Our friend and colleague Alastair Crooke, director of the Conflicts Forum in Beirut, has expanded his arguments, see here, about the emergence of a strategically consequential “northern tier” in the Middle East (including Iran, Turkey, Syria, and important non-state actors like HAMAS and Hizballah) and its implications for the regional balance of power into a compellingly rich article, “The Shifting Sands of State Power in the Middle East”, in the latest issue of The Washington Quarterly. We commend the article to your attention; it may be accessed here.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Arnold,
The Indian Empire was a major element in the power and wealth of the British Empire. By contrast, supporting Israel is a vastly expensive proposition that steadily erodes the national security of the US.
I think the Arab leaders who support the Saudi peace plan see it as a realistic way to settle the matter on terms that can last. In my view, Israel should be accepting the offer, with some changes.
Hillary Clinton, during her visit to Poland, showed she is a stooge of the Israel lobby and the armaments manufacturers, by once again supporting idiotic (and vastly expensive, and useless) ABM system for Eastern Europe TO PROTECT AGAINST AN ATTACK FROM IRAN! What total cr*p!
Pirouz_2,
What is your view on the US response to the UK/France/Israel seizure of the Suez Canal in 1956? Eisenhower forced a complete withdrawal of all foreign forces from Egyptian territory. (Israel tried to keep the Sinai.)
Richard Steven Hack,
I totally agree with you that the appalling ignorance (and, effectively, laziness) of the American people generally, and the electorate specifically, is a severe challenge to those who seek an intelligent American foreign policy in the Middle East. Polls show that most Americans EVEN NOW think Saddam Hussein and Iraq were behind the “9/11″ attacks back in 2001! One can only conclude that the Americans are collectively stupid virtually beyond belief, not to bother to ascertain that they were the victims of one of the greatest scams in history.
Persian Gulf:
YOU WROTE:”well, I think, somehow you got the effectiveness of western democracy wrongly. at least, it works for them, and they don’t necessarily care if that doesn’t work properly for others. what we have, doesn’t even seem to be working for us.”
That is the main issue that we disagree on. I don’t think that the “Western democracy” has worked for them. From the jobs that fly to China and India (as well as others 3rd world countries) to the astronomical money which has been spent on Iraq/Afghanistan war instead of Education and healthcare, to the whole military spending which could go to the actual needs of the society, it is not working for them.
At least not anymore than our system has partially worked for us (eg. exceptional scientific and technologic progress, women’s massive participation in economic production -some 60% of our university students are women and the percentage of working/professional women has increased dramatically- the increase in the share of non-oil products of Iran in its economy).
YOU WROTE:”the detail of Britain’s Queen spending and budget cut was on the news today. can we even dare to ask how much is the budget of the offices of Mr.Khamenei all over the country annually? let alone asking the point of spending.”
I think you are making a wrong comparison. England’s queen is a big NO BODY. If you really dare, try to investigate the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly, or try to question the amount of USA spending on Israeli aid.
You could also look at how Ahmadinejad’s budget and economic policies are being criticized in Iran, or how people discuss the alleged corruptions in his government or even his own (during his time as the Mayor of Tehran), not to mention the closure of the Hemmat magazine which was his supporter.
Anyway this doesn’t have much to do with what you originally asked. You are right. As for your answer: in my opinion, the Iraqi invasion was bound to happen. If the hostage crisis had not taken place, something else would have come up. Iran was on an anti-American path, and there was no way the West would have let them get away with it. Once a country gets out of the sphere of the influence of the west, they try anything they can to destabilize that country.
Mr. Canning: “I think very few intelligent, clear-thinking Americans actually see Iran as a ‘“threat’. The problem is that ninety percent or more of Americans are not “intelligent” or “clear thinking”. The polls, while they show that Americans generally would not like to go to war with Iran, show that Americans DO think Iran needs to “be prevented from developing nuclear weapons” – which a) isn’t the issue, since Iran IS NOT doing so, and b) wouldn’t be true even if Iran WERE doing so.
I suspect the percentage of Americans who even CARE about the issue on a daily basis is infinitesimal. They simply don’t connect how the military-industrial complex in this country leads directly to US wars and thus directly to a damaged US economy which directly damages THEM. The connection is just too long for an uneducated public to reason out.
I mean, when 40% of people under the age of 30 don’t know the Fourth of July is about independence from Britain, and a quarter of the rest don’t know, well, what can one expect from an educational system this bad. Abolishing the educational system under the level of college would do as well as the current system.
When you add to that the complete inability of the US electorate to use the SYSTEM to remove the corrupt liars and war mongers from the US government, the situation becomes utterly hopeless. Utterly. Anybody who believes this country can wake up and smell the feces is living in a dream world. Short of a total economic collapse and a Second American Revolution (which, like most revolutions, would devolve into replacing a bad system with an equally bad or worse system), nothing is going to change in this country.
That is the premise we have to move on from in discussing events. There WILL BE war with Iran at some point; there is no other alternative based on the facts on the ground in the US government.
Pirouz_2:
You right, but my question was something else. I said, regardless of why that crisis happened or even who should be blamed the most; what was the impact of that event in initiating/preventing the war?
Nojeh episode is after the “hostage crisis”. and it’s only the irony of supposedly nationalist faction in the Iranian politics to motivate an enemy to wage war on the very people and country they were advocating for. Mr.Bakhtiar fought for France but instead when it came to his own country preferred his countrymen to do the job against his ally.
well, I think, somehow you got the effectiveness of western democracy wrongly. at least, it works for them, and they don’t necessarily care if that doesn’t work properly for others. what we have, doesn’t even seem to be working for us. the detail of Britain’s Queen spending and budget cut was on the news today. can we even dare to ask how much is the budget of the offices of Mr.Khamenei all over the country annually? let alone asking the point of spending.
fyi,
Russia is not going to attack Estonia. Or any other Nato country. I think the Nato treaty will continue to protect the member nations.
The only country that would dare to attack Iran – - or care to, for that matter- – is Israel. And Israel would not attack Iran without tacit approval from the US. Ergo, the US can provide absolute security to Iran.
James Canning:
US does not have that power.
Even if she did, she could not politically offer it.
The structural framework does not exist.
In fact, US has already been foolish to give “alliance” assurances to any number of states – like candy.
I do not know if American leaders are really going to send American boys & girls to fight Russia, defending Estonia.
Personally, I think not.
Persian Gulf:
the hostage crisis has always been censored in the USA (there you go with your admiration for the Western democracy), by the Republicans and the Democrats alike. Reagan administration was involved in that incidence up to its neck. I sort of remember some “claims” that the Americans may have been involved even in it’s perpetrations to begin with. I am not sure though, I will look it up if you are interested. But anyway, even if not in its perpetration, Americans were definitely involved in it pretty much from half way through and it was dragged on at their adamant request.
But as important as the hostage crisis was the “Nojeh” coup attempt. It was an extremely stupid move which would OBVIOUSLY fail. It was perpetrated by the Westerners through the monarchist elements. And it is being claimed that the purpose was not its success (it had no chance of success anyway and the westerners knew it very well) but rather the purpose was to get Mr. Khomeini to destroy the Armed forces as much as possible and make the grounds ready for the Iraqi invasion. And Mr. Khomeini was fooled and did exactly what Westerners were trying to make him do.
PressTV has an interesting story on its site today, that its reporter at the Baghram base was told that US and British intelligence services are working on a fake video aimed at diverting blame for failures in Afghanistan, to Iran.
Arnold,
Absolutely! I could not agree more, on that point. And it underscores the utter lunacy of American foreign policy in the Middle East.
fyi,
The US can offer an absolute guarantee of Iran’s national security. This is “nothing” in your view?
James:
I think the driving force in American policy-making toward the Middle East is the insane notion that US military and economic power and influence, can achieve “security” for Israel into perpetuity – – meaning crushing permanently the legitimate national aspirations of the Palestinians.
As a point of clarification or emphasis – a major problem of the US Middle East project is that security for Israel into perpetuity requires more than directly crushing the aspirations of the Palestinians. It means that the hundreds of millions of people in the region who identify with the Palestinians also must be crushed, or at least rendered impotent.
Castellio,
What comment have I made that would prompt you to think I regard Obama as in control of the US government? No American president is in control of the government, and even his powers over the Executive Department are limited or compromised by other powers (within and without the government).
Obama can support the effort in the UN to pressure Israel to sign the NPT. However, even here, Israeli politicians shuttle back and forth to Washington from Tel Aviv, lobbying against it. And we know there are hundreds of stooges of the Israel lobby in the US Congress.
James Canning:
Those are “nice-to-have” things.
They are not worth that much to them.
In fact, US has nothing left to offer Iran [Barring the immediate removal of eroding sanctions.]
And removal of sanctions is not worth that much to Iran either.
US has sanctioned herself out of influence with Iran and EU seems to be following suite.
This, by Chomsky is worth a read:
http://www.iranian.com/main/2010/jul/what-threat
fyi,
The Iranian leadership would like to be able to buy Boeing airplanes, and oilfield equipment from major EU or US companies, etc etc etc etc. Siemens, or ENI, or Shell, would be welcome to do business in Iran. It is true, however, that the conditions for fostering investment in Iran, were less than ideal, even if one excludes the political problems arising from Iran’s assistance to the Palestinians.
Rehmat,
It clearly is true that some American leaders still delude themselves into thinking their country is the economic superpower equal to nearly the rest of the world combined – - a mindset going back 60 years. However, I think the driving force in American policy-making toward the Middle East is the insane notion that US military and economic power and influence, can achieve “security” for Israel into perpetuity – - meaning crushing permanently the legitimate national aspirations of the Palestinians.
I think very few intelligent, clear-thinking Americans actually see Iran as a “threat”.
Rehmat,
Re: July 4th 10:52pm – - The fanatical “supporters” of Israel, in the US, who pressure Obama to be hostile toward Iran in order to attempt to cut off support for Hamas and Hezbollah, need to be exposed as such.
Interesting enough, the general who is direct superior to General Petraeus, says that the effort to achieve stability in Afghanistan requires the help of Iran. (I refer to Gen. Egon Ramms, commander-in=chief Allied Joint Force Command in The Netherlands.)
General Ramms’ intelligent position of course gets no puclicity in the US because it does not mesh well with the false narrative sold to the American public by mainstream news media.
Fiorangela:
I cannot answer your question regarding NAIC.
My observation and experience with those Iranians that can write passable English has been that they are united in one thing – uncritical dislike – almost verging on hatred – for the Islamic Republic. And almost all of them are secular and have no conception of the importance of religion, and religious ideas in the world. In fact, they are neither aware nor comprehend that Iran has been basically a Shi religious country by the Shia for the Shia – a Shia Fortress, just like Israel is the Fortress of Jews. These things they do not understand.
That NIAC is supporting Mr. Obama’s policies has been news to me – I normally do not follow that grouping. They might have been seduced by the vision of trying to stay “relevant” and played along with what they disagreed with – same thing that happened to Colin Powell, Tony Cordesman and many others such as them.
Understood about your point about Kinzer’s book event. My observation has been that many many Americans have a simple solution to everything – bomb them to Stone Age. But pay attention here: they always conveniently omit in this prescription states with deliverable nuclear weapons.
I think this type of reaction eventually will get US into a war that will severely damage her. At the same time, journalistic target selection in Iran by Americans and Europeans will convince Iranian leaders as well as the leaders of any other state in the world that aspires to an independent course of action (from US, EU, Russia, China and others) to build deliverable nuclear weapons. I cannot understand why Americans and Europeans are so foolish.
Understood your point regarding deep roots of anti-Iran sentiment in US. However, that is not a barrier to rapprochement – if US could be friendly with the Chinese who murdered wounded American soldiers during the Korean War. Israel does not have the capacity to destroy Iran. To bring state collapse, 3 to 5 percent of the target state’s population will have to be killed. This is something that US can only accomplish by using nuclear weapons – it takes a long time to kill millions of people with conventional weapons, even fuel-air explosives. In such a war, almost certainly the Southern Persian Gulf will be destroyed sufficiently to destroy the United States role in the world economy. US might be able to claim victory but she would be left blind and a cripple.
I think that Mr. Ahmadinejad started verbally attacking Israel etc. because of the pressures of Mr. Bush on Iran. I think Mr. Bush escalated and Mr. Ahmadinejad retaliated where he perceived the weakness of the United States to be. Next we had the Israel-Lebanon War of 2006 – a strategic escalation to nowhere for Israel and as strategic victory for the Hezbollah and Iran – followed by the HAMS-Israel War of 2009 that was characterized by Mr. Khamenei as a war waged by Israel against Islam. So the Iranian leaders have explicitly escalated their confrontation with the United States and Israel to the religious.
In my opinion, regardless of how many hydrogen bombs US or Israel may possesses, they have to be very very careful about their next steps in their continued confrontation with Iran, HAMS, Hezbollah, Syria and others. For once they enter a religious war against Islam they will be finished in the Middle East. Once the forces of Islamic zealotry are unleashed, not even the Iranian leaders will be able to put back into the bottle until it exhausts itself. But, I think, this view is not commonly shared.
One fundamental obstacle to better relations with world of Islam is the asymmetry of physical power between the various antagonists. The way the world works, it seems, is to leverage your power to extract concessions – and also often to humiliate the other side. If you look at Selma, the Blacks started with a small demand about city buses. But the Whites were not willing to concede even a little and were hell-bent on breaking the will of the Blacks and in further humiliating them. The Blacks were lead ably but the White poorly. Eventually, Blacks won, Whites lost and each side wound up – over decades – in a place that they did not like. I expect the same thing to happen between the United States and the World of Islam.
fyi, I understand and fully support your statement that Iranians want to be left alone to develop their country.
Persian Gulf answered the question I was really asking, which might be rephrased, “What’s up with Iranian-American groups like NIAC.” I’m not Iranian; I’m an outsider, but I don’t like the way the US is dealing with Iran. I became a ‘member’ of the ‘Parsi fanclub,’ thinking that I was endorsing an intelligent approach to US-Iranian relations. But I’m disappointed; NIAC has gone to the dark side.
I attended one of Kinzer’s recent book events and was even more disappointed at the response from the crowd that I thought was Iran-friendly: the very first question from the audience was, “Shouldn’t the US bomb Iran?” I was so angry I walked out without getting Kinzer’s autograph. I saw the man who had asked the question and (after calming myself as much as possible) asked him what made him think bombing Iran was a good idea. He was as vicious and ideologically driven as John Bolton. I was shocked and dismayed.
That experience, added to the emails from NIAC that, as PG said, point proudly to NIAC’s endorsement of Obama’s hectoring of Iran on human rights issues, makes it more clear than ever that the major tactic that must be confronted in the huge propaganda imbalance. Iran has been the target of a propaganda campaign for almost 20 years; it has grown deep roots in America.
In a series of lectures titled, “Utopia and Terror,” the causes of the bloody violence that marked the 20th century are examined. One key factor in setting in motion the genocides that took place in the 20th century was the use of mass media to disinform the public. If one follows the trend line of the disinformation campaign now taking place against Iran, and sees how not only the propaganda/rhetoric but also other psychological warfare tactics are heating up, it’s very hard for me to avoid the conclusion that the US and Israel intend to destroy the Iranian people.
If I say antisemitic things on this forum, it’s a way of trying to shock the system, to say, STOP THIS! This is Wrong! People like Parsi and even my friend Shahnaz, on the audio link I posted, are deferential to zionists and angry at Ahmadinejad for making statements about the holocaust. I think they’re bringing a knife to a gunfight. Shirin Hunter discussed the numerous ways Iran’s government has missed opportunities to engage with the west; but Dariush wrote, “Iran owes its rise to her “soft power” and to her acting on the premise that the human spirit will ultimately triumph over the force of arms,” which is a sentiment so noble it makes me want to weep that my country does not see the wisdom of that approach to the world. I hope Iran can survive American onslaughts long enough for its nobler vision to prevail, and I fear that Iranian Americans misread the viciousness that the US and Israel are capable of.
History teaches us that every colonial power has made desperate attempts to pre-empt the rising powers challenging its direct or indirect colonialism. Britain and France had to let its colonies in Africa, Middle East and Asia to shore their national integrities. USSR did the same after defeated by Afghan Mujahideen in the 1980s by releasing its colonial grip over most of East European countries. America’s fear of the Islamic Republic is that the later is leading Turkey, Venezuela and Brazil to stand up against the US and Israeli colonialism in South America and the Middle East.
Former U.S. Ambassador Chas Freeman has noted that the rising influence and independence of the nondeferential powers has inserted dysfunctionality into US policymaking. It seems that coping with the “winds of change” is set to be even harder for the United States than it was for Britain or France or Russia. The leaders of those colonial powers at least understood that earlier war entailed such change.
It’s very difficult for the US leaders to learn from the past history – as they still live in the ‘fantasy’ of being the ‘liberator’ of Europe and the ‘leader’ of the so-called ‘free world’. It’s more difficult because the US leadership is controlled by a foreign country (Israel) which has its own axe to grind, especially, against the Muslim world.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/islamic-republic-and-the-winds-of-change/
Rehmat:
I meant, considering the cold war environment.
Persian Gulf
The so-called ‘hostage crisis’ had nothing to do with the western-sponsored 8-year invasion of Islamic Republic by Saddam regime. Saddam Hussein was a USrael stooge much as was Shah of Iran.
To call those members of American spy-network as ‘hostage’ is like repeating Israeli propaganda of Gilad Shalit being ‘hostage’ taken by Hamas – while over 9,000 Palestinian and Lebanese being abducted by IOF as being ‘terrorists’.
When was the last time you read the unbaised history of Arabs, American Indians, Africans or Muslims?
Fiorangela:
for months, I am confused of NIAC’s actions. they send e-mails emphasizing on their proud in being among the attendees of the recent sanctions and having advocating the president for more pressure. it’s really shameful. if history is anything, it will remember these people with an utter disgrace. I am surprised how, people like Parsi, with their ultimate wisdom!, don’t ask themselves what is America’s business in Iran’s merely internal affairs? it is as if the U.S hands are so clean that just need to be stretched to grasp Iranians’. what has gone wrong with these people?
Dariush or anybody else here:
I have a question. I know the controversy surrounding the “hostage crisis” and don’t want to talk about it’s root cause, correctness…. history also can’t be rewritten, and probably it’s too obvious to ask at some point. but, could Saddam have still invaded Iran regardless of his madness, had we not seen the occurrence of that crisis?
and even if the Iraq’s action was not anticipated prior to that crisis, and so can’t be put in the cost-benefit calculation of a sort. but in overall, could we compare the immediate cost of that event, let alone the disillusionment of a generation of the U.S politicians toward Iran that continues to be the case these days, to whatever the gains Iran might have made so far, i.e, standing against the U.s, broadening her reach in the Muslim world and beyond. this is a sort of the benefit, moral or otherwise, some still want to emphasis on in Iran.
Fiorangela:
You asked “What do Iranians want?”
The Iranian leaders wnat to be left alone to work on the social, religious, economic, and political problems of their country.
They do not want to be harassed by US, EU, and others.
James Canning
The warmongers in Israel and the US in fact want Ben Obama to attack every Muslim country which shows the courage to support Hamas and Hizbullah. Their military poodles like Gen. Petreaus love to live in self-denial. The moron in his very first speech after taking over the command of NATO forces in Afghanistan said: “We are in this to win”.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/petreaus-we-are-in-this-to-win/
What do Iranians want?
It’s difficult to navigate Iranian political terrain. Obama’s weasel-words were precisely what many Iranian groups want to hear: “We stand with Iranians in their demand for human rights.” That’s the NIAC line; could have been written by Parsi himself.
I understand that Iranians demand human rights and reform of their government. But for Iranian Americans to give the US the opportunity to exploit that issue and use it to throttle Iran seems to me to be giving away precious ground. Reform of Iran’s government should be an internal affair; justice in US behavior toward Iran should be the only issue Iranian-American organizations pursue. (in my humble opinion).
Well, James, you seem to think that Obama is in control of the American government, and that he has brought with him a different set of foreign policy priorities. I respectfully disagree on both counts. He is not in control, and he broadly agrees with the priorities of those who are.
Watch the following, extremely relevant to our understanding of Iran-US relations. Obama could have chosen a different narrative, 22 years later. He didn’t, and he won’t.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=001OHT8ONPo&feature=player_embedded
Ehud Barak was in Washington recently, to attempt to pressure Obama into changing the position the US took recently in the UN regarding Israe’s signing the NPT. Netanyahu will play the same game this coming week. Surely Obama can see how hypcritical it was for the US to give cover to Israel’s refusal to sign the NPT or to allow any inspection of its nuclear facilities by the IAEA.
Dariush,
I thought your second point was excellent, and I very much agree with you Iran’s rising power is not based in conventional weapons but instead is moral. And I think Iran has been wise to keep spending on the military fairly low. Conversely, I think some of the Gulf monarchies have squandered tens of billions of dollars on unnecessary weapons. (The US squanders hunmdreds of billions every year.)
Dariush wrote:
“For the elites, the Soviet implosion removed any restraint on their ability to shape the world and human history to their likings. All they had to do was to prevent the emergence of any (military) power that may aspire to challenge that of the US’. Such a mindset led to the expansion of NATO, the break-up of former Yugoslavia, and the “dual containment” of Iran and Iraq in the 1990s. And it led to the US policies in Iraq, Afghanistan,and…since 2001.”
Jakob Heilbrunn was a neocon insider who came out; he wrote a book about American neoconservatives, “They Knew They Were Right.” Heilbrunn discussed his book at a forum at the Nixon Center that included Grover Norquist, Dov Zakheim, among others, and was chaired by Dimitri Simes.
At the conclusion of the forum, Simes summarized with these words:
“I’m glad to hear that the neocons are a small, elitist group, and that the president, not the neocons, make decisions.
“I do remember there was a country called Russia where a small group of public intellectuals, contrary to everybody’s expectations, came to power. That country was called the Soviet Union. I also do remember that there was a split among the Bolsheviks: One part of the Bolsheviks called the Trotskyites was a utopian messianic cult with global ambitions for whom Russia was essentially an instrument to remake the universe. When a group like that has an impact on global politics, when people who share this mindset become advisers to presidents, there is something to think about.”
James,
My comments on Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait and the 1st Persian Gulf War was directed at the three “roots of turmoil” in today’s Middle East. They were not directed at the pretexts that Saddam may have employed to attack Kuwait or Iran. Nor were they directed at whether Saddam had prior US endorsement for the wars that he initiated.
kooshy,
Egypt is pushing for an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. The Egyptian foreign minister says that the Arab League will ask the UN to recognize Palestinian independence this fall, if Obama’s effort to get things moving get nowhere by then.
Personally, I favor UN recognition of Palestine (with pre-1967 borders).
kooshy,
I think the idiotic Iraq-Iran war should be considered in the same way the idiotic American Civil War (1861-65) is considered: the rise of the US to great wealth and power was slowed by a squandering of resources in a foolish war. With its huge natural resources and human potential as well, Iran will continue to rise to the upper echelon globally. The object should be to avoid any further catastrophes.
R.d.,
I think we both are only too well aware of the profound ignorance of the American electorate, especially regarding international affairs, diplomacy, history, etc.
Poll after poll shows, even now, that most Americans think Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks! Astounding ignorance, and stupidity, because they are not even aware they were scammed in one of the greatest con jobs in the history of the Republic.
Rehmat,
The warmongers in Israel and in the US are trying to get the NIE on Iran changed (the 2007 NIE said Iran was not developing nukes), and they want the IAEA to prostitute itself in order to advance their agenda. This is a big story indeed (Finnish operative within IAEA apparently promoting fake intel etc).
Castellio,
I am keenly aware that many of the major donors to the Democrats put the interests of the government of Israel higher than the national interests of the American people. And that Obama has a number of calulating liars working within his administration, trying to “protect” Israel no matter how many hundreds of billions of dollars this costs the American taxpayers.
Do you think Obama believes he will have to launch an insane attack on Iran, if Iran continues to enrich LEU? Because major donors to the Democrats demand it?
Dariush,
Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait after arguing with Kuwait about loans made to Iraq to finance the war with Iran. Another issue was slant-drilling and Saddam’s contention Iraqi oil was being taken by Kuwaiti wells. A third factor was Saddam’s bruised ego after eight years of idiotic warfare, resulting from his foolish effort to employ military force to move the boundary between Iran and Iraq.
I conclude that no effort would have been made to take Kuwait. And let’s remember that the US ambassador in Baghdad foolishly gave Saddam the impression the US would not resist an Iraqi takeover of Kuwait.
“Conflicts and wars are essential for the survival of Israel,” David Ben Gurion.
Last Thursday, Olli Heinonen, the deputy director of safeguards of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resigned under allegations that he was the driving force in turning IAEA into an Israeli Hasbara (propaganda) tool. Olli was forging documents to fool the Western public opinion against the Islamic Republic’s civilian nuclear program so that Israeli poodles in Obama administration can push for UNSC crippling sanctions against Tehran…….
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/irans-nuclear-program-and-israeli-forgery/
I fully concur with Alister Crooke’s conclusion that the “northern tier” (i.e., Iran, Turkey, Syria, and their non-state allies) — unlike US, Israel, and their “allies” — are on the right side of history. However, I do not fully subscribe to the analysis that leads Alister to his conclusion.
1- Alister locates “roots of today’s turmoil” to three political events of the early 1990’s. The three events — implosion of Soviet Union; Saddam’s occupation of Kuwait and the 1st Persian Gulf War; and the overthrow of the “Ben-Gurion doctrine” in Israel in 1992 — seem to be of equal significance for Alister. Let us have a closer look. The so-called “Ben-Gurion doctrine”, whatever relevance it may have had for the course of history, was overthrown by the Begin-Sadat peace agreement that coincided with the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Were the overthrow of the US-installed monarchy and the Islamic Revolution in Iran less relevant to “today’s turmoil” in the Middle East that the “Ben-Gurion doctrine” and its overthrow?! Further, consider Saddam’s occupation of Kuwait. Would Saddam have dared occupy Kuwait prior to the Shah’s overthrow? What could the US and its allies have done had Saddam attacked and occupied Kuwait, instead of attacking Iran, prior to the Soviet implosion? Alister underestimates the significance of the Soviet implosion and the Iranian Revolution.
2. Alister says that the primary cause of Iran’s rise has been its “conventional military arsenal” rather than its economic strength or nuclear program. I concur that Iran’s economic strength or nuclear program has not led to Iran’s rise. However, unlike Alister, I do not believe that the “conventional military arsenal” has led to Iran’s rise. If “conventional military arsenal” by itself could lead to the rise of a country, then S. Arabia, Egypt, and Israel should have risen by a lot more than Iran. Nay, Iran owes its rise to her “soft power” and to her acting on the premise that the human spirit will ultimately triumph over the force of arms.
3. Alister fails to account for the strengthening of the Turkish-Israeli alliance in the 1990’s and early 2000’s.
4. Finally, Alister does not highlight the fact that the US political elites drew a wrong lesson from the Soviet implosion. For the elites, the Soviet implosion removed any restraint on their ability to shape the world and human history to their likings. All they had to do was to prevent the emergence of any (military) power that may aspire to challenge that of the US’. Such a mindset led to the expansion of NATO, the break-up of former Yugoslavia, and the “dual containment” of Iran and Iraq in the 1990s. And it led to the US policies in Iraq, Afghanistan,and…since 2001.
I do admire Jame’s patience and persistance, in spite of disagreements.
I, too, think Arnold Evans paints a true picture. For the record, I am quite sure that Biden is aware of all the linkages between Israel/Palestine and the many wars now being fought and that will be fought.
Given the push for international sanctions, and the add-on unilateral sanctions against Iran, and the incredibly dense military encirclement around Iran, I haven’t a clue why James thinks the US is not out to destroy the country.
I think to ignore that is like being in the 1970’s and thinking that if only Israel had the right negotiating partner, peace would come. Or being in the 1990’s and saying, if only Iraq wouldn’t try to develop WMD then sanctions wouldn’t be imposed.
That kind of naiveté shouldn’t be sustained. The pain of these multiple wars is not caused by any particular “reasonable request” that “the enemy” refuses to “accept”.
Arnold Evans:
I have alreadey answered you regarding the Raj’s legitimacy.
R.d.
Excuses.
“US electorate is among one of the most highly educated and informed in the world.”
fyi, if you played tennis, I’d say, you must have one hell of a back hand,. thats a funny comment..
“The representatives of the American people in the Congress of the United States and in the Presidency are carrying out the policies that they think will benefit US. If the electorate had disagreed, it would have had ample opportunity in the last 60 years to correct it.”
If the electorate does not disagree, perhaps it is because they are prodded to conform.
A simple illustration;
Obama has consistently framed an argument to bring all COMBAT troops home by a certain date. the general public is in favor of that. However, US is obviously has no intention of leaving Iraq. So is Obama lying? Absolutely not.
Troop build-up in any war theater is comprised of many different type of troops. Combat troops are small portion (==1/3) of the overall troop makeup.
What Obama promotes and what the general public hears are not one and the same. Bill Clinton used to claim troops would be home by Christmas at the onset of the Balkan war. Because the public opinion was very much against military involvement in the Balkan, with the Vietnam war fresh in their memories. However, the public ended-up supporting the cause. Of course, the Hollywood hype and special effects were very helpful. The US military is well present out there.
Westmoreland used to say the “Boys will be home for Christmas” for seven years!!!
Keep in mind, the corporate prostitute journalist (aka mass media) and their support is essential to maintain this facade.
The representatives of the American people in the Congress of the United States and in the Presidency are carrying out the policies that they think will benefit “them” and their political sponsors. Not necessarily the US. Perhaps, one of the reasons the US power/economy is slowly diminishing.
The electorate is not necessary dumb, they are just disconnected and easily prodded. They have a comfortable life style and are more concerned with their daily activities than what the rest of the world does or thinks.
Arnold Evans
“7) Finally, the United States does not have to vaguely change the way it thinks of the region. The United States has to decide, in a democratic and open way, how much it is worth to ensure that there is a permanent Jewish majority state. The US could easily be the true ally of a democratic Egypt, or Jordan or Saudi Arabia. The US could easily be a true ally of Iran – but not if the US is a perpetuator of the dislocation of the Palestinians and the continuing humiliation and domination of those mostly Muslim and Arab people.
The US today, on Israel’s behalf, is the enemy of almost everyone in Israel’s region, with the most important exceptions of several client dictators and their families. Barack Obama has a dream that Israel will propose and Abbas will accept an arrangement that the region will accept and that will ensure that 5 million Jewish people happily keep their majority Jewish state.
That dream will never come true. The US clients will accept it. Their people will not and the status quo will continue, even if Obama was to do what Crooke acknowledges he cannot, which is get limited concessions from Israel to make a state.”
Arnold-a very true and honest analysis of the current situation at hand in ME today, much better than Crook’s analysis, just one observation
“2) Crooke’s observation that Iran’s path toward becoming a regional power after Hussein’s defeat in the first gulf war and the fall of the USSR became clearer is a good one.”
In fact Iran’s rising power in the ME started when in fact Iran could not be defeated in the war of Iraq = Arabs + West vs. Iran + Revolution
Thanks for your post
Fiorangela,
You might also mention, to Arnold, that some if not many ultra-orthodox Jews reject Zionism as being contrary to Jewish law and practice.
Dan Cooper,
Thanks for that link to a great piece by Gareth Porter (touching on US pressure on the IAEA to use apparently forged documents in order to discredit Iran and create false impression Iran was trying to develop a nosecone suitable for delivery of a nuke to Israel by ballistic missile).
Arnold,
I think the government of Jordan well suits Jordan. Similarly, I think the Syrian government suits Syria fairly well, and is better than any alternative one could envision.
Just in passing, I would add that I thought L. Paul Bremer was an idiot for always carrying around a copy of the US Constitution, when he was the American “Viceroy” in Iraq.
Dan Cooper,
As I recall, the astoundingly expensive air defence system on the Vincennes cost more than $1 billion, and to date it has managed to shoot down one civilian airliner (the Iranian plane with 290 passengers), and of course zero “enemy” planes.
An interesting article By Gareth Porter:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25860.htm
Arnold Evans, Yes, I understand that “someone will call me antisemitic” for writing, in essence, that zionism should be called to account for crimes that can be appropriately ascribed to zionists.
1. One argument made to Americans who object to the possibility that their communications may be wiretapped, for example, is this: If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
It’s a wrongheaded argument, akin to witch trials. But there’s a kernel of reality inside: If the facts of holocaust history are slam dunk true, what do zionists have to fear from research into the facts?
2. Isn’t truth always a defense against charges of slander, libel?
3. Zionism is a political movement. To be Jewish is not necessarily to be an adherent to the political movement of zionism.
4. Jewish people, perhaps more than any other, have been and are being victimized by zionism.
5. Another response to the charge that I am ‘antisemitic:’
I. don’t. care.
Doesn’t bother me.
I am an American; that is where my loyalties lie. If someone were to call me anti-American, with facts to prove the charge to be true, I would be deeply troubled; I would have betrayed a loyalty that is central to my character. But to be called an antisemite because I object, vehemently, to the impress of zionism on American society, would not trouble me inasmuch as my loyalty to American principles as I understand them, is not implicated.
I think many of the themes in Torah are revolting. So what? I find much of the doctrinal basis of zionism to run counter to the principles of the American constitutional system based on the principles of Italian Enlightenment Humanism, concepts that inspired Jefferson, Madison, John Adams and others of America’s Founding Fathers; as an American, I try to defend those principles against ideas that would distort America’s foundation. I believe my position is based on intellectual integrity; I feel no need to apologize for my commitment to American principles.
6. If the world truly means, “Never again,” when it says Never again, then the full panoply of causal factors that culminated in holocaust should be thoroughly understood in order to avoid the same mistakes; that is the lesson history is supposed to teach. I find it anti-human to criminalize research into the causes of holocaust; it is similar to attempting to muzzle someone who would shout, Fire, when he observed a fire in a crowded theater.
…. just off the top of my head.
Iran remembers victims of airliner shot down by US.
Iranian helicopters scattered flowers into the Persian Gulf waters on Saturday as family members and relatives remembered the 290 passengers killed when a U.S. warship shot down an Iranian airliner 22 years ago.
“No one buys the faulty claim that a sophisticated warship … mistook a passenger plane for a fighter jet, two-thirds smaller,” said Hesam Ansari, who lost his father in the crash.
Iran has called for the commander of USS Vincennes at the time, William C. Rogers III, to be brought to trial. In 1990, then-President George H. W. Bush awarded Rogers the Legion of Merit for his service as a commanding officer.
“In which culture … can that Legion of Merit be awarded to the criminal USS Vincennes commander,” Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-world/20100703/ML.Iran.Plane.Crash.Anniversary/
fyi:
Good, then don’t buy it. I don’t even see a disagreement.
Now, what makes you think the Indian Raj was seen as legitimate?
Arnold Evans:
You seem to be positing a disconnect between the action of USG and that of the electorate mediated by “ignorance”, “manipulation” etc.
I do not buy it.
fyi:
I am a dissident, and I do what dissidents do, on some scale I write what I believe to be true and argue against what I believe to be false.
I’m not sure what exactly it means to you when you say I excuse the US electorate.
Fio:
For all their determination — in fact, motivated by the intensity of zionism’s determination — that the history of holocaust is Final, zionist complicity in the millions of deaths in the first and second world war must be reexamined and, where appropriate, laid at the feet of zionism.
Just as an exercise: someone is going to call you anti-Semitic for writing that. How would you respond?
Arnold Evans:
You are excusing the electorate, still.
Accept that you are a dissident in a sea of democratic conformity and move on from that premise.
FYI:
If you’re saying most Americans already understand what it means to impose a Jewish majority state on a region with 200 million people who do not believe such a state is legitimate, then we just have a factual disagreement.
If you’re saying, like Fio, that US elite policymakers do understand, and are willing to pay whatever price is necessary to ensure that Israel never has a non-Jewish political structure I also disagree.
Joe Biden, just as one example of many, claims that Israel is unrelated to both Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s wrong, but is he lying?
There is an idea that has taken hold in US political circles that it is anti-Semitic to connect Osama Bin Laden to Israel, despite Bin Laden’s repeatedly making that connection himself. What that idea does is prevents discussion and therefore recognition of the costs of Zionism to US interests.
When I hear US elites discuss the Middle East, including the current and previous presidents of the United States, I never detect an understanding that the US is engaged in a colonial project aimed at subduing a fairly large region to ensure the viability of a Jewish-majority political structure for about 5 million Jewish people.
Now, with that said, I’ve never argued that the US is not responsible for its misperception. I’ve only argued that the misperception exists.
James:
I have a hard time believing you’re being serious now. If King Abdullah can provide better leadership than any winner of any competitive political process in Jordan, including democracy, then is there someone who should be King of the United States, and would provide better leadership than not only the present political process, but than any competitive political process other than inheritance?
Or is monarchism only preferable for third world countries, especially those that you would like to see at peace with Israel regardless of the preferences of their people, provided the monarch is acceptable to you?
To the degree that you’re a typical Westerner, notwithstanding the fact that you’ve been trying to be reasonable, your mindset represents the core of this dispute between the West and the Islamic world that has been horribly destructive to the Islamic side and that is becoming increasingly damaging to Western interests.
James Canning & Arnold Evans & R.D.:
You cannot, in my opinion, excuse the responsibility of the electorate in US policy by pleading ignorance (of the electorate).
US electorate is among one of the most highly educated and informed in the world.
The representatives of the American people in the Congress of the United States and in the Presidency are carrying out the policies that they think will benefit US. If the electorate had disagreed, it would have had ample opportunity in the last 60 years to correct it.
This site, and sites like it, are for dissidents. In the former USSR, the dissidents could claims that the government did not represent the will of the people. No such argument can be made for US.
Arnold,
I strongly disagree that Jordan would benefit from a “competitive politcal system” as you seem to prefer.
R.d.,
You underline an important fact that always needs to be kept in mind: the American public are extremely ignorant about history, geography, international affairs, etc., so they are easily manipulated (and exploited due to their profound stupidity).
Arnold Evans wrote:
“Yes, maintaining a colonial relationship over hundreds of millions of people is hard. In most of the world, it is so hard that Western would-be colonial powers have decided that it is not worth it. A distorted US political system prevents the US from reaching the same conclusion and acting accordingly.”
To read Crooke’s remarkable essay while Mr. Erdogan’s firm declarations and explanations to Charlie Rose are still ringing in one’s ears is to see how people of courage and intellectual integrity really do “hard work.” It turns out that it’s not as hard to be honest as it is to engage in a criminal enterprise.
Arnold Evans wrote:
“But as the United States is starving a nation of 30 million people, and killing hundreds of thousands of children, on behalf of the idea that 5 million Jewish people must be secure in their political majority. Such that nearly every family in Iraq has a child who was victimized by this campaign of starvation, the vast majority of Americans literally did not realize what the US was doing and why.”
The elite of the US political system knew exactly what the US was doing and why, and that same elite is planning once again to starve 70 million Iranians: Ephraim Sneh said so, in so many words, to a packed crowd at an AIPAC conference in Washington, DC in June 2008; the crowd cheered his declaration:
“We must make Iran’s leaders worry how they will feed their 70 million people.”
The crowd cheered.
I don’t know for certain if Patrick Clawson was among that crowd on that day. I heard him prescribe “carrots and sticks” before a crowd assembled by United Jewish Federation, who also cheered the goal of imposing sanctions on Iran.
In 2005, Patrick Clawson prepared an assessment of US sanctions on Iraq. His analysis included a chart listing the projected caloric intake of various categories of the Iraqi population: how much would elderly Iraqis receive? How much would Iraqi children receive? How long could they survive on that level of caloric intake?
Clawson’s analysis would have done Mengele proud.
Which brings up another extremely unpleasant and controversial observation: I submit that the zionist ‘mindset’ (to use Dimitri Simes’s word) that is at play in influencing US policy makers today is the same driving force that had a causal hand in the Holocaust of both the Jewish people and of the millions of Christian Poles, Germans and Russians who died in World War II. For all their determination — in fact, motivated by the intensity of zionism’s determination — that the history of holocaust is Final, zionist complicity in the millions of deaths in the first and second world war must be reexamined and, where appropriate, laid at the feet of zionism.
“The electorate in US supports what you criticize and they have a constitutional right to be wrong.
I’m sure, and there are structural reasons for this, that the consequences of US policies in the region are poorly understood in the United States.”
———————————————–
perhaps this pbs exchange “might” explain some of the structural reasons.
———————————————————-
(PBS)JUDY WOODRUFF: Speaking of the Fourth of July, a poll I noticed today — Marist College in New York did a poll which showed that a fourth of Americans, when you ask them from what country did the United States win its independence, one-fourth of Americans said they weren’t sure or they didn’t know. And 40 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds in this country said they didn’t know or weren’t sure.
What does that say?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec10/sb_07-02.html
The US does not have “political control” of Jordan. If this were true, King Abdullah II would not be the effective global proponent of the rights of the Palestinians, and strong opponent of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, that he is.
Whew, we are really going to have to disagree on this. We even disagree on our ability to read this without laughing.
I hope you’d agree that Jordan would get better leadership from a democracy, or from a competitive political system, even if, like China’s it is not democratic, but in which the leader is a person who outcompetes other prospective leaders in a contest of political skill rather than birthright.
Arnold Evans,
The US does not have “political control” of Jordan. If this were true, King Abdullah II would not be the effective global proponent of the rights of the Palestinians, and strong opponent of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, that he is.
paul,
There seems little question that Aipac and other groups have achieved their goal of intimidating (or driving out of the US Congress) almost anyone prepared to defend the legitimate interests of the Palestinians, and the Syrians, and the Iranians, even where defending those interests is in the national interests of the American people. In short, Aipac and its fellow travellers are subverting the national security of the US in pursuit of an idiotic policy of “supporting” Israel.
Alistair Crooke offers some of the most intelligent commentary on events in the Middle East, to be found anywhere.
FYI:
The Raj was accepted by the vast majority of Indians as legitimate.
This is my first time coming across that assertion. Since you acknowledge that this is not true of the US’ modern Raj in the Middle East then we do not have a practical dispute. On the other hand, I’m quite curious as to what makes you say that.
The electorate in US supports what you criticize and they have a constitutional right to be wrong.
Fair point. I’m not advocating a dictator assume power of the US and force it to modify its Middle East policies. I’m just advocating that those who read what I write have a fuller understanding of the consequences of US policies. I’m sure, and there are structural reasons for this, that the consequences of US policies in the region are poorly understood in the United States.
To engage Crooke more directly:
1) I don’t like calling the US colonies “Sunni states” and I also don’t like calling them a “Southern tier”. The important difference between Lebanon and Jordan is not that one is Sunni and the other Shiite. It is not that one is further north than the other. The important difference is that the US has achieved political control of Jordan, without regard to the preferences of the people ruled in that country. It is harmful to analysis make up a euphemism for the US clients in the region, held as such on Israel’s behalf. That is important in itself, far more important than whether the states are Sunni or Shiite, Northern or Southern.
Even worse, the clients or colonies are not “allies” of the United States. Canada is an independent nation that allies with the United States to achieve mutual objectives. Egypt is a situation where the dictator is able to take advantage of the potential of the country he controls to threaten a neighbor that the United States considers important to extract concessions for himself and his family from the US. That is not an alliance, certainly not an alliance between Egypt and the United States. Possibly it could be considered an alliance between Mubarak personally and the United States.
2) Crooke’s observation that Iran’s path toward becoming a regional power after Hussein’s defeat in the first gulf war and the fall of the USSR became clearer is a good one.
3) Crooke’s discussion of Turkey, and how the fall of the USSR gives Turkey strategic flexibility is very interesting. I think that is less important in recent Turkish policy than the joint interest the United States has created between Syria, Iran and especially Turkey in preventing a Kurdish state from forming.
It could have been much worse because, as we see in Iraq’s constitution which was written in the US Embassy, the United States truly intended to, at least effectively if not legally, break Kurdistan away from Iraq. That and the steps Israel took in that direction – which went as far, according to reports I consider reliable, as actually establishing some Israeli military presence on Kurdish soil, are the best explanation for Turkey’s willingness to jettison its relationship with Israel not only on the civilian side of Turkey’s government but also the military.
3) Is Crooke actually saying the Egypt and/or Saudi Arabia were Israel’s “demon” before the 1990s? More than Iran? As much as Iraq? Arafat was demonized by Israel and its supporters, but remained so until he died. To say the demonization of Iran began recently is just revising history. Iran became demonized as soon as the Shah left.
4) Now that Crooke is willing to say that land for peace no longer is an operative concept, and he is willing to say that the US is not able to reverse the Israel’s settlements he does not take the crucial next step. There are not going to be two independent countries in Palestine. So now we need Americans to start talking about how much the US is willing to pay to ensure that the one country has a Jewish political majority.
Is the United States willing to go to war with Iran to ensure that 5 million Jewish people never have to be ruled by a Palestinian prime minister? Is the United States willing to extend its anti-democratic colonial relationship with states whose populations do not accept Israel forever? Is the US going to strip-search every passenger flying from Des Moines to Memphis as a response to the enemies the US cultivates with these colonial policies?
Yes, land for peace never would have worked. But now, what is Crooke’s next step? If Crooke is a Zionist, then is he advocating that the United States engage in an eternal war in the region on Israel’s behalf? If not, what does he advocate?
Crooke’s answer, that Israel must engineer a docile region by force is inadequate. Israel is five million Jewish people. Israel cannot engineer a docile region of 200 million people by force. What he’s calling “Israel” really means the United States. But the United States engineering a docile region by force will become increasingly expensive in terms of other US interests and resources.
5) Crooke’s analysis of Syria’s strategic situation is good.
6) It is a very good point that growing economic stress renders the US colonial structure in the region more fragile. It would be better to dismantle that structure gracefully and deliberately than to wait for an explosion that could be tremendously disruptive.
7) Finally, the United States does not have to vaguely change the way it thinks of the region. The United States has to decide, in a democratic and open way, how much it is worth to ensure that there is a permanent Jewish majority state. The US could easily be the true ally of a democratic Egypt, or Jordan or Saudi Arabia. The US could easily be a true ally of Iran – but not if the US is a perpetuator of the dislocation of the Palestinians and the continuing humiliation and domination of those mostly Muslim and Arab people.
The US today, on Israel’s behalf, is the enemy of almost everyone in Israel’s region, with the most important exceptions of several client dictators and their families. Barack Obama has a dream that Israel will propose and Abbas will accept an arrangement that the region will accept and that will ensure that 5 million Jewish people happily keep their majority Jewish state.
That dream will never come true. The US clients will accept it. Their people will not and the status quo will continue, even if Obama was to do what Crooke acknowledges he cannot, which is get limited concessions from Israel to make a state.
The question the United States seems unwilling to ask, much less answer, is what happens exactly happens if this two-state dream never comes true.
Arnold Evans:
The Raj had positive aspects in education, industrialization, governance, and the rule of law.
The Raj was accepted by the vast majority of Indians as legitimate.
None of that obtains for US in the Middle East.
She has singularly failed to bring any substantially positive changes to the region since the end of the Cold War. She has presided over the wars of Kuwaiti Liberation, the Second Iraq War, the Lebeanon-Israel War of 2006, and the HAMAS-Israel War of 2009 none of which was followed by a viable peace.
The electorate in US supports what you criticize and they have a constituional right to be wrong.
The article is an accurate description of how the business of living is making mince meat of the geopolitical policies pursued by US, EU, and Russia. Basically, the inhabitants of that part of the world have to live, and they want to improve their lot. They may not like or admire one another but each has something that the other wants or needs. So they are cooperating to improve their polities in standard of living, in defense, and in culture. They listened and obeyed US in the 1990s and got not much in return; they were hurt.
The Northern Tier is indeed an engine of stability and development for Central Asia and Levant as well. Even Kuwait – that owes everything to US – is looking into importing potable water from Iran. And there are many consumer goods from Iran in Israel – via Turkey – like washing machines.
To rephrase and maybe add to what Paul wrote because it is an important point, the United States is deeply wedded to a colonial project, and in 2010 that is difficult to accomplish.
France’s goals in North Africa were hard, when one of those goals was ensuring the continuation of a politically white-French state in Algeria. There is not an easy way to do that.
The United States is committed to the idea that 5 million Jewish people in the Middle East must have a state where they form the political majority despite the fact that the over 200 million non Jewish people of their region, mostly, according to every poll ever conducted, do not accept the legitimacy of that idea.
The minority of non-Jews in the region who do accept Israel nearly universally do so as a concession to the unfortunate, to them, reality that they are powerless before Western domination.
There are no five million people in the world who could be propped up in the position Israel is without doing so being, as Obama describes (or whines according to Paul), “hard”.
Israel requires, whether you want to call them clients, colonies or anything else, the United States to have the same relationship with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf statelets today in 2010 that Imperial Great Britain had with its nominally independent subordinates in the Raj on the Indian subcontinent during the height of colonialism. Which is the same relationship that same empire had with the parents or grandparents of most of the current rulers of US-aligned countries in Israel’s region.
Yes, maintaining a colonial relationship over hundreds of millions of people is hard. In most of the world, it is so hard that Western would-be colonial powers have decided that it is not worth it. A distorted US political system prevents the US from reaching the same conclusion and acting accordingly.
But as bad as that it, it is possibly worse that the US has developed a political culture that cannot openly talk about the project it is executing in the Middle East. The consequences of this have been truly disastrous. The United States imposed sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, mostly, children and elderly, many by diseases such as cholera.
The US did so to prevent Iraq from developing into an independent nation that could pose a strategic threat either directly to Israel or that indirectly would cause the US colonies in Jordan and especially Saudi Arabia to rebel against the US insistence that each be militarily and politically weak enough not to threaten Israel’s population of 5 million Jewish people.
But as the United States is starving a nation of 30 million people, and killing hundreds of thousands of children, on behalf of the idea that 5 million Jewish people must be secure in their political majority. Such that nearly every family in Iraq has a child who was victimized by this campaign of starvation, the vast majority of Americans literally did not realize what the US was doing and why. The attack against the United States on 9/11 was, unbelievably to anyone who follows the region, perceived by Americans as unprovoked.
From Pakistan to Afghanistan to Iran to Iraq to Saudi Arabia to Syria to Lebanon, recently to Turkey, to Egypt, Israel makes US policy objectives difficult to achieve. Israel also motivates policy objectives that themselves are colonialist, and that themselves are in opposition to the founding and largely honestly held ideals of the United States.
It’s ludicrous for Obama to whine about how ‘hard’ the middle east is. What makes it so hard is that the US blatantly backs Israel to the hilt, even though Israel’s actions are frequently despicable, to put it mildly, while pretending to be an ‘honest broker’. In other words, Obama chooses to perpetuate a lie and then whines about how ‘hard’ it is to lie. A more honest and straightforward foreign policy wouldn’t be so hard, though it would take some courage. It seems, though, that our political system as it currently works is designed to extract political courage, or not to allow those through who have it.