President Barack Obama announced earlier today that the United States will be withdrawing all of its military forces, now in Iraq under the so-called Status of Forces Agreement, by the end of 2011. He, of course, sought to present this outcome as a great success, both for his policies and the larger war effort. But have no illusions: the United States lost its war in Iraq.
The decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was America’s biggest strategic blunder since the end of the Cold War. It has done massive damage to America’s strategic position, in the Middle East and globally.
If you are unsure about this claim, please go through the following exercise: First, compare America’s position in the Middle East 10 years ago to its position there today. Then, compare the Islamic Republic of Iran’s position in the region 10 years ago—not 10 days, or 10 weeks, or 10 months, but 10 years ago—with its position today. It is hard to see how any sentient person could go through this exercise and not conclude that, relatively speaking, the United States is in a profoundly weaker position today than 10 years ago. Conversely, it is hard to see how someone could work through this and not conclude that, relatively speaking, the Islamic Republic is not in a significantly stronger position than 10 years ago.
There are many reasons for these shifts in the Middle East’s balance of power, but America’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 looms large on both fronts. This was grand strategy, as practiced by the United States, at its worst.
Although the decision to invade Iraq was, ultimately George W. Bush’s, it was “legitimated” by robust Democratic support, including from Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, John Kerry, and Ken Pollack (along with many others). It was truly a bipartisan act of strategic malfeasance.
In a society that really believed in accountability, none of these Democrats, none of the Republicans who supported President Bush on this matter, and none of the neoconservative pundits and their left-of-center fellow travelers who cheer-led for the war would be accorded serious attention on national security and foreign policy issues, much less be considered for high-level government positions dealing with them. But that is not how America works these days.
As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama gave a speech opposing America’s invasion of Iraq. But, by the time he arrived at the White House, he had essentially accepted its underlying strategic “logic”.
Today, Obama tried to claim that he is keeping his campaign commitment to pull all U.S. soldiers out of Iraq. The claim is disingenuous, to say the least. If Obama had had his way, the United States would be keeping perhaps as many as 20,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq on an open-ended basis. He is keeping his commitment to withdraw only because Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki obliged him to do so.
We have long advocated a thoroughgoing revision of America’s approach to the Islamic Republic of Iran. But the United States needs to rethink its grand strategy in the Middle East more comprehensively. Obama has clearly demonstrated that he is not prepared to do this.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
James,
Thank you so much for the link on Adam Werritty’s policy engineering for Iran. These are the type of sources that act as puzzle blocks that assembling them brings to life a clear pictures. A picture which is at the moment very fuzzy.
Pirouz_2
Thanks a lot for leading me to David Harvey. I am going to spend some time watching his videos or reading his writings. From what I have seen so far, his work is the type of food for thought I have been expecting for quite some time…..why?…..since this seems to be the proper time to researchr the alternatives for corporate capitalism.
Thanks again.
Unknown Unknowns: “I used to be like yourselves, a militant agnostic”
I’m a militant atheist. Because of the fact that we know the psychological – and to some small degree even the neurophysiological reasons – for religious belief in humans, AND we can pretty much piece together the social and cultural history of that belief from prehistoric times through to the modern day, we can say “with high confidence” (as the NIE language likes to put it) that your human belief systems are The Fucked.
“Now I’m just another militant gnostic: I know, and you don’t know shit.”
It’s amusing to me that you say that, because the philosophical heritage of radical Transhumanism comes down from some of the Gnostic cults who believed it was better to BE God than to worship God.
And when that happens, your God is going to be in very deep shit. Because your God comes out of the human mind and the human species is going to be in very deep shit.
A philosopher once declared his opposition to the development of AI because it would result in the extinction of the human species and this was equivalent to the death of God (correctly, but not in the sense he meant it.)
Only problem was he said that like it was a Bad Thing…
Mr. Canning: “any increase in US troops in the Gulf almost certainly has more to do with domestic politics in the US than any plan to attack Iran.”
You’re delusional, too. I’m done talking to you as well. You can’t see shit right in front of your eyes.
Liz2: “so the surveillance is in fact working.”
That is a bizarre conclusion.
“So that wont be a problem in case with Iran in my opinion.”
So you’re conflating the thousands of miles of border with Iran with the vastly shorter border of Gaza and Egypt. And you don’t see anything wrong with that… And yet you think I should take your arguments seriously.
As for Turkey, fine, whatever… Assume Turkey will renege on its pledge not to allow the US to use its airbases for the war on Iran. Works for me.
“I think its more than Syria, the propaganda about the so called threat of the persians (shia, nuclear etc) is getting into peoples head it seems”
I see we have another Eric Brill here. Ask Eric what I mean by that…He knows.
“The aim is Iran for america, they will do whatever to get the chinese on board for a war.”
So now you think China will support a war with Iran. You’re delusional.
“Tell me instead, you got the burden of proof.”
The hell I do.
But fine, you want to assume everything you say is correct, go right ahead. I’m not going to bother to disabuse you any more. Stay ignorant. You’ll fit right in here.
I’m done discussing anything with you.
Unknown Unknowns,
I wish things were that easy. Problem is that American public is so ignorant, and stupid, that many Americans think they “won” a war in Iraq! And the propagandists for the endless war programme (and Greater Israel) etc obviously want the ignorant and rather stupid American public to think they could “win” yet another idiotic war in the Middle East.
Richard, Humanist, Hans, etc.
I used to be like yourselves, a militant agnostic: I don’t know, and you don’t either.
Now I’m just another militant gnostic: I know, and you don’t know shit.
|:D
Team Weasel does Paris (Opening Scene, for the newcomers who might have missed it):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce8CgJRkr_I
James Canning says:
October 31, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Yes, the Gnat continues to wag the Tail (The Military-Industrial-Congressional-Presstitute Complex), and before you know it, the Big Dog (Uncle Weasel) is barking up a storm. I for one hope he gets his nose bitten off by the Big Cat.
VoT:
Greetings from the Orient.
” We came , We butchered, He died in his own blood and then I came :-) “
By my calculation, that means she came [to Libya] twice! Once they came together, and once she came on her own.
R S Hack,
An American attack on Iran would be illegal under international law. Yes, Israel could launch an insane attack, and this would drag the US into the conflict. But any increase in US troops in the Gulf almost certainly has more to do with domestic politics in the US than any plan to attack Iran.
I think some American officials might even grasp the fact Iran’s help is essential for minimum stability to be achieved in Afghanistan.
Rehmat,
Yes, now that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre can be placed on the world heritage register, it is a “tragedy” that Palestine was admitted to Unesco. As claimed by the Israeli ambassador to the UN.
Clint,
Obama might be primarily concerned about political threat from warmongering idiot Republicans, than about Iran, if he foolishly increases the number of US troops in the Gulf in wake of withdrawal from Iraq.
Fara,
Thanks for calling attention to Iran’s effort to strengthen the NPT and to achieve a Middle East free of nuclear weapons.
The effort, of course, annoys idiot warmongering American policiticans who favor continuing oppression of the Christians and the Muslims in the West Bank. By Jews illegally imported from Israel and other countries.
Clint,
Bravo. Paul Pillar does underline the utter stupidity of Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and her extremely foolish effort to prevent communications between American officials and Iranian officials. What an idiot! A moron like Ros-Lehtinen would have brought the world to catastrophe in October 1962 if she called the shots.
buddy Paul Pillar on the Iran Ostracism Madness:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/ostracism-madness-6112
richard steven hack:
“I’m talking physical impossibility. No matter how much surveillance they put on a border, stuff gets through. Always. The US tried to seal the Egypt/Gaza border with a steel wall underground to stop the smuggling tunnels – it failed.”
It failed of various reasons, mainly because there are people on the egyptian side that collab with Hamas, with that being said, in that case they (US/Israel) also know exactly how the weapons get through (tunnels) so the surveillance is in fact working.
So that wont be a problem in case with Iran in my opinion.
“Perhaps. I don’t expect them to “support” Iran in any relevant way anyway. But that doesn’t mean Turkey wants to see a war with Iran. They’ve been very clear about that. And economics is only one reason, the spillover could be a serious problem for them. If nothing else, it distracts Iran from helping Turkey deal with the Kurds. They cooperate a bit on that.”
I guess Turkey doesnt want to see a war with any nation but that doesnt mean they would take a stance/side in case of war breaks out, they will and thats the object. Especially being a important nato-member.
“The only reason for that decline is the current Iranian support for Syria. This is a problem for Iran which I suspect is unsolvable. But if you asked the Arab street about a positive view for the US, you won’t get it. So any Arab street disappointment in Iran isn’t going to help the US. It’s improved Turkey’s position, however.”
I think its more than Syria, the propaganda about the so called threat of the persians (shia, nuclear etc) is getting into peoples head it seems.
Sure US arent popular by arab populations but thats insignificant since US base its power through the corrupt un-elected and unpopular arab puppet leaders – US simply doesnt have to pay attention to the arab street aslong as they arent a political force. However for Iran
the arab population is very important because these are the people that actually will shape their nations future when they have toppled their puppet-leaders.
“Yes, it does, because Saudi Arabia is a US client state. Iran isn’t. The US can influence the Saudis about Chinese deals. China knows that. It needs Iran as a fallback partner. And China has already invested billions in Iran. It’s possible that in the future China will attempt to balance its needs between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and may even attempt to draw Saudi Arabia away from being a client state of the US to a client state of China. That would make sense. But it’s not there yet.”
Chinese arent stupid and america knows this, they wont give China bad oil-deals with Saudi Arabia. Why would China accept that? It wont happen. The aim is Iran for america, they will do whatever to get the chinese on board for a war.
“Again – look it up.”
Tell me instead, you got the burden of proof.
“It’s also not clear that the UK and France will involve themselves in the Iran war. They might decide to sit that fiasco out and let the US and Israel take the blame for it.”
Of course they will, being the top clientele of nato they will be a part of the war. Especially UK which have such a warmonger and anti-iranian prime minister as cameron.
“They don’t. Not in terms of the strategic balance. What they want are compliant states surround them so they can do what they want. But in the end they know they won’t get it, so their goal is to break up those states. ”
Of course they fear isolation, thats why they fear the uprisnings because many of the corrupt US/israeli-puppet leaders will fall and Israel cant afford to pick a fight with every arab regime that gets toppled. Thats not realistic.
“I said PART of the reason. The main reason was the pipeline. Bush had plans drawn up to attack Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11. Look it up.”
Well present the proof then that it were PART of the reason.
“I suggest you start following the articles at Antiwar.com, Asia Times, and Counterpunch. You’d have a better grasp of what’s going on.”
Sorry. But it seems that you dont got any proof for what you are saying.
All:
UN passes Iran’s bid for N disarmament
“The UN General Assembly’s First Committee has endorsed an Iran-sponsored resolution on nuclear disarmament despite attempts by the US and the Israeli regime to kill the bid.
The committee, which focuses on disarmament and international security issues, approved the resolution with 107 votes on October 31, despite strong opposition and negative campaigning by the US, the Tel Aviv regime as well as some European governments, IRNA reported.
The resolution calls for the implementation of pledges made at the three most recent Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conferences.
It also reiterates the urgency for a nuclear-free Middle East and demands that the Israeli regime must sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Israel, widely believed to be the sole possessor of a nuclear arsenal in the Middle East with over 200 undeclared nuclear warheads, pursues the policy of “deliberate ambiguity” for its nuclear program.
Tel Aviv has so far rejected all global demands to join the NPT and does not allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to inspect and monitor its controversial nuclear program.
The Israeli regime has never denied or confirmed the existence of its nuclear arsenal as part of its long-held ‘nuclear ambiguity’ policy. Despite international objections to such dubious policy, the UN and its nuclear regulatory agencies have never taken serious steps to censure or impose sanctions on the defiant regime.
Tehran has also proposed a draft resolution on missiles, which is to be discussed in the committee’s next session.”
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/207761.html
How countries voted for admitting Palestine to the UNESCO, by looking at the for and against votes one could figure out how well US’s foreign policy is designed for the “next American century”
There were 14 “no” votes, 52 abstentions and 107 “yes” votes (there were also 20 Member States absent):
No: Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Palau, Panama, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Sweden, United States of America, Vanuatu.
Abstentions: Albania, Andorra, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cook Islands, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, Georgia, Haiti, Hungary, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liberia, Mexico, Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Switzerland, Thailand, Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Zambia.
Yes: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Sant Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.
Absent: Antigua and Barbuda, Central African Republic, Comoros, Dominica, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Madagascar, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Confederated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Niue, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan.
Rd. says:
October 31, 2011 at 8:53 am
“God Bless You Please Mrs. Clinton!”
By Hussein Shariatmadari
I like the title of this article a nice touch by Mr. Shariatmadari, switching Mrs. Robinson to Clinton
KSU professor Pino shouts: ‘Death to Israel’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/ksu-professor-pino-shouts-death-to-israel/
link
http://hardballblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/31/8568052-matthews-on-new-jfk-book?threadId=3260101&commentId=59499306#c59499306
Chris Matthews 8:17
Chris Matthews growing a pair?
8:17 start
This President “gets pushed around by Bibi Netanyahu” “we are the ones giving them 3 billion a year” not the other way around..”get tough with Israel” Never thought I would hear this out of Chris Matthews mouth.
Matthew on new JFK book
8:17
link to hardballblog.msnbc.msn.com
Mini-me controls our FP:
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2011/10/31/u-s-plans-long-term-gulf-military-presence-to-combat-iran/
US’ mideast propaganda 101: Glenn Greenwald superb
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/31/middle_east_propaganda_101/
“We will have a robust continuing presence throughout the region, which is proof of our ongoing commitment to Iraq and to the future of that region, which holds such promise and should be freed from outside interference…”
US will interfere to so the region can be free of outside interference….after all the US is located in the mideast….
On October 31, 2011 – United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) approved Palestinian membership in a vote of 107-14 with 52 abstentions. The Jewish lackeys American lawmakers have threatened to stop US contribution of $80 million (22% of total budget) to UNESCO for its anti-Semitic action. This proves once again that Washington cannot dare to offend Israel.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said the UN cultural agency’s decision was “regrettable” and “premature” and that it undermines the international community’s shared goal to a “comprehensive, just and lasting peace” between Israel and the Palestinians.
“The UNESCO General Conference’s action does not diminish our determination to work with UNESCO to advance U.S. national interests. Therefore, we will maintain our membership in UNESCO and our commitment to UNESCO,” Hillary Clinton’s State Department spokesperson said.
Nimrod Barkan, the Zionist entity’s ambassador at United Nations has called Palestine membership “a tragedy”.
This s not the first time Washington stopped funding UNESC. It did during Ronald Reagan’s presidency when it left UNESCO. Washington rejoined UNESCO during Dubya Bush’s presidency.
To US-Israel great surprise, Sarkozy’ France was the only ZOG which voted in favour of Palestinian membership.
Earlier, as the vote was under way, applause broke out after some countries voted in favor of the bid. Watch a video below.
There was laughter in the room after Israel voted no.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/palestine-joins-unesco/
US to increase troops in middle east after Iraq reduction in troops:
:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/world/middleeast/united-states-plans-post-iraq-troop-increase-in-persian-gulf.html
Simon Tisdall’s comments in the Guardian:
:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/america-middle-east-gulf-military
Once again, we see a deliberate movement directly toward initiating a war with Iran – and everyone will dismiss it as something else.
There is no “danger of confrontation”, It’s a steady progression directly towards war. It’s so blatantly obvious you have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid not to see it.
Empty says:
October 31, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Empty;
My understanding from what Harvey says is not that Marx’s choice of starting point was haphazard. I can write an excerpt of Harvey’s book (a companion to Marx’s capital) here and perhaps that would explain it better:
“Marx’s starting point is the concept of the commodity. At first blush this seems a somewhat arbitrary if not strange place to start. When thinking of Marx, phrases like the Manifesto’s “all history is the history of class struggle” come to mind. So why doesn’t Marx start with class struggle?…why doesn’t Marx start with money? Actually, in his preparatory investigations, he wanted to start there, but after further study he concluded that money needed to be explained rather than assumed. Why doesnt he start with labour, another concept with which he is deeply associated? Why does he start with commodity? Interestingly, Marx’s preparatory writings indicate that there was a long period, about twenty or thirty years, during which he struggled with the question of where to begin. The method of decent brought him to the concept of commodity, but Marx makes no attempt to explain that choice, nor does he bother to argue for its legitimacy. He just starts with commodity and that is that.”
In a page earlier again Harvey explains what method of decent is, and how Marx’s method of inquiry is the exact opposite of his method of presentation (where he uses the method of ascent). Since commodity is one of the foundational concepts which lie underneath of the “observable realities”, therefore he starts from there.
However, just because Marx has started from the commodity it doesn’t mean that one has to start from there. That was Marx’s method of presentation. I know that David Harvey for one was at a point thinking about trying something different and start teaching the first volume of Capital from “primitive accumulation” and then moving backwards toward commodities and the labour theory of value.
Liz2: “do you really think US/NATO etc would be that sloppy and unprepared that they dont surveillance (heavily!) the border in case of war?”
I’m talking physical impossibility. No matter how much surveillance they put on a border, stuff gets through. Always. The US tried to seal the Egypt/Gaza border with a steel wall underground to stop the smuggling tunnels – it failed.
“Because in case of war, Turkey wouldnt support Iran.”
Perhaps. I don’t expect them to “support” Iran in any relevant way anyway. But that doesn’t mean Turkey wants to see a war with Iran. They’ve been very clear about that. And economics is only one reason, the spillover could be a serious problem for them. If nothing else, it distracts Iran from helping Turkey deal with the Kurds. They cooperate a bit on that.
“there is a decline amongst arab population about Iran and its not positive.”
The only reason for that decline is the current Iranian support for Syria. This is a problem for Iran which I suspect is unsolvable. But if you asked the Arab street about a positive view for the US, you won’t get it. So any Arab street disappointment in Iran isn’t going to help the US. It’s improved Turkey’s position, however.
“China does already get more and more oil from Saudiarabia and have probably sealed a deal about oil in case of war. If the oil comes from Iran or Saudi Arabia doesnt matter for the chinese.”
Yes, it does, because Saudi Arabia is a US client state. Iran isn’t. The US can influence the Saudis about Chinese deals. China knows that. It needs Iran as a fallback partner. And China has already invested billions in Iran. It’s possible that in the future China will attempt to balance its needs between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and may even attempt to draw Saudi Arabia away from being a client state of the US to a client state of China. That would make sense. But it’s not there yet.
“Why wouldnt it be workable by the way? Makes no sense.”
Again – look it up.
“Why wouldnt they fire at europe if UK, France attack Iran? Credible? Maybe not but there is a possibility.”
Because they can’t do any significant damage to those countries with a couple missiles. Most of those missiles will be needed to deal with real threats – and a few to toss at Israel. Why waste a missile at Europe, which will only tick Europe off even more? That makes no sense. If I were Iran, I wouldn’t waste a second thinking about it.
It’s also not clear that the UK and France will involve themselves in the Iran war. They might decide to sit that fiasco out and let the US and Israel take the blame for it.
“So why does Israel fear isolation?”
They don’t. Not in terms of the strategic balance. What they want are compliant states surround them so they can do what they want. But in the end they know they won’t get it, so their goal is to break up those states.
They didn’t need to do that in Egypt because the US had Egypt in its pocket. And the US still has considerable control in Egypt as long as the military remains in charge. Should Egypt change its government sufficiently to start aggravating Israel, Israel and the US will attempt to break up Egypt the same way they broke up Iraq and Lebanon and Libyra and will attempt to do in Iran.
Get it through your head. Israel wants to dominate the entire Middle East, with US help or without it. They want the water, they want the oil, they want the Arabs as essentially slave labor. They don’t want “peace” and their little parcel of land. They want it all. They want guaranteed “security” and they know they will never get it without breaking up every Muslim country around them or which has any chance of influencing them, and reducing them to US and Israel controlled puppet states oppressing the Arab populations.
They don’t care about being “isolated”. They care about control. And if they can’t get it via diplomacy and US foreign aid because of an “Arab spring”, they’ll get it by military force.
“They have to compromise and Israel know it.”
The Zionist nutcases who run Israel don’t know anything about compromise.
And all of this “Arab spring” stuff has NO MILITARY SIGNIFICANCE! I’m not talking about all this other crap. I’m talking about the strategic military balance. Which is all that matters to Israel, and thus all that matters to the US.
“How do you think it will start?”
I have no particular scenario in mind.
“Well thats no proof that the war was due heroin profits.”
I said PART of the reason. The main reason was the pipeline. Bush had plans drawn up to attack Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11. Look it up.
“I just asking for credibile sources.”
Again, look it up.
I suggest you start following the articles at Antiwar.com, Asia Times, and Counterpunch. You’d have a better grasp of what’s going on.
Voice of Tehran,
Does anyone even think Iran would have used nukes against US forces?
Warmongering neocons, and Israel, would have liked to see a US attack on Iran in 2003. But any attack would have been illegal, and there had been no propaganda campaign (like the one that set up the invasion of Iraq). to provide necessary deniability.
R S Hack,
One might note that Israel smashed Lebanon in 2006. Seven billion dollars in property damage. What a wonderful achievement for Tel Aviv.
The “capital” conversation really reminded me ………
In systems thinking, when simpler systems get together and form a more complex system, the new system contains within it all the old properties of the simple systems that constituted it but also develops new properties. These new properties are called “emergent properties.”
Now, let’s suppose you have a tiny lonely cell which is a happy cell and has certain parts (e.g., organelles, plasma, cytoplasm, you name it) and behaves a certain way and goes about its merry life. Let’s suppose again that you put a bunch of cells together, and if they cooperate with one another and agree to behave according to a certain set of rules. This makes them evolve into something more sophisticated like a tissue. But the catch is in order for the tissue to work, the cells must agree to manage and suppress some of their old behaviors and learn to adopt some new ones. Like playing solo vs. as part of an orchestra.
Suppose a bunch of tissues get together, agree to suppress some of their old ways, cooperate based on a certain set of rules and emerge a new and sophisticated entity called an organ (let’s say a heart or a brain or whatever). Then a bunch of organs get together do what they need to do and emerge as a system (let’s say the circulatory system, the nervous system, etc.). And then a bunch of systems get together and do what they need to do and emerge as something we would call an organism (let’s, for the sake of argument, call it human). The only way the human could have “emerged” is for all the simpler and less complex beings to have given up the fear of losing that “original self” to emerge as a new entity:
[Interpretation/Translation from Molana (Rumi)]
از جمادی مُردم و نامی شدم — وز نما مُردم بهحیوان سرزدم
مُردم از حیوانی و آدم شدم — پس چه ترسم؟ کی ز مردن کم شدم؟
حمله دیگر بمیرم از بشر — تا برآرم از ملائک بال و پر
وز ملک هم بایدم جستن ز جو — کل شیء هالک الا وجهه
بار دیگر از ملک پران شوم — آنچه اندر وهم ناید آن شوم
پس عدم گردم عدم چو ارغنون — گویدم کانا الیه راجعون
I died as mineral to emerge as plant.
I died as plant to emerge as animal.
I died as animal to emerge as human.
Why fear, when in death I am not reduced?
Next round, I shall die as human to emerge an angel.
But nothing shall retain the façade that forms except God.
And I shall die as angel to emerge as the “inconceivable.”
In that, too, I shall die like “organoon”
That whispers a return to God or “rajeoon”.
WTF: “My question is this: Given the fact that the Iran/Iraq war was your only glimpse into the IRI engaging in open war”
And that was then, this is now…
“and also given that the ME (particularly the IRI’s ability to conduct asymmetrical warfare) has evolved much since that war ended”
Exactly.
“how do you confidently come to your predictions as to how the IRI will respond if attacked by the US/Israel?”
I’m not. I’m just exploring the obvious possibilities. The Iranian planners may have any number of other ideas. However, it’s not clear to me that any of them will alter the overall strategic balance. In other words, Iran still gets pummeled even if it does any number of new asymmetric tactics.
“I ask this in the context of what most analysts predicted Hezbollah’s chances against the IDF would be prior to 2006.”
I’ve never seen those predictions. However, I do know that guerrilla war of the sort Hizballah engages in has always been effective against conventional military. After all, it was Hizballah’s guerrilla war that eventually forced Israel to leave Lebanon after occupying it for years. So I think anyone could have predicted Hizballah would be more effective after its years of preparation for the next war, which any analyst should have known.
“it seems like a stretch to me to try to guess with much accuracy the tactics that will be used in the type of war that Iran would impose if attacked.”
As I indicated, Iran may surprise everyone. And I’m sure they will surprise the US because Pentagon planners generally suck. For instance, in 1991, there were plenty of descriptions of how General Schwarzkopf might conduct his operations. Guess what? When they finally moved against Iraq, he didn’t do ANYTHING that hadn’t been predicted six months before by virtually all the analysts writing in public news media. The only thing he didn’t do which was predicted was try to take Kuwait harbor because the SEALS told him the mines were just too numerous. All Saddam would have had to do is read Time and Newsweek and then order his generals to do countermeasures.
So much for Schwarzkoff being a “military genius”…
A while back, commenting on Iranian naval swarm tactics, some idiot at the Pentagon commented that it was “hard to coordinate a swarm attack.” What he clearly did not comprehend is that you DON’T coordinate a swarm attack! That’s why it works! It’s unpredictable!
So I’m sure Iran, if it uses just the stuff that we already know about, will be quite capable of using asymmetric war effectively.
Not to mention that they have a million of more Basij, many of whom are trained in urban guerrilla war, should any US troops make it that far.
They also have very mobile units on motorcycles and light vehicles with anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles. That sort of thing is hell on conventional forces. I’d trade a couple guys in an ATV for an M-1 Abrams any day if I were an Iranian commander. That’s what Saddam should have done in 1991 – bury some guys in the sand with antitank weapons, pop up when the tanks are 100 feet away and blow the treads. Boom! Those tanks won’t be moving for several hours. Just a simple example of what can be done.
Sure, those guys in the foxholes are toast but either you’re motivated or you’re not. And plenty of Saddam’s guys were motivated. The Iranians will be even more motivated.
I’d kinda like to see this war started just to see the US get its nose bloodied for real this time. And that includes terrorism in the continental US. I have theories on how that could be done and I’d to see if I’m correct.
The Iraq insurgents and the Taliban are teaching the world how the US can be made to lose (as Hizballah did with Israel in 2006) and it will be interesting to see if Iran can improve on those methods. As the CSIS report referenced below points out, we know Iran has been closely observing the events in Iraq, Afghanistan and in Lebanon and learning from them. No doubt they can improve on them.
Pirouz_2: “Why do you argue so much about it if you really believe that there is nothing to do?”
It’s a matter of being correct. I’d rather establish that I’m on the side of reality than on the side that isn’t – even if that doesn’t win me any bennies from anyone (and it doesn’t, invariably.)
I’m also just trying to be helpful. If people who should know better are doing something stupid, it’s nice to point that out.
Or maybe not.
It also distracts me from doing the stuff I really should be doing instead of wasting my time here.
Sorry if those explanations don’t satisfy, but there it is.
Liz2,
Have you seen Simon Tisdall’s comments in the Guardian, re: possible build-up of US troops in Gulf?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/america-middle-east-gulf-military
Humanist,
Holly Watt had a report in the Daily Telegraph on Werrity’s meetings with Mossad, apparent discussions of sanctions against Iran, etc., on Oct. 19th:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/8835268/Adam-Werrity-attended-Israeli-secret-service-meeting.html
Pirouz_2,
If I may interject (with your permission) in between your and Humanist’s conversation about Capital, I think understanding Marx’s work is far easier from systems thinking/ living/ecological systems perspective than how most people try to understand it the linear (and Descartian) way.
I think Dave Harvey misses the point why Marx started with “commodity” and believes (if I’m not mistaken-correct me here if I’m wrong) that it may have been haphazard or perhaps accidental. I think he says something to the effect that “Marx needed to start somewhere, so he started with commodity and he doesn’t provide any reasons.” (are you understanding this as well?) If you look at it from an ecological perspective, however, commodity is exactly the place to start because that’s the starting point of the exchange and interaction between two players/parts/organisms, or what have you and that’s where the “relationship” gets to be defined.
Just to clarify, a fundamental ecological principle holds that all living organisms have a networked relationship and their existence depends upon an exchange of resources in a cyclical manner. For example, a goat produces waste (commodity: goods) which is a source of food for the micro-organisms in the soil. The living organisms break down the waste (commodity: service) and take parts of the by-products as food (goods – a form of exchange) and leave other by-products in the form of specific nutrients. Specific nutrients (the goods) are taken up by the grass which renders the soil less toxic (services) to the micro-organisms. Portions of the grass (goods) is then eaten by the goat which strengthens the root system of the grass (service) and moves the seeds to another location that propagates (service) the grass (post defecation, that is). This also increases the amount of “goods” available to it (the goat that is) in the future.
I do not believe Marx’s choice of starting with “commodity” to have been accidental (even if he may not have been aware of it or he may not have overtly acknowledged it).
Liz2,
Of course the US is not “getting out of the Middle East”. The issue is whether Obama will be so foolish as to increase the number of American troops in the Gulf.
Hans,
Re: your 4:39pm post
Do you have a link to that article? I couldn’t find any reference to it in the current ‘The Daily Jewish Forward’.
Best wishes
The Jewish Daily Forward | October 28, 2011
… Werritty’s travels included forays to Iran, where he reportedly met with opposition activists, and to Israel, where he is said to have met with Israeli intelligence agents, including the director of the Mossad. …
I wonder where the Iranian intelligence service where?
UNESCO grants Palestine membership
“The membership bid required two-thirds approval and was passed with 107 countries out of 173 voting in favor and 14 against the bid. Fifty-two abstained from vote.
Israel, the US, Canada, Australia and Germany were among the countries that voted against the bid while Japan and Britain were among those abstaining from vote.”
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/207637.html
In response, the US says it is cutting funding to UNESCO.
My friend Humanist;
Although I was always interested various ‘isms’ to find answers to my questions as to why the world in general and our country in particular is in such an awful mess, I never started to ‘seriously’ started to read Marx until some 9 months ago. I say ‘seriously’ because actually I started reading “Capital” in the early 90’s but for reasons very similar to yours I gave up reading it until some 9-10 months ago. Let me put it this way, finishing the first three chapters of Capital took me more than 17 years!! Every time that my ‘questions’ compelled me to take the book and read it, the text was so unbelievably cryptic and so tediously repetitive (repetitive to the border line of literally torturing the reader) that I could not take it and threw the damned thing away. To make the matters worse it is really difficult to understand many of the ideas that Marx explains in that book. And if you think it is just you and I, then you are mistaken, Capital is notoriously difficult to read (in fact from my perspective it is THE MOST reader unfriendly book that I have ever read). In fact Prof. David Harvey says that he didn’t understand much from Capital when he and his friends first took up the task of reading it together and it was only after some time that they realized that they had not understood much about it and so they re-read it again and only after some time they were able to understand what he says. You can also add to the aforementioned difficulties the facts that a) it is not written in a ‘text-book’ style (it doesn’t have a straight forward flow and you have to keep going back and forth as you read on) and b) IT IS A HUGE MARATHON (it is more than 4000 pages including the 4th volume and excluding Grundrisse!!).
However, what greatly helped me take up the task again (this time ‘seriously’) was Prof. David Harvey’s “online lectures” which anyone can access by googling “reading Capital with David Harvey). I started reading the book again but this time I had both Harvey’s online lectures and his book “a companion to Marx’s capital” (which explains the ‘first’ volume of Capital) as a side source to explain some of the concepts I did not understand. What I can tell you here is that the main difficulty are the first three chapters, once you finish the third chapter, the rest can be read with ‘relative’ ease.
Here at the end of this message I want to mention one last thing, and that is 99.9% of people who criticize Marxism don’t know diddly squat about what actually Marx says. As I said it is more than 4000 pages and if one just wants to “cheaply bash” a thinker, naturally one wont have the time, patience and most importantly the integrity of reading 4000 pages before one starts criticizing!!
That is the difference between people such as you and I and the cheap and dishonest clowns who criticize Marx without even knowing what he has said! The likes of you and I either start reading him or refrain from criticizing, unfortunately majority of “educated economists” just jump into “cheaply bashing” without knowing much about the substance of Marx’s thoughts.
Dont be naive James, US arent getting out of mideast anytime soon, they build up for an attack on Iran in Kuwait and Gulf, troops arent getting home, they are just placed somewhere else.
Clint,
I think Obama will be foolish if he increases the number of US troops in the
Gulf, after getting out of Iraq. But such foolishness on his part would come as no surprise.
Palestine has gained admission to Unesco. Only US. Canada and Germany voted in opposition.
US to increase troops in middle east after Iraq reduction in troops:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/world/middleeast/united-states-plans-post-iraq-troop-increase-in-persian-gulf.html
Humanist,
I think it was an act of utter stupidity for Hillary Clinton to say she would like to see regime change in Iran. But utter stupidity on her part curries favor with the astoundingly ignorant, and rather stupid, American public.
fyi,
I think European leaders do not want a military presence in Libya, or any troops on the ground in that country. A small number of special ops troops were in the country.
What “expansion” of Nato do you see?
WTF,
You appear to say that the primary element of the matter (so-called “plot”), that should be underlined, is the US’s use of the plot for purposes of deceiving the international community and the American public. Good point.
James Canning says: October 31, 2011 at 1:34 pm
It is called “NATO Expansionism”.
Unknown Unknwons,
Thanks for link to congressional hearing headed by Michael McCaul, who is an idiot Republican warmonger. Did you notice that the three civilian witnesses are all well-known advocates of Israeli militarism? Lawrence Korb is one of the lobbyists seeking clemency for Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard. And Matthew Levitt is with WINEP (Aipac affiliate). And third man was Ruelel Marc Gerecht.
fyi,
How would the EU even go about trying to “control” Libya? There is no agreement on the best way forward. Apart from seeking stability, control of weapons, restoration of services, oil production, etc.
Pirouz,
Hillary Clinton would not be allowed to serve as Secretary of State, if she were not a stooge of Aipac. Part of the job description.
James Canning says: October 31, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Of course they cannot control Libya; Libyans are very very aware of their oil wealth and thus are independently wealthy – they do not require EU’s patronage.
But, the EU states will nevertheless try to do so.
That it will fail, I am certain.
Unknown Unknowns,
M K Bhadrakumar argues that a “plausible explanation” for the Obama administration’s anti-Iran tirades is the need to raise campaign funds. From, of course, plutocratic Jews. More than plausible; in fact, absolutely certain. concerns about the Jewish vote in key states and congressional districts also figures into equation.
fyi,
I very much doubt the US and the EU “control” Libya. In fact, there is doubt that the interim gov’t will be able to control the country. Stability will be a good thing, but it cannot be imposed by US and EU.
Fiorangela – Sorry to remind you, Hillary’s “charm” could not stop her husband Bill Clinton having sexual affair with Mossad’s Monica Lewinsky. And I bet, had Bill ten years younger – he must have been chasing Sarah Palin, who has many things in common whwn it comes to sexual behavior. Interestingly, one of the trait which keep Zionists united against Iran – is their immoral nature.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/pat-robertson-%E2%80%98divorce-your-terminal-sick-wife%E2%80%99/
Fiorangela says:
October 31, 2011 at 12:22 pm
*(I suspect it’s her charming laugh.)
Correct Fiorangela , same charming laugh like in that famous CBS interview after the death of Gadhafi , where she said something like : ” We came , We butchered, He died in his own blood and then I came :-) “
TIME poll shows Democrats prefer Hillary Clinton to Obama in matchup against all GOP candidates
“A national poll conducted for TIME on Oct. 9 and 10 found that if Clinton were the Democratic nominee for President in 2012, she would best Mitt Romney 55% to 38%, Rick Perry 58% to 32% and Herman Cain 56% to 34% among likely voters in a general election. The same poll found that President Obama would edge Romney by just 46% to 43%, Perry by 50% to 38% and Cain by 49% to 37% among likely voters. …
Her closest aides strongly dismiss any 2012 ambitions and say 2016 is very unlikely: she’d be 69 the day of the vote that year. We don’t speculate on the source of her popularity.*”
*(I suspect it’s her charming laugh.)
The whole Libya show has resulted in 3 things:
1. Break down of BRICS to Russia & China on one side and IBSA(India, Brazil and South Africa) on the other due to the latter realising they are a side show to the former.
2. Russia and China will not be giving any diplomatic cover for any more NATO/US/EU adventures in the greater Middle East (minus the Palestine issue) that may be used against Syria or Iran so next time it must be unliateral or they are literally arm twisted in to voting it (dont see how this can be done with the return of Putin on power)
3. The R2P (Right to Protect) “model” will now be used whenever it is convenient to do so by NATO to weaken nations that have not kowtowed to the hegemon (see how the “Benghazi” model is been espoused for Syria, but the EU, Isreal and US are trying to ego massage the Turks to do it financed by the Gulf Arabs with their intelligence and diplomatic support). Mrz Clinton was asking for the same thing to be done by the opposition in Iran during her recent interviews with BBC and VOA.
No, just the logical continuation of an extraordinarily bankrupt American thinking on Iran; it is simply astounding.
And they want to lead the world?
Think of it as General Motors before her bankruptcy in 2008.
For clearly the United States and the European Union – given the current exercise which gained them the control of Libya – are not going to change their policies.
You have to let them bankrupt themselves.
The Long-Sleeved Ambassador thinks the danger of a confrontation is on the rise:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29557.htm
No Irshad; they do not have the money to exercise hegemony.
Even the war in Libya took them 7 months and they had to get re-supplied by US.
Quick, someone warn the IAEA that the USA, Russia, France and the UK (all signatorys of the NPT) are and will be spending billions of $$$ on updating their nuclear weapons and its delivery systems.
Pakistan, India, Nort Korea and holier than though, Isreal are doing the same too (they are outside the NPT).
So whats Mr Amano going to do about it all?
Probably go after Iran, as it pleases the hegemon and will leave the Middle East hostage to an ever intransigence Isreali nucelar monopoly!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/30/nuclear-powers-weapons-spending-report
western/israeli hypocrisy strikes again.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-israel-seeking-to-upgrade-its-nuclear-weapons-capabilities-1.392957
now where are the sanctions? where are the threats of war by nato? where is the condemnations?
Once again we see that nuclear issue is a politicized subject, some are allowed and some arent.
Humanist says:
Doesn’t she know most of Iranians are politically literate? Doesn’t she know what ‘regime change by US’ means to Iranians?
Stupid enemy is a blessing…
God Bless You Please Mrs. Clinton!
By Hussein Shariatmadari
http://www.kayhanintl.com/
Anyone want to guess what would happen if this was the son of some iranian official giving such bounties?
“”"I tell Sheik al-Qarani that I support you and I will pay $900,000 to make it one million dollars to capture an Israeli soldier to release other prisoners,” said a voice identified as Prince Khaled, who holds no official position in the government.”"
What exactly is it that makes Americans convinced the Saudis would side with the Israelis in a full-blown Middle East war?
The solidity of the alliance between the KSA and the USA would have been exposed for the eggshell it is had the crime of 9/11 actually been thoroughly investigated. When and if this war ever comes, it makes more sense for the Saudis to team up with Iran instead of team weasel. Both those states know Israel is the problem and is the current issue which will unite their people.
Wannabe American hegemony will be swallowed whole.
Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, when this war starts, all hearts will be on Palestine.
Viva Philisteen!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-20127668/saudi-royal-offers-bounty-on-israeli-soldiers/
should read “know” instead of “no”
Humanist says:
October 30, 2011 at 8:41 pm
That doesn’t factor in for two reasons:
1) Clinton is poorly advised by so-called Iran experts who claim the election was rigged and that there is close to an overwhelming lack of support for the form and substance of government inside Iran. We, of course, no this is wishful thinking on their part.
2) Clinton is completely beholden to AIPAC and the Israel-firsters, so this message is put out primarily for their benefit, and not Iranians inside Iran.
Watch the following interesting video of Hillary Clinton’s interview with VOA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BynZKOTKtm4&feature=player_embedded#!
It contains truly amazing stuff. One wonders how come they just don’t get it …..or maybe this is part of a sinister plot to make those who now ardently oppose the IRI join the regime and in time fight against USA?
At her message to Iranians she blatantly says “…we would like to see your regime changed “. Is she talking to a herd of sheep? Doesn’t she know most of Iranians are politically literate? Doesn’t she know what ‘regime change by US’ means to Iranians?
Iran’s Opposition leaders tell Hillary to ‘get lost’
On October 26, 2011, Israel-Firster Hillary Clinton gave interview to Bahman Kalbasi (Iranian gay Jew from Canada) of BBC Farsi-channel. During the interview Hillary repeated the usual Zionist lies about the Islamic Republic – From Green movement to Tehran’s civilian nuclear program.
During the interview, Hillary suggested that Iranian Opposition members should openly seek outside support as Libyan rebels did.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/irans-opposition-leaders-tell-hillary-to-get-lost/
Pirouz_2
Thanks ‘a lot’ for your response.
As I was reading your post so many subjects were going through my mind. For the moment here are some of the main points:
1- I think since the bases of your knowledge on ‘capitalism’ are different from mine, as a consequence our conceptions can not be similar thus maybe through frequent discussions we might find a common ground. However for the moment with more urgent issues at hand we have to wait for such debates especially until the dangers of war are completely dissipated.
2- I am totally illiterate on the topic of econometrics, I never had any formal education on economy, sociology or history. Only once I tried to read an incomplete Farsi translation of ‘Das Kapital’ when I was a teenager. I gave up reading firstly because I thought the text was a bad translation, secondly since I didn’t know anything about the complex economic theories I couldn’t fully understand what I was reading. Hence, on the issue related to our discussion, I feel I am ‘completely’ ignorant on what the real Marxism is about. (However I have read a biography of Carl Marks long ago. I remember I was so impressed by his deep sense of integrity and honesty I read some parts twice. I am sure that book had profound effects in shaping my subconscious mind especially as far as the issue of the illusionary ‘universal social justice’ is concerned)
3- I always wanted to know what is the difference between Marxism and Leninism. For different reasons I never tried to explore the issue. I am so thankful to you for shedding some lights on it.
4- In the past I have visited two Communist and one ex-Communist countries. I saw quite a lot of totally unacceptable aspects of their system. However in Cuba, I was impressed by their elementary and secondary education strategies while some other traits of their life was bordering a horror I never expected.. I was also adequately exposed to North-European life style. While no where in the world is a perfect place I was impressed with their vision for lining in ‘just’ societies. For me the prison system and, tax rules (which are drastically different from that of North America) tell a lot about what they have achieved.
Maybe, apart from some ancient societies, among the modern time ruling systems the closest to my anticipations was that of Czechoslovakia when Alexander Dubcek was the head of that state.
5- I remember the day I saw a demo of the ‘model’ of creation of universe on a large CRT. You could see how galaxies were forming (especially the spiral ones). It was then deeply impressed from the advances of science and technology. Soon I heard about another mix of ‘mathematical model’ and ‘computer simulation’ by two or there graduate students. Although, as far as I know, their work was never published yet the subject was a fascinating one. In their model, similar to model of creation of universe, first the wealth of the world was distributed equally among all the inhabitants of the world. Then as time was progressing the alterations in the distribution of wealth were computed and put out as graphs on the monitor. Their conclusion was, no matter how different the influencing parameters were weighted, in time, some will lose while others will gain a little or a gain quite a lot depending on the duration of the process.
My experiences and thought processes make me believe in the above conclusion since, as I said in my previous message we are born with brains that are the product of evolution. Our brains and those of chimps have a lot in common since chimps are our closest relatives. Yet the new layer of human brain ie our Neocortex enables us to build computers, alter the genes of living organisms etc. If, in our life time, we are not given the chance to become skillful in using our analytical minds or we do not learn how to use efficiently our Frontal Lobe in solving any problem at hand then we are going to live like chimps (not bonobo chimps) ie kill, steal, dominate and destroy or be killed, be exploited or enslaved in one way or another.
Our ever-changing brains have distinct potentials for re-wiring. We can be animals, culturally evolved beings or a mixture of both. That is what has captured my mind for quite a long time.
6- I see capitalism under the lights of Darwinism, Neuroscience and other analytical sciences. Not as one or couple of old-time economists or philosophers have described. I wonder if Marx is like Freud whose theories have been challenged recently in serious convincing ways.
All that said I still firmly believe that the rampant corporate capitalism is the number one enemy of humanity and, with very high probability all of the influential capitalists, under recent FMRI tests for mental health will be identified as psychopaths. In that sense I also believe neocons and all warmongers also belong the category of capitalists.
We are now witnessing how the actions of capitalists are backfiring. I believe this is just a start, a heart-warming promising beginning.
Aren’t we witnessing a new type of Blowback?….reactions from the actions of a set of aggressive, immoral and short-sighted profit-obsessed ‘sichos’ or from the activities of the racist and psychopathic hegemonists?…..both of them having a human face yet belonging to the ANIMAL domain?
Gettin’ uglier:
US Congress Engineering Consent For Attacks On Iran And Venezuela
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29545.htm
Rehmat says:
October 30, 2011 at 11:44 am
Lobby: ‘Islamists to govern Tunisia’
In the Tunisian elections of October 2011:
40% of those eligible to vote did not bother to vote.
The turnout was 60%.
(58% according to some sources)
75% of those who voted did not vote for the ‘CIA’s’ Islamist Ennahda Party.
The ‘CIA’s’ Islamist Ennahda Party got around 25% of the vote.
But, the ‘CIA’s’ Islamist Ennahda Party will get at least 41% of the seats in the assembly.
The 75% who did not vote for Ennahda wasted their votes on a vast number of tiny little parties.
“Because of a system of strict proportional representation, exacerbated by what in some districts were as many as 100 choices on ballots, a third or so of all votes cast actually counted for nothing, having been wasted on small local lists that failed to garner enough numbers to return a seat…
“Failure to unite cost Ennahda’s secular opponents what should have been a clear majority.”
Lobby: ‘Islamists to govern Tunisia’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/lobby-islamists-to-govern-tunisia/
Eric A. Brill says:
October 30, 2011 at 10:52 am
A scene from the current movie, “Ides of March,” which I saw last night, reminded my of the “Saudi ambassador plot” accusations against Iran.
“…If you don’t, it will be good enough for me to see Pullman on national TV denying that he has any interest in Liberian diamond mines.”
Excellent point. That is why I refer to the incident as the “Used Car Salesman Bullshit Story” rather than validate it as an actual assassination plot. Even if technically there was some sort of “plot” to kill the Saudi Ambassador, it is obviously being hyped and used as propaganda against the Iranian Government. To that point, the deception by the US Govt in mischaracterizing the incident becomes the main wrong that needs to be called out.
A scene from the current movie, “Ides of March,” which I saw last night, reminded my of the “Saudi ambassador plot” accusations against Iran.
The deputy campaign manager for a US presidential candidate asks a campaign researcher:
DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Any update on our story about Pullman (the candidate’s opponent) owning an interest in Liberian diamond mines?
RESEARCHER: Nothing yet, sir, but we’re still looking.
DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Well, don’t worry about it. I don’t care much either way. If you find anything, great. If you don’t, it will be good enough for me to see Pullman on national TV denying that he has any interest in Liberian diamond mines.
Empty – not only that – Ayatullah Khamenie held two-term Presidency of IRI and was elected with 92% majority votes. It was he who foiled the western conspiracy to start a war between Iran and Taliban after Mazar-e-Sharif massacre of Iranian embassy staff.
The Zionist standard of good leadership is so pathetic that it’s no longer laughable. For example, the wife of the leader of US$400 million funded “Green Revolution”, Dr. Zahra Rahnavard Mousavi, was awarded third place among the list of 2010 “Top 100 Global Thinkers”, by the pro-Israel Think Tank, ‘Foreign Policy Journal (FPJ)’. The top slot went to Ben Bernanke, Chairman of Federal Reserve while No.2 is Barack Obama. The company Zahra shared – show where the Zionist Mafia think her and her husband Mir Mousavi’s loyalties are. Ironically, it’s the same Dr. Zahra Rahnavard who during her husband’s prime-ministership in the 1980s was called “a terrorist” by the pro-Israel mainstream media.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/hands-off-islamic-iran/
richard steven hack:
“I don’t think so. Syria is right next to Israel. They need those missiles for their own country. Whereas Iran manufactures those missiles and sending some of them to Hizballah makes sense. What undoubtedly occurs is that Iran sends the missiles to Syria from where they are smuggled into Lebanon.”
Well if the majority of weapons comes from Iran, it doesnt really matter, what matter is that in case of war
Syria would probably be the only nation that havent closed its border to Iran. But where are it going to ship it? Because the syrian borders
will also be closed (primary to Iraq, sea etc)
“Not really. Iran is very large, the border is extremely porous. There’s no way to patrol that border effectively. Look at the Kurds regularly crossing over between Iraq and Turkey and between Iraq and Iran, the Iranians regularly crossing over into Iraq, the movement of pilgrims between Iraq and Iran. It’s just impossible.
People talk about “sealing borders”. It can’t be done unless you’re talking about something as short as the Berlin Wall”
Iran will be the war of all wars, do you really think US/NATO etc would be that sloppy and unprepared that they dont surveillance (heavily!) the border in case of war?
“Now you have to specify how Turkey will benefit in real terms. If Iran is crushed, sure, Turkey gets more influence than Iran in the region. But if that were the case, then why has Turkey gone out of its way so far to improve both political and economic relations with Iran?”
Just simply due the fact that Iran havent been attacked yet. Western nations had great ties to Mubarak, Qadaffi etc but they had to give that up. So I dont think
one should simplify the current economic ties too much. Turkey might milk Iran as much as it can before the war breaks out. Because in case of war, Turkey wouldnt
support Iran.
“Gaddafi was a bad guy, then he was a good guy, then he was a bad guy. Same with Saddam Hussein. That’s not the same thing as an entire country like Turkey making nice with Iran and then flipping over. Remember, Turkey wants influence in the Arab world. Helping destroy Iran won’t do that. The Arab street generally views Iran in a positive light. If Turkey becomes a US puppet again, that won’t help Turkey’s influence. Not going to happen any more.”
That have been true for a long time but not so much anymore regarding those 1-2 reports I have seen published, there is a decline amongst arab population about Iran and its not positive.
“Very wrong. While Russia and China can’t afford to ruin their relations with the US over Iran, they certainly will benefit from covertly assisting Iran. Especially China which has billions of dollars of investment in Iran and needs access to Iranian oil.”
I dont buy that, China does already get more and more oil from Saudiarabia and have probably sealed a deal about oil in case of war. If the oil comes from Iran or Saudi Arabia doesnt matter for the chinese.
“And why would Spain imagine it’s threatened by Iran? You see the point?
Also keep in mind that the shield isn’t even workable as any missile expert will tell you. It’s purely another boondoggle to make money for the US military-industrial complex.
”
Well why would Turkey perceive Russia as a threat to the extent that they accept a rather provoking move to install the missile shield? In the end of the day its not about nations interests, its about Nato interests.
Why wouldnt it be workable by the way? Makes no sense.
“Which is why Iran perceives it as a threat. But since Iran is not going to be firing missiles at Europe – because it doesn’t have any that can threaten Europe at this time – Iran knows the missile shield is not really directed at itself in those terms, but in terms of a war with Israel.”
Why wouldnt they fire at europe if UK, France attack Iran? Credible? Maybe not but there is a possibility.
I live in europe myself but Iran does have a full legitimate right to strike europe in case of UK, France particiment in war etc
“Their stance is irrelevant. Their military can’t take on Israel, even in concert with Syria. And the military leaders have no desire to do so. And the military will still influence the Egyptian government no matter who gains power.”
So why does Israel fear isolation? If no one of its neighbours are a or could become a threat? Why doesnt US support the uprisings? Its not just military but also political power and pressure, pressure also on US to change its ways on Israel. They have to compromise and Israel know it.
“I really don’t know what you’re talking about. Israel has ALWAYS been isolated. That’s why it forged alliances with France in the 1950’s and the US since. It’s long-term goal is to destroy and dominate all the Arab countries in the region so that they can never be a threat to Israel. There’s no way they can ever be NOT isolated with that sort of goal.”
Like I said.
Tunisia
Jordan
Egypt
(Maybe) Bahrain
(Maybe) Syria
(Maybe) Yemen
Fatah
etc
The isolation of Israel is obviously not complete. Like I said, Fatah for example is about to become more independent, tired of being a weak puppet to US/israeli interest. If Jordan falls well thats pretty much the nail in the coffin.
“Yes, and that would be irrelevant to the US/EU if they are pursuing a policy of weakening Syria by destroying much of its military capability and disrupting its government. You really think the US cares what the Syrian people think?”
Yes they care what the people they want to support thinks, especially since US/NATO know that they will not only fight Assad army but also LOADS of syrian people and insurgents that have more contempt for american and intervention in their country in general than the Assad-regime. Thats why NATO are too chicken to approach a nation like Syria (to this date) because NATO only attack weak, powerless states.
“The M.E.K. cult would. I assume Jundallah would. Any Iranian separatist group would. The Greens wouldn’t, of course. But all that is irrelevant. It’s highly unlikely the US/EU could justify an attack on Iran on “Responsibility to Protect” grounds anyway. That won’t be the justification for any attack on Iran.”
Sure but I was speaking of the iranian people, and not Baluch-terrorists and iranian-exile views.
Regarding how the attack will happen I guess a provocation by US being made in the gulf (today we could read in the press that US up its military outposts in the gulf waters), Iran responds (correctly) and then we have a Tonkin-false-flag incident once again. How do you think it will start?
“It wouldn’t matter if the Saudis sent weapons to Syria, that would be the same as what Iran is doing. In fact, if the Saudis supported a Muslim Brotherhood government in Syria, it would be in opposition to Iran.”
Not really, the opposition in syria is not only sunni but also often radical elements, those will defintely get support by Saudi or other GCC regimes. If Saudi see its chance to block iranian influence, they will. They wont miss such a chance.
“The fact that the CIA was well known to be importing heroin from Afghanistan, the fact that the Taliban crushed that smuggling during their rule, and the fact that heroin production is now higher than ever.”
Well thats no proof that the war was due heroin profits. While the heroin production have rised during the intervention that is rather a result of the fact that people in afghanistan, especially in rural areas get their income, yes thats right poppy-production. Since Taliban have lost power over a majority of areas since 2001,- people have taken up their business again.
“I’m getting tired educating you on what is going on in this world. Look this one up yourself, there are plenty of references.”
I just asking for credibile sources.
Richard Steven Hack,
RE: Nice story….But irrelevant.
About the “nice” part…….
What has happened to you? You used to call the stories bullshit and skip over them. I thought you’d at least promote them to elephant shit (from bull’s). This is a worrisome development ….perhaps it was a momentary laps of judgment?
As for the story being “irrelevant”…..
From a non-transhuman mortal’s perspective such as myself, the man is the Commander in Chief of the Iranian military, the Revolutionary Guard, and the militia Bassij force. His assessment of the situation has a strong bearing on Iran’s military responses whatever form they might take. Unlike many of the world “leaders”, he actually placed his life online many times during the Iraq-Iran war and spent most of his time in the frontline. His decision-making in the past two decades has been anything but cursory and light. Of all diverse entities/agencies/departments in Iran, he has had the executive responsibilities only related to the armed forces and bassij (hard- and software, equipment and human resources). This one entity is decidedly the only one that has made the most significant progress and has advanced in critical ways as far as Iran’s self-sufficiency is concerned. I pay close attention to what he says and when he says something because I have come to genuinely respect his مدیریت (management) capacity and style. While nearly all world “leaders” get caught (one time or another) engaging in illegal, self-serving, and criminal activities, this man’s favorite pastime is fasting (that means not eating or drinking anything for 15-16 or more a day) which allows him to make much more sober decisions not influenced by his motivation to secure multiple “one-night-out-in-the-town-and-$24,000-dinner-and-ball” pastime activities of some folks we know.
By the way, it is important point to note about that story is the fact that he was re-telling that not even 4 weeks into the 2009’s post election noises. That was when most outlets on this side were predicting the beginning of an end for Iran within one year.
Want to see who Iran is going to have to deal with as next US President. Some really
Right Bunch
Ayayayeeeee….
[Patience is a virtue. Read before you post]
RE: CSIS report that fyi posted…..
Reading these sorts of reports is important not so much for the details of facts, half-truths, and omissions they might contain but for the overall assessment and policy recommendations they end up making. The report highlights three very important conclusions related to this site:
1. An all out attack on Iran is not feasible (by the US and any of its allies)
2. A lot more is needed to build the US’s asymmetric warfare capacity in order to effectively counter Iran’s.
3. Because Iran, too, continues to build its capacity, the whole “capacity-building” plan should be a medium- to long-term plan (rather than a short-term one).
RE: CSIS report that fyi posted…..
Reading these sorts of report is important not so much for the details of facts, half-truths, and omissions they might contain but about the overall assessment and policy recommendation they end up to make. The reports highlights three very important conclusions that relate to this site:
1. An all out attack on Iran is not feasible (by the US and and any of its allies)
2. A lot more is needed to build the US’s asymmetric warfare capacity in order to effectively counter Iran’s.
3. Because Iran, too, continues to build its capacity, the whole “capacity-building” plan should be a medium- to long-term plan (rather than a short-term one).
US move out of Iraq and into the gulf, and THEY got the nerve to call Iran belligerent? Its not Iran that invade neighbour countries to US, its not Iran that have its fleet outside of the US coast.
The hypocrisy of US stance is beyond hypocrisy.
http://presstv.com/detail/207416.html
Eric A. Brill says:
October 30, 2011 at 2:54 am
That Tuchman reference never fails to get a chuckle out of me.
pirouz_2 says:
October 30, 2011 at 2:07 am
For a longer answer to your second question, you might consider this excerpt my longer article:
EXCERPT:
Complaint: The Result Is Not Plausible Because It Conflicts Sharply With Many Predictions and Post-Election Analyses
Many Western analysts[19] had assumed that the anticipated sharp increase in voter turnout boded well for Mousavi. This assumption reflected several others, including the widespread belief that many voters had sat out the 2005 run-off election to express their dissatisfaction with both candidates, Ahmadinejad and Hashemi Rafsanjani. That assumption, in turn, was based on a belief held even longer by many analysts: the high percentage vote for Mohammad Khatami in 1997 (69%), and his even stronger showing in 2001 (78%), reflected a “liberal inevitability” in Iran, the eventual opening of Iranian society that would occur once another candidate appeared who deserved the support of this vast but dormant voting bloc. Mousavi appeared to be that candidate. Many analysts also assumed that those who had voted for Mehdi Karroubi and other reform candidates in the first-round 2005 election would vote this time for either Karroubi or Mousavi. Finally, many analysts considered it a myth that Ahmadinejad was strongly supported by rural voters. After all, many rural voters had supported Khatami in 1997 and 2001, and Karroubi in 2005.
The short answer to these chagrined analysts is that none of this matters any longer. The only question now is whether Ahmadinejad won the election fairly – not why Iran’s voters failed to behave as predicted. It is not enough to say, as these analysts essentially do: “The election result was so different from what I’d expected that no explanation other than fraud comes to mind. Therefore, the government must prove that fraud did not occur.” The burden of proof is on those who claim fraud, not on those who deny it. Few would insist on enough evidence to make a major dent in Ahmadinejad’s 11 million vote margin – just something beyond disappointment, suspicion, rumor and conjecture. If hundreds or thousands of ballot boxes were stuffed, surely someone can identify at least one. Which polling stations forced voters to use “false pens” with disappearing ink? Where, exactly, were ballot boxes left unsealed and open? If any of Mousavi’s on-site observers noticed any of this, why did none of them report it?
Nearly all published reports of election-rigging activities have come from unnamed individuals, whose faces one never sees, recounting serious misconduct by unnamed individuals at unidentified places at unspecified times. Even when allegations are made by defectors who have burned their bridges behind them, they have not identified the wrongdoers or offered other evidence, and sometimes stop claiming fraud altogether.[20] Many reports are so detailed that one can scarcely imagine they could have been fabricated, but the vivid details invariably fail to include any information that would permit the story to be verified.[21]
Why the 2009 election did not conform to analysts’ expectations nevertheless deserves a longer answer as well. Several analysts argued that the strong support for Mohammad Khatami in 1997 and 2001 did not necessarily represent the voters’ endorsement of his reformist agenda:
“Mohammad Khatami was not swept to office in 1997 on a tide of liberalism or commitment to any ideological stance, but rather because he appeared to be an honest, charismatic anti-establishment figure and one untainted by official corruption. The fact that he was a black-turbaned seyed, a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, and a disciple of the late father of the Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, likely also played well with the religious masses. The personality and style of the candidate himself, and not merely his policy agenda, was the crucial factor in propelling Khatami to his landslide victory.[22]”
By contrast, Mousavi had no clerical credentials, nor even a black turban. Fairly or not, both Mousavi and Karroubi also were tainted by charges of corruption. In his debate with Karroubi, Ahmadinejad charged that Karroubi had accepted bribes and suggested that his comparatively lavish life style may have been financed in less than honorable ways. Mousavi was tainted by his association with Hashemi Rafsanjani and his sons, about whom various charges of corruption had been widely circulated. An important reason for Mohammad Khatami’s success in 1997 had been the perceived contrast between him and Rafsanjani, then the outgoing president, who even then was believed by many Iranians to be corrupt. Mousavi allied himself with the very same person from whom Khatami had carefully distinguished himself. While this alliance did not mean that Mousavi himself was corrupt, it greatly boosted Ahmadinejad’s chances of being perceived as the corruption-free candidate. In a poll conducted on the day before the election, when respondents were asked which candidate was “more honest,” Ahmadinejad led Mousavi by 31%.
In addition, more than a few voters may have questioned Mousavi’s passion for the job, since he had largely dropped out of public life 20 years earlier and had devoted most of his time since then to artistic pursuits, becoming a well-regarded abstract painter in the process. While Mousavi supporters often cited his long absence from public life as proof of his above-the-fray political purity, undecided voters may have seen only a diffident man who had barely been coaxed away from his painter’s easel just months earlier and now “mumbles and rushes through his speeches.”
Nor was it safe to presume that voters who had supported reform candidates in the first-round 2005 election would vote for either Karroubi or Mousavi in 2009. Some analysts argued that Karroubi’s success in 2005 was largely attributable to his promise to spread Iran’s oil wealth among the people – a prospect that appealed to many rural voters who may or may not have supported Karroubi’s reformist agenda. With this plank of his platform diminished in 2009 – in no small part because Ahmadinejad had appropriated it in the meantime – Karroubi was predictably less appealing to many rural voters, whose strong religious convictions might well have led them to Ahmadinejad rather than Mousavi.
Ahmadinejad helped poor and rural voters along this path by visiting nearly every district in the country at least once during his first term, and by spreading oil-funded governmental benefits even more far and wide – development projects in rural areas, cash and potatoes to impoverished farmers, low-interest loans to young married couples and small entrepreneurs, increased salaries for government workers, a law providing insurance to three million female rug weavers. This time-honored political practice probably induced many poor and rural voters to express their appreciation for Ahmadinejad on election day, in much larger numbers than most analysts had predicted.
END OF EXCERPT.
http://brillwebsite.com/writings/iran2009election.html#ResultConflictedWithPredictions
pirouz_2 says:
October 30, 2011 at 2:07 am
I really have no idea how long it took me to write my election article, other than to say a very, very long time.
As for your second question – why various media outlets continue to insist that the 2009 Iran election was fraudulent, and continue to trot out those who will argue that it was – I think a good answer appears in the opening lines to my shorter piece published here several months ago (“Wikileaks and the 2009 Iran Election”):
“Barbara Tuchman tells this story in The Proud Tower, her impressive history of the lead-up to World War I. Philipp Ernst, the father of surrealist painter Max Ernst, once painted a scene of his backyard garden, but left out a tree because he believed it would ruin his composition. Later, overcome with remorse at his ‘offense against realism,’ he chopped down the tree.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s victory spoiled many pre-painted pictures of Iran’s 2009 presidential election, and critics have since insisted he does not belong in the scene.”
http://brillwebsite.com/writings/wikileaks-and-the-2009-iran.html
Eric two questions for you:
1) How long did it take you to write your article about the elections in Iran?
2) Some alternative media outlets (eg. democracy now and the real news network), when it comes to Iranian elections, keep bringing either Dr. Cole or people who give views some what similar to that of Dr. Cole. Why -in your opinion- is it so? I do have a theory of my own, but I am just curious to know if you have any guesses as to why they behave in that way?
@Richard Steven Hack,
After reading through the conversation of the last few days, while I agree with much of your analyses, I do have one pointed question. You show a solid understanding of US/NATO/Israeli military capability, strategy and battle tactics, which you use to form your analysis of how/when they will strike Iran. Feeling confident in these analyses is logical, considering the wealth of available info, given the vast amount of wars the above-mentioned have fought in recent years. However, you also seem to feel fairly confident as to how Iran may/could respond.
My question is this: Given the fact that the Iran/Iraq war was your only glimpse into the IRI engaging in open war, and also given that the ME (particularly the IRI’s ability to conduct asymmetrical warfare) has evolved much since that war ended, how do you confidently come to your predictions as to how the IRI will respond if attacked by the US/Israel?
I ask this in the context of what most analysts predicted Hezbollah’s chances against the IDF would be prior to 2006. You have stated multiple times (correctly IMO) that Iran would need to engage in asymmetrical warfare. Considering how difficult it is to predict what tactics either side will use in a conventional war (and their results), it seems like a stretch to me to try to guess with much accuracy the tactics that will be used in the type of war that Iran would impose if attacked.
Israel: ‘Hamas has Qaddafi’s missiles’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/israel-hamas-has-qaddafis-missiles/
VoT:
There were so *many* false statements in the article, that by the time I got to the juicy part, I was yawning. Examples: what Duff said about the Iranian economy and how it is on the brink of collapse, what he said about how strong the opposition is, etc. This was no expert on Iran, but someone merely repeating stuff he had heard in the MSM. And then the premise is so completely bizaare, it makes the used car salesman plot look tame in comparison: Iran and Israel talking? And talking to blow each other up? And with soviet era nukes? I don’t think so.
A commenter on the VT website said it best:
Those old Russian nukes are useless. Plutonium cores go bad after around 15 years due to the build up of the decay product Americium, a potent neutron absorber. A criticality leading to nuclear explosion becomes impossible. Additionally by this time, the radiation flux from the cores would also have seriously degraded the initiating explosive and likely electronics. Interesting museum specimens, but useless as military devices.
Sound like some some Nigerian yellow cake. Those “livid members” of the Iranian opposition, who take generous donations from “western” donors, have fed someone a line. Err.. maybe drunken used auto salesmen from Austin are trying to blow up the Saudi ambassador. Don’t mind the smell of MEK in the air.
For those of you who are interested in what Eric has to say but did not want to wade through the whole post (seeing as it had to do with Juan Cole), this, in sum, is what he said:
Juan Cole is a Weasel.
Fior Jaan says:
“(10) is true. It was also settled by the Algiers Accords, which the US has failed to honor.
“Why bother reading the remaining 135 pages of this document when its opening premises are such blatant caricatures of reality?”
I don’t need to tell you, but for the benefit of the peanut gallery, a continuation of your response to number 10 could be … and the whole of which would have been avoided had the US not installed a puppet regime and maintained it in the face of outrageous illegitimacy, and then continued its treacherous activities within the US embassy compound, yet again abusing the privilege bestowed upon it by its host country (as proved by the documents that the US thought it had destroyed by shredding, but that the Iranian students painstakingly put back together again after working on the shredded remnants for three years).
Why bother reading? Well, I don’t know about reading, but it had some nice pictures :D But seriously, I imagine your experience is not that different than mine, which is that as you get into more and more specialized fields of knowledge and research, solid works that approach the subject with a certain objectivity become more and more difficult to come by. So that one has to settle for what there is out there, whilst holding one’s nose, as it were, and keeping one’s eyes peeled and one’s tinfoil hat on at all times.
Eric, Please tell us your dog’s name is not Spot.
Old King
or
Carlos
but not Spot.
Richard Steven Hack says:
October 29, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Richard;
Reading the first part of your message where you say:
“But that doesn’t matter because what you suggest is even less likely to come about than a change in the US electorate’s apathy about foreign policy.”,
fits so very well with the second part of your message where you say:
“Nothing. There is absolutely nothing they can do. Zero. Nada. Zip. No way, Jose. Give it up.”
In fact it is the same type of mentality which makes you do the first reasoning leads you to say the second part. This leaves me with nothing to say except to ask, then why on earth do you even bother or care?
Why do you argue so much about it if you really believe that there is nothing to do?
It is the same argument I made before, if the meteorite is going to hit the earth and there is NOTHING you can do about it, then why bother even talking about or getting into debates over it?
Oh man how I love this ‘weird’ stories . Richard your opinion is appreciated , as these rumors of Iran possessing Ukranian nuclear armed X- 55 are quite consistent.
This one is from Gordon Duff , Senior Editor in Veterans Today :
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/10/27/breaking-iran-and-israel-caught-partnering-in-attack-ploy/
…”We had been receiving information about nuclear weapons in Iran for several months. Sources were given that had not checked out, Pakistan, North Korea, South Africa and even Israel.
However, one source did check out, the Ukraine. We don’t have the exact date or number but we are told that the Ukraine sold Iran 6 thermonuclear warheads, probably in or around 2003.
Iran was fearful of US forces on both borders and nuclear weapons would have only been usable as a “last resort,” not against Israel but against American armies moving into Iran….
http://brillwebsite.com/writings/iran2009election.html
Why I agree with other commenters no longer pay attention to Juan Cole:
Juan Cole’s blog is most appealing to readers who do not look too closely at his factual assertions. Most readers who agree with his view in a particular posting invariably are at the top of that list (though many bright and skeptical readers are on the list too; see below). Such readers often come away feeling good, believing that Dr. Cole has confirmed their prejudices with rock-solid facts and unassailable logic – which means, of course, that their prejudices had not been prejudices in the first place; they had been indisputable truths all along.
But there are more than just readers of that ilk on Dr. Cole’s “no questions asked” list. Even those who often disagree with his views give considerable weight, often conclusive weight, to his factual assertions simply because he makes them with such apparent confidence, and often with such verifiable specificity, that one naturally assumes he must be correct. What self-respecting writer, after all, would misstate a fact – and with such swaggering self-confidence – if the fact can easily be checked? That being so, why should any reader ever bother to check Dr. Cole’s facts?
Some readers nevertheless do check Dr. Cole’s facts now and then, including several posters on this site (and me, as I explain below). If the fact-checker finds Dr. Cole is mistaken and proposes to let his readers know this, Dr. Cole will simply reject the fact-checker’s comment, and so none of Dr. Cole’s blog-readers will learn of his mistake. If, on the other hand, the would-be commenter’s fact-checking or logic is flawed, Dr. Cole will not only publish the comment but will do so with great glee, often honoring the commenter with a response from Dr. Cole himself. The clear message to other readers: “Look what just happened to this guy who challenged me. Keep that in mind if you ever find yourself doubting my facts.” In short, a critic will be skewered if his logic or facts are shaky, ignored if they are not.
As plain as this now is to me, I nonetheless used to accept a great deal of what I read on Dr. Cole’s blog, based on the simple logic I mentioned above: “What self-respecting writer would misstate a fact that can easily be checked? That being so, why should any reader ever bother to check Dr. Cole’s facts?”
Until, that is, I started doing extensive research for my article on Iran’s 2009 election (link above). After first spending a great deal of time determining what was verifiable about that election and what was not, I checked hundreds of writings about the election against those verifiable facts. Many writers were guilty of a misstatement or two (indeed, few who wrote about the election were not). Some were guilty of several, and a few were guilty of many. A few names popped up so often that I decided to be selective in my criticism and even my citations, lest it appear I had some personal vendetta against those writers.
Though I recall that there were several more, I can think now of only two writers on that list, and I dutifully limited myself to just two bibliographical references to each of them: the New York Times’ Michael Slackman, and Juan Cole.
Whatever one might say about Dr. Cole, he pales by comparison to Michael Slackman, who holds both the Number 1 and Number 2 spots for the most extreme journalistic distortions of reality about the 2009 Iran election. Number 1, hands down, was Slackman’s June 22, 2009 article (June 23, print version) cited in my bibliography. In that one, it was as if someone had handed Mr. Slackman a machine gun whose bullets consisted of baseless speculations and demonstrably incorrect facts, and told him: “Just hold this in front of a piece of paper at about hip level, Mr. Slackman, and pull the trigger.”
The Number 2 spot went to Mr. Slackman’s 1,100-word piece published more than six months after the election. Try as I might, I could not restrain myself from featuring it in the body of my article:
“As had occurred before [and just after] the election, Western press coverage [of the so-called Ashura protests in late December 2009] focused narrowly on the opposition rally. According to a guest op-ed published a week later in the New York Times [written by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett], opposition sources had estimated the December 27 protest crowd in the ‘tens of thousands’ and other sources had estimated ‘2,000 to 4,000.’ A third source, said to be an opponent of Ahmadinejad, had estimated the crowd at the December 30 pro-government rally at 1,000,000 people. The last of these estimates may have surprised [Western] readers, since most Western news accounts had reported a much smaller pro-government crowd. The most extreme example had appeared in a long article by Michael Slackman published by the New York Times on January 1, 2010. In an otherwise detailed [1,100 word] account of the preceding five days’ events, Mr. Slackman estimated the December 27 protest crowd at ‘tens of thousands,’ but did not even mention that a pro-government rally had occurred.”
Self-discipline or not, I suspect that few in my position could have resisted featuring such a glaring “sin of omission.” Nonetheless, this Slackman article reached only the Number 2 spot, overshadowed without question by his own “machine gun” piece (mentioned above) written shortly after the election. Though one could have spent many pages dissecting the earlier Slackman piece, so many other writers had said the same things that I decided to spread the blame over many of them in the body of my article; a reader could not know of Mr. Slackman’s triumph.
Though I quoted Dr. Cole in several places in my article, I sometimes politely linked my quotation to an embedded link rather than mention him by name. In many cases, frankly, Dr. Cole’s remarks simply were not worth a great deal of attention – such as when he wrote that it “seems odd” or “makes no sense” that so many Iranians could have voted for Ahmadinejad. What can one really offer in response, other than to shrug?
In other cases, though, Dr. Cole made very specific statements – as mentioned above, of the sort that one assumes must be correct since no self-respecting writer would make them if they were not. In that category are a few I mentioned in my article; others appeared only in a brief email exchange with Dr. Cole in February 2010. See, for example, this passage in my election article (citations and links omitted here):
“The greatest skepticism focused on certain large cities and the home provinces of opposition candidates. Juan Cole found Ahmadinejad’s majority in Tehran province ‘so unlikely as to raise real questions,’ even though Ahmadinejad had been the mayor of Tehran, had won the province by a 10% larger margin in 2005, and had attracted larger crowds than Mousavi to his Tehran campaign rallies. Three days before the election, for example, Mousavi supporters formed a well-publicized ‘human chain’ stretching across Tehran, estimated to include between 18,000 and ‘at least 100,000’ people. Though it was mentioned in far fewer press accounts, a Tehran rally held for Ahmadinejad on the same day drew a crowd estimated at between 180,000 and 1,000,000 people.”
“And how, Professor Cole and others wondered, did Ahmadinejad manage to do so well (56%) in East Azerbaijan, Mousavi’s home province? One possibility: thanks to some election-year governmental largesse credited largely to Ahmadinejad, students at the provincial university in Tabriz now could obtain a college degree with courses taught entirely in Azeri, their native language – which Ahmadinejad speaks, as he reminded voters during each of his several campaign visits, sometimes by quoting Azeri poetry. Ahmadinejad probably had learned the Azeri language during the eight years he had spent as a government official in two Azeri-majority provinces [a very popular official, according to the Leveretts]. Another unfortunate coincidence may have diminished Mousavi’s home-town advantage still further: the Supreme Leader (Ali Khamenei) is also an Azeri. And more: ‘Mousavi is not only from the same town as Khamenei, but according to locals is actually related to the Supreme Leader.’ Azeri voters probably had surmised that Khamenei favored the non-Azeri Ahmadinejad over Khamenei’s fellow Azeri townsman and possible kinsman, Mousavi. At least some of those Azeri voters must have wondered whether they should too. In a poll taken three weeks before the election, Ahmadinejad held a 2-to-1 lead over Mousavi among Azeri voters (31% to 16%), though many voters remained undecided. Even with all this in his favor, Ahmadinejad’s percentage in East Azerbaijan was nearly 12% lower than it had been in 2005.”
END OF QUOTED PASSAGE.
If a shoot-from-the-hip writer becomes concerned that readers might question his factual assertions, a common first defense is to “upgrade” one’s factual assertions from words to numbers: “Liars may figure,” after all, but “figures don’t lie.” True enough, but only if one’s “figures” are correct. Dr. Cole sought this refuge on several occasions, as shown in this passage from my election article (citations and links omitted here):
“Many other Mousavi supporters added a variation of this “uniform turnout” argument, asserting that Ahmadinejad’s vote totals showed a suspicious uniformity across provinces:
‘I continue to find these figures unlikely [, Dr. Cole wrote]. There is very little variation in Ahmadinejad’s numbers across provinces, except in two cases. In past elections the numbers have been all over the place.’
A Time magazine writer was no less perplexed:
‘Support for Ahmadinejad was strangely consistent across the country, a real change from previous elections, when candidates drew different levels of support in different regions.’
This claim was not supported at all by the vote count. Ahmadinejad’s provincial percentages ranged widely in 2009, from a low of 44% to a high of 77% (see note 1) – the same spread as his 40-73% range in 2005. Nor was the 2005-to-2009 swing in Ahmadinejad’s percentages uniform across provinces: it varied from ‑13% to +35%.”
END OF QUOTED PASSAGE.
Dr. Cole was no less restrained in his emails, such as this one to me in February 2010: “Ahl-i Haqq Kurds in Kermanshah did not vote for Ahmadinejad by 68 percent.” My response: “Have more faith in your Kurdish friends from Kermanshah: it was only 58-38 there.”
Eventually, and arguably to his credit, Dr. Cole acknowledged his personal limitations with numbers, handing the baton to an honest-to-goodness “numbers guy.” Another email example: “my poli sci colleague here at Michigan crunched the numbers and found substantial anomalies.”
The “poli sci colleague” to which Dr. Cole was referring is Dr. Walter Mebane (also a professor at the University of Michigan), with whom, unbeknownst to Dr. Cole when he wrote this email to me, I had previously engaged in a lengthy email exchange concerning Dr. Mebane’s widely cited reports of his “Benford’s Law” analysis of the 2009 Iran election results. I will leave it to readers interested in such esoterica to draw their own conclusions about my analysis of Dr. Mebane’s and other statisticians’ “digital frequency” analyses in the section of my election article titled: “Complaint: Statistical Analysis of Vote Counts Shows Fraud Occurred.” (The reader should note especially the fifth paragraph of that section, though it is necessary first to read the first four paragraphs, and then the remainder of the section to dispose of a few remaining points – including one observation by Dr. Mebane that deserves some credit.)
I should add that Dr. Mebane turned out to be more than just a “numbers guy” concerning the 2009 Iran election. He claimed to base his skepticism on other “facts” as well, as evidenced by this sentence in an email from him to me: “In light of your third sentence, it’s telling that you don’t mention the BBC 4 interview with the former Basij member.”
In fact, I had mentioned in my article the BBC 4 interview to which Dr. Mebane refers here, though Dr. Mebane may be forgiven for not having noticed. If Michael Slackman’s two articles discussed above hold the Number 1 and Number 2 spots on the “Media Commentary” Top Ten list, that BBC 4 interview stands all by itself atop the “Eyewitness Account” list. More than any other reported “eyewitness account” (and there were many others), it was this interview which I had in mind when I wrote this passage in my election article:
“Nearly all published reports of election-rigging activities have come from unnamed individuals, whose faces one never sees, recounting serious misconduct by unnamed individuals at unidentified places at unspecified times. … Many reports are so detailed that one can scarcely imagine they could have been fabricated, but the vivid details invariably fail to include any information that would permit the story to be verified. [footnote 21].”
END OF QUOTED PASSAGE.
In the footnote, I cited the BBC 4 interview to which Dr. Mebane later referred, adding this specific comment about the interview:
“The unidentified interviewee describes blatant voter fraud in an unnamed Iranian town, aimed at carrying out the Supreme Leader’s directive that Ahmadinejad be re-elected. He recalls the detailed orders given to him and other (unidentified) Basij militiamen by an unidentified commander at an unidentified military base in an unspecified place. These included detailed instructions for counting votes. For example, he was ordered to throw away all ballots that had been cast by college students, since they were more likely to have voted for Mousavi. He did not explain how he determined whether a ballot had been cast by a college student, nor why he did not simply throw away votes for Mousavi regardless of who had cast them.”
END OF QUOTED PASSAGE.
Despite all this, I continued to think for quite some time that Dr. Cole could be steered gently out of the darkness, and was especially optimistic whenever I happened to agree with his view on a particular matter (as I often do). All he needs, I would tell myself hopefully, is some gentle guidance on facts – in essence: Either (1) make sure you’re correct on your facts; or (2) don’t cite facts at all – stick instead to arguments that are heavy on reasoning and don’t require a firm factual basis. Whatever you do, don’t make up facts.
I’ve never actually given this blunt advice to Dr. Cole, and predictably he’d be offended and ignore it if I ever did, though it certainly must emerge from my emails to him and several offered comments on his blog that he has rejected. All I can really do is what I have in fact done, which is to ask myself this: “If so much of what Dr. Cole writes is based on demonstrably incorrect facts, but he almost certainly will censor any commenter who would point this out, is he worth reading?”
My answer has been “no” for quite some time, which is why I, like many others, long ago deleted the “bookmark” to his blog. While I used to feel good to read Dr. Cole’s confirmation of my personal prejudice on an issue (see my very first long paragraph above), now it strikes me as a waste of time. I’m content just to reach down and pat my dog sitting next to my chair and say: “You think I’m right, don’t you, Spot?” Spot always seems to agree, and his “facts” are just as solid as Juan Cole’s.
Richard Steven Hack says: October 29, 2011 at 4:22 pm
CSIS analysis used to be more dispassionate and less propagandistic.
Yet, it is useful to read these to gain insight into the minds of a subset of US analysts.
No doubt, US analysts are certainly exhibiting all the usual symptons of Groupthink – certainly when it comes to Iran.
[EU analysts are not nearly as bad - but they are close.]
The fundamental shortcoming of this eassay is in its infantile disregard for the settlement – if any – after the various war scenarios it has sketcked have come to pass.
As I have stated before, waR with Iran will not end in days, weeks, or months; it will go on for years.
The overall sense of this paper, I think, is one of trying to frighten Iranians and re-assure the Persian Gulf Arabs; “we or Israel will bomb Iran indefinitely OR they will surrender their nuclear program..”
The elimination or limitation of independent Iranian power is of utmost importance to US, Canada, EU (the Axis Powers). Thus the disintegration of the Euro Zone is in the fundamental strategic interest of Iran.
Fyi: The CSIS reports also claims: “Transfering shaped charges and other advanced IEDs to Mahdi Army and others in Iraq; training of Iraqi insurgents”
Despite the fact that this has never been proven or even any decent evidence provided by the US.
Clearly this report is extremely biased against Iran in terms of its representation of the country’s actions.
Fyi: The CSIS report includes this howler:
“Iran still maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful, but its lack of cooperation with the IAEA, and a range of indicators that it is developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons, make such claims doubtful. It is possible that Iran may acquire deliverable nuclear weapons at some point in the next five years.”
What’s-his-name needs to update his list of times someone has said “Iran will have nukes in five years”. That makes about the 30th time or whatever in the last 30 years! :-)
Liz2: “I think majority of those 40′000 missiles came from Syria.”
I don’t think so. Syria is right next to Israel. They need those missiles for their own country. Whereas Iran manufactures those missiles and sending some of them to Hizballah makes sense. What undoubtedly occurs is that Iran sends the missiles to Syria from where they are smuggled into Lebanon.
“Also there will be a tighter grip during war around Irans’ border.”
Not really. Iran is very large, the border is extremely porous. There’s no way to patrol that border effectively. Look at the Kurds regularly crossing over between Iraq and Turkey and between Iraq and Iran, the Iranians regularly crossing over into Iraq, the movement of pilgrims between Iraq and Iran. It’s just impossible.
People talk about “sealing borders”. It can’t be done unless you’re talking about something as short as the Berlin Wall.
“if turkey benefits more by being even participant in the war against Iran, they will.
Now you have to specify how Turkey will benefit in real terms. If Iran is crushed, sure, Turkey gets more influence than Iran in the region. But if that were the case, then why has Turkey gone out of its way so far to improve both political and economic relations with Iran?
“Libya were one of UK, France etc best allied in Africa, well we saw that position flipped fast during the uprising.”
Gaddafi was a bad guy, then he was a good guy, then he was a bad guy. Same with Saddam Hussein. That’s not the same thing as an entire country like Turkey making nice with Iran and then flipping over. Remember, Turkey wants influence in the Arab world. Helping destroy Iran won’t do that. The Arab street generally views Iran in a positive light. If Turkey becomes a US puppet again, that won’t help Turkey’s influence. Not going to happen any more.
“And that goes for Russia, China too. Some people seems to belive that Russia and China would help Iran if they get attacked. Thats unrealistic. Neither Russia or China would benefit from helping Iran.”
Very wrong. While Russia and China can’t afford to ruin their relations with the US over Iran, they certainly will benefit from covertly assisting Iran. Especially China which has billions of dollars of investment in Iran and needs access to Iranian oil.
“What money does Turkey get from accepting the missile shield?”
I’m sure they get quite a bit. The US just doesn’t plop down a missile base without compensating the government. Not to mention the money spent by the base in the local economy. Plus there may be other benefits I’m not aware of, intangibles such as improved relations with the US, or quid pro quo under the counter military equipment deals as bribe from the US to the Turkish military to support the deployment.
“I have double thoughts about the missile shield regarding who its aimed at, sure it somewhat encircle the western russian border but at the same time there is no Russian threat against europe, even spain accepted missile shield the other week – thats far away from Russia.”
And why would Spain imagine it’s threatened by Iran? You see the point?
Also keep in mind that the shield isn’t even workable as any missile expert will tell you. It’s purely another boondoggle to make money for the US military-industrial complex.
“That Turkey didnt acknowledge this and therefore could have refused to install the shield says alot in my opionion. Because in case of war with Iran, it will be used.”
Which is why Iran perceives it as a threat. But since Iran is not going to be firing missiles at Europe – because it doesn’t have any that can threaten Europe at this time – Iran knows the missile shield is not really directed at itself in those terms, but in terms of a war with Israel.
“On Egypt, why wouldnt Israel perceive egypt military as a threat? There havent been any election yet in Egypt so we dont know the outcome of the politics of egyptian future regarding their stance to Israel.”
Their stance is irrelevant. Their military can’t take on Israel, even in concert with Syria. And the military leaders have no desire to do so. And the military will still influence the Egyptian government no matter who gains power.
“If Israel isnt worried about (muslim) uprising in the region why then are they against it? Why were they against that mubarak fell if he wasnt important to them?”
Mubarak was a US puppet who maintained the peace deal with Israel and more importantly kept Gaza closed up as part of the siege. The new military rulers are continuing that policy. When a new government comes in, that policy might change.
Of course, Israel is worried about a Muslim uprising. Another general war in the region would cost them money and effort if it was not at their instigating. But Israel is not that worried about the military capabilities of the immediate neighboring countries. Remember – Israel HAS NUKES. And they won’t hesitate to use them if they think their military will lose any war. They made that threat in 1973 to Kissinger.
“Sure Israel have been somewhat isolated, but like say the isolation up til 2010 pre uprising is nothing to compare to the post-uprising maybe could look like.”
I really don’t know what you’re talking about. Israel has ALWAYS been isolated. That’s why it forged alliances with France in the 1950′s and the US since. It’s long-term goal is to destroy and dominate all the Arab countries in the region so that they can never be a threat to Israel. There’s no way they can ever be NOT isolated with that sort of goal.
“Tunisian election gave islamists power
Egyptian election will give islamistis an atleast partial power
If Syria falls it will give rise to islamists
If Jordan happen to fall in some years well then we have islamists gov here too
and so on. With that being said the coming isolation is much worse the current one Israel have now. Especially if their last allied partner Jordan falls. Also add the vanishing power of the usually pro-western Fatah and the isolation is complete.”
Still irrelevant in the long run. Jordan and Egypt were conveniences, nothing more. Israel relies on its military power, its nuclear arsenal, and its alliance with the US for the source of its power. Everything else is irrelevant.
“While there is no denial that US and KSA supporting violent groups in Syria there is still on a general basis no syrian call for intervention and no-fly zone from the syrian population (sure it has been some calls by small un-sourced groups according to western news pundits) compared for lets say Libya. That is because syrian people are against US politics in the region – so if US/NATO would attack they would not only face trouble by syrian army but also by alot of the syrian population”
Yes, and that would be irrelevant to the US/EU if they are pursuing a policy of weakening Syria by destroying much of its military capability and disrupting its government. You really think the US cares what the Syrian people think?
Why do you think the US/EU would depend on a call from Syria for a no-fly zone? They could go to the UN and strong arm a resolution. If that failed, they could just go ahead and ignore the UN.
“and the same will go for Iran. That part in Iran that dislike the iranian gov would never accept foreign intervention/attack.”
The M.E.K. cult would. I assume Jundallah would. Any Iranian separatist group would. The Greens wouldn’t, of course. But all that is irrelevant. It’s highly unlikely the US/EU could justify an attack on Iran on “Responsibility to Protect” grounds anyway. That won’t be the justification for any attack on Iran.
“If Syria falls to muslim brotherhood it could be of very negative consequences for Israel and saudi weapon would pour in, you think Israel would accept that?”
The Saudis don’t like the Muslim Brotherhood. From Wikipedia:
“The Muslim Brotherhood’s brand of Islam and Islamic politics differs from the strict Salafi creed, Wahhabiyya, officially held by the state of Saudi Arabia. Despite this, the Brotherhood has been tolerated by the Saudi government, and maintains a presence in the country.[citation needed] Aside from tolerating the Brotherhood organization[citation needed], and according to Washington Post report, Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef has denounced the Brotherhood, saying it is guilty of “betrayal of pledges and ingratitude” and is “the source of all problems in the Islamic world”
It wouldn’t matter if the Saudis sent weapons to Syria, that would be the same as what Iran is doing. In fact, if the Saudis supported a Muslim Brotherhood government in Syria, it would be in opposition to Iran.
The primary reason the Saudis would support an attack on Syria by the US/EU is precisely because Syria is allied with Iran. The Saudis would be perfectly happy to see Assad overthrown and Hizballah crushed in Lebanon (if possible) because it would weaken Iranian influence in the region. They would like this more than any benefit they might get against Israel.
“While it was easy for US to bribe corrupt leaders like Mubarak, Ben-Ali, King Abdullah (Jordan) etc I dont think US could bribe elected parties like Muslim Brotherhood, so thats what bother Israel too, strong, independent muslims nations and a weakened or vanished american prescensence in the mideast.”
Of course. But that has nothing to do with my point, Militarily, the situation would be unchanged.
“If US wanted to stay in Iraq they would have managed it. They didnt leave a land that might ignite again after 8 years only because they couldnt persuade the iraqi gov on the question of ‘immunity’.”
Then what’s your explanation for why Obama CLEARLY tried to get Iraq to accept troops for an indefinite amount of time? There’s absolutely no question about that being a fact. The fact is quite clear that Iraq kicked the US out – except for a ton of State Department mercenaries who are not subject to a Status of Forces Agreement.
“Also, I am curious on your statement that Afghan war was partly because of heroin, what credible sources to you have for such a statement?”
The fact that the CIA was well known to be importing heroin from Afghanistan, the fact that the Taliban crushed that smuggling during their rule, and the fact that heroin production is now higher than ever.
Check this out, just one of many resources on the CIA involvement in the drug trade:
“The Spoils of War: Afghanistan’s Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade”
:http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO404A.html
Wikipedia has a basic reference:
CIA drug trafficking
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking
Afghan heroin & the CIA
:http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/afghan-heroin-the-cia
Brother of Afghan Leader Said to Be Paid by C.I.A.
:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html?pagewanted=all
“While Libyawar was most probably somewhat about oil, how do you explain that western companies already had good connection with the Libyan gov and their oil-business? So what would they gain by standing on the rebel-side against Qadaffi?”
I’m getting tired educating you on what is going on in this world. Look this one up yourself, there are plenty of references.
Yemi: “Don’t forget you can only start a war, but the outcomes is unpredictable…”
Of course. This is why I say the US will eventually lose every war it starts. Because the US’ enemies are fighting Fourth Generation War, while the US is starting Third Generation War.
“please can you shield light on “So my guess is that Russian and China opposition in the UNSC would be irrelevant in the end” and if thus turns the other way round.”
Russia and China have little motivation to get into a hot war with the US as long as the US has most of the nukes in the world and also a better conventional military. They also have good economic reasons not to get into a hot war with the world’s remaining superpower. Especially China, which owns a huge amount of US government debt.
So that rules out any direct intervention.
As for indirect intervention, Russia might be happy to supply SIGINT and other forms of intel to Iran as long as it doesn’t get caught. It might be happy to sell weapons to Iran via some back door like Belarus if it doesn’t get caught. It will support Iran in the UNSC. But that’s about it.
China, on the other hand, might be welling to do more. China will be irritated if a US attack ruins its investments in Iran and disrupts its access to Iranian oil. In that case, China probably would be happy to sell as many weapons as Iran wants, including later models of anti-ship missiles and planes if possible. China would also be happy to supply intel to Iran if possible.
China can also start messing with the US economy by various means. such as dumping some of its holdings of US debt and the US dollar on the open market, depressing the value. China can also ramp up tensions over Taiwan and force the US to maintain a larger military presence in Asia when it might want to divert some resources to the Iran conflict. Beyond that, though, there is little China can do directly to aid Iran.
Pakistan’s ISI might be willing to help Iran with an eye to getting rid of the US presence in Afghanistan. Pakistan could use its assets in Afghanistan and Pakistan to covertly disrupt US supply lines supporting the Iran war. That wouldn’t be hard since the Taliban and other Islamist groups already regularly disrupt US supply lines into Afghanistan.
The Taliban in Afghanistan would probably increase their attacks on US air bases, which would negative affect US operations against Iran. That would be in the Taliban’s interest even if they hate Iran because it would cause problems for the US forces in Afghanistan which would take some of the pressure off the Taliban.
fyi, Oct. 29, 2011, 1:21 pm, re “CSIS on war with Iran.”
asymmetric propaganda in the Report’s section on Historical Background:
“The historical background of this military competition tracks closely with the history of the political tensions between the US and Iran.
Iran sees it as driven
(1) by US efforts to dominate the Gulf and the region,
(2) by a period of US intervention in Iranian internal affairs that began in 1953,
(3) by US security assistance to the Pahlavi regime before the Shah’s fall,
(4) US support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War,
(5) the ―tanker war‖ from 1987-1988, and
(6) US efforts to deny Iran imports of arms and military technology.
(7) The US seeks to become the dominant power in the region while
(8) [US] seek[s] to contain Iran’s power and influence.
The US sees a state
(9) that has been vehemently anti-American since the fall of the Shah and the ——founding of the Islamic Republic,
(10) which held US embassy employees hostage,
(11) which threatens the region and
(12) exports terrorism,
(13)which has exported aid and arms to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan,
(14) which threatens Israel’s existence,
(15) which is seeking nuclear-armed missiles, and
(16) which is steadily building up asymmetric forces that threaten the stable flow of —–world petroleum exports.
(17) [US] feels Iran seeks to become the dominant power in the region
(18) [US feels Iran is seeking to expel] US power and influence.”
If this were a True-False exercise, (1) thru (8) could be supported by documents and evidence; they are facts and events that, in many cases, such as (2) thru (5), were factually expressed by the loss of life and property, and in (6) thru (8) are readily validated by demonstrating actual economic loss and harm.
On the other hand:
(9) is contradicted by numerous reports of journalists such as Barbara Slavin, Stephen Kinzer, and Robin Wright, and persons with close and expert knowledge of Iran such as Hillary Leverett, Trita Parsi, Suzanne Maloney; all of whom have observed first hand that Iranians do NOT “vehemently hate the US,” though ordinary Iranians as well as Iranian government figures do take exception to American policy toward Iran that threaten Iranian well-being and sovereignty.
(10) is true. It was also settled by the Algiers Accords, which the US has failed to honor.
(11) thru (19) are rhetoric, hyperbole, and/or propagandized charges that cannot be substantiated.
The inclusion of (14), that Iran “threatens Israel’s existence,” marks this entire exercise as without merit and its authors as lacking in seriousness and intellectual integrity.
Why bother reading the remaining 135 pages of this document when its opening premises are such blatant caricatures of reality?
Unknown Unknowns: “Well, they will care when Bwana Dik won’t play ball cause he wants to get elected again.”
Who says they even want him to get elected again? He’s a one term President. Presidents are disposable these days. As long as some REAL “peace-nik” doesn’t get in, they can control anyone who does. No one GETS elected or even nominated unless they toe the party line.
“Hell, the Neocons and the Jews *had* a president (W) who was game. Hell, he’d go for anything. But even then the military brass nixed the idea.”
I suspect that was the primary reason Bush never attacked Iran. He also claimed he got undercut by the 2007 NIE on Iran, although I think that was just his cover story. But you have to remember that in 2006-2007, Iraq was at its high point for problems and Afghanistan was really starting to go down the drain. That was probably why the Pentagon urged a delay in attacking Iran. Also, Cheney was trying to get Israel to attack Iran first, and at that time Israel was trying to get the US to initiate the war. So they ended up in a chicken-and-egg situation.
Now may be different. Netanyahu may decide he can go ahead and fake up an excuse. Also events in the Middle East have altered the landscape, allowing the US to attack Syria and thus enable Israel to attack Hizballah, and thus improve the options for attacking Iran from Israel’s viewpoint. So the situation today is not the same as in 2006-2007.
“There has to be limits to your cynicism.”
No, there doesn’t. I’m a radical Transhumanist. As such, human nature itself is the enemy. NOTHING you people do is right. And that justifies almost anything I might do.
Pirouz_2: “I believe that the main solution will have to come through a change in the motivation for production, so that the purpose of production will be to meet the social needs rather than “profit”.”
I’m a “free market anarchist”, so I don’t agree. But that doesn’t matter because what you suggest is even less likely to come about than a change in the US electorate’s apathy about foreign policy.
“given the reality on the ground, if the antiwar movement (which is FAR FAR from being millions up on millions in USA) should do so that you would be happy with their strategy?”
Nothing. There is absolutely nothing they can do. Zero. Nada. Zip. No way, Jose. Give it up.
Well, unless they all become computer hackers and do what Anonymous and LulzSec are doing – hack the daylights out of the system. That’s what I intend to learn to do. I know quite a bit about computer security but I need more practical experience in actually using the tools. Then I’m going to loot the military-industrial complex and the other scum bags of every dime I can get and sell their secrets to China. :-)
All:
CSIS on War with Iran
http://csis.org/files/publication/111027_Iran_Gulf_Military_Balance.pdf
New york times reporter support the racist and hateful Clarion group conference.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2011/10/28/nyts-bronner-to-speak-at-clarion-fund-anti-iran-event/#comments
Recognize how easy it is to be anti-islamic these days, even anti-persian if you may regarding Iran. Just imageine if there was lobby groups that portrayed Israel as the biggest threat to world peace and their religion would be compared to nazism (not to mention the constant threats, warmongering in general etc on this country) then aipac, adl and other quasi-humanitarian lobby groups would yell ‘antisemitism’.
Dont they have any shame?
kooshy says:
October 29, 2011 at 4:01 am
Pirouz , you got to give up on that site everybody else did a while back is useless
> I “erased” his site’s bookmark about three or four laptops ago.
Iranian support Ocuupy Wall Street
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/iranian-support-ocuupy-wall-street/
Regarding PressTv, you havent missed that UK trying to shut down its business in the UK? Or is it maybe already done? Not to mention wikielaks expose when it comes to PressTV and UK gov.
Another clip from RTV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xzlBmJcc9c
Fiorangela says,
PressTV should include this in its coverage of domestic situation of the world’s biggest superpower:…
PressTV has had a dedicated “US Desk” [or as it frames it "YOU.S. Desk, people know best"] that covers multiple categories of Economy, Politics, Democracy and Human Rights, Society, Foreign Policy, and Military: [http://presstv.com/section/35108.html].
The majority is some of the most comprehensively researched and referenced topics you could find anywhere. When I see information there, I still go back to the original sources (e.g., the census bureau, dept. of veterans affairs, HHS, dept. of labor, etc.) just to make sure the data are not fudged. I have found them to be remarkably accurate (though I still prefer to double check them).
BiBiJon at 5:28 am, posted link to a Salon article explaining Why PressTV Can’t Stop Covering OWS in USA.
PressTV should include this in its coverage of domestic situation of the world’s biggest superpower: More Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans Wind Up Homeless,
“About 13,000 of the nation’s homeless in 2010 were ex-servicemembers between ages 18 and 30, a disproportionately large number of the nation’s overall homeless veteran population, the study says.
. . .
The Army expects to cut its forces by about 50,000 over the next year or two after pulling troops out of Iraq by December and continuing a drawdown of forces in Afghanistan.
The HUD-VA study noted that while young veterans make up only about 5% of the nation’s veteran population, they constitute nearly 9% of all former servicemembers who are homeless.
The Department of Veterans Affairs blames the rise in young veterans without shelter on a poor economy and an unprecedented pattern of lengthy warfare in which troops are deployed to combat multiple times.” [insert emoticon for lightbulb, dimmed]
What goes around, comes around, a lot faster than usual.
Possible causes: Earth has shrunk, or is spinning more quickly.
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/28/why_iran_cant_stop_covering_occupy_wall_street/singleton/
Iran is engaged in recruiting young Venezuelans of Arab origin for use in intelligence operations as militants. Some go to Iran for training. Some sources say that Hezbollah is involved in this operation
So if you are bored as I was this morning then this Joint Subcommittee Hearing is definitely for you. Enjoy your weekend!
richard steven hack:
I guess you refering to this article:
haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/syria-helped-hezbollah-amass-some-40-000-missiles-1.321260
I think majority of those 40’000 missiles came from Syria.
Also there will be a tighter grip during war around Irans’ border.
Iraq will be sealed and monitored by americans, turkey will seal its border and so on.
Regarding turkey, “money talks” right now doesnt really mean much, if turkey benefits more by being even participant in the war against Iran, they will.
Libya were one of UK, France etc best allied in Africa, well we saw that position flipped fast during the uprising. And that goes for Russia, China too. Some people seems to belive that Russia and China would help Iran if they get attacked. Thats unrealistic. Neither Russia or China would benefit from helping Iran.
What money does Turkey get from accepting the missile shield?
I have double thoughts about the missile shield regarding who its aimed at, sure it somewhat encircle the western russian border but at the same time there is no Russian threat against europe, even spain accepted missile shield the other week – thats far away from Russia. Either way who ever its aimed at, Iran percieve it as a threat. That Turkey didnt acknowledge this and therefore could have refused to install the shield says alot in my opionion. Because in case of war with Iran, it will be used.
On Egypt, why wouldnt Israel perceive egypt military as a threat? There havent been any election yet in Egypt so we dont know the outcome of the politics of egyptian future regarding their stance to Israel.
If Israel isnt worried about (muslim) uprising in the region why then are they against it? Why were they against that mubarak fell if he wasnt important to them?
Sure Israel have been somewhat isolated, but like say the isolation up til 2010 pre uprising is nothing to compare to the post-uprising maybe could look like.
Tunisian election gave islamists power
Egyptian election will give islamistis an atleast partial power
If Syria falls it will give rise to islamists
If Jordan happen to fall in some years well then we have islamists gov here too
and so on.
With that being said the coming isolation is much worse the current one Israel have now. Especially if their last allied partner Jordan falls. Also add the vanishing power of the usually pro-western Fatah and the isolation is complete.
While there is no denial that US and KSA supporting violent groups in Syria there is still on a general basis no syrian call for intervention and no-fly zone from the syrian population (sure it has been some calls by small un-sourced groups according to western news pundits) compared for lets say Libya. That is because syrian people are against US politics in the region – so if US/NATO would attack they would not only face trouble by syrian army but also by alot of the syrian population, and the same will go for Iran. That part in Iran that dislike the iranian gov would never accept foreign intervention/attack.
If Syria falls to muslim brotherhood it could be of very negative consequences for Israel and saudi weapon would pour in, you think Israel would accept that?
While it was easy for US to bribe corrupt leaders like Mubarak, Ben-Ali, King Abdullah (Jordan) etc I dont think US could bribe elected parties like Muslim Brotherhood, so thats what bother Israel too, strong, independent muslims nations and a weakened or vanished american prescensence in the mideast.
If US wanted to stay in Iraq they would have managed it. They didnt leave a land that might ignite again after 8 years only because they couldnt persuade the iraqi gov on the question of ‘immunity’.
Also, I am curious on your statement that Afghan war was partly because of heroin, what credible sources to you have for such a statement?
While Libyawar was most probably somewhat about oil, how do you explain that western companies already had good connection with the Libyan gov and their oil-business? So what would they gain by standing on the rebel-side against Qadaffi?
Dear RSH,
Don’t forget you can only start a war, but the outcomes is unpredictable…
In your speculations of bombing this and bombing that, please can you shield
light on “So my guess is that Russian and China opposition in the UNSC would be irrelevant in the end” and if thus turns the other way round.
Thanks.
Pirouz says:
October 29, 2011 at 2:08 am
Pirouz , you got to give up on that site everybody else did a while back is useless
Today, while I was reading all the back and forth RFI’s commentators arguments on how US will attack Iran and how will Iran respond and so on, it all took me back to a memorable period of personal experience. It was very early in the eighties just a short period after the revolution of 79 a year or so after I graduated from collage and I had just got married and had started a business right during the hostage crises, when my parents couldn’t get a visa to attend my weeding. Ayatollah Khomeini the leader of revolution had just announced (literary meaning) that America can’t do jack shit (to us/Iran), I was truly scared very very scared, I was telling myself how could the old man say this he is jeopardizing Iran my family etc. Now thirty some years later thinking about the scary feeling I had and what the old man said, with even considering all the proxy wars, sanctions and dual containment and this and that, I come to believe that so far the old man was right America really couldn’t do jack shit to Iran, so, may be for next thirty some more years still won’t be able to do any jack shit to Iran, that’s what is really the only thing that is relevant. The rest is just irrelevant theories, same as the meaningless fancy papers that every other day comes out of the DC think tankers.
Juan Cole censored me again. I believe the odds of any regular commenter at RFI being censored by Juan Cole is 1000% higher than any non-commenter here. lol
So I think I’ve figured Juan out: he is an ideologue.
Methought the beebol of Egypt were supposed to have an election by now. WTF?? Did the beebol change *anything*? Or was it just another twitter revolution courtesy of Team Weasel?
All:
Hoping for Iraq’s Military to take over Iraq and confront Iran – once again Iraqis shoud die fightibg Iran…
[This is like an Iranian expressing the hope for a war between Canada and the United States - or Mexico and the United States...
It is obscene.]
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/24/iraq_withdrawal_iran_welcome_to_the_shadow_war
NTC Invites Iran FM to Visit Libya (Al-Manar)
Iran says Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi will be paying an official visit to Libya upon the invitation of the Chairman of the National Transitional Council (NTC).
“The Foreign Minister will soon travel to Libya on the invitation of NTC chairman Mustafa Abdul Jalil to discuss various issues with the country’s officials,” foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told IRNA on Wednesday.
“We believe that due to the common interests of the two nations, the foreign minister’s visit can be a beginning for new mutual cooperation,” he added.
During his stay in Libya, Salehi is expected to discuss the fate of Lebanese cleric Imam Sayyed Mousa Sadr with the country’s new rulers.
Seif al-Islam no longer has time to shave his beard, but has enough time, apparently, to continue to shave his head.
http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=32996&cid=21&fromval=1&frid=21&seccatid=64&s1=1
Hansel and Gretel: Some background from Iran-allied al-Manar TV (Lebanon) re: Libya
In conclusion, Islam has always been a unifying factor of the different tribal, social, and regional sensibilities in Libya and will remain so for the foreseeable future. It can, therefore, be expected that moderate Islam will become a key component of both popular discourse and politics and a stabilizing force in the country. The Islamist opposition is certainly one of the best organized in the country and its political role will turn out decisive in the following years.
Source: Al-Manar Website
http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=33046&cid=31&fromval=1&frid=31&seccatid=81&s1=1
Richard: “Most important of all, the US financial system is in no state to withstand another shock.” And your response to pmr9: “Again, the military-industrial complex side of the economy doesn’t care.”
>Well, they will care when Bwana Dik won’t play ball cause he wants to get elected again. Hell, the Neocons and the Jews *had* a president (W) who was game. Hell, he’d go for anything. But even then the military brass nixed the idea. There has to be limits to your cynicism. I mean hell, you are even more cynical than *I* am, for chrissake. And that’s saying something.
There were two events at the start of the 20th century that shocked the West:
# Russo-Japanese War (1904-05), military conflict in which a victorious Japan forced Russia to abandon its expansionist policy in the Far East, becoming the first Asian power in modern times to defeat a European power.
# Gallipoli or the Battle of the Dardanelles is the other battle where an Asian power (Ottoman Turkey) overpowered a Western power, handing Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty at the time, a handsome defeat.
It is entirely possible that the beginning of this century might be just as surprising. Just sayin’. Don’t say I didn’t warn ya.
pirouz_2 says: October 28, 2011 at 6:27 pm
That power does not exist.
Some in UK and US knew that back in 2002 but the small-time shopkeepers that run US and UK refused to accept that conclusion.
Nine years later and they have sanctioned themselves out of influence with Iran and created the dangerous confrontation in the Persian Gulf – for naugh.
Richard:
Thanks for your detailed response to my question regarding The Knat. Much appreciated.
Richard;
First of all it is interesting to see that there are so much of common ground between us.
I believe that the main solution will have to come through a change in the motivation for production, so that the purpose of production will be to meet the social needs rather than “profit”. But whether you agree with me on that one does not matter because even if you dont, still there is an extraordinary amount of common ground between you and I.
However, ultimately our common ideas were not my point, my main question from the previous post was: given the reality, given the fact that the people in the antiwar movement are a small minority in the USA, what would you suggest the antiwar movement which you criticize so harshly should do? I mean we can’t just be grumpy and curse on the fate for being a minority, given the reality on the ground, if the antiwar movement (which is FAR FAR from being millions up on millions in USA) should do so that you would be happy with their strategy?
Richard:
When you speak of your foxhole-wise experiences, would you not agree that you are the exception that underscored the rule? Would you not agree that while there exams still exist, there WILL be prayers in schools? Don’t answer that. I’m just being goofy now.
Richard:
And I live in “Little Saigon” in San Francisco, the result of the displacement of Vietnamese refugees.
> Shit, if I’d have known earlier that you, Eric and Pirouz were local to San Francisco, I would have suggested a meet-up. But alas, I am leaving for the Orient on Monday.
What did Stalin say?
>Well, you would have been forgiven for thinking that it was he who said “Practice without theory is blind. Theory without practice is sterile. Theory becomes a material force as soon as it is absorbed by the masses.” But it was actually in Marx, Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law, Jan. 1844, MECW, Vol. 3, p. 182.
pmr9: Most important of all, the US financial system is in no state to withstand another shock.
>I agree with everything you say, and especially your last line, quoted above. The Neocons and Zion-enamoured Jews (which is 99%+ of them) have been salivating to attack Iran. Why haven’t they? Because their puppet president, Bwana Dik, despite his docility, has refused to shoulder the yoke of being the dupe who crashed the world economy and started a war that made Vietnam look like a picnic.
For more on the legend of Bwana Dik, I refer you to the maestro himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv4Fd17485o
Turkey Shelters Anti-Assad Fighters
Rehmat: On Syria:
“Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said a few days ago that what is holding NATO back is the safety of the Zionist entity.”
I usually listen carefully to Nasrallah who’s one of the smarter people in the Middle East. But I’m not sure he’s entirely right about this, except in the sense that, yes, an attack on Syria would have to be more carefully orchestrated than the on in Libya.
“Bashar al-Assad regime has two non-government armed allies; Hamas in Gaza and Hizbullah in Lebanon. Though, Hamas has only resistance capability – Hizbullah has already proven both resistance and attacking military capabilities in 2000 and 2006. Hizbullah reportedly have long-range Iranian missile which can reach anywhere inside Israel.”
The problem here is that the point of an attack on Syria, from Israel’s point of view, is precisely to allow it to attack Hizballah again with the aim of destroying Hizballah’s rear in the Bekaa Valley. As Colonel Pat Lang said, to do this, Israel would need to cross Syrian territory and come in to the Bekaa Vally from the right to Hizballah’s rear. This obviously entails a confrontation with Syria.
Obviously an attack on Syria by the US/EU would be much preferable, from Israel’s point of view, than for Israel to have to engage both Syrian forces and Hizballah forces by itself. As I’ve said earlier here and elsewhere, the problem for Israel is that it risks ending up with a guerrilla war in its rear from Syrian forces while facing the same tactics from Hizballah at its front. This is not a good place to be.
So if Israel can convince the US/EU to attack Syria, Israel can use that as cover to launch an attack on Hizballah. This results in Israel taking out two birds with one stone: Syria and Hizballah (or at least they’ll try – I doubt they will succeed.)
“Bashar al-Assad had told Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglo early this month that if NATO attacked Syria, he will deploy missile batteries along the Golan Heights which will hit military targets inside Israel.”
Which would really get his military creamed, as the US would pour far more effort into defending Israel, while at the same time resulting in Israel stomping on him. Not really a smart move, unless of course he has no choice. You can be certain that Israel will attack Syria the minute he starts to move such forces into the Golan area.
“He also mentioned that he might ask both Hamas and Hizbullah to start a proxy war against Israel.”
Hamas has limited capacity. And as I’ve pointed out, the real point of an attack on Syria is precisely to allow Israel to take on Hizballah again with the aim of weakening it, as well as weakening Syria.
“Though not reported but Syria could decide to hit some of 24 NATO military bases in Turkey.”
Nice – that would bring Turkey into the war against Syria. Another not smart move.
“While in case of Libya, all five veto-powers were united – Russia and China are not in favor of military action against Syria.”
The US and EU are not averse to going to alone. Besides, the UN Libyan resolution didn’t authorize most of what the US/EU ended up doing in Libya, let alone overthrowing Gaddafi. So my guess is that Russian and China opposition in the UNSC would be irrelevant in the end.
“The Arab League which blessed the removal of Qaddafi by force – is reluctant to play the same dirty game against a fellow Arab country due to its strategic location and its on-going conflict with the Zionist entity.”
Perhaps. But again their participation would be mostly irrelevant. They weren’t all that important in Libya except to give a veneer of approval to the removal of Gaddafi.
“Syria is not a major oil exporter as Libya, therefore, UNSC sanctions will have insignificant effect on Syrian economy.”
Once the military bombing starts, sanctions aren’t relevant.
“another Afghan-style military humiliation in Syria.”
Syria isn’t Afghanistan. It’s unlikely that it would devolve into a long-term insurgency. The goal would not be to occupy Syria, but to degrade and weaken it to enable it to be unable to significantly threaten Israel militarily as well as to degrade and weaken Hizballah so it would be unable to significantly affect Israel when Israel and the US attack Iran.
Granted, there might be some insurgency involved, as I indicated above, with Syrian forces harassing superior Israeli forces from the rear while Israel attempts to knock out Hizballah assets in the Bekaa Valley. But Israel would not stay in that situation for any length of time. And with the support of US/EU air strikes, Syria would find it hard to inflict significant damage on Israel’s forces.
All in all, if I were Israel and the US, a “two-fer” knockout against Syria and Hizballah, especially as a prelude to attacking Iran, is far more strategically important than any of these other considerations.
Remember, the politicians behind this crap aren’t going to be doing any of the dying, so what do they care how tough the fighting might turn out to be? They didn’t care in Iraq, they didn’t care in Afghanistan, they didn’t care in Libya, why should they care in Syria – or Iran?
Pmr9: “If US carriers have to be kept out of the Gulf to stay out of range of Iran’s anti-ship missiles, most of Iran will be out of their strike range (about 700 km).”
All that means is fewer sorties and the more extensive use of long-range B-1 and B-52 bombers from Diego Garcia and any other air bases in the region.
Also the rapid deployment of air assets to air bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. Granted such bases will be under attack by Iraqi Shia supporters of Iran, but they will still be operational.
“It’s unlikely that governments in Turkey, Iraq or the Arabian side of the Gulf would allow the US to use its bases to attack Iran”
Turkey is not certain, as are the GCC. Iraq might object but would be unlikely to try to use the government’s military to resist. Of course, as I said, the Shia factions would be resisting, but it’s not certain they could prevent US air operations from proceeding, especially if the US rapid deployed a few battalions into Iraq to protect the air fields close in.
“and US aircraft on the ground would be vulnerable to missiles with cluster munitions”
Only until those missile sites are degraded which would occur within a couple weeks. Of course, nothing is perfect in war, so some attacks on US air bases would continue to occur, probably for months. Nonetheless, the US Air Force has procedures to deal with air operations in combat, so it won’t stop them completely.
“Their most important targets – Iran’s shore-based anti-ship missile launchers – are small, mobile and well hidden or camouflaged.”
The most important targets will be Iranian command and control centers, Iranian air fields, the larger Iranian surface vessels, Iranian radar sites, and other fixed positions which will be destroyed within the first week or two.
After that, the focus will be on concentrations of Iranian conventional military and IRGC forces and anything remotely resembling command authority, as well as anything considered “infrastructure” – power plants, water plants, any factories known to be military related, all government structures, etc. Just replay Iraq…
“If the US can’t manage an overwhelming air assault that knocks out Iran’s retaliatory capacity in the first week or two”
It will regardless of the distance the planes have to fly. It may not knock out ALL of Iran’s long-range retaliatory capacity, just as the US didn’t knock out all of Saddam’s missiles in 1991. But the remainder won’t be a strategic threat, just as Saddam’s weren’t.
“how would it cope with a prolonged war? Iran would immediately close the Straits of Hormuz, cutting both the the supply line to US bases in the Gulf and the outgoing oil supply.”
There’s considerable argument over whether Iran can actually do this with one hundred percent effectiveness. So the issue reduces to what percentage of effectiveness can Iran achieve? We’ll have to wait and see. Certainly I expect some significant success on Iran’s part.
“It’s also likely that supply lines to NATO in Afghanistan would be cut one way or another.”
Doubtful. None of the lines go through Iran. The US already has trouble dealing with the lines going through Pakistan. I don’t really expect Iran to have much impact on US operations in Afghanistan, at least not initially. Over time, Iran may be able to develop assets in Afghanistan which will work closely with Iran in sabotaging US operations against Iran from Afghanistan, but I don’t think it will have a major strategic impact on US operations.
The situation in Iraq will be much worse, even if the US plows back into Iraq with fifty thousand or more troops, essentially re-igniting the Iraq war. That’s where Iran can really achieve some effective damage to US forces.
“Most important of all, the US financial system is in no state to withstand another shock.”
Again, the military-industrial complex side of the economy doesn’t care. They get taxpayer money regardless of the state of the economy. The oil price will spike, so the oil companies will make a(nother) fortune. The big investors in those companies will profit. The banks will profit. Everyone will be happy except the taxpayer and the small business owner and the families whose children die in Iraq, Iran or wherever. Not to mention all the civilians killed in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere as “collateral damage”…
Fiorangela: “they are concerned and engaged. There is hope.”
They are concerned and engaged. But they’re not running the show. They’re not even being listened to outside such small conferences. It’s nice that Flynt and Hillary are being invited to some of the media outlets, but once again that stuff is transitory and irrelevant to the policy makers in the White House and Congress, let alone the behind the scenes movers and shakers.
If Obama would call Flynt and Hillary in for one of his Oval Office one-on-one conferences, I’d be much more impressed. Have they even tried? Would the White House even take or respond to their calls or emails? I doubt it.
Unknown Unknowns: “But I have no idea what Iran’s reaction would be if the Flea that wags the tail of the Big Dog, i.e., the Entity that will fade into the pages of history, were to attack her. Anyone have any ideas? Would the response be proportional? Or would Iran escalate? Would Iran consider this an act of war by the US as well, seeing as the bunker busters and planes and the kitchen sink were provided to the Flea by the Weasel?”
I think the assumption by most analysts is that Iran itself must assume that the US allowed or aided in some specific way any Israeli attack. It would depend mostly on HOW the Israeli attack took place.
If Israel were to overfly Iraqi air space or other air space controlled by the US (or alternatively air space controlled by, say, Saudi Arabia), then clearly the US (or Saudi Arabia) would have given Israel permission or at least refused to force the aircraft back. The US (or Saudi Arabia) could claim any number of technical reasons for this, but Iran would not likely believe them.
If Israel were to attack without flying through US controlled air space, say from Georgian air fields, the issue would be a bit more difficult for Iran to escalate against US forces.
If Israel were to use some other means of attacking Iran, for example, cruise missiles from its subs in the Persian Gulf, it would be more difficult still for Iran to unilaterally escalate against US forces.
So the next issue is the intensity of the attack and the damage done. If Israel’s only intent was to inflict a “symbolic” attack on Iran – and given the logistics of such a long-range air attack, that is likely all Israel would be able to do – Iran might decide to confine its response to Israel and might decide to moderate its response in a “tit-for-tat” manner.
That raises two issues: 1) How would Iran attack Israel? and 2) What would be the US response to an Iranian retaliation against Israel?
If the Iranians rained down IRBMs on Israel and caused significant damage, clearly Israel would do two things: 1) intensify its attacks on Iran, and 2) call on the US for military support in some manner, such as re-supply, anti-missile defense, satellite and aerial surveillance of Iranian air space, etc. All of which the US probably would supply and would further involve the US.
If the Iranians just fired a couple of missiles at Dimona, say, Israel would again probably escalate.
So the issue really isn’t what the US response would be, it’s how far Israel would go to draw the US into the war.
My opinion is that it wouldn’t take much. I think the US would immediately support Israel and launch air strikes against Iran within 24-48 hours of an Israel attack. It might warn Iran to back down on pain of further escalation, but I think whether Iran agreed or not, the end result would be an escalation on the US part.
Certainly if Iran at any point attacks a US asset or even accidentally causes damage or death to US assets, the US would immediately declare war on Iran.
“I can’t imagine the Flea being stupid enough to attack a nuclear reactor which is online, and the centrifuges have been moved out of Natanz, so attacking it would be pointless.”
You’re assuming the Israeli goal is to actually cause some significant damage to Iran’s nuclear program. But that’s not the goal. The goal is to destroy Iran. And Israel can’t do that. Israel wants the US to do that. So the goal of ANY Israeli attack on Iran is to draw the US into a war with Iran. Israel may claim publicly it believes that Iran’s nuclear program is an “existential threat” to Israel, but we KNOW from reports that the leaders and military personnel in Israel do not believe that. Therefore ANY attack on Iran is clearly intended solely to involve the US in a war with the aim of destroying Iran as a functioning opponent of Israel (however unlikely such an outcome is likely to be.)
I do think Israel will attack some Iranian nuclear facilities because by definition that is what Israel is claiming is the threat. And if the US escalates it will do so as well.
But the US will expend much more effort on reducing Iranian military capabilities than it will on attacking the nuclear facilities because it has to and because it wants to. We’ve read estimates of up to 10,000 Iranian targets being selected as a prelude to attacking the nuclear facilities.
And if Iran retaliates, the US will escalate further until it is all-out “shock and awe” a la Iraq.
The US government only needs an excuse to start a war with Iran. Israel wants to provide that excuse but hopefully (from their view) without being blamed for starting a new Mideast conflict that ends up costing the US as much as Iraq and Afghanistan has. That is because Israel IS sensitive to its perception in the US electorate. It can’t afford to alienate the entire US population by being perceived as a “war monger”. So it is likely to 1) foment an excuse for its initial attack, and 2) minimize the initial attack so it can claim “self defense”.
After which, it is up to Iran to decide whether and to what degree it can afford to retaliate without 1) being perceived as weak, and 2) provoking a US attack.
Remember the 2006 Lebanon war started with two soldiers being captured by Hizballah – whereupon Israel spent months trying to destroy the Lebanese infrastructure, killing over 1,000 Lebanese civilians and laying waste to much of southern Lebanon and Beirut. So it doesn’t take much for Israel to fly off the handle – especially when it is known that war was planned for a year or more beforehand.
The US would face serious difficulties in mounting a sustained air assault on Iran. In the 1991 attack on Iraq, the US was able to fly more than 1000 sorties/day, from bases in Saudi and carriers in the Gulf. Even if Iran has no effective air defence, it won’t be so easy this time. If US carriers have to be kept out of the Gulf to stay out of range of Iran’s anti-ship missiles, most of Iran will be out of their strike range (about 700 km). It’s unlikely that governments in Turkey, Iraq or the Arabian side of the Gulf would allow the US to use its bases to attack Iran, and US aircraft on the ground would be vulnerable to missiles with cluster munitions or (in the case of Iraq) to local forces on the ground. With only long-range aircraft or in-flight refuelling, the number of sorties / day would be severely limited. Their most important targets – Iran’s shore-based anti-ship missile launchers – are small, mobile and well hidden or camouflaged.
If the US can’t manage an overwhelming air assault that knocks out Iran’s retaliatory capacity in the first week or two, how would it cope with a prolonged war? Iran would immediately close the Straits of Hormuz, cutting both the the supply line to US bases in the Gulf and the outgoing oil supply. It’s also likely that supply lines to NATO in Afghanistan would be cut one way or another. Most important of all, the US financial system is in no state to withstand another shock.
Unknown Unknowns:
What did Stalin say? Something about how many battalions can God field?
I’m well aware that motivated fighters can do much more than expected against a superior enemy.
That isn’t my point. I’ve repeatedly said that in terms of Iran’s posture at the end of the war, it will still be standing – in the sense that its population will still be under some sort of Iranian government and not a puppet government installed by the US.
I’ve repeatedly said that the US will eventually lose because there is no way the US can defeat a country the size of Iran without resorting to carpet nuclear bombing. The US can’t even control a poor, small, backward country like Afghanistan, let alone Iraq, let alone Iran.
Doesn’t stop the US from trying.
Iran’s economy, infrastructure, conventional military forces and several million of its population will be destroyed in the process of “winning”.
“There are no atheists in foxholes.”
I was in Vietnam. I was in a foxhole in Vietnam. And I was an atheist.
However, you’re right about one thing: very few US soldiers in Vietnam gave a rat’s ass about the motivations for that war. Which is why the Vietnamese won. The Vietnamese were motivated, if not necessarily religiously so.
But it cost Vietnam a million or more of its people to win.
And I live in “Little Saigon” in San Francisco, the result of the displacement of Vietnamese refugees.
pirouz_2 at 7:31, in conversation with RSHack, wrote:
“What -in your opinion- is the correct way of action to avoid a war?
Personally, I dont think that antiwar movements potential abilities are “nil”. I think that they have a constructive role to play. BUT the main deterrent against such a war is neither the antiwar movement nor western citizens’ action. The main deterrent has to come from the Iranian side and its military deterrent force (assymetric and conventional but mostly asymmetric). Also there are external factors which may reduce the possibility of an attack (e.g. getting occupied with a bigger problem). But of course no one can stay relaxed and idle hoping for “good luck”, the main course of action is to be taken by the Iranians and it should be towards increasing their military deterence.
Still I am curious to know, what “you” would do were the antiwar movement to follow your lead exactly?”
Hillary Mann Leverett and others responded to a related question in a 2010 forum hosted by the Middle East Policy Council, U S Policies Toward Israel and Iran: What Are the Linkages? (video also available)
the question:
(from member of the audience who identified herself as Michele Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review):
“In my view the most immediate danger that we face as a foreign policy issue and might be the highest priority, . . .is what do we do here in the United States to ward off a potential unilateral Israeli strike against Iran?”
answers:
Martin Indyk: “Well, we can convince Iran to come into compliance with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. And then there wouldn’t be the problem.”
Paul Pillar: “I think what we need to . . .get away from – in not just our declaratory policy, but the whole discourse in this country about relations with Israel is this unidimensional way of viewing it. You know, the relations are good or they’re bad; they’re up, they’re down.
You know, we had a crisis when Joe Biden was there, and then it’s improved. It’s not unidimensional, and there is nothing inconsistent about firmness on something like the settlements issue, which has absolutely nothing to do with the basic security of Israelis, combined with reassuring words, as well as deeds, about U.S. support for Israel’s basic security, as it might be threatened by Iran or anyone else.”
Hillary Mann Leverett: “I think the only way that you can prevent an Israeli strike on Iran is for there to be a U.S.-Iranian rapprochement that would deal with Israel’s security concerns, but even more importantly, it would reorient the relationship between the U.S. and Iran and reorient what Iran perceives to be its security concerns and what it needs to do, whether we agree or not, to protect itself and to protect its government and its system – its system of government, its system of a state – which is thinks that it needs to do because it is basically in a state of conflict with the United States.”
Ian Lustick: “I think the Israelis are not going to strike Iran. The only thing that – and all we have to do to stop any Israeli strike is don’t turn off the red light. “
and a related comment/question, also from an audience member, Diane Pearlman, with the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University –
” I’d like to . . .frame the disagreements in terms of social science, . . . conflict analysis, conflict transformation and actual social science, based on research.
It seems like the difference of opinion is not framed in this way, that they’re really coming from very different paradigms, and that the dominant paradigm that Martin Indyk was referring to – I’m sorry he’s not here – is based on coercion, threat, isolation, punishment and pressure to get people to do what we want parties to do. And even . . .the idea of engagement is usually put in the form of pressure. And it usually creates the opposite effect, and there’s research on, like, 100 cases of sanctions and they failed 86 percent of the time, and . . .belief in deterrence theory as they only theory where, when you act that way, you can provoke – there’s also spiral theory and tension reduction.
And Ian was talking about the hysteria, that parties are more dangerous when they’re afraid, and acting out of fear, you can justify the fears of the other party and keep ratcheting up the escalation. And also, exclusion – that a lot of things that policymakers – even well-meaning people believe in – have the opposite effect. So people were saying, we think that peace is not possible. Maybe it’s because of the lens that we’re using. I had this idea of the political Heisenberg Principle, that you can’t observe the behavior of a party like Iran without looking at the effect of our policy – a dynamic view, rather than a static view that they’re just the bad guys.
. . .I think the comments, especially of . . . . . .Hillary and Ian are consistent with principles of social science, conflict transformation, tension reduction. And from what I’ve heard from very few people are the common interests between Israel and Iran that could be mutually beneficial. So could you respond to that, and also, maybe, frame it in the context of social science?”
(This last lengthy quote is posted to demonstrate that there ARE thoughtful people who are bringing critical faculties to bear on US foreign policy, and, as witnessed by their presence at a conference in Washington, DC on a July day, they are concerned and engaged. There is hope.)
Will NATO attack Syria?
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/will-nato-attack-syria/
Pirouz_2: “a “blinking” on Iran’s side will NOT solve the problem…it MUST be the US side which will “blink”.”
Agreed.
“WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE THEM DO? What -in your opinion- is the correct way of action to avoid a war?”
First, we need several million clones of me.
Second, they need to be armed.
Third, they need to kill everyone in the Federal government and everyone who controls the Federal government, i.e., military-industrial complex and oil corporate CEOs, rich investors, Wall Street bankers, the Israel Lobby and most of the news media.
Now back to reality,
If there were several million people who thought like me, the first thing would be to start a political party where the main immediate goal would be to agitate for a complete ban on corporate political campaign contributions followed by a complete ban on ex-US military personnel working for military-industrial complex corporations.
Next. the goal would be to replace everyone in the Congress with people who aren’t professional politicians.
Third, once elected, the next goal would be to reduce the US military budget by half (if not by a factor of ten), reduce the US military personnel by half (if not a factor of ten), redesign and retrain the US military to be more effective and less expensive and withdraw all US troops abroad.
At one stroke, that would ease a lot of the US economic problems.
Fourth, the next goal is to throw Israel under a bus. Eliminate all foreign aid to Israel, and advocate the revocation of the original 1947 UN decision to partition Israel at the UN. Also advocate the UN declaration of Israel as an illegal, rogue, terrorist state and kick it out of the UN. Then demand Israel disarm its nuclear arsenal and submit to IAEA inspection. Then demand the area of original Palestine put back under UN control until such time as an international group as well as Palestinians and Israelis can devise a new constitution and institute new elections for a single bi-national state.
At one stroke, this would make the US the most loved country in the Muslim world.
Next, revamp the tax code and remove all the special privileges that the banking industry, the oil industry, and the military-industrial complex industry gets. Go to a flat tax. Break up all these “too big to fail” corporations.
Next, a program must be started based on Professor Richard Smalley’s Nanotech Energy Initiative to finance via a gas tax nanotech batteries, nanotech solar energy satellites and related technologies.
Once this is completed, the US is weaned off foreign oil and the Arab states go back to being purveyors of camels and essentially irrelevant – except of course that their deserts are good placed to build nanotech solar satellite energy collection farms. :-)
It also solves global warming and significantly eases the US economic problems.
One could go on…but what’s the point? It’s not going to happen. No one thinks like me and no one ever will. Certainly not enough to even be a blip on the radar let alone a movement.
“The main deterrent has to come from the Iranian side and its military deterrent force (assymetric and conventional but mostly asymmetric).”
Never happen. Iran’s capabilities are almost irrelevant. Only if Iran actually had nuclear weapons ALREADY EXISTENT and in the tens or scores of weapons with actual effective delivery systems could Iran pose a credible threat to the US military. In short, Iran would have to be at least Pakistan and preferably China.
Any one knowledgeable in conventional military warfare who compares Iran’s military posture with the US military posture has to conclude that Iran just isn’t a significant threat. Iran’s ONLY strategic option is asymmetric warfare. And by definition, such warfare’s primary purpose is to drag out a war long enough to make the aggressor unable to achieve his military goal of complete surrender and to eventually produce a political accommodation with the insurgent group. This is all Iran can hope for from the Iran war.
“Also there are external factors which may reduce the possibility of an attack (e.g. getting occupied with a bigger problem).”
My best guess is that Pakistan may turn out to be that problem. There is no workable solution to the Afghan situation except that the US negotiates with the Taliban and goes home – at which point the Taliban will probably resume power. And then Pakistan will be irrelevant.
But that isn’t how it seems to be going. Obama seems to vacillate between threatening Pakistan on the one hand and seeking to bribe it with the other. Tensions between the US and Pakistan are at their lowest ebb in years. And one thing we can count on is that the US will always acerbate tensions. They did it with North Korea, they’re doing it with Iran and they’ll do it with Pakistan.
If I had to guess at the next major war, if it’s not Iran, it will be Pakistan.
But I continue to expect a war between the US/Israel on one hand and Lebanon/Syria on the other first, as that war will be cheaper and easier than either Iran or Pakistan and will lay the groundwork for the Iran war.
“the main course of action is to be taken by the Iranians and it should be towards increasing their military deterence.”
From their point of view, of course that’s correct and that’s what they’re doing. But it won’t be enough without nukes which they’ve clearly decided they don’t need.
BiBiJon:
What are your favorite Zappa albums, or which ones are you familiar with? My favorite has to be Burnt Weeney Sandwhich.
I’m glad the subject of the thread has turned to the subject of the possibility or lack thereof of Team Weasel acting out against Iran. A day or two ago I laid out the scenario as I see it if Iran was attacked by Uncle Weasel, the Big Dog in the ‘hood. But I have no idea what Iran’s reaction would be if the Flea that wags the tail of the Big Dog, i.e., the Entity that will fade into the pages of history, were to attack her. Anyone have any ideas? Would the response be proportional? Or would Iran escalate? Would Iran consider this an act of war by the US as well, seeing as the bunker busters and planes and the kitchen sink were provided to the Flea by the Weasel?
I can’t imagine the Flea being stupid enough to attack a nuclear reactor which is online, and the centrifuges have been moved out of Natanz, so attacking it would be pointless. But let us say the Flea attacked Natanz and a couple of other sites. How would/ should Iran respond?
Kooshy: Interesting article. What really interested me was the news that Saudi Arabia is setting up a 35,000-man military force to be controlled by US CENTCOM! If that doesn’t establish where Saudi Arabia lies in terms of a US client state and where it lies versus Iran, I don’t know what does.
Where the Pentagon goes wrong, of course, is that it’s not Arabs vs Persians, or even Shia vs Sunni. It’s the Arab street and Iranians against corrupt Arab US client states and the US and Israel.
The Arab street doesn’t hate Iran, every poll shows that. In Iraq before the war, Sunnis and Shia generally got along and even intermarried. It was the oppression of the Sunnis led by Saddam that led to the Shia revolt after the war and the ethnic cleansing.
When people are pushed by war into survival mode, that is when ethnicity and religion come to the fore as a means of differentiating themselves and retreating to group think.
So what this study shows is that the Pentagon wants to continue to “divide and conquer” by starting wars in these countries and reducing the populations to feuding parties unable to act cohesively against either the US or Israel.
No surprise, there. This has obviously been US and Israeli policy for years. It’s one of the main motivations for the Iraq war, the Afghan war, the Libyan war, the status of Lebanon, and the upcoming Syria war. It’s been the reason the US and Israel have been supporting the anti-Iranian Kurds, the M.E.K. Iranians, and Iranian separatists and Jundallah.
It’s also the main tactic in US domestic politics.
And it works every time.
Richard says in response to Empty’s post: “So, nice story – but irrelevant.”
You misunderstood the point of the story, which is the same point I tried to make to you many moons ago, and that is that all of these calculations and logical extrapolations are well and good, but they are only one side of the picture. There is another side that is hidden from us, and for Him, it matters not whether the enemy is Iraq or Uncle Weasel or Uncle Satan. THAT is what the Little Devils and the Big Devil will have to recon with, and THAT is what gives the fighters in the cause of justice heart, be they Iranian and Moslem, or non-Iranian and non-Moslem.
You may not agree (and being cognizant of your transhumanist faith, I am sure you DO disagree), but regardless, that is the point he was making, and it is very much relevant. It will become only too relevant for the suckers that draw a paycheck against Uncle Weasel’s treasury when Team America starts to eat crow, and like their Jewish counterparts in Lebanon, wished they were anywhere but here.
There are no atheists in foxholes.
Liz2: First off, what could make shia militias powerful? First and foremost weapons.
Now in case of war there would obviously be a tight blockade on Iran regarding weapons shipping out/in of Iran. We hear even today on/off how israel and turkey bust iranian shipments, if Iran cant get the weapon out now, how are they supposed to get out even more weapons when they are even more surveilled and monitored?”
First, the number of shipments caught are probably a fraction of what gets through. Hizballah allegedly has 40,000 missiles today when they allegedly had only 10-15,000 back in 2006. Obviously interdicting weapons shipments isn’t working too well. :-)
During a war, things get more chaotic, not less. Smugglers usually make out like bandits during a war and especially after one.
Also, I’m not assuming Iran is necessarily going to be arming the Iranian groups in Bahrain. All they need to do is send them money and some advisers. The local groups will take it from there.
“That leads us to an even more vulnerable position because how would a shia militia, steered by Iranian gov make any substantial threats against the enemy, which is stronger military, bigger and more politically supported?”
I didn’t say these groups would win. I said they would cause trouble.
“Regarding Turkey’s stance. I dont think one should pay too much attention to Turkey’s rhetoric. Turkey is like Russia, it support Iran on/off.”
There’s ten billion dollars of business, expected to grow to $30 billion, between Turkey and Iran. Money talks.
“The fact that Turkey accepted NATO missile shield adds to the conclusion how much they really care about Iran and its interest (not much)”
Turkey knows Iran isn’t going to be shooting at Europe any time soon. By accepting the missile shield, they get money from the US. What good is a missile defense system against a country that isn’t going to be shooting missiles at Europe?
That whole missile shield, as everyone, including Turkey, knows, is aimed at Russia, and no one else. The anti-Iran rhetoric around it just BS from the US.
“Just take a look at how Turkey have treated Syria since the syrian uprising”
Here you have a point. I haven’t been following the break down in relations between Turkey and Syria, so I can’t comment too much on that. But I suspect the reasons are related more to Turkey’s desire to be more influential in the region than Iran, as well as issues related to Syrian refugees coming into Turkey, then anything specifically against Iran.
“Also the turkish military is no friend with Iran.”
They’re no friend of the US, either. Some time back I read articles quoting Turkish generals over the issue of the US support for the Kurds in northern Iraq who said they weren’t afraid of the US military and wouldn’t mind taking the US military on if it came to that.
“Turkey have in the end of the day no interest in supporting Iran – they wouldnt benefit from such a stance, especially when they are being pressured by US/EU/NATO etc.”
Again, money talks. Turkey has no interest in being a puppet of the US/EU any more than Iran does. Turkey may have some competitive interests in regional influence with Iran but I doubt they want to see Iran destroyed.
“Iraqi gov wouldnt touch the kurds just because a war with Iran. Iraq are a small, vulnerable country, they wouldnt risk being dragged into a new internalwar or even take a harsh stance against american interest.”
Oh, yes, they would. Maliki is in power almost entirely due to 1) accommodations with the Kurds, and 2) support from Iran and Shia factions. While he generally plays a balancing act between the US and Iran and between the Iranian factions and the Kurds, he’s far more partial to Iran. In any event, if the US attacks Iran, he won’t have much choice. The al-Sadr faction, as well as the SIIC faction which is almost completely supported by Iran, will use any such war as a means of finishing the removal of US influence from Iraq.
If the Kurds got in the way of that, they’d be tossed under a bus as well. Or else Maliki would get tossed under a bus.
“I dont see the military getting weaker by regime change in Syria”
What part of being bombed into the Stone Age like Gaddfi’s military in Libya don’t you get? If the US/EU/Israel attacks Syria, their military will be substantially destroyed.
“I think Israel rather have a stable and reliable leader (for Israel) like Assad, than getting a surrounded by another nation runned by Muslim brotherhood”
But Israel would rather have a weakened state in Syria with the sort of internal conflict that is likely to happen in Libya than a stable Syrian government. So what if Egypt doesn’t have Mubarak any more? The Egyptian military still is no threat to Israel. The only problem for Israel with Egypt is the possibility of loosened control of the Gaza border.
Syria is even less important. Another war with Syria guarantees control of the Golan Heights forever. The weakened Syrian military will take decades to recover from a US attack. Who cares if a feckless Muslim Brotherhood government is running Syria? What can they do to cause trouble for Israel other than support running guns to Hizballah – which itself would be weakened as a result of the war, and is precisely why Israel would attack Syria.
Israel treats Syria with contempt. No where more demonstrated than the occasional Israeli jet fly overs and things like the bombing of the alleged Syrian nuclear plant.
“maybe a proxy of Saudi Arabia. If Jordan falls too well then we have probably another state runned by the Muslim brotherhood, thats Israel’s biggest fear – isolation.”
Not really, Israel has ALWAYS been isolated. It’s irrelevant. Israel’s military can handle any combination of the states on its borders. Once those states have been military weakened by a US/EU attack, that will be even more true.
Israel doesn’t care about “isolation”. It cares about expansion. It wants the water resources of Lebanon, and it wants more land. It wants the states surrounding it to be subservient, or failing that, so weak militarily that Israel can act unilaterally in the region.
“And again US wont gain much by letting the opposition gain power in Syria (if US dont establish deep ties with the opposition like in Libya).”
First, the US already has deep ties with the Syrian opposition. If not the US, then the Saudis. The US and Saudi Arabia are funding the Syrian opposition (some of it at least) and supplying them with weapons, just as they did in Libya.
Second, once again, who runs these countries really isn’t that important in the overall scheme of things. Sure, the US would like all these countries to remain client states of the US. That was the problem with Egypt.
But Syria and Lebanon aren’t client states of the US to the same degree Mubarak or Bahrain or Saudi Arabia is. So who cares if the Muslim Brotherhood runs Syria? It’s not significantly worse than having Assad run it in the long run.
Especially if the US and Israel can achieve real strategic military benefits from weakening these states.
“The fact that they are about to leave Iraq also points to the conclusion that the syrian supported militias fighting US army doesnt pose a threat anymore, otherwhise US would stay.”
The US TRIED to stay! Obama has been pressuring Iraq for months to keep US troops there. And the violence in Iraq is on the increase again. What happened is that the Iraqi government and Iran won and refused immunity to US troops in Iraq which was a bedrock point of the Status of Forces Agreement the US demanded. And that still leaves at last 7-8,000 US mercenaries under the State Department in place and another 7,000 or more Embassy personnel in Iraq. Not to mention close support from US forces in Kuwait and elsewhere.
Once again, things are very easy to predict if you IGNORE the public statements and read between the lines. The Iraq war was about oil. The Afghan war is about pipelines and heroin. Libya was about oil. The upcoming wars in Lebanon, Syria and Iran are about expanding regional control for Israel, and removing non-US client states in the region – and oil.
And whether any of those goals end up being met is mostly irrelevant, because in the end all of them were about war profits. And that’s always a success.
Richard Steven Hack says:
October 28, 2011 at 5:47 pm
“I see no way of resolving the hostile relationship of the US vs Iran without a war – especially with Israel in the mix.”
Perhaps in the part of the “reasons” for a US attack on Iran, you and I agree more than I had though. I agree with you on this one. In my opinion, the most important “evidence” (“evidence” is a far better word to be used here, rather than “reason”) for the worrisome possibility of a US-Iran war is the more and more ‘irriversible’ path of hostility (towards Iran) that the US seems to be putting itself into. Although no path is “completely irriversible”; there is always a possibility for one side to lick back his own spit from the ground (sorry for the crude language). The problem is that the more the two sides go down the path of hostility the more difficult it becomes to lick pack the spit.
“As I’ve said repeatedly here, one side has to blink. I don’t see either side blinking.”
Again as I said before I agree with you on this one. But again as I said there is always the possibility of one of the two sides “blinking”.
Although I must say -as I have said it many times before- especially as it can be seen how the west treated Ghaddafi, a “blinking” on Iran’s side will NOT solve the problem (ghaddafi, starting from 2003 “blinked” so many times that his eyes literally got deformed!!), ON THE CONTRARY as it can be seen in the case of Libya, blinking on Iran’s side will increase the possibility of an attack. If we are truly interested in avoiding a war, it MUST be the US side which will “blink”.
“That’s a joke….”
I understand that you find antiwar movements actions ridiculously inadequate? So assume for a moment that ALL people in the antiwar movement were to become your clone and agree exactly with you and behave exactly as you wish they would.
WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE THEM DO? What -in your opinion- is the correct way of action to avoid a war?
Personally, I dont think that antiwar movements potential abilities are “nil”. I think that they have a constructive role to play. BUT the main deterrent against such a war is neither the antiwar movement nor western citizens’ action. The main deterrent has to come from the Iranian side and its military deterrent force (assymetric and conventional but mostly asymmetric). Also there are external factors which may reduce the possibility of an attack (e.g. getting occupied with a bigger problem). But of course no one can stay relaxed and idle hoping for “good luck”, the main course of action is to be taken by the Iranians and it should be towards increasing their military deterence.
Still I am curious to know, what “you” would do were the antiwar movement to follow your lead exactly?
Pentagon game to divide Iranians and Arabs
A military planning exercise illuminates the story driving Washington’s response to the Arab Spring
By Sharmine Narwani
http://news.salon.com/2011/10/26/pentagon_game_to_divide_iranians_and_arabs/
“ Here are some of the premises and questions included in CENTCOM’s Arabs versus Iranians exercise. (Note: The Red Team refers to Iranians as “Persians.”)
•Premise: “The Arab-Persian dynamic is a divide. History, religion, language and culture simply pose too many obstacles to overcome.”
•Premise: “A general Arab inferiority complex relative to Persians means that many Arabs are fearful of Persian expansion and hegemony throughout the Middle East. In their minds, the Persian Empire has never gone away and it is more self-sufficient than most Arab states.”
• Premise: “Barring a “clash of civilizations” – i.e., a modern crusades, Islam vs Judeo-Christians, warfare between the West/Israel vs Arabs/Persians – there does not appear to be a scenario where Arabs and Persians will join forces against the US/West.”
• Question: “Is it appropriate to frame the discussion as Arab-Persian or is Sunni-Shia a more appropriate framework?”
• Question: “Assuming a schism, what could unite Arabs and Persians, even temporarily?”
These narratives assume two things: that the division between Iranians and Arabs is a fact and that the greater unity of the two groups in the wake of the Arab uprisings is a potential threat to U.S. interests. Hence the worried question: What could unite them, even temporarily?”
richard steven hack:
While I think assymetric war would maybe be the greatest benefit Iran have there are also loads of flaws.
First off, what could make shia militias powerful? First and foremost weapons.
Now in case of war there would obviously be a tight blockade on Iran regarding weapons shipping out/in of Iran. We hear even today on/off how israel and turkey bust iranian shipments, if Iran cant get the weapon out now, how are they supposed to get out even more weapons when they are even more surveilled and monitored?
That leads us to an even more vulnerable position because how would a shia militia, steered by Iranian gov make any substantial threats against the enemy, which is stronger military, bigger and more politically supported?
Regarding Turkey’s stance. I dont think one should pay too much attention to Turkey’s rhetoric. Turkey is like Russia, it support Iran on/off. Turkey, Iran, Saudiarabia have all the goal to become the ultimate superpower in the mideast. The fact that Turkey accepted NATO missile shield adds to the conclusion how much they really care about Iran and its interest (not much), thats not an allied partner. Just take a look at how Turkey have treated Syria since the syrian uprising, while Turkey and Syria never have been blood brothers in terms of relations, they have still enjoyed a pretty good relation. But as we see Turkey have become more critical of syrian behaviour (a generally legit claim regarding humanitarian questions) and it seems they follow the EU/US confrontational stance more and more, just watch how Turkey approached Libya. This is the same Turkey who was against the Iraqiwar and foreign intervention in the mideast.
But now we see a soften and more pro-nato approach by Turkey. Therefore one shouldnt pay too much attention what Erdogan, Gul etc says regarding Iran, that could shift fast. Also the turkish military is no friend with Iran. Turkey have in the end of the day no interest in supporting Iran – they wouldnt benefit from such a stance, especially when they are being pressured by US/EU/NATO etc.
Iraqi gov wouldnt touch the kurds just because a war with Iran. Iraq are a small, vulnerable country, they wouldnt risk being dragged into a new internalwar or even take a harsh stance against american interest.
I dont see the military getting weaker by regime change in Syria, could you elaborate on that? Also, its not just about military strength but politics, I think Israel rather have a stable and reliable leader (for Israel) like Assad, than getting a surrounded by another nation runned by Muslim brotherhood, maybe a proxy of Saudi Arabia. If Jordan falls too well then we have probably another state runned by the Muslim brotherhood, thats Israel’s biggest fear – isolation.
And again US wont gain much by letting the opposition gain power in Syria (if US dont establish deep ties with the opposition like in Libya). The fact that they are about to leave Iraq also points to the conclusion that the syrian supported militias fighting US army doesnt pose a threat anymore, otherwhise US would stay.
RSH / Liz / BB
“All in all, it’s a win-win for those who want more wars and more profits.”
If this is all only about MIC in this country making more money and profits, by way of war with Iran, I am pretty sure that there is an easier way for MIC to make money which incidentally they know not only is easier but also less politically expensive here at home and other western allied countries, which a lot of money can be made off of Iran as early as tomorrow, which you and me can guess this fact, then the US’s MIC know this for sure, that is if they could have made peace with Iran with a similar relation that currently exist between Turkey and US, they know tomorrow they will have a grunted order of 100 Billion or more from Iran’s military just for spare parts, planes, such , such etc. you name it remember this is only on the military side not the civilian therefore one needs to explain then what is it that they are not willing to take the easy money but rather prefer to make it in hard way, unless one would think that there are underlying strategic reason beyond MIC control.
fyi says:
October 28, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Precisely. And since the “lessons” from Iraq do not seem to have been learned for the case of Libya, there is no reason to believe that such “lessons” from the case of Libya will have any effect on imperialisms attitude towards Iran.
Hey Hans, You still here? How come?
Pirouz_2: “I think an American attack on Iran is neither inevitable nor impossible (and I am sure you will agree with me on that).”
Depends on the emphasis of “inevitable”. I see no way of resolving the hostile relationship of the US vs Iran without a war – especially with Israel in the mix. Unlike North Korea, which has China on one side which is a major problem for the US, not to mention the massive NK conventional military (and possible nuclear weapons), Iran has no viable military supporters, a relatively weak military (compared to the US), few geopolitical supporters in the region, and the one country pushing for war with it is THE major ally of the US in the region. Not to mention all the profit and potential oil bennies for the US of attacking Iran.
Also, I see no way to “walk back” the US rhetoric of the last thirty years, let alone Israeli rhetoric. Iran is the US’s primary enemy in the region. As I’ve said repeatedly here, one side has to blink. I don’t see either side blinking.
“Because if an attack was either inevitable or impossible, there would be no point in all Antiwar movement talking and debating about it.”
That’s a joke.
First of all, the problem is that the so-called “Antiwar movement” is overwhelmingly deluding itself that such a war IS impossible. Just read the comments here and in every article elsewhere. Invariably authors talk about how a war with Iran would be a disaster and therefore such a war will not happen.
At the same time – which is what is really ridiculous – the same people endlessly debate over the possibility of the conflict and the reasons for the conflict.
If the conflict isn’t going to happen, why are people talking about it? Yet, they do. Who cares if the US vs Iran game is just that – a game? If it’s never going to turn into a hot war, what difference does it make to anyone?
The reality of the last ten years – that of Iraq and Afghanistan – is that such a war IS possible. We’ve had two wars started based on the notion that one or both countries was responsible for terrorism against the US (and remember that Congress passed a law authorizing the US to attack ANYONE ANYWHERE ANYTIME based on those persons being involved with terrorism IN ANY WAY). Which makes the recent BS Iran assassination plot important.
We have just this year started a war based on the bogus notion of “Responsibility to Protect” which resulted in the Libyan government’s overthrow and calls for the same to be done to Syria.
Frankly, there is no point in the Antiwar movement talking about it. Which is why I reduced my time spent on that. Because nothing the Antiwar movement does is going to matter in the slightest, just as it did not matter in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, the Sudan or anywhere else. The US government will continue to do whatever it wants. There has been ZERO change in US foreign policy for the last decade.
“The reality lies somewhere in between: A western attack on Iran is a possiblity.”
When I say “inevitable”, I know that nothing is “inevitable”. Perhaps I over emphasize the situation, but it is splitting hairs to quibble about something which is, say, 75% likely and something which is 90% likely, even if neither are 100% certain.
It’s like the weather forecast. I have learned that a “20% chance of rain” really means “take your umbrella.” Normally you would expect a much higher percentage to mean “certainty”. Not in the case of weather forecasting.
It’s the same in foreign relations. If two countries are mortal enemies, they’re going to fight sooner or later. It’s that simple.
The way the world works is that one country decides another country is a target. It’s not that they’re “enemies” in the sense of some schoolyard contest. It’s that the rulers of one country want what another country has – or to remove the other country because they are in the way of the first country getting something elsewhere.
And EVERY war starts with some bogus explanation as to why one country attacks another. It’s always explained as a case of “our people in that country are oppressed (Hitler with regard to Austria, Hungary, etc.), or “that country is stealing our assets” (Saddam with regard to Kuwait), or “that country attacked us” (the US versus North Vietnam), or some such nonsense.
In reality, the real purpose is always about land or assets like oil or religious reasons or whatever. It’s never what the stated explanation was.
So with regard to the US vs Iran, it has nothing to do with “nuclear weapons” or “support for terrorism” or “attacking US troops in Iraq” or even “being mad mullahs” or being a “threat to Israel and the region.”
It’s about hegemony, oil and money. Period. End of story.
So all you have to do to predict a war is look at what one country REALLY wants from another and decide if it is militarily feasible for that country to attack the other.
And remember that it frequently doesn’t matter who actually wins the war. What matters is what was the excuse to start the war, what was the REAL reason for the war – and who profited from the actual war.
“So the main question is this: How likely is such an attack? Well my answer to that question is that it is a VERY serious possibility.”
Which is good enough for me.
“An important point here is that this possibility based on the turns of events can increase or decrease. One factor which in my opinion has helped to increase this possibility is the “apparantly” successful attack on Libya.”
Agreed. Although I think the attack on Libya doesn’t really embolden the US government to attack Iran – because the justification for Libya is hard to apply to Iran. What it does do is embolden the US government to attack Syria where the situation is similar – and that in turn allows Israel to attack Hizballah and both of those improves the groundwork for the US to attack Iran.
“Anyway, it is good to have you back.”
Enjoy it while it lasts – because it won’t. I’m not even sure why I’ve fallen back into this pattern of posting here. It’s probably because other matters are in disarray with me (not that that’s anything unusual for me.)
pirouz_2 says: October 28, 2011 at 5:07 pm
We are the start of Libyan disaster; about where we were in Iraq late in 2003.
The lessons of Libya will be those of Iraq; but on a smaller scale.
Liz2: I think KSA etc could contain shia crescent pretty well, while that dont really affect iranian gov directly it do demolish iran’s ability to fight an assymetric war.”
Not really. While the Shia minorities (or majorities as in Bahrain) are unlikely to overthrow those governments, there still will be plenty of room for Iranian agents to operate under cover of the general discontent. Even if the governments can suppress the dissent, they will find it hard to deal with both the dissent AND the asymmetric operations equally effectively.
In any event, operations against US allies in the region will be a relatively minor part of Iran’s asymmetric warfare and really won’t contribute much to the overall effort, with the possible exception of affecting 5th Fleet operations in Bahrain.
“Whoever attacks Iran will make use of minorities and PKK/PJAK is an important one partly due their expericence i waging assymetric warfare. Classical command and conquer/divide, in wikileaks who could read how the israeli mossad chief wanted to make use of minorities to fight Iran.”
Yes, but the Kurdish forces aren’t that much use. First of all, they have Turkey to contend with. Turkey doesn’t want the US to attack Iran. Turkey also hates the Kurds. So Turkey is likely to assist Iran in controlling the Kurds in northern Iraq, as they do today.
Also, the Shia government in Iraq and the Shia supporters of Iran of Iraq aren’t going to support the Kurds attacking Iran. We might even see a major split between the Iraqi central government and the Kurdish factions in that event. The central Iraqi government might move against the Kurds if they get out of hand.
The US will be looking to the Kurdish territory to support US operations against Iran from Iraq, because the southern Shia regions will be unreliable. This is likely to acerbate the situation between the Kurdish factions and the Iraqi central government.
All in all, the net effect will be very little to damage Iranian operations against the US in Iraq or affect the Iranian strategic status in general.
“I dont agree that war against Syria (by this point) would be a benefit for Israel (since thats the only reason US or NATO would do anything about that gov). The opposition biggest and most popular party/group is mainly Muslim Brotherhood but also nationalists, left-wingers etc which are more radical than Assad is regarding for example Golan Heights, US-led wars in the region etc.”
First of all, if Israel attacks Syria as a means of taking out Hizballah in Lebanon, the end result is likely to be a major weakening of Syria’s military. It’s also likely to strengthen the Assad regime assuming it survives the war (which I think is likely – Israel is not going to try to take over the country, just keep it at bay while it deals with Hizballah in Lebanon).
Second, in the strategic calculus, I don’t think Israel cares much who rules in Syria, unlike the case of Egypt, a much larger and stronger country. And once the Syrian military is weakened, Syria won’t be much of a threat to Israel regardless of who runs it in the event of an Assad regime collapse. So I think Israel will view that as a net win, whatever problems may result down the line.
Finally, from the US standpoint, an attack on Syria is just as beneficial as an attack on Libya, with less oil benefit perhaps. It removes a government which is not bending to US pressure, it weakens the country so it is less of a threat to Israel regardless of who comes to power, and best of all – it costs even more money to be extorted from the US taxpayer and handed over to the military-industrial complex.
It also assists Israel allowing it to attack Hizballah in Lebanon (either before, during or after a US/EU attack on Syria).
And that sets the stage for the real target: Iran.
All in all, it’s a win-win for those who want more wars and more profits.
And once again, THAT’S the calculus that matters in the world.
Richard Steven Hack says:
October 28, 2011 at 4:05 pm
I think an American attack on Iran is neither inevitable nor impossible (and I am sure you will agree with me on that). Because if an attack was either inevitable or impossible, there would be no point in all Antiwar movement talking and debating about it. If it is known for a fact that an astroid will pass earth with a few thousands miles of distance what is the point of preparations and trying to divert or destroy it? and similarly if we know that the doomsday astroid will hit the earth and there is nothing to be done to divert or destroy it then there wouldnt be any point in holding debates and promoting activism to avoid it (the best thing to do would be to spend the remaining few days with the loved ones).
The reality lies somewhere in between: A western attack on Iran is a possiblity.
So the main question is this: How likely is such an attack?
Well my answer to that question is that it is a VERY serious possibility. And this is not a new position for me. I have always held this position that an attack on Iran is a very serious possibility. My reasons for holding this position are likely NOT the same as yours, but on the end result I would agree with you: It is a very serious possibility.
An important point here is that this possibility based on the turns of events can increase or decrease. One factor which in my opinion has helped to increase this possibility is the “apparantly” successful attack on Libya. I was worried about the turn of events in that country from day one mainly because I felt that it would have such a negative consequence on the possibility of an attack on Iran. Another factor is the deepening crisis that the capitalism faces.
Anyway, it is good to have you back.
Empty: Nice story. Unfortunately they were fighting Iraq, not the US.
In addition, I assume quite a few of those aircraft actually did go out of service AT THE TIME. The fact that AFTER the war they were able to obtain parts so that those aircraft are still in service today (nice way to admit your forces are thirty years obsolete!) is irrelevant to what condition they will be in in the middle of a war.
So, nice story – but irrelevant.
No one doubts that Iran, a country with seventy million people, will be able to fight on asymmetrically for ten years or more. We’ve seen that in Iraq and Afghanistan, much smaller and poorer countries. I mean, Afghanistan! The butt-end of the planet!
That doesn’t mean Iran won’t be devastated in terms of economics, infrastructure, military assets and population by a war with the US. EVEN if the US eventually has to admit it lost the war militarily, economically and geopolitically, just as it has done in Iraq and will do in Afghanistan.
None of that is relevant. The wars still occur because someone gets rich.
Apparently it’s impossible for people to understand this point due to the cognitive dissonance of having to realize that the government that rules you is corrupt beyond all belief. It scares you to think that is the case, so naturally you resist believing the reality.
Which of course makes it possible for the government to continue on.
Not that you had any ability to change that anyway, so even that is irrelevant.
There will be a war with Iran. Iran will lose much. The US will eventually lose the war. The rich will prosper, the poor will not.
And then it will start all over again with some other country.
Richard Steven Hack:
I think KSA etc could contain shia crescent pretty well, while that dont really affect iranian gov directly it do demolish iran’s ability to fight an assymetric war.
Whoever attacks Iran will make use of minorities and PKK/PJAK is an important one partly due their expericence i waging assymetric warfare. Classical command and conquer/divide, in wikileaks who could read how the israeli mossad chief wanted to make use of minorities to fight Iran.
I dont agree that war against Syria (by this point) would be a benefit for Israel (since thats the only reason US or NATO would do anything about that gov). The opposition biggest and most popular party/group is mainly Muslim Brotherhood but also nationalists, left-wingers etc which are more radical than Assad is regarding for example Golan Heights, US-led wars in the region etc.
However right now I think that US etc work in secret to establish deep ties with the opposition… so you might be right.
Sorry for the typos….also, there should have been quotation marks around the last paragraph as well..
Those inside Iran who believe Iran cannot fight the US and its supporters in the event of a war should definitely make good use of the Virtual Embassy that Clinton is setting up and get out of Iran and leave Iran’s defense to those who actually believe they can. Once the dusts settles, then they can come back and do a victory dance and claim that they are part of a 2500-year civilization.
For other beloved brothers and sisters, below is a translation/interpretation of excerpts from Ayattolah Khamenei on 5/5/1388 [July 27, 2009]. You may access the original version online from: “Imam (r.h.): You tell them to go and fight…”, khamenei.ir
“It was the 3rd or 4th day into the war [Iraq-Iran war]. In the war room of the combined forces, all of us were present. I was there. Government officials were there. The president, the prime minister –the then president was Bani-Sadr and the prime minister was “marhoom” (may he rest in peace) Rajaee —a few Majlis representative, and several others. We were all there. We were arguing; we were discussing and brainstorming. The military folks were there, too. A bit later, one of the military guys made his way next to me and said, ‘these friends, in the other room, need to have a private chat with you.’ I stood up and went to the other room.”
“There it was ‘marhoom’ (may he rest in peace) Fakoori; ‘marhoom’ Fallahi – I remember these—there were 2 or 3 others. We sat. I asked, ‘what is in your mind?’ They said, ‘You see, Sir! …’ taking out a piece of paper. I still have this exact paper in my notes, in my files. I have the handwriting of our beloved brothers. I have kept it – ‘…here are our fighter jets…’….they had written things like F-5, F-4, I don’t know…C-130, this, that, and the other; all kinds of fighter jets, carrier jets,….they had written 7 or 8 kinds. And then they had written, for example, from this kind of planes, we have 10 which is ready now but its readiness would only last till such and such day. They have parts that need to be replaced quite frequently –in some planes, there are parts that has to be changed with each or every two flights. They said that we did not have the parts. Therefore, these planes would be done with in 5 to 10 days. And we didn’t have any. They’d say that in 12 days, this plane would be non-operational. In 15 days that plane would be non-operational. Most of them were these C-130 types. The same C-130s that we still have, which they said that they had about 30 or 31 days of flights in them. This meant that the Islamic Republic, after about 31 days, would have absolutely no flying jets –either military or fighter military, or military support, or cargo planes—nothing, done with! They said, ‘Sir! This is our situation with the war; please now go and tell Imam [Khomeini] all this!’”
“To be quite honest with you, my heart sank a bit, really! We thought, we should we do. Indeed without any military jets, what will we do?! He [Saddam] keeps on coming with all these Russian jets. Granted our pilots were far more capable than his [Saddam’s] but the sheer volume of the work was just too much. And they kept coming chain-like, one after another; all different classes of Migs at that too!”
“I said, ‘very well, then.’ I took the piece of paper and went to Imam in Jamaran. I said, ‘Sir! These gentlemen, the heads of military, everything we have and don’t have is in their hand. This is what they are saying…they say our fighter jets will last a maximum of 15-16 days and our last planes, the C-130s and the cargo planes, thirty or thirty three or so more days and no more. After than, we have no planes.’”
“Imam took a look and said, —well, now I’m paraphrasing, I don’t remember the exact sentence, I have probably written the exact sentence somewhere— ‘What kind of a talk is this?! You tell them to go and fight. God will provide. Nothing will happen.’ Of course logically, Imam’s word wasn’t convincing for me because Imam was not a plane specialist. But I believed in his truthfulness and that he was just position…in brightness of his heart, that God will help, I believed all these. I knew God had important plans for this man and will not abandon him. This was my belief. So, my heart gained strength. I came back to these folks. I told them that Imam had said to go and use what we had, repair that which needed repair, and make what they can make to use.”
“Those same planes, the F-5s and F-4, and F-14, and all these planes that were supposed to be obsolete in 5 or 6 days, they are still working in our air force today! Twenty nine (29) years have passed since the year ’59 [1980), they are still working! Of course, some of them got hit and collapsed during the war; some went out of line…but for all these ‘falls’ there were also ‘springs.’ Our own engineers got to work and could make the parts, fill the gaps, and despite so many sanctions, in spite of the ‘sanctioners’, they were able to bring in pieces and make the planes run somehow. They also learned how to build two different types of fighter jets themselves. Now you see the two new types of fighter jets in our fleet which are not like any other but they were still able to build these. They are engineers. They look, the experience, they learn, and they build. Now we have built new two-cabin ones for training. We have built single-cabin fighter jets. And we still have the old ones.”
This is what is meant by trusting in God. This is the truthfulness of God’s promise. When God, with immense emphasis, says “و لینصرن الله من ینصره “ without a doubt, most decidedly, the just God will help; will assist those who help and assist God – when God says this, and when you and I know that we’re sincerely working in the path of God, then there is no doubt that God will help us.
BiBiJon: Saudi Arabia couldn’t care less about Iraq, Syria or Lebanon, much less Iran. As long as they’re the most influential Arab state – and have the oil – they don’t care what happens to other other Arab states.
They DO care about their relationship with the US and expend great effort to make sure the US is both supporting of them and no threat to them. There is a certain balancing act between being a US client state and still being opposed to Israel, but they’ve managed that pretty well over the years.
Saudi Arabia fully supported the US/EU in the Libyan war since they hated Gaddafi. They hate Iran so they will be happy to support (indirectly) the US in a war with Iran, even though they may not particularly want a war in their backyard since Iran may be able to stir up SA’s Shia minority. They will be careful not to be seen to be supporting the war directly and may even condemn it publicly, but secretly they will be pleased.
It’s quite possible that Saudi Arabia would allow Israel an air route to attack Iran, for instance, while denying it publicly or blaming Israel for it.
You need to get familiar with how Saudi Arabia works and its relations with other Arab nations and with Iran before commenting.
Pirouz_2: Agree with your response to Liz2. I envision the Iran war pretty much going that way, too.
The problem is that it is not a deterrent to starting such a war. THIS is the main point. While the politicians may be concerned once such a war starts to go bad in the political polls in the US, they will still continue on because that’s what their handlers in the military-industrial complex want. It will be years before there is any significant change to that situation, and then it will only be because another war can be started to take the spotlight off the previous war. This is what we’ve seen with Iraq, and then Afghanistan, and Iran is just another point on the dial.
Fyi: Russia will never support Iran directly (although indirectly is certainly possible). Russia has too many interests which would be affected by a direct confrontation with the US.
China, on the other hand, might, since China will be seriously irritated by a US attack on Iran as that would threaten China’s investments in Iran and access to Iranian oil. And China can pressure the US on the economic front.
Liz2: I don’t think the Sunni states can do much against Iran in an asymmetric way, other than supporting some of the small secessionist groups inside and around Iran such as the Kurds PKK and Jundallah. Those groups really can’t affect the military balance inside Iran much, even with outside support.
In the rest of the region, Sunni states such as Bahrain have already suppressed the Shia populations. If anything, Iran can stir up those Shia groups and negatively affect both Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and elsewhere more than those states could manage to suppress.
Don’t underestimate Iranian influence and the presence of IRGC cells throughout the region. I’m sure Iran has been developing those assets for years.
The main point of influence will be in Iraq, where both the official government (on background) and the al-Sadr group have said they will support Iran in any conflict with the US.
As for Lebanon, the issue is not whether Hizballah would initiate an attack on Israel. They have said they wouldn’t, but they have ALSO said they would support Iran if Israel attacked Iran.
The problem is that Israel cannot assume Hizballah will stay out of a war with Iran. Therefore Israel is likely to preemptively attack Hizballah before or during an attack on Iran. In order to deal Hizballah a significant blow, Israel needs to take out Hizballah assets in the Bekaa Valley. To do so will require Israel to invade Syrian territory to outflank Hizballah on the right. This will require a war with Syria.
So before Israel attacks Iran, it will have to attack Syria and Lebanon: Lebanon because it cannot trust Hizballah to stay out of a war with Iran, and Syria because the only way to defeat Hizballah (if at all) is to attack the Bekaa Valley from the right, not a frontal attack.
There’s sort of a chicken-and-egg issue here. Israel needs an excuse to attack Syria and Lebanon. It would “look bad” to do so unilaterally. However, it probably would not be hard to cook up an excuse. The last war with Lebanon started when Hizballah captured a couple Israeli soldiers – soldiers which were allowed to roam out of side of their command despite Israel having been informed that there was an outstanding plot by Hizballah to capture soldiers for ransom for Lebanese prisoners. In other words, Israel knew such an event was bound to occur eventually, and it was later revealed that Israel was planning a war with Hizballah for at least the previous year.
Hizballah will be wary now of providing Israel an excuse to start another war. However, Israel continues to provoke Hizballah on an almost daily basis with aircraft violating Lebanese airspace, and various shooting incidents on the border. At any time, Israel could start something and blame Hizballah for the incident.
BiBiJon: “Imagine a world where every nation has preemptively surrendered to the mighty hegemon. Noe how does MIC make money?”
Come back in a hundred years and we’ll see. The reality is that the US will never conquer the world – which paradoxically guarantees unending war.
How many countries in the world are the US at odds with? You can support unending war for the next fifty years with no problem. Look how long Iraq and Afghanistan have taken. Iran will be another ten years. Pakistan another ten.
And there’s always a conflict with China over Taiwan.
North Korea.
Besides which, no one making money NOW cares. The only question for them is will they keep making money until they retire or die. They don’t care whether it continues beyond their deaths. And most of these scum are already in their middle or later years.
Your question is puerile. It suggests that there is no one wanting wars to continue or the US to be hegemonic. We know that’s not true. So what’s your point? There is none.
bibijohn:
Right, do you think KSA care about facts? They want to see Iran down and will go the same path that US, Israel will. What the saudis doesnt seems to grip is when Iran is down KSA have become one step closer to be attacked itself.
Liz2 says:
October 28, 2011 at 3:37 pm
I get it I think. So having destroyed Arab Iraq, an now onto Arab Syria, and Arab Lebanon, US/Israel will be joined by Arab Saudi Arabia to defend Arabs against Persians that didn’t attack Arabs.
OoooooK.
All:
Ambassador Chas Freeman:
http://www.mepc.org/articles-commentary/speeches/mess-middle-east
RSH,
“I reiterate that I expect the US/EU to attack Syria (with Israel attacking Lebanon in support) within the next year as a prelude to attacking Iran.”
——–
Prelude, appetizer, commencement, curtain-raiser, exordium, preamble, preface, preliminary, prelusion, preparation, is all we have.
Question for you. Imagine a world where every nation has preemptively surrendered to the mighty hegemon. Noe how does MIC make money?
Richard Steven Hack:
I fully agree with your statement. Iran’s only weapon it could use would be the assymetric one, but I am not too sure they have the organization and power to initiate something bigger on this area neither. One also have to keep in mind that while Iran have some connection to shia militias all over the mideast so does the KSA regime with sunnis which I think ‘easily’ could demolish this threat in the end of the day, not just because sunnis are in majority but because they could be better funded with guns and other military assistence (by US, KSA etc). Like in Libyawar there will be no blockade on weapons to the violent groups west/KSA supports.
Also Hizbollah wouldnt do something that endanger their political power in Lebanon too much. Lebanese have seen their land bombed many times, especially folks in the south.
Also I dont see any reason to invade in Syria, not by this time atleast since the opposition in Syria is more ‘radical’ than Assad, especially when it comes to Golan heights and israel/american hegemony in the mideast.
fyi:
It doesnt really matter, in case of symetric war, Iran has no chance to speak of. An aerial attack etc would be finished pretty quick and will unfortunately leave Iran in an awkward position I am afraid, in a position where they cant back up their rhetoric. However while I dont belive Iran have any chance on a sudden aerial/missile attack by Israel/US etc I think that US/NATO have no chance to occupy Iran to bring regime change.
bibijohn:
I dont know much about military affairs myself more than the obvious facts on the ground ( Iranian equipment, arsenal vs israeli/US/KSA/NATO etc).
KSA, Israel, NATO, US involvement doesnt mean world war. We have had many war with those players the last 20 years.
pirouz_2 says: October 28, 2011 at 3:05 pm
You are correct. General Zini (USMC Ret.) observed as much: that US aerial war against Iran will inevitably lead to the introduction of ground forces.
And I have surmised that happens, it will be a matter of time before Russia starts sending supplies to Iran through the Caspian Sea.
At that point, US will either have to attack the Russian assets, triggering World War III, or accept a prolonged process of occupation followed by eventual withdrawal.
US has introduced an insoluable confronation in the Persian Gulf – just like the ones she introduced against Socilaist Cuba or Communist North Korea.
Liz2 says:
October 28, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Actually I think an attack on Iran will be very much along the 2006 Israel vs. Lebanon war.
Most people forget how that war started. Israel never intended to enter Lebanon. Their main goal was to destroy Hezbollah from the air (exactly what the West will try to do with Iran). The problem was that the more they attacked Hezballah from the air and the more they shelled S. Lebanon from inside the Israel the more fierce it became the barage of rockets raining down on Israeli cities. However, people must remember all those rocket attacks killed were VERY few civilians (if the memory serves right along the lines of 10-20 people) and a few destroyed buildings. All together Haifa got away with a few minor scratches.
But that is not the point, the point is that no matter how heavily Israeli forces attacked and no matter how many hundreds of civilians the killed and no matter how much of the Lebanese infrastructure was being destroyed, the rockets of Hezballah kept raining in defiance.
In the end Israel HAD to end its ground forces in and that was when the assymetric warfare on the ground started and the Israeli casualties (all from their military) started to SOAR.
My guess (and of course I am not a military analysit and in fact I know pretty much close to ZERO about military matters; so I may very well be wrong) is that ‘IF’ the West attacks Iran it will be from the air with the purpose of destroying the Iranian military capability and removing the regime.
In retaliation Iran will attack to close down the Straight of Hormoz and I am not in a position to guess whether it can bring the oil traffic in the straight of Hormoz to a halt or not, but I am very sure that it will sink and damage not only oil tankers but also some of the Western war ships. The Persian Gulf will be an extremely deadly body of water for all oil tankers as well as the Western navies.
In return they will keep pounding Iran’s infrastructure, more and more heavily… but it wont stop the raining of the Iranian missiles on the shipping lines in the gulf and mean while the price of oil will sky rocket. Whats worse Iranian regime will be even further entrenched in the position of power.
Eventually to put an end to Iran’s resistence, they will try to use “boots on the ground” and that is when they will start suffering heavy causalties.
The main strategy of the Iranian military so far as I can see is the following:
1) Deny the enemy the pleasure of “mission accomplished”. No matter how much they pound you and how heavy your casualties are dont let them say “mission accomplished” (for example in case of Lebanon Hezballah had to stay in power no matter how much Israelies battered Lebanon, in case of Palestine HAMAS had to stay in power no matter how hard Gaza was being pounded, and in case of Iran the IR must stay in power and control of the country and a steady barrage of missiles should rain on the shipping lines in the PG and the straight of Hormoz)
2) Make the enemy feel pain for his attacks. The pain doesnt have to be substantial in terms of magnitude (just as Hezballahs missiles did not cause any serious damage in Israel) but combined with enemy’s failure to declare “mission accomplished” those relatively small losses of lives will make themselves felt an order of magnitude more.
Naturally I agree with Liz2 that Iran has very little capability against a full-scale US attack. To be precise, while Iran will be able to retaliate reasonably well in the first week or two using its missile arsenal, it’s conventional military assets will be degraded massively shortly thereafter. That’s what happened in Iraq and that is what will happen in Iran. Also, Iran can do very little with its conventional ground troops since Iran has little capacity to project conventional ground forces in the region, other than into Iraq where they would come under heavy air assault from the US.
What Iran CAN do effectively is engage in asymmetric war in the region. This entails things like harassing US forces and oil shipping in the Gulf, arming Iraqi Shia forces and infiltrating Iranian forces into Iraq against US forces in Iraq (probably their best tactic), sabotage and terrorism against US assets in the region using Iranian agents and indigenous Shia allies, and especially guerrilla war against US forces which may invade Iran at some point later in the war from Iraq or Afghanistan. In addition, as I’ve said, Iran may also use sabotage and terror attacks against US assets anywhere in the world, including the continental US. Bringing the war home to the US citizen is probably their best possible tactic.
The problem for Iran is that none of those tactics will be sufficient to deter the US military machine from essentially doing to Iran what it did to Iraq – bombing it back into the Stone Age. The result will be a long drawn-out war of attrition lasting ten years or more which will be devastating to the Iranian economy, infrastructure and population.
On the US side, US casualties will be several times that of the Iraq and Afghan wars put together, and the cost to the US taxpayer will also be several times that of the Iraq and Afghan wars on an annual basis. The non-military-industrial complex side of the US economy will evaporate into a depression. If the Iranians engage in attacks in the US proper, US civil rights will evaporate even more than they have.
Which is exactly what the people who run the US – the military-industrial complex, the Israel Lobby, the oil companies and the banks – want. Everyone in the elite makes money. Politicians get re-elected. The US taxpayer loses money. Everyone except the people who started the war dies.
Which is why this war is inevitable. The only way in which the US will not attack Iran is if some other war gets in the way – which is probably why the US has not attacked Iran yet. Now that Iraq is reduced down, and Afghanistan is coming to a head, unless the US starts a war with Pakistan or Syria, Iran is next in line.
I reiterate that I expect the US/EU to attack Syria (with Israel attacking Lebanon in support) within the next year as a prelude to attacking Iran.
Europe Hates America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=QJGDYNhYBSM
Iran will survive any event because of poeple
http://www.inn.ir/picturenewsdetail.aspx?id=86685
Liz2 says:
October 28, 2011 at 1:17 pm
The only figure who comes close to Baghdad Bob is Tel Aviv Bibi.
I don’t know anything about military affairs. I haven’t had a chance to test my learning aptitude because I also have no desire to know anything about military affairs.
All I know is that if hitting Iran were at all doable, Iran would have been attacked long ago. I have to assume it is not easy. Also, I think by the time you line up US, NATO, Israel, and KSA in that kind of war, you have to be thinking WWIII. I doubt anyone would risk that.
Liz2 says: October 28, 2011 at 11:12 am
I think you are seriously mistaken.
Iranian military leaders believe that they can give a robust and painful response to Israel.
The future (war) will tell.
The war against Hizbollah should not be compared to waging a war against a regular army/state (like Iran) in my opinion. The difference is the assymetric warfare, just like the reason US have a hard time in Afghanistan but while winning over the iraqi-army within just some weeks.
In case of war with Iran, US/NATO/Israel/Saudi arabia (or whatever part who enage in the aggression) could easily take out Iran’s fighter jets, missile depots etc, just like they easily could take out the military troops.
I think we should be more realistic because the day Iran will be attacked, I guess alot of people here on the fora would feel sorry and mislead that Iran couldnt give the attacker a heavy response.
etc
With that being said, one shouldnt think Iran would win anything really in case they get attacked. All threatened states use heavy propaganda to make the world and public opinion think they are strong. Bagdad bob etc.
Lobby gets Toronto Muslim Conference cancelled
Toronto Sheraton Centre hotel cancelled a Muslim conference as result of Jewish and gay organizations ran a smear compaign against some of its speakers. The conference scheduled for October 23, 2011 – was cancelled after daily The Toronto Star published (October 12, 2011) an article, entitled ‘Speakers at Muslim conference noted for disparaging gays and Jews‘. The article was written by Daniel Dale.
The conference was sponsored by British Islamic Education and Research Academy (IERA), an Islamic propagation organization. The theme of the conference was “Calling the World back to Allah“. It was to be addressed by Canada’s welknown Afro-American convert Abdullah Hakim Quick PhD, Malaysian Buddhist convert Sheikh Hussain Yee, Greek-British convert Hamza Andreas Tzortzis and British convert Abdur Raheem Green.
Howard English, senior vice-president of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said Wednesday that he was “very concerned” about both conference and the IERA’s attempt to establish itself in Canada. He called the speakers’ views “reprehensible.”
The Jewish Defence League (JDL) has acknowledged on its website on October 14, 2011 that the conference was cancelled due to pressure brought to bear by ADL, Micheal Coren TV Show and the article in the Toronto Star. The JDL had been branded as a terrorist organization by FBI, State Department and US courts. The Independent Jewish Voices (Canada) had claimed on its website that it was JDL which had advised Canada’s Prime minister Stephen Harper to ban former British MP George Galloway’s entry into Canada for his criticism of Israel.
Daniel Dale in his article gave the impression that he actually interviewed one of the speakers, Dr. Abdullah Hakim Quick, a social activist and former columnist at the Toronto Star. In response to Dale’s Zionist propaganda piece, Dr. Quick’s , claimed in Toronto Star (October 27): “I was never interviewed by Mr. Dale for this article. Instead the reader was presented with selection from sermons and lectures that were taken out of context and that stretched over 30 years”.
Now, let me respond to Dale’s allegations against these Muslim converts.
1. Dale has claimed Hussain Yee said that “Jews is the most extremist nation in the world and that Jews perpetrated and celebrated the 9/11 attacks“.
Hitorically, Jews have never been a ‘nation’ for the last 2000 years. They’re known as Romans, Hungarian, Russian, British, Arabs, etc. Jewish historian Shlomo Sand even claimed a few years ago that Jews were “invented” only a century ago.
Five Israeli Jews were arrested for dancing in front of WTC on September 11, 2001. There are numerous scholars and scientists who believe that 9/11 was an ‘in-house’ job carried out with the help of Israeli Mossad. For example, Dr. Alan Sabrosky, an American academic with Jewish ancestry, said in an interview early this year: “9/11: Israel did it“.
2. Dale claims Hamza Andreas Tzortzis has “argued that open displays of homosexuality should be made a crime“.
Homosexuality, is indeed forbidden by both OT and NT and the biblical punishment for this behavior is death. “If a man also lie with a mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them,” Leviticus 20:13.
Holy Qur’an, on the other hand, calls homosexuality ‘un-natural’ and commands the Believer to avoid and repent such practice. However, death punishment is not prescribed in Holy Qur’an.
I have no problem with over 28 million gays and lesbians in the US and Canada and their supporters like Daniel Dale and others. However, it’s their double standards which I laugh at. For example, last year, some of anti-conference groups and individuals were behind Stephen Harper government’s decision not to give $400,000 in funds to Toronto Gay Parade organization, not because Harper and Jason Kenney are ‘new-born’ Christians – but because the parade was attended by Israeli members of Queers Against Israeli Apartheid, a group which is against Israeli occupation.
I am sure Dale will not write for the resignation of Harper’s Conservative MP David Sweet, the former president of anti-gay Christian organization Promise Keeper Canada – who told the Toronto Star in a 2002 interview that homosexuality is a major sin. “We take the Scriptures as the word of God. We look at homosexuality behaviour and say that’s not what’s prescribed in the Scripture”.
And finally, it’s worth listening to Christian priest Ted Pike, who wrote in July 2010 that when it comes to gay and lesbian rights, Jews have always in the front rows. It’s not that they’re commanded by the Old Testament to do that, but because “they are driven by militant Judaism to breakdown Christian civilization so total Jewish control can be achieved“.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/lobby-gets-toronto-muslim-conference-cancelled/
Liz2 says:
October 28, 2011 at 11:12 am
Have you read the Winograd Commission Report? I think “nothing” might be underestimating the ‘response’ somewhat.
“11. Overall, we regard the 2nd Lebanon war as a serious missed opportunity. Israel initiated a long war, which ended without its clear military victory. A semi-military organization of a few thousand men resisted, for a few weeks, the strongest army in the Middle East, which enjoyed full air superiority and size and technology advantages. The barrage of rockets aimed at Israel’s civilian population lasted throughout the war, and the IDF did not provide an effective response to it. The fabric of life under fire was seriously disrupted, and many civilians either left their home temporarily or spent their time in shelters. After a long period of using only standoff fire power and limited ground activities, Israel initiated a large scale ground offensive, very close to the Security Council resolution imposing a cease fire. This offensive did not result in military gains and was not completed. These facts had far-reaching implications for us, as well as for our enemies, our neighbors, and our friends in the region and around the world.”
From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/world/middleeast/31winograd-web.html?pagewanted=all
bibijohn: Iran cant do nothing of substance in case of an israeli attack, as much as I am against the lies, double standard and threats against Iran they have no chance to commit anything against military powers such as Israel and US and also Saudi Arabia (not to mention NATO powers).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq8XC12maTk&feature=youtube_gdata_player
پیرمرد یزدی و جدول ضرب
Liz2 says:
October 28, 2011 at 8:33 am
silverstein once again warn of an israeli attack on Iran. In fact its coming together quite well since foreign soldiers in Iraq, Libya began to return home.
———————
Liz2, it reminds me of the story about an Irish cop successfully stopping a guy from committing suicide as he was leaning over to jump off of Golden Gate bridge. He pulled out his revolver and told the guy “I’ll shoot you if you jump!”
Moral of the story: brazen irrationality can sometimes be countered by equally brazen madness. Iran has let it be known they will respond if attacked. Nuff said.
A wee bit more on ‘How it’s funny …’
==================================
Reading http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kagan-iraq-pullout-20111027,0,4920995.story it occurred to me that the Leveretts and the Kagans are essentially making the same points about Iran, but disagree on what USG ought to do.
The Kagans portray the Iraq war as a battleground for the conflict between Iran & US. And, they assert “Iran wins!”
Our beloved Leverett have said repeatedly Iran is a cohesive entity, influential, and regionally powerful. Flynt and Hillary advise Iran should be accommodated as she is, rather than wait until she ‘becomes’ what some may wish her to become.
The point is that if ‘Iran won’ in Iraq by investing a minute fraction of the resources that US expended in that theater, then the Kagans in effect are validating the Leverett’s point: Iran is too cohesive/influential to be trifled with.
So, from two divergent pints of view, one Likudnik, and one realist, we seem to have arrived at a consensus of what the reality of Iran is.
But, whereas the Leverett advocate using Iran’s regional leverage to better safeguard US interests, the Kagans want to smash Iran. Since pretty much everything to harm Iran already has been tried for the past 3 decades, it is rather difficult to peg the Kagans’ thesis to anything remotely rational. Their ultimate goal, a US-Iran war, have few takers because if ‘Iran won in Iraq’, asserted by themselves no less, then how likely is it that Iran would lose in Iran?
I don’t mean to pick on the Kagans, per se. They are promoting a genre of anti-Iran narrative that increasingly portrays Iran as a powerful, purposeful, disciplined actor. Even when these attributes are put in negative terms like ‘tentacles’, ‘training militias’, ‘bribing politicians’, etc., between the lines the narrative is describing a power that US should not trifle with.
…and the link.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2011/10/27/israels-leading-columnist-barnea-warns-of-israeli-attack-on-iran/
silverstein once again warn of an israeli attack on Iran. In fact its coming together quite well since foreign soldiers in Iraq, Libya began to return home.
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents
“The Convention applies to the crimes of direct involvement or complicity in the murder, kidnapping, or attack, whether actual, attempted or threatened, on the person, official premises, private accommodation or means of transport of diplomatic agents and other “internationally protected persons”. Internationally protected persons are defined as Heads of State or Government, Ministers for Foreign Affairs, State officials and representatives of international organizations entitled to special protection in a foreign State, and their families. States parties are obliged to establish jurisdiction over the offences described; make the offences punishable by appropriate penalties; take alleged offenders into custody; prosecute or extradite alleged offenders; cooperate in preventive measures; and exchange information and evidence needed in related criminal proceedings. The offences referred to in the Convention are deemed to be extraditable offences between States parties under existing extradition treaties, and under the Convention itself.
Source: http://treaties.un.org/doc/db/Terrorism/summary-18-7.pdf
Rehmat says:
October 27, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Ask Cui Bono regarding the death of Moussa al-Sadr in 1978. Remember Gaddafi was a CIA assert during that period. I think Iran might be opening a hornets nest with their demand for a full investigation. Remember who became the leader of the revolution, what would CIA have gained by the Imam death. I will say no more, just hypocrites abound in Iran sometimes!
kooshy says:
Occupy Wall Street on the Move
by Ralph Nader
Activists need to vary their tactics. I suggest citizens surround the local offices of their Senators and Representatives.
Yes… occupy congress.. after all it is supposed to be people’s congress.. great idea..
From Kooshy’s link at October 28, 2011 at 12:22 am
“The US government’s case regarding the assassination plot may not stand up in a New York federal court. But that might not matter, since the Iranians are already guilty in the court of US public opinion and in the foreign ministries of US allies.”
Actually, Muslims are a priori guilty according to FBI’s Library and online training resources.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/09/23/327015/fbi-library-and-online-training-resources-stocked-with-islamophobic-material/
It may well be that FBI’s culture is the tail that wags the USG dog.
Unknown Unknowns says:
October 27, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Speaking of cowards:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97KllcZidKQ
I agree that Americans do not and will not have the stomach for heavy American casualties. Richard Steven Hack has quite a post there to contemplate, but i think he makes a mistake in thinking the Iranians will quickly become “desperate.” It took many years of abuse by those bastards in the ’80s before the Iranians ever became desperate to point of bombing civilians.
UU
You may want to read this new article by Nader he spells it out fairly good
Occupy Wall Street on the Move
by Ralph Nader
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/10/27-7
I agree with Richard, James: it is ludicrous for you as a regular here to believe that Team Weasel has any respect for the rule of law, and that the “international laws” of the “international community”, which is nothing but Doublespeak for the Wille zur Macht of New Atlantis, will have any bearing whatever on how Uncle Weasel comports his nasty self. Are you out of your freakin’ gourd?
Methought what happened in Oakland had the hallmarks of Ruby Ridge and Waco; the Feds’ fingerprints are all over it.
Kooshy: I agree with all that you say. Except the reason for my bafflement was that this directive was coming from the City of Oakland. If you knew the City here I think you would understand what I meant: that this could not have come from the City (i.e., from the Mayor or City Manager’s office). Hence, Olberman’s point would not obtain. The mayor wasn’t even here. And it certainly would not have been undertaken by an initiative of the temporary acting Police Chief. Chief Botts resigned last week. I didn’t read up on the headline. But I just heard on Pacifica that this was NOT a City of Oakland “police riot”, and this might actually explain the resignation of Chief Botts (??). What I heard was that what took place was a concerted effort of no less than 17 municipal police forces, some as far away as Vacaville (about an hour northwest), organized by the Feds. So in this scenario, it makes sense. Then everything you said about the oligarchy would apply.
Convicting Iran Outside a Courtroom
The hard-to-believe accusation about an Iranian assassination plot in Washington may be thin on actual evidence but that has not stopped the Obama administration from using it to stir up animosity toward Iran within the American public and at the UN, notes Joe Lauria.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=48749
Convicting Iran Outside a Courtroom
The hard-to-believe accusation about an Iranian assassination plot in Washington may be thin on actual evidence but that has not stopped the Obama administration from using it to stir up animosity toward Iran within the American public and at the UN, notes Joe Lauria.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=48749
Kooshy: As someone pointed out, I think it might have been Pepe Escobar, Oakland cops make NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR – at ROOKIE level. They are not part of the 99%.
As Chiun, the old Korean martial arts master in one of the “Destroyer” pulp novels, said: “The police are just an army of occupation for the poor.”
The difference between the Oscar Grant riots and the Occupy movement is that Grant was about police brutality towards blacks. Oakland has a large black population. So those riots were typical of a ghetto black protest. The Occupy movement is about all demographics which is why it’s less likely to be violent.
Jon Stewart had a bit on this show with video depicting all the peaceful scenes of the Occupy movement across the country – until he showed the Oakland “police riot”. He said, “What the f**k happened with Oakland?” :-) Then he went on to castigate the police.
Jon Stewart On City’s Response to Occupy Oakland
:http://sfist.com/2011/10/27/jon_stewart_takes_on_citys_response.php
Keith Olbermann has demanded that Oakland Mayor Mayor Jean Quan resign over the police over-reaction.
Mayor Jean Quan ‘Must Resign,’ Says Keith Olbermann
:http://sfist.com/2011/10/27/mayor_jean_quan_needs_to_resign_say.php
And finally, the Anonymous hacker group attacked the Oakland police system and posted personal info on cops on the Pastebin site. You gotta love those Anonymous guys!
So two thousand more protesters showed up. I don’t think this is going away any time soon.
However I’m inclined to agree that the whole thing will be useless in the end unless as I indicated below, the numbers swell and they start sprouting guns… Very unlikely…
Mr. Canning: “But US will not attack Iran when there is no legal basis for the attack.”
So they’ll make one.
They totally ignored the UN Libyan resolution which didn’t specify they could do anything they did in Libya. And Iraq had no legal authorization according to practically every international law expert on the planet, including the British Law Lord until he bowed to pressure.
Don’t be naive.
Unknown Unknowns says:
October 27, 2011 at 8:57 pm
“they are breaking beebols’ bones so they can “clean” the park, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process on police overtime, whereas $104 would get them a portapotty with a built-in sink for a month, serviced twice weekly. I don’t understand it, to tell you the truth.”
UU you know and I know this is not about where the demonstrators are taking their shit, but rather is about who they are shitting on. That’s what is upsetting the oligarchic system.
For all oligarchic systems, the first and easiest way to counter a social movements is to ignore (civil rights movement) as long as possible hoping it will go away, then it comes the civil disobedience phase which usually will get encountered with full police force, it not resolved the next stage will bring in the riots which will be countered with the military (National Guard) and that’s when in one way or other will have to be resolved. I think we are on the very beginning of the second phase, unless the system can in some way divert the movement (Move on).
I am not suggesting this all will happen, but what I am saying is that currently we do have a social structural problem in this country which is getting harder to kick the can further and both sides know it therefore a resolution is becoming necessary.
It’s funny how …
—————–
LA Times had the Kagans today declaring that US lost the Iraq war at the hands of Iranians.
Well, of course ginning up for another American war at Likud’s behest does require all manner of demonization, exaggeration, etc. But these chicken hawks need to be careful not falling over and impaling their eyes with their big toes (as they say in Iran).
See, if Iran ‘won’ the war in Iraq, then inquiring minds are going to compare resources Iranians threw at the task compared with US and her allies. Folks might get the impression that if you want anything done right in region,then, according to the Kagans of this world, Tehran should be your first call.
I wonder if they get LA Times in BRIC countries.
fyi says:
October 27, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Every now and then the Times publishes a story about Iran that amounts to a long check-list of misconceptions about Iran. This was one such.
Libya after Qaddafi
The NTC head, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, who maintains good relations with American and British Jewish groups – have invited Iranian Foreign Minister Ali-Akbar Salehi to visit Tripoli. It will be Salehi’s first visit to post-Qaddafi Libya. Salehi is expected to discuss the whereabouts of Imam Musa al-Sadr, an Iranian-born Shia cleric, who was allegedly abducted by foreign (Mossad, MI6, CIA) agents in Libya in 1978…..
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/libya-after-qaddafi/
The system is giving me problems. It’s not letting me post something for some reason. What the beginning of the previous post referred to was the first part of the post, which had to do with Kevin Spacey’s latest movie, Margin Call, among other things.
And as to Kooshy & WTF: I’m not discounting the movement, and I don’t think it will peter out. I think it will probably sputter through the winter, but it won’t go anywhere. Why? Where is it going to go? Things are never going to go back to where they were, when the prospects of the next generation were better than that of the present one. Where’s it going to go when all the manufacturing has been shipped to China, and the sheeple have to compete with child labor in sweatshops in the orient? I’m just hitting the snooze button, because right now, it is the same 2% that voted for Ralph Nader that are angry enough to do anything about it. But that will change, in time. I drove by what used to be the Oakland encampment today and it was basically empty. It is amazing to me that in a city that is majority black, with a mayor with an activist background, and a police force which is overwhelmingly black, this kind of thing happens. In the name of “public safety” and “health”, they are breaking beebols’ bones so they can “clean” the park, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process on police overtime, whereas $104 would get them a portapotty with a built-in sink for a month, serviced twice weekly. I don’t understand it, to tell you the truth.
Parity:
What it is doing on the internet for free 3 days after its release is another story. It seems there are certain Unknown Unknowns who giveth with one hand, and with the other taketh away. Predatory capitalism or just capitalism as it is known by the beebol depends on infinite growth and resources, which makes it theoretically unsustainable. OK, so we have known that at least since the Marx Brothers ;o) But what we didn’t know is that the leading edge of its “growth” will be inherently *putsch* (empty) as a frontier that will sustain its pioneers in any sort of monopoly position, giving them some market advantage, however ephemeral, be it in motion pictures, software, or even military hardware, whose heart is again infinitely replicable software. Who would have thought that before Team Weasel hit the wall of resource scarcity, in other words, it would be cursed with a form of Midas Touch: Who would have thought that every vein the instruments of Capital touch and try to mine will spit out products which by their very nature lend themselves to replication? Billions upon billions of lines of code, copied and put to use throughout Asia, Africa and Latin America using duplication programs written in New Atlantis itself. Billions of copies of software, movies, music, television programming. This is not an era where a Wall of China will prevent the hoards from ravaging civilization. With embedded software or firmware in its DNA, highly accurate missiles with ultrasonic speeds (Mach 3, 4, 5…) can take out whole battleships and aircraft carrier groups, as well as satellites moving at thousands of miles per hour (as demonstrated by China several years ago now). Thus, this is not an era where a naval flotilla will provide sea superiority for a couple of centuries, or air and space superiority for half that time. Information does indeed want to be free. That is its nature. And technology, likewise, tends towards parity. It likes to spread, and shows favor to its possessor only fleetingly.
James Canning says:
October 27, 2011 at 7:49 pm
I continue to think Obama actually did want to “reach out” to Iran, but he just did not know how to do it without incurring too much displeasure from the plutocratic Jews who are indispensible for electoral success by Democrats in national elections.
James,
That may very well be the case, but doing what is right for his country/world, is not trumped by his quest for reelection. Whether Obama (President of the US) is actively antagonizing Iran, or just too weak to oppose those in HIS government who are, is irrelevant.
Maybe he was also just too weak to figure out how not to bomb Libya. And maybe he was just too weak to not stand up in front of the Nation and tell us some bullshit story about a used car salesman attempting to blow up the Saudi Ambassador on Tehran’s behalf. Maybe he was just too weak to not get on his knees for Netanyahu and the Israel Lobby and give that bullshit speech at the UN GA. I would argue that if his Administration’s agenda doesn’t mesh with his convictions, then that is even more indefensible.
Cooerction to my previous post:
“Nouriel” must be replaced with “Nouriel Roubini”
Humanist says:
October 27, 2011 at 3:03 pm
“Ever thought why the above tragedy of appalling unequal distribution of wealth is ongoing while in general ‘no one gives a damn’? Ever thought why only those who are victimized by the ‘unfair system’ start to cry out against the injustice!? Ever thought why the same victims of inequality if offered a secure and comfortable life might totally ignore all aspects of the injustice for ‘others’? Even some might go further and if asked shoot at whoever dares to protest against any gross unfairness?”
Some how I get the feeling that you believe that Marx thought that the ‘well-off’ will rise and join hands with the less fortunates to make a change? If thats what you believe, then I have to disagree. Thats not what Marx thought. What Marx thought was that there is an irreconcilable antagonism between the interestes of the owners of the means of production and the interests of those who work and create ‘value’.
“Ever thought why the nations who succeed in establishing a so called ‘socialistic’ system gradually become corrupt converting their countries to undesirable (at time abhorrently awful) places for any civilized living?”
With this part I completely disagree.
1) I really don’t think that a socialist system has ever been created. There have been attempts to create one, but I dont think any of them achoeved the goal.
There is a significant difference between Marxism and Leninism. Marx never suggested a ‘system’ which would replace ‘capitalism’. He did give certain ‘goals’ but those goals and targets were way too ‘general’ and he never suggested a ‘system’ which could realize those goals and targets.
2) I guess by ‘socialistic’ systems you are referring to former eastern block countries? Again their achievments and failures, for their better or worse could be related to Lenin and NOT Marx. To give you an example, Marx was like a doctor who diagnosed the cancer and most importantly established the dynamics of the disease. He also said that we should ‘somehow’ get rid of the tumor. But he never gave ANY cure. Lenin on the other hand is like the second doctor who based on the work of the previous doctor suggests a ‘cure’. If the cure has been a failure it doesnt mean that we can blame the first doctor, or even worse that we can deny the existence of the disease all together and claim that the patient is healthy!!
By the way, I think looking at the retrospect, one can confidently say that the majority of the people in pretty much all of the former eastern block countries -despite all the serious shortcomings of that system, whatever it was- were far better off under the previous system than they are today. Comparing Cuba to Mexico should clarify the situation much better.
However, lets not digress, any failure of the former eastern block countries has nothing to do with Marx, it has to do with Lenin.
If we are to hold Marx responsible for anything it should be for his analysis of the dynamics of capitalism and how it functions, and NOT the successes and failures of the former eastern block countries.
“I believe if Carl Marx was alive today knowing what science knows about how the wiring of our brains is ever-changing and about how our ideologies take shape depending on our surroundings, then he would have written Das Kapital differently.”
I beg to differ COMPLETELY. And whats more Nouriel and George Magnus beg to differ from you. Both of them tend to agree with me and say that Marx was right. In fact a lot of people now (even from the right and from the business community) agree that there is no way to understand the current crisis unless you read Marx.
If anything Marx’s monumental work ‘capital’ has been vindicated. Time has shown that he was right in his analysis of the dynamics of the Capitalism.
“I believe the capitalism that threatens all life form on earth is NOT the same as profit-based businesses that trade in the simple societies. The enemy is the immoral, transnational, ruthless, powerful, interconnected, well organized entities that have access to brightest minds and utilize the most advanced available technologies to increase their PROFITS.”
Profit based production is capitalism. In fact before capitalism became the dominant mode of production there was no “profit-based” business in the simple societies. The first forms of capitalist ventures in the non-capitalist societies were small scale “usheries” which were a) NOT productive (there was no produced comodoties) b) were very small scale and sparse.
The main point is that small scale capital and the system based on small scale capitalism, pushed by the coercive laws competition, and moving down the road of capital accumulation inevitablly ends up in centralization of the capital and monopolies.
Monopolies, the domination of corporations and hegemony of the financial capitalism are NOT the cause but the inevitable result of the internal contradictions of the “capitalism”.
We got into the current crisis as a direct result of the way we came out of the previous crisis in the 70s. As such the current problems are the dictates of the “capitalism proper” and not a certain version of it.
The change in the organic composition of the capital, the problem of over-production and the lack of effective demand in a capitalist mode of production, the very contradiction between the unlimited want of “ex-change value” and the limited want of the “use-value” are INHERENT contradictions of capitalism in general and not specific to a certain version of it.
“Dear Pirouz, I sympathize with you and agree with most of what you are saying yet we disagree on a very basic issue….the problem is not that there are good guys (the oppressed) and bad guys (the oppressors), the problem as science correctly identifies is that ‘we are all animals’. As far as we let animality be the dominant force in our ruling systems we are on the path of total annihilation.”
My friend Humanist;
It is not about “good guys” versus “bad guys”. Who says that all the oppressed are good? And who says that all capitalists are evil people? This is not about ethics.
It is not about slave owners being “bad” and slaves being “good”. there are many slaves who were truly evil creatures as well as many slave owners who were probably not all that indecent! And it is not about ethics anyway!
It is about “social relations” and the instability and inefficiency of a system of production/social order.
In this system the capitalist is no less a cog than the worker is. To explain it with another example it is like in a play of Hamlet (Lets say the play of 1948 with Lawrence Olivier as Hamlet and Basil Sydney as Claudius the King).
It is not about the person of Lawrence Olivier being “good” and the person Basil Sydney being “bad”. In fact it may very well be the other way around in their real life Lawrence Olivier may be a very coward and selfish person and Basil Sydney to be a man of good character.
The issue here is that Basil Sydeny irrespective of his character and what his conscience may tell him, HAS TO PLAY THE ROLE OF KING CLAUDIUS. THIS IS DICTATED SO BY THE RULES OF THE PLAY!. Basil sydney can no more be an ultimate decision maker in the play called “Hamlet” than Lawrence Olivier is.
If Basil Sydney refuses to play his part the “driector” (ie. the laws of capitalism and the social relations in capitalism) will throw him out (ie. he will go bankrupt) and another player will be hired in his stead (ie. a rival capitalist).
It is not about being against W. Buffett or Bill Gates. It is about being against the play called “Hamlet” and its ugly story (my profound appologies to Shakespear, this was just an ‘example’ actually I like Hamlet).
WTF,
I continue to think Obama actually did want to “reach out” to Iran, but he just did not know how to do it without incurring too much displeasure from the plutocratic Jews who are indispensible for electoral success by Democrats in national elections.
WTF,
Wasn’t the proposed “nuclear excange” in fact supposed to have been a trade of 3.5% U for 20% U?
BBC reported Oct. 27th that Hillary Clinton accused Iran of showing “aggressive behavior” toward its neighbors.
Is Clinton referring to help provided to the gov’t of Syria?
She claimed the US “want[s] to see the rulers of Iran change their outlook and their behavior.”
Richard Steven Hack says:
October 27, 2011 at 2:03 am
Juan Cole makes this claim on his blog:
“Iran weirdly made a deal on sending low-enriched uranium out of the country to be turned into fuel for a medical reactor, then abruptly reneged on it.”
It’s almost funny the way that the nuclear “standoff” is playing out. If the West is sincere in their desire to resolve the nuclear impasse (and nothing more), then they possess the negotiating skill of a 5 year old.
This clip reminds me of the nuclear “impasse” (abstractly of course)
http://www.220.ro/desene-animate/Family-Guy-3×14-Peter-Griffin-Pulled-Over-By-Policeman/eb0eAlAaKx/
Unknown Unknowns says:
October 27, 2011 at 5:33 pm
UU I wouldn’t discount this movement easily, not yet, most civil movements start small while in the beginning they are usually ignored by the establishment especially when there are clear defects in the governing system. Among the ones I have seen this one has a chance of taking off, not because that they don’t have a cohesive ideology but rather these young kids they don’t have job and more importantly they don’t think that they will have a future with the governing structure, although the reason for this protest is different than what it was and still is in Egypt or Tunisia but the resentment of the governing system is the same. So I think what has to keep an eye open to see where we are heading during a revolution, would we have our own sort of color revolution during an election, who knows.
dis·in·gen·u·ous [dis-in-jen-yoo-uhs]
adjective
lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.
Also see:
Clinton, Hillary
“We’re trying to reach out to the Iranian people,” Clinton said. “We’ve tried to reach out to the government, just not very successfully.”
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/26/us_reaches_out_to_iranians_warns_iran_government/
fyi,
It may be fair to say that the ignorant stooge of Israeli warmongers, Rick Santorum, is actually trying to block any public diplomacy by the Obama administration. With Iran. And that making knowingly false claims about material facts is just his way of going about being a stooge of those Israeli warmongers.
fyi,
Obama and Clinton have the power to stage press conferences any place, any time. And to draw attention to whatever matters they think need attention.
For example, Hillary Clinton could mention that Iran has sent food to starving people in Somalia. Or that Iran offered to help the US to assess any threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and to deal with that threat.
I recognise that Hillary Clinton is a stooge of Jewish plutocrats, and she does not want to annoy them.
fyi,
Rick Santorum is of course an especially eager whore of the Israeli warmongers.
fyi,
Astonishingly vicious comments from Rick Santorum. Or maybe I should say predictably vicious comments from that ignorant horse’s arse? And he knows that Iran is building nuclear weapons, and that perhaps Russian nuclear scientists are helping with the nukes? Can it be Santorum is so stupid as not to know Russia opposes any Iranian nuclear weapons programme?
Unknown Unknowns says:
October 27, 2011 at 5:33 pm
When the numbers grow, after the winter of their discontent, inshallah, to where they CAN actually occupy Wall Street, then I will sit up and pay attention. Meanwhile, the snooze button it is.
I generally feel the same way. The Oakland protests have my attention (they are in my backyard), however there is a difference between the protests in Oakland and most of the other Occupy protests. In Oakland it still seems more about people being fed up with the police. It was nice, however, to see a couple thousand people protesting last night, without smashing windows and setting cars on fire like earlier this year with the Oscar Grant protests. This is starting to feel different than the typical protests against police violence that I have seen out here.
As for the bigger OWS movement, if it hasn’t fizzled out by Spring it will be interesting to see what form it takes next year. If it is still going and gaining momentum heading into the general election season, it could get interesting. My hunch is that until MANY more people are terribly fed up with the quality of their lives, there isn’t going to be enough support (feet on the ground) to really effect significant change. So long as the masses are able to feed their families and have a roof over their head (albeit paycheck-to-paycheck), the media is going to be able to sell the OWS movement as a partisan issue.
There are many people who see how wrong the system is and want change, but are still just comfortable enough to not want to really shake things up. Others (myself included) are likely waiting to see that this is the real deal before they actively join. Camping in front of City Hall is interesting, but call me when the revolution begins.
Rd.
True enough. But I do want to point out a small matter regarding the Occupy “Wall Street” movement, and that is that Wall Street is not actually occupied, and is doing just fine, thank you very much.
When the numbers grow, after the winter of their discontent, inshallah, to where they CAN actually occupy Wall Street, then I will sit up and pay attention. Meanwhile, the snooze button it is.
US public diplomacy with Iran and others:
http://www.businessinsider.com/rick-santorum-dead-north-korean-scientists-are-a-wonderful-thing-2011-10
US Public Diplomacy with Iran and others:
http://www.businessinsider.com/rick-santorum-dead-north-korean-scient…
Unknown Unknowns says:
about Iran, not anywhere else in the world. Unless that has changed too ;o)
The disease, wall street bankers, corp greed that has been plaguing the world, is now coming home to roast. Slowly, people can feel and see this diseases for what it is.. just need to connect the dots for them.
James Canning says: October 27, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Could you please take the trouble of enumerating these other levers?
Eric A. Brill says: October 27, 2011 at 3:16 pm
This article is reading too much into what Mr. Khamenei has stated.
The context was the iherent flexibility of the “Islamic System”.
So, in some “distant future”, the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran could be changed from a Presidential System to a Parliamentary System.
The rest is just Western silliness.
And Dr. Takyeh is wrong; the machinary of the Islamic Republic is not breaking down. That is yet another silliness that I personally did not expect of Dr. Takyeh.
New York Times does not have anyone with grasp of Iranian realities, it seems.
Rd: That may or may not be the case, but our dear High Priest Hans was and is talking about Iran, not anywhere else in the world. Unless that has changed too ;o)
Occupy Oakland Iraq war veteran Scott Olsen, 24, in hospital with fractured skull and brain swelling was hit by some kind of police projectile and is currently in hospital under comma.
Perhaps it was time for occupy participants to ask pres obama and sec Clinton to show up at some of these occupations centers and deliver their famous speeches to the police about the freedom to assemble!!!
“The freedoms of expression, assembly, and association online comprise what I have called the freedom to connect.”
—HILLARY CLINTON, accusing Middle Eastern leaders of depriving their citizens of the human right
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/02/16/quotes-hillary-clinton-on-the-freedom-to-connect-to-the-internet/
Unknown Unknowns says:
Hans says, “something is going to happen [by Oct. 28th].”
Can you be a little more general please,
the occupy Oakland is gaining momentum!!!!
Voice of Tehran
There are different types of polling policies. Some aim to indoctrinate tje sheeple, some others are those in them the questions are prepared by a group of honest experts etc.
I believe through the latter type of polling Western institutions such as WOP of university of Maryland have concluded that Iranians are willing to forget the past and peacefully coexist with Americans.
By the way I searched that Chomsky’s article, I couldn’t find your quote in it. Can you please lead me to the right link?
Long article on Iran in today’s NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/27/world/middleeast/in-iran-rivalry-khamenei-takes-on-presidency-itself.html?ref=global-home
James Canning says:
Would the nuclear power plants at Bushehr be attacked in any insane attack launched by Israel?
About 10:00 minutes
“Key point on stuxnet which could formed some sort of nuclear accident…. There are states or state who have developed this technology And they are saying to the rest of the world, that not only we have it, but we are ready to deploy it and we are ready to risk a nuclear accident”
Misha Glenny, with Charlie Rose.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11967
James Canning,
RE: But US will not attack Iran when there is no legal basis for the attack.
In the beginning, when I would read statements like this from you, I used to think…well, it’s not important what I used to think. Nowadays, I know you’re just trying to pull everyone’s leg. :)
James Canning,
RE: But US will not attack Iran when there is no legal basis for the attack.</
In the beginning, when I would read statements like this from you, I used to think…well, it's not important what I used to think. Nowadays, I know you're just trying to pull everyone's leg. :)
Pirouz_2
I think both of us agree that ‘Capitalism’ is the number one enemy of ALL of us. Right now, every day, in front of our conscious eyes thousands of people, children men and women suffer from hunger or die from malnutrition or lack of medicine while, as scholars have established, the total wealth of the world would allows a decent and pleasant living for every member of our humanity.
Yet from what you say I conclude that we analyze the issue in different ways.
Ever thought why the above tragedy of appalling unequal distribution of wealth is ongoing while in general ‘no one gives a damn’? Ever thought why only those who are victimized by the ‘unfair system’ start to cry out against the injustice!? Ever thought why the same victims of inequality if offered a secure and comfortable life might totally ignore all aspects of the injustice for ‘others’? Even some might go further and if asked shoot at whoever dares to protest against any gross unfairness?
Ever thought why the nations who succeed in establishing a so called ‘socialistic’ system gradually become corrupt converting their countries to undesirable (at time abhorrently awful) places for any civilized living?
I believe if Carl Marx was alive today knowing what science knows about how the wiring of our brains is ever-changing and about how our ideologies take shape depending on our surroundings, then he would have written Das Kapital differently.
I believe the capitalism that threatens all life form on earth is NOT the same as profit-based businesses that trade in the simple societies. The enemy is the immoral, transnational, ruthless, powerful, interconnected, well organized entities that have access to brightest minds and utilize the most advanced available technologies to increase their PROFITS.
Dear Pirouz, I sympathize with you and agree with most of what you are saying yet we disagree on a very basic issue….the problem is not that there are good guys (the oppressed) and bad guys (the oppressors), the problem as science correctly identifies is that ‘we are all animals’. As far as we let animality be the dominant force in our ruling systems we are on the path of total annihilation.
The good news is, although 98% of our genes are identical to those of the chimps, our brain has a part (called Neocortex) which is lacking in chimps. It is this part of the brain that has allowed humanity to achieve truly phenomenal feats such as sending a man to the moon or compiling the Genome Library. It is this part of the brain that has the potential to take us to places, as Rumi says, are beyond the ability of present day ‘imaginations’.
It is Neocortex that is allowing us to diagnose who is the real and most dangerous enemy of humanity, ie the unregulated, aggressive and super corrupt capitalism. Of course those who ‘think’ like chimps are incapable of comprehending this fact thus are continuing to instigate wars, to plunder, to exploit the poor, seek new avenues of profiteering and so on…..practices that eventually will destroy them too.
This is a long topic, maybe in future together we can, just for the sake of dialogue, explore it more. However it is relevant to mention what I think about the recent (anti corporation?) movements such as the ‘Occupy Wall Street’
If the protestors fully align their activities with analytics and advanced sciences then their movement is bound to grow hence eventually (after a long long struggle) they might achieve the grandest historical event ever….that is destroying this monster of corporate capitalism by peaceful means and establishing a world which is based on a sound ‘incorruptible’ order of justice and rationality.
R S Hack,
Didn’t Stephen Hadley participate in the conspiracy to have G W Bush in effect claim Iraq had tried to buy yellowcake from Niger? In 2003 State of Union address? And Hadley took care to launder the claim (through British intelligence), and not to mention Niger, because Hadley was well aware the claim was false, and that the false claim was being used to dupe the American public – - and, I believe, G W Bush as well.
R S Hack,
Would the nuclear power plants at Bushehr be attacked in any insane attack launched by Israel? Wind patterns would take deadly radiation over Kuwait, the southern oilfields of Iraq, the oilfields of Saudi Arabia. Etc. Damages would run into trillions of dollars potentially. So that Israel can continue to grow the illegal colonies of Jews in the West Bank?
R S Hack,
Actually, senators and congressmen are very sensitive about American casualties in various wars. This is one reason a foolish military adventure, once started, tends to continue year after year. Politicians don’t want to face accusations they “wasted” the lives of those killed already in the war or intervention.
But US will not attack Iran when there is no legal basis for the attack.
Remember how much effort went into fabricating evidence that Saddam Hussein was trying to build nuclear weapons.
Richard , UU
The real relevant point in case of a military attack by either side is that, when and if there is a war, all options are on the table for both sides of the conflict, regardless of what propaganda either side feeds to their domestic or international audience, in an actual war both sides will aim to hit the population areas with whatever, however and whenever they can, actually an factually is irrelevant what the delivery technique is, does anyone think when Iraq was invaded if the “Sad-dumb” had a capability to hit inside US would have he cared how US government or anybody else labeled the operations (did he care when he start hitting Iranian cities with missiles or does US government care when drone attack the weeding on Pakistan villages). The irony is here on concept of information that we are feed we are so isolated that we are tend to believe what we see and understand is what the whole planet sees and believes.
Unknown Unknowns: “What I was getting at is that Iran will use her first volley of missiles to kill as many Americans as possible.”
Perhaps. The PR value would be useful in terms of 1) emphasizing the cost of the attack on the US electorate, and 2) stirring up approval on the Arab street for Iran’s resistance.
But again, Iran has only so many missiles and it would be wise to use them to get more than a temporary PR victory. Actually damaging major US military assets in the region would be best. Since US airbases in Iraq would be used against Iran, Iran should concentrate on them and US military personnel in Iraq (as opposed to State Department personnel) and things like radar and communications complexes in the region, which presumably Iran’s agents have mapped precisely.
But you could be right.
“I guess where we disagree is in the extent that the effect of several thousand dead in the first few days of war will have on the ability of the elite to wage the war indefinitely or even to continue to wage it.”
Yes. To be clear, I’m sure that major US casualties – equivalent to the ten years of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – in the first few weeks of an Iran war will definitely have a negative effect on the US electorate in terms of supporting the war. Of course, it could go the other way, too, and make the US electorate rally around Obama. In that respect, you could be right.
However, where we must disagree is whether that dislike of the war by the electorate will have any impact on the actual actions of the government. I find that highly unlikely unless the antiwar movement exceeds the media attention of the Occupy Wall Street movement. And frankly, I don’t think it will for three reasons: 1) most Americans don’t care who gets killed in a foreign country, and 2) most Americans don’t have close relatives in uniform – otherwise the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been stopped before now – and 3) the US media will play down the casualties just as it has in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So I really don’t see enough of the electorate putting enough pressure on the government to offset the military-industrial, Israel Lobby, and oil company pressure to continue the war.
“the same cannot be said of the people in the embassies of the US in the region. There you have some high-value targets whose death will cause a stir.”
Not really. How many Americans even know who is the ambassador to ANY foreign country? I don’t. There’s also no guarantee that US embassies will be attacked sufficiently to actually cause the deaths of anyone other than the flunkies and the Marine guards. It’s purely speculative.
“And besides, five thousand have dies in Iraq in the space of several years. Unlike you, I believe that the killing of a similar number or higher in a matter of days or even hours (with multiple missile attacks on the same target) would have a large impact on congress.”
I have to disagree. The scum in Congress couldn’t care less about US casualties. Otherwise they wouldn’t have continued to push for the wars we have and the upcoming Iran war. There’s just zero evidence that Congress can be influenced by anyone without gobs of money.
“I agree with Rehmat that the US, like their Israeli brethren, are, like all bullies, cowards. They will quickly back down from engaging any adversary who can inflict harm right back at them.”
Only if the harm can be inflicted directly on the politicians. And while that situation might exist in Israel, it does not exist in the US – unless Iran sends in agents to directly attack senior US politicians. Otherwise, as I’ve said here before, NO ONE in Washington or the military-industrial complex will EVER be negatively impacted by ANY war they start. So why should they care?
“I believe this is essentially what has acted as the deterrent.”
I don’t think so, although clearly Iran is a far tougher target than Iraq or Afghanistan.
“Otherwise, why mess with Libya and Syria, and even Afghanistan and Iraq for that matter, when Iran is the Jewel in the Crown of the Middle East?”
Again, in my view it’s a matter of timing and “leading up” to an Iran war. The same applies to Pakistan, which is an even tougher target than Iran. By taking on the weaker countries first, the US gets to expend even more money for the benefit of the military-industrial complex, as well as providing more access to the region. As others have noted, the US now has Iran encircled in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the support of another Iranian neighbor, Saudi Arabia, and a US ally in Turkey (albeit not an ally that wants a US war with Iran.) This is a strategic advantage.
By having Israel engage Hizballah in Lebanon and Syria (and perhaps Hamas at the same time in Gaza), Iran’s two major allies in the region will be forced to deal with their own problems while the US engages Iran.
The main problem for the US is the support of the Iraqi Shia for Iran. This will crimp the US’s ability to engage Iran from Iraq directly. But it may not eliminate it. As Pepe Escobar suggested and I have in the past, this may be the excuse needed to re-introduce occupation of Iraq as well as a justification for withdrawing from a failed war in Afghanistan (or alternatively, increasing the occupation in Afghanistan to provide support.)
“But because he is a coward, he cannot attack who he really wants to, so he attacks other helpless nations, and dances around Iran, playing little games.”
It is dangerous to ascribe personal characteristics to a country. Countries are too complex for that. The analogy does not hold up.
The US is currently engaged in military actions in at least seven locations around the world and shows no signs of wanting to stop. The alleged “success” in Libya is already increasing calls for the US to do the same to Syria. I really expect Syria to be attacked within the next 12 months, if not sooner. And once Syria and Lebanon are engaged and wrecked as Libya has been, I fully expect the US to continue on to Iran. Certainly that is what the neocons, the Israel Lobby, the military-industrial complex, and the oil companies want to happen.
And they run the show, not the US electorate. And they don’t care about whether Iran can inflict damage on anyone, since it won’t be inflicting damage on THEM.
Rehmat,
What makes you think the US can bring a “pro-Israel” government into power in Syria? Are you suggesting a secret deal could be made in which Israel would agree to get out of the Golan Heights?
Rd,
If major US newspapers would run reports on the plutocratic Jews promoting illegal Jewish colonies in the West Bank, and rewarding stooges of the Israel lobby in the US Congress by one means or another, that would help a great deal. But of course, such stories are suppressed.
hans,
I very much agree the bloggers on the internet who call attention quickly to one thing or another, in the Middle East, complicate the war planning by the war mongers.
Any US attack on Iran would be illegal under international law. The so-called “plot” clearly was intended to give fanatical “pro-Israel” warmongers in the US Congress and in thinks tanks, etc., a basis for military action to “punish” Iran. And the bloggers have done much to undermine the scheme (or conspiracy, if one prefers).
fyi,
Obama and Clinton enjoy the power to do far more than you indicate, regarding relations with Iran. But their power to improve relations with Iran is suppressed by very strong interest groups.
The same situation obtains with Cuba, where it appears Obama comprehends that US policies have been foolish but his ability to change them rapidly is suppressed by the Cuba lobby, fanatical “anti-Communists”, etc.
Rehmat,
News provided by sources considered “Israel friendly” can be accurate and useful. One might ask what “Israel friendly” even means.
Rd,
I very much agree with you that exposing the degree of control of the US Congress enjoyed by powerful lobbies, is a good thing. Lists of the amounts received by each senator and congressman, each year, from Aipac and other extremist elements of the Israel lobby, should be printed in all major American newspapers. Should be printed, but of course will not be printed.
Ditto as to political funding from finance, and from “defence” contractors, etc etc.
Richard: thanks for your thoughtful response. I think we are basically on the same page in broad outlines except on one major point. For example, you say that Bagram may or may not be hit. I agree. I was thinking of the base that is in Herat province which I do not know the name of, and which is right on Iran’s border. What I was getting at is that Iran will use her first volley of missiles to kill as many Americans as possible. Therefore, her priority, at least initially, will be the embassy complex in Baghdad and even in Yerevan, Armenia, before Bahrain (although solid hits could be guaranteed there also due to local intelligence operatives placing homing devices for the incoming missiles. I guess where we disagree is in the extent that the effect of several thousand dead in the first few days of war will have on the ability of the elite to wage the war indefinitely or even to continue to wage it. While it is true that the soldiers in the US armed forces are basically nothing more than mercenaries (albeit ‘forced’ into such a livelihood via economic extortion, as the left would have it), the same cannot be said of the people in the embassies of the US in the region. There you have some high-value targets whose death will cause a stir. And besides, five thousand have dies in Iraq in the space of several years. Unlike you, I believe that the killing of a similar number or higher in a matter of days or even hours (with multiple missile attacks on the same target) would have a large impact on congress. I agree with Rehmat that the US, like their Israeli brethren, are, like all bullies, cowards. They will quickly back down from engaging any adversary who can inflict harm right back at them.
The other thought that I had is that I believe that thanks to the Russians and the Chinese, who have armed Iran with supersonic missiles capable of sinking destroyer-class vessels and higher, and have also helped Iran develop her own native technology in this field, so that she can make her own missiles, and lots of them… I believe this is essentially what has acted as the deterrent. Otherwise, why mess with Libya and Syria, and even Afghanistan and Iraq for that matter, when Iran is the Jewel in the Crown of the Middle East? The bully must bully. Uncle Weasel cannot help himself. We all know he is a sociopath on the world stage. But because he is a coward, he cannot attack who he really wants to, so he attacks other helpless nations, and dances around Iran, playing little games. Meanwhile, every year Iran gets stronger, and the Axis of Weasels gets weaker.
Hans says, “something is going to happen [by Oct. 28th].”
Seems to me that is too specific a prediction, even for the high priests of the Mayan religion. Can you be a little more general please, so as to give yourself at least a *little* wiggle room in the event that “something” doesn’t happen?
Richard Steven Hack says:
October 27, 2011 at 1:04 am
Photi: “Can you please provide your operational definition of ‘terrorism.’”
Basically any physical attack on US soil by foreign nationals. Certainly that is how the US government and media – and most of the electorate – would define it.
Richard,
I would even go further and argue that the USG (and talking heads in the media) are outlandish enough to call it terrorism (or insurgency) if Iranians were attacking US SOLDIERS on IRANIAN soil. However, I think we should be cautious of using US propaganda as a means of describing these tactics.
I do understand your context, particularly given the etymology of the word terrorism, however I personally believe that it’s best to refrain from using the word “terrorism” when not describing attacks on civilian populations. As you mentioned, describing unconventional attacks on legitimate targets as “asymmetric warfare” is more accurate and doesn’t invoke the emotional response that the word “terrorism” does (at least in the US populace).
Furthermore, it should absolutely be labeled terrorism when a military attacks civilian populations (as the US and Israel do regularly). Given the extremely negative connotation that Americans (and much of the world) have used the term “terrorism”, it should only be used based on who is attacked, not who the attacker is. The US spin doctors unfortunately do the exact opposite.
I do fully agree with your overriding point.
More from Oakland last night. It’s interesting seeing Mayor Quan (who happened to be in DC when the police raided the camp) try to juggle being the Mayor of a flashpoint city in the Occupy protests, with her history of activism.
Occupy Oakland protestors tore down the fences surrounding Frank Ogawa Plaza Wednesday night and held a general assembly of 2,000. There were no police in sight. The protestors voted for a general strike on November 2nd, the first in over 65 years of Oakland history.
http://blog.sfgate.com/aallison/2011/10/27/occupy-oakland-mayor-quan-issues-contrite-statement-after-police-crackdown/
Anyone not in the Bay Area probably didn’t see this last night. Seeing the police respond so harshly to peaceful protests (particularly the fracturing Scott Olsen’s skull) has really got people fired up here. Last night there was 2,000+ (estimated) protesters marching through Oakland. Sorry, I couldn’t find the raw news footage posted on KTVU’s site, but you can certainly get the picture from watching this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0mp_9c2rfE
fyi says:
“US Congress now controls the Iran policy.”
at the behest of the lobby, presumably.
Is there an alternative to the RFI’s current approach?
Along with offering alternate analysis and highlighting
the flaws of other analyst, is there room to consider an
approach where the excess’s of lobbying is exposed?
Given current domestic conditions, is there room to try and
educate the ‘public’ in the failures of excessive lobbying?
Be it, aipac, MIC, or any other. So long as the congress is
beholden to excessive lobbying, it will be dysfunctional..
at-least more and more people seem to identify with the
ineffectiveness of the congress..
Richard writes:
“We here all know that this is completely incorrect. I’ve posted a corrective comment [on Juan Cole's blog] which is awaiting moderation – or censorship.”
Your last two words wisely suggest that you know the likely outcome of any comment that disagrees with a fundamental position taken by Juan Cole on any issue. Criticism around the fringes is not only tolerated there but welcomed, since it gives the appearance of robust debate. But anything that challenges a fundamental position taken by Dr. Cole, however baseless his position may be, is highly unlikely to see the light of day there.
I used to follow Cole’s blog, but lost interest once I recognized the point made in the preceding paragraph. Though I don’t remember doing this, as I look now at the top of my computer screen, I see that, somewhere along the way several weeks back, I even deleted the “bookmark” for his blog, essentially telling myself there was no compelling reason to read what’s posted there.
Rd. says: October 27, 2011 at 9:13 am
Mrs. Clinton knows that her hands are tied as far as Iran policy is concerned.
US Congress now controls the Iran policy.
Removing executive sanctions against Iran and removing her from State Department’s terrorism list are the only 2 remaining positive inducements that US executive branch has.
So, Mrs. Clinton resorts to gimmicks; there is not much else to do.
Rd.- Bloomberg is not a reliable source. It’s listed as ‘Israel friendly’ on Israel Hasbara Committee list.
On October 18, 2011 – Captain Hooshang Shahbazi performed incredible landing of an Air Iran Boeing 727-200 at Tehran’s Maherabad Airport. The flight from Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport to Tehran’s Imam Khomeini Airport was carrying 94 passengers and 19 crew. While approaching Tehran’s Imam Khomeini Airport, the crew did not receive a down and locked indication for the nose gear and aborted the approach. Following unsuccessful troubleshooting the crew decided to divert to Tehran’s Mehrabad Airport where a low approach confirmed the nose gear was not extended. The crew subsequently performed a landing without the nose gear on runway 29L and came to a stand still on both main gear and the nose of the aircraft. The aircraft was evacuated, no injuries occurred. Watch video below.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/iranian-727-lands-without-front-wheels/
kooshy says:
In First Persian Media Interview, Clinton Announces U.S. ‘Virtual Embassy’ In Tehran
More and more their efforts resembles desperado.. just do anything to stop the Iranians. What will she do next???? Belly dancing to perhaps distract those eyerenians!?!?!
On the hand, would there be any geopolitical impact for Chinese funding the EU debt???
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has signaled willingness to aid the European Union as financial turmoil within the region threatens to crush export demand in China’s biggest market.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-26/euro-rescue-fund-chief-goes-to-china-as-europe-seeks-investors.html
hans – You’re laughabely wrong. ZOG in Washington do want war with Iran – but being already demoralized in Iraq and Afghanistan – it cannot afford to open a new front in the region. That’s was one of the reasons, Washington used its proxy ZOGs to carry out its dirty work in Libya.
US-Israel has history of picking on defenseless people and nations. What is holding Washington back for the time being – Israel is surrounded by Hizbullah, Hamas and Syria. Once US have established a pro-Israel regime in Damascus and got Hizbullah isolated – It will attack Iran for sure.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/us-dilemma-%E2%80%93-attack-or-not-attack-iran/
James Canning says:
October 26, 2011 at 6:47 pm
I do not think both sides want a full blown war, however on Oct 17 everything was in place from the American side to hit possibly some IRG sites based on the allegations, there were significant military manoeuvres including an American air fleet (deploying 41 giant transports of the 22nds Airlift Squadron ) in Middle East skies ready to land at any moment for any contingency. What they did not expect was that bloggers and other Internet detectives would break the allegations so quick. This was what I was forecasting when I said that 17 October was a critical day for Iran. The end of the Ninth wave finishes on 28 Oct, 2011 something is going to happen.
Juan Cole makes this claim on his blog:
“Iran weirdly made a deal on sending low-enriched uranium out of the country to be turned into fuel for a medical reactor, then abruptly reneged on it.”
We here all know that this is completely incorrect. I’ve posted a corrective comment which is awaiting moderation – or censorship.
A previous comment – in fact, two – about the situation in Libya was, as usual, censored by Cole because it doesn’t agree with his preconceived notion that the no-fly was legitimate because Gaddafi was going to massacre people. I pointed out in the censored comments that the rebels are executing hundreds of people, not to mention lynching Africans, and wasn’t that what the no-fly resolution was supposed to stop. I also pointed out that estimates of the overall death toll in Libya now top 25,000-50,000 and could go as high as 100,000. This of course doesn’t square with Cole’s support of the Libyan assault and so my posts were discreetly removed.
Cole is now ratcheting up posts on the situation in Syria. How long will it be before he calls for the UN to invade Syria? Not long, I suspect.
I suspect the US government may be planning to attack Syria under the guise of the bogus doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect” in concert with an Israeli attack on Hizballah in Lebanon. In order for Israel to have any likelihood of being able to damage Hizballah seriously, as Colonel Pat Lang has suggested, Israel would have to invade Syria then swing around and attack the Hizballah assets in the Bekaa Valley. This would be a prelude to the attack on Iran.
Pepe Escobar suggests in his latest Asian Times article that the neocons are pushing Israel to provoke Iran in order to invite an Iranian retaliation against “retreating” US troops in Iraq as a ploy to force Obama to re-establish the Iraq occupation as well as to justify an attack on Iran. I’ve long said that this is precisely what one would expect the US to do in preparation for an attack on Iran.
So the geopolitical situation vis-a-vis Syria is the perfect situation for both Israel and the US to “justify” an attack on Syria, Lebanon and Iran.
Photi: “Can you please provide your operational definition of ‘terrorism.’”
Basically any physical attack on US soil by foreign nationals. Certainly that is how the US government and media – and most of the electorate – would define it.
I think some people are having a disconnect between the usual use of the term terrorism as an abstract “movement” and my use of the term as a TACTIC.
The original definition of terrorism as derived by the Russian People’s Will was to direct physical violence against an oppressive government with the aim of emotionally terrorizing the members of the government while at the same time demonstrating the feasibility of resistance against that government.
This definition was later expanded by the actions of states and non-state actors to mean inducing fear in the CIVILIAN population in order to motivate the population to overthrow the government (the Marighella Principle) or to control the population BY the government.
If you want, you can change the term to “unconventional war” or “asymmetric war” or whatever term doesn’t confuse you. The bottom line is I expect Iran to conduct physical attacks against targets in the continental US. Whether those targets will strictly be assets of the US government and military, or whether it will include attacks against civilians as a means of putting pressure on the electorate to reign in the government (the latter tactic I don’t think will work) is irrelevant to the main point.
“your wording makes it sound like any attack against the the US is “terrorism” regardless of the target and regardless if the US is the one to actually start this war.”
Again, this is how any attack will be termed by the US government and US media. Any physical attack on any US target by non-uniformed Iranian personnel or proxies in the continental US or non-military US assets in other countries will be deemed “terrorism.” Only actual uniformed Iranian military or IRGC attacks on US military targets might – MIGHT – not be deemed “terrorism”. But I wouldn’t even guarantee that.
“In your hypothetical scenario, what makes you think civilians would be the target?”
The purpose of civilian attacks would be to pressure the electorate to push for the US government to stop the war. I don’t think it would work, but I can see Iranian strategists trying it. If for no other reason, when your country is being bombed into the Stone Age and thousands of your civilians are dying from air raids, as in Iraq, this tends to bring out a desire for revenge on the foreign country’s civilians. The only reason we haven’t had Iraqis coming over here to conduct terrorism is that Iraq’s insurgency really did not and doesn’t have the preparation or resources to operate effectively in the US. Iran is likely to have more capability in that regard.
Whether Iran can conduct an effective terrorist campaign in the US is another question. I think they probably could if they really tried. It wouldn’t take much IF they used proper strategy and tactics. A few hundred men infiltrated into the US along with a fair amount of suppressed pistols and rifles, grenades and a lot of Semtex and maybe a few anti-aircraft missiles could do a lot of damage properly deployed. It would be a negligible outlay of Iranian military or intelligence assets and could produce considerable havoc in the US.
“Would an attack on US weapons manufacturers by an individual or group associated with an entity the US is at war with be considered terrorism in your book?”
Of course. During WWII, the Germans sent saboteurs into the US. In those days, the term was “saboteur”. Today the term would be “terrorist” – even if the actual personnel wore military uniforms in their home countries. In fact, the Geneva Convention specifically does not apply to personnel out of uniform. US Special Forces personnel in Iran, if captured, would be treated as “terrorists”.
The only difference between a “terrorist” and a “saboteur” is whether the point of the attack is to “terrorize” or just to actually destroy a military or economic asset.
In other words, if an Iranian agent shoots the Mayor of New York, that would be considered “terrorism”. If he just plants a bomb on a US Air Force jet on a US air base, that would just be “sabotage”. But the US government and media would still paint both acts as “terrorism”. By my book, BOTH acts would be legitimate attacks by Iran against the US and both the Mayor of New York and a US Air Force base would be legitimate targets.
If Iran wanted to start killing large numbers of US civilians by blowing up car bombs at random around the major US cities – which would be an excellent terrorist tactic – I don’t think that tactic would necessarily work well to achieve the goal of pressuring the government to abandon the war. But if it could be conducted properly – which means with sufficient frequency over a sufficient length of time – it might be made to work in conjunction with other strategy and tactics. The goal would be to raise the cost to the electorate of supporting the government by causing terror in the electorate.
Again, I doubt it would work, as it really hasn’t worked anywhere in recent history that I’m aware of. But the case could be argued rightly or wrongly that if the population of a country supports the sort of illegal wars the US has been engaging in then that population is as responsible for those illegal wars as is their government. Naturally this doesn’t apply in a dictatorship. But the US is (allegedly) a “democracy” in which the leaders are chosen by at least 51% of the population. That makes 51% of the population responsible for any of the actions of the government.
One reason I don’t vote – besides being an anarchist – is precisely because, unlike the old saw which says if you don’t vote, you can’t complain, by not voting and thus not being responsible for putting crooks in office I am precisely the only one who CAN complain.
Osama bin Laden certainly ascribed responsibility to the US population, as did the 9/11 hijackers.
And like bin Laden, there is also the concept of forcing the US to expend much of its economy in fruitless attempts to prevent terrorism. Iran would benefit from the same approach on a much larger scale than Al Qaeda’s infrequent efforts. Not only would an Iran war already cost the US several times the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan put together, in addition to the oil spike which would occur, the US would be forced to expend even more money and effort and restrict the civil rights of the citizenry even more than at present in order to attempt to curtail a well-funded, well-organized terrorist campaign.
You might want to read Richard Condon’s “The Whisper of the Axe” novel for what would constitute a REAL terrorist campaign in the US. If Iran could mount something like that (which I doubt any country short of China could do), they might actually succeed in bringing down the US.
In any event, Iranian planners might view this sort of thing as a valid tactic – which is all I’m saying.
Unknown Unknowns: “but can we agree”
On some things…
“1) both will be primary targets of Iranian medium-range missiles in the event of an attack by the US on her soil?”
The Embassy, yes. Not sure about Bagram, unless it definitely is used by the US Air Force to launch missions into Iran. If it is, it will be hit.
“2) with the aid of locally placed homing device beacons, these missiles will hit their targets with devastating accuracy?”
At least in Iraq, that is probable. Don’t know if Iran has agents near Bagram, maybe, maybe not.
“3) with the death toll at 15,000 in one strike at the embassy alone”
Doubtful the toll will be anywhere near that. Maybe a few thousand at most. Iran doesn’t have THAT many missiles and they have plenty of more serious military targets to hit than State Department personnel. My guess is most of those missiles will go to the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain and any US air bases from which air missions can be launched. Plus a few to Tel Aviv, of course, just for propaganda value.
“together with the increase by at least one hundred percent of the price of oil (the weeks long spike will be much higher), that this will be enough to break the back of an already devastated economy?”
But again, the US military-industrial complex doesn’t care about the general economy as long as US taxpayer money keeps flowing to it. And it will, because the US public will pony up next to forever.
“4) if the elites thought the Amerikan Sheeple could stomach yet another war of wanton aggression, that they will quickly have to reverse course?”
Nope. The elites cannot be affected by the US electorate except during the usual rigged elections. Not unless Occupy Wall Street protesters grow into the hundreds of thousands and suddenly sprout guns, which is highly unlikely.
You give the US electorate WAY too much credit. Remember, most of them believe Iran is an enemy, and at least half of them vote Republican – and the Democratic ones aren’t much better.
“5) Iranian Noor anti-ship missiles will sink several of the sitting ducks in the Forever Persian Pond, putting to bed Team Weasel’s fantasies of being able to project power overseas with respect to Iran?”
Not certain. I would expect some damage, perhaps serious damage, i.e. one or more destroyers or smaller ships downed. Unlikely the carriers will be affected since they will be off in the Med and the Indian Ocean, not directly in the Gulf. One of the signs the US is about to attack will be the withdrawal of the carriers from the Gulf.
“6) This war of aggression will give Iran the excuse it has been looking for to arm Team Weasel’s enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, so that their tenure in Afghanistan will no longer be tenable”
Probably, maybe even certainly. Certainly in the case of the Shia in Iraq. Less so in Afghanistan, unless Iran wants to arm the Taliban which is unlikely, they’re enemies.
None of which outcomes are relevant, as I’ve re-iterated here over and over again, since no one in political power or in the military-industrial complex in the US will be affected by any of that. Which means such outcomes really don’t enter into their calculations nor do they constrain their actions.
As an aside, I just read an article posted on the DEFCON 19 Web site (DEFCON is the biggest computer security conference held every year in Las Vegas) which delves into the corruption of the US security establishment and the banking system. It was an eye-opener in terms of how many hundreds of billions of dollars of illegal money is laundered through the largest banks in the US every year over the last ten years or so. Something like 5.5 trillion dollars which is where a significant part of the US banking system’s profits come from. Really, again, people just have no idea whatsoever how deeply corrupt US finance, politics, business, and media really are.
If you think any of these scum ever consider the opinions of the US citizen, you’re delusional.
*RSH, your 11:56 post is my reference.
Richard Steven Hack,
Can you please provide your operational definition of “terrorism.” I am reading your most recent post, and your wording makes it sound like any attack against the the US is “terrorism” regardless of the target and regardless if the US is the one to actually start this war.
In your hypothetical scenario, what makes you think civilians would be the target?
Would an attack on US weapons manufacturers by an individual or group associated with an entity the US is at war with be considered terrorism in your book?
Sakineh Bagoom: “The US has yet to produce the evidence of any wrongdoing/terrorism on Iran’s part.”
Not relevant to my point. I’m saying if Iran is pushed to the wall by a US attack, resorting to terrorism in the continental US is a valid strategy it would be foolish not to employ. Whether Iran has conducted terrorism outside its borders in the past or not is not relevant.
Mr. Canning: “Are you arguing that the gov’t of Lebanon is not legitimate?”
Generally, I don’t think ANY government is “legitimate”. But in this context, it’s irrelevant.
“Or just stating that Hezbollah is part of that gov’t?”
Not sure what you’re asking. Hizballah is independent of the Lebanese government and represents the Lebanese Shia both within and outside of the Lebanese government. The power in Lebanon lies with Hizballah whether it is in or out of the government.
“A number of Hezbollah leaders have stressed that Hezbollah is not the enemy of the US.”
Irrelevant. The US is an enemy of Hizballah, obviously. Hizballah will act against the US on behalf of Iran is Iran is attacked, as a matter of Shia solidarity. Not to mention that Hizballah’s main enemy is Israel and the US arms Israel against Hizballah. If Israel attacks Iran, Israel will have to attack Hizballah as part of that offensive. So Hizballah will be dragged into the war and will be an ally of Iran.
It may take some negotiation for Iran to get Nasrallah to let Iran use Hizballah cells in the US or Canada for direct terrorism against the US, but I can see it happening. Hizballah undoubtedly gets its missiles from Iran, which implies some degree of “owesies”. At worst, Hizballah cells in the US or Canada can be used to provide support for and access to the US by Iranian personnel, if not directly engaging in terrorism themselves.
Unknown Unknowns:
You cannot kill 15,000 people at one strike without nuclear weapns or sustained air or artillery campaign.
US presence in Afghanistan is good for Iran, she would be bleeding there with no success, ever.
James Canning says: October 26, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Iranians have repeatedly decline to have members of US Congress visit Iran.
Thomas Jefferson’s Holy Qur’an
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/thomas-jeffersons-holy-qur%e2%80%99an/
hans – I think what the Iranian official meant was that demise of Zionist entity will resolve 99% of Iran’s problems.
James Canning – many European parliament MPs are not on Jewish Lobby’s payroll – but America’s all three parties are controlled by AIPAC, therefore, the later cannot dare to visit Islamic Republic, even if their all expenses are paid by Tehran. Just remember what the Lobby did to Rep. Dennis Kucinich for visiting Damascus!!
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/the-vultures-over-syria/
Watch out for this. This is going to be big.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27282
For the Left Gatekeeper’s fans:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29505.htm
Kazem Jalali of the Iranian parliament said the upcoming visit of members of the European parliament offers good chance for them to learn about Iran’s policies and positions. True enough. And why are there no members of the US Congress visiting the Iranian parliament?
http://www.presstv.ir/detail206825.html
Nasrallah: “The West would not wage any military war against Syria, because it is neighboring Israel, and they fear this would affect the security of Israel. External interference will not achieve any goal in Syria now because of the majority’s support to the regime”.
Slight correction to Billary’s ejaculation:
“We came, we saw, he got sodomized, he died.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29508.htm
Just lovely.
Fara,
Bravo. (UN vote 186-2 on denouncing US embargo of Cuba). Anyone unable to guess which country voted with the US?
Unknown Unknowns,
I do not expect any war with Iran in the near-term. For that matter, I do not expect any war with Iran. There are many fools pushing for such a war, to be sure.
fyi,
Yes, Pepe Escobar is a journalist. And I don’t think his claim is true, that withdrawal of US troops will cause gov’t of Iraq to be “closer” to Iran. The tow gov’ts were close when the US had 100,000 troops in Iraq.
Eric and FYI, RSH et al:
I don’t know how long the base at Bagram or the 15,000 military personnel in the embassy in Baghdad will be there, but can we agree that
1) both will be primary targets of Iranian medium-range missiles in the event of an attack by the US on her soil? And that
2) with the aid of locally placed homing device beacons, these missiles will hit their targets with devastating accuracy? And that
3) with the death toll at 15,000 in one strike at the embassy alone, together with the increase by at least one hundred percent of the price of oil (the weeks long spike will be much higher), that this will be enough to break the back of an already devastated economy? And that
4) if the elites thought the Amerikan Sheeple could stomach yet another war of wanton aggression, that they will quickly have to reverse course? And that
5) Iranian Noor anti-ship missiles will sink several of the sitting ducks in the Forever Persian Pond, putting to bed Team Weasel’s fantasies of being able to project power overseas with respect to Iran? And that
6) This war of aggression will give Iran the excuse it has been looking for to arm Team Weasel’s enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, so that their tenure in Afghanistan will no longer be tenable, and their occupation of Iraq will be ‘wiped from the pages of history’?
I don’t know. I’m just askin’
kooshy,
didn’t Iran already indicate it wants to cooperate in an investigation of the so-called “plot”? Perhaps Hillary Clinton should have mentioned this, when she said the US wants Iran to cooperate.
Interested,
Yes, and interesting article. When the Pentagon’s budget is about $1 trillion per year, there is room for games of this sort. Perhaps the gamers were sorry to notice the kind words of Ahmadinejad, regarding relations with Saudi Arabia in wake of revelation of the so-called “plot”.
In First Persian Media Interview, Clinton Announces U.S. ‘Virtual Embassy’ In Tehran
http://www.rferl.org/content/hillary_clinton_announces_virtual_iran_embassy/24372464.html
when one finish reading the article’s headline, one will realize that her obviation ness ever first ‘Persian media” interview is with none other than an American Persian language media, and not a Persian language Iranian media since unlike the Iranian officials the American officials don’t have the guts and the right to take questions from Iranian journalist.
Humanist:
Malcolm needs a buzz cut. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-it.
Amazing! Those who most wanted to be “American”…
http://news.yahoo.com/nypd-keeps-files-muslims-change-names-185910883.html;_ylt=Ai1y7qgL6j.DdVGAUtowSSys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNsdDVrNThqBG1pdANUb3BTdG9yeSBGUARwa2cDOWU5ZmNmNTgtNDNmOS0zMDQ4LWFkOGQtZGY0NDIxZTExYWExBHBvcwMzBHNlYwN0b3Bfc3RvcnkEdmVyA2RlYmNmNDYwLTAwMDQtMTFlMS05Nzc1LThiNzZhMzIwMDdjNA–;_ylg=X3oDMTFpNzk0NjhtBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3
kooshy says:
October 26, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Sure did. Right next to my yoga class. The first segment of today’s Democracy Now! covers it in some detail. What’s amusing to me is that it is not so much that it’s the case of a cat being scared of a little mouse, but that of a lion being scared enough not to be able to wait another few weeks for winter to scatter the protesters. What is Uncle Weasel so afraid of? I haven’t watched Press TV since I got here, but I am sure the gorgeous Homa Lezgee and co are having a field day with this stuff.
Tharier al Americaya
Oakland Policeman Throws Flash Grenade Into Crowd Trying To Help Injured Protester
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZLyUK0t0vQ&feature=player_embedded
One will only have the right to assemble (please chose one)
1- Hobbies and toys
2- Chines made goods bought from Wal-Mart or Ikea
3- Only when an elected representative, In an state assembly hall
4- In a virtual setting and In one’s mind
Occupy Oakland: Iraq war veteran in critical condition after police clashes
Scott Olsen, 24, in hospital with fractured skull and brain swelling after allegedly being hit by a police projectile in Oakland
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/26/occupy-oakland-veteran-critical-condition?newsfeed=true
You guys up north did you see any of this yesterday?
A question for the legal experts… Regardless of the veracity of the story….
If, according the storyline, American officials knew for some time that the electronic parts being shipped were involved in the murder of Americans and they did not halt the process immediately (which appears to be the case from my non-expert reading), would those officials not be responsible (complicit, negligent, …) in the murder of Americans?
FYI writes:
“Yes, they will [i.e. the US government will abandon its air base in Bagram, Afghanistan]. It is too far and too costly to maintain.”
I hope you’re right, FYI. But, costly or not, I’m afraid the US government has a soft spot in its heart for large air bases strategically located within a few hours from the majority of all potential hot spots in the world.
An interesting article:
http://news.salon.com/2011/10/26/pentagon_game_to_divide_iranians_and_arabs/
WP
Radio frequency modules made in the United States.
Wow, we are actually manufacturing something in US, that is, beside Hollywood stories!!!
WTF,
In the comment section of the article your linked, the following comment (rather funny) was written by someone:
If we find Iranian parts in an IED it proves Iran is making them. When we find American made parts in an IED it proves Iran is making them. Why aren’t they made in China like everything else?
BREAKING NEWS!! – We now turn you to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney:
So…You didn’t believe us when we told you the Iranian Government sent a used car salesman to hire a Mexican Cartel to blow up a Washington cafe in order to kill the Saudi Ambassador? (We even pointed out that “you can’t make this stuff up”)
Now look…We have hard evidence of the Iranian Government’s involvement in murdering US troops in Iraq with IEDs. What is this evidence you ask; we can prove that radio equipment was sent from the US to Singapore, then shipped to Iran, and finally ended up in IEDs in Iraq. Yes, this is real, hard evidence!! We filed a real case and everything.
So, how does radio equipment being shipped to an electronics store in Iran prove Iranian Government involvement? I would only remind you that this is Iran, the largest state sponsor of terror in the world, that we are talking about. We’re the United States Government, we wouldn’t make a claim like this unless we could back it up.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-modules-triggered-ieds-in-iraq-officials-say/2011/10/25/gIQAiBJXGM_story.html
“This is the first prosecution in which the government has alleged that it has the evidence to trace — by serial number — specific components exported from the United States to Iran, and later to IEDs in Iraq,” said Dean Boyd, a Justice Department spokesman.
fyi says:
October 26, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Fyi, from what I have read in this past decade so far Pepe’s analysis of Iraqi situation and the eventual ending of this fiasco has been more precise than anything I have ever read coming out of these highly paid think tankers especially with regard to Sadr movement from the get go, therefore like the famous Johnny Paycheck’s song one needs to switch the lyrics from Job to Analysis and tell Mr. Cordesman take this analyses ……and you know what.
“During the height of the space race in the 1960s, legend has it, NASA scientists realized that pens could not function in space. They needed to figure out another way for the astronauts to write things down. So they spent years and millions of taxpayer dollars to develop a pen that could put ink to paper without gravity. But their crafty Soviet counterparts, so the story goes, simply handed their cosmonauts pencils.”
–From Scientific American
kooshy says: October 26, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Mr. Escobar, in my opinion, is not reliable in his grasp of the strategic situation.
Like Mr. Tom Friedman of New York Times, he is a journalist and not an analyst.
I found Dr. Cordesman’s analysis to be insightful; at least it provides some understanding of the thinking of a portion of US strategic thinkers.
What he is saying is that “We need money and resources to save our position in Iraq.”
Well, that is over; just like the US venture into South Vietnam.
Next step, just like Vietnam, will be an exercise in finger-pointing; blame this or that group for failure in Iraq.
A senior adviser to the Leader of the Islamic Revolution says the future government in Libya will be established in accordance with Islamic criteria.
Addressing a meeting on Islamic Awakening on Wednesday, Ali Akbar Velayati stressed no room will be left for foreigners in the North African country.
MYOB bigots, address your own issues then involve in others!
Eric A. Brill says: October 26, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Yes, they will.
It is too far and too costly to maintain.
Americans always built big; US is Big Country and they like big things; including big cars and big breasts.
fyi says:
October 26, 2011 at 11:49 am
Dr. Cordesman on Iraq etc.
Here is one relative passage from a new article by Pepe (linked bellow) to Dr. Cordesman and various other think tankers continues “reams” of useless (meaningless) analysis which is expected of them to draw in continued founding.
“Expect reams of think-tank Middle East “experts” suggesting a US withdrawal as a diversionist tactic; the creation of a false flag/black ops gambit, such as the suicide bombing of a Saudi ambassador (oops, already tried this one); blaming the “terror” on Tehran; and then reshipping thousands of troops back to keep Iraq “safe from terror”.
THE ROVING EYE
Real wimps go to Tehran via Baghdad
By Pepe Escobar
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MJ27Ak02.html
James writes:
“Only 32% of bombs dropped from 20,000 feet hit within 1,000 feet of their targets.”
I suppose one could nonetheless say that that’s “good enough for government work” – unless, of course, one happens to be standing on the ground anywhere near one of those targets.
James writes:
“US diplomatic presence in Iraq should be reduced substantially.”
I don’t think the US invested a reported $1 billion in its brand-spanking-new Iraqi embassy with any intention of reducing its diplomatic presence in Iraq any time soon.
The same prediction applies to Afghanistan, if and when the US ever “pulls out” there. For any doubters, I suggest firing up Google Earth and searching for “Bagram, Afghanistan.” Zoom in, look around, and then ask yourself whether it’s conceivable that the US has any intention of giving up that air base any time within the next several decades.
Humanist,
Only 32% of bombs dropped from 20,000 feet hit within 1,000 feet of their targets. Often a miss of 50 or 100 feet meant the target was not destroyed.
(Figures for US Eighth Air Force, Second World War, in Europe)
kooshy,
The astounding incompetence of Condoleezza Rice can be grasped when one considers that G W Bush apparently was not even aware he was giving Jerry Bremer authority to dissolve the Sunni power structure, when he gave it to him.
This video can touch the libertine side of your mind if you have already liked some of Malcolm Cladwell’s strange tales:
http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell.html
Edmund Sanders of the LA Times has interesting interview with Tony Blair today, re: Israel/Palestine. Blair is on his 72nd visit to Jerusalem as Quartet envoy.
Philip Giraldi has a welcome reminder today of the gross corruption that was part and parcel of the foolish American military adventure in Iraq. Billions of dollars stolen. “More Money for Nothing”
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/
kooshy,
Karon should have mentioned that Garner warned the moron in the White House that Jerry Bremer’s dissolution of the Iraqi army would mean civil war and chaos. Garner tried to get the order reversed, but the moron in the White House, and his grossly incompetent National Secuirity Advisor (Condoleezza Rice) failed to grasp what was at issue.
kooshy,
Tony Karon should have mentioned that the moron in the White House, and Tony Blair in the UK, were warned that overthrow of the Sunni power structure would result in a government controlled by the Shia and friendly toward Iran. I did like the foolish comment by General Garner, comparing Iraq to the Philippines in wake of Spanish-American war. Did Garner forget the years of carnage that followed American annexation of those islands?
Good photo of Ahmadinejad (in that Time magazine piece you linked).
hans,
Why do you regard Gaddafi as a “great man”? Because he was too stupid to take the advice of a number of European diplomats to tone down his rhetoric after the outbreak of the rebellion? They pleaded with him to be calmer, and to avoid ranting about slaughtering civilians in revenge. They warned him that he would cause western military intervention against his gov’t.
Glenn Greenwald on Democracy Now! today.
http://www.democracynow.org/
BiBiJon,
For years now, Cordesman has advocated squandering hundreds of billions of more dollars on the delusional American military adventure in Iraq. He has not changed his stance.
US diplomatic presence in Iraq should be reduced substantially. After all US troops are withdrawn.
k_w,
Israel’s military power is not going to be challenged by any other country in the Middle East.
Israel’s security problems are primarily internal, and of Israel’s own making. With help from foolish “supporters” of Israel in the US (and Europe).
German daily “Der Tagesspiegel” of October 20 contained an article about a promotion by Minister of Defence Thomas de Maiziere of Bernd Ulrich’s “Wofür Deutschland Krieg führen darf” (What Germany is allowed to go to war for).
During the event, a journalist asked a weird question (my translation of the passage):
“Then a journalist from “Welt” asked the minister if Merkel’s promise to defend Israel was not one motive for the Libya-no. Eventually it would be easier for her to get the support of the Germans of military action against Iran if she didn’t join every such action before. And hasn’t she been afraid to pin down Germany’s military capacity in Libya, which she wanted to keep ready for the defence of Israel?
“Anyway, the minister didn’t shake his head dismissed the idea as nonsense. He said: “A very smart remark. I do not want to say more about it.”
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/meinung/gewappnet-fuer-einen-krieg-in-nahost/5288732.html
fyi says:
October 26, 2011 at 11:49 am
All:
Dr. Cordesman on Iraq etc.
http://csis.org/publication/iraq-and-us-strategy-gulf-shaping-us-plans-after-withdrawal
———————-
fyi, I only read the summary, but here is my take: How to turn a screw?
Place screw driver in the screw head. Get a massive bulldozer and rotate the house.
Seriously, did Mr. Cordesman consider making nice with Iran as an option that obviates the rest of the convoluted plan he’s come up with?
All:
Dr. Cordesman on Iraq etc.
http://csis.org/publication/iraq-and-us-strategy-gulf-shaping-us-plans-after-withdrawal
BiBiJon says: October 26, 2011 at 9:26 am
Van was an Armenian city.
Turks and Kurds displaced, massacred, and otherwise killed its Armenian population during 1905.
Now it is a Kurdish city – but with no zest; its zest was its Armenian population.
And yet Kurds everywhere claim oppression.
Which path to Persia??
by the usual suspects;
written by Saban Center scholars Daniel L. Byman, Martin Indyk, Suzanne Maloney, Michael E. O’Hanlon, Kenneth M. Pollack, and Bruce Riedel.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=which%20path%20to%20persia&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brookings.edu%2F~%2Fmedia%2Ffiles%2Frc%2Fpapers%2F2009%2F06_iran_strategy%2F06_iran_strategy.pdf&ei=JBGoTobpO9OGsgLi19zGDw&usg=AFQjCNGJmrIAv3Q0Nmu1HULmS6QJVL1H3Q&cad=rja
Rehmat says:
October 26, 2011 at 8:42 am
I am a big supporter of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, however I am against religion involvement with politics, he is constantly invoking religion. BTW i am not of Jewish belief rather I am a Christian but it does not impair my political views.
From Turkish press http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=iranians-donate-blood-to-earthquake-victims-2011-10-26
Iranian consular diplomats in Istanbul have organized a blood drive for the Van earthquake victims.
As another proof that the majority of 1% rich elites are Jewish – the Jewish Lobby in a desperate move has accused Occupy Wall Street movement having ties with Egyptian moderate Islamic movement Muslim Brotherhood.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/lobby-ows-has-ties-to-muslim-brotherhood/
hans – Ahmadinejad, as true Believer cannot be a ‘religious bigot’. If you’re looking for a crowed of religious bigots – look them into your Talmudic backyard.
pirouz – PITY, all your ‘Lefties’ you described are Israel-Firster Zionist creeps. If you want to make sense out of your comments – try to read Gilad Atzmon or Roger Tucker sites. Both of them are Jewish ‘Lefties’.
Chao…
Ahmadinejad Vs Obama
A good video too watch, besides his religious bigotry he is a great man on par with the greats like Mohammed Mossadeg,Kwame Nkruma,Patrice Lemumba,Gamal Abdel Nasser,Salvador Allende,Omar Torrijos,and now Moammar Gaddafi, Chavez.
kooshy says:
October 26, 2011 at 12:58 am
Tony is being nice swallowing this one, hoping for visa and an interview, so he is throwing in a free one here
No Tony utter the magic words “Allah Akhbar” you might get it sooner, it worked for the barbarians of Libya, not only that they were given the title revolutionaries. You see you might just hit the nerve of the unelected bigots who hold sway in Iran!
Tony is being nice swallowing this one, hoping for visa and an interview, so he is throwing in a free one here
U.S. Iraq Withdrawal a Gift to Iran? No, the U.S. Iraq Invasion Was the Gift to Iran
Posted by Tony Karon Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 9:09 pm
http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/10/25/u-s-iraq-withdrawal-a-gift-to-iran-no-the-u-s-iraq-invasion-was-the-gift-to-iran/
Isolation of US-Israel;
“The United Nations General Assembly has voted to denounce the US embargo against Cuba for the 20th consecutive year. The resolution passed 186-2, with Israel the only member joining the US in opposing.”
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/206664.html
Humanist says:
October 25, 2011 at 9:04 pm
One of the main problems that I see in many people in the “left” is that they either don’t believe or they don’t dare to be radical and express radical ideas. I have seen this problem with Tom Hartmann in RT and I see it now with A. Goodman and Chris Hedges too. Tom Hartmann always tries to put the blame on “neoliberalism” and Reagan, and now C. Hedges says that there are a “variety” of capitalism and talks in a way that insinuates that it is only the “corporate capitalism” that is the problem; and in a parallel way Goodman says that even some of the “wealthy” agree that they must their fair share of tax (presumably she is talking anout W. Buffett).
What most of these people are missing -IN MY HUMBLE OPINION- is that the root cause of the ailment is neither “corporate” version of the capitlism nor is it “neoliberalism” (or Reagan), nor is it the fact that the wealthy is not paying their fair share of tax.
These people talk as if it was possible to switch back to the 60′s and the Keynesian economics, as if some how it was the greed and corruption of some elite which led to neoliberalism.
What they miss -AGAIN IN MY HUMBLE OPINION- is that “neoliberalism” was NOT the root cause in itself but it was the result of the root cause. And the root cause is the falling rates of profit and the severe scarcity of any profitable productive investment which would sustain the necessary minimum “growth” for capitalist economies and the necessary minimum rate of accumulation for the capital. It was the crisis of the 70′s which led to the abolishment of Keynesian economics and not the other way around!
Therefore, for as long as the root cause of the ailment (ie. capitalism) has not been addressed we are not going to get to any where. We can talk all we want about universal healthcare or a more just tax system, but none of these are possible without sacrificing the rate of accumulation of capital and further deterioration of the economic growth rate.
In other words within the parameters of the capitalist system there are no “solutions” (unless there is a global DESTRUCTIVE catastrophe a la WWII happens) to the current crisis.
Personally I think one of the best analyses of the situation is the following:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/foster131011.html
Russia has warned the UN nuclear agency against issuing a negative report on Iran’s nuclear energy program, saying such a move could undermine diplomatic efforts to resolve the West’s dispute with Tehran.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/206654.html
Is People’s Revolution has started to roll on the track of its first phase?
Amy Goodman and Chris Hedges on Charlie Rose show talk about Occupy Wall Street
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11961
RSH,
The US has yet to produce the evidence of any wrongdoing/terrorism on Iran’s part. The evidence for Khobar, Argentina, Marine barracks is still missing. One can’t fall for the “top state sponsor of terrorism” line.
The other day the American-born Israeli ambassador to US, Michael Oren on NPR referred to Palestinians no less than a dozen times as terrorists. His line was basically, Israel good, Palestinians terrorist. He said something along the lines that Israel released 1027 terrorists for Gilad. Of course nobody ever asks: why does Israel hold so many Palestinian prisoners in the first place? Also, this: 1 Israeli life = 1027 Palestinian lives.
How pitiful, the correction should read: Can you hit the edit button a day after a post?
2012 London Olympics and Mossad
Early this year, Tehran had threatened to boycott 2012 London Olympics due to games’ objectionable official logo which looks like the word ‘ZION’ instead of ’2012′. However, as it stands now, Iranian atheletes may be competing in the event…..
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/2012-london-olympics-and-mossad/
Ugh…
Can you hit the edit button after a day after a post?
“toeing” the line rather than “towing”
How about several month after a post?
The “polls” have closed, rather than the “poles” have closed.
Sometimes the mind doesn’t communicate with fingers.
Better late than never?
Eric,
Only “if!”
James Canning says:
October 25, 2011 at 5:46 pm
“My own view is that US forces should have been pulled out of Iraq asap after Saddam was overthrown. And that Sunni power structure should have been kept intact, to prevent civil war. But I was adamantly opposed to the invasion itself.”
James your own view regarding the form of Iraq’s government is very honorable to be mentioned by a United Kingdom citizen (assumingly), however majority of citizens in the Republic of Iraq have and had a different view of their own for who and how to be governed in Iraq, is that something that a good citizen of the democratic western society accepts, I fear not. I thought democracy will imply that the majority should rule, perhaps up to the point that will not entangle the western interests.
Muqtada al-Sadr should be thanked by the American taxpayers, because he prevented Obama from keeping tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq for years to come.
Michael Lind offers some worthwhile comments too: “By invading Iraq, the US carried idiocy to perfection. The Iraq war was a catastrophe for the US in every way – - strategic, economic, political and moral.”
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/25/iraq_war_mission_failed/?source=newsletter
I recommend the comments of Jonathan Steele (“The Iraq war is finally over. And it marks a complete neocon defeat”):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/23/us-withdrawal-iraq-defeat-bush-neocons
R S Hack,
Are you arguing that the gov’t of Lebanon is not legitimate? Or just stating that Hezbollah is part of that gov’t?
A number of Hezbollah leaders have stressed that Hezbollah is not the enemy of the US.
Unknown Unknowns “‘Cells’ implies a terrorist organization, especially in the international context, whereas Hezbollah is simply an Islamic-Nationalist resistance force (and now part of the (il)legitimate government).”
While your latter statement is true, the former is not. We must distinguish between “terrorism” as a MOVEMENT and “terrorism” as a TACTIC. Also, espionage organizations may also operate in cells, such as the recent Russian industrial spies.
“I think this is crazy talk. What makes you think Hezbollah has an on the ground presence in America? Hezbollah has no history of operating outside of the Arab world.”
I believe it is an assumption of most counter-intelligence organizations that Hizballah has well-organized cells in certain other countries. That is not the same as OPERATING in those countries, i.e., engaged in actions against those countries. I, not being privy to the internal facts of either the CIA, NSA, Mossad, or Hizballah, can’t prove that of course. But it’s logical that they would, just as Israel has spies everywhere.
And according to this quote I dug up on the Web, they acknowledge that:
““We have 2,000 volunteers who have registered since last year,” Hezbollah spokesman Mojtaba Bigdeli told Reuters in a 2006 interview. “They have been trained and they can become fully armed. We are ready to dispatch them to every corner of the world to jeopardize Israel and America’s interests. We are only waiting for the supreme leader’s green light to take action. If America wants to ignite World War III … we welcome it.”
There is also this report from ABC in 2008:
Hezbollah Poised to Strike?
:http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5203570&page=1
While probably mostly propaganda, it includes evidence that Hizballah has agents in Canada and elsewhere.
So, yes, there is evidence Hizballah has assets in place either in the US or next door to the US, as well as elsewhere.
smith: “Iranians have never retaliated with terror.”
There’s always a first time. If your country is under heavy attack with the intent of regime change, striking at the heartland of your enemy is logical. The Germans sent saboteurs to the US during World War II. Why would Iran do any less?
“Iranians do not do such things but they might have very precise targets in mind.”
Indeed. And it is just such “precise targets” that demand sending agents into the heartland of your enemy.
“Their ballistic and cruise missiles will hit all the oil fields, refineries, pumping stations, storage, ports, pipelines and tankers in middle east taking out more than half of the traded oil on international markets.”
No doubt. But eventually those missiles will be expended – they have only so many. And then the weight of the US military machine will be felt, with the plants that produce those missiles being mostly destroyed. And since the US military-industrial complex cares only for its only profits, the impact on the rest of the economy will be ignored by the politicians. So the war will continue. And if Iran wants to be effective in that war, it should use all the means at its disposal, including striking directly at the continental US using the only means available: terrorism.
fyi,
Do you agree with George Friedman that Iran would prefer Iraq to be relatively poor and dysfunctional? I think Iran would benefit from a flourishing Iraq.
fyi,
I think you overlook the numerous well-educated Europeans who have a very high regard for various Middle Eastern countries, people, art & architecture, history, etc etc. Are your comments focused on working class Europeans?
kooshy,
My own view is that US forces should have been pulled out of Iraq asap after Saddam was overthrown. And that Sunni power structure should have been kept intact, to prevent civil war. But I was adamantly opposed to the invasion itself.
kooshy,
Yes, I see your point. And one might well agree it would be problematic for Iran to provide training in Iraq. Thanks.
Eric,
Bravo.
More framing against Iran.
http://news.yahoo.com/u-charges-5-devices-sent-iran-used-bombs-194538149.html
All:
Dr. Friedman: Libya and Iraq: The Price of Success
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20111024-libya-and-iraq-price-success
For anyone who might find it interesting, here is an email I just sent to one Dalia Dassa Kaye, who, I gather, is a visiting professor at UCLA at the moment:
Ms. Kaye,
The next paragraph appears in the short piece you recently posted on Gary Sick’s blog:
“Still, the U.S. Government clearly believes Iran is responsible [for the Saudi ambassador plot]. The Obama administration has made public accusatory statements that can hardly be walked back at this point, and it is difficult to believe that it would have staked its reputation on a flimsy case.”
With due respect, I find your first sentence speculative. As best I can tell, your “evidence” for that statement can be found only in the sentence that follows it: the Obama administration probably would not have staked its reputation on a flimsy case and, therefore, its case must not be flimsy – even if it’s offered no evidence that supports its accusations.
I am not persuaded the US government really believes its accusations. I suspect it merely doesn’t disbelieve them, which is not the same thing. Even my position, you’ll note, is more charitable to the US government than that of many critics, who insist that the US government doesn’t believe its accusations at all. I see no evidence that it either believes or disbelieves. While some might say that that state of mind should make the US government hesitate before accusing Iran of such a dastardly deed, “shoot from the hip” pretty much describes the evidentiary standard to which the US Government holds itself when making accusations against Iran.
Regrettably, the word “if” is such a short one that many writers skip past it without a great deal of emphasis, proceeding to spin all sorts of imaginative scenarios based on the truth of whatever follows the “if.” You’ve done just that here, and your only effort to provide a bit more solidity to what is really just speculation is your baseless assumption that the US government must have some evidence to support its allegations or else it would be too embarrassed to make them.
Please.
Next time, how about just waiting to see whether the US government actually offers some evidence, and then and only then start laying out your scenarios? In other words, pay a bit more attention to the word “if.”
James Canning says:
October 25, 2011 at 2:39 pm
No, that’s not a fair way of saying it, that’s not what he said or intended to say or meant to say period, if the actual transcript I posted didn’t sink then maybe next time another western news outlet should interview you or “Dryfuse” so you guys can tell the public what Ahmadinijad’s fair responses are, in that case the net benefit is that the transcripts will match what your interpolations are. Good luck with convincing yourself.
James Canning says: October 25, 2011 at 2:34 pm
The largest hinderance to a prosperous Middle East are the strategies of Axis Powers in the Middle East.
They are developed states that do not care one bit for the people of Middle East; a fundamentally alien people to them.
Prosperous Middle East is predicated on the exit of US and her allies from the Middle East.
No doubt.
kooshy,
We should remember that Iran offered to help the US to assess the “threat” posed by Saddam Hussein, and to deal with that threat, long before the idiotic US/UK invasion.
kooshy,
Is it fair to say Ahmadinejad in effect said Iranian troops should have helped to provide security in Iraq after Saddam was overthrown?
kooshy,
Thanks. Yes, Ahmadinejad in effect says that the slaughter in Iraq was result of US military occupation. Which should have been ended years sooner.
The slaughter in Iraq was direct result of idiotic destruction of Sunni power strucure. Over time, Shia were certain to gain control of Iraqi gov’t.
fyi,
You have an instinct for calling upon Iran to act in the worst possibly way.
You do not want a prosperous Middle East? You wish for more death and destruction?
James
“At least Dreyfus quotes significant Ahmadinejad comment to Zakaria: Iraqis “would [have] avoid[ed] killing so many Iraqi people or Americans” if Iranian trainers had been in Iraq years ago. Idiot neocons prevented Iran from being involved in the plans for overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and from helping to ensure stability thereafter.”
James that is incorrect and not how the question was put and how Ahmadinijad replied, the question by Zakaria was with an opening statement which Ahmadinijad responded to, here is the transcript see if that is what you understand Ahmadinijad’s meant
Transcript :(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) ZAKARIA: Welcome to our viewers, and welcome President Ahmadinejad. Thank you for joining us.
Let me begin with something that’s fresh in the news. President Obama has said that all American troops will be out of Iraq by the end of the year. In light of this announcement, will your government increase its efforts to train the Iraqi army, since there will be a need in Iraq for training and support. Will the Iranian government be providing greater support in that area?
PRES. MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, IRAN (through translator): I think this is going to be a very good idea and it should have been done sooner, maybe seven or eight years ago, and they would avoid killing so many Iraqi people or Americans as well. I think they should have done it much earlier.
But the people in the Iraqi government did not accept the increased presence of the Americans. The Iraqi government is independent and sovereign. They should decide how to provide trainings for the military personnel. We should wait for the decision of the Iraqi government.
ZAKARIA: But do you expect that Iran’s engagement and involvement with the Iranian government will now increase as a result of the American withdrawal?
AHMADINEJAD (through translator): I don’t think there is going to be any change. We have a special relationship with Iraq. There’s a historical relationship between the two governments. We have a very friendly and amicable relationship with the Iraqi people.
Although there was a war between the two nations under Saddam Hussein, but that was not able to disturb this relationship.
1- I think this is being a very good idea is reply to the statement that US troops are leaving, not that is a good idea for Iran to train Iraqi troops.
2- “The Iraqi government is independent and sovereign. They should decide how to provide trainings for the military personnel” is reply to the actual question
You are making the same willful interpolation as the closet neocons like “Dry fuse” do
fyi,
Hague has made very clear Britain welcomes a prosperous living in peace with its neighbors. But Britain will not accept nuclear weapons in Iran, it would appear. And Iran’s policy, as you know, is to seek a Middle East free of nukes. This would suit the UK very well indeed.
James Canning says: October 25, 2011 at 2:29 pm
You wrote:
“European leaders are not seeking the overthrow of the gov’t or Iran, provided Iran is not secretly trying to build nuclear weapons.”
Tha is very generous of them; I am relieved to learn that.
I feel better already.
The EU states had their chance in 2007; what you are stating – based on their course of action – is not true.
If I were an Iranian leader I would do my utmost to wreck as many EU projects as possible in the Middle East.
fyi,
Any competent British foreign secretary will seek to nourish good relations with the US.
Hague made clear Britain wanted better relations with Iran. And Syria, and Libya.
fyi,
European leaders are not seeking the overthrow of the gov’t or Iran, provided Iran is not secretly trying to build nuclear weapons. Full stop.
I think you would concede there is a degree of murkiness about Iran’s nuclear programme, and that there are differences of opinion among Iranian leaders. And you, of course, actually want Iran to build nukes.
William Hague, and the Conservative Party in Britain, were trying to develop better relations with Libya and Syria, prior to eruption of current unrest in those countries. (Let’s hope Libya returns soon to stability.) And Hague said the UK wanted better relations with Iran.
James Canning says: October 25, 2011 at 2:17 pm
My assumption is that Mr. Hague also is desirous of destruction of Iranian power; having continued the policy of his predecessors (Mr. Blair andMr. Brown) in harmonizing UK’s Iran policy with that of US.
James Canning says: October 25, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Your statement below is patently false:
“but most of the Western leaders are not trying to overthrow the government of Iran.”
If that were the case the EU leaders would have clutched at the straw that US intelligence services threw them in 2007 in the form of Iran Nuclear Weapons program assessment.
An assessment that has not changed in 4 years.
EU states are opposed to independent Iranian power; in the final analysis.
The burden is on the EU states to show otherwise.
Just yesterday they confirmed their opposition to Iran by threatening her with more sanctions.
These pressures, in Iran, have led to an increase in security services intrusion in civil society and people’s lives – monitoring has increased and the state has become very intolerant of anything that could be even remotely misconstrued as sedition.
May be some people in US or EU think these domestic developments in Iran will result in reovolution. Nothing can be further from the truth.
Again, this establishes that US and EU do not care about human rights; no state in the condition of security threat can fully respect human rights.
This is about destruction of Iranian power.
fyi,
An interesting question that has not been asked on this site, is why William Hague has not commented publicly or Iran’s offer to cease production of 20% U. In June of this year, Hague of course warned that Iranian production of 20% U helped clear the way to quick building of nuclear weapons. So, why no comment on the Iranian offer?
My assumption is that Hillary Clinton has asked Hague not to comment, because Obama needs to play to the rich and powerful Jewish interests to avoid loss of control of the Senate by the Democrats in 2012.
fyi,
I should add that the US should keep no military bases in Afghanistan, or in any former Soviet republic, or in Iraq.
fyi,
As you know, Iran in the past has urged that the countries bordering Afghanistan should work together to achieve stability and economic growth in that country. This clearly is the sensible way forward.
I know you are happy to see various Nato countries squander hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan, and to see more instability there in hopes this will result in more damage to Nato countries. But in fact Iran would benefit from a stable, prosperous Afghanistan.
fyi,
Western leaders would of course welcome a change of approach by Iran, but most of the Western leaders are not trying to overthrow the government of Iran. The issue primarily a matter of whether Iran is in fact secretly trying to build nukes. Which, of course, is what you advocate Iran should do.
James Canning says: October 25, 2011 at 1:20 pm
The ultimate strategic gain for the Western Alliance is a change in the orientation of the Iranian state towards West.
That is not in the cards.
James Canning says: October 25, 2011 at 1:12 pm
The Iranian leaders are not interested in private thoughts of EU leaders.
Afghanistan and her stability is marginal to the Iranian security; let the Americans, Europeans, Indians, and Pakistanis slug it out there for the control of a territory that is of no value.
Iranians have their assets and cards; Herat and Mazar-i Sharif; Tadjiks and Hazara.
For these reasons, Iran will not attend the upcoming conference on Afghanistan in any meaningful way.
EU states are on their own in Afghanistan.
Eric,
I would guess that most Americans, asked today on the street what they thought about the so-called “plot”, would not even know what the question addressed. What plot?
In fact, this would obviously be a safe assumption to make.
kooshy,
At least Dreyfus quotes significant Ahmadinejad comment to Zakaria: Iraqis “would [have] avoid[ed] killing so many Iraqi people or Americans” if Iranian trainers had been in Iraq years ago. Idiot neocons prevented Iran from being involved in the plans for overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and from helping to ensure stability thereafter.
And the moron in the White House in 2006 rejected the policy recommendations of the Iraq Study Group – - to make deals with Syrian and Iran and pull all USA forces out of the country asap.
Kathleen,
Did you make any notes of specific comments made by Adam Smith (US Congressman, Washington State)?
BiBiJon,
Conor Friedersdorf would be more accurate if he wrote that the destruction of the Sunni power structure in Iraq guaranteed significant Iranian influence in Iraq. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein was not the crucial event.
The focus should be on the utter stupidity of the actions of L. Paul Bremer after he was put in charge of Iraq in wake of overthrow of Saddam. This in turn would expose the idiot Republicans who saw Iraq as fertile ground for rewarding young Republican ideologues who knew nothing about Iraq or the areas of administration that were in thier control.
fyi,
Time and again you claim that “capitulation” by Iran is what the “Axis Powers” demand. What form would this “capitulation” take? You want Iran to continue to produce 20% U, to facilitate further enriching to weapons grade, to enable Iran to build and deploy nuclear weapons. Is “capitulation” by Iran its continuing adherence to NPT?
Rehmat,
Gaddafi did himself in, through numerous blunders. Western financial interests had been doing business with Libya for many years. No need to overthrow Gaddafi to do business with Libya.
fyi,
Many European leaders recognise, at least privately, that minimal stability in Afghanistan cannot be achieved without significant help from Iran.
How much of the noise about “containing” Iran in fact is just pandering to powerful “Jewish” “pro-Israel” interests?
And Iran obviously will not be taking control of Iraq, no matter what utterly stupid comments come out of the mouths of American politicians.
I know it’s anti-Semitic to say that – but Max Keiser says on RT that Libyan leader Qaddafi was overthrown and killed by the agents of western bankers (David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy, Barack Obama, Stephen Harper and others). Max claims that big Western bankers and Wall Street had wasted billions of dollars Qaddafi invested in those banks. Watch video below.
Max Keiser even joked that had Qaddafi arrived at Manhattan loaded with money a few years ago – He would not only still be ruling Libya but even had a big chunk of the Wall Street.
However, some people says Max Keiser is a smart Jew – he never mentions that Jews control the Wall Street and most of large western banking institutions like Goldman Sachs.
Donald Trump have boasted how he screwed Qaddafi on a land deal.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/10/25/max-keiser-qaddafi-victim-of-financial-terrorists/
fyi says:
October 25, 2011 at 12:25 pm
When you are right, you are right.
From http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-10/25/c_131211951.htm
China adamantly believes that dialogue and negotiations are the proper ways to solve the Iranian nuclear issue, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said Tuesday at a daily press briefing.
“We hope the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) can deal with the issue objectively and impartially,” Jiang said.
———————
It is worth repeating. China’s Foreign Ministry HOPES the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) can deal with the issue objectively and impartially.
Amano has left IAEA’s credibility as something to be “hoped for” by major powers. Heck of a job, Amano!
BiBiJon says: October 25, 2011 at 6:13 am
These are acts of harassments.
IAEA is not a disarmament agency.
But the Axis Powers, in their zeal for isolating and restricting Iran, have gone so far as to inflict damage on the institutions that they themselves had created after WWII.
Like everything else in their confrontation with Iran/Islamic Iran/Iranian Power, they had assumed that they could repair those self-inflicted damages after the Iranian capitulation.
That is, they would go around telling other states that they made a special case for Iran but everyone else was OK. But in a variety of fora, the Western Alliance has made a special case of “Iran”, “Libya”, “Iraq”, “North Korea”.
This will not stand as this “exception” argument is re-used again and again.
And as for the case of Iran, when capitulation – the predicate of the rest of the Western Policy – is not realized, the damages will not be repaired to these international institutions.
As the Axis Powers beat a tactical retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan, they need to re-double their pressure on Iran to restrict and limit the expansion of Iranian power – whatever that is supposed to be.
As I stated before: for Iran there is no way back but forward. US-Iran confrontation cannot be resolved by any conceivable Iranian concession by any responsible Iranian government. Only utter Iranian surrender can now resolve that confrontation on term acceptable to US. Iranian leaders have understood this and thus revised their Palestine policy to what it was back in 1980s (except that now more Muslims agree with their position).
For the other states that have harmonized their Iran policies with those of US, it has become – I guess – by now that there can be no resolution short of utter military defeat of Iran by US. That there is no creative or practical policy alternatives are ever going to come out of Washington.
For these states – EU states, Canada, Australia, India, UAE and others – this realization will almost certainly lead to dilution of Iran sanctions over time.
The day-to-day business of states is just too important to be blocked by fantasies of a small group of human beings in that small island – Washington DC – surrounded by an Ocean called Reality.
I cannot estimate when this erosion will have completed its course but my guess is that it has already started – on the periphery and it will work its way towards the core.
These are its last gasps; the so-called “Terror Plot”, the Amano Gambit, etc. of a dead-end policy that has created a permanent and dangerous confrontation in the Middle East – the most significant energy producing region of this planet – with no possibility of resolution.
plug in for this site on Cspans Washington Journal.
at 13:29. Rep Smith actually agreed with what I said about the push for military action against Iran by the same individuals who lied the US into Iraq
Washington, DC
Monday, October 24, 2011
Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), Armed Services Cmte. Ranking Member, offers his perspective on the deficit reduction “Super Committe” and how it should handle cuts in the defense budget as well as his views on the pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Was able to get another strong plug in for this site and Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett on CSspans Washington Journal this morning. During an interview with Rep Smith on defense. Greta the host was pushing hard for military action against Syria. Not very subtle.
Washington Journal for Tuesday, October 25
Updated 1 hr., 22 min. ago
Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), Armed Services Cmte. Ranking Member
When will more MSM outlets have Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett on as guest to discuss the situation with Iran
kooshy says:
October 25, 2011 at 1:01 am
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
There’s a critical flaw in that piece, regarding this claim:
“The [Iran] navy is the only service with the operational reach to visit countries that do not share a border with Iran.”
This claim is mistaken. Iran’s Air Force (IRIAF) continues to operate the Boeing 747-131(SF) as well as the Boeing 707-3J9C, with each type capable of maximum ranges exceeding 5,000 miles. Such ranges allow the IRIAF to visit countries far in excess of those currently reached by the Iran Navy (IRIN).
Also, judging by the overall perspective in the article, it is not at all clear the author is aware of the fact that other navies in the region, including the navies of Iraq and Oman, regularly send delegations and observers to attend Iran’s military events and naval maneuvers.
And, a happy new year to truth
===========================
The burden of Iraq war/occupation, having troops deployed in harm’s way and ongoing financial commitment to keeping the operations going have had folks procrastinate on issuing a blunt verdict on the saga.
With US troops leaving Iraq on December 31st, much of the restraint on an honest assessment will also depart the scene, ushering in some truth telling for the new year. Can’t wait to read the editorial pages of MSM in months to come. Tony Blair’s “it’s all Iran’s fault” will have less and less traction.
It is difficult to imagine that neo-consevatism will continue to escape scrutiny for ‘the’ Geo-strategic disaster, Iraq, long past the the new year.
When (not if) neo-conservatives are thus exposed, the primary driver of hostility towards US-Iran rapprochement will be defanged.
All this is to say that the failure in Iraq, and the departure of troops sealing the fate of PNAC, will not be the last bad news for the Israel Lobby — by December of 2012 neo-conservatism will be radioactive in American political discourse.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/of-course-the-iraq-war-would-end-in-irans-empowerment/247289/
An ultimatum to Amano, but his agenda is unshakable
========================================
From http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hK4Hj4iWKLEbTKhLQWhtHB2Bj-tw?docId=f47e061303e2454aab0a032f6f0b8d92
Russia and China are urging the chief U.N nuclear inspector to scrap or delay U.S.-backed plans to reveal intelligence on Iran’s alleged nuclear arms experiments, in a bluntly worded confidential document obtained Monday by The Associated Press.
…
In the note, Moscow and Beijing warn Amano against “groundless haste” and urge him to “act cautiously,” adding that “such kind of report will only drive the Iranians into a corner making them less cooperative.”
An international official familiar with the matter said Amano plans to go ahead nonetheless, arguing that it is his duty to inform the decision-making board of evidence pointing to such experiments.
Here is a new article on subject of Iraq withdrawal by one of those American exceptionalist that already is feeling a deep burn on his rear for the outcome of the Iraq war that he hoped would not come, ironically this AH is suppose not to be the neocon type (at least the out of closet type), one needs to tell him “you feel your pain” not me
Note how he twisted Ahmadinejad reply to Zakaria with regard to Iraqi forces training
Leaving Iraq, US Warns Iran: ‘We’re Ready for Ya’
Robert Dreyfusson October 24, 2011
http://www.thenation.com/blog/164137/leaving-iraq-us-warns-iran-were-ready-ya
Sakineh Bagoom writes:
“There’s been a lot of chatter about the ‘plot’ recently (well, mostly fallen from the headlines, but). Now, this is still an ‘alleged plot,’ right? … Or are we to believe everything we are told and jump into new wars based on those ‘alleged plots?’”
No one would dare ask the American people to go to war based on mere allegations.
It’s customary to wait a decent interval, until such a story has become so long in the tooth that editors believe a reference to it no longer deserves the space required for both an adjective and a noun. At that point, a phrase such as “alleged plot” gives way simply to “plot.”
THAT’s when the American people are asked to go to war.
Iran’s Navy Threatens the Security of the Persian Gulf
Tehran’s New Plan to Dominate its Region — and Beyond
W. Jonathan Rue
October 24, 2011
W. JONATHAN RUE is Senior Research Analyst at the Institute for the Study of War. A former active duty Marine officer, he served in Iraq from 2009–2010.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136614/w-jonathan-rue/irans-navy-threatens-the-security-of-the-persian-gulf?page=2
Eric A. Brill says:
October 24, 2011 at 10:20 pm
Nice catch of the ?ew York Times weaseling out, as usual. I noticed once that they call the “bad” Moslem parties “Islamist” (an obnoxious neologism if ever there was one), and the “good ” Moslems, NATO Turkey, as “Islam-inspired”. In other words, it’s ok, we give you permission to like these guys, these are not who we want to program you to demonise. Weasels is as weasels does.
Lobby: ‘Parliamentary system is bad for Iran’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/10/25/lobby-%e2%80%98parliamentary-system-is-bad-for-iran/
Empty & Masoud:
I this one is closer to the mark, with the possible exception of the ending.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=Sr83UrbZb1Y
Masoud writes:
“It seems that Al-Nahda won 9/18 of the seats reserved for expatriates [in Tunisia]. If that trend is anything to go by, it seems Al-Nahda is likely to be in the running for having an absolute majority of seats on the constituent assembly charged with writing the countries next constitution. I really wonder how the the State Department is going to spin this one.”
COMMENT:
Assuming that the New York Times is a good indicator of State Department thinking, I think the answer to that question is simple enough. Just look at the “evolution” today of the headline on the Times story about the Tunisian election. Here is the headline from earlier today:
“Islamist Party, Ennahda, Heads Toward Victory in Tunisia”
As the day wore on, though, Times editors apparently deemed it prudent to modify that headline a bit (though they’ve neglected so far to update the Web page header, which thus still shows the earlier headline):
“Moderate Islamist Party Heads Toward Victory in Tunisia”
Does that answer your question?
The British paper The Independent says the US government is pursuing electoral aims by accusing Iran of involvement in an alleged plot to assassinate the Saudi envoy to Washington.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/206462.html
Very off-topic. But, bravo to the Iranian pilot.
Iran Air B727 in Tehran on Oct 18th 2011, landed without nose gear
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0m0ujn8FeE&feature=share
Empty says:
October 24, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Frankly, I’d be shocked if Clinton ever manages to project as much dignity as any of the clips you’ve posted.
Who killed Gaddafi. Video.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/10/2011102411136222705.html
Interesting confession by Clinton about Al-Qaeda I had not seen before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L2513JFJsY
masoud says, I really wonder how the the State Department is going to spin this one.
A. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6nKxmQOCrQ
B. ;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQc
C. :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_R7dushO9U
D. All of the above
E. Only A and C
I think Uncle Weasel (as per UU) should be sued for lost business.
Other than economic hardship (alright, I won’t mention death and destruction), nothing will come of towing UW’s line.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/commodities/tea-exports-to-iran-have-fallen-by-nearly-25/articleshow/10469323.cms
Does anyone know what the final results of Tunisia’s elections are? It seems that Al-Nahda won 9/18 of the seats reserved for expatriates. If that trend is anything to go by, it seems Al-Nahda is likely to be in the running for having an absolute majority of seats on the constituent assembly charged with writing the countries next constitution. I really wonder how the the State Department is going to spin this one. The good news is NATO’s already got troops stationed next door.
Comments by a rabid warmongering Jewish neocon, William Kristol, on how to “punish” Iran for the so-called “plot”:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/speak-softly-and-fight-back_595936.html
Excellent editorial on Israel/Palestine (“Why Palestine Matters”), at TAC:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/why-palestine-matters/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gfth22IuyXU
It’s discouraging to witness the ignorance of some interviewers, such as David Gregory in his Oct. 23 interview of Ron Paul. To condescend, as Gregory purports to do with nearly every question, at least one should establish some basis for claiming he stands above the interviewee when he poses the question. I’m not sure I saw that.
Though one could pick a question almost at random to criticize, I liked best when Gregory asked whether Paul was pleased or displeased that Moammar Gaddafi is dead.
Presumably “yes” would preclude Paul from criticizing NATO’s decision to attack Libya and overthrow and kill Gaddafi. Presumably “no” would mean Paul loves terrorists.
There didn’t appear to be room for Paul to give a third answer: Why does it matter what I thought, or what the US government thought, about Gaddafi?
Off topic:
Many revered economists and scholars firmly believe Rampant (inherently uncontrollable?) Capitalism is the number one enemy of humanity.
Now scientific data indirect ly (or directly?) supports that worrisome assertion.
Read this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed–the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
Pay attention to the Graph and the Blue lines in the center which are indicative of interconnections between these top 147 companies who control 40% of the wealth of the world.
For me more worrisome aspects of this research are:
1- Due to predatory nature of capitalism the number of companies who control the 40% are going the decrease year after year.
2- Due to the ever-increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of the few one can see clearly that the rules of ‘exponential growth’ is applicable to these phenomenon. Thus, in average, the wealth in question will double in just a couple of years and quadruple in the next couple of years etc. Hence in two decades or so over 60% (or more?) of the wealth of the world will be in the possession of FEWER than the named147 entities.
Extrapolation beyond that clearly indicates the high probability of annihilation of all life form on earth as Chomsky and others have repeatedly stipulated.
3- The recent ( coordinated?) SCHEME of capitalists to globally increase the price of thefood stuff was a horrendous murderous act. That added millions to the number of deaths by malnutrition around the world. One might fear the same ruthless profit-obsessed capitalists would have no hesitation to come up with new deadlier ploys to cause more hunger, more deaths, more wars and more destructions.
4- Now the immoral, religious capitalists who have heinous agendas have way more money and resources in their hands to bribe, to buy more politicians, to control more media, to dig dirt in order to discredit their opponents, to converting more people to zombies etc etc.
Hopefully peaceful movements like ‘Occupy Wall Street’ could grow stronger day by day, becoming strong enough to stop this mad runaway capitalist train…..or intelligently restrain the capitalists permanently who have brought so much pains and miseries and inflicted so many deep wounds to delicate body of our humanity.
An interesting 20 minute conversation with William Engdahl on RT:
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/
Interested,
Good brief piece you linked. What a comment from Lindsey Graham (warmonger US Senator from South Carolina)!
Good report on PressTV site, for latest from EU on Iran (“EU’s economic meeting ends against Iran”):
http://www.presstv.com/detail/206413.html
This is a brief piece on Libya, but I think it’s good:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/97263.html
An-Nahda wins majority votes in Tunisia. Iran has consistently supported an-Nahda. This is another step of stronger Iran and weaker US.
kooshy,
Ray McGovern says that George W. Bush was “bereft of strategic understanding”. It should be noted that the moron in the White House did, a number of times, at meeting of the National Security Council, ask whether it made any sense to attack Iraq when Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.
Bush was duped by warmongering neocons, with the core conspiracy located in the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans – - run openly by a cabal of Jewish neocons openly advocating use of American power to benefit Israel, and openly advocating intentionally deceiving the American public to allow such a programme to move forward.
kooshy,
Most Americans wanted US troops out of Iraq, so Obama had little need to prepare the public for the announcement of something that was already agreed years ago.
How much press attention did we see to Israel’s announcement of yet another huge illegal colony of Jews to be built in the West Bank? Very little. Next to nothing compared to the hoo-haw that followed in the wake of the revelation of the so-called “plot”.
Fiorangela,
Dowling is quite right that it was a “blessing” for the US to be obliged to pull American troops out of Iraq. Obama would have been stupid enough to have retained 40,000 troops in Iraq for years to come.
Rd.,
Clearly the so-called “threat” from Iran is employed by many stooges of the Israel lobby in the US Congress, in effort to deceive the American public and distract attention for their support for continuing “ethnic cleansing” in the West Bank.
How many senators or congressment have even acknowledged the fact Iran recently offered to cease producing 20% U? How many stooges of the Israel lobby in the US Congress have claimed that Iran’s production of 20% U was a grave threat to Israel?
Rehmat,
Any “death” of the “Zionist colonial scheme” would be brought about through the utter stupidity of stooges of the Israel lobby in the US Congress. And elsewhere, of course. Israel can flourish within its pre-1967 borders.
“Man accused of plotting to kill Saudi ambassador pleads not guilty ”
How can a used car salesman not be guilty? That’s just unbelievable, on the face of it!!
Rd.- Iran was no problem for the Jewish occupiers of Arab Palestine under Shah’s regime during which the Jewish occupiers increased their occupation from 54% to 78% of the historical Palestine. In 1979, Tehran booted out Israel and started supporting Palestinian cause which irked the Zionist mafia around the globe. Though Jewish settlers still occupy 78% of Palestine – Iran’s Islamic regimes have championed Palestinian cause and got the Zionist regime isolated from most of the world.
Alan Hart hit the nail when in 2010, he said: “Israel has no right to exist”.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/alan-hart-israel-has-no-right-to-exist/
Fiorangela – Shalit got away with a little slap on his face as compared to remaining 8,000 Palestinian, Lebanese and Egyptian prisoners tortured and sexually abused in Jewish jails.
The United States is not much worried about Iranian influence in the Muslim East as far its own national interests are concerned. It’s the ultimate death of Zionist colonialism project which scares the hell out of Western sell-out politicians and Judeo-Christian religious leaders.
Rd. says “Remove the Iran problem, and the Palestinian illegal occupation will gain much more notice. Hence, one of the reasons for the animosity with Iran to continue indefinitely till the calculations on the ground changes drastically.”
Don’t know if I agree with you there, Rd. Methinks if the Iran ‘problem’ did not exist, Palestine would be all but forgotten. Who else would talk for them? Who else would support them? Egypt & Turkey?
Loyal Jan:
Thank you for that clip of Minister Farrakhan. I enjoyed his particular showman way of telling the story of the creation of the Fed and the IRS as a collection mechanism to pay for the interest debt generated by the Fed as a result.
The book of John Perkins’ that he is reading from is called *Confessions* of an Economic Hitman, wherein he *confesses* to whatall no good he had been up to before he quit his job after a crisis of conscience, as I stated in my post on him. It is possible that in the rest of his talk, the good minister will have mentioned that, given credit to John Perkins for his change of heart, and recommended his book to his audience.
John Perkins is a brave man. I have seen video footage of him going into the trenches in countries where his personal actions damaged the economies and hence lives of thousands and even millions of people (in Latin America), confessing to his sins (in Spanish, in which he is fluent), and taking the heat from people who were personally affected by the evil policies which he, in a former life, effected.
May God increase the likes of him, defectors from the cause of evil, and bring them in hoards to the cause of good. Ameen.
Fiorangela says:
US still defines diplomacy Veni, Vidi, Occidisti.
The US’s quick turn about face Vis-à-vis Pakistan “may” be viewed as the opportunity to think differently, at least to realize the limitations. The massing of US troop along Af-Pak border last week and all the tough talk, may be have been a lot of posturing, but it shows some corners understand the limits of US.
http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MJ25Df02.html
If Israel were to attack anyone, they would have done so anytime regardless of any Israeli prisoner. They did Gaza in 2008. There is very little reason for Israel to attack Iran when they can have the US do it for them.
However, keeping Iran as the ‘bad boy’ in the world opinion, will buy the israeli’s the opportunity to continue their plunder and occupation of Palestine (among other issues). Remove the Iran problem, and the Palestinian illegal occupation will gain much more notice. Hence, one of the reasons for the animosity with Iran to continue indefinitely till the calculations on the ground changes drastically.
rd. at 10:24 am:
““Countering Iranian influence are US goals best pursued from afar.””
In other words, the Shalit policy: Benjamin Netanyahu humbled himself to the nadir of negotiating with Hamas and releasing 20% of the Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails (some for as many as 28 years) in exchange for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, so that Shalit could be extracted from Palestine, leaving Gaza with no leverage against Israeli’s (speculatively) planned all-out offensive against Palestinians/Lebanon/Iran.
Likewise, US is extracting significant American forces who might find themselves easy targets of Iranian retaliation if US engages in all-out offensive against Iran.
Thus, I disagree, rd., that Downing is shifting to thinking in the right direction. US still defines diplomacy Veni, Vidi, Occidisti.
The conundrum in US FP thinking……
“Washington’s decision not to keep United States troops in Iraq after Christmas seems a blow to US prestige in the Middle East, but withdrawal offers America an opportunity to shake off an “invader” image and burdensome war costs while still shaping events through diplomacy.”
The article by Brian M Downing makes an attempt to think in the right direction by suggesting use of diplomacy vs invading.. Then enigma befalls the thinking;
“Countering Iranian influence are US goals best pursued from afar.”
Why not use the same diplomacy to work out the differences??
This ability to simply overlook reality is a cancer in US thinking that can best be attributed to congress and its protagonist the lobby.. Unless and until the Iraqi (and other) failures, loss of life and treasure are tied to this lobby for the public to see, the thinking in US will not change. As fyi suggests, normalization is not possible.
This will be the vehicle in which the US influence continues to suffer and can best be described in the following delayed “predictable” prediction.
“The ouster of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003 led, predictably, to increased Iranian influence.”
Simply, US is unable to see events hitting it smack in the face. Clinton’s remark “We came, we saw, he died.”, may very well be her mission accomplished moment, time will tell.
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MJ25Ak04.html
The ‘British Friends of Israel’ celebrate their censorship victory over independent joirnalism. Who can blame them for running to toilet when they see Ken Livingstone, George Galloway, Yvonne Ridley and Lauren Booth criticizing Israel and praising Islamic Republic on Press TV.
London-based political analyst and former national secretary of British Socilist Workers Party, Chris Bambery in an interview with Press TV said that Press TV is villfully being targeted for airing news about the oppressed people, Blacks and immigrants in the country and Palestinian and recent London riots. He also believes that the British Office of Communications (OfCom) has decided to take Press TV off air as it had become very popular and a threat to the Zionist-controlled mainstream media such as BBC. Watch the interview video below.
Last year, Israeli friends in India got Press TV banned in Occupied Kashmir for exposing Zionist-Hindutva propaganda lies against Kashmiri Muslims.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/press-tv-banned-in-uk/
from the 2 min 8 sec John Perkins clip (very well done; thanks, UU), that this is a different kind of capitalism –
In the Mark Ginsberg interviews that I linked earlier, someone in the audience complains, “The US attacked Libya for its oil,” which Ginsberg batted down breezily — and disingenuously: “The US does not buy oil from Libya; European states buy Libyan oil.”
Indeed.
There are several layers to the resource cake that US and other western countries covet from Libya (and Iran, Iraq, etc.). The west seeks to impose predatory capitalist control over the young and educated labor force, and over the financial structure. Oil resources serve merely as collateral, a Dutch Disease that the banksters can bundle, securitize, and arbitrage:
“Why does a dramatic increase in wealth have this paradoxically adverse consequence? The answer is found in a classic 1982 paper by W.M. Corden and J. Peter Neary. These authors divide an economy experiencing an export boom into three sectors: of these, the booming export sector and the lagging export sector are the two traded goods sectors; the third is the nontraded goods sector, which essentially supplies domestic residents and might include retail trade, services, and construction. They show that when a country catches Dutch disease, the traditional export sector gets crowded out by the other two sectors.
How does this happen? Let’s take the example of a country that discovers oil. A jump in the country’s oil exports initially raises incomes, as more foreign exchange flows in. If the foreign exchange were spent entirely on imports, it would have no direct impact on the country’s money supply or demand for domestically produced goods. But suppose the foreign currency is converted into local currency and spent on domestic nontraded goods. What happens next depends on whether the country’s (nominal) exchange rate—that is, the price of the domestic currency in terms of a key foreign currency—is fixed by the central bank or is flexible.
If the exchange rate is fixed, the conversion of the foreign currency into local currency would increase the country’s money supply, and pressure from domestic demand would push up domestic prices. This would amount to an appreciation of the “real” exchange rate—that is, a unit of foreign currency now buys fewer “real” goods and services in the domestic economy than it did before. If the exchange rate is flexible, the increased supply of foreign currency would drive up the value of the domestic currency, which also implies an appreciation in the real exchange rate, in this case through a rise in the nominal exchange rate rather than in domestic prices. In both cases, real exchange rate appreciation weakens the competitiveness of the country’s exports and, hence, causes its traditional export sector to shrink. This entire process is called the “spending effect.”
At the same time, resources (capital and labor) would shift into the production of domestic nontraded goods to meet the increase in domestic demand and into the booming oil sector. Both of these transfers would shrink production in the now lagging traditional export sector. This is known as the “resource movement effect.”
These effects played out in the oil-rich nations in the 1970s, when oil prices soared and oil exports rose at the expense of the agricultural and manufacturing sectors.”
Unknown Unknowns says:
October 23, 2011 at 11:50 pm
The New World Order in 2 minutes and 8 seconds
The voice is John Perkins, who was himself an “Economic Hitman” but quit in disgust after a crisis of conscience…
Farrakhan on John Perkins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmt5-1yrwmQ&feature=player_embedded#!
This new article by Ray is really funny although the hummer he used might be too painful to most hard line Americans exceptionalist.
After all it is completely correct that the Iraq fiasco is a total strategic gain for Iran on many different folds and a net total disaster loss for US, by achieving Iran’s strategic goal without Iran being directly involved, sort of the same game Israel plays with the American resources. This time was done in Iran’s strategic advancement without any cost on Iranian, human, financial or moral standing resources. The game Iran played was a payback in same dirty game format that the US played against Iran with the Iran –Iraq war by waging prolong tiring proxy war, which was financed by others, one most admit it worked like Swiss watch. The outcome was obvious to those who know the history and mentality of the region.
I suspect last week bizarre but entertaining Saudi ambassador assassination scenario, was to prepare the public for Friday’s withdrawal announcement
Switching Focus from Iraq to Iran
By Ray McGovern, October 24, 2011
http://original.antiwar.com/mcgovern/2011/10/23/switching-focus-from-iraq-to-iran/
http://america-hijacked.com/2010/01/07/press-tv-interview-with-dr-stephen-sniegoski-author-of-the-transparent-cabal/
Ron Paul on Meet the Press today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gfth22IuyXU&feature=player_embedded
Iran @ minute 9:30.
It is a terrible thing to have to say, but it must be said:
The sooner The United States of America implodes and is utterly destroyed by its own military-industrial-Zionist Praetorian Guard, the sooner the whole world will breath a sigh of relief, and the better off the whole world will be.
The New World Order in 2 minutes and 8 seconds
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29494.htm
The voice is John Perkins, who was himself an “Economic Hitman” but quit in disgust after a crisis of conscience. YouTubeing recommended. This is the form of predatory modernism that is being exported, which is why *this particular form* of modernity is being resisted. Those in the West may not recognize it as readily as people in the third world, for the west is like the frog who is put in a soup pot and whose water is slowly heated up. The Western frog gets cooked to death whereas the case of the ME and Latin America is one where the frog is placed in boiling water: it jumps out. Hence, the West’s goose is cooked, along with the frog.
Unknown Unknowns, she’s representin’ washington state on a platform i can dig. Your humorous white-out blondes story provided the segue to bring it up and knock down a stereotype or two.
Photi:
You know this computer that my blond secretary uses? It’s the same one that went up in smoke in that Tehran International Fair all those years ago. Just to be sure: I was KIDDING when I said blonds are dumb. Did you really think my secretary (which I no longer have anyway) put whiteout on her monitor?? LOL. My murshid, professor Hamid Algar, is blond!
UU,
In defense of blondes everywhere, perhaps you should check out the following mondoweiss post:
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/10/americans-who-support-palestinian-cause-must-be-willing-to-lose-friends.html#more-54925
Libya and Western myth of ‘Islamists’
In the West, Holocaust and anti-Semitism labels are applied to silence criticism of Israel, Jews and Zionism. On the other hand, the term ‘Islamist’ is applied to a Muslim who challenges the western crimes in the Muslim world or demands equal rights as religious minority in the non-Muslim world…….
The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran proved to Muslims how to bring a non-violent Islamic regime change under the leadership of pious and non-corrupt Muslim in their respective countries ruled by western appointed and supported secularist and hypocrite (munafiq) Muslims…..
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/libya-and-western-myth-of-islamists/
fyi,
You appear to suggest that the numerous stooges and whores of the Israel lobby, in the US Congress, will continue to obstruct better relations between the US and Iran. Seems likely enough, sadly.
Pirouz,
RE: Empty, so you’re saying there’s something wrong with being Jewish-Iranian? Or Jewish? ….Let me tell you, Empty, we don’t take kindly to bigotry in San Francisco. We’ve hate laws against such.”
Just so that I have a better understanding of your question, Pirouz, and also a deeper understanding of your comment, would you mind clarifying which statement(s) of mine implies that “there is something wrong with being Jewish-Iranian Or Jewish” and also which part implies “bigotry” and which part conveys “hate”. If you also refer me (if there is any online source) to the specific “hate law” that you have in San Francisco.
There’s been a lot of chatter about the “plot” recently (well, mostly fallen from the headlines, but). Now, this is still an “alleged plot,” right? He is innocent till proven guilty, right? Or are we to believe everything we are told and jump into new wars based on those “alleged plots?”
Since when, is the US, a country of men and not of laws? Or did that end with W and his cabal?
Just askin…
Clint says: October 23, 2011 at 7:17 am
The US sanctions – initiated by US Congree – have clearly eliminated the possibility of normalizations of relations between US and Iran indefinitely.
Short of US or Iranian capitulation, they have guaranteed the continuation of the US-Iran confrontation as a permanent feature of the international system.
The reduction of US President’s role in the conduct of Iran policy – started under Mr. Clintopn – has reached its logical end during the Presidency of Mr. Obama.
I expect that in a few more years – once the EU sanctions have outlived their usefulness, some mending of the brdiges between Iran and EU will take place.
No so with US and Iran.
In the meantime, US and Iran will be concentrating on East Asia – Iran out of necessity and US out of fear.
The direction in the Middle East is quite clear – pratical arrangements based on real-politik among local actors – devoid of US, EU, or Russian intereference or direction.
That is, HAMAS, Israel, Syria, Egypt, Tureky, Iran, Saudi Arabia and others will all jockeying for power and position; ighoring US, EU, Russia and others.
Eric A. Brill says: October 23, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Dr. Takyeh makes excellent observations in regards to Nuclear Disarmament as it pertains to US, Russia, China, UK, and France.
Why is UK not disarming? Or France?
When they disarm, then, and may be then, Iran should consider signing the CTBT.
At the risk of beating to death the discussion of Ross Mirkarimi, I was amused by two passages in his Wikipedia entry.
The first refers to his support for renaming a portion of a San Francisco street (Eddy Street) as “Marcus Garvey Way:”
“Supporters hope that by renaming a street in honor of a well-known and influential figure of African descent, San Francisco’s African-American residents will choose to stay in the city despite increases in the cost of living.”
Rebranding — that should do the trick.
Here’s the second passage:
“Mirkarimi also authored a piece of a reparations bill, which would give descendants of those displaced by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency from the Western Addition priority in obtaining affordable housing. During the 1960s, the city tore down much of the historic Fillmore district, most of whose resident’s were permanently removed. Two-thirds of those displaced were African American.”
I can guarantee that the irony of this passage will have been missed by all but a very tiny fraction of readers. The area of San Franciso described here – the Western Addition – indeed was (and still is) inhabited largely by African Americans. As this passage describes, those who were removed by redevelopment in the 1960’s would have received benefits under the reparations bill authored by Mirkarimi several decades later. What the passage neglects to mention, however, is a relevant episode of farther-back history of the Western Addition: specifically, how it happened that the Western Addition came to be inhabited largely by African Americans.
The answer: Before World War II, virtually no African Americans lived in the Western Addition. It was inhabited mostly by Japanese Americans. Shortly after Pearl Harbor, all of those Japanese Americans were hauled away to relocation camps in a remote area of Northern California and a few other states. Naturally this opened up a great deal of housing in the Western Addition. The void was soon filled, largely by African Americans who moved into the now-low-rent district and took jobs in the then-booming San Francisco wartime economy. After the war ended and the Japanese Americans were released from the camps, most of them (renters, not owners, before they were taken away) found housing elsewhere. The Western Addition continued, and continues to this day, to be inhabited largely by African-Americans.
Philip Giraldi called John McCain a “pyschopath”. Does same description apply to neocon warmonger John Bolton? Bolton: “Curiously, some US ‘experts’ on Iran questioned the veracity of the Obama administration’s statement of the case. . .” [re: so-called "plot to kill Saudi ambassador"].
“Iran’s assassination plot compels a tough response”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/iran-assassination-plot?commentpage=last#end-of-comments
Eric:
Ross Mirkarim’s career, before he became a member of the Green Party, depended heavily on the financial support of the Iranian-Americans of the Bay Area. I imagine that is still the case, but perhaps the dependence is not as pronounced. As such, he needed to and needs to tow the party line of the expats, which is to say that the mullahs are mad and the rest of the ignorance that is rife among that expat community. And if that were not enough, the Green Party is just as rabidly ignorant, unfortunately, on that front, because they are universalists, wanting to see *their* values (re: “Climate Change”, for example – whatever that means, if anything) imposed on the rest of the world.
“Mahan Abedin is a Visiting Fellow at the New Delhi-based Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis. Previously he has worked with numerous think tanks, including the Washington-based Jamestown Foundation and the London-based Centre for the Study of Terrorism. He has also been active in journalism, having worked for the Beirut-based Daily Star and most recently the Irbil-based AK News Agency where he was chief editor of the Persian and English sections. Born in Iran, but raised and educated in the United Kingdom, Abedin is a frequent traveller to the Islamic Republic where he is a consultant to independent media. ”
Here is a link to a more informative article entitled Saudi Arabia: the religious dimension of dissent by Mahan Abedin which appeared in Religioscope:
http://religion.info/english/articles/article_543.shtml
Excerpts:
For the first time since the founding of modern Saudi Arabia in 1932, the deep and irreconcilable contradiction between the House of Saud’s self-appointed role as the guardian of authentic Islam, and the Kingdom’s near total dependence on Western powers, notably the United States, for its security, burst out onto the surface.
…
The size of these secret societies is difficult to gauge as they are by definition highly security conscious. They have allegedly penetrated every sphere of national life, including the most sensitive security organs in Saudi Arabia. While the Saudi regime is aware of their existence (if not the full scope of their secret activities) it avoids harassing them in the belief that these groups ultimately serve its interests by quietly manufacturing legitimacy and consent across state and society. This may yet prove to be a stunning miscalculation
…
In 2008 a new opposition group called Khalas (Deliverance) was formed, with many of its leaders (including Fouad Ibrahim) being originally associated with Safar’s group. Other groups include the Khat al-Imam (i.e. Khomeini) which is formed by the remnants of the former Hezbollah al-Hejaz organisation, an openly pro-Iranian militant group. But unlike the latter Khat al-Imam eschews violence in favour of more long-term secret political and religio-cultural activities.
…
the House of Saud should never be under-estimated. Apart from the vast oil reserves and the deep security alliance with the United States, the Saudis have proven to be masters of managing dissent and discontent. Through a skilful mix of coercion, suppression, bribery, accommodation and ultimately co-option, the regime has managed to destroy or sideline its most committed opponents whilst creating embattled and inherently unstable spaces for the expression of “safe” dissent.
masoud,
Iran should seek good relations with interim gov’t in Libya, and thereafter. And Gaddafi did himself in, with appalling blunders that even a number of western diplomats tried to prevent.
Eric,
Yes, absolutely, Takeyh contrives to slip past the most important issue, and to make his readers assume it is established fact that the Iranian gov’t is building nukes on the sly.
Fiorangela also spotted this piece of rubbish from Takeyh.
hans says:
October 23, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Iran is being no more and no less hypocritical on Lybia than it was on either Iraq or Afghanistan. It has condemned Nato’s intervention, and political violence in general. Short of providing full-fledged support to Gaddafi against the NTC, there’s nothing more it could have done.
Iran committed to supporting African nations, Ahmadinejad says
23 October 2011, 08:24 (GMT+05:00)
Well, that’s hypocrisy for you. Makes one feel good, doesn’t it?
And committed are they? To what, I’d like to know. Committed to genocide from what we’ve been able to make out. Gaddafi not yet settled in his grave and Ahmedinejad wants to take his place in Africa.
Empty, so you’re saying there’s something wrong with being Jewish-Iranian? Or Jewish?
Let me tell you, Empty, we don’t take kindly to bigotry in San Francisco. We’ve hate laws against such.
James,
Thanks for mentioning Ray Takeyh’s October 20 op-ed piece in the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/opinion/21iht-edtakeyh21.html?scp=1&sq=takeyh%20iran&st=cse), which I’ll quote here at slightly greater length:
“All this casts the regime’s quest for nuclear weapons in a different light. The Islamic Republic desires the bomb not so much to revive nationalist élan but to sustain its power by coercing concessions from the international community.”
Much as skeptical comments on the “Saudi ambassador plot” from “new friends” of Iran such as Judith Miller and Kenneth Katzman did more harm than good — by contrasting the present allegations of Iranian wrongdoing with Iran’s “usual” modus operandi, several examples of which were invariably presented as if they were established facts rather than unsubstantiated allegations themselves — Takeyh also breezes past the threshold question — whether Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons at all — to discuss the competing explanations of why Iran is doing so.
Before long — as in “already” — writings framed in such a way will make most readers forget that the writer’s starting premise has not been established.
Just to add a twist to your story, Ross Mirkarimi’s mother [Nancy Kolman] is actually Jewish. Perhaps they should cut him in half: One half could serve the Iranian interest and the other half should serve the Israeli interest. Forget about the rest of the people in San Francisco.
Karzai: Afghanistan would Side With Pakistan in War with US
;http://www.juancole.com/2011/10/karzai-afghanistan-would-side-with-pakistan-in-war-with-us.html#comments
;http://indiatoday.intoday.in/video/hamid-karzai-afghanistan-pakistan-support/1/157205.html
The Afghtnistan situation is always fluid but, for now things seem to be favoring the formation of an Iran-Pakistan-Karzai axis against US-NATO-India. And oh yeah, fuck Juan Cole.
Pirouz,
Thanks for all that interesting background on Mirkarimi. I had planned to vote for him already. Finding out that he’s Iranian-American doesn’t either strengthen or weaken my resolve. As you probably suspect, I don’t think that will make much difference in his performance as Sheriff of San Francisco.
Eric A. Brill says:
October 23, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Eric, Ross doesn’t hide his background. In his office, there are Iranian artifacts. He attended the Iranian-American rally in 2009, and went to the little Green protests at the UN plaza following the presidential election. (I didn’t attend these gatherings, I read about Ross attending in the SF Chronicle newspaper.)
As you probably know, there aren’t many Iranian-Americans that reside in his district. I rarely come across any and I’m often there. Perhaps the reason a Google search didn’t yield a result. Ross’ support comes from the entire community; he’s not an “ethnic candidate” like the front runner in the mayoral race.
He’s running for Sheriff and I’ve advised my family members to vote for him. He is currently the best supervisor in SF; he’d make an equally good sheriff. You should vote for him, too, Eric.
Fiorangela (and others):
Yet another observation on Ross Mirkarimi (Iranian-American candidate for Sheriff in San Francisco):
One might be tempted to suggest that an effort should be made to let Americans know that many Iranian-Americans hold prominent positions in American politics, business and other professions, and that none of them, so far at least, has been caught with a nuclear bomb hidden in his briefcase underneath some unpaid utility bills.
Maybe, maybe not.
My hunch is that, if a prominent American’s Iranian background is highlighted, he will feel considerable pressure to make known his position on the current Iranian government. Even if he favors it, or is on the fence, or doesn’t really think about it much at all, he may decide that the prudent course is to align himself clearly with the Iranian opposition. Acknowledging that he sides with the “mad mullahs,” or even that he doesn’t care much one way or the other, may not sit well with the American public.
ERic says “It would appear that advertising one’s Iranian background is not considered to be a good idea for one who aspires to elected public office in the United States.”
I would have thought that goes without saying. Is there a nation, a people, more demonized in this blessed country than the Iranian? I do not think so.
For those who may have missed it, Youssaf Butt’s August 16, 2011 article in the Asia Times (cited earlier on this thread by Clint) is well worth reading:
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MH16Ak03.html
Also well worth reading is Ray Takeyh’s Washington Post op-ed cited by Butt at the very beginning of his article (link in footnote 1 of Butt’s article). Regardless of how one feels about Takeyh’s conclusions, his analysis of the development of Iranian nuclear science since the 1979 revolution is very interesting.
Philip Giraldi has some pertinent comments (“What Comes Next” [in Iraq]):
http://theamericanconservative.com/blog/
Fiorangela,
Another observation on Ross Mirkarimi:
I may be forgiven for not having been aware that he is Iranian-American. I just finished scouring his campaign website. On each of its several pages, I did a word search for “Iran” and “Iranian.” In each case, the browser’s response was the same: “Not found.”
Perhaps I shouldn’t draw this conclusion from such a small sampling, but It would appear that advertising one’s Iranian background is not considered to be a good idea for one who aspires to elected public office in the United States.
Fiorangela,
It is disappointing, but not surprising, that Ellen Tauscher would say something so obviously stupid. And for her to be a propagandist for the US to spend more money on nukes! Must one be a stooge of the weapons manufacturers in order to work for Obama?
Fiorangela,
Ray Takeyh in the New York Times Oct. 20th claimed that Iran “desires the bomb not so much to revive nationalist elan but to sustain its power by coercing concessions from the international community.” Surely this is pure rubbish? Maybe Takeyh thought he was writing about North Korea?
Clint says:
October 23, 2011 at 12:32 pm
yes, that is an interesting conversation at armscontrolwonk about Possible Military Dimensions (PMD) in Iran’s nuclear programs, an alarm raised because IRGC is involved in nuclear research and development.
As Nikpay pointed out, “the involvement of military personnel in the nuclear industry need not arouse suspicion. The Revolutionary Guards own more than 6 % of Iran’s economy I’ve been to trade fairs in which they put on display the household appliances they’d produced. These toasters certainly had no military use.”
In her speech to Commonwealth Club of California, Ellen Tauscher, US State Dept Undersecretary for Arms Control & Nonproliferation, assured her audience that the increase in spending on nuclear research that Obama requested, “though counterintuitive, makes sense” because it assures that a weapon will work, and anyway, “a lot of civilian discoveries have come from our [taxpayer funded] nuclear labs — microwaves, cancer treatments . . .”
:http://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/2011-07-28/ellen-tauscher-us-under-secretary-arms-control-and-international-security
(Ironically, in an interview in 1994, Milton Friedman, arguing that free markets, not socialism/ government control, produces consumer advancements, said that “private entrepreneurs brought microwaves and numerous medical advancements” to the public.) http://www.booktv.org/Program/6109/Encore+Booknotes+Milton+Friedman+on+FA+Hayeks+The+Road+to+Serfdom.aspx
paul,
You think the US/UK invasion of Iraq was a “total success”? It is true that Donald Rumsfled saw the opportunity to demonstrate or try out in “real time” some of his ideas about mobile warfare, small forces, etc. But Iraq is not a “stable ally” of Israel. That was the neocons’ objective.
Fiorangela,
Thanks for the link to the story on Ross Mirkarimi. Though I live in San Francisco, I confess I’d had no idea he is Iranian American. I should add that he’s a shoo-in for election as Sheriff.
New Sheriff in Town?
(look out zionists; Iranian Americans are taking over)
dot: on the torture issue:
http://www.truth-out.org/cia-kidnapped-tortured-wrong-man-says-cia-operative-glenn-carle/1319214209
On the nuclear issue — check the comments section Olli has posted there:
http://hibbs.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/388/an-iaea-conversation-with-rafsanjani
Ah OK — sorry I copied it from another site. Usually I just post the link (see my previous posts).
My policy is just to ignore posts I don’t want to read or are clutter…..
Aaaaannnnyyyway, thanks BiBiJon.
See this also:
http://www.propublica.org/podcast/item/podcast-sebastian-rotella-on-the-alleged-iranian-terror-plot/
Thank u UU for interpreting my comment to Clint.
I don’t relish the role of hall monitor, but I did upset RSH awhile back on the same issue — copying and entire article from AsiaTimes. It IS copyrighted, and while I certainly copy & paste way way too much material (usually in an incomprehensible fashion), I try to avoid reproducing copyrighted material.
As the Leveretts’ previous post indicated, they, and this blog, have come to the attention of the Powers That Be. The attention is not friendly; the Leveretts are a high-wire act without a net in a tentful of folks who might go so far as to tamper with the ropes, but at very least would love to see them lose their footing.
Several months ago the blogosphere indulged in a kerfluffle over comments made on a blog, and attributed the alleged bad acts of the commenters to the blog’s owner.
It’s in all of our best interest not to give Flynt and Hillary Leverett’s adversaries the opportunity to trip them up with silly offenses such as trespassing on a copyright.
Quick the magic words “Allah Akhbar” are being uttered in OWS# . Maybe we can now call it an “Islamic Awakening” See PressTV article
Clint says:
October 23, 2011 at 8:31 am
dot: Iran “plot” may indicate power struggle?? –
“The foiled operation in Washington may have been ordered by the clerical establishment to embarrass Ahmadinejad further, and more specifically to sabotage any chance of dialogue between the US and Iran, and set back eventual rapprochement even further down the distant horizon.”
,http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MJ22Ak04.html
Wow! Mahan wins the gold medal for the most ridiculous theory yet. That’s right, just because I don’t like the sight of something, I stick a dagger into both my eyes.
Just because some alleged people, allegedly wanted to embarrass AN, and forestall rapprochement, they decided to risk war with a super-power. Chances being far greater than even that if the super-power does not get there first to hand them their arses, Iranian authorities themselves would have field day with the aforementioned arses.
Unknown Unknowns,
Your statement about people’s perception about life expectancy is correct. That شاخص [indicator, if you will] has change since the life has been extended in many countries but the quality of life has diminished. For example, if there is a person who is in a coma for 8 years, that 8 years is added to the calculation of overall average life expectancy. Because this has become a sort of a “inaccurate” measure, they now try to globally measure what is called HALE [Health Adjusted Life Expectancy]. Just living longer by itself is no longer considered a positive outcome. Rather, extending the “healthy life” is now more fashionable (at least based on CDC, NIH, and WHO talking heads).
Nice story about your mom’s worries. I hardly ever challenge my mom’s perception and statements about aging. If anyone says anything (especially if it’s a young person saying it) she says, “اولا که روی عمر پوشیدست. دوما تو الان به همین جونی می تونی از این پله ها با مخ بیفتی پایین و ملاجت داغون بشه. و جونمرگ بشی. بیخود مغرور نشو.”
Nasrallah: ‘Tel Aviv will be first target in next war’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/nasrallah-tel-aviv-will-be-first-target-in-next-war/
Empty – Western imperialists use women rights and human rights as their imperial agenda against their enemies. Otherwise, they themselves are the abusers of women rights and the human rights.
According to a 2010 study conducted by Laura Sullivan – One in three Native American women will be raped in her lifetime. Professor Helen Benedict (Columbia University) confirmed on Democracy Now! that the sexual abuse of female soldiers by male soldiers not something recent in Iraq or Afghanistan (between 2003-2007, 160,000 US female soldiers have served in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East) – it goes back to Korean War and Vietnam War…..
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/western-wars-are-hell-for-women/
Clint:
I’m pretty sure my friend Fiorangela’s point was not that you should have included the last lines of text, but that you are in violation of what those lines actually state. I don’t have as many qualms as dear Fior re copyright (or at least re its enforcement) but I would suggest merely on logical grounds that whole articles should not be reproduced here as they clutter up the posting space and this is unnecessary as all you have to do is post a link and th earticle is a click away.
What I like to do (and encourage others to do) is that if there is an article that I think says something interesting or important, I will excerpt that passage, and post it together with the link. That way, I actually provide a sort of service that allows others to decide whether or not they want to spend the time to go through the whole article or not, based on what I have judged to be its salient part(s).
Neo:
Thank you for wanting to engage in dialogue and for your kind words. I tried unsuccessfully to figure out what it is you are trying to say. I did find one (and only one) direct question, however: “Fact is, murder is wrong, plain and simple. Can we agree that here is a universal value?” Which I can answer: No, we cannot agree on that. There are whole civilizations that practiced human sacrifice, for example, or tribes of cannibals, for another, who had no such qualms. But there are far more cogent philosophical arguments that militate against any sort of universalizing, which I have stated in the past.
I’m sorry if I could not get anything else out of your post. IF you care to re-word, or pose direct questions, I’m happy to consider another response.
But there is one correction which I must make, if only because so many people make this mistake. You say, “People today live longer, much longer, than a century or so ago… Not too long ago, most people used to be considered to be close to old age by the age of 30.” This is incorrect. The fact that the *average life expectancy* is increasing does not mean that people live to an older age, so that 30 was considered an old age. (That is a *prima facie* absurdity.) In the past, prior to the advent of antibiotics, pasteurization, and all of the other benefits of modern science, people who were fortunate enough to reach old age still reached into their 70′s and 80′s, and some, though rare, even older. There were certainly centurions in the per-modern world, though of course they were rarer than they are even today. The difference, dear Neo, is that *not as many* reached those ages, and hence the *average* age was much lower. You are confusing the categories of average and absolute.
Just to let you know how prevalent this misinterpretation is, I’ll tell you a funny personal story. My mom recently became an octogenarian, and living in Iran as she does, and knowing that the average life expectancy is less than 80, she thought she was living on borrowed time, and started going on with the usual “Woe is me” stories about how she is a “gonner” (raftani), or something like that. (She did in in a sweet way.) After I explained to her the difference between the average age and absolute ages, and the fact that the average life expectancy for an 90 year old is probably somewhere in the 90′s, she was shocked to discover she had so much longer to live. But then after a few days, she dispensed with the suspension of disbelief temporarily induced by me and relapsed into her old way of fallacious thinking. Because everyone else thinks like she does (except biologists, statisticians, demographers, etc.)
Ray Takeyh is wrong (again) when he says:
“Iran’s quest for nuclear arms cannot be attributed to a desire to deter an invasion.”
in:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/opinion/21iht-edtakeyh21.html?src=recg
because that is EXACTLY the opposite of what the National Defense University concluded:
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/docuploaded/McNair69.pdf
I used to agree with Ray before he drank the neocon kool-aid.
Thanks Fiorangela. I should have.
Any actual comments on the substance of the article?
Categorically incorrect statements about women’s right and women’s issues based on unexamined assumptions are often made by some people who [at least based on what I have observed] have otherwise a sober, fair, and, by all accounts, well intended worldview. What constitutes “women’s right” and “women’s liberation”, as argued by people of different worldviews (be they religious, secular, agnostic, atheist, materialist, spiritualist, and so on) has been socially constructed. Socially constructed worldviews require investment of human and financial resources to become prevalent. Mere prevalence of a particular worldview neither guarantees that it is automatically right (nor that it is automatically wrong) nor does it insures its longevity. What the prevalence does, however, it allows that worldview to 1) be used as a pre-text to cheat, deceive, kill, and attack; 2) get compliance, subconscious rationalization and consent, and perhaps less resistance of the populace toward an aggressive action or feeling of remorse.
To explore whose worldview is actually on the right or wrong side of human history and whose worldview is going to prevail, I am not going to get help from opinions and other socially-constructed evidence from social sciences but to draw from a more tangible and measurable evidence from basic sciences (this would also demonstrate how science itself is socially constructed and has been used to further specific subjective aims) that is often made obscure from the public’s view.
Those who have put all of their existential eggs in the basket of material and finite world without the tiniest concern about the concept of معاد [Day of Return/Resurrection/Judgment], should pay strict attention as this world is all they’ve gotten and they might as well make the best of it. Those of us (myself included) who have actually spread their existential eggs in several baskets and their answer to the question of “which one” is “both” and who believe in معاد should also pay strict attention as the material world decidedly paves the path to the “hereafter” [ دنیا توشه آخرت است ].
1. The process of physiological aging begins prior to conception. That is, the quality of sperms and eggs determine if the “zygotes” [fertilized eggs] have a good, solid, and healthy start to life. The younger the age of the parents, the healthier are the eggs and sperms and the healthier are the resulting fertilized eggs. Healthy, at this stage, means the potential for making a lot of genetic errors. This translates into not only complications during pregnancy but also increased (by many folds) likelihood of weaker immune systems, weaker lung function, reduced cognitive development (just to name a few) all throughout the persons’ lives until their physiological death.
As saying goes, عقل سالم در بدن سالم[a healthy mind in a healthy body]. When a few people postpone having children until later in life, the society as a whole could absorb the costs (human, social, psychological, financial, medical, etc.) of negative health outcomes and there would be a surplus of healthy people to manage things. However, when the practice becomes prevalent at the populations level, then there is a cumulative effect that escalates the costs to such a degree that causes the society to collapse as a whole.
2. Cigarette and tobacco smoke, alcohol, and narcotics within 3-4 days of conception physiologically and irreversibly affects, via multiple mechanisms, the viability of the zygote, fetal growth and development, and post partum, the infant’s health and development. Mother’s health, especially during the pregnancy and breast feeding period directly affects the baby’s health. Please note that there are NO SAFE LEVELS for any of these substances. That means if you smoked one cigarette or drank a glass of alcoholic drink or used a fraction of a gram of a particular narcotic and conceived a baby 3 days later, the zygote and then the fetus, an then the infant experience the negative physiological consequences of that one cigarette, that one glass of wine, and that fraction of a gram of whatever narcotics you used. If you do twice as much, the negative impact for some is double for others grows exponentially (for mathematically inclined minds, they could graph the association logarithmically).
In societies where smoking, drinking alcohol, and doing drugs are isolated and at their minimum, such societies (as a whole) could absorb the associated health costs. When it is far more prevalent, then that society will collapse.
3. Physical and physiological repairs and restorations as a consequence of pregnancy and childbirth occur faster and more comprehensively in women who get pregnant and give birth at a younger age than those who do so later in life. That means the likelihood that a woman’s health is fully restored after pregnancy and childbirth is directly proportional to her age. The older she gets, the less likely it is for her to bounce back health-wise and the more “medical assistance” she would need in various areas (even in some seemingly insignificant but extremely important daily task such as bladder function).
Again, in societies that getting pregnant and having children get delayed not as an isolated cases at individual level but at population level, the likelihood for having diminished health and quality of life at an older age for women progressively increases thus increasing the overall costs. Even in the 21st century, even in societies that consider themselves quite modern and progressive, women remain the first and foremost “caregiver” both professionally (in nursing homes, hospitals, clinics, etc.) and personally (as the caregiver of their parents and children and grandchildren alike).
I hope you do not take my word for these assertions and explore the evidence for yourself. Take a simple (even online courses are now widely available) physiology 101, biology 101, and genetics 101. I think these subjects must be developed age-appropriately and should become required for everyone from elementary to 12th grade.
These are areas that must be honestly and objectively explored to evaluate which societies have a better chance to develop into healthier ones and flourish. Human physiology doesn’t, for a moment, care if it is considered freedom of choice and liberty for a woman in a society to have babies at 18 or at 38 or if it’s considered her right to drink alcohol, or smoke cigarettes, or do drugs. It does what it does, when it does, and the way it does. Those societies that make sound plans considering the “whole truth”, within one generation, they will have populations with much higher potential to be healthy (if all else remains the same) than those which do not. If you see a nation that plans (as a whole) to foster and nourish better environments in which babies are conceived when parents are younger would (as a whole), provide safe environment for young families to form (with both social and government supports), and looks at women’s issue from a more rational and comprehensive perspective, then you could say, “okay, this nation seems to be on the right track and, perhaps, it might in fact be on the right side of history.”
Truth lies in the muddle.
State Department readies Iraq operation, its biggest since Marshall Plan
vs
U.S. Scales Back Diplomacy in Iraq Amid Fiscal and Security Concerns
:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/world/middleeast/us-scales-back-diplomacy-in-iraq-amid-fiscal-and-security-concerns.html?_r=2&hpw=&pagewanted=all
Ray Takeyh (again)
“Iran’s quest for nuclear arms cannot be attributed to a desire to deter an invasion. No country is plotting to invade Iran and no state challenges its right to exist, as Iran has done with Israel.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/opinion/21iht-edtakeyh21.html?src=recg
Clint,
this is the only portion of Mahan Abadin’s AsiaTimes article that you did not re-publish on the RFI forum:
“(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.) “
dot: Iran “plot” may indicate power struggle?? –
“The foiled operation in Washington may have been ordered by the clerical establishment to embarrass Ahmadinejad further, and more specifically to sabotage any chance of dialogue between the US and Iran, and set back eventual rapprochement even further down the distant horizon.”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MJ22Ak04.html
Plot may be part of Iran power struggle
By Mahan Abedin
The announcement by the United States Department of Justice on October 11 that two men had been charged in connection with an Iranian Qods force plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir, has touched off a flurry of speculative reporting and analysis.
While the contents of the criminal complaint issued by the US government have raised many eyebrows, the story is already firmly entrenched in the narratives of opposing policy camps in the US.
To the neo-conservatives and the broader hawkish community in the US, the charges are clear proof of a new round of aggressive behavior by Iran, which they argue must be met with a military response by America. Meanwhile, more dovish elements have cast serious doubt on the veracity of the story, arguing that the charges are either fabricated or manipulated to justify a more belligerent approach toward Iran.
There has been a dearth of balanced analysis of what may have motivated some elements in Iran to undertake this operation, assuming that there is more than a grain of truth to the criminal complaint released by the US Justice Department.
This article sets out a plausible scenario, but one that is purely speculative and unsupported by strong information. If as the US government charges, the Qods force is implicated in this plot, then the operation may have been a symptom of the profound discord between the ruling clerical establishment and the independent-minded government of President Mahmud Ahmadinejad.
Moreover, in so far as the strategic dimensions of the operation are concerned, the plot may have been more defensive in nature, essentially designed to fail, with a view to sending unmistakable signals foremost to Washington.
A strange plot
There is more than enough in the US Justice Department’s criminal complaint to cast profound doubt on the veracity of the charges. Widespread skepticism has been reinforced by the energetic and hawkish response to the charges by US leaders and senior officials, including President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, who have called for repercussions, namely to further punish – by way of additional sanctions in the first instance – an already isolated and embattled Iran.
The hawkish posture of US leaders is in stark contrast to their far more relaxed attitude to arguably more serious charges concerning direct Pakistani involvement in attacks against US targets in Afghanistan.
Only last month, the former US joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, alleged in his final congressional testimony that the Haqqani network was a “veritable arm” of Pakistani intelligence, and that the same nexus had conducted terrorist operations against the US Embassy in Kabul, as well as organizing at least one recent attack on US forces that wounded 77 GIs.
It appears that US leaders had prepared for the announcement of the charges well in advance and that they are more than determined to exploit them for maximum gain in their intricate strategic rivalry with Iran in the Middle East, as well as broader efforts to further isolate Iran internationally on account of the latter’s controversial nuclear program.
But beyond the posturing of US leaders, the charges themselves, as well as the choice and location of the target, raise serious doubts about the narrative which the American administration wants the world to believe.
The most troubling aspect is the Mexican dimension. The Iranian intelligence community may lack the inter-cultural competence, connections and the diplomatic muscle to operate effectively in the West, but they have enough sense to avoid contact with serious organized criminals.
All the components of the Iranian intelligence community maintain solid links to the social science departments of the country’s major universities, as well as to the country’s think-tanks and research institutes. This is in addition to the intelligence services’ in-house open source research departments.
The study of Western societies is a key priority for the Iranian intelligence services and they regularly commission work – either directly or through third parties – to outside research centers.
All the major components of the Iranian intelligence services would know that serious organized criminals, such as the Mexican drug cartels, who are involved in a billion-dollar business, are highly unlikely to sign up to a politically motivated crime for a mere US$1.5 million, which to the cartels is tantamount to loose change.
The Iranian intelligence services are aware that Mexican drug cartels would ordinarily stay well away from such a risky operation for fear of provoking the wrath of a vengeful US government.
The inability of the Iranian intelligence services to operate effectively in the West is not due to lack of academic or empirical understanding of Western societies but to the dearth of competent people who can assist these services in carrying out successful operations in the West.
The most ideal community for recruitment is the large and prosperous Iranian diaspora in the West, but members of this community – even elements who are sympathetic to the Islamic Republic – stay well away from the Iranian secret services for fear of inviting disproportionate retribution by Western security and judicial organizations.
On that point, the profile of the field agent, the 56-year-old Mansour Arabsiar, contrary to lazy analysis by a wide range of pundits, actually lends credence to the Justice Department’s complaint, for it is precisely these desperate and frustrated elements who are willing to accept the appalling risks of cooperating with Iranian intelligence on West European or American soil.
Another questionable feature of the Mexican cartels connection is the manner in which the field agent (Arabsiar) had come to trust the purported representative of the cartels, who was in actual fact a Drugs Enforcement Administration informant.
Again, the Iranian intelligence services would be well aware that since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, internal US security agencies, in particular the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), have escalated the use of informants and agents to lay traps for unsuspecting would-be terrorists, who for the most part are dreamy young men susceptible to manipulation by FBI agents trained and encouraged to plant grandiose plots in their minds in order to develop the case.
There are more questionable features of the Mexican connection, for example the wiring of two sets of funds (on each occasion just short of $50,000) to the field agent so that he could pay the cartel. While it can be argued that the Qods force was trying to bolster the credibility of their field agent with the cartel (by showing that he had access to money), it is worth noting that every intelligence service in the world knows that wiring $10,000 or more at any one time is a bad idea as that immediately attracts the attention of US anti-money laundering monitors.
Beyond the nature and activities of the field agent, the location and choice of the target raises serious questions. The Iranian intelligence services have never before conducted a known violent operation on US soil. The risks are calculated to be far too high and in any case Iran has been careful to avoid giving any pretext to the US to initiate a direct confrontation.
The choice of the target, namely Saudi ambassador Jubeir, is also baffling. While leaked diplomatic cables and other sources portray Jubeir as holding strident anti-Iranian views, there are countless other Saudi officials with similar views, many of whom are more influential and effective than Jubeir.
If Iran wanted to eliminate an important Saudi official by way of sending a strong signal to Riyadh, there are plenty of targets in the Middle East theater of operations, an area which Iranian intelligence dominates. An operation in the Middle East would also be far less politically risky and less likely to provoke US retribution.
Another dimension worth considering is that the operation may have been an elaborate false flag operation, designed to harden US attitudes toward Iran and hasten confrontation. v The semi-official Mehr news agency reported on Tuesday that the man accused by the US Justice Department of being a senior Qods force officer, and Arabsiar’s handler in the operation, Gholam Shakuri, is in fact a member of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq organization (MeK), a militant cult that has been trying to overthrow the Iranian government for decades.
Despite the fact that Mehr attributes parts of its allegations to Interpol, the story is not supported by strong sources. There may indeed be an MeK member by the name of Gholam Shakuri, but that doesn’t necessarily negate the existence of his namesake inside the Qods force.
Moreover, it is worth noting that certain elements in Iran reflexively implicate the MeK in anti-Iranian agitation on the international stage
Clerics vs Ahmadinejad
But what if the content of the US Justice Department’s criminal complaint is essentially true? What could have possessed the Qods force, and their clerical overlords, to order such a risky and apparently reckless operation?
The background political tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia are well known. From an Iranian perspective, the Saudis have breached the red lines on at least three fronts; first by trying to stifle or manage the revolution in Yemen by supporting incumbent Ali Abdullah Saleh; second by intervening militarily in Bahrain to crush the Shi’ite-led revolution there; third, and most importantly, by actively assisting the Syrian opposition with a view to facilitating the downfall of Bashar al-Assad, a key Iranian ally in the region.
But if the Qods force was behind the plot, then the primary target was the US, and the key motivation was likely a desire to impair Iranian-US relations even further. That desire may have been generated by fears in the ruling clerical establishment that the Ahmadinejad government is laying the grounds for serious dialogue between the two countries.
As Asia Times Online argued in Iran and US edge toward confrontation (October 14), the Iranian intelligence services are ultimately controlled by the ruling clerical establishment, and not the serving government.
The independent-minded Ahmadinejad government has tried to exert more control over the intelligence services, in particular the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), which is the only fully professional intelligence outfit in Iran and is subject to more government control than the intelligence services connected to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.
In early April, Ahmadinejad came into direct political confrontation with the clerical establishment by sacking the intelligence minister, Heydar Moslehi, but was quickly ordered by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to re-instate the minister.
Aggressive posturing by the Iranian intelligence services usually play out against the backdrop of discord between the clerical establishment and the executive branch of government. A notable example is the so-called “chain murders” of several intellectuals and writers in the late 1990s which were attributed to MOIS agents.
At the time the clerical establishment was locked into a bitter power struggle with the reformist government of president Mohammad Khatami. In some ways the clerical establishment’s power struggle with the Ahmadinejad government is deeper than the one with the Khatami government, not least because Ahmadinejad is widely assumed to reside in the hardline camp of the Islamic Republic.
The foiled operation in Washington may have been ordered by the clerical establishment to embarrass Ahmadinejad further, and more specifically to sabotage any chance of dialogue between the US and Iran, and set back eventual rapprochement even further down the distant horizon.
But if that is really the case, then the operation was almost certainly designed to fail. The calculations behind the plot were likely very intricate and accurate and there would have been acute realization at every level of the planning process that a successful operation of this nature would have been considered a very serious escalation by the US and its allies and may have invited a military response.
Despite its deep dislike of the US, the ruling clerical establishment has no desire to engage in any type of direct military confrontation with the world’s sole superpower. In any case, if the Qods force really wanted to pull off a successful terrorist operation in Washington and eliminate the Saudi ambassador in the process, they could have probably done it.
Through the unscrupulous exploitation of Arabsiar, and by setting him up to fail, the Qods force and its clerical overlords, may have wanted to send unmistakable signals to Washington.
One signal may have related to a story originally published by Asia Times Online, namely that Iran is now considering retaliation for the unrelenting murder of its best scientists by Israel (see Israel wages war on Iranian scientists August 27).
More broadly, the Qods force and its masters may be sending a general warning about the dangers of escalation, pointing out to Washington that unlike the US’s other adversaries over the past two decades (chiefly Iraq under Saddam Hussein) Iran will not adopt a reactive posture in the face of US belligerence. In other words, Iran can take the initiative and throw US decision-making into disarray.
In the light of immediate US reaction, it could be argued that Iran’s rulers have miscalculated. On the other hand, it is worth remembering that in the past three decades the ruling clerics have proven to be masters of strategic maneuvering and have time and again outplayed and outsmarted their opponents.
What appears to be reckless and foolish in the first instance, in actual fact masks multiple layers of deception, designed to either confuse, embolden or demoralize, with a view to turning strategic threats into strategic opportunities.
Mahan Abedin is an analyst of Middle East politics.
dot: Does Iran have a nuclear weapons’ program?
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MH16Ak03.html
BiBiJon: the military will be replaced by contractors:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/state-department-readies-iraq-operation-its-biggest-since-marshall-plan/2011/10/05/gIQAzRruTL_story.html
James,
American wars in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Libya, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Cuba etc have had nothing to do with Israel, agreed? It is not as if Israel’s actions and influence can be considered a sufficient cause for US barbarism. It’s the Cold War and its successor war in the Middle East that follow the same patterns. Nothing has changed since Bush the father came to power other than Saddam’s challenge to US hegemony in the region. And let’s not forget that Bush the father’s father was a supporter of Nazi Germany. The Bush legacy points to a very ‘special’ US-Israeli relationship that is based on opportunism and little else.
News flash: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/world/middleeast/us-scales-back-diplomacy-in-iraq-amid-fiscal-and-security-concerns.html?_r=1&hpw
Curious, isn’t it, that even a curtailed scope for US consular missions in Iraq ultimately will depend on Iran for providing the necessary security to be able to function at all.
Unknown unknowns,
Leaving aside our last ‘misunderstanding’ (caused by my poor management of what I intended to be a decent and rational debate between an atheist and a creationist – for, I repeat, I respect your perspective, and I do think you have a brilliant writing style), is murder wrong? Sure there are philosophical exceptions, but they are mere exceptions. Fact is, murder is wrong, plain and simple. Can we agree that here is a universal value?
‘Theft’, for example, does not quite as easily fall in the same universal category, as private and public subcategories of property come into play, and then questions like who was first, worked hardest etc. External objects are external, while life is a simple prerequisite to anything else that emanates. And we cannot own property quite the same way that we have absolute rights over our own lives. Or we should, at least.
Am not sure that ‘constant’ values rule the world anyhow. However, there are some fundamentals that must hold for long enough. And some of these fundamentals change rather quickly. The question of women’s position in society, like that of men or children or the elderly is linked to economic and social relations as well as others. People today live longer, much longer, than a century or so ago. Poverty is less prevalent too. Families do not need as many children as they used to for the economic survival of the unit. In fact, and ‘universally’ speaking, children used to be a source of labour and income from an early age, but child labour is now increasingly illegal (another changing value). Children are an economic liability especially as many states run pension schemes. So birthrates have fallen dramatically. No one can afford to raise several children who tend to survive for much longer than before, and need decades of education without the ability to support their families before the age of 30. Not too long ago, most people used to be considered to be close to old age by the age of 30.
Women, therefore, are not child bearers the way they used to be, and have greater ‘freedom’ for other priorities in modern life. They really have to or else they end up being miserable. Many of our mothers and sisters today are. Divorce is on the rise across the world, Iran included. The family unit, as we know it, is on the wane. Many have reacted to this basic reality of modern life rather negatively, complaining of loss of values and decadence. Religious fundamentalists of all persuasions have this ’cause’ in common with a strong focus on women. Iran and Saudi Arabia are somewhat on the wrong side of history in this regard.
dot: the lesson learned from Libya and WMDs:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0830/A-troubling-lesson-from-Libya-Don-t-give-up-nukes
dot: why the Iran sanctions are designed to fail:
http://original.antiwar.com/yousaf-butt/2011/08/25/iran-sanctions-built-to-fail/print/
“Conditions for lifting these sanctions go way beyond anything having to do with Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.
The West has essentially painted itself into a corner with sanctions that were relatively simple to enact but will prove hard, if not impossible, to lift – no matter what Iran does with its nuclear program. The situation may – intentionally or not – become a prelude to war.
For instance, the US sanctions can only be lifted after the President certifies to Congress “that the government of Iran has: (1) released all political prisoners and detainees; (2) ceased its practices of violence and abuse of Iranian citizens engaging in peaceful political activity; (3) conducted a transparent investigation into the killings and abuse of peaceful political activists in Iran and prosecuted those responsible; and (4) made progress toward establishing an independent judiciary.”
And – just in case those conditions were not unrealistically stringent and comprehensive – the President has to further certify that “the government of Iran has ceased supporting acts of international terrorism and no longer satisfies certain requirements for designation as a state sponsor of terrorism; and [that] Iran has ceased the pursuit, acquisition, and development of nuclear, biological, chemical, and ballistic weapons.”
Many US allies, such as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, could not satisfy all these conditions.
So even if Iran were to stop all uranium enrichment and dump all their centrifuges into the Persian Gulf, shutter their nuclear program entirely, and re-task all their nuclear physicists to work in Chocolate factories, Iran would still be sanctioned by the US Congress.
The UN Security Council (UNSC) sanctions are only a little better than the unilateral US ones in that they have only marginally less impossible goals.
While the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would be happy to simply get slightly more transparency regarding Iran’s nuclear program, nothing short of stopping all uranium enrichment will satisfy the arbitrary conditions of the UNSC sanctions. The Security Council has “affirmed that it would suspend the sanctions if, and so long as, Iran suspended all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, as verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)…” This is clearly something that will not happen since virtually all the Iranian polity and people support their sovereign right to enrich uranium – just like Argentina, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the US do.
So while the IAEA initially referred Iran to the UNSC over a lack of transparency, the UNSC took that opportunity to slap on additional ad hoc demands: this is like being stopped for a traffic violation and then having your car confiscated for no good reason, other than that you were speeding and can’t be trusted with cars – forever!
While Iran is probably willing and able to satisfy IAEA demands for greater transparency, this concession will not satisfy UNSC sanctions that require Iran to suspend enrichment indefinitely.
This is possibly why Iran feels it has little to gain by cooperating with the IAEA at this stage: even if it makes the IAEA happy, the UNSC – and various unilateral – sanctions still be fully in effect. So these sanctions are, in fact, a disincentive for Iran to cooperate with the IAEA: if they are going to be sanctioned by the Security Council anyway, why should they cooperate with the IAEA? “
random dots
dot C Span lists over 2500 references to Libya, from 1988 to the present day. Starting in about 1992, every time Libya was mentioned in a program, Iran (and usually also Iraq and North Korea) were also mentioned, in the same category — rogue states that possess scary weapons and must be disarmed and punished.
dot The first major sanctions imposed on Iran, at the behest of AIPAC, according to then-AIPAC operative Keith Weissman, in the video linked here —
:http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/12/25/iran-conference-video-available-online/
was the Libya-Iran Sanctions Act of 1996.
dot According to a fact sheet from the US embassy in Israel, dated Aug. 6, 1996, by means of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act,
“President Clinton has led the fight against terrorism and will continue to take measures to further pressure and punish states that support it.
Purpose: The Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 imposes new sanctions on foreign companies that engage in specified economic transactions with Iran or Libya. It is intended to:
– Help deny Iran and Libya revenues that could be used to finance international terrorism;
– Limit the flow of resources necessary to obtain weapons of mass destruction; and,
– Put pressure on Libya to comply with U.N. resolutions that, among other things, call for Libya to extradite for trial the accused perpetrators of the Pan Am 103 bombing. “
dot Sanctions on Libya were lifted after the trial and imprisonment of the Lockerbie bomber.
dot In a C Span appearance in August 2011, former Carter and Ted Kennedy advisor Mark Ginsberg said that after having been in the West’s good graces for several years, Libya fell out of favor when the person convicted of the Pan Am bombing was released from jail in Scotland. (In the same C Span appearance, a caller mentioned that Gaddafi had begun to trade Libya’s abundant oil using an exchange currency other than the US dollar. The dollar as world currency is the only thing keeping the US afloat, such as it is.) More on Ginsberg below.
dot In a Mar 2, 2007 appearance on Democracy Now, Wesley Clarke told Amy Goodman that he was told by a Pentagon staffer that orders had been handed down on about Sept 20, 2001, to “take down” Iraq, Libya, five other countries, ending with Iran “because we have the military and we can overturn governments.” :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mNr1aaDiNw
dot Mark Ginsberg, who told interviewer Steve Scully that he attended high school in “Israel, Egypt, and Hartford, Connecticut,” made two appearances on C Span to discuss US involvement with Libya. In the first appearance, in March, 2011, before an audience of 100 high school students, Ginsberg explained that the diverse entities focused on Libya had “inconsistent intentions and goals,” ranging from the president’s expressed humanitarian goals, to Susan Rice’s goal of removing Qaddafi, to France’s goal of regime change in Libya, to US military’s goal of maintaining a no-fly zone. Concerning Pres. Obama’s intentions, Ginsberg said,
“while he acted belatedly, stopping the slaughter of what would have inevitably had occurred in Benghazi, had the UN Security Council not voted to impose a no-fly zone on the country . . . would have resulted in human catastrophe. Benghazi has a million people in the eastern part of the country and Gaddafi’s forces were on the verge of attacking –would have resulted in thousands of people probably being killed.
In some respects the president could declare Mission Accomplished and leave, because we did stop that slaughter.”
I wonder if those 100 students were attuned to Ginsberg’s “would haves,” and how they morphed into “stopping a slaughter” that existed only in the land of Could Have.
dot It is curious that neither interviewer Scully nor Mr. Ginsberg informed the students that an Israeli corporation was supplying mercenaries to fight on Qaddafi’s side, and would have been the perpetrators of a “slaughter” that “probably” “would have” occurred, had not Pres. Obama intervened.
:http://www.voltairenet.org/Mercenary-company-CST-Global-and
Ginsberg continued: “If the French want to take this fight all the way to the shores of Tripoli and rid Libya of Benghazi I say in . . .let them do it. . . . Why should America lead that fight, we have no strategic interest in Libya.
In August 2011, Ginsberg was back behind a C Span microphone as a guest on Washington Journal. He said:
dot “The United States has vast strategic interests in the region. . . .There’s a huge demographic explosion that has occurred. The vast majority of Arabs in each of these countries is under 25. And many of these young people have access to technology that they never had before, everything from social media to realizing that globalization has passed the Arab world by.
Uh, I’ve always said that Arab states shouldn’t be competing with each other but they want to become the next South Korea or Chile or the next Malaysia. And how were they robbed of their entrepreneurial spirit so they could take responsibility for their own lives.”
ah, Chile and Malaysia, the land of Milton Friedman’s dreams — and savage US-backed government takeovers with the goal of imposing Chicago school economics. :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCkTFPLL-Lk
Back to Ginsberg: “I think that what the United States is trying to do is the right thing. Until we basically have rid ourselves of our interests in the region which I don’t see happening anytime soon, the United States has a very good model of offering to these people trade reform, economic development, entrepreneurial spirit that would give these young people hope. Remember they could have gone to Al Qaeda but what we saw was a secular uprising for economic opportunity. The United States doesn’t have to bankroll this but we certainly should be inspirational in it.” :http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/LibyaandU at about 25 min –>
Another curiosity: In March 2011, the US had “not strategic interests in Libya,” but in Aug. 2011, US had “vast strategic interests in the region . . .that won’t go away anytime soon.”
Precisely what ARE those “interests in the region” that won’t go away anytime soon?
dot In an September 2011 interview, Bruce Bueno Mesquita spelled it out, using the situation that will prevail in Egypt as an example.
Bueno Mesquita and his colleague, Alastair Smith, had previously explained that politicians act in their self interest, and they reward supporters only as far as a cost-benefit analysis indicates they must. A dictator’s tools are money and violence; he (or she, in the case of Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Condi Rice) needs money to buy favors and the military. What Mubarak offered in exchange for money was ‘peace’ with Israel. The Egyptian people did not think pacific thoughts toward Israelis, and it was not in Mubarak’s interest to train his people to love Israel, because then he would have nothing to sell the US in exchange for foreign aid.
Now that the Egyptian people have overthrown Mubarak, and with elections in Egypt looming, Pres. Obama confronts a more difficult calculus. Mesquita explains:
““One of the effects of foreign aid is to significantly increase the probability that an oppressive dictatorial regime stays in power. . . . So Egypt is more complicated because although that remains true, the president has to play that against the impact of hostility against Israel on his reelection prospects. It always comes back to the POLITICIAN’s self-interest.
In that case, one of two things has to happen: We’re either going to have to pay a lot bigger price to Israel if, for example, there is an election and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in alignment with the military controls the country, the price of maintaining good relations with Israel goes way up. So we have to decide, Will we pay that much higher price, is that worth it in terms of domestic votes, or do we leave it to the Israelis and others to manage that problem on their own. My guess is we’ll pay the price.”
The United States has punished Iran, killed thousands, and paid dictators to keep them in power over a combined population of perhaps 100 million people, in a bid to keep 7 million Jews in Israel and several major Jewish campaign donors happy.
:http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/301590-1 (45 min –> Also, listen to Alastair Smith’s prognostication over what will happen in and to Libya, starting at 40 min.)
James Canning says: October 22, 2011 at 1:53 pm
“The primary reason for the Iraq War was to benefit Israel.”
James,
Much as I appreciate many people believe USA represents some kind of ‘idea’ (though no one actually can explain what this obviously very barbaric idea might be), I think they are another manifestation of American ‘exceptionalism’. America would never engage in war for the benefit of Israel alone. Israel basically serves the divide and rule strategy in the region rather well. This makes Israelis pawns, though I agree they are somewhat willing pawns. Just like the Saudis. Yet both have their own interests and destiny that are increasingly divergent from those of the US. It is a marriage destined for divorce because the reality of their own populations’ wills will bite, sooner or later.
American military presence in the region serves to dominate the region. This is highly dependent on effective instability and sowing the seeds of conflict with the price being a few expendable American soldiers’ lives mainly from the poorer classes. The economic damage too is manageable when backed up by the fog of war through the media. ‘Muslims killing Muslims’, as we so often hear from the left, right and centre – all with some glee – is a dream come true for the empire’s ambitions. The introduction of Al Qaeda in Iraq was a gift rather than a problem to the illegal invasion of Iraq. Zarqawi took a lot of heat off American soldiers as the idiot was more intent on killing Muslims than anyone else. Hence the awakening councils.
This explains the endless thirst for permanent war without conventional ‘victory’ in seemingly irrelevant places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Oil, energy and power are the reasons America went to war in Iraq. According to American imperialists and their apologists, no one is supposed to get strong enough to challenge US power today or tomorrow. Israel is just a pawn. Now that the chips are falling they are busy releasing prisoners to buy some favour from their neighbours in Gaza and Egypt for they cannot afford a conflict with Egypt so they try to pacify Hamas with the direction collaboration of the Egyptian military. This trend is likely to continue, at the same time as the Americans are likely to become further marginalised. Israelis, Saudis and other puppets of the West will have to change to gain the favour of their own people and their neighbours rather than American warmongers.
I think so much concentration on Israel only helps deflect attention from the real source of barbaric militarism.
Empty says:
October 22, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Thanks , dear Emptyjan.
Of course I have got your message and it was important for me , that it came from you , merci.
Big Picture, people. Big Picture:
George Washington in his farewell address:
http://www.bartleby.com/43/24.html
” In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated.—The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave.
It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.—Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.—Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed and bloody contests.—The Nation prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to War the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy.—The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject;—at other times, it makes the animosity of the Nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives.—The peace often, sometimes perhaps the Liberty, Nations has been the victim.— 31
So likewise a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils.—Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite Nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity:—gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, and the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.— 32
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot.—How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. 33
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens, the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican Government.—But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it.—Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real Patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favourite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. 34
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little Political connection as possible.—So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith.—Here let us stop.
Richard wrote:
“Apparently no one here can read – as usual.”
The problem with your remark is that anyone who reads it is innocent of your charge. And those who are guilty won’t know what you’ve written.
I still think my take on Hillarious Billarious’s ejaculation is closest to the mark:
“I saw, I conquered, I came.”
Wilbur:
Emm, were either of your parents retarded? Cause you sure are ‘special’ :D
Empty:
All I’m saying is that I know that my (blond) secretary has been at my word processor every time, because there’s white-out on my monitor. Nuf sed.
Hans says “Ask the females if they would like their country to be run by religious bigots!”
Hans, you’re breaking my balls Hans. We’ve been over this a dozen times, OK? Do you have any idea how f@#%ing busy I am??
You’re making the same mistake as you were before, which is you assume that people *over there* think the same way as the people *over here*. You are UNIVERSALIZING your values, that is, you are assuming that your values, and the values of your womenfolk, are held equally dearly in all parts of the world (and in all timescales, as Iraq and the ME generally is on a different timescales as you are).
Stop breaking my balls Hans, or I’ll have to throw you to the sharks again ;o)
Love,
Kim Jong Il.
Just to share Galen Wright’s response at his blog to my question there. First my question (re: what will happen to all those military bases Uncle Weasel built with no-bid contracts):
I guess the Muqtada gambit played by Iran worked like a dream. What I’m wondering is, What the hell is going to happen to all those bases? Didn’t they build like 14 large bases at the cost of billions of dollars? Isn’t one of them like the biggest base in the world or some such obscenity? Does ownership revert back to the Iraqi government? If so, do they plan to rent a few out to the Qods Force?? LOL
And once the Exodus is effected and the Iraqis have full control of their own country, is it not likely that they will be prevailed upon to turn a blind eye to “trade” convoys to Syria and Hezbollah via Syria, which would actually be carrying the latest in Iranian artillery and SAM missile systems (as well as all other manner of materiel)? And if so, what effect would this have on the scaredy-cat Israeli Occupation Force and its ability to project force outside its borders to Syria and Lebanon?
Author: Galen Wright said…
UU:
AFAIK the US does intend to hand these bases over to the Iraqi military when the last ‘combat troops’ withdraw. A large part of this draw-down has involved shipping home equipment which is valuable enough to be saved. Surprisingly, this isn’t a whole lot as it often costs more to ship equipment across the Atlantic then it does to just scrap it or leave it to the Iraqis. Unsurprisingly though, the equipment that is left, like air-conditioners or other administrative supplies, often ends up in the black market or is otherwise looted.
I’d also wager that a number of bases are transferred to “civilian” US forces like the state-department or military advisers tasked with training the Iraqi military and supporting the security of post-US Iraq. (~10,000 personnel last I heard)
One also has to remember that these bases were often built on top of pre-existing Iraqi army bases so it’s not really at all unusual that the IA is taking over operation of them as they expand and replace the US though I’m sure some of them will remain hollow because there’s no way the IA will have the footprint of the US Army or USAF.
Richard/ Masoud:
I was going to object to Richard’s terminology too. “Cells” implies a terrorist organization, especially in the international context, whereas Hezbollah is simply an Islamic-Nationalist resistance force (and now part of the (il)legitimate government).
Empty/ VoT, Re: NWO
There is no question that there are a powerful group of individuals who want to unify the way the world is governed, on the model of the EU. I mean, they don’t even make a secret of it. All you have to do is read Foreign Policy, the organ of the Trilateralists. But it is equally evident (to us, at any rate) that they are going against unknown unknowns as well as known unknowns. The NWO crowd has suffered a major setback in the past several weeks when they realized that it is necessary but not sufficient to have a unitary currency; and that one must also have a unitary fiscal and budgetary policy as well, which, quite plainly, just isn’t going to happen. It is possible that even the so-called unification of Europe is just another wet dream, or, to use Empty’s metaphor, just another pimple that is ready to burst.
But until it does, their evil machinations should be monitored, as they affect the lives of billions, and are a vital element in approach to understanding geopolitics.
Smith:
I agree with you fully. Also, once war has broken out, there is nothing to prevent Iran from arming anti-US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan with all manner of materiel, from sniper rifles and machine guns to shoulder fired SAM’s, artillery and short range missiles, all of which they manufacture locally and have in abundance. US embassies in the ME will be fair game, as will be US and allied poodle businessmen, whose presence will no longer be sustainable. And of course, last but by no means least, Israel will come under sustained assault from several fronts.
This, at any rate, is Iran’s capability. How she will react, however, is anyone’s guess, and will depend on the nature of the attack.
Richard Steven Hack says:
October 22, 2011 at 9:42 pm
I think this is crazy talk. What makes you think Hezbollah has an on the ground presence in America? Hezbollah has no history of operating outside of the Arab world.
Iraq bids sayonara to Team America:
http://www.vietnaminfo.nl/images/van_es_01.gif
@ Richard Steven Hack,
Iranians have never retaliated with terror. They are not like Americans that if some one even attacks American in their imagination, they will kill a few million of their tribe women and children included. Iranians do not do such things but they might have very precise targets in mind. Their ballistic and cruise missiles will hit all the oil fields, refineries, pumping stations, storage, ports, pipelines and tankers in middle east taking out more than half of the traded oil on international markets. Combined with market fear factor the price of oil will jump several times and will remain there for years till again all infrastructure can be built. The economies of the world will collapse totally. The populace of artificial countries like Kuwait and UAE who depend on foreign workers, tourism, oil and trading will disintegrate since they lose their incomes and are used to live easy life. Governments will fall, but Iran will survive since they are already used to live a hard life as compared to people living in Dubai. This is called asymmetric warfare. Iran is not like Libya or Iraq that did not have even a single long rage ballistic missile. Iran has the means to retaliate and will retaliate. After all, Iran stood up against US navy and Saddam for 8 years. Saddam never stood up against anyone for more than 3 weeks without help from US and EU. Once those helps were gone, he was impotent. Iran on the other hand is fully capable and determined to get its share of cake or else no one will have any cake.
So Hans, what did you think of that video clip from Team America? I guess you had already seen it. But seriously, are you shitting me? I’m not sure I’m buying it. As you know, some people in this site (myself not necessarily included) demand EVIDENCE!
Apparently no one here can read – as usual.
Iran has a very competent asymmetric military force which also has access to the most effective guerrilla group in the world – Hizballah in Lebanon. Hizballah also reportedly has cells established in the continental US.
As I’ve repeatedly said, in the event of an attack on Iran by the US (AND ONLY THEN note), one of the most effective retaliations possible would be to export terrorist attacks into the continental United States. Of course, Iran would concentrate most of its asymmetric attacks in the Middle East since that would be more convenient and efficient.
But if Iran was enduring a major US military offensive for months, it might as well attempt to make the cost to the US as dear as possible. Terrorism in the continental United States would be a very effective method. Iran would lose little in the credibility department since the US already claims Iran conducts terrorism outside its borders. As Anton LaVey used to say, “If you have the Devil’s name, play the Devil’s game.” Iran might as well use the effective weapon of terrorism in order to maximize the economic cost to the US of the war.
No one is saying Iran is or has conducted any war against anyone outside its borders. I am saying IF Iran is attacked with the clear goal of regime change, Iran’s leaders would be well served to bring the war home to the US.
Humanist: Porter is trying various interpretations of the evidence in the legal complaint, trying to make sense of this alleged plot. I don’t think he believes it either. Also I think this was written prior to the Iranians declaring the Iranian contact a member of the M.E.K. If that proves true – and the reference to Interpol would seem to suggest it is – then Porter’s theory is probably not correct.
The main problem with the theory is that the Iranians, if they were planning to use terrorism as a mode of retaliation in the event of a US attack, wouldn’t use drug dealers for that any more than they would for the alleged assassination plot. They would use the Hizballah cells reportedly already in the US, or other trained agents.
That’s the main problem with Porter’s theory, which I don’t think he considered.
In any event, no where did I suggest that Iran would change their foreign policy. I am talking about using terrorism SOLELY in the event of a full scale US attack on Iran.
Definitely Iran has won now that US is pulling out like Vietnam hanging from helicopters achieving nothing but strategic loss. As I had pointed out in my last long comment in the previous article on Race for Iran named: “Leveretts on CNN.com: “Iranian ‘Plots’ and American Hubris” this is one of the reasons that the attempted staged terror plan was unveiled against Iran. But these tricks are not new. As George Galloway had already predicted such a thing would happen long before: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6SHQcw4mzU&feature=related
James Canning – The ‘ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT’ is quoted based on the text of ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ – advising its readers to work for the establishment of a ‘One World Government’ under Jewish control. Washington’s wars on the Muslim world for Israel could be the fulfilment of the The Protocol prophecy.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/western-wars-on-islamic-world/
Jewish-owned Hertz rental car fires 25 Muslims workers for praying
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/hertz-fires-25-muslim-workers-for-praying/
On Hillary Clinton’s remark:
“We came, we saw, he died.”
What struck me most about this statement was Clinton’s failure to acknowledge the causal connection between the first two clauses (“We came, we saw”) and the final clause (“he died”).
The Julius Caesar equivalent would have been: “I came, I saw, the country was conquered.”
Caesar did not hesitate to say how that conquest had come about: “I conquered.” Clinton, by contrast, appears reluctant to credit the US for the ouster of Gaddafi. Perhaps the US just happened to be in Libya, sipping tea at a Tripoli sidewalk café, when the Libyan people – all of them, not just some rebel group supported by NATO air strikes – removed Gaddafi from power, hunted him down and killed him.
If that were not the case, after all, the inevitable departure of the US and other NATO forces might leave the new Libyan government too lacking in popular support to establish its legitimacy and restore stability. And since the new Libyan government possesses such strong popular support that undoubtedly it will soon establish its legitimacy and restore stability, it follows that the Libyan people all by themselves, not the US and other NATO forces, must have been responsible for the ouster of Gaddafi.
Hence “he died,” rather “we killed him.”
Voice of Tehran,
I think many who liked the original idea of a “new world order” arising from the collapse of the Communist empire, saw it as an opportunity for greatly reduced spending on weapons. But Dick Cheney and his gang set out at once to try to deceive the public into allowing continuing squandering of vast sums on unecessary weapons. Cheney was a stooge of the armaments manufacturers all along.
Voice of Tehran,
When the moron in the White House said “You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists”, what did he even mean? That whatever fanatical Jews in the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans want to do, everyone else on the planet better allow them to do? That whatever rich and powerful Jews in New York and Los Angeles demand be done, the rest of the planet better say “yessir”?
Voice of Tehran,
Another part of the equation, of course, is the wish of the armaments manufacturers to sell trillions of dollars of useless or unnecessary weapons. This, of course, also enriches tens of thousands of lobbyists, other influence peddlers, property developers (near defence contractors, and of course in Washington), etc etc etc.
Voice of Tehran,
I think the crux of the matter is that rich and powerful Jews do not want to have their programme labelled “screw the ignorant and rather stupid American public, so that Jews in the West Bank can screw the Christian and Muslim Palestinians.”
Rich and powerful Jews want to use American power, to advance the supposed interests of Israel – - as defined by Jews in the US.
This is the heart of the neocon fantasy that brought us the idiotic and illegal Iraq War.
Glenn Greenwald re: Obama’s “annoucement” on Iraq: “I believe the [US] has not gotten even close to coming to terms with the magnitude of the national crime that was the attack on Iraq. ..” All too true.
Voice of Tehran,
RE: NWOs….
I see that you, too, caught the NWO infection/fever (perhaps from our other brother who shall remain “unknown”!?) Allow me to repeat what I have stated on the subject in the past….these NWOs and their garden varieties are nothing, absolutely nothing, positively nothing but tiny little pimples on the buttocks of the universe. They’ll pop when they are ripe. Be aware of their multiple tentacles but you shouldn’t worry too much about them. They had a choice to begin this war (on all humanity) but they cannot control how it ends. I assure you.
RE: but what if they are able to hide your ‘Fetrat’ from yourself , to that extend that you do not know even it exists , what then ?
Well, I’d answer that in several ways:
1. The tango of deception requires, first and foremost, a willing partner. No one can hide someone’s “Fetrat” from him/her unless he/she is a willing participant. If such is the case, there is nothing you could do about that. They’ll learn the hard way and will eventually wake up.
2. From a behavioral sciences/social influence perspective, tools of deception get progressively dull after repeated use and lose their efficacy. From a systems theory perspective, this escalates the cost to those who employ deceit as their technique of choice. Their resources are finite and their set up will eventually collapse.
3. From a historical perspective, the evidence actually points toward an awakening and not a slumber. These are the types of evidence I encourage people to explore, find, and publicize as they are not made readily available on the media for a good reason. It is a clean and پاک strategy.
4. My belief in Quran’s promise would answer that no one can hide that which God has willed to become evident and no one can make evident that which God has willed it to remain hidden.
So, if you believe in God and promises of Quran, then I hope you explore number 4. If not, I think 1 through 3 are good to consider.
Humanist says:
October 22, 2011 at 4:53 pm
“”I bet if they take a new poll they’ll find out the animosity of Americans towards Iranians have measurably increased after this bizarre concoction.”"
My humble opinion ( which is a quote of course ) regarding polls in the western world:
“”What most Americans believe to be “Public Opinion” is in reality carefully crafted and scripted propaganda designed to elicit a desired behavioral response from the public. Public opinion polls are really taken with the intent of gauging the public’s acceptance of the ‘opinion manipulators’ planned programs. A strong showing in the polls tells the ‘opinion manipulators’ that the programing is “taking”, while a poor showing tells the NWO manipulators that they have to recast or “tweak” the programming until the desired response is achieved.”"
What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream , Prof . Chomsky :
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710–.htm
James Canning says:
October 22, 2011 at 4:19 pm
James , believe me , I am a very normal person.
However , I do not accept the western world leaders to act in “FULL” conspiracy and to label those , like AN and thousands more , who try to bring light into this mess , as ‘conspiratists’.
Do you really think that the situation we are is normal , by any standard ???
If we are not willing to think around corners , we only get deeper into this mess and what the NWO is concerned George Bush said it crystal clear in front of congress on 11 September 1990 : N W O and his son said : ” Either you are with us , or you are with the terrorists , what do you want more , they are even not trying to hide th facts.
Richard S.H.
Re: your 8:14pm comment.
This might sound condescending yet in my view at times as far as Iran is concerned even astute and honest American commentators just don’t get it. By this I don’t mean offence, this is because‘human intelligence (whatever it is!) must have its own limits, so is the limits of human knowledge on the subjects of the debates..
Your indirect or partial faith in this new assertion of highly respected (yet at times gullible?) Garth Porter which implies there are elements of truth in the allegation of ‘Iranian PLOT’ reminded me of Noam Chomsky and Eric Margolis. Both, generally, are revered and well-informed analysts but in the case of June 2009 Iranian presidential election both believed there was fraud in the election. However their experienced analytical minds smelled a rat making them add”….but Ahmadinejad won the election”. You too, sort of believe Gareth but your skepticism casts doubts on that belief.
Why Gareth Porter’s argument doesn’t make sense to me? There are a number of reasons. I just mention the one which is hardly referred to in the Western media.
Iranian apprehension of American might is reflected on its foreign policies. Not enough American analysts know that on the grave-stones of some Iranians who were killed in the Iran-Iraq war, instead of blaming Iraqis the carved scripts reflect the condemnation of Americans. Also I have heard of an army (or IRGC?) Commander who, when arrived at the horrible scene of a chemical attack on his fellow fighters, with tear and intense rage accused the Americans, not Iraqis, describing the event as acts of ‘unfathomable vicious barbarism’.
Iranians policy makers know so well during the first Gulf war General Schwatzkopf’s buried alive (1000s?) of Iraqi soldiers in their trenches. They also know about unparallel disproportionate destruction of Iraqi infrastructure and the ferocious ‘Highway of Death incident when 100 (300?) thousands of fleeing Iraqis were bombed by American (coalition) pilots or ‘turkey shot’ by the American soldiers. They also know enough about the recent US invasion of Iraq, the Abu-Graib etc etc.
In my view Iranians are fully aware where the lines are drawn. They are very alertly apprehensive (not fearful) of the uncompromising American might. So, whenever I read about Iranians supplying arms to Iraqis or to the Afghans I immediately reject the allegations.
This new accusation of ‘plot on US soil’ is no different from those of IED cases or from’Iranians training Talibans’ etc
I suspect this one reveals the hands of those who try to portray Iranians as irrational and stupid and as soon as they get the bomb they’ll drop it on Tel-Aviv or on Washington. Sounds stupid? I don’t think so. These allegations are brewed to influence the sheeple. I bet if they take a new poll they’ll find out the animosity of Americans towards Iranians have measurably increased after this bizarre concoction.
On the mean time the Russian proposal and overtures of Iranians to resolve their differences with the US are dead before seeing the light of the day.
Can you guess who really benefits from all this? In my view, with high probability the Likudniks are the real winners .
One more note:
From the above you might deduce ‘Iranians must be hating Americans immensely’.I don’t think so, that would be a naive oversimplification. This is a complex issue. The feelings of Iranians on Americans lies on a wide spectrum ranging from deep hatred to amorous affection. In general, as the polls show Iranians have the ability to peacefully coexist with Americans, their history and their composite of the country affirms this proposition..
In the past if not all, most of the presidents of Iran, in one form or another have expressed the above desire of peaceful coexistence. Unfortunately so far, as you well know, the responses have not been accommodating.
Iranians know that the ‘world’ is watching this and they are not unhappy about what they see. So I don’t see any reason for them to change their cautious (rational?) foreign policy.
James Canning,
The actual phrase he used was عقب افتادۀ سیاسی which could be most appropriately translated as “suffering from political retardation.”
I agree with you that spoke well. I also thought his remark about the “plot” was humorous.
Empty says:
October 22, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Empty , brilliant thoughts , as usual.
As stated earlier , I have started to conduct some private ‘amateurish’ research on various aspects of so called conspiracy theories .
In Iran we do not have a problem with CT at all , as we are living with them on a daily basis since generations :-)
What ‘Mind Control’ , especially in western societies , is concerned I have come to amazing conclusions , which is difficult for me to express , as most of the theories are conspirative :-)
However in my research I have often come across the name of the Tavistock Inst. of Human Relations / City of London , apparently the mother of all mind control institutions in the world with executing arms in the US , which are well over 200 ‘think tanks’ such as the Rand Corporation and the Brookings Institute which are overseen and directed by the top NWO mind control organization in the United States, the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) .
Now just imagine , if a populace of a country like the US is permanently and constantly subjected to a well coordinated ‘mind control’ programme and those who are in charge (on top) are the owners of the pharma/chemical industry , the media , entertainment/music industry , Hollywood , the banking industry , school/higher education etc. and again all would work in full coordination with each other in every aspect.
This would be a deadly combination and the end of self-determination and more important what would an individual be able to do in order to fight or confront those ‘ evil’ forces , whose ultimate goal is to turn that individual into a mind controlled ‘slave’.
You are of course right , if you know about your ‘Fetrat’and the Majestic power behind it , you will be able to activate it as a kind of vaccination( protection) in whatever you do , but what if they are able to hide your ‘Fetrat’ from yourself , to that extend that you do not know even it exists , what then ?
Empty,
I expecially liked Ahmadinejad’s comment to Zakaria: “We said those who are seeking to build nuclear bombs or those who stockpile [them], they are politically and mentally retarded.”
Numerous stooges and whores of the Israel lobby in the US Congress will, of course, continue to attempt to deceive the American people on this issue.
Voice of Tehran,
What is the nature of the “One World Government” you apparently think is envisioned by a number of world leaders?
EU is facing a significant challenge just to remain intact. Visions of a “one world gov’t” are totally unrealistic. Totally. Full stop.
Even taking Turkey into the EU seems impossible politically.
Empty,
I though Ahmadinejad was well-spoken on CNN and he made a number of good points. CNN Should interview him more often.
This one is perhaps a more comprehensive one. The fragmented way the clips are organized is quite distracting. Nevertheless, it’s below. The F.Z. seems to advocate the same view as the Leveretts about the US withdrawal claim.
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/22/ahmadinejad-on-gadhafi-syria-alleged-plot-nuclear-weapons-and-americas-role/
Castellio,
Hillary Clinton blundered badly by joking about the death of Gaddafi, but was the western intervention in Libya “conservative”? I think it was the precise opposite.
President Ahmadinejad’s (CNN) interview today:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2011/10/22/ahmadinejad-assassination-plot.cnn
a young “woman” of conscious, rather…….
[sorry about the typos....oh, well...]
“of” two young blond women, rather…
When I read categorical statements about how “brainwashed”, “stupid”, “incompetent”, “self-centered”, “ignorant”, “warmongering” (and any other name that you could find) American people are, I wonder (to myself mostly) if those who are making such statements truly realize what sort of worldview/box/trapping framework they are actually promoting and most importantly what potential ramifications are of promoting such worldview.
The messages conveyed through the media, specific video clips, sitcoms, and late night shows certainly corroborates such a perception. Official statistics provided by both governmental and non-governmental agencies, when explored through specific lenses, decidedly support the perception as well. If you succeed in convincing most people (whether in the US or abroad) that such is the quality of the American people, then you are supporting (regardless of whether you are aware of it or not) the idea that such population needs others to think for them, to decide for them, and to lead them in the first place and that such population is incapable of organizing/mobilizing based on correct values. You’re also supporting the idea that the American people are not capable of doing better. You’re also encouraging the American people to think that they have no way to escape the false dichotomy of either an evil government or a lesser-of-the-two-evil government. You’re supporting, albeit unwittingly, the very idea that a minority of deceitful and self-serving criminals have powers and holds that cannot be challenged, rebuffed, and resisted.
In a span of two days, I saw two video clips from two young blond women: One depicted someone who had very little knowledge about education and geography but wore a glittering outfit and her performance had been televised. Another (not sure who posted it) depicted a young women of conscious who traveled to Libya as a journalist and testified on behalf of people whose voices are hardly heard. She dressed plainly and she had not been televised. Beyond perspectives, there is a reason why one was televised and the other was not. Whose story, whose narrative, whose worldview, which perception, and which approach do YOU feel you want to help promote? And how willing are you to challenge your own worldview and perceptions in this regard?
I would like to use evidence from the very established official channels to present a different and a more realistic perspective. Feel free to find other evidence and add to the list.
Evidence #1In 1999, the number children and young adult (ages 5 through 17) out of 50,188,000 students, approximately 850,000 were “home schooled.” This amounted to about 1.7% of total students being home-schooled. By 2007 (in less than 10 years), the percentage has nearly doubled: 1,508,000 students of that age group out of a total of 51,135,000 are now home schooled [Data obtained from National Center for Educational Statistics, See I in the reference list].
In a survey exploring the reasons for home schooling, the parents provided several specific reasons. NECS (See II in the reference list) summarizes them as follows: “to provide religious or moral instruction (36 percent of students). This reason was followed by a concern about the school environment (such as safety, drugs, or negative peer pressure) (21 percent), dissatisfaction with academic instruction (17 percent), and “other reasons” including family time, finances, travel, and distance (14 percent). Parents of about 7 percent of homeschooled students cited the desire to provide their child with a nontraditional approach to education as the most important reason for homeschooling, and the parents of another 6 percent of students cited a child’s health problems or special needs.”
*A doubling of the rates in homeschooling is not a good evidence that the US public is either unaware or too dumb to recognize the marks of a broken educational system.
Evidence #2In 2008, the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a study in which it stated 39% of parents were refusing or delaying vaccination of their children in 2008 compared to 22% doing so in 2003. Among reasons cited by parents for such refusal were “health of the child, the belief that recommended vaccines were excessive, questions about their effectiveness and concerns about possible side effects such as autism.” The US public health agencies and other PH professionals have gone on a media and policy campaign against this movement to the point of having forced vaccination of the children against their parents’ wishes, enlisting physicians and nurses in the battle against parents, and some TV programs such as Frontline, and the like [See 3, Frontline program called “The Vaccine War”, for example, surrounding this debate].
*A doubling of the rates in parents refusal to get their children vaccinated (despite enormous pressures put on them from every which way is not a good evidence that supports a successful brainwashing of the American people who might believe and follow everything that official US health agencies such as CDC, NIH, and other co-opted health professions tell them.
Evidence #3 Occupy Wall Street –;http://occupywallst.org/
Evidence #4 Occupy Together –;http://www.occupytogether.org/
Evidence #5Wisconsin’s Uprising–;http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/25/wisconsins_uprising_a_guided_tour_of
Feel free to add to the list of evidence to dismantle the myth that Americans are brainwashed or dumb or whatever. کرامت انسانی [human dignity], we believe, is the fire of فطرت under the ashes of greed and humility that needs a breeze of fresh air.
==============================
1. National Center for Educational Statistics (2007) Online at: ;http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_040.asp
2. NCES – “How many children are homeschooled in the US?” Fast Facts. Online at: ;http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=91
3. The Vaccine War, ;http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/view/
k_w says:
October 22, 2011 at 3:01 pm
k w , believe it or not , but I was going to link following article in veterans today , which is more comprehensive.
( If you google : Putin tells top generals to prepare for Armageddon you have around 500 000 hits )
Leave Armageddon out of consideration and it makes a lot of sense.
The time window to implement the One World Government on the part of the world cabal leaders is very very short. Remember Billary’s words from 2 days ago : We came , We saw….
By Raja Mujtaba, Editor
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/10/21/prepare-for-armageddon/
Does anyone make sense of this: http://www.eutimes.net/2011/10/russian-leader-tells-top-generals-prepare-for-armageddon/
Pakistan or Iran?
Voice of Tehran,
I too continue to be appalled by Hillary Clinton’s extremely bad taste and lack of judgement.
blink,
Russia did not want a slaughter of civilians in Benghazi or elsewhere in Libya. And Russia and China have tried to retain some unity of action by the UNSC. But the going beyond the UNSC resolutions on Libya, by some Nato countries, naturally has led to much greater caution on the part of Russia and China regarding any UNSC resolution on Syria.
Russia and China have important contracts in Libya. They wanted to keep them and to gain more. Reasonable enough.
I find this post by the Leveretts to be hopelessly – or should we consider it willfully, at this point? – naive.
Sure, Iran now has much of the World’s sympathy, and massive sympathy on the ‘Muslim street’, even on the ‘Arab street’, maybe especially there, and sure, that would matter, if US/Nato (mis)leadership cared at all about public opinion. But it has been demonstrated over and over and over and over again that they only care about public opinion if it is an obstacle, and even on that level it matters less and less and less.
Ultimately, the only power they care about is military power. And the invasion of Iraq boosted American military power to near invincible levels. Iraq was far from defenseless, yet the US military shredded its defenses as if they were barely there. Every nation in the world saw this, and took careful notes, and you can be sure that the Libya reminder has been carefully noted as well.
That salutary example was crucial to the current American hegemony. But just as important was the opportunity to insert US forces and a US proxy regime deep in the heart of Eurasia. Please, cut the malarky about Iraq being in Iran’s sphere of influence, or US troops and bases being cut off. Bull. As we see with Turkey, as it threatens and helps undermine Syria, some countries pretend to buck US domination, but when the US really wants something, they hop to big time. If/when, for example, the US decides to attack Iran, its troops will stage and move in Iraq freely, if in fact they leave at all.
US/Nato elites are concerned with domination through military power, augmented by economic and political strategies and tactics, but always with military power at the heart of everything. That is why the invasion of Iraq was a total success.
Leveretts may choose to be hopelessly naive, but we don’t need to make that choice. This is all about power in its rawest form, and, judged on that basis, the invasion of Iraq was a great success.
All:
More of the same (if not Nuclear Weapons, then Human Rights. If not Human Rights then Animal Rights. If not them, then Biological Weapons,…)
http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/5/66.full
Rehmat,
I think it clearly is in the best interests of the US to retain no permanent military bases in Iraq. Obama had great difficulty comprehending this fact. Obama may well not even comprehend it now.
Neo,
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Norman Podhoretz (foreign policy adviser to John McCain) said that “winning” in Iraq was creating a stable ally of Israel and the US. The primary reason for the Iraq War was to benefit Israel. This objective had to be concealed from the American people, in the run-up to the illegal invasion.
Unknown Unknowns says:
October 22, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Blink and Hans are one and the same. In fact my name is Hans Blix honest, thats why I do not use it rather Blink!
Unknown Unknowns says:
Don’t you just love dumb blonds?
Not sure if it has to do with the hair UU….
How Many Ways Can We Lose in Afghanistan?
BY ZALMAY ZALILZAD and indeed he is zalil…
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/19/afghanistan_us_oil_contracts_investment?page=full
Don’t you just love dumb blonds?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
How is this even possible?? Anyone?
For those who are interested, there are a bunch of posts of mine at the tail end of the last two posts, posted while I had not realized a new thread had been started by the Leveretts. Nothing of importance was said really, but I just thought I’d point this out in case anyone was interested.
Hans: how come you changed your name to blink? Why not Hans Blix?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TEvacFETvM
It wouldn’t take much research to find the Us military and CIA covert operations are responsible for the deaths of over 7 million men, women and children. Americans are sometimes ignorant of the facts or in denial. The real danger to America in Washington, D.C. the lobbyistwho controll congress through donations and the neocons who have run our foreign policy along with the most powerful loobyist group, the AIPAC. According to the latest findings from the Us center for Disease and Control 50% of all American citizens have some form of mental illness during their life time. They found America is hooked on prescription medications.one hundred thousand die annually from the effects of adverse reaction. Does this sound that a nation of people who are capab;le of making wise decisions when it comes to the welfare of the nation? A nation of people who has been brainwashed by the government run schools. The government knows if they question the peoples patriotism they can be led easily to war.
However, what Obama did not say during the White House press conference that his administration had suffered a major military and diplomatic humiliation by Iraqi government’s rejection of Washington’s plea to maintain some of its 12 military bases in Iraq beyond 2011…..
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/iraqis-reject-us-bases-after-military-withdrawal/
VoT, They never advanced beyond the barbaric stage, and are yet to become civilised. Their actions over the past century or more do not indicate civilised behaviour, despite the amazing technology.
I agree with another poster in that the invasion was about divide and rule, and not about ‘winning’ anything other than greater instability in the region. This is the only foreign policy aim of USA in the ME. Their actions would indicate so. For the same reason, their only real defeat is in being told to get the hell out of Iraq. This is a humiliating moment that they owe to Iran, and could well explain the latest onslaught of some stupid accusations against Iran. America is getting increasingly desperate. Another big push for tighter sanctions against Iran is coming, but this time, America’s humiliation is the most likely outcome of a Security Council vote. Iran has been very conciliatory in tone of late, and this has not gone unnoticed, despite the noise.
blink says:
October 22, 2011 at 10:37 am
Hans , is this you ?
My question why did China and Russia cave in regarding Libya? Surely, it cannot be said that Russia and China were misled by the war criminals that they had no intentions to destroy Libya and oust Gaddafi and to seize the oil resources. They must have known that war preparations were in place long before the matter came before the UN Security Council.
My take is Libya under Gaddafi welcomed China with open arms, but China turned a blind eye to the destruction of Libya because she owed a greater debt of gratitude to Zionist Israel and the global financial elites for past favours, as well as narrow self-interests. China had too much toilet paper money (US Federal Reserve notes) and the sale of Libyan oil in the intended gold dinar by Gaddafi would literally destroy the US dollar. This cannot be allowed! Period! What do the rest think?
I will shortly give my analysis why my predication of the 17 Oct 2011 did not materialise, it will just miscalculated. After all 15 Oct and the accusation about Iran was spot on.
Castellio says:
October 22, 2011 at 8:52 am
Thanks Castellio , what you are saying makes perfectly sense , so bitter it may be.
In another footage , she is apparently watching the last moments of Gadhafi’s life on her Blackberry and she ‘expresses’ an over-exxagerated ” WOW ” with a diabolical and disgusting ‘joy’ in her face , I couldn’t find that one , may be it was on RT News.
Sad , very Sad World , back to Barbarism I guess…
Peeling back the onion a bit, I sometimes get the feeling that even the very brightest thinkers on the subject of the Middle East fail to understand (or at least make clear) that for those who wanted the invasion of Iraq also wanted its destruction; they wanted an emasculated Iraq, a prostrate Iraq, a dysfunctional Iraq, a failed state in Iraq – a potential obstacle to U.S. imperialist ambition, expressed through the Zionist enterprise, removed. In this they have been wildly successful. While the grand schemers may have desired to keep a presence in the country, I have little doubt this was always considered frosting on the cake. I don’t believe those who planned the invasion think their plan was a failure; after all, for them more war is in the works. The only thing I remain undecided about is whether the tail wags the dog, or if “the tail” was inserted into the region as the foreign body that creates the festering wound. Of course in a sense both are true, but which entity is ‘walking the dog’ (or are they one and the same)? I’m out.
VoT, my read is this: yes its a play on I came, I saw, I conquered. In this case the “I” becomes “we”, the United States; although she could argue she meant NATO I wouldn’t believe her.
Then, in the lexicon of humanitarian intervention she can’t use the expression “conquer” (it would be akin to the error of Bush saying Crusade), so she abruptly switches to the passive “he died”. She finds this witty and laughs. And yes, she appears thrilled with the kill.
But look at her: coarse, intellectually dulled and a force of reaction and conservatism in the world. What a lousy outcome for a young woman who once had ideals and promise.
Why do they sell their lives so cheap?
kooshy:
What did upset you? There is free speech sorry if you got offended.
I am still struggling to get it right:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/clinton-laughs-about-murder-of-gaddafi.html
“We came, we saw, he died,” she joked in between formal interviews.
Clinton’s remark is a take on Julius Caesar, who reportedly said after his war with Pharnaces II of Pontus: “Veni, vidi, vici” (“I came, I saw, I conquered’).
Paraphrasing Caesar is appropriate – the dictator took Rome from a republic to an empire. Like Caesar, Clinton’s boss, Obama, took the nation to war without consulting Congress or gaining the consent of the American people.
Clinton’s gleeful if ghoulish comment also reveals the degree of her psychosis. Most people do not laugh when told about the murder of others, even rivals. Clinton is unable to contain herself and displays her joy at the news of Gaddafi’s violent death…
RE: Ask the females if they would like their country to be run by religious bigots!
Women (not females) would not like “bigots” of any kind be that religious bigots, liberal bigots, western bigots, eastern bigots, capitalist bigots, or socialist bigots. And they most certainly would not like for themselves and members of their family to be raped, maimed, and massacred by “these champions of women’s rights”:
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=american+soldiers+in+afghanistan&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=628&tbm=isch&tbnid=8OIOIt–Zy5HUM:&imgrefurl=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/afghanistan-trophy-photos-us-soldier&docid=WyK4QvAyHmQMNM&imgurl=http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/3/21/1300743987251/A-US-soldier-poses-with-d-007.jpg&w=460&h=276&ei=oZqiTqKdDIrHgAf0heiVBQ&zoom=1
Rehmat says:
October 21, 2011 at 6:52 pm
In fact – many Israeli and American political and military strategics believ that America has lost both Iraq and Afghanistan to the Islamic Republic.
Ask the females if they would like their country to be run by religious bigots!
RSH,
You clearly understand very little about shiism. Do you have any facts to back up this ridiculous claim?
Richard Steven Hack says:
October 21, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Back n 2006, EVERYBODY who was anybody was saying Hezbollah would use terrorism as an asymmetric countermeasure to the invasion of Lebanon by the IDF. And they all predicted the IDF would steamroller over the Lebanese defenses.
To my knowledge, I’m the only one on record that stated Hezbollah would successfully utilize light infantry tactics. You can imagine the negative attention that was brought down upon me for saying so.
If another Operation Desert Fox (1998) were to be heaped upon Iran, they would likely respond in the PG with just enough force to make it painful to the West. Just like Hezbollah inflicted economic pain on Israel during the 33-Day war with the siege-like effects of their rocket attacks on the northern part of the territory, so would Iranian military force exert effects that would translate into higher economic costs on the U.S. and the rest of the West. Plus, the Iranians would likely respond with a nuclear weapons program in earnest and effect a test/demonstration detonation, possibly within 24 months.
Greg says:
October 21, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Ok Greg, if that makes you feel better with the outcome, I am all for that,
anyway have nice trip home.
Fiorangela,
“Did Obama say “US troops are coming home to the United States of America,” or did he say, “US troops are leaving Iraq.”
If the latter, where are they going to go after Iraq?
President Obama is an environmentally minded kind of guy. I’m sure he wouldn’t waste precious fuel by bringing these troops all the way back to the United States of America.
Ankara seeks Tehran’s help to fight Kurd rebels
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/ankara-seeks-tehrans-help-to-fight-kurd-rebels/
Richard Steven Hack – “Iranian terrorism”?? How many American or Israeli leaders Iranian have killed so far?
During the last 150 year – Iran has not attacked any foreign country while Israel has attacked all its neighbors during its 83 year life. America, on the other hand has attacked over 40 countries since its separation from British empire. Washington keeps its military presence in 145 foreign countries.
Was the Iranian Plot a Plan for Retaliation
:http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/10/21/was-the-iranian-plot-a-plan-for-retaliation/
I’ve often warned that a US attack on Iran would unleash Iranian terrorism in the continental US – and the US is supremely vulnerable to terrorism. This article offers the possibility that Iran is planning this – although I note the concept has the same problems as Iran using any such people to do any covert ops. If Iran were to do this, it would use Hizballah cells already established in the US – not drug dealers.
The World Bank and IMF stand ready to assist Libya in the reconstruction of their country.”
did Obama say “US troops are coming home to the United States of America,” or did he say, “US troops are leaving Iraq.”
If the latter, where are they going to go after Iraq?
A friend tells me that a billion dollar hospital complex has just been completed on the grounds of Fort Belvoir, in Virginia outside DC. And the closure of Walter Reed Army Hospital in DC and removal to environs of Bethesda Naval Hospital/NIH campus in Bethseda, MD has been accomplished. The NIH budget has been increasing by many multiples over the past 10 to 15 years.
The financial burden of caring for returning and wounded warriors will be stupendous.
If Washington’s plans succeed, Libya will become another American puppet state.
Most of the cities, towns, and infrastructure have been destroyed by air strikes by the air forces of the US and Washington’s NATO puppets.
US and European firms will now get juicy contracts, financed by US taxpayers, to rebuild Libya.
The new real estate will be carefully allocated to lubricate a new ruling class picked by Washington.
This will put Libya firmly under Washington’s thumb.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29468.htm
When we consider what Israel has got away with, being as it is under Washington’s bought protection–
the war crimes,
the murders of children,
the eviction in total disregard of international law of Palestinians from their ancestral homes,
the bulldozing of their houses and uprooting of their olive groves in order to move in fanatical “settlers,”
the murderous invasions of Lebanon and Gaza,
the wholesale slaughter of civilians–
We can only conclude that Washington, Israel’s enabler, can get away with far more.
Patritia McAllister, a substitute teacher with Las Angelese Unified School Distric (LAUSD) has been fired for using her freedom of speech rights in LA – something Washington has claimed all along the Islamic Republic doesn’t practice.
While participating in Occupy Los Angeles protest rally on October 12, Patricia’s comments were tapped and put on You Tube (watch below). She said: “I think that the Zionist Jews who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve, which is not run by the federal government – they need to be run out of this country”.
Patricia also claimed tha Jews were expelled from 109 countries in the past. The timeline of those expulsion are listed here.
Patritia McAllister did not lie but to believe that US economy or Wall Street is controlled by Zionist Jews and their Goyim collaborators – is considered hatred toward Jews in the US and most of Europe.
Abraham Foxman, national director of Israel lobby ADL in his latest book Money And Jews: Story of a Stereotype has claimed that to believe Jews posses a disproportionate amount of wealth and control is “false and dangerous”.
However, according to some estimates, Jews who make less than 2% of American population – 40% of country’s billionaires are Jewish.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/us-teacher-fired-for-using-freedom-of-speech/
In fact – many Israeli and American political and military strategics believ that America has lost both Iraq and Afghanistan to the Islamic Republic.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/is-us-about-to-lose-iraq-to-iran/
Greg,
Bush could have pulled all US troops out of Iraq in 2006-07; Iran and Syria had agreed to help provide stability and to enable orderly withdrawal. How many hundreds of billions were spent, keeping US troops in Iraq, and accomplishing next to nothing?
As much as the iraqi war was illegal, wrong and disgusting I would say US didnt loose the war.
< Saddam dead and regime change have been imposed, a quite pro-american such.
< Iraq is today more open than during Saddam and will keep developing on political grounds.
< Just the mere fact that US take the troops home expose that they are victorious even if it is a pyrrhic victory.
I’d been thinking this over for a spell since last weekend, when the total U.S. military pullout was initially leaked.
Our American leadership can jump and down screaming the Iranians have plotted the most outrageous and hairbrain scheme but where’s that really get us beyond the rolled eyebrows of diplomats and intelligence agencies around the globe?
For their part, Iranian leadership has focused its Iraq policy toward a U.S. military pullout for years now, and they are on the brink of seeing their efforts succeed. It’s been an amazing thing to watch, first their success in government-to-government relations with Iraq, and now this. Being on the older side and remembering full well the level of animosity seen during the height of the Iran-Iraq War, I still find it incredible how close the two countries have now become — which would not have been possible without OIF.
We should remember that Hillary Clinton is determined to squander $300 million per year, to obtain “protection” for grotesquely large American “diplomatic” presence in Iraq beginning in 2012.
I agree Obama is only pulling US troops out because he is being obliged to do so. What a relief, that Obama’s urge to squander even more billions of dollars on this idiotic military adventure, is more difficult to accomplish.
Iran offered to help the US to assess the “threat” posed by Saddam Hussein, and to deal with that threat. Idiot necons, and their compliant stooges in the US Congress, rejected the offer.
And supposedly “liberal Democrats went along with the insane and illegal invasion, because this pleased rich and powerful Jews who wanted to take the opportunity to hijack Iraq and convert it into a “stable ally of Israel and the US” (according to Norman Podhretz).