Flynt appeared on Background Briefing with Ian Masters; to listen to the interview, click here. The discussion centered on two big topics: whether Israel will attack Iran, and whether the United States can pursue a diplomatic opening with Iranian “hardliners.”
Asked about the prospects for a unilateral Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear targets, perhaps even before the U.S. presidential election on November 6, Flynt argues that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is compelled to deal with two significant constraints on his decision-making. The first is a “capacity constraint”: the Israeli military, on its own, simply cannot do that much damage to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. This is a constraint that Netanyahu or any other Israeli prime minister would have to face; it helps to explain why the leadership of Israel’s military and intelligence services and most of Israel’s national security establishment is so strongly opposed to the idea of a unilateral attack. Of course, this is not an absolute barrier facing Netanyahu; one cannot categorically say that he and his colleagues would never decide to do something strategically counter-productive or at odds with material reality. But, in this case, material reality does make such a decision harder.
The second constraint that Netanyahu must deal with is a political one. Broadly speaking, the prime minister of Israel does not have the same measure of “commander-in-chief” authority as an American president. (Actually, the U.S. Constitution would suggest that American presidents should not have as much power in this regard as they currently wield, but that’s another issue.) Put more specifically, Netanyahu, on his own, does not have the authority to start a war, against Iran or anybody else.
For a prime minister to start a war, he must have, at a minimum, the defense minister on board; with Ehud Barak currently holding the defense portfolio, that is probably not an insuperable obstacle. Beyond this, however, historically-conditioned expectations in Israel are that a prime minister will also have very strong consensus within an eight-member inner cabinet and a larger, more formalized, committee on defense and security affairs within the cabinet. While outsiders do not have transparent access to the deliberations of these bodies, myriad indications coming from Israel suggest that Netanyahu, today, does not have the requisite degree of consensus to order an attack on the Islamic Republic.
We have argued before that Netanyahu’s ultimate goal is to line up the United States to take on the mission of striking Iran militarily. But the Obama administration is not about to start an overt war against Iran before the U.S. presidential election (a covert war, of course, has been underway for some time). Netanyahu is playing a longer-term game than that. We anticipate that this game will come to a head in 2013—either with a re-elected President Obama or with a new Romney administration—not before November 6, 2012.
Furthermore, as Flynt points out in the interview, scenarios of Israel launching a unilateral strike in the expectation that the United States will inevitably be “drawn in” depend on Israeli leaders making deeply confident assumptions about a multiplicity of variables (in Washington, Tehran, and elsewhere) completely beyond Israel’s control. Again, this is not to say that Netanyahu and his colleagues would never decide to do something strategically unwise. But, here too, material reality makes such a decision harder.
The interview segues to a discussion of American diplomacy with Iran with a question about the long-term effect of the George W. Bush administration’s undercutting of former President Seyed Mohammad Khatami and his reformist colleagues through Washington’s abusive reaction to Iranian cooperation with the United States after 9/11. Playing off this point, Ian Masters asked Flynt’s view of a recent article in which Ray Takeyh argues that, because of the religious grounding of the ideology ostensibly driving Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, Iran—unlike the People’s Republic of China—has failed to continue moving along a path of “moderation” and reform. In Takeyh’s depiction, the Islamic Republic today looks (at least from official Washington’s perspective) like the People’s Republic if the Maoists were still in charge.
Flynt responds that the George W. Bush administration certainly blew a major opportunity to improve U.S. relations with Iran by its witless reaction (perhaps motivated by an ideology grounded in a particular religious view?) to Tehran’s post-9/11 cooperation with the United States. Through the remainder of Khatami’s presidency, the Bush administration continued to blow opportunities for realigning U.S.-Iranian relations—most importantly by refusing to deal diplomatically with Iran during the nearly two years (2003-2005) in which it suspended uranium enrichment in order to encourage a serious negotiating process. But to suggest that Iran’s post-9/11 cooperation with the United States was only a function of a reformist administration in Tehran and that Washington has no openings to deal with the current Iranian leadership shows only how willfully distorted is Takeyh’s reading of Iranian foreign policy.
Ayatollah Khamenei has been the Supreme Leader through the presidencies of Ali Akbar Rafsanjani (what many analysts call a “pragmatic conservative”), the reformist Mohammad Khatami, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a “new generation” conservative. We fully expect Ayatollah Khamenei to continue serving in this position after the Islamic Republic elects its next president in 2013. Under the Rafsanjani, Khatami, and Ahmadinejad administrations, Iran made serious efforts to engage the United States on the basis of mutual interests; it insisted only that diplomacy take place in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Khatami—like Rafsanjani before him and Ahmadinejad after him—could not have sought better relations with Washington without Khamenei’s backing. It is successive American administrations that, on a bipartisan basis, have been too obtuse to take advantage of the openings that Tehran has afforded, demanding instead that the Islamic Republic surrender to American diktats on the nuclear issue and various regional issues up front.
Moreover, if one wants to stick with Takeyh’s analogy between the Islamic Republic’s current leadership and Chinese Maoists, then let’s follow the analogy all the way through: the United States achieved its historic diplomatic opening with China when Mao still held power and the People’s Republic was still going through the Cultural Revolution. If the United States insists on micromanaging Iran’s domestic politics to produce exactly the kind of interlocutor it wants to deal with, it will fail. In the process, Washington will continue to miss opportunities to do what it so manifestly needs to do, for America’s own interests—to come to terms with the Islamic Republic as it is, not as those radically disconnected from Iranian reality might wish it to be.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
fyi:
I remember the discussion in Tehran back in 2003 when Zahra Kazemi was murdered. Although her murder is highly deplorable, and it’s a shame that justice was no prevailed in her case, it was generally judged in Iran at the time that it’s not Canadian government’s business by any means. Iran does not recognize dual citizenship. She entered Iran with an Iranian passport, and after 19 years of absence from Iran went to take pictures in prohibited areas (which is again by no means a valid reason for murder or harsh harassment).
Is dislike of Islam in the west, particularly in the U.S, really deniable? and I am talking about the average people in the west, not necessarily the governments. supposedly highly educated people in advance. democrats are worse for that matter. isn’t greens’ gesture of anti-Islam somehow a way to get recognition in the deeply anti-Islam societies in the west?
I think apart from the U.S (and of course Israel), another big loser in all these protests is the Canadian government with its ridiculous reason of safety to sever the diplomatic relationship with Iran. The trick didn’t even last for few days (“و مکرو مکرالله والله خیرالماکرین”). This is when Israelis’ bootlicking on the part of Canadian gov. reaches its zenith.
For the first time probably in decades, American flag is being burnt in the entire Arab world, and her embassies attacked with the pictures spread by the mass media. This is a breach from a well established restriction in the Arab world and will surely unleash further anti-Americanism in the entire Muslim world. and guess what, its peak was in Libya, i.e. Omaba’s supposedly biggest foreign policy achievement.
I think Iran doesn’t need to do anything much. She should just stand in the corner and happily watch as the event further unfold. Only little noise here and there.
Interesting to see how Russia is trying to take advantage of this event:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBRtwdeJ6b0&feature=related
Richard Steven Hack says:
September 15, 2012 at 1:43 am
Excellent post Richard, thank you. It appears you have been doing some homework on the role of the Supreme Leader in Iranian society and Shia culture generally. People make so many assumptions about what they perceive to be the insincerity of Iranian leaders, they never stop to think that maybe Ayatollah Khamenei means what he says when he takes a moral stance against weapons of mass destruction.
Certain academics make incriminating assumptions about Iran based on what they themselves would do in similar situations, and then proceed to treat Iran as though those assumptions are true. They are the cynical and insincere ones, why should Iran be held responsible for their delusions and projections?
At any rate Richard, the Supreme Leader is the walking embodiment of the Iranian nation. When the nation hurts, he hurts. When the nation rejoices, he rejoices. I am not sure the terminology of “hardline” makes any sense here. When the time comes for a new leader, the one who best embodies the nation will take on that role.
“hardline” creates a non-existent and useless category. it tries to condense something three dimensional into a two-dimensional word. It creates the false construct of “good” Muslim and “bad” Muslim.
BibiJon: Thanks for the link to Pepe on RT.
Photi: Thanks for the link, just got the report myself from a link over at Antiwar.com. I also commented there on the likelihood of Iran being “pushed to nuclear weapons” as a result of a US or Israeli attack.
Here’s what I posted:
As it happens, I don’t agree that an attack on Iran will push them to develop nuclear weapons,
The reasons are two:
1) The Iranian government knows that nuclear weapons would be useless to them in ANY military conflict other than the one they were concerned about before 2003: a conflict with a dictator-run nation such as Iraq. In no other scenario has Iran been concerned about its nuclear inferiority either vis-a-vis Israel or the United States. Ahmadinejad explicitly stated that Iran was never going to try to “compete with your two thousand nuclear weapons.”
Also, Iran has been subjected to weapons of mass destruction before during the eight year war with Iraq and the leadership refused to retaliate in kind. The Supreme Leader has a religious aversion to WMDs and it is unlikely he would change that attitude based on a conventional military attack by either Israel or the United States.
2) Iran would not be in a position to develop nuclear weapons during an all-out hot war with the United States. It simply would not have the infrastructure to support the finished development of deliverable warheads and missiles, be unable to conduct necessary tests, and be unable to deploy the weapons in any reasonable time while under continual air strikes which reduce its critical infrastructure to the level of Iraq’s in April 2003.
While it may be possible that reason 1 might be countered by some hardline cleric becoming Supreme Leader in the future (possibly if the current Ayatollah is killed in a war), and while reason 2 might be countered by Iran rebuilding its infrastructure after the war ends and THEN proceeding toward nuclear weapons development (also necessitating reason one to occur), I view both these possibilities as extremely improbable.
In my view, this notion of Iran being “pushed” to nuclear weapons is being broached without any critical thought behind it. It’s a knee-jerk response to the cynical assumption that any country which is attacked automatically tries to gain nukes, despite whether such weapons would make any real strategic difference in the balance of power between a Third World country and the world’s only superpower.
It’s more a matter of psychological projection on the part of the commentators than it is a real strategic or psychological analysis of Iran or its leadership.
Karl: I think Parchin is used to keep the fire burning”
Agreed.
“Do these people have any logical sense at all?”
Nope. And they don’t need it, because their audience – the US electorate – doesn’t have any.
Rd.,
Surely Zbigniew Brzezinski is quite right to say in effect the West could not have a global policy toward Islam.
In reality it now looks that the end of US/west in the Middle East might have just arrived. No longer real sustainable governments in any Islamic country can stay silent on this issue. And western client state governments in Middle East will be hardest hit with its consequences. Meaningful western control of the Middle East turn of events in this week has gone so bad that no longer west can control or direct the trajectory of its consequences.
Brzezinski’s Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur
“Zbigniew Brzezinski: Rubbish! It’s said that the West has a global policy regarding Islam. That’s hogwash: there is no global Islam. Let’s look at Islam in a rational and not a demagogic or emotional way. It is the first world religion with 1.5 billion adherents. But what is there in common between fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, moderate Morocco, militaristic Pakistan, pro-Western Egypt and secularized Central Asia? Nothing more than that which connects the Christian countries… “
Let’s look at Islam in a rational and not a demagogic or emotional way. Perhaps this is where Dr. Zbig’s theory has gone wrong!!! His ilk and FP team / necon, etc. , are not capable of looking at ‘islam’ in a rational way. Hence their dogmatic response continues to create blow backs where Dr. Zbig was simply too blind to recognize the short comings amongst his own ilk.
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/brz.htm#II
Leading neocon warmonger, William Kristol, says that the statement of the US Embassy in Cairo, condemning the slandering of Islam, was “disgraceful”.
Philip Giraldi, “Pushback on Netanyahu Visit”
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/pushback-on-netanyahu-visit/
The New York Times today reports that Netanyahu is attempting to force Obama into declaring that Iran’s stockpiling enriched 20 U to a certain amount, would be a “red line”.
Israel’s UN envoy, Ron Prosor, has called on world leaders Thursday to boycott Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s September 26 speech to the 67th General Assembly of the world body in New York.
Benjamin Netanyahu said on August 30, 2012: “I will go to the UN General Assembly and, in a clear voice, tell the nations of the world the truth about Iran’s terrorist regime, which constitutes the greatest threat to world peace“. I wonder why Netanyahu has not blamed Iran for the murder of Ameican ambassador in Libya? However, the Zionist-controlled mainstream media is covering Jewish-Israeli Sam Bacile by blaming California Coptic Christian Nakoula Basseley Nakoula for producing the anti-Islam movie ‘Innocence of Muslims’.
Several American Jewish organizations along with the Iranian ‘royalists’ Americans (Iran 80) are planning to stage protests outside the UN headquarters in New York City on September 26, 2012 against Iranian President Dr. Ahmadinejad being allowed to address the UN General Assembly on Jewish Holy Day of Yom Kippur (Day of Atonment). One doubts Ahmadinejad chose the date that was allocated to him by the Zionist occupied United Nations….
http://rehmat1.com/2012/09/14/ahmadinejad-and-the-zionists-outrage-campaign/
Richard Steven Hack,
I think Parchin is used to keep the fire burning, here is a place where IAEA cant get in, and they know it, but to keep the issue about nukes alive this is their main card. Without Parchin the warmongers have nothing. And even if Iran let in people again to Parchin, and lets say they dont find anything. What will we hear then. Well of course that Iran have actually cleaned up the area and have moved the production to somewhere else, and so it will keep on repeating about other places.
Also first they claim that Iran is building nukes at Parchin and no proof is provided.
Then they they claim that Iran is cleaning up this area from nuclear related program, no proof is added here neither.
This in turn, is taken as proof that Iran is 1. building nukes 2.in secret 3. cant be trusted 4. sanctions/boycott/even war legitimate. Again actions is taken by unconfirmed rumours and accusations.
Do these people have any logical sense at all?
P.S. … the providence
The choice for the US is to either listen to the the Saudi/Israeli urgings of “cut off the head of the snake”, or listen to Iran about cooperation in draining a swamp full of real snakes.
US either comports herself according to a broad vision of mid-east where Iran(gateway to the East), Turkey(gateway to the west) and Egypt(gateway to the Arab world) together put the region on a path of growth replacing regional hopelessness with opportunity, or US abets Saudi/Israeli fantasies about reigning supreme in the swamp which will repel Iran, Egypt and Turkey to look to other global players.
Richard,
regarding Pepe’s piece and the Wilson Center’s cost-benefit report on attacking Iran, I just want to note that for at least 2 decades Iranian leaders have argued for a ‘correct’ American foreign policy approach in the Mid East.
Given their proximity, Iranians know first-hand the violent, intellectually bankrupt forces in the region. Iran’s argument with the west has been centered on foresighted sustainable American engagement with the mid east vs short-term pleasures of sucking it to regional powers by using salafi/jihadi haflf-man-haf-animal types.
Pepe’s shorthand, “blowback”, is a good title for Iran’s copious, rigorous arguments and analysis shared directly or via-via to American interlocutors concerning every country in the region.
Of all people Thomas Pickering, one of the authors of the report you linked is very familiar with those Iranian positions. It is disheartening to see a report that touches on only the periphery of bone-headed American policies driven by incorrigible vanity, and illogical ideology, namely the final folly: war with Iran.
The problem to tackle is not the cost-heavy, benefit-light prospects of war with Iran, but rather the whole edifice of an America in bed with every sclerotic grouping in the region obviously at odds with providence.
Pepe was on RT http://rt.com/news/libya-salafi-muslim-obama-098/
RSH, here is the pdf of the report:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/IranReport_091112_FINAL.pdf
(thanks to Jasmin Ramsey at lobelog)
US says Iran ‘demolishing’ facility at Parchin site
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4281339,00.html
Nothing like butthead California Congressmen…
Stop Rep. Rohrabacher’s Resolution Calling for Dividing Iran Along Ethnic Lines
https://secure3.convio.net/niac/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=225
Heh, heh, Asia times Pepe Escobar on the Benghazi incident…
“What about bombing Benghazi a year after condemning Gaddafi to death because he might have threatened to … bomb Benghazi?”
Like to see Juan Cole handle that one…
Major new report out today by former US military, diplomats, etc. on how attacking Iran would be a disaster.
Report Says US Strikes on Iran Risks Major War
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/09/13/report-says-us-strikes-on-iran-risks-major-war.html
All the “old favorites” weigh in: “Other endorsers of the report include Brent Scowcroft, who was President George H.W. Bush’s national security adviser; former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage, former Sens. Sam Nunn and Chuck Hagel and two retired chiefs of U.S. Central Command, Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni and navy Adm. William J. Fallon.”
“A more ambitious military campaign designed to oust the Iranian regime of hardline clerics or force an undermining of Iran’s influence in the Mideast would require the U.S. to occupy part or all of the country, the report said.
“Given Iran’s large size and population, and the strength of Iranian nationalism, we estimate that the occupation of Iran would require a commitment of resources and personnel greater than what the U.S. has expended over the past 10 years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined,” the report said.”
Absolutely. The war will last ten years – or longer – and cost the US economy perhaps $200-500 billion a year, plus thousands of US lives, because the war will be at least four times bigger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined, because Iran is so much bigger.
Which is why it will happen – that $200-500 billion in windfall profits…
Paul Pillar layin’ it bare:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/netanyahus-arrogance-7472
ToivoS says:
September 13, 2012 at 8:18 pm
Regardless of approach, there are questions raised by enough people to warrant an investigation we have never had.
For you, the starting point might be who knew what when. For others, the starting point might be how, as in how did the buildings collapse? For me, the starting point is the same as the ending point: who was the passerby:
Testimony by Susan Ginsberg, a staff member of the National Commission on Terrorist attacks upon the United States, in the January 26, 2004 Public Hearing:
“One [of the 4 indestructible passports] belonged to a hijacker on American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Satam al Suqami. A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed.”
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/hearing7/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-01-26.htm
But, of course there are those who want to focus on all the incredible discoveries that happened days and weeks afterwards on a fairly routine basis.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/mar/19/september11.iraq
Mahmoud al-Zahar, the co-founder and senior member of Palestinian Islamic resistance ruling the Gaza strip, Hamas, met Iran’s President Ahmadinejad in Tehran on September 9, 2012. He discussed with his host issues concerning a united Islamic Resistance front (Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas) against the Zionist entity. Mahmoud al-Zahar had met Hizbullah leader Sheikh Nasrallah before arriving in Tehran. After the meeting in Beirut, Sheikh Nasrallh said: “The contradiction with the Islamic resistance factions in Gaza is not due to their ideological, religious, or intellectual affiliation. It is, however, due to the program of the resistance.”
http://rehmat1.com/2012/09/14/hamas-calls-for-a-united-resistance-against-israel/
I suggest one watches this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKdEQTM17Qg&feature=related
The point of government action, as he says, is to divide the people from those articulating a critique of the society in which they lived.
It seems to me you give up very easily, ToivoS, if you are deterred so easily.
Richard Steven Hack links to Justin Raimondo on the 911 attack. Now that is a rational discussion about what happened that day. Unfortunately, it was not a discussion that ever made into the mainstream. Also unfortunately, a rational discussion became almost impossible to have because of the 911 truther movement that substituted fantasy, absurd conspiracies and pseudo-science and ended up discrediting anyone who tried to raise questions such as what did Israeli and American intelligence really know before the attacks.
Karl: you are right, a very sad litany of lies unopposed.
Kathleen,
Yes, one reason for hesitation on part of certain western leaders, regarding Libya and the insurrection in that country, was doubt about what government (if any) would emerge in control of the country.
Arash-jan,
The Leader has mentioned many times that we unfortunately have a cultural problem with work which is a legacy of feudal and imperial history.
If the Iranians (Americans) don’t want to pick the olives, bring in the Afghans (Mexicans). Imagine telling a Tehrani university student to go pick olives in the summer- unfortunately out of the question. That’s why I say another war would be good to put little fire under their collective a**es.
Also, I know many young men (below 50) willing to go work in places other than Tehran but their wives, moms, dads, kids usually prevent them from moving to new and better job opportunities- even to beautiful places like Isfahan, Shiraz, Hamamdan etc.
An acquintance who used to work for Renault in Tehran went to work for the bus production factory in Semnan- better pay, lower cost of living, better environment for the kids, no pollution and he was able to save money for the first time in his life. After a year, his stupid wife wanted a divorce because “when we got married you didn’t tell me we might go live in Semnan”.
Also a must see!
Get your daily dose of israeli propaganda.
So many lies, so much hysteria, so much scaremongering. And of course no one in the panel counter his accusations.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc_tv-morning_joe/#49000554
Why Netanyahu is affraid to attack Iran alone?
The answer comes from a committed Zioconservative historian Michael Leeden. Leeden is a founding member of the hawkish Jewish Institution for National Security affairs (JINSA) and former senior staffer at the AIPAC’s think tank, American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Currently, he is associated with Jewish billionaires-funded (Bronfman family, Haim Saban, Michael Steinhardt, Leonard Abramson, etc.) Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, which lead the US to war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and is currently pushing Washington to attack Syria and Iran.
On August 13, 2012 Leeden wrote in the PJ Media: “Israel does not want to do it. For as long as I can remember, the Israelis have been trying to get US to do it, because they have long believed that Iran was so big that only a big country could successfully take on the mullahs in a direct confrontation. So Israel’s Iran policy has been to convince us to do whatever the Israelis think is best. And while they’re willing to do their part, they are very reluctant to take on the entire burden”.
http://rehmat1.com/2012/09/13/why-netanyahu-is-affraid-to-attack-iran-alone/
Karl.. says:
September 13, 2012 at 8:15 am
Karl,
Joe Klein is projecting his own schizoid view of Iran and Iranians onto the Islamic Republic. He says there is a big divide between the Iranian people and their government. This is a bullshit schizoid fantasy of the western viewpoints.
If Klein continues to allow himself his schizophrenic viewpoint, he will not be able to reconcile the cognitive dissonance he is clearly experiencing.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is here to say. American leaders and pundits need to come to terms with this fact if we hope to move forward with peaceful resolutions to some of the more pressing conflicts in the region.
Even well-intended people are rife with bigotry and vile with what they “know” about Iran. Dehumanizing “the enemy” is a war-like not a peace-like behavior.
B-i-B:
The lat thing I would do is insult the my countrymen. I’m just going on two recent statements. One by an acquaintance who is a large landowner and developer in Karaj, the other an old family friend who is a large scale farmer. The former says that he just cannot get Iranian-born workers to work (that they are simply not motivated), and the latter says that his olive groves have lain fallow as the price he would have to pay for laborers to pick the fruit of the tree is prohibitive relative to the wholesale price the produce would fetch. And you are right about stopping the migration to urban centers, and I am all for Dr. Ahmadinejad and his attempt to transform the economy from an oil-dependent import economy to a manufacturing export economy. But we have to face the fact that the transition has been far too painful for the urban working class (those who rent, as rent has gone through the roof), and caused unintended consequences in the countryside.
Of course, the sanctions increase the urgency of the problems; but I agree with you that in the long run, they are a major blessing from God.
fafnir says:
September 13, 2012 at 3:10 am
You’ll find an entirely different take in this AP report of P5+1 resolution in
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1255414–russia-and-china-agree-to-criticize-iran-s-nuclear-defiance-report
The resolution’s wording, such as:
—-quote—–
While expressing “serious concern” over continued Iranian uranium enrichment in defiance of the UN Security Council, the six nations say they back the “inalienable right” of countries that have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. That is a bow to arguments by Iran, an NPT signatory that it has a right to enrich.
The resolution “stresses” that the IAEA has not reported any nuclear material missing from Iran sites it is monitoring. Missing material could mean that Tehran is using it elsewhere for weapons purposes.
It only “notes” that the agency cannot conclude there is no hidden nuclear activity going on because of “lack of co-operation” by Iran on agency requests that it be given greater powers to monitor the country.
———End Quote———–
suggests to me that Russia + China were joined by western 4 rather than the other way around to come up with this resolution.
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that, even if the resolution is passed unanimously by the 35 member board of governors, it is not binding on Iran, and it is unenforceable. To urge Iran to open up Parchin to IAEA inspection through a non-binding resolution speaks volumes. There’s an entirely different, and binding mechanism for forcing any NPT signatory to open up any site to inspection, but it requires IAEA to reveal documentary evidence supporting their suspicions. Why don’t they go that rout when they claim to be soooooo concerned? Unfortunately for IAEA’s credibility, publicizing their concerns without showing credible evidence of wrongdoing, while demanding that the world take their word for it that ‘overall the information is credible’ is waring rather thin; and they know it.
Wow! This is a must see!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc_tv-morning_joe/#49001490
http://leanforward.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/12/13827880-times-joe-klein-on-netanyahus-saber-rattling-this-is-a-fools-errand?lite
Joe Klein (Time Magazine) destroy much of the scaremongering about Iran in 10 minutes – he also condemning netanyahu, live, o MSM!
Arash,
The effect of subsidies is that the dear compatriots from the towns and villages are no longer comimg to Tehran, not what you are saying. Thank God a thousand tiomes for that. That’s an unparalleled social, economic, political and cultural achievement in the last 200 years in Iran and a real revolution. Nothing comes even close to it.
The hardest working sector of the population in Iran is the rural population, not the insult you seem to be making about them. Is it possible that some in the countryside are doing what you say? Of course, but it’s the rare exception.
And BTW I kiss the hand and feet of every Afghan “illegal” living and working in Iran and I pray more of them come and live in Iran and that we give them citizenship. Without the dear, hardworking Afghan brothers and sisters- like the Mexicans and Central Americans in the US- the whole country would come to a standstill.
Interesting that Obama doesnt recognize Egypt as being allied with the USA.
Heres an interesting story what do the posters here make of this,if true I`m sure mr Canning will be saying I told you so,but then again I wouldn`t trust aljazeera as far as I could spit them,then again this could be about sending a very clear warning to israel attack iran and you are on your own
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/09/201291211411203615.html
Shaul Mofaz, the Israeli opposition leader, has accused Netanyahu of trying to overthrow Obama. PressTV has the story today.
Israel like I in IAEA?
The diplomats say the information — from the U.S., Israel and at least one other country — alleges the research was done within the past three years
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/11/ap_exclusive_new_intelligence_on_iran_nuke_work
Enough said.
Andrew Bacevich, “How We [US} Became Israel”:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-we-became-israel/
Off-topic but relevant to my comments via 9/11:
Justin Raimondo on Our Truth, and Theirs – What is a 9/11 “truther”?
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/09/11/our-truth-and-theirs/
Justin has never bought into the conspiracy theories, but he also doesn’t buy in to the official story. He’s called attention to the stories of Israeli involvement for some time and mentions them again in this piece.
And clearly Bush administration officials pushed back very hard, led by the neocons allegedly intent on attacking Iraq, against doing anything prior to 9/11 to prevent it. That speaks for itself, in my opinion. The distinction between that and “letting it happen” is minimal since by definition the motivations are the same.
An Iranian View says:
September 12, 2012 at 7:53 am
He was a collateral damage if not a twisted case
This tragic story sure has wiped the Netanyahu throwing a fit story off the front pages
Who was it that wrote about one of the main Libyan rebel leaders as having been a former member of Al Qeada? These people just did not disappear? Also read that the OBama administration and other countries involved with the overthrow of Qaddafi did not even know who the rebels were for sure.
imho,
I agree with you it would be a bad idea for Iran to enrich above 20.
Tragic events in Libya, I feel with the relatives of the dead.
The shia hatred or phobia in part pushed by the US and the silent attitude on sunni salafist movements is in part to blame for this. If you check photos from the egyptian raid you could see black/white al-qaeda and jihad flags by the protesters.
Also this will hopefully also be turned into something good, and that is to more than ever speak out against war on Iran by the US and western world that contemplate that, because such an attack would probably generate violent uprisings just like these but x10.
Looks like Libya’s turned into the democracy American wanted..What did Qaddafi ever do to the US/EU to deserve such fate??
The literally murdered him and Clinton shamefully bragged about it..At this rate, the US will be kicked out of the ME by 2020 if they’re not careful..
We came, we saw, we made a mess in the “global village”
imho says:
September 12, 2012 at 3:50 am
Will not happen.
With respect to the ‘order of economic battle’ document fyi posted, firstly, it is self-admittedly based on skewed (seasonal) data, so that, unfortunately, the crude oil exports will be going up, leveling the graph lines. Secondly, it assumes, based on old-paradigm thinking, that more export of oil is good, and less is bad. This is true, but for the Western economies, not for the Iranian one, which the “study” implies. Thirdly, Even if you ignore the bias in the data (in both of the above senses) and frame the issue in its own faulty framework, the picture is pitifully incomplete if one only takes into account the “bad” decrease in crude exports and ignores the fact that the much more profitable sectors of the export of electricity, for example, has seen a 46% increase in the same past 6 months of 2012, as well as the continuing increase in the non-oil export sector, diminishing to negligible any even short-term economic pressure on the administration of Dr. Ahmadinejad. Needless to say, this see-saw dynamic is a watershed in the transition from an import economy dependent on oil income to a manufacturing export economy, with far reaching implications.
Dr. Ahmadinejad does seem to have made a major mistake in the implementation of his subsidy program, as the money his administration hands out every month to the millions of people living in the villages and small towns of the country is way too much; so much so that employers are finding it impossible to find people to do any actual manual labor (be it in farming, construction or industry – except for the Afgan illegals, of course): they would rather collect their subsidy check and chew the cud in the comfort of their own homes that sweat it out in the workplace. And this is putting additional upward inflationary pressure on the booming economy. Meanwhile, this inflationary pressure has made it nearly impossible for the lower classes of the large towns and cities to make ends meet.
“John Christopher Stevens arrived to Libya as US ambassador in May, having served as the US special representative to Libya’s National Transitional Council during the country’s revolt last year against Muammar Gaddafi.
Stevens’ death in Tuesday’s attack was also confirmed in a tweet by Mustafa Abu Shagur, the deputy prime minister, who condemned the “cowardly act of attacking the US consulate and the killing of (ambassador) Mr Stevens and other diplomats.”
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/us-missions-egypt-libya-attacked-over-film
I wonder if Mz clinton and the US FP team is happily obliged to kiss the collective behinds of Iran, China and Russia in stopping her from turning Syria into another Libya!!! But then again, will they ever learn!!!! Perhaps US FP only hires people who have learning disability as one of their core requirements.
The death of the American ambassador to Libya as well as the attack in Egypt reveal the foolish and evil nature of the US alliance with Saudi and Qatari backed extremists. It also reveals how harmful the actions of Zionists and supporters of Israel can be for the US.
Iran’s diplo-GDP Losses & Gains
============================
Loss: Canada(GDP $1.574 trillion)
Gain: China (GDP $5.878 trillion)
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/video/2012-09/12/c_131845196.htm
Morsi on diplomatic mission from Washington
http://news.yahoo.com/egypt-trying-persuade-iran-drop-assad-215942294.html?_esi=1
the carrots are restoring diplomatic ties between Egypt and Iran and selling Iranian oil to Egypt. And the sticks:
One prominent Syrian anti-regime activist said Iran’s participation in the group suggests it realizes that supporting Assad may not be workable in the long run.
“There is a consensus among the four that the Syrian conflict must end before the country disintegrates. If this happens, the fallout will touch everyone in the region,” said Rami Abdul-Rahman, director of the British-based Observatory for Human Rights in Syria, an activist group that monitors violence and abuses in Syria.
“If left to its own devices, the war will continue for four or five more years,” he said.
“Israel itself has not publicly defined its own red lines. Officials say that by doing so, they would essentially be telling the world when it is going to attack.”
picked from the same yahoo news bulletin.
Those officials aren’t worried about US defining its red lines for the same reason ?! Shameless.
Purple lines are where Iran likes to navigate; just add some blue or red as needed; the recipe is simple
James Canning,
“Gold currently heads the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, a private think tank, but often acts as an informal adviser to Netanyahu.
…
But Gold said potential red lines for the Americans would be an Iranian decision to enrich uranium beyond the current level of 20 percent, a clear signal they are on the road to weapons, or the accumulation of specific quantities of lower enriched materials.”
I guess we’ll see the same posts with only the number changed.
The “current” level, whatever, cannot be a red line otherwise we’d have passed it, unless one would like to slap himself in the face.
http://news.yahoo.com/us-israel-divisions-over-iran-boil-over-201001249.html?_esi=1
P.S. before you ask the question, no, I am not suggesting Iran should do above 20%; that was just FYI only.
Shifting Baseline syndrome (coined by Paul Kedrosky): Speakers/academia (paid 4 by the lobbies), intellectuals (my-still-shapely-beard!), press (aka presstitutes) keep changing baselines which confuses, misleads which in turn creates & drives the agenda. Here is what I mean, overtime, presstitutes/speakers keep changing the rationale why X is behaving the way it does, why its X’s fault & what X can do to remedy itself.
Case in point: “…Ray Takeyh argues that, because of the religious grounding of the ideology ostensibly driving Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, Iran—unlike the People’s Republic of China—has failed to continue moving along a path of “moderation” and reform…”
Takeyh’s uses some key words here: ‘unlike china’, ‘path of moderation’, ‘reform’ etc. Let’s debunk da funk.
MODERATION: The Gulf sheikhdoms are not even close to moderation, unless of course Takeyh’s meant the Ayatollah’s should sip some ‘JIN & JUICE’. Yet the sheikhdoms get along very well with Washington (a misnomer here, since whenever Washington yells jump, they fly!)
REFORM: well which Sheikhdoms have elections? Which has ever changed leaders (ok, let’s be fair rotating presidents?). Indeed reform, what reform? Did i mention that women can’t even drive cars in SA? Like it’s an Islamic law!
UNLIKE CHINA: Well, that would explain why Washington is shifting its focus on china. Contrary to everyone’s belief (if u are one of the ‘everyone’), Iran is a small fry compared to how Washington is scared of China. So Mr. Takeyh, what did china do exactly that Washington loved so much that it’s trying to contain the rise of china? Indeed china did not change because of anyone; they changed because it suited their interests as a nation. They reject pressure from anyone to change their communist system just because…
You get the point. The trick is that the elite keep shifting the baseline. Each successive generation, which in mindspeak is only two years, 48 hrs for Americans, is given a rationale that is totally different while the underlying reasons & reality remain the same!
ORIGINAL BASELINE: Washington’s beef with Tehran is that Tehran refused, still refuses to bend over (and no backwards word here) when and whenever Washington demands it. Period. Washington does not tolerate indigenous people who stand up for themselves lest they inspire the ignorant ‘ragheads’. Has anyone heard of Bouaziz? But you do know Tahrir Square. Get the pic?
Whatever Iran offered after 9/11 would have been only temporary if Washington had returned the favor since the Original baseline was & remains the same! Iran by now knows it. You only need to read Khamenei’s speech
Whoa
U.S. President Barack Obama Avoids Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu Meeting
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/obama-netanyahu-meeting_n_1874814.html
The Daily Telegraph reports that an unnamed British official visited Isarael last month to tell Netanyahu that David Cameron (and Britain, of course)do not want Israel to attack Iran.
Scott McConnell on Bibi of late:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/bibi-needs-a-time-out/
Rd.,
The Financial Times had an interview with him (Sept. 11th).
For Toivo and RHS, coming at it from a different angle:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/11/the-11th-anniversary-of-911/
It seems Netanyahoo’s bluffed himself into irrelevance…Even his own staunch supporters in the EU/Washington wants nothing to do with his war bluffs and have warned him to back off..
BiBiJon says:
September 11, 2012 at 12:30 pm
The entire country has been dependent on oil income and subsidies for at least 3 generations.
It is very difficult to alter that quickly.
And for many the phrase “profit seeking” is a dirty word; they are addicted to the fantasy of “Islamic Economics”.
The financial sanctions of US and EU, irrespective of Iran’s economy, would have been deadly had not Iranians prepared for it and had not the US-EU Financial Economy not imploded last year.
At least half a decade of painful adjustments is facing Iran.
Would anyone have more detailed info on Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of the Expediency Council, his background, etc.. to share? thank you.
American propaganda on Bahrain.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/mad-men/
BiBiJon says:
“I wonder if there’s any data available for how the ‘economy of resistance’ is coming along. ”
One simple step, Dimo – an Iranian tablet PC
http://therealamirtaheri.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/dimo-iranian-tablet-pc.html
Where is the canadian government to expel egyptian embassy? After all the american embassy in egypt was stormed today.
Deftness.
P.S. http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/UserFiles/File/Task%20Force%20Reports/EMBARGO_CCS_2012.pdf
“Large majorities of Americans favor diplomatic
engagement with leaders of countries and groups
with whom the United States has hostile or
unfriendly relations. By margins of more than two
to one, Americans say the United States should be
ready to hold talks with the leaders of Cuba (73%),
North Korea (69%), and Iran (67%).”
Another words, more than two to one, (67% vs 30%) support sending someone to Tehran to talk. I know, I know, US diplomats are too busy right now talking to Taliban which the public opposes (49% to 48%).
Attack Iran? You and what public opinion?
=======================================
” The new annual poll published this week by the Chicago Council for Global Affairs on American attitudes towards foreign affairs – dubbed “Foreign Policy in the New Millennium” – found that 70% of Americans oppose a strike on Iran that is not authorized by the UN Security Council, and 51% are opposed even if the UN body does sanction the attack. In addition, 59% of Americans are opposed to US intervention on behalf of Israel in case of Iranian retaliation for a preemptive Israeli attack.
On the other hand, 79% of Americans believe that further sanctions should be applied on Tehran through the UN Security Council, and 67% believe that the U.S. government should engage in direct diplomacy with the regime in Tehran. ”
From http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/new-poll-majority-of-americans-oppose-military-strike-on-iran-1.464330
“It’s very good: Recalling Benjamin Netanyahu’s words on the day of the 9/11 attacks”
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/its-very-good-recalling-benjamin-netanyahus-words-day-911-attacks?utm_source=EI+readers&utm_campaign=
kooshy,
Do the American media personalities who visit Iran fail to ask the man in the street if he likes US foreign policy? Or is the question asked, but that fact (and answer) simply not reported?
The Financial Times today has an interview with an Iranian official who is in charge of seeking ways to work around the sanctions and wean the Iranian economy from depending so much on oil exports.
Pat Buchanan, “Has Obama Called Bibi’s Bluff?”
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/has-obama-called-bibis-bluff/
fyi says:
September 11, 2012 at 11:50 am
I wonder if there’s any data available for how the ‘economy of resistance’ is coming along. One side of the picture is presented by your link: the decreasing oil exports. The other side:
“If we had not faced sanctions, we would never have thought of [reducing our dependence on] oil,” he said. “Sanctions are dragging us in that direction.”
From http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/12926
All:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/war-and-bluff-iran-israel-and-united-states
Deafness / Deftness
=================
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=1&hp
All:
Order of Economic Battle Against Iran:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/IranSanctionsUpdate.pdf
LIHOP / MIHOP
=============
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=1&hp
Some think the military that attacks weddings to kill innocent man women and babies deserve to be defeated in this way.
US faces defeat in Afghanistan: Taliban
September 11, 20121:14PM
US forces face “utter defeat” in Afghanistan and Americans are unsafe wherever they go in the world, the Taliban says ahead of the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/us-faces-defeat-in-afghanistan-taliban/story-e6freuz9-1226471819743
“Iran nuclear threat” – MUST SEE!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oVvF3Wr2Qg
When American media’s propaganda personalities travel to Iran, they usually report back that the Iranians love Americans, true, for that reason I am sure I can add that Iranians also love Cook Islanders; the question this western media personalities fail to ask or for obvious reasons don’t want to ask is if Iranians also love American government and American foreign policy, or if they really love to be under constant threat America’s or her client states attack.
————————————————————————–
The game plan in Syria
Aamir Raza Husain | Sep 11, 2012, 12.00AM IST
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/The-game-plan-in-Syria/articleshow/16341429.cms
First it was Gen. Ehud Barak and on Sunday Hillary Clinton backstabbed Netanyahu on bombing the Islamic Republic.
http://rehmat1.com/2012/09/11/hillary-backstabbed-bibi-on-bombing-iran/
kooshy,
Netanyahu’s position is that Iran should not be allowed to enrich uranium. Full stop. He may have to accept Iranian enrichment to 5 or lower. Zero chance, in my view, that P5+1 will accept Iranian enrichment to 20. Netanyahu wants Iran attacked if it enriches higher than 20.
Clear concrete interview Flynt. Thanks. Iran suspended the enrichment of uranium in 2002, 2003, 2004 and the Bush administration “blew it”
kooshy says:
September 10, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Kooshy a whole bunch of other news organizations are also reporting the same.
e.g. TASS
“Welcoming German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle to Jerusalem Sunday, he said the launch of an industrial operation to enrich uranium to above 20% would be interpreted as ‘a red line crossing’.”
http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_09_10/Iran-must-be-stopped-Netanyahu/
3things come to mind.
a) Seeing as according to Dame Ashton, Bibi’s word is gospel, then this augurs well for the next round of negotiations.
b) Whatever one thinks of the veracity of reports of Obama’s ultimatums to Bibi on not starting WWIII, it is difficult to imagine a completely voluntary climb down such as this by a certifiable loony.
c) As far as the ruptured relations between Likhud and US, is this too little too late.
Flynt “does not have that degree of concensus”
“have the U.S. undertake the mission”
“An important part of what Netanyahu is doing is in a sense trying to influence our politics our debate here in ways that are going to set up the U.S. whether under a re-elected President Obama or under a new Romney administration is set up the U.S.um to undertake that mission. Basically to start a war with Iran if Iran will not stand down from enriching uranium. I think that is a very important part of what Netanyahu and Barak are doing right now”
And Diane Rehm and team gave the Israeli government an opportunity to promote this agenda
Be sure to check under the bed.
Los Angeles Police Deputy Chief Michael Downing reportedly told members of the LAPD’s counter-terrorism unit on Wednesday that the LAPD is currently tracking local Iranian and Hezbollah agents that may initiate attacks in Southern California.
http://gerarddirect.com/2012/09/01/lapd-says-active-terror-cells-from-iran-hezbollah-in-region/
Iran is expanding a “fifth column” in Canada. . . many expatriates have been warning of the threat of Iranian diplomats conspiring in Canada (but now they’re gone). . . there is evidence of Iranian infiltration in the school system.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3162/iran-infiltrates-canada
Hope Flynt and Hillary listen to the Diane Rehm’s Show today “Israeli Perspectives on Iran”. As if we hear any other perspectives in the US MSM. Diane allowed so many false claims to be repeated about Iran it was tough to keep up. Diane was a total coward allowing all of these false claims to be repeated then she actually said “if Israel has nuclear weapons” She is a weak kneed puke on this issue. Pathetic. This is not the first time Diane has allowed warmongers to repeat the unsubstantiated claims about Iran to the point where they have become “normalized” When will the Rehm team have the Leveretts on. Please listen to the show and contact the show and ask them to have the Leveretts on.
IRMEP in the comments section said that Israel is subtly threatening using nuclear weapons on Iran and pushing the U.S. to use conventional weapons before they would do such a thing. The only other people I have heard even whisper about such a possibility were Dr. Zbig, Former President Jimmy Carter, Pro Norm Finkelstein and former weapons inspector Scott Ritter. Hope the Leveretts talk about the possibility of Israel ever using nuclear weapons on Iran. Is that a possibility? Hope folks go listen to that Rehm show and dissect
It sounds like, Bibi Nut n yaboo (please hold me back or I am going to attack them) is coming to term with accepting Iran’s 20%U, but that wouldn’t count till our own Gave nar turns the green light on that 20% stuff
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/09/10/260814/israel-accepts-iran-20-enrichment/
Honest Bill
===========
Yes, I mean the Bill of http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/08/opinion/the-i-can-t-believe-i-m-a-hawk-club.html Kelly fame.
After spraying gobbets of racist bile about Iran, such as “Nuclear Mullah”, “dreaded Persian Bomb”, “despots”, “theocrats”, “tendency to paranoia”, “brutal, mendacious and meddlesome”, honest Bill tells us that what persuaded him to “swallow hard and take the risks of a nuclear Iran over the gamble of a pre-emptive war” is the ” grave costs” that Iran would exact on an aggressor.
In short folks, the only thing neoliberals understand is power, pure and simple.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/opinion/keller-nuclear-mullahs.html?pagewanted=all
Anyone having information on which states that are involved in the massive 10 day long wargames in the Persian Gulf next week?
Here is the statement that Diane Rehm allowed CNN’s Ms. Labott to get away (as well as other inaccuracies) on her Friday international hour. Towards the end of the transcript:
Labott ” And so the sanctions,they are under very tough sanctions. They don’t seem to be stopping Iran from continuing to develop its weapons and that’s what the IAEA found in it’s recent report”
Now why is it that Diane completely rolled over and did not challenge this completely inaccurate and dangerous statement. This is not the first time Diane has not challenged unsubstantiated statements about Iran to be repeated on her program. Labott is a reporter for CNN for heavens sake and this is what we hear reporters repeating. The Friday show transcript is filled with inflammatory Iran statements.
Clinton seems to reject to create a redline as demanded by israel on iran.
U.S. ‘Not Setting Deadlines’ for Iran, Clinton Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/2012-09-09/u-s-not-setting-deadlines-for-iran-clinton-says.html
Oh IAEA are angry again, its monday, new assignments has arrived.
IAEA Demands Access to Iranian Military Site
http://www.en.rian.ru/world/20120910/175878630.html
So the IAEA dont even know its own rules? Iran is not under AP and have not signed up to any obligation to let IAEA inspectors in to this area.
At 11 am est the Diane Rehm show will be airing a show focused on two Israeli perspectives on Iran. Please call, email, twitter, facebook your questions. 1-800- 433-8850 drshow@wamu.org. Also please ask Diane to have the Leveretts on her show to talk about this issue. Been a long long time. Have asked over and over again. More recently the Rehm team has had a one hour show on Hezbollah, Syria and now the Israel perspective on Iran. Most of her quest on these issues are all on the same page. Little to no diversity of opinion. On Syria all the guest were on the same page, negotiations have been exhausted, military action basically the only way to go. No mention of Egyptian President Morsi’s suggestion to form a “contact group” Not a whisper about this.
Been years that the Diane Rehm show has focused on Israel’s ever expanding illegal settlements. When will the Rehm team give an hour to this critical issue. Please ask. Don’t let Diane BS and say they have done a recent show on the illegal settlements because they have not. Also you might want to ask Diane why she allows unsubstantiated claims to be repeated about Iran. On her Friday show she allowed CNN’s Labott to say that Iran has nuclear weapons twice. The Friday International transcript is at the Rehm site. Please call during the show with your questions. Starts in 15 minutes. Push the Rehm show to have the Leveretts on
“In war, truth is the first casualty.” Aeschylus
The Democratic platform for Iran:
Iran. President Obama, working closely with our international partners and Congress, has put in place unprecedented sanctions against Iran. Iran has yet to build a nuclear weapon, but has continually failed to meet its obligations under the NPT and several United Nations Security Council resolutions, and it cannot demonstrate with any credibility that its program is peaceful.
The President is committed to using all instruments of national power to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. When President Obama took office, Iran was ascendant in the region, and the international community was divided over how to address Iran’s nuclear violations. The President’s early offer of engagement with Iran—quickly rebuffed by the regime—allowed the United States to expose Iranian intransigence and rally the international community as never before. Working with our European allies and with Russia and China, the administration gained unprecedented agreement for the toughest ever UN sanctions against Iran, laying the foundation for additional national financial and energy sanctions imposed by the United States and other nations. As a result, Iran is now increasingly isolated and the regime faces crippling economic pressure—pressure that will only build over time.
President Obama believes that a diplomatic outcome remains the best and most enduring solution. At the same time, he has also made clear that the window for diplomacy will not remain open indefinitely and that all options—including military force—remain on the table. But we have an obligation to use the time and space that exists now to put increasing pressure on the Iranian regime to live up to its obligations and rejoin the community of nations, or face the consequences.
http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform#preventing-spread-of-nuclear-weapons
The other constraint …. ” a new reality has emerged in U.S.-Israel relations.”
=====================================================================
Every time Israelis tell the truth, it turns into an own-goal. Surely Netanyahu’s truthful assertion of the global implications of ‘Iran policy’ has done much to disqualify the apartheid pipsqueak being anywhere near the driver’s seat.
h/t James
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/us-israeli-interests-diverge-iran-7431
Flynt and Hillary mention: “George W. Bush administration certainly blew a major opportunity to improve U.S. relations with Iran by its witless reaction (perhaps motivated by an ideology grounded in a particular religious view?) to Tehran’s post-9/11 cooperation with the United States. Through the remainder of Khatami’s presidency, the Bush administration continued to blow opportunities for realigning U.S.-Iranian relations”
As a student of FP dynamics and diplomacy I do remember how the US humiliated Khatami. There did at that time seem so many opportunities of improved US/Iran relations. I can see how frustrating it must have been for Hillary and Flynt.
Bless you, Pirouz, you seem to be interested in my background and motives. With all respect, you need to mature your attitudes. There’s no need to be a tool of the establishment.
China is a five thousand year old civilization which was understandably concerned, in the fifties and sixties, with US military activities on its border, and in fact it still is. We can’t blame them for that, can we. I have been a military advisor to the Nationalist China army on Taiwan and subsequently a visitor to “Red” China and I have a deep respect for Chinese and their culture, the activities of your uncle and cousin notwithstanding. (I was in Vietnam too. That’s where I gained the attitude maturity I mentioned above.)
To get a better perspective of my views please visit the Smedley Butler Society I started eight years ago, back when nobody envisioned that these GD wars would be endless.
http://warisaracket.org/
General Butler’s words sum it up well: “War is a racket. . .the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.” – MajGen Smedley D. Butler, USMC, double recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor, 1939
Is it part of Jewish ‘Tikum Olam’ to call for the assassination of Iranian President Ahmadinejad. The Jewish iVoteIsrael campaign has just put a new video which call Israeli pilots to make a suicidal attack on Iran to assassinate Ahmadinejad and call American citizens to vote for the presidential candidate who will defend the Zionist entity against all odds. Watch the video below.
http://rehmat1.com/2012/09/10/mitt-romney-embodies-jewish-values/
“The first is a “capacity constraint”: the Israeli military, on its own, simply cannot do that much damage to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.”
Despite Netanyahu’s bluster, he knows this quite well, Most comentators ignore the real reason for an Israeli attack. As Flynt correct states, the SOLE purpose of an Israeli attack is to draw the US in to the war.
And despite rumors of Obama backing off from that (and it’s obvious any attempt to deny the US would automatically enter the war in any communication with Iran is clearly deceptive) there can be no doubt the US WOULD enter that war. It simply would not be politically feasible for a US President not to. Congress might even well pass a resolution mandating it, which the President would find impossible to veto.
The only possible case in which the US would not enter the war is if Iran restrained its response to the initial Israeli attack so much that the US could plausibly claim that no war was actually underway, but merely an “incident”.
This is highly unlikely, however, as the Israelis would need to at least make a credible “show” of attempting to damage Iran’s nuclear facilities and all estimates say that would require perhaps a hundred Israeli aircraft, i.e., a serious attack regardless of how little actual results it achieved strategically. In addition, Iran has repeatedly warned of a “crushing and immediate response” should it be attacked. Given that Iran could not be sure that the US was not immediately launching its own attack after an Israeli assault, it is likely Iran would make good on that threat and wisely so.
I also agree that Israel is unlikely to attack Iran before next year. The reason, as I’ve stated repeatedly here, is that Israel seriously needs to degrade Syria and Hizballah in Lebanon to avoid a war which is very expensive to the Israeli economy and subsequent domestic political fallout. The only way to do that is to degrade Syria and Hizballah’s missile arsenals and force Hizballah forces further north into Lebanon so the bulk of their arsenal is either left behind or does not have the range to hit all of Israel.
I repeat that this is a STRATEGIC NECESSITY for Israel which is governing Israel’s timing on attacking Iran. Because Israel will never give up its intention to see Iran eliminated as an effective actor in the region, and because this can never be done by any means other than a war with the US, and because such a war will be costly to Israel if Syria and Hizballah are not degraded, the US/NATO/Turkey attack on Syria is absolutely necessary concurrent with an Israeli attack on Lebanon.
These are overriding strategic facts on the ground that cannot be dismissed.
It is POSSIBLE that Netanyahu MIGHT order some sort of attack on Iran WITHOUT dealing with Syria and Hizballah first. But I find it unlikely due to the likely cost to his political future if he does not deal with Syria and Hizballah first.
Don, if memory serves me correct you’re an old U.S. military veteran. My uncle fought soldiers from the PRC in Korea, and my cousin fought PRC assisted troops and so-called terrorists in Vietnam. I don’t know about your family but ours considered PRC a big time enemy. I still shake my head in wonder at seeing the PRC flag fly from their consulate here in San Francisco when riding by on my motorcycle.
Flynt, good to see a realistic interpretation on Israeli decision making. Bibi’s gotta be disappointed in that the Republicans haven’t made war with Iran a part of their election platform.
Earlier this year, the famous journalist, Carl Bernstein, was paid $12,000 to promote the MEK by giving a speech at the Waldorf-Asoria in New York. Quote: “The evil, the terrorism, the real terrorism, is in the heart of Tehran”.
All:
These views are closer to mine; the only thing lacking is the Marx Brothers.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/07/the_bunch_that_cant_shoot_straight
All:
The coercive diplomatic approach to Iran was the analogue of the Combined-Arms approach to fighting wars.
It had been planned during 2009 and 2010 and was put into peration later in 2011.
It consisted of diplomatic, propaganda, economic, finacial attacks against Iran.
One aim was to dis-orient the Iranian leaders, getting them to do something stupid.
The multiple assasinations of Iranian scientists, for example, were intended to cause Iranians to lash out.
They did not, absorbed the blows and continued on their path; in nuclear field. in Iraq, in Ballistic missile development, etc.
Mr. Amano’s machinations last November was also part of this “Combined-Arms” approach to Iran; setting teh stage for increasing the threat of war against Iran so that combind with the US-EU Economic Siege War to cause Iranians to either surrender or to do something stupid.
The Israelis were supposed to be working to further frighten Iran.
But internal politics of Israel – between the current PM’s faction and Mr. Mofaz faction – complicated the execution of this plan.
To wound Iran, US-EU leaders and planenrs targetted Syria as well.
And, finally, in early 2012, just like in 2006, Iranians stated that they would go to war.
That was the moment of Truth for all these hare-brained schemes of US-EU leaders.
Almost a year has passed since this war against Iran started in 2011.
Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon are holding together.
US is out of Iraq and will be out of Afghanistan before 2013 is out.
US War option against Iran, realstically, requird the Southern Persian Gulf states to become front-line states against Iran – something that has never happened in the last 2000 years.
Arabs declined that option.
Desperation is evident among US-EU leaders; I expect more EU states will break diplomatic relations with Iran in the coming months; there is nothing else left to do.
The war against Resistance Axis will continue for the next few years economic one against Iran and asymmetrical war against Syria.
On Israel, they will not attack – IDF will sooner remove the PM than to start a war.
Watch as Turkey starts to deal with more serious Kurdish insurgency while arms begin to flow into other states.
5 to 6 years of struggle is ahread for all protogonists.
The US President in 2017 will have to terminate this war.
Obama will not.
Scott McConnell has some interesting comments on how to avoid war with Iran. Sept. 7th:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-only-way-to-avoid-war-with-iran/
Yes, of course the US must accept Iran’s government as it is. Philip Stephens of the Financial Times said this in his FT column this past Friday. Curiously, FYI did not like Stephens’ comments.
Writing Sept. 5th (Takimag.com), Taki underlined a crucial fact: “Zionists have countless ways to remunerate American citizens who are loyal to Israel. That’s what the neoconservative movement was and is all about.”
In this political campaign, the Republican nominee, Romney, has determined the principal foreign policy issue and it’s Iran. Speaking to “Meet the Press” today, Romney spoke of Obama’s foreign policy, saying that “perhaps [Obama's] biggest failure is as it relates to the greatest threat that America faces and the world faces, which is a nuclear Iran.”
There is no way for Obama to counter that. Romney is correctly stating, in essence, that Obama didn’t do what he said he’d do. June 4, 2008: Democratic presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama vowed he would work to “eliminate” the threat posed by Iran to security in the Middle East and around the globe. “There’s no greater threat to Israel or to the peace and stability of the region than Iran,” he told the powerful pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC).
Obama’s chief diplomat SecState Clinton didn’t even attend the recent Dem convention. The person whom Obama introduced to the State employees in January 2009 with “I’m giving you my best” was not available to give the conventioneers a rousing speech about Obama’s foreign policy successes, qualifying him for four more years. Clinton, Obama’s best, was as far away as she could get, in China, which is okay because there haven’t been any foreign policy successes, especially on Iran. President Obama promised four years ago that he would work to eliminate the Iran threat and he failed.
So whether Obama wins or loses he has ceded the field to the über-hawks like Senator Lieberman. “By its recalcitrance Iran is presenting the rest of the world with only two choices: Do we accept a nuclear Iran and try to contain it … or do we take military action? That’s a fateful decision that’s got to be made in the months ahead,” he added. Israel has determined that “containment” wouldn’t work, so there’s that.
George W. Bush was indeed “witless”, when he rewarded Iran for its help in overthrowing the Taleban in Afghanistan, by calling Iran a member of the “Axis of Evil” (in 2003 State of the Union address). Stupidity almost beyond belief. and let’s remember this gross stupidity on the part of G W Bush was enabled by the incompetence of Condoleezza Rice. Rice thought nothing strange or wrong about condemning Iran in the speeech! Stupifying incompetence on Rice’s part.
Takeyh’s analogy with PRC doesn’t work at all and should not have been pursued. Iran has been (falsely) charged by the US as being a global terrorist threat including the US, as guilty of threatening to wipe Israel off the map and as pursuing a nuclear weapons program. All three combined make Iran US foreign enemy number one which is reflected in political rhetoric as well as in citizen polls. The PRC on the other hand was not a threat to the US or Israel.
Israel thoroughly controls the US congress and it will not allow diplomacy with Iran. Quite the opposite — it has sought and received increased US efforts to isolate Iran. The principal benefit to Israel to date has been a complete distraction of the US/UN global rulers away from Israel’s rape of Palestine. Israel’s successful strategy — keep everyone’s eye on the ball — Iran and its toothless nuclear program
So a country the size of New Jersey with less people has kept the US spinning like a top, ineffective in the Middle East and in fact the whole Muslim world. Give Netenyahu credit for that; credit given where credit is due.