We have long argued that there will not be a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue without explicit recognition—from the United States and other Western countries, first of all—of the Islamic Republic’s right to the full range of civil nuclear technologies and activities, including uranium enrichment. Two recent developments affirm this view.
First, Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi has been in Moscow this week to talk about the latest Russian proposal on the nuclear issue, see here. The proposal, which Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov discussed during his visit to Washington last month, envisions a “step by step” process, in which steps by Tehran to resolve outstanding questions regarding Iranian nuclear activities with the International Atomic Energy Agency would be met with specific actions to reduce sanctions and normalize the Islamic Republic’s international status.
In Moscow, Salehi described the proposal as “positive”, and said that “we agreed that we will study all the details of this project and will continue to perfect it through expert work”. One senses, though, that while Tehran will not say definitively “no” to the Russian proposal, Iranian officials are wary of being maneuvered into a process which would not, upfront, provide clear international (really, Western) recognition of Iran’s right to enrich.
That this still remains the key to diplomatic progress was also affirmed in a recent interview by Seyed Hossein Moussavian, a former Iranian nuclear negotiator currently in residence at Princeton University. Moussavian outlines the fundamental drivers and multiple nuances of Iran’s nuclear policy, see here. According to Moussavian, “On the nuclear issue, the end state for the Iranians is full rights under the NPT, without discrimination over enrichment.”
The requirements for progress on the issue are clear. What is not clear is how much longer the Obama Administration will persist in refusing to meet them. The Islamic Republic, for its part, continues to profess its interest in negotiations, but not under conditions of “pressure” and “discrimination”, see here. It also continues to pursue greater degrees of nuclear independence. The Director of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Fereydoun Abbasi, said earlier this week that domestically produced fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor will be ready by the end of the Iranian calendar year (March 21, 2012 on the Western calendar).
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
James Canning says: August 25, 2011 at 6:27 pm
No, he just wanted to bad-mouth & discredit another Muslim country and her social mores.
As you know, hundreds of thousands of Iranians travel to Turkey each year for tourism and when they come back, they ask: “What is wrong with us that we cannot be like Turkey? They are Muslim too.”
Of course, the low class bigotted Muslims of Iran and those Iranians whose power rests on the indulgence of that social classe’s fanatsy life, cannot answer that question.
What price Nekbat Islami?
Neo,
Did Hashemi Sharoudi mean that Turkey is not working closely enough with Iran in helping the “oppressed people of Palestine”?
Rehmat,
Another fact of the matter is that those Americans who do everything they can to enable Israel to continue to oppress the Palestinians and deceive the American public, are rewarded, handsomely. This is the reason I see the huge concentration of wealth and power in the US, in the hands of Jews, to be so dangerous for the Republic.
How many stories have appeared in US newspapers about the FBI’s collecting the large dossier on Israeli efforts to set up war with Iran by feeding the American public false information about Iran’s nuclear programme? Any? Aipac, Winep etc are involved. And a number of American politicians.
Rehmat,
It has everything to do with control of the news and other media, by the “pro-Israel” crowd. Meaning, supporters of Israel right or wrong to a large extent screen out stories etc that would erode or corrode US “support” for Israel.
I have a number of rich, well-traveled American friends who are very sympathetic to the Palestinians and often scathing in their denunciations of American stupidity (regarding Israel/Palestine, etc.). They say most of their friends know little about the Middle East and just cannot be bothered to learn the facts etc. Another aspect is that those who speak up for the Palestinians will be punished, often enough, by the rabid supporters of Israel right or wrong.
Fiorangela,
I very much agree that Bernard-Henri Levy played a key role in the programme of “regime change”. He was in Benghazi when predictions were being made that Gaddafi would kill up to 500,000 civilians in revenge for the revolt. And of course, Levy was close friend of Sarkozy, who in turn played key role in getting Cameron to back the Anglo-French attack on the Gaddafi forces.
I do not think the scheme of “regime change” was inevitable, and in fact Seif al-Islam Gaddafi had a number of friends and supporters at high levels in the UK and elsewhere. I think the international business community could have prospered just as well with Seif al-Islam in charge of Libya, as with any new regime. But Seif had strong opposition from some of this own brothers, and his father was erratic to say the least.
James, First, I regret the sarcastic tone of my comment. Sarcasm is a poisonous tactic.
But I stand behind the message of the comment: taking down Gaddafi was pre-ordained; all that the West & allied forces needed, and waited for, was the appropriate “Pearl Harbor” moment that they could use to sell the invasion to the American public.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/movies/2011/03/bernard-henri-levy-nato-libya.html
Goof-ball armchair philosopher Bernard Henri Levy probably had more to do with getting the ball rolling than anything Gaddafi said or refrained from saying, or could have said or done.
“My attention was piqued by his surprising presence in a March 10th article in Le Monde, about France’s breaking of diplomatic relations with Qaddafi’s government and recognition of the National Transition Council as Libya’s legitimate government. The announcement was made in Paris after the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, met with three representatives of the Council. The article adds:
Soon thereafter, Bernard-Henri Lévy, who was present at that meeting, specified that the new Libyan ambassador to France would be accredited “in the coming days.” He added, “The French embassy in Libya will be transferred from Tripoli to Benghazi.”
“We are the first to say that Qaddafi is no longer the legal representative. It’s an event of major importance,” said the philosopher, according to whom the head of state “affirmed this, at the beginning of the meeting, very forcefully. The emissaries were surprised by the clarity of the French position.”
A week later, in Le Figaro, Renaud Giraud reconstructed the events that led up to that meeting. It’s an exciting story, which starts with Lévy’s disappointment at having gotten to Egypt only after the fall of Mubarak. He decided to be one of the first in Libya: “To cross the Egyptian border at Tobruk, BHL, accompanied by his associate Gilles Herzog, couldn’t find a taxi: he climbed into the van of a travelling vegetable vendor.”
In Benghazi, he managed to meet, ahead of other journalists, with Mustafa Abdeljalil, who was the leader of the Council, and invited him and several other leaders of the uprising to return to France with him, as Giraud reports, “promising to do everything he could” to get them to meet Sarkozy.
That evening, from his satellite phone, he managed to reach Nicolas Sarkozy: “Would you be willing to meet with the Libyan Massouds?” The President of the Republic immediately agreed.
When Sarkozy met with the Council members and declared France’s recognition of them as Libya’s legitimate government, Giraud writes, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Alain Juppé, was neither present nor aware of the turn of events—of the plan that Sarkozy “had concocted two nights earlier with” Lévy.
After arranging for the Council member Mahmoud Jebril to meet with Hillary Clinton, who was in Paris at the time, Lévy then went on the radio to urge France to seek to take military action in defense of the uprising. On the afternoon of March 17th, Sarkozy called Lévy to say that he would make such a move at the U.N., and called him again when it was voted upon.
In a chat with readers of Le Monde yesterday, Lévy, asked about his role behind the scenes, answered with modesty:
My role, I repeat, was extremely simple: bringing to Paris the members of the National Transitional Council; welcoming Mahmoud Jibril in Paris, the day of the G-8 summit, so that he could plead his cause to Hillary Clinton; inviting Ali Zeidan to Paris too, the day before yesterday, to present the overview of his project for society to journalists. That’s all.
And he repeated that he had “No role. Except having had, one evening, in Benghazi, the crazy idea to pick up the phone and call my country’s president and recommend that he receive a delegation from Free Libya.”
MY attention was piqued by events in Washington, DC on that same March 10: James Clapper, Obama’s National Intelligence Director (recall that Chas Freeman was booted out of consideration for that post by AIPAC) stated publicly that he thought Gaddafi could out-last the international forces arrayed against him. Those forces had been acting since Feb. 26, 2011, under cover of UN Resolution 1970, that referred the matter to the International Crim. Court.
Within a week of Levy’s humble role in the affair, Samantha Power had been urged to publicly express concern that another Rwanda might befall the poor Libyan people, and the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973, legitimating a no-fly zone.
Americans take note: Chas Freeman got booted from consideration because he was not sufficiently pro-Israel. His replacement, James Clapper, is derided and disregarded because he speaks the facts as he sees them about the situation. But a two bit public philosopher from Paris sways the day, and sets in train, in the style of Kermit Roosevelt, the downfall of Libya to the forces of economic imperialism.
Taash Communications Network: Iranian Green Movement Support Plan
Has anyone seen this site?? It was recently taken down by its provider because someone (!) complained??? This is their mirror site for now.. the second link is specific to iran.
http://publicintelligence.info/
;http://publicintelligence.info/taash-communications-network-iranian-green-movement-support-plan/
And specific to IAEA
;http://publicintelligence.info/category/documents/international-atomic-energy-agency/
James Canning – American leaders have made more blunders and treasons than any other world leaders. So much so that now the US become an Israeli colony. How, the American shhep are not rising against their Zionist wolves??
As one who had hopes for gradual transition in Libya, under Seif al-Islam, I prfoundly regret the civil war.
Did you read Philippe Sands’ excellent article in the August Vanity Fair (on Seif)?
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/08/qaddafi-201108
Blunders by Gaddafi and son are what enabled the “regime change” crowd to obtain UK/French military intervention.
Fiorangela,
You are quite right that there were many groups etc etc etc eager to exploit an opening, to seek “regime change” in Libya. But a good argument can be made that blunders by Gaddafi war what created the public opinion pressure on David Cameron in the UK to back Nicolas Sarkozy in attacking the Gaddafi regime, militarily.
BiBiJon,
I would add that Dick Cheney was at the heart of the conspiracy to set up an illegal war using knowingly false pretenses, and his team (composed primarily of lawyers) intentionally manipulated the press to deceive the American people and the US Congress. I still regret Colin Powell’s failure to resign from the Bush administration and go public about his deep concerns that there was no basis for the war.
James Canning says: August 25, 2011 at 12:56 pm
“Seif al-Islam Gaddafi blundered in a TV address, shortly after the outbreak of the revolt in Libya. And then his father amplified the blunder by ranting about exterminating cockroaches, on TV! In other words, Gaddafi brought down his regime by catastrophically bad PR.J”
I think you are absolutely, 100% correct, dear James: Gaddafi’s blunder . . .on TV! brought down his regime.
Thank the offspring of Atreus that US, NATO, France, the Arab League, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, and Canada were able to react so quickly to Gaddafi’s blunder . . .on TV!, and that Qatar had sufficient cash free to finance the weapons and personnel, and that a Canadian firm that sells drones had a sufficient inventory on hand to supply to the rebels, and that just by one of those inexplicable coincidences, the US had a war-game all worked out, Operation Southern Mistral, which by yet another inexplicable coincidence was scheduled to begin in the same week that Obama side-stepped Congress and agreed to “intervene” in Libya, putting aside UN Resolution 1970, which would have referred the matter (including Gaddafi’s blunder on TV, presumably) to ICC, in favor of UN Resolution 1973, which legitimized a no-fly zone over Libya to “protect innocent civilians” while rebels pursued their civil war.
Someone somewhere must have committed some untelevised blunders, because “air support” devolved into air-strikes on Gaddafi’s forces, which further devolved into the US-NATO etc. protectors of civilians becoming partisans on behalf of rebels, which has, as of this morning, devolved into all of Libya seeking to claim the $2million reward for killing or capturing Gaddafi.
Just a coincidence, and all from that TV blunder.
Reza,
Interesting comments on decline of the US. And I would underline the crucial difference with what obtained with Britain, because the decline of British power had little to do with foreign policy blunders and foolish squandering of gigantic sums on unnecessary weapons and unnecessary wars. The decline of the US owes a great deal to sheer idiocy of the decisions taken by American leaders. I would add that much of the sheer idiocy of those decisions, can be attributed to a foolish desire to enable Israel to continue to oppress the Palestinians and refuse to get out of the West Bank and Golan Heights.
fyi,
A faction in Saudi Arabia support the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad, as you say. But on the whole, SA agrees with China and Russia that the best way forward is not to seek “regime change” in Syria.
BiBiJon,
How very interesting, and of course no surprise, that Dick Cheney continues in effect to argue that lying to the American people, expecially regarding the non-existent Iraqi effort to obtain yellowcake from Niger, was the correct course of action! And that Colin Powell rightly was condemned for speaking privately against the idiotic rush to war on possibly false pretenses.
Irshad,
Seif al-Islam Gaddafi blundered in a TV address, shortly after the outbreak of the revolt in Libya. And then his father amplified the blunder by ranting about exterminating cockroaches, on TV! In other words, Gaddafi brought down his regime by catastrophically bad PR.
Neo,
I think Turkey benefits from a strong Iranian economy, and that Iran can benefit from a strong Turkish economy.
What do you think Turkey should do differently, regarding the Kurdish insurgents operating out of Iraq?
Libya had the best living standard in Africa. Thank goodness we went in there to ‘fix’ things.
Neo says: August 25, 2011 at 10:56 am
I am afraid that the Turkish model is not translatable to other Muslim states any more than Iran’s model is.
The Turkish model is rooted in specific ad hoc and tactical arrangements that have been devised over the last 40 years to heal the schism in the soul of the Turkic people of Anatolia as well as the schism in the state.
These arrangements have no theoretical basis in Fiqh, or in Kalam, or in (Political) Philosophy. Therefore, they cannot be adopted – as it were – by any other polity. And the absence of solid intellectual foundations rooted in Islamic Tradition, casts serious doubt on the longevity of such ad hoc arrangements even in Turkey.
The political dispensation following the genuine popular revolt of the masses in Iran in 1979 is, on the other hand, firmly based on Fiqh, on Kalam, and on Philosophy.
Unfortunately for Muslims everywhere, these theoretical foundations of the Islamic Republic of Iran, are unpalatable to Muslims everywhere.
Consider:
The 200-year-old (Amplified) Shia Doctrine of Ijtihad (with its 1000-year-old antecedent) has no counterpart among Sunni Muslims – condemning them to live “in-tents” as the late Mr. Khomeini once quipped. The Sunni Doctors of Religion will not agree to that – ever.
Next, comes the opinion of late Mr. Khomeini that the expediency of the Islamic State must be considered first and Islamic Law a second or third.
Sunni Muslims will not accept this either until or unless they – like their Iranian counter-parts – have gone through the bitter struggle against Reality. That is, pursuing their fantasy Islamic Utopian project until Reality thoroughly disabused them of such foolish notions.
And then the fact remains that it is only in Iran and to a smaller extent in Turkey that Muslim Philosophy survives.
And whatever Iranians have achieved must be largely attributed to Mr. Khomeini first and later to the enmity of the United States that kept on kicking and beating Iran – forcing her to change to fight back.
And unless and until Muslim Thinkers take up – once again – the task of reconciling Revelations with Reason [like Al Farabi, Ibn Sina, and Ibn Rushd], there cannot be a genuine “Liberal”/Azad Islam.
[I am afraid that at the present time, I am the only person who stands for what would someday be-called Azad Islam.]
Until then, (Sunni) Muslims will wander in the barren and sterile wilderness of contemporary Islam, searching for a political dispensation that will permit them to indulge in their political/religious fantasies – all the while hoping to return back to the slumber of the last 1000 years by putting their minds on auto-pilot.
fyi,
I would prefer the Turkish model any day too. Shahroudi misses a simple truth: people in the Middle East would prefer to have Turkish ‘leadership’ in the region instead of Iran for the sake of greater stability and individual freedom.
But I also imagine that Turkey’s honeymoon period may be over sooner than we expect. The way they are handling the Kurdish issue – especially inside Iraq – is likely to backfire on Turkey’s reputation. Their handling of Syria is fraught with risks too.
Economics will probably determine the winner of this friendly Irano-Turkish ‘competition’.
Neo –
Zev Jabotinsky is one of zionism’s most energetic ideologues promoters. Here is what he said in 1934.
“http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MOCK/mockingbird.php
“For months now the struggle against Germany is waged by each Jewish community, at each conference, in all our syndicates, and by each Jew all over the world. There is reason to believe that our part in this struggle has general value. We will trigger a spiritual and material war of all the world against Germany’s ambitions to become once again a great nation, to recover lost territories and colonies. But our Jewish interests demand the complete destruction of Germany. Collectively and individually, the German nation is a threat to us Jews.” — Vladimir Jabotinsky (founder of the Jewish terrorist group, Irgun Zvai Leumi) in Mascha Rjetsch, January, 1934 (also quoted in “Histoire de l’Arme’e Allemande”by Jacques Benoist–Mechin, Vol. IV, p. 303).
Timelines matter.
Jan 30 1933, Hitler becomes chancellor of Germany
March 24 1933, Samuel Untermyer and others publish and enact a “Judea[n] Declaration of War on Germany.”
Jul 19-21, 1933 “Untermyer attended a three-day conference in Amsterdam. . . More than thirty representatives of world Jewry sought to devise a strategy to counter Germany’s persecution of the Jews. . . .On his way to the conference,
Untermyer was interviewed by the London Sunday Express. He was described as one of Hitler’s bitterest foes, whose righteous indignation had fired him with youthful vigor in his old age. Untermyer claimed that Hitler had tried to negotiate through one of his henchmen, but [?] had refused. Untermyer told the newspaper, “I have no intention of going to see Hitler, although asked by his friends to do so. It
is an essential part of the Hitler policy that the Jew shall be persecuted to the point of extermination.” :http://www.untermyergardens.org/Untermyer-Hitler.pdf
{Be aware that a.) Untermyer tried time and again to gain the appointment as US ambassador to Germany. Woodrow Wilson refused to grant him that position, a bitterly frustrating situation for Untermyer.
And b.) Untermyer’s actions and statements against Germany created deep conflict within the American Jewish community. Many prominent Jews were ardently opposed to Untermyer’s actions.
Aug 7 1933 Untermyer speech encourages the Western world to unite with Jews in a “holy war” against the German people. :http://www.archive.org/details/SamuelUntermyerAugust71933 Untermyer says, “Jews are the aristocrats of Germany . . .Germans are barbarians.”
Aug 25 1933 “Transfer Agreement” signed between German govt officials and agents for Jews enabling Jews to transfer their assets to Palestine and/or New York (shortly thereafter, center of world zionism shifts from London to New York)
Jan 1934 Jabotinsky declares that “our Jewish interests demand the complete destruction of Germany. Collectively and individually, the German nation is a threat to us Jews.” [see above]
Sept 1935 Nuremberg Laws promulgated which decree that full-blooded Jews may not be voting citizens of Reich (though mixed-blood Jews may). :http://frank.mtsu.edu/~baustin/nurmlaw2.html Several supplements to the Sept 1935 decree made numerous exceptions to the Laws.
Nov 7 1938 “The single episode that caused the events of 9-10 November 1938 was an assassination. On 7 November 1938 a young Jew, Herschel Grynszpan, shot the third secretary at the German embassy in Paris, Ernst vom Rath. The German diplomat was heavily wounded and died afterwards on the evening of 9 November. Herschel Grynszpan wanted to shoot the German ambassador, but instead he shot the first and best diplomat, he encountered at the embassy. The assassination happened as revenge for the expulsion of Herschel Grynszpan’s parents, who were Polish Jews, from Germany to Poland.” :http://www.holocaust-education.dk/baggrund/krystalnatten.asp
Nov 9 1938 “The Night of Broken Glass (German: Reichskristallnacht) is the notorious name for the up to then worst pogrom (persecution) against the German Jews. . . . Many Jews were murdered, thousands of Jewish shops were devastated, and yet thousands of windows were broken – thus the name ‘Night of Broken Glass’.
Officially, the pogrom was an expression of the German people’s revenge for the murder of a German diplomat at the hands of a young Jew, but in reality the events were a centrally directed offensive against the Jewish population. . . .
* 91 Jews were killed
* Many Jews committed suicide or died after being abused
* 267 synagogues were destroyed or burned down
* 7,500 shops and businesses were vandalised”
This exercise could go on ad infinitum, but I hope you get a larger picture of how events played out.
:http://www.holocaust-education.dk/baggrund/krystalnatten.asp
The Danish holocaust website is quite useful, but it’s noteworthy that the text frequently imposes interpretations onto events. In a climate where counter-narratives are sanctioned by law (as in many European states) or by cultural taboo (as in the US) backed up by a US State Department office that monitors “holocaust denial” and antisemitism — holocaust denial being deemed an expression of antisemitism, it is my observation and opinion that rather than reporting history, a dogma is being enforced. A chill is placed on any views, or even facts, that might challenge that dogma, creating a situation reminiscent of the Catholic Church’s punishment of Galileo.
The Dictators Survival Guide
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/22/the_dictators_survival_guide?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full
The above is good – and point 7, supports fyi’s ascertion that Iran needs toget nukes!
The Regime in UK is the brutal and one of the most insecure in the world, Like Saudi Arabia she probably would not last or will not last if she wasn’t a US’s client state.
British police silence ‘unheard voices’
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/195683.html
The British police have raided the house of a journalist with an independent paper without sufficient warrant in a move the paper said threatens the “future of liberty” and free journalism.
Riot police raided the house of an editor with The Autonomist, which is a locally produced newsletter for the Bristol area, earlier this month kicking down the door of the property without warning and detaining residents for two hours.
Officers searched the house and confiscated all articles relating to the production of the paper.
The paper said on its website that the police did not produce a credible warrant for their raid offering a document that loosely connected the residents of the house to the recent unrest in Britain.
“The grudgingly-produced warrant for the raid attempts to link the occupants to recent disorder,” the paper said.
It also talked of a “frankly libelous sign” officers erected outside the building.
The paper said that the warrant authorized officers to seize simple items that may be found in every house as evidence of wrongdoing to charge the journalist.
“It authorizes the seizure of “rocks (may be having glass samples upon)”, and “white paint”, and refers repeatedly to “domestic extremism”. The list rounded out with such incriminating articles as “pedal cycles, clothing, and “literature”,” the paper said.
It added that the police also “illegally” took away several other unlisted items including passports.
The Autonomist is a radical and popular local paper produced by a group of mainly homeless people and distributed for free.
One of its journalist said the police move is a “clear” impingement on “journalistic independence.”
“The seizure of the phones, computers, and paperwork relating to the production of The Autonomist just as we start to compile the September edition is a clear, worrying and damaging, attack on journalistic independence,” said collective members Lucy Parsons.
“The demonization of those who report the news as “domestic extremists”, and the willingness to use violence to silence them, does not fill us with confidence in the police or the future of liberty in this country,” she added.
The local newsletter is “dedicated to reporting unheard voices in the community” and has recently covered “the rising tide of sabotage attacks around Bristol”.
It said they have bought “police enmity” for themselves due to a failure to “stick to police statements when reporting the riots in April”.
Neo says: August 25, 2011 at 6:19 am
One of the last essays that the late Dr. Ali Shariati wrote was titled: “Father, Mother: We are Guilty” in which he went on to disparge the treatment of women in Islam etc.
A lot has changed but a lot has not: 100 years ago women could ride a donley, now they get into trouble riding a bicycle or a motor-cycle. Such are the wages of low class Islam.
A liberal Islam is an Islam whose practicioners are not afriad, it will be a Islam that others would welcome. Not the Islam of a government of the low class bigotted Muslims for the low class bigotted Muslims by the low class bigotted Muslims.
You do not know the depth of low class malice and envy in Iran towards their betters.
edit:
“We should base our claims on FACTS, not emotion.”
Neo,
you cautioned Rehmat that “we should not blame everything on the Jews.”
I agree.
One should, however, argue from facts, not managed perception. Or, more pointedly, as Bp. Williamson stated at the end of this video: “We should base our claims on acts, not emotion.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6C9BuXe2RM
Propaganda is the mastery of emotional manipulation; the key emotion that propaganda seeks to engender is hatred. The Hasbara manual of the World Union of Jewish Students teaches that the two major goals of hasbara are to ALWAYS put Jewish people, and Israel, in a favorable light, and to create a negative emotional reaction to Israel’s “enemies,” in the specific instance, Palestinians.
You wrote to Castellio,
“by the 1930s, the outlook would have been different. [A] Ill informed of Zionist atrocities in Palestine, and [B] highly aware of Christian/German/Eastern European atrocities against Jews in the West, a Jewish homeland in historical Palestine would have made more sense, while colonialism didn’t.”
[A]–keeping news of “zionist atrocities in Palestine” out of the awareness of the masses as well as decision-makers; and
[B] — ensuring that the masses and decision makers believed, on an emotional level, that atrocities were being committed against Jews,
were superb ‘hasbara’ activities. The facts and evidence of both situations were obscured or manipulated in order to produce the desired, pro-zionist outcome.
“In the 1930s,” — actually, starting as early as 1918, when it produced the viciously skewed “semi-documentary” film “My Four Years in Germany,” Warner Brothers studios worked closely with Jewish financiers and zionists organized by Samuel Untermyer, to produce films that would persuade Americans to hate Germans “because of the atrocities being committed against Jews.” The “atrocities against Jews” were, shall we say, exaggerated; they were manufactured; they were hasbara.
In that early period, the Hollywood studios were all headed by Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe or Germany, where they had learned their craft from the highly-developed German film culture. Five major (Jewish) Hollywood film studios competed to produce increasingly strident anti-German films, at first, financed by New York Jewish financiers, but later, in the employ of US government agencies who used the media to sharpen hatred of Germans and “maintain American morale” to persist in a war effort.
Russian delegate exposes western lies on Syria
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/russian-delegate-exposes-western-lies-on-syria/
I meant ‘Castellio’, of course! Sorry for the typo.
Catellio,
Thank you for the comprehensive response. You literally took his statement apart!
Let’s remember that the quoted text was from the transcript of an interview, not a carefully written academic essay. I agree with you that he comes across as less than fully coherent. But I also understand him in the sense that a plethora of complex factors make this issue conducive to ‘grey’ solutions rather than black and white answers.
When you say that ‘This is a very particular and individual take that goes against the general historical facts’, and you also describe some of his words as ‘quisling’, I tend to wonder whether you are dismissing his personal experience.
He claims that the ‘Zionist leadership’ had intentions that were not shared by its followers, but you seem to infer that this was not a historical fact, while you also at the same time acknowledge that the Zionist leadership did not ‘officially’ state its true position until later.
The situation reminds me of how the Americans officially invaded Iraq for its WMDs. Later, it was for democracy. And there was and is no shortage of good, trusting people who believe such propaganda. Some of them even volunteered to fight for the cause that did not exist. What was the American football player’s name? The one who was shot in the back by his own side in Afghanistan. But it was ‘merely’ the American leadership that had a totally different agenda to the American people.
The 1919 letter to Wilson is a good reflection of the feelings of many Jews at the time. Similarly, the one and only British government official who objected to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was a Jew by the name of Edwin Montagu,and he did so on the same grounds. The idea of a Jewish homeland made no sense to an elected British member of Parliament, as, inter alia, it inferred that Britain was not his homeland.
But I would guess that by the 1930s, the outlook would have been different. Ill informed of Zionist atrocities in Palestine, and highly aware of Christian/German/Eastern European atrocities against Jews in the West, a Jewish homeland in historical Palestine would have made more sense, while colonialism didn’t. So Chomsky could end up supporting the idea of a safe refuge for Jews in Palestine minus the idea of it being exclusively Jewish (i.e. colonial/racist)
Finally, the statement: “I’ve been for one-state all my life, but we need two states first” still makes sense to me. He is recognizing the solid position of someone like Finkelstein, who supports a two-state solution, while maintaining a longer-term ‘hope’ for a unified state (with equal rights for all) as a way of hanging on to what he considers to be ethically and morally more correct.
History shows that borders are more likely to be modified than not in time. Israel is certainly in the ‘flexible border’ category…
Neo says:
August 25, 2011 at 6:19 am
Many describe the situation in the mid east, and the Arab Spring as “fluid.” Methinks it is not fluid in reality. The tumult is an uncorking of pent up frustration with lack of dignity and striving for justice. That new paradigm which best addresses these very solid (not fluid) yearnings will be the shape of future.
You have to give it to Mr Cheney. His Darth Vader worldview is not limited to bombing the mid east. Say what mate? “There are going to be heads exploding all over Washington.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8721717/Dick-Cheney-urged-George-W-Bush-to-bomb-Syria.html
Tehran Times:
Former Judiciary chief Ayatollah Hashemi Shahroudi said on Wednesday that Turkey is using developments in the region in its own favor by promoting liberal Islam.
He stated that the arrogant Western powers are afraid of regional countries’ relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran and are making efforts to introduce innovative models of Islam, such as liberal Islam in Turkey, and are seeking to replace the true Islam with them.
He also said, “The Egyptian people have anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli sentiments, but Turkey, which has relations with Israel and is an ally of the United States, claimes to be the guardian of the resistance movement (against the Zionist regime) and is introducing initiatives and solutions on our behaves.”
But Iranians, who have truly supported “the oppressed people of Palestine and the resistance front and have foiled the plots of the global arrogance (forces of imperialism), are on the margins,” Shahroudi stated.
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/1934
moscow times:
Iran is suing Russia in the International Court of Justice, hoping that the court will rule that the UN resolution does not cover S-300s, Saijadi said.
“We have filed our lawsuit in order for the court ruling to help Russia go through with the sale and in order for Russia to have a legal trump,” he said in comments translated into Russian, Interfax reported.
In response, a highly placed Russian source dealing with arms exports from the country said Russia will not agree to supply the weapons unless the UN lifts its sanctions, Interfax reported.
“As of now, the contract is not on ice as some people believe. It’s canceled,” the source said.
Moscow is ready to return to Tehran the advance payment of $166.8 million, the source said. The entire contract, signed in 2007, has been estimated to be worth $800 million.
Rehmat,
I didn’t actually say that an Islamist could be a socialist. Although, aren’t MEK some odd mixture like that? Anyhow, that was not the point.
On the ‘invention’ of ‘socialism’ by atheistic ‘Jews’ for their own benefit, this is exactly the kind of conversation I would like to avoid…
Really, we should not blame everything that comes to mind as ‘negative’ on the Jews. btw, I am no Jew, but I am an atheistic socialist of a kind. Though some of my best friends have been anti-Zionist Jews. Honestly! :)
In cultural settings, the Muslim men and women have more opportunity to mix, but these sorts of activities are considered on the ‘irreligious’ side. As soon as events have a somewhat ‘religious’ component to them, the sexes are immediately separated.
Useful post from FP — for once!
http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/23/the_martyr_state_myth
Rehmat,
“Islam believes in distribution of wealth on fair basis. It commands equal human rights for every one based on responsiblity. Now, that’s not the way West would like to practice ’socialism’ – or does it?”
Islam may very well teach these ethics, but come on, if these ethics were put into practice Muslim nations would not have such a problem with liberalism (in the academic understanding of the word).
Don’t you mean equal rights for those who conduct themselves with a pre-defined comportment? Muslim societies are quite conservative when it comes to recognizing generational shifts in lifestyles.
For example, the entire institution of mut’a logically leads to a more open/liberal viewpoint on male-female relations. The sex segregation around Muslims can get baffling sometimes. Non-Muslim men in the US have better access to American Muslim women for the simple fact that an even somewhat ‘religious’ Muslim man here would be less likely to approach that Muslim woman in order to meet and greet with her. Do Muslims really want to be separated from their other halves like this?
Another example would be the ruling by Imam Khomeni that transgender people are recognized under Islamic law as genuinely having need to switch their biological sex. Clearly Khomeni understood that gender/identity and biology do not always coincide within individuals in the ‘normal’ way. One would think this would lead to a more open discussion among the faqihs about the nature of human sexuality, but that does not seem to be the case.
Rehmat, there are ideals and then there is reality. Muslims need to know the difference.
Iran launches Spanish language news channel:
http://www.hispantv.com/
Press TV has it’s issues, but I think all in all it’s a pretty impressive outfit. I wonder how HispanTV will compare. If it was up to me, I’d target South Asia next. I’m not sure exactly how different the Slavic languages are from one another, but if a language group exists that can target a critical mass of Eastern Europe, that might be handy as well.
Russia’s presidential elections are coming up in six months. I wonder if this has anything to do with Iran’s timing.
Iran is suing Russia in the ICJ over the non-delivery of the S-300 missiles. Does anyone have any information on this(time lines etc…)? I wonder if Iran will try to argue that the UNSC resolutions are structurally problematic and therefore of no force, or if it will be arguing that Russia is interpreting the resolution too broadly, and therefore implicitly accepting the legitimacy of the resolution itself.
kooshy says: August 24, 2011 at 10:03 pm
UN is powerless to do anything; “Never issue an order that cannot be carried out.”
They have not yet nabbed Mr. Basheer of Sudan.
This is a farce; enemies of Axis Powers are arrested and tried as war criminals.
The independent-minded states must strengthen themeelves to such an extent that such actions against them becomes moot.
Liz says: August 24, 2011 at 4:36 pm
As I said before, EU will do what she can to help US in destroying Independent Iranian power.
The Axis Powers do not have the power to overthrow the Alawite state nor to dictate the terms of the post-Alawite dispensation.
They tried to sedue Turkish leaders – just like the way they seduced the late Mr. Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran – to do their dirty work for them. Someone in Tureky must have asked hard questions and then the PKK increased its tempo of operations.
Scratch that approach.
In the meantime, a faction in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia went for the regime change option in Syria. That has not worked so far and has made Saudi Arabia subject to retaliation.
Syria: UN – first ‘predictable’ steps
Published on : 21 August 2011 – 5:15pm | By International Justice Desk
http://www.rnw.nl/international-justice/article/syria-un-first-predictable-steps
The steps being taken in the UN and ICC to take international legal measures against Syria were predictable. Syria was warned that the recent outbreaks of violence would be an opportunity for those opposed to its government to make moves to destabilise its regime and prosecute its leadership.
By Steven Kay QC*
The political and legal consequences of such measures are very uncertain but it is clear that the ICC process is being used during conflicts to aid one side against another.
This use of international legal procedures as a weapon in a conflict was seen first in the 1999 Kosovo conflict when the ICTY Prosecutor entered the fray to issue for the first time an indictment against the Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic as a form of support to NATO in its campaign.
The indictment was not charging him with crimes in Srebrenica, Vukovar, Bosnia or Croatia. It only concerned Kosovo, which NATO was attempting to wrest from the control of Serbia, with measures that also included attacks in Serbia which is outside Kosovo.
Libya – ICC propaganda
It has also occurred this year in Libya, where the ICC, NATO and the Security Council have been combining their efforts. This conflict concerns the right of a sovereign state to protect itself from civil uprising.
Of course measures taken must be proportionate and lawful. But here we also heard the ICC enter into the propaganda business by claiming the Gaddafi troops were issued with viagra to rape women.
Iraq – illegal invasion
Consider now the allied invasion of Iraq. This is viewed by all international legal jurists as plainly falling into the illegal invasion category. Much death and destruction has been caused.
But was there any international prosecution notwithstanding such overwhelming evidence and weight from legal experts? Where is that ICC Prosecutor when you need him?
* Steven Kay is an international criminal lawyer based in London
Anna Hazare: ‘India’s new Gandhi’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/anna-hazare-indias-new-gandhi/
Neo – An Islamist could be a “socialist”? Were you thinking of that drunk and womanizer Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto or just wanted to drag Muslims behind President of Israel, Dr. Chaim weismann – an atheist Jewish socialist leader from USSR?
Both Marxism and socialism were given birth by atheist Jews for the beneifit of Jews and their Goyim collaborators.
Islam believes in distribution of wealth on fair basis. It commands equal human rights for every one based on responsiblity. Now, that’s not the way West would like to practice ‘socialism’ – or does it?
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/07/19/equality-freedom-and-the-west/
Elsinore,
I agree with you about policies (actions or the ‘how’) being more important than the numbers, but we will have to agree to disagree on Chomsky.
The way I look at it, there are good socialists and capitalists as well as bad ones. The same goes with Zionists, Islamists etc.* Chomsky is a socialist zionist who (rightly or wrongly) ‘understands’ the need for a Jewish homeland that fits within historical Palestine. As in so many other grey areas in life, his position may not be ‘coherent’, but I don’t find it particularly difficult to understand, especially for a Jew of his age, background and moral convictions. Regardless, he is firmly in the pro-Palestinian camp. His calm demeanor, excellent analyses and persistence inspire many.
* I am increasingly convinced that no matter how well we convince ourselves about what we ‘think’ or ‘believe’, our personality types override our political and ideological convictions – like an authoritarian capitalist is similar in method to a socialist one. Or a ‘rebel type’ is unlikely to be terribly ‘god-fearing’ unless religion becomes a useful tool for rebellion.
James@5:44
““Seldom has a nation relinquished a position of advantage as quickly and re3cklessly as has the United States in the past two decades.”
Indeed. After emerging victorious in the Gulf and Cold Wars in 1991, the Pax Americana was at its zenith. But since 2001, it has been in rapid decline due to overreaching its military capabilities and overspending to the point of virtual bankruptcy.
During the 90s when Clinton was in power, America could not be challenged. Russia was a mess, Iran was still recovering from the war with Iraq and China was not as important as it is now. India and Brazil were still struggling. But nowadays, the sense is that the United States is a beaten power, earning little admiration from the international community as it once enjoyed on a massive scale.
The fact is that the “American Empire” is experiencing the same decline as the British Empire did following the death of Queen Victoria in 1902.
Regarding the FBI linguist who went to prison for leaking classified documents concering Israel’s propaganda effort in the US to set up war with Iran, Marcia Glod of the Washington Post covered the story breifly in a piece printed May 25, 2010: “Foremr FBI employee sentenced for leaking classified papers”. But no mention was made of the fact the defendant was the grandson of renowned Israeli philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz. Or that he had served on the legal defence team of Marwan Barghouti.
Andrew Bacevich has an excellent commentary in the Sept. 2011 American Conservative magazine: “An end to Empire”. He calls the last two decades the “era of ideological fantasy” and notes: “Seldom has a nation relinquished a position of advantage as quickly and re3cklessly as has the United States in the past two decades.”
And he notes the idiotically arrogant and foolish statement by Richard Perle and David Frum: “There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust”. Hubris and stupidity virtually beyond belief. But we get more of it almost every day, courtesy of warmongering neocons (and other fanatical “pro-Israel” propagandists) in Washington.
Liz,
Perhaps I should add that Israel wants to keep f*cking the American people, as well as the Palestinians.
Liz,
Israel wants to keep f*cking the Palestinians, and Iran interferes with the scheme. I think this is clearly the crux of the matter.
fyi,
Yes, what a contrast between the dictator Franco of Spain, and Gaddafi of Libya. The stability achieved by Franco, and the gradual transition to constitutional monarchy, was a huge achievement.
kooshy,
You should read about the FBI’s monitoring of illegal Israeli communications in the US, that have been part of a covert scheme to set up yet another illegal war in the Middle East, based on knowingly false intelligence. The FBI has complied a thick dossier on Israeli agents and their American stooges who are involved in the conspiracy.
Philip Giraldi has very interesting article in Sept. 2011 issue of the American Conservative magazine, about the covert scheme by the Israeli embassy in Washington to set up yet another war for the American taxpayers. Quote: “The focus was on Iran, with Israeli officials intent on preparing the American public for war against the mullahs. They were spreading disinformation on Iran’s nuclear program, promoting international sanctions, and trying to obtain Washington’s support for an ultimatum on the nuclear program as a final diplomatic gesture that would be turned down by Iran, leding to war with the U.S. playing the lead role.”
Much of the effort was either illegal or incompatible with the role of diplomats in the US. Aipac, Winep, and other extremist “pro-Israel” groups of course were deeply involved.
Liz says:
August 24, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Perhaps what happened was that Mr. Robert Cooper being a fine British gentleman didn’t want to use the same southwestern cowboy language that was used by Mr. Rumsfeld, when in a similar situation Mr. Rumsfeld had to raise his hand in the air and say “you know, stuff happens”, however he never mentioned if he was the one who was stuffing.
The martyr state myth
By Matthew Duss
http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/23/the_martyr_state_myth
Pathetic little EU impose more sanctions on Iran, why? Because the alleged Iranian support in Syria. Well, even if thats true why sanctions? We all know who support the the counter revolution in bahrain, we all know who sell weapons, train and fund saudiarabia, (jordan, tunisia, morocco, israel, uae, qatar etc that all oppress their people) we all know who supported mubarak, we all know etc.. Why are EU and US such hypocrites? Iran has been sanctioned for over 30 years, and for evey year it have only getting stronger politically/regionally. What are they trying to accomplish? Why do they act so foolish?
Dont forget that EU support the slaughter in Bahrain:
“Bahrain protest crackdown defended by European Union envoy”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/23/bahrain-protest-crackdown-eu-envoy
Scott Lucas, what do you think do you agree that the US is the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism?
‘US biggest state sponsor of terrorism’
Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman has condemned US allegations against Tehran, describing Washington as the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world.
“Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said Washington’s unconditional support for Israel is enough to make the US the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world.”
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/195578.html
Fiorangela says: August 24, 2011 at 2:45 pm
The Arab leaders are generally stupid and incompetent; including Mr. Qaddafi.
COmpare him with the late General Franco of Spain; everything that is working in Spain is bcause of Franco.
Libya under Mr. Qaddafi had no government, no institution, no structure.
He bought anti-aircraft weapons that were left unmainted in the desert.
Hi tanks worked – but he needed those against teh Libyan people.
He ran it worse than Saudi Arabia.
His only redeeming feature was his support against the Apartheid Regime of South Africa; that was his finest hour.
As for the Libyan people: there will political infighting and revenge killing alomst certainly in the coming weeks and months.
And the oil production will be the prize.
Pakistan is fed up with US spies.
http://presstv.com/detail/195593.html
I just learned about this site on “History and Culture of Iran”. I am sharing it for those who are interested (it is in Farsi, unfortunately)
http://www.ariarman.org/index.html
And you will read this on the Home page;
هزاران بار ما را سوخت حریق حادثه تا مرز خاکستر
ولی ما نسل سیمرغیم که از خاکستر خود میگشاید پر
Pirouz_2,
Thanks fo the link. The net result of the latest “neocolonial” “war-at-will”, Libya is the militarization of Russia, China, and anybody else that can afford to buy guns.
Was I dreaming, or did that wretched moron, SL, state ‘FOREIGN INVASION is used as a pretext for supporting the sovereignty of serially invaded countries?’
What a moron.
following on Anthony Cordesman’s remarks on C Span Washington Journal this morning, this paragraph from “Faith Misplaced: The Broken Promise of U.S.-Arab Relations, 1820-2001,” by Ussama Makdisi, now at Rice University.
“Nasser decided to nationalize the Suez Canal. Plans were readied to prove that Egyptians could responsibly navigate ship traffic. He believed that he could avoid the fate of Mohammed Mossadegh. The British could not embargo the Suez Canal in the manner that they had successfully embargoed the sale of Iranian oil under Mossadegh. Moreover, they had already withdrawn their troops from Egypt. Any assault on Egypt would take time, but Nasser firmly believed that he could count on not only Arab support but the support of the world. Decolonization was the watchword of the day, not empire. He revealed his hand during a long speech in Alexandria marking the third anniversary of the exile of King Faruq on July 26, 1956. The code word he used to signal the Egyptian takeover of the Suez Canal Company headquarters was “De Lesseps,” the name of the nineteenth-century French engineer who had convinced Egypt’s Khedives to build the Suez Canal, which had brought with it ruinous debt and eventually a British occupation of the country.” p. 243
The US-NATO action in Libya had several of the hallmarks of the Eisenhower admin-Churchill government’s inciting of mobs in Iran, with the intent of overthrowing Mossadegh, because Mossadegh asserted Iran’s right to control its own resources.
Cordesman stated several times that Qaddafi was misusing Libya’s oil resources, and that Qaddafi’s (Islamocentric) economic policies were backward and inefficient. The West, including the US, and the World Bank and IMF, stood ready to “help” the new Libya –some latter-day “De Lesseps” will teach Libya how to bring its oil fields and oil trading systems up to date, and sell to Libya the means to do so. The international banking system will loan Libya the money for this project; Libya will become fully engaged in the international economic system. As with so many of the states that World Bank and IMF have helped, Libya will likely devolve into a debt situation similar to that which befell Egypt.
The west will run Libya for the benefit of the West; Libyans will be workers in the Western-dominated predatory capitalist system.
The West has learned very little from history. That is to be expected, when the history has been falsified. Arabs know the history, having been on the wrong side of it for more than a century.
James – we were talking about why the US doesn’t recognize Iran’s right to enrichment, not why Russia and China have gone along with the sanctions. The reason for the US’ refusal to acknowledge that right is indeed with the pro-Israeli lobby’s control of US foreign policy but is not limited to Iran’s backing of Hezbollah and Hamas (which has always been over-exaggerated) but more fundamentally, because Israel does not want to see Iran rise up, thus challenging Israel’s supremacy in the region not to mention special strategic value to the US. Remember, when the US decided to get along with China, Taiwan was marginalized and the pro-Taiwanese lobby was ignored. Israel does not want to become Tawian should Iran and the US start to engage, so instead the pro-Israeli lobby is pushing for wars and sanctions (which are intended to lead to wars.)
As for why Russia and China are going along with the sanctions – probably because they’re extracting concessions from the US on other areas, nevermind that they’re part of the “enrichment haves” who have been trying to press other (developing) countries to remain enrichment “not haves” thus establishing a defacto cartel which controls nuclear reacotr fuel, the sole energy source of the near future. The conflict over enrichment is hardly limited to Iran and has been an on-going dispute between the haves and not-haves for while, with developing countries accusing the haves of using the pretext of non-proliferation in order to create an energy monopoly.
I have a lot of respect for both Chomsky and Zinn. They are important people in the American context. However, we all have our blind spots, and their thinking reflects their time and their limits.
Mr. Lucas;
Your last message was so pathetic (it only contained an insult which only shows your lack of answer) that it is not even worth replying back, and this message is mainly written to share a very interesting article with the readers of this site.
But before giving the link to that article, let me tell you who the apologist cowards are:
Apologist cowards are those who try to force their way on top of an election that they have clearly lost (by a very large margin) using cloured coup tactics and yet are so incrediblly shameless and fresh that they claim that they are strugling for civil rights and democracy!
Apologist cowards are those lackeys of NATO/US/UK who claim the bombs raining down on tripoli, the massive air campaign against Libya are all non-existant fantasies made up by dictators to supress the opposition (ie. those rebels who are on the pay-roll of NATO countries and armed to their teeth and supported from the air all by NATO).
Apologist cowards are those who shed crocodile tears for women rights and then support fundamentalists in Libya and Syria.
Just so that you know what is the difference between a revolution and a regime change made by NATO:
NATO’s Rebel Forces
by Luis Rumbaut
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/rumbaut240811.html
READ AND LEARN!
As a great fan of Rory Stewart, the British MP, I recommend Ben Dunant’s “Today’s T. E. Lawrence urges withdrawal from Afghanistan”.
amconmag.com/blog
Somebody must have read Eric’s piece on why Iran should go to the courts.
Iran launches missile case against Russia
http://rt.com/news/c-300-iran-contract-037/
Iran is suing Russia for non delivery of s-300. However, Iran insists the move is intended to help Russia by clarifying the legality/bounds of the sanctions so that Russia can make good on the profitable contract.
That sounds like the court’s proceedings will wind up answering a whole lot more questions applicable to future law suits testing UNSC resolutions, and IAEA self-arrogated mandate beyond the safeguard agreement.
Rob,
Some typical statements by Mitchell Reiss, from his piece in the New York Times Oct. 4, 2009: “Iran is the make-or-break issue for the broader trans-Atlantic relationship”. “On Iran, European leadership need to help the US persuade Russia and China that Iran presents a grave threat to international security”. In other words, a propagandist for the Zionist-expansionists in Israel (and the US, and elsewhere), trying to injure Iran in order to help the Israelis oppress the Palestinians. No matter how much damage that oppression does to the national security of the American people.
Rob,
Thanks for the link. And what astonishing rubbish from Daniel Pipes: Obama “can perhaps end the mullah’s mad nuclear dash” by deslisting the MEK! But Pipes does have a track record for putting out complete cr*p on a regular basis.
Fiorangela,
The “one-state” solution may well be the “just” solution, but it simply is not going to happen. This is the reason every Arab country accepted the 2002 Saudi peace plan.
Elsinore,
Would it not be helpful to be more specific about the programme called for by one person or another, than the fact that person is a “partisan of Israel”? What does that even mean, in your view?
Neo,
The “white supremacists” in South Africa were forced to accept majority rule, simply because the “blacks” outnumbered the “whites” by many times. Their control was doomed when the “Bantustan” strategy failed. And even that could not have rectified the problem that there were simply too many “blacks” living in “white” South Africa.
But it seems clear beyond any doubt that Israel will not accept a “one-state” solution, under any conceivable circumstances. The Zionist-expansionists will continue their scheme of attempting to define the border on a unilateral basis. Their object is to prevent the emergence of a viable independent Palestine.
fyi –
“[Chomsky]is as much a partisan of Israel as the next Jew – but he does not have the honesty to come out and say it. Because then his credentials as a leftist critique of US foreign policy would be lost.”
Thanks for putting that in bold writing.
Castellio says: August 24, 2011 at 10:58 am -
Thanks for the thorough debunking of Chomsky’s sham posture.
Folks like Chomsky are even more dangerous than rabid ideologues like Netanyahu — it is readily apparent that Bibi is a psychopath, but slick propagandists like Chomsky seduces even astute and well-intentioned listeners to believe he is on the side of truth and justice. Chomsky’s truth and justice mandate applies only to Israel.
imo, Howard Zinn occupies much the same space as Chomsky. Notice how both Chomsky and Zinn get young Americans all fired up about the evils their country has committed. But the name “Samuel Untermyer” does not appear in Zinn’s History of America (the children’s version). Untermyer was a zionist operative who, among other things, was at the forefront of disseminating anti-German propaganda to induce Americans to wage war on Germany in 1914 and again from 1933-1939. That Zinn does not consider Untermyer’s activities worthy of mention in a history of the US is a major failing.
paul,
At this point, it seems unlikely that any UNSC resolution authorizing military action against the government of Syria could pass. Chances, in fact, are essentially zero as things now stand. Ergo, no Nato military intervention in Syria.
Neo,
I think Obama blundered when he demanded that Assad step down.
Mitt romney+mek?
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/08/romney-seems-to-be-positioning-himself-to-capture-neoconservative-support.html#more-50235
Cyrus,
It would be more accurate to say that the neocons, and other fanatical “pro-Israel” elements in the US, do not want “any progress in diplomacy with Iran” unless Iran stops supporting Hezbollah and Hamas. This is the position of Stephen Hadley, for example. But Russia and China do not support sanctions against Iran merely because Iran supports groups unfriendly toward Israel.
I think Obama did wish to achieve better relations with Iran but simply did not have the knowledge, experience, and force of will to achieve it in the face of opposition from so many Democrats who depend upon Jewish support for success in their political careers.
The former British Prime Minister, Israel-Firster Tony Blair’s sister-in-law Lauren Booth, a world-class journalist, had converted to Islam.
On August 21, 2011 – Lauren Booth spoke at the International Al-Quds rally in London (UK). Watch video below.
She said everytime she hears that Palestinians should follow nonviolence protests instead of arm-resistance – it makes her sick to her stomach. When Jewish soldiers kill Palestinian kids, rape Muslim women and stop doctors at check-points to attend Palestinian victims of Israeli fascism – Jewish security personnel call them ‘dogs’.
She mocked the Arab League leaders for not calling upon Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon to send some soldiers to save the lives of their Muslim brethren being killed by Jew soldiers during the month of fasting (Ramadan).
Lauren Booth asked her audience to send a message to Israelis: “No justice no peace“.
Lauren Booth’s personal blog can be read here.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/lauren-booth-no-justice-no-peace/
Cyrus says: August 24, 2011 at 11:24 am
Of course; Mr. Al Baradei has stated as much in his book.
With the route of Mr. Qaddafi’s government in Libya, he Axis Powers will not be in a mood to give up on their long term project of destroying independent Iranian power.
In fact, in all likelihood, they are going to prosecute their current policy with extra vigour.
Castellio says: August 24, 2011 at 10:58 am
There are many Jews like Mr. Chmosky that display – to an outside observer – a cryptic attitude towards Israel and Zionism.
They are not Shia Muslims but they try to practice “Taqqiyah” – meaning religious dissimulation whereby adherents may conceal their religion.
But a Muslim does that only when he is under threat, persecution, or compulsion.
Mr. Chomsky is not subect to any such threats.
He is as much a partisan of Israel as the next Jew – but he does not have the honesty to come out and say it. Because then his credentials as a leftist critique of US foreign policy would be lost.
For how could he support an enterprise that has lead to the dispalcement of hundreds of thousands of people and the subjugation of millions of others by his co-religionists?
He should have stuck to linguistics.
OK so recognizing Iran’s right to enrichment is “key to progress”. Fine. We knew that. The question is therefore, why hasn’t there been recognition of this right? The answer obviously isn’t because of genuine non-proliferation concerns since there have been multiple compromise offers by Iran over enrichment that would have resolved any such concern (nevermind for the moment that many other countries have enrichment know-how too). Rather, the answer is: Because the US does not WANT any progress in diplomacy with Iran. The entire nuclear issue is merely pretextual to start with. In fact the US keeps moving goalposts and undermining potential resolutions to the standoff (ie: the torpedoing of the Turkish/Brazilian deal) precisely BECAUSE the US wants to keep this issue/pretext alive. We need to acknowledge that and avoid the trap of thinking that the solution exists in some sort of compromise deal over the nuclear issue.
Neo… well, a reference, and I thank you for that. Before I parse the quote from Chomsky, I have to tell you that the one subject on which Chomsky is regularly unreliable is Palestine/Israel.
“It depends on what you mean by Zionism.” There were many Zionisms, no argument.
“I was a Zionist activist in my youth.” Yes, he was.
“For me, Zionism meant opposition to a Jewish state.” Note the ‘for me’. It certainly wasn’t the case for the vast majority of Zionists. This is a very particular and individual take that goes against the general historical facts.
“The Zionist movement did not come out officially in favor of a Jewish state until 1942. Before this it was merely the intent of the Zionist leadership.” The quisling words here are ‘officially’ and ‘merely’. The leadership of the Zionist movement was for a Jewish state by the end of the nineteenth century, but it is true that it didn’t ‘officially’ proclaim this, for the simple reason is that it knew such a proclamation was premature among the supportive western governments. But it was the plan, and it was acted upon in a historically documented manner.
So what Chomsky is actually saying is that it is true that the official statements and the actions of the Zionists diverged… this is no different than the Israeli “acceptance” of the Oslo accords. The deception continues: say one thing in public and do another ‘on the ground’.
As for ‘merely’, it’s a strange choice of word. (It was ‘merely’ the leadership over several generations?) In fact, the leadership was clear about its goals among the membership when speaking in Russian and Yiddish, but less so among the gentiles in English. You could read “Zionism and the fin de siècle: cosmopolitanism and nationalism from Nordau to Jabotinsky” by Stanislawski to get more background on this.
Perhaps the document you should read is the March 4, 1919 letter to President Wilson written by anti-Zionist and prominent Jews. I’ll just give one quote from it: “But we raise our voices in warning and protest against the demand of the Zionists for the reorganization of the Jews as a national unit, to whom, now or in the future, territorial sovereignty in Palestine shall be committed. This demand not only misinterprets the trend of the history of the Jews, who ceased to be a nation 2000 years ago, but involves the limitation and possible annulment of the larger claims of Jews for full citizenship and human rights in all lands in which those rights are not yet secure. For the very reason that the new era upon which the world is entering aims to establish government everywhere on principles of true democracy, we reject the Zionistic project of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.”
Back to Chomsky: “The Zionist movement for a long time stood against the establishment of a Jewish state because such a state would be discriminatory and racist.” As the letter of 1919 (!) makes clear, this is just rewriting history to fit a personal narrative. While it’s is true that some Jews (including Einstein) stood against Zionist exclusivist intentions, while considering themselves Zionists, to state that the movement stood for a long time against the establishment of an exclusivist state goes against facts. Quite the opposite is true.
To make the claim that the Zionist movement was against discrimination and racism is downright bizarre given the actions both of the Jewish Agency and the terrorism movement that fought the British and the Palestinians.
Back to Chomsky, “I’ve been for one-state all my life, but we need two states first”. What he is not saying is that he believes in equal rights for all citizens in Israel now.
Neo,
in the interests of pushing the envelope, in my opinion, “whether 300,000 or 6 million” is the least controversial item regarding the European war narrative. Causes and effects — who did what to whom and why — if far more important, and far more carefully concealed and dissembled.
as well, the number of Iraq dead and displaced is critically important, and every American should be reminded of the number daily — just as relentlessly as the reminders of Jewish deaths in Europe, and with the same ruthlessly honest examination of who did what to whom and why.
James,
On Iran and Israel: an interesting shared interest has emerged in the shape of Syria’s troubles. Neither country is happy with current events, while Obama has openly asked for Assad to go. I can’t remember another similar situation where Iran and Israel were jointly at odds with the US’ stated position.
Elsinore,
Thank you for the kind words. You actually summed it all up better than I could: “Self righteousness might stroke the ego, but it does not solve problems.” Especially if one is looking for lasting solutions.
On the German (ethnic cleansing) question, I would not argue against your point on ‘exaggeration’. I note that most contributors here agree with you. Personally, I don’t think the exact numbers make that much of a difference (300,000 or 6 million – both are horrifying).
In the same manner, I don’t think the exact number of Iraqi civilian deaths – another subject of debate: 150,000 or 1 million Iraqis murdered as a result of the US invasion – makes all that much difference to the conclusions one comes to on the subject matter.
paul says: August 24, 2011 at 9:58 am
I think what you are saying is neither probable nor possible.
Syria is next, then Iran. And isn’t Turkey playing an interesting game? On the surface, they sure do seem opposed to US policy on Israel. But isn’t it funny that Turkey is helping Obama take down Israel’s foes?
Does Gaddafi’s fate await Assad?
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/printN.html
Persian Gulf: Right Mek have no support inside Iran but what Ive meant that in case mek wage a armed attack on Iran nato could be there helping them which bugging me.
James,
Re. one-state solution and whether Israelis will give up control etc, you are indeed right. Same way that South African supremacists would not give up control voluntarily.
Anthony Cordesman on C Span Washington Journal:
“the IMF and World Bank are ready to step in and help . . . . A United Nations committee is managing the Libyan assets that were removed from Qaddafi. .’s regime. The Libyan people have no experience in creating a political system; they need our help to set up a structure of government and a Constitution . . .the Libyan oil fields are not run efficiently, Qaddafi used a quirky system of economics; we need to teach them, introduce them to . . .[presumably the stellar Western system that has been so successful in distributing wealth equitably].”
interspersed (at the . . . s) were “the Libyans should make their own decisions; in the style of the Libyan people as they determine it; etc.
“We don’t have boots on the ground except, perhaps, for some CIA operatives . . .”
aha — the heart of the matter:
8:10 am “The world bank has the most advanced capability in the world to advance plans to make the kind of transfers to a market-driven economy that will benefit the people. . . .Qaddafi used an Islamic-centric style of economics that was delusional [or words to that effect]”
8:12 am: “These are strategically important countries to our economy [Syria and Libya]. The American people are going to have to get used to this. . . .”
these countries are going to need a limited amount of help . . .the countries that succeed are the countries that can help themselves. . .
caller: Libya one of the most civilized countries in AFrica; they turned Q into a monster; noted that Q had the power to organize Africans . . .in Libya, all the people have a home, the oil revenue is accessible to ALL the people . . .”
8:17, Cordesman: “I think the Libyans have voted very powerfully, without any outside intervention.”
8:19: Cordesman: “the first thing we have to do is provide jobs and security. we have to disarm those people, and the best way to do that is to provide jobs and security . . .”
caller: “What if the Libyans decided that the way they wanted to use their oil wealth is by giving it to the people, and they don’t have to work . . .”
Cordesman: “people don’t understand that it costs money to produce that oil . . .the Libyans are going to have to work . . .can Libya make life far better for its own citizens, yes, it can; but it will take a massive reform in their economic system. Libyans don’t have to do it our way, but they can’t do it Qaddafi’s way.”
caller at 8:26: [reality check.] this was American neo-imperialism. etc. etc.
Cordesman dodges by saying that Bremer was a neoconservative, not a neoliberal. etc.
suggested background reading: :http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314189005&sr=1-1
Perkins, “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
Naomi Klein, “The Shock Doctrine. :http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314188819&sr=8-1
Cordesman: “We’re going to have to be patient . . .if we allow them to do things their way, it’s going to take a lot of time . . .”
and so ends 30 minutes of looking into the black heart of American economic imperialism.
can’t pin this on eevul zionists.
Fiorangela,
Two pieces backing up — re Libya and beyond — ““to acknowledge that, first and foremost, the events here concern the issues, concerns, and aspirations of people in these countries”:
Libya Analysis: Explaining the Uprising — “Libyans Have Written Their Own Epic”
,http://www.eaworldview.com/home/2011/8/24/libya-analysis-explaining-the-uprising-libyans-have-written.html
Libya (and Beyond) Special: Paradigm Shift — What the Experts Get Wrong Tells A Much Bigger Story
,http://www.eaworldview.com/home/2011/8/24/libya-and-beyond-special-paradigm-shift-what-the-experts-get.html
Best,
S.
Liz says:
August 24, 2011 at 1:19 am
“Well since when did US care about the iranians view on MEK?”
Obviously, a bunch of old people can’t topple a system of that magnitude. if anything they need to get substantial numbers of young people ready to fight and die hence the importance of MEK view among Iranians. MEK people have very dividing personalities. I don’t see any Iranian opposition group to make an alliance with them for foreseeable future. they would certainly cause problem, specially if unrestrained, for other opposition groups abroad. and 3000-4000 people (average age probably 55) can’t fight. let the disease be in the U.S court. de-listing them would be just the beginning of the problem for the west. I think Iran’s government should be silent about de-listing MEK. on the other hand, it should not let them enter Iran even for trial. let them be outside, specially in the west, and bark till they die.
Clint, Agreed that the one-state solution is the only just solution.
A deep question is whether the notion of a separate state for Jews only is a deeply ingrained element of Jewry; or is a notion central to mainstream zionist ideologues; or is a “freakish, querulous” offshoot of 19th-20th century European bolshevism.
from Lucas: “to acknowledge that, first and foremost, the events here concern the issues, concerns, and aspirations of people in these countries”
Dennis Kucinich: “We don’t know who the rebels are or how broad their protest is.”
Lucas speaks of justice; a hallmark of justice is comportment with rule of law.
back to Kucinich, who points out rather uncomfortably that removing Qaddafi was NOT within the UN mandate.
Everything about the US led intervention in Libya was smoke and mirrors.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rep-dennis-kucinich-wonders-whether-obamas-participation-in-libyan-missile-attacks-is-impeachable/
Castellio,
Here’s a quote from Chomsky:
“It depends on what you mean by Zionism. I was a Zionist activist in my youth. For me, Zionism meant opposition to a Jewish state. The Zionist movement did not come out officially in favor of a Jewish state until 1942. Before this it was merely the intent of the Zionist leadership. The Zionist movement for a long time stood against the establishment of a Jewish state because such a state would be discriminatory and racist.”
And the title of the piece is:
“Chomsky: I’ve been for one-state all my life, but we need two states first”
source: http://mondoweiss.net/2009/04/chomsky-ive-been-for-onestate-all-my-life-but-we-need-two-states-first.html
Agree S-300s are defensive anyway.
Do you think Russia, China etc will be better friends with Iran now when Russian and Chinese gas/oil-companies most probably will be left out if rebels seize power? Maybe last time they ever supported sanctions etc? The dumb Russians should have sold the S-300 for example..
Thanks to the various people who responded.
To cut to the chase: I think the ONLY viable solution now is the one state solution. But this will be opposed (mostly) by the Zionists.
The 2-state solution is really better termed the one state and 5-ghettos solution: not going to work. The 2-state solution would institutionalize Apartheid.
BTW, even the ex-Education minister of Israel admits it is an Apartheid state:
http://www.counterpunch.org/aloni01082007.html
Pirouz_2 & kooshy,
“The ‘relevance’ that Mr. Lucas (and his likes) see between Libya, Syria and Iran, the ‘relevance’ that rightfuly he claims does not exist between Bahrain and UK is the possibility of FOREIGN INVASION.”
The real “courage”, of course, is that shown by those taking great risks inside the countries you name and in others to stand up for justice and rights. Beyond that, courage might lie in setting aside any pre-dispositions — “IRI is always right”, “US is always right”, “Israel is always right”, “Syria is always right” — to acknowledge that, first and foremost, the events here concern the issues, concerns, and aspirations of people in these countries
“FOREIGN INVASION” is the pretext to set aside attention to those people — it is being used right now by apologists for the Qaddafi and Assad regimes, it has been used by the US Government in the form of “terrorist threat”, it is used by Israel, it is a feature of Bahraini propaganda, etc., etc. So the farting from your throats is the repetition of a well-worn theme.
Now back to the real news. Peace….
S.
Pirouz says:
August 24, 2011 at 1:18 am
That’s the one. I think a suitably souped up version would be an interesting mine delivery vehicle.
kooshy says:
August 23, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Kooshy jan;
I reread my previous message and didnt like its wording. I felt like it may leave the wrong impression asif I thought you didnt know what is the relevance between the what has been happening in Libya and what some people wish to happen in Syria and Iran.
Just for the purpose of clarification: That was NOT the case.
It is just that I know that these people would never say frankly what is on their mind so for the purpose of clarification I gave the answer that you were trying to pull out of Mr. Lucas.
Yesterday i said something about commenting ability being removed from Meehan’s website. I was wrong, i was on his government page, not his blog page.
Just for fun, i sent the following email to Aipac in PA:
Dear Traitors,
Please do something quick. The hasbarists must be on vacation. Rep Meehan is taking much heat for selling his soul to you guys. No one is backing him up on his blog. If you don’t hurry, Rep Meehan may decide America, not Israel, is who he should please. Can’t you start a war or something?
-Concerned for Pennsylvania
Persian gulf:
Well since when did US care about the iranians view on MEK?
If NATO could support armed rebellion we should heed MEK activities.
masoud says:
August 23, 2011 at 9:49 pm
You’re referring to that Lippisch knock-off, flying boat?
Ir appears to be a flat-4 OHV motor with a power output I would guess somewhere in the region of 80-100 hp.
Rogozin calls on UN to draw conclusions from NATO’s Libya campaign
http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?pg=4&id=267662
MOSCOW. Aug 23 (Interfax) – The recent events in Libya have shown that NATO has appropriated the right to tackle issues of war and peace that lie within the jurisdiction of the UN Security Council, Russia’s NATO envoy Dmitry Rogozin told Interfax.
“I think that the most painful conclusions will be drawn by the UN, which NATO has already evidently put on par with itself and does not view it as the sole exclusive force capable of making decisions on the start and completion of war,” Rogozin said.
In this situation, the UN Security Council, which holds exclusive jurisdiction over issues of war and peace in line with international law, “risks becoming an agency that is constantly ignored,” he said.
“From now on, NATO will decide when to start a war and when to finish it,” the Russian envoy said.
The first conclusions can already be drawn from the “campaign we have witnessed against our own will,” he said.
Since the early days of the civil conflict in Libya, Russia has been opposed to any expansion of this conflict, Rogozin said.
“Furthermore, it was categorically opposed to NATO using resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council as blotting paper,” he said.
Rogozin said he was convinced that NATO used the resolutions on Libya to promote its narrow, selfish goals to seek the “establishment of control over this country, which has a small population, but practically limitless oil reserves.”
Liza says:
August 23, 2011 at 5:32 pm
“Has it ever occured to you that US/west could use the same tactics against Iran when it comes to what we have see in Libya?…”
not really. MEK مزاحمین خلق are deeply hated even among the young, green, Iranians (only very radical elements of the greens embrace some of MEK’s ideas). even at the high of the post election turmoil, they were holding different rallies than the other oppositions. Their trick for the killing of Neda Agha Soltan, however, worked which has partly to do with the stupid reaction of the IR.
MEK people are totally disconnected from the rest of the population (I would add Bahaies are like that too). when you talk to them, you feel they are from different time zone with very distorted ideas about Iran. Bahaeis still have done better in dealing with the youth. MEK people are far off. I support de-listing them if that is a way to get more than 3000 MEK members out of Iraq and move them to Europe or NA. it would really be a pain for the Western countries to keep these people within their own boundaries. they are mostly above 50. I guess the west has enough problems fixing the soon to be retired baby-boomers that no country would want to add more constrain to the budget.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2011/08/18/whorin-and-schnorrin-jesse-jackson-jr-style/
Mo Brooks R-5 AL
Eric Cantor R-7 VA
Russ Carnahan D-3 MO
Tim Scott R-1 SC
Gus Bilirakis R-9 FL
Dennis A. Ross R-12 FL
Steve Chabot R-1 OH (went last month)
David Cicilline D-1 RI
Jeff Duncan R-3 SC
Stephen Fincher R-8 TN
Yvette Clarke D-11 NY
Mark Critz D- 12 PA
Scott DesJarlais R- 4 TN
Chuck Fleischman R-3 TN
John Garamendi D-10 CA
Ron Kind D-3 WI
Kay Granger R-12 TX
Michael Grimm NY-13
Janice Hahn D-36 CA
Jaime Herrera Buetler R-3 WA
Mazie Hirono D- 2 HI (unconfirmed)
Steny Hoyer D-5 MD
Jesse Jackson Jr. D-2 IL
Patrick Meehan D-7 PA
Kevin McCarthy CA-22
Gwen Moore D-4 WI
Bill Owens D-23 NY
Steven Palazzo R-4 MS
Ed Perlmutter D-7 CO
Tom Price R-6 GA
Peter Roskam R-6 IL
Loretta Sanchez D-47 CA
David Schweikert R-5 AZ
Adam Smith D-9 WA
Steve Southerland R-2 FLA
Betty Sutton D-13 OH
Scott Tipton R-3 CO
Allen West R-22 FL
Frederica Wilson D-17 FL
Kevin Yoder R-3 KS
Kathy Castor D-11 FL
Terri Sewell D-7 AL (not confirmed)
Anne Marie Buerkle R-25 NY
Judy Chu D-32 CA
Hank Johnson D-4 GA
Bob Dold R-10 IL (unconfirmed)
Blake Farenthold R-27 TX
Mike Fitzpatrick R-8 PA
Tom Reed R-29 NY
Kevin McCarthy R-22 CA
has it occurred to anyone that Israel might be the target of the Libya demonstration of power and coalition ability, as Steve Clemons discussed today on C Span?
Bibi has been quiescent since the Israeli flag was torn from the embassy in Cairo; :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq8kcKz5eZ8&feature=player_embedded
IDF and other Israeli security factions are publicly spatting over which group knew what about the attacks at Eilat. :http://972mag.com/idf-spokesperson-israel-did-not-claim-that-prc-was-responsible-for-the-eilat-attack/
Bibi knows better than to attack Gaza. :http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-tells-cabinet-israel-lacks-legitimacy-for-major-gaza-operation-1.380121 What’s up with Bibi that he’s pulling in his horns?
Meanwhile, what is going on with Iran — are Iran’s leaders acting scared or carrying on business as usual? Iran sentenced the hikers to 8 year terms — if Iran felt it needed to pacify they who bombed the tar out of Libya, wouldn’t Iran have released the hikers?
Iran extended congratulations to the liberated Libyans. Anybody see any signals that Iran’s leaders are afraid that the Iranian people will rise up and topple the government? I should think just the opposite: the Iranian people will be forced to coalesce around the mullahs, and to further defend Iran’s right to nuclear technology, lest Iran become NATOed into “democracy.”
I don’t think Iran’s government is afraid of Iran’s people. I think the Libya demonstration pushed the population closer to the government. And cemented nuclear determination.
Not so Israel.
You have to realize that all of Israel’s strategizing and demonizing of Arabs and Iranians involves an act of projection; Israelis see every Other as behaving the way Israel behaves.
I think Israel is afraid.
The distractions at Eilat were just enough to put Israel’s Tent protests on a back burner, but Israel has emerging domestic social problems caused by the same income-gap tensions that precipitated eruptions in Tunis and Egypt. Israel is out of favor with the Obama administration. Ron Paul is gaining traction with the populace which is forcing the media to pay attention to a policy prescription that calls for reducing to normality the special relationship with Israel. The people of the US are becoming restive; in my opinion, the outpouring of public venom on Pat Meehan’s blog was a huge event. Does anybody think megaphone didn’t pick up the signals?
I think Israel is afraid. What NATO, with Arab acquiescence and European and American cooperation did to Libya, they can do unto Israel.
This is a good thing.
It is a tragedy for the Libyan people, imo; I’m afraid I can’t allow myself to get caught up in the euphoria of Liberation!! Democracy!! No one knows just what Libya’s government will be, and a lot of Libyan people have suffered for this little demo.
But in spite of Greta Brauner’s prodding question of Steve Clemons on C Span this morning, I don’t think Iran has as much to fear from the demonstration of of the Mossadeqh-like overthrow of Qaddafi; Iran has already seen that script, and survived.
Bibi is pulling in his horns. Be afraid, Israel: THAT is the message that was sent from Libya, and from the meeting of the transition team in Turkey, and from Davutoglu, and from Egypt.
Wouldn’t it be a hoot if Iran ended up as Israel’s only friend in the region.
Is Barack Obama smarter than we give him credit for?
All:
Since Mr. Rehmat has not been able to furnish the list of US Congressman on that free trip to Israel; can someone else supply the list of names?
Pirouz says:
August 23, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Do have any Idea what the hp output on the Bavar class vehicles is?
Eric
FYI- this is how now days this is done, first a crime against humanity resolution at the UN rights council in Geneva, next is a UNSC in NY circulating a resolutions with sanctions, who’s there to veto a resolution against a pariah state who’s been condemned for violation of her own citizen’s rights, effectively making the UN governing internal affairs of selected member states.
UN orders probe into Syria rights violations
Rights council launches inquiry into crackdown amid Western efforts to slap sanctions against al-Assad and 22 others.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/08/201182402833303194.html
If color revolutions no longer work one can always go to the UN and other international and regional organizations to make a regime change, which I guess it should be called Regime change 301/ lab
Masoud, there’s speculation on the new AShM project as to its lineage (it is noticeably longer than a Noor).
Unfortunately, views in the pics of the marine motor project are not good. I think it’s a diesel to be used in pairs on light patrol craft.
Maybe Neo or Elsinore would be so kind as to give a historical source for their understanding that Zionism stumbled into the idea of an exclusivist state during the Third Reich, and that it wasn’t part of the discussions and intentions within the Zionist community from about 1890 on (I’ve listed three published sources supporting that contention in a post at 12.04 pm)…
And while at it, perhaps one of them would be so kind as to give the name of just one prominent Zionist who is arguing for a one-state solution with genuinely equal rights for all…
Israeli Jew to join rebel Libyan regime
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/israeli-jew-to-join-rebel-libyan-regime/
Kathleen,
I juist noticed today the cr*p advice Stephen Hadley gave the incoming Obama administration in an interview with USA Today January 7, 2009: “More leverage – - in the form of sanctions – - is needed to force Tehran to given up its nuclear ambitions and support of extremists.” The latter bit helps explain why Hadley’s participation in the conspiracy to set up the illegal invasion of Iraq, using knowingly false intelligence, gets so little attention in US newspapers. Hadley is a propagandist for Israeli extremists trying to crush Palestinian national resistance by cutting off support from Iran. Stated another way, Hadley is a willing (and eager) example of those who deceive the American public in order to “protect” Israel.
Pirouz_2 says:
August 23, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Pirouz Jan
I was hoping that the professor will have the courage to say what he wishes, that you had correctly spelled out, which we all know is Mr. Lucas’s assigned task, mission and hope. Unfortunately for him and his handlers, I don’t see it to happen in this current Iranian atmosphere, they have been continuously trying without any luck as the result I am sure they have been and will get even more blowback at each step.
Pirouz_2,
Chances of a Nato attack on the government of Syria, as things stand now, are very low. Chances of a UNSC resolution authorizing an attack are very low.
Neo, thank you for your thoughtful reply. My comment was probably far more harsh than it should have been (when I was a kid I fell into a vat of olive brine).
With one statement of yours I would quibble: you wrote, “The tragic irony (concurrent ethnic cleansing of the Jews by the Germans and of the Palestinians by the Jews) was too much.”
I understand entirely that my opinion on this is far outside the mainstream, but I do believe the “ethnic cleansing of the Jews by the Germans” has been hyperbolized out of all relationship to reality. I suspect one reason for this gross exaggeration and concealment of the facts, is to sustain the equation that you set out — that Jews ethnically cleanse(d) Palestinians due to the trauma of their being ethnically cleansed. The fact that the first part of the equation is a protected category is a signal that someone is not entirely certain the veracity of it can be sustained (how’s that for gobbledygook language designed to reveal/conceal an inconvenient truth?).
Moving on — I was impressed with this kernel of wisdom:
“. . .there are many Zionists who would be fine with the idea of a one-state solution. . . ., but surely, they would be strategic allies for the Palestinians. Blanket dismissal of ‘Zionism’ may be the wrong tactic.”
or, a good mediator finds coalition partners where he can, and builds on common ground rather than on points of conflict. an excellent lesson.
“The likes of Netanyahu are more like fascists than genuine Zionists. Another understatement. But I must say, I do not think Netanyahu is an anomaly to the zionist ideology, or in any event, that his peculiar version of zionism is not nearly mainstream among a large swathe of Israeli society. Netanyahu-the-individual will die eventually (maybe before his 90+ yr old father, Jabotinsky’s assistant), but the <a href = "http://mondoweiss.net/2011/08/nurit-peled-elhanan-on-israeli-textbooks-i-didnt-know-i-would-fall-on-so-much-racism.html" ideology is being taught to Israeli school children and permeates Israeli culture– THAT is very troubling.
“But I think, the Jews Are there, and the solution is not in an ‘eye for an eye’ approach. A clear case of ‘zero sum’ being a meaningless starting position.”
another wise admonition. Self righteousness might stroke the ego, but it does not solve problems. Flynt and Hillary Leverett have considered smart problem approaches to US-Iran relations :http://www.raceforiran.com/%E2%80%9Cgetting-to-yes%E2%80%9D-with-iran
kooshy says:
August 23, 2011 at 5:39 pm
My dear friend Kooshy;
Let me tell you the relevance of the “fart” to the “throat”, the relevance that you will NEVER be able to get Mr. Lucas to talk about.
The “relevance” that Mr. Lucas (and his likes) see between Libya, Syria and Iran, the “relevance” that rightfuly he claims does not exist between Bahrain and UK is the possibility of FOREIGN INVASION.
The person who has drawn that cartoon that Photi described (and I am sure Mr. Lucas also agrees with him) “hopes” that just as NATO using the sectarian/tribal animosities and rivalries made a low-cost intervention/invasion of Libya and overthrew its government and at the same time very brazenly attributed the regime change to the “rebels”, just similar to that it will make another intervention this time in Syria and will buy bunch of terrorist fanatics (as it has already done so) and arm them to the teeth and then give them full air support and then over-throw the Assad government. Once that happens Mr. Lucas hopes that the “domino effect” will continue and a similar thing will happen to Iran (wishful thinking!).
Basically these people are talking about a repetition of the same domino effect which started by overthrowing Mosaddegh and continued on with the overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala and went on all over the globe and included the overthrow of Allende.
Now do you see the relevance of the “fart” to the “throat”? And do you see what he hopes to happen in the middle east WILL not happen in UK or Greece??
You will never get Mr. Lucas to talk about this relevance though…LOL
Pirouz:
What do you know about the products the DM unveiled today? The Bonyan engine looks pretty light weight, do you have any idea what it will be used to power?
Neo,
Isn’t a significant problem with the “one-state” solution the simple fact there is no chance whatever that the Jews would give up their control of the police, the army, the security services, the courts, etc etc etc etc? No chance whatever.
Liza,
I oppose “de-listing” of the MEK but it seems unlikely that group can mount any significant armed challenge to the government of Iran.
Scott
“No, I honestly say that the relationship between events in, say, Tunisia and Egypt or Syria and Iran are much different from that in Bahrain and the UK. Judge each case on the specifics of the situation.”
Scott if you think that the case for Bahrain and UK is different and not effected by the events in Libya, Egypt, Syria and Tunisia, what is it that makes you believe that events in these countries with a factor of 5 out of 6 under the western hegemonic suppression in past 100 years has relevance in Iranian internal dynamics, where is the relevancy, and if you think they are effecting internal Iranian political atmosphere, than why is it that they are not relevant to US and UK’s internal political dynamics. Scott this is not BBC at some point you will have to give a straight answer, if you continue to throw in your usual one-liners, why?
There is Persian proverb which translates like this “fart is not relevant to the throat”
Has it ever occured to you that US/west could use the same tactics against Iran when it comes to what we have see in Libya? That is a armed rebellion. Its just for the US to instigate MEK in Iraq and elsewhere and delist them from the terrorlist…
Fiorangela,
Thanks for the comment and some great sources. I misled you a bit with my poor composition! I know Einstein was not a key player, but, to me, whatever Einstein had to say about Israel, it somehow matters.
I am no historian of the subject. But there is a fine point about Zionism – a distinction of the original versions of it – that I think goes to the heart of the matter: Having a ‘Jewish nation’ was not necessarily seen as meaning an exclusive ‘Jewish state’. The predominant original idea, if I am not mistaken, was to have a common (multicultural) country with pockets of various ethnic and religious groupings within historical Palestine. A bit like old Jerusalem. It is only later that it became a fight for a separate nation state, and this is what perturbed Jewish doves like Einstein. The tragic irony (concurrent ethnic cleansing of the Jews by the Germans and of the Palestinians by the Jews) was too much.
However, my point being: there are many Zionists who would be fine with the idea of a one-state solution. Am not sure what kind of weight they carry in Israel or USA today (understatement of the day!), but surely, they would be strategic allies for the Palestinians. Blanket dismissal of ‘Zionism’ may be the wrong tactic. The likes of Netanyahu are more like fascists than genuine Zionists.
I know this position is likely to irk many. After all, today’s ‘Zionists’ are wiping old Jerusalem clean of Palestinians, one home at a time. But I think, the Jews Are there, and the solution is not in an ‘eye for an eye’ approach. A clear case of ‘zero sum’ being a meaningless starting position.
Scott Lucas says: August 23, 2011 at 4:24 pm
You are partly correct in that Iranian leaders are concerned about impact of the Syrian unrest on their strategic alliance.
I think though that Syria will continue its strategic alliance with Iran under any successor regime except perhaps one formed by the ilks of al Qaeda; which is a very remote possibility.
A post Alawite Syria will remain in state of war with Israel and thus, will have to grope for all the help it can get; HAMAS, Hizbullah, and Iran come to mind. The war in Palestine will not end in case of a post Alawite Syria either.
kooshy,
“So, Scott do you honestly claim that if the Bahrain’s brutal regime falls the opposition groups in the US or UK “can take hearth” and take their own internationally rogue regimes down?”
No, I honestly say that the relationship between events in, say, Tunisia and Egypt or Syria and Iran is much different from that in Bahrain and the UK. Judge each case on the specifics of the situation.
Iranian officials are concerned about the Syrian protests both because of the regional position and because of the “example” of internal instability. Both motives are understandable….
S.
Scott Lucas says:
August 23, 2011 at 2:21 pm
“No, each country has its own political and social dynamic, but this can be influenced by events in another country — that is part of the reason why the Iranian regime is so sensitive about what happens in Syria. Opposition groups in one country may take heart when a movement for reform and rights succeeds elsewhere.”
A totally dishonest and a wrong analysis from the professor, the real reason that the Government of Iran is sensitive about the events in Syria is because Syria has a strategic alliance with Iran in resisting the western hegemony, just like how Saudi Arabia or Bahrain and a number of other client states are defined for the American regional policy. So, Scott do you honestly claim that if the Bahrain’s brutal regime falls the opposition groups in the US or UK “can take hearth” and take their own internationally rogue regimes down?
If that’s the case then maybe we should define the recent riots in UK in a different context.
Photi,
“Scott, is it your contention that the internal events of Libya and Syria are analogous to the current events in Iran?”
No, each country has its own political and social dynamic, but this can be influenced by events in another country — that is part of the reason why the Iranian regime is so sensitive about what happens in Syria. Opposition groups in one country may take heart when a movement for reform and rights succeeds elsewhere.
“Other than wishful thinking, what significant insight does that cartoon provide?”
Again, that’s a question for Nik Kowsar and how he evaluates the situation in Iran and in the region.
“If Bashar al-Assad falls, do you think Ayatollah Khamenei will ‘fall’ next?”
I think the Assad regime may go, but it is too simple to say that this means X (Khamenei will fall) or Y (Khamenei will not fall). It’s only one variable among many….
Scott, is it your contention that the internal events of Libya and Syria are analogous to the current events in Iran?
In Iran, it is Ahmadinejad in trouble, not the Supreme Leader. Even then, the disputes in Iran appear to be political, there is no civil disorder among the populace. Seriously, other than wishful thinking, what significant insight does that cartoon provide?
“What insights did you gain from that political cartoon that made you want to reproduce it on your website?”
To inform people of how others — like Kowsar — are viewing events, just as we have been posting reactions from various Iranian officials and clerics to the Libyan situation. And to get people to consider and discuss issues, just as you are doing.
Best,
S.
I recommend Pat Buchanan’s denunciation of the utter arrogance and stupidity of the US Senate, in its recent declaration that Abkhazia and south Ossetia are integral parts of Georgia, illegally occupied by Russia. “Why are we baiting the bear” at amconmag.com/blogs/
The Speaker of the Iranian parliament, Ali Larijani, has congratulated the people of Libya on the fall of the Gaddafi regime.
Neo,
Yes, I too wondered about the economic potential for Iranian production of 20% nuclear fuel plates for export, etc. It is in the nature of these things for a limited number of producers, just due to the economic facts.
I think Russia and China are completely sincere in trying to prevent any Iranian nuclear weapons capability, and that both Russia and China would very much like to see the Middle East free of nukes. I do not see the possible element of Russia and China working together to enable Russia to deal in 20% U profitably, as being very significant.
Neo,
Your comments to Clint were sensible. I would add that there is nothing “anti-Jewish” about wanting minimum justice for the Palestinians. And there is nothing “anti-Israel” about the proposition either, because minimum justice for the Palestinians is necessary for Israel’s own long-term stability.
Neo,
Excellent question, whether I see Iran-Israel relations as a “zero sum” game. My short answer is no. I think Iran would accept Israel within its pre-1967 borders, and Iran gave strong signals it would be willing to do so back in 2001-02 when there were discussions about restoring US-Iran relations. And I think it is in Israel’s own best interests to have an independent Palestine with pre-1967 borders.
Kathleen,
It appears that all of the oil companies that were involved in oil in Libya will try to keep their involvement. Spanish and German companies will be doing their best to restore production to previous levels as rapidly as possible. (As will the other companies)
If Gaddafi had remained calm, he might have been able to remain in power.
I think we should bear in mind that if Gaddafi has remained calm in the face of the initial defections and revolt early this year, he may well have been able to suppress the revolt. He appears to have been totally unaware of the PR aspects of the situation.
Writing in the Financial Times today, Richard Haass says openly that the purpose of the military intervention in Libya was “regime change” rather than the proctection of civilians. This is an interesting statement because it appears to be true only for a certain segment of the proponents of that intervention. Haass may be trying to argue that going into Libya for the purpose of regime change was appropriate, even if it meant lying to the UNSC. (Tony Cartalucci has a brief comment on Haass and his FT piece at Infowars.com)
Scott, is it your contention that the internal events of Libya and Syria are analogous to the current events in Iran?
In Iran, it is Ahmadinejad in trouble, not the Supreme Leader. Even then, the disputes in Iran appear to be political, there is no civil disorder among the populace. Seriously, other than wishful thinking, what significant insight does that cartoon provide?
If Bashar al-Assad falls, do you think Ayatollah Khamenei will ‘fall’ next? What insights did you gain from that political cartoon that made you want to reproduce it on your website?
Neo writes: Seems to me that original Zionism was much more culturally based than otherwise, and did not necessarily seek to establish an exclusively Jewish state.
You’re wrong. There was/is a ‘cultural’ Zionism, and Ahad Ha’am might be taken as its chief proponent. However it was always a subset of a more militant nationalist project. The Zionists did not stumble into an exclusivist state, nor did they inadvertently make life difficult for the Palestinians and Palestinian agricultural and commercial interests.
If you take Zionism out of the conversation, you will also serve to hide the ideological roots that join American exceptionalism with Israeli exceptionalism, and you will disregard the victory of Jabotinsky Zionism over the cultural Zionism that you erroneously perceive as dominant.
You could start with Shapiro’s “Leadership of the American Zionist Organization 1897-1930″ and Medoff’s “Militant Zionism in America”.
You might read, too, “The Political and Social Philosophy of Ze’ev Jabotinsky”. It is a bit of a hagiography, but that is the current tenor of Jabotinsky appreciation in Israel today.
Kathleen, Agree, Greta revealed an agenda in her prodding comment about Iran.
Steve Clemons was a bit too rah rah liberation & democracy for my tastes, but it was intriguing that he observed that the overthrow of Qaddafi AFTER he surrendered his nukes will likely cause other regimes (hint hint) to remain even more protective of their nuclear capabilities. duh.
Ardeshir and Ellie Omani are on top of Libya: http://www.iranaifc.com/public1.php?id_news=1062
Fio “Iran wants to kill Jews; Iran is a threat to humanity; we must educate our neighbors to realize that Iran is a threat to humanity. That is what I hear discussed among Jewish groups in my region. That is what I hear on NPR, and from numerous talking heads on main stream media. Those are the messages embedded in movies and television. What should I believe about Jewish values if this is what I hear and have experienced directly, Clint? ”
I have heard Rachel Maddow and NPR’s Terri Gross repeat these unsubstantiated and debunked claims many times.
I have heard NPR’s Diane Rehm, Neil Conan, Scott Simon, Robert Siegel, Guy Raz, Chritiane Amanpour, George Stephanpoulous, Wolf Blitzer, Face the Nations Bob Schiefer and many more host of MSM outlets allow guest to repeat these unsubstantiated claims about Iran over and over again.
This morning on a segment about Libya on Washington Journal. Atlantic Monthly’s Steve Clemons had brought up Al Queda’s alleged involvment with the Libyan Rebels (not many discussing this) the host Greta diverted the conversation to Iran inferring Iran was involved. Clemons basically shut her down. Of course Greta the host would not ask if Israel was involved in any way with what was taking place in Libya. She would have been slammed by the I lobby for that question…but not for trying to link Iran to the conflict
Neo,
Einstein had very little to do with the creation of zionism. Scholars trace the first zionist ideation to Judah Halevy, who lived and wrote from Andalusia in the 14th-15th century.
In about 1881, Pinsker observed the emerging nationalisms of the day and articulated that Jews, too, should have a nation.
Zev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky, born and raised in Odessa with little connection to Jewish religion or learning (his biographer, J. Schectman, said Jabotinsky’s “spirit was Italian;” Jabotinsky spent his happiest years in Rome, and was an admirer of the strength and boldness of Mussolini). Jabotinsky is the major ideologue of militant zionism and the Iron Wall doctrine that Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s right wing subscribe to to this day.
Theodor Herzl is said to have been a key player in establishing zionism, and he did write Der Judenstaat and convene the first conferences that set a pattern for Judaism, but the major work of creating the zionist ideology, and culture, was done by Haim Weizman in league with Baron Rothschild; and by German born and educated Jewish lawyer Arthur Ruppin.
In the US, key figures in creating zionism have to include Samuel Untermyer, Louis Brandeis, Bernard Baruch. It’s intriguing to note that these same men were also key players in establishing the central banking system in the US.
Photi,
Re: August 23, 2011 at 12:49 am
You’ll have to ask Nik Kowsar, but I suspect his “Three Dominoes” cartoon is far more concerned with the internal dimension of events in Libya, Syria, and Iran than with Zionism.
Our latest on Israel and Gaza: ,http://www.eaworldview.com/home/2011/8/22/israel-gaza-hamas-analysis-4-lessons-from-the-recent-conflic.html
Rolling news from Syria: ,http://www.eaworldview.com/home/2011/8/23/syria-and-beyond-liveblog-a-un-visit-then-the-shooting-began.html
And Libya: ,http://www.eaworldview.com/home/2011/8/23/libya-liveblog-disappearing-and-re-appearing-qaddafis.html
Best,
S.
Clint,
Respectfully, I suggest that care in using words goes a long way. When Confucius sought to reform corrupted Chinese society, he began by insisting that words, particularly labels such as king and prince, be used appropriately.
Antisemitism has been used carelessly for a long time. At its core, antisemitism means hatred of Jews because of what they are, not because of anything that they do, as individuals or as a group. It is an unfounded hatred, ie. not based on any provocation or grievance or perceived social, economic, or political injustice, but JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWS. (Admittedly, this definition obscures the more generalized use of the term antisemitism, which emerged NOT with Wilhelm Marr’s Der Weg, as is most often argued, mainly by Jews, but in Spain in the 15th century when Muslims and Jews– fellow Semites — were expelled from the land.)
If antisemitism is an uncaused negative perception of Jews as Jews; that is, a reaction that has no prior causal action, then when you wrote, “People are correct that there’s a lot of anti-Semitism in the world. But they fail to note one of the main causes: Zionism,” you knocked the meaning of the term antisemitism on its head. That is, you established a cause for a phenomenon you labelled antisemitism. By stating a cause for the phenomenon, you moved it out of the category of uncaused negative reaction to a person or group of people and into some other category — may I suggest an apprehension of a pattern of behaviors that impact unfavorably on the surrounding community?
I’ve not read all of Mein Kampff, but I’ve read enough to know that Hitler laid out very clearly that he was raised to understand, and he abide by, the intellectual discipline of believing that Jewish persons should not be criticized for their religious beliefs. Renan and Wilhelm Marr tried to find similar space — how to discuss Jews in Germany without derogating their religious heritage. In the era immediately after German victory in the Franco-Prussian war, the German people, flush with victory and visions of the rewards they expected to flow from hard-won unification, were chagrined to observe the negative impacts within German society of a large migration into Germany of Jewish people different from those Jews who had lived among the German people for at least 800 years. Germans perceived that those newly arrived Jews were exploiting German financial, educational, political, and cultural institutions to the detriment and debasement of German citizens and their indigenous cultural values. It is telling that the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 take great pains to exempt from constraints imposed by Nuremberg laws those Jewish persons who were in Germany prior to 1914, etc.; German resentment was not amorphous, or targeted at Jews because of who they were or their heritage; rather, Germans resented the actions of (relatively) newly arrived Jews who attempted to harvest the profits and control of German efforts and institutions.
I daresay most Jews are not aware of these details of history — very many Jews have never read Torah: in 2007, Slate journalist David Plotz blogged his experience of reading Torah for the first time. In my involvement with numerous Jewish community groups since 2006, I am forced to say that most of the Jewish people I have encountered know only as much as the (predominantly) zionist managers of the groups tell them that they know. That boils down to a few key concepts: Jews have ALWAYS been persecuted (which Ivan Marcus thoroughly refutes in “Cultures of the Jews, A New History”); Arabs hate Jews for no reason at all (I heard an 80 year old man scream that at a seminar at an area synagogue several months ago); Iran wants to kill Jews; Iran is a threat to humanity; we must educate our neighbors to realize that Iran is a threat to humanity. That is what I hear discussed among Jewish groups in my region. That is what I hear on NPR, and from numerous talking heads on main stream media. Those are the messages embedded in movies and television. What should I believe about Jewish values if this is what I hear and have experienced directly, Clint?
In addition, as David McCullough argues passionately when he discusses his books on American history, American school students do not learn their own history. In a way, that is understandable; the history of the past 100 years has been subjected to tremendous pressure to obscure the evil acts and actors of American, European, and yes, of Jewish and zionist leaders and decision makers and shapers. American school children, in taxpayer supported public schools, are taught only the narrative of the holocaust that conforms to the guidelines of the US Holocaust Museum, and those guidelines state that “holocaust denial is antisemitism.” Whereas every other intellectual discipline is subject to revision, fact-checking, and falsifying, American school children are required to give assent to one narrative and one narrative only about the holocaust — that version that is controlled by zionists — under pain of government sanction.
That is one of the great tragedies that flows from censoring debate of the holocaust:* it is not permitted to discuss all of the causal factors that eventuated in the terrible loss of life that occurred in Europe between 1914 and 1945. If the causes of those horrendous events are not clearly understood, however can we ensure that they will Never occur Again?
*That’s what is so significant about Congressman Pat Meehan’s act of censoring from his blog the vituperative response to his report that he intended to travel to Israel. The people know that Something is rotten in Denmark; Americans are sniffing the stench after a century of spritzing cheap perfume over some ugly realities. It seems to me that erasing written expressions of outrage will not dissipate the outrage but will only build resentment and anger until the pressure reaches a boiling point. It is very foolish to refuse to confront reality.
“Kathleen,
Did you see the liar-warmonger Stephen Hadley (on July 14th) claiming that Iran had threatened in the past to close the Strait of Hormuz and that Iran might do so in future in effort to injure the American economy? What complete cr*p! Iran’s policy is for the Persian Gulf to be kept open for shipping of all countries, absent war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vLGBZGG20”
Thanks James.
——————————————————————-
This morning on CSpans Washington Journal Atlantic Monthly’s Steve Clemons stated that Al Queda is involved with the Libyan rebels. When will MSM outlets cover this piece of the story? (hope folks go listen to Clemons on Washington Journal this morning) Greta the host diverted the Libyan conversation with Clemons and asked about Iran’s involvement. She strongly inferred that Iran was involved. Clemons shut her down politely by saying that there is no proof that Iran is involved in anyway. Greta sure did not ask about whether Israel was involved in anyway. HMMM
Also which mulitnational oil companies are circling around the Gaddafi regimes carcass?
Only a fool would believe that the LIbyan people will actually benefit from the oil revenues.
Rachel Maddow, Richard Engel celebrating and endlessly covering Libyan rebels carrying weapons in the streets, using them, killing their alleged oppressors…but when it comes to covering peaceful Palestinian protest…TOTAL SILENCE. Just a bit hypocritical.
The so-called ‘independent’ South Sudan is the first-stage of US-Israel plan for the occupation of entire Sudan. Sudan has the largest oil reserves in Africa. Country was third largest producer of oil in Africa before July 9 break-up. 75% of its oil fields are in South Sudan but pipeline transporting oil to refineries and to Port Sudan, on the Red Sea, for export – is still under the control of the anti-Israel Muslim regime in Khartoum.
Sudan and the ‘War Criminals’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/sudan-and-the-war-criminals/
on a lighter note:
Al Abbas Chicken – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8XNrAjh7eo&NR=1
James,
Here’s a difficult question, related to our earlier discussion on inter-state relations: Do you see the relation between Iran and Israel as a ‘zero sum game’?
Clint,
Do you see Zionism today in the same light as its origins? Seems to me that original Zionism was much more culturally based than otherwise, and did not necessarily seek to establish an exclusively Jewish state. Einstein, for example, was a Zionist of this type. From what I gather, he did not agree with the establishment of the state of Israel.
From this perspective, Israel is not really a Zionist state. At least the description is not precise, as it confuses rather than clarifies the situation.
Israel certainly acts more like a colonial (Apartheid) regime with serious warmongering tendencies, rather than a safe haven for Jews. So even the term ‘Zionist’ is a difficult one to use these days.
In my opinion, it would be more productive to discuss Israeli Apartheid and atrocities rather than Jews or even Zionism. Discussing Zionism in order to help the Palestinians is like having soup with a fork: thankless, pointless and unlikely to lead to the desired result.
Discussing Israeli atrocities devoid of pro or anti-Jewish sentiments helps focus attention on the Palestinians.
@Clint says:
August 23, 2011 at 2:06 am
Photi — I am an anti-Zionist Jew: let me try.
I am a Jew, and I know from my religious education that if the Jewish people are to attain the Holy Land
They you go there is no such thing as the Jewish people, there are Palestinians who are the true Semites of the holy land.
James,
Regarding your earlier question on the utility of 20% enriched Uranium, how about enriching for trade purposes? Remember that Iran wanted to swap 5% uranium for 20% through the deal brokered by the UN/Brazil/Turkey, but this was eventually rejected. So Iran went ahead and showed that she can not only produce 20% domestically, she can produce enough to supply it to other countries for their medical purposes too. It is a very strong move.
I see the Iranian enrichment programme as part of a strategic and economic investment, trying to break the monopoly – that is illegally maintained through sheer hypocrisy by some – in this fuel trade sector. Iran knows what it’s like to benefit from selling scarce energy resources, and nuclear fuel is another such commodity. Right now, a handful of countries – far fewer than OPEC membership – have monopolized it. This explains better why China and Russia would want to slow Iran’s enrichment programme. There really is no ‘security’ (military) rationale for their position. No reason for them to fear an Iranian bomb when so many countries have it. In fact, Iran is among the more stable of some nuclear-armed states like Israel & Pakistan.
TEHRAN (ISNA)-An Iranian lawmaker called for foreigners to keep out of formation of Libyan new government.
“We hope a democratic government which builds on popular demands is formed in Libya soon and foreigners stop interference to avoid making new troubles for the new government,” the Rapporteur of Iranian Parliament National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Kazem Jalali told ISNA.
He then referred to developments in Libya and said, “events show that dictatorial leadership which are not based on popular vote are doomed to collapse even if they exploit power or military weapons to remain in power.”
Saif al-Islam, son of Moammar Gadhafi, Libyan dictator leader, who was reported to have been captured by Libyan opposition forces on Sunday, has made a public appearance in Tripoli. He claimed his father is still in Tripoli and that the opposition forces have been captured by Gadhafi’s regime.
Jalali also said operations carried out by foreigners and NATO in Libya led to no success and added, “NATO made efforts to create balance between Gadhafi’s forces and the opposition. It attacked the opposition several times, but failed to succeed and people’s will was the final winner.”
http://www.isna.ir/ISNA/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-1831888&Lang=E
Photi — I am an anti-Zionist Jew: let me try.
People are correct that there’s a lot of anti-Semitism in the world. But they fail to note one of the main causes: Zionism.
Since the early 20th century, Zionists have waged a relentless campaign to equate their political movement with the Jewish religion. They have largely succeeded; in the eyes of many, Zionism and Judaism are one and the same, and opposition to Zionism becomes opposition to Judaism. But that doesn’t change the fact that the two are antithetical.
I am a Jew, and I know from my religious education that if the Jewish people are to attain the Holy Land, it will be through the Messiah, and not with guns. Jews are taught to heal the world (“tikkun olam”), not to displace families, create refugee camps, and practice collective punishment such as that used against Jews in the past.
So long as this confounding of Zionism with Judaism continues, it will sow anti-Semitism.
But, in the end, anti-Semitism serves the Zionist ideology.
Zionists would have no reason to stake out their claim on other people’s land if there were no anti-Semitism in the world. Anti-Semitism is their raison d’etre.
maybe it is just my browser, but it appears as though Rep Meehan has removed all ability to post comments on any story on his blog.
Pirouz Jan
I just saw this on the IRNA’s Persian site, it very much explains how the new way of getting a UNSC resolution against any country works, accordingly it is not that difficult to obtain one, you just need to create (stage) the necessary atmosphere to corner the no vote to accept or at least abstain and is done in stages, according to this article they have already created a new interpolation of the UN’s charter which makes it easier to internationalize an internal affair of a country.
http://www.irna.ir/NewsShow.aspx?NID=30530400
The apparent admiration of the political cartoon found on Scott Lucas’s website at the below link speaks volumes about his own wishes and aspirations (the picture depicts three dominoes, the first with Qadaffi’s picture on it and falling in route to knock over the Assad domino and then then Khamenei’s domino).
Scott, I thought you recognized the Islamic Republic as the legitimate government of Iran?
Reading some of his readers’ comments (Kurt, Ted, American etc) they are terribly misinformed about the reality of Zionism. Case in point:
American:
“Zionism is a secret code word used by anti-semitic people so they can pretend that they’re not anti-semitic. I have never bought it when they said they weren’t anti-semitic. I have read the sick comments at PressTVand they are ridiculous. I almost feel sorry for those idiots who are going to go through life as a brainwashed tool of the terrorist regime in Tehran. Personally I’m sick of hearing about all these ridiculous anti-semitic conspiracy theories. I’m sick of people in the middle east feeling sorry for themselves sitting around all day and thinking “poor me the entire world is out to get me.” It is a loser mentality. They are only victims of their own choices.”
Although I agree there is much self-pity that is counter-productive to Muslim strength, but seriously, who is the brainwashed one?
Scott, maybe you should do an expose on Zionism and its inherent violence and inhumanity to educate some of your readers.
http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/8/21/the-latest-from-iran-21-august-punishing-the-us-hikers.html
kooshy says:
August 22, 2011 at 10:54 pm
My dear friend Kooshy;
Let me explain my own perspective and why I strongly share Eric’s concerns.
But before that: WHERE ON EARTH IS ARNOLD EVANS?? I AM VERY MUCH EAGER TO HEAR WHAT HE HAS TO SAY.
Now as to esplaining my own reasoning:
UN is as relevant to the West’s decision making as US public opinion is: It is a “nice thing to have” but by no means “necessary”.
The most reliable deterrent against imperialistic acts of aggression is a plain and tangible “proof” that military agression results in humiliating defeat, and nothing else can replace this deterrent.
It doesn’t matter what the world (or US) public opinion thinks (unless people are ready to pour into streets and PHYSICALLY take charge of the affairs, ie. a revolution), for as long as the imperialism thinks that it can physically remove an unwanted regime, it will -in all likelihood- do it!
I guess one can argue that the fact that replacing one regime with another may likely result in the new geopolitical balance being even worse for the Imperialism’s interests, “should” deter any rational imperialist power (as it is quite possibly the case in Libya and the it was very much so in Iraq) from a military intervention; EVEN if it thinks that it might succeed.
HOWEVER, even that is not as powerful and effective a deterrent as a military debacle! One should not forget that these are EXTREMELY desparate times for the West, and people in despair don’t act rationally and do very stupid things. However, if there is an undeniable military defeat then there is only a snowball of chance in hell that even the most desparate of imperialist powers would resort to acts of military aggression.
In fact, I believe that in these desparate times, there is a real cause for concern that any appearence of “success” for West’s military adventures -however superficial and unreal those “apparent” military successes might be- will likely result in imperialist powers being encouraged to continue on their path of aggression.
All:
Honorable mention of Iran:
http://freeinternetpress.com/story/Interview-With-Chinas-Vice-Minister-Of-Foreign-Affairs-The-West-Has-Become-Very-Conceited-31485.html
Eric
How confident you are that you can compare US’s international authority in 2003 to US in 2011, let see if you believe that in 2011 US is as storing on the following point as it was in 2001-2003
1-Moral authority ( since in 2011 no longer US can claim to be a victim of terrorism)
2-Domestically since at this point in his presidency Mr. Obama is much weaker president than Mr. Bush was in 2003
3-Economically US is much weaker today than she was in 2003 when still we had the tail end of C’s surplus
4-Internationally there are more voices and players in international seen than it ever was in 2003
5-Etc. etc. etc.
I am not seeing that it can’t be done, yes as we saw they can do the same thing they did with Libya but still with authority of the UNSC, so what they did, in the beginning as you noticed early on they mobilized their media with stories that the Libyan regime is in human rights violation and a threat to her own citizens, then they mobilized the regional organizations and neighbors to condemn the Libyan regime, when that was done it was easier to go to UN and ask for a resolution and not easy for other members to reject it, since if they did they were siding with a violator of human rights and a internationally recognized rouge state who has been rejected by her own kinds, UN’s Ban K. and neighbors ,etc. This is the rule that Turkey Saudi Arabia, Arab League etc. are playing now with regard to Syria, they are to set the condition to make a UNSC resolution possible and make it difficult for the other players to reject a UNSC resolution however mild it might be, what I argue is that it will be done with a UNSC resolution of a kind.
At time for me the sequence of political events in the US are quite puzzling. One is the following:
Why Obama didn’t ask for Congressional Approval for bombing Libya as it is required by the Constitution? Considering the anti-Arab stance of Congress wasn’t the chance of getting a quick Okay very high?
Anyone knows why? Any legal or political reason? Eric?
Rehmat says: August 22, 2011 at 8:10 pm
Do you have an acurate and reliable list of the US Congressman that went to this junket in Israel?
James Canning says: August 22, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Are you daft man?
Ambassador Bremer carried out his orders issued by either DoD or the White House to dissolve the Iraqi Army.
And any way, a largely conscript Shia Army was not going to follow orders of Sunni officers that had slaugthered Shia and carried out a war against co-religionist in Iran.
Kooshy writes:
“[Has] the American establishment … made the decision that the UN is becoming an unwanted burden and is it time to put the final nail on the UN’s coffin or not. I frankly don’t think [the US is] ready yet to subvert the UN ….”
No need to “subvert” the UN if simply ignoring it will do.
James,
You express confidence that the US will not attack a Middle East country without the UNSC’s prior approval.
Didn’t it do precisely that when it invaded Iraq in 2003?
Initially the US argued that UNSC Resolution 1441 (November 2002) was sufficient for a US attack on Iraq without specific authorization from the Security Council. It reluctantly set that argument aside when other UNSC permanent members (including even Great Britain) made clear that they disagreed.
Next, the US dusted off two Security Council resolutions left over from the 1990-1991 Iraq conflict: Resolutions 678 (1990) and 687 (1991), which the US insisted were still effective despite their age and the much different purposes for which they had been adopted. Perhaps because even its usually dependable ally, Great Britain, still had some reservations, the US, along with Great Britain and Spain, drafted a follow-up resolution to 1441 specifically authorizing an attack on Iraq. (You may recall that the three countries’ representatives met in the Azores to hammer out the draft resolution, to avoid the extremely large protests hastily being planned as they were finalizing arrangements for a meeting on the European mainland.)
To this point, I concede, the effort had retained a UN flavor. But once the US learned that its draft resolution would have no chance of being approved (and, therefore, never formally presented the draft resolution), it said goodbye to the Security Council for the time being and concocted a “self-defense” argument not based on any Security Council resolution. It argued that the US had a sovereign right to defend itself against the specific threat to the US posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
Once the US had invaded and conquered Iraq, of course, it returned to the Security Council (in May 2003), professing nothing but deep respect and good will. The recently jilted Security Council, eager to become relevant once again, obligingly passed a broad going-forward resolution for Iraq, and many people quickly forgot that the US/UNSC romance had been on the rocks for the preceding several months. But it had been.
In short, the US not only has invaded and conquered a Middle Eastern country without UNSC approval, but it did so quite recently, in the most high-profile invasion of them all.
There is no question that the US would prefer to get the UNSC’s blessing before attacking another Middle Eastern country. But it had wanted the UNSC’s blessing before it invaded Iraq and, indeed, I’ve just reminded you how hard it tried for that blessing before it finally gave up and went forward without it.
The point remains that it eventually did go forward without it. I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of that happening again.
I guess you know by now that 81 (20%) of American lawmakers took a week-long vacation in Israel and enjoyed Dead Sea, beautiful beaches and of course 280 brothels in Tel Aviv. However, I bet, most of you did not know that Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D. Illinois), son of ’anti-Semite‘ Rev. Jesse Jackson was also among the 26 Democrats who along with 55 fellow Republicans visited Israel.
Jesse Jackson Jr. even wrote a column for Israel daily Jerusalem Post (August 17, 2011) in which he warned Palestinians that if they tried to seek recognition as a state from United Nations next month – the US will “almost certainly use its veto in the UN Security Council, which will insure that Palestinian statehood effort will fail”. Therefore, his advice to the victims of foreign Jews, was to abandon military resistance against the aggressor and adopt non-violent protests (like the Israeli ‘tent protests’).
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/shapiro-%e2%80%98why-only-81-lawmakers-going-to-israel%e2%80%99/
James Canning – Well, if one believe some pro-Israel analysts, they fears (as Qaddafi had said), the new rulers could be anti-Israel Al-Qaeda!!
pirouz_2,
Does anyone know who will be taking power in Libya? Or even if one group will manage to take control?
Eric A. Brill says:
August 22, 2011 at 11:52 am
Eric;
Once again you have shown your astuteness. Despite the fact that I don’t agree with you on the importance of what the American public thinks (I don’t see USA as a democracy), you are very right in being worried that a rebel victory might increase the tendency of imperialism to project military power to do regime change and bring its own stooges to power.
Fio,
Very interesting story you linked. Thanks. And we’ll be watching how this shapes up.
fyi,
You are of course quite right that prior to the invasion of Iraq, the US leaders agreed specifically to keep the Sunni power structure intact after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The idiot Jerry Bremer dissolved the Iraqi army etc., contrary to the agreed plan. But he did so as part of a neocon scheme intended to garner great wealth for an inner circle of the conspirators who set up the war.
Evidence undermines Israeli gov’t claim that Eilat attackers were Gazans by Yossi Gurvitz on August 22, 2011
Rachid — word is leaking out that Israel has no evidence to support its declaration* that bombings in Eilat were carried out by people from Gaza.
*it was never stated as an “allegation;” Israel killed innocent Gazans, including a physician and his two-year old child, and also killed Egyptians, to avenge the attacks. Israel grants itself the right to function extrajudicially. It’s a “special” kind of democracy.
fyi,
Actually, the neocons wanted to destroy the Sunni power structure and they deluded themselves into thinking a government controlled by the Shia would be an ally of Israel against Iran. The conspiracy to set up the illegal invasion of Iraq centered in the special office in the Pentagon (Office of Special Plans) run primarily by Jews with close ties to Israel. And this office worked closely with a Shia exile group.
didn’t Congressman Dennis Kucinich file a lawsuit challenging the Constitutionality of Obama’s decision to involve US in war on Libya?
What happened to the lawsuit?
:http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rep-dennis-kucinich-wonders-whether-obamas-participation-in-libyan-missile-attacks-is-impeachable/attachment/picture-1-766/
kooshy,
I agree with you Obama is unlikely to support any military adventure that lacks approval from UNSC. Very unlikely.
ehud barak prove his violent barbaric intention with beheadings.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/147037
“Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Sunday that for whoever operates against Israel, “the chances are very high that his head will be separated from his body.”
Oh yeah israel is such a beacon for humanity.
A Challenge
===========
Read the following report by NY TIMES on the mass graves discovered in Kashmir and see if you find any hint that the mass graves of some 2000 victims were all located in Indian administered part of Kashmir.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/world/asia/23kashmir.html
What you will notice is that systematic lawless killings and disappearances do not
fuel insurgencies, but Pakistan is whole other matter.
“Tens of thousands of people died in the insurgency, which began in 1989 and was partly fueled by training, weapons and cash from Pakistan.”
At the risk of appearing dense, even in an insurgency which NY Times wishes to solely blame Pakistan for, I cannot fathom the need for mass graves.
The BBC report below offers a good contrast:
“The potent issue of missing people in Indian-administered Kashmir has sparked many demonstrations over the years.
After an official commission in Indian-administered Kashmir said it has evidence that more than 2,000 unidentified bodies have been buried in unmarked graves, the BBC’s Jill McGivering assesses what may happen next.”
:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14617938
Sorry for the typo on last sentence of my last post, I should read “ for a weak presidency……..”
Eric A. Brill says:
August 22, 2011 at 11:52 am
Eric- if I understood your argument correctly, basically, based on this Libyan adventure you think they now have an acceptable justification for the domestic audience, for going it alone or with another collation of the willing. Based on a cost benefit result for the domestic audience I agree that your argument makes senses and can work.
On the other and in another dimension with is on the international seen their argument will not effectively work specially since Mr. Obama constantly emphasized on Legality and Multi literalism on international decisions and especially since Syria is not a peace threat to any other country.
At the end what this will eventually entail is, do the American establishment has made the decision that the UN is becoming an un wanted burden and is it time to put the final nail on the UN’s coffin or not. I frankly don’t think they are ready yet to subvert the UN again on a non-direct threat especially for a week presidency Mr. Obama currently has.
James Canning says: August 22, 2011 at 1:38 pm
I am certain that the American leaders and planners were counting on maintaining teh Sunni power structure.
But thanks to the way God worked through Shia of Iraq – thoroughly disllusioned with Arab National Socialism – and the Marjaiyah, and Mr. Sistani (an Iranian) that plan did not work.
The key is US planner and leaders.
Kathleen,
Did you see the liar-warmonger Stephen Hadley (on July 14th) claiming that Iran had threatened in the past to close the Strait of Hormuz and that Iran might do so in future in effort to injure the American economy? What complete cr*p! Iran’s policy is for the Persian Gulf to be kept open for shipping of all countries, absent war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vLGBZGG20
fyi,
And yes, a lack of intelligence and education seems to have played a large role in Saddam’s blunders, including his foolish attack on Iran and his failure to agree to leave Kuwait, and his utterly stupid failure to tell the world he had destroyed his WMD in the 1990s.
fyi,
Any coherent Grand Strategy would have called for retaining the Sunni power structure in Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
My understanding is that the conspiracy to set up the illegal invasion of Iraq was outgrowth of concerns for property values in Tel Aviv, that were under pressure from the suicide bombings that Saddam was encouraging (by means of $25,000 payments to the families of the suicide bombers).
James Canning says: August 22, 2011 at 1:20 pm
Excepting the Alawites, Arab leaders have been stupid and foolish; no doubt.
They mistook – like many Middle Eastern people – being cunning with being smart.
If the late Mr. Hussien were smart, he would not have invaded Iran.
And Iraq was not contained; sanction were eroding and other states were pestering US as to what her plans were for Iraq.
So US was under pressure to do something about Iraq.
The US leaders opted for the revolutioanry change choice; consistent with their grand strategy.
fyi,
And, of course, Iraq was compeletely “contained”, without any invasion in 2003.
fyi,
Saddam Hussein could have avoided the 2003 US/UK invasion of Iraq. It took a great deal of stupidity on his part to enable the warmongers to proceed with their conspiracy to set up the illegal invasion.
James Canning says: August 22, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Why did Mr. G.H.W. Bush single out Kosovo and Yugoslavia?
Was he a bleeding heart for the plight of Muslims who went there together with the late Il Duce armies?
Or was he setting the stage for overthrow of the Yugoslav state?
I have pointed you out to numrous freely available Internet sites that have discussed this.
The second Iraq War – a.k.a. the Desert Storm – was led by US and set the stage for carrying out the destruction of the Ba’athis state later.
There is no other way than this to explain teh Dual Containment policy.
fyi,
George H W Bush did not concoct a scheme for the collapse of Yugoslavia. I really am curious to know what leads you to think this in fact happened. Why would the US favor the continuation of the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, but want to cause the dissolution of Yugoslavia?
fyi,
Was the Gulf War in 1991 a war by “the Axis Powers”? Saddam Hussein could have avoided the war merely by agreeing to withdraw from Kuwait.
fyi,
Yes, the “reality” of Iranian enrichment was to a fair degree created by American stupidity, at least as to enriching to 20%. And do we see stories in the Washington Post about how stupid the US was regarding the refueling of the Tehran reactor?
Kathleen,
Thanks. And yes, the conspiracy to set up an illegal invasion of Iraq was carried forward with crucial assistance from Stephen Hadley (and, of course, the Washington Post itself).
Eric,
Perhaps we should see Hillary Clinton as a mouthpiece or stooge of powerful interests reaping enormous financial benefit from idiotic “defence” spending by the US.
Eric A. Brill says: August 22, 2011 at 11:52 am
US bribed some of Qaddafi’s generals, used Special Forces (hundreds of them), and air power to destroy Mr. Qaddafi’s government.
Clealry, there were common elements with the war to destory Ba’athist Iraq.
Since there are no occupation forces from US, I expect the Libyans to start fighting among themselves.
The moment for intervention in Syria is past.
The Alawite state may still fracture but I expect there are non-Alawites in Syria that will work with the remnants of the Alawite state to prevent the emergence of a Sunni Fundamentalist state in which the envious lower class Sunni Muslims could give full reign to their fantasies (in an analogous manner to what happened in Iran.)
The irony would be that Iranians would support such a settlement.
Off-topic (Libya):
Though NATO’S stretching of Resolution 1973 may make it difficult for the US to secure the UNSC’s blessing of future military adventures in the Middle East, there is a countervailing force to be concerned about, reflected in this reader’s comment to an article in today’s New York Times:
“We can all be thankful for the approach President Obama has taken with both Egypt and Libya. It demonstrates how limited exposure can bring about the desired results. This process has had low human costs, low economic costs, limited destruction to infrastructure, efficiently completed and with greater support from other nations … almost no U.S. ‘Boots on the ground’.”
Not surprisingly, the Times chose to “highlight” this comment.
While the US may find it more difficult to secure the “cover” of a UNSC resolution for future interventions in the Middle East (already evident, as Kooshy pointed out, in the UNSC’s rejection of the US’ proposed resolution on Syria), the US government may justify the economic cost to grumpy taxpayers by pointing out that it didn’t cost all that much in Libya, and it may swap in a new moral justification by pointing to the apparent success of US efforts in Libya (too early to tell, of course, but the beneficial result undoubtedly will be treated in the Western press as conclusively established unless and until the opposite has been conclusively proven).
While some might insist that these arguments cannot overcome Americans’ apparently increasing distaste for foreign wars, one cannot help noticing that Hillary Clinton recently has been anything but reluctant to tout the wisdom – indeed, the moral imperative – of projecting US power abroad. In a speech delivered about a week ago, she described American power as a strong force for good in the world, and referred to the US budget document currently being debated in Congress as a “statement about American values.” Though she danced around a bit in her rhetoric, her nonetheless clear message was that Congress will show itself to be an immoral lot indeed if it opposes a very large allocation of taxpayer dollars to those branches of the US government charged with the moral duty of spreading American goodness around the world.
Elsinore – Here is an Israeli Jew, defining Jewish identity.
“I don’t write about politics. I write about ethics. I write about identity. I write a lot about the Jewish Question – because I was born in the Jew-land, and my whole process in maturing into an adult was involved in the realization that my people are living on stolen land.”
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/gilad-atzmon-proud-to-be-a-self-hating-jew/
Kathleen – don’t get fooled by the warmongers on the ‘anti-war’ side of the fence.
“The UN allies now rolling back Qaddafi are doing a good thing, whatever you think of some of their individual leaders,” Juan Cole, The Nation, March 28, 2011
Is there any reason that Cole will not insert Ahmadinejad for Qaddafi in the future?
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/libya-obamas-600-millionweek-turd-sandwich/
Hope folks will take the time to contact MSM outlets and demand that they bring sensible and factual experts to speak about the situation with Iran..like the Leveretts, Prof Cole instead of allowing David Ignatius, Lt Col Nagl and others to repeat unsubstantiated claims about Iran on MSM outlets
James Canning thanks for the alert on the Hadley propaganda. Amazing to watch where the Iraq warmongers are popping up. Hadley was responsible for putting those 16 words back in Bush’s speech.
Counterterrosim expert Richard Clarke stated that both Hadley and Rice ignored his efforts to warn them directly about Al Queda OBL threats. Clarke stated that they refused to meet with him directly during the Clinton/Bush administrations transitions. Also once they were in power also.
David Ignatius was on the Diane Rehm show on Friday and on MSNBC’s Morning Joe today (monday) directing the conversation about Syria to BAD BAD Iran. No one no one challenges.
On CSPans Washington Journal on Sunday “8:30am – Lt. Col. John Nagl, Center for a New American Security, President” repeated that Iran is “pursuing nuclear weapons” several times during his 45 minutes. The host just let him repeat these unsubstantiated claims. No challenges.
But mention Israel’s destructive actions on Washinton Journal and the host interrput, challenge etc. But not about unsubstantiated claims about Iran.
Hope folks go listen to Lt Col John Nagl over at Washington Journal
The Leveretts:
The enrichment issue is teh outward gauge of the regime-change policy of Axis Powers.
Should the Axis Powers relent on the enrichment issue, it would indicate, in my opinion, that their grand strategy calling for the destruction of independent Iranian power has been revised.
We shall see when thant happens – clearly US planners are still unwilling to deal with a relaity that they themselves helped create.
Neo says: August 22, 2011 at 10:08 am
The real issue is that they have cast serious doubt on the loyalty of Jews to the state of their birth.
They have harmed Jews everywhere.
For if the State of Israel is the true homeland of Jews, then it follows that Jews have divided loyalties (at best) and no loyalty at all (at worst) to their country of birth.
So, the Jew, is once again under suspcicion.
Already in US and UK people are psoing teh question: Are you a Jew or are you and American (Englishman).
hans says: August 22, 2011 at 10:03 am
You are dreaming; Mr. Qaddafi, as they say in America, was all “hat” and no Cowboy.
There will be no guerrila war in that country.
Just political chaos.
Elsinore,
Thanks for the link. He is talking about gas chambers, not the holocaust per se.
There is obviously a big difference between 300,000 and 6 million. But 300,000 murdered Jews plus the fact that the country was nearly wiped clean of them is more than enough ‘evidence’ that Jews were targeted and ethnically cleansed, wouldn’t you agree?
The real issue to concentrate on, from my perspective, is the fact that they have exacted similar punishment on the Palestinians.
@fyi says:
August 22, 2011 at 9:40 am
Mr. Qaddafi did not have an army worth a dman.
maybe not in a conventional sense, however Libya and Yugoslavia/Serbia have had military cooperation for many years. Libya’s army is geared for guerilla warfare and inner city skirmishes. Watch as this episode drags on, sorry for the people of Libya this is unwarranted murder by NATO that includes me as in democracy nobody can say i am not involved, we are!
hans says: August 22, 2011 at 2:11 am
Mr. Qaddafi did not have an army worth a dman.
Not so Iran.
Also, Iranian have been studying the Axis Powers war against Yugoslavia, Iraq in 1991 and Iraq in 2003 and the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Lebanon, and Gaza.
They are as prepared as they can be.
Neo says: August 22, 2011 at 5:08 am
Yugoslavia was an independent minded state in Eastern Europe that could not be left as it was. It could potentially side with this or that super-power aspirant; it have to be eliminated. So, in its place, are a number of small states with no strategic depth that could easily be dominated by the Western Alliance.
The US planners were projecting trends over decades.
Neo, re Jews vs zionists vs Israelis and being uncomfortable –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6C9BuXe2RM
“he can call me anything he wants, that doesn’t change anything. What is important is, What is the truth? What are the facts?”
isn’t that a surprise, Jeff Feltman is the State Department’s media presence explaining the many success of the Libyan rebellion but cautioning that much more remains to be accomplished.
must be that US and Europe have not stolen ALL Libya’s gold and assets yet.
@masoud says:
August 22, 2011 at 4:52 am
Once Ghadaffi is out of the way, I expect Islamists and tribal groups will wage a campaign of terror against US collaborators. Ordinary people will pay a huge price.
Especially the women of Libya!
fyi says: August 21, 2011 at 1:39 pm
fyi,
I agree with you that ‘Jews’ are too easily blamed. In fact, I am quite uncomfortable discussing ‘Jews’ rather than Zionists or Israelis. The latter do not represent Jews as a people, in my view.
However, you say:
“After the end of the Cold War, US leaders were left with a question of what to do with the enormous US power…they hit upon the idea of preventing any other super-power to emerge….The first to go was Yugoslavia; the next was North Korea, then Iraq, and Iran.”
What is the link between the countries listed and the idea of ‘preventing’ a new ‘super-power’ from emerging? None of these countries had or have the slightest chance of becoming a ‘super-power’. So why should the US gun for them rather than the real super-power potentials like Germany, China, Russia, India, Brazil, even Indonesia, etc? It does not seem like much of a grand strategy to target weak players, and to run into bankruptcy in doing do.
Does anybody know if they got Saif Al-Islam? I suspect it might be war propaganda to weaken loyalist resolve.
To be frank, I don’t know what to believe about Lybia anymore. The rebels seem to have made an incredible amount of progress in the past week. I wonder if this might be due to an increase in actual western troops on the ground. More interesting would be the prospect that this represents some kind of sea change in the strategy of loyalist forces, e.g. allow the enemy to advance, then cut off their supply lines and engage them in urban combat inside the larger cities. All things considered though, I think it is more likely a case of the former than the latter.
WRT Lybia, I suspect Tripoli today is more or less analogous to Baghdad in March 2003. They are on the verge of overthrowing the ancien Regime, but the local handpicked puppets will have their work cut out for them in exerting control. Once Ghadaffi is out of the way, I expect Islamists and tribal groups will wage a campaign of terror against US collaborators. Ordinary people will pay a huge price.
fyi,
to be fair it is a bit cryptic: “..an intent to agitate and create publicity regarding international policies on Iran.”
Were they trying to — somehow in some dumb way — draw attention to how Iran is being treated badly by the UNSC/US/UK?
I don’t know how to interpret the cable….any ideas?
@khurshid says:
August 21, 2011 at 7:16 pm
ask yourself why the AU peace initiative that would involve free and fair elections under the UN mandate was rejected by NATO and the US state dept. I think Iran has made a huge mistake taking the side of the “rebels”, this so called Islamic awakening which is being promoted by the SL is hogwash, ask any women in Libya if they would like that. The full force of a neoliberal onslaught will now unfold onto the Libyan people. Wait you are next Iran!
Clint says: August 22, 2011 at 12:34 am
I have come to the conclusion that they were almost certainly duped by Israeli agents to take risks on behalf of the Jewish Homeland (“Remember the Shoah! Do it for Anne Franck, etc.)
The handler of the Jewish Iranians that were tried in Shiraz for expionage a decade agao was also a Jew who fled to Israel.
The men were lucky in that the Iranian authorities are treating them on basis of their professed nationality – American – and not on the basis of the clap-trap of “Israel being the country of every Jew in the world.”
[They most likely have Israeli Citizenship as well.]
For if that were the case, Iranain authorities could have treated them as spies from Israel and they would have faced even stiffer charges.
Evidently, the hikers were forewarned not to go on their sunday stroll on the Iraq-Iran border:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/iraq-war-logs.html#report/D2430687-FCE7-C5BB-ED19F523FE225046
“S2 ASSESSMENT: The lack of coordination on the part of these hikers, particularly after being forewarned, indicates an intent to agitate and create publicity regarding international policies on Iran.”
FOREWARNED?
It appears the third phase of the Libyan civil war may be concluding. Interesting to see if a fourth phase of warfare emerges and/or an Islamic Republic develops.
fyi
“The last Arab state to experience revolution will be Saudi Arabia.”
Interesting you mention this. Other people i know have made the same analysis.
khurshid says: August 21, 2011 at 9:49 pm
Americans sent their special forces to destroy the Qaddafi government.
Mr. Qaddafi apparently never put in place a real military force; I suppose for fear that it might depose him (the same fear that has caused Saudi Arabai to have no military worth a damn.)
That is not the case in Algeria.
Axis Powers states cannot intervene there since the Sunni Fundamentalists that will take power there are not going to be US-EU friends.
The last Arab state to experience revolution will be Saudi Arabia.
fyi
that’s a good one. Why do you say Algeria? I mean it was relatively quite throughout Arab spring. Is it because it is neighbouring Libya? Would you say Libya is about to have a contagious effect on Algeria?
I think Algeria will be a tougher challenge than Libya. Algerian military regime is backed by US and west especially France. So there will be no Libya style NETO attack on Algeria.
khurshid says: August 21, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Algeria
Jewish soldiers killed five Egyptian security personnel. Benji Netanyahu refuses to apologize for the ‘mistake’. Cairo recalls its ambassador from Tel Aviv. The New York Times (August 18, 2011) blames post-Mubarak military regime for turning the “northern Sanai Pennisula into a lawless and a softer line towards Iran and Hamas – has frayed ties with Israel“.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/lobby-egypt-is-turning-anti-israel/
khurshid – Man you must be dreaming like pro-Israel Al-Jazeera English. Those Zionist funded rebels have already been holed inside Benghazi.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/al-jazeera-pro-israel-arab-network/
With the collapse of tripoli to rebels, capture of Gaddifi is matter of time only. Which arab regime will collapse next? is it syria? or Yemen? or perhaps saudi regime.
what does the collapse of gaddafi regime mean for libya and middle east? Will libya be a domocracy ? – i doubt it. Will the rebel factions begin infighting? Will all the arms and weapons in rebels hand be handed in an orderly fashion? or will these arms be used to create law-less-ness in libya?
how will post gaddafi period shape US middle east policy? How will post gaddafi era shape Saudi ME policy? Will saudi regime try to impose a salafi regime, with their extreme interpretation of Islam, on Libya? (I think this option is more likely).
what do you think?
James Canning says: August 21, 2011 at 6:56 pm
I estimate, by the comment you just made regarding N. Korea and Mr. Clinton that you were either born after 1994 or else were a child at that time.
I suggest you read newpapers from that time; Mr. Clinton was hell bent on attacking North Korea.
James Canning says:
August 21, 2011 at 6:45 pm
you mean he should have acted like Assad? so to get the same response? Assad would have had the same eventuality, had it not been for the Libya’s mission. the Assad regime seemingly killed more than Ghaddafi’s prior to the Nato involvement. why not yet any new mission in Syria based on your PR argument? the west showed the number killed almost 10 times more than the actual number in the case of Libya. it is obvious that small incident wasn’t the major cause of the Nato intervention.
For Libya, the fortunate time has just arisen. the rest will be history.
there is one thing in common between Arabs (Arab leaders and the educated ones) and their green Iranian counterparts, i.e. they are both gullible in the west’s perspective. they can be easily shaped whenever the west wishes to.
fyi,
What do you mean by saying Bill Clinton would have attacked NK? Why would he have done so?
Surely the NK government gets credit for being incompetent almost beyond belief, in economic matters.
fyi,
Yes, Koreans see themselves as being Korean, and we can expect reunification somewhere down the line. SK in fact not all that eager to take on the burden just now.
Would Iran benefit from possessing the Persian-speaking part of Aghanistan?
A more competent government in East Germany might have succeeded in creating a state that was viable without Soviet military support.
kooshy,
One does wonder why the hikers would choose such a potentially perilous location to do their hiking.
Persian Gulf,
Gaddafi might have avoided “western” military intervention in Libya if he had not gone on TV to rant about “exterminating cockroaches”. Gigantic blunder in the PR dept.
okie farmer,
Yes, China has excellent business opportunities in Iran thanks to the sanctions. Germany’s loss is China’s gain. Ditto Italy, Switzerland, etc. Iran would prefer to buy European or American oilfield equipment etc.
Russia and China both do not want an Iran armed with nuclear weapons. Both say that in their view, the sanctions will not “work”.
Clint:
“Why do Russians and Chinese keep going along with UN sanctions?? Anyone have an answer?? What quid-pro-quo did they get from US or UK?”
Russians and Chinese are playing the US in a blatant game of “Sounds good to me!” then going their merry way making every kind of deal with the Iranians they wish. China is Iran’s biggest oil customer, and is still pursuing huge infrastructure projects on gas. In other words, the Russians and Chinese are laughing at us.
can somebody update us regarding the development in Libya? sounds like Ghaddafi is losing the war, or it’s just the media hype. I read the rebels are better equipped, how come?
was the soon to be the demise of Ghaddafi the main reason Obama declared Assad must go?
if that is the case, it once again confirms the basic idea of Iran going for the nuclear bomb. As “fyi” rightly says it’s just the matter of opportunity, and nothing else, for the Axis power to destroy Iran. Iran’s leaders would be fool, after seeing all these evidences, not to make the bomb. and somebody should seriously ask them: what the hell were you doing over the past 2 decades with all those money spent on the nuclear program that you haven’t made that cloud yet?
I just watched Fox’s second part of their interview with Ron Paul (from last thread). I can go with Paul easily on foreign policy and even on doing away with the Federal Reserve, but his ideas beyond that are economic faith based nonsense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=LkqCImPST3E
Still, I believe Eric Brill is right, he’s the only viable wake-up call we’re likely to have a chance to vote for. I’m changing my registration to be ready for the primary. I think Paul could do a lot of damage to Repubs chances in 2012, and I think he is OK with that – he nearly says as much. He didn’t quite say that Perry’s entering the race splits the tea people and increases Romney’s chances of getting the nomination – he thinks it helps himself. Maybe it does. Its going to be an interesting race. And election.
Rehmat
For those familiar with the Kurdish area in between the Iranian, Turks and Iraqi territories is clear as daylight that no one dares to go for casual hiking in these areas which is heavily watched by the Iranian, Turks, Iraqi and Kurds, as well as American and the European operatives, do the Americans want to continue to claim that their intelligent operatives in the Area were not aware that 3 American Tourist including one young female entered the area and checked in a hotel for a few days without their knowledge, that’s hard to believe for anyone and everyone involved.
Everyone in the world knows in this Kurdish area there is an ongoing sixty years insurgency against all sides concerned which includes Turkey, Iraq and the Iran, regular Iranians hikers do not go for hiking in Kurdistan never less being a foreigner and without a guide, there is no doubt that they knew where they are going and why there where there, since at last two them spoke Arabic. Trying to hide the facts from the Iranian intelligence, and hiding behind a stupid childish cover story that we were simply there for sightseeing is the sheer stupidity of the American intelligence, I am ready to beat that Iranian intelligence was informed by the Kurds as soon as they had arrived in the Iraqi territory and most probably they were handed to Iranian security by their own supposed to be guides basically three American operatives to observe and possibly setup communication channels were traded off.
Iran sentences two US Jewish spies
Do you think a Jewish spy would have received such inhuman treatment in United States!
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/iran-sentences-two-us-jewish-spies/
Israel’s Periphery Doctrine, and the way it was scrambled by Khomeini and the Revolution, forced Israel to re-strategize: Ronen Bergman (“The Thirty Years’ War”) and Haggai Ram (“Iranophobia”) both discuss how Israel felt lost without its deep penetration into Iranian financial, government, and military affairs. It was a dispossession Israel has not been able to recover from. Israel ramped up its relationship with the US — it is not a coincidence that the inception of holocaustmania in the US occurred during Jimmy Carter’s presidency, and the US holocaust museum was begun shortly thereafter.
Fiorangela says: August 21, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Yes. Sad but true;
Did you notice the statement: “…once Irsq and North Korea are settled..” in connection with Iran?
James Canning: August 21, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Germans on both sides of the Iron Curtain thought of themselves as Germans; by virture of shared blood. Koreans think the same way. That was the basis of unifications.
For Iran’s part, she should assert her rights over Aran, Naxchevan, Baluchistan, Bahrain, Oman, and Afghanistan.
James Canning says: August 21, 2011 at 2:28 pm
I do not excuse the North Korean leaders.
But history has proven them correct in devoting so much of their resources to defense; for without that military spending, Mr. Clinton would have attacked them in 1993 or 1994.
The late Mr. Saddam Hussein misunderstood US Grand Strategy and bought into the sophomoric (Poli. Sci. 201) of the US goal being balance of power in the Persian Gulf. He was, of course, fooled into thinking that US had wanted to maintain balance of power in the Persian Gulf.
That was not the case. US was out to destory both Iran & Iraq as independent centers of national power. Iranians had understood that early one but they could not take the political step necessary to thwart it, which was the reconciliation with the Ba’athist Iraq.
Once US destoryed the Ba’athist Iraq, Iranians moved in and made sure that the Shia came on top in Iraq. By the time they helped accomplish that, US had been chek-mated in Iraq and the war on Iran was put on hold by the US planners until the next opportune time – a la Libya.
The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century is a 2004 book by Thomas Barnett based around an earlier article he wrote for Esquire magazine. It outlines a new grand strategy for American foreign policy. It is an iteration of a PowerPoint presentation that Barnett has been making for years that is known simply as “The Brief.” Interested parties include the public and private sectors, encompassing military organizations and foreign governments.”
fyi,
Germany had a majority of Roman Catholics, prior to reunification with East Germany.
What principle from 1648 would apply to that situation?
fyi,
I did not like the idea of an independent Kosovo, and you are quite right that many other territories etc. could demand “independence” on basis employed by Kosovo. Where there was a strategy of driving out the Serbs, that went on for years.
pirouz_2,
Didn’t Hong Kong rise to a position of great wealth, while being a part of the British Empire?
I agree that the great wealth of Singapore can be attributed in part to its separating itself from Malaysia, and being independent. That separation worked to the advantage of both countries.
Egypt was richer back in the days of King Farouk.
James Canning says: August 21, 2011 at 2:41 pm
You either accept the principles of Peace of Westphalia or you do not.
Kerla, in India, is 90% Christian.
Should it be an independent state?
And if Kosovo could be independent, why not Daghestan? Or Chehniya? or Tartarstan? Or Tibet? Or Sikhim?
James Canning says: August 21, 2011 at 2:24 pm
The 57 Muslim states do not include the single country that now speaks for Islam: the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The shelf-life of Saudi vision is expired – it could have made a difference in 1997 but not now.
And the American people know their best interests: they have voted pro-Israel politicians without fail over 3 generations.
Rich powerful and foolish people will be humbled, no doubt.
fyi,
Serbia probably will be joining the EU within the next ten years. And isn’t the population of Kosovo about 90% Muslim these days? Would taking back Kosovo be a good idea, even if it were possible?
James Canning says: August 21, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Kosovo will always be a part of Serbia.
The Axis Powers forced her separation.
Once the power of the Axis States ebb, Serbs will march back in.
And Mulsims will flee to Albania – together with their criminal entrprises.
fyi,
Regarding North Korea, is it not the gross incompetence of the government of that country, that has caused its economy to be a mere 2% or 3% the size of the South Korean economy? The damage on the North Korean economy is inflicted by its grossly incompetent leaders.
fyi,
With 57 Muslim countries agreeing to accept Israel within its pre-1967 borders, the tragic mistake being made by so many rich and powerful American Jews, is making this resolution more difficult. Because they think they can manipulate the press, and American public opinion, to ensure continuing US support for Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. No matter how much damage this foolish “support” inflicts on the national interests of the American people.
fyi,
I continue to be mystified about your thinking on the dissolution of Yuroslavia. Do you think Serbia should have been allowed to keep Kosovo, no matter what means were employed?
fyi,
I welcome close cooperation between the EU and Russia, and between Nato and Russia.
And I have said many times that Russia’s position on various isses regarding the Middle East, in more sensible and more in the national interest of the American people, than the foreign policy put out by Washington.
James Canning says: August 21, 2011 at 1:55 pm
You are beginning to see the light.
I also think that you are betraying and economist’s prejudice: you think – it seems to me – that economic consideration pre-dominate. Not so.
Russia, over the last 200 years, has never been a great economic power.
But she was always involved in the history of Europe.
That teaches to me that the effort to limit or eliminate her participation in European politics will always fail – and are misguided.
In regards to US & EU – yes. The destruction of Yugoslavia was their aim. Why else would Mr. G.H.W. Bush, before leaving the Presidency of the United States, issued a threat to rump Yugoslavia about Kosovo? Why was Kosovo so important to US? I tell you why: it was another excuse to start a war – just like Iran’s nuclear file.
That the US strategists have ill-served the United States is an opinion that I share – but I also note that these self-inflicted wounds – through teh Acts of the Almighty – have served the national interests of Iran.
As for Jews in US; these are people who, in support of the Fantasy Jewish Project in Palestine – are gradually and stedaily making Jews and Judaism the enemies of Islam.
May God forgive them for their sins against Religion.
fyi,
Are you in effect arguing that American warmongers arranged with Britain and France, for them to attack Libya so the US would be drawn into an effort to overthrow the Gaddafi government?
A more intelligent, and stronger, US president, after “9/11″, might not have fallen for the gigantic scam perpetrated by the neocons.
fyi,
Germany alone has an economy twide the size of Russia’s. The US could rest comfortably, knowing that Germany alone can ensure stability in Eastern Europe, provided it has backing from the rest of Nato. No need exists for the US to spend $1 trillion per year on “defence”.
fyi,
With the end of the Cold War, of course the Penatagon wanted a propagandist like Khalilizad to promote new mission, with the idea being to continue to screw the American taxpayers for the huge unnecessary expenses the new mission would bring.
You seem to wish to forget that the president of the US opposed any invasion of Iraq, after “9/11″. It took a sustained campaign of deception, reaching into the White House, to set up the illegal invasion of Iraq.
I think you are nearly delusional to believe the US wanted to see Yugoslavia destroyed or dismembered. Do you think the American government wanted Dubrovnik to be wrecked? Or for Serbs to slaughter Croats? Etc etc etc?
Yes, Iran was seen by the US as a bulwark against Soviet penetration into the Gulf oilfields.
The reason that so many of the rich and powerful Jews, involved in manipulating and controlling the media in the US, are often so hostile toward Iran, is simply because Iran is interfering with Israel’s effort to crush the national spirit of the Palestinians.
James Canning says: August 21, 2011 at 1:10 pm
You do not read what I have written carefully.
During the Cold War, US needed local (regional) stalwarts to support her struggles against USSR. One such stalwart was Monarchical Iran, the other was the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
After the end of the Cold War, US leaders were left with a question of what to do with the enormous US power.
Rather than directing that enormous power to the cultivation of global and local peace interests – the only viable basis of enduring peace – they hit upon the idea of preventing any other super-power to emerge.
Dr. Khalilzad – a nominal Sunni Muslim – was involved at US Department of Defense in formulating this new US Grand Strategy. In order to guarantee the success of the aim of the Grand Strategy, independent local stalwarts had to be eliminated. The first to go was Yugoslavia; the next was North Korea, then Iraq, and Iran.
But the North Koreans learnt their lesson and moved their troops south and took Seoul hostage. US & EU went on their campaign to destroy Yugoslavia. While they were busy there, US put in place the policy of Dual Containment on Iran and Iraq. The aim was to constrict these 2 states until the opportune time to destroy them as independent local powers.
That opportunity presented itself in 2001 after the Sunni extremists attacked US in retaliation for her policies in Palestine and in Lebanon.
The first aim was destruction of Iraq followed by Libya, Syria, and eventually Iran.
The formulators of this Grand Strategy had stated – publicly – that they had 20 years (from 1991) to complete it.
Note that there were ancillary efforts at the same in destabilizing or weakening the Russian Federation – again through using the Sunni extremists funded by Saudi Arabia and perhaps Qatar and Kuwait
We are in 2011 and post-Cold War US Grand Strategy’s application was successful in destroying Yugoslavia but at the cost of an explosive Bosnia-Hercegovina and a cesspool of criminality called Kosovo.
In Iraq, the post-Cold War US Grand Strategy resulted in the enhancement of the Iran in particular and the achievement of the millennial Shia project of gaining political power in Mesopotamia; i.e. the new Iraq.
And on the Korean peninsula, the nuclear armed North Korea has moved beyond the possibility of regime change at acceptable costs.
It seems clear to me that the post-Cold War US Grand Strategy does not have much to show for itself after all the expenses are paid out. And it has to account for the rise of China while US was fighting “bush” fire wars in the most sensitive area of the world – the energy-rich Middle East.
I say that the time has come to discard this grand strategy in favor of something that is still achievable; namely the construction of Peace Interest. I am not sure that US leaders of capable of doing so, however.
Photi, hmmm. even this linked worked only every other time.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:J-cVtm5Ph1QJ:www.meehanforcongress.com/traveling-to-israel+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&source=encrypted.google.com
if the link has been scrubbed, I have a copy of the entire doc in an offline file.
fyi,
The neocon Grand Strategy includes, as a core principle: deceive the American people, day in and day out, regarding the reasons the US is hated by so many people in the Middle East. Just the other day in the Washington Post, Stephen Hadley was lying to the Post’s readers, by trying to conceal the fact the “9/11″ attacks were the direct result of Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, and American support for Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, plus the grossly foolish US decision to keep permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War.
From what I understand, Hadley helped the neocons in the Pentagon to dupe Condoleezza Rice and George W. Bush, with the false intelligence (generated by the Office of Special Plans). To set up illegal invasion of Iraq. To “benefit” Israel.
fyi,
You love the notion of a Grand Strategy, even if one does not exist. Yes, the neocons have something of a Grand Strategy. However, how do you explain their utter stupidity in destroying the Sunni power structure in Iraq?
How do you explain Amerca’s encouragement of a powerful Iran, back in the 1970s, if there was a Grand Strategy for Iran not to be “allowed” to be powerful?
You would do well to pay attention to William Hague who has said any number of times that Iran has a legitimate right to be a leading country of the Middle East. And Iran is not viewed, by the UK, as an “enemy”.
James, could you pls point me to news articles etc. that documents US blocking Iran’s purchase of 19.75% LEU? Thanks very much!
Fiorangela,
Bravo for your exposing of one particular event, that documents how the record is doctored, to facilitate continuing American encouragement of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. How many stooges of the ISRAEL LOBBY can be found in the US Congress? Maybe the question should be: how many US Congressmen are not stooges of Israel?
pirouz_2,
The leaders of more than 50 Muslim countries accept that there is no way to get rid of Israel by military means. If this is the situation, should the effort not be focused on obtaining justice for the Palestinians, as is available given the fact Israel within its pre-1967 borders is a “fact on the ground”?
Egypt is not going to abrogate its treaty with Israel.
Clint,
Perhaps the focus should be on the stupidity of the US, in blocking Iran’s IAEA application to buy the 20% nuclear fuel. Very little attention is given by US newspapers, to the fact the US virtually forced Iran to enrich to 20%. And why is this stupidity covered up? Because the ISRAEL LOBBY caused it to happen.
fyi,
Your fondness for the broad brushstroke tends to make the discussion more difficult. Geore H W Bush wanted to get Israel out of the West Bank. So did Jimmy Carter. Powerful Jewish interests worked toward defeating both men in their bids for re-election.
What does opposition to Popery, by Protestants, forty or fifty years ago, have to do with American encouragement of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians? I think one needs to look to the ways and means rich and powerful Jews control the media in the US. You seem to find this approach unattractive.
Actually, reading through all those comments seems awfully repetitive, like one guy re-wording six comments over and over.
Fiorangela says: August 21, 2011 at 11:48 am
You, like James Canning, are attempting at white-washing the US electorate from the responsibility for their choices over 3 generations.
I think that you do not understand Protestant America – with its anti-papism, its cult of Israel, and its messianic belief in US Exceptionalism.
here we go, the google cache of all 156 comments: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:J-cVtm5Ph1QJ:www.meehanforcongress.com/traveling-to-israel+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&source=encrypted.google.com
Fiorangela, first, awesome find. secondly, when i copy and paste the google cache address you listed, it directs to a 404 page.
fyi, here’s an interesting demonstration of what the US electorate is up against.
On Aug 10, 2011, Pennsylvania representative Pat Meehan posted on his blog that he would travel to Israel. (He explained in the first paragraph that “changes are happening in the region . . .Iran is becoming more dangerous . . .”)
By Aug 15, 2011, over 150 people had posted comments about Meehan’s plan to travel to Israel; the overwhelming majority of the comments were negative, and demanded that Meehan recall that he works for the American people, not Israel, etc.
Here is the google cache of those 155 comments:
:www.meehanforcongress.com/traveling-to-israel+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&source=encrypted.google.com
Here is Meehan’s blog itself, on Aug 21, 2011 at about 11:25 am EST
http://www.meehanforcongress.com/traveling-to-israel1
Notice that on Aug 21, 2011 only 17 comments are visible on Meehan’s blog announcing his trip to Israel. With one exception, all of those comments are negative and, in addition to criticizing his support for Israel and his display of absurd ignorance about Iran, many comments speak to the fact that Meehan had apparently erased ALL of the first batch of comments. The one exceptional comment was Meehan’s own — sometime yesterday evening he typed the word, “Read.”
But did he get the message?
Use of Lasers in Nuclear Enrichment Raises Terror Fears
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
General Electric’s success with a half-century-old idea for enriching nuclear fuel more easily, using lasers, has critics worried that rogue states might use the method to make bomb fuel.
From http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/science/earth/21laser.html
Alternative Headline:
Rogue reporter writing for a newspaper whose bogus reporting was cited by Bush Admin officials to railroad the US into invasion of Iraq, is doing exact same thing to Iran.
Of historical interest:
Ali Javan – The Gas Laser:
Doctor Ali Javan invented the helium neon laser, the first gas laser in 1960.
Ali Javan – Biography:
Ali Javan was born December 26, 1926 in Tehran, Iran
Immigrated to the United States in 1948.
Received his Ph.D. in physics in 1954 from Columbia University.
After graduation, Ali Javan became a researcher at Bell Labs, where he first proposed the principle of gas lasers, which led him to co-invent a laser composed of helium and neon.
Worked at Massachusetts Institute of Technology as an associate professor of physics in 1961 and full professor after 1964.
In 1975, he received the Fredric Ives Medal from the Optical Society of America
In 1993, Ali Javan was awarded the Albert Einstein World Medal of Science.
From ,http://inventors.about.com/od/ijstartinventors/p/Ali_Javan.htm
I’ve just learned about this website. Thank you for the excellent articles. You can’t find this sort of material easily on English language websites.
Assad: “Should I ‘step-aside’ or ‘step-down’?”
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/assad-%e2%80%9cshould-i-%e2%80%98step-aside%e2%80%99-or-%e2%80%98step-down%e2%80%99%e2%80%9d/
Iran may wish to stockpile 19.75% enriched U since it does not know that Israel and the US will not bomb its enrichment facilities: so it probably feels it needs excess on hand.
BTW, Anything less than 20% enriched is considered L — as in LOW — EU. By the IAEA.
If the West doesn’t like the game, they should have made different rules, no?
Fiorangela says:
August 20, 2011 at 10:56 am
I am afraid I agree with you. I dont think that Israelies are stupid enough to attack Egypt. But one can always hope, right?? :)
fyi says:
August 20, 2011 at 4:05 pm
I am afraid my definition of “development” is as different from yours as fire is from water.
The development that I believe in can only happen through social justice, independence and freedom. The first step towards “development” for any country is first and foremost its independence. If Egypt is to develop first and foremost it has to be independent and capable of standing for its rights.
The first step for Egypt is to annule camp david and the peace agreement with Israel.
There is no way for middle east to develop unless the wrong which was done in creating Israel is set right first.
James Canning says: August 20, 2011 at 7:28 pm
I have again and agian tired to make the argument that US Grand Strategy – as formulated by Dr. Khalizad and others and as explained by him – requires the destruction of the independent Iranian power.
You discount my evidence and keep on bringing the Jews – who are an element but not the decisive one.
And let’s face it, the American Jews, by having US destroy the Ba’athist Iraq, helped Iranian power greatly.
It is just like the Quran says: “We turned their tricks against them.”
I think Iranians ought to be grateful to Mr. Bush and Jews of US.
In fact, I think had Mr. Bush not decided to go after Iran in the most opportune time, he would have been able to normalize relations with Iran in his second term.
Now, of course, after the start of the economic/political/intelligence war against Iran by US and EU, it is too late.
Unknown Unknowns says: August 21, 2011 at 12:49 am
NPT is dead.
Wakeup!
Americans, in their hubris, killed it.
Eric and James,
Just because a bunch of maniacal warmongers and their warmongering minions in the press are wont to characterize it as such does not make it so. How can doing something that is perfectly clearly within the bounds of the NPT “provocative” and the violation upon violation of said treaty by the US (failure to disarm, use of depleted uranium, refusal to rule out first use, etc.) not??
Kinda reminds me of a skit by Derik & Clive (Peter Cook & Dudley Moore when he was still funny). James, you might remember it. Its a spoof on a couple of skinheads having a conversation which starts something like this:
“This bloke came up to me the other day. And you know what he said? ”ello’ “.
“Aw, NO! Provocative bugger!!”
“And I said, ‘Wot you mean, ‘ello’?”
“Yeah? And wot’d ‘e say?”
” ‘e said, ‘I just meant, ‘ello’ ”
“Cheeky bugger! So wot ‘dew do??”
“Well, I kicked his fakin’ teef in, din I?”
“Well, you ‘ad no choice, did you?”
Etc. ad absurdum.
James,
I agree it’s pointlessly provocative to enrich more 20% uranium than what Iran reasonably feels is a necessary reserve, though I’d certainly err on the “ample” side if I were Iran. Is it your impression that Iran intends to enrich more than that? If so, why?
James Canning says: August 20, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Government of Iran has kept closely to my advise and no disaster has followed.
Mark my words Mr. Canning: US war against Iran will bring the demise of Israel that much closer.
Holocaust: ‘How thee serve Israel’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/holocaust-how-thee-serve-israel/
fyi,
And “Jews” are the crucial component in continuing idiotic US approach toward relations with Iran. Who doubts that fact?
fyi,
I do not look to “Jews” as the explanation for the reason Obama will likely not pull all US troops out of Afghanistan. Or that they are the key element in Afghan matters.
Where the Jews bring their influence to bear, is in trying to compel Obama to block Palestinian bid for independence with pre-1967 borders. This is ten times more significant to “Jews”, than what happens in Afghanistan.
Azeri,
I agree with you Iran is unlikely to enrich beyond 20%, and that doing so would likely prove disastrous.
I am still trying to come up with what argument might be advanced to William Hague, when he says the Saudis are deeply concerned about possible Iranian enrichment of U to 20%, in amounts far beyond what is needed for the Tehran reactor, etc.
fyi,
If the government of Iran followed your advice, disaster would likely ensue. Iran must keep the high road, and continue to attack possession of all WMD and especially nukes.
Eric,
I think Hague has tried to focus attention on the issue of enrichment to 20%. And I think his doing so makes good sense, not least for the reason you mentioned.
Eric,
The amount of 20% U Iran will be stockpiling is of considerable genuine concern to people trying to resolve the dispute. I include William Hague in this category.
The argument that one meets, and it is a strong one, is that the only reason for a large excess stockpile, would be to enable a quicker rush toward a bomb. What other reason would there be, apart from a certain national pride (as evidenced by FYI’s comment).
Eric A. Brill says: August 20, 2011 at 5:54 pm
What did you expect?
That this is about “nuclear” Iran?
The way forward is clear for Iran: ignore the Axis Powers and enhance her power by all and any means necessary.
Isolation of Iran works both ways; it alos means that except covert communications stating one another’s positions; there will be and could not be any cooperation on anything.
Iranian leaders will thus their best to wreck any and all Axis Powers projects in the Middle East.
James,
In preparing my reply to the passage I quoted from you, I neglected to address that quoted passage directly, which I’ll do here.
You and I might find it useful to evaluate Iran’s enrichment to 20% based on how much of the stuff Iran is producing. But that is a fine point I think is all be entirely ignored in most coverage of this issue. To most Western analysts, it makes no difference whatsoever whether Iran refines enough for 5 years, 50 years, or 3 days. Once it produces even a gram above power-plant purity, the only explanation is that it’s on its way to builing a bomb — or at the very least taunting the West by pointing out its ability to do so.
James,
“The larger issue, to my mind, is whether Iran enriches enough 20% to produce plates for maybe five years of operations, or instead seeks to stockpile large amounts of 20% U just for the sake of doing it. The warmongers might like to see the latter course.”
Two years ago, it seemed to me that most people following this issue understood that there are three, not two, relevant levels of uranium refinement: very low, for power plants; 20%, for the Tehran reactor; 90%+, for bombs.
Today, most Western writers cover the issue as if the middle category does not exist. Therefore, once Iran starts enriching above power-plant purity, it can have only one purpose in mind — and we all know what that is. Unlike two years ago, few Western writers appear to feel any obligation even to mention that Iran might have a perfectly sensible, and entirely peaceful, use for 20% uranium.
fyi at 4:08 — you write as if the American electorate plays more than a background role in the theater of elections in the US. They don’t. They’re scenery, potted plants.
refer again to this analysis from the 1950s about how zionists use the structure of the US electoral system to control elections: http://www.raceforiran.com/iran-and-al-qa%E2%80%99ida-can-the-charges-be-substantiated-3#comment-53281
especially the bolded passage:
“American Zionists showed themselves to be zealous, relentlessly determined to security intervention United States government on behalf of a Jewish state in Palestine. They had wealth to devote to the cause, and beyond that they had two peculiar advantages among the various pressure groups seeking to influence major American foreign-policy. First, the Jewish population for which they claimed to speak was concentrated in urban centers in the big industrial states, especially New York, Pennsylvania, and California; these states were closely divided between the two political parties, and under the existing ” general ticket” system of counting electoral votes for the presidency, Zionists appeared to be a dedicated group who might be able to swing all the many electoral votes in those key states to one party or the other and thus decide a national election; even state and local elections in these big states were up national importance for strengthening local party organizations which would be needed to help national campaigns. Second and equally important, they were virtually unopposed by any other pressure group and faced an indifferent or mildly sympathetic public.”
And if the American electorate does NOT vote for Obama, and the Democrats are out of power for ten years, are you suggesting that Republicans will take the US military out of Afghanistan? The electorate has no choices.
Recently, Debbie Menon wrote an interesting assessment of Ron Paul’s chances of getting elected (primary contingency is staying alive; in Iran they shoot scientists; in US, they shoot presidents who refuse to toe the line). :http://mycatbirdseat.com/2011/08/ron-paul-deserves-more-respect/
James Canning,
I still maintain, on analysis of Iranian enrichment issues, leaving Israel out of the discussion makes the analysis incomplete (if not flawed). It is understandable why Leveretts want to play it safe..
On the issue of 20% enrichment:
I guess physicists know if one learns how to enrich to low levels (LEU) then the road to high level enrichments is a straight path. Technically 20% is still LEU. Hence Iran’s effort to make itself self-sufficient for TTR fuel is a very wise step especially when one looks back to a humiliating history.
Iran however will never attempt going beyond 20%. That is an ideal excuse for immoral zealous warmongers to flatten Iran in no time.
James Canning says: August 20, 2011 at 3:37 pm
You are blaming Mr. Obama and his government when the blame, in reality, should be directed at the electorate in the United States.
It is a fact of the political life in the United States that if Mr. Obama leaves Afghanistan, after 10 years of war, the Democractic Party is not going to win a presidential election for a decades or so.
So, the corruption of domestic politics in the United States necessitates the waging of a strategically pointless war – with all the attendant deaths, injuries, maimings, and destructions for both Americans and Afghans.
You cannot blame this one on Jews.
pirouz_2 says: August 20, 2011 at 4:38 am
Yes, in the zero-sum game of the Middle Eastern politics, your position make sense.
Form the standpoint of the over-riding strategic interest of the Middle Eastern states, even Israel, which is Development, these are all losses.
Can any of us imagine a member of Obama’s administration condemning the Apartheid Wall as a “land-grab”? How many members of the Obama administration condemn the theft of water from the Palestinians by the illegal Jewish colonists in the West Bank?
Again, bravo to Alan Duncan and to the British Government for standing behind his statements.
Eric,
I thought that Iran was effectively forced to enrich U to 20%. This takes into account issues of national pride, etc.
The larger issue, to my mind, is whether Iran enriches enough 20% to produce plates for maybe five years of operations, or instead seeks to stockpile large amounts of 20% U just for the sake of doing it. The warmongers might like to see the latter course.
James,
“I think the enriching of U to 20%, by Iran, was welcomed by some of the warmongers who would like to see an attack on Iran.”
I agree. But if Iran wants to run its Tehran reactor, what other practical choice does it have? I’m all for avoiding war, but not for cowering.
BiBiJon – The ‘Global Policy Institute’ is as much pro-Israel Jewish propaganda outlet as is ‘Wall Street Journal’
Fiorangela – The gunmen who killed eight Israeli soldiers on Israel-Egypt border is nothing but a Mossad false-flag operation to divert Jewish protesters’ attention away from Benj’s government. That’s why the incident was used to attack Gaza Strip killing civilians including a 7 and 12 year old kids.
Jewish soldiers also entered Egyptian-controlled desert, killing three Egyptian security officers. Now the question arises – if the gunmen crossed Egypt-Israel border – Why the coward Israelis pick-up a weaker Islamist enemy rather than having invaded Egypt ruled by US-Israel friendly generals?
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/israeli-protests-by-the-%e2%80%98privileged-ones%e2%80%99/
Alan Duncan can be seen in the West Bank, condemning Israel’s refusal to give building permits to Palestinians while illegal Jewish settlers get such permits as a matter of course:
http:www.dailymotion.com/video/xk291h_alan-duncan-visits-the-occupied-palestinian-territories_news
Azeri,
Do you know how much 20% U Iran intends to stockpile? BibiJon was able to ascertain that Iran is very near the commencing of production of the nuclear fuel plates for the Tehran reactor.
I think the enriching of U to 20%, by Iran, was welcomed by some of the warmongers who would like to see an attack on Iran.
Azeri,
Obama feels obliged to make public comments about how much damage he is inflicting on Iran, to meet the demands of the numerous Democrats in the US Congress who must placate Aipac (even if they do not want to).
Do powerful Jews very nearly control American policy in the Middle East? I would say this is true. And that they are well able to use the media to direct the flow of American public opinion.
I think the Russian proposal for staged reductions in sanctions is highly important, if only as a means of “smoking out” the ulterior motives of Americans involved in the Iranian matter.
Pirouz_2 — QED
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2011/08/19/idf-kills-14-in-gaza-hamas-renounces-ceasefire/
-Hamas renounces ceasefire
-Israeli retaliation against Palestinians “uncontrollable”
-Tension within IDF over who was really responsible for Eilat attack; speculation is that Bibi wanted to wipe out PRC so the perpetrator tag was hung on them.
-Israeli drone kills Palestinian physician and his infant children, who were on their way to hospital to treat sick child.
-The Eilat attack is Christmas in August for Bibi — Tent protests disappear; reason to spill Palestinian blood reappears; outlet appears for war fervor that Israeli govt always kept on simmer among Israelis (see :http://www.avigailabarbanel.me.uk/gaza-2009-01-04.html.) As the plasterer was fond of saying, It’s all good.
Pirouz_2,
nah, Israel will not attack Egypt. Israel will attack Gaza. Egypt could fight back hard; Gaza is fish in a barrel.
Attacking Egypt would not involve taking a swipe at Iran, but only jeopardizing an Israel-Egypt alliance that Israelis deem essential to Israeli “security.” Punishing Gaza, on the other hand, or maybe Syria, will cause Iran to suffer, which has a viagra effect on the Israeli umm psyche.
Blame Iran: a dangerous response to the Bahraini uprising
Manama and its Gulf allies try to blame Iran for the unrest, but may end up victims of their own sectarian rhetoric
By David Roberts as part of a new policy research project by the Global Policy Institute and the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung London office – Out of the turmoil: a new Middle East?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/20/bahraini-uprising-iran
Money quotes:
Whatever their reason for believing the worst about Iran, the reality is that by blaming the Revolutionary Guard and the mullahs in Tehran, they are abdicating responsibility from Bahrain’s elite.
Instead of questioning the fundamental premise of minority Sunni rule in Bahrain; the accusations of institutionalised disenfranchisement of the Shia or perennial question of corruption, the blame is instead diverted to the external enemy.
…
The key concern is that when the [Persian Gulf] countries and leaders involved want to de-escalate the rhetoric at some stage in the future, they may find themselves hoist by their own sectarian petard [against Iran, and Iranians]. Their choices may be limited and severely narrowed by the poisonous atmosphere that they have whipped up; even though Saudi Arabia, for example, is far from a democracy – especially in a revolutionary age – they are wholly unable to take difficult policy decisions that go largely against the grain of public opinion.
the best news I have heard in MANY years:
Egypt withdraws envoy in Israel:
;http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
Egyptians want Israeli envoy expelled
;http://www.presstv.ir/detail/194698.html
Egypt to withdraw ambassador to Israel
;http://www.presstv.ir/detail/194775.html
Israel prepares for war in Sinai desert
;http://www.presstv.ir/detail/194803.html
I hope that Israelies are stupid enough to attack Egypt!
James Cunning,
Thank you for your remarks.
By writing “On US Middle/East policies, in the last 18 years, anyone here knows any ‘action’ or ‘decision’ by US that has angered AIPAC or was against the wish of the Likud?” my real emphasis was on ACTIONS, or ‘concrete actions that countered the Likiud cause’ You are saying “Are you not forgetting that this past May, Obama made a speech about an independent Palestine with 1967 borders. Aipac went berserk”.
I believe Talks are cheep, I can give you dozens of examples of politicians talking about one thing and in reality doing just the opposite. I am asking people to enlighten me about the ‘actions’ of US that truly were disadvantageous to Israel in the last 18 years (but were beneficial to US). Do you know any? If so please let me know.
And when I [sarcastically] wrote “ then US will push for sanctioning Iran for abusing Human Rights!…..or later for animal rights” by sanction I really meant ways of punishment!. You objected by writing” The US would not be able to obtain UNSC sanctions against Iran for “human rights” issues. I think you make a mistake to believe this would be possible”.
Of course UNSC was not in my mind at all. UNSC never passes any resolution for hurting animals. UNSC these days passes resolution that are compiled by big powers, resolutions that often benefit them but hurt the weaker people of the world.
And maybe I was misunderstood on the context too. I believe UNSC sanctions on Iran do not have sharp teeth. What hurts Iran and Iranians are US and Europe’s unilateral sanctions. I urge you to see the video of Obama’s speech after signing of the Iran Sanction law (I guess I saw that in White House’s website). See how Obama boasts that this law is the most biting (hurting?) sanction rule ever devised against Iran.
Chinese are respecting UNSC sanction resolutions yet Iran is not deeply unhappy about Chinese. The laws written by aipac aim the heart of Iran. Those are the ones that are costing Iran tens of billions a year. Compared to aipac compiled laws the UNSC resolutions are like hard slaps on the wrist and they are eagerly received by Iran. The day after the passing of the last UNSC resolution Iranian industrial stocks jumped up over 10%! How you folks outside Iran interpret that jump?
http://www.radiofarda.com/content/f12_jahanbeglu_on_new_trends_among_iranian_intellectuals/24301752.html
Rep. Ron Paul’s advise to Obama administration and paranoid Jewish Lobby, posted on Daily Paul (August 15, 2011), goes like this: “If Iran’s only ambition was to nuke Israel they could have smuggled a nuke from Pakistan (or perhaps N. Korea or Russia) by now and done it. There’s really no reason to believe that the rhetoric is anything but political posturing. Oh, and as a bonus if we opened up trade with Iran (not to mention N. Korea and Cuba) it could help give our economy a boost. Sound reasonable?“
Iran’s ‘Economic Jihad’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/08/20/irans-economic-jihad/
Rehmat,
Alan Duncan’s visit to the West Bank in July deserves more publicity. Thanks. And bravo to Duncan for saying the truth about the Apartheid Wall: it is a device for theft of land from the Palestinians. And bravo for Duncan’s calling attention to the theft of water by illegal Jewish colonists in the West Bank.
No wonder the Jewish Chronicle is trying to injure Duncan’s career.
Azeri,
The US would not be able to obtain UNSC sanctions against Iran for “human rights” issues. I think you make a mistake to believe this would be possible.
Azeri,
Are you not forgetting that this past May, Obama made a speech about an independent Palestine with “1967″ borders. Aipac went berserk.
On US Middle/East policies, in the last 18 years, anyone here knows any ‘action’ or ‘decision’ by US that has angered AIPAC or was against the wish of the Likud? No?
Enrichment is an excuse, Ari ben Menashe must have known Iran wont go after any kind of WMD, chemical or nuclear. If Iran agrees to halt enrichment, then US will sanction Iran for abusing Human Rights!…..or later for animal rights ……or whatever AIPACers concoct.
I think ignoring the above reality when analyzing the enrichment issue might lead us to wrong locations.
This was mentioned briefly in the previous thread;
‘Venezuela to bring home gold reserves’
Venezuela is pulling its 211-ton gold reserves out of the US, Canada, and Europe. On the other hand, it plans to transfer Up to USD 6.3 billion in liquid reserves to banks in Brazil, China, and Russia.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/194703.html
BiBiJon,
Thanks for the link to Abolghasem’s excellent piece Aug. 19th: “US sanctions and Iran’s economic realities”. Obama should read it. Several times.
Rehmat,
You should be able to recall that the Jewish Chronicle tried to put out the false story that William Hague regarded Iran as an “enemy” of Britain. The British embassy in Tel Aviv refuted the claim by making clear Hague and the UK do not see Iran as an “enemy”.
Rehmat,
I think you erode the meaning of “Israel-firsters” when you include people like David Cameron and William Hague. And I think this is a mistake.
Someone who is an “Israel-firster” supports policies of the government of Israel no matter how much damage those policies do to the national interests of their own country. This description obviously does not apply to Cameron or Hague.
Has anyone noticed Stephen Hadley’s piece of propaganda in the Washington Post today? Hadley was chief deputy to the grossly incompetent Condoleezza Rice, and helped to cause the catastrophe of the illegal invasion of Iraq. Hadley seems bent on deceiving the public that “9/11″ was the result from something other than the stupid encouragement by the US of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the foolish American decision to keep military bases in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War, and the murderous Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.
kooshy,
It was of course very easy indeed for the US to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The problem was the sheer idiocy of the neocons, who wanted to destroy the Sunni power structure even though the Bush administration has assured Saudi Arabia no such thing would happen, in wake of overthrow of Saddam.
Rehmat,
There would not be any sanctions against Iran, if there were no dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme.
I of course agree with you that “supporters” of Israel will try to injure Iran in one way or another. Because Iran interferes with delusional Zionist effort to crush Palestinian resistance to illegal colonisation of West Bank by illegal Jewish settlers.
British Israel Lobby’s mouthpiece, Jewish Chronicle, has been running a campaign of character-assassination against British Minister of State for International Development, Alan Duncan for a while for speaking a few truths in public about the Zionist entity. Alan Duncan works under Andrew Mitchell, the Secretary of State. Lobby’s anti-Alan campaign has already effected Alan’s position in the ruling Conservative Party. He was demoted from shadow leader of the house to shadow prison minister before Conservative victory. Alan is known for having close personal relations with Israel-Firsters prime minister David Cameron and foreign secretary William Hague. British daily, The Telegraph, had reported on November 29, 2010 that Alan Duncan had been spied upon by CIA (why not Mossad?).
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/alan-duncan-irks-british-israel-lobby/
On the Iranian economy, IMF’s upbeat assessment, and MSM’s disgust at IMF
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12492
by Abolghasem Bayyenat
Welcome to the American dream
Foreign students walk off Hershey’s factory job in protest
By Liz Goodwin | The Lookout – 18 hrs ago.. .
“Hershey’s (AP)
Hundreds of foreign students on a State Department cultural exchange visa program walked off their factory jobs in protest on Wednesday.
The J-1 visa program brings foreign students to the country to work for two months and learn English, and was designed in part to fill seasonal tourism jobs at resorts and seaside towns. The 400 students employed at a Pennsylvania factory that makes Hershey’s candies told The New York Times that even though they make $8.35 an hour, their rent and program fees are deducted from their paychecks, leaving them with less money than they spent to get the visas and travel to the country in the first place.”
On the Diane Rehm show’s International round up hour today. Hour 2. Diane Rehm has allowed DAvid Ignatius to repeat unsubstantiated claims about Iran several times now. Diane has allowed guest for a solid 8 years to allow Reuel Marc Gerecht, Ignatius etc to do repeat unsubstantiated claims about Iran without ever asking challenging questions about those claims. Simply ask Ignatius “what are your sources for those claims’ Please verify. Diane never does this.
During a show on Syria this week Diane repeated some unsubstantiated claims about Iran herself. Helping build the case against Iran. Without any challenging questions
Hope folks go listen to the program.
“We have long argued that there will not be a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue without explicit recognition—from the United States and other Western countries, first of all—of the Islamic Republic’s right to the full range of civil nuclear technologies and activities, including uranium enrichment.”
Have never heard one host of an MSM outlet bring up that Iran has the right to enrich uranium. Not Diane Rehm, not Neil Conan, Robert Siegel, Scott Simon, Terri Gross, Chris Matthews, Chritiane Amanpour, Wolf Blitzer, Andrea Mitchell, Rachel Maddow, Richard Engel etc etc. No one
I am really wondering how often Flynt or Hillary Leverett have been invited on any of these MSM outlets to address the Iranian issue? Heard Flynt on the Diane Rehm show years ago. And on Charlie Rose. That has been in as far as I know.
When will Chris Matthews, Wolf Blitzer, Chritiane Amanpour have you folks on their programs?
All:
Why Iran needs to seriously consider becoming a nuclear armed state:
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/military-force-against-iran-must-be-considered-1761061.html?cxtype=ynews_rss
No one, but no one, in US will ever write about the desirability of war against China, Russia, India, or North Korea.
pirouz_2 says: August 18, 2011 at 11:31 pm
There will no additional UNSC sanctions on Iran.
This is finished.
The nice thing about the timing of US/EU sanctions has been the de-coupling they forced on Iran from the Western dominated WOrld financial system.
When the crisis hit in 2007, Iranians were insulated.
Clint says: August 19, 2011 at 6:40 am
UNSC is irrelevant to Iranian security.
Only Iran’s own capabilities of detrrence are relevant.
Do you seriously think that EU states, for example, will sanction US if she attacks Iran without UNSC approval?
Do you think any state that currently has diplmatic relations with Israel will break those relationships if Israel attacks Iran?
UNSC and indeed the entire UN are on their way to irrelevance.
And this applies to other international institutions and instruments.
The Axis Powers bear the most responsibility in this.
Iranian leaders understand that no international treaty or set of treaties or institutions is going to help protect the people of Iran from death and destruction in wanton wars.
masoud says: August 19, 2011 at 8:27 am
Yes, Masoud; the oil bourse actually benefits the oil consumers such as US by taking the middle men out.
But American and European leaders are truly too arrogant to care.
All:
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2011/08/16/confronting-iran-alienating-the-iranian-people/
A step in the right direction:
http://presstv.com/detail/194602.html
Anyone one have any additional information, e.g. the bidding process, currency used etc?
Clint,
Just read chapter seven of the UN charter. More detail can be found in a paper written by Eric Brill.(just google Eric Brill, Iran Nuclear)
Thank you all!
Also a legal question: it is said in that Asia Times Commentary piece I linked to below that the UNSC sanctions can only be applied if there is a “threat to peace or breach of peace or act of aggression” — is that correct? How can the UNSC act in a way so divorced from the law? Its own law! Sorry for all the questions! Thank you….
Methinks Paul is correct in so far as the Axis of Weasels would certainly *like* to kill hundreds and thousands more innocents of Syrian nationality, seeing as the 2,000 or so that have already perished due to their fanning the embers and flames of chaos have not as yet gotten them the regime change they have been pining for, but I’m curious to know if and how they will attempt to pull off this putative next phase given that the UNSC is an avenue of pleasure that has been closed to them by the Russians.
Clint
“I can think that Russia might like the slight boost in oil prices that comes about due to Iranian oil being harder to sell (?) due to sanctions.”
No, I don’t think so, oil is ever hard to sell, including the Iranian one or even the Libyan, actually Iran is having a hard time to keep the production up to the demand, and one of the reasons the attack did not happened is the fear of a major interruption in supply lines. This whole thing ends up being all about who will eventually controls the energy supplies based on what fiat currency.
Clint, the thing to understand, in my opinion, is that what Russia and China want from the US/Nato, is quid pro quo. They have no problem with kicking Iran under the bus. They just want paid.
I think you guys are way behind the plot. The US/Nato appear to be on the verge of attacking Syria, which is a stepping stone to attacking Iran. Even if the war doesn’t actually happen in the next month or two or three, there is no way the US establishment will stop until they get ‘regime change’ in Iran. As for Russia, it’s role is simply to use Iran as a bargaining chip. They give the US/Nato whatever they want, but always in exchange for something.
Thanks kooshy and pirouz. I can think that Russia might like the slight boost in oil prices that comes about due to Iranian oil being harder to sell(?) due to sanctions.
And maybe US gave Chinese a pass on their currency being too low — I remember there was a lot of US hoopla over how gosh darn low the Chinese have their currency.
You rarely hear that anymore. So basically, the US (government) may hate Iran so much as to allow China to dump goods overcheaply in the US and around the world, and thus damage US and world (minus China) industries.
Did no investigative reporter look into why Russia and China cooperate with the clearly illegal US and UK inspired UNSC sanctions?
Disappointing!
It sounds to me like a big wakeup “reminder “alarm clock just went off in the UK center in Afghanistan
Bombings hit UK center in Afghanistan
Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said the attacks were aimed at reminding Britain, which has “invaded” Afghanistan again, of the day the Asian country gained its independence.
Afghanistan gained independence from Britain on August 19, 1919.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/194608.html
Clint says:
August 19, 2011 at 12:29 am
I can give you my own opinion: They are too integrated with the current world order to go against the protector of the current world order. In other words they are too much a part of the world capital circuit to meaningfuly object against the policies of its main protector.
Clint says:
August 19, 2011 at 12:29 am
Well, to answer your question simply, they get concession from the western states, to let them sanction themselves out of the lucrative Iranian market (the biggest self-financed market in the entire middle east). Wouldn’t you have done the same thing? Especially if you knew, one of the sides you are dealing with is so deeply entrenched in her geostrategic ideologically that she became incapable to comprehend what is going on.
I tried to post this before but it got stuck in the moderator box — maybe because it had 2 URLs…so let’s try with 1 URL: (my apologies for any duplication)
Moussavian’s proposal is sensible but I don’t see why Iran must stop at 5% enrichment — it needs 19.75% fuel for the Research Reactor in Tehran according to this nuclear physicist:
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MH16Ak03.html
I posted this link in the previous blog post also but it bears repeating.
Iran needs the 19.75% fuel and — the article says — anything less than 20% is LEU as in LOW E.U.
Now the West might not like Iran doing that too much, but does that make it illegal? If so, how?
Maybe Iran wants to stockpile a lot of 19.75% fuel in case it gets bombed and needs a stockpile(?) Anyway, it is Iran’s right.
Great post btw! Speak the truth brother!
Why do Russians and Chinese keep going along with UN sanctions?? Anyone have an answer?? What quid-pro-quo did they get from US or UK?
pirouz_2 says:
August 18, 2011 at 11:31 pm
Well Pirouz jan, according to my own calculations, the only one remaining, which so far has not been sanctioned by the US, is none other than Khajeh Hafez of Shiraz, and that’s only just because he apparently was living some 500 years before even US became a sovereign state.
Here I must ad that there are rumors going around in Washington circles (you read circus) that the white house and cookie baker Hillary are seriously considering to sanction the Khajeh, or at least to sanction visiting his tomb, this is all due to the reason, that the policy makers at the state believe khajeh Hafez’s poetry is inspirational to the Iranian atomic psyche.
By the way Kooshy;
Thanks for posting the piece from Naomi Klein. It was a great piece.
Kooshy;
I am really curious to know what the next round of sanctions will be about. Personally I think that sanctions work in the long term interests of the Iranian people, if they somehow could manage to avoid any foreign investment in our country. The problem is that the way that it is going these sanctions are getting close to changing into “acts of war”.
At any rate, if this russian proposal ends up in a similar situation like the Tehran declaration (ie. with Iran copperating and the West breaking the deal and humiliating the Russians), there might be some potential for the russians to completely block any next movement by the West in UNSC.
Tehran International Conference on Palestine
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/tehran-international-conference-on-palestine/
kooshy says:
August 18, 2011 at 9:30 pm
Regarding Robert Dreyfuss article
Bullseye!
James Canning says: August 18, 2011 at 6:25 pm
It is a game.
The Axis Powers in general and the United States in particular have issued very many I.O.U.s to other states to supoort their anti-Iran policies.
The Russians have cashed in their I.O.U.s and have estimated that no more I.O.U. are forthcoming or are worth what they have to give up – strategic vulnerability in their Southern flank.
The other states still have a bunch of I.O.U.s and hope that US, EU or both will honor them.
For those states that have suffered negative conequences; such as Ukraine, Cyprus, UAE, and many others – the expectation that their losses could be made whole by teh Axis Powers is unfounded.
For US and EU to accept enrichment in Iran is to accept and admit defeat. It is to admit that they had pursued a costly poolicy (like Dual Containment earlier) that harmed them and their allies as well as the Iranians. It also means those states that supported Axis Powers position against Iran are holding onto worthless I.O.U.s.
This will not happen anytime soon.
Iranian leaders will play along with this Russian diplomatic shadow dance – but nothing will come over it.
Iran will not make friends with Israel; that is now tantamount to betrayal of Islam. No Iraian leader can do so – with or without Islamic Republio. People who think otherwise have no grasp of how much the late Mr. Khomeini’s stance on Israel has become the de facto main stream Muslim opinion.
Salehi [Iran foreign minster] visited Moscow at the invitation of his Russia counterpart Sergei Lavrov. The visit was aimed at establishing sustainable mutual relations and discussing Moscow’s “step-by-step” proposal.
[Salehi] went on to say that both Iranian and Russian sides emphasized that any commitments made during nuclear talks between Iran and the West needed to be reciprocal.
Salehi further explained that by reciprocal Iran meant that in return for any step taken by a party, the other side must also take a simultaneous reciprocal step.
The top Iranian official added that Iran’s nuclear activities were going on as usual but Western countries sought to impede the program by making up unjustifiable excuses.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/194446.html
Regarding Robert Dreyfuss article in the Nation BiBijon posted the link.
To sum up, what basically Mr. Robert Dreyfuss writes in his nation’s article is essentially from the same propaganda talking points that Barbara Slavin and ray Takyeh used to write their articles.
So the points one is supposed to take home are
“In contrast, Obama demonstrably does not want to go to war against Iran and, if anything, he’s seeking justifications to avoid war, not to make war”
Wrong the only difference is that Mr. Obama can’t convince the military to attack Iran just Mr. Bush wasn’t , and unlike Iraq that US military did want to attack Iraq, they thought is easy(cake walk)
“Although I believe that broad sanctions against Iran are a bad idea, it’s clear that Obama sees sanctions as a way of avoiding war, kicking the can down the road while placating hawks and AIPAC.”
So this is the exact same conclusion and point that every other so called moderate has to take to be allowed to stay around in western media In other words if Iran don’t succumbs to our demand he may stop kicking the can.
But this is the best part, and no need to counter since he is really countering himself
“It’s fair to say, as I’ve written, that Iran possesses no weapons-grade HEU, no warheads capable of carrying a bomb, no over bomb designs (yet) and no obvious, declared intent to do any of that. Yet to dismiss concerns over an Iranian bomb as poppycock or warmongering by neocons seems extremely unfair and, yes, tendentious in the extreme.”
So, although there is nothing to be worried but is unfair not to be worried. Very logical
Here like in Ray’s and Barbara’s articles he is trying to capture one’s subconscious coming in from the back door
“My own view inclines toward the former, that is, that Ayatollah Khamenei wants to oversee a nuclear-capable Iranian military, but I still believe in negotiations”
He means although he is very open minded on this but still he thinks that the ayatollah wants to have the bomb.
One must read this part which is the beauty
“From the left, and from the right, there’s been harsh criticism of the New York Times. Much of that, especially from the left, tries to draw comparisons to the Times’s faulty coverage of Iraq in the 2001–03 period, when the paper wrongly promoted the Bush administration’s concocted charges against Iraq. This time, however, it is clear that the Times is not intent on pushing for war with Iran. Quite the opposite. That isn’t meant as a blanket approval of all of the Times coverage of Iran. But let’s not mix up the Times’s reporting of what the IAEA says, for instance, with some inherent bias at the paper. It’s one thing to critique the politics in and around the IAEA on Iran, and quite another thing to lambast the Times for simply reporting it. The Times, like many of us, learned some lessons from Iraq, and they’re not likely to repeat those mistakes”
Mr. Dreyfuss is trying to convince the left and the progressives being he is writing for the Nation, that that we and the NYT lied on Iraq but you should believe us, that this time around we are not lying about Iran, he fails to mention all the NYT, IAEA reports are written by Mr. Sanger, with his direct input of what IAEA report supposedly means.
Now he wants the reader to conclude, he is hammering the nail in.
“Fact is, Iran does have an opaque nuclear program—and Iraq didn’t. The IAEA, to its credit, challenged the view that Iraq had a nuclear and WMD program. On Iran, the IAEA is dealing with a country that at the very least wants to use the appearance that it is seeking a weapon as a political tool in bolstering its national strategic capability”
Actually according to all 26 or so IAEA reports on Iran to this date IAEA has not found any diversion on Iran nuclear program, so is vague how Mr. Dreyfuss conclude that the IAEA is dealing with a country that appears is seeking a weapon as a political tool, at best this is not factual based on IAEA reports but more from AIPAC talking points that he and his media colleagues are asked to base their so called articles on.
At the end his using his final punch to drive the nail deep in with giving the reader all the other reasons you need to remember to hate Iran, here you go
“Finally, while it’s easy to argue that harsh anti-Iran rhetoric that often prevails in American discourse is related to its nuclear program, its alleged support for militias in Iraq, and its supposed links to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, in fact the animus toward Iran predates all of that. It goes back to Iran’s gleefully expressed anti-Americanism, its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, its seizure of the “nest of spies” in 1979 and, of course, its odious theocracy.”
Dear reader are you now convinced that Iran is bad and we need to pursue our current posture, if you are not then see this not all our fault
But rather is Iran’s
“The conflict between the United States and Iran ought to be resolved on the basis of each country’s real national interests, but as far as I can see the likelihood that either side can move toward that goal is approaching the vanishing point, if not already there. It doesn’t help matters that Iran watchers in the United States see everything in black and white.”
At best Mr. Dreyfuss like his other collogues is a schmuck, and as per Rahmat’s dictionary scared of enduring “Zanozi”
Rahmat that sounds like that hockey field ice leveling machine !
Book: Buying Jewish business is ‘anti-Semitism’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/book-buying-jewish-business-is-%e2%80%98anti-semitism%e2%80%99/
YES – enrichment is a step further to become self-sufficient. There are 45 NPT members who are actively involved in the enrichment – but they don’t poses threat to the Zionist entity because none of them is located in the Middle East or actively support Islamic resistances fighting to recover their stolen lands from the zionist Jews. That’s is the core of Iran’s nuclear problem.
However, as a former nuclear power-generating engineer – I can say that even Iran developes 100 nuclear bombs but fails to test it – practically it’s not a nuclear power – and thus no threat to Israel.
The Israel’s past history shows that even if Tehran abandons its nuclear program – but still keep supporting Hizbullah and Hamas – Israel and its puppets in London, Washington, Paris, Berlin, etc. will find some other stupid excuse to threaten Iran.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/israel-irans-missiles-pose-great-threat-to-us/
Umm, let me think. Where have I seen this show before? It’s coming to me – I got it: The Middle East Peace “Process.” This drag down in the mud process looks like the I/P peace process that is more and more about the “process” than it is about peace. Well, so be it! As we have seen, this “process,” along other missteps by the West, buys Iran time and allows her to avoid a head on armed conflict, all the while the West is getting weaker and weaker and less able to make Ziocon’s wet dream come true. I’d say, Iran, go for it.
Google Georgetown murder Iraq and the story comes up first (if link does not work)
kooshy,
I think it is a great mistake for Iran, if it considers the Russian proposal as merely a game. Great mistake. The very fact Hillary Clinton would like to bury the Russian proposal is strong evidence of its merits.
Some insight into how diplomacy sometimes takes place in Washington can be gained from Marc Osgoode Smith’s “Letter from DC: Eccentricities and a murder on Q Street”.
http://www.thenortonreport.com/features/letter-from-dc-eccentricities-and-a-murder-on-q-street
pirouz_2 says:
August 18, 2011 at 4:52 pm
You are right, in all likelihood (which in this case both sides are well aware of the Russian game) Russians want to bring back a dead horse and see, if they can get another ride out of it, but just like the American that couldn’t out rightly say no to this new negations proposal, Iranian’s can’t say no either, since in that case any side that rejects the proposal will be seemed as the none cooperative side, especially for Iran.
Russians think of this game as a wining situation for themselves no matter which it lands, even if both sides reject to cooperate, the Russian think, at the minimum they can get something form the Us side just for agreeing to vote for another mild resolution at the UNSC.
But all in all, reviewing the 19th and 20th century history of Iran’s diplomacy, balancing herself in between the west and the Russians, shows that the Iranians are experts at playing this game. For the Iranian this is (Gahi be dar bezan, gahi be takhteh).
Unless Iran is friendly toward Israel, US will try to deny Iran its rights under the NPT.
pirouz_2,
The Russian approach is far, far more sophisticated than that of the US, so one can hardl call it “stupid”. In fact, it seems obvious that the only way a resolution can be achieved, is by stages.
If the US wants to come out and say that, unless Iran is friendly toward, the US will endanger Middle East peace by trying to deny Iran its rights under the NPT, so be it.
Sorry in the previous post I meant to say “Tehran declaration” and NOT “Tehran confrence”
I am actually surprised at Russians. I wonder what their end goals are, because they know fully well that West’s problem with the Iranian nuclear program is not a matter of a bunch of “unanswered questions”. They know fully well that West would not agree to a plan which would include full fuel cycle for Iran. They know already very well how the Tehran confrence resulted.
None of the Iranian answers will satisfy the West, and they will kepp asking other questions which are not required to be answered by NPT, and naturally and quite rightfully Iran would refuse to answer.
In any case the Russians must be extremely stupid (border line retarded) to think that they can find a way to some how lift or reduce the sanctions (I am guessing they want the sanctions to ease up so that they can expand their trade with Iran in certain fields?)
Flynt and Hillary
Here is what is currently posted on IRNA’s Persian web site regarding the Russian proposal, and what should Iran do, which you might have already seen, it very much reinforces your current post, this is posted under the opinion section (point of view)on IRNA’S persian site, since this was posted on the official government news organization, it seems to be more credible.
“Russian and Iranian nuclear negotiations, musts (do’s) and not musts (do’s)”
http://www.irna.ir/NewsShow.aspx?NID=30523718
مذاكرات هسته اي ايران و روسيه؛ بايدها و نبايدها
Bravo. And how typical of American stupidity, in trying to hide the sensible Russian proposal (for staged reductions in sanctions) under the carpet. Because it does no please the ISRAEL LOBBY.
We should bear in mind that American stupidiy virtually forced Iran to begin enriching U to 20%. Stupidity caused in large part by the ISRAEL LOBBY.