As the United States pushes for regime change in Syria and American allies flock to suspend Syria from the Organization for Islamic Cooperation, it is illuminating to examine the strategic bankruptcy of U.S. policy toward Bahrain. For the deep flaws in Washington’s approach to Bahrain grow out of the same considerations that warp its policy toward Syria. And at the root of all these dangerously deficient policies is a dogged determination to contain and undermine the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Against this backdrop, Hillary appeared on Al Jazeera’s Inside Story Americas last week to discuss the political situation in Bahrain and Washington’s ongoing support for the Khalifa monarchy there; click here to view the segment or on the video above. The program opens with an interview with Maryam al-Khawaja, a Bahraini human rights activist. The panel discussion in which Hillary appears begins at 7:05 in the video.
Bahrain is arguably the most flagrant manifestation of American hypocrisy regarding the Arab spring. As the Islamic Republic’s foreign minister, Dr. Ali Akbar Salehi, noted in his Washington Post op ed on Syria last week, see here, “there have been conflicting responses to the civic movements sweeping the Arab world. A glaring example of these contradictions lies in Bahrain and the way some states have responded to the crackdown on the uprising there.” In his set up for the Inside Story episode, Al Jazeera’s moderator, Shihab Rattansi, notes that “for almost every single Arab country that has seen uprisings over the past two years, the U.S. has called for regime change—except for the Gulf kingdom of Bahrain, one of its closest allies in the region.” Bahrain is, of course, the home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet. Three months ago, the United States resumed selling weapons to the Bahraini government, notwithstanding its extensive, ongoing, and well-documented violations of human rights and its failure to make any discernible progress toward meaningful political reform, much less a negotiated political settlement between the government and the opposition.
As Hillary points out, Washington cannot recalibrate its policy toward Bahrain without a fundamental reevaluation of its larger strategy in the Middle East. As a result of that strategy, she says, the United States is
“stuck with an ally like Bahrain, we’re stuck with some of the allies that we have in the Middle East. That’s because our strategic interest, as U.S. officials have framed it now for decades, is essentially oil and Israel. And oil is personified in the state of Saudi Arabia. So any country that is willing to align itself, to collude with Israel and Saudi Arabia, to give up their own sovereignty, to do whatever they do to their own citizens in order to work with Israel and Saudi Arabia in U.S. interests—those are our allies…Sometimes they’re better, sometimes they’re worse, sometimes they behave better, sometimes they don’t. But we’re stuck with them.”
Hillary notes that, with the “advent of the information revolution” in the Middle East, “it’s harder to be stuck with bad allies. It’s harder to justify having an alliance with a country, with a government that abuses its own citizens, and carries out policies that are against its own interests…You can’t stand there, like when I worked in the Bush administration with President Bush, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq with the King of Bahrain, smiling and saying ‘Everything is great.’ You can’t do that anymore. Even though it was wrong probably for the King of Bahrain to support the U.S. invasion of Iraq, we could get away with it then; we can’t get away with it now.”
Nevertheless, Hillary underscores that the United States, as its Middle East strategy is currently structured, “cannot support the opposition in Bahrain, because if the opposition had any real say in the government, they would never allow Bahrain to cede its territory to the United States for the Fifth Fleet, to be used as a platform to attack a much stronger neighbor [Iran]. That makes no sense strategically.”
Containing (if not eventually eliminating) the Islamic Republic became the overarching aim of America’s Middle East strategy—for the Obama administration as well as for its predecessors—because, as Hillary explains, “Iran is the defiance. Iran stands up to U.S. plans for dominance in the region.” Any administration in Washington feels compelled “to do whatever it can, in whatever country it is in the Middle East, to push back against that—no matter how destabilizing it is.”
This kind of strategic irrationality is not unprecedented in American foreign policy: “We did the same thing in Asia long ago, with Vietnam and Korea. We wanted to contain China’s stand against U.S. domination in Asia, and we were willing to fight to the last American and the last Chinese person in Vietnam and in Korea. Our pursuit of dominance can be ferocious. It has been ferocious in the Middle East; it was ferocious in Asia. And countries like China and Iran literally are standing up to that, and that’s the problem that American policymakers have been bedeviled with since the end of World War II.”
Hillary allows that arms sales and political support for repressive regimes “works temporarily and it can work incrementally over time to keep a pro-American government that is working against the interests of its people, both in terms of their human rights and in terms of their geopolitics—control over their own territory.” Certainly, this approach “works to co-opt members of the royal family in Bahrain, as it works to coopt members of royal families in other governments throughout the Middle East.”
But it cannot reconcile the demands of Bahrain’s opposition with the Khalifa monarchy’s continued hold on power. And that, as Hillary drives home, is why the problem “has to be militarized,” for “if the United States actually had to compete with its narrative of what the U.S. actually stands for in the Middle East, in terms of good policy, with these populations, it would lose in a second. That’s why it has to militarize each one of these conflicts—it has to give weapons to the military and to the government in Bahrain, because that’s the only card the United States really has. It can’t compete in the world of ideas; it can’t compete with its narratives.”
And that militarization has follow-on consequences, which Hillary spells out: “Bahrain—like Israel—if it didn’t have the military might of the United States behind it, goading it to be provocative against its neighbors, it would actually have to [as we say] ‘box in its own weight class.’ It would have to deal with the reality of a large Iran, a large Iraq, a large Saudi Arabia, and make accommodations and get by. But because it has the United States—like Israel—it can do things that are much more provocative to its neighbors.” This is “perilous” to Bahrain’s Shi’a majority because, to pursue policies “pitting Bahrain against Iran,” the Khalifa monarchy must inevitably suppress “its own domestic population.”
In the end, to recalibrate its approach to democracy and human rights in a place Bahrain, the United States “would have to give up its pursuit of dominance” in the Middle East. It “would have to come to terms with the key players in the region that are resisting its pursuit of dominance—specifically the Islamic Republic of Iran. And if it were to do so, you wouldn’t need $60 billion arms sales to the Saudis and to the Gulf…It would make no sense if the Islamic Republic of Iran were a country you were working with and arming other countries to the teeth to fight against.”
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Don Bacon says:
August 21, 2012 at 4:12 pm
““Look at Iran”
That’s what the most powerful man in the world commanded in January. “Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent.”–President Obama, State of the Union, Jan 24, 2012″
Don,
President Obama is a smart man. It must make him exceedingly uncomfortable to say such foolish things.
The President is playing the fool for an apartheid state.
How long before other smart people quit ignoring the painful historical ironies the situation presents?
BiBiJon,
I take it you concede that Iran enjoys perhaps $50 billion less, in annual oil revenues, due to sanctions?
Clearly you do not like to be reminded that Iran perhaps is less strong today, due to its nuclear programme, than otherwise would obtain.
Yes, of course, huge losses are incurred by many countries, and companies, internationally, due to AIPAC control of the US Congress.
Surely you are aware I think AIPAC subverts the national security of the people of the US and the EU.
Concern has been expressed that Iran might have been destroyed economically by the illegal petroleum sanctions, as if Iran is some one-crop banana republic that can be controlled by one hostile economic power. Such is not the case. Iran has other eggs in its economic basket. Here are but a few of them.
Natural gas
Iran, which sits on the world’s second largest natural gas reserves, is boosting its production by attracting foreign and domestic investment, especially in its South Pars gas field. Iran is currently exporting gas only to Turkey. The country has signed gas-swap deals with Armenia and Azerbaijan. Negotiations are also underway to ink gas export deals with Switzerland, Iraq, Pakistan and Syria. Iran’s gas exports will reach 180 million cubic meters per day in the next four years, Deputy Oil Minister for Gas Affairs Javad Oji announced. “Over the fifth five year development plan to 2015, 12 new phases of the South Pars Gas Field will be coming online, of which four phases have been allocated to LNG.”
Gasoline
Iran, once threatened with U.S. gasoline import sanctions, has become a net exporter of gasoline. Iran exported $134.8 million of motor fuel in the 12 months ending March 19. The opening of a new gasoline manufacturing block is be able to manufacture some 2.8 mln litres of gasoline daily. Also Iranian unveiled a new block for desulfurization, and production of higher quality gasoline. The plant aims to produce EURO-5 standard gasoline. Shahid Tondgoyan operates a total of 14 blocks now, four of which have just been unveiled.
Electric power
Under the proposed project, Iran will build a powerhouse in Zahedan province bordering Pakistan to generate electricity for export and has also expressed its willingness to provide $800 to $900 million for the project. A 700km transmission line of 500 kilovolts will also be laid from the Pak-Iran border to Quetta. Iran has exported 4,368 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity so far in the current Iranian year, which began on March 20, showing 45.4 percent rise compared to the same period last year, the IRNA News Agency reported on Wednesday. Iran ranks the first in the Middle East in terms of electricity generation.
Steel
According to the latest report published by the World Steel Association (WSA), Iran has become the largest producer of crude steel in the Middle East and Africa, given the hike in its steel output. The report said that Iran produced 3.626 million tons of raw steel in the first quarter of 2012, indicating a 6.8-percent rise compared to the corresponding period last year. Additionally, Iran’s crude steel output hit 1.163 million tons in March 2012, which shows a 7.7-percent hike in comparison with the same period last year. According to the latest report published by the World Steel Association (WSA), Iran has become the largest producer of crude steel in the Middle East and Africa, given the hike in its steel output.
Petrochemicals
Iran’s oil and industry ministries will establish 12 industrial estates nationwide, for the petrochemical processing industries, the Mehr News Agency quoted an official with National Petrochemical Company as saying. Mohammad Ziyar said that the establishment of the industrial estates aims to complete the chain of supplying raw materials and spare parts as well as selling petrochemical products in order to reduce production and export costs. National petrochemical output is projected to be boosted by 5-5.5 million tons by the end of the current year (March 2013). Petrochemical exports from Iran to Asian markets have been rising due to the increasing demand as well as lower transportation costs compared to with destinations,
Minerals
Iran is among the top 15 major mineral-rich countries of the world and exports its industrial and mineral products to 159 countries, including Iraq, China, the United Arab Emirates, India and Afghanistan.
Missiles
The Fateh 110-D1 (Conqueror 110-D1) missile, which is an upgraded version of the Fateh 110 missile, the Bonyan 4 (Foundation 4) ship engine, the Armita flying laboratory, the Aras tactical command vehicle, the Vafa mortar launcher, and the Shahed (Observer) navigation and surveillance system were the pieces of military hardware that were unveiled. Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of the ceremony, Vahidi elaborated on the features of the new military hardware. Commenting on the Fateh 110-D1 missile, the Iranian defense minister said, “The missile is one of the most precise and advanced surface-to-surface ballistic missiles and is solid-propellant.”
James (master of all things excruciatingly facile) Canning says:
August 21, 2012 at 7:41 pm
“Don Bacon,
Do we agree Iran loses about $45 billion or more yearly (in terms of revenue lost due to declining oil production), primarily as a result of the sanctions?”
——–
While in its most superficial sense it is true that a revenue stream has been temporarily constricted by x number of dollars, the words “loses” and the number, $45 billion, lack sufficient nuance, detail, context, etc to qualify as a typical dead horse to be kicked by James Canning for several hundred commentlets to come.
Looking forward to it, not.
On the other side, there are costs too. RT is reporting that in addition to Standard Chartered, and Deutsche bank, Royal bank of Scotland, Germany’s Commerzbank, and Japan’s major lender Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group are all in hot water, not because of their respective countries banking regulations, or binding international treaties, but because of US domestic laws which were penned and pushed by AIPAC.
That these banks were pursuing their own commercial interests as well as facilitating their clients’ interests, then it would be fair to assume some amount of revenue is being lost to all sorts of non-Iranian entities in this ‘global’ world of ours.
http://rt.com/business/news/us-rbs-iran-probe-261/
There is something amusing about this paragraph from a news article,
“Some rebels, for example, have asked for portable rocket launchers known as Manpads, which experts say could make a huge difference in the fighting by countering government jet and helicopter attacks. But the officials point to the experience of Afghanistan in the 1980s, when the Central Intelligence Agency provided Stinger missiles to the mujahedeen fighting the Soviet Union, only to spend millions trying to track them down after the Soviets left and the opposition groups gave rise to the Taliban.
“
Unknown Unknowns,
Thank you for the re-post. I have not followed up the comments on a regular basis. Sorry if I’ve missed any of your comments.
Re; the letter, I guessed at your intent. But since I knew some factually incorrect statements in that letter, and I was not convinced that the mistakes were inadvertent and honest on the part of the author of the letter, I thought I chime in. I understood what you meant to convey. Thanks again for the informative posts.
fyi,
“I imagine that it will take US another 10 years to go from the proposition that “War is Expensive but so is Peace” to one of “War is Expensive but Peace is cheap.””
How long would it take for them to arrive at the wisdom that “price should not be the standard by which one evaluates war and peace”?
Don Bacon,
Do we agree Iran loses about $45 billion or more yearly (in terms of revenue lost due to declining oil production), primarily as a result of the sanctions?
Writing in the Daily Telegraph online Aug. 21st. Con Coughlin accused Obama of a “precipitate withdrawal from Iraq”. In fact, the US pulled its troops out because Iraq in effect demanded they be withdrawn.
@ M.Ali re: International Criminal Court (ICC)
from Alternet:
Currently 114 countries are party to the treaty and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC. Some 34 others, including Russia, have signed the treaty but are yet to ratify it. Thus, they are still outside its jurisdiction.
An additional 44 states, including China, have never signed the treaty. And finally, several states such as the United States and Israel, while having initially adhered to the treaty, have subsequently “unsigned” it and thereby withdrawn from its jurisdiction.
It would seem that the leaders of many of the major world powers, China, Russia and the United States, know that they operate in the world on the basis of exceptionalism. They actually are or likely will occupy foreign lands, pursue foreign wars, massacre civilian populations, etc.
In other words, the behavior of their nationals is very likely to transgress the laws against war crimes and crimes against humanity, and perhaps genocide as well. So they seek to stay clear of the ICC’s jurisdiction. (end Alternet)
While the ICC can’t be used FOR the West in can be used BY the west. Click on the ICC link “All Cases,” look at the the photos of people currently being subjected to “ICC justice” and see if they share anything in common.
http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Situations+and+Cases/Cases/
You learn something new every day. I just noticed this wikipedia page on this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court
“Seven countries voted against the treaty, namely: Iraq, Israel, Libya, People’s Republic of China, Qatar, Yemen, and the United States. ”
What good company USA has!
Pursuit of dominance is an addiction.
The NAM Summit, above all, with all its important attendees, makes it crystal clear that Iran is not at all isolated as the US has consistently claimed, thus destroying a major US talking point. Obliterating it. Killing it forever.
Plus the Islamic Republic will assume the rotating presidency of the movement for three years.
“Look at Iran”
That’s what the most powerful man in the world commanded in January. “Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent.”–President Obama, State of the Union, Jan 24, 2012
Okay, let’s look at Iran, as the man ordered.
The 16th summit of the NAM member states will be held on August 26-31 in the Iranian capital during which the Islamic Republic will assume the rotating presidency of the movement for three years. According to the conference spokesman:
“So far about 100 countries have announced that they will participate in the NAM summit which will be held next week in Tehran. 41 countries will participate at the highest level: 35 heads of state, five first vice presidents or vice presidents, and a parliament speaker. 21 countries will send their foreign ministers, 5 countries their president’s special envoys, two countries at the level of minister other than foreign minister. Other countries will also be represented at the level of deputy minister, director general, or their ambassador at the United Nations.”
The US State Department doesn’t like what they see in Iran:
MS. NULAND: Well, as we said last week, Iran is going to try to manipulate this NAM summit and the attendees to advance its own agenda, and to obscure the fact that it is failing to live up to multiple obligations that it has to the UN Security Council, the IAEA, and other international bodies. So we, frankly, don’t think that Iran is deserving of these high-level presences that are going there.
That said, these individual countries will make their own decisions at what level they choose to be represented. We would hope and expect that those who choose to go will take the opportunity of any meetings that they have with Iran’s leaders to press them to come back into compliance, to use the opportunity of the P-5+1 talks to come clean about their nuclear program, and take up all of the other concerns that the international community has about Iran’s behavior.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196704.htm#IRAN2
The US expects 35 heads of state to knuckle under and pursue the US agenda in Teheran? Hah. And of course Israel doesn’t like Iran’s new look either:
Haaretz: UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon apparently hasn’t made a final decision about whether he will participate in the upcoming summit of the Non-Aligned Movement, which is scheduled to convene in Tehran early next week. If that is the case [it's not, according to Iran], here are two good reasons for him not to go:
1) His visit would undermine the international campaign against Iran’s nuclear drive and legitimize an odious regime that in the past few days has repeatedly called for the elimination of a United Nations member state; and
2) His visit would bolster Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s contention that sanctions and diplomacy have failed, and that the time for harsher measures has arrived. — Haaretz, Aug 21, 2012
Party poopers. If Ban Ki-moon attends the NAM Summit Conference attended by 35 heads of state then Israel will attack Iran? I hope they wait until the meeting ends before they sign their own death warrants by attacking Iran.
Don Bacon,
A loss of revenue of 1 million barrels of oil per day is a loss of $100 million, per day. A loss of 1.5 million barrels is a loss of $150 million per day. Or $4.5 billion per month. More than $50 billion per year. Lost to Iran, in terms of revenue. Due to sanctions, to large degree.
humanist,
Israel was quite happy to have Iran strong, proficient in technology, etc etc, provided the government of Iran was not hostile toward Israel. Yes, Israel wants the US to coerce Iran into being more friendly toward Israel. And Israel sees “regime change” as the only way for this objective to be accomplished. And Israel lobby (and Israel) virtually control US foreign policy in the ME. Not completely, though they would like to.
Castellio says:
August 21, 2012 at 12:12 pm
For those with any doubts remaining about what readers think about the NYT-Israeli-US synthesis regarding Syria, check The “Reader Picks” of the reader comments.
e.g.
Judyw says:
Why does the NYT always present the view of the FSA in a sympathetic light? Remember they are terrorists using terroists tactics. HRW has already cited them for murder and torture of prisoners. That is not mentioned. This article is way too one sided.”
Unknown Unknowns,
Yes, Iran and the people of Iran have many gripes about American behavior in the Middle East, and elsewhere. Does this fact mean it makes sense for Iran to facilitate the schemes of enemies of Iran? Simple question.
Photi,
I should have mentioned that the proposal you linked was regarding how to end the dispute over Iranian 20 U production.
Photi,
Yes, the proposal you linked is a good one. Makes excellent sense. And why, one might ask, is it not even discussed, in the US? Answer: ISRAEL LOBBY.
M. Ali,
I agree with you that Syria “was one of the most progressive Arab states”, at least in matters of religion and culture. I hope Bashar al-assad one day writes his memoirs to explain why he was unable to respond effectively to the advice given him by Wafic Said (and others). The inner circle tried to keep too much of the economic pie for themselves.
fyi,
Nicholas Burns appears to believe Obama will be coerced into attacking Iran within the next two years, if Iran keeps on stockpiling. You appear to disagree?
Don Bacon,
I assume you are aware Obama would not have been allowed to run for president as the nominee of a major party, if he had not made numerous hostile comments about Iran and the Iranian “threat”.
BiBiJon,
Obama is in what appears to be a close race for re-election. Israel lobby and some Israeli militarists are trying to force Obama to say in effect he will attack Iran even if there is no evidence Iran is building nukes; the mere fact Iran continues to stockpile 20 U will cross the “red line”.
For those with any doubts remaining about the NYT-Israeli-US synthesis regarding Syria, this act of hagiography should set you straight. The amount of known information it doesn’t print is, of course, the untold story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/world/middleeast/syrian-rebels-coalesce-into-a-fighting-force.html?emc=eta1
The American public, according to polls, believes that Iran is a threat when Iran doesn’t threaten anyone. How does this happen?
First, we’re not sure that it even is the case, but let’s look at how it might happen. Two ways it might happen are politicians’ speech and polls, both of which are concocted.
political speech
Senator Obama, June 4, 2008, to AIPAC:
Democratic presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama vowed Wednesday he would work to “eliminate” the threat posed by Iran to security in the Middle East and around the globe. “There’s no greater threat to Israel or to the peace and stability of the region than Iran,” he told the powerful pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC).
more from Obama’s early days on the national scene–
Sep 6, 2008: Iran is a “major threat” and it would be “unacceptable” for the rogue nation to develop a nuclear weapon, Barack Obama said.
Nov 7, 2008: U.S. President-elect Barack Obama said in Chicago on Friday that Iran’s development of nuclear weapons is unacceptable.
Dec 7, 2008: “We need to ratchet up tough but direct diplomacy with Iran, making very clear to them that their development of nuclear weapons would be unacceptable”
Jan 11, 2009: “[Iran is] pursuing a nuclear weapon that could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.”
April 5, 2009: “If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe at this time will be removed.”
polls
July 31, 2012 (UPI) — Four out of five Americans view Iran’s nuclear development program as a threat to the United States as well as its NATO allies, a poll indicated. . .The poll, conducted by Public Opinion Strategies between July 18-19, has a margin of error of 3.46 percentage points.
March 1, 2012: A poll showed 87 percent of registered American voters believe that Iran’s suspected illegal nuclear weapons program is a threat to the United States. Pollster Neil Newhouse, who oversaw the survey, said “it is clear that Americans see Iran as a threat to the West.” The poll commissioned by The Israel Project also found that 88 percent of respondents believed that Iran is a threat to Israel. Public Opinion Strategies and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research conducted the poll on Feb. 26-28; it has a margin of error of 3.46 percent.
These “polls” were conducted by Public Opinion Strategies (POS) which is not a polling firm but an advocacy company.
from the POS website:
Public Opinion Strategies (POS) helps advocacy groups build support for their issues among key policymakers and the general public. . .Public Opinion Strategies has established itself as a specialist in “combat message development” — the science of creating effective messages in which the opposing side is aggressively engaged. We do more than simply monitor public opinion; we develop messages that defend our client’s interests while impacting complex public policy issues.
http://pos.org/expertise/associations-and-issue-groups-corporations/
“Combat message development.” How apropos. It ties in with US propaganda also know as Strategic communication.
US government definition: Strategic communication is focused United States Government efforts to understand and engage key audiences to create, strengthen, or preserve conditions favorable for the advancement of United States Government interests, policies, and objectives through the use of coordinated programs, plans, themes, messages, and products synchronized with the actions of all instruments of national power.
Velayat-e faqih anyone?
========================
“This dramatic example however, where vast numbers of fellow elites in Israel are loudly contradicting the decision-makers, does offer us a chance to observe and realise that our political decision-making processes are completely unfitting for our times. Simply because someone is democratically elected does not mean that the best decision will be made. Indeed, because of the flawed state of democracy and the poor quality of people desiring power in recent decades, the decisions being made are far from the right ones, often based on personal agendas and very limited interests. Like it or not, what we are witnessing is little more than a few playing dice with the lives of millions.”
From http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/2012820111156829235.html
Photi says:
August 21, 2012 at 3:17 am
Photi,
I am curious as to why the MSM is all abuzz with the missive that Israel is pushing the US into a war corner.
It wasn’t long ago that Walt got swatted and Mearsheimer got smeared with heckles of antisemitism when they produced a scholarly work documenting the Israeli influence in American mid east policies.
so, all of a sudden, what gives? The Lobby itself is micro-analyzing every move by Israeli tail to be an attempt at wagging the American dog; Why?
Could it be that tis not true; that a falsehood is being pushed in order to cushion the US from the repercussions of a fateful decision, whichever way it goes. Attack Iran, and if things go badly you can always say Israel wagged us. Don’t attack, and you can reason “superpowers don’t like it when the tail wags the dog.”
I think, from Iran’s perspective, the minutia of which flea has infested which dog is of zero utility. Iran is facing the west and their regional satraps. Necessarily Iran’s strategy cannot be based on dividing up the axis facing them; they’re too tightly bound in a “bughouse without walls.” Iran needs to counter across the entire front, which in today’s world is done by deploying the ultimate weapon: the winning narrative, sanity.
imho says:
August 20, 2012 at 4:05 pm
I will have to read Mr. Engdahl’ book to be able to formulate a proper response.
My post was meant to indicate that not everyone in US government is Zionist stooge and a fool; that some do have useful ideas.
However, their ideas cannot be implemented under the present context which is “War is Expensivbe but so is Peace.”
It has taken US about 10 years to go from the proposition that “War is Cheap and Peace is Expensive” to one of “War is Expensive but so is Peace.”
I imagine that it will take US another 10 years to go from the proposition that “War is Expensive but so is Peace” to one of “War is Expensive but Peace is cheap.”
That is, 2022.
Fiorangela says:
August 20, 2012 at 4:17 pm
The late Mr. Khomeini’s thinking was influenced by Mullah Sadra, a 17-th Century Philosopher.
The late Mullah Sadra himself developed his philosophy under the influence of Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi’s Illuminationist philosophy (13 Century).
The late Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi explicitly traced his philosophical thought to ancient Iranian wisdom.
And this Ancient Iranian Wisdom – this Iranian School – was an oral tradition transmitted over the centuries from Master to Disciple.
I speculate that this “Wisdom of Light” had its roots in the Teachings of Zoroaster (“The Wise Lord”, the “The Lord of Light”) 8600 years ago and their development and amplifications by the Magi.
So, behind the late Mr. Khomeini stood the ancient Prophet Zoroaster; it seems.
Don Bacon says:
August 21, 2012 at 9:42 am
Yes, I knew of a fellow who was a high-school student and was kidnapped by SAVAK aganets while waiting for his brother.
The grounds for suspicion was that he always waited for his brother near Tehran University and carried a large bag (actually contained their lunch and his high-school books).
@ M. Ali
” To the west, nothing would be better than having a Qajar or a Pahlavi to deal with.”
Yes — that’s what the US wants. Here’s a visual of the US/Shah romance in the bad old days.
http://www.warisaracket.org/shahsnuclearplants.jpg
I was in the US Army in the early seventies, and I recall my boss (a colonel) enjoying Pahlevi’s remarks the Shah made on a visit to the U.S. “The Shah said that sure he tortured people, and and was going to torture some more when he got back.” The colonel was amused by it.
from a review of “Rooftops of Tehran” by Mahbod Seraji:
Nobody actually knew where SAVAK was located. The organization had no headquarters. Dispersed all over the city (and all over the country), it was everywhere and nowhere. It occupied houses, villas, and apartments no one ever paid any attention to…. Whoever fell into the grip of that organization disappeared without a trace, sometimes forever. They might be locked up in a prison, but which one? There were six thousand…Savak censored the press, books, and films (it was Savak that banned the plays of Shakespeare and Moliere because they criticized monarchical and aristocratic vices.) Savak ruled in the universities, offices, and factories. A monstrously over grown cephalopod, it entangled everything, crept into every crack and corner, glued its suckers everywhere, ferreted and sniffed in all directions, scratched and bored through every level of existence.
“They would kidnap a man as he walked along the street, blindfold him, and lead him straight into the torture chamber without asking a single question. There they would start in with the whole macabre routine—breaking bones, pulling out fingernails, forcing hands into hot oven, drilling into the living skull, and scores of other brutalities—in the end, when the victim has gone made with pain and become a smashed, bloody mass, they would proceed to establish his identity.”
Worst of the torture methods of the SAVAK was “the frying pan,” a steel table that was heated until it literally fried its occupant. One might ask what macabre psychological mechanism resides in the human psyche that allows people to participate in such torture of their fellow man.
http://neworldreview.com/vol_3No_9/rooftops.html
For Karim
Be scared, be very scared …. not.
==================================
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/04/the_growing_iranian_military_behemoth/
The simple fact is that the US and Israel have threatened Iran with attack many times (all options on the table, etc.), and they have demonstrated many times that they will attack other countries, but Iran has never once threatened attack on any country nor attacked any country. Iran has only threatened to counterattack if attacked, which is its right and duty.
All options on the table? Not really;
Only costly counterproductive coercive options.
==================================
From http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=32429
Not a new article, but worth checking out:
http://creativesyria.com/syriapage/?p=150
The Syrian situation is really sad, because Syria was one of the most progressive Arab states out there, and progress had again had to be stopped. I hope Syrians brave this crisis, and turn to calm yet again
Karim,
You are right in a way, that yes, US doesn’t anyone to dominate the region. But its not a benevelant outlook, they want the region for themselves, so that they have a steady reach to oil.
But why should we, the Iranians, be happy with this status quo? The west has wanted the middle east to be in a weak position for a long time, even before USA’s involvement, and they always succeeded. The Iranian situation during the Qajar and Pahlavi period was a joke, whereas the west and Russia would use the country as they see fit. To me, it always embarrasses me to think about Iran in those days. Imagine being part of a country that its lands were easily annexed, imagine having your rules easily changed by foreign countries, imagine being a pawn on world wars that had nothing to do with our country, imagine having foreign boots in our land without being able to do anything, imagine having our leaders grovel at the feet of foreign overlords, imagine having country, due to its weakness, be forced to sign disgraceful treaties.
Now, we are a country that its people demand much more from its leaders.Obviously, the west is not happy with this. To the west, nothing would be better than having a Qajar or a Pahlavi to deal with.
If you are an Iranian, be proud of this new development. We’ll fix our house, in time, but first we have to secure our house. This is the first time in a long time that we have been able to defend our home, and until this siege warfare is going on, it would be difficult to reach the internal spot we have the potential to be in.
Here is a great compilation on thinking inside Iran concerning a wide range of related issues in current events. Escobar includes the wrtings of Ambassador Hossein Mousavian, Mehdi Mohammadi, Mehdi Sanaei, Mohammad Farhad Koleini, Elyas Vahedi, Ali Akbar Asadi .
Lots of great info.
“War fever as seen from Iran”
By Pepe Escobar
Just one small quote for James Canning:
Ambassador Hossein Mousavian:
“To satisfy the concerns of the West regarding Iran’s 20% stockpile, a mutually acceptable solution for the long term would entail a “zero stockpile”. Under this approach, a joint committee of the P5+1 and Iran would quantify the domestic needs of Iran for use of 20% enriched uranium, and any quantity beyond that amount would be sold in the international market or immediately converted back to an enrichment level of 3.5%. This would ensure that Iran does not possess excess 20% enriched uranium forever, satisfying the international concerns that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. It would be a face-saving solution for all parties as it would recognize Iran’s right to enrichment and would help to negate concerns that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NH22Ak06.html
Dan Bacon, I want to add to your comment about the oil review.
The loss of 12 billion USD, divided by our population, is only 171 USD per person. People really overstate the importance of oil for Iran. I’ve had Iranians expecting the country to be lined with gold roads, just because we have oil, but it really is much less important than everyone assumes.
To be honest, I don’t mind if all the oil is cut. Just better tax the businessmen in Iran, and Iran would have many times the oil revenue. One of the things Iran could do, is tax on property, not for renting, but a yearly tax for your own property, so that millions of rich Iranians that have huge summer villas will pay something yearly, or if they have empty apartments, they’d either have to sell it or rent it, thereby not only bringing in money for the country, but driving prices down.
and the link:
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/01/08/tug-of-war.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
The following are more orders from Israel. Translation: ‘If America will not attack Iran for us, then if they fight a war against Syria then we (Israelis) will accept that.’
Note that peace is never an objective in this Israeli’s orders to America:
“If Washington has any intention of signaling Tehran that it is serious about taking military action to stop its nuclear program, it can confine that first signal to the Syrian arena. Launching a military action [against the incumbent Syrian regime] would yield three-fold effective results: it will help topple the Syrian regime; it will show Tehran that Washington is prepared to cross the military Rubicon if the need arises; and it will also show Israel that the administration is really gearing up for action that will render an imminent Israeli offensive uncalled for.”
Fiorangela says:
August 20, 2012 at 4:17 pm
Good stuff, Fior jan. But the link in the last sentence (to Mondo Weiss) said “Page not found” so I was unable to determine if the advice was facetious or in earnest.
@Karim
“A hostile country dominating the region could blackmail US by manipulating the oil price.”
No. The price of oil is set on the open market based on supply and demand, with some speculator and news (e.g. war scares) influence added. What OPEC has done is to regulate production, but even that (led by Saudi Arabia) has been spotty.
Interesting factoid: The largest OPEC source of oil for the US, after Saudi Arabia, is (US enemy) Venezuela. None from Iran though, officially.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm
Gavner James says, “And Iran’s stockpiling of 20 U is “minding its own business”, and presents no legitimate concern for anyone?”
The Gavner has become a sort of word virus. Besides the fact that Iran has not done anything illegal under the NPT and the US breaks its commitments under it routinely (refusing to disarm, testing new generations (yes, plural) of nukes, making “usuable” nukes, depleted uranium, and some say the use of “usable nukes” – nothing would surprise me at this point.) – beside that distinction, since when has the US been in a moral position to dictate policy to Iran? Since she overthrew Mossadeq? Since she tried but failed to do the same to the Islamic Republic? Since she has been trying but failing to strangle Iran like she did Iraq, so that Billary this time can say that the death of a million children was “worth it”?
The West has no moral authority on Iran. Anyone who takes their side in this dispute is either immoral himself, of delusional, or both, Gavner.
I’d like to compile a list of the moral outrages that the West has carried out against her *own* alleged values over the past generation or two. Any input from the floor would be appreciated. A few of the outrages that come to mind (in no particular order):
1. Torture
2. Torture as legal and open policy of state
3. “Extra-ordinary Rendition”
4. Extra-judicial murder of its own citizenry
5. Ditto as legal and open policy of state
6. An enclave such as Guantanamo where the law of the land does not apply to the executive
7. I gotta throw this one in, even though it belongs to the lapdog, but it is Uncle Sam B. Weasel that is pushing it: Crying about a few students climbing the wall of their embassy and the state not doing enough to protect her diplomatic enclave, then threatening to storm Equador’s embassy in her own country.
8. Taking the Kabuki of the Threat of Terrorism to new heights while arming terrorists in Syria to the teeth.
9. Basically shredding the rule of law and making an even bigger joke of the UN than it already was.
10. Drones: violating national sovereignty at will and killing civilians to alleged villains at a ration of 10 or even 20 to 1, instead of doing the police legwork and arresting people based on *evidnece*, or better yet, stopping the fanning of the flames by not trying to dominate other peoples of the world.
Well, you get the picture. I’m sure there are a couple dozen more. Israel comes to mind. Iran is another one. Any additions would be appreciated.
@Fiorangelo
“. . . Victoria Nuland. She’s just a passionate kinda person — wimmin are like that, ya know.”
I’m glad you’ve figured out women. I didn’t think anyone ever had. Reminds me of a joke I’ll tell if I’m pressed.
The spokesperson for State — “Diplomacy In Action” — is too easy with words like horrendous, offensive and reprehensible when referring to the speech (and some actions) of other countries’ leaders when US leaders routinely get away with actions like assassination, invasion, aerial attack and torture that make speech look like child’s play and kill men, women and children like they’re nothing.
In particular, State’s constant prattling about human rights is as hypocritical as any country has ever been. China has called them on it, as it should. Meanwhile if Iran wants to diss Israel I encourage it. “Cancerous tumour” isn’t far from “axis of evil,” is it. Payback is a b***h.
I have watched this video twice:
http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html
Keep in mind that 98 to 99% of genes of humans and chimp are identical and as far as ‘Problem Solving’ is concerned we have an additional layer in our brains, something chimps don’t have.
@Neo
There is no contradiction in my statement. US, as a consumer of oil, does not want to see a single country dominating the Persian Gulf. As you and I, as consumers of food, do not want to see a single company dominating food production. We do not have to own food producing firms in order to assure uninterrupted supply of food.
Recently declassified documents show that even Nixon and Ford were not ready to let Shah dominate the region. One could argue that the reason for US intervention to drive Saddam out of Kuwait was to prevent him from dominating the region. A hostile country dominating the region could blackmail US by manipulating the oil price. No single country (excluding Saudis) is in a position to do such a thing right now.
I am not sure what to make of your last statement. So you would rather see Persian Gulf dominated by a Islamic Dictatorship. What does this say about you? Nuts?
Dan Bacon
On Nicholas Burns believing Diplomacy is the best tool…
I have been listening to his jargons for years. At each encounter I have been questioning “..is he an indoctrinated American supremacist, or an opportunist who swings to directions of money and power or is he a politically illiterate man who believes in what he is saying etc. I haven’t yet found a definite answer.
I was trying to be somehow ambiguous by saying”..he believes in diplomacy..”. I thought, for those who know him, the title of his article can provoke thought in different layers, critical, contemptuous, baffling etc. The most important of all, in the critical sense, being the following:
Among civilized entities nearly ALWAYS the diplomatic approach is, if not the only way, the best way to resolve the inter-tribal disputes. ESPECIALLY in the simple case of the non-existing Iranian nuclear [weapons?]. Anyone who doesn’t know this VERY basic rule of peaceful coexistence is either witless, ignorant, charlatan or pitiful evil.
Iranians consistently propose their readiness to accept any reasonable mechanism for ‘transparency’. US can gather experts to devise the necessary rules for achieving such transparency. The problem is, as Financial Times in a June 2012 piece implied ‘..the foreign policy of US in ME is dictated by another foreign country who will settle for nothing but regime change and ‘total eradication’ of the capacity of Iran for [scientific] progress especially in the areas of modern military defense.
Under such light Burns’ title of ‘Diplomacy is the best tool for Iran’ sounds like saying ‘Surgery is the best way to treat cataract’. The latter is not the best way stupid, it is the only way. Other ways are going to blind or kill the patient.
Yep Fio the U.S. MSM has barely ever even whispered about the dead, injured and displaced in Iraq as a direct consequence of the U.S. invasion Israel and the U.S. seem to conveniently get upset when some other leader is killing their own people or others. They don’t like it when there is competition
rebel says:
August 20, 2012 at 6:29 pm
So the notorious Zionist apologist formerly known as anonymous has decided to dump more lies on this site. The latest example ” It’s because they kept parts of their nuclear program hidden for TWENTY YEARS and they routinely threaten to wipe out other sovereign states.” Wow, two lies in one sentence. So let’s address these lies. 1. Iran has never threatened to “wipe out” the “state” of Israel and 2. It has not “kept parts of its nuclear program hidden” for any period of time. Iran has in fact fully complied with all parts of its obligations under the Non Proliferation Treaty and it is the Western countries that are currently refusing to meet their obligations under the Treaty that are in violation of it. The former “anonymous” seems to think that most of those here know as little about Iran as he does. Unfortunately for him, and fortunately for us, he is mistaken about this as well.
@rebel
they [Iran] routinely threaten to wipe out other sovereign states.
You wouldn’t say this without evidence of it, would you? How about sharing it with the rest of RFI readers.
Regarding Iran’s nuclear program the IAEA has regularly and consistently affirmed that Iran is in compliance with the NPT and is not diverting nuclear energy to a weapons program.
IAEA Board Report 25 May 2012 — “The Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement.”
Don Bacon says:
August 20, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Now Don, don’t be too hard on Victoria Nuland. She’s just a passionate kinda person — wimmin are like that, ya know.
Why, when Mostafa Rashan was assassinated last January, Tori got herself all verklept:
“We condemn any assassination or attack on an innocent person, and we express our sympathies to the family, [of what's 'iz name]” Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman, said Wednesday.
touching.
@ James Canning
Five years ago, Iran at times was able to produce 4.2 million barrels of oil per day. Current production apparently is about 2.8 million. Revenue loss is about $45 billion per year.
Taking your numbers:
2007 $72 X 4.2m = $302m/d
2012 $96 X 2.8m = $269m/d = -$33m/d
$33m/d X 365 = 12,045m/y = $12bn (not $45bn)
Iran GDP = $482bn so 12/482 = 2.5% of GDP
to put it in perspective,
military expenditures percent gdp
US 4.7
Iran 1.8
So the (temporary) loss of revenue to Iran is about equal to the money Iran saves by avoiding wasteful military spending.
Meanwhile oil exports are increasing again as problems with insurance, transport and currency have been solved. Also Iran is increasing exports of gas, gasoline, electricity, and petrochemicals.
Condemnation of free speech from the ‘land of free speech.’
US State Dept, Aug 20, 2012
MS. NULAND: We strongly condemn the hateful remarks made over the past few days and weeks by senior Iranian officials against Israel. These remarks are offensive and reprehensible, and the entire international community should condemn such rhetoric. These threats are not new, and they demonstrate that Iran continues to be a threat to the region and the world, and we must continue to pressure Iran until it resolves international concerns about its nuclear program and other issues.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196704.htm
Nuland: “These threats are not new.”
But if it’s nothing new, so what’s the big deal?
Threats? I don’t see any threats, do you?
Iran is a threat to the region — how?
It’s the US that has land and naval forces strung all around Iran!
YNet Aug 19, 2012
In the most recent incidents, last Wednesday Khamenei called Israel a “bogus and fake Zionist outgrowth” and Ahmadinejad on Friday said: “The Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumour.” Those expressions were met with condemnation on Friday by the UN’s Ban, the United States, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and France’s foreign ministry.
Ban, whom Iran has invited to attend a summit in Tehran at the end of the month, was “dismayed” by the “offensive and inflammatory statements,” according to his spokesman. Ashton’s office and a spokesman for the US National Security Council both slammed the remarks as “hateful”, while a French foreign ministry spokesman said they were “outrageous and totally unacceptable.”
In his speech on Sunday to top Iranian officials and Muslim ambassadors in Tehran, Khamenei said the issue of Israel and its control over the Palestinian people was the main problem for Islamic countries. “All Islamic governments and people have to pay attention to the very dangerous plot (by the West) that seeks to obscure this issue by creating divisions within the Islamic nation,” he was quoted as saying. He accused the world’s “big powers” of using “the old method of ‘divide and conquer’” on Islamic states, but said the popular revolts shaking the Arab world were changing the situation.
On Saturday, General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the head of the aerospatial division of the Revolutionary Guards that is in charge of Iran’s missiles, said: “Iran’s response to any aggression will be rapid, firm, destructive and broad.” He said he welcomed Israel making such a move, as “that would be a good occasion and good pretext to put an end to the shameful existence of the sham, occupying and usurping regime and save humanity from this cancerous tumor.”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4270418,00.html
Fiorangela,
If Iran were to stop enriching to 20 percent, I would expect the Israel lobby and its numerous stooges in the US Congress to continue to press for sanctions against Iran.
fyi,
I agree with you that Nicholas Burns regrets the preposterous situation of 2005-08 when he did not meet any Iranian official. Thanks, Israel lobby.
Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, after the rapturous reception Bibi Netanyahu got in the US Congress last year, said that Netanyahu would have received standing ovations even if he read from the Tel Aviv telephone directory.
Five years ago, Iran at times was able to produce 4.2 million barrels of oil per day. Current production apparently is about 2.8 million. Revenue loss is about $45 billion per year. Of course, one assumes Iran will produce and sell the oil at some time in future, that it does not produce and sell at this time.
“The concocted “Iran crisis” is an an example of a country gone mad because it can’t dominate Persia and profit from it.”
What garbage. It’s because they kept parts of their nuclear program hidden for TWENTY YEARS and they routinely threaten to wipe out other sovereign states. I’ve come to expect this revisionist garbage from “Don Bacon” who is an infamous Iran apologist.
Writing in The Times (London) Aug. 7th, William Dalrymple notes that the US brought catastrophe to the Christian communities of Iraq, and may well wreck the fortunes of the Christian communties of Syria.
It seems Turkey’s getting a bit panicky over the situation in Syria – which they helped start, btw.
Davtoglu’s been making noise about establishing safe zones in Syria to help refugees..They’re also claiming they can only accept 100K refugees max. What happened to the Turkish love, heh?
Today, a police station in South Eastern Turkey was bombed with 8 dead and many more injured. Obama doesn’t want to physically get US troops involved so again, they’ll lead from behind leaving Turkey to take the heat.
Many people saw this coming..Like all US policies, they’re made on the assumption that there’ll be a quick and decisive victory and any mess can be sorted out later..We were told the Iraq war will be over in weeks, ditto Afghanistan etc.
Turkey was sucked into the Syrian quagmire on the false assumption that Assad’s government will fall in no time and everybody will be home before Christmas.Tough luck..The fsa are getting slaughtered by the Syrian army and their hopes of getting a no fly zone is fading day by day.Russia has again come out to oppose the idea of a safe zone in Syria or a no fly zone, saying it’s a violation of Syria’s sovereignty..At the moment, every day Assad lives is a catastrophe for Turkey and all the handlers of the fsa.
We’ll be witness blowback in real time in Turkish Kurdistan.
If I were smart enough and a sufficiently skillful writer to put these concepts together in a way powerful and persuasive enough to change the world and prevent the harm under which my own country is suffering and which it is inflicting on others, and with which Iran, a culture I have come to admire, is being threatened, I would have written and published an off-the-charts best-seller, become wealthy beyond all measure and bought up C Span, CNN, BBC & Al Jazeera, with NYTimes and WaPo tossed in to protect the marble floors while a new coat of paint is applied to the sooted walls of US media.
Alas.
This passage has informed my thinking for at least the past decade. It’s from Joseph Campbell’s “Myths to Live By” –
“A functioning mythological symbol I have defined as “energy-evoking and -directing signs.” . . .Their messages are addressed not to the brain, to be interpreted there and passed on; but directly to the nerves, the glands, the blood, and the sympathetic nervous system. Yet they pass through the brain, and the educated brain may interfere, misinterpret, and so short-circuit the messages. When that occurs the signs no longer function as they should. The inherited mythology is garbled, and its guiding value lost or misconstrued. Or, what is worse, one may have been brought up to respond to a set of signals not present in the general environment; as is frequently the case, for example, with children raised in the circles of certain special sects, not participating in–and even despising or resenting–the culture forms of the rest of the civilization. Such a person will never quite feel at home in the larger social field, but always uneasy and even slightly paranoid. Nothing touches him as it should, means to him what it should, or moves him as it moves others. He is compelled to retreat for his satisfactions back to the restricted and accordingly restricting context of the sect, family, commune, or reservation to which he was attuned. He is disoriented, and even dangerous, in the larger field.
And so, it seems to me, there is a critical problem indicated here, which parents and families have to face squarely: that, namely, of insuring that the signals which they are imprinting on their young are such as will attune them to, and not alienate them from, the world in which they are going to have to live; unless, of course, one is dead set on bequeathing to one’s heirs one’s own paranoia.* More normally, rational parents will wish to have produced socially as well as physically healthy offspring, well enough attuned to the system of sentiments of the culture into which they are growing to be able to appraise its values rationally and align themselves constructively with its progressive, decent, life-fostering and fructifying elements.
And so we have this critical problem, as I say, this critical problem as human beings, of seeing to it that the mythology–the constellation of sign signals, affect images, energy-releasing and -directing signs–that we are communicating to our young will deliver directive messages qualified to relate them richly and vitally to the environment that is to be theirs for life, and not to some period of man already past, some piously desiderated future, or–what is worst of all–some querulous, freakish sect or momentary fad. And I call this problem critical because, when it is badly resolved, the result for the miseducated individual is what is known, in mythological terms, as a Waste Land situation. The world does not talk to him; he does not talk to the world. When that is the case, there is a cut-off, the individual is thrown back on himself, and he is in prime shape for that psychotic break-away that will turn him into either an essential schizophrenic in a padded cell, or a paranoid screaming slogans at large, in a bughouse without walls.”
- – -
* In this video, “Dana” complains that throughout her school years in Israel, she and her peers were lied to. You can shake and you can stir, but “Purposiveness” and lies just do not go together.
= = =
I view zionism through Avigail Abarbanel’s eyes and analysis, as deduce that
Zionism is a culture that teaches its young to read the sign signals of the culture that surrounds them as not only alien to their own but as inherently and persistently annihilatory toward Jews. This paranoia-inducing notion is sustained by insisting and enforcing on their own children as well as all of the surrounding cultures the maintenance of a lie. The First Amendment rights that my country guarantees to me are not strong enough to permit me to name that lie. Thus, not only are Israeli zionists but many of the people of the world are plunged into a “bughouse without walls.”
In the midst of Israel’s 2008-2009 assault on Gaza, Abarbanel wrote that:
“One of the things that is not being discussed much in the media is how much talk there is in Israel about attacking Iran. Word on the (Israeli) street is that an air attack on Iran’s nuclear reactors is imminent.
Israel has been itching for a ‘good war’ for a while now. The botched attack on Lebanon in 2006 was a psychological disappointment that did not fulfil its purpose, and only led to a deepening chasm between the political and military arms in Israel. An Israeli friend told me in disgust the other day, that there is an atmosphere of ‘national orgasm’ in Israel about the prospect of attacking Iran. While people are being bombed in Gaza, all Israelis can talk about is the coming attack on Iran. But there is a link between the two.”
and a few days later, after the war had ended, this declamation, quoting Benzion Netanyahu in Feb. 2009:
“Today we are facing plain and simple, a danger of annihilation. This is not only the ongoing existential danger to Israel, but a real danger of complete annihilation. People think that the Shoah (Holocaust) is over — but it is not, it is continuing all the time”
and Abarbanel’s assessment of it:
“The views of Netanyahu Senior do not represent a lunatic fringe, but the Israeli mainstream. When I was growing up in Israel, things were much the same. I and everyone I knew believed in earnest that we were always at risk of annihilation. Fear of annihilation is at the heart of Jewish, not just Israeli culture and it pre-dates the Holocaust. But the climate in Israel today is far more extreme than it was in my time, as Israel on the whole moves further and further to an irrational fanatic position.
When a person’s perception of reality is completely out of touch with reality itself, we begin to get an uneasy feeling that something might be wrong with his or her mind.
Where is the evidence that the Jews, right now are facing a “real danger of complete annihilation”?
Israel NEEDS to perceive Iran as an “existential threat” and to attack Iran because those thought patterns and actions validate the mythological world Israelis have been taught to inhabit.
If only Iran would cease enriching to 20%, the entire situation would be resolved.Moreover, Israel — and the US– have a notion about themselves that convince them that they have been divinely ordained to be the world’s moral leaders; that is, to spread — or impose– their version of reality throughout the world. This is the essence of monotheism: “I am the lord thy god; thou shalt not have strange gods before me” – under penalty of death or disenfranchisement from the community.Some days ago, in an attempt to understand the motivations of the “Dark Knight Rises” shootings, University of Colorado professor Jeffrey Sholes observed: “Perhaps the most distinguishing feature of this recent mass shooting is its association with popular culture.” Sholes punctured arguments that attributed the Dark Knight shooter’s actions to his “failure to commit his life to Christ,” or to a lack of a moral compass, or to having “taken God and the bible out of the classrooms.”
Sholes dug deeper, first by comparing the differences in the back-story of Joker character in earlier and later Batman movies (Holmes, the shooter, told police he was “the Joker”). Sholes writes:
“Ledger’s Joker [the later version of the character] is different from his predecessors’ in that the former does not seem to have a personal narrative or a telos (purpose) that could help guide predictable action, [emphasis added] much less the moral kind. In the Batman comic book series the Joker’s wife and child are accidentally killed, after which he falls into a vat of chemical waste that disfigures him. These narrative elements help explain the Joker’s insanity, which in turn drives him to commit maniacal and sadistic crimes in the city of Gotham.”
Likewise, earlier Jokers have “a history, a narrative, and a stable (relatively speaking) identity; there is a method to their madness,” in contrast to the Joker seemingly referenced by Holmes in Colorado. That Joker had no “personal biography” or consistent identity or identifiers; “He floats above history, so when he lands and wreaks havoc, it seems random, senseless, and destructive for destruction’s sake.”
It is here that Sholes locates Holmes’ anomie:
“Rather than attributing Holmes’ and the Joker’s nonexistent moral compass (and neither seems to have one) to an absence of moral training that would be there if prayer were back in public schools, we may need to look at their apparent lack of a self-conscious narrative as a more telling source.
Scottish philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre reminds us that the human being is a
teller of stories that aspire to truth. But the key question for men [sic.] is not about their own authoriship; “I can only answer the question, ‘What am I to do?’ if I can answer the prior question, ‘Of what story or stories do I find myself a part?’” “
Or as Joseph Campbell would have it, What sign signals have we taught our young to relate them to the world they inhabit, rather than the world of “some period of man already past, some piously desiderated future, or–what is worst of all–some querulous, freakish sect or momentary fad.”
It is my interpretation of Iran that it possesses a unifying narrative, and not only within Islam but also in its unique melding of its epic past and cultural present as captured by Ferdowsi in The Shahnameh. Mahmoud Omidsalar opens his book, “Iran’s Epic and America’s Empire: A Handbook for A Generation in Limbo, with this dedication: ”What follows is a meditation on Iran’s national epic. It is addressed to the Iranian community abroad, and mor importantly to that community’s children… This is an old man’s gift to the young in order to help them seize that chain of memory which makes us one people. It is an exhortation to remembrance because human beings are made of memories; recollections of events that happened and also of those that did not. Mankind achieves its humanity and its community in its real and imagined memories, and for us Iranians, the Shahnameh is the highest poetic expression of that communal remembrance that connects us to one another and anchors our present to a shared sense of the past. It links us to a time of myth and legend that exclusively belongs to us, and to the land that we have inhabited for the past three thousand years.
The United States has no such epic. The same Hollywood that created the identity-less Joker is the closest Americans come to a “communal expression of real and imagined memories.” As I have noted here earlier, Benjamin Netanyahu and Ephraim Sneh are determined to destroy Iran’s sense of “communal remembrance” and replace it with a longing for “nice clothes, big houses, and swimming pools,” a form of cultural subversion, and with secularism. On that last point, Israel’s desire to secularize Iran, Ephraim Sneh said this to an Iranian woman who is Iran’s ambassador to European Union: “When there is a secular and democratic Iran, let them have all the technologies in the world, whatever they like. Not this regime, not this regime, which despises the culture and the values of your society, if you don’t know it.”
Netanyahu’s agenda to subvert American culture has been successful among America’s children – witness James Holmes; and Iranians would do well to observe how secularization has enhanced American family life, community, and culture.
fyi says:
August 20, 2012 at 12:19 pm
“In my opinion, Mr. Ryan’s ideas on Free Trade etc. are excellent for creating and fostering Peace Interest across the Middle East; as opposed to War Interests and that trite idea of Balance of Military Power.”
I’m not that sure
……………
In 1820, Britain’s Parliament passed a declaration of principle
which was to usher in a series of changes which led, as one consequence,
to the outbreak of World War I and its tragic aftermath almost
a century later.
Acting on the urgings of a powerful group of London shipping
and banking interests centered around the Bank of England and
Alexander Baring of Baring Brothers merchant bankers, Parliament
passed a Statement of Principle in support of the concept advocated
by Scottish economist Adam Smith several decades earlier:
so-called “absolute free trade.”
By 1846, this declaration of principle had become formalized in
a Parliamentary repeal of domestic English agriculture protection,
the famous Corn Laws. The Corn Laws repeal was based on the
calculation of powerful financial and trade interests of the City of
London, that their world dominance gave them a decisive advantage,
which they should push to the hilt. If they dominated world
trade, “free trade” could only ensure that their dominance would
grow at the expense of other less-developed trading nations.
Under the hegemony of free trade, British merchant banks
reaped enormous profits on the India-Turkey-China opium trade,
while the British Foreign Ministry furthered their banking interests
by publicly demanding China open its ports to “free trade,”
during the British Opium Wars.
………………..From F. William Engdahl’ A Century of War………..
Engdahl compares two economies; one based on mercantilism, UK and the other based on industries, that is Germany. The British had been distanced so far from Germans in industrial outputs that controlling trade and (being an island) the seas was the pillar of their policy to dominate the continental Europe and the rest of the planet.
Engdahl also said in an interview at the beginning of this so-called Arab Spring that all this mess is about bringing the whole economy of the Greater Middle East under the West’s financial system control.
Before that article about Mr Ryan on fp, it was called a conspiracy theory. Now the subject is openly discussed even if the article gives some counter examples. But you got the idea and you’re promoting it.
If you don’t want to look back at history, then look no further than the current financial crisis which is caused for a big part because of deregulating the system in order for the big banksters to steal the people. It was done by design.
Don Bacon says:
August 20, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Don, on that occasion the “Ambassador” was lamenting his lack of latitude to conduct (baby) face to face diplomacy with a singularly consequential power in the region, Iran.
He is now blaming those constraints on Israel.
20 March 2003 + 12 years = Spring of 2015
======================================
From Amb. Peter Jenkins’ http://www.lobelog.com/will-iran-be-the-united-states-melos/
Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War: the Athenian extinction of Melos – the men massacred, the women and children sold into slavery – because the people of Melos refused to submit to Athenian demands. (At one point the Athenian delegates say: “You know as well as we do that justice is only at issue between equals in power; the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”.)
Thucydides saw this cruel, disproportionate act as the moment at which fifth century BC Athens succumbed to hubris. Drawing on an idea familiar to the Classical tragedians, Thucydides implies that it was this act that triggered the misfortunes that reduced Athens to a has-been within twelve years.
————
In fact since Bush senior’s call for World order of pubescence, nothing but insults have been added to injury.
Only recently Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov had to remind David Cameron that a scintilla of evidence would be appreciated before making “very strong accusations” about Iran. http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=142106
Only recently Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa slammed what he called Britain’s ‘vulgar threats’ to remove WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from the London embassy where he has been granted asylum. http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/ecuador-slams-vulgar-uk-threats-to-seize-assange_794686.html
This fast hollowing shell of a once proud western civilization is now reduced to a hard crust of militarism. History repeats but the time intervals get shorter. Thucydides’ 12 years may well have shrunk to 12 days once Iran/Syria/Lebanon are attacked.
NPR’s Deborah Amos reported on the crisis of refugees from fighting in Syria — “fleeing the murderous assault by Basher Assad — who are overwhelming the capacity of Turkey to absorb them.
No mention of the thousands of refugees from Iraq who have been sheltered in Syria (as well as in Iran) for over a decade.
The role of the United States in causing one of the greatest population transfers in history, with attendant loss of millions of lives, in the aftermath of the second world war that rocketed the US to ‘superpower’ status, is little known. Those who committed criminal acts are honored as heroes — Churchill, Eisenhower, Morgenthau — by most Americans, and the rank-and-file who participated in acts of deliberate starvation, torture, and killing are well into their 80s, if not already dead. We got away with murder, and we think we can do so again.
A few writers have recorded the atrocities committed in our name. They are mostly marginalized.
The Politics of Hunger. by C. Paul Vincent
A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans by Alfred Maurice de Zayas.
Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation, 1944-1950 by James Bacque.
Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath, edited by George Nash.
and Sven Lindqvist’s book, “A History of Bombing” that Describes genocide as part of the “master story” of Western civilizations.
= = =
“Purposeviness” that has as its “purpose” the perpetuation of an untruth, or that is out of touch with reality, is not life-affirming it is a craziness cartel.
Don Bacon says:
August 20, 2012 at 2:37 pm
I think Ambassador Burns was actually expressing his regrets.
“Ambassador” Nicholas “Diplomacy R Us” Burns also once bragged:
“I was the point person on Iran from 2005 to 2008, and I never once met an Iranian official.”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF27Ak03.html
Don Bacon,
And Iran’s stockpiling of 20 U is “minding its own business”, and presents no legitimate concern for anyone?
You should be able to comprehend the simple problem that very pwierful people are trying to “box Obama in” so he is obliged to attack Iran even if Iran has no current intention of building nukes.
Don Bacon,
Surely you believe that Iran continues to stockpile, and you can comprehend this stockpiling is taken by many people as a strong indicator Iran wants to be able to build nukes quickly.
M. Ali,
You linked comments by Schecter regarding the possibility Standard Chartered Bank was targeted because a bank official ridiculed US efforts to harm Iran by coercing third parties. But the attack on the bank was no for purposes of gaining money “for the USA”, as you stated. No, the attack came from a bank regulator from the State of New York, who apparently has political ambitions that are advanced by being as hostile as possible toward Iran etc etc etc etc.
@ humanist
Nicholas Burns believes “Diplomacy is the best tool for Iran”
Oh, is that what Nicholas Burns believes.
This scoundrel is “Ambassador” Nicholas Burns, a former State Department under secretary for political affairs in the George W Bush administration who, while he supposedly now loves him some diplomacy, once said: “We have a whole generation of foreign service officers who didn’t learn Farsi.”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF27Ak03.html
Last January “Ambassador” Nicholas Burns was published in the Boston Globe saying: “Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East and a pernicious troublemaker in Iraq and Afghanistan. That it wants to go nuclear is not contested seriously in any major world capital.”
http://articles.boston.com/2012-01-20/opinion/30642234_1_iranian-nuclear-weapon-nuclear-program-enrichment
Former do-nothing, worthless and lying “Ambassador” Nicholas Burns in his opinion piece recently published by the Boston Globe now says: ” With negotiations flagging, sanctions inconclusive, and an intransigent Iran speeding boldly ahead with its nuclear enrichment program, the US government appears determined to stop Iran one way or another. . .Iran and the United States are like two trains hurtling toward each other on the same track in a breakneck game of diplomatic chicken.”
http://articles.boston.com/2012-08-16/opinion/33219364_1_nuclear-enrichment-program-iran-nuclear-weapon
Actually, of course, this two hurtling trains simile is not the case, is it. The US is doing the “hurtling,” Iran is merely minding its own business, and doing it quite well. Iran is not harassing any other country, particularly one on another continent.
To my mind, it’s a bit more like one train hurtling toward a damsel in distress tied to the railroad tracks. Historically, this comes from The Hazards of Helen, an early American adventure film serial. Helen was exposed to many other dangers also, burning buildings etc, but — guess what — the dauntless Helen always found an ingenious way out of her dire predicament and single-handedly collared the bad guys, bringing them to justice.
And so Iran as Helen will triumph over charlatans like “Ambassador” Nicholas Burns. (I hope that I haven’t been too easy on Burnsy.)
All:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/17/paul_ryan_middle_east
In my opinion, Mr. Ryan’s ideas on Free Trade etc. are excellent for creating and fostering Peace Interest across the Middle East; as opposed to War Interests and that trite idea of Balance of Military Power.
Much Madness is divinest Sense-
To a discerning Eye-
Much Sense-the starkest Madness-
‘Tis the Majority
In this, as All, prevail-
Assent- and you are sane-
Demur- you’re straightway dangerous-
And handled with a Chain-
- Emily Dickinson
OMG Fior, my kindred in the higher world of spirit and other goodies; Emily is my favorite poetess, and the above poem together with the one you cited are my two favorites of hers. Methinks they should always be read together. Poor Emily. Such amazing genius, completely unrecognized in her lifetime. I can’t imagine the pain she must have felt. رضوان الله تعالى عليها
Castellio et al: the paradigmatic distinction which I made between the purposive community and the citizens of the State of, say, Melting Pot (a non-purposive community) is a useful analytic tool for disambiguating all manner of paradigm errors, especially those that are bandied about on the fault-lines of the “Clash of Civilizations”, such as “human rights”. The penalty of death for desertion from Islam (which, as far as I am aware, has never been carried out in all of Islamic history for that reason *alone*) is a case in point. The point I am making is not that this intellectual instrument or device *solves* the problem(s); it just makes the issues at stake easier to understand by revealing them in a different light…
The earlier distinction I made between the foreign policy of the *ancient regime* (of Islam) and the ‘new sheriff in town’ of the Islamic Republic, which I contend (based on the averal of the *foqaha*) is a novel phenomenon in Islam whose earliest near precedent goes back to the times prior to the abdication of Imam Hasan ebn-e Ali, and of the reign of his blessed father (i.e. legitimate sovereignty and rule), is also an important thesis which has the advantage of explaining much of the behavior of the Islamic Republic on the international arena which would otherwise remain unexplained using conventional models. The central issue of the Islamic Republic’s so-called military nuclear program is salient case in point. Imam Khamenei has rightly declared weapons of mass destruction of all sorts (including chemical and biological agents) as immoral and hence un-Islamic. Without this understanding and predictive tool, such declarations will (continue to) be dismissed by Western analysts and “experts” who don’t have the first clue about the nature of the Islamic Republic. (Those who do, such as our host, Flynt-san, are unceremonially dismissed from their positions of influence, sadly.)
I would be interested and grateful to anyone who can point out properly documented instances where the Islamic Republic’s behavior *in the foreign policy arena* contradicts what I have posited. I emphasize foreign policy because I am all too aware of the miserable failures of my beloved Islamic Republic on the domestic front. For example: we are supposed to have freedom of the press. This does not mean that people are free to conspire openly and publicly using government sanctioned (licensed) newspapers for overthrowing the regime. But it does mean that 20 years of the regime’s censors sitting on their asses while sites such as The Daily Telegraph and Ha’aretz cannot be accessed without anti-filtering software is an absolute disgrace and contrary not just to the principles of Islamic law, but to the specific decrees of the late great Imam Khomeini as well, who was a big advocate of freedom of information (because he knew that the truth is on our side). (I know, who wants to read those rags anyway, but still. It’s the Islamic principle that is being violated). Another sore point of mine is Islamic riba’-free banking. I know it is very difficult to reinvent something that is so entrenched, but still… are we even working on it? I just don’t know.
Anyway, just to keep it simple if nothing else, if anyone is going to respond to this request, I would appreciate it if they would stick to foreign policy issues. (Em, as an aside, I also want to say that I’m one of the earlier non-adopters of the BS about Iran not having attacked another country in 200+ years. I hope and pray that this does not change, but aggression is a function of power, and that commodity has been in short supply over here in the last couple of hundred years; something that the revolution is changing. Let us hope and pray that the revolution’s Islamic principles maintain that pacifist record despite the increase in its power. That, indeed, is the true test of the thesis that I have spotlighted. Anyway, I just mentioned this to let everyone know I’m no bleary-eyed romantic on the issue.)
is the nose tightening around Turkey’s neck?
Davutoğlu no problem policy is finding itself deeper and deeper in mud!
Turkey suggests need for UN safe haven in Syria and no fly zone!!!
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-289964-turkey-suggests-need-for-un-safe-haven-in-syria.html
Nicholas Burns believes “Diplomacy is the best tool for Iran”
http://articles.boston.com/2012-08-16/opinion/33219364_1_nuclear-enrichment-program-iran-nuclear-weapon
Neo says:
August 20, 2012 at 6:24 am
It was either that or continued black-outs.
This was the first time since 1960s that Korean had experienced black-outs.
Why the erratic rial?
the advice may be sound, but it’ll be on deaf ears..
“After the Russian and Argentine financial crises, both countries ended up with more nationalist leaders in power–Vladimir Putin and Nestor Kirchner. Policymakers in the United States might want to remember that. Financial crises do not always produce what you want or expect.”
http://www.lobelog.com/the-drama-of-iran%E2%80%99s-erratic-rial/#more-13169
Unknown Unknowns says:
August 19, 2012 at 10:54 pm
<a href = " Tell all the truth but tell it slant,
Success in circuit lies,
Too bright for our infirm delight
The truth’s superb surprise;
As lightning to the children eased
With explanation kind,
The truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind.
-Emily Dickinson
Dr. Ismail Salami: The dog wags the tail
=======================================
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/08/19/257123/who-spawns-israeli-antiiran-threats/#.UDIgbqAkiSp
from NYT Saturday 18th: “U.S. Says Iraqis Are Helping Iran to Skirt Sanctions”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/world/middleeast/us-says-iraqis-are-helping-iran-skirt-sanctions.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
Hmm! What did they expect? Practically everyone is helping Iran do that because no one wants the US to have outright hegemony, regardless of their relations with Iran. In the case of Iraq, however, Iran’s allies are likely to go well out of their way to help Iran. This is because the Iraqis detest the ground that US warmongers walk on.
M. Ali says: August 19, 2012 at 7:31 pm
Apparently, Standard Charter makes over 90% of its profits in banking for non-western countries. This could explain why it’s targeted!
From the mouth of ‘zion’:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/20/oil-korea-iran-idUSL4E8JH29J20120820
“South Korean refiners will resume imports of up to 200,000 barrels per day of Iranian crude from September, economy ministry sources said on Monday, ending a two-month gap due to a European Union ban on insurance cover for Iranian oil…
Like their Chinese and Indian counterparts, Korean refiners have asked Iran to deliver crude on Iranian tankers, government and industry sources said this month. This shifts the responsibility to Iran for insurance, sidestepping a ban in the EU on insurers covering Iranian shipments.”
Agree with Robin on Salafism, agree with Salafis that Robin should (euphemistically) marry herself.
============================================================================
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/opinion/dont-fear-all-islamists-fear-salafis.html?_r=1
Observing history and events over the last 100 years, the only reasonable conclusion is that the best thing for the region is Iranian hegemony.
Nothing better than a little velayate faqih stretching from the Med to the Hindu Kush to bring stability, literacy, development and yes of course the most important thing of all- security.
Empty-san:
I was trolling around the old posts looking for one of my earlier rants when I came across a post to you which had not made it through the moderation process. Here it is in all its (faded) glory (or groly, as our Chinese brethren would say):
Unknown Unknowns says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 13, 2012 at 11:58 pm
Empty-san:
Thank you for catching that. I was just using that letter as an example of the duplicity of the “concern” of Uncle for the Iranian people. But you are right: it was a bad example to use. I should have known better, when I saw Rafsanjani’s daughter’s name, but I was too hasty. The main war is the information war, and it is thanks to insights such as the one you just provided that makes this website the oasis in the desert of misinformation that it is.
But anyway, alhamdullah, and thanks also to the Rising of the 9th of Dey, 1388, the Mousavi-Rafsanjani-Khatami axis (or the occimanic axis, if you will) is a spent force in Iranian politics. I’m curious to know about the upcoming presidential elections whether the Guardian Council will allow Mashai to run so that Ahmadinejad can pull a Putin and use Mashai as his Medvedev. The problem is that Mashai is openly anti-clerical and makes fun of the old fogies, at times in the most unseemly way, and while this might be seen as ‘freedom of expression’ by some, it is at one and the same time a denial of the principles of the Constitution, which is grounds for disqualification. And rightly so, in my humbling opinion.
Fior jan says, “It is my perspective that monotheism is not the same as the universality of God.”
I’m not sure I understand the distinction that you have posited. Almost by definition, the gods of other religions are false from the emic vantage. You know that, obviously. And the religious vantage is always emic, except for the new-fangled religion that has made a (false) god of the emic-etic distinctiion. He he. But I would love to hear more of your view on the distinction that you have posited, if you care to elaborate. And the good vibes right back at both of you, my kindred in spirit.
When USA needs money, just blackmail non-US companies
“Iran and the Standard Chartered Bank Money Laundering Charge
Is This Incident A Retaliation Because A Bank Official Made A Disparaging Comment About US Hostility To Iran?”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=32413
Do you guys notice that any mention of PressTV by the media is always preceded by “state-run”, but the same practice is not used when mentioning BBC?
“Israel falsifies documents to deport Sudanese migrants – reports”
Israel apparently hopes to expel 60,000 Africans
http://rt.com/news/Sudan-south-israel-refugees-059/
@ James Canning
It seems that the US, and its poodle the UK, is at war with reason rather than anything. That clown William Hague is just too much; watch this and weep with laughter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL_p9qjfu5U
It all went downhill after that!
UU: Ameen.
Unknown Unknowns says:
August 19, 2012 at 1:53 am
First, I echo Castellio is wishing blessings on you and those you love, to all who participate here.
Now, down to business: re “God’s purpose has been the creation of a multiplicity of religions (“…so that you can overtake each other in doing that which is good.”) May God help us to do so. Ameen.”
It is my perspective that monotheism is not the same as the universality of God.
When people say, “I believe in God,” or “I do not believe in God,” I have observed that in most instances they do not define the God they believe in or do not believe in, and have only a very hazy notion of what they really mean.
Zeus is a god.
So is Yahweh.
So was Marduk, the god who inspired Cyrus to conceptualize the Declaration of Universal Human Rights.
The ‘god’ that is written into the Declaration of Independence is “Nature’s God,” a very specific concept expanded upon in the thinking of David Hume, not the Hebrew Scriptures.
Of course King Abdullah neglected to call for free and fair elections.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as is his wont, delivered an excellent, insightful speech in Mecca. excerpts:
He added that if Muslim countries acknowledge that they are in the same boat and that the threat posed to them by the Zionist regime and its masters is serious, they should join hands to help resolve the problems and hold “free” and “fair” elections and establish a united front against common enemies.
Muslim countries should carry out reforms in cooperation with each other and drive the enemy out of the region, and if vigilance is not exercised, the enemies and the Zionists will establish domination over the region, Ahmadinejad stated. He also said that efforts should be made to prevent the Palestinian issue from slipping into oblivion.
http://www.tehrantimes.com/politics/100628-ahmadinejad-advises-muslim-countries-not-to-play-on-enemys-field
This is similar to words spoken by the Custodian of the Two Mosques:
King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia told a summit of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), held in Mecca — the birthplace of Islam –, that the violence that is claiming Muslim lives across the globe was due to division of the Islamic world. “Because of division, the blood of the Muslim nation is shedding.” He called for cooperation between Muslim states as a way to safeguard “the dignity and history of Muslims.” He also called for the establishment of a center of dialogue between Islamic doctrines.
(And then the OIC threw Syria under the bus, Iran and Algeria dissenting.)
Photi says:
August 18, 2012 at 5:22 pm
Recommended reading:
http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2012/08/some-notes-on-ahmadinejads-insult-to.html
Sergei Lavrov, Russian FM: “Those who say that this [P5+1 negotiations with Iran] is a failure simply want to step up hysterical rhetoric. That is wrong.”
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/08/19/257081/russia-raps-bids-against-iran-ntalks/
What US and Iranian Leaders Can Do to Avert War” (Aug. 17th):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-j-buonomo/what-us-and-iranian-leaders-can-do_b_1797584.html?utm_hp_ref=world
What a surprise. The New York Times reports today that the government of Iraq is helping Iran to skirt sanctions.
Don Bacon,
You actually believe the US is “at war with Islam”? Nonsense. Is China “at war with Islam”?
Castellio says: August 17, 2012 at 12:48 pm
“For those who insist (or have insisted) that it is a Protestant vs. Muslim war…”
Castellio,
Totally agree, it is not about religion. And it shouldn’t be turned into one either. Even if it turns into a religious war, we know that it was manipulated into this character. It’s always been and will always be about control over scarce resources.
The Bahai issue falls under this too, at least in my understanding of the situation. Bahaism introduced a dangerous challenge to the power of the Shia establishment and big landowners over land and other resources.
Wilbur says: August 18, 2012 at 11:47 am
“The US was wrong to partake in the water boarding but torture is not endemic like it is in Iran.”
USA leads the world in brutality, torture, incarcerations, war crimes, criminality, blackmail, extortion, production and proliferation of WMDs, instigating wars to sustain its military industry etc.
The US regime behaves like a corporate fascist state. That’s because the US regime is a corporate fascist state, and it relies on the likes of you to propagate its brutal ideology.
Karim says: August 16, 2012 at 7:49 pm
Karim,
You claim USA is not after controlling the region’s oil, but then you say:
“Oil is obviously important to US and Europe. What US cannot allow is to any country to dominate the region because then it can be blackmailed. So, yes US is out to get Iran but not to get its hand on its oil, but rather to prevent Iran from dominating its region.”
This clearly contradicts your own stance. Why should the US prevent Iran from dominating the region, if control over oil is not important? After all, Iran would have to sell its oil, and USA is one of the biggest customers of the region.
As for the ‘threat’ of Iran ‘blackmailing’ the US, your argument is a little like saying that women should castrate all men in case there is a threat of rape sometime in the future. That’s an Israeli style of argumentation.
As for your “I would rather have US as the master of the Persian Gulf rather than the Supreme Dictator and his circle of corrupt people.” I would say you suffer from an inferiority complex, like a happy slave.
Richard Steven Hack says:
August 18, 2012 at 8:05 pm
Richard,
I’d have to assume that while Israel is pincering, and depopulating, etc, etc, Iran will view this for what it is: an opening salvo on Iran itself.
I guess your assumption is that Iran can do nothing ‘effective’ to halt the Israeli push, which then creates for me the following question:
With that much freedom of action, what is Israel complaining about?
Kooshy,
Yeah that news didnt make much sense.
Egypt havent visisted Iran for 30 years but no this is not a indiction of reestablishing connections oh no, this is a indication of Iran’s weakness.
Rather of course it shows that sunni powers recognize Iran as an important state that they have to concert, atleast some moves with for the region.
This is typical AP analysis, frame it in a twisted delusional way.
Richard Steven Hack let’s us know: “I’m done discussing this any further. We’ll see by end of the year what actually happens.”
Excellent suggestion. Please wait until 2013. Then we can all see that nothing has happened. Will that mean you will just go away?
Castellio: Another charming post from you. And I am glad your skepsis has not metastasized. We Moslems believe that we are born with our *fitra* or *fitrat* intact; that is, the primordial disposition or our original “nature” (nature is put in quotes because it encompasses supernature as well as nature, or the metaphysical and invisible worlds as well). This fitra inclines us toward *knowing* (and not just believing or having faith) that God exists. That is why it is obvious (to most) that Creation, the created worlds, have and must have a creator. Anyone who does not ‘see’ or know this is cardio-afflicted. But we are born free, and so, absent proper religious guidance and upbringing, people will stray from their innate disposition (and become goths or punks or Mormons or Bahais or followers of Sai Baba or Kierkegaardians or whatever). But all that aside, there are still morphic resonances of the divine fitra that pulse from the heart and through the veins of those who have wandered (but are not lost). And so, we are kindred spirits each to another, especially considering that God’s purpose has been the creation of a multiplicity of religions (“…so that you can overtake each other in doing that which is good.”) May God help us to do so. Ameen.
from my previous comment:
“Who wrote that announcement? My money is on Rashad Hussain, the US special envoy to the OIC, who attended the Mecca summit as an observer and held meetings with other delegates on the sidelines, according to news reports.”
Rashad Hussain’s appointment to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in 2010 was controversial.
Long War Journal, Daveed Gartenstain-Ross:
Rashad Hussain “is at the center of a controversy.” He is not only beset by criticism for a quote he has admitted to making about the prosecution of Sami al-Arian in 2004 (at the age of 24) but also by insinuations and accusations about his participation in, as Cal Thomas calls them, “events connected with the Muslim Brotherhood.” Much of the criticism has taken on a crude sensationalistic tone. The American Thinker calls Rashad “pro-jihadist” and the Jawa Report calls him a “terrorist sympathizer,” while Brad Blakeman argued in a Fox News appearance that Rashad has “more in common with our enemies than what we stand for as a nation.” Most directly, Pamela Geller suggests that Rashad Hussain is a “jihadist in the White House.” I write to provide a different perspective on Rashad Hussain’s views and character.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2010/02/a_defense_of_rashad_hussain.php
Interesting. The MB is tolerated by the Custodian of the Two Mosques, even more so now that the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood is bent on toppling the Shia Alawites in Syria with help from a previous White House counsel, MB sympathizer and Obama lackey, Rashad Hussain.
Mr. Bacon writes: “Special envoy indeed. The US war on Islam, including the US-promoted ‘divide-and-conquer’ Sunni/Shia schism, is being aided and abetted in Mecca by the Custodian of the Two Mosques himself while he calls for cooperation.”
Exactly so.
It’s as if Saudi Arabia has changed not a whit for over 60 years, but then the enemy wasn’t Iran, it was Egypt, and the devil was Nasser. This is not really a Sunni-Shia divide, for then it was Sunni vs. Sunni according to the Anglo-American-French imperial interests which merged infinitely well with “the custodian of the two mosques”.
The closing of the gates to Gaza during Cast Lead was an important ‘point of clarification’ in the popular disdain for Mubarak. The pride of Egypt was laid low, and the country humiliated.
And Saudi Arabia then? What was it doing?
I think the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt is way beyong imagining perpetual friendship with the House of Saud, no matter how the western press insists on its current interpretation of the “unfolding”.
The recent “FOURTH EXTRAORDINARY ISLAMIC SUMMIT CONFERENCE” was called to promote Islamic confederation.
King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz, of Saudi Arabia, Custodian of the Two Mosques, told a summit of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), held in Mecca — the birthplace of Islam –, that the violence that is claiming Muslim lives across the globe was due to division of the Islamic world. “Because of division, the blood of the Muslim nation is shedding.” He called for cooperation between Muslim states as a way to safeguard “the dignity and history of Muslims.” He also called for the establishment of a center of dialogue between Islamic doctrines.
Tensions had been simmering for months between Sunni-dominated Gulf States and Shiite-dominated Iran, as both long-standing regional rivals had taken opposite stances on the uprising in Syria, which topped the summit’s agenda.
There has been one, and only one announcement, of this extraordinary summit to promote Islamic concordance.
news report:
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation has suspended Syria’s membership in protest of the Assad regime’s crackdown. OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu announced the move at a summit in Mecca.
[wiki: Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu is a Turkish academic, diplomat and currently the Secretary-General of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.]
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu: “This is a very strong message for the Syrian regime telling them that the Islamic world cannot accept a system that kills its people. And it’s a message to the international community, as well, telling them that the Islamic community supports a political, peaceful solution and does not want any more bloodshed.” (end news report)
Who wrote that announcement? My money is on Rashad Hussain, the US special envoy to the OIC, who attended the Mecca summit as an observer and held meetings with other delegates on the sidelines, according to news reports.
Special envoy indeed. The US war on Islam, including the US-promoted ‘divide-and-conquer’ Sunni/Shia schism, is being aided and abetted in Mecca by the Custodian of the Two Mosques himself while he calls for cooperation. How interesting.
UU writes: “that one of the important differences between religious communities and non-religious ones is their the level of *purposiveness*. In other words, a “community” truly worthy of the name is actually united not just due to a common heritage, ethnicity, race, or creed, but share a joint purpose and goal (such as staying on the *sharia*”
I agree with that. My definition of religion is, at its simplest, the hopes that bind people together. If you know what people are genuinely hoping for, you know their religion. They will choose “the history (that is the scriptures)” which best reflect, define, and capture their hopes.
Not all people hope for the same thing. Nor do all people hope for the same thing all the time. And most neglected, many people express one hope but harbour another in their breast.
I just ask that the purpose and hopes of people with whom I communicate be well considered and, if at all possible, truly expressed.
I don’t suffer from metastasized skepticism, of that I am certain.
Lysander: “But when they tripled it, they also suffered their greatest casualties of the whole war.”
Which was what, a hundred?
“My guess is that HA has a lot more anti-armor as well. But southern Lebanon is hilly and far from ideal for large tank formations.”
True. Nonetheless, this time Israel will be pushing to destroy every Southern Lebanon village with those tanks and driving the population out with infantry support. The goal will be to depopulate Southern Lebanon so Israel can set up a “No Man’s Land”. They probably will fire bomb the hills with napalm (or whatever the modern equivalent is today) to denude the hills of cover.
Bottom line: They know where they failed in 2006 – they won’t repeat those mistakes.
“Do you think there will be Syrian guerrillas fighting back against long supply lines?”
Like I said, there will not be long supply lines.
“Israel WILL face a defended territory in front with a guerrillas war in the back.”
No. Israel will face a guerrilla war with Hizballah in the front. Whatever they face in the rear will be facing an armored division with heavy infantry support and air cover. Also, Syrian troops will be under constant attack from the air by US and NATO and Turkish air strikes. Also, again, Israel will be IN Syria just as long as it takes to get the OTHER armored division into the Bekaa Valley and then Israel will withdraw behind a defensive line. Which means no guerrilla war in the rear that is effective enough to derail the offensive.
“The idea is to cut off an army from its source of supply. Southern Lebanon IS HA’s supply.”
This is completely irrelevant. As I’ve said repeatedly, the goal is to force Hizballah north and force them – by the speed of the assault – to have to leave behind the bulk of their missile arsenal. The goal here is not to cut off a source of supply – which is never the goal of a pincer movement by the way, the goal is always to cut off a unit from its reinforcements, not supply – but to force movement out of an area, do as much damage as possible to the units moving out of the area, and force them to abandon facilities in the given area.
“What you describe is more like a long siege and not a blitzkrieg. 30,000 troops is not even close to enough for a siege of southern Lebanon.”
This is not a siege. No where did I say anything that resembles a “siege”. This is an attempt to extend the borders of Israel far enough north to prevent Hizballah missiles from effectively covering all of Israel, as well as to damage Hizballah’s forces and force them to abandon a portion of their missile arsenal.
There will be no siege. It will be a fast “scorched earth” depopulation move followed by a consolidation and set up of a “No Man’s Land” – just as Israel has done before.
“They have yet to succeed in forcing HA to flee, though.”
The difference is the pincer movement. Caught between two armored divisions, and possibly involving massive fire bombing of their hill side redoubts, Hizballah will have no choice but to move. Granted, if they don’t, it will be bloody for Israel to root them out. But if Israel commits 30,000 men to the task, they can do it. Hizballah has only a few thousand men in the area under assault.
“Here you were critcal of Israel for relying too much on air power in 2006. And yet you have them doing the same for the most critical aspect of the proposed operation.”
I said nothing about RELYING on air power for the success of the entire operation.
“missiles from northern Lebanon continue to land despite massive bombardment”
The question is: how MANY missiles? Most of Hizballah’s arsenal is almost certainly in southern Lebanon to maximize the area of Israel that can be covered. Only the limited number of long range missiles may be in northern Lebanon. Also the longer range the missile, the longer it takes to set up and fire which means the more time Israel has to locate them and initiate an air strike.
We do not know whether Hizballah has enough long range missiles to be able to significantly affect Israel during an Iran war, and we do not know how many of those missiles will survive this attack.
And again, as long as those missiles are used in THIS attack, they won’t be available to be used during the Iran war – which again is the entire point of this exercise.
“Accurate missiles can be fired on sensitive targets such as petro chemical plants, factories, etc. Things that can multiply the damage of the warhead and force Israelis to evacuate. They can shut down comercial ports and the airport.”
Maybe. Basically you are saying that Hizballah can now destroy Israel any time it wants. I rather doubt Israel sees it that way, and even if they did, that merely means they cannot permit that situation to continue, especially if they want to start an Iran war.
So we’re back to what I’ve been saying: Israel HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO TRY.
I don’t give a rat’s ass if Israel CAN SUCCEED or not – the point is that THEY HAVE TO TRY.
“Obviously they can’t do as much as what Israel does, but they can do a lot to give Israel a strong disincentive towards wanton escalation.”
Again, I have to repeat myself.
THE VERY FACT THAT HIZBALLAH HAS THIS CAPABILITY IS ITSELF AN INCENTIVE TO ESCALATE THE SITUATION.
“Also, the strategy the west is pursuing now seems a lot more like divide and conquer and not smash and grab. Their goal is to increase Sunni-Shia tensions and use sucker Salafists to harass HA rather than do any fighting themselves.”
I don’t care what some fools think is the strategy. The strategic bottom line is that nothing will accomplish Israel’s goals except the US/NATO/Turkey taking out Syria and Israel taking out Hizballah. Therefore that is what they are going to TRY TO DO.
I’m done discussing this any further. We’ll see by end of the year what actually happens.
kooshy,
That Morsi would visit Iran would simply reflect Egypt’s stated intention of improving relations with Iran. The Boston Globe might not like that. Some AP reporters might not like that.
This from AP reprinted in Boston Globe this morning, for the life of me I didn’t know according to AP’s high School level journalism when a dignitary or president (in this case a newly elected president of a Egypt that had no relation with Iran for 30 years) of an important country travels to a second country it is all signs of diminishing power of the visited country. So say if president Obama makes the effort to visits Brazil is all due the fact that Brazil’s power id diminishing. Therefore if president Obama really wants to reduce Assad power and remove him the best thing he can do is to take trip to Syria tomorrow. Who knows one can learn a new thing or two every day.
Gav did you get that if I were you I wouldn’t let Obama come near her majesty.
Syria war tipping Mideast balance toward Sunnis
By HAMZA HENDAWI
Associated Press / August 18, 2012
“The announcement Saturday that Egypt’s new, Muslim Brotherhood-rooted president, Mohammed Morsi, will visit Iran on Aug. 30 — the first such visit by an Egyptian leader since the mid-1970s — likely reflects the growing confidence that Iran’s status is damaged and that Sunni Arab nations can steer the agenda.”
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middle-east/2012/08/18/syria-war-tipping-mideast-balance-toward-sunnis/03CCpOrA5TEXwltOQFlE4H/story.html
Castellio:
Empirically, earlier religions have always rejected later religions.
This happend in Hunduism (Jains and Buddhists), in Judaism (Christianity and Islam) among Sabeans (rejecting Christinaity & Islam) and in Christianity (Islam and others).
Yazids, Durze, Alawites, Ahmadis, Babis, Bahais, and Sikhs are all off-shoots of Islam with some being more Islamic than others.
Wether they fall under the rubric of the Prophetic Tradition is something I cannot answer since I was not interested in learning their Religious Truth.
[I heard that Bab was influenced by the Sheykhiyeh Doctrines as well as by his Visions of a "Lady".
Guru Nanak Singh was hadji Muslim.
and so on and so forth.]
More flagrant hypocrisy:
“EU’s Ashton condemns ‘hateful’ Iran remarks on Israel”
Ms Ashton, when was the last time you have condemned Israel for their repeated and hateful threats to Iran for well over a decade now?
Please outline how dumb you expect us to be so those with higher IQs can get on board with your silly propaganda.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4270000,00.html
humanist says:
August 18, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Mr. Mofaz is an Iranian who went to Israel with his family when he was 13.
He understands something that lies beyond the grasp of the Ashkenazi Jews in Israel and in Axis countries.
That is, the millenial wrath of Shia of Iran against Israel if she ever attck Iran.
Mr. Gates understood as much.
Israelis also risking a Fatwa by Mr. Khamenei condemnong them to the status of enemies of Islam.
He might even go as far as issue a Jihad Fatwa.
Any Fatwa by Mr. Khamenei will become – in the condition of Israli attak on Iran – part of Iranian consciousness that cannot be easily dislodged.
Hatred for Israel will become like hatred for killers of Imama Hussein and his Companions.
If you do not believe me, ask others.
Don Bacon says:
August 18, 2012 at 11:56 am
Far be it for me (indeed very far) to defend the United States.
Yet, I must state – in the interest of accuracy and honesty – that you are misinformed.
Jut to take an example: the American Indians – there was a lot of inter-marriage (European men marrying native Americans – or native American women deciding to marry into the more successful ad dominant ethnos.).
And I think, in Europe, outside of UK, Holland, and perhaps Denmark, the Rule of Law does not obtain to the degree that it obtains in US. In fact, certainly not in Greece, Spain, Italy or even France.
I think all of these things are relative.
The irony of US history is that when the slaves were freed, so were the proto-imperialists among European settlers. That is, until the South was defeated in the illegal war against the CSA and anti-imperial settlers were crushed in that war; he imperialist impulse in US was held in check.
Now, of course, is too late. The imperial project has to proceed until it fails; like all those before it.
Karim says:
August 18, 2012 at 11:48 am
Your assertion is not empirically verifiable and thus devoid of analytical conten.
You also are making an implausible distinction between Iran and Mullahs.
That does not obtain given the way Iran is constituted as apolity.
One would hope that the Mullahs – as you say – succeed in their nuclear project; that i necessary for state cohesion and security of Iran as a unitary state,
Photi
It is hard to predict what Israeli government will do next. Foreseeing any outcome when dealing with charlatans or irrational individuals is close to impossible. Based on my best impartial studies I have come to believe Netanyahu and zealous Likudniks are psychopathic and dangerous persons. Similarly I am sure the majority of his counterparts are prudent and rational.
I just hope, wish the latter group will prevail.
*the link from below
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-08-18/egypt-iran/57130344/1?csp=34news
This from USA Today:
“Egypt president to visit Iran, a first in decades”
I would like to congratulate the Egyptian and Iranian people on this welcome piece of news (or is that peace of news?). The modern Islamic leadership is finally maturing in the heart of the Muslim world.
Here’s to hoping Turkey and Saudi Arabia do their part. Eid Mubarak and may God be pleased with you all, ameen.
The following link is to a remarkable piece by ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar published in one of my favorite sites:
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/08/17/israels-robust-debate-on-iran-threat/
As far as the war with Iran is concerned the critical part of the essay is about outstanding condemnation of Netanyahu by Shaul Mofaz the leader of Israeli Kadima party.
(Pillar while highlighting the following crucial parts provides a link to extended text of Mofaz’s dialect which I found to be somewhat educational)
Here are Pillar’s picks:
“You are headed for a rash confrontation at an unnecessary cost while abandoning the home front. Over the past few months, Israel has waged an extensive and relentless PR campaign with the sole objective of preparing the ground for a premature military adventure. This PR campaign has deeply penetrated the ‘zone of immunity’ of our national security, threatens to weaken our deterrence, and our relations with our best friends. . . .
–
“[You are] making threats and sowing the seeds of fear and terror. Mr. Prime Minister, you are playing a dangerous and irresponsible game with the future of an entire nation. …… You’re creating panic. You are trying to frighten us and terrify us. And in truth we are scared: scared by your lack of judgment, scared that you both lead and don’t lead, scared that you are executing a dangerous and irresponsible policy.”
–
“Mr. Prime Minister, you want a crude, rude, unprecedented, reckless, and risky intervention in the U.S. elections. Tell us who you serve and for what? Why are you putting your hand deep into the ballot boxes of the American electorate”
Aren’t these overly significant accusations at a consequential cross rod of historiy?
Richard Steven Hack says:
August 16, 2012 at 2:26 am
Sorry it took so long to respond.
“More like 10,000 until the last few days in August when they tripled their forces because they were being ineffective. This time they will start with 30,000 or more and much more armor.”
But when they tripled it, they also suffered their greatest casualties of the whole war. Recall that Israel’s big offensive started 48 hours before the scheduled ceasefire. People asked why but the answer is obvious. If they had been successful, Israel wold have ignored the ceasefire. If they failed, Israel would act like they were about to win if it weren’t for that damned ceasefire.
My guess is that HA has a lot more anti-armor as well. But southern Lebanon is hilly and far from ideal for large tank formations.
“Again, Syria is not a factor because one armored division will be protecting the main force’s flank and Syrian forces will be pinned down by US/NATO/Turkey/Israeli air strikes. So no concentrated Syrian forces will be involved.”
Do you think there will be Syrian guerrillas fighting back against long supply lines? Or that they wont be a factor? There will be plenty of soldiers and plenty of weapons. Israel WILL face a defended territory in front with a guerrillas war in the back. For the sake of argument, I’m accepting the premise NATO will attack Syria.
“The purpose here is to pincer Hizballah’s forces in Southern Lebanon, forcing them to move north and if possible damage their capabilities in the Bekaa Valley. So it is very much an effort to “cut off” Hizballah in Southern Lebanon.”
The idea is to cut off an army from its source of supply. Southern Lebanon IS HA’s supply. What you describe is more like a long siege and not a blitzkrieg. 30,000 troops is not even close to enough for a siege of southern Lebanon.
“This has nothing whatever to do with the current intention. The current intention is merely to force Hizballah further north and then prevent them from re-infiltrating a missile arsenal into Southern Lebanon as least far as long as it takes to get the US into the Iran war and have the US deal with Iran’s missile inventory.”
Ah yes. This time its different. Except what you describe is EXACTLY the same. In 1993, 1996, 2006, the stated objective was to force HAs missiles further away. And then what? “prevent them from re-infiltrating?” As in a security zone which has also been tried?
There is really nothing new Israel can do. It can do the same thing on a grander and much more violent scale. Hypothetically, they can try to flank through Syria but that will cause them far more problems than it solves.
“I would expect Israel to take and hold a significant section of Southern Lebanon and to do so with extreme violence, essentially driving most of the population – not just Hizballah – north. They might then basically set up a version of “The Wall” – or at least extend the “No Man’s Land” in Southern Lebanon in order to prevent re-infiltration of Hizballah’s missile inventory.”
That’s what they do EVERY time. They bomb civilians in south Lebanon and force a million plus refugees to flee. Almost the entire population and the whole area becomes a free fire zone. In 2006, they covered all of southern Lebanon with cluster bombs. They have yet to succeed in forcing HA to flee, though.
“I expect Israel will attempt to rely on air power for that. They’ve already said they fully intend to “destroy” parts of Lebanon in the coming war.”
Here you were critcal of Israel for relying too much on air power in 2006. And yet you have them doing the same for the most critical aspect of the proposed operation.
In a speech last month Hassan Nasrallah announced that Israel’s greatest success in the 2006 war, destroying HA’s big long range missiles, never actually happened. All this time the Israelis thought it did and bragged about it. HA remained silent about it for years. Now they announce it was a head fake.It was a warning that Israel can’t count on air power to destroy the missiles HA has.
And so, if Israel invades southern Lebanon, and missiles from northern Lebanon continue to land despite massive bombardment, we have a situation where Israel will be forced to choose between backing down, and invading NORTHERN Lebanon (with 30,000 troops?)
A not about Israel’s “scorched earth policy.” They have done it before many times. It isn’t new. They can always increase the scale of violence, no doubt about it, but they now face a cost they didn’t before. Nassrallah’s speech the other day alludes to it clearly. Accurate missiles can be fired on sensitive targets such as petro chemical plants, factories, etc. Things that can multiply the damage of the warhead and force Israelis to evacuate. They can shut down comercial ports and the airport.
Obviously they can’t do as much as what Israel does, but they can do a lot to give Israel a strong disincentive towards wanton escalation.
So my prediction is, if Israel ever invades Lebanon it will be like the last time but a on a much grander scale. They will not enhance their strategic situation, nor advance their ability to attack Iran unhindered.
Also, the strategy the west is pursuing now seems a lot more like divide and conquer and not smash and grab. Their goal is to increase Sunni-Shia tensions and use sucker Salafists to harass HA rather than do any fighting themselves.
Concerned,
Wahhabism was a religious movement employed by the House of Saud to oppose the Ottoman Empire with a view toward creating an arab state comprising the entire Arabian Peninsula, and more. Exploiting religious movements for political purposes is of course a normal state of affairs.
fyi,
Did the US “crush Iraq” [not UD]
fyi,
Did the UD “crush Iraq”? Saddam Hussein was overthrown in a matter of weeks. Insane decision to disband Iraqi army etc. unleashed civil war, in which Iraqis (and others) “crushed” Iraq.
Castellio:
I’m not sure I use those terms correctly either, as cultural anthropology is not my bag, baby. I just use it to point out that different paradigms at issue to avoid what I call ‘paradigm errors’ (as in Russell’s ‘category errors’, which are intra-paradigmal).
And I hear you about the importance of maintaining a humble position, especially given the treacherous epistemological minefield that most of you moderns (who are by and large afflicted with an advanced form of metastasized skepsis) find themselves in. But with regard to the issue of minority rights and religious rights and all rights, come to think of it, it is important to bear in mind (in order to preclude paradigm errors) that one of the important differences between religious communities and non-religious ones is their the level of *purposiveness*. In other words, a “community” truly worthy of the name is actually united not just due to a common heritage, ethnicity, race, or creed, but share a joint purpose and goal (such as staying on the *sharia* [Pathway that will lead them back to God and everlasting bliss]). Or to put it another way, they share a telos as well as an ethos. So now. Everything changes when you allow for this one little variable in the “religious rights” or “human rights” equation, because the entirety of the presumptive framework is different in a purposive community. In modern societies such as we have in Weaselistan, where everyone is going in their own direction, and Elvis was last seen doing 50 on Exit 40, there is a lot more latitude or freedom of movement. Think of it as the difference between, say, a Zen Buddhist monastery that is intent on a long-term (multi-generational?) spiritual exercise that requires silence and intense concentration, and a kindergarten full of screaming kids or a coed schoolyard full of teenagers pumped full of testosterone and estrogen. Now if a bunch of unruly punks went pussy riot in the kindergarten or schoolyard, it would not make much difference to the [non-existent] objective which [does not] obtain there; but if they went pussy rioting all over the purposive community’s face, it would be a different kettle of fish altogether.
The Bahais went pussy riot all over our face, to the beat of Gavner Saheb’s snare drum, using Her Majesty’s amplifiers cranked full blast. Her majesty also donated the road crew and threw in a couple of crew sluts for good measure (strapped to Seat 38 on Fido 3). Now in Zen Buddhism there is a concept called ‘No Head’. I don’t know if you are aware of it… but in Islam, when someone says ‘No Head’ it usually means that a sword has been drawn :D
So not to put too fine a point on it, but I say f@#% the pussy riot! And good riddance.
@fyi
“Americans internally treat their citizens well; that did not prevent the United States from crushing Iraq.”
No. American Exceptionalism and US world domination has its roots in the extermination of the native Americans. Later came persecution of Chinese immigrants (China Exclusion Act), Japanese Americans (imprisonment), African Americans and Hispanic Americans (currently). (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants have generally done just fine.)
The joys of indiscriminate aerial bombing, extermination (Taliban), assassination (even of American citizens, and Iranians), imprisonment (Iraq, Afghan, etc) and torture are now extended to other peoples even on the other side of the planet. When the US does it, it’s not considered a war crime. Others (particularly Africans) are not so fortunate. What drives the American Exceptionalism recently is not so much the bible fundamentalism of Americans as the ‘chosen people’ it is rather the profits which come from exploiting others.
The concocted “Iran crisis” is an an example of a country gone mad because it can’t dominate Persia and profit from it. So we have the president’s inane statement in his most recent executive order sanctioning Iran: “. . . in light of the Government of Iran’s use of revenues from petroleum, petroleum products, and petrochemicals for illicit purposes, Iran’s continued attempts to evade international sanctions through deceptive practices, and the unacceptable risk posed to the international financial system by Iran’s activities,. .”
Iran’s “illicit purposes” constitute a US national emergency and so Iranians must suffer thereby. Those damn “illicit purposes” will get you every time. I hardly sleep nights worrying about them.
Oh well, they’re Iranians, not Americans, so who cares so long as the pols get their campaign money and Americans have a designated enemy to take their minds off of the government program to outsource jobs, among other iniquities. But we are are all people of the planet, aren’t we, and just because I had the ‘good sense’ to be born American shouldn’t give me the prerogative to put a major hurt on any other people.
The US treats its citizens well? The US ranks near the bottom of developed countries in many statistical categories thanks to a malignant government: maternal and child mortality, murders, suicides, imprisonment, etc. So much for that. Fire when ready, Gridley.
There is a stubborn habit of idealizing life in the US. The facts speak differently.
“According to Amnesty International, the US presently ranks 50th in terms of safe labor and delivery. Said another way, this means that women in 49 countries have better birth outcomes than women in the US of A. “Deadly Delivery,” a 2010 Amnesty study that was updated last year, reports that despite annual expenditures of $98 billion, 12.7 of every 100,000 American women die in childbirth. Predictably, if we look at communities of color, rather than overall numbers, the findings are worse: Women of color are three to four times more likely to die giving birth than their white counterparts.”
http://truth-out.org/news/item/10899-midwives-say-limiting-their-freedom-to-practice-hurts-mothers-children-low-income-families
@ A concerned world citizen & fyi
No one disputes hegemonic policies of the US or its track record dealing with other countries. My point is that if you appoint the current dictatorship of mullahs as the sole super power, they will behave many times worse. How could we expect a government who treats its own people like animals, executes guilty and innocent after quick show trials with no defense lawyers present and has no regard for its own laws and constitution to behave nicely toward its neighbors should it dominated the area. It just does not make sense. As I said, if mullahs have not killed millions to protect their interest is mostly because they cannot get away it. Just wait until they get their hands on the nuclear bomb. Then they will be able to get away with more killings and maltreatment of their own people.
A concerned world citizen,
In response to your post to Karim all I can ask is are you deaf, dumb, blind, and mute? My girlfriend 11 years removed from Tehran has a father who is married to a woman who is Bahai. She pretends to be a Muslim precisely because the regime has tortured and imprisoned many of her family and friends simply because they are Baha’is. Your comments on torture and free speech are asinine and beyond pale when one considers the regime routinely tortures and has imprisoned hundreds of journalists. The US was wrong to partake in the water boarding but torture is not endemic like it is in Iran. And yes here in the US we are guaranteed the right to free speech and this site is a clear indication of it. While I don’t agree with the views of the Leverett’s I will give my life defending their right to air them. In Iran a site like this simply cannot exist and it is why those site critical of the regime are almost all outside of Iran.
marg bar dictator
Bill
The Leveretts:
The ramifications of US Policy against Iran in Bahrain is actually quite helpful for Iran.
At the moment, Iranians are not doing anything to help Bahrainis in a concrete manner against the government.
Iranians will wait this out until Bahraini Shia realize that they have no one except the Shia Fortress of Iran to help and support them.
This is essentially the same strategy as Iran took vis-a-vis Shia in Lebanon.
They waited while Mr. Berri was ignored by Washington and when Israelis attacked in 1982; Iran became their savior.
This is a long game – in congtrast to US election cycle – which could result in yet another satellite government, this time in Bahrain.
humanist says:
August 17, 2012 at 11:02 pm
There is no chance of Abdol Baha having received the Victoria Cross; awarded for bravery in face of the enemmy.
On Tuesday, America’s top soldier, Gen. Martin Dempsey in a news conference attended by US defense secretary Leon Panetta, said: “Israel can delay but not destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities“.
Attila Somfalvi in Israeli daily YNet, interpreted Dempsey’s remark as a warning to the Zionist regime that without American military help, Jewish army cannot defeat Iran.
“The general’s remark was not a slip-of-the-tongue. It was a calculated statement from a general of Irish descent and character. His words constituted a slap in Israel’s face, a punch in the face, and a kick to the most sensitive part of the body. To be more precise, the US slammed Israel’s head against the wall and said: “Shut up. Stop babbling about Iran. Without us there is not much you can do, and don’t assume for a second that we are dancing to your tune. You shouldn’t do anything stupid, and stop driving the entire world crazy,” wrote Attila Somfalvi.
http://rehmat1.com/2012/08/18/gen-dempsey-israel-cant-defeat-iran/
Rabid blackmail being pressured on Obama. Now Israel demand Obama must travel to Israel, talk in their parliamentary and tell what israeli leaders want to hear. Sheer delusion!
For peace with Iran, prepare for war
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/get-ready-to-fight-iran/2012/08/17/1abe88c6-e7f8-11e1-8487-64e4b2a79ba8_story.html
One can really tell the administration doent appreciate Israel completely irrational warmongering stance. Dempsey and other officials and spoken out against the warmongering past week.
Just note the orwellian headline by the way on the Washington Post article. Only war is the solution for peace. Disgusting.
Karim:
A correction. I meant to say …It is because they could NOT get away with it.
Dude, you claim Iran’s a dictatorship/undemocratic yet you also claim the Ayatollahs cannot get away with killing millions.How’s that?
OK..Lets dissect things here..If they cannot get away with committing crimes as you claim, doesn’t it make them more accountable and therefore not dictators? Because from my understanding, dictators are NOT accountable to anyone and can do as they please..
Lets compared them with Obama who assassinates people all over the world – even American citizens with drone and gets away with it.We’re talking about a country that has institutionalized torture as a policy(enhance interrogation, remember???)..A country that has the highest prisoners per capita.
Freedom of speech is only allowed in America if you don’t speak bad about the US government..In fact, it’s pretty much the same in every country..See how Bradly Manning is languishing in jail for exposing the rot in the US system? See how the UK is willing to go against international treaties and threaten to storm the Ecuadorian embassy to get Assange?This is the same country that made all the noise about Iranian students storming their embassies and kicking them out.
Mate, the people/countries you look up as beacons of freedom and liberty are the worse examples in the history of mankind..How can you call the US a freedom loving nation when all they’ve offered the people of the region nothing but blood and more pain?
For someone who claim to be Iranian, you should know better..
oh look, they’re all lining up declaring exactly how the US should bend over for Israel:
“A gesture directly from Obama could do it. The U.S. president should visit Israel and tell its leadership — and, more important, its people — that preventing a nuclear Iran is a U.S. interest, and if we have to resort to military action, we will. This message, delivered by the president of the United States to the Israeli Knesset, would be far more effective than U.S. officials’ attempts to convey the same sentiment behind closed doors. The administration should also take five immediate steps to convince allies and adversaries alike that military action is real, imminent and doable — which are key to making it less likely.
First, Obama should notify the U.S. Congress in writing that he reserves the right to use military force to prevent Iran’s acquisition of a military nuclear capability. This would show the president’s resolve, and congressional support for such a measure is likely to be strong. Forty-four senators signed a bipartisan letter to Obama in June, urging him to “reevaluate the utility of further talks at this time” and focus instead on sanctions and “making clear that a credible military option exists.””
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/get-ready-to-fight-iran/2012/08/17/1abe88c6-e7f8-11e1-8487-64e4b2a79ba8_print.html
humanist says:
August 17, 2012 at 9:26 pm
humanist,
thanks for the links. i too found encouragement in General Dempsey’s remarks, though i am an optimist often in need of encouragement so i am probably just being naive. I did however think the Ynet author read waaay too much into the significance of the General’s remarks.
An equally viable but alternative explanation for the remarks follows along the lines of the script laid out by Richard Steven Hack. In light of Hack’s conclusions, the General may just be saying something to the effect of “Israel, stay on cue, the order of these events is first Syria and Hezbollah, and then Iran. You are about a year too early with your Iran talk, so STFU.” I don’t recall anyone calling off the domination plan in recent weeks, an on-going plan America is very much a part of.
UU… I accept that my presentation of the etic (as you, I think correctly, use the term) is itself a belief system, and a synthetic one at that. I try not to adhere with blind hope that it is “the” superior belief system, or that it, and my understanding of it, will not change.
Blessings to you and all you love.
humanist says:
August 17, 2012 at 9:26 pm
Yes, exhale! I am glad insanity has not prevailed!
fyi says:August 17, 2012 at 10:35 pm
“Americans internally treat their citizens well; that did not prevent the United States from crushing Iraq.”
“But – this is what we need to ask – in the context of the Middle East – were any in Syria – even the most oppressed – any worse off than the Shiites in Bahrain? the Palestinians in the west bank? were any people in Syria herded into internment camps like the Gazans? did the people have any less rights than their Jordanian bretherns – of whatever sect? what of the revolts in Yemen? what did they get other than Saleh-light? and an admonition from the UN to not oppose their oppressors?
And, come to think of it – do we really enjoy such great rights in the US? do we get to choose our government freely or are we just given a slate of republican/democrat tweedle-dee/tweedle-dams to rally behind? aren’t most of us going to vote for Obama because the alternative is so much worse? do we have a single candidate that we could honestly support as representative of our convictions? and if there’s a decent representative has he/she not being forced to sell the country’s interests to israel for a few dollars of campaign money? and should they choose not to take the big lobby moneies does any candidate stand a chance in hell? what democracy have we got – really? what of the fate of the 15% black population in the US shunted into ghettos, carted off into for-profit prisons at the least infraction, with zero hope of decent education or job prospects? we do have quite a few of our own deeply oppressed minorities in this country – many of whom live worse lives with far less hope than many minorities in Syria who at least have access to half-way decent health care and housing. Look at how the Palestinian refugees fared in Syria – not all that bad, based on what we know. And Syria took in huge numbers of Iraqi refugees escaping from the US Empire’s punitive action that tore their country to shreds.
So, you say, but in the US we have free speech. If that right be illustrated by the fact that I get to rant to my heart’s content on a blog dedicated to palestinian rights, then you’d have a point. But what of free speech that actually has import? what MSM represents most of us? who out there in the MSM dare speak out honestly about the obvious campaign of chipping at civil liberties unbdertaken by this adminsitration? yes, there is Glenn Greenwald [& the Leveretts] and a few like him, but has he succeeded is persuading a single admonistration official to relent on their secret surveillance?
So in the end, we need to look at things more soberly, meaning, we need to count the eggs we actually have hope of seeing them hatch. And it isn’t too many. And in the end we have rather more limited rights than we think we do because theoretical rights and ranting rights do not policy change. But that being said we are happy to live in a state of security so we can, in fact, shop till we drop, and we get to rant at the end of the day. But so did lots of Syrians. they just had fewer malls and ranting platforms. And some people suffered fate worse than Bradley Manning here. Maybe even a 1000 or 2 were quite maligned and some have died and some were tortured. Still, is that reason enough to tear their country apart? anyone can possibly imagine that the sectarian strife fanned by US, Israel and friends is going to bring more justice or peace or democracy to that country?”
Castellio, concerned world citizen
In my view, in the past, Iranian Bahais have been, in many occasions, exploited by the foreign enemies of Iran.(not drastically any different the way many genuine Persians who were (and are) cheaply bought by those foreigners).
On April 2011, here in RFI, I posted part of my opinion on Bahai’sm:
—
Abdol-Baha got the title of Sir and medal of Victoria Cross from the British monarch for Serving the Empire and soon afterwards he celebrated the occasion in a historical ceremony. As far as I know the photos of the above happenings are conspicuously hidden from the general public.
Some Iranian scholars believe the story of Bahai’sm is closely tied to British Imperialism. In WWI Ottomans were enemies of the British. Definitely creation of an openly pro-British Muslim movement must have been beneficial to the Empire.
Farsi speaking persons can refer to a book entitled “Bahai-gari”(Bahai’sm) by gifted historian Ahmad Kassrarvi who was born at the end of 19th century (refer to wikipedia for his biography).
The book can be downloaded free from efsha.co.uk “ketab-sara”. It is an interesting book, though Kassravi, because of lack of definitive evidence of covert foreign element mainly concentrates on the domestic evolution of Bahai’sm.
—
I wish I hadn’t posted the above:
Although I know of a number of distressing accounts on how the Bahais were the ‘desired choice of recruiting’ by foreigners (especially by Israelis), I still believe the Bahais fit fine to Iranian Mosaic and thus they should be treated as precious children of the country.
These are immensely critical times. It is not the time for Bahai bashing. I intensely oppose the way IRI treats Bahais. Based on Farsi sources I believe the enemies of Iran, (from mid 70′s ?) decided to destroy Iranism (as recent events in ME gives us a hint as the writings of the individuals like Kenneth Timmermann reveal) they are still absorbed with such strategy.
I firmly believe the installation of a narrowly visioned Shia ruling system in Iran was quite unfortunate. Essentially that event, in one way or another and with varying degree of intensity, alienated and antagonized the non-Shia population. Yet, since Iranism is a powerful concept it is bound to survive and as soon as the dusts of war are settled and as Iranians reach further political maturity, they are going to seriously demand a ruling system which is based on pillars of absolute independence, total freedom, civilized secularism based on (unique?) Iranian culture, and modern, federally structured Iranism.
Karim says:
August 17, 2012 at 9:34 pm
Americans internally treat their citizens well; that did not prevent the United States from crushing Iraq.
I believe your criterion is untenable.
A correction. I meant to say …It is because they could NOT get away with it.
@ A concerned world citizen
First, you are making too many assumptions about me. I live in Iran. Second, whether I’m a Baha’i or not is irrelevant. How a society treats its most vulnerable members is a sign of its humanity and IRI fails miserably on its record in this area.
Third, given your reaction to my discussion of the situation of religious minorities in Iran (not just Bahai’s but also the darvishis, suffis etc), clearly shows I am talking to a strong supported of this brutal regime. There is a Persian proverb that says you judge people by the friends they keep. The same can be applied to countries. Strong supporters of the Iranian regime that I meet here in Iran or overseas have no tolerance for other views, are generally homophobic and male chauvinist. The same applies to this brutal regime.
Finally, I firmly believe that how a country treats its own people is a sign of how it will treat others should it be in a position of power. That is why it would be a major disaster if IRI begins to dominate the region. U.S. treatment of other countries is full of flaws and yes it has killed many people to advance its own national interest. The fact that the IRI has not killed millions to protect itself is not because this a benevolent dictatorship or that Khamenei has a soft heart. It is because they could get away with it. Imagine for a moment that Khamenei and his friends were the sole super power instead of the US. I am sure the world would be such a nice place to live in that case. Yeh, right.
Jay, Fiorangela, Imho
Same as Ray McGovern, Richard Silverstein and Phillip Giraldi Haaretz Editor is also apprehensive:
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/15/israeli_journalist_gideon_levy_on_the
While prior to Richard’s leak Gary Sick who is a relatively reliable Iran Expert is not worried at all:
http://garysick.tumblr.com/post/29427260583/please-exhale-israel-is-not-going-to-attack-iran
After quite a long time as Karl’s link shows, some in critical US quarters are starting to resist:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4269041,00.html
An encouraging sign. Maybe now we can cautiously ‘exhale’.
Castellio-san:
Yes, you have encapsulated the etic (in the sense of non-religious) viewpoint nicely.
Which itself is a synthetic religion.
Concerned world citizen… Bahai, Wahhabism and Zionism are all quasi-religions, then, being political adaptations of stronger religions in a certain specific time and place to serve specific constituencies?
Is that what you’re thinking? I’m not arguing, I’m trying to follow your thoughts.
Shamoon virus targets energy sector infrastructure:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19293797
Not seeing it on any other news sites yet but I doubt anyone who frequents this website would be surprised.
One of these viruses is going to cause a catastrophic failure somewhere, it’s just a matter of time.
Castellio,
The reason I called bahai-ism as a quasi-religion is because of it’s history..Like wahabism,(imperial(UK) invented “religion” to shape the masses, mixing authentic religion with human thoughts that suits to powers that be),zionism etc..Is it any wonder that the queen of England awarded the founder of bahai-ism?
Unsurprisingly, they were rejected by the majority of Iranians and they’ve been crying foul ever since..They now have their massive HQ in Haifa, Israel..Their actions in Iran’s been of subversion etc etc.
They pretend they’re a religion, but they’re no different from Freemasons or other such social engineering groups – a political group if you will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1'%C3%AD_Faith
Hold on to your hat UU, but “synthetic” is what many Jews call both of the following monotheisms, and it is what Jews and Christians alike say of Islam – a pastiche of cultural influences… borrowed concepts misunderstood.
And for those who have pushed into earlier religions than Judaism, it is clear that Judaism, too, is synthetic.
There is no religion cut whole out of a new cloth.
The test is usefulness to diverse communities and generations over time.
Often, it is the very richness of the synthetic thinking which proves historically useful.
Photi,
I agree with you Dennis Ross does what he can to block any improvement in relations between Iran and the US.
Salaams to you too, Bondsman of God. And Eyd Mobarak too :o)
It’s all in your name. Unless I am quite mistaken, it is only your tribe that refers to people who are “surrounded with wealth” with a name that is homonymous with your surname.
*
Castellio: it is not so much that it is a quasi-religion as it is a synthetic, i.e., fake one. Kinda like the bet L. Ron Hubbard made with Edgar Rice Burroughs that ended up with Dianetics and The First Church of Appliantology.
All:
From Stratfor – http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/israeli-crisis
sorry for the convoluted post below. All the italics are from the dennis ross article in the NYT. there are quotation marks missing. here is th elink:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/opinion/how-america-can-slow-israels-march-to-war-with-iran.html?pagewanted=all
In today’s New York Times, Dennis Ross is laying out his strategy to sabotage the diplomatic effort so that when the time finally comes for military action against Iran, Iran can be blamed. Do we need anymore proof that Ross is helping Israel to manipulate and blackmail the American public into bringing about an Iran war?
The goal is war, diplomacy is a tool to bring about the goal.
“In other words, before a military strike, it is essential to demonstrate that Iran was not prepared to accept a civil nuclear power capability with the kind of limitations that would prevent it from being able to produce nuclear weapons on short notice.
Mr. Ross, is Israel or the US prepared at this time to accept Iran’s civilian program? When were you ever serious about a resolution with Iran? Was the deal with Brazil and Turkey a little too close to diplomatic success for your liking?
The world knows America and Israel are the ones who lack seriousness about this dispute.
Israeli leaders wouldn’t dispute the desirability of showing that diplomacy — and the use of crippling sanctions — had failed to change Iran’s behavior. But Israelis clearly fear that their clock will run out on them and that Israel, in the words of that senior official, “will no longer be a player at that point.”
The key questions for policy makers in Washington today are whether there is a way to extend the clock from an Israeli standpoint and whether it is possible to synchronize the American and Israeli clocks so that we really can exhaust diplomacy and sanctions before resorting to force. Four actions by the United States could make this possible.
Here’s the kicker, Ross is saying America and Obama should give into Israeli blackmail (aka the Golda Meir “shopping list”):
Third, senior American officials should ask Israeli leaders if there are military capabilities we could provide them with — like additional bunker-busting bombs, tankers for refueling aircraft and targeting information — that would extend the clock for them.
And finally, the White House should ask Mr. Netanyahu what sort of support he would need from the United States if he chose to use force — for example, resupply of weapons, munitions, spare parts, military and diplomatic backing, and help in terms of dealing with unexpected contingencies. The United States should be prepared to make firm commitments in all these areas now in return for Israel’s agreement to postpone any attack until next year — a delay that could be used to exhaust diplomatic options and lay the groundwork for military action if diplomacy failed.
Dennis Ross pressure stick diplomacy is designed to fail. Does any serious person dispute that Dennis Ross diplomacy with Iran is actually designed for success? Brazil and Turkey brokered a deal, apparently a failure by Ross diplomacy standards. Up is down.
So Ross again, as with Iraq, is helping to deceive America into another ill-conceived war for the benefit of Israel and weapons manufacturers.
Mr Ross, you are a shameful and indecent person for the conflict you cause and sustain.
Where are our leaders?
Fiorangela says:
August 17, 2012 at 9:30 am
Setting aside the hawkish politics of Aumann (which I do not find appealing at all), his contributions to the analysis of “repeated games” has been impressive. His analytic ideas has been used by Iranian game theorists and strategists to great benefit. For example, applying his analysis to the current stand off between Iran and US+EU would suggest that Iran’s response has been on the mark – it has been rational and beneficial to Iran. Perhaps the US+EU irritation is partially explained by Iranian’s effective use of Aumann’s salient points with regard to “games”!
Castellio says:
August 17, 2012 at 12:48 pm
A start, possibly.
We shall see.
But Protestant Christians in US and UK and elsewhere, like their Catholic bretheren much earlier, must learn that there are no margings in a war against Islam.
They have not yet learnt that and they are dangerously close to triggering one – in pursuit of their religious and imperial fantasies.
Pat Buchanan has some intereting comments Aug. 17th: “The Most Dangerous Man in the World – - It’s not an ayatollah, whatever the Weekly Standard says”
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/weekly-standard-iran-panic/
I recommend Philip Giraldi’s “Barak’s Blunder – - The Israeli defense minister misrepresnts U.S. intelligence to bolster the case for war.” (Aug. 17)
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/baraks-blunder/
Castellio,
The ChinaMatters comment you linked concluded that Bibi Netanyahu uses the nuclear dispute with Iran to prevent better relations between Iran and European countries (and the US). Clearly this is true. And American leaders try to conceal that fact from the people of the US. Israel has done its best to block improved relations between the US and Iran, for decades now. Israel lobby greatly injures the national security interests of the American people, by aiding and abetting this programme.
Cyrus_2,
Alan Greenspan did not like to contemplate the simple fact that the US invasion of Iraq had a great deal to do with “protecting” Israel. By taking out an avowed enemy of Israel, under false pretenses.
fyi,
You appear to be very confident that Bashar al-Assad will remain in power.
Fiorangela,
Thanks for linking the story capturing so wonderfully well the arrogance and stupidity of George W. Bush, that played such a large role in creating the catastrophe in Iraq. I was glad to see that Joe Biden warned Bush about civil war in Iraq if the Iraqi army etc. was disbanded and remained disbanded. Bush brushed aside Biden’s valid concerns.
Photi,
I’m glad you linked David Feith’s comments that appeared in the Wall Stret Journal Aug. 17th, Yes, Feith is a sone of the neocon warmonger, Doug Feith, who played such a crucial role in duping George W. Bush to set up the illegal invasion of Iraq.
A quote from David Feith’s piece in today’s Wall Street Journal: “Any response to Hezbollah terrorism or to the murder of diplomats at Washington restaurants would have to consider that Tehran could retaliate with nukes.” Even if Iran did not possess nukes at the time the diplomats were “mrudered at Washington restaurants”.
David Feith. writing in today’s Wall Street Journal, argues that an Iran able to build nukes quickly is as dangerous as an Iran actually armed with nukes. Feith thinks Leon Panetta is failing to say that an Iran able to build nukes quickly, crosses an American “red line”.
For those who insist (or have insisted) that it is a Protestant vs. Muslim war, the following is recommended reading.
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/nora/bds-roundup-members-united-church-canada-affirm-resolution-boycott-israeli-settlement
“Following recent, high-profile announcements by the Presbyterian and Methodist churches in the United States to boycott products made in illegal Israeli settlement colonies in the West Bank, members of the United Church of Canada [Canada's largest Protestant denomination] this week affirmed a similar boycott resolution at their annual General Conference, to be voted on on 17 August.
The Toronto Star reported on Thursday that, like the votes that took place in the US churches, the vote at the United Church of Canada was ‘preceded by nearly six hours of contentious debate, in which the church’s general council members nitpicked the proposal’s wording and heard drawn-out testimonies from representatives on both sides of the issue.’ The Star added that the United Church of Canada is the country’s largest denomination of Protestant Christians.
The article added:
The motion was one of several recommended by a report released by a church working group last May. Along with calling on church hierarchy to accept a comprehensive boycott, the report named the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory as a major challenge to a two-state solution in the Middle East.
Bruce Gregersen, a United Church general council officer and spokesperson who assisted the working group, called the vote Wednesday a ‘significant step’ toward the church’s affirmation of the entire proposal.
‘I think the mind of the council appears to be clear,’ he said. ‘If there was any sense that all the (anti-report) lobbying was going to have an effect, the council made up its own mind, irrespective of the lobby.’
Voting results were not immediately available but Gregersen said voters were ‘substantially in favour’ of the boycott motion.
The general council will vote again Friday on whether to confirm the proposals as official church policy.
In a press release, Independent Jewish Voices Canada (IJV) commended the Church and applauded their affirmation of the boycott resolution.
The press release adds:
‘By adopting this historic resolution, the United Church of Canada joins a growing movement of churches, trade unions, and other organizations in Canada and around the world that are boycotting Israel’s illegal settlements,’ says IJV spokesperson Sid Shniad. ‘It is not anti-Semitic to criticize Israel. Given the state’s ongoing illegal activities it is a moral imperative. We are very encouraged that the United Church has recognized the difference and we look forward to working with the church to move this important human rights work forward.’
IJV spokesperson Rabbi David Mivasair echoed Shniad’s remarks, explaining that ‘IJV is grateful to the United Church for undertaking this careful and principled review, and we endorse its thoughtful recommendations for ethical action to support justice for both Palestinians and Israelis.’
In an open letter to the United Church of Canada’s 41st General Conference at Carleton University, Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb of Jewish Voice for Peace had joined with IJV in calling on delegates to endorse the proposals for the boycott of products made in illegal Israeli settlements located in occupied Palestinian territory.”
But the larger Jewish organizations, and their press cohorts, are not taking any of this lying down. There have been published threats to the tax status of the Church as a religious charity.
And where is the Roman Catholic Church in this issue?
A question for Concerned World Citizen… why do you say that Bahai is a “quasi religion”? And are there other “quasi-religions” you care to identify?
A Concerned World Citizen… why do you say that Bahai is a “quasi religion”? And are there other “quasi-religions” you care to identify?
Abdullahi Olayinka says:
August 17, 2012 at 8:31 am
You forgot to tell him of the beer-drinking Shia as well as all those comely women with their large print dresses with bare-shoulders!
He will have fit.
kooshy says:
August 16, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Ambassador Burns was the only person in US Government who was willing to at least listen to Iranians’ point of view.
No one else in US Government or in Washington DC was so inclined.
Iranians correctly assessed this fact and thus did not waste their time meeting with him or with Mrs. Sherman.
May be in 2017 US leaders will initiate a change – after suffering defeats in Syria and in their siege war against Iran.
But not now; it is too late for Mr. Obama….
In general —
Ron Suskind, in conversation with a senior advisor to the George W. Bush administration
“The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” “
Robert Aumann and game theory specialists at Rational Institute at Hebrew University specialize in “creating reality.” The Institute sponsors dozens of projects, studies and conferences in collaboration with Microsoft and electronic marketing and commerce technology giants. They combine in their studies crowd psychology, for example, Sequential Voting with Externalities: Herding in Social Networks; information control — “Intriguingly, we show that multiple rounds of partial information disclosure (interleaved by payment to the seller) are sometimes necessary to achieve optimal revenue if the buyer is allowed to abort his interaction with the seller prematurely. We also prove some negative results about the inability of simple mechanisms for selling information to approximate more complicated ones in the worst case” and the like.
These projects are targeted to the world of e-commerce, but their concepts operate in a “new reality” relative to my intellectual framework.
World War I, “the great war,” was a watershed in that it employed for the first time mobilization of masses moved by manipulated mass communications techniques (propaganda) to gain ‘buy in’ for war; industrialized forms of killing (gas, airplanes, automatic weapons); and deliberate attacks on civilian populations by starvation or random violence, that is, terrorism, in order to demoralize those who had been initially manipulated to support war in the first place. In the United States, Ed Bernays was preeminent in designing techniques of mass communication; at war’s end, he took those techniques to the civilian commercial marketplace and created the “public relations” industry (which is closely allied with the entertainment industry in the US, and more recently, with journalism).
I’m just getting up to speed on “judiciously discerning reality.”
I suspect Bibi Netanyahu & his cohort make very few moves or statements without reference to the makers of “new reality” such as those at Robert Aumann’s Rational Institute.
How long did it take for dinosaurs to be wiped out?
When ever I see the IRI routing the US in the ME, clipping their wing one after the other, countering their hegemony from one nation of the region to another and making it obvious to any doubting thomas it will continue its resistance against the US until America is finally expelled from the region, I feel delighted but it also send jitters down my spine.
Knowing the capitocratic US for its kind of leaders and policies, they would have started taking their stocks and weighing their options for another secure sources of energy for their cancerous industries, the only place that readily comes to mind is Africa. This continent to which I belong and which is filled with western clients leaders, is already rife with innumerable sufferings and underdevelopment. For the US to occupy this continent through one pretext or the other- this most likely for now would be terrorism- and started perpetrating their evil machinations, the rest is better imagine than said.
Some might say they are already occupying Africa, yes but not at the scale of that coming period. I sincerely I wish that this is just my illusion but something tells me otherwise.
Oh my beloved continent, how to resist this vampires remains a dilemma.
UU, salam to you. Your wealth of knowledge will never ceases to amaze me, I don’t mean this as a compliment but as a statement of fact. How did you know my tribe? I’m proud to be your brethren in faith as followers of that divine household (AS). I look forward to continue as always to drink from that your religiously inclined store of knowledge. Please keep up the good work.
To your question, yes there are significant number of us (Shiites) among my tribe.
To Bussed-in-Basij, I say ameen. The way the US is going continues to confirm the words of Allah in the Glorious Qur’an. Certainly the party of Allah shall be victorious, they plan their evil plan and Allah also plan but never forget that Allah is the best of those who plan. Rejoice my brethren, rejoice. Happy eid-l-fitr UU & B-inB.
@ Karim
What an ignorant comment.
Firstly, the US didn’t give up on Iraq.
The Iraqi’s forced the US army to leave their country because they refused to grant the US soldiers immunity, despite the enormous pressure of the US on the Iraqi government to comply with its demands.
Secondly, the US has built an enormous embassy in Baghdad, the size of Vatican City, crowded with tens of thousands of ‘diplomatic’ personnel who are protected by a US private army of at least 10 000 contractors. The US also built three consulates in Iraq the size of a big embassy. Does this sound like ‘the US has given up on Iraq’?
Thirdly, Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve and one of the leading Republican economists, seems to disagree with you when he said: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” Before the Iraq war, I also remember another war architect, Paul Wolfowitz, professing that the ‘liberation’ of Iraq would lead to oil prices of 25-30 USD.
Karim
Given the way IRI treats its own people (e.g., killing of Bahai’s, imprisoning political activists and removing all oppositions to its rule), I would rather have US as the master of the Persian Gulf rather than the Supreme Dictator and his circle of corrupt people.
You prefer to live under US domination of the regime that has brought untold destruction to millions of lives there??? The murders committed by the US’ quest to dominate the region far outweighs any crimes(as you like to call it) committed by the Ayatollahs.The Ayatollahs have not slaughtered millions of Iranians(even your own Bahai people) to stay in power..You cannot say the same about the US.
What you’re saying here is that, for your minority quasi-religion(Bahai) to succeed, the US must destroy Iran to make this happen..What do you think the other millions(majority) of Iranian that do not share in your quasi-religion(Bahai) feel about your delusional fantasies?
Isn’t it strange that the staunchest advocates of US domination in the ME are the most undemocratic in nature? No sane country will ever welcome US domination in the region apart from self serving dictatorships. Is it any wonder that the US always find themselves supporting one dictator after another in the region?
Let me guess, you live in Tel Aviv, right?
OMG, these people are liars. Wasn’t his father instrumental in getting America into a lie-based war we now regret?
Why does he get such prestigious journal from which to bellow his lies?
Better yet,
Why is this journal prestigious?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444772404577587013388800428.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
Important reads and watches:
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/08/video-israeli-youths-violently-detain-palestinian-under-eyes-of-soldiers.html
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/15/the_sham_terrorism_expert_industry/
Wednesday, Aug 15, 2012 03:29 PM MDT
The sham “terrorism expert” industry
A highly ideological, jingoistic clique masquerades as objective scholars, all to justify US militarism
Shortly prior to the start of the London Olympics, there was an outburst of hysteria over the failure to provide sufficient security against Terrorism, but as Harvard Professor Stephen Walt noted yesterday in Foreign Policy, this was all driven, as usual, by severe exaggerations of the threat: “Well, surprise, surprise. Not only was there no terrorist attack, the Games themselves came off rather well.” Walt then urges this lesson be learned:
[W]e continue to over-react to the “terrorist threat.” Here I recommend you read John Mueller and Mark G. Stewart’s The Terrorism Delusion: America’s Overwrought Response to September 11, in the latest issue of International Security. Mueller and Stewart analyze 50 cases of supposed “Islamic terrorist plots” against the United States, and show how virtually all of the perpetrators were (in their words) “incompetent, ineffective, unintelligent, idiotic, ignorant, unorganized, misguided, muddled, amateurish, dopey, unrealistic, moronic, irrational and foolish.” They quote former Glenn Carle, former deputy national intelligence officer for transnational threats saying “we must see jihadists for the small, lethal, disjointed and miserable opponents that they are,” noting further that al Qaeda’s “capabilities are far inferior to its desires.”
In the next paragraph, Walt essentially makes clear why this lesson will not be learned: namely, because there are too many American interests vested in the perpetuation of this irrational fear:
Mueller and Stewart estimate that expenditures on domestic homeland security (i.e., not counting the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan) have increased by more than $1 trillion since 9/11, even though the annual risk of dying in a domestic terrorist attack is about 1 in 3.5 million. Using conservative assumptions and conventional risk-assessment methodology, they estimate that for these expenditures to be cost-effective “they would have had to deter, prevent, foil or protect against 333 very large attacks that would otherwise have been successful every year.” Finally, they worry that this exaggerated sense of danger has now been “internalized”: even when politicians and “terrorism experts” aren’t hyping the danger, the public still sees the threat as large and imminent. As they conclude:
… Americans seems to have internalized their anxiety about terrorism, and politicians and policymakers have come to believe that they can defy it only at their own peril. Concern about appearing to be soft on terrorism has replaced concern about seeming to be soft on communism, a phenomenon that lasted far longer than the dramatic that generated it … This extraordinarily exaggerated and essentially delusional response may prove to be perpetual.”
Which is another way of saying that you should be prepared to keep standing in those pleasant and efficient TSA lines for the rest of your life, and to keep paying for far-flung foreign interventions designed to “root out” those nasty jihadis.
Many of the benefits from keeping Terrorism fear levels high are obvious. Private corporations suck up massive amounts of Homeland Security cash as long as that fear persists, while government officials in the National Security and Surveillance State can claim unlimited powers, and operate with unlimited secrecy and no accountability. In sum, the private and public entities that shape government policy and drive political discourse profit far too much in numerous ways to allow rational considerations of the Terror threat.
* * * * *
But there’s a very similar and at least equally important (though far less discussed) constituency deeply vested in the perpetuation of this fear. It’s the sham industry Walt refers to, with appropriate scare quotes, as “terrorism experts,” who have built their careers on fear-mongering over Islamic Terrorism and can stay relevant only if that threat does.
I think the following a useful summary of Israeli intentions, but too forgiving of US intentions:
http://chinamatters.blogspot.ca/2012/08/israel-and-iran-nuclear-weapons.html
Adullahi, your argument that US’s policy toward Iran is driven by its quest for oil, is not supported by available evidence. First, US or for that matter any other consuming country does not to dominate Iran to get its hand on Iran’s oil. Iran has to sell its oil. It has no other choice. If domination is so important for having access to oil, why did US give up Iraq. It was certainly easier to control Iraq rather than trying to dominate Iran.
Oil is obviously important to US and Europe. What US cannot allow is to any country to dominate the region because then it can be blackmailed. So, yes US is out to get Iran but not to get its hand on its oil, but rather to prevent Iran from dominating its region. Given the way IRI treats its own people (e.g., killing of Bahai’s, imprisoning political activists and removing all oppositions to its rule), I would rather have US as the master of the Persian Gulf rather than the Supreme Dictator and his circle of corrupt people.
It looks Nicky the baby face is coming down to reality
Diplomacy is the best tool for Iran
By Nicholas Burns
August 16, 2012
http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/08/16/burns/qSY5HGNcHdelRBMAkxMtNM/story.html
Hillary
In your recent interview with Aljazeera you importantly mentioned the fact of having a resonating narrative is essential for American foreign policy. In light of that what do you think of this news regarding claims by American ambassador in Turkey and a public response by Iran embassy in Turkey?
http://irna.ir/News/80280085/سفارت-ایران-در-تركیه-ادعاهای-سفیر-آمریكا-را-تكذیب-كرد/خارجي/
سفارت ایران در تركیه ادعاهای سفیر آمریكا را تكذیب كرد
آنكارا – سفارت جمهوری اسلامی ایران در تركیه در اطلاعیه ای ضمن تكذیب هرگونه ادعایی مبنی بر كمك نظامی ایران به گروه های تروریستی ، سخنان سفیر آمریكا در آنكارا را كذب و بسان اشك تمساح دانست.
به گزارش روز پنجشنبه ایرنا ، در این اطلاعیه با اشاره به سخنان كذب سفیر امریكا در تركیه مبنی بر حمایت نظامی ایران از گروه های تروریستی آمده است: ضمن رد هرگونه ادعایی مبنی بر كمك نظامی ایران به گروه های تروریستی تاكید می شود كه اینگونه اظهارات مانند اشك تمساح دارد و به منظور فرافكنی و سرپوش نهادن بیان می شود.
سخنان روز گذشته سفیر آمریكا بار دیگر از نیات دولت واشنگتن برای ایجاد تفرقه و اختلاف بین دو كشور دوست و برادر ایران و تركیه پرده برداشت. راهبرد دیرینه و ثابت دولت امریكا همواره بر پایه تفرقه افكنی بین ملت ها و دولت های اسلامی، تحریك شكافهای قومی و مذهبی با هدف تضعیف دولتهای منطقه و تحقق رویای دیرینه رژیم صهیونیستی برای ایجاد حكومت از نیل تا فرات استوار بوده است.
سیاست های امریكا در حمایت از گروه های تروریستی و مزدور برای سرنگونی حكومت های مردمی و اعمال فشار بر دولت های مستقل بر كسی پوشیده نیست. سیاست امریكا همواره مبتنی بر ایجاد بحران از طریق اختلافات قومی و مذهبی بوده تا دولتها را برای اعمال سیاستهای خود تحت فشار قرار دهد و در این راستا صرفا به منافع استعماری خود و رژیم صهیونیستی توجه داشته و از ریخته شدن خون مسلمانان و افراد بی گناه واهمه ای ندارد.
نقش دولت آمریكا در حمایت از گروه ‘پ.ك.ك’ و ایجاد پناهگاه های امن برای آنان در شمال عراق و سابقه سیاه این دولت در تولید و صدور تروریسم در مناطق مختلف جهان به قدری روشن است كه سفیر آمریكا هرگز نخواهد توانست دولت متبوعش را در برابر افكار عمومی مردم تركیه تبرئه كند.
امریكا در طول حضور خود در عراق هیچگونه اقدامی علیه ‘پ.ك.ك’ صورت نداد و خاطره رفتار آنها با سر بازان ترك از ذهن ها پاك نشده است. در حالیكه جمهوری اسلامی ایران تاكنون صدها شهید در مبارزه با ‘پ.ك.ك’ داده است.
جمهوری اسلامی ایران معتقد است قطع كمك های مالی غرب و مسدود كردن حساب های بانكی گروه تروریستی ‘پ.ك.ك’ در كشورهای غربی تنها راه عملی برای مبارزه با آنان می باشد
US punched Bibi, Barak in the face
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4269041,00.html
The now repeated Iran attack plan propaganda leaks through the western MSM propaganda outlets like CNN, BBC, NYT, WP, HP, etc. is becoming exhausted and ineffective more than ever before, resulting in reducing effectiveness and credibility of this media outlets, this has, is and will be dangerously damaging the western security structure if it’s repeated use becomes careless and abused.
Due to repeated carless abuse of the MSM to spread state propaganda on Iran or other international issues, it should be understandable that the state PR agencies look for other more credible persons and venues to be used as the source first, before it gets echoed by the MSM.
Nothing new here, just standard exhaustion of credit to the limit, once one’s credibility reaches to a limit one would need to stop spending or using/abusing the remaining credibility or move to use other creditable sources, much like current economic condition for any citizen with lots of debt on their credit cards.
Abdullahi,
Can you name a single country that “employs the IRI model”?
I recommend Peter van Buren, “Imperial Reconstruction- – We can’t remake Iraq and Afghanistan – - and at thome we don’t even try.” Great insight into American incompetence in “rebuilding” Iraq. (Aug. 16th)
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/imperial-reconstruction/
I recommend David Blair’s comments (“Secret diplomacy holds the key to the Iran crisis”). Quote: “The lesson of history is that covert contacts and back channels can pave the way to peace.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/
Abdullahi,
Salaamun alaikum brother and Id Mubarak in advance.
God blesses us by allowing us to fight in His way. This is our victory and it is the greatest victory.
ToivoS,
The actual cost of the insane American military adventure in Iraq will likely total more than $3 trillion ultimately. (Including long-term health-care problems, etc etc etc.)
Photi,
I of course agree with you that Ali Akbar Salehi made many good points in his comments printed in the Washington Post the other day. (Regarding the way forward in resolving the unrest in Syria.)
Abdulllah,
What precise “backtracking” on my part do you encourage? That I would say it makes no difference how much 20 U Iran stockpiles? That Iran will be attacked no matter what choices it makes? Please be specific.
aBdullahi,
In effect, you are argui9ng that China and Russia are backing the US in a quest for global hegemony. Absurd.
Abdullahi,
Are you claiming that Iran’s enriching to 20% has nothing to do with sanctions imposed against Iran? Please explain the strong advocacy by Chian and Russia, that Iran stop enriching to 20%.
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=231276
Unknown Unknowns says:
August 16, 2012 at 10:31 am
Yes.
Greetings to the Bondsman of God who is Surrounded by Wealth:
Are there many Partisans of ‘Ali among the Yoruba people?
Points of No Return, Zones of Immunity, and Windows of Opportunity: The Constant Israeli Hype over Iran.
Humanist, thank you for calling attention to Richard Silverstein’s article. As Photi pointed out, the comments on that blog give some grounds for skepticism as to the authenticity of the battle plan.
On the other hand, as you pointed out on August 15, 2012 at 9:17 pm, other signs and portents reveal the increasing war fever that Bibi is enjoying.
As uncomfortable as it makes so many people, it’s important to add to your list of Reasons to be Concerned, repeated references to Nazi Germany, both by Israeli leaders, who equate Iran to Nazi Germany and Ahmadinejad to Hitler, and in the American press, where, for example, the shooter at the Sikh temple has been tagged (with amazing alacrity) with the label ‘neo-Nazi.’ As Israel’s leaders & advocates frequently point out, when [a nation] is repeatedly threatened with annihilation, the threats should be taken seriously.
= = =
Nima Shirazi’s article, linked above, opens with this quote:
“”Propaganda by its very nature is an enterprise for perverting the significance of events and of insinuating false intentions…The propagandist will not accuse the enemy of just any misdeed; he will accuse him of the very intention that he himself has and of trying to commit the very crime that he himself is about to commit. He who wants to provoke a war not only proclaims his own peaceful intentions but also accuses the other party of provocation.”
- Jacques Ellul, Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, 1965″
Bulgarian PM rightly call out Cameron for UKs typical obviously unsubstantiated allegations against Iran.
We haven’t received any such information to date. I asked David Cameron to provide it to me if he has it because, I repeat, these are very strong accusations
http://www..presstv.ir/detail/2012/08/16/256516/iran-rejects-uk-claim-on-bulgaria-attack
Imho,
Exactly, just prove what a puppet this man is.
This is the exact reason why US voted for Ban, because he could easily be moved in the pro-american/israeli direction. He is used when he is need for those interests but will never turn against them.
As to Mr. 20%U, James all your contributions on this forum as been nothing but pathetic, lacking in both analysis and theme.
Unless you have a hidden agenda, which am convinced you have, as no clear minded person would analyze the way you’ve been going, why won’t you accept the fact that this is not about nuclear weapon but US quest for oil, Israel and hegemony not just in the ME but throughout the world has IRI resistance to this US project clearly spell doom for this ambition all over the world, as countries started to employ IRI model.
I remember MP George Galloway saying on PressTv prog. Real Deal and I para-phrase him that most disappointing act of Tony Blair is to kowtow to Bush- whom he had more brain is his nail than Bush has in his entire head- into the illegal iraqi quagmire.
Just like Tony Blair, your self-delusional, agenda driven analysis in this forum as reach a dead end. Why don’t you back-track Mr.20%U? Oh! I forget as an English gentlemen and a colonialist, you can never take your word back. Wake up dummy! this is 21 century, the British sun has already set long time ago facilitated by your deranged ally US.
I believe US will NEVER, I mean NEVER accept IRI in its present form and policies. My perspective is clearly captured by Amir Taheri in an op-ed in is blog http://www.therealamirtaheri.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-max=2012-08-03T21:36:00%2B04:30&max-results=7&start=14&by-date=false
The confrontation between the US and IRI would be settled only when one victor emerged, as even stalemate in this encounter is only a strategic withdrawal to re-arm before re-commencing the battle. Meaning this victor will only emerge no doubt after the US as exhaust all its sanctions and military options. Yes, war would definitely take place between them has history of such rivalry as shown, but when it would happen is what none could predict. My greatest concern goes to the civilian on both sides who would bear the brunt of this war. I referred to both side as IRI is not Iraq or Afghanistan.
As a Shiite let me para-phrase Bussed-in-Basij as he said in the last thread that IRI would be victorious as we have a favourably tradition about this.
Ban Ki-Moon still undecided whether to attend NAM summit in Tehran. That is he didn’t receive any instruction as what to do yet.
Do us a favor and don’t go there. That would discredit the UN more than NAM.
http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/08/u-n-chief-in-the-hot-seat-over-non-aligned-summit-in-iran/
humanist says:
August 15, 2012 at 9:17 pm
I understand your worries; however other signs are rather different:
1/ Israelis usually don’t make lots of noise before attacking in order to preserve the surprise factor
2/ NYT doesn’t seem on board yet for a US attack (although WSJ and WP are)
Yet it is worrying how Israeli politicians are cornering themselves into war talks. I suspect all these noises are to force US into a naval blockade of Iran (which means war) citing ineffectiveness of sanctions.
Continued from previous thread:
Lysander: “6-8 weeks is an awfully long time for a large scale mobilization.”
That is my maximum estimate. It could be over in four. But they spent six weeks in 2006, although mostly because they over-relied on air power and did not commit significant forces (only about 15,000) near the end.
This time they will commit three divisions immediately and the push will be hard and fast. So this conflict cannot be compared to 2006 or any earlier conflict.
“30,000 is what they used in ‘06.”
More like 10,000 until the last few days in August when they tripled their forces because they were being ineffective. This time they will start with 30,000 or more and much more armor.
“I think it unlikely they will mount a large scale invasion of Lebanon and not just a border skirmish AND go through Syria at the same time with basically the same amount of troops that **LOST** against a much weaker HA 6 years ago.”
Again, Syria is not a factor because one armored division will be protecting the main force’s flank and Syrian forces will be pinned down by US/NATO/Turkey/Israeli air strikes. So no concentrated Syrian forces will be involved.
“Blitzkrieg attacks are meant to separate and cut off conventional military formations and then to seize a political objective such as a nation’s capitol. When there is no such objective and you are fighting against a guerrilla force, you are just exposing your supply lines to punishment.”
The purpose here is to pincer Hizballah’s forces in Southern Lebanon, forcing them to move north and if possible damage their capabilities in the Bekaa Valley. So it is very much an effort to “cut off” Hizballah in Southern Lebanon.
“Fine, but all that means is that HA will DEFINITELY fire all those missiles now”
No, Hizballah cannot fire ALL their missiles within the time frame of the invasion. This is why I call it a “blitkreig” – if Israel can move fast enough into Southern Lebanon using a “scorched earth” policy, Hizballah will be unable to fire as many missiles as they would like without having to directly engage Israeli forces. As a guerrilla movement, they cannot directly engage a full armored division. They will be forced to move rather than directly engage, and thus be forced to leave behind much of their missile inventory. The same situation to a lesser degree will probably occur in the Bekaa Valley.
Certainly Hizballah will be able to fire quite a few missiles in the initial days of the war. But Israel is prepared to deal with that situation if it covers just the first week or two. But Israel is not prepared to deal with Hizballah attacks covering a period of months which is what would occur in an Iran war if Hizballah entered the war.
In any event, it’s a risk the Israelis have to take if they want a “cheap war” with Iran later. Better to try to “take out” your immediate enemies early on rather than deal with them when you’re trying to deal with the larger foreign enemy.
“They’ve tried that before. They invaded Lebanon, installed a puppet government and found the occupation of central Lebanon untenable and fairly quickly withdrew to their “security zone.””
This has nothing whatever to do with the current intention. The current intention is merely to force Hizballah further north and then prevent them from re-infiltrating a missile arsenal into Southern Lebanon as least far as long as it takes to get the US into the Iran war and have the US deal with Iran’s missile inventory.
I would expect Israel to take and hold a significant section of Southern Lebanon and to do so with extreme violence, essentially driving most of the population – not just Hizballah – north. They might then basically set up a version of “The Wall” – or at least extend the “No Man’s Land” in Southern Lebanon in order to prevent re-infiltration of Hizballah’s missile inventory.
Israel could maintain that posture indefinitely. It would merely be an extension of what they’ve already done. However, I would expect Hizballah to step up its guerrilla war on the Israeli forces in Southern Lebanon and that this part of the conflict would continue for quite some time.
However, Israel will NOT try to occupy ALL of Lebanon. They will merely occupy as much of Southern Lebanon as they need to to keep Hizballah’s missile arsenal further north.
“But what if a lot of the missiles are there? A lot of the longer range similes that are likely in HA’s arsenal can hit south of Tel Aviv from north of Beirut.”
I expect Israel will attempt to rely on air power for that. They’ve already said they fully intend to “destroy” parts of Lebanon in the coming war.
Since we do not know where Hizballah has it’s missile arsenal, or how many missiles in that arsenal can hit Tel Aviv, we can only speculate on whether this will be an issue for Israel.
Again, in any event, Israel has no choice in the matter. They have to try. They cannot allow 45,000 missiles to be fired at them during an Iran war.
“The highway runs through the Bekaa. If the Israelis are sending that many tanks, they need roads.”
Yes. I expect Hizballah may well have prepared for that. However, that would depend on whether they expect Israel to flank them by going through Syria. While Syria was not under the current situation, they may not have planned for this. So it’s not clear either how well they may have planned for Israel to flank them with armor, nor is it clear whether there preparations would be sufficient to stall a full-scale armored division attack with that many tanks.
” And they’ll need a supply line through Syria, which they will also have to defend. It will be very hostile territory, even after NATO bombardment.”
Yes, but Israel does not have to remain in Syria or run supply lines through Syria. They will only transit Syria to get to the Bekaa Valley, then push south into Southern Lebanon from the Valley to link up with the Southern Lebanon Israeli forces. That takes them OUT of Syria and Syria is no longer a factor. Only if the Valley Israeli forces are stalled and unable to do the linkup is logistics going to be a factor.
“The key fact to remember is that this has been done before.”
No – the ATTEMPT has been done before. This time Israeli will take those attempts into account and try to do it “right” – meaning they will not rely entirely on air power and they will commit major forces in an extremely violent manner. Whether they succeed or not is not important. What is important is they have to try or Hizballah will continue to be an unacceptable risk growing more unacceptable by the year.
The only reason Israel has waited this long to do this is because they would have had to deal with Syrian forces without assistance and that WOULD have been a serious problem (not that they couldn’t do it, but it would have been very costly from a domestic political standpoint.) With the upcoming US/NATO/Turkey attack on Syria, they are covered to some degree from that problem because Syria’s missile systems will be attacked by the US BEFORE Israel makes its attack on Lebanon and Syrian forces will be pinned down as well during the Lebanon attack. That completely changes the strategic balance and makes the operation feasible.
The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs thinks this: http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=0bbf3e4bd59883aee7cfbfdd3&id=5e7d83c94d&e=d9ea9b8bd0
The Independent Jewish Voices of Canada think this: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/palestine-l/MItXSuhq5Pc1-25
It’s just a question of time before the Conservative Canadian government condemns the United Church for its stance.
Are the larger Christian denominations going to endorse Israeli racism or support those who suffer from it? If the latter, what punishment will they receive, and what will they do in the face of that?
rebel,
here you go, the following looks pretty official on what Iran’s wishes are in Syria. As you can see, democracy is central the to the realities needing to be established. They are not using their influence to “push” people out of the picture. It is Dr. Salehi, Iran’s foreign minister writing in the Washington Post (see the Leveretts’ link above in the original post by them:
“Taking Annan’s six-point plan into consideration, Iran looks forward to bringing like-minded countries together to implement three essential points: Ensure an immediate cease-fire to stop the bloodshed, dispatch humanitarian aid to the Syrian people and prepare the ground for dialogue to solve the crisis.
I hereby announce Iran’s readiness to host a meeting of countries committed to immediately implementing these steps in hopes of ending the violence. As part of our commitment to resolve the crisis, I also reiterate our willingness to facilitate talks between the Syrian government and the opposition and to host such a dialogue.
Moreover, in line with Annan’s six-point plan, I once again declare Iran’s support for political reform in Syria that will allow the Syrian people to decide their destiny. This includes ensuring that they have the right to participate in the upcoming free and fair presidential election under international supervision.
As the holy month of Ramadan nears its end, I pray that Syrians will get to break their fast in peace and stability sooner rather than later — for their own interests and those of the world.”
*also, that linked-to discussion gets much more intriguing once question are asked by the audience.
*the US won the Iran-Iraq war for Iran, that is.
ToivoS,
You should watch the following from Cspan tuesday. Geneive Abdo is a participant, not Melissa Mahle as the description says below.
Each panelist in their own way came to the reluctant conclusion that the US is the party not serious about resolving this nuclear dispute with Iran, at least ‘until the election.’
At any rate, i believe Roby Barret (or one of the other panelists) came close to making the observation that the US won the Iran-Iraq war in the 2000s. Every single one of these panelists remain circumspect when discussing the true intentions of US and Israel.
“Participants include: Allen Keiswetter, Middle East Institute; Roby Barrett, Middle East Institute; and Melissa Mahle, C&O Resources. Daniel Serwer, Middle East Institute/SAIS, moderates the discussion”
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Middle-East-Experts-Examine-the-US-Iran-Relationship/10737433120/
humanist says:
August 15, 2012 at 9:33 pm
Humanist,
Anxiety is understandable because, as I mentioned earlier, insanity recognizes no boundaries.
However, rest assured that the conclusions of “Internal Look” 2012 remains solidly secure – any attack by Israel will lead to devastating Israeli losses even if the US engages Iran. The simulations considered a broad range of scenarios for Iranian, Israeli, and American responses and counter-responses.
One emerging pre-requisite for tipping the balance (in some scenarios) in favor of Israel was the destruction of Hizbollah as a fighting force. Liquidation of Syria was meant as a step in that direction. Things have not gone according to plan so far!
Photi says: Iran only has to wait.
So true. The mad dog (unfortunately, my nation) rages throughout the ME trying to assert its hegemony and Iran sits back a watches patiently.
And what are the results. Well for now the hated Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq has been replaced with an Iranian friendly government. At absolutely no cost to the Iranians. They just let the Americans do all of the work. Totally totally crazy, the US spent over $1 trillion delivering Iraq to Iran. Today Iran is sitting back and waiting for the US to self destruct in Syria.
I wonder how widespread is Maryam Alkhawaja’s perspective that USA vis a vis Bahrainis is the same as Russia vis a vis Syrians. Apparently Alkhawaja views all the Arab leaders as from the same mold, which makes Basher Assad the same as Mubarak & Qaddafi. Such a view is simplistic.
====
Arming Bahraini protesters would be a terrible mistake; Iran would be blamed for any violence that ensued, and an attack by armed Shiite Bahrainis on US naval installations, for example, could be construed as a reason to wage a military attack on Iran.
Jay, Rd and fyi
Please see my response to Karl in this thread. It amply covers my views on your posts.
Karl
Re:your 3:01pm post
I understand your views. I am aware of the mastery of Israelis in Deception and Propaganda. What worries me this time is because 3 of the individuals whose views I often find to be rational (Ray McGovern, Richard Silverstein and Phillip Giraldi) are wary of Israeli attack on Iran soon.
Also in early days Israelis, to instigate intense fear among Palestinians, acted as ‘mad dogs’ (a term later used by Moshe Dyan). Read Edward Said’s books to find out about the tactics used to scare the Palestinian villagers so hard they had to flee hurriedly leaving their possessions behind.
There are a few other historical arguments that conditionally support the possibility of an attack on Iran in the near future. Among them are equating Iran with Amalek by Netanyahu, the multi-page pro-war article by an Israeli journalist published early this year in New York Times Magazine and the heinous attack on Gaza in 2008-2009 where ONLY 13 Israeli soldiers were killed and no Israeli home was demolished.
Most of us, from the bottom of our hearts wish all the noises are just bluff and propaganda, yet no one should underestimate the degree of ruthlessness and zealousness of immensely self-righteous Likudniks who are presently in the helm of the big ship.
This US’s Syrian project, is becoming a big mess by day which will take years to sort out who is fighting who, now I just love to see the US and her western/ Arab allies get directly dragged in this mix to figure out which side are the bullets coming from, like what happened in Iraq or now start to happening in Afghanistan.
Lebanese clansmen abduct Syrians to avenge relative’s kidnap
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/08/15/256472/dozens-of-syrians-kidnapped-in-lebanon/
Rebel, what poll is that?
Iran does not make policy decisions based on where democracy should or should not take root. America makes those sorts of shameful decisions. EVERYONE deserves political representation.
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/109332/the-israeli-american-divide
“For Jerusalem, Mubarak’s adherence to the peace treaty meant that Israel didn’t have to worry about war with its most formidable neighbor. The current Egyptian crisis, manifested less by Tantawi’s dismissal than by the growing chaos in the Sinai means that Jerusalem’s resources will be stretched thinner and thinner. Even the prospect that Egypt’s leadership may consider trying to remilitarize the Sinai is going to force Israeli strategists to reorder priorities. One immediate shift is that the Jewish state can no longer afford the luxury of devoting as much attention, manpower, and money to fighting a clandestine war with Iran and its allies as it is has for the last decade.”
is “counter-insurgency” just another word for terrorism? How about “unconventional warfare”?
rebel,
Iran has been consistent in its support for democracy in Syria, democracy in Bahrain, democracy in Palestine, democracy in Saudi Arabia, Libya, Egypt, and so and so forth. It is estimated that Assad has over 50% support of the population in Syria. If you’ll notice, Iran has been calling for dialogue where all sides have a chance to represent their interests.
The blatant hypocrisy of the “counter-insurgency” is why everything is collapsing in on the American strategy. Iran only has to wait.
The Guardain reported today that “US defence secretary Leon Panetta said on Tuesday that Washington does not believe Israel has made a decision on whether to strike.”
Writing in the Washington Post Aug. 8th, Ali Akbar Salehi, the Iranian foreign minister, said: “Even while preoccupied with the rising extremism in Afghanistan, European leaders seem unconcerned that they may soon have an Afghanistan on their doorstep.” (Referring of course to events in Syria)
Actually it is Iran’s standing that is corroding due to their unflinching support for Assad who has done far worse than the Bahrain authorities. Polls have shown that Iran’s standing is plummeting throughout the middle east. Iran’s determination to establish hegemony and dominate their neighbors is backfiring.
It all sounds like the Richard Silverstein secret Iran attack plans are so scary and secretive (like our Richard’s) that it needs to be instantly reassured and backed up by the Israeli media. It looks like Israelis and their moral puppeteers in Washington are good eating chickens, but they are lousy in chicken game. Like FYI says time for chicken game with Iran is over with a plan or without one.
Blogger: Israeli attack in Iran will include, missiles, assassinations
“US blogger Richard Silverstein says Israeli source leaked attack plan Bibi, Barak pitching to ministers. According to document, campaign will open with cyber-attack that will paralyze electrical grid”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4269110,00.html
Leverett’s best interview yet. Perfectly clear.
Very close to Gabriel Kolko’s analysis. Good to mention both Vietnam and Korea, and to set the challenge as the search for dominance since the second world war. HL seems to be opening up more to the broader history of Asian-American relations (not simply the China-US ‘grand strategy’) which clearly can inform current Iranian-American relations.
There is a downside to this: very few – and I mean very few – in the US or Europe have any truly considered understanding of America’s historical role in Asia, or of the choices made that led to the civil wars in Vietnam and Korea.
Joe Stolko has rose-coloured glasses when he discusses US motivation, but he’s good, at least, in his questioning of Iranian influence in Bahrain.
You’re doing well, Hillary… stay with it.
Placing too much hope in the power of the “narrative” can be naive, but in as much as it allows you to speak about historical facts, its useful and strategic.
humanist says:
August 15, 2012 at 1:54 pm
The material presented does not withstand in-depth analysis. I do not know of a single model that projects Israel as gaining from such an attack – most analysis show significant loss.
Having said that, experience and history demonstrates that insanity knows no bounds!
fyi,
Julian Lindley-French in his July 31st piece you just linked, says essentially that no one can predict the outcome of the unrest/civil war in Syria. This seems a fair assessment.
The ill-considered US military adventure in Vietnam arose directly from the delusion that a unified Vietnam posed a threat to US national security. Total delusion. In fact, a unified Vietnam was predicted by some historians as much more likely to serve as a counter-balance to China.
Humanist,
If you go to Richard’s blog its obvious this is “leaked” document released to journalists are just a fraudlent attempt by Israel to give the impression that they are about to ignite a war.
There has been a campaign the latest weeks by Israel to increase their war threats to the next level, apparently becuase United States and Israel is not in lockstep on Iran.
All:
This article states:
“… only option available to the world’s real democracies (the conceptual West) is concerted and systematic diplomatic and humanitarian pressure….the concerted aim must be to decouple as much as possible the conflict from the regional and global issues ….”
This, like Dr. Kissinger’s earlier piece on the Peace of Westphalia, is an admission of the limitations of the power of the Axis States.
However, since the “Conceptual West” has burnt her bridges with Iran, the recommended policy course is dead on arrival.
http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/syrias-olympian-tragedy-and-new-middle-east
Off topic about a momentous ‘breaking News’
Please first see my post on the previous thread under the title of “Very Important”.
Then watch this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19271083