Comments on: IS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SUPPORTING VIOLENT “REGIME CHANGE” IN IRAN? http://www.raceforiran.com/is-the-obama-administration-supporting-violent-%e2%80%9cregime-change%e2%80%9d-in-iran Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:31:57 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: 99 http://www.raceforiran.com/is-the-obama-administration-supporting-violent-%e2%80%9cregime-change%e2%80%9d-in-iran#comment-5777 99 Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:58:49 +0000 http://www.raceforiran.com/?p=2209#comment-5777 "Zionists" is also a term used by NON-anti-Semites when trying to distinguish between the troublemakers and all Israelis or all Jews while discussing the despicable acts by people who ARE Zionists. The need to differentiate by use of this term has lessened lately, thankfully or regrettably, because there was near complete unanimity in Israel for the slaughter in Gaza last year AND for the Mossad hit in Dubai last month. So "Israel" or "Israeli" now works often where it didn't seem to before. Still, there are the legions of Christian Zionists and Jews from around the world bringing pressures to bear in conjunction with Israel, so the term is still needed when you want to talk about that. Because people who hate Jews use words like "Jews", "Zionists", "Israelis", among other terms, does not mean reasonable people abandon perfectly usable, in no way racist or anti-Semitic words to express ourselves. “Zionists” is also a term used by NON-anti-Semites when trying to distinguish between the troublemakers and all Israelis or all Jews while discussing the despicable acts by people who ARE Zionists. The need to differentiate by use of this term has lessened lately, thankfully or regrettably, because there was near complete unanimity in Israel for the slaughter in Gaza last year AND for the Mossad hit in Dubai last month. So “Israel” or “Israeli” now works often where it didn’t seem to before. Still, there are the legions of Christian Zionists and Jews from around the world bringing pressures to bear in conjunction with Israel, so the term is still needed when you want to talk about that. Because people who hate Jews use words like “Jews”, “Zionists”, “Israelis”, among other terms, does not mean reasonable people abandon perfectly usable, in no way racist or anti-Semitic words to express ourselves.

]]> By: Nilsson http://www.raceforiran.com/is-the-obama-administration-supporting-violent-%e2%80%9cregime-change%e2%80%9d-in-iran#comment-5774 Nilsson Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:45:16 +0000 http://www.raceforiran.com/?p=2209#comment-5774 I see James Petras cited here. The special value of his sociological work has been to document the immense reliance of the Democratic Party on Jewish activism and campaign contributions, which at time have been 80% of its income from 2-3% of the population. Latterly the neocons-- dogmatically tribalist intelligentsia professing universalist values, who generally hailed from 'red diaper' backgrounds-- broke with tribal Democratic allegiance (commonplace among Jewry since the great waves of immigration, c. 1870-1920). They did so because, apart from 'national security Democrats' such as Scoop Jackson, they reckoned liberal Dems were peacenik Boomers growing soft on Islam and Soviet communism, posing the much-trumpeted 'existential threat' to an Israel which had almost lost the Yom Kippur war in 1973. The neocons infiltrated the GOP in the 1980s, beginning a long march through the think tanks and foundations which turned it into another reliable dancer to their tunes by 911. Ike had pulled the plug on the Suez invasion; Nixon was anything but philosemitic; Reagan had taken the Marines out of Lebanon. But once the neocons teamed with RINOs and international globalist businessmen and financiers of the Nelson Rockefeller type, and once ther shekels began to flow into the dutiful coffers, both big parties were sewn up tight for the 'My Israel, right or wrong' headbanging which Congress has gone in for ever since. Not all Jews are fanatical Zionists, but most support and admire Israel, and do not want the weirdo settler relations who moved there to come back as refugees. They fear rocking the tribal boat by attacking US and Israeli policies too harshly or loudly, having been bred up to collective solidarity or muffled, private dissent. The loonier kind of dual loyalist holds the stage. Rich Zionist Jews now grease Republican as well as Democratic palms-- Adelson, the casino king, for instance-- but neoconnerie is almost entirely, and notoriously, a Beltway Jewish business. True, dubious alliances have been formed with Christian fundi preachers who want most Jews dead in a nuclear Armageddon so the rest can be Raptured for Jesus. There are strong links with the military industrial complex for which, after the collapse of the USSR, 'Islamism' is the only phoney enemy that can be devised to justify their vast government contracts. But the bedrock of Republican support, ordinary middle class white Americans in the burbs and sticks, is much less solid: polls show that most want the USA to maintain even-handedness and detachment in the Middle East, as the Founders counseled, rather than take sides so abjectly. Wish they may, but follow the money. So long as so much of it is from the donors Petras discovered, don't expect too much 'change you can believe in' when it comes to Congress, in what Pat Buchanan called 'Israeli-occupied territory'. I see James Petras cited here. The special value of his sociological work has been to document the immense reliance of the Democratic Party on Jewish activism and campaign contributions, which at time have been 80% of its income from 2-3% of the population.

Latterly the neocons– dogmatically tribalist intelligentsia professing universalist values, who generally hailed from ‘red diaper’ backgrounds– broke with tribal Democratic allegiance (commonplace among Jewry since the great waves of immigration, c. 1870-1920). They did so because, apart from ‘national security Democrats’ such as Scoop Jackson, they reckoned liberal Dems were peacenik Boomers growing soft on Islam and Soviet communism, posing the much-trumpeted ‘existential threat’ to an Israel which had almost lost the Yom Kippur war in 1973.

The neocons infiltrated the GOP in the 1980s, beginning a long march through the think tanks and foundations which turned it into another reliable dancer to their tunes by 911. Ike had pulled the plug on the Suez invasion; Nixon was anything but philosemitic; Reagan had taken the Marines out of Lebanon. But once the neocons teamed with RINOs and international globalist businessmen and financiers of the Nelson Rockefeller type, and once ther shekels began to flow into the dutiful coffers, both big parties were sewn up tight for the ‘My Israel, right or wrong’ headbanging which Congress has gone in for ever since.

Not all Jews are fanatical Zionists, but most support and admire Israel, and do not want the weirdo settler relations who moved there to come back as refugees. They fear rocking the tribal boat by attacking US and Israeli policies too harshly or loudly, having been bred up to collective solidarity or muffled, private dissent. The loonier kind of dual loyalist holds the stage.

Rich Zionist Jews now grease Republican as well as Democratic palms– Adelson, the casino king, for instance– but neoconnerie is almost entirely, and notoriously, a Beltway Jewish business. True, dubious alliances have been formed with Christian fundi preachers who want most Jews dead in a nuclear Armageddon so the rest can be Raptured for Jesus. There are strong links with the military industrial complex for which, after the collapse of the USSR, ‘Islamism’ is the only phoney enemy that can be devised to justify their vast government contracts. But the bedrock of Republican support, ordinary middle class white Americans in the burbs and sticks, is much less solid: polls show that most want the USA to maintain even-handedness and detachment in the Middle East, as the Founders counseled, rather than take sides so abjectly.

Wish they may, but follow the money. So long as so much of it is from the donors Petras discovered, don’t expect too much ‘change you can believe in’ when it comes to Congress, in what Pat Buchanan called ‘Israeli-occupied territory’.

]]> By: Vic Anderson http://www.raceforiran.com/is-the-obama-administration-supporting-violent-%e2%80%9cregime-change%e2%80%9d-in-iran#comment-5769 Vic Anderson Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:39:29 +0000 http://www.raceforiran.com/?p=2209#comment-5769 YES. With his knavy Seals of Approval! YES. With his knavy Seals of Approval!

]]> By: stevieb http://www.raceforiran.com/is-the-obama-administration-supporting-violent-%e2%80%9cregime-change%e2%80%9d-in-iran#comment-5765 stevieb Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:06:53 +0000 http://www.raceforiran.com/?p=2209#comment-5765 The reasons for the birth of Israel are ultimately irrelevant. But it should be noted that Israel was not conceived by a select group of Jews because of the Holocaust. It may have been a part of the reason the UN decided to grant them a state - but Zionist antagonists played at least as large a role in working the right people at the right time(and a fair bit of terrorism thrown in for good measure) The genocide happening in camps around Europe was cynically used by the Zionist movement to create their Jewish supremist state - but that's another story. But even if Israel had been constructed for reasons beyond religious fanaticism and chauvanism - it wouldn't make it's construction any less a crime against the Palestinian peoples. Amadinejad's question is probably the wrong one - but it does address the hypocrisy of western commentators and the rather simplistic notion of Israel as a just and rational response to the German massacre of European Jewry... The reasons for the birth of Israel are ultimately irrelevant. But it should be noted that Israel was not conceived by a select group of Jews because of the Holocaust. It may have been a part of the reason the UN decided to grant them a state – but Zionist antagonists played at least as large a role in working the right people at the right time(and a fair bit of terrorism thrown in for good measure) The genocide happening in camps around Europe was cynically used by the Zionist movement to create their Jewish supremist state – but that’s another story. But even if Israel had been constructed for reasons beyond religious fanaticism and chauvanism – it wouldn’t make it’s construction any less a crime against the Palestinian peoples. Amadinejad’s question is probably the wrong one – but it does address the hypocrisy of western commentators and the rather simplistic notion of Israel as a just and rational response to the German massacre of European Jewry…

]]> By: Druthers http://www.raceforiran.com/is-the-obama-administration-supporting-violent-%e2%80%9cregime-change%e2%80%9d-in-iran#comment-5764 Druthers Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:49:52 +0000 http://www.raceforiran.com/?p=2209#comment-5764 Dan Cooper: "How can Obama go against the wishes of “Israel lobby and the Zionist in his administration”? Any suggestions? What suggests that he wants to go against these wishes? From every side Obama is now presented as somekind of "poor little match girl" who would to like to do all these lovely things but just can't "get the votes." That corporate control is tightening its grip on government is evident but to date this administration has made no effort to use the power of the presidency that is left to state its goals and change course. Are we on a rudderless ship or tacking in the wind? Dan Cooper: “How can Obama go against the wishes of “Israel lobby and the Zionist in his administration”?
Any suggestions?

What suggests that he wants to go against these wishes?
From every side Obama is now presented as somekind of “poor little match girl” who would to like to do all these lovely things but just can’t “get the votes.” That corporate control is tightening its grip on government is evident but to date this administration has made no effort to use the power of the presidency that is left to state its goals and change course.
Are we on a rudderless ship or tacking in the wind?

]]> By: epppie http://www.raceforiran.com/is-the-obama-administration-supporting-violent-%e2%80%9cregime-change%e2%80%9d-in-iran#comment-5762 epppie Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:48:26 +0000 http://www.raceforiran.com/?p=2209#comment-5762 Obama's 'engagement' policy is perhaps the most cynical thing I've seen in US politics. Not for one moment did he dial down the hyper-rhetoric about the alleged 'Iran threat', a hype which as taken on dimensions of ludicrosity beyond what W mustered in his fallacious buildup to war with Iraq. The Swap was never intended to be a deal that Iran could actually accept. The idea of Iran giving up all its uranium to Russia and France, which it can pretty much be sure will at least play games about returning it...that was never intended as acceptable. Obama’s ‘engagement’ policy is perhaps the most cynical thing I’ve seen in US politics. Not for one moment did he dial down the hyper-rhetoric about the alleged ‘Iran threat’, a hype which as taken on dimensions of ludicrosity beyond what W mustered in his fallacious buildup to war with Iraq. The Swap was never intended to be a deal that Iran could actually accept. The idea of Iran giving up all its uranium to Russia and France, which it can pretty much be sure will at least play games about returning it…that was never intended as acceptable.

]]> By: Alan http://www.raceforiran.com/is-the-obama-administration-supporting-violent-%e2%80%9cregime-change%e2%80%9d-in-iran#comment-5750 Alan Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:14:21 +0000 http://www.raceforiran.com/?p=2209#comment-5750 kooshy - there is no doubt that British and US foreign policy in the Middle East has been and continues to be appalling. But Israel cannot be seen as a strategic asset no matter which way you cut it. The fact that it is referred to as such is simply another victory for the Lobby. Next to the almighty deception that surrounds the birth of Israel and the Palestinian exodus, it is hard to think of a bigger deception than the concept of Israel's importance to the West. Specifically on the point that you made, the Balfour Declaration certainly set a sequence of events in motion. That is undeniable. However, the British ditched their promotion of a Jewish state in Palestine with the McDonald White Paper of 1939, which enshrined a pro-Arab single state of Palestine by 1949 as their official policy. Perhaps the most effective strategy adopted by the Zionists since 1917 has been their capacity, when given an inch, to take a mile, creating facts on the ground that become a fait accompli when set before the international community. The 1947 Partition Plan was no exception, and they still do it today. The West has constantly had to react to, rather than shape, events on the ground. There was no sinister Western plan to create Israel in their own image to control the region. Israel created itself, and the West had to deal with the monster that emerged. The fact it was handled so badly has made it so much worse. kooshy – there is no doubt that British and US foreign policy in the Middle East has been and continues to be appalling. But Israel cannot be seen as a strategic asset no matter which way you cut it. The fact that it is referred to as such is simply another victory for the Lobby. Next to the almighty deception that surrounds the birth of Israel and the Palestinian exodus, it is hard to think of a bigger deception than the concept of Israel’s importance to the West.

Specifically on the point that you made, the Balfour Declaration certainly set a sequence of events in motion. That is undeniable. However, the British ditched their promotion of a Jewish state in Palestine with the McDonald White Paper of 1939, which enshrined a pro-Arab single state of Palestine by 1949 as their official policy.

Perhaps the most effective strategy adopted by the Zionists since 1917 has been their capacity, when given an inch, to take a mile, creating facts on the ground that become a fait accompli when set before the international community. The 1947 Partition Plan was no exception, and they still do it today. The West has constantly had to react to, rather than shape, events on the ground.

There was no sinister Western plan to create Israel in their own image to control the region. Israel created itself, and the West had to deal with the monster that emerged. The fact it was handled so badly has made it so much worse.

]]> By: Jon Harrison http://www.raceforiran.com/is-the-obama-administration-supporting-violent-%e2%80%9cregime-change%e2%80%9d-in-iran#comment-5726 Jon Harrison Sun, 07 Mar 2010 03:04:17 +0000 http://www.raceforiran.com/?p=2209#comment-5726 Kooshy, the only response I'll make is to point to the relationaship US oil companies had established with Saudi Arabia as far back as 1939, not to mention the interesting meeting between President Roosevelt and Ibn Saud in 1945. The issue is both more simple and more complex than you are making it. Kooshy, the only response I’ll make is to point to the relationaship US oil companies had established with Saudi Arabia as far back as 1939, not to mention the interesting meeting between President Roosevelt and Ibn Saud in 1945. The issue is both more simple and more complex than you are making it.

]]> By: kooshy http://www.raceforiran.com/is-the-obama-administration-supporting-violent-%e2%80%9cregime-change%e2%80%9d-in-iran#comment-5725 kooshy Sun, 07 Mar 2010 01:56:38 +0000 http://www.raceforiran.com/?p=2209#comment-5725 Jon and Alan Balfour Declaration is what made the state of Israel possible, in the Middle East no one cares how and with what legality or technicality the state of Israel was created, what we are discussing Is if this was in strategic interest of the British, US or better known as Angelo Saxons and now obviously the west. I argue that even if you now think this was a blunder for US, the west never would have trusted the Arabs and that for historic reasons. Therefore, they were receptive to the declaration of the independence by like color and like minded people from Europe and still are, after all, if the west was against it before it was for it ( sounds like Kerry) why then they recognized it 11 minutes after the declaration. Jon and Alan
Balfour Declaration is what made the state of Israel possible, in the Middle East no one cares how and with what legality or technicality the state of Israel was created, what we are discussing
Is if this was in strategic interest of the British, US or better known as Angelo Saxons and now obviously the west. I argue that even if you now think this was a blunder for US, the west never would have trusted the Arabs and that for historic reasons. Therefore, they were receptive to the declaration of the independence by like color and like minded people from Europe and still are, after all, if the west was against it before it was for it ( sounds like Kerry) why then they recognized it 11 minutes after the declaration.

]]> By: Persian Gulf http://www.raceforiran.com/is-the-obama-administration-supporting-violent-%e2%80%9cregime-change%e2%80%9d-in-iran#comment-5710 Persian Gulf Sat, 06 Mar 2010 19:52:47 +0000 http://www.raceforiran.com/?p=2209#comment-5710 I don't think the greens or Balochistan's episode were that significant in changing Iran's mood. the internal greens, or ex-reformists, were sidestepped on the nuclear issue during the first term of Ahmadinejad. and they lost the ground almost totally since 2006 when Iran started the enrichment.I still think, as I wrote here before, that Iran was not interested in making that deal with the term proposed by IAEA. it could be also possible for an split in conservative factions. and probably the unwillingness of the office of supreme leader in making that deal. Ahmadinejad's faction probably wanted to make a half deal, not the one proposed by IAEA, as the his legitimacy was shattered by the internal events. in overall, Iran has since benefited in not making the deal. 20% enrichment was unthinkable few months ago, the west seems to accept the new reality now! I am not sure, but I think, making the rods out of 20% enriched uranium is going to be the end of the story. cylindrical or other shapes should not need a totally different expertise (i am an engineer myself), nor for that matter a jump from 20% to 90%. any comment about it? I have no diplomatic experience, no do I have any nuclear related negotiation one. however, I am surprised of the job Iranian diplomats did for the nuclear deal. after the negotiation, Al-Baradei in the interview said we have reached an agreement and this deal is going to Tehran for final approval. how could those Iranian negotiators agree with 75% of the enriched uranium to be shipped out of the country? 1200 kg was definitely a big amount, and no politician in Tehran could fully endorse that. I don’t think the greens or Balochistan’s episode were that significant in changing Iran’s mood. the internal greens, or ex-reformists, were sidestepped on the nuclear issue during the first term of Ahmadinejad. and they lost the ground almost totally since 2006 when Iran started the enrichment.I still think, as I wrote here before, that Iran was not interested in making that deal with the term proposed by IAEA. it could be also possible for an split in conservative factions. and probably the unwillingness of the office of supreme leader in making that deal. Ahmadinejad’s faction probably wanted to make a half deal, not the one proposed by IAEA, as the his legitimacy was shattered by the internal events. in overall, Iran has since benefited in not making the deal. 20% enrichment was unthinkable few months ago, the west seems to accept the new reality now!

I am not sure, but I think, making the rods out of 20% enriched uranium is going to be the end of the story. cylindrical or other shapes should not need a totally different expertise (i am an engineer myself), nor for that matter a jump from 20% to 90%. any comment about it?

I have no diplomatic experience, no do I have any nuclear related negotiation one. however, I am surprised of the job Iranian diplomats did for the nuclear deal. after the negotiation, Al-Baradei in the interview said we have reached an agreement and this deal is going to Tehran for final approval. how could those Iranian negotiators agree with 75% of the enriched uranium to be shipped out of the country? 1200 kg was definitely a big amount, and no politician in Tehran could fully endorse that.

]]>