certain it was Israel.
The author of the AP report, George Jahn is also notorious because every time there is a possibility of a diplomatic solution to the crisis over Iran´s nuclear program, he reports an “exclusive” anti-Iranian revelation, always provided to him by “an official of a country tracking Iran’s nuclear program,” or “an official of a country that has been severely critical of Iran´s nuclear program.”
Nevertheless, experts soon discovered that the diagram was fake and amateurish. According to the British newspaper The Guardian, it simply showed that “the bulk of the nuclear fission yield is produced in a short 0.1 microsecond pulse”, which is a common knowledge for any physics student. Later, it was equally discovered that it is widely available all over the Internet and in university textbooks. Even worse, the diagram contained huge errors, which were unlikely to have been made by research scientists who work in a state-run national program.
Scott Kemp, an assistant professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), told IPS he suspects the graph leaked to AP was “adapted from the open literature”. He said he believed its authors “were told they ought to look into the literature and found that paper, copied (the graph) and made their own plot from it.”
After the hoax became exposed, Western diplomats privately accused Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, of being behind the leaks, which would be part of an effort to implicate a murdered Iranian in an alleged weapons program. The diplomats also said Mossad is becoming increasingly active in Austria, the home of the IAEA and the place where George Jahn works, in order to drive support for a war on Iran.
Therefore, what AP presented as a kind of highly specialized and very complex document was only a very common graph, which can be easily found on the internet. The agency helped create and spread a dangerous hoax and its credibility was severely damaged by this serious incident that demonstrated that it let itself be manipulated by officials “of an anonymous state” in order to incriminate Iran. The agency did not tell the public who gave it the false and misleading information with the evident goal of misleading the public into believing that Iran had a weapons programme.
Recently and after having scored a heavy defeat in the latest parliamentary elections, where he and his his right-wing partner Avigdor Lieberman lost 25% of their seats in the Knesset, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tried to hide his current political weakness by shifting the public´s attention to Iran. In his “victory speech”, he insisted that his first challenge would be “preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons”.
Of course, this rhetoric does not deceive anyone, as even the US and the IAEA reports recognize that Iran continues to use civilian enriched uranium only for civilian purposes. US officials have recently said that the assessment included in the 2010 National Intelligence Estimate, which claims that there is no evidence whatever of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, remains the consensus view of the US´s 16 intelligence agencies.
The international community is actually fed up with Israel’s false allegations and fabrications against Iran. Netanyahu and his Zionist supporters in the US probably know that the American and Western public cannot be manipulated into supporting an attack on Iran, as all the polls show.
Another for-Israel war in the Middle East would not benefit anyone but the far right in Israel, the pro-Israeli lobby in the US and its neocon agents. It would not only devastate the Middle East and kill hundreds of thousands, if not more, but it would also produce a decades-long conflict between the Muslim world and the West that would also destroy the West´s economy. Due to all this, the international community and the peoples of the world must confront these Zionist plots threatening the existence and hopes of humanity.
Related article
- IAEA Dismisses Reports of Explosion at Iran’s Fordo (alethonews.wordpress.com)
The Talented Mr. Takeyh: Why Doesn’t the Council on Foreign Relations Fellow Like Flynt & Hillary Mann Leverett?
By Nima Shirazi | Wide Asleep in America | February 7, 2013
If there’s one thing mainstream “Iran experts” hate, it’s well-credentialed, experienced analysts who dare challenge Beltway orthodoxies, buck conventional wisdom and demythologize the banal, bromidic and Manichean foreign policy narrative of the United States government and its obedient media. Such perspectives are shunned by “serious” scholars who play by the rules they and their former bosses themselves wrote; those propounding such subversive ideas are likewise excoriated and banished, labeled apostates and attacked personally for failing to fall in line.
Enter Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett, two former National Security Council officials, who have long questioned the wisdom and efficacy of the past thirty years of U.S. policy towards Iran. Their new expertly researched and meticulously-sourced book, Going to Tehran: Why the United States Must Come to Terms with the Islamic Republic of Iran, details and debunks numerous propagandized myths and delusional misunderstandings that many Americans have been led to believe about the country that is consistently referred to by our politicians and pundits as “the world’s most dangerous state.” The Leveretts argue that, by at least taking into account the Iranian side of things and reviewing the misguided, myopic and unsustainable American policies toward Iran, the groundwork may be laid for a constructive and beneficial change of course for both nations; by engaging openly and acknowledging past grievances – rather than ignoring, justifying or ridiculing them – a new future is possible, one without threats or war, without sabotage and cyberattacks, without demonization and demagoguery.
The problem is, without such things, the revolving door of Beltway think-tankery and government appointments might not spin so lucratively for our “Iran expert” industry. As a result, the Leveretts and their ideas are pilloried by political and policy elites who confuse heterodoxy for apologia.
In a supremely smug and self-satisfied pseudo-review of Going to Tehran, just published in Survival, the journal of the International Institute of Strategic Studies, Washington’s “go-to” Iran analyst Ray Takeyh launches what is surely a paradigmatic opening salvo on the Leveretts’ work. Needless to say, he didn’t like the book; his review is the intellectual equivalent of a drive-by shooting. While lambasting the Leveretts, Takeyh fails to actually address any of their contentions or claims, preferring to make grandiose statements condemning their analyses of Iranian politics and foreign policy and their policy recommendations without bothering to back up these statements with evidence or explanation.
Takeyh is a mainstay of the Washington establishment – a Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow before and after a stint in the Obama State Department and a founding member of the neoconservative-created Iran Strategy Task Force who has become a tireless advocate for the collective punishment of the Iranian population in a futile attempt to inspire homegrown regime change (if not, at times, all-out war against a third Middle Eastern nation in just over a decade). Unsurprisingly, he dismisses out of hand the notion that “the principal cause of disorder in the Middle East today is a hegemonic America seeking to impose its imperial template on the region.”
This is exactly the worldview that has produced the disastrous U.S. foreign policy of the last few decades, policies advocated time and time again by the same people – not only people like Takeyh, but including literally Takeyh himself – never learning from their mistakes or conceiving there might be a different way to engage the world (say, by not bullying, threatening, demanding, dictating, punishing, bombing, invading, destroying, dismantling, overthrowing, occupying, and propping up dictators). Takeyh’s contemptuous rejection of history means that those who disagree with him – like the Leveretts, even though their experience in government and direct contact with on-the-ground reality in today’s Iran dwarfs Takeyh’s – must inevitably be minions of the ayatollahs.
Takeyh’s dismissal of the Leveretts’ work is especially ironic, given that his own analytic nonsense is legion. He routinely makes statements that aren’t based in fact and that dispute even the most hysterical estimates of the United States government. He has no problem co-writing tomes of warmongering lunacy with psychotics like Matthew Kroenig, convicted criminals and racist demagogues like Elliott Abrams, and garbled inanity with his wife’s insane colleague at the Saban Center and perennial war champion Kenneth Pollack. Everything he writes is easily destroyed with a basic perusal of facts.
Never bothering to cite any evidence, Takeyh has long assumed Iran – oh sorry, I mean, “the mullahs” (how spooky!) – are building a nuclear bomb and only the fierce determination of the United States, its benevolent buddy Israel and vital Arab dictator friends can stop it, if not by beating the Islamic Republic into submission through economic and covert warfare, then perhaps by military might. In April 2003, he wrote, “Tehran often claims that instability in the region forces it to pursue nuclear weapons, when in fact it is Iran’s possession of such weapons that would increase instability.” Actually, Iranian officials have never claimed anything remotely like that, instead declaring their commitment never to build nuclear weapons consistently for over 20 years. In 2011, Takeyh assured Washington Post readers, “Exact estimates vary, but in the next few years Iran will be in [a] position to detonate a nuclear device.”
In October 2011, when the US government tried to pretend that a bumbling, bipolar Iranian used-car salesman in Texas had been tasked by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps to hire a Mexican drug cartel to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in a DC restaurant (it is literally impossible to read that without chuckling), Takeyh took to the airwaves to comment on the alleged plot. Speaking on NPR, Takeyh wholly endorsed the U.S. government’s version of events, never for a second doubting their authenticity. Though he claimed it was “unusual,” Takeyh made sure to add, “I don’t know what the evidence about this it, but I’m not in position to doubt it.”
There you have it, folks, Takeyh’s entire method of scholarship in a nutshell.
Takeyh’s disdain for empirical reality allows him to take multiple, often contradictory positions on many issues—whatever it takes to align himself with “centrist” foreign policy hawks in the Democratic Party’s national security establishment. In 2006, after the occupation of Iraq had turned irrevocably catastrophic and Democrats were looking for ways to distance themselves from Bush’s Middle East follies, Takeyh argued “for the United States to become more directly engaged in negotiations with Iranians and also make an offer of some corresponding concessions.” While assuming an Iranian desire for latent nuclear weapons capability, he held, “I don’t think they’ve made up their mind yet to cross the threshold and actually weaponize [nuclear power].” He added, “For those who suggest that it is absolutely conclusively determined that Iran wants to have nuclear weapons, I think it behooves them to provide some kind of evidence for that claim.” Just months later, though, Takeyh told the Senate that Iranian leaders were determined to achieve hegemony in the Persian Gulf and that, from their vantage, “it is only through the attainment of the bomb that Iran can negate the nefarious American plots to undermine its stature and power.”
As the possibility of Democratic victory in the 2008 presidential election drew closer, Takeyh’s views grew more hawkish. His transformation into an Iran hawk accelerated with his brief stint in the State Department during the Obama administration’s first year. In 2010, he co-wrote a journal essay and accompanying op-ed that sought to characterize war with Iran as a natural outcome, a normalized and inevitable progression of history. Over the next couple of years, he fully realized his penchant for conflating Iran’s monitored and safeguarded nuclear energy program with a nefarious, clandestine weapons program.
This conflation is present in Takeyh’s attempted takedown of Going to Tehran, where he references Iran’s “nuclear infractions,” but provides no evidence for them other than collective Beltway wisdom, displaying a complete ignorance of what IAEA reports actually say and where such accusations actually come from (unverified American and Israeli allegations). His determination to blame only Iranian “intransigence” for the current nuclear dispute epitomizes the intellectual dishonesty for which most Washington think-tanks are unfortunately revered.
Takeyh’s analytic malfeasance extends to Iran’s domestic politics as well. His conversion from unimpressive establishment scholar to full-blown neocon fellow traveler is underscored by his remarkable insistence that Iran’s clerics are to blame for the 1953 CIA coup that overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh (sic). Takeyh also refuses to understand the reality of the Green Movement in Iran, elevating them to surreal heights of organization, unity and potential.
In his review of Going to Tehran, Takeyh notes what he calls “transparent electoral fraud in the presidential election” of 2009, but again fails to advance any actual documentation to support this contention. Since 2010, he has been warning us all of Ahmadinejad’s impending consolidation of power over the Iranian government. This didn’t happen. Good call, Ray, how astute.
The self-serving vacuity of Takeyh’s review is especially glaring in his treatment of the Leveretts’ critique of U.S. policy toward Iran. As the Leveretts themselves have already noted, Takeyh is adamant that the U.S. has often and openly reached out diplomatically to Tehran but can’t seem to square this with reality – including statements made by his former boss, Dennis Ross, who sees the perception of failed diplomacy as necessary to sell the American public on a new illegal war against another enemy that poses absolutely no threat to the United States.
Takeyh complements his rewriting of diplomatic history with a selective – indeed exploitative – focus on human rights issues in Iran. Along with the vast majority of the Leveretts’ detractors (and anyone else who rejects a reality-based approach to the three-decades-long U.S.-Iranian impasse), Takeyh seems unaware that basing American foreign policy on human rights is not only disingenuous, but also contrary to how the U.S. actually operates all over the world.
Going to Tehran is a policy prescription addressed primarily to the government of the United States, not to human rights organizations. Iran has as abhorrent a human rights record as many other countries – far worse than many, better than others. But the United States government has never cared one iota about human rights when it comes to strategic partnership with its closest and most trusted political allies (let alone its own actions).
Whether looking at our torture regime, our indefinite detention, our illegal drone program, our invasions, our assassinations, our surveillance state, our contempt for due process, our racist justice system and bloated prisons, and – perhaps, most relevant – our continued support and encouragement of ongoing Israeli war crimes, ethnic cleansing, colonization and occupation of Palestine alongside weapons sales and willful blindness to the atrocities of true dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, the concept that American diplomacy or interests rest upon virtuousness and humane practices is not only hypocritical; it’s downright laughable. As Glenn Greenwald recently wrote about Iran, Syria and Libya, “That the US and its Nato allies – eager benefactors of the world’s worst tyrants – are opposed to those regimes out of concern for democracy and human rights is a pretense, a conceit, so glaring and obvious that it really defies belief that people are willing to advocate it in public with a straight face.”
If our government cared about human rights it wouldn’t be subjecting the Iranian people (who wholeheartedly oppose American sanctions and constant bullying) to collective punishment, just like it did the people of Iraq – the half million Iraqi children sacrificed to similar sanctions know full well the American consideration for human rights. Takeyh reflects this duplicity in his review, noting the appalling history of “show trials, mass repression and persistent international transgressions” in Iran and condemning the Leveretts for not making this the focus of their book. Yet if Takeyh actually cared about fundamental human rights and the importance of international law, he would not only call for Congress to sanction Israel and Saudi Arabia, he would be outraged by the closeness of these governments to his own here in the United States. But he doesn’t. Only Iran is the target of his anger and concern.
Because for the U.S. government, human rights abuses are used merely as a bludgeon against its adversaries while the myriad transgressions of its strategic partners are routinely ignored (if not, in the case of Israel, even funded and justified), Takeyh’s argument is disingenuous at minimum. As always, he and his fellow mavens of the established foreign policy community are silent about America’s role as the guarantor of Middle Eastern tyranny, as long as its puppet dictators do our bidding, namely with regard to acquiescing to Israeli regional hegemony and following the U.S. lead on isolating and threatening Iran.
In the most recent Human Rights Watch report, we learn that a large Middle Eastern country, ruled by an unelected religious fundamentalist misogynistic elite, has “arrested hundreds of peaceful protesters during 2012, and sentenced activists from across the country to prison for expressing critical political and religious views.” Not only this, but “thousands of people are in arbitrary detention, and human rights activists were put on trial on politicized charges. The Ministry of Interior forbids public protests. Since 2011, security forces have killed at least 14 protesters in the Eastern province who were seeking political reforms.”
It finds that the “government has gone to considerable lengths to punish, intimidate, and harass those who express opinions that deviate from the official line,” while “lawyers are not generally allowed to assist suspects during interrogation, and face obstacles to examining witnesses or presenting evidence at trial.” Furthermore, “Authorities have used specialized criminal courts, set up to try terrorism cases, to prosecute a growing number of peaceful dissidents on politicized charges.”
What country is this? Saudi Arabia, the leading U.S. trading partner in the Middle East, which receiving billions upon billions of high-tech weaponry from our noble nation year after year. The United States uses a secret Saudi base as a launchpad for lethal drone strikes in neighboring Yemen and is even working closely with the Kingdom on its nascent nuclear program. One wonders if this recent case (one of the worst things I have ever heard about) will cause the U.S. to reconsider its relationship with Saudi Arabia. Don’t hold your breath. But just imagine if that had happened in Iran.
Our best friend in the world, Israel, meanwhile is a militarized colonial state in routine contravention of existing international and humanitarian law. Ample evidence reveals the illegality of Israel’s Apartheid Annexation Wall, Israel’s use of administrative detention to hold Palestinians indefinitely without charge or trial and the rampant Israeli arrest of Palestinian children and toddlers, who suffer abuse – mental, physical and sexual – and who are tortured during and traumatized by their imprisonment. Palestinian communities are constantly victimized by housing demolitions and eviction, a particularly vindictive form of collective punishment favored by the Israeli government.
None of this seems to bother our government one bit and any attempt to hold Israel accountable for its crimes is met with derision in the circles in which Mr. Takeyh travels, all expenses paid, of course.
The issue isn’t about whitewashing or justifying abuse and repression; it’s about U.S. government policy, which clearly has no problem overlooking such horrors depending on who commits them. If the U.S. were consistent in its concern for human rights (rather than selectively using them only to condemn its enemies), Takeyh might have a point. But it isn’t, so he doesn’t.
The Leveretts explicitly address this issue in Going to Tehran. They write, “Washington has never demonstrated that it cares about human rights in the Middle East for their own sake. It cares about them when and where caring appears to serve other policy goals.” In their explicitly stated effort “to outline a potentially far more efficacious diplomatic approach” (p.388), the Leveretts point out that “the only way human rights conditions in the Islamic Republic, as defined by Western liberals, are likely to improve is in a context of U.S.-Iranian rapprochement, whereby the United States had credibly given up regime change as a policy goal.” (p.326)
While conventional Washington wisdom (and actual acts of Congress and executive orders by the President) hold that the U.S. government should be critical of Iran’s human rights record as a matter of policy, doing so is pure propaganda. The United States is in no position to affect the violations of the Iranian government because it has no diplomatic presence, credibility or connection to the Islamic Republic. As George W. Bush admitted in December 2004, in a rare moment of candor and honesty, “We’re relying upon others, because we’ve sanctioned ourselves out of influence with Iran…We don’t have much leverage with the Iranians right now.”
Takeyh, by employing ad hominem attacks on the Leveretts in an effort to label them apologists for theocratic authoritarianism and thereby discredit their views, is trying to poison the well, so to speak, with anti-war progressives who might find a new approach to Iran novel and welcome. He calls Going to Tehran “tedious,” “stale,” and “trite.” That’s coming from a guy who works at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes about implementing even more “crippling” sanctions on Iranians in order to compel their government’s capitulation to American and Israeli diktat. How original, fresh, and innovative!
Regardless of whether one finds their arguments compelling or their history sufficiently comprehensive, the Leveretts deliver a blow to the establishment narrative of “what to do about Iran.” It is no surprise that Ray Takeyh is offended by the Leveretts – they directly address the danger he and others like him in the official foreign policy community pose to those who oppose another war.
They write that the claims put forward by Takeyh “that Iran’s leadership is too ideologically constrained, fractious, or politically dependent on anti-Americanism to pursue a strategic opening to the United States are not just at odds with the historical record. Such claims push the United States ever further in its support of coercive regime change and, ultimately, down the disastrous path toward war.” (p.108)
The main thesis of Going to Tehran, as evident in the book’s title, holds that, as American power declines worldwide, recognition of faulty and detrimental foreign policy is required for the U.S. to better adapt to an ever-changing and more independent Middle East; a region in which Iranian influence is ascendant whether we like it or not. They see the precedent set by Richard Nixon’s historic visit to China as the best way forward with regard to Iran.
Such a suggestion, while increasingly relevant, is not actually new. A noted foreign policy expert proffered an identical view in 2006, explaining, “First of all, this is not a unique historical moment for the United States. We’ve been in this position before. If you look back in the late 1960s, early ’70s, we were in a position in East Asia where our power was declining because of the Vietnam War, and the Chinese power was increasing because of China’s own capability and declining American power. And then there was certainly antagonism between the two countries.
Lamenting the “conceptual divergence” of Iranian and American negotiating positions, the analyst continued,
“I think you have to accept certain basic realities. Iran is an important power with influence in the region, and the purpose of the negotiation would be how to establish a framework for regulation of its influence. Therefore, in a perverse sense, negotiations [are] a form of containment. We’re negotiating as a means of containing Iran’s influence, surely as we negotiated with the Chinese in the early 1970s as means of coming to some arrangements to rationalize U.S.-Sino American relations as a means of regulating Chinese power.”
He further insisted that the United States must take a bold step to enter into “comprehensive negotiations on all of Iranian concerns and all of our concerns. Our concerns are human rights, terrorism; they have their own grievances and so forth. And these negotiations will take place ultimately without precondition,” just as negotiations with China in 1970 were not preconditioned.
Again making the explicit analogy to Nixon’s overture to Beijing, he stated, “The purpose of these negotiations would be to foster an arrangement where Tehran’s relationship with Washington is more meaningful to it than various gradation of uranium or potentially its ties with Hezbollah.” This way, he concluded, an “end point” would be reached “by creating a new framework and a new basis for U.S.- Iran relations,” which would, in order to be at all successful would have to recognize Iran’s position in its own neighborhood. “[I]n all these discussions and negotiations,” he affirmed, “we have to appreciate that in a sense we are legitimizing Iran ‘s at least Persian Gulf if not larger regional aspirations.”
That analyst was Ray Takeyh. He was addressing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of the 109th Congress. Sitting on the Committee at the time of his statement were John Kerry and Chuck Hagel. Its ranking member was Joe Biden. Also on the committee? The junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama.
Just six months later, Takeyh wrote in Foreign Affairs that no U.S. policy regarding Iran in the past thirty years has worked. Noting the impossibility of regime change, military action, isolation and obstinacy, Takeyh wrote the U.S. government must abandon these “incoherent policies” and “must rethink its strategy from the ground up.”
He continued,
“The Islamic Republic is not going away anytime soon, and its growing regional influence cannot be limited. Washington must eschew superficially appealing military options, the prospect of conditional talks, and its policy of containing Iran in favor of a new policy of détente. In particular, it should offer pragmatists in Tehran a chance to resume diplomatic and economic relations.”
He added, “The sooner Washington recognizes these truths and finally normalizes relations with its most enduring Middle Eastern foe, the better.”
This is literally what Going to Tehran is about. Literally.
By attacking the Leveretts’ new book, Takeyh is attacking the very ideas he himself has espoused so confidently, both in a leading policy journal and to a senate Committee that included the current administration’s President, Vice President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense themselves.
But he doesn’t want you to know that.
Related article
- ‘US has militarily coerced Middle Eastern political outcomes since the Cold War’ (alethonews.wordpress.com)
Iraq, Iran, Red Lines and Headlines
By Nima Shirazi | Wide Asleep in America | February 6, 2013
Could this repeated history be any more obvious?
This was August 5, 2002:
And this was November 8, 2011:
This was September 9, 2002:
And this was October 9, 2012:
This was also September 9, 2002:
This was September 17, 2002:
And this was May 9, 2006:
This was September 22, 2002:
And this was November 6, 2011:
This was September 10, 2002:
And this was November 9, 2011:
This was September 17, 2004:
And this was January 27, 2009:
This was October 6, 2004:
And this was January 25, 2010:
This was April 25, 2005:
And this was October 8, 2012:
This was September 6, 2007:
And this was February 4, 2013:
*****
The Reporters Who Got Iraq So Wrong
By Peter Hart | FAIR | February 6, 2013
Ten years ago today, Colin Powell made the Bush administration’s case for going to war against Iraq. Much of what he said about Iraq’s threats to the United States was false. But the media coverage gave the opposite impression, and most of the pundits and journalists who promoted the justifications for the war paid no price for their failures.
As FAIR reported at the time, even before the Powell address there were reasons to be skeptical of the administration’s claims. On February 4, 2003, FAIR published “Iraq’s Hidden Weapons: From Allegation to Fact,” which made the point that “it has not been demonstrated that Iraq continues to hold unconventional weapons.” FAIR criticized coverage like that of the New York Times (2/2/03), which asserted that “nobody seriously expected Mr. Hussein to lead inspectors to his stash of illegal poisons or rockets, or to let his scientists tell all.”
As the FAIR release concluded:
The media convey to the public the impression that the alleged banned weapons on which the Bush administration rests its case for war are known to exist, and that the question is simply whether inspectors are skillful enough to find them.
Powell’s address was instrumental in pushing a faulty media line on Iraq’s WMDs further. That much was clear in the coverage right after his appearance at the United Nations, as FAIR documented on February 10 in “A Failure of Skepticism in Powell Coverage.”
In Andrea Mitchell‘s report on NBC Nightly News (2/5/03), Powell’s allegations became actual capabilities of the Iraqi military: “Powell played a tape of a Mirage jet retrofitted to spray simulated anthrax, and a model of Iraq’s unmanned drones, capable of spraying chemical or germ weapons within a radius of at least 550 miles.”
Dan Rather, introducing an interview with Powell (60 Minutes II, 2/5/03), shifted from reporting allegations to describing allegations as facts: “Holding a vial of anthrax-like powder, Powell said Saddam might have tens of thousands of liters of anthrax. He showed how Iraqi jets could spray that anthrax and how mobile laboratories are being used to concoct new weapons.” The anthrax supply is appropriately attributed as a claim by Powell, but the mobile laboratories were something that Powell “showed” to be actually operating.
Commentator William Schneider on CNN Live Today (2/6/03) dismissed the possibility that Powell could be doubted: “No one disputes the findings Powell presented at the U.N. that Iraq is essentially guilty of failing to disarm.” When CNN‘s Paula Zahn (2/5/03) interviewed Jamie Rubin, former State Department spokesperson, she prefaced a discussion of Iraq’s response to Powell’s speech thusly: “You’ve got to understand that most Americans watching this were either probably laughing out loud or got sick to their stomach. Which was it for you?”
If you turn to FAIR’s “Iraq and the Media: A Critical Timeline” (3/19/07), you see that February 6 Washington Post op-ed page had Mary McGrory writing: “I don’t know how the United Nations felt about Colin Powell’s ‘J’accuse’ speech against Saddam Hussein. I can only say that he persuaded me, and I was as tough as France to convince.” She added that she “heard enough to know that Saddam Hussein, with his stockpiles of nerve gas and death-dealing chemicals, is more of a menace than I had thought.”
And Richard Cohen (2/6/03) announced that the debate was over:
The evidence he presented to the United Nations–some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail–had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn’t accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool–or possibly a Frenchman–could conclude otherwise.
Obviously, the fools and Frenchmen were correct. And as FAIR documented, independent-minded journalists were reporting that some of the administration’s claims did not stand up to scrutiny. The Associated Press had a detailed look at the state of Iraq intelligence on January 18. The skepticism and good judgment of those reporters (and others) should have been the rule, not the exception, if journalists had been doing their jobs.
But most journalists did a different job. And most of them faced no consequences whatsoever for being so disastrously wrong.
Bulgarian Opposition Blasts Burgas Bombing Charge
By Yahya Dbouk | Al-Akhbar | February 6, 2013
The US and Israel are using the accusations leveled against Hezbollah in the 2012 Burgas bus bombing to pressure the EU into including the resistance group on its terrorist list. But the Bulgarian opposition is crying foul.
Israeli and US pressure on Bulgarian authorities to formally accuse Hezbollah as the organization behind the 18 June 2012 bus bombing in the city of Burgas – in which six people, including five Israelis, were killed – has not been entirely successful.
They have succeeded in pressuring the Bulgarian investigators probing the bombing to link the attack to Hezbollah. This has been done in such a way as to strike a compromise between the hardline stances of Israel and the US, and the cautious position of European countries, who do not see it in their interest to up the ante against Hezbollah at this juncture.
Bulgarian Minister of Interior Tsvetan Tsvetanov announced Tuesday, 5 February 2013, that two people believed to have been connected to Hezbollah were involved in the Burgas bombing.
Speaking after a special meeting of the country’s Consultative Council on National Security to discuss the investigation’s findings, Tsvetanov said the pair were part of a group of three who carried out the attack. The two had traveled on Australian and Canadian passports, and lived in Lebanon since 2006 and 2010, respectively.
The minister went on to say that “there is data showing the financing and connection between Hezbollah and the two suspects,” and that investigators had “a well-founded assumption that they belonged to the military wing of Hezbollah.”
The wording of his remarks was significant. It could foil longstanding Israeli and US efforts to pressure the EU to designate Hezbollah in its entirety as a terrorist organization, as opposed to merely its “military wing.”
Tsvetanov also said that the Lebanese authorities had been asked for assistance in the probe.
From Lebanon to Bulgaria, the Opposition Reacts
The announcement was quickly challenged by Sergei Stanishev, leader of Bulgaria’s parliamentary opposition and the head of the Bulgarian Socialist Party, who charged that finger-pointing against Hezbollah was unfounded and politically motivated.
“It is obvious that Bulgaria’s government has chosen a political approach and is only repeating the interpretation alleged by Israel on the very next day following the attack, when the investigation had not even started,” he said, as quoted by the Sofia News Agency.
“The investigation is currently underway, and there is no way one can be talking about decisive evidence regarding the direct perpetrators, much less regarding the organization that is behind this tragic event,” Stanishev added.
The Agency quoted sources at the Bulgarian foreign ministry as saying that security had been stepped up at the country’s embassy in Beirut as a precaution against possible attacks.
The Bulgarian opposition’s skepticism over the Hezbollah accusation has made no impression on the Lebanese opposition. Members of the March 14 coalition seized on the news, and some predicted it would lead to the downfall of Prime Minister Najib Mikati’s government, of which Hezbollah is a member.
Senior sources in the Future Movement told Al-Akhbar that it had already been agreed that Mikati would step down once a new election law is in place, “but now we have been unexpectedly given the Bulgarian accusation.”
The sources said Future Movement MPs discussed the issue at a meeting Tuesday, but decided not to discuss the Bulgarian charge against Hezbollah in the media for the time being.
Nevertheless, a prominent Future Movement MP remarked to Al-Akhbar: “How can a partnership be established in this country on the basis of terrorism?” He added that in demanding that the government quit, “we are not speaking from a position of hostility or score-settling,” but “out of concern for the country and its interests.”
Sources close to the prime minister denied that the government had any intention of stepping down in the wake of the Bulgarian minister’s announcement. The source attributed the suggestion to “the wishful thinking of the March 14 camp.”
In his public reaction to the announcement, Mikati reiterated Lebanon’s readiness to cooperate with the Bulgarian authorities “to shed light on the circumstances” of the incident, while stressing its condemnation of all such attacks in any European or Arab country.
Lebanese official sources said Beirut had been informed earlier that four members of Hezbollah would be accused of complicity in the bombing. It also knew in advance that the Bulgarians would draw a distinction between Hezbollah’s military wing and Hezbollah itself in order to avoid its placement on the EU terrorist list.
Yet no Lebanese officials were informed of the suspects’ identities, the sources said. The only request for assistance received from Bulgarian investigators by Lebanese judicial authorities was a request to search for an individual’s fingerprints in Lebanese records.
While Hezbollah remained silent, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to seize on the news to demand that the EU designate Hezbollah a terrorist organization and not distinguish between its military and political wings.
In a statement released by his office, Netanyahu thanked the Bulgarian government for its “thorough and professional investigation” and elaborated on how Iran and Hezbollah were “orchestrating a worldwide campaign of terror,” as well as supporting “the murderous Assad regime in Syria.”
The Israeli prime minister’s words were parroted almost verbatim by US President Barack Obama’s counterterrorism advisor John Brennan, who urged EU states to ”take proactive action to uncover Hezbollah’s infrastructure and disrupt the group’s financing schemes and operational networks.”
The EU itself seemed less eager than the US and Israel to put Hezbollah on its terrorism list. EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton merely took note of the results of the Bulgarian probe and stressed the need to “reflect on the consequences.” She said that “the EU and member states will discuss the appropriate response based on all elements identified by the investigators.”
Israeli media had reported in advance of the Bulgarian announcement that Israel’s contribution to the probe had enabled investigators to link the Burgas bombing to Hezbollah. Israeli reports over the past two months had anticipated that Hezbollah and Iran – Hezbollah as an organization and the Iranian state – would be accused of funding and implementing the attack.
Israel must not meddle in AMIA affair: Argentina’s FM
Press TV – February 6, 2013
Argentinean Foreign Minister Hector Timerman says the Israeli regime has no right to interfere in the proceedings of the AMIA issue underway between Argentina and Iran.
Israel recently called for an explanation about an agreement between Iran and Argentina to set up a fact-finding committee to investigate the 1994 deadly bombing at a Jewish center in Buenos Aires.
“Israel has no right to demand explanations; we’re a sovereign state,” Timerman told Israel’s ambassador to Buenos Aires Dorit Shavit.
“Israel doesn’t speak in the name of the Jewish people and doesn’t represent it,” Timerman added.
Those who live in Argentina are Argentinean citizens and Israel’s involvement in the issue will only give ammunition to anti-Semites, the Argentinean foreign minister stated.
On January 27, 2013, Iran and Argentina signed a memorandum of understanding for the two countries to shed light on the 1994 bombing on the AMIA building in Buenos Aires, which killed 85 people and wounded 300 others.
The Israeli foreign ministry issued a statement on January 28, 2013, saying they were “astonished and disappointed” at the deal.
Israel summoned Argentina’s envoy Atilio Norberto Molteni the following day in protest against the deal. The Tel Aviv regime also asked Shavit to demand a meeting with Timerman to “seek clarifications.”
Under intense political pressure imposed by the United States and Israel, Argentina formally accused Iran of having carried out the 1994 bombing attack on the AMIA. The Islamic Republic has vehemently and consistently denied any involvement in the bombing.
Related article
- Iran-Argentina AMIA agreement shocks “Israel” (realisticbird.wordpress.com)
Obamacare: A Deception
The Devil is in the Details
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS | CounterPunch | February 5, 2013
The article below is the most comprehensive analysis available of “Obamacare” – the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The author, a knowledgeable person who wishes to remain anonymous, explains how Obamacare works for the insurance companies but not for you.
Obamacare was formulated on the concept of health care as a commercial commodity and was cloaked in ideological slogans such as “shared responsibility,” “no free riders” and “ownership society.” These slogans dress the insurance industry’s raid on public resources in the cloak of a “free market” health care system.
You will learn how to purchase a subsidized plan at the Exchange, what will happen when income and family circumstances change during the year or from one year to the next, and other perils brought to you by Obamacare. It is one of the most important articles that will be posted on my website this year. Americans will be shocked to learn the extent to which they have been deceived. The legislation neither protects the patient nor are the plans affordable.
The author shows that for those Americans whose income places them between 138% and 400% of the Federal Poverty Level, the out-of-pocket cost for one of the least expensive (lower coverage) subsidized policies ranges from 2% to 9.5% of Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI), a tax base larger than the Adjusted Gross Income used for calculating federal income tax.
What this means is that those Americans with the least or no disposable income are faced in effect with a substantial pay cut. The author provides an example of a 35 year-old with a MAGI of $27,925. The out-of- pocket cost to this person of a Silver level plan (second least expensive) is $187.33 per month. This cost is based on pre-tax income, that is, before income is reduced by payroll and income taxes. There goes the car payment or utility bill. The lives of millions of Americans will change drastically as they struggle with a new, large expense – particularly in an era of no jobs, low-paying jobs and rising cost of living.
The author also points out that the cost of using the mandated policies will be prohibitive because of the large deductibles and co-pays. Many Americans will find themselves not only with a policy they can’t afford, but also with one they cannot afford to use. Those who cannot afford the insurance, even with a subsidy, will be faced with a costly penalty, and in many cases, this, too, will be difficult, if not impossible, to pay. As each year’s subsidy is based on last year’s income, there will be a substantial year-end tax liability for those who must repay the subsidy in whole or part because their income increased during the year.
The stress alone from such a regressive scheme is, without a doubt, not conducive to good health and well-being.
Diets will worsen for millions of Americans as they struggle with a new large expense. Thus, the effect of Obamacare will be to worsen the health of millions. Indeed, a “glitch” in the legislation allows millions to be priced out of coverage.
Alternatively, Americans might be able to acquire health insurance coverage but have no doctors willing to treat them.
The demand that Obamacare places on household budgets in which there is no slack makes me wonder where the president’s economists were while the insurance lobby crafted the product that serves the profits of insurance companies. Two well-known economic facts are that real family income has been stagnant or declining for a number of years and Americans are over their heads in debt.
How does Obama preside over a recovery when consumer purchasing power is redirected to insurance company profits?
Obamacare not only rations health care by what a person or family can afford, but also has implications for Medicare patients. Hundreds of billions of dollars are siphoned from Medicare to help pay the cost of Obamacare. The health care provided to Medicare patients will decline with the reduced payments to care providers. Health care seems destined to be rationed according to the age and illnesses of Medicare patients. Those judged too old and too ill could be denied expensive treatments or procedures that would prolong their lives.
Obama will rue the day that his name was put on this special interest legislation, and most Americans, once they realize what has been done to them, will be angry that special interests again prevailed over the health of the nation.
OBAMACARE: THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, commonly referred to as the ACA or Obamacare, will go into full effect in 2014. This decree mandates that all Americans must purchase and maintain government-approved health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS. Touted as a plan to provide all Americans with access to medical care, in reality, this compulsory shakedown commands everyone to purchase insurance that for many will be too expensive, even with government subsidies – or unaffordable to use – or both.
The ACA was not selflessly designed with the intent of providing affordable and equitable medical services to those in need, but rather to acquire taxpayer money for the private insurance companies under the seemingly helpful guise of health care and the ideological excuse of personal responsibility. It takes money from ordinary people and gives it to a medical insurance industry that profits handsomely from this legally-enforced corporate welfare – all while keeping Americans locked in the same broken system that puts profit before patients. The law was essentially written by business executives from the industry so that special interests would not be upset and profits assured.
There’s a lot to digest about how the ACA works and much is buried in a complex, convoluted maze of regulations and procedures. A few websites contain explanations, but very important details have either been left out or glossed over. These details are well worth understanding so you will know what’s at stake for you and your family. This lesson is not meant to convey a political opinion. This is how the ACA works and under this law, there are no sacred cows.
In today’s lesson, you will learn why 2013 is an important year for many of you with regard to your income and the ACA. We will discuss 1) use of Modified Adjusted Gross Income, 2) tax credits (help paying for insurance), 3) your share of the premium, 4) paying back the tax credits to the IRS, 5) expansion of Medicaid and estate recovery which could affect you if you are put into that plan, 6) inadequate coverage in most subsidized plans, 7) penalties, 8) exemptions and 9) a few tidbits. We’ll also take a look at the agenda of Enroll America and the Health Insurance Exchanges, and what you can expect to hear in the very near future.
Here we go. Fasten your seat belts.
1. HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE BASICS
In 2014, each state will have an Affordable Insurance Exchange where qualified individuals and families with incomes between 138 and 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) can shop for commercial insurance policies. Most individuals and families with incomes at or below 138 percent FPL will be put into Medicaid. You may be eligible for help paying for your insurance in the form of a tax credit. In most states, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) will continue to cover children in families with incomes up to at least 200 percent FPL. Some states may offer a Basic Health Plan for those who earn up to 200 percent FPL and are not eligible for Medicaid. Under limited circumstances, you may also be eligible for a cost-sharing credit.
Eligibility to receive a tax credit, the amount of your tax credit and your out-of-pocket share for the insurance will be determined by your income and where you fall in the Federal Poverty Level Guidelines (FPL). This is easy to understand.
Your annual gross income determines which FPL you’re in. For example, based on 2012 FPL Guidelines, an individual with an annual income of $33,510 is at 300 percent FPL; a family of 4 with an annual income of $69,150 is at 300 percent FPL. To see where you’re at, try the handy calculator at this link. FPL Guidelines are revised every January, so the 2013 edition should be up soon.
The ACA requires use of MODIFIED ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME (MAGI) instead of Adjusted Gross Income for all determinations made by an Exchange including eligibility for Medicaid except in certain cases. So, in this lesson, we’ll refer to annual income as MAGI.
Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) is defined as Adjusted Gross Income PLUS
a) all tax exempt interest accrued or received in the taxable year;
b) the non-taxable portion of Social Security benefits provided under Title II of the Social Security Act which includes old-age benefits, disability benefits, spousal benefits, child benefits, survivor benefits and parental benefits;
c) tier 1 Railroad Retirement benefits that are not includible in gross income; and
d) the exclusion from gross income for citizens or residents living abroad.
The adoption of MAGI, created by the ACA, is defined in a new section of the IRS code.
2. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR A TAX CREDIT
The tax credit is to help you pay for insurance. The ACA says it must be based on annual income for the tax year it’s received, but since you will need help paying for your plan during that year, the ACA allows for advance payment of the tax credit.
Here’s an example of what that means: Let’s say you apply for insurance at an Exchange in 2014. Therefore, 2014 is the tax year you will receive your tax credit, and per the ACA, the amount you receive must be based on that year’s MAGI. But, that year’s MAGI won’t be available until 2015 when you file your 2014 tax return and you need help paying for your insurance plan when you buy it in 2014. So, the amount of your tax credit has to be determined on information that is available such as your prior-year (2013) tax return. Thus, the tax credit morphs into an ‘advance payment of the tax credit’ (also referred to as an advance premium assistance credit). Now you see why 2013 is an important year for many of you.
The ACA allows for limited disclosure of tax return info in order for an Exchange employee to verify your citizenship status and MAGI, and, not only to let you know how much your advance tax credit will be, but also to see if you are eligible to receive this in the first place. An Exchange can also consider using your real-time income by looking at your state’s most current quarterly wage database, or it may agree to accept paper verification (pay stubs, etc.) as a last resort or an attestation of your income with no verification. Creation of a federal ‘data services hub’ is in the works so your income information will be more readily accessible. But, no matter how this plays out, you’ll still receive an advance payment of the tax credit because your actual MAGI for 2014 will not be known by you nor can it be verified by an Exchange until you file your 2014 tax return in 2015.
Ultimately, no matter which method is used – prior year or partial current year – this advance payment of the tax credit carries with it some heavy-duty consequences which are discussed in topic 4 of this lesson.
3. TAX CREDITS AND YOUR SHARE OF THE PREMIUM
The amount of your tax credit will be based on the second lowest-cost Silver plan in the area where you live and your MAGI. Here’s how this works – it’s quite simple:
a) First, the amount you will pay out of your pocket for that Silver plan – copays and deductibles not included – will be a specific percentage of your MAGI, and you will pay this to the insurer on a monthly basis. The way this percentage will be calculated is described a few lines down.
b) Next, your share will be deducted from the cost of that Silver plan and the difference will be your tax credit which the government will pay directly to the insurer on a monthly basis when you purchase a plan.
The specific percentage you will have to pay for the second lowest-cost Silver plan will be based on your FPL using a well-greased sliding scale. As your FPL increases little by little, the percentage you will pay increases. The same percentage applies to an individual or a family. Here’s how much of your MAGI you will pay for that Silver plan:
— up to 138 % FPL: 2% for people legally present less than 5 full years and residents of states that do not expand Medicaid
— 138-150% FPL: 3 to 4%
— 150-200% FPL: 4 to 6.3%
— 200-250% FPL: 6.3 to 8.05%
— 250-300% FPL: 8.05 to 9.5%
— 300-400% FPL: 9.5% – there’s no range, but the dollar amount of your share will change because 9.5% of a lower MAGI is less than 9.5% of a higher MAGI.
Here are two examples in dollars using 2012 FPL Guidelines and an estimate for a second lowest-cost Silver plan which will vary depending where you live – actual costs are not yet available:
a) You are 35 years old and the price of the second lowest-cost Silver plan for an individual in the area where you live is $4,750 with no tax credit. If your MAGI is $33,510 ($2,792.50 per month) putting you at 300 percent FPL, your share for that Silver plan, per the chart above, would be 9.5 percent of your MAGI which comes to $3,183 ($265.25 per month). Your tax credit would be $1,567 which is the difference between the unsubsidized cost of that Silver plan and your share.
b) You are 35 years old and your MAGI is $27,925 ($2,327 per month) putting you at 250 percent FPL, so, your share of that Silver plan would be 8.05 percent of your MAGI which comes to $2,247.96 ($187.33 per month) and your tax credit would be $2,502.
If the second lowest-cost Silver plan is too expensive, you can apply your tax credit to a Bronze plan which will be cheaper but less comprehensive. If you want a better plan than the Silver, you will have to pay the full difference in the premium.
Don’t forget that your share of the monthly premium will be figured on your MAGI which is pre-tax income. So, after you deduct your income taxes and your share of an insurance plan, will you be able to cover your monthly basic living costs including paying off debt you may owe and still have some cash left to pay for medical care if you have to use your insurance? Check out topic 6 in this lesson for a rundown of plans and coverage you can expect to find at an Exchange. Hope you don’t faint.
Once you purchase a plan, your share and your tax credit won’t change until the next enrollment period unless, before that time, your income goes up or down enough to bump you into a different FPL or you get a job with insurance. You can let your Exchange know by phone or via your online account, or, your Exchange might notice while cruising the data services hub you learned about in topic 2 and notify you that you must ‘up’ your coverage or that you’ve been tossed into Medicaid if your MAGI has decreased enough to make you eligible for that plan. Exchanges will be encouraged to use as many different avenues as possible including private databases to keep tabs on your income.
Thus, you could end up bouncing from Medicaid to a subsidized plan or vice versa. By the same token, you could take some extra work to help pay the bills or to save for a vacation, and, oops, you went over 400 percent FPL and are no longer eligible for a tax credit. The Exchange may not find out about this unless you spill the beans, but, no matter how it all plays out, income changes will catch up with you when you file your tax return.
To be eligible for a tax credit you must file your tax return no later than April 15. Married taxpayers must file a joint return. Individuals who are listed as dependents on a return are ineligible for a tax credit.
If you are eligible for Medicaid, you will not be allowed to receive a tax credit or a cost-sharing credit although some states impose premium and cost-sharing charges on certain Medicaid enrollees per the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) and clarified in the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006.
On January 22, 2013, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed allowing states to further increase Medicaid premiums and out-of-pocket costs by 5 percent. The most egregious part of this proposed rule says that states may allow providers to deny services for failure to pay the required cost-sharing in certain circumstances. The Obama administration is behind this proposed rule hoping to persuade states to expand Medicaid since many have refused and others are still undecided – the expansion of Medicaid is an integral part of the ACA. Allowing states to further increase premiums and cost-sharing for the poorest segment of the population underscores the existing political bias toward low-income Americans despite rhetoric which claims otherwise.
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/01/22/2013-00659/medicaid-childrens-health-insurance-programs-and-exchanges-essen- tial-health-benefits-in-alternative#h-186 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/health/medicaid-patients-could-face-higher-fees-under-a-proposed-federal-policy.html
Affordability rates (the percentage of your MAGI the government has decided you can afford to pay for insurance) are based on boardroom formulas which don’t take particular individual needs into account such as housing costs, property taxes, debt, education, transportation, retirement savings, etc. Also, FPL Guidelines are standard across the country and do not take into consideration those who reside in a more expensive region or vice versa. They are one-size-fits-all with the exception of Alaska and Hawaii. See topic 8 in this lesson to learn about exemptions.
Check out what self-proclaimed health care expert Jonathan Gruber says about affordability and get a load of all the “formulas.” According to Mr. Gruber, you may be having too much fun in life and need to get serious, buy health insurance and live under a rock in order to pay for it. He was involved with Romneycare in Massachusetts and was also Mr. Obama’s go to man under a no-bid contract. Per a bar graph on page 6 of a report prepared by Stan Dom for the Urban Institute, subsidized plans under the ACA are estimated to cost 2 to 3 times more (give or take) than the subsidized plans under Romneycare. Per several surveys during the years that Romneycare has been in effect, many low and modest income MA residents have had difficulty paying for those plans and the out-of-pocket costs to use the insurance, particularly chronically-ill residents.
http://ebookbrowse.com/1493-gruber-will-affordable-care-act-make-hlt-ins-affordable-reform-brief-v2-pdf-d124754327
http://www.statecoverage.org/files/TheBasicHealthProgramOptionUnderHealthReform.pdf
4. PAYBACK OF TAX CREDITS TO THE IRS
Perhaps you recall hearing politicians including Mr. Obama say if you can’t afford to pay for health insurance, the government will help you. That was one of the key talking points repeated non stop. We just went over the help part – the tax credits. Now we’ll look at what Mr. Obama et al didn’t tell you which is important to understand because it could cause you some serious financial distress.
Remember the “advance payment of the tax credit” in topic 2 of this lesson? Well, essentially, that was a loan from the government which was paid in advance to the insurer on your behalf when you purchased your plan, and, as you know, loans have to be paid back. So, when you file your tax return for the year you received your “advance tax credit” (your loan), if your income has changed, you have to settle this with the IRS. Here’s the deal:
a) If your MAGI is higher and the increase puts you into a higher FPL, you may have to pay back a portion or all of the tax credit because it was based on a lower MAGI. In other words, you could have an additional tax liability on top of the income taxes you already paid (or still owe) because you received a higher tax credit than you were entitled to.
b) If your MAGI is lower and the decrease puts you into a lower FPL, a refund could be coming to you because you were eligible for a larger tax credit than the government paid to the insurer. In other words, you overpaid for your portion of the insurance premium.
c) If you earned a bit more or less, but your extra earnings or loss didn’t bump you into another FPL, you’re home free.
To figure out your payback, you will have to enter the relevant figures on the reconciliation page of the tax return. Changes in filing status such as the number of people in your household will also have an impact. For those of you who marry or divorce, the rules for the payback amount as well as the amount of the tax credit you are eligible to receive will make your head spin – the computation includes pre- and post-marriage FPL and uses the highest FPL of the two people involved. Ditto for divorce.
Here is one of the reconciliation explanations in IRS-speak: Your liability for an excess tax credit you received must be reflected on your current year income tax return subject to a limitation on the amount of such liability.
Oh! Limitation on the amount of such liability. That sounds good.
Let’s take a peek at the payback limitations on record at the time of this writing. “At the time of this writing” are the operative words because the cap has been increased twice since the ACA was signed into law. The original payback was capped at $400 for families under 400 percent FPL and $200 for individuals. We’ll skip over the first increase. The story behind the second one is that a particular revenue stream was removed from the original law, so something had to be done to compensate for this lost money. Thus, an amendment was passed that increased the cap using a sliding scale, thereby putting a huge financial burden on the backs of the very people the ACA claims to help. In other words, tag, you’re it. You are the cash cow.
Here are the current sliding-scale caps:
If the household income (expressed as a percent of poverty line) is:
less than 200 percent, the applicable dollar amount is $600
at least 200 percent but less than 300 percent, the applicable dollar amount is $1,500
at least 300 percent but less than 400 percent, the applicable dollar amount is $2,500
Effective date: the amendment made by this topic shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2013. Very truly yours, House Ways and Means Committee
The name of this bloodsucker is The Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy Overpayments Act of 2011.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ9/html/PLAW-112publ9.htm
But wait, there’s more!
a) Update: Today (Feb. 17) (2011) the House Ways and Means Committee approved the 1099 repeal bill which requires consumers earning more than 400 percent of the poverty line to pay back the [entire] subsidy.
b) Also, per IRS final regulations: for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2014, the payback caps may be adjusted to reflect changes in the consumer price index.
Payback amounts are reduced to one-half for unmarried individuals who are not surviving spouses or filing as heads of households. There is no help if you get hit with a payback and many of you will have difficulty paying this liability.
Chances that you may have received an incorrect tax credit are not exactly slim because this poorly thought-out scheme does not take into account the unpredictable and complex financial situations that confront the low and modest income population.
Keep in mind that by ending up in a higher FPL, you may also have to pay more out of your pocket for an insurance premium. You learned how that works in topic 3. If you can’t afford a higher premium and drop your insurance, you may still owe a payback plus a penalty for being uninsured which is also MAGI-based. Penalties are discussed in topic 7. If your MAGI puts you over 400 percent FPL, you just knocked yourself into left field and are on your own paying for an insurance plan on the open market. And, you may also be required to payback the entire tax credit.
If you get a job during the current year that offers health insurance which is not more than 9.5 percent of your total salary and the coverage is not less than 60 percent, you must take that insurance or pay a penalty for being uninsured. But, you may owe a payback for the months you received a tax credit before you landed the job. How large that payback is will depend on your MAGI for the entire tax year, not just on your income during the months you received the tax credit. Or, you may lose a job during the year and have a significantly reduced income even though the amount reported on your tax return is high because you had a job for part of the year. In this case as well, your payback will be based on your MAGI for the entire tax year.
More interest income from taxable and tax-exempt savings or a year-end bonus could also contribute to an increased MAGI and the possibility of a payback as well as taking extra work to help pay the monthly bills, house and car repairs, educational aspirations or a vacation. So, whether or not you end up in payback land will depend on how close you are teetering on the edge of an FPL. Ditto for your share of the premium and the amount of your tax credit.
The payback may stop many of you from purchasing insurance at the Exchange because you know in advance you will not have the money to pay it. If this is the case, you may be allowed to negotiate a lesser tax credit by paying more out of your pocket for your monthly insurance premium in order to avoid or decrease the payback. It’s a crap shoot. Considering what you’ve learned so far in today’s lesson, many of you will find yourselves between a rock and a hard place under the ACA, and you will be forced to make untenable choices. Given the skyrocketing costs of food, heat and other basics, how will you even tread water under this set-up, never mind get ahead?
Being told you will receive help from the government if you can’t afford to purchase insurance and finding out at tax time this was really a loan and you owe the IRS a substantial debt on top of your income taxes is outright shameful. But most politicians have no shame – which brings us to the next topic.
5. MEDICAID EXPANSION AND ESTATE RECOVERY
In order to expand Medicaid, several Medicaid regulations were changed:
a) the income limit for eligibility was increased to 133 percent FPL, but since states must apply a 5 percent disregard, this effectively raises the eligibility to 138 percent FPL
b) Modified Adjusted Gross Income will be used in most cases to determine eligibility (also applies to certain CHIP applicants)
c) the age limit was increased to 64, childless adults will be eligible; and
d) the asset test was dropped except for certain groups such as the elderly and people on Social Security Disability – BINGO!
The fact that the asset test was dropped is very important, but before we look at why, you must first understand that if an Exchange determines you are eligible for Medicaid, you have no other choice. Code for Exchanges specifies, “an applicant is not eligible for advance payment of the premium tax credit (a subsidized plan) or cost-sharing reductions to the extent that he or she is eligible for other minimum essential coverage, including coverage under Medicaid and CHIP.” Therefore, you will be tossed into Medicaid unless there are specific rules as to why you would not be eligible. If you are enrolled in a private plan through an Exchange and have been receiving a tax credit, and your income decreases making you eligible for Medicaid, in you go. If you are allowed to opt out because you don’t want Medicaid, you will have to pay a penalty for being uninsured unless you can afford to purchase insurance in the open market.
Just so you’re clear on this: the ACA stipulates that the system will ensure that if any individual applying to an Exchange is found to be eligible for Medicaid or a state children’s health insurance program (CHIP), the individual will be enrolled in such a plan.
Furthermore, to increase enrollment in health coverage without requiring people to complete an application on their own, states are advised to automate enrollment whenever possible by using existing databases for social services programs such as SNAP (food stamps) to enroll people who appear eligible for Medicaid but are not currently enrolled. Therefore, you could find yourself auto-enrolled in Medicaid against your will if your state acts on this advice.
Many times over Mr. Obama et al told you that all Americans would have choice. Choice was another big talking point. Are poor and low-income Americans undeserving of choice? Is the ACA a class-based system? Maybe they meant that for this segment of the population, the choice would be between Medicaid or a penalty for remaining uninsured. This is blatant discrimination.
Here’s why dropping the asset test got the BINGO – Estate Recovery! You won’t find the following info in the ACA. It’s in the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA 1993) – a federal statute which applies to Medicaid, and, if you are enrolled in Medicaid, it will apply to you depending on your age.
a) OBRA 1993 requires all states that receive Medicaid funding to seek recovery from the estates of deceased individuals who used Medicaid benefits at age 55 or older. It allows recovery for any items or services under the state Medicaid plan going beyond nursing homes and other long-term care institutions. In fact, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) site says that states have the option of recovering payments for all Medicaid services provided. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) site says at state option, recovery can be pursued for any items covered by the Medicaid state plan.
b) The HHS site has an overview of the Medicaid estate recovery mandate which also says that at a minimum, states must pursue recoveries from the “probate estate,” which includes property that passes to the heirs under state probate law, but states can expand the definition of estate to allow recovery from property that bypasses probate. This means states can use procedures for direct recovery from bank accounts and other funds.
c) Some states use recovery for RX and hospital only as required by OBRA 1993; some recover for a few additional benefits and some recover for all benefits under the state plan. Recovery provides revenue for cash-strapped states and it’s a big business.
Your estate is what you own when you die – your home and what’s in it, other real estate you may own, your bank account, annuities and so on. And even if you have a will, your heirs are chopped liver. Low-income people often have only one major asset – the home in which they live and, in some cases, this has been the family home through several generations.
So what this boils down to is: if you are put into Medicaid – congratulations – you just got a mandated collateral loan if you use Medicaid benefits at age 55 or older! States keep a running tally.
Estate recovery can be exempted or deferred in certain situations after your death, but the regulations for this are limited and complicated with multitudes of conditions. You may not have an attorney on speed dial, but with regard to this hundred pound gorilla, it sure would be handy.
Should you decide to ask your congresscritter about estate recovery, be prepared for responses such as:
— “Estate recovery doesn’t apply to you.” (Great news. Please overnight a copy of the amendment to OBRA 1993 that stipulates estate recovery is no longer required and no longer allowed. Here’s my address.)
— “Oh, estate recovery is state, I’m federal.” (Wrong – estate recovery is federally mandated although the estate recovery program itself is administered by each state.)
— “I don’t know anything about this.” (Highly unlikely because the expansion of Medicaid is an integral part of the ACA and estate recovery is not a secret.)
— “The ACA wasn’t about revamping Medicaid.” (As explained above, Medicaid regs were revised in order to expand Medicaid.)
— “I’ll look into that and get back to you.” (Don’t hold your breath – they don’t want to go there.)
If you ask about estate recovery when you contact an Exchange or speak with an outreach agency, you’ll probably run into a brick wall or be told it doesn’t apply to you – whatever. But, it doesn’t matter because what you are told is not legally binding. What is legally binding is your signature on the Medicaid application which indicates that you agree to the terms of the contract – which brings us to another item in OBRA 1993. Read on.
OBRA 1993 also contains procedural rules intended to ensure that individuals are informed about Medicaid program requirements including disclosure of estate recovery before they complete the application process and also during the annual re-determination process. Notification of estate recovery should be on the signature page of your state’s Medicaid application and is usually a one-liner: I understand that if I am aged 55 or older, (name of your state’s Medicaid plan) may be able to get back money from my estate after I die. (Use of the word ‘may’ doesn’t mean if the state feels like it – it means recovery will take place unless there are specific circumstances for exemption or deferment as mentioned above.) There are also strict recovery/repayment clauses for injury-related settlements disclosed on the signature page and a few other ditties that apply to you or a family member who is enrolled in Medicaid. All of these items must also be disclosed in your state’s Medicaid handbook.
Under the ACA and proposed federal rules for implementation, states will be required to provide a single, simple application to apply for and enroll in Exchange plans, Medicaid and CHIP, and consumers must be able to apply by phone, in person or online. The Secretary (HHS) is charged with this task and it’s in the works. This begs an answer to the following questions:
— Will Medicaid applicants be diligently informed about estate recovery and other rules that apply to Medicaid enrollees on this single application?
Failure to do so would be in non compliance with OBRA 1993 and would also be deceptive.
— Will applicants be provided with a signature page that contains appropriate disclosure of these rules so they can be reviewed before signing on the dotted line?
— How will appropriate disclosure and obtaining a signature work for those who are bumped into Medicaid due to a decrease in income or who might be auto-enrolled because they were presumed eligible through a database.
If an applicant or someone who has been bumped or auto-enrolled in Medicaid is not satisfied with the terms of the Medicaid contract, lack of another health insurance option that is in the best interest of low-income earners represents undue and unconscionable advantage being taken of this segment of the population under a law that mandates health insurance or a penalty.
Do the health insurance policies enjoyed by lawmakers on Capitol Hill and paid for by taxpayers include an estate recovery program?
Medicaid is poor, underfunded, overstretched and constantly bombarded by state budget cuts – even before an ACA expansion. It offers a low quality of care in many states, and, in general, represents inequities in care. Office-based doctors typically refuse to accept Medicaid patients, thus, millions thrust into this plan will have difficulty finding a primary-care doctor or a specialist.
A perfect example is the December 2012 federal appeals court decision that allowed California to cut reimbursements by 10 percent to doctors, pharmacies and others who serve low-income residents under the state’s Medi-Cal plan (a version of Medicaid) due to state budget issues. California was already at the bottom of the rate-reimbursement heap which made finding doctors difficult for residents in Medi-Cal. This decision will further reduce the number of health care providers willing to take new Medi-Cal patients, thus jeopardizing their access to primary and specialized care. Under the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid, state budget crises across the nation will exacerbate the ongoing problems regarding access to care for Medicaid patients, particularly in states that have a high low-income population.
http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Medi-Cal-cuts-upheld-by-appellate-court-4116971.php
6. INSURANCE PLANS AT THE EXCHANGES
Below are the 4 plan levels that will be offered at Exchanges for people between 138 and 400 percent FPL. Each one has government- approved benefits including prescription coverage. You will be entitled to one free preventive visit each year. Per the most recent study commissioned by the Kaiser Family Foundation, several cost-sharing options were estimated for non-group (individual and family) Bronze and Silver plans. Cost-sharing is the amount you must pay to use your insurance. Your share of the premium is not part of cost-sharing.
The way this works is you will pay for all your medical care until you reach the annual deductible. Then you’ll pay the applicable percentage of coinsurance until you reach the annual out-of-pocket spending cap which will be set on a sliding scale. Annual means these amounts start again the following year, and if they change, you will find out when you re-apply for insurance. There will also be copays – an amount you will pay to the doctor for an office visit.
Here are the current estimates:
Bronze: cheapest and dry as dust with 60/40 coverage – a win-win for insurers
a) annual deductible of $4,375 for an individual (double for a family) with 20 percent coinsurance, b) annual deductible of $3,475 for an individual (double for a family) with 40 percent coinsurance
Silver: next cheapest – offers an illusion of coverage at 70/30
a) annual deductible of $2,050 for an individual (double for a family) with 20 percent coinsurance, b) annual deductible of $650 for an individual (double for a family) with 40 percent coinsurance
Gold: expensive – 80/20 – better coverage
Platinum: most expensive – 90/10 – most comprehensive coverage
A fifth plan will be available for the under-30 crowd and people who have been granted a hardship exemption. See topic 8 in this lesson. Coverage in this plan will be less comprehensive than the Bronze – it is primarily for major-medical expenses except that it has a free preventive visit. Cost-sharing for people at 138 to 200 percent FPL is estimated to be a bit less than the Bronze and Silver estimates mentioned above.
The high deductibles in all but the two most expensive plans could saddle you with mounting bills for routine care and may stop you from seeking necessary treatment for illness or injuries. Many of you will find that the promise of access to affordable health care really means access to inadequate coverage at a price the government has decided you can afford to pay.
The number of drugs in each plan at an Exchange will vary from state to state. In some states, plans will offer up to 99 percent of available drugs and others only 45 percent which means you may not have access to the specific drugs you need. Perhaps Big Pharma will change its stance on this before 2014.
The cost of plans at an Exchange will vary from state to state based on where you live and your age. The ACA allows insurers to charge older customers up to three times more for a plan, even if they are in good health, as long as the state in which an Exchange is located doesn’t have a law that caps age-rating. Some Exchanges will tuck an administrative fee of 2 to 4 percent into premiums to help cover operating expenses.
Cost-sharing tax credits will be available if you are below 250 percent FPL to protect you from high deductibles and copays – but only if you purchase a Silver plan. If you buy the cheaper Bronze plan, you won’t be eligible for these credits, which are, by the way, direct federal payouts to private health insurance companies.
Obamacare has no cost controls. There is nothing stopping the insurance companies from increasing their rates, and Washington has already estimated higher premium costs at the Exchange for 2016 which doesn’t mean that 2015 won’t have an increase. Sounds like 2014 prices will be an Introductory Offer. Get ‘em while their hot!
7. PENALTY FOR BEING UNINSURED
The ACA requires that people who have been deemed able to purchase health insurance but decide not to buy it starting in 2014 will owe a penalty (a tax) to the IRS. Here’s what this looks like:
a) In 2014, the annual penalty will be $95 per adult and $47.50 per child, up to a family maximum of $285 or 1 percent of family income, whichever is greater.
b) In 2015, the penalty will be $325 per adult and $162.50 per child, up to a family maximum of $975 or 2 percent of family income, whichever is greater.
c) In 2016, the penalty will be $695 per adult and $347.50 per child, up to a family maximum of $2,085 or 2.5 percent of family income, whichever is greater.
The IRS collects the penalty, but the ACA stipulates that taxpayers shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty, tax liens, seizure of bank accounts or garnishment of wages for failure to pay it and no accumulation of interest on the unpaid balance. So, it appears that all the IRS can do is deduct the penalty from a refund it owes you, and if you’re not due a refund, then you’ll have an outstanding tax obligation.
Keep in mind that the penalty is described in annual amounts but is really monthly. So, if you are uninsured for only part of the year, you will accrue only 1/12 of the total for each month you are uninsured unless you qualify for an exemption.
8. EXEMPTIONS FROM THE PENALTY
You may be eligible for official permission that excuses you from having to pay the penalty for being uninsured. The requirements are:
a) If the cheapest health care plan available costs more than 8 percent of your MAGI after subtracting the tax credit or employer contribution, whichever is applicable.
b) Your income is so low that you aren’t required to file federal income taxes.
c) You are between jobs and without insurance for up to three months.
d) You have a sincerely-held religious belief that prevents you from seeking and obtaining medical care.
e) You are in jail.
f) You are an undocumented immigrant.
g) You are a member of an Indian tribe or a religious group currently exempt from paying Social Security tax.
If item d) is the case, you must file a sworn statement as part of your tax return, and should you obtain care during the tax year, the exemption will no longer apply and you will have to pay a penalty for being uninsured. Per H.R. 6597, medical care is defined as acute care at a hospital emergency room, walk-in clinic or similar facilities. Medical care excludes treatment not administered or supervised by a medical doctor such as chiropractic, dental, midwifery, personal care assistance, optometry, physical exams or treatment where required by law or third parties such as an employer, and vaccinations.
If you think you can’t afford the amount the government has decided you can afford to pay for your insurance plan, and you don’t fit into any of the categories described above, you can apply for a Hardship Waiver. Details have not yet been provided regarding hardship eligibility requirements under the ACA, but, for an idea of what they might look like, let’s check out what the deal is in Massachusetts which already has a mandated health insurance law – Romneycare! In fact, Romneycare was the model for Obamacare. That’s why some people call Obamacare, Obamneycare.
To qualify for a Certificate of Exemption under Romneycare, a Massachusetts resident must demonstrate that health insurance is not affordable due to one of the following: 1) homelessness; 2) eviction or foreclosure notice; 3) domestic violence-related medical trauma; 4) major long-term illness of a child; 5) death of your spouse; 6) your house burned down; or 7) “you can establish that the expense of purchasing health insurance would cause you to experience serious deprivation of food, shelter, clothing or other necessities.”
Ya gotta luv number 7. And in Massachusetts, exemptions come with an expiration date, so you have to clean up your act in short order. Under the ACA, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will determine if, indeed, you have suffered a hardship that keeps you from being able to pay for coverage.
9. OTHER TIDBITS
There is much more in the ACA including all kinds of rules and penalties for employers, employees and the self employed as well as the Accountable Care Organization (ACO) model which will be mandated starting in 2014. The latter works as follows: under the simplest option available, a small group of doctors and hospitals – an ACO – will manage your care and be graded and paid based on the outcome of all patients who seek treatment with that ACO. The ACO will also be rewarded with a share of the savings in health costs it achieves by following best treatment practices and reaching specific benchmarks set by CMS. The second option, “shared savings plus risk,” is for larger ACOs. Providers will receive a lump-sum payment to treat their patients and assume a portion of the risk for above target spending but are eligible to keep a greater portion of the savings.
Either of these options reduce patient care to numbers and paperwork because doctors are essentially controlled and incentivized by an administrator in some far-flung office. The ACO model is the insurance industry’s version of “budgeting” the cost of health care which ultimately benefits insurers at the expense of doctors and their patients.
Doctors say that basing their pay on treatment outcomes creates an incentive for them to avoid tough cases whose outcomes could “kill my numbers.” “Paradoxically,” writes Dr. G. Keith Smith, “doctors who are doing sham surgery will be the ones with the best outcomes, as their patients, many of whom don’t need surgery in the first place, will exhibit great, basically perfect outcomes. Physicians who don’t do unnecessary surgery will be pushed to do so to improve their ‘scores.’ ‘Pay for performance’ trends in medicine are not a good idea in my opinion. Paying based on patient outcomes will have perverse effects, not the least of which will be the complete denial of care to the very sick.”
The ACA also requires Health Insurance Exchanges to establish a navigator program to inform the uninsured about the availability of government-approved subsidized plans at an Exchange and to facilitate enrollment in these plans, but it leaves the design of the program up to each Exchange.
Depending how an Exchange sets up its program, some Navigators will sell plans offered by an Exchange while others will be responsible for maintaining the existing market but may also be allowed to sell Exchange plans. All seller Navigators will be compensated either by Exchanges or insurance carriers for the plans they sell. Many options are being considered by Exchanges including using insurance agents. Hopefully, Navigators and insurance agents will not be knocking on your door or contacting you by phone. That would be over the top. Here’s a link to read what the California Exchange is pondering with regard to its Navigation program.
10. ENROLL AMERICA, HERNDON ALLIANCE & THE EXCHANGES – MASTERS OF SPIN
Since many Americans don’t know about the ACA, somehow the word has to get out and people must be encouraged to purchase health insurance either in the open market or at an Exchange. And who better to do this?
Enter “Enroll America” – a nonprofit 501(c)3, financially backed by Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, UnitedHealth, America’s Health Insurance Plans, hospitals, associations that represent drug manufacturers and nonprofits with vested interests. For insurers and pharma, the ACA is manna from heaven – scratch that – manna from Capitol Hill – and the dollar signs in their eyes are on fire! These profit seekers and connected nonprofits will be using every avenue possible to maximize their bottom lines.
The mission of Enroll America per its website is to “ensure that all Americans are enrolled in and retain health coverage.” It’s Board of Directors and Advisory Council reads like a Who’s Who in the Medical Industry Cartel – CEOs, presidents, vice presidents and directors of such entities as the American Hospital Association, Express Scripts, Medicaid Health Plans of America, Kaiser Permanente and many others – the list is long. If you would like to donate to these mega-profit vultures, you can do so on the Enroll America home- page. The goal is $100 million by 2014.
In its publication, “Ten Ways to Make Health Coverage Enrollment and Renewal Easy,” Enroll America has recommended availability of web-based applications to increase the places where people can enroll in coverage: at home, at grocery stores, community health centers, state fairs, sporting events, places of worship, and more. Gee, you can apply for insurance while you pray. How thoughtful.
The strategy for insurers and state Exchanges to persuade you to purchase insurance and warn you about the penalties includes using ads, social media, blogs, YouTube, Flickr, Twitter, hospitals, health centers, McDonald’s, in-store radio announcements, ballparks, county fairs, libraries, laundromats, community events, libraries, county fairs and drugstores – you name it. Blue Cross Blue Shield has partnered with H & R Block. Health insurers are already setting up shop inside some supermarkets so they can answer your questions and sign you up for coverage while you do your grocery shopping. They will likely be showing up in shopping malls – maybe even in parking lots, on street corners and at church fairs. And, their aim is to recreate themselves from the bloodsucking leeches that they are to your new, cool-dude friends.
We’ll be living in Occupied Territory.
Let’s connect some dots. The executive director of Enroll America is Ron Pollack, also president of Families USA – a nonprofit and friend of the industry. On its website, Families USA bills itself as “a national non-partisan organization dedicated to the achievement of high quality, affordable health care for all Americans.” Philippe Villers and Robert Crittenden, M.D. are on Families USA Board of Directors. Mr. Villers is also on the BOD of Herndon Alliance, Bob Crittenden is a Herndon staff member and Ron Pollack is a Herndon founder.
Herndon Alliance is an influential health care spinmeister creating messaging to change public opinion and tweaking each message to reach particular groups.
Herndon has close ties to Capitol Hill and helped market the ACA providing words politicians and supporters should use to promote the bill. For example, during the national health care debacle a few years ago, you heard Mr. Obama et al continually talk about ‘choice,’ ‘we need a uniquely American solution,’ ‘fair rules,’ ‘investing in America’s future’ and ‘high-quality, affordable healthcare.’ That last one is used in Families USA mission statement. The Council for Affordable Health Insurance, a frontgroup for the industry, gets right to the point – its name. Ron Pollack worked with the Obama administration to help reshape public opinion of Mr. Obama’s unpopular health care bill. Leading up to 2014 when the Exchanges are scheduled to open, there will most likely be a blitz of TV ads in which you will hear many of these same nebulous, feel-good words. And, you’ll undoubtedly read or hear plenty of Herndon spin from your Exchange and throughout your state in the immediate future.
In the interest of coming up with messaging, Enroll America held a few focus groups and commissioned a nationwide survey in fall 2012. Research was provided by Celinda Lake from Lake Research Partners, a national public opinion and political strategy research firm. One takeaway was when a monthly premium cost was given, the majority of people polled thought that it was too expensive and the ACA would not provide affordable and comprehensive coverage even with the government tax credits (subsidies). So, Lake Research Partners advised Enroll America not to mention specific costs but to use the phrase ‘free or low-cost plans.’
Herndon has been working on messaging various parts of the ACA that will be used by outreach partners, insurers and state Exchanges. Its messaging is not based on truth or evidence – Herndon actually stays away from any mention of facts as you read above regarding the cost of plans. Instead, its messaging is designed to mislead an uninformed public.
A few of Herndon’s target populations include voters, people of color, red states, skeptical audiences, and you’ll love this one – Elevator Language with a list of succinct scripts to use based on the person you’re speaking to during the ride. You must check out Herndon’s website and read the many instructions of what to say and what not to say. You’ll either get very annoyed or laugh yourself silly.
http://herndonalliance.org/resources/research/communications-tips-exchange-talking-with-voters.html
http://herndonalliance.org/resources/implementation-basics/communications-tips-to-use-with-skeptical-audiences.html
Here are some examples of Herndon spin regarding the ACA:
— Use “family values” when talking to the public about the expansion of Medicaid. Is estate recovery a family value?
— When talking about the ACA’s required Accountable Care Organization (ACO) model that will pay doctors according to patient outcomes and reward them for savings they achieve, Herndon says to call this “Coordinated Patient Care” and “do not connect pricing with rewards or incentives for doctors” or “with lump-sum payments for medical care” and do not mention “payment based on positive patient outcomes.” Why not? The three do-nots are how ACOs work. (ACOs are described in topic 9.)
http://herndonalliance.org/resources/system-change/payment-reform-quality-care-pricing.html http://herndonalliance.org/resources/system-change/coordinated-patient-care.html
— Here’s an award winner: “Members of Congress will purchase their insurance at the Exchange. If members of Congress are part of the marketplace then it’s got to offer quality plans and protections.”
http://herndonalliance.org/resources/research/communications-tips-exchange-talking-with-voters.html
— Stressing that under the ACA insurers won’t be able to deny coverage for pre-existing diseases is a Herndon biggie. In fact, you heard this many times over from Mr. Obama and other politicians. But a loophole in the law allows insurers to rescind (cancel) your policy if you intentionally put false or incomplete information on your application. The ACA says you must be given at least 30 days’ notice before your coverage can be rescinded, giving you time to appeal the decision or find new coverage. So, if your care becomes costly for the insurer and you didn’t mention you had a rash on your arm when you were 15, that will work. How can you prove if leaving this out was intentional or not? It’s them against you.
Enroll America’s Best Practices Institute is publishing a series of briefs on the best way to write and design websites and marketing materials, no doubt, using Herndon messaging. PR and marketing firms are helping various state Exchanges come up with appealing branding such as using a name everyone will like and spiffy logos with cool type styles in colors that will appeal to all audiences. Branding lessons include advising Exchanges which words to ‘embrace’ such as emphasizing choice, control, transparency and competition. Other messaging includes, “the Exchange should be viewed as an educator, not an enforcer” and using the word ‘marketplace’ instead of Exchange is a must. Tennessee Health Care Campaign will be telling potential customers “. . . the exchange offers us more choices, greater control over our health care, and more competition to control costs.” It’s all Herndon’s handywork in one form or another.
http://dhmh.maryland.gov/exchange/pdf/Brand_Recommd_may182012_final.pdf http://www.thcc2.org/PDFs/rtm_exchange_talking_point.pdf
More choice means choice of insurance companies, not choice of doctors and hospitals. In rural areas, there may be only one insurer offering plans which means one network and doctors may not be taking new patients. This happened in MA under Romneycare, and on top of that, many doctors would not accept people in the subsidized plans because of time-consuming red tape and low reimbursement rates. Under the ACA, insurers are planning to limit networks in the cheaper plans at the Exchanges. Having too few doctors in a network is a means of suppressing the use of health care which increases an insurer’s profits. Further on in this lesson, you’ll learn that the Maryland Exchange has been advised to ignore negative problems such as not enough doctors to serve the newly insured.
Choice is definitely a non starter for people found eligible for Medicaid – the ACA allows no other choice for this segment of the population and many doctors do not accept Medicaid. As for giving you greater control, considering all the rules about income and FPL, not to mention the data-mining to monitor your income during the year and those nasty tax credit paybacks, it’s you who is being controlled. And competition? Read this stunning op-ed by Nomi Prins: “Real Danger of “Obamacare” Insurance Company Takeover of Health Care.”
In Enroll America’s January 15, 2013 press release, Executive Director Rachel Klein says the ACA offers the promise of “access to comprehensive, affordable health coverage.” That is a false promise. As you learned in this lesson, coverage in the plans that will be offered at the Exchanges, with the exception of the two most expensive, is anything but comprehensive – the cheaper plans are unaffordable to use. Furthermore, how can she claim that the cost of the plans are affordable? Ms. Klein should be well aware of the nationwide survey Enroll America commissioned in which the majority of people polled said that the plans are too expensive.
http://files.www.enrollamerica.org/news-room/press-releases/Enroll_America_Plans_Major_Affordable_Care_Act_Enrollment_Campaign_1-15-13.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/us/officials-confront-skepticism-over-health-law.html?ref=us&_r=0&pagewanted=all
Currently PR firms are working with some state Exchanges to develop effective communications plans and advertising campaigns. Names include Mintz & Hoke, Hill & Company Communications and Weber Shandwick just to name a few. Ask the Massachusetts Health Insurance Connector – the prototype of an Exchange in the land of Romneycare – how much it spent on PR contracts over the years. In 2007, board members signed off on a two-year contract with Weber Shandwick for $1.85 million the first year with nearly $3 million for advertising – commission on media buys not included. And, by the way, the MA Connector upper management boasts six-figure salaries. Former MA Connector Executive Director Jon Kingsdale’s salary in 2007 was $225,000 and increased in 2008 to $231,750. In 2007, Deputy Director Rosemary Day alternated between a four-day and five-day work week to the tune of $175,000. These are only two examples of the many high-flying salaries at the MA Connector, an operation run by politicians and unelected political appointees and influenced by executives from the private insurance industry,
http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x497793387/Connector-re-ups-contract-with-Cambridge-based-Weber-Shandwick http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/other/articles/2007/01/27/6_figure_pay_for_care_plan_overseers/?page=full http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-166773095.html
Add up pay scales like that for every Exchange in the country, throw in some bennies, a PR contract for each Exchange, campaign costs and compensation paid by Exchanges to Navigators for plans they sell – a grand and costly effort to push more people into America’s for-profit health care system. Your tax dollars at work and mega bucks that could be used for actual hands-on medical care.
The Maryland Exchange has three campaign funding levels – Basic, Plus and Full-Scale – with a total for year one, two and three. Basic funding for year one is $2,450,000, Plus is $4,000,000 and Full-Scale is $6,300,000. See p.137 at this link for years two and three.
http://www.dhmh.maryland.gov/exchange/pdf/FinalAdvertisingReportWeber.pdf
The following, from the maryland link above, gives you an idea of some of the strategies that will be in play, most likely in all states. The Maryland Exchange has been advised by Weber Shandwick to “establish a system to monitor newspaper, radio, TV and online conversations about the Exchange and the program and to establish procedures and priorities for responding to negative media stories, op-eds, blogs and reports.” You can find this in the Risk Management and Responses section of Maryland’s strategic marketing plan.
In the Earned Media/Public Relations section, advice includes “ . . . putting out stories on the first effective enrollees, enrollment number milestones, and enrollee testimonials. Each of these becomes the focus for positive, brand-reinforcing stories. There will also be the risk of negative stories, including potential topics such as enrollment snafus, delays in issuing insurance cards, the cost of Qualified Health Plans [government-approved plans], claims of ‘shoddy’ Bronze coverage, incidents of physicians refusing to accept enough new patients to serve the uninsured and other negative topics.” “While coverage is bound to include some level of criticism it can be success- fully countered by putting a human face on heatlh reform.”
The Social and Digital Media section advises an invasion of the Internet including social media to market health insurance by “delivering the right messages to the right audience at the right time,” (probably using Herndon spin) to “help drive enrollment in the Exchange,” and also flooding newspapers with op-eds to contradict reported adverse effects of the ACA.
More details can be found at the Maryland pdf link below. It’s worth looking at this presentation to grasp the big business approach of Exchanges which is clearly profit-driven. The Maryland Exchange strategy is just one example. The goal of Exchanges is sell, sell, sell.
http://www.dhmh.maryland.gov/exchange/pdf/FinalAdvertisingReportWeber.pdf
Exchanges certainly have a lofty goal – promote success stories only and be ready to contradict and cover up the bad stuff as quickly as possible. Massachusetts residents have been there. The Connector and state politicians including the governor made sure that anyone being harmed by Romneycare would not be heard in spite of statewide survey reports put together by outreach agencies advising state legislators and power-players that low-income people were not faring well under this law. Various issues were spelled out and testimonials were included, but residents’ concerns about the adverse effects of Romneycare were ignored. MA national legislators also went along with this agenda as did the mainstream media.
When $130 million was needed in 2009 to balance the Massachusetts state budget, the Connector – with the blessing of MA Gov. Deval Patrick and the MA legislature – removed about 28,000 legal immigrants – working people paying taxes – from their insurance plans. Another 8,000 or so were barred from enrolling in insurance plans because the MA legislature voted to cap enrollment in the subsidized plans. This took place at the same time Mr. Obama was trying to sell the ACA to the nation, so, under pressure from Washington, the MA legislature restored some of the money, and the Connector dumped these people, without their consent, into an out-of-state plan with higher copays, less comprehensive coverage and next to no doctors or safety net hospitals in its network.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/iyah-romm/lessons-from-massachusett_b_380718.html
This has huge implications for the ACA. If legal immigrants can be removed from their plans and others denied enrollment when a state budget is squeezed, which vulnerable segment of the population is next in line? The good news is these legal immigrants in MA sued the Connector and its then-Executive Director, Jon Kingsdale, and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled unanimously that the state could not violate their right to equal protection under the state and federal constitutions and fiscal considerations alone can not justify a state’s invidious discrimination against them. As a result of this decision, the state had to come up with some bucks, and the Connector was forced to put the plaintiffs back into their original plans.
Getting back to Enroll America, Herndon Alliance and some of the less-than-honorable Exchange strategies – it’s one thing to inform Americans about the ACA and Exchanges that offer the possibility of either purchasing high-deductible or catastrophic coverage with a loan from the government to help pay for it or being tossed into expanded Medicaid – but, mounting a costly, massive campaign to purposely deceive and manipulate the public with the unstated goal of more profit for the already extremely lucrative health insurance industry is disgraceful.
———————————————-
Is the ACA a fair law if it helps only one small segment of the population but hurts and exploits a larger number to do so? The way this law works is fundamentally unfair and will not bring medical care to the many, but, instead will progress to greater personal debt for individuals and families who can’t afford the “affordable” insurance as well as those who must keep an eye on their income to avoid the many traps and false ends this law creates. At their expense, the forced purchase of health insurance will bring increased revenue to the industry, not to mention more kickbacks to Congress, and in the very near future, the health insurance industry will be “too big to fail.”
The ACA is most definitely a “uniquely American solution” which has little to do with reforming this country’s barbaric health care system. It merely controls peoples’ finances and choices while leaving insurance companies in charge and does virtually nothing to end their abuses. It will leave many millions of Americans uninsured and millions more underinsured at a staggering cost to taxpayers.
Politicians, health care policy wonks and vested interests will brush aside the ACA’s adverse effects. You’ll hear that some have fallen through the cracks of health care reform but the problems can be easily tweaked. You will also witness the usual dog-and-pony show on Capitol Hill in which the two parties play the blame game. The bought-and-paid-for mainstream media will regurgitate whatever Washington feeds it, and TV talking heads will chime in, inviting their “experts” to analyze the situation while real people in the real world struggle to get by under this law or fall by the wayside.
Good luck everyone and watch out for the folding chairs.
addendum:
Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/05/obamacare-fowler-lobbyist-industry1
Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book, Wirtschaft am Abgrund (Economies In Collapse) has just been published.
The Ongoing Saga of Bad Websourcing: Does Al-Monitor Even Have Editors?
By Nima Shirazi | Wide Asleep in America | January 31, 2013
It is becoming increasingly obvious that prolific Israeli commentator Meir Javedanfar is unaware of the purpose of hyperlinks.
In his January 30 Al-Monitor article (which incidentally needs some major copy editing, but didn’t get it), Javedanfar writes, “Iran is also using Syria as a proxy to weaken the Syrian opposition forces, which it sees as the allies of the West, Saudi Arabia and even Israel.”
The link on “Israel” leads to a PressTV article wherein no Iranian makes any such claim. It just quotes the Israeli President Shimon Peres as supporting the Syrian opposition. No loony Persian conspiracy theories or official statements by Iranian political or military leaders. So why does Javedanfar use this particular link when the claim he makes is about what Iran “sees as…”? For the answer, go here.
Furthermore, that the US, European countries and Arab Gulf states are not only “allies of” but literally funding, equipping and arming the Syrian opposition is common knowledge that doesn’t need to be pawned off as some crazy Iranian allegation. It’s also easily accessible information. See all those links? Yeah, it’s that easy.
One additional point: Javedanfar’s use of the term “proxy” to describe Iran’s relationship with Syria is bizarre and demonstrates either a lack of understanding about what that word means or about how civil wars work. A “proxy” is a subordinate agent or organization that takes its cues from and whose interests are beholden to a more powerful, external benefactor. It doesn’t make much sense to refer to a sovereign government (especially one that is itself embroiled in a bloody civil war), rather than a non-governmental organization or group, as a proxy of another sovereign government.
Yes, there are exceptions to this – for example, nations like Palau, the Marshall Islands, and Micronesia are often used as U.S. proxies during United Nations General Assembly votes against Israeli accountability and the implementation of international law in Palestine. But those nations don’t have interests of their own in that particular region; also, they are party to the Compact of Free Association with the United States, which mandates American military protection, financial assistance and economic provisions for these tiny Pacific Island states in return for diplomatic fealty (the nations vote alongside the U.S. and Israel in the U.N. more than 90% of the time, for example) and, more importantly, essentially wide-open U.S. military access.
As per the agreement, established in 1986 (and 1994 for Palau as an independent entity), these protectorates – which were previously under American trusteeship since the end of World War II – must grant the U.S. military exclusive access to their territories and provide land for military bases, not to mention accommodating the constant presence of U.S. military recruiters who have long preyed upon the poor local communities with promises of economic opportunity. In 2010, the Christian Science Monitor reported that “while some Micronesians see the US military as their ticket out, many here are poorly informed of the risks. The FSM has suffered more casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan per capita than any US state, and has lost soldiers at a rate five times the US average. Some recruits sign on unaware the US is fighting two wars.”
But I digress.
Javedanfar calls the Assad-led Syrian government a proxy of Iran, which Iran is using against Syrian opposition forces which means that the Syrian government is doing Iran’s bidding by fighting against armed rebel militias in its own country than are trying to overthrow it. Huh? The Syrian government may be getting support – both financial and military – from Iran, but that doesn’t make it a lackey of Iran, which is what the term proxy signifies. It is obviously in Assad’s own interest to oppose forces seeking to topple his dictatorial reign; he doesn’t need Iran’s say-so to do what he’s doing.
Yet, by Javedanfar’s reading, the conflict is really between Iran and Syrian opposition forces. The Syrian government, according to him, is merely a pawn in Iran’s game against Israel and the West. This both obfuscates and confuses the issue. (The term proxy itself is overused when discussing allegiances and alliances in the region; both Hezbollah and Hamas are routinely referred to as Iranian proxies yet the fact that they don’t have their interests or actions dictated to them by the Iranian government as they are indigenous groups with their own goals and responsibilities.)
While it’s obvious what Javedanfar is trying to say – in the assumed power struggle over influence in the Middle East, Iran and the West/Gulf alliance are each protecting their own interests in Syria (duh) – but that’s not really what he wrote. The problem here may be poor writing skills, but isn’t that where an editor should step in and clarify?
One last thing: Javedanfar suggests that to prevent the alleged Syrian stockpile of chemical weapons from “falling into the hands of al-Qaeda” were “an extremist offshoot” of the group to seize power after Assad’s supposed fall, those weapons should be transferred to…wait for it…Iran.
Why, you may ask? Because Javedanfar states that, Iran having chemical weapons is “infinitely better” than al-Qaeda having them, provided that is “the only other viable option.” Sure, ok. But he never explains why that would be the only option or points out that the backers of criminal al-Qaeda-affiliated elements in the Syrian opposition are the very states he says are duking it out with Iran in a proxy war. How could Iran getting chemical weapons be part of the end-game in Syria as far as the West, Israel and Saudi Arabia are concerned?
It can’t and won’t be. Which makes Javedanfar’s commentary not only pointless, but just plain weird.
What he’s really saying, though, is that he wants Syria’s alleged chemical weapons stockpile to get as far away from him, his family and his friends who are living in Israel as possible. This is understandable, of course, but does it really necessitate a prominently displayed opinion piece on Al-Monitor that no editor took a look at before it was published?
Related article
- Iran Threatens Attack on Israel Through Syrian Proxy (israelnationalnews.com)
Featured Video
Liberty Cannot Exist Inside a Panopticon
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Left-leaning despisers of 9/11 Truth movement: Do you really believe in miracles?
David Ray Griffin | Global Research | 06 Jul 2010
An Open Letter to Terry Allen, Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, David Corn, Chris Hayes, George Monbiot, Matthew Rothschild, and Matt Taibbi.
[1]According to several left-leaning critics of the 9/11 Truth Movement, some of its central claims, especially about the destruction of the World Trade Center, show its members to be scientifically challenged. In the opinion of some of these critics, moreover, claims made by members of this movement are sometimes unscientific in the strongest possible sense, implying an acceptance of magic and miracles. … Full article
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Iran calls for emergency UNSC meeting over Trump’s ‘brazen’ bomb talk, Israeli threats
- Iranian sources reveal details of Russia-China Hormuz proposal
- Plan for more US-Israel integration puts our military tech at risk
- Another Round Against Iran Will Break What Is Left of the Gulf
- SVR Report on Ukraine’s Mexican Drug Gang Links Could Pressure Zelensky, Won’t Change US Policy
- British Government Employees Were Fact-Checking the News at the BBC. Nobody Told You.
- Albania on fire: who’s behind the riots?
- Egypt’s Civil Democratic Movement rejects involvement in regional war
- Egypt collaborates with Israel to build ‘Green Rafah’ project over erased Palestinian city
- Rising fuel prices and shortages have helped drive ongoing protests and rioting in France
- If Americans Knew
- FBI subpoenas pro-Palestine activists over Israeli weapons plant disruption
- Fourth winter arrives in wartorn Gaza, too early – Daily Update
- More on how Bari Weiss is using CBS on behalf of Israel
- What the UK Is Doing to Pro-Palestine Novelist Sally Rooney Is an Act of Orwellian Villainy
- ‘We will build palaces for Jews in Gaza’: Right-wing activists establish new outpost near border
- ‘You see us burning, you stay silent’: Family’s agony over mother and sons burned to death in Gaza tent
- Israel keeps Palestinian journalist Bushra al-Tawil in isolation for 46 days
- US-Israel integration plan puts US military tech in Israel’s hands
- Israeli Strike Burns Gaza Mother Alive in Front of Toddler, ‘Without Generating Any Headlines’
- ‘The Israel Experience with Mike Huckabee’: The Ambassador’s Family Sells Trips to Israel
- No Tricks Zone
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Proifessor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
- Two More Paleo Reconstructions Affirm Meters-Higher Sea Levels Across Ireland, Brazil 7000-6000 Years Ago
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
