Since returning to government service to take up his current position, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has been a sober skeptic about the wisdom of military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets—under President Obama as well as under President George W. Bush, and regardless of whether such strikes would be carried out by the United States or by Israel. To the extent that he has addressed the issue publicly, he has generally offered sound reasons for his skepticism—e.g., strikes would expose other U.S. positions in the region (such as military deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq) to additional and undesirable stress and would not “solve” the nuclear problem. As far as these arguments go, we agree with them.
But now Secretary Gates is emphasizing an additional argument against the military option—namely, that an attack on Iran would undo all of the “good” being achieved by sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Speaking in Washington earlier this week, Gates said
“[T]he information that we have is that [the Iranians] have been surprised by the impact of the sanctions, this latest round, not just the last U.N. Security Council resolution, but the actions taken by individual countries using the U.N. Security Council resolution as a platform or as a foundation. And those measures have really bitten much harder than they anticipated. And we even have some evidence that Khamenei now is beginning to wonder if Ahmadinejad is lying to him about the impact of the sanctions on the economy, and whether he’s getting the straight scoop in terms of how much trouble the economy really is in.
So I think that the sanctions are having an impact…the only long-term solution in avoiding an Iranian nuclear weapons capability is for the Iranians to decide it’s not in their interest. Everything else is a short-term solution, is a two- to three-year solution. And if it’s a military solution, as far as I’m concerned…it will bring together a divided nation, it will make them absolutely committed to attaining nuclear weapons, and they will just go deeper and more covert. So I think that the political economic strategy is the one that we have to continue to pursue and ratchet up, and create an exit for them…if you agree to do these things that give us confidence that you’re not building nuclear weapons, then there is a way out of the box you’ve gotten yourself into.”
The proposition that the United States should not embrace the military option vis-à-vis Iran because that would undermine the Obama Administration’s unexpectedly effective sanctions policy is gaining traction in what, today, passes for “realism” in non-neoconservative foreign policy analysis outside the Administration. But the proposition rests on a false premise—that the sanctions policy is actually accomplishing something positive. And, as is usually the case with strategies built on false analytic premises, this proposition will end up having deeply negative—and, for most who embrace it, unintended—consequences. Above all, it will raise the risks of an eventual U.S.-Iranian military confrontation—precisely the outcome that Secretary Gates and others want to avoid.
The notion that sanctions are “working” is inevitably bound up with the idea that there are deep cleavages in the Islamic Republic’s political elite over matters of high politics, and that the United States and its partners can play on those cleavages to steer Iranian foreign policy in the direction they prefer. Gates’ claim about Khamenei’s distrust of Ahmadinejad is nothing but hearsay (if that). Others hypothesize that major conservative figures in Iranian politics—e.g., Larijani, Qalibaf, etc.,–will join forces to displace Ahmadinejad. All of these fanciful scenarios reflect the same chronic delusion about the Islamic Republic in American foreign policy circles, as described above–that that there are deep cleavages in Tehran which the United States can exploit. This delusion dates back at least to the Reagan Administration’s Iran-contra scandal.
But, like all delusions, this one never pans out for those who hold it. And, once this particular delusion is exposed, those who previously held it tend to embrace much harder-line positions toward the Islamic Republic. To illustrate this point, consider the evolution of Michael Ledeen’s views on Iran. For twenty years, we have known Mr. Ledeen as a staunch advocate of regime change as the goal of America’s Iran policy. But, in the 1980s, Ledeen was one of the movers behind the Reagan Administration’s attempted outreach to Tehran, which imploded in the Iran-contra scandal. And, note the following passages from an Op Ed that Ledeen published in The New York Times on July 19, 1988, just after the Islamic Republic agreed to a ceasefire to end the Iran-Iraq war:
“The United States, which should have been exploring improved relations with Iran before Iran’s acceptance of the United Nations-sponsored cease-fire, should now seize the opportunity to do so…The Iranian advocates of a war to the death against Iraq have been discredited by Iraqi battlefield victories, by the recent military successes of the Iraq-supported anti-Khomeini Iranian fighters and by the humiliation inflicted on Iran by the American military in the Persian Gulf.
Those Iranians who have been calling for better relations with the West have clearly been gathering strength, demonstrated by the normalization of diplomatic and commercial relations with France in May and the subsequent opening of talks with Britain toward the same ends. Among the advocates of such improved relations are the two leading candidates to succeed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini: Ayatollah Hojatolislam Rafsanjani and the Ayatollah Hussein Ali Montazeri…
One of the more striking aspects of the Iranian announcement that it would abide unconditionally by the cease-fire is that it came from the general command of the armed forces—that is, from the commanders of the regular army. The war with Iraq has been conducted primarily by the Revolutionary Guards, who have made sure that the traditional armed forces have been largely extraneous to military planning and to the balance of political power in Tehran. Indeed, the regular armed forces—long pro-Western in their outlook—were kept out of the capital, lest they become a decisive political factor. The general command’s announcement of the cease-fire thus indicates further strengthening of the pro-Western forces in Iran…
[T]here has been no sense of urgency among our top policymakers to design and conduct a policy toward Iran—in part because our top officials, traumatized by the Iran-contra scandal and the hearings and investigations that followed, were determined not to be caught dealing with the Iranians, and in part because President Reagan unfortunately chose to make the hostage question the prime issue between the two countries. This meant that the more serious matter of United States-Iranian relations was finessed during the many months of the unfortunate Iran-contra initiative in 1985 and 1986.
Yet past mistakes should not prevent the Administration from pursuing the clear chance for a potential breakthrough in one of the more strategically sensitive areas of the world. If, indeed, there is a chance to explore the possibility of some sort of rapprochement in which Iran would abandon its use of terror, come to terms with its neighbors and re-enter the community of civilized nations, we should certainly be interested in exploring it—as we should have been in 1985 and 1986. It would be a pity if our own domestic concerns and previous blunders combined to paralyze our diplomacy.”
Now, apart from the basic ideas that past mistakes should not prevent the United States from pursuing clear opportunities for potential breakthroughs in relations with the Islamic Republic and that “it would be a pity if our own domestic concerns and previous blunders combined to paralyze our diplomacy”, most of Ledeen’s analysis is utter nonsense. But our larger point in calling attention to this particular Op Ed is to highlight how, after the United States was unable to find just the right group of Iranians to deal with to negotiate the Islamic Republic’s surrender on virtually every regional issue of strategic consequence, Ledeen became the avatar of Washington-based advocates of regime change in Tehran.
Those who currently champion sanctions as the moderate alternative to U.S. military confrontation with Iran should pay attention to this. When sanctions do not magically produce just the right domestic constellation of political players to terminate the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program and sue for terms with Washington, the next steps in the evolution of U.S. strategy will be adoption of regime change as the formal goal of America’s Iran policy and/or military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets.
The real alternative to another U.S.-initiated war in the Persian Gulf is not more sanctions, any more than it is militarized containment; the real alternative remains something that President Obama has yet to try—serious, strategically grounded diplomacy with the Islamic Republic. The United States needs to treat the Islamic Republic as a system, without trying to game it. Yes, there is “factional struggle” in the Islamic Republic, with different groups competing for power and influence over policy. In other countries, American analysts seem willing to recognize this as normal politics. In the Islamic Republic, though, American analysts routinely make the mistake that manifestations of competitive politics—even intensely competitive politics—indicate that the political order is splintering and susceptible to manipulation from outside. And, the United States needs to realize that, on matters of high politics and national security, there is a remarkable degree of consensus on fundamental issues in the Islamic Republic, which cuts across much of the political spectrum.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
kooshy,
I think Scott would agree with you that his programme is to discredit the government of Iran, to benefit other parties. He keeps his focus.
Mohammad-jan, kooshy,
I appreciate your opinions but I believe that there is nothing to gain from speaking to people who from the beginning are not trying to find out the truth. Scott is not after finding out the truth about Iran. He has a specific political goal he wants to achieve and he does this using an academic veneer. The best response to this is to shatter that veneer. That is why I insist NOT to treat him as an academic, but as the activist that he is. And calling him an activist is charitable.
And just for the record, when I’m not blogging, I’m an academic (which is why I have time to blog in the first place) with undergraduate, graduate and doctoral degrees from the best universities in US and Europe, published articles, teaching undergraduate and graduate, thesis supervisions, conferences, seminars, speeches and media work. So I know the difference between an academic and an activist.
I have never presented myself in this forum as anything other than a basiji activist eventhough I could present myself with my academic credentials. But I don’t believe that this forum and that this debate about Iran- this “Race for Iran”- is an academic race or debate for Iranians. Maybe it’s academic to non-Iranians or exiles. This debate is “hayaati” as they say, which people like Scott are exploiting and I personally won’t play by the b.s. rules he wants us to play by. I don’t agree with, but I do respect your choices on how to deal with him and his kind.
Bussed-in Bassiji,
Maybe it’s more appropriate that we continue this (irrelevant to raceforiran.com) discussion in private. Here’s my email: mohammad.discuss@gmail.com
BIB
As an Iranian, I do agree with Mohammad, we all, will achieve far more by attacking Scott and associates opinions and innuendos and prove that they are wrong and biased, rather than attacking Scotts personalities, one shouldn’t get frustrated by Scott’s continual dirt digging in Iranian internal affairs, I came to believe that this is his job and he simply is doing his job, in this case sneaking around Iranian affairs to see if there is pile of dirt somewhere that he can exploit that’s all he ever cares or asks for, not a single time he asks or cares for something positive, someone else brought that up a while back I guess could have been Eric?
Fiorangela (and Norm),
Don’t underestimate Hezbollah.
Mohammad-jan,
Read Imam Ali(as) speech after the battle of Siffin and the way he chastises his own supporters before you start giving us lectures about Imam Ali(as). I challenge your current understanding of Imam Ali(as).
Mohammad-jan,
Telling Scott he doesn’t have the courage to admit he is an activist is not an insult. “Chatting” with Scott has no benefit for you brother, he’s not your “cousin” and it’s a shame you fail to understand that there is nothing pleasurable about indulging a person who is the enemy of your religion, culture and country. Many Iranians have a fault, it’s called being “gharib-parast” and I hope you don’t have this fault.
A naive Muslim and Iranian does far more damage to himself and his country than anyone like Scott can. Scott can only do what does because of naive people. Inshallahh neither of us is naive.
As I said, Scott has to pick whether he is an activist or an academic- but I doubt he has the “cohones” to do it in this forum.
(Incidentally this word was used my “Madame” Albright to challenege the Cubans in an official press conference. How rude of her…)
Eric & Rehmat,
I like John Kerry and I walk by his house on Beacon Hill from time to time. I think there was a story in the Boston Globe not so long ago that Kerry had fairly recently learned that his father’s father was born Fritz Kohn in Bohemia or Moravia (Austro-Hungarian Empire), and came to the US in 1905. He married a Jewish woman and their son changed his name to Kerry, as I recall. Nothing especially unusual about this. In fact, it is fairly typical, or was, decades ago. And I think Kerry is a great name! (As do all those who go to SW Ireland.)
Irshad,
I’m glad you appreciate some of the ‘nuggets’. Emanuel Celler was chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and thus very powerful. Tom Dewey came close to beating Truman in 1948 and probably would have, had Truman failed to recognise Israel immediately as demanded by the Jewish financiers.
Thirty years ago, Dewey’s grandson was in the same house party as I in Scotland. His father (Dewey’s son) was renting a house in the Cotswolds that had belonged to my family centuries ago. (Small world dept.)
Karian,
How many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed as the direct result of an illegal US invasion predicated on knowingly false intelligence?
Did Fanklin Roosevelt refuse to send an ambassador to the USSR because he did not approve of the Communist government that had slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Russians and other peoples of the Russian Empire? No, he sent his good friend William Bullitt to serve as ambassador in Moscow.
thanks for the photos, Persian Gulf
Rehmat,
“Eric A. Brill – “Let’s be clear, my grandparents were not Jewish,” John Kerry.”
You were talking about George Tenet.
@Scott
You’re welcome. Also enjoyed chatting with you.
@Bussed-in Basiji
I wish you used your impressive English in a better way than to insult people (Dear admin, BiB’s last comment qualifies as very impolite and you can safely remove it). We are in a serious shortage of non-Green Iranians who can read, write and speak fluently in English. You’re destroying your credibility here by commenting like that.
برادر رعایت کن! حیف شماست که از چنین ادبیاتی استفاده کنی. آل علی (ع) اولین چیزی که باید به ما یاد داده باشند خویشتنداری در نحوه صحبت کردن است.
Irshad,
Issues involving Israel/Palestine are much more easily explored fairly, in public tribunals, in the UK rather than the US (where such issues tend to be suppressed almost by definition).
There are some Jewish financiers who are able to perceive that Israel in its own best interests needs to provide justice to the Palestinians and get out of the West Bank and the Golan Heights.
Scott,
I hope you are covering the post-election violence in Guinea and letting the world know about the human rights abuses there!
I really dont see the point of this guy – he seems soo fascinated with who said what about whom in Irran – if it was a joke I would recomend him to write for a tabloid newspaper – unfortunately its not a joke and he wants to see more death and destruction of another Muslim country.
Scott – people like you are the merchants of war – I strongly recomend you look for ways to be objective and look for solutions that is not based on misery!
Maybe you can look in to the Isreali political system and let the world know about the gross human rights violation taking place in “The Russian Compund” in Jerusalem rather then did Ayatollah Khamenie sneeze whilst looking at Ahmednejad who didnt offer him a tissue and this is bad omen for Ahmednejad!
You make me laugh!
Rehmat & Irshad,
The term “Dark Ages” also referred to the relative spareness of the written historical record during the centuries after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, compared to what obtained during the empire. And civilisation flourished in Andalusia (Spain) under the Muslims, who in fact continued a fair amount of what the Visigoths had achieved (after taking the Iberian provinces from Rome).
Scott,
First of all, Amu Qannad kick’s Amu Poorang’s ass any day of the week.
Furthermore, no matter what insults they hurl at him, Ahmadinejad answers in the best way: by winning elections with overwhelming majorities. That drives your “excellent” crappy green “sources” in Iran up the freakin wall. “Har ke ba Ale Ali…” ask your crappy green sources to finish the saying and translate for you. If you were a real expert, you would know.
Like I said, don’t chase delusions about various persons in Iran based on the gossip of our crappy green sources. If you are an activist who advocates regime change for what you perceive to be moral reasons, then say so, let’s have a proper debate about it and stop hiding behind a b.s. academic veneer.
If you are an objective academic, then your track record on Iran is horrible and you should consider switching to other areas of study.
Either you are an activist or you are an academic- pick one, you can’t have it both ways. Admitting you are an activist is good compared to being a hack as some other participants have suggested.
Incidentally Scott, this is the siginificant difference between you and the Leveretts. Eventhough they were govt. officials, they try to be objective when analyzing Iran and see Iran as it really is by talking to many sources- some of them excellent and some of them crappy.
My guess is you don’t have the “bayzatayn” to respond to this challenge (ask your slimy green sources to translate “bayzatayn”. Hint #1: in Iranian culture, Farsi speakers will use classical Arabic words when discussing sensitive subjects in polite society- those that know will understand and those that don’t, don’t. Hint #2: one school of udaba argue that the root of this word is the Arabic word for “oval”, another school of udaba argue that the thing itself is the root of the word which came to describe the oval shape- of course as a real expert on Iran and the Middle East, you already know all this).
NATO, Karzai and the relics of Kabul:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LK23Df01.html
Rehmat:
The phrase “Dark Ages”, applied to Western Europe during the time period 699-1400 was also part of historical lie and propaganda that Renaissance thinkers perpetuated in their attacks aginst the Catholic Church.
Those ages were not dark at all – empirical sciences of the West and the modern European states and their structure originated from that time period. Specially the 14-th Century was a remarkable period for it saw the culmination of hundreds of years of philosophical scholarship – developed by both Fransiscans and Dominicans – in the works of Ockham that undermined Scholastic Philosophy.
I am not as familiar with the mechnaical innovation of that period but look at the book “Science of Mechanics in Middle Ages” by Clifford Truesdell.
Duhem discusses the science of Middle Ages as well.
Pirouz,
“The Other Side of Suez” was indeed a few years ago. Hope you enjoyed it….
S.
http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1196120
http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1195858
Christopher Hitchens and ‘The American Shabbos’
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/the-american-shabbos/
irshad – The Russell Tribunal on Palestine…..
“Our use of the phrase ‘the Dark Ages’ to cover the period from 699 to 1,000 marks our undue concentration on Western Europe. .. From India to Spain, the brilliant civiliztion of Islam flourished. What was lost to Christendom at this time was not lost to civilization, but quite the contrary – to us it seem that West-European civilization is civilization; but this a narrow view,” Professor Bertrand Russell in ‘History of Western Philosophy, page 419.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/russell-tribunal-on-palestine/
James C,
You coming out with some nuggets here about the role of Jewish businessman in America “blackmailing” US leaders in to supporting Isreal.
Did you know that in England, there is the “Russell Tribunal” currently going looking at Isreals treatment of the Palestinians and is now currently looking at the role that corporations esp. British banks are playing in helping Isreal build settlements in the West Bank.
Since USA cannot change the behviour of Isreal, its times that Europe and America scrutinise the role that banks and other corparations play in sustaining the bulding of settlements. For e.g. if Tesco (a major shopping/grocery store similar to Wal Mart) stopped purchasing and selling settlement goods this will have a direct economic impact on the settler colonies making them un-economical to live in. Unfortunately so far, the British, French, American, European govt have not done this – this is easy to do and defend as its targeted at institutions operating in their countries not at Isreal.
Scott, I saw you last night in segments of the BBC documentary “The Other Side of Suez.” I’m guessing you’re older now. And this was filmed before your current anti-Iran crusade at EA.
Salam Bussed-in-Basiji,
I quite like Amu Poorang. This was one of my favourite moments….
http://www.iranian dot com/main/blog/javad-yassari/out-mouths-babes
Best,
Scott
I wonder why thes two do not care about human rights in Iran, but care for a regime that has killed more than 10,000 peopple for political reasons in the past 31 years. I am against military action, but surely likes to recieve all kind of supports from democratic countries to put pressures on the IRI for the respect of human rights and people’s freedom in Iran. Same kind of freedom that Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett are enjoying. Sanction has worked beyond the expectation. If not why suporters of the Islamic regime such as Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett are worried about?
RSH:
You earlier said that the US isn’t going to attack Iran now, but I understand you to say it is preparing the ground for an attack later.
Would you be surprised if there was an attack tomorrow?
If not, what would have to happen before you would not be surprised if there was an attack the next day?
I ask these questions because if you’re saying that as of yet, the US has not met tangible requirements that it would have to meet before attacking Iran then we are in agreement on that.
Israel Defense Force’s 8200 intelligence unit is behind the the Stuxnet worm attack on Natanz and Bushehr nuclear sites.
Experts claim only an organization with the highest technological capabilities could have performed such a cyber attack, with some attributing it to the Israel Defense Force’s 8200 intelligence unit or a U.S. intelligence organization, with some saying the worm was the result of a joint Israeli-U.S. effort.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/iran-nuclear-worm-targeted-natanz-bushehr-nuclear-sites-1.325596
What If NATO Is Defeated In Afghanistan?
By Eric S. Margolis
Amazing as it sounds, NATO, the world’s most powerful military alliance, may be losing the only war the 61-year old pact every fought.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26885.htm
Freedom of Press – Canada vs Iran
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/thou-shalt-not-campare-gaza-with-warsaw-ghetto/
Eric A. Brill – “Let’s be clear, my grandparents were not Jewish,” John Kerry.
Another point on Gates: His appearing to be cautious on an Iran war enables Obama to strengthen the fiction that he is focusing on sanctions and “diplomacy” while at the same time precisely moving the process along to justify an eventual war.
Gates is merely playing his role, as well as his personal career cowardice, for which he is widely known. See Ray McGovern’s and others comments on Gates in the last year or so.
Gates’ motivations for being cautious about an Iran war should be obvious. He’s one Defense Secretary who has survived two Administrations. He has a nice cushy job. He doesn’t want to lose it when yet another US war goes badly, as he knows Iran will.
It means nothing as far as the ultimate outcome is concerned. If ordered to attack Iran, he will do so. He HAS been ordered to increase preparations for a war with Iran, following on from such orders he was given under Bush, and he has done as ordered. Anyone thinking anything he says on the matter is relevant is mistaken.
Eric: You are referred to in Muhammad Sahimi’s latest piece at Antiwar.com. He mentions your analysis of the legal aspects of the Iran case.
Why Do Nuclear Negotiations with Iran Always Fail?
original dot antiwar dot .com/sahimi/2010/11/19/why-do-nuclear-negotiations-with-iran-always-fail/
Quote
In an article in 2007 I explained why sending Iran’s nuclear dossier to the UNSC and the subsequent Resolutions against Iran filed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter are legally dubious at best. Eric Brill reanalyzed the issue recently and added careful arguments to what I had already stated. Iran had warned that if the UNSC adopted any resolution, it will stop negotiating.
End Quote
He is, in my opinion, wrong on one point in his recap of the negotiation failures over the years when he says: “There was no reason for [Iran] rejecting the October 2009 agreement, and then accepting it in May 2010.”
There was a lot of good reason, as we’ve analyzed here repeatedly.
Empty: Your post at 8:11 was very concise and accurate. I agree.
Rehmat,
Lest that not be clear, George Tenet’s name is not “David Cohen” and he is not Jewish. He’s an American whose parents were Greek immigratns, not that it should matter to you one way or another.
Rehmat,
George Tenet is the son of Greek immigrants.
Rehmat, can I find that information anywhere else? Is it public record?
Rehmat & Castellio,
A good case has been made that a powerful group of South Texas businessmen were involved in the assassination of JFK because they were fanatical anti-Communists and feared he would pull US forces out of South Vietnam (and of course they had good reason to believe Kennedy would have done so after the 1964 election).
Mossad worked with powerful Southern businessmen who helped to carry forward the illegal wars in Central America during the Reagan administration. One reason Alexander Haig did not want the US to back the UK in its war with Argentina is that Haig was working with Argentina and Israel in supporting the illegal wars in Centrial America.
Empty – a better and closer to the truth description would be: “The tail wagging the dog”!
“Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can not help but think, that before (there was) Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East,” Father John Sheehan of the Jesuit Order.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/the-tail-wagging-the-dog/
Rehmat, what does this mean, “CIA director George Tenet (aka David Cohen).”
Salam Mohammad,
A belated thank you for your considered reply. It is a real pleasure to chat with someone who brings thought and information to the table.
I look forward to continuing the conversation as events develop.
Best,
Scott
Castellio,
I welcome your questions. Don’t miss “The Pleasure of the President” by Thomas E. Woods, Jr (April 9, 2007 issue American Conservative magazine).
During the Israeli attack on the Liberty, a squadron of US fighters went to the defence of the ship and, while midair, were ordered back to their carrier by Lyndon Johnson! So the attack continued for hours more!
INTERESTING FACT in Woods’ piece: The powerful Congressman, Emanuel Celler, and other important Jews, went to see Harry Truman in the White House and told him: “We have been talking to Tom Dewey [Republican presidential candidate 1948]. He is going to declare for a Jewish state and we are going to turn our money over [to him] and urge Jews to vote for him unless you beat him to it [and recognise Israel]. And if you don’t come out for a Jewish state we’ll run you out of town.”
Truman’s foreign policy and security advisers said to recognise Israel when the borders were uncertain would be a disastrous mistake. They of course were quite right.
James Canning – Sirhan Sirhan was the “19 Arab hijackers” who attacked America on 9/11 – but their names were “not on the boarding list,” according to former CIA director George Tenet (aka David Cohen).
Congressman Paul Finley also mention that all the books and articles written on the assassination of JFK – none mentions Israeli Mossad which had lot to gain.
According to American author Jeff Gates, Israel was behind the murder of RFK because David Ben Gurion considered Kennedy family as a threat to the survival of Israel.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/terrorism-theirs-and-ours/
At one of the luscious green curvy paths when going off of Karaj-Zanjan highway toward Taleghan, there is a very large billboard that reads: “if those of my people (ummah) who are blessed with fertile lands, resources, and life-giving water end up dependent on others for sustenance, they have secured eternal damnation and hell fire for themselves.”
Iranians with the 2nd largest oil and gas reserves in the world, more than 1.6 million square kilometer of land great portions of which could be successfully sustainably cultivated, two large mountain ranges that are constant sources of snow melts, the legacy of a culture and ancient technological know-how about qanat systems that created flowering gardens “paradise” in the middle of deserts and wind tower “badgirs” that created ice and air conditioner from desert winds (good historical examples of sustainable development without destroying the earth)….so, if this nation ends up dead or malnourished due to some insignificant, useless, and ineffective sanctions, then they deserve such damnation as it has been promised to them.
Re: Israel–US relation, it’s the dog that wags the tail and not the other way around. Israel is like those “Mission Impossible” tapes, by design, the moment its utility is past, it will self destruct.
James, I apologise for sounding aggressive. It’s not my intention. I will go to amconmag. Thanks.
James: So there isn’t any information to back up your suggestion that LBJ might have been blackmailed by the Mossad? And I didn’t ask about the death of RFK, I asked about the death of JFK.
Castellio,
I’ll check my source material for alleged Mossad involvement in pressuring Johnson not to kick Israel out of the occupied territories. You’ll recall that Eisenhower forced Israel out of the Sinai, after the 1956 war. And Carter forced Israel out of the Sinai in 1979 (and paid a heavy political price).
Amconmag.com (American Conservative magazine) carries important stories on these things.
Castellio,
It appears RFK was murdered by Sirhan Sirhan to punish him and the Kennedys for their robust support of Israel. I agree JFK likely would not have covered up the Israeli attack on the Liberty. Hard to be sure, of course.
Here’s Johnny,
Great idea, one the Saudis might back too. Mossad were aware of the corruption that sustained Johnson’s early career in Texas, and of course they knew about the cover-up regarding the intentional Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. Perhaps the larger part of the deal was the threat by some powerful Jewish financiers to wreck Johnson’s insane military adventure in Vietnam if Johnson backed the British too strongly in the UN (seeking Israeli withdrawal from all occupied territories).
Fiorangela, I agree with your post that American culture is being constantly edged towards a genocidal mindset. I agree that is policy among many privileged and strong players, and is neither a casual nor unconsidered phenomenon. (I have to ask, though, a small point, don’t you think Lewisnsky was sent to the White House as an intern for a reason… which innocent young girl would safekeep and not wash a dress with a semen stain?)
James: what material do you have to clarify the alleged blackmail of LBJ by the Mossad? Is there any? Clearly there was a change in American-Israeli relations between the Kennedys and LBJ. It is hard to imagine ‘The Liberty’ attack being okayed by JFK, or for that matter by RFK, as it was by LBJ. Are you also suggesting that the Mossad was involved in the death of JFK to stop his pressing for the investigations at Dimona, which were abandoned by LBJ, marking the turning point towards American indifference (or actual covert support) of the development of nuclear weapons by Israel?
Arnold,
Dick Cheney’s gang, and the Feith-Perle-Wolfowitz Pentagon false intel distributers, knew that the Niger docs were forgeries and that the claim was totally bogus. Therefor, they laundered the claim, and attributed it to British intelligence (as you will recall from Bush’s state of the union address), to provide themselves with deniability. Most of the gang were lawyers, skilled in lying and setting up schemes to conceal how and why they are lying.
James Canning
I wonder what Mossad had on Lyndon Johnson to have him cave in to the Israeli’s. Could it be something to do with the JFK assassination? 1967 also saw Lyndon Johnson cover up the attack on the Liberty.
The Iranians should fund a movie on the attempted sinking of the Liberty. This movie would serve justice and shine a light on the US/Israeli corruption that has cost so many peoples lives.
Arnold,
Yes, I very much agree with you many, if not most, people have no idea what “yellowcake” is, and the scare tactics used by the neocon warmongers, and the idiot George W. Bush, regarding Niger and alleged efforts by Iraq to buy a item they already had, and had not use for, were shameless propaganda. Assuming Bush knew the score. The CIA knew years before Bush made the false claim (re Niger etc) that the documents were forgeries and that there was no chance whatever Iraq tried to buy yellowcake from Niger because the French controlled the mines and took the entire output. (More recently, a new uranium mine has been proposed in Niger that might not be controlled by France.)
James:
A lot of people think yellowcake is more than it is. There were tons of yellowcake in Iraq, that had been purchased legally and that were removed very late, because rightfully for the most part, nobody cared about it. As long as it was where the IAEA knew it was, it was a threat to nobody.
Yellowcake to become a weapon has to be converted to uf6 which can be run through centrifuges and enriched. Iraq didn’t have any enriched uranium and I’m pretty sure no converted uranium even unenriched. Yellowcake is not a dangerous substance.
You may remember the controversy about yellowcake from Niger. There was no coherent way to turn that yellowcake into a threat. It just was the words “uranium” and “secret”, aimed just at confusing Americans who to a large degree wanted to believe Iraq justified an invasion.
Anyway, Iraq’s yellowcake was as well known before 2003 as Iran’s stock of LEU in Natanz is today, except that it was much further from being weaponizable than Iran’s stock. It could have had nothing to do with supposedly secret or hidden WMD.
James Canning, I’m reminded of the words on the Maryland state seal: “Fatti Maschii Parole Femine;” Manly deeds, womanly words. If I were Ahmadinejad, I would unleash a withering barrage of truth-telling about the nature, history, and goals of zionism. What’s to lose? More “bite” in sanctions? +Such a Truth Offensive would cause Israel to simultaneously bellow and shrivel like salt on escargot.
It’s what I attempt to do, but I have no microphone and not much skill.
On the other hand, unlike Israel which is obsessed with Iran and with antisemitism, my perception is that Iranians are busy about their own lives and do not wake up in the morning contemplating whether Israel or anyone else is an “existential threat,” or counting the ways in which Iran has been disrespected in word or deed in the international community.
James Canning wrote: “The US is not the dictator of the world, and most German and Swiss businessmen oppose the latest round of sanctions against Iran, and Russia and China both say the extra sanctions imposed by the US and the EU are illegal.”
aahh, so THAT explains Russia’s acquiescence to a START treaty whose purpose is to defend Europe and Russia from the nuclear-armed ballistic missiles of that rogue state, Iran.
General Wesley Clark on the NATO Summit in Lisbon, 2010
Fiorangela,
The Iranian president and the Iranian foreign minister both say, time and again, that Iran seeks good relations with all countries except for Israel. And Ahmadinejad makes clear Iran is not the enemy of the Israeli people, but only of the Zionist programme. Iran would accept Israel within its June 1, 1967 borders if the Palestinians accept that result.
fyi, ” the US president and his power are irrelevant.” This is also a patently false statement.”
I would argue that the power of the US president IS irrelevant if he lacks courage to exercise it. Clinton lacked courage, not power. George Bush had more power than any person in history, but was personally powerless to understand it or wield it wisely and courageously: On Sept. 12, 2001, the words that I wanted to hear the most powerful person in the world speak were, “The United States of America is not a nation so weak that it is compelled to exact revenge for this heinous act. We will find the perpetrators of this crime against our nation and punish them according to our rule of law. And we will continue to pursue our way of life as moral people functioning within a framework of laws.” THAT is power.
Instead, Bush yielded to the seduction of the false-power offered to him by Israel-firsters Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, and their willing collaborator Cheney.
Obama has demonstrated a lack of courage, not of power.
Fiorangela,
The US is not the dictator of the world, and most German and Swiss businessmen oppose the latest round of sanctions against Iran, and Russia and China both say the extra sanctions imposed by the US and the EU are illegal.
That most US Congressmen are stooges of the Israel lobby does not mean the sanctions against Iran would not be lifted. What is important is to call maximum attention to the degree to which the Israel lobby is subverting the national security interests of the American people.
Two of the Jewish billionaires who rewarded Steve Rosen (of Aipac) for interfering with American diplomacy in the Middle East, are Haim Saban and Daniel Abraham. (After Rosen was fired for apparently engaging in criminal espionage in the US.)
Scott,
“Excellent” is not a word I would use for your sources in Iran. “Crappy” is a more accurate word to describe them.
Also my “excellent/crappy” sources tell me that Ahmadinejad is going to nominate for President the one man who regularly gathers a larger crowd than himself wherever he shows up (besides the Supreme Leader).
You guessed it, he’s going to nominate AMU POORANG! Now that’s “thinking outside the box”, the kids love him! Of course I’m old school and would have preferred Amu Qannad.
(Scott, badbakht, whose the Iran expert now, huh? :-)
fyi: “You are wrong if you think Iranian leaders concern themselves with Israel as their geopolitical competitor. ”
That explains Iran’s current situation, as under sanctions and the target of relentless propaganda: Iran has identified the wrong adversary.
You may not have noticed, but the US is in serious economic peril. The situation the US is in, and processes that got it there, are not novel: Germany found itself in a similar situation in the late 1800s, immediately after Germany’s glorious and triumphant victory over France in 1871. Like the triumphant WWII victor US of A, Germany took the center of the world’s stage, but rapidly spent herself into massive debt, and saw her spheres of influence overwhelmed by outsiders. Germany struggled for over 70 years to find a balance and to develop its own cultural solution to its situation. The problem was not resolved until Germany had been destroyed in a war that cost the lives of over 10 million German citizens. In a rather astonishing commentary, Prof. Norman Finkelstein declared that “Israel needs to suffer a major defeat . . . just like Germany suffered a defeat . . .to bring it back to its senses. It is carrying on like a marauding . . .vandal state . . . But today, Germany is the most morally conscious of states . . .
Zionism pre-existed Germany’s struggle, and zionism placed itself in a position to benefit from Germany’s travails. (Only after he had spent ten years making the cause of zionism known to every Jewish community in Europe, Jabotinsky, author of Israel’s “Iron Wall” doctrine and organizer of Irgun, embarked on his first trip to the US, in 1921. His goal was to raise $9 million and to drum up support for the zionist “liberation” of Palestine. Jabotinsky made additional fund-raising forays into US in 1926, 1935, and 1940.) Similarly, zionism is situating itself to prevail even as the US slowly descends from its position in the spotlight on the world’s stage.
fyi, there is nothing that stands between US-Iran rapprochement other than Israel. The attitude many Americans hold concerning Iran are the result of relentless propaganda pumped into the US by Israel advocates. That propaganda campaign started at the same time that zionism cut its teeth in Europe — in the late 1800s (see above).
Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is a physician. In discussing US healthcare legislation, Coburn argues that the law treats the symptoms and not the disease. Therefore, US healthcare legislation not only did nothing to solve the underlying problem, it made it worse, since it is based on an incorrect diagnosis. Similarly, the situation of the US is misdiagnosed: it is in the grip of a severe case of zionism, a political movement that has a utopian and impossible vision and goal; it cannot succeed, but it is not averse to destroying any state or body that attempts to check it. If Iran fails to recognize zionism as an adversary, that noble country makes the same mistake the US is making.
Persian Gulf,
the duty of a president of the US is to serve the best interests of the American people. This obviously included restoring normal relations with Iran. The fact Iran was suffering the effects of the insane war with Iraq was of little consequence in assessing the merits of the deal, and logic would argue the situation was favorable for the US precisely for that reason.
The propaganda piece in the NYT magazine today that I mentioned earlier, also includes the outright lie that Hamas “rejects” Israel. Surely Noah Feldman is aware Hamas has offered Israel a 99-year ceasefire.
Fiorangela,
The Iranians were fully aware of the problem posed by the Israel lobby, in their effort to restore normal relations with the US. Clinton badly served the American people by failing to push the deal through, or at least to raise bloody hell in the effort.
Fiorangela:
I am not arguing – either like a man or like a woman.
You are wrong if you think Iranian leaders concern themselves with Israel as their geopolitical competitor.
Iran’s competition is the United States and she has gone toe-to-toe with US – as you have suggested in connection with Israel.
Indeed, the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War was also another case of Iran going toe-to-toe with another adversary, but this time Israel.
You also wrote: “Like the shopkeeper, the US president and his power are irrelevant.” This is also a patently false statement.
Iranian leaders, even before the triumph of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, were greatly sympathetic to the Palestinians. In this they were very similar to other Muslims. But for them, led by Mr. Khomeini, the strategic objective was the expulsion of non-Muslim power from among the Muslim states.
The Iranian leaders have used, both because of actual sympathy with Palestinians and as well as political expediency, the war in Palestine to thwart the United States and her allies among Muslims.
o fer pete’s sake, fyi, you talk like a woman. When a policeman stops me and says, “Show me your license,” etc., I hyperventilate, I cringe, I appear weak and helpless. I don’t go toe-to-toe with him because he is more powerful than I. But I prevail because I use the tactics at my disposal. Rafsanjani used a woman’s tactics — “Recognize the humility of my situation.” “Feel sorry for me.” “You will do this because it is in the best interest of you (children) people.” But Clinton is a bastard who doesn’t give a rat’s arse about his people, he cares about the next election and who can ensure that he will prevail in that election. He worries about the damage a networked intelligence and pressure group like AIPAC can exert in personal sexual-legal troubles Clinton is embroiled in. Oh! Oh! What a dastardly basis for a decision of national importance!! My sainted Aunt Fanny!
If Rafsanjani wants to prevail, if the Iranian people want to prevail, then they have got to go toe-to-toe with Israel, NOT by counting on the good-will of the adversary or by ‘mind-reading’ the adversary from the point of view that an Iranian would take: It was necessary for Rafsanjani to consider the countervailing forces that were being exerted on Clinton: Clinton has to do NOTHING. He owes nobody nothing; he holds the cards. Got that? When I wanted to buy a rug in a bazaar in Isfehan, the shopkeeper owned the rug and it was largely irrelevant to him whether this one or that one would purchase it. But other people wanted to purchase it also; THEY were my competition; they were the one’s I had to outsmart. The shopkeeper was not about to sell the rug to me for a lower price just because I’m cute and funny; I had to give him a better reason than my competition to sell me the rug. I was not in a position to assume that the shopkeeper held such high regard for me — or so feared my power in subsequent events — that he would sell the rug to me rather than to my more persuasive competition; I had to be tougher than the competition.
Like the shopkeeper, the US president and his power are irrelevant. My competition was the other would-be buyers and Iran’s competition is Israel. Iran has to be tougher than Israel and smarter than Israel. Fortunately, Israeli strategy and tactics are transparent: read Torah. As Neil M’s post at 9:40 AM recites, Israel is almost laughably incompetent at military matters. As most of Israel’s history recites, its ideas and leaders have been monumentally incompetent in forming a state, a people, a government, and sustainable policies. All Israel has is bully-tactics, deception, and bribery.
Is Iran incapable of outsmarting such bankrupt ideas and actions?
Maverick,
Iran occupies the moral high ground and would make a great mistake indeed to follow your advice.
Keep in mind that Italy, Russia, China, Turkey and many other countries openly and strongly support Iran’s domestic nuclear power programme.
Saddam Hussein was a grossly ignorant thug, totally unqualified to handle the situation (and brought catastrophe to the Iraqi people).
Fiorangela:
I think, you have to give some credit to “fyi”’s claims as ,I guess, his knowledge of the CONOCO proposal and Rafsanjani’s gov. is somehow first hand. After the collapse of the USSR, the U.S was rising in the world stage unchecked. why should have she compromised to a mid level power that was still, at the time, confronting the burden of a devastating war?
Parsi’s book sees everything in the interests of Israel and Iran narrowly. He doesn’t talk that much about the U.S interests and motives in all these dealings. this is, in my view, one of the most important shortcoming of the book.
Scott Lucas
Busy writing propaganda again?
Arnold,
didn’t the US find a few dozen barrels of yellowcake in Iraq, shortly after the invasion in 2003? And that the US did not even bother to secure the uranium, left over from the Iraqi nuclear programme destroyed during the 1990s?
Here’s Johnny,
It is very well established that Israel launched the first-strike attack against Egyptian forces in June 1967, knowing that Egypt did not plan to attack Israel, because it saw an opportunity to take out the entire Egyptian airforce on the ground.
The great error on the part of the US was not to back the UK strongly in its efforts to force Israel to evacuate all of the territories occupied during the June 1967 war.
I understand Lyndon Johnson was blackmailed by Mossad, so that he did not provide the support level necessary to get the job done.
The New York Times magazine today has a typical piece of the Zionist propaganda it is so fond of printing. In it, a law instructor at Havard University, Noah Feldman, argues that Hezbollah might provoke an Israeli attack so set up an Iranian missile strike on Israel! Astonishing rubbish, but all-too-typical of the Big Bagel Times.
No wonder 61% of Americans favor Israel in the Israel/Palestine dispute when the incessant flow of deception in most American newspapers entirely favors the Israeli militarist point of view.
We have a remarkable admission from Lietenant General Keith M. Dayton in today’s New York Times. Dayton was in charge of seeking out the nonexistent Iraqi WMD after the US invasion in 2003. He found graffiti showing Israel as a snake strangling the al-Aqsa mosque in Jeruslaem, and until then DAYTON HAD NOT BEEN AWARE ARABS HUNDREDS OF MILES FROM JERUSALEM CARED ABOUT THE ISRAEL/PALESTINE ISSUE!
Fiorangela,
Bill Clinton seems to have been well aware the normalisation of relations between the US and Iran was very much in the national interest of both countries. He was not willing to pay the political price to push the deal through.
Fiorangela:
It was not the duty of Mr. Rafsanjani and his advisors to take the pulse of the domestic scene in the United States.
Nor was it his duty or my obligation to make a better case to Mr. Clinton.
He offered a way for US to improve the relationship.
The President of the United States, by definition, knows the best interest of his country.
Mr. Clinton slapped Mr. Rafsanjani in the face and later committed the enormous power of the United States to bankrupting his government.
You and others cannot, in my judgement, keep on invoking Israel Lobby to account for the choices of US government.
And I do not whine – I am telling you things as I understood them.
you’re whining, fyi.
True, Clinton was the most powerful person in the known universe and possibly beyond.
ALSO TRUE that Israel lobby exerted influence that resulted in the derailment of the Rafsanjani-CONOCO proposal.
Was Rafsanjani unaware that Clinton held enormous power, and also that other forces seek to influence that powerful man’s exercise of that power? Why didn’t you advise Rafsanjani to argue his case more forcefully?
To Richard Steven Hack
I agree with your point on Israel’s start of the Lebanon war in 2006. I would like to add some information that I believe will provide an understanding of Israel’s war strategies.
In 1967 Israel lied to the world and the UN Security Council on the buildup of Egyptian military units in the Sinai desert and the Syrian tanks in the Golan Heights. This lie, gave the Israeli’s the moral right to push its military forward and seize the Golan Heights and land right up to the door step of Cairo. This attack was played out on Israel’s schedule not its enemies. Israel’s defense strategy has always been to take the fight to the enemy at a time when the world is conditioned to accept it and when Israeli’s are ready to fight it. Here are some reasons why:
Israel is a small country with a population of only 6.8 million. Israel cannot afford to keep its entire young population on active military service. Most of the military is made up of part time militia that has to be called up, organized, armed and deployed. Therefore any invasion or attack against another country is carefully planned out and scheduled. Reservists are called out and trained, and the media propaganda machine is cranked up to justify the attack and to bolster moral of the troops.
Israel is a Jewish homeland concept county built from the fear of the holocaust. Jews now live all over the world secure and free of persecution. The need for a sanctuary from anti-Semitism has died. Jews no longer immigrate to Israel seeking shelter from persecution; they do it for economic reasons and for free housing in the occupied territories. There is no willingness in the Jews to die for their concept country. A Jewish settler is happy to fire his Uzi at Palestinian children, but would run if called upon to fight a well armed army. That is why Israel has always taken the fight outside of their borders. Israeli’s always fight under their terms and with overwhelming superiority. If Israel ever came under siege, the Jews would leave. Businesses would go elsewhere, and tourism would die.
(The Israeli government knows that if Iran were to hold a nuclear threat against Israel, the Jews would leave)
Every conflict Israel has been in up to 2006 has been against poorly trained, poorly organised and equipped enemies. Israel has defeated its enemies using its disciplined, American armed and educated soldiers. IDF have always been the most lethal force in the Middle East, up to 2006. The 2006 failed invasion of Lebanon proved that the IDF is no longer invincible. Israel’s enemies have become smarter, better armed and organized. Israel must counter its threats by striking first in order to gain the advantage.
Cheers
John
Is Likud unhappy about Gates remarks? Read this short post
http://www dot isracast dot com/article.aspx?ID=1252&t=Gates’-Misreading-Of-Iran
Is Gates’ coming resignation linked to such ‘displeasure’?
Fiorangela:
Mr. Clinton was the highest magistrate in the United States.
He was one of the most powerful men on Earth at the time of Rafsanjani-CONOCO deal.
He (and you) cannot hide behind “political pressure”.
Nor can he (you) attribute his policy of trying to bankrupt Iran to such nebulous factors.
Scott Lucas,
Don’t be a joke. Your only real sources are on this thread and you don’t even know any of them.
After nearly 8 years of occupation, annihilation of its army, Iraq is still under Chapter VII sanctions of UN.
This is an important point. The US fairly openly uses its veto over lifting the sanctions as a way of holding leverage over the current Iraqi government.
There is an interesting question of what happens when the post-occupation Iraq says it wants an enrichment capability. Iran will say, very justifiably, that it does not respect the Hussein-era resolutions against Iraq and just the absurdity of those resolutions will weaken the moral force, for some, of the resolutions against Iran.
In practical terms, Iran will be free to deliver some uranium and cascades. In moral/PR terms, the US replaced the government, occupied the country and did its own exhaustive search for WMD, finding none. If that isn’t enough to lift the resolutions then how can those resolutions have any credibility?
fyi, you wrote:
“I am aware of the Conoco case.
Mr. Clinton killed it and not some sort of stealth pro-Israel lobby.”
Mr. Clinton killed it AS THE RESULT OF pressure from the pro-Israel lobby.
View and hear for yourself the words of Keith Weissman, the AIPAC agent who helped draft the Executive Order that Clinton signed in 1995. Weissman and AIPAC hurried to construct the subsequent Libya-Iran Sanctions act (the D’Amato amendment)in order to encase in law US commercial hostility against Iran, against the possibility that an Executive Order might be undone by the same means.
Trita Parsi has written about the Israel lobby’s involvement in sabotaging the Conoco contract in “Treacherous Alliance.”
Parsi was a panel member in the annual conference on US-Arab relations where Dr. Flynt Leverett made his usual cogent, courageous, and powerful arguments
:http://www.raceforiran.com/washington%E2%80%99s-iran-debate-a-snapshot-from-the-national-council-on-u-s-arab-relations-annual-conference .
In his remarks, Parsi focused attention on the proclivity of the US Congress to forget to undo punitive acts after their goal (however misguided) has been achieved. Parsi said the Iranian people are not unmindful that even if they acquiesced to every demand of the US State Department and Congress, that sanctions against Iran would not be lifted.
Talking to the US is pointless from my point of view, bending to the USC resolutions are similarly pointless. After nearly 8 years of occupation, annihilation of its army, Iraq is still under Chapter VII sanctions of UN. Although H Clinton presses the reset button, neither she nor Obama can deliver the Arms Treaty because the Senate and Congress live in a parallel, blood thirsty, universe.
The best Iran can do, is rely on its own resources, people and form its own set of foreign relationships. In the Roman times, the plebs and the Senate ELECTED their dictator at the time of national emergency. Iranians have done the same. What is for sure is that no Reformist president would have been able to keep the invaders once Iraq had fallen. And now an appeasing, conciliatory leader would gain nothing and give everything away. Iran needs its dictator now to guide it out of the troubled waters.
Empty wrote: “In the words of David Bohm, the late physicist, the wrong question already assumes that which it ought to question. Scott Locus seems to be remarkably persistent and steadfast in asking the wrong questions. In general, there are often two reasons for this sort of patters. One reason is a deficiency in critical thinking skills and another is for the purpose of establishing those very assumptions as “norm” in a deceptive manner.”
Gen. Wes Clark is on C Span this morning to discuss the START treaty to which Russia acquiesced. Goal of this treaty is to “counter ballistic missiles from rogue Iran;” “to protect Europe, the US, and especially our ally [unspoken] from the threat of ballistic missiles bearing nuclear warheads.”
As I listened to Clark I had to question whether the moral center of his brain was “Empty.” He — as well as Steve Scully, the C Span moderator who amplified the same point, that the world must be protected from Iran, a rogue state — both demonstrated a profound deficit of critical thinking. Given that they present themselves as astute, trained, and experienced professionals whose critical thinking skills must be central to the positions they hold, we must assume that their purpose in repeating lies about Iran is to “establish [ing] those very assumptions as “norm” in a deceptive manner.”
On another forum, the work of Dr. Norman Doidge was mentioned: “. . .one thing Doidge said is that practice — of anything, speech, thought, emotion — becomes culture, and that culture actually rewires the brain. It is the complete opposite to what we think. We think it’s the other way around. But scientists have discovered that six months is sufficient to cause the brain to get rewired; continuing the practice cements it.”
Influence shapers like Steve Scully and Wesley Clark function as cultural trainers, rewiring the brains of Americans then, by repetition, cementing in the culture the concept that Iran is evil.
Wesley Clark is a West Point graduate. According to fellow (though younger) West Pointer Paul K Chappel, killing is not natural to humans; soldiers must be trained to kill in a two-part process: first, by emotionally ‘rewiring’ them to so love their comrades that they will put their own life in peril to save their mates; and second, by simultaneously dehumanizing the ‘other’ to such an extent that the natural impulse to refrain from harming another human being is short-circuited — ‘rewired’, such that the Other is no longer a human, thus killing him is acceptable and even desirable.
Wesley Clark and Steve Scully engaged in dehumanizing Iran.
Dehumanizing a people is a preparation for genocide. Gregory Stanton has studied modern genocides and developed an Eight Stage observable “progression” of genocide: his theses can be studied here :http://www.genocidewatch.org/aboutgenocide/8stagesofgenocide.html
In “Late Victorian Holocausts El Nino Famines and the Making of the Third World,” Mike Davis “dives into the data and journalism of the period . . . [to] show[ing] that the seemingly unprecedented droughts across northern Africa, India and China in the 1870s and 1890s are consistent with what we now know to be El Ni¤o’s effects, and that it was political and market forces (which are never impersonal, Davis insists), and not a lack of potential stores and transportation, that kept grain from the more than 50 million people who starved to death.
In other words, our Victorian mother, Great Britain, deliberately starved to death 50 million people.
Yesterday, the United States deliberately starved to death 500,000 Iraqis.
Today, Israel has “put Palestinians on a diet,” so meticulously monitoring the foodstuffs available to Palestinians in Gaza that the live just on the edge of death by starvation, but so deprived that thriving is impossible.
Yesterday and today, the US Congress has passed legislation and has worked evil bargains with other nations with the goal of starving the Iranian people. Ephraim Sneh, former Israeli Deputy Defense Minister and member of Knesset, addressed an AIPAC conference in Washington, DC, at which most members of Congress were present. He said that Iran’s nuclear research was not the problem, the REGIME is the problem, and Iranians are incapable of changing their regime. Therefore, said Sneh, Iranian leaders should be made to worry “how they were going to feed their 70 million people.” That comment of Sneh’s received a standing ovation.
:http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/USIsraelRelations35
I don’t consider it a stretch to call Sneh’s remarks a promotion of genocide: he advanced and saw amplified a concept — he “rewired the brains” of influence-shapers and decision-makers, with the goal of establishing as a norm false information tending to dehumanize an Other.
Promoting genocide is proscribed by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide:
“Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html
Propaganda — deliberately repeating untruths to “establish [ing] those very assumptions as “norm” in a deceptive manner,” is an act of war.
@ James Canning (November 20, 2010 at 12:45 pm & )
Re: Military ineptitude & “the savaging of Lebanon strengthened Hezbollah.”
Arnold Evans (November 20, 2010 at 1:39 pm) put the evidence for Israeli ineptitude in a nutshell. Also, it is inaccurate to claim that the 2006 assault strengthened Hezbollah. The fact that the ‘official’ Lebanese defense forces ran away and hid under their beds during the attack legitimised Hezbollah in the eyes of the Lebanese people as a well-prepared and resourceful fighting force. And who could blame them? Hesbollah demonstrated in 2006 that it was already too strong for the IOF when the time came for Israel to consolidate the non-victory by sending in troops.
The Israelis committed a classic military blunder when they changed their battle plan within a few days of initiating hostilities. The initial objective was to neutralise Hezbollah to improve the viability of a full-scale invasion of Southern Lebanon to secure sufficient territory to build and protect a permanent pumping station on the Litani River. Israelis are nonchalant and profligate consumers of water.
The initial aerial assault was directed at the hardened bunkers from which Hezbollah was launching hundreds of rockets each day into Israel. The IAF bombarded these bunkers around the clock for two (or three) days with no measurable effect on the blizzard of rockets. This demonstrated that there was an abysmal lack of homework and/or reliable intel on Israel’s part concerning the robustness of the bunker network. Then the Israelis, out of sheer frustration and angst, opted for retribution by deciding to vandalise Beirut instead. The bizarre intention was to encourage the Lebanese to blame Hezbollah for Israel’s vandalism.
No-one will ever know with certainty whether the Israelis planned to invade as soon as Hezbollah had been subdued, and before they had time to regroup, or to cease hostilities and test the hypothesis that Hezbollah was no longer a threat before launching an invasion later. But what followed the bombing of Beirut was a continuation of the comedy of errors which began with that self-indulgent act.
Having seen with their own eyes that Hezbollah was active and intact, the Israelis superimposed a sense of victory upon their murder and vandalism in undefended civilian Beirut, and invaded anyway. The fact that Hezbollah sent them home in teary disarray within 48 hours is now an historical fact. Only people accustomed to believing their own b.s. could have inflicted such a humiliating debacle on the reputation of “The World’s Most Moral Army.”
The IOF is not a credible military apparatus. It is a risk-averse political tool comprising an air force and a casual conglomeration of ill-trained and undisciplined conscripts incapable of appreciating, or even acknowledging, the concept of courage.
It is ludicrous to describe what Israel did in Beirut in ‘06, and Gaza in ‘08, as a “war” considering the overwhelming advantage Israel’s arms-length arsenal gives it over lightly armed and unarmed adversaries.
This mindset was amply illustrated in the cowardly attack on the unarmed civilians aboard the Mavi Marmara earlier this year. Israel’s spin machine shifted into overdrive in a desperate attempt to superimpose a mirage of heroism upon the whole sorry affair.
In the words of David Bohm, the late physicist, the wrong question already assumes that which it ought to question. Scott Locus seems to be remarkably persistent and steadfast in asking the wrong questions. In general, there are often two reasons for this sort of patters. One reason is a deficiency in critical thinking skills and another is for the purpose of establishing those very assumptions as “norm” in a deceptive manner.
@Scott,
Thanks for the reply. By normal politics I almost meant what you said: that there is essentially no question of the viability of the current Islamic Republic system in the predictable future. Even more, I don’t see the bad blood as you said. While I don’t consider Ahmadinejad a good president, I believe he is right in some respects: that people shouldn’t have a high status just because they have had a glorious past (Rafsanjani) or influential Dads (Mehdi Hashemi) and they should treated as a normal citizen. By saying this, Ahmadinejad is really echoing his support base of ordinary people who were growingly disillusioned in the eras of Rafsanjani and Khatami.
So from this perspective, Ahmadinejad is just trying to reform, not questioning the real bases of the system. In that respect, it is normal politics just as when Obama tries to overhaul the American health care system (arguably questioning capitalism somehow), some Republicans have reacted furiously and angrily (e.g. calling Obama a socialist).
We do have a paradox here: Khamenei generally wants to keep everything normal, which includes supporting the president and keeping the election system go normal (this is why he fervently opposed the cancellation of the election as wanted by Mousavi). I believe that his genuinely ideal system is one in which everyone agrees with the strategic values and stances of the IR, obeys the law, working to improve the country, and keeping differences on low profile. On the other hand, Ahmadinejad is an exceptionally controversial figure, who is not a ‘politician’ (i.e. doesn’t believe in compromises and politically correct behavior), and his management style is both un-strategic (short-term oriented) and traditional (expecting everyone to trust him as president without questions). He also doesn’t much believe in the necessity of bureaucracy. These traits make people (e.g. at Majles) unhappy, to the extent that it may seem a more serious rift that it really is from outside. I believe that the politics under Khatami was much more abnormal.
And about Khamenei’s authority, I think he has more authority than any time before. He is hurt by the paradox above, and will never achieve the authority Ayatollah Khomeini had, but I don’t think that there is ‘growing concern’ over Khamenei’s authority. He routinely makes trips to different provinces in Iran, the previous ones before Qom were Yazd, Fars, Kurdistan and Semnan (if I remember correctly). Naturally Qom does have more significance, but his trip to Qom was not something unusual. Perhaps since less than 2 years has passed since the election, Greens are inclined to guess about its purpose. I always take their analysis with a grain of salt, especially since much of their guess about the trip turned out to be false (introducing Mojtaba as Khamenei’s heir).
Mohammad,
I should have added to the questions over who has authority that, of course, other institutions such as Guardian Council and Expediency Council are also in play. But I think that only adds to my queries: President v. Expediency Council is of course bound up with tensions over Rafsanjani, and that dispute — with the headline tension over the situation of Mehdi Hashemi — seems to be escalating.
S.
Salam Mohammad,
Many thanks for taking the time to read the analysis and to offer valuable comment.
I agree with you that this is not a question of removing the Islamic system or even to make significant changes to it.
At the same time, I wonder if this is “normal politics”, initially with respect to Ahmadinejad’s position. There seems to be more than a bit of bad blood, and the issue has been elevated in some respects to a wider role of authority: who rules, President or Parliament? President or judiciary?
Of course, the easy answer is that the Supreme Leader rules. But that increasingly has meant he has to step in on the side of Ahmadinejad — as he did in the recent visits to Qom — amidst the growing disquiet over the President and his inner circle. So there is the possibility — how significant a possibility is up to the observer — that Ayatollah Khamenei risks his own credibility with the repeated interventions.
We have some excellent sources from Iran who think that the issue is now becoming one of growing concern over Khamenei’s authority. I would not go that far but I do wonder if he has now had to make the public show of support from Qom. And that, paradoxically given their position on the sidelines of many matters, gives them some role in the latest manoeuvres and developments.
Just a few thoughts. Again, grateful for the chance to swap ideas.
S.
@Scott,
I read the piece on EA. As I haven’t researched all of the happenings of recent days (esp. what exactly happened on Khamenei’s trip to Qom), I cannot confirm some of the claims. But I think this mutual disagreement between Maraje’ (of course I don’t mean all of them, there are a minority like Ayatollahs Nouri Hamedani, Makarem Shirazi and Javadi Amoli) and the Islamic Republic which has deep roots in the interpretation of Velayat-e Faqih and the relation of Islam to governance, is in no way something new. Ayatollah Khomeini, despite his undisputed Islamic credentials, had exactly the same problems with most of the Maraje’. The Shia seminaries have traditionally distrusted politics, just trying to keep governments in check for the good of the Shia community, and the Islamic Republic can’t change that. In his trip to Qom, Khamenei tried to imply that the fate of Shia Islam and the seminaries is indistinguishable from the fate of the Islamic Republic, which I doubt that many of the Maraje’ agree with.
On the other hand, the Maraje’ (despite some exceptions like the Late Ayatollah Montazeri who was in fact an insider-turned-dissident and not a routine Marja’) at the same time that they criticize it, won’t try to undermine the Islamic Republic as far as it respects the seminaries and doesn’t try to interfere with. After all, the government is Shia and the Maraje’ prefer it over a secular one, at the same time that they try to disassociate themselves from.
The Islamic Republic generally understands what I said, and I don’t think it seriously expects the Maraje’ to accept the authority of the Supreme Leader. Khamenei is not unfamiliar with them, and I think that he considered his trip to Qom as a relation-improver, not as an authority-establisher. As the Leveretts (and Hooman Majd) have precisely put it, it’s just ‘normal politics’. This is also the case with economic and judicial matters and the differences between Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad which you pointed out in your comment and the EA article, which are not considered ’strategic’ in the IR unless they undermine it (e.g. if the economy goes down badly such as to make people angry). The only people who actively try to undermine the Islamic Republic system and are deeply distrusted by the system are the politically-active non-religious seculars.
Iranian
“It seems that Gates relies on the so called “Iran experts” in DC.”
Right, sounds like he too gets his advice from Agha Karim (Sajadpor)
These guys don’t even have any idea of how Iran’s political system is structured
Off the topic, but worth noticing.
“The Stanford University scientist (who visited North Korea’s centrifuges 2 weeks ago)was stunned at how sophisticated the new plant was…When international weapons inspectors were expelled from North Korea in 2009, the plant did not exist…
The speed with which the country is pressing ahead with its nuclear programme will fuel suspicions that it is receiving help from abroad in circumventing United Nations sanctions.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11805111
“And we even have some evidence that Khamenei now is beginning to wonder if Ahmadinejad is lying to him about the impact of the sanctions on the economy, and whether he’s getting the straight scoop in terms of how much trouble the economy really is in.”
The Iranian economy is growing faster than the US economy AND Ayatollah Khamenei doesn’t need president Ahmadinejad to tell him what’s going on in the country. He has access to all the information that he needs. It seems that Gates relies on the so called “Iran experts” in DC.
James Canning:
I am aware of the Conoco case.
Mr. Clinton killed it and not some sort of stealth pro-Israel lobby.
With the disintegration of USSR, US leaders believed that they could crush Iran – among others.
Their hubris had no bounds.
James
As an amateur skeptic observer I think, when weak presidents are in the WH, with high probability, whoever gets the top CIA job must have been approved by those who pull the strings. Couple of times I have been convinced, at times, the CIA men not obeying the President’s orders or keeping him in the dark.
You wrote:
“[he did thing] in the context of complying with the wishes of the president.”
And:
“At the CIA in the 1980s, Gates was responsible for allowing or causing greatly inflated estimates of the size of the economy of the USSR to be provided to the US Congress, as part of an effort by the armaments manufacturers to exaggerate the ““threat”” that needed to be confronted with gigantic expenditures on weapons.”
I learned something from those facts, they are very telling, yet I am not sure, as far as the Presidents are concerned, Gates was like a colonel taking orders from his general.
I am curious to know how Gates replaced Rumsfeld since I had the impression Neocons didn’t like Gates maybe since Israelis disliked him, was that delegation a sign of Bush and ‘patriotic?’ Americans around him starting to wake up….or the original “Complex” sensed a serious danger of ‘blindly’ following the Israeli line?.
I have to rush to say this: I firmly believe there are so many complicated things happening behind the scene most of us will never know about. Thus the questions I am raising or my impressions might be naive or simplistic at best, in other terms they are just guess works and I might be totally wrong.
Once again thanks for the ‘educational’ info.
Persian Gulf,
No offence, I think you are confusing two completely opposing personalities..
For information about my Ansai go to http://www.hypnomas.org/who1-ansari.htm
He is a courageous talented man with 2 PhDs, one in Philosophy (not in accounting). He believes Nationalism and Religion are dreadful enemies of Humanity. Two of his books: “Nationalism” and “Psychology of Mohammad, Inside the Brain of a Prophet” are the rare books I have been trying to find for years with no success.
I still highly recommend the book for any student of Iranian history.
Islamic Republic in 21st Century
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/islamic-republic-in-21st-century/
Arnold Evans:
for the 2013 election, I think Dr. Hashemi Samareh would be a good option that Ahmadinejad might think about. for that he may need to change his style a bit and show more passion in public speaking. he is a bit passive in that respect. he doesn’t have the shortcomings of Mashaei and Rahimi…and is trusted by system, knowledgeable….
Elliot relies on a report that appeared in the Washington Post, that after Steven Rosen was fired from Aipac after being charged with criminal espionage, rich donors to Aipac gave him at least $670,000.
I recommend Justin Elliott’s “How the pro-Israel community supports its own”.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/11/19/aipac_donors_supported_ex_official&source=newsletter&utm_s
Ahmadinejad said two days ago on Iranian TV that Iran wants to put the IAEA deal through (to re-fuel the TRR), based on the Tehran declaration, and working with the Vienna Group (as opposed to P5+1). I assume he expects suspension of 20% U enriching to be part of the deal.
fyi,
Are you aware of the contract Iran proposed to give to the American oil compnay, Conoco, when the attempt to re-establish normal relations was underway? The Israel lobby blocked the deal, damaging the economic interests of the American people. But of course the US newsmedia scarcely paid attention. And we know why.
Arnold,
Israel has littel stomach for grinding it out on the ground, against entrenched defenders that are highly motivated. I was referring to Israel’s demonstration of its ability to smash infrastrucure and destroy civilian housing, etc etc etc etc.
I welcome a very strong Hezbollah able to deter another round of lunacy from Israel.
Scott Lucas – The reality in Iran is quite different than what learn from the Zionist controlled western mainstream media.
Sanctions against Islamic Republic, in position since last 30 years, have failed to make a ’significant dent’ in country’s economy except that the Bazai (wealthy) community is falling behind their brother in the Wall Street. Iran has become the third largest exporter (US$95 billion) in the Middle East after Saudi Arabia and UAE. Tehran has been giving aid to Iraq, Afghanistan, Brazil, Venezuela, Lebanon, Sudan, Bosnia, Croatia and many other countries around the world.
Just imagine, how long Israel will survive if Washington and EU impose sanctions against it for just two years?
The Iranian President is the elected head of country’s Executive – but doesn’t carry final saying as his counterparts in the US, France and Germany have. The Executive doesn’t control the Judiciary or the Defence. As per Constitution, both of them are responsible to the Leader and not the President of the country.
https://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/zionists-chutzpah-and-ahmadinejad/
Mohammad:
oh, sorry sir! yeah, they are perfect, you know. we say in Farsi:
مملکت گل و بلبل. اصلا کی گفته مشکلی هست؟
well, you have to say things like that at some point, I guess. in your eyes, everything is good and everybody in the right place. these are bunch of self-installed people. and now that they have been installed for a long time, you are asking me to respect them regardless. for example, this guy Tavakoli (a typical nineteen century Iran mentality-rishsefid-kadkhodamanesh-I was recently reading one of Ervand Ebrahimian’s book. don’t know why but for some reason I was remembering Tavakoni at the time of reading the first chapter of the book!). he was lucky that the reformists made fatal mistakes (he was humiliated in the presidential of election of 1380 due to his so many shortcomings-and now he is one of the wise ones مملکت قحط الرجال که قرار نیست تو تاریخ باشه حتما ). go and check his educational record. far better than this guy are escaping, striving to find a job…. and he wants to even go higher. the problem is my generation is deprived of the power that it deserves to hold. almost everyone on the top in today’s Iran seriously lacks the credential needed for the statesmanship.
Rezai is a good strategist!(his educational background was questioned even by Ahmadinejad during the debate!) of course, he is, if you say so (I believed that. thanks for enlightening me). we have seen that at the time of war. thanks to the charisma of Khomeneini human waves prohibited a total failure. Larijani need not be explained. he often forgets that he is deeply hated in the populace. nobody is gonna forget his time in the IRIB?
Salam Mohammad,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
I agree with you re the general agreement, despite tensions, over “strategic issues” such as the stance towards the US and the “West”, Iran’s nuclear programme, and Tehran’s regional influence. I think those who believe principlists (and indeed the reformists and other opposition activists) would take a different line than Ahmadinejad on these matters are misguided.
But I think, on economic and judicial matters, that the conflict may go beyond distaste for Ahmadinejad’s non-conventional behaviour and speech. Conflict over legislation and financial matters have included the 5th Budget Plan, the Tehran metro, the subsidy cuts plan, and control of Islamic Azad University. There are the demands for corruption charges against figures such as 1st Vice President Rahimi. And there are specific incidents such as the opposition of the judiciary (including Sadegh Larijani) to the Ahmadinejad plans for a grand ceremony for the release of the US hiker Sarah Shourd.
All of this was caught up in the recent episode of conflict over Ahmadinejad’s claim of supremacy over Parliament.
Beyond this, I wonder if there is some disquiet among key principlists over the treatment of the reformists and even the claims of abuse of political prisoners. Rezaei’s recent approach to the Supreme Leader indicated this, and I note today more calls from principlists for inclusion of reformists in the nezam.
On the Supreme Leader, I think your judgement is very shrewd.
On a related front involving the Supreme Leader and senior clerics, a colleague from Iran and I have posted this analysis today — http://www.enduringamerica dot com/home/2010/11/20/iran-special-analysis-grand-ayatollahs-rafsanjani-and-the-su.html.
I would be interested in any thoughts and criticisms you might have.
Best,
Scott
@Persian Gulf
I prefer not to speak in such derogatory terms (esp. what you said in Persian) about people, no matter who they are. In general, I consider Ali Larijani a good diplomat, Ahmad Tavakkoli a good critic and MP who tries to keep governments in check, Mohsen Rezai a good strategist and advisor, and Qalibaf a good manager. I agree with you that only Qalibaf has the sort of popularity (and competence I guess) needed to be a president. The others do have chance, but only if they have weak opponents in the election.
@Arnold
It is speculated that Ahmadinejad is readying several options for the next election (by appointing them to positions where he can, such as vice president and head of presidential office, trying to make them known to public) who have so far been Mashaei and Rahimi, but so far he hasn’t been successful as both of these people have been seriously accused of some charges and been attacked by influential people. Mashaei won’t probably be approved by the Guardian Council (because of his controversial remarks) and Rahimi simply does not have the characteristics of somebody who can get elected. But of course all of this is speculation, and I’m not sure Ahmadinejad will be that influential in the next election.
In general, people regard Qalibaf as having the most chance in 2013.
James
What was “militarily inept” about Israel’s smashing of Lebanon in 2006?
Israel, with vastly better material, not only failed to hold any land under fire, none, but lost more fighters than Hezbollah did. Israel had in an earlier decade reached deep into Lebanon essentially unopposed.
fyi:
Mr. Clinton started his presidency by trying to bankrupt the Iranian government.
He hoped that he could get a cost-free solution from Mr. Khatami after the US retaliation for Khobar bombing.
He did not get it as elements in Iran sabotaged mr. Khatami’s efforts.
Never heard of this. Can you give more details?
James Canning:
Mr. Clinton started his presidency by trying to bankrupt the Iranian government.
He hoped that he could get a cost-free solution from Mr. Khatami after the US retaliation for Khobar bombing.
He did not get it as elements in Iran sabotaged mr. Khatami’s efforts.
I am unaware of Israel and her cohorts involvement on the US side in doing teh same thing.
koosy,
Rami G. Khouri writes: “Broadly speaking, Americans and their elected officials have remained chronically clueless [about what is going on in the Middle East.” True, of course. One might add that many US Congressmen are intentionally ignorant because they find it much safer not to oppose the wishes of the Israel lobby. And much more profitable too.
Humanist,
I entirely agree with you that Gates is a patriotic American with a determination to serve American national interests as he perceives them, and of course in the context of complying with the wishes of the president.
At the CIA in the 1980s, Gates was responsible for allowing or causing greatly infalted estimates of the size of the economy of the USSR to be provided to the US Congress, as part of an effort by the armaments manufacturers to exaggerate the “threat” that needed to be confronted with gigantic expenditures on weapons.
As late as the fall of 1988, Gates thought the USSR would stay in Afghanistan for years to come, and he predicted the Soviet Union would double its troop deployment there in 1989. In fact, the USSR was getting ready to pull out, and had been trying to get out of Afghanistan for years! I had known for years the Soviets wanted to get out of Afghanistan, just from reading newspapers and talking to Russians I met in London and elsewhere.
Neil,
Bear in mind that the Israeli smashing of Lebanon grew out of Hezbollah’s effort to take pressure off Hamas in Gaza, by creating something of a diversion. That is why Israel went berserk.
10 things most people don’t know about Iran
BY DANTE “KLINK” ANG 2ND EXECUTIVE EDITOR
http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/component/content/article/86-special-reports/32722-10-things-most-people-dont-know-about-iran
A Muslim former journalist conceded that he had to allay his mother’s concerns when he told her that he was going to be working in Tehran, the capital of Iran. He recalled that he did not really know what to expect, even though he was Muslim and an Indonesian.
And if a Muslim—one from the most populous Islamic country in the world—could have anxieties about Iran, how much more for Filipinos, who are predominantly Roman Catholic, and others from elsewhere in the world?
Iran is arguably one of the most misunderstood countries on earth. For starters, people, including those who make Hollywood movies, get confused about the people, although some already know that Iranians are Persians not Arabs. Iranians are Aryans, who bear more physical similarities with Europeans than with their Arab neighbors.
Besides that, the following are the most common misconceptions about this ancient country based on the personal observations of the author, comments people made when he told them about traveling to Iran, and stories told by many of the international delegates who attended a recent press and news agency conference in Tehran.
Iran is a dangerous place. Actually Iran is a peaceful country. Like the Philippines, the world often confuses it with its neighbors. Iran suffers in the same way the Philippines does when foreigners think that Mindanao is the entire country. Unfortunately for its image, Iran is next door to Iraq, the deadliest place for journalists on earth, and to Afghanistan, where the American-led UN troops are hunting down Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda leaders. But compared to New York City, Tehran seems like a much safer metropolis—safe enough for some of the delegates to walk around in at night.
Iran supports terrorists. Like most people in the world, Iran has neither affinity with al-Qaeda nor with the Talibans, who murdered Iranians in Afghanistan. Iranians also point out that none of the suicide bombers were Iranians, who are mostly Shia, one of the two major denominations in Islam. One Iranian woman pointed out that suicide is “a big sin” in Shia Islam. However, Iran has been criticized for supporting Hezbollah, although most Iranians view them as freedom fighters and admire them for fighting Israel.
The land is barren like a desert. The air is arid, although the landscape and flora vary from region to region in this vast country. Also, agriculture is a major industry in Iran. The country has four seasons, and during the time of the international conference in late October, it was autumn in Tehran, where the weather was like that of Baguio, the summer capital of the Philippines. Iran does have deserts—but also seas, lakes, mountains and valleys.
The country is poor and backward. The foreign delegates spent most of their time in Tehran, although they took a daytrip to the religious city of Qom. Tehran looks modern, and much cleaner than many major capital cities in the world. The infrastructure was similar to what one sees in the US, in fact. Many buildings in Tehran looked old, but there were also many modern ones, like Iran’s new National Library and the newly opened Milad Tower, which looks like the CN Tower in Toronto. Milad is billed as the fourth-tallest freestanding structure in the world at 435 meters.
Iran is boring. Actually, Iran is a fascinating place. It’s an old world with a 5,000-year history located near the birthplace of civilization, the area around the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Besides being rich in history, Iran is also said to be a land of poets, ancient, as well as modern art, and it even boasts of a variety of cultures and sub-cultures.
Iran is reeling from economic sanctions. In a press conference in Tehran, Minister of Commerce Mhedi Ghazanfari said that economic sanctions have had no effect on Iran. He and other officials told The Manila Times that Iran has learned to be self reliant, especially after decades of coping with sanctions. In fact, Iran exports to 150 countries, including Germany, France, the United Kingdom and the Philippines. For now, bilateral trade favors Iran, whose exports to the Philippines reached $3 million in 2009. Iran’s imports from the Philippines were only $1.75 million—mainly bananas.
There is no free speech. In the same press conference with Minister Ghazanfari, an unidentified Iranian stood up and complained about his being late—a surprise given that Iran is criticized for not having free speech. An executive of the state-run news agency IRNA—Islamic Republic News Agency—said that it was not uncommon for local media, including news agencies funded by the government, to criticize their president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iranians do admit refraining from criticizing their supreme leader, Grand
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—but out of respect, not fear.
That being said, there are apparent media constraints in Iran. Foreign journalists working in Iran, including those of the BBC, have been expelled from the country because of coverage that the government did not like. The BBC website is also blocked in Iran along with Facebook, Twitter and The Manila Times. But two young professional women told The Times that Iranians still manage to access social networking sites, like Facebook, by using a proxy server.
They don’t like Americans. Like many people in the world, Iranians have no problems with—and even love—the American people but dislike their government. One Iranian told The Times that an evidence of this was the millions of Persians living in the US. Also, The Times encountered a number of people, including children, who were interested in learning English. It also seems wrong to say that Persians hate the Jews. To be more precise, the Iranians perceive the Zionists as their common archenemy.
Iranians are not nice people and are suspicious of foreigners. On the contrary, Persians are very nice and hospitable. For instance, when this writer got lost outside the mosque at Qom, a young girl approached and in broken English tried to ask if he needed help. Iranians are very curious about foreigners, particularly of Asians, probably because they have not seen many of them visit Iran. There was even a funny incident in Qom, where one of the Chinese delegates was swarmed by young boys who wanted to take photos
with him.
Iranian women are weak and oppressed. To foreigners, the head covering of Iranian women is a symbol of their oppression. But this was disputed by several Iranian women, who told The Times that they like their religion and that nobody forces them to do anything. One delegate from Yemen said that he perceived Iranian women as being stronger than other females in the Gulf region. For instance, most Iranian men have only one wife, while the common practice in many Arab countries is to have as many as four. And like in many places around the world, one Iranian quipped, the dominant, if not feared, members of their society were not the men, but the mothers-in-law.
Neil,
What was “militarily inept” about Israel’s smashing of Lebanon in 2006? That Israel showed itself capable of smashing Lebanon cannot be credibly disputed. What Israel could not do is achieve a strategic victory in the sense of destroying Hezbollah. In fact, the savaging of Lebanon strengthened Hezbollah.
Neil M,
Gates can see that the US can attack Iran and inflict substantial damage, but this would not prevent Iran from going ahead with development of nuclear weapons, should it so choose. And the very foolish act of attacking Iran might cause the Iranian government to do something it currently is not doing.
fyi,
The Clinton administration wanted to restore normal relations with Iran. The Israel lobby blocked it.
Richard Steven Hack:
I think that the possibility of a war, 10 years into the future, is like discussing eternity in international arena.
That US has been trying to effect regime change in Iran since Clinton’s presidency is, in my opinion, has been quite clear.
That they (US leaders) have had to go and destriy their own allies (some woould say monsters) – benefiting Iran – in my opinion, is perhaps be attributed to the Hidden Imam. Alternatively, one may conclude that US leaders and planners are less clever than you suggest.
I think that regime change in Iran makes a lot of sense to US if they could pull it off. I do not think that they have that power.
As I suggested elsewhere, peace in Palestine can help US enormously too. But US leaders – having influence with most of the major players there – cannot accomplish even that.
Now, you might be correct that for reasons of domestic politics, US is powerless to do anything positive in Palestine or in Iran. It then follows that what is needed is a change in US since her politics have become so intractable internally that a complete house-cleaning is required.
I have a question then:
Is it too early to start asking who Ahmadinejad will support in the 2013 elections, who that person’s main opposition might be and who is likely to win?
I ask this keeping in mind that this far away from the 2008 US elections, the favorite was Hillary Clinton, and that there is not even an reasonable guess yet about who will oppose Obama on the Republican side in 2012. So of course any prediction is tentative, but still would be interesting.
I think Gates is responding to the obvious impracticality of pretending that there is a viable military option available to the US whilst so many US citizens are densely packed in small and extremely vulnerable bases in the region. I’ve no doubt that if Gates thought Iran’s defenses were sufficiently weak to remove the risk of wide-ranging and long term retaliation, then it would be attacked.
I expect Gates to use the removal, from ‘the table’, of the threat of a military confrontation to call for tougher sanctions. This will be tricky because it could be argued that most of the Western nations being called upon to participate in sanctions are in dire need of trade cash-flow. If sanctions fail to cripple Iran’s ability to defend itself then Gates will need to remove at least 150,00 US personnel from a multitude of bases to reduce the risk of heavy loss of US lives. But he can’t do that because it will flag US intentions and look like admitting that a war with a country (Iran) which can defend itself and retaliate is without precedent – which happens to be true. It is also unclear who will/would openly and covertly enter such a war on Iran’s side – apart from Turkey. (The US military is far too dependent on hardware which ultimately proves to be irrelevant – Afghanistan being the quintessential illustration of that fact.)
Forget Israel. Israelis are happy to kill for what they believe in but are notoriously reluctant to die for it. Lebanon and Gaza represent the absolute upper limit of Israel’s eerie military ineptitude. Hezbollah will invade Israel if Lebanon is attacked again. Strategically and tactically speaking, they will have no choice. It is vital that they inflict serious damage upon Israel, and Israelis, as deterrence. That leaves Gaza as the only risk-free target for the IOF.
The sum total of this latest announcement is to let the world know that Israel has a minimum of 2, maybe 3, years of US support to concentrate on cleansing Jerusalem of Gentiles.
Mohammad:
Except Ghalibaf, who enjoys some sort of popularity, the rest have no popularity whatsoever, specially the Larijani clan. Ahmadinajad (and reformists strategic mistakes) has somehow reincarnated these already dead people. and the conservatives have used the opportunity given to them by Ahmadinejad faction to sell themselves to the public. I think, Khamenei knows this very well, so he will not distance himself from the president. I have said this here before:
درواقع وقتی احمقی مثل توکلی و فرصت طلبی مثل علی لاریجانی شدند عقلای قوم فاتحه اون مملکت رو باید خوند. نمی دونم کی به این توکلی دکترا داده که این هم توهم زده بشه که خدای اقتصاد.
if fact, they are very lucky that an external threat like the west exists so people like me have no other choice, specially if push comes to shove, than to defend them and their overall policies.
Scott,
Thanks. As you probably know already, the people you mentioned (except Sadeq Larijani who I haven’t heard him criticizing Ahmadinejad) are known as moderate conservatives* (some have called themselves ‘reformist conservatives’). They are critical of Ahmadinejad’s sometimes non-conventional behavior and speech. But they agree with him on all strategic issues (after all, they are all conservatives). The difference is about the means, not the ends.
As they are under pressure from pro-Ahmadinejad media, they (except Tavakkoli) have become more cautious in openly criticizing Ahmadinejad. I suspect that they are all waiting for the 2013 election.
Ayatollah Khamenei is just doing his duty as Leader to support the president; especially a president who has closer views to him than the previous ones and agrees with him on strategic issues. But this does not mean that he doesn’t favor anyone over Ahmadinejad (of course he never says this in public). Since I have found him to be a reasonable man, I suspect he favors most of the moderate conservatives over Ahmadinejad. But naturally, he will never reveal this (unless a few years pass after the end of Ahmadinejad’s term as president). In short, in my opinion, everyone is waiting quietly for the 2013 election, trying to keep Ahmadinejad in check for the remaining years, hoping that the next president will be better (and of course remains loyal to the basic values of the revolution, such as social justice, care for the poor, cultural protectionism, independence, resistance against ‘global arrogance’, etc.).
* In this comment I have used the term ‘conservative’ as a replacement for ‘principlist’ which is the exact translation of the Persian word.
Have you noticed that Scott Lucas is always searching for any sign of political weakness from the political establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran? Its appears to be something of a personal quest or maybe its even part of some larger, more sinister effort.
As mentioned before, the sanctions are a blessing for Iran. They are a significant factor in the “structural readjustment” of the Iranian economy from an import economy dependent on Europe to an production-export economy trading with all regions of the world.
The so-called “pressure” on the Iranian people is much less than the “pressure” on the European and American people in these times of “spending cuts” and “belt-tightening”. (Besides, Gates might have missed that the govt just started giving cash subsidies to sixty million people.)
Scott
Whatever the relationship might be between these gentlemen, one thing they have in common is that they obey the Supreme Leader and they hate you and your kind :-)
In Iran we have a division of powers between the executive, legislative and judiciary branches and each criticizes the other (and has done so since the beginning). If you were a real expert, you would know that instead of chasing delusions based the gossip of Iranian exiles.
Salam Mohammad,
Thanks for adding some insight about Iran’s internal situation to the post. How would you assess the current political manoeuvres/relationship amongst the Larijanis (Ali and Sadegh), Qalibaf, Rezaei, and Tavakoli vis-a-vis Ahmadinejad? And what role is the Supreme Leader currently playing in those manoeuvres?
Thanks,
Scott
Rob Hughes,
I disagree with you. Street-level law enforcement during the post-2009 election aftermath was coordinated and carried out primarily by NAJA, with the Basij filling an auxiliary role.
What was noteworthy during that period was that at no point was martial law declared. Also, the military wasn’t activated in any meaningful way, and that includes IRGC quick-reaction and “order” unit forces.
Nor were AWCVs used or lethal force employed as an official directive, even in situations where its use by US law enforcement would have been permitted.
I suggest you reexamine the actual evidence at hand.
Humanist:
is Masoud Ansari the guy called “Ahmad Ali Masoud Ansari”? the one who was Farah’s cousin (and Reza Pahlavi’s personal accountant-he then had a serious dispute with him)? if so, I am surprised to read the preface of the book (I am also surprised that you saying the book is an honest one-translated by an honest person-with the preface, I don’t need to waste my time and read the whole book!). he showed up in IRIB during the last Fajr’s 10 days and talked about how disgusting Pahlavis were! he also wrote a book (actually somebody else wrote for him-in fact, another idiot!)
Among many eye-opening books on Iran “The Profits of War” is quite outstanding. This 1992 book is written by Ari Ben Menashe, a mysterious Israeli who is now a refugee in Canada. He speaks Farsi and knows so much about Arms Sales, Espionage, Iran-Iraq war and dozens of other very interesting subjects. He claims he was working in Israeli Prime Minister’s Office, now he is in the hit list of Mossad …and many other amazing stories.
Dr. Masoud Ansari, the respected Iranian-American psychologist has translated the book to Farsi in a fluent way it is hard to stop reading. The translation is downloadable free form efsha.co.uk “Ketab Sara”, “Pool e Khoon”.
Dr. Ansari is a gifted hypnotist who is expertly capable of distinguishing between liars and those who tell the truth. He believes Ari is not a liar.
Robert Gates’ name is mentioned in that book quite often (maybe more than any other American). In one place Ari writes how, at one time, Gates’ name was in the list of characters to be assassinated by Israelis. In another place Ari expresses his displeasure because Gates was allowing a Chilean Chemical Weapon manufacturer to build a CW factory near Bagdad.
I was not surprised when I read Gates opposes an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites. My perceptions about him (based on that book and observing him since he became the Secretary of Defense is that, unlike quite a few in the Congress or other US government positions, in his decisions, American interests have the highest priority.
I also remember a conscientious clever ex-CIA man (Ray McGovern?) saying he was doubtful about Gates’ intelligence and suitability for being in charge of big jobs like CIA or DoD.
Americans need to be adults about Iran
By Rami G. Khouri
Saturday, November 20, 2010
From the late 1960s to the early 2000s, the central conflict in the Middle East, one that spilled over to influence many other domestic and regional issues, was the Arab-Israeli conflict. For much of that period, until the early 1990s, it overlapped with the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union.
However, during the past decade, the confrontational center of gravity in the region has shifted somewhat to include new dynamics that see Iran and some Arab allies together forming a “deterrence and resistance front” that both confronts and engages with the US, Israel and some conservative Arab parties. As the Iranian-led defiance of Washington has linked with the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, it has become far more difficult for diplomats and conflict-resolvers to achieve a breakthrough on any of the many regional conflicts.
The old “Middle East conflict” has now been transformed into multiple conflicts that combine to form a broader “Middle East confrontation” comprising many parties and sources of disagreement, tension and active political or military battles. In this context, it is not just the fact of a large, dynamic, robust Iran being an active regional player that makes a difference, especially through its close ties with Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas; rather, it is the spirit of defiance and the demand for respect and the equitable application of a single standard of international law that Iran is trying to project and champion that represents an important new factor in the regional and global diplomatic equation.
Broadly speaking, Americans and their elected officials have remained chronically clueless about this reality and how to deal with it. There are many reasons for this, including historical bilateral tensions, a general weak spot in American diplomacy outside the confrontational context of the old Cold War, the incessant and strong goading of pro-Israel fanatics in Washington, the general inability of the US to sort out religion from nationalism, and almost biological hysteria about how to deal with strong, proud, defiant, uppity Muslims or Muslim-majority countries.
The result has been an erratic track record in American-Iranian relations that has seen tensions persist and increase, while core issues raised by both sides remain unresolved. American sanctions and pressures and Iranian resistance and defiance have given both sides emotional satisfaction, but few real political gains or successes. There is an almost juvenile dimension to how the United States and Iran conduct their bilateral relations, or non-relations, so it is refreshing to see a new report just published by a group of specialists in the US that suggests a more effective strategy for dealing with this matter.
The report by the US Institute of Peace (USIP) and the Stimson Center, titled “Engagement, Coercion, and Iran’s Nuclear Challenge,” is the culmination of a year’s work by over 40 scholars and policy analysts. They conclude that the US should “rebalance its approach to Iran, leveraging the gains achieved from sanctions by indicating a willingness to engage Iran diplomatically on a wide range of issues.” (The title of the report could have been more judiciously crafted to transcend the American-Israeli fixation on Iran’s nuclear industry, and instead – as the report itself does – acknowledge the need to address a much wider range of strategic issues that are important to both sides. But then, the transition from an adolescent to a mature adult condition – in ideology and diplomacy as in biology – occurs in stages, rather than at once.)
Among the recommendations for engagement offered by co-authors Barry Blechman of the Stimson Center and Daniel Brumberg of USIP are: Washington needs to make adjustments of comparable importance to the demands it is making of Iran, such as recognizing Iran’s right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under international safeguards; the US and Israel must avoid the threat to use force, which only reinforces those in Tehran who believe Iran requires nuclear weapons for its security and undermines those who argue for compromise with the international community; the US must take advantage of the leverage gained from sanctions to reinvigorate, broaden and engage Iran diplomatically and strategically, which might persuade more pragmatic members of the ruling elites in Tehran that it is in Iran’s own interest to end its estrangement from the international community by reaching a compromise on the nuclear and other security issues.
Such an approach, though still debatable, would be far wiser than either engaging in military clashes or a long-term containment policy after Iran achieves its full nuclear aims, whether those aims are simply a full enrichment cycle or producing nuclear weapons. As the US and its Western allies prepare to sit down and resume negotiations in the coming weeks, it is heartening to see that some thoughtful adults in Washington are pondering how to address the issues at hand with more sophistication, nuance, realism and pragmatism than has been the case to date. If similar signs emerge in Tehran, we may have a deal.
Rami G. Khouri is published twice weekly by THE DAILY STAR.
It’s laughable that Gates thinks Khamenei’s main channel for information about the domestic economy and people’s livelihoods is Ahmadinejad. He couldn’t have engineered Iran’s harshly contested rise in the region or survived last year’s domestic disturbances if he were that naiive.
Anyone familiar enough with the Iranian system knows that the political center delegates authity and demands accountability/loyalty via multiple tracks, many of which are not firmly IN the formal government, the most significant being the vast mosque network with its disciplined Friday prayer leaders. Another is the Basij militia, which has branches in every office of every public institution. It was mostly these and related second- and third-tier elemets, not the police and regular secutrity forces (who looked on), that contained last year’s post-election turmoil. And they’re similarly eager to serve as Khameniei’s eyes and ears throughout Iran independent of the official apparatus. No wonder Iran is one of the most stable political systems in its volatile region. Even if escalating sanctions manage to cripple Iran in the end, it won’t be because Khamenei is out of touch with domestic economic trends or political sensitivities.
Arnold: “As of now, an attack is not feasible.”
No one is talking about “now” – depending on what “now” means.
“There was no active US General saying what Robert Gates says regarding Iran about Iraq in 2003.”
So what? As I’ve said, the Pentagon does not run the show – even if they can ride roughshod over Obama in Afghanistan. Afghanistan doesn’t have the appeal of Iran in some respects for the Israelis and the military-industrial complex and the oil companies. The generals prefer Afghanistan because they think they can get career boosts by stretching the war out for decades whereas they know Iran will become a mess faster than Afghanistan did and probably even faster than Iraq did.
Again, so what? They don’t decide who the US attacks.
“If and when a war becomes feasible, there will be a change in the expectations of both myself and most posters here, since we all are observing almost all of the information that becomes public regarding this issue.”
I don’t believe that for an instant. People will deny right up to the moment the bombs fall.
As I pointed out in my latest posts in the previous thread, your assumptions about the situation are completely erroneous. Or mine are. We’ll see.
Relevant to my Lebanon example, and demonstrating once again Israel’s planning for the next Lebanon war, this from the usually lame Victor Kotsev at Asia Times:
Israel moves to counter Hezbollah
www dot atimes dot com/atimes/Middle_East/LK20Ak05.html
Quote
In the past few months, Israel has gone out of its way to cast itself as a victim of aggression in case a war with Hezbollah breaks out.”
It was also preceded by serious efforts to set the stage for powerful jus in bello arguments justifying the use of massive force in the event of hostilities. Photographic proof of Hezbollah infractions such as its usage of civilians as human shields served the latter purpose.
Moreover, according to prominent Israeli analyst Ron Ben-Yishai, a detailed report of Hezbollah arms smuggling published by French newspaper Le Figaro last month, “prepares world for possible war”. [2] A statement from a few days ago by the chief of staff of the Israeli army, Major General Gabi Ashkenazi, who warned that the Shi’ite organization may take over Lebanon in the near future, can be interpreted in a similar way. [3]
Firstly, it is quite possible that Hezbollah would launch an attack, as happened in 2006 at the beginning of the second Lebanon war. It is somewhat unlikely that the Shi’ite militia would stage a major provocation (it has acknowledged that even in 2006 it miscalculated the Israeli response and did not intend to start a war), but if the international and domestic pressure resulting from the indictments intensifies, it could easily launch a few missiles into Israel as a distraction. In turn, given the elaborate steps taken by the Israeli government to justify a campaign in Lebanon, such an action could seamlessly blend into a second scenario: an Israeli preemptive attack on Lebanon.
We should not forget that Hezbollah is a major part of the Iranian deterrence against an attack on its nuclear facilities. An Israeli pre-emptive strike against the militia’s missile arsenal could degrade its deterrent capacity severely, and could come as a prelude to an attack on the Islamic Republic.
End Quote
He also suggests that the goal of recent Israeli actions is to weaken Hizballah’s justifications for remaining armed. If Israel no longer occupies parts of southern Lebanon, the idea is that Hizballah has no justification for remaining armed, and the UN may be persuaded to demand it disarm.
This of course is BS. Hizballah is not armed just because Israel occupies some Lebanese territory. It is armed to prevent Israel from invading and occupying Lebanon. And everyone in Lebanon knows this.
So the game is to persuade outsiders in the US and elsewhere that Hizballah is a “terrorist group”. So anything Hizballah does can then be considered a justification for Israel – or even the US – to attack Lebanon, or at the very least drive a wedge between Hizballah and Syria and weaken Iran’s relations with Hizballah and Lebanon.
All of which is intended eventually to justify further Israeli military aggression at some point in the future.
And that is the point I wish to make. EVERYTHING being done against Iran now is INTENDED to justify and bring to be military aggression against Iran at some point in the future.
Hack:
Every one here assumes the US just backs down, allows Iran to enrich, and there is no war for the next twenty years.
If over the next 20 years the US seems to have to confidence regarding attacking Iran that it had regarding attacking Iraq in 2003, then I’ll change my opinion. As of now, an attack is not feasible.
There was no active US General saying what Robert Gates says regarding Iran about Iraq in 2003.
If and when a war becomes feasible, there will be a change in the expectations of both myself and most posters here, since we all are observing almost all of the information that becomes public regarding this issue.
Muhammad, you got two hyperlinks into one message. Either you’re a privileged poster or that rule has been relaxed.
As far as the issue of sanctions, the United States has always wanted sanctions on Iran, and this is an issue that the US has been unusually successful getting the sanctions that it has always wanted.
I think 2010 was overall a good year for Iran. Iraq is coming along well. Lebanon is coming along well. The parties in the region that are accountable to the US, for example Abbas and the colonial leaderships in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE are slightly less credible than they were this time last year.
We’ll see when the next IAEA report is released how much Stuxnet slowed uranium production if it did at all, but Iran had barely passed one ton of 3.5% enriched uranium last year and now has over three tons as well about 30 kgs of 20% uranium of the 100 or 150 kgs that could be made into a weapon, and the coast is relatively clear for Iran to have over 8 tons of LEU and a few hundred tons of 20% over the next 5 years or so.
Tangible steps have also been taken on Bushehr.
And the consensus in the US is more clear than ever that an attack on Iran by anyone would have consequences for the US beyond what the US is comfortable enduring and would be counterproductive in preventing Iran from building a weapon over the medium term.
The battlefield of 2010 was Iraq, and the US doesn’t seem to have gotten its CIA agent Allawi any significant power in Iraq’s government at all. Instead the US is being pushed toward a relatively graceful exit that will leave Iraq the most friendly country Iran has ever had on its border, among many things that will be possible will be direct ground transfers of material to Syria. Iraq, which is still under Chapter 7 sanctions also offers very interesting opportunities for discrediting the entire project of Chapter 7 sanctions as they relate to the nuclear issue. All that will come later as the US presence wanes to nothing.
The battlefield of 2011 looks to be more Afghanistan. We’ll see how that develops.
As another example, we KNOW Israel was preparing for war with Lebanon for at least a year before two soldiers were kidnapped by Hizballah in 2006.
Yet Hizballah is blamed for starting the war.
The assumption is that Israel never intended a war with Lebanon. How correct is that assumption?
So the US hasn’t attacked Iran – YET. How correct is that fact justifying an assumption of no war in 2012, 2014, or 2018?
It just doesn’t follow. A better predictor is the actual pattern of events of US wars for decades, including Vietnam. In every case the US had ulterior economic and geopolitical goals that lay behind the public justifications. ALL the arguments against the alleged justifications were irrelevant to the ultimate outcome. NO ONE who was involved in the REAL motivations paid any price for whatever disaster subsequently occurred.
THIS is the predictor of future US behavior.
The other main point to be taken from this post of the Leveretts is precisely what I warn about: once the current US program against Iran fails, WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
Every one here assumes the US just backs down, allows Iran to enrich, and there is no war for the next twenty years.
The Leveretts clearly do not share that assessment. They are concerned that the next steps after the failure of sanctions – and these may occur next year or ten years from now as with Iraq – will be further confrontations which can easily lead to war – or actual military action.
I go further than that. I believe this entire process is INTENDED to lead to war at some point in the future, just as the entire process preceding 9/11 was intended to lead to war with Afghanistan and Iraq. WE KNOW that was the case. Why is it hard to comprehend the same process is in place for Iran?
Gates: “the only long-term solution in avoiding an Iranian nuclear weapons capability is for the Iranians to decide it’s not in their interest.”
Here is where he reveals himself to be an idiot.
The Iranians ALREADY KNOW THIS! They’ve SAID IT – REPEATEDLY!
HE is the only one who doesn’t know this – or is lying about whether he knows this, which is much more likely.
Why is it easy for people to assume that Iran’s leaders are lying about not wanting nuclear weapons (or even nuclear capability, in Arnold’s terms) but completely unable to believe that the US leadership (which has much greater motives) is lying about the entire issue?
Gates’ arguments are impressive, except that he doesn’t understand Iranian intentions and politics and so his facts are wrong. Even if Khamenei finds out that Ahmadinejad is lying to him about the impact of the sanctions, guess what? He will ask him to be more serious in managing the economy. Iran’s nuclear program is not an Ahmadinejad program, the whole Iran (especially including Khamenei) is for it, as it has supported it for many years. Uranium enrichment is one of the least debated issues here in Iran. The sanctions have in fact made it [even more] impossible for Iran to back down from its nuclear rights. If agreement on the nuclear issue seemed plausible before the sanctions, they’re now unthinkable (except if the West backs down).
It’s a cultural issue; because of extreme cultural and historical sensitivies in the Iranian public, Iranian authorities can never risk their political future by being seen as bowing to foreign pressures. Iranians are extremely proud people, to the extent that it seems irrational to outsiders. They have said in polls that they are willing to suffer from economic sanctions but not back down from uranium enrichment. Gates needs Iran advisors who do not have anti-IR agenda.
The U.S led sanctions will never deeply undermine Iran`s nuclear program , nor will the sanctions accomplish the so – wanted ” regime change ” ! The current U.S policy towards the Islamic republic is widely seen in the region as a double standard, so in fact it is the U.S strategic interest that is being undermined , not Iran`s ” peacefull ” nuclear program. Just today , in the context of Nato`s missile shield deal in Lisbon , the Turkish president was quoted saying – ” Turkey cannot join a project that is aimed at a specific country “. He also said that Nato was a defensive alliance aimed at defending its members against any ballistic threat and is not an organisation designed “to intimidate and threaten”.
Iran’s invincible ‘moral weapons’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/irans-invincible-moral-weapons/
Paul Rogers has some interesting comments today on the opendemocracy.net site :”Israel vs Iran: the Washington factor”. Rogers notes the role the delusional Christian Zionists play in the internal political dynamic that obtains in the US today.
The Debka file asks today: “[H]ow can [the second lot of F-35 stealth warplanes] help Israel STAND UP TO ITS CURRENT SECURITY THREATS FROM IRAN, HIZBOLLAH, SYRIA AND HAMAS?
Israel needs stealth fighters to maintain the blockade of Gaza? Give me a break, as they say in the US these days.
Why does Gates argue that it is necessary for the Iranian government to decide it does not want nuclear weapons, when this programme has been publicly announced for years and years now? A programme of not building nukes.
Once again, I would emphasise the continuing stupidity of the US in not having diplomatic relations with Iran. Didn’t Roosevelt send his friend Bullitt to serve as US ambassador to the Soviet Union even though he did not like the government of the USSR? How pathetic the US is now so childish in its foreign policy stance.
Clearly Gates is quite right that there is no military option, but I heartily agree his belief that sanctions promote a resolution of the dispute, is dead wrong.
Good point, Leveretts. Thanks for posting.