This week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other Obama Administration officials complained publicly that Iran was “meddling” and “interfering” in events in the Middle East which are threatening the downfall of one U.S. ally after another. But the Obama Administration’s response to the latest flashpoint—Libya—has been to exhort the Libyan people overthrow its government, declare that Qaddafi “must go”, and engage in an embarrassing, intra-administration but thoroughly public debate about U.S. military intervention in Libya.
Can no one in Washington really understand that Iran’s narrative of resistance to injustice, foreign occupation, and Western hegemony has more appeal to Middle Eastern publics than the prospect of yet another U.S. military attack on Muslim country?
The Obama Administration’s handling of the ongoing conflict in Libya is an unfinished case study in how not to conduct “great power” foreign policy. No less than President Obama himself said publicly that Muammar al-Qaddafi has lost his legitimacy to lead, and that it is time for him to go. But the Obama Administration has no ready means to bring about that outcome, should Qaddafi not be moved by the persuasive power of Obama’s words.
Last week, Secretary Clinton stopped just short of calling for the imposition of a “no fly” zone over Libya. After it dawned on people in the Administration that other permanent members of the Security Council might not be prepared to back such a proposal—Russia’s Foreign Minister and China’s UN ambassador have both publicly dismissed the idea—State Department officials floated a scenario with various media outlets that the United States could recognize a “provisional government” in Libya, composed of various figures opposed to Qaddafi, which would then request the United States to impose a no fly zone. But it seems very hard to say just who could constitute a provisional Libyan government with sufficient credibility and presumed legitimacy to play this role.
Even more importantly, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, backed by the senior leadership of America’s uniformed military, went public saying that imposition of a no fly zone would first require the United States to attack and destroy much of Libya’s military establishment. (Gates made this point not long after his West Point speech in which he argued that any future Defense Secretary who recommended that the United States start another war in the Middle East “should have his head examined”.) Secretary Clinton was forced to retreat, telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that the Obama Administration was a long way from taking a decision about a possible no fly zone over Libya.
It is embarrassing enough that President Obama is demanding things he has no capacity to bring about, and Secretary Clinton talks about having the United States attack another Middle Eastern country when she clearly has not given any serious thought to what such an action would entail. But now Qaddafi is putting up a real fight, and may well be able to hold out for quite a bit longer than anyone in the Obama Administration seems to have considered.
Does no one in Washington remember that, after suffering a substantial military defeat by the United States in 1991, Saddam Husayn put down a (U.S.-instigated) Shi’a rebellion in southern Iraq? After that, with two no-fly zones and a comprehensive oil embargo in place against Iraq, Saddam held on to power in Baghdad for almost another 12 years. And, in the end, it wasn’t the Iraqi people who got rid of him. It took a U.S. invasion to do that—with, of course, horrible consequences for both the Iraqi people and U.S. interests.
Undoubtedly, Qaddafi will crush the rebel forces if he can. At a minimum, though, he is working to hold off the rebels and force the start of a political negotiation—at the end of which (at least in his vision) he would still be playing a significant role in Libyan politics.
With its no doubt emotionally gratifying but feckless rhetoric demanding Qaddafi’s departure, the Obama Administration has ensured that it can play no constructive role in a process of political transition in Libya. Can anyone with a clear head, an appreciable measure of historical memory, and decent intentions honestly think it would be a good idea for the United States to invade Libya—under the rubric of humanitarian intervention and with the stated aim of restoring the Libyan people’s “freedom”? Can no one in Washington remember Somalia, let alone Iraq?
All of this is playing out as the Obama Administration seems increasingly inclined to support the Bahraini ruling family in resisting the most important demands of the opposition there for real political reform—an episode at which we will look more deeply in coming days.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
R S Hack,
I think Israel carried out its murderous rampage in Gaza before the moron G W Bush was out of the White House because the Israelis feared an incoming Obama adminstration would not be so supportive of the vicious slaughter of the Palestinians.
I think more than 100 countries will recognise Palestine as independent with 1967 borders. This would not mean some trades of territory would be impossible, after Israel accepts Palestine as independent.
I think the insane Zionist-expansionist agenda will fail.
fyi,
You appear to have fogotten that France and Germany adamantly opposed the US/UK invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and the moron George W. Bush wanted to punish both countries for showing good sense.
fyi,
Britain largley welcomed the unification of Germany and bent over backward to accomodate the growth in German wealth and power in the ensuing decades. There was no “zero-sum” game involved. And it took remarkable arrogance and stupidity on the part of the Kaiser and his generals to bring catastophe to the German Empire.
Fiorangela, very informative posts throughout the thread.
RE:”This is an incurable condition that can only be relieved by and act of Divine Grace.”
الله لا یغیروا ما به قوم حتی یغیروا ما بانفسهم. (Quran, Chapter 13, Verse 11)
“God does not change the condition of any people unless they change their own condition”
~All translations are interpretation by design.
Fiorangela: “More like 120 years”
Indeed. The Zionists have been doing it for that long. Israel has been doing it since it came into existence sixty years ago. Definitely we should not ignore that it has been the plan all along.
Fyi: “And RSH to armament manufacuturers.”
Not everything. Just a lot. I’ve never denied the influence of the oil companies, Israel Lobby, etc.
As I have repeatedly said, it’s not an either-or situation.
James Canning says: March 12, 2011 at 2:24 pm
And you seems to want to attribute everything to Jews.
And RSH to armament manufacuturers.
My view is very clear, there is the pursuit of power for the sake of power; a manifestation of the phenomenon of the Fall of Man.
[This is an incurable condition that can only be relieved by and act of Divine Grace.]
100 years ago, the zero-sum games was being played by Germany, Austria, Russia, Japan, and Great Britain.
Now the zero-sum game is played by US (+EU), Russia, China with secondary states such as Brazil, India, Iran, Turkey, Nigeria, Thailand.
God only knows who the plauers will be in 2111.
The Axis Grand Strategy included the destruction of Yugoslavia (the financial machinations of EU to increase tension within that country are well-known), the Ba’athist Iraq, Islamic Iran and a number of other states.
Why won’t a European leader state, just like Mr. Jack Straw did, that “It is inconcievable to go to war with Iran on any pretext”?
I tell you why not:
Because EU leaders accept that the Axis will need to destroy Isalmic Iran at some opportune time. “All options on the table” means something very concrete.
RSH @ 7:56 pm: “Israel has been pursuing this plan for the last sixty years.”
More like 120 years: In 1891 Ahad Ha’Am wrote of the Palestinians:
“If a time comes when our people in Palestine develop so that, in small or great measure, they push out the native inhabitants, these will not give up their place easily.” (Righteous Victims, p. 49)
Ahad Ha’Am published a series of articles in the Hebrew periodical Hameliz that were sharply critical of the ethnocentricity of political Zionism as well as the exploitation of the Palestinian peasantry by the Zionist colonists. Ahad Ha’Am sought to draw attention to the fact the Palestine was not empty territory and that the presence of another people posed problems:
” ….[the Zionist pioneers believed that] the only language the Arabs understand is that of force ….. [They] behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7)
In a pamphlet under the heading line of “Truth from Eretz Yisrael” published in 1891, Ahad Ha’Am wrote of how Jewish settlers at the time treated the indigenous Palestinian people:
“[The Jewish settlers] treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly, beat them shamelessly for no sufficient reason, and even take pride in doing so. The Jews were slaves in the land of their Exile, and suddenly they found themselves with unlimited freedom, wild freedom that ONLY exists in a land like Turkey. This sudden change has produced in their hearts an inclination towards repressive tyranny, as always happens when slave rules.” ‘Ahad Ha’Am warned: “We are used to thinking of the Arabs as primitive men of the desert, as a donkey-like nation that neither sees nor understands what is going around it. But this is a GREAT ERROR. The Arab, like all sons of Sham, has sharp and crafty mind . . . Should time come when life of our people in Palestine imposes to a smaller or greater extent on the natives, they WILL NOT easily step aside.” (One Palestine Complete, p. 104)
How accurate ‘Ahad Ha’Am description was even after more a 100 years plus of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict! The conduct of most Israelis, especially in the occupied territories, is very much similar to the way ‘Ahad portrayed early Jewish settlers’ conduct over a century ago.
In 1891, ‘Ahad Ha’am issued a warned of the increased militancy amongst the Jewish settlers in Palestine:
“The secret enabling our people to survive is … that already in antiquities prophets taught it to respect only spiritual power and never to admire physical power. Therefore, it has not succumbed, like all ancient people, to a loss of identity when faced with stronger adversaries … However, a political idea alien to the national culture can turn the people’s heart away from spiritual power and produce a tendency to achieve its ‘honors’ by achieving physical power and political independence, thus severing the thread linking it with its past and losing the base which sustained it through out history.” (Occupied Minds, p. 8) We have elaborated on this subject further in the Spartan Jew article, click here for details.
h/t Castellio
Richard Steven Hack:
Richard, I was a bit busy before so I couldnt get back to you earlier.
Until such time that you learn to conduct a conversation in a CIVILIZED manner, you can consider yourself on my list of “ignored people”.
Mr. Canning: “But the Palestinians would survive, with their own coutry.”
You apparently are not clear about the purpose of the people running Israel. They want one of two things: 1) the Palestinians gone from any place near Israel; or, failing that, 2) a cowed, passive Palestinian slave worker population.
Since they are never going to get 2), they are going to try to get 1) by any means necessary. They are going to continue to ratchet up the desperation of the Palestinian people until the Palestinian people go somewhere else than the West Bank and Gaza.
And that means continuing to pressure the Palestinians by inhumane treatment on Gaza, by subverting the West Bank PLO morons to work for them in undermining Hamas and the Palestinians, and if necessary by direct military action like the last assault, over and over, until the Palestinians are gone from “Jewish lands”.
And once that’s done, then the Zionists will start working on Lebanon and Jordan again, to drive the Palestinians even further away and take over Lebanon and Jordan by any means necessary, probably by causing chaos in those countries through subversion and military wars, followed by the US putting Israeli-controlled puppets in those countries like they have done with the West Bank.
And once that’s done, they will move on to Syria, Saudi Arabia, whatever, until they have gained control by one means or another over the entire Middle East oil reserves by means of war and subversion.
This is the bottom line. Israel has been pursuing this plan for the last sixty years. If you think some designation or recognition of a rump “Palestinian state” is going to stand in the way of that, I repeat, you are delusional.
Mr. Canning: Try these.
Driving the surge in gas prices?
The Bush-McCain surge in Iraq
:http://www.gregpalast.com/obama%E2%80%99s-secret-war-profiteering-tax/
Quotes
In 1928, oil company chieftains (from Anglo-Persian Oil, now British Petroleum, from Standard Oil, now Exxon, and their Continental counterparts) were faced with a crisis: falling prices due to rising supplies of oil; the same crisis faced by their successors during the Clinton years, when oil traded at $22 a barrel.
The solution then, as now: stop the flow of oil, squeeze the market, raise the price. The method: put a red line around Iraq and declare that virtually all the oil under its sands would remain there, untapped. Their plan: choke supply, raise prices rise, boost profits. That was the program for 1928. For 2003. For 2008.
Again and again, year after year, the world price of oil has been boosted artificially by keeping a tight limit on Iraq’s oil output. Methods varied. The 1928 “Redline” agreement held, in various forms, for over three decades. It was replaced in 1959 by quotas imposed by President Eisenhower. Then Saudi Arabia and OPEC kept Iraq, capable of producing over 6 million barrels a day, capped at half that, given an export quota equal to Iran’s lower output.
In 1991, output was again limited, this time by a new red line: B-52 bombings by Bush Senior’s air force. Then came the Oil Embargo followed by the “Food for Oil” program. Not much food for them, not much oil for us.
In 2002, after Bush Junior took power, the top ten oil companies took in a nice $31 billion in profits. But then, a miracle fell from the sky. Or, more precisely, the 101st Airborne landed. Bush declared, “Bring’m on!” and, as the dogs of war chewed up the world’s second largest source of oil, crude doubled in two years to an astonishing $40 a barrel and those same oil companies saw their profits triple to $87 billion.
In response, Senators Obama and Clinton propose something wrongly called a “windfall” profits tax on oil. But oil industry profits didn’t blow in on a breeze. It is war, not wind, that fills their coffers. The beastly leap in prices is nothing but war profiteering, hiking prices to take cruel advantage of oil fields shut by bullets and blood.
I wish to hell the Democrats would call their plan what it is: A war profiteering tax. War is profitable business – if you’re an oil man. But somehow, the public pays the price, at the pump and at the funerals, and the oil companies reap the benefits.
Indeed, the recent engorgement in oil prices and profits goes right back to the Bush-McCain “surge.” The Iraq government attack on a Basra militia was really nothing more than Baghdad’s leaping into a gang war over control of Iraq’s Southern oil fields and oil-loading docks. Moqtada al-Sadr’s gangsters and the government-sponsored greedsters of SCIRI (the Supreme Council For Islamic Revolution In Iraq) are battling over an estimated $5 billion a year in oil shipment kickbacks, theft and protection fees.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the surge-backed civil warring has cut Iraq’s exports by up to a million barrels a day. And that translates to slashing OPEC excess crude capacity by nearly half.
Result: ka-BOOM in oil prices and ka-ZOOM in oil profits. For 2007, Exxon recorded the highest annual profit, $40.6 billion, of any enterprise since the building of the pyramids. And that was BEFORE the war surge and price surge to over $100 a barrel.
It’s been a good war for Exxon and friends. Since George Bush began to beat the war-drum for an invasion of Iraq, the value of Exxon’s reserves has risen – are you ready for this? – by $2 trillion.
Obama’s war profiteering tax, or “oil windfall profits” tax, would equal just 20% of the industry’s charges in excess of $80 a barrel. It’s embarrassingly small actually, smaller than every windfall tax charged by every other nation. (Ecuador, for example, captures up to 99% of the higher earnings).
Nevertheless, oilman George W. Bush opposes it as does Bush’s man McCain. Senator McCain admonishes us that the po’ widdle oil companies need more than 80% of their windfall so they can explore for more oil. When pigs fly, Senator. Last year, Exxon spent $36 billion of its $40 billion income on dividends and special payouts to stockholders in tax-free buy-backs. Even the Journal called Exxon’s capital investment spending “stingy.”
End Quotes
It’s STILL The Oil:
Secret Condi Meeting on Oil Before Invasion
:http://www.gregpalast.com/its-still-the-oilsecret-condi-meeting-on-oil-before-invasion/
Quotes
But before we shed tears for Big Oil’s having to hand Halliburton its slice, let me note that the value of the reserves of the five biggest oil companies more than doubled during the war to $2.36 trillion.
And that was the plan: putting a new floor under the price of oil. I have that in writing. In 2005, after a two-year battle with the State and Defense Departments, they released to my team at BBC Newsnight the “Options for a Sustainable Iraqi Oil Industry.” Now, you might think our government shouldn’t be writing a plan for another nation’s oil. Well, our government didn’t write it, despite the State Department seal on the cover. In fact, we discovered that the 323-page plan was drafted in Houston by oil industry executives and consultants.
The suspicion is that Bush went to war to get Iraq’s oil. That’s not true. The document, and secret recordings of those in on the scheme, made it clear that the Administration wanted to make certain America did not get the oil. In other words, keep the lid on Iraq’s oil production — and thereby keep the price of oil high.
Of course, the language was far more subtle than, “Let’s cut Iraq’s oil production and jack up prices.” Rather, the report uses industry jargon and euphemisms which require Iraq to remain an obedient member of the OPEC cartel and stick to the oil-production limits — “quotas” — which keep up oil prices.
The Houston plan, enforced by an army of occupation, would, “enhance [Iraq's] relationship with OPEC,” the oil cartel.
End Quotes
Read that part again about how the plan was drafted by Houston oil executives.
Are U.S. Corporations Going to “Win” The Iraq War?
:http://www.gregpalast.com/are-us-corporations-going-to-%E2%80%9Cwin%E2%80%9D-the-iraq-war/
Quotes
As I also detail in The Bush Agenda, U.S. oil companies – previously all but shutout of Iraq’s oil sector, are on the verge of winning Iraq’s oil prize.
On September 10, Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister repeated a pledge made earlier this year by Oil Minister al-Shahristani that Iraq would have a new national petroleum law by the end of 2006. The law will open Iraq’s currently nationalized oil industry to private foreign oil companies on terms unprecedented in the Middle East or in any oil-rich nation. According to Iraqi Vice President Mahdi, the law will be “very promising to the American investors and to American enterprise, certainly to oil companies.” The law mirrors proposals originally set out by the Bush administration prior to the March 2003 invasion.
Meeting four times between December 2002 and April 2003, members of the U.S. State Department’s Oil and Energy Working Group agreed that Iraq “should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war” and that the best method for doing so was through Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs).
None of the top oil producers in the Middle East use PSAs because they favor private companies at the expense of the exporting governments. In fact, PSAs are only used in respect to about 12 percent of world oil reserves. PSAs are the favorite of international oil companies and the worst-case scenario for oil-rich states.
In August 2004, the U.S.-appointed interim Prime Minster of Iraq, Ayad Allawi (a former CIA operative), submitted guidelines for a new petroleum law recommending that the “Iraqi government disengage from running the oil sector” and that all undeveloped oil and gas fields in Iraq be turned over to private international oil companies using PSAs. Allawi’s proposal is the basis of the current proposed oil law and could potentially give foreign companies control over approximately 87 percent of Iraq’s oil.
The Bush administration and U.S. oil companies have maintained constant pressure on Iraq to pass the new law. The administration appointed an advisor to the Iraqi government from Bearing Point Inc., a Virginia-based private consultancy firm, to support completion of the law. This past July, U.S. Energy Secretary Bodman announced in Baghdad that senior U.S. oil company executives told him they would not enter Iraq without passage of the new law.
This month, Petroleum Economist Magazine reported that U.S. oil companies put passage of the oil law before security concerns as the deciding factor over their entry into Iraq. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, reserves that are cheap to exploit and worth literally trillions of dollars. U.S. oil companies want in, but on their own terms. They are, quite simply, trying to get the best deal possible out of a war-ravaged and occupied nation. They are also holding U.S. troops hostage. Let’s face it, once they get their lucrative contracts, they will still demand protection to get to work. What better security force is there than 140,000 American troops?
End Quotes
Bush Didn’t Bungle Iraq, You Fools
:http://www.gregpalast.com/bush-didnt-bungle-iraq-you-fools/
Quotes
“It’s about oil,” Robert Ebel told me. Who is Ebel? Formerly the CIA’s top oil analyst, he was sent by the Pentagon, about a month before the invasion, to a secret confab in London with Saddam’s former oil minister to finalize the plans for “liberating” Iraq’s oil industry. In London, Bush’s emissary Ebel also instructed Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum, the man the Pentagon would choose as post-OIF oil minister for Iraq, on the correct method of disposing Iraq’s crude.
And what did the USA want Iraq to do with Iraq’s oil? The answer will surprise many of you: and it is uglier, more twisted, devilish and devious than anything imagined by the most conspiracy-addicted blogger. The answer can be found in a 323-page plan for Iraq’s oil secretly drafted by the State Department. Our team got a hold of a copy; how, doesn’t matter. The key thing is what’s inside this thick Bush diktat: a directive to Iraqis to maintain a state oil company that will “enhance its relationship with OPEC.”
Enhance its relationship with OPEC??? How strange: the government of the United States ordering Iraq to support the very OPEC oil cartel which is strangling our nation with outrageously high prices for crude.
Specifically, the system ordered up by the Bush cabal would keep a lid on Iraq’s oil production — limiting Iraq’s oil pumping to the tight quota set by Saudi Arabia and the OPEC cartel.
There you have it. Yes, Bush went in for the oil — not to get more of Iraq’s oil, but to prevent Iraq producing too much of it.
You must keep in mind who paid for George’s ranch and Dick’s bunker: Big Oil. And Big Oil — and their buck-buddies, the Saudis — don’t make money from pumping more oil, but from pumping less of it. The lower the supply, the higher the price.
It’s Economics 101. The oil industry is run by a cartel, OPEC, and what economists call an “oligopoly” — a tiny handful of operators who make more money when there’s less oil, not more of it. So, every time the “insurgents” blow up a pipeline in Basra, every time Mad Mahmoud in Tehran threatens to cut supply, the price of oil leaps. And Dick and George just love it.
Dick and George didn’t want more oil from Iraq, they wanted less. I know some of you, no matter what I write, insist that our President and his Veep are on the hunt for more crude so you can cheaply fill your family Hummer; that somehow, these two oil-patch babies are concerned that the price of gas in the USA is bumping up to $3 a gallon.
Not so, gentle souls. Three bucks a gallon in the States (and a quid a litre in Britain) means colossal profits for Big Oil, and that makes Dick’s ticker go pitty-pat with joy. The top oily-gopolists, the five largest oil companies, pulled in $113 billion in profit in 2005 — compared to a piddly $34 billion in 2002 before Operation Iraqi Liberation. In other words, it’s been a good war for Big Oil.
End Quotes
Big Oil and the Trillion-Dollar War Bonus
:http://www.gregpalast.com/big-oil-and-the-trillion-dollar-war-bonus/
“The Best Thing in The World for Big Oil”
:http://www.gregpalast.com/the-best-thing-in-the-world-for-big-oil/
Quotes
The 323-page multi-volume “Options for Iraqi Oil” begins with the expected dungeons-and-dragons warning:
The report is submitted on the understanding that [the State Department] will maintain the contents confidential.
For two years, the State Department (and Defense and the White House) denied there were secret plans for Iraq’s oil. They told us so in writing. That was the first indication the plan existed. Proving that, and getting a copy, became the near-to-pathologic obsession of our team.
Our big break came when James Baker’s factotum, Amy Jaffe, first reached on her cellBaker in Amsterdam, then at Baker’s operation in Houston, convinced herself that I had the right to know about the plan. I saw no reason to correct her impression. To get the plan’s title I used a truly dumb trick, asking if her copy’s headings matched mine. She read it to me and listed its true authors from the industry.
The plan carries the State Department logo on the cover, Washington DC. But it was crafted in Houston, under the tutelage of the oil industry — including, we discovered, Donald Hertzmark, an advisor to the Indonesia state oil company, and Garfield Miller of Aegis Energy, advisors to Solomon Smith Barney, all hosted by the James A. Baker III Institute.
So while Amy was in the mood to say too much, and before I got into the details of Big Oil’s plan for Iraq, I needed Amy’s help in finding the answer to the question that was just driving me crazy: why did Saddam have to go? Why did the oil industry promote an invasion of Iraq to get rid of Saddam?
The question is basic but the answer is not at all obvious.
We know the neo-cons’ answer: Their ultimate target of the invasion was Saudi Arabia, which would be cut low by a Free Iraq’s busting the OPEC oil cartel. But Big Oil wouldn’t let that happen. The neo-cons’ scheme ended up an unnoted smear under
Amy’s alligator boot heels.
And we can rule out Big Oil’s desire for Iraq’s oil as the decisive motive to invade. The last thing the oil industry wanted from Iraq in 2001 was a lot more oil.
Neither Saddam’s affection for euro currency nor panic over oil supply ‘peaking’ ruffled the international oil industry. What, then, made Saddam, so easy to hug in the 1980s, unbearable in the 1990s?
Saddam had to go, but why?
Amy told me they held meetings about it.
Beginning just after Bush’s Florida ‘victory’ in December 2000, the shepherds of the planet’s assets got together to plan our energy future under the weighty aegis of the
“Joint Task Force on Petroleum of the James A. Baker III Institute and the Council on Foreign Relations.” The master plan makers included Paul Bremer’s and Kissinger’s partner, Mack McLarty, CEO of Kissinger McLarty Associates; John Manzoni of British Petroleum; Luis Giusti, former CEO of the Venezuelan state oil company (until Hugo Chavez kicked him out); Ken Lay of Enron (pre-indictment); Philip Verleger of the National Petroleum Council, and other movers and shakers crucial to such bi-partisan multi-continental group gropes — all chaired by Dr. Edward Morse, the insider’s insider, from Hess Oil Trading.
Their final report detailed Saddam’s crimes. Gassing Kurds and Iranians? No. James A. Baker was the Reagan Chief of Staff when the U.S. provided Saddam the intelligence to better target his chemical weapons. Weapons of Mass Destruction? Not since this crowd stopped selling him the components.
In the sanitary words of the Council on Foreign Relations’ report (written up by Jaffe herself), Saddam’s problem was that he was a “swinger”:
Tight markets have increased U.S. and global vulnerability
to disruption and provided adversaries undue potential in-
fluence over the price of oil. Iraq has become a key
“swing” producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S.
government.
Now hold on a minute: Why is our government in a “difficult” position if Iraq is a “swing producer” of oil?
The answer was that Saddam was jerking the oil market up and down. One week, without notice, the man in the moustache suddenly announces he’s going to “support the Palestinian intifada” and cuts off all oil shipments. The result: Worldwide oil prices jump up. The next week, Saddam forgets about the Palestinians and pumps to the maximum allowed under the Oil-for-Food Program. The result: Oil prices suddenly dive-bomb. Up, down, up, down. Saddam was out of control.
“Control is what it’s all about,” one oilman told me. “It’s not about getting the oil, it’s about controlling oil’s price.”
So, within days of Bush’s election in November 2000, the James Baker Institute issued this warning:
In a market with so little cushion to cover unexpected
events, oil prices become extremely sensitive to perceived
supply risks. Such a market increases the potential lever-
age of an otherwise lesser producer such as Iraq…
I met with Falah Aljibury, an advisor to Goldman Sachs, the Baker/CFR group and, I discovered, host to the State Department’s invasion planning meetings in February 2001. The Iraqi-born industry man put it this way: “Iraq is not stable, a wild card.” Saddam cuts production, or suddenly boosts it, playing games with the U.N. over the Oil-for-Food Program. The tinpot despot was, almost alone, setting the weekly world price of oil and Big Oil did not care for that. In the CFR’s sober language:
Saddam is a “destabilizing influence… to the flow of oil
to international markets from the Middle East.”
With Saddam out of control, jerking markets up and down, the price of controlling the price was getting just too high. Saddam drove the oil boys bonkers. For example, Saddam’s games pushed the State Department, disastrously, to launch, in April 2002, a coup d’etat in Venezuela.
This could not stand. Saddam delighted in playing cat-and-mouse with the USA and our oil majors. Unfortunately for him, he wasn’t playing with mice, but a much bigger and unforgiving breed of rodents.
Saddam was asking for it. It was time for a “military assessment.” The CFR concluded:
Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to
threaten to use the oil weapon to manipulate oil mar-
kets… United States should conduct an immediate pol-
icy review toward Iraq, including military, energy,
economic, and political/diplomatic assessments.
The true motive to invade Iraq, Saddam’s “manipulation of oil markets,” was there, but not yet, in April 2001, the official excuse.
Not surprisingly, the desires of the “Project for a New American Century,” the neo-con field of dreams, of remaking Arabia, was not in the Baker Institute-CFR plan. However, the conclusion, Saddam must go, matched the neo-con’s policy demand, if for highly different reasons. The Baker-CFR panel had a limited concern: Get rid of the jerk, the guy yanking the market.
Morse was close-lipped about who saw and used the 2001 Baker-CFR report, but Amy Jaffe could not help telling me that Morse reported its conclusions in a briefing at the Pentagon.
More important, back in early 2001, the initial Baker-CFR report (another participant tipped me) was handed directly to Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney met secretly with CFR task force members (including Ken Lay) to go over the maps of Iraq’s oil fields. That, apparently, sealed it. Cheney took the CFR/Baker recommendations as his own plan for dissecting Iraq, I’m told, beginning with the none-too-thinly-veiled take-out-Saddam “assessment.”
And whose plan was it? I knew the membership of the Baker-CFR group was Big Oil and its retainers. But I was curious to know who put up the cash for drafting the extravagant report that was so protective of OPEC and Saudi interests. This document was, after all, the outline on which the Bush administration drew its grand design for energy, from Iraq to California to Venezuela. According to Jaffe, the cost of this exercise in Imperialism Lite was funded by “the generous support of Khalid al-Turki” of Saudi Arabia.
End Quotes
Was The Invasion of Iraq a Jewish Conspiracy?
:http://www.gregpalast.com/was-the-invasion-of-iraq-a-jewish-conspiracy/
Quotes
But Wolfowitz’s little numbers game can hardly count as a Great Zionist conspiracy. That seemed to come, at first glance, in the form of a confidential 101-page document slipped to our team at BBC’s Newsnight. It detailed the economic “recovery” of Iraq’s post-conquest economy. This blueprint for occupation, we learned, was first devised in secret in late 2001.
Notably, this program for Iraq’s recovery wasn’t written by Iraqis; rather, it was promoted by the neo-conservatives of the Defense Department, home of Abrams, Wolfowitz, Harold Rhode and other desktop Napoleons unafraid of moving toy tanks around the Pentagon war room.
Nose-Twist’s Hidden Hand
The neo-cons’ 101-page confidential document, which came to me in a brown envelope in February 2003, just before the tanks rolled, goes boldly where no U.S. invasion plan had gone before: the complete rewrite of the conquered state’s “policies, law and regulations.” A cap on the income taxes of Iraq’s wealthiest was included as a matter of course. And this was undoubtedly history’s first military assault plan appended to a program for toughening the target nation’s copyright laws. Once the 82nd Airborne liberated Iraq, never again would the Ba’athist dictatorship threaten America with bootleg dubs of Britney Spears’ “…Baby One More Time.”
It was more like a corporate takeover, except with Abrams tanks instead of junk bonds. It didn’t strike me as the work of a Kosher Cabal for an Imperial Israel. In fact, it smelled of pork — Pig Heaven for corporate America looking for a slice of Iraq, and I suspected its porcine source. I gave it a big sniff and, sure enough, I smelled Grover Norquist.
The very un-Jewish Norquist may have framed much of the U.S. occupation grabfest, but there was, without doubt, one notable item in the 101-page plan for Iraq which clearly had the mark of Zion on it. On page seventy-three the plan called for the “privatization… [of] the oil and supporting industries,” the sell-off of every ounce of Iraq’s oil fields and reserves. Its mastermind, I learned, was Ariel Cohen of the Heritage Foundation.
For the neo-cons, this was The Big One. Behind it, no less a goal than to bring down the lynchpin of Arab power, Saudi Arabia.
It would work like this: the Saudi’s power rests on control of OPEC, the oil cartel which, as any good monopoly, withholds oil from the market, kicking up prices. Sell-off Iraq’s oil fields and private companies will pump oil in their little Iraqi patches to the max. Iraq, the neo-cons hoped, would crank out six million barrels of oil a day, bust its OPEC quota, flood the world market, demolish OPEC and, as the price of oil fell off a cliff, Saudi Arabia would
fall to its knees.
“It’s a no-brainer,” Cohen told me, at his office at Heritage. It was a dim little cubby, in which, in our hour or two together, the phone rang only once. For a guy who was supposed to be The Godfather of a globe-spanning Zionist scheme to destroy the Arab oil monopoly, he seemed kind of, well… pathetic.
And he failed. While the Norquist-promoted sell-offs, flat taxes and copyright laws were dictated into Iraqi law by occupation chief Paul Bremer, the Cohen neo-con oil privatization died an unhappy death. What happened, Ari?
“Arab economists,” he hissed, “hired by the State Department… the witches brew of the Saudi Royal family and Soviet Ostblock.”
Well, the Soviet Ostblock does not exist, but the Arab economists do. I spoke with them in Riyadh, in London, in California, in wry accents mixing desert and Oxford drawls. They speak with confidence, knowing Saudi Arabia’s political authority is protected by the royal families — of Houston petroleum.
“Enhance OPEC”
After two mad years of hunting, I discovered the real plan for Iraq’s oil, the one that keeps our troops in Fallujah. Some 323 pages long and deeply confidential, it was drafted at the James A. Baker III Institute in Houston, Texas, under the strict guidance of Big Oil’s minions. It was the culmination of a series of planning groups that began in December 2000 with key players from the Baker Institute and Council on Foreign Relations (including one Ken Lay of Enron). This was followed by a State Department invasion-planning session in Walnut Creek, California, in February 2001, only weeks after Bush and Cheney took office. Its concepts received official blessing after a March 2001 gathering of oil chiefs (and Lay) with Dick Cheney where the group reviewed with the Vice-President the map of Iraq’s oil fields.
Once I discovered the Big Oil plan, several of the players agreed to speak with me (not, to the chagrin of some, realizing that I rarely hold such conversions without secretly recording them). Most forthright was Philip Carroll, former CEO of Shell Oil USA, who was flown into Baghdad on a C-17 to make sure there would be no neo-con monkey business in America’s newest oil fields.
It had been a very good war for Big Oil, with tripled oil prices meaning tripled profits. In Houston, I asked Carroll, a commanding, steel-straight chief executive, about Ari Cohen’s oil privatization plan, the anti-Saudi “no-brainer.”
“I would agree with that statement” Caroll told me, “privatization is a no-brainer. It would only be thought about by someone with no brain.”
Bush world is divided in two: neo-cons on one side, and the Establishment (which includes the oil companies and the Saudis) on the other. The plan the Establishment created, crafted by Houston oil men, called for locking up Iraq’s oil with agreements between a new state oil company under “profit-sharing agreements” with “IOCs” (International Oil Companies). The combine could “enhance the [Iraq's] government’s relationship with OPEC,” it read, by holding the line on quotas and thereby upholding high prices.
So there you have it. Wolfowitz and his neo-con clique — bookish, foolish, vainglorious — had their asses kicked utterly, finally, and convincingly by the powers of petroleum, the Houston-Riyadh Big Oil axis.
End Quotes
I think that ought to cover it.
Now you can cite the evidence that the oil companies opposed the war on Iraq.
Good luck.
R S Hack,
The reason every Arab country has endorsed the 2002 Saudi peace plan is the recognition of Arab leaders that there is no alternative, short of catastrophic war, to acceptance of Israel within its 1967 borders. This obviously is a reasonable conclusion for the Arab leaders to draw.
Yes, it would be a bad thing if Israel invaded Palestine after getting out of Palestine. It would be a bad thing if Israel carried out another massacre a la Gaza 2008-09. But the Palestinians would survive, with their own coutry.
“The most important thing that I can convey about Iran in general – my most memorable reaction in retrospect – is this simple concept: Americans need to ignore anything and everything they hear about modern-day Iran, its leader, its culture, and its people from the mass media in America,” Michael Collins Piper, American author and correspondent for American Free Press, January 7, 2007.
Islamic Republic Beyond Israeli Hasbara
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/islamic-republic-beyond-israeli-hasbara/
BiBiJon,
Thanks. I am a great fan of Binoche and glad she visited Iran. And she can offset some of the Iranophobic rubbish put out steadily by the Israel lobby.
R S Hack,
Did I miss a link to a Greg Palast story supporting your belief that American oil companies encouraged the Bush administration to invade Iraq in 2003? I would be very happy to read the story.
In “American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush”, first published in 2004, Palast is cited regarding his March 2003 comments about G H W Bush and the Carlyle Group, but nothing about Big Oil supporting the invasion. As you will recall, the Saudis did not like the idea of the US invasion of Iraq. And, of course, they liked the execution of the scheme even less.
Arab League backs no-fly zone in Libya
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOMHvdZE5G0&feature=player_embedded
For film buffs only.
Juliette Binoche, the unpretentious star talks about Iran
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/interviews/?story=/ent/movies/andrew_ohehir/2011/03/12/certified_binoche
… come to Iran.” [Laughter.] I said, “OK, OK, fine, maybe I’ll come.” About a year later, I really started to think about it. I thought I would love to know what was really going on there, after reading about all the Iranian bad people, you know, and all the politics. It turned out that I could get a visa. I was very surprised that I could get there. And I really discovered a completely different country than I imagined, than I was reading about in the media.
I’ve heard that from other people too. But what do you mean, exactly?
The joy inside the houses! They’re very much like Italians. They love life, they enjoy life, they’re full of culture. They have a great sense of themselves.
Here is what I think will likely happen in Libya in regards to whether there will be US and EU military intervention:
If the west, particularly US, finds within Libyan rebels THEIR MAN who will protect west’s interest in Libya than their could be either:
a)a no-fly zone enforced on Libya. This would mean allowing the rebels to advance towards Tripoli and eventually finish Gaddafi.
OR
b)supply anti-aircraft missile to the rebels through the Saudis.
However, if the west does not find their man within rebels than they will allow the regime to survive and it will business as usual. Western media will drop coverage of Libya and allow western regimes to carry on their love affair with Gaddafi.
Which option to take will depend on the outcome of Mrs Clinton’s meeting with the rebel representative -which will take place within next few days.
Mr. Canning: “Big Oil (major US oil companies) opposed the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.”
Cite please. And then go read Greg Palast as I’ve repeatedly suggested you do.
Mr. Canning: “Key issue is getting all Israeli troops and police out of the country.”
I can only say, “Duh!” To that notion. And add that the real problem will be KEEPING them out any so-called Palestinian state.
If you think Israel is going to call off its expansionist Zionist agenda just because someone recognizes Palestine as a “state”, even with the 1967 borders, you’re delusional.
As the Jewbonics article notes, a “two-state solution” is just another trap for the Palestinians. There is only ONE solution: a single bi-national state IMPOSED on the Zionists – by force, if necessary.
The rebels’ new western line is reportedly the coastal oil town of Brega (Al Burayqah), about 60 miles east of Ras Lanuf. Check out the town on Google Earth, particularly the north-south road just west of town that dead-ends at the ocean. If you have “Photos” turned on in Google Earth, you’ll see 3 photos posted right at that location, all taken in 1970 when the buildings at that location apparently housed the “Brega Esso Club.” (Esso is the former name of Exxon, now Exxon/Mobil.) The photos depict a scene one might expect to see in the US Midwest on a lazy summer afternoon: families (all American, it appears) jumping into the pool, sunning themselves on lawn chairs alongside, engaging in a tug-of-war.
All that’s gone now. The pool is empty, the buildings appear to be abandoned.
But who knows? A few cans of paint, a little elbow grease, an indomitable will to recapture the past pleasures of American ex-pat life on the lazy shores of Libya…
It would be ironic indeed if the US began assisting the rebel group, many of whose toughest “core” fighters reportedly hail from the coastal city of Darnah – best known (until now) for being a principal source of foreign volunteers to help Al Qaeda in Iraq. Shortly before he was killed, the insurgent leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, vowed he’d one day visit Darnah, to pay his respects to a city that had done so much to support the anti-US insurgency in Iraq.
WINEP warns Israel not to attack Lebanon
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/winep-warns-israel-not-to-attack-lebanon/
Fiorangela,
Yes, shame on C-Span for promoting Iranophobic neocon ranting by Frank Gaffney.
FYI,
Agreed, Iran was sensible to build the gas pipeline to the border of Pakistan. It will go on to India before too many years, even if foolish Americans try to interfere with the programme. But I do think Iran was wise to accomodate the Indian oil purchases at prior pricing.
In many posts about the Libyan situation, I find it necessary to preface my remarks with “Maybe I’ve missed something, but…” Nevertheless, I find it necessary to do that again here.
The rebels (at least until the last couple of days) appear to have allowed – even encouraged – journalists and photographers to accompany them virtually everywhere, including even the front lines, and I’ve seen numerous photographs of killed and wounded rebel fighters.
The rebels also claim that Gaddafi’s forces have been indiscriminately bombing and machine-gunning women and children, which Gaddafi’s spokesmen vehemently deny. It would not surprise me to learn that some women and children have been killed, as happens, unfortunately, in any war. But I’m surprised that I haven’t seen any photographs or videos of wounded or dead women or children. I’d expect the rebels to publicize any such incidents, especially if they’re occurring on the scale alleged by the rebels.
I’m also surprised that the UN has not taken up what I understand is a standing offer from Gaddafi to “come and see for yourself” about the rebels’ allegations of women/children casualties. Certainly UN inspectors might get to Libya and quickly learn that they’re permitted only to participate in restricted tours, or that doctors and nurses seem to be reluctant to talk or do not sound credible. But there’s only one way to find out whether that will occur. Why not go there, make an effort to investigate, and call Gaddafi’s bluff if he does in fact restrict your access? Wouldn’t that make more sense than to sit in one’s office somewhere in Europe and the US and simply insist that an inspection tour would be pointless?
Axeri,
Thanks again for the Giraldi article on J Street. I’d not known the guy I mentioned was its executive director – principally because I stopped paying attention to J Street quite some time ago.
Rehmat, wow. the names in that 2002 Antiwar article you linked, http://www.antiwar.com/orig/royer1.html , are the same as the cast in the latest film opus put out by Rabbi Raphael Shore and Clarion fund, “Iranium,” the reb’s follow-up to that hit hit-piece, “Obsession.”
Frank Gafnfey once again was given 45 minutes at a microphone at C Span this morning to bray about how eevvul Iran is, how taking down Iran will solve Libya, or taking down Iran will solve Egypt, or the Muslim Brotherhood is the root of all evil, — Gaffney actually said that the US should kill Qaddafi.
C SPAN SHOULD BE ASHAMED!!!! Shame on you C Span, Shame on you, Pedro Ecchevaria, Shame shame on you Brian Lamb for allowing your marvelous project to become the sounding board for merchants of hate and anti-Americanism.
Washington, DC has lost its ability to identify enemies of the state as enemies of the state.
Gafnfny found time to mention his cameo role in Iranium. Gafnfny blasted Sharia law at least half-a-dozen times, a major tip-off that Gafnfny and his fellow travellers are shills for the money men and the arms merchants — like maggots in a dead cat, those creatures seek death and decay to feed on. If the US had the principled financial practices of Shari’a in place, she would not be trillions of dollars in debt. Gafnfy intends to see that US stays in debt, perhaps sinks to default/bankruptcy. What a vile cast of characters. Shameful.
Rehmat,
Thanks. I view Hezbollah as the un-acknowledeged friend of the American taxpayers, restraining Zionist fanatics and other delusional Israelis from smashing Lebanon yet again. Of course, stooges of the Israel lobby in US news media suppress this angle entirely.
Everyone should read Cyrus Safdari’s posts at Iran Affairs on the Democracy Council.
I recommend Rodric Braithwaite’s new book, “Afgantsy: The Russians in Afghanistan, 1979-89″. A very good review of this book by John Lloyd appears in the Weekend Financial Times today.
When thinking about Afghanstan and the Soviet military adventure there, I almost always remember that Robert Gates, from his position at the CIA, thought in late 1988 that the Soviets would double their forces in Afghanistan. I knew they were ready to pull out entirely, just from reading newspapers and talking to people in London and elsewhere who were familiar with conditions in the USSR (which I knew to be near the point of collapse).
Fiorangela – yes like Washington and Democracy Council – here are more neocon (mostly Jewish) groups which provide ‘broad support’ to groups within Israeli network.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/royer1.html
YES James – Not only Saad Hariri, but even the Jewish leaders believe that it’s Hizbullah is the only Lebanese group which is stopping Tel Aviv to occupy Lebanon as visioned by Theodor Herzl) and steal Lebanese water and oil.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/israeli-theft-of-lebanese-oil-and-water/
fyi,
Your belief there exists a US/EU “Grand Strategy” is itself a profound misapprehension of the reality that obtains. The decisions are largely ad hoc.
I am old enough to recall, vaguely, US calls for an American airstrike on Viet Minh forces encircling Dien Bien Phu, in early 1954, to “save” the French. Why? China Lobby in the US (promoted by the Soong “dynasty”). Britain blocked the scheme.
R S Hack,
Iran opposed the US invasion of Iraq even though Iran knew it would benefit from destruction of the Sunni regime.
Your belief that because US oil companies profited hugely from the illegal US/UK invasion of Iraq, they must have promoted the scheme, I think is a misconception promoted by the Israel lobby to deflect attention from the fact supporters of Israel conspired to set up the illegal war.
recall how Marc Bruzonsky explained how he got HIS start by using free air-time supplied by local cable networks? Likely as not, Bruzonsky used a DC-regional cable network such as this Maryland Public Television channel, which aired this program — the ubiquitous James Glassman and the disgusting and vile Josh Muravchik opining on “why my soul is filled with hatred of Iran and yours should be too.”
Upcoming Episodes
08:30 AM
From Egypt to Iran?
Episode # 201
Guests: Mohsen Sazegara, Iranian pro-democracy political activist; Joshua Muravchik, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.Iranian regime is saying that Egypt is example of an Islamist revolution spreading to Arab country, but, in fact, will the demands for democratic reform in Egypt spread to Iran? Host Jim Glassman is joined by Iranian pro-democracy political activist Mohsen Sazegara and Joshua Muravchik of The Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and author of The Next Founders: Voices of Democracy in the Middle East.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Length : 26 min
MPT2 http://www.mpt.org/schedule/detail/18238/2011-02-13
who is Mohsen Sazegara? Middle ‘taash,’ perhaps??
R S Hack,
Big Oil (major US oil companies) opposed the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. And the US bought more Iraqi crude, from Iraq, than any other country, in the years prior to the invasion.
Richard and Axeri,
Thanks for the information.
Dan Cooper,
I think one should not put David Cameron in the same basket as Obama, regarding the best way forward with Israel/Palestine. Cameron openly says Israel needs to end the occupation of the West Bank. And he is deeply sceptical about the neocons and their scheme of endless war to protect Israel (meaning, to enable permanent oppression of the Palestinians by the Israels).
FYI,
You have a fixation on “zero-sum” analysis which is entirely lacking in finesse and confuses the issues rather than clarifies them, in my view. A Manichean point of view, perhaps?
BiBiJon, put your mind at ease; Democracy Council supports “broad, vigorous, and independent media,” as you can plainly see from the Mission Statement on their website:
“Independent Media Programs
A broad, vigorous and independent media plays an indispensable role in creating and sustaining viable democratic societies around the world. Press freedom, an atmosphere in which the open exchange of ideas is valued, creates an informed citizenry that can hold leaders accountable.
Whether traditional print and broadcast media or web-based, a free and independent media serves both as a catalyst for reform and a bulwark against government repression. Thus, the flow of objective, timely and accurate news remains critical to any democracy.
The Democracy Council supports and incubates independent media projects within closed societies. By working in tandem with local journalists and media managers, we provide critical support to press freedom worldwide, thereby enhancing prospects for democratic institution-building.
The Council has successfully nurtured local media outlets in the Arab World and Latin America. We have provided technical expertise to facilitate the production and availability of independent news in post-conflict situations and in states that are transitioning to become open societies, creating spaces for information and idea sharing where they had not existed before ”
perhaps when Democracy Council has “broadened, invigorated, and liberated” Iran’s media, it can get to work to liberate American media from over-influence of zionism.
Rehmat,
I think Saad Hariri knows that Hezbollah is the only military force able to deter Israel from smashing Lebanon again. He may make statements to please supporters in the US and Canada.
The ‘Council for Democracy and Tolerance’ is a Zionist hasbara outlet by a Pakistan neocon and funded by Aubrey Chernick through his charity ‘Fairbank Foundation’(US$160,000). Aubrey Chernick has also provided funds to ‘Defend the West’ ($130,000) by a Muslim turncoat Ibn Warraq.
The other pro-Israel groups which are on Aubrey Chernick’s payroll include (Source: 2008 IRS 990 Report).
◦Ateret Cohanim ($30,000), involved in the Judaization of East Jerusalem through “appropriation” of Arab homes
◦Muslim-basher Bridgette Gabriel’s American Congress for Truth ($50,000)
◦Aish HaTorah, funders of the anti-Muslim films Obsessed and Third Jihad ($14,000)
◦the anti-Palestinian media advocacy group MEMRI ($100,000)
◦American Freedom Alliance, another Muslim-bashing group, founded by Avi Davis, which defends western civilization from the unwashed hordes ($120,000)
◦Gary Bauer’s American Values ($80,000)
◦Horowitz’s Center for the Study of Popular Culture ($160,000)
◦The anti-Arab media advocacy group CAMERA ($25,000)
◦Hudson Institute ($50,000); Heritage Foundation ($50,000)
◦The Jewish neo-con security think tank JINSA ($15,000)
◦The anti-Arab media advocacy group Second Draft ($40,000)
◦Stand With Us ($20,000); and Daniel Pipes’ Middle East Forum ($180,000).
◦In 2005, Chernick gave $60,000 to the Central Fund of Israel, one of the largest pro-settler ‘philanthropic’ advocacy groups
MEMRI – Israeli front for mistranslation of Arabic and Persian contents of Muslim leaders.
The Investgating Project on Terrorism (IPT) run by the notorious Islamophobe Steven Emerson.
CAMERA, a Jewish hasbara organ associated with Islamophobe Jewish Dr. Daniel Pipes.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/02/14/report-israeli-hasbara-propaganda-is-failing/
Axeri,
Excellent comments and analysis re J-Street by Giraldi, that you linked. It does seem to be something of a scam, intended to continue the deception of the American people so that Israel can oppress the Palestinians for decades to come – - no matter how many scores of billions of dollars this costs the US taxpayers.
I do think Palestine can be independent even if there are 500,000 Jews living within its borders. Key issue is getting all Israeli troops and police out of the country.
Anyone has any further info on this:
http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2011/03/the-democracy-councils-plans-for-iran-and-the-taash-network.html
“… an “internal” document by something called the Democracy Council (apparently a 501c3 nonprofit) – entitled a “TCN Concept Paper INTERNAL DRAFT 3-5-11″ which proposed conducting a pro-Green information campaign directed towards Iran which combined a variety of media outlets, collectively called the “Taash Network,” which would be created by a foundation in Europe as a cover. The document said, among other things, that it was meant to appeal to the youth in Iran because the existing LA-based outlets were basically too incompetent and not taken seriously, …”
Eric, Steven
On Ben Ami and J-Street Philip Giraldi has written two informative atticles in Antiwar.com.
The recent one is:
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2011/03/09/the-j-street-scam/
Persian Gulf says: March 12, 2011 at 10:34 am
Yes, the Axis Powers have turned the world into a zero-sum game in which one man’s disaster is another’s salvation.
It did not have to be thus but people who occupy strategic heights, eventually push too far.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12720219
although the images of the devastated areas are heartbreaking, the nuclear reactor’s explosion by itself is a perfect reminder to Mr. Amano, a Japanese himself, who did not even condemn the spread of Stuxnet in Iran’s nuclear sites. As if the safety of Iranian people was not his agency’s concern.
this nuclear episode was just in the right time. the hidden Imam is helping!
Fiorangela says: March 12, 2011 at 9:49 am
Pakistan and Indian military planners had theur jets ready…
Scott Lucas
Your problem is that you DONT have standards. Liz is quite right. Your obsession is Iran and as Reza Esfandiari wrote somewhere taking stuff from Aljazeera regarding other countries and putting it on your website does not impress. Your animosity is directed at Iran and effectively the Iranian people.
Empty @ 6:09 am, re earthquake damage to Japanese nuclear reactor:
Call to C Span Washington Journal this morning: “What kind of idiot builds a nuclear plant on an earthquake fault line?”
My response: The same kind of idiot who injects toxic and radioactive ‘fracking’ chemicals into the ground where groundwater feeds into streams and rivers that serve several million people.
It’s been a few months since I saw “Gaslands.” As I recall, it emphasized the harms caused by chemical/toxic pollution. The Marcellus shale deposits, in Pennsylvania-New York region, pose a particular threat to water supplies. But another issue is being raised by people in Southern states where fracking is used to horizontally drill to release natural gas within shale formations: what is happening to the geologic structure of the land that is being fracked? Scientists don’t know; there is no data. Recent experiences in Arkansas and Texas reveal that earthquakes are occurring in the Barnett shale region :http://247wallst.com/2011/03/02/arkansas-earthquakes-could-be-result-of-shale-gas-production-swn-chk-bhp/
And to bring it on home to RFI: Iran builds its nuclear plants deep underground, and encases them in concrete. “To stymie US and Israeli eagerness to destroy them,” shriek the psychopaths who want to bomb nuclear facilities. “Because Iran is riddled with earthquake fault lines, so it is wise to take all precautions to take measures in consideration of that fact,” might respond Iranian scientists.
One more thing — What kind of idiot would even THINK about bombing a nuclear facility?
On Bahrain:
The latest unrest Saturday comes as U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates visits on a mission to encourage dialogue between the mostly Shiite protesters and the Sunni monarchy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/12/AR2011031201563.html
The authorities demonstrated to Mr. Gates that they are indeed communicating, for now with smoke signals (tear gas).
While the former Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri is dancing to USraeli tune by calling for disarming the Islamic Resistance – on Thursday, the head of its executice council, Sayyed Hashem Safieddine, declared that “Hizbullah would increase its military strength to fight and scare Zionists“. He also added that those who stood against the Resistance are scared because they’re witnessing the collapse of all anti-Resistance regimes (Egypt, Libya, Jordan and Saudi Arabia). “While the path of the Resistance is expanding in Lebanon and Palestine and the whole region, the path of surrender is collapsing with the tyrant rulers“.
Hizbullah had already defeated the Jewish army in 2006. In December 2010, Israeli General Giora Eiland had amitted that “Israel does not know how to beat Hezbollah”.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/hizbullah-to-increase-military-power-to-scare-israel/
An explosion in Japan’s nuclear plant has necessitated a call for evacuation of all residents in 10km radius of the plant. I strongly believe that even if they are able to evacuate the entire population from the area, the radioactive contamination of air, soil, surface and ground water are such that there is no way a meaningful clean-up could happen for years to come. As with 3-Mile Island nuclear plant disaster in the U.S., all adverse impacts on human, animal, and environment are going to be covered up and rationalized away by vested interests.
Eric: I should add that the impression I get from the Jewbonics piece is that the guy is one of those “critics” of Israel who are still pro-Israel, they just think they know a better way to support Israel than the Likud fanatics. I suspect he’s like M. J. Rosenberg, i.e., a “nice” Zionist.
Eric: I have no idea. In fact, I’ve never heard of him except in this article over at Jewbonics. Sorry.
Richard,
(Your March 11, 10:26 PM):
I hadn’t been familiar with Jeremy Ben-Ami until you mentioned him. I more or less “speed-read” the main page of his blog and was left thinking that this guy was one of the more strident anti-Palestinians I’d come across in quite some time. But then I clicked on his “About” link and was informed (by him) that he is in fact a strong critic of Israeli policy and (really or in his fantasies) is often chased around by the IDF.
I made a feeble effort to rationalize all this, but thought it best to check first with you – whose observations I respect on such matters even if that fact may be less than obvious lately.
So: What’s the deal with this guy?
Dan Cooper says: March 11, 2011 at 10:57 pm
The Axis Powers do not have the capability for prolonged projection of power into Libya.
I do not think that Chrales de Gaulle is even in the Mediterranean Sea – may be it is Persian Gulf defending Qatar against the imminent threat from Iran? [After all, Qataris have rented the French for patrol durty.]
This all sound & fury, signifying that the Axis will do nothing.
British PM David Cameron outlined his conversation with Obama, saying “We have got to prepare for what we might have to do if he [Gaddafi] goes on brutalising his own people…”
I find myself overwhelmed by Cameron’s humanist stand — it seems he really cares about the Libyan people.
And yet, I am left puzzled, for I have never observed Cameron, Obama or the UN being so touched in the same manner by the death of Palestinian civilians, who are also butchered on a daily basis by Israeli air raids.
As it seems, in the quote above, Muammar Gaddafi performs far more integrity than Cameron, Obama and the UN. Gaddafi clearly manages to question the Western moralist agenda. If the UN is so enthusiastic to bomb Libya, shouldn’t it really start with Israel?
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-what-about-a-no-fly-zone-for-the-palestinians.html#entry10739971
Interesting piece from Jewbonics:
when our enemies are more honest than our friends: Ben Ami on Walt and Mearsheimer
:http://www.maxajl.com/?p=5049
Quotes:
What is it that J Street is intended to do? To push Israel into a two-state “solution.”* Why? Walt told us in Boston Review in a think-piece telling us how to run our empire about six years ago:
What if George Bush had made achieving a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians the cornerstone of his foreign policy after 9/11, and had been willing to commit the same amount of time, political capital, and money ($145 billion and rising) that he committed to overthrowing Saddam?
Putting to the side that fact that Walt seems uninterested in understanding why we went after Saddam — the astounding 876 billion dollars in profits for BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell from 2001 – 2009 has nothing to do with it, surely — he has a point. He goes on to write, “Israel should be expected to withdraw from virtually all the territories it occupied in June 1967 in exchange for full peace. The United States has every right to pressure Israel in this way…This policy would undoubtedly be anathema to the different elements of the Israel lobby and would probably make some other Americans uneasy.” Some other Americans: like the MIC that Israel is begging to feed with another 20 billion dollars of taxpayer cash, no doubt, like the oil companies that made almost a trillion dollars off speculation and ripping off Americans under the pretext of “stability fears” from regional conflict. J Street? Ben-Ami tells us exactly: a product of enlightened thinking in the establishment about how to safeguard the long-run interests of empire. How? By pushing Israel to the ‘67 armistice line with the West Bank encased in a hostile Jordanian-Israeli military alliance. These are our friends, WaltMearsheimer. Ben-Ami’s too, since we love Zionist militarist racist J Street right?
*A friend recently sent me something about how it’s “too late” for a two-state “solution.” I wish. Given current moods in sectors of Washington, re-configuring Israeli society to accept two states and withdrawal of the settlements will be easier than creating one democratic state. Crappy but true.
End Quotes
Note that figure: 896 billion dollars for the oil companies in profits. And Mr. Canning thinks the oil companies opposed the invasion of Iraq.
And Jewbonics is right: the two-state “solution” is not a solution but another sucker trap for the Palestinians.
The Non-Aligned Movement once again urges respect for Iran’s nuclear energy program.
NAM: Respect Iran’s nuclear rights
:http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/11350
Interesting profile of the Libyan rebels.
Libya’s rebels are inexperienced but zealous
:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42039524/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
Quotes
Not counting supporters who bolster them in the towns along their path, it is estimated at 1,500 at most — Libyans from all walks of life, from students and coffeeshop owners to businessmen who picked up whatever weapons they could and joined the fight. No one seems to know their full size, and they could be picking up new members all the time.
The rebel force is a leaderless collection of volunteers, operating in an evolving collaboration with soldiers who deserted various units over the past month and are still trying to organize themselves. It’s not clear who, if anyone is giving orders.
Many of the fighters come from Benghazi, the main city in the rebel-controlled eastern half of the country. They are united by hatred for Gadhafi and a burning desire to overthrow him and establish a state under the rule of law.
Their command structure is loose at best. There is an operations room for the mutinous military units who are trying to organize their disparate elements. But that operations center has a very tenuous connection to the freelance, volunteer militiamen.
The mutinous military component — said to include some colonels and majors — is taking an increasingly active role in the fighting at the front, on occasion issuing commands that were generally heeded. Army officers were sent a few days ago to work with the revolutionaries to make them better. Orders appear to just filter down.
Sometimes the rebels seem to be almost suicidally rushing into oncoming fire. But while they may lack organization, passion is in plentiful supply. That, combined with widespread distaste for Gadhafi in the east of the country, helped them quickly take over half the coastline, with key oil and population centers, in the early days of the revolt last month.
During some chilly mornings at the checkpoint in Ras Lanouf, the volunteers spew hatred for Gadhafi. There is not much Islamist fervor to be heard. Rather, every one could recite a litany of grievances, whether a disappeared relative, a stint in prison, or even more mundane concerns.
“I’m 32 years old and I have no car, no work, no house and no marriage,” said Hussein al-Awami, an unemployed man who came to front without a weapon, confident he could pick one up in a battle. “I have no connections. I wasn’t a member of the revolutionary councils or the revolutionary guard — Gadhafi’s people. This how it is for all people in Libya.”
“After 42 years of oppression, I’d just had enough,” agreed Mohammed Howeidi, a 25-year-old wearing a stocking cap, a sweater and a carrying backpack filled with rocket-propelled grenades.
The government force facing the rebels is certainly more professional and more impressively equipped: they have planes and helicopters, heavy weaponry and tanks. But its size is unclear: it may be scarcely larger than the rebel force. Based in nearby Sirte, some 100 miles (160 kilometers) west, the army force is itself cut off from the capital, and it may be facing its own divisions from within.
The volunteers are a mostly young group from different backgrounds. Some, like Salem, just wear street clothes — jeans, sneakers, sweatshirts. Others look more like revolutionaries dress in olive drab fatigues, berets and a checkered scarves or keffiyehs around their necks. Many favor camouflage, especially U.S. Army surplus from the 1990 Desert Storm campaign and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Because Libya has compulsory military service, many men have had some degree of military training.
Their weapons vary from including heavy machine guns and assault rifles, to machetes or small knives.
Mohammed Benghizzi, a 27-year-old mechanical engineer, has a Kalashnikov — but he shares it with a friend, taking turns in the fight. He said he taught himself to use the Kalashnikov which he got from the storming of a military barracks in Benghazi.
Others had to buy, and the market in weapons is thriving. Some say the price of a Kalashnikov has quadrupled to more than $3,000.
End Quote
If the above report is reasonably true, it would seem there is no evidence of Western military support to the rebels, nor any indication of either Islamist motivations (other than the obvious fact that the rebels are presumably all Muslim like everyone else in the region) nor any indication that this is a “colour revolution” started by the West. It appears to be entirely stimulated by the other revolutions in the region and related to tribal disagreements with the central state apparatus set up by Gaddafi which marginalized certain elements of Libya’s tribes.
This is the first article I’ve seen that gives at least some indication of what the Libyan revolt is about, as opposed to mere details about how the conflict is going.
Juan Cole is also cautioning against taking Western reports of Gaddafi forces “success” without a grain of salt:
Rebels Hold out in Zawiya, Eastern Ra’s Lanuf as Libyan Civil War Unfolds
:http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/rebels-hold-out-in-zawiya-eastern-ras-lanuf-as-libyan-civil-war-unfolds.html
Quote
I just want to signal that some caution is in order about reading the military and political situation in Libya. Muammar Qaddafi’s counter-attacks are creating the image in the media of the momentum being on his side, but in fact he is bogged down and making little progress, despite the setback Thursday for the rebels at Ra’s Lanuf (itself taken by a small amateur rebel force only last weekend). Qaddafi’s military appears still not to have taken the city of Zawiya after a massive assault, despite government assertions to the contrary, which some Western news sources have unwisely credited Zawiya is only 30 miles west of Tripoli. Although they have pushed back a poorly organized small force at Ras Lanuf, the big cities of the east remain united against them.
The rebels still have at least 75% of the country and 80% of the oil wealth, and a lot of small towns would have to fall to alter that calculus. While it is true that Qaddafi has jets and the rebels don’t, jets don’t take territory. And, Qaddafi’s armor has performed poorly in Zawiya, so his advantage in tanks seems hard to operationalize.
Aljazeera Arabic is reporting mid-day Friday Libyan time that downtown Zawiya to the west of the capital of Tripoli remains in rebel hands despite aerial bombardment today and despite a fierce tank and artillery attack by pro-Qaddafi military forces during the past four days. Qaddafi had claimed to have reconquered the city on Wednesday and brought Western journalists to a pro-regime rally on the outskirts of the town. Aljazeera’s reporter in the city says that Qaddafi’s men have placed snipers on the walls above the entrances to the city and are using Zawiya residents as human shields, but that the rebels have reasserted themselves in the central square. The western city of Zuara is also said by CNN to be supporting the Benghazi-based opposition, and its tribes are lending support to Zawiya.
In the western town of Lanut, crowds came out Friday chanting against Qaddafi and destroyed a stone representation of his “Green Book,” which, in imitation of Mao Ze Dong, had embodied his political philosophy for the masses.
Despite regime warnings against attending Friday prayers in the east, people in Ajdabiya to the southwest of Ra’s Lanuf came out to chant against Qaddafi today. Likewise, Ajdabiya is sending reinforcements to the embattled rebels in eastern Ra’s Lanuf, according to AFP.
The rebel force facing Qaddafi in Ra’s Lanuf and points east is small, perhaps only 1500 men, most of them inexperienced. They are led by officers who defected from Qaddafi’s forces. The invading regime forces from Sirt are also small, perhaps about the same size, but they are supported by armor and air power. There are nevertheless rumors of divisions among the Sirt officers themselves.
End Quotes
Mr. Canning: “American oil compnaies opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003.”
Uh, no.
Read Greg Palast please. I’ve repeated this over and over here. The only thing the US oil companies opposed was the neocon plan to sell Iraqi oil cheap. They brought down the hammer on George Bush and he issued a Presidential directive that Iraqi oil would only be sold in accordance with OPEC price guidelines.
Fiorangela and others: “In other words, if US agenda in ME is about ‘oil AND Israel,’ US has adopted pretty stupid ways of ensuring the flow of oil. And it’s adopted those stupid tactics at the behest of Israel.”
I think there has been a misinterpretation. The US purpose in the Gulf is not to “insure the flow of oil”, although of course it’s not to HALT the flow of oil. It is to MANAGE the flow of oil for its benefit and not the benefit of other competing superpowers such as Russia and China.
It’s to insure a high price for the flow of oil, for the benefit of the oil companies.
The rest of US behavior in the ME is to insure its own hegemony in the region to insure that no other superpower gets that hegemony (and thus insure a high price for and access to oil) and to insure Israel’s hegemony in the region.
US behavior is also conditioned on stimulating war everywhere in the world for the benefit of the military-industrial complex. And these wars are also intended to insure US and Israeli hegemony in the region by disrupting those states who are not US controlled allies in the region.
In short, all of US behavior is to insure a zero-sum game between it and Russia and China. And due to the influence of the Israel Lobby, this also works to the benefit of Israel.
As I’ve said before, the whole situation is an “unholy alliance” between US politicians, Israeli politicians, oil companies, military-industrial companies, the military, banks, and other factions. Each has their own specific motivation but they all work well together to completely screw the US taxpayer and the citizens of the ME.
There is no “either-or” in this. You have to look at the “Big Picture”, as William S. Burroughs’ characters used to say.
James Canning, Fiorengela, et al:
You cannot explain the US Grand Strategy, I can.
Konstantin Sivkov, first vice-president of the Academy of Geopolitical Issues: “We have noticeably lost ground in the arms market in the region last year when, under pressure from the United States, we refused to fulfill a contract to supply S-300 missiles to Iran. We have shown to the entire world that the long-term cooperation in MTC is not possible and that we depend on the opinions of the Americans.
There is no need to entertain the thought that in spite of [reneging on past contracts] we will retain the former influence in the countries that are independent of the U.S. policy. Some may think that countries like Iran and Libya have nowhere to go, and that sooner or later they will be buying Russian weapons again. This is not the case. Iran was not bluffing when, after the termination of the S-300 contract by Russia, it said that it has obtained similar equipment through other channels.
In fact, last year Russia left the arms market of that country. But as you know, a holy place is never empty, and China has already replaced Russia with its HQ-9 SAM, which are really an analog of S-300.
From http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/11-03-2011/117159-russian_arms_exports-0/
“In 1989, Libya’s intelligence chief, with whom I had dined in Tripoli, allegedly ordered the bombing of a French UTA airliner over Niger, killing 170. Gadaffi denied any knowledge of this crime or of the downing of a PanAm US airliner over Scotland. Libya was subjected to crushing western sanctions.
In 2008, Gadaffi bought his way out of trouble by forking out $1.5 billion to the US citizens and other claimants for the UTA and PanAm Lockerbie aircraft – but without admitting Libya’s guilt. President George W. Bush ordered all sanctions on Libya lifted. Washington even declared Gadaffi a valued ally in the so-called war on terror.
Money lasts far longer than moral outrage. This time, the wily Libyan colonel has at least $50 billion to buy his way out of his latest troubles.”
HE’S BACK! GADAFFI REDUX MAY CAUSE LOTS OF RED FACES
http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/hes-back–gadaffi-redux-may-cause-lots-of-red-fa.aspx
Fio,
Bravo re your two points, that Conoco lost a major oil development contract (with Iran) in 1995 due to opposition from Aipac, and that American oil compnaies opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Fiorangela,
I think the primary factor prompting the Carter Doctrine was the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR in 1979. Zbig Brzezinski thought, wrongly, that the Soviets planned to take control of the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan was just a stepping stone. I remember thinking this could not be true because getting into a quagmire in the mountains of Afghanistan was not the best way to get to the Gulf.
The neocons have promoted the project of destroying Jordan to provide cover for the Zionist dream of keeping most of the West Bank permanently. It is a pet scheme of WINEP.
General Anan: ‘Lobby’s new man in Cairo’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/general-anan-lobbys-new-man-in-cairo/
Arnold,
I most certainly do not set out the Egypt of King Farouk as the standard by which one can judge whether a country is independent or not. I think you tend to use “colony” to mean friendly toward the US and needing US protection, at least contingently. Is Lebanon a colony of the US, in your view? What about Turkey? Greece? Malta?
Nasser was a murderous sh*t but he seems to have earned your admiration because he often was hostile toward the US, and the fact he inflicted massive damage on his own country is irrelevent.
Fio:
I agree, control of oil is a very easy objective to accomplish in regions that do not include Israel. The trick is for large amount of oil revenues to be spent in ways that are not threatening to the project of Zionism. To do that, the US has an entire colonial structure and Saudi Arabia’s (as was the Shah’s) membership in that structure is aimed at ensuring that the proceeds of the oil in that region is not used to make Zionism non-viable.
James:
We have to agree to disagree at this point. When I mention the states in the US Middle East colonial structure: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait and others, you always say: “Hey, all of those countries are just as independent as Egypt’s King Farouk”. You’re absolutely correct to say that. Also just as independent as the Shah.
You disagree with me about whether or not Farouk and Pahlavi were independent. You also disagree with Nasser and nearly all Egyptians and with Khomeini and nearly all Iranians.
I don’t think this is a disagreement that can be resolved.
Farouk, Pahlavi, China’s nominally independent Qing dynasty, the nominally independent princes of the British raj in India and the current colonial structure including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait and others are accountable to foreign parties in their policy in a way that Nasser, Khomeini, Mao and Venezuela are not.
I guess you disagree and believe that all of the above-mentioned nominally independent governments are the same. At this point, I have to just let you believe that.
In the alternate world of VOA, I think our resident trolls had a hand in writing this. Oh, yeah and check out the picture’s caption.
http://www.voanews.com/policy/editorials/middle-east/Iran-A-Loser-In-Changing-Middle-East-117816818.html
Arnold Evans, Israeli newspapers and American Israeli groups have been pushing that agenda for some time — I recall seeing an ad on an Israeli online newspaper (don’t recall which) around the middle of January, inviting readers to click the ad to sign the petition to create a Palestinian state in Jordan.
I thought population transfers were abjured by United Nations.
fyi, I’m not convinced that control of oil in the ME is as important as many — and you — believe.
The Carter doctrine — that US should ensure access to Persian Gulf — was enacted in 1980 in a time of stress, in anger at turmoil in Iran, at loss of eyes on the ground in Iran, and at taking of US hostages by Iran. The US has not re-examined the wisdom of that doctrine, and Israel has worked persistently to keep the anger in the forefront.
Many Americans realize that the Carter doctrine, and acting out of irrational anger, are harming American interests. Andrew Bacevich is among them; he recommends rethinking Carter doctrine.
But even before the Carter doctrine, the American people and American interests, including oil interests, have suffered because of US unconditional support for Israel.
`In the construction of ‘Tapline,’ US companies were forced to reroute pipelines in order to avoid Israel, since the place was unstable and in turmoil.
`Where Arabs had initially been unconditionally supportive of Tapline construction, with US recognition of Israel, Arab states that had been thereby denied their own promised self-determination expressed their resentment of US reneging on its promises by driving harder bargains on Tapline.
`In 1973, the American people suffered severe fuel shortages, directly related to US aid to Israel that pulled Israel’s bacon out of the Egyptian fire.
`American corporation Conoco lost out on a major development contract in 1995 because of AIPAC interference with American interests for the sake of Israel.
`American oil men were opposed to the attack on Iraq, but neocons pushed the agenda.
`Perhaps the most absurd of all possible actions, the classic ‘cut my nose to spite your face’ example: at Israel’s bidding, US sanctions Iranian oil and gas commerce. In a time of heightened global demand, and severe economic strain on the US economy, the US adopts measures to constrict international commerce in energy. Couldn’t they think of something dumber than that, or were they too busy whoring for campaign dollars to think at all?
In other words, if US agenda in ME is about ‘oil AND Israel,’ US has adopted pretty stupid ways of ensuring the flow of oil. And it’s adopted those stupid tactics at the behest of Israel.
fyi,
The US encourages ever-larger purchases of Saudi crude oil by China. I think there is no need whatever for the US to have a colossal military and naval presence in the Gulf to ensure China has access to Saudi oil. And is any country on earth trying to prevent another country from buying oil or gas? How would this even work?
I think Russia was happy enough with the Saudi effort to keep oil prices as high as they can be, on a sustained basis. The Saudi are not going to change this policy no matter how much bleating comes from idiot neocons in the US.
fyi,
I think the US purpose, in maintaining its presence in the Persian Gulf, is to make sure no country tries to take control of the Gulf. I think the US military and naval presence is several times too large and that the risk of any country trying to take control over another country in the Gulf, by overt military means, is very low.
Those who promote squandering hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars every year on unnecessary “defence” spending, love the Gulf because they can use it as a way to deceive the ignorant American public (who are told they won’t be able to put gas in their cars if the US does not have this gigantic military presence in the Gulf).
Liz,
Geez, even by your high standards, that last comment makes no sense….
For actual coverage of Bahrain today, see http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/3/11/libya-and-beyond-liveblog-the-regime-advances.html
S.
Arnold,
I seem to be having some difficulty getting a definition of “colony” from you. Egypt was an independent country at the time of the overthrow of King Farouk. Yet you claim Egypt was a colony of the UK at that time, and you argue that Egypt has been a “colony” of the US since 1979. So, are you arging that for a country to be independent, it must maintain a foreign policy hostile toward the US? Problem here is that the US bent over backwards to placate Nasser, despite the serious danger to British interests Nasser posed.
Is Israel a “colony” of the US, in your view?
Rd. says: March 11, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Yes, the Axis Powers, Russia, and China are engaged in this game.
Other states must be very careful.
When elephants fight, grass suffers.
When elephants copulate, grass suffers.
Oh my God James. Venezuela?
Venezuela and Saudi Arabia are different in a way that King Farouk’s Egypt and Saudi Arabia are the same.
If you understand a difference between Venezuela’s relationship with the US and King Farouk’s relationship with the UK, then I call that difference colonial as opposed to independent.
If you think Venezuela has the same relationship with the US as Farouk had with Britain and that Saudi Arabia has with the US, then not right now but at some point I’ll try to explain the difference.
“The U.S. wants to act in three ways. The first U.S. objective is to portray itself as the “good guy” that is reluctant to intervene in Libya or use military force. This is why there is a huge media misinformation campaign designed to create the image of a humanitarian crisis in Libya.
The second thing that the U.S. wants to do right now is to get the Libyans themselves to do most the fighting on the ground. Like in Yugoslavia,”
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23642
James Canning says: March 11, 2011 at 2:35 pm
If US seeks not to politcially dominate Persian Gulf, then why is she there?
Why does not she leave?
James Canning says: March 11, 2011 at 2:29 pm
The increase export of gas by Iran to the EU (US-lite) does not mean that the Axis Powers have abandoned their scheme for political domination of the major energy producing region on this planet.
It does, however, demonstrates that their will to dominate is not motivated by any concrete fear of cut-off (a legitimate fear).
Iranians have demonstrated – through the current and future projects with their neighbour’s – that this fear could be addressed – to a large extent – by the creation of mutually beneficial trade and investment networks.
But if you are like Axis Powers leaders, you desire nothing but supreme political dominance. This is not a rational choice, in my opinion.
Does any one beleive that an attempt by the Axis Powers to deny China energy would be met by anything except war?
Likewise, is there any strategist who thinks that the Axis Powers can try to bankrupt Russia by causing oil prices to plummet without Russian retaliation leading to war?
Is there any possibility that the oil-producing Middle Eastern states would stop selling oil to the Axis Powers? And then under what circumstances?
So, the Axis Powers Grand Startegy is funadmentally misguided, in my opinion.
But it does not make it any less real; it is out there and it will continue to march down its path of destruction until it exhausts itself.
fyi, Arnold,
Isn’t the US the largest buyer of crude oil from Venezuela? Does this make Venezuela a USA colony?
I think you both buy into the propaganda line put out by the neocons, that the US needs to “control” ME oil. And therefor the US gets good value for the billions upon billions of dollars it gives to Israel.
fyi,
The Iranian deputy oil minister announced the other day that Iranian exports of natural gas to Europe were up 27% this past year, from the previous year. Does this mean that the EU is taking control of Iranian gas? Did it take control of Russian gas, by buying it? What do you mean by controlling oil and gas? Does China control Saudi Arabian oil, since China is the largest buyer of Saudi crude?
Dan:
If automatic translation is sufficiently advanced to translate into comprehensible Persian (which would be news to me), then I think it would be a great idea.
The hand that feeds the likes of Scott Lucas, supports the Bahraini murderous dictatorship:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gGN_2dm_tc3BgwndgvrddH1Bf7qg?docId=CNG.3dd45eb241c8502e6bdf77a2885cc060.a1
James Canning says: March 11, 2011 at 1:41 pm
The Axis Powers follow 2 objectives in the Middle East: political control of Oil/Gas resources of the Muslims and the (fundamentally anti-Muslim) policy of support for the fantasy project of Jews in Palestine.
These two policies can only be maintained and pursued through the use of violence against the Muslims: either through surrogate violence of local states that are beholden to the Axis Powers or through direct intervention by those powers themselves.
Thus, the Axis Powers, fundamentally are in political position that will lead to more and more wars and bloodshed in the Middle East. There is no other possibility since even those wretched and crushed Palestinians oppose them and have not surrendered.
It is due to such observations that very many (perhaps tens of millions or hundreds of millions) Muslims have concluded that there is a War against Islam waged by the Axis Powers. Precisely because of the pan Religious and Religion-as-Civilization sentiments of the Muslim people that this is concieved by very many as a religious war.
The world has changed since 1950s when many were willing to be subjects of the Western policies.
Caveat to Axis Powers who have entered – apparently unbeknowest to themselves – a religious war with teh world of Islam.
Liz,
Yes, bravo ElBaradei and his advocacy of an intelligent Egyptian foreign policy in the Middle East. ElBaradei should be championed by the American taxpayers. Neocons, other warmongers supporting Israel right or wrong in Washington, and the Israeli Fifth Column operating in the US, will do their best to keep ElBaradei out.
fyi,
Yes, the plot to destroy Jordan is a diablical scheme, but is it intended to “save” Israel? Or is that the Netanyau propaganda line used by neocons and other warmongers to justify continuing support for the Zionist cancer, no matter how many millions of people have their lives ruined as a result?
Arnold,
Nasser essentially coerced, deceived and blackmailed King Hussein into joining Egypt in the 1967 war. He concealed the fact the Egyptian air force had been destroyed on the ground in Israel’s surprise attack. Hussein was bitter toward Britain and American because in his view the UK and the US had done far too little to defuse the May 1967 crisis, and he thought both countries connived in the Israeli attack.
James Canning says: March 11, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Yes, it is a delusional scheme to save Israel.
It is also a scheme that could serve to destroy Israel in turn.
It is called Blow-back/Finger of God/The Hidden Imam’s Management.
fyi says:
March 11, 2011 at 12:40 pm
That I’ll agree with, because Jordan’s membership in the US regional colonial structure, along with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and others’ is not stable and is not certain to even make it out of this decade.
If whoever are behind that Jerusalem Post ad and petition get their way and Jordan does declare itself somehow the homeland of the Palestinians, that would certainly overall be a huge net decrease for Israel’s medium-term viability.
Arnold & FYI,
Jordan does not want to take control of any part of the West Bank. Jordan supports the 2002 Saudi peace plan that gives Israel acceptance within its 1967 borders. The neocons and other “pr-Israel” warmongers lobby continuously for the destruction of Jordan, as part of delusional scheme intended to enable Israel to keep most of the West Bank permanently.
ot
How to help Japan
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/11/how-to-help-japan-earthquake-relief_n_834484.html
Arnold Evans says: March 11, 2011 at 12:18 pm
You are not looking at it over the course of time.
Jordan as the Palestinian state will bring the day of liberation of Al Quds that much closer.
It is the best that can happen to the Resistance Alliance.
Let us pray that Zionists and their various enablers succeed in getting this started.
Quiz for the day:
Apart from Japan itself, which country will be most affected by the Japanese earthquake?
For a clue to the answer, go to the on-line home page of the New York Times and see what’s happened to coverage of Libya: pushed very far down the page, with the only prominently featured article best described as a post-mortem analysis (by Mark Landler). On the op-ed page, Nicholas Kristof’s intellectual attention-deficit disorder has led him from Libya (where his writings have lately dwelled) to Japan, from which I predict he will flit to somewhere else, never to return to Libya.
We continuously have this disagreement, FYI.
The Hashemite king is a colonial lackey. If he was to declare Jordan the homeland of the Palestinians he would be removed from power and replaced with a government that more reflects the view of around 90% of the people of Jordan that Israel is their primary enemy and the peace treaty as agreed by the colonial monarchy was a bad idea.
But if the Hashemite king could successfully make that declaration, he would in no way give any more than token resistance to Israel, the very least it would be possible for him to give and remain in power to continue serving his US patrons.
Saudi Arabia, another US colony along with Egypt, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait and others, sent troops to assist in the 1967 war and ordered them not to fire a single bullet. It is really a mistake to think of these states as able to execute independent strategies, as making any sort of independent calculations or as working to accomplish any strategic goal outside of their subservience to the US.
Arnold Evans says: March 11, 2011 at 11:12 am
This has been the perennial Zionist dream.
It also demonstrates how out of touch with reality so many Partisans of Israel are.
Let us walk throught this.
If Jordan is declared the Palestinians state, and with the Hashemite claim to be the Guardians of Al Haram Al Sharif, then this new Palestinian state will have the mandate to liberate its occupied territoires and restore Al Haram Al Sharif to the Guardianship of the Hashemite King.
Now, once this is written into the constitution of the new Palestinian state – in an anaologous manner to the way the Federal Republic of Germany’s constitution treated the territory of Democratic Republic of Germany’s – it follows that every Muslim state is the world will openly start aiding it in realizing this project.
The successful war against Israel will become that much more possible.
So, yes, let us hope that Joran is declared the Palestinian state.
Bad news for the US government. Mohamed ElBaradei wants to establish ties with Iran and he supports Iran and Syria:
http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/152985/البرادعیروابط-ایران-و-مصر-را-برقرار-می-کنم
Arnold,
Did you notice the slide on the question regarding how they regard Iran acquiring nukes.
Saudi’s who think Iran is in fact trying to get nukes responded: 28%(positive), 20%(negative), 52%(would not matter)
And those who believe Iranian denials:
40%(positive), 31%(negative), 29%(would not matter)
And on the Saudis attitude twoards the sanctions/pressures on Iran 85% of those who believe Iran’s denials, and 50% of those who think Iran is seeking weapons, disapprove of the pressure on the Persian, predominantly Shi’a state.
Has anyone else seen on this page at the Jerusalem post
http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=211679
A top-banner flash advertisement that says it is time for Jordan’s King Abdullah to get off the fence and declare Jordan the Palestinian state?
I wonder how much traction stating this openly has in Israel.
Unknown Unknowns says:
March 10, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Re: Do you think it is a good idea if this site ” http://www.raceforiran.com/” is translated to “Farsi”
You shed light on two problems: Translation and Funding
Does it really matter if the Automatic Translation is not perfect?
I presume if the Automatic Translation is possible, it would reduce the cost tremendously.
Perhaps Levertts can get some assistance from Mr Morandi in this regard.
I agree, Iranian government would not fund it nor they should, however money can be raised from contributors.
I wonder what levertts and others think about this idea?
BiBiJon says:
March 11, 2011 at 10:27 am
Thanks for that link. Nothing direct about the popularity of the monarchy in the released results, but only the limited summary is available
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2010/08_arab_opinion_poll_telhami/08_arab_opinion_poll_telhami.pdf
:http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM170_2010arabpublicopinion_power_point.pdf
From slide 74, we see that Saudi Arabia is, contrary to Obaid’s assertion, the least nationalistic of all of the polled countries by a wide margin.
Identity
Which of the following is your most important identity?
“Citizen of your country”
2010 [All polled] … 32%
Egypt … 38%
Jordan … 58%
KSA … 19%
Lebanon … 55%
Morocco … 25%
UAE … 34%
Unfortunately, most results are not released disaggregated by country. The decision not to release poll results in most cases by individual companies likely was inspired exactly by an impulse to protect US colonies in the region such Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait and others from there being widely known specific policies of their governments that are not in line with the objectively measured values of their people.
For that reason, also it looks like the most popular leader question specifically excluded questions about the leaders of the country being polled and that obvious question was not asked.
Even Foreign Policy have let themselves be used for this pro-Saud propaganda
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/10/there_will_be_no_uprising_in_saudi_arabia
Sure, everyone in the KSA is happy and joyous!
Arnold Evans says:
March 11, 2011 at 9:44 am
Indeed there have been polls.
http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/0805_arab_opinion_poll_telhami.aspx
Some 850 Saudi’s were surveyed. While the monarchy’s popularity was not one of the questions, reading between the lines tells me there must be a reason why none of Saudi royal family members ranked among the three most popular political figures.
BiBiJon says: March 11, 2011 at 9:39 am
Yes, I agree.
This is why the Iranian Nuclear case, since its submission to UNSC, can no longer be resolved within UNSC.
I think Iranians should write-off Russia in this context.
I also suspect that Chinese are indirectly helping Iran; instead of selling Iranians a turn-key system, they would sell the Iranians the blue prints and detailed Bill of Materials followed by Chinese suppliers that would sell the Iranians what they need.
I mentioned Saudi Arabia earlier. It is hard to predict because a lot hinges on what happens in Egypt and we don’t know where that country is going. But it is easy to think of scenarios in which Saudi Arabia’s colonial monarchy loses power over the medium term. It could very well be out of power and in its place an independent Arabia by 2020.
In his post opinion piece, Obaid asserts that the monarchy is deeply popular. There are two ways to determine anyone or anything’s national popularity. Best is contested elections and next is polls. I’ve never seen a poll, nor does a quick google search give one to me. Of course there have never been elections.
After the Egyptian protests, I’m not confident in the medium term viability of any of the governments of the members of the US regional colonial structure: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait and others.
fyi says:
March 11, 2011 at 8:57 am
On China and Russia’s motivations regarding the Iran nuclear file
On the face of it, both Russia and China, as nuclear powers have a vesterd interest in keeping the club exclusive. While this yardstick applys generally, it cannot trump the particulars of the Iran case for either.
Russia is not and has never been a single-issue player holding fast to any principle. She uses any situation, Iran included, for a range of benefits it can squeeze. Keeping Iran dependent on Russia’s support at UNSC will ultimately trump any resolution to the Iran-US stand off, especially Iran’s abject and total surrender. Iran has to act as a US geo-strategic spoiler in the region over and beyond her own prorogatives just to keep Russia happy enough to dilute the effects of existing sanctions, and formulation of any future sanctions.
For China, the specter of Mid East energy resources becoming the exclusive domain of the US is an outcome far worse than Iran acquiring a nuclear deterent. China is likely to want to see the Iranian issue resolved, which inherently means in Iran’s favor because Iran’s requirements are all within NPT. This for me explains:
“Li told the IAEA board meeting that China hopes Amano could provide further information regarding certain aspects of the report, for example, the sources of information cited.”
From http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-03/09/c_13769489.htm
Richard Steven Hack says: March 11, 2011 at 6:15 am
I agree with your assessment.
Further there is snow ball’s chance in hell of the Axis Powers, Russia and China recognizing Iranian rights; they have incurred too much political, military, economical, and financial costs to be satisfied by any thing less than Iranian surrender of the rights inhereing in NPT.
After the latest UNSC sanctions in June of 2010, Axis sanctions (the EU periphery states), Indian sanctions, Stuxnet attack, and the assasinations of Iranian scientists, this war has been elevated to one in which Iranians will neither surrender nor retreat.
Furthermore, given the Axis Powers propnesity of misusing international institutions and instrument to suit their own purposes; Iran should not sign any binding such treaty with them.
The suggestion in the article (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/148691-the-next-phase-of-us-strategy-on-iran) that “U.S. and European leaders should communicate a comprehensive picture of what Tehran has to gain from a mutually acceptable agreement.” is an impossibility. The Axis Powers do not have anything positive to offer to Iran that is worth much. This is again my personal view and is consistent with the empirical observation that in the broader Middle East, the Axis Powers have not bothered to even suggest a credible view of the future since they have none.
Reza Esfandiari says:
March 11, 2011 at 7:58 am
It just goes to show that the Saudis control the Establishment press in the U.S when it comes to reporting on their country.
I wouldn’t go that far, Reza. It is just that “stability” trumps authentic indiginous governance every time for the Axis of Weasels. It is as if we were still in the 19th C. Case in point: if Arabia ran out of oil overnight, WaPo’s owners and its editorial board who serve those owners would not give a damn how the country was portrayed to the American sheeple.
The Israel-Firster, Abraham Foxman, national director of Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in an Opinion piece published in the Jewish daily FORWARD (March 9, 2011) – wrote that a democratic Middle East would be good for Israel because “democracies are less likely to go to war with one other“. In other words, Abe Foxman has proved my point that the US, Israel and India are NOT democratic nations because they have been at wars with their neighbors and around the world.
The famed Israeli journalist, Gideon Levi, had recently claimed that the Zionist entity is only half democracy.
Even Abe Foxman, indirectly, had admitted in the article that the Zionist entity is not a democracy. “The Egyptian uprising for freedom has appropriately received an enthusiastic response from citizens of democratic countries around the world,” he wrote. We all know Israel supported Hosni Mubarak’s regime to the last end. It only accepted the regime-change in Cairo when the leader of the new military junta assured Tel Aviv that it will keep the Camp David accord breathing. For both the US and Israel – all dictatorships are democratic as long as they serve USraeli evil agenda.
However, Abe cautioned his Zionist readers that Israel need American support to make sure that whenever the military junta allows election in Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood is not allowed to use its political muscles.
“Both are legitimate concerns (democracy and Muslim Brotherhood), and to the extent that the United States can be helpful in making sure that neither scenario occurs, we should do all we can,” wrote the Zionazi Jew.
The hypocrisy of the ‘democracy’ of the Western leaders has always been obvious, especially when it concerns Muslim world. In this case the western definition of ‘democracy’ has always been “Muslim must elect a regime which is pro-West, secularist and anti-Islamist”. It’s okey to have extremist Evangelist and fanatic Jewish groups running governments in the West and Israel – but it’s not okey for practicing Muslims to rule Muslim-majority countries.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/abe-foxman-democratic-me-is-good-for-israel/
Unbelievable. On a day of protests in Saudi Arabia, the Washington Post decides to publish some pro-Saudi propaganda that depicts the country as democratic and prosperous.
No mention of corruption, unemployment, waste, discrimination and repression.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/10/AR2011031005930.html
It just goes to show that the Saudis control the Establishment press in the U.S when it comes to reporting on their country.
BiBiJon: Unlike most, I only pinch myself to make sure I haven’t stopped dreaming.
Very nice. It put a smile on my face :o)
Richard Steven Hack says:
March 11, 2011 at 6:15 am
Richard, I think you’re absolutely right. Je and Rob refer to the uranium swap as a mechanism. The Tehran declaration signed by Brazil, Turkey and Iran explicitly refers to Iran’s right to enrich. If that deal were to be revived, then your envisaged solution may well come to pass.
Unlike most, I only pinch myself to make sure I haven’t stopped dreaming.
BiBiJon: “I hope Iran is listening and will offer the US a way out.”
The US has always had a way out. All the US has to do is recognize Iran’s legal right to enrich, then Iran can implement the AP and prove it has no weapons program. Then the US can back down.
Dream on.
A couple of interesting reports for everyone’s attention:
Clapper’s comments on China, Russia, Libya put him in hot water … again
,http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/10/clapper_s_comments_on_china_russia_libya_put_him_in_hot_water_again
Later in the hearing, when Sen. James Manchin (D-WV) asked Clapper what two countries presented the greatest “mortal threat” to the United States, Clapper said China and Russia.
Committee chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) interrupted to say he was “taken aback,” and that he would have picked North Korea and Iran. Clapper said that China and Russia have the greatest capability but he could not judge their intent. “By that measure, the U.S. represents the biggest threat” to China and Russia, Levin shot back.
Clapper also said at the hearing he has high confidence in his assessment that Iran has not restarted its nuclear weapons program and the intelligence community does not know if it ever will.
My observation
==============
Speaking the truth, ney, the bleeding obvious, such as the 600 pound guerilla in the room is Russia/China does not sit well with the Israel-firsters in the US Senate. So much so, that they are calling for Clapper’s head.
And, this item:
===============
The next phase of U.S. strategy on Iran
By Joe Cirincione and Rob Leonard
,http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/148691-the-next-phase-of-us-strategy-on-iran
“In other words, the Iranian regime will need a face-saving way out of this crisis. Pressure without a path goes nowhere.”
My Observation
==============
A little reverse psychology is in order here. Joe and Rob’s entire piece tells me they realize it is the US who is in dire need of a face-saving way out of this self-made crisis of obsession. I hope Iran is listening and will offer the US a way out.
It’s Their War, Not Ours
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Recently by Patrick J. Buchanan: A Middle East Without America?
Before the United States plunges into a third war in the Middle East, let us think this one through, as we did not the last two.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan153.html
“”What would be the purpose of establishing a no-fly zone over Libya? According to advocates, to keep Moammar Gadhafi from using his air force to attack civilians.
But if Gadhafi uses tanks to crush the rebellion, as Nikita Khrushchev did in Hungary and the Chinese did in Tiananmen Square, would that be OK?….
Arnold: It appears the Libyan revolt has Western “moral” support, but not much in the way of actual support. Unless the Saudis intervene with weapons shipments (with the blessing of the US) or the US establishes a no-fly zone (which is unlikely to really seriously affect the outcome if the US doesn’t actively engage Libyan military ground forces), the rebels may be heading for defeat – although that’s not conclusive yet.
This article indicates the condition of the rebel’s situation:
Libyan rebels committed to cause
:http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-07-libyarebels07_ST_N.htm
They’re committed, but unlike Egypt, they’re not just battling some security forces, they’re actively attacking an organized army with something far from an organized rebellion. Motivation has been known to overcome such odds before, but there’s no guarantee it will happen here. On the other hand, Juan Cole’s site links to various reports that Gaddafi’s military forces are weaker than they appear. Little of his air force is working, and his “60,000 troops” are more like 10-15,000 loyalists. However, his forces have somewhat better training than the rebels and those forces who defected to the rebels are mostly poorly trained conscripts.
Personally I couldn’t care less because as you note correctly Libya just isn’t that important to either the Israel-Palestine situation or the Iran situation.
What’s not clear to me is why the West has decided to support the rebels when it clearly wasn’t interested in supporting any of the other regional rebellions.
The reporting on this rebellion by the MSM has been abysmal, as usual. We get lots of alleged facts about how the rebellion is going, but very little about why and how the rebellion started. There’s no doubt the rebels have some legitimate grievances against Gaddafi, although it’s not clear which tribes have what grievances and how much the tribal structure is involved vs other factions such as unemployed youth. We know there has been an “east vs west” dynamic in the country for decades, but why this has led to a rebellion now is unclear.
Eric’s drivel about Gaddafi’s “legitimacy” isn’t relevant to any of this. As far as I can tell from the Wikipedia article, Libya’s government form is sort of what the US might have had if the Continental Congress had decided to “govern for life” but allowed the states to be popularly elected. It’s not democracy except on a very local scale, and given Gaddafi’s security apparatus and generally murderous behavior about executing any criticism, one can hardly refer to the setup as “legitimate” in any sense.
So clearly the rebels, who appear to be those tribes who have suffered the most under the system, have legitimate grievances. What’s not clear is why now and what level of support exists for a more general rebellion. All we hear about is Gaddafi’s military forces (many of whom defected to the rebels, so he had to bring in mercenaries) and the rebel forces. We know nothing about what the rest of Libya thinks about all this, how popular the revolt actually is among the citizens of those towns that the rebels have seized, etc.
I agree with Eric’s post of 1:00am.
I was comfortable supporting the protesters’ call for Mubarak to step down even in the absence of polls showing most Egyptians supported that because I assumed without conclusive evidence that it was what most Egyptians wanted. What little evidence I saw, a poll taken during the protests that showed support for Mubarak and Suleiman together at 37% did point in the direction I expected.
Because of the US’ deep involvement in the Egyptian political process, I think the US could have, and to its discredit didn’t, demanded Mubarak to be subject to contested elections well before the protests and during the protests.
I’m comfortable supporting a demand for national politics in Libya to be subject to some popular voting mechanism.
The rebel groups in Libya seem to have Western support and that support clearly is not minimizing the loss of life in Libya. If the US conditioned the support it already gives the rebellion on offering a face-saving for Gadaffi and life-saving for Libyan people way out, or way to popular accountability at the national level, that would be a far more morally defensible position than the US has ever taken in the region.
It is what I’d do, but not what I’d expect from US leadership.
This is a situation very much in flux, where the US is not intervening directly and not necessarily intervening effectively. Another thing about Libya is that compared to Egypt, the outcome of Libya is of very limited strategic importance. Which is why, if it was prone to do so, the US could easily afford to focus on saving lives. Someone is going to sell Libyan oil, however that person was put into power.
Gadaffi had actually tamed Libyan policy and made it not actively hostile to the West over the last decade so that there is wide latitude for it to change in either direction without changing anyone’s fundamental strategic considerations. This is unlike Egypt whose potential change can be ground-changing.
So I’d like to see the US focus just on minimizing the loss of life, but I don’t expect or even hope to see that happen. Instead, Libyan lives are being sacrificed in part to make Westerners feel like they are not as impotent as they felt when they lost Mubarak, or in Khalilzad’s words “Qaddafi’s defeat is vitally important; it will show that the process of change will not unseat just friends of the West.” That is a horrible principle for which to exacerbate a situation that is killing people.
But I do accept that the US places no value at all on the lives of people in the Middle East who are not Jewish. And given that, while I don’t approve, I accept that US policy will be what Khalilzad recommends.
Most likely the US will not intervene directly for two reasons, 1) the risk of losing lives the US does care about, US soldiers or pilots who could be shot by Libyan and 2) the prospect that an overt intervention could well strengthen Gadaffi’s position on the ground, by demonstrating that he is defending Libya from a foreign enemy.
Similar deterrents are the only important reasons the US has not and will not for the foreseeable future intervene in Iran. I support and applaud all efforts by Iranians to maintain and strengthen these deterrents.
Ad back off topic again, the latest from Pepe Escobar, who seems to be able to see what’s going on while Eric can’t.
Why no-fly won’t fly
:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC11Ak01.html
Relevant quotes:
As reported by Asia Times Online (Arab revolt reworks the world order March 10), three of the emerging BRICS group countries – Brazil, India and South Africa – have already all but torpedoed the no-fly option. They happen to be current members of the Security Council. The other two BRICS members – Russia and China – are permanent members. BRICS for some time now have coordinated crucial decisions. At Foreign Ministry level, Russia had already dismissed no-fly last week, and China did it this week. Plus there’s Lebanon – another non-permanent member of the Security Council. That makes six “no” votes. Make no mistake; Gaddafi is keeping tabs.
Even the administration of President Barack Obama is not explicitly backing up no-fly. Pentagon chief Robert Gates – even counting on two aircraft carriers and 175 planes of the US 6th Fleet based in Naples, Italy – has explicitly warned this is serious business and it means war, which implies all manners of possible escalation plus unintended consequences (think Bosnia).
Those who do back a no-fly zone make a dodgy catalogue; former African colonial powers France and Britain; US neo-conservatives; and the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) – which includes Bahrain (which already lethally repressed protests), Saudi Arabia (who may do the same during this Friday’s “Day of Rage”), Oman (which may do the same if protests continue) and Qatar (whose al-Jazeera is barely covering the democratic aspirations of fellow GCC members).
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary general of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), also backs no-fly (but the OIC has not taken an official position yet). Same for the toothless Arab League; a meeting has been called by the GCC to discuss it. As for the European Union (EU) it should have a unified position by the end of the week; but don’t bet your steak frites on it.
Anyone watching al-Jazeera can tell that the rebels are disgruntled, unemployed youth engaged with a lot of spirit and no strategic/tactical insights in what The Guardian of London aptly described as “drive-in war”. Some of these come from the Zintan tribe.
So it’s no wonder that Gaddafi’s televised address in the middle of the night on Wednesday was to an audience of young people from Zintan (there were not many, and they didn’t seem to be mesmerized). The hole in Gaddafi’s rhetoric is that all the communiques from eastern liberated Libya totally bypass typical al-Qaeda terminology, and talk extensively about a united nation and the people’s desire for democracy.
End quotes
Back on topic after Eric’s nonsense (the notion that because he can’t read the Libyan tribes’ problems with Gaddafi in the New York Times means they don’t have any notwithstanding, not to mention the notion that with an estimated 25-30 percent of the tribes against Gaddafi, including portions of his own tribe, that this represents a “coup” rather than a revolt). here is criticism of the IAEA’s Amano by Kaveh Afrasiabi in Asia Times.
Nuclear watchdog displays blind faith
:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC10Ak02.html
Quotes
Ratcheting up the Iran nuclear fear in the region is seemingly the West’s, and Israeli’s, best antidote. In this sense, they seem to have an ally in Amano. His predecessor, Mohammad ElBaradei, had dismissed most of the intelligence on Iran’s “alleged studies” as sheer fabrication. In comparison, Amano, who per the WikiLeaks disclosures has assured Washington of being on the same page on “all the key strategic issues”, has a blind faith in the (dis)information on Iran that is fed by “third parties”.
No less than in two dozen reports on Iran, the IAEA has repeatedly confirmed that it “continues to confirm” the non-diversion of declared nuclear material. It has done this as a result of one of the most exhaustive and rigorous inspection regimes with respect to a member state, involving thousands of hours of physical inspections, dozens of short-notice inspections, and a 2007 “Work Plan” that resulted in resolving all the so-called “outstanding questions” in Iran’s favor.
Another important fact is that the IAEA has to date given a complete “clean bill of health” on a peaceful nuclear program to only about a third of its member states. In addition to being a cumbersome and exceedingly time-consuming and costly endeavor, the agency’s certificate of non-military dimensions of a country’s nuclear program is actually not within the IAEA’s legal framework and represents a de facto responsibility that the agency has occasionally taken on in view of the importance of non-proliferation.
Unfortunately, this is an extra-legal task that opens the door to political influence and manipulation of the agency by big powers, especially the United States, that is in league with the government of Israel, a clandestine nuclear proliferator. As a result, the IAEA has failed to apply even minimum heat on Israel, which refuses to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to subject itself to any outside inspections, focusing instead on countries such as Iran and Syria.
With respect to Iran, in the absence of any evidence of diversion of nuclear material to weapons-related activities, as confirmed in the IAEA’s own reports, the agency has no empirical grounds to claim a discrepancy between the “declared” and any “undeclared” nuclear material, a discrepancy that is more likely a figment of Western and Israel intelligence aimed at fettering Iran’s rising power.
As a clue to that power, through deft diplomacy in league with the Non Aligned Movement (NAM) countries, Iran has now managed to force the IAEA to reluctantly admit that its inspectors need “better training” on keeping country information confidential, instead of leaking it to either other countries or the media.
With the nuclear fuel for the Tehran reactor running out, the IAEA should discontinue any effort to tag the issue of fuel for that medical reactor to the nuclear standoff, indeed the whole idea of a “swap” is questionable from a legal standpoint, no matter how the West leans on the IAEA to force Iran to trade a major bulk of its stashed low-enriched uranium for fuel rods.
This points at the main flaw of the “IAEA-proposed draft” unveiled in October, 2009, which called for the nuclear exchange: that is, the small but significant point that the IAEA transgressed its own norms by making technical support to Iran conditional on Iran satisfying certain requirements.
End Quotes
Pirouz_2,
You wrote:
“So why am I ‘partly’ (and not completely) on your side? Because, normally if a government has legitimacy, it goes to “elections”. If a government does not go to elections, it means that it has lost its legitimacy.”
I don’t claim to understand the details of Libya’s governmental system (though it’s worth noting that very few who write about Libya these days appear, or even claim, to understand it any better), but I have read a fair amount in the past couple of weeks, even including Gaddafi’s Green Book.
It appears to me that Libya does have a strong democracy at the local level – what Gaddafi calls a “direct” democracy. But because he believes that parties, classes and other interest groups are inherently undemocratic (because each, by (honest) self-definition, represents the interests of only a part of society), he prohibits them from participating as such in politics. As a result, no party or other group can gain power sufficient to put forth leaders who might challenge Gaddafi at the national level. The void at that level can only be filled by someone who has another basis for his public support – and only one person fits that description. Whether Gaddafi consciously intended this result or it was inevitable probably does not matter: by design or by default, it effectively has left him a “dictator” at the national level.
Other democratic systems frankly acknowledge that no party, class, lobby or other focused-interest group represents all of society, but believe that when those self-interested groups butt heads, establish coalitions and otherwise strike deals, a balance somehow will be achieved that usually will be in the public’s general interest. Whether that works in practice is debatable, but that’s essentially the theory that justifies the political groupings that Gaddafi finds inherently undemocratic. The theory may or may not reflect the simple fact that the alternative – at least that chosen by Gaddafi – leaves the public largely impotent to produce a leader who can challenge whoever is in control when the system gets put in place.
So there Gaddafi is – a dictator, by default or design. For present purposes at least, that still leaves the question of whether he is an evil dictator or a benign dictator. And – most important here but almost universally overlooked – the answer to that question may properly be given only by the Libyans, not by the West, no matter how much Western governments may hate Gaddafi and how justified their hatred may be in light of his “outward” behavior.
Nor may that question be answered merely by Libyans who are positioned and organized well enough to arrange a coup. Sometimes a coup is possible only because its leaders have broad public support, and the very fact that a coup succeeds (even if only temporarily) calls for us to consider very seriously the possibility that it does have such broad support. Nevertheless, the success of a coup does not, in and of itself, establish that such public support exists. It may establish only that the coup participants have succeeded in acquiring what is sufficient, absent public support, to accomplish their objective – for example, weapons, money, or support from the leader’s external enemies.
At some point, however, no matter how the coup participants achieve their goal (and whether temporarily or permanently), they can establish their own legitimacy only by showing that their complaints about the leader are shared by the country’s people generally. In the case of Libya, that has not been shown. In fact, it has not even been made clear what the rebels themselves are complaining about. So far, we have heard nothing other than complaints about how Gaddafi reacted to their coup attempt – not what induced them to revolt, but how he reacted after they had revolted. When pressed, they either state meaningless generalities (for example, that Gaddafi is a “mad dictator,” or “crazy,” or a “butcher,” as if such statements prove themselves if the adjective is strong enough), or they cite examples of Gaddafi’s odd or outrageous “external” behavior (i.e. toward other countries).
While one certainly can question Gaddafi’s judgment in this external behavior, including his spending of Libya’s money on various bad actors around the world, his foreign-policy behavior seems (at least to me) to have been sincerely aimed at advancing objectives that he believes, correctly or not, are in Libya’s best interests. That cannot be said for leaders who spend their people’s money in many other countries. More important on this narrow point, the rebel leaders, to my knowledge, have not even cited this as a reason for their decision to overthrow Gaddafi. Nor, to my knowledge, have they given any other reason – merely that they are “tired of” Gaddafi and would prefer that they, rather than he, run things from here on.
If some good reason for ousting Gaddafi were at least mentioned by the rebels, it would be fair for Western governments to consider that stated reason and determine whether they are justified in helping the rebels to accomplish their goal. But with no such reason even having been offered, outsiders have nothing on which to base their support but their own personal distaste for Gaddafi – on grounds that may not matter at all to Libyans themselves. Nor do they have any basis for believing that his would-be replacements will serve the Libyan people any better than Gaddafi.
Eric,
Verified kaleme.com and sahamnews.com currently blocked in Iran. Just use one of the proxy servers listed here under Iran to see what users in Iran see or can’t see.
http://www.samair.ru/proxy/type-01.htm
Eric: That was one very pathetic response to my post.
I posted Wikipedia’s recap – with citations as usual – of forty years of Gaddafi bullshit – the guy you seem to want to claim has “legitimacy”.
Your response to that was, “Gee, wow, I have nothing to say because I don’t know anything about Libya.”
I’ve already exposed your ridiculous attempt to link Libya to Iran. If you can’t come up with anything more than the nonsense you’ve spouted about this so far – and I point out that you haven’t come up with one single FACT about Libya, despite Pirouz_2’s notion that you did, just a lot of “Gee, I can’t tell from reading the Western media what’s going on” – you really ought to let this slide before you get crushed again.
I really don’t have time to become an expert on Libya just to defuse this bullcrap from you. I really don’t care about Libya. It’s not as significant a country as Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. – mostly because Gaddafi is such an idiot and no one takes the country seriously. So I still can’t comprehend why you’re so obsessed with it – other than the fact that you’re trying to use it to justify your equally ridiculous notions about Iran. But this attempt is so staggeringly ridiculous it just boggles my mind that you would try it.
You apparently are on a par with Scott Lucas as to how stupid you think the people on this site are. And Pirouz_2 appears to want to prove you right. I don’t think either of you really want to be in that position.
Pirouz_2: “Based on your proposition pretty much all military coups (successful ones) are legitimate.”
I’m not talking about military coups, I’m talking about revolutions, that should be obvious.
The situation in Libya is that a number of large tribes have risen up against Gaddafi. Read up on that in Escobar’s articles if you don’t know what’s going on. This has nothing to do with a “military coup”.
If you don’t know who’s involved in Libya revolt, find out. Basing your agreement with Eric on ignorance – which is basically HIS rational for his questioning the revolt – is not particularly insightful.
Richard and Pirouz_2,
Richard,
That was quite a rant.
Very early, it conjured up an image of you wearing a handwritten sign around your neck, reading “Hit me!” But as I read more, my better nature yanked me back. Finally, when you cited Wikipedia – at mind-numbing length and without ellipses, no less – I was obliged to acknowledge that no self-respecting person could demean himself by responding to you in any detail, or even seriously.
Since I am such a self-respecting person, there is nothing left for me to do but to suggest that others simply read what you’ve written, very carefully, and judge for themselves. I’m comforted to know that such a response may strike others as measured and fair, though I’ll confess it reflects nothing more than supreme confidence that others will reach the same conclusion I’ve reached about what you’ve written. Reaching that conclusion on one’s own is likely to leave a reader more firmly convinced than if I’d tried to lead him there.
Pirouz_2:
Your comments are very thoughtful – even those on which you disagree with me. For that reason, it will take a bit longer to respond (though I believe we look at this in much the same way).
Richard Steven Hack:
The demise of agriculture in Libya, compared to Roman times, has been due to destruction brought forth by barbaric Muslim Arab tries that attacked the coastal plains 600 years ago (if I recall correcly).
The massacred so much of the Muslim Arab population that not very many people where left to carry on the task of maintaining the extensive irrigation networks left from the Roman times that had been in use since those times.
In 1980, if I recall correctly again, he ordered Libyan students abroad to suspend their studies and go take-over the Libyan embassies.
And then there was PAN AM 103 and the French Airliner.
However, he did help Iran by giving SCUD missiles to Iran (at no cost) during the Iran-Iraq War to fire at Iraqi cities.
He helped the Islamic Republic but due the case of Musa Sadr, relations never became what they could have been.
Richard;
“No one here should give a rat’s ass whether Gaddafi is “legitimate” or not or whether the rebels are “legitimate” or not.
Any time enough people can get together and overthrow their government, it is clear evidence that they should. ”
How do we determine an armed group to be “people”?
Based on your proposition pretty much all military coups (successful ones) are legitimate.
In 1953 an armed group overthrew the legitimate government of my country and believe it or not they claimed to be “people”.
In 1954 Arbenz was overthrown by a group of “armed” people, in 1973 same thing happened to Allende.
So are we to understand that you think all those “armed groups” did what they should have done?!?!
People like Eric and Pirouz_2 need to go back and read those Pepe Escobar articles I linked to in Asia Times.
No one here should give a rat’s ass whether Gaddafi is “legitimate” or not or whether the rebels are “legitimate” or not.
Any time enough people can get together and overthrow their government, it is clear evidence that they should. Obviously Iran does not qualify because the Green Movement couldn’t. Obviously Libya is up for grabs in this regard because the tribes involved have not succeeded in toppling Gaddafi – yet.
What is clear is that Gaddafi was a dictator not elected by anyone.
Here is the story via Wikipedia, which is a nice concise description of Gaddafi’s “legitimacy”:
Quote
On 1 September 1969, a small group of military officers led by then 27-year-old army officer Muammar Gaddafi staged a coup d’état against King Idris, launching the Libyan Revolution.[31] Gaddafi was, and is to this day, referred to as the “Brother Leader and Guide of the Revolution” in government statements and the official Libyan press.[32]
A solid green banner, the only single-color national flag currently flown, was adopted in 1977 to represent the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, replacing the previous flag’s Pan-Arab colors.
In 1973, Gaddafi delivered his famous “Five-Point Address” which outlined his ideology.[33] School vacations were canceled to teach Gaddafi’s thoughts to children.[33]
Gaddafi set up an extensive surveillance system. Gaddafi’s Revolutionary committees resemble similar systems in communist countries and reportedly 10 to 20 percent of Libyans work in surveillance for these committees, a proportion of informants on par with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or Kim Jong-il’s North Korea. The surveillance takes place in government, in factories, and in the education sector.[33]
Gaddafi began to execute dissidents publicly and the executions are often rebroadcast on state television channels.[33][34]
Even suppressing critics in Libya was not enough. Gaddafi employed his network of diplomats and recruits to assassinate dozens of critical refugees around the world. Amnesty International listed at least 25 assassinations between 1980 and 1987.[33][35]
In 1977, Libya officially became the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Later that same year, Gaddafi ordered an artillery strike on Egypt in retaliation against Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s intent to sign a peace treaty with Israel. Sadat’s forces triumphed easily in a four-day border war that came to be known as the Libyan-Egyptian War, leaving over 400 Libyans dead and much of Gaddafi’s armored divisions in ruins.
The following year, the Chadian–Libyan conflict began in earnest when Gaddafi’s long-held support of rebel forces in northern Chad escalated into a Libyan military invasion of its southern neighbor.
Hundreds of Libyans lost their lives in the war against Tanzania, when Gaddafi tried to save his friend Idi Amin. Gaddafi financed various other groups from anti-nuclear movements to Australian trade unions.[36]
Once a breadbasket of ancient world, the eastern parts of the country become impoverished under Gaddafi’s economic theories.[37][38]
Much of the country’s income from oil, which soared in the 1970s, was wasted on arms purchases and on sponsoring dozens of paramilitaries and terrorist groups around the world.[39][40][41][36] An airstrike failed to kill Gaddafi in 1986. Libya was finally put under international sanctions after bombing of a commercial flight killed hundreds of travelers.
Gaddafi assumed the honorific title of “King of Kings of Africa” in 2008 as part of his efforts to advocate for a United States of Africa.[42] By the early 2010s, in addition to attempting to assume a leadership role in the African Union, Libya was also viewed as having formed closer ties with Italy, one of its former colonial rulers, than any other country in the European Union
End Quote
Further:
Organs of the United Nations, including United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon[57] and the United Nations Human Rights Council, have condemned the crackdown as violating international law, with the latter body expelling Libya outright in an unprecedented action urged by Libya’s own delegation to the UN.
Read that last! Does Eric claim to understand Libya better than its OWN UN DELEGATION?
Further: Quote
There are two branches of government in Libya. The “revolutionary sector” comprises Revolutionary Leader Gaddafi, the Revolutionary Committees and the remaining members of the 12-person Revolutionary Command Council, which was established in 1969.[73] The historical revolutionary leadership is not elected and cannot be voted out of office; they are in power by virtue of their involvement in the revolution.
The second sector, the Jamahiriya sector, comprises Basic People’s Congresses in each of the 1,500 urban wards, 32 Sha’biyat People’s Congresses for the regions, and the National General People’s Congress. These legislative bodies are represented by corresponding executive bodies (Local People’s Committees, Sha’biyat People’s Committees and the National General People’s Committee/Cabinet).
Every four years, the membership of the Basic People’s Congresses elects their own leaders and the secretaries for the People’s Committees, sometimes after many debates and a critical vote. The leadership of the Local People’s Congress represents the local congress at the People’s Congress of the next level. The members of the National General People’s Congress elect the members of the National General People’s Committee (the Cabinet) at their annual meeting.
The government controls both state-run and semi-autonomous media. In cases involving a violation of “certain taboos”, the private press, like The Tripoli Post has been censored,[74] although articles that are critical of policies have been requested and intentionally published by the revolutionary leadership itself as a means of initiating reforms.
Libya is the most censored country in the Middle East and North Africa, according to the Freedom of the Press Index.[75]
Political parties were banned by the 1972 Prohibition of Party Politics Act Number 71.
On 11 June 1972, Gaddafi announced that any Arab wishing to volunteer for Palestinian terrorist groups “can register his name at any Libyan embassy will be given adequate training for combat”. He also promised financial support for attacks.[80][81][82]
On 7 October 1972, Gaddafi praised the Lod Airport massacre, carried out by the Japanese Red Army, and demanded Palestinian terrorist groups to carry out similar attacks.[80]
Gaddafi created the Islamic Legion, a mercenary group associated with Arab supremacism.
He also played a key role in promoting oil embargoes as a political weapon, hoping that an oil price rise and embargo in 1973 would persuade the West to end support for Israel.[83]
In 1973 the Irish Naval Service intercepted the vessel Claudia in Irish territorial waters, which carried Soviet arms from Libya to the Provisional IRA.[84][85] In 1976 after a series of terror attacks by the Provisional IRA, Gaddafi announced that “the bombs which are convulsing Britain and breaking its spirit are the bombs of Libyan people. We have sent them to the Irish revolutionaries so that the British will pay the price for their past deeds”.[80]
Gaddafi was a close supporter of Ugandan President Idi Amin.[86] Gaddafi was not alone – the Soviet Union armed Amin and East German Stasi agents came to build Amin’s repression machinery.[87][88][89] Gaddafi shipped troops to fight against Tanzania on behalf of Idi Amin. About 600 Libyan soldiers lost their lives attempting to defend the collapsing presidency of Amin,[90] during which Amin’s government killed hundreds of thousands Ugandans.
Gaddafi aided Jean-Bedel Bokassa, the Emperor of the Central African Empire.[91][90]
Together with Moscow and Fidel Castro, Gaddafi supported Soviet protege Haile Mariam Mengistu[91], who was later convicted for a genocide that killed millions.
In October 1981 Egypt’s President Anwar Sadat was assassinated. Gaddafi applauded the murder and remarked that it was a punishment.[92]
Neighboring Arab countries and the United States become concerned of Gaddafi’s policies, and they made a deal to increase in military credits and training.[93]
In April 1984, Libyan refugees in London protested against execution of two dissidents. Libyan diplomats shot at 11 people and killed a British policewoman. The incident led to the breaking off of diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Libya for over a decade.[94]
Gaddafi asserted in June 1984 that he wanted his agents to assassinate dissident refugees even when they were on pilgrimage in the holy city of Mecca. In August 1984, one Libyan plot in Mecca was thwarted by Saudi Arabian police.[95]
After December 1985 Rome and Vienna airport attacks, which killed 19 and wounded around 140, Gaddafi indicated that he would continue to support the Red Army Faction, the Red Brigades, and the Irish Republican Army as long as European countries support anti-Gaddafi Libyans.[41] The Foreign Minister of Libya also called the massacres “heroic acts”.[96]
In 1986 Libyan state television announced that Libya was training suicide squads to attack American and European interests.[97]
Gaddafi claimed the Gulf of Sidra as his territorial water and his navy was involved in a conflict from January to March 1986.
On 5 April 1986, Libyan agents bombed “La Belle” nightclub in West Berlin, killing three people and injuring 229 people who were spending evening there. Gaddafi’s plan was intercepted by Western intelligence. More detailed information was retrieved years later when Stasi archives were investigated by the reunited Germany. Libyan agents who had carried out the operation from the Libyan embassy in East Germany were prosecuted by reunited Germany in the 1990s.[98]
Germany and the United States learned that the bombing in West Berlin had been ordered from Tripoli. On 14 April 1986, the United States carried out Operation El Dorado Canyon against Gaddafi and members of his regime. Air defenses, three army bases, and two airfields in Tripoli and Benghazi were bombed. The surgical strikes failed to kill Gaddafi but he lost a few dozen military officers.[31][99]
Gaddafi announced that he had won a spectacular military victory over the United States and the country was officially renamed the “Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriyah”.[95] However, his speech appeared devoid passion and even the “victory” celebrations appeared unusual. Criticism of Gaddafi by ordinary Libyan citizens became more bold, such as defacing of Gaddafi posters.[95] The raids against Gaddafi had brought the regime to its the weakest point in 17 years.[95]
Many Western European countries took action against Libyan terror and other activities following years.
Gaddafi fueled a number of Islamist and communist terrorist groups in the Philippines. The country still struggles with their murders and kidnappings.[40][41][36][100][33]
Gaddafi fueled paramilitaries in the Oceania. He attempted to radicalized New Zealand’s Maoris.[36] In Australia he financed trade unions and some politicians. In May 1987, Australia deported diplomats and broke off relations with Libya because of the activities in the Oceania.[35][36]
In late 1987 French authorities stopped a merchant vessel, the MV Eksund, which was delivering a 150 ton Libyan arms shipment to European terrorist groups.
In 1991, two Libyan intelligence agents were indicted by prosecutors in the United States and United Kingdom for their involvement in the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Six other Libyans were put on trial in absentia for the 1989 bombing of UTA Flight 772 over Chad and Niger. The UN Security Council demanded that Libya surrender the suspects, cooperate with the Pan Am 103 and UTA 772 investigations, pay compensation to the victims’ families, and cease all support for terrorism. Libya’s refusal to comply led to the approval of Security Council Resolution 748 on March 31, 1992, imposing international sanctions on the state designed to bring about Libyan compliance. Continued Libyan defiance led to further sanctions by the UN against Libya in November 1993.[101]
Gaddafi trained and supported Charles Taylor, who was indicted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the conflict in Sierra Leone.[102]
Libya had close ties with Slobodan Milošević’s regime. Gaddafi aligned himself with the Orthodox Serbs against Bosnia’s and Kosovo’s Muslims. Gaddafi supported Milošević even when Milošević was charged with large-scale ethnic cleansing against Muslims in Kosovo.[103][104][105]
In 1999, less than a decade after the sanctions were put in place, Libya began to make dramatic policy changes in regard to the Western world, including turning over the Lockerbie suspects for trial. This diplomatic breakthrough followed years of negotiation, including a visit by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to Libya in December 1998, and personal appeals by Nelson Mandela. Eventually UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook persuaded the Americans to accept a trial of the suspects in the Netherlands under Scottish law, with the UN Security Council agreeing to suspend sanctions as soon as the suspects arrived in the Netherlands for trial.[31]
Following the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, Gaddafi decided to abandon his weapons of mass destruction programmes and pay almost 3 billion US dollars in compensation to the families of Pan Am Flight 103 and UTA Flight 772.[106][107] The decision was welcomed by many western nations and was seen as an important step toward Libya rejoining the international community.[108] Since 2003 the country has made efforts to normalize its ties with the European Union and the United States and has even coined the catchphrase, ‘The Libya Model’, an example intended to show the world what can be achieved through negotiation, rather than force, when there is goodwill on both sides. By 2004 George W. Bush had lifted the economic sanctions and official relations resumed with the United States. Libya opened a liaison office in Washington, and the United States opened an office in Tripoli. In January 2004, Congressman Tom Lantos led the first official Congressional delegation visit to Libya.[109]
Libya has supported Sudan’s President Omar al-Beshir despite charges of a genocide in Darfur.[110]
The release, in 2007, of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor, who had been held since 1999, charged with conspiring to deliberately infect over 400 children with HIV, was seen as marking a new stage in Libyan-Western relations.
The United States removed Gaddafi’s regime, after 27 years, from its list of states sponsoring terrorism.[111]
On October 16, 2007, Libya was elected to serve on the United Nations Security Council for two years starting January in 2008.[112] In February 2009, Gaddafi was selected to be chairman of the African Union for one year.
In 2009 the United Kingdom and Libya signed a prisoner-exchange agreement and then Libya requested the transfer of the convicted Lockerbie bomber, who finally returned home in August 2009.[113]
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with Libyan National Security Adviser Moatessem-Billal al-Gaddafi in 2009
As of October 25, 2009, Canadian visa requests were being denied and Canadian travellers were told they were not welcome in Libya, in an apparent reprisal for Canada’s near tongue-lashing[vague] of Gaddafi.[114]
Libyan-Swiss relations strongly suffered after the arrest of Hannibal Gadhafi for beating up his domestic servants in Geneva in 2008. In response, Gaddafi removed all his money held in Swiss banks and asked the United Nations to vote to abolish Switzerland as a sovereign nation.[115] [116]
Libya still provides bounties for heads of refugees who have criticized Gaddafi, including 1 million dollars for Ashur Shamis, a Libyan-British journalist.
According to the US Department of State’s annual human rights report for 2007, Libya’s authoritarian regime continued to have a poor record in the area of human rights.[126] Some of the numerous and serious abuses on the part of the government include poor prison conditions, arbitrary arrest and prisoners held incommunicado, and political prisoners held for many years without charge or trial. The judiciary is controlled by the government, and there is no right to a fair public trial. Libyans do not have the right to change their government. Freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, and religion are restricted. Independent human rights organizations are prohibited. Ethnic and tribal minorities suffer discrimination, and the state continues to restrict the labor rights of foreign jobs.
In 2005 Freedom House rated both political rights and civil liberties in Libya as “7″ (1 representing the most free and 7 the least free rating), and gave it the freedom rating of “Not Free”.
End Quotes
So now can we stop with the bullshit that Libyans don’t have anything to complain about in Libya?
Jesus Christ, Eric, where do you get these obsessions?
Fyi: Iran doesn’t have to do anything in Afghanistan. The US is failing there all on its own and that failure is inevitable. Iraq was a different story, but not by much. Even there Iran didn’t have to do much, the Iraqis were quite capable of making the US occupation fail. But Iran did have to watch that more closely because the Khuzestan oil fields are right across the border from Iraq. Afghanistan is not that strategically dangerous to Iran.
@Eric A. Brill:
Re your message on March 10, 2011 at 10:11 pm.
First I would like to congratulate you for your strong ability to stick to logic and FACTS.
Secondly, allow me to tell you that I am ‘partially’ on your side.
In my opinion, you have put your finger on some VERY IMPORTANT facts which often go neglected.
You are absolutely right; simply because a bunch of rebels have got their hands on some weapons and forciblly taken control of parts of a country, it does not mean that the government of that country has no legitimacy. And that is most certainly what has happened in Libya: a bunch of completely unknown characters (at least unkown to me) have got their hands on some weapons and now claim that they are the “people” and Ghaddafi is the illegitimate, tyranical dictator! Furthermore you make another extremely important point: they neither articulate what they want nor do they say in which way has the government has done them any wrong (at least to my knowledge. I am very much open to learn from others on this site if they know something that I dont regarding the rebels in Libya).
So why am I ‘partly’ (and not completely) on your side?
Because, normally if a government has legitimacy, it goes to “elections”. If a government does not go to elections, it means that it has lost its legitimacy.
Of course the fact that Ghaddafi has no legitimacy, by no means would mean that his opponents do! And to be perfectly honest, for some weird reason, I have a feeling that it is quite possible that the rebels have even less legitimacy than Ghaddafi!
Do you remember when I talked to you once about “coloured coups”? I don’t know if you read that article that I sent you. But in cases where there is a close rivalry over ligitimacy, in cases where the difference is not something like 64% to 33% but rather closer to 52% to 48% or even worse when the competition is between one minority and another close minority, “colour coups” become very dangerous!
Lastly I want to tell you something about developing countries (although I think it also applies to the so-called developed countries), people understand the complaints of a hungry stomach and misery. And if they somehow -be it rightfully or wrongfully- attribute their problems to their government (which is very likely), then they will know what they DON’T want, although they may not have a clue about what they DO want.
And that is when there is a good chance that any opportunist group (of rebels or even bought out agents of foreign governments) with the force of media behind them may come along and fool people to follow them.
Richard Steven Hack says: March 10, 2011 at 1:27 am
Iranians should do all they can to wreck the Axis Powers’ project in Afghanistan.
There is no other way; Axis Powers must fail in Afghanistan – just as they failed in Iraq.
James Canning says: March 10, 2011 at 1:54 pm
Iran is very near completing the pipeline to the Iranian border.
When Indians and Paksitanis get tired of their blackouts and cannot find cooking dung; they might decide to fund their portion of IPI.
The Axis Powers warm words will be of no avail.
Pakistan and India know where Iran is.
The gas is not going anywhere.
Can someone enlighten me?
I read everywhere that Gaddafi has “lost legitimacy” and, therefore, “must go.”
Though the US has said many bad things about Gaddafi over the years, I’m not aware that it claimed until last month that he lacked legitimacy. Indeed, in recent years, the US has been rather civil toward Gaddafi. So I must conclude that his loss of legitimacy happened recently.
How, exactly?
I seem to be in the minority on this point, but it doesn’t strike me that an opposition group’s theft of government weapons and subsequent seizure of large portions of the country establishes, ipso facto, that group’s right to assume control of the country’s government. Nor do I think that right is established merely by pointing to the government’s harsh response to that seizure. Governments in general tend to become very upset with those who steal weapons and seize large portions of their country, and they tend to respond quite harshly, often using weapons themselves to kill the people who have done this. That’s pretty much how it works in those situations.
If crimes against humanity have been committed, by all means those who have committed those crimes should be tried and punished. But a government certainly has a right to put down a rebellion – particularly one carried out by people who, to my knowledge, have yet to explain exactly what horrible things have been done to them by their government.
Whether the West likes Gaddafi or not is irrelevant here. The West doesn’t like Iran much either. If the post-election protesters had stolen weapons and seized control of large portions of Iran, would that have meant the Iranian government had “lost legitimacy?”
Dan Cooper says: March 10, 2011 at 8:10 pm
Iranian should have not sold any oil to India after 12/31/2010.
They should have let Indians buy oil on the spot market and absorb the cost of currying favor for US.
kooshy says: March 10, 2011 at 9:24 pm
I do not think that we are disagreeing.
I am not excluding transactional or tactical cooperation with India.
I do not, however, that strategic cooperation with India, regardless of its government, is any longer possible.
Seems candidates must prove their Iranophile credentials in order to impress electorate of Egypt.
(AGI) Cairo – If elected President of Egypt, Mohamed ElBaradei commits to rebuild relations with Iran, after a silence of 30 yrs. This is what the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate declared on the ONTV Egyptian TV network, immediately after announcing his participation in the upcoming presidential elections. ElBaradei also defined as “superficial” the Constitutional amendments drafted by an ad hoc committee and that will be subjected to a popular referendum on the 19th of March. . .
The more autonomous the beebol become, i.e., the more the hypocritical, double-standard-applying Weasels of the West lose their grip on this resource-rich part of the world, the more they will show their true racist, imperialist, weaseling colors. Watch for an acceleration of this effect after today’s noon prayers in the Arabian peninsula as the facade daming Western hypocrisy bursts.
Dan Cooper says:
March 10, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Dan: sure, its an excellent idea, and you are right: methinks it would have a large readership. But there is a huge volume of writing daily. Maybe Flynt can check with his buddies back at CIA for some sort of grant to hire translators? If we could get one tenth of the funding of the Enduring Weasels site, that should more than cover the costs. Seriouly though, I do not think automatic translation is at a level (yet?) that can handle the job, and I don’t think it is a project the Iranian government would be interested in funding.
Castellio says:
March 10, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Ah, Ignatieff: another liberal weasel. His biography of Isaiah Berlin was readable, if you can get past his fawning over his subject’s rabid zionism.
Sanctions against Iran Ineffective – DIA Chief
:http://www.uskowioniran.com/2011/03/sanctions-against-iran-ineffective-dia.html
Notice that the complaint is strictly against Iran’s legal enrichment right.
Eric A. Brill says:
March 10, 2011 at 5:34 pm
To those in Iran:
Any comments on Scott’s post of 4:45 pm?
Yeah: don’t feed the trolls.
fyi says: March 10, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Fyi – Historically Indians are usually lazy understanding what has hit them, considering the current revelations in their west, the current government is feeling the internal heat to adjust its current regional policies, true that India is no longer very important player for Iran, never less Iran’s FP is one of inclusion and not of exclusion as long as there is no international hostility, to some extend because of the balance of power in Afghanistan, India is still a preferable partner for Iran than any other regional forces, in that context India can’t be excluded, the message from India was very blunt and apologetic kind of “Goh khordam”.
There are strong internal political forces in India against the policies adopted by current Indian government with regard to Iran, which considering the recent events in these last few month’s are gaining the upper hand, understand that India still has many uses for Iran, and a good head wouldn’t reject their hand of friendship, regardless of their past strategic short comings.
Historically Iran’s strategic partnership with India is only important for Afghanistan and central Asia’s region, unless one would prefers the Russians or the Chinese as partners in this region which as far as I know it’s impossible for now and the only reason Iran is not accepted to be a full member of SCO. So, one would need to partner with somewhat weaker but still important partner.
How The So-Called Guardians Of Free Speech Are Silencing The Messenger
By John Pilger
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27649.htm
fyi
Re:The cancellation of the ACU by India
http://www.livemint.com/2010/12/31235743/India-Iran-try-to-work-out-an.html
India and Iran are trying to resolve an impasse over the method of settlement for bilateral oil trade, days after India decided to discontinue payment through the 35-year-old Asian Clearing Union (ACU) system.
Iran is one of the largest suppliers of oil to India, the world’s second fastest growing major economy, and the trade is crucial for both countries.
Established in 1975, the ACU system is used by India, Iran, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, the Maldives, Myanmar and Sri Lanka to reduce foreign exchange spending on account of transaction costs.
Here is the latest example of what kind of political freedom Zionists want to export to Libya, Islamic Republic and the rest of the Muslim world.
The Jewish President and CEO of the National Public Radio (NPR), Vivian Schiller, has been forced to resign after the release of a video showing head of NPR fundraiser, Ron Schiller (Jewish but no relation to Vivian), claiming that the Tea Party’s members are nothing but a bunch of “weird evangelical kind of movement. the group is ‘fanatically involved in people’s personal lives and very fundamental (radical) Christian – I wouldn’t even call it Christian. Basically, they believe in white, middle America, gun-toting – it’s pretty scary – They’re seriously , racist, racist, people”. Watch video below.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/zionist-lobby-%e2%80%98thou-shalt-not-talk-ill-of-me%e2%80%99/
kooshy says: March 10, 2011 at 9:20 am
This is true as far as it goes but relationship of Iran with India can never be strategic.
It has to be transactional.
The IPI also would fall will be transactional; if the Indian leg is ever built.
India expected the Iranians to fold on US terms in 2006 or 2007.
When they did not, their policy was at a dead-end by 2008.
I do not see any utility in Iran treating India in a political context.
The cancellation of the ACU by India was a collosally stupid action.
Its continuation, will force India to incur higher energy costs on the spot market.
Iran-India strategic cooperation is no longer possible, it did not withstand the test of a government change or US pressure.
.
Do you think it is a good idea if this site ” http://www.raceforiran.com/” is translated to “Farsi” as well?
So many Iranians in Iran do not speak English, but I am sure they would love to have access to a site like this, which offers independent, honest and genuine information and analysis.
Its audience would be huge because “Farsi” is spoken in the following countries:
Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Bahrain, Iraq, Russia, Pakistan, Kuwait, UAE, Lebanon and offcours in the Iranian Diaspora.
Castellio,
Interesting comments. The idea behind the Bantustans was to prevent blacks from voting in South African elections, by assigning them the nationality of one or another of the multiple small statelets carved, at least on the map, from South Africa – - even if those blacks lived and worked in Pretoria or another South African city.
Israel obviously would have no problem with Palestinians trying to vote in Israeli elections, if those Palestinians live in the West Bank and do not want to vote in Israeli elections. Israel is creating the Apartheid problem for itself by failing to get out of the West Bank. And foolosh “supporters” of Israel in the US are encouraging the continuing recklessness!
Rd.,
I think the “war on terror” and attendant unnecessary wars and “defence” spending is a far larger scam than the financial games and frauds that attended the housing bubble in the US. The events are related, in that the Bush administration wanted to make ordinary people feel good while it squandered trillions of dollars on its idiotic response to the 9/11 attacks.
Why should the American people give a fig that Netanyahu wants to keep the Golan Heights? Why shouldn’t the US tell him to get the hell out? Syria has offered peace to Israel for 30 years now, and the grossly ignorant American people are not even aware of this fact. Yet Syria is portrayed as the “enemy” of the US, by the stooges and liars fostering the insane “Greater Israel” programme.
For your consideration, two quotes from the Leader of the Official Opposition in Canada:
Quote 1:
“When I looked down at the West Bank, at the settlements like Crusader forts occupying the high ground, at the Israeli security cordon along the Jordan river closing off the Palestinian lands from Jordan, I knew I was not looking down at a state or the beginnings of one, but at a Bantustan, one of those pseudo-states created in the dying years of apartheid to keep the African population under control.”
- Michael Ignatieff, The Guardian, April 19, 2002.
Quote 2:
“On university campuses across the country this week, Israeli Apartheid Week will once again attempt to demonize and undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state. It is part of a global campaign of calls for divestment, boycotts and proclamations, and it should be condemned unequivocally and absolutely. Apartheid is defined, in international law, as a crime against humanity. Israeli Apartheid Week is a deliberate attempt to portray the Jewish state as criminal.”
– Michael Ignatieff, March 1, 2010
James Glassman and Jeff Feltman have discussed and acknowledged that through organizations and facilities that US agencies operate, and through NGOs in Iran that Glassman and Feltman fund from State Department, DoD, and Broadcasting Board of Governors,the US has operatives working in and on Iranian media.
If that is true, and if Mousavi and Karoubi and others are suspected of using that US sponsored media or software, then the Iranian government might well be attempting to disable “1. Access by Iranians to Kalemeh [which] depends on [US-supplied] anti-filtering software.”
and
“2. The Iranian Government [might well]
hashave tried to punish Mousavi and Karroubi for publication efforts — taking down previous publications like Ghalam News, raiding and closing offices (Etemade Melli in Sept. 2009), and detaining staff.Why wouldn’t the Iranian government do so? Wouldn’t any government consider the intrusion of a foreign nation into its communications functions a subversive act, threatening to the state? Whether or not Mousavi or Karroubi are engaging in speech or activities that Iran’s government finds offensive on its face, the fact that US has inserted itself in the situation has harmed Mousavi’s and Karroubi’s ability to act on their own merits.
To those in Iran:
Any comments on Scott’s post of 4:45 pm?
All:
The senior editor of PBS Frontline has reviewed my concerns over censorship issues at Tehran Bureau and has affirmed that Tehran Bureau will not be censoring comments based on opposing views or political content.
I am completely satisfied with this outcome.
Eric @ 10:17 am:
I intended to address my earlier comment to you, thinking that a Washington Post item this morning might suggest one answer to your question re how Mousavi keeps his website running.
Washington Post reported this morning that US funds are spent by US State Department, Department of Defense, and Broadcasting Board of Governors to provide workarounds for protesters in Egypt, Tunisia, etc. to penetrate blocks that their states impose on internet and other social media. (James Glassman was appointed by G W Bush to wear three hats — State Dept, DoD, and Broadcasting Board of Governors, and to create ways to sent propaganda into Iran and to access/provide access to persons in Iran. Glassman no longer holds that position; he is now employed by the George W Bush school of government in Texas.
two companies mentioned in the WaPo article:
TOR Project is ‘privacy insurance’ for Twitter users, run by a few paid and a lot of volunteer coders, researchers, and developers :http://www.torproject.org/about/corepeople.html.en
UltraReach :http://download.grahadesign.com/?FREE_Download:Free_Proxy:UltraReach which was developed to evade blocks that China imposed on internet access.
Eric,
Just one clarification: the Iranian Government has tried to prevent anyone from seeing Kalemeh, taking the site down with attacks on occasion. It has done the same with Mehdi Karroubi’s Saham News and many other sites.
(An interesting aside: “conservative” sites inside Iran are not immune to this. Ayande News says it was blocked on Wednesday evening.)
On your specific questions….
1. Access by Iranians to Kalemeh depends on anti-filtering software.
2. The Iranian Government has tried to punish Mousavi and Karroubi for publication efforts — taking down previous publications like Ghalam News, raiding and closing offices (Etemade Melli in Sept. 2009), and detaining staff.
The lack of a specific criminal charge against Mousavi is part of the wider story of Iran’s judiciary holding out against his formal arrest and trial.
S.
US Politics Video and Transcript: Rep. Keith Ellison on “Radicalisation of American Muslims”
http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/3/10/us-politics-video-rep-keith-ellison-on-radicalisation-of-ame.html
James Canning says:
“Essentially, the American people have been too ignorant and, quite frankly, stupid, to see that they have been the victims of one of the greatest confidence schemes or scams in history.”
“Once the Republicans (establishment) and the corporate power structure saw that they could get away with the looting of the federal Treasury and taking millions of homes from people, they got away with that, and there was no revolt, there was no uprising, there was nothing. And Obama comes in there, and he appoints one of them as our Treasury secretary. Nothing, silence. Well, if you were a big shot on Wall Street, Amy, and you saw that—”Oh, my god! We just like got billions of bailout money. We now are getting the Fed to print what will eventually be trillions for us. We’ve thrown a million families out on the curb, foreclosing on them. And they just don’t do anything. They don’t do anything”—as with any criminal, what does that tell the criminal, if the criminal is not stopped, caught, punished for the crime that they’ve committed? They will keep committing the crime.”
MICHAEL MOORE
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/10/this_is_a_class_war_michael
BiBiJon,
Thanks. It is important, in my view, to make a distinction between the interests of the Israel lobby/armaments manufacturers, and the legions of stooges and parasites who feed off those structures or groups, and the interests of the American people. Why should the American people want to help Netanyahu keep the Golan Heights? ZERO benefit to the people of the US, and HUGE downside. But not a word about this issue gets into US newspapers etc. Or scarcely a word.
Essentially, the American people have been too ignorant and, quite frankly, stupid, to see that they have been the victims of one of the greatest confidence schemes or scams in history.
You should read David Gardner’s “Why reform of crony capitalism will bring yet more upheaval [in Egypt]” in the Financial Times March 9th.
Scott,
Thank you for the update on Mousavi’s website. You explain that it’s operated from outside Iran, and so the Iranian government can’t block us from seeing it. Two follow-up questions:
1. Do Iranians have access to the website?
2. Why doesn’t the Iranian government punish Mousavi for running the website?
James Canning says:
March 10, 2011 at 2:26 pm
James, I agree generally what you describe has been the way of things. If nothing changes, it probably would be the way of things for ever.
But, things can change and have changed. Namely, the middle east is in a process of unstoppable fundamental shift away from the sway of US. Bets are being placed.
The latest player to place a substantial bet against US is India.
Of course, nothing is for certain. Everything can settle back down to status quo anti. We’ll see.
BiBiJon,
Don’t buy the neocon/Israel lobby propaganda. The American “project” in the Middle East is intended to enrich armaments manufacturers (including of course their armies of lawyers, lobbyists and other influence peddlers), while facilitating continuing oppression of the Palestinians by the Israelis. And to help Netanyahu in his insane delusion that Israel can keep the Golan Heights. In other words, the American project in the ME is all about f*cking the national interests of the American people. And pleasing rich, powerful Jews and others who support Israel right or wrong.
The saudi state have open fire on demonstrators…the white house are silent as always..fucking hypocrites.
kooshy,
The Iran-Pakistan-India natural gas pipeline is an obvious programme of economic development that will almost certainly be built before too many more years (within 20, I would say, and maybe within 15). The question is who pays for it. Didn’t Medvedevf suggest Russia could advance the funds for it, when he was president of Gazprom?
Rehmat,
The ISRAEL LOBBY has a number of stooges or Fifth Columnists who will do their best to protect Israeli spies subverting the national security interests of the American people. And American newspapers generally suppress stories about this state of affairs. As Fiorangela said: “Follow the money”.
pmr9,
Yes, promoters of MEK terrorism in Iran are often stooges or whores of the Israel lobby trying to clear the way for a possible further illegal war in the Middle East.
How many of them call for and end to Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, or for Israel to get out of the West Bank and the Golan Heights?
kooshy,
A very important article. Thanks.
one perspective on the Peter King hearings: Follow the money
There is a lot of money to be had, in government grants, programs, training, software, spyware and the like, in “anti-terrurizm” activities.
As well, Follow the Leader: US government is a leading fear-monger, and also purveyor of spy systems.
Washington Post reported this morning that US taxpayer funds are spent by US State Department, Department of Defense, and Broadcasting Board of Governors to provide workarounds for protesters in Egypt, Tunisia, etc. to penetrate blocks that their states impose on internet and other social media. :http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/09/AR2011030905157.html
two companies mentioned were:
TOR Project is ‘privacy insurance’ for Twitter users, run by a few paid and a lot of volunteer coders, researchers, and developers :http://www.torproject.org/about/corepeople.html.en
UltraReach :http://download.grahadesign.com/?FREE_Download:Free_Proxy:UltraReach which was developed to evade blocks that China imposed on internet access.
Eric,
Kalemeh succeeded an earlier Mousavi website that operated inside the country and was taken down by the authorities amidst the arrests of Mousavi staff and journalists.
Kalemeh is run from outside Iran. There have numerous attempts by the authorities to disrupt it and take it off-line.
S.
Arnold,
Wrong on all counts. But thanks for the attention.
S.
The campaign to rehabilitate the MEK is gathering pace. See this article in the London Independent, supposedly written by Lord Clarke of Hampstead, former chairman of the Labour Party.
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/03/08/a-new-iran-policy-in-the-new-middle-east/
It seems highly unlikely that Clarke wrote this himself: likely he was paid to put his name on it. He has a history of fiddling his parliamentary expenses, so it probably doesn’t cost much to rent him.
But who is behind this? Someone is directing a lot of money at any establishment figure in the US and UK willing to denounce the Islamic Republic and endorse the MEK.
Scott Lucas is an idiot:
Scott Lucas says:
March 9, 2011 at 12:19 pm
RSH,
“‘Well connected’ means nothing unless one is, for instance, talking about the contacts someone has in the intelligence community, i.e., access to real information.”
Which is true in the case of the Tehran source we are discussing.
Scott Lucas says:
March 10, 2011 at 3:25 am
RSH,
No, I indicated that the Tehran source has access to excellent information and good contacts within the Iranian establishment, not that he/she is a member of the intelligence services.
I know, I know, anyone else can scroll down just as easily as I can.
1) There is no source, idiot, you’re making the person up, the only reason you’re not claiming he is in the intelligence services is because that would be even less believable.
2) You are far from trustworthy enough to credibly present secret sources. If you were to get a secret source, you’d do well to keep the information on background and base publicly presented conclusions on objectively available information, like, say, polls.
3) If there was a source, you’d skew the statements from that source to fit the opposition gaining strength narrative that you’ve been advocating against every piece of available objective evidence as long as you’ve been here. We’ve vividly seen how you ignore information that contradicts that narrative and exaggerate information that fits with it right here in this thread.
Scott,
I’m always impressed that Mousavi is able to keep his elaborate website up and running (Kaleme.com). He often publishes articles extremely critical of the Iranian government through thick and thin.
Is the government unable to shut down his website? If it is able, do you know why it doesn’t?
In “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man,” John Perkins spelled out the relationship between religion, specifically, Islam, and economics.
Several on this thread have been generous with their time to share insights into Islam, for which I am grateful; thank you.
My ‘beat’ is C Span. Yesterday, Bernie Sanders, Independent US representative from Vermont, was a guest on Washington Journal. Sanders is profoundly critical of Wall Street influence on the Congress. In the course of Sanders’ recitation of the crimes of Wall Street bankers, the moderator inserted this recollection:
Moderator: “When you asked Bernanke, ‘Can you tell me where did the money go,’ he refused to say.”
Sanders: That’s right; Bernanke answered, “No.”
Sanders went on to explain the hoops he jumped through to get an answer to his question: What did the Federal Reserve bank do with $2.2 trillion? :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi0YS5j9P2Y
I just came across this item, dated Nov 12, 2008, by blogger gjohnsit: “Two Signs that Something Is Seriously Wrong,” :http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/12/659578/-Two-signs-that-something-is-seriously-wrong
One need not be a PhD economist to read the charts and follow the essayist’s brief explanation of the context of the data. A serious amount of money that the Federal Reserve bank controls seems to have disappeared, as Rep. Sanders recognized. (Bernie Sanders subsequently got the information Bernanke would not reveal: the $2.2 trillion went to foreign banks.)
As comments to the gjohnsit article reveal, the actions of the Federal Reserve bank in the US, acting in a global economy, create a “linked” phenomenon, explained with an analogy to a train crashing off a bridge: when part of the train falls, the entire train is dragged down with it.
Ahmadinejad and Iran’s mullahs are excoriated daily, not only by western interests who routinely demonize Iran, but also by Iranian expats as well as Iranians who are furious with the repressive nature of their government. It’s not my country, and no Iranian government leader has a say on how I live my life, so it’s not my place to say how an Iranian should relate to his government.
But that doesn’t mean that I won’t! If I were Iranian, I would be feeling pretty damn smug that my government had been smart enough and courageous enough NOT to link the Iranian train to the Western financial predatory capital trainwreck.
A latest example how the Jewish spies working against the US interests are protected in the world’s greatest democracy.
In an article published in the Jewish daily FORWARD (March 9, 2011) – Itzik Gottesman has revealed the dirty secret about his mother-in-law Judith Socolov 89, who died on February 26, 2011.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/itzik-my-mother-in-law-was-a-jewish-spy/
Another on the mark analysis by Bhadrakmar specially the opening
“There is surely more than one way to describe the West Asia turmoil. Some call it ‘revolt’, others ‘revolution’ and still others it’s but another ‘uprising’ — and we are delightfully free to choose depending on our point of view. But what is absolutely certain is that the turmoil indeed prompted a thorough rethink within our establishment on Indian regional policies and options in the phenomenally changed scenario. All indications are that the highest level of leadership is conscious of the imperative need of rethink.”
ENGAGING IRAN
Strategic shift
By M K Bhadrakumar
When stakes are high with the templates of geopolitics shifting in West Asia, India has commenced a rethink by touching base with Tehran.
There is surely more than one way to describe the West Asia turmoil. Some call it ‘revolt’, others ‘revolution’ and still others it’s but another ‘uprising’ — and we are delightfully free to choose depending on our point of view. But what is absolutely certain is that the turmoil indeed prompted a thorough rethink within our establishment on Indian regional policies and options in the phenomenally changed scenario. All indications are that the highest level of leadership is conscious of the imperative need of rethink.
No surprises here, actually. India’s stakes are high when the templates of geopolitics shift in West Asia. What pleases the eye most, though, is that the Indian establishment is commencing this rethink by first touching base with Tehran.
When prime minister Manmohan Singh deputed the most consummate diplomat in India’s armoury today to wing his way to Tehran and deliver a personal letter from him to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, it did signify a major initiative in diplomacy. Although national security advisor Shiv Shankar Menon is a self-effacing diplomat by temperament who prefers to accomplish his work quietly without the entanglements of media publicity, much can be gleaned about the range and purpose of his political consultations with the Iranian leadership in Tehran on Monday and Tuesday.
First and foremost, Delhi factors in that the time is overdue to correct the aberrations that somehow crept into the bilateral ties with Iran. Ironically, it needed a robust bout of US pressure on India seeking to curb the latter’s ties with Iran to prompt Delhi to introspect and draw some conclusions about the facts of life.
Towards October-November last year, in the run-up to president Barack Obama’s visit, Washington sought out that India fell in line with the sanctions regime against Iran unilaterally imposed by the US and its European allies — over and above the regime imposed by the United Nations Security Council (which Delhi scrupulously complies with).
The bone of contention was the payment mechanism within the Asian Clearing Union (ACU) that India and Iran traditionally used to clear their bilateral trade transactions. Uncle Sam said, “ACU payments allow Iran to divert Indian monies for unlawful purposes and India would attract American and European reprisal”. Delhi seemingly buckled under pressure although it was patently obvious that the US was crudely attempting to throttle India-Iran trade and economic relationship as a whole. But in life, shock sometimes prompts awakening.
Without ACU mechanism, India’s $12 billion oil trade with Iran (our second biggest supplier) is not sustainable. And India can’t do without Iran’s ‘sweet crude’, either, especially when oil price is galloping, long-term oil agreements are not easily replaceable and spot market is infested by sharks.
Energy security
A recent Chatham House report titled ‘More for Asia: Rebalancing world oil and gas’ underlined that “The oil and gas industry is set to undergo a decisive transition over the next 10 years as global balances of demand and investment shift towards Asia… and such a transition will have major geopolitical implications…. Chinese, Indian and Asian demand must be met from global supplies in order to balance the region’s net deficits.” Common sense suggests that in energy security, Indian and western interests are virtually competing.
India’s energy ties with Iran, unsurprisingly, assume an altogether new meaning. Thanks to the US pressure tactic on ACU, Delhi, overcoming its bureaucratic lethargy towards innovative ideas, was compelled to negotiate a new energy relationship with Tehran. But Iran is one of those strange countries with which business can be developed only within the matrix of an overall political relationship.
Put simply, it’s an ancient habit of the ‘bazaar’. Menon knows it. What probably encouraged him is that despite the breakdown of the ACU mechanism, Iran continued to sell oil to India on deferred-payment basis. Now, somewhere hidden in it was a profound Persian message, which Menon understood.
A curious thing about diplomacy is that it is a seamless process. What began as an urgent search for an alternative to ACU crept towards a survey of the panorama of India-Iran energy relationship and may now be poised to tiptoe towards a long-term partnership in natural gas.
Another curious thing about diplomacy is, as the British heavy metal band Black Sabbath would say, ‘Never Say Die!’ If ever India feels a compelling urge to revert to bilateralism in the normalisation of relations with Pakistan — and Raymond Davis’ solitary confinement in Lahore’s notorious Kot Lakhpat prison is a timely reminder — and if ever we realise that the brittleness of our ties with Pakistan is largely due to our failure to make our western neighbour a stakeholder in friendship, then, we don’t have to go far beyond dusting up the Iran pipeline project.
However, the backdrop against which Menon undertook the strategic mission to Tehran had other brushstrokes, too. Question marks loom large about what lies in the womb of time in Persian Gulf, but Iran’s rise as a regional power has become unstoppable.
Menon told Ahmedinejad: “New Delhi seeks the establishment of a comprehensive relationship with Iran… Many of the predictions you (Ahmedinejad) had about the political and economic developments in the world have come to reality today and the world order is passing through fundamental changes, which necessitates ever-increasing relations between Iran and India.” Nothing further needed to be said.
(The writer is a former diplomat)
There are are a few things lining up that suggests to me world affairs cannot be conducted as business as usual.
Indian news outlets are reporting on a major shift of policy realignment vis-a-vis Iran coming from the very top, premier Singh. Consider this from the conservative Calcutta Telegraph: ,http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110310/jsp/frontpage/story_13694301.jsp
Quote
=====
The troubles in West Asia were not on the horizon in December, but when they erupted, serious bumps in the Indian economy were silently averted because of Tehran’s decision to continue with crude shipments during two months without any payments.
It was this economic reality which convinced the Prime Minister that he needed to change course, belatedly, on Iran.
If Singh does go to Iran this year, Menon would have pulled it off with the diplomatic finesse that he is known for. An invitation from the Iranians for the Prime Minister has been pending for years and the Iranians have been reminding him regularly about it.
So although it will be reversing course on Iran, the UPA government would have done it without loss of face. The Prime Minister has been personally involved in decisions to vote against Iran on the nuclear issue at the International Atomic Energy Agency and, more recently, to abstain from a vote in the UN Human Rights Council on the human rights situation in Iran.
Foreign secretary Nirupama Rao visited Tehran in February last year for foreign office consultations and external affairs minister S.M. Krishna deputised for Singh at a Group of Fifteen summit in May 2010.
But neither of them could use their visits to significantly augment bilateral relations in the absence of clear directives from the Prime Minister who has always been lukewarm about ties with Tehran.
Writing a letter to the Iranian President may, therefore, have been distasteful for the Prime Minister, but yet another compulsion for him was the Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa (Brics) summit next month in Sanya in China’s Hainan province.
India would have been the odd man out on Iran at this summit because every other Brics country has been following a proactive agenda on Iran while India has been standing by until the West Asian turmoil forced it to change course now.
End Quote
=========
So, to James Canning who asked me (March 9, 2011 at 2:22 pm)
“What is the project in the Middle East, of the US, that is “doomed” in your view?”
I say the entire hegemonic enterprise, including vanity projects such as Israel as a whole, or propping up tin-pot dictators across the region, or massive and unsustainable and costly military presence in the region. I cannot put it better than
,http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC10Ak03.html
“Most important, Menon’s arrival in Tehran at the present tumultuous juncture on a major path-breaking political and diplomatic mission to energize India-Iran strategic understanding also underscores the growing recognition in the region that the era of Western dominance of the Middle East is inexorably passing into history and the world order is not going to be the same again.”
Also, I couldn’t agree more with Richard Steven Hack (March 9, 2011 at 10:10 pm).
China is clearly telling IAEA and its so-in-US-camp director general that going forward China global clout shall not be toy to be played with.
See ,http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-03/09/c_13769489.htm
Scott Lucas,
It’s obvious that your trying to drag people to your garbage website, but if we want to read trash their are much better anti-Iranian propaganda websites.
Scott Lucas,
You don’t enjoy his “trash talk”, because you are the trash he’s talking about and you know he’s right. :)
Liz,
And, yes, your trash talk is still the best….
S.
Scott Lucas,
Mousavi and Karrubi are in their homes. You’re just trying to hide the fact that you lied.
Don’t worry so much about it. We already know how dishonest you are.
RSH,
I do enjoy your trash talk, but just to keep this straight for those who want substance.
Your definition of “well-connected” was someone who has “access to real information –– not opinion”. In the Iranian system, that can be information from a number of locations within the establishment: the judiciary, the President’s office, the Foreign Ministry, the Supreme Leader’s office, the military, and, as you know, the intelligence community.
The summary from the Tehran source is based on “access to real information”. His/her interpretation is certainly a matter for debate and discussion — that’s why we posted the article.
Anyway, enough playing with you — another day of real news ahead.
S.
Scott Lucas is a sad joke!
Lucas now wants people to go over to his site to “check out EA’s profile and reputation amongst readers and analysts.”
Otherwise known as leeching hits.
If he has any reputation it’s as a lousy Webmaster. Compared to the Leveretts history and reputation, he’s a joke.
Really, this is beginning to look like outright jealousy. This idiot wants people to believe he has the sort of credentials and credibility that the Leveretts have. But he can’t establish any such, so he tries to leech off their credibility by leeching visitors to this site.
Pathetic loser.
Lucas now backs away from his previous claim that his alleged contact has sources within the Iranian intelligence community – or someone’s intelligence community, which is probably more accurate, i.e., his “contact” is some Mossad agent somewhere. He continue to ignore my point that just because some asshole has contacts in a government that he knows what the hell is going on, which is the point I made by mentioning Wolfowitz – which Lucas would now like everyone to forget about.
Lucas needs to just shut up because absolutely no one here with any brains is buying this crap any more.
Warning: Scott Lucas is a smarmy liar, propagandist and Web site hits leecher.
Eric: “you’ve made clear that you don’t really have a reason”
No, you didn’t read my earlier post. I’m an anarchist, he’s a dictator. That’s all the reason I need. If you need something more, that’s your problem. It’s irrelevant to the issue at hand which is whether Gaddafi is losing control of his power, and whether the US should intervene on either side.
You keep harping on this crap about whether he’s a bad guy or not. Frankly, no one but you cares on either side.
Pirouz,
To deal with the serious matter….
There is still confusion over the Mousavi-Rahnavard case — see, for example, the claims of Al Arabiya last night that they were moved for 24 hours to detention as Supreme Leader and his advisors, including Mojtaba, debated arrests (http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/3/10/the-latest-from-iran-10-march-president-rahim-mashai.html).
But amidst that confusion, the essential fact remains that Mousavi and Rahnavard have been under effective arrest in their house — with no contact since 13 February with anyone, even their daughters, except the security forces — but with no legal charge.
And the status of Mehdi and Fatemeh Karroubi is still unknown. Unlike the Mousavi and Rahnavard case, there is no indication that they are in their residence. To the contrary, it is claimed — though not proven — that the Supreme Leader’s advisor, Vahid Haghanian, supervised their move from the house to an unknown location on 21 February.
Best,
S.
Arnold,
“There is no question that he is paid by parties hostile to Iran.”
I look forward to the proof. Meanwhile, if you want to do some real analysis, do check out EA’s profile and reputation amongst readers and analysts.
Best,
S.
Arnold,
“Scott Lucas is an idiot.”
Respect right back at you — quality analysis as always.
S.
RSH,
No, I indicated that the Tehran source has access to excellent information and good contacts within the Iranian establishment, not that he/she is a member of the intelligence services.
I have no doubt that Iranian officials are interested in the case, since EA appears to be a favourite English-language site for some of them….
Hang in there,
S.
Lucas now claims to be getting his information from an Iranian intelligence source: “Which is true in the case of the Tehran source we are discussing.”
I wonder if the IRGC knows about this.
Richard,
You wrote to M. Ali:
“If someone wants to know why [Gaddafi] is “an asshole”, they can look it up. There’s no shortage of material.”
You’re at least right about that. I did a quick Google search on “Gaddafi” and “asshole” and got 2,100,000 hits. When I use the “Qaddafi” spelling, I get 10,000 more – apparently some people are angered merely by that alternate spelling.
Some of those sources may explain that Gaddafi has treated Libyans very poorly and is not well liked by them. I’d wondered whether that might be your reason, but you’ve made clear that you don’t really have a reason – you just don’t like the guy. That’s your right, of course, as I’ve emphasized; I’d just hoped I might learn something from you.
M. Ali: I don’t see the point of recycling forty years of complaints about Gaddafi. If someone wants to know why he’s “an asshole”, they can look it up. There’s no shortage of material.
If you’re going to start presenting questions about whether he IS “an asshole”, as Eric did, then it would behoove one to produce something more relevant than “I can’t find out from various newspapers articles why people don’t like him.”
I’m not a history teacher. Look it up if one doesn’t know.
More relevant is why Libya is in crisis at this point. Is it because the US is fomenting a rebellion, or is it because the means by which Gaddafi has hitherto managed to hang onto power have broken down, or is it because other Arab revolts in the region have stimulated this one, or what?
What’s most relevant is what the US should do about it – which is nothing, in my view.
Broaching questions about whether Gaddafi is a “good guy” or a “bad guy” is not relevant absent any more useful information.
And in fact, that is not what Eric is trying to do here.
What Eric is REALLY doing is pushing a viewpoint here which in my opinion has little or nothing to do with Libya and everything to do with his notions about how Iran should behave with regard to the nuclear issue. And he’s being particularly convoluted about it in the hopes that I can’t see through that.
He’s pushing the notion that anyone who criticizes a dictator (read: Iran) is supporting the cause for war on Iran – and this in turn he intends to support his notion that Iran should unilaterally implement the AP in order to prevent this by supposedly deflecting such criticism. So he wants everyone to believe that when Arnold and I are promoting the concept that Iran should not unilaterally implement the AP without a concession from the US that Iran’s enrichment is legal, then Arnold and I are somehow (unwittingly) supporting the cause for war on Iran.
Nice trick, but it won’t wash. First of all, the premise is illogical. And second, it has nothing to do with whether Iran should implement the AP without a concession from the US in exchange. Iran has been demonized already, and no matter what Iran does it will continue to be demonized.
We’ve been over this a hundred times here, but Eric continues to try to “sneak in” his argument by connecting it to matters like Libya which have absolutely nothing whatever to do with it.
Richard, I dont think Eric is “Suggesting that a dictator (or for that matter, the Iranian government) should not be criticized” but that they should be criticized with facts, rather than, “he’s an asshole”.
Eric: “It’s always possible that he’ll overlook something.”
Not while I’m around! :-)
Raising the old “Iran supports the Taliban” spectre…
NATO forces seize rockets from Iran in Afghanistan
:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/03/09/international/i063527S76.DTL
Quote
The shipment is seen as a serious escalation in Iran’s state support of the Taliban insurgency, according to NATO officials and described in detail by an international intelligence official.
It’s also an escalation in the proxy war Western officials say Iran is waging against U.S. and other Western forces in Afghanistan, as Washington continues to lobby for tougher international sanctions against Tehran to dissuade it from its alleged goal of building nuclear weapons.
End Quote
But then they admit this delightful fact!
“The rockets, which were shown to an Associated Press reporter, were machined without Iranian markings or any serial numbers, but the official says their technical details match other Iranian models.”
So they really can’t prove the STATE of Iran had anything to do with these as opposed to perhaps smugglers or even weapons manufacturers in Afghanistan or Iran or even Pakistan who are duplicating the weapons (something which happens often in Pakistan.)
ElBaradei will restore relations between Egypt and Iran if elected President.
ElBaradei says he will run for president if conditions are democratic
:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/elbaradei-says-he-will-run-for-president-if-conditions-are-democratic/article1935922/
Quote
Mr. ElBaradei said if he were to become president, he would restore relations between Egypt and Iran, severed in 1979.
He criticized Egypt’s foreign policy as characterized by emotions and captive to slogans.
On the key issue of Egypt’s 1979 peace treaty with Israel, which he helped negotiate, he said it was a mistake to forge a separate agreement with Israel, but he would not cancel the treaty. Instead, he said, he would try to restore what he called “compatible” relations with Israel.
He said the current situation is “peace between the Egyptian government and the Israeli government, not the people.”
He said there a Palestinian state cannot be created through war, but he called the current peace process a “ridiculous joke.” Peace talks are stalled over the issue of Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank.
End Quote
He better watch out for CIA or Mossad assassins.
UPI says Egypt and Tunisia assisting the Libyan rebels with military forces (at least as trainers) and equipment.
Egypt ‘aids Libyan rebels against Gadhafi’
:http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2011/03/09/Egypt-aids-Libyan-rebels-against-Gadhafi/UPI-42161299696518/
Interesting piece on Libya, particularly in citing evidence that British SAS is supporting the rebels. I don’t agree with everything in it, but clearly there appears to be some attempt by the West to co-opt this tribal revolt, if not actually having started it.
Morally Indignant Sharks Circle Libya While Osama Smiles
:http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis230.html
Interesting article here:
Obama does not get it
:http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/20113911948670383.html
Quotes
Barack Obama, the US president, has still not fully grasped the essence of the revolutions underway in the Arab world. He genuinely seems to believe that the people rallying for democracy in the region are making a pro-Western, if not pro-Israeli, statement.
“All the forces that we’re seeing at work in Egypt are forces that naturally should be aligned with us, should be aligned with Israel – if we make good decisions now and we understand sort of the sweep of history,” Obama recently told a group of Democrats in Florida.
I am not sure how Obama drew this conclusion, but he is either terribly misinformed or engaged in a serious bout of wishful thinking.
His statements, however, echo the assessments of many American pundits, some of whom have been celebrating the fact that anti-Israeli or American slogans have not dominated the recent and ongoing uprisings.
It is true that the protesters are not focusing on Israel.
But to say that these forces could be natural allies of Israel and the West is to take a huge leap into a highly inaccurate assessment of the situation. The US president is misreading the message of the protesting Arab masses.
But some American officials and pundits are searching for any kind of interpretation that will enable them to divorce US support for the Israeli occupation from America’s relations with the Arab world. By claiming that the Palestinian issue is no longer central to Arab thinking, they imagine that the US can simply impose a ’solution’ that ensures Israeli hegemony in the region and falls short of accepting the Palestinian people’s right to exercise self-determination.
End Quotes
From a NY Times report on Libya:
“On Wednesday night, the government brought vans of foreign journalists to [see a rally held at] a sports field … The rally ended about an hour later when the Qaddafi forces began handing out bags of rice, cartons of olive oil, cases of soda and boxes of other groceries, apparently in payment for participation in the rally.”
What – no chocolate milk?
Richard,
“In no sense am I “speaking for Arnold”. I’m merely noting who’s on one side of the argument based on how I’ve read Arnold’s statements. If I’m wrong about his position, Arnold will indeed correct me.”
Well, I do think it’s commendable that you stand up for Arnold. It’s always possible that he’ll overlook something.
Finally back on topic:
US Official: Iran Not Close to ‘Breakout’ Capability on Nuclear Weapons
:http://news.antiwar.com/2011/03/09/us-official-iran-not-close-to-breakout-capability-on-nuclear-weapons/
This clown clearly is confused. He admits Iran is no where near a “breakout” capability, and concedes Iran hasn’t even decided to build a bomb, but nonetheless insists he believes Iran is intending to do so.
But notice in the referenced article that the Associated Press headlines this as:
“US: Iran moving to ‘threshold’ of making atom bomb”
So even with a US official saying differently, the main stream media continue to spin it as Iran imminently obtaining a nuclear weapons. Who do you think the Associated Press editor is? What are the bets that he’s Jewish?
Eric: “Why do so often feel the need to speak for Arnold? He’s a very bright and articulate guy. He can think and speak for himself.”
Because frequently you lump both of us (and occasionally others) into your implied opponents on the issue under discussion, since usually it is Arnold and I who are arguing against you. This should be obvious.
In no sense am I “speaking for Arnold”. I’m merely noting who’s on one side of the argument based on how I’ve read Arnold’s statements. If I’m wrong about his position, Arnold will indeed correct me.
You should be more concerned about why you don’t have much support on some of your weaker positions such as this particular issue.
Richard,
“Neither Arnold nor I nor many others here have done any such thing as…”
My comment here has nothing to do with the overall merits of your comment, but:
Why do so often feel the need to speak for Arnold?
He’s a very bright and articulate guy. He can think and speak for himself.
Eric: “I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread that I consider it very harmful to Iran’s position (since I believe the US’ real or imagined dispute with Iran may well be framed much like the US’ current “dispute” with Libya is being framed) when well-meaning commenters make statements that support the premises on which neocon wardrum-beaters base their “bomb Iran” (or “bomb Libya,” for the time being) conclusions, even when those commenters emphatically insist that they believe those premises support just the opposite conclusion.”
And I categorically deny that conclusion and ANY linking of the Libya situation with Iran.
As for Justin Raimondo, he’s right far more often than he’s wrong. He doesn’t like Iran’s government in principle, so he sides with the Green Movement. Big surprise. I don’t like Iran’s government either, but I don’t take any side since the Green Movement will end up a government in any case should it succeed. The difference in policies between the current government and any future Green government will be significantly smaller than a lot of Green supporters think and especially smaller than anyone thinks who opposes Iran’s nuclear energy program.
Neither Arnold nor I nor many others here have done any such thing as “make statements that support the premises on which neocon wardrum-beaters base their “bomb Iran” (or “bomb Libya,” for the time being) conclusions”.
And you have not established that we have done so, except in your own mind. And I have established in the past here that your notions are incorrect in this regard. Suggesting that a dictator (or for that matter, the Iranian government) should not be criticized because it might be seized on by intellectually dishonest people with an opposing agenda is hardly justified in logic by any stretch of the imagination.
Okay, Okay, I couldn’t resist. Joan Baez learns some farsi and integrates it into a very famous song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVCqPAzI-JY&feature=related
For what it may be worth: Why I don’t read AntiWar.com very much any more.
I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread that I consider it very harmful to Iran’s position (since I believe the US’ real or imagined dispute with Iran may well be framed much like the US’ current “dispute” with Libya is being framed) when well-meaning commenters make statements that support the premises on which neocon wardrum-beaters base their “bomb Iran” (or “bomb Libya,” for the time being) conclusions, even when those commenters emphatically insist that they believe those premises support just the opposite conclusion.
In the case of the 2009 Iran election, they consisted of smug assertions that Ahmadinejad had stolen the election. In the present case of Libya, such “premise” support includes statements such as “Gaddafi is a crazy madman, and I don’t care whether his people like him or not.” In each situation, they serve the war-monger well. They consider themselves perfectly able to draw conclusions without help from anyone. They nonetheless are pleased as Punch to accept support for the premises on which they base those conclusions – especially from writers who many will consider to be their opponents. Support from such writers warms their hearts much more than support from their friends.
That is why I’ve lost a very great deal of respect for Justin Raimondo at AntiWar.com, and very rarely read his website any more.
Here is how I put it at the very end of the final footnote in my piece on the 2009 Iran election:
“Undoubtedly it pleased these ["bomb-Iran"] writers to receive support from staunch anti-war advocates who normally oppose them instinctively. See, for example, Justin Raimondo, at [link], and at [link]. The long-time webmaster of Antiwar.com was more strident in his denunciation of the 2009 Iran election than any other writer mentioned in this note [the footnote had cited "bomb-Iran" writings from a veritable rogue's gallery of leading neocons], though he nonetheless emphasized that he “anticipate[s] with horror the prospect of war with Iran.” One suspects these [war-mongering neocon] writers were grateful for Mr. Raimondo’s fervent support of their position on the [2009 Iran] election, but were confident they could fashion a proper remedy without further assistance from him.”
With friends like Justin Raimondo, who needs enemies?
Matt says: March 9, 2011 at 10:30 pm
Thank you for your comments.
I was initially influenced in my thinking by the nuclear tests of Pakistan and India in 1998.
I realized that for the reasons of the integrity and cohesion of the Iranian state and polity, nuclear weapons had become a necessity for Iran.
Since then, based on the public statements of US officals, pundits, and official US governments docuemts (see: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?1997-Wesley-Clark-Says-Neocons-Plan-To-Overthrow-7-countries-in-the-next-5-years) I have come to the conclusion that nuclear weapons are an absolute necessity of the physical survival of the Iranian state.
Iran should have left NPT in 1998.
[And Bushehr should be written off as a loss.]
During the last 7 years, Iranians made many sincere – and misguided in my opinion – promises and entreaties that they were not after nuclear weapons. It made no difference to the Axis Power war plans against Islamic Iran.
Iran does not need to levae NPT; she can start building nuclear weaapons and leave the formal exit from NPT to after.
I just do not see any other way.
fyi says:
March 7, 2011 at 4:02 pm
You may disagree, however, in my view, Iran would probably be best served by remaining within the NPT despite the utter hypocrisy of the IAEA (Cf., Kaveh L. Afrasiabi, 9 March 11, “Nuclear watchdog displays blind faith” [:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC10Ak02.html]; Press TV, 9 March 2011, “Iran urges IAEA to look for nukes in EU” [:http://www.presstv.ir/detail/169092.html]) and take advantage of geopolitical opportunities resulting from the precipitous decline of US hegemony in the region. Amb. Bhadrakumar’s article, already posted elsewhere in this thread (:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC10Ak03.html), illustrate such opportunities, which might be unnecessarily curtailed by the immediate development of an Iranian nuclear weapons program (Cf., “Due to international sanctions, foreign companies are now less interested in investing in Iran’s energy sector or engaging in financial transactions with Iran. In December 2010, the Indian Reserve Bank suspended transactions with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) and a financial clearinghouse. India’s decision largely stemmed from pressure by the United States, which believed that Iran had been using the clearing house as an intermediary to bypass sanctions. But after two months of negotiations, the Indian bank reversed its decision in early March. India announced it would begin making overdue payments to Iran for crude oil. India’s latest decision has undermined the sanctions push by the United States.” Fareed Mohamedi, 7 March 2011, “Rising Oil Prices Create Political Cushion for Iran,” [http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2011/mar/07/rising-oil-prices-create-political-cushion-iran]).
The only exception I can think of is if Iran views the likelihood of an imminent US military strike to be likely. In this case, Iran’s government is obligated to weaponize at the earliest possible moment. Otherwise, in my view, the decision of whether or not Iran should obtain nuclear weapons can, and should, be postponed for several years until the dust settles.
fyi says:
March 9, 2011 at 2:12 pm
“As an individual and in the absence of protection offered by either wealth or social connection, you can only preserve yourself thus.”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/MB11Dj02.html
Pirouz: Re LA Times piece on arrested Green leaders.
Scott Lucas once again proven to be a “proven (and smarmy) liar, propagandist and Web site hits leech.”
Warning: Scott Lucas is a proven (and smarmy) liar, propagandist and Web site hits leech.
Arnold: Agree on Lucas. Every post on him should include the line: “Warning: Scott Lucas is a proven (and smarmy) liar, propagandist and Web site hits leech.”
BiBiJon: “What is China saying to IAEA?…Li told the IAEA board meeting that China hopes Amano could provide further information regarding certain aspects of the report, for example, the sources of information cited.”
Pretty clear what they’re saying: “We don’t believe the Mossad-forged laptop which is your ONLY source of information about ANY Iranian nuclear weapons program.”
It would be nice if Chinese hackers could get into the IAEA or the US DoD/CIA and locate all the memos and info on that laptop and publish it. Probably would pretty clearly blow it out of the water, just as Gareth Porter has done.
That laptop and a few possibly misinterpreted SIGINT intercepts are apparently the ONLY evidence the US has EVER had that Iran has EVER had a nuclear weapons program.
for something completely different — a presentation by Professor Eric Zuelow, based on his award-winning book, “Making Ireland Irish, a meticulously researched and theoretically informed examination of the role of tourism in shaping national identity in Ireland. (Zuelow) masterfully captures the dialectic between local and the national constituencies to show how both shaped and were shaped by self-conscious efforts to objectify Irishness for tourist consumption. This innovative work has broad interdisciplinary appeal and will be of great interest to scholars in history, anthropology, political science, and cultural studies.
Making Ireland Irish, published by Syracuse University Press, tells the story of the development of Irish tourism since the Irish Civil War.”
Years ago I heard someone explain that Iran and Ireland are related linguistically since the ‘belt’ of their common linguistic roots stretches from the Scythian steppe to the Emerald Isle. I choose to believe that is true.
Irish history shares some similarities to Iranian history — one of continually fending off, then eventually incorporating invaders, and forging the amalgamation into a unique cultural and national identity.
Yesterday Michael Hayden was on C Span where he said, among other idiotic things, that in the Bush administration, the CIA did everything possible and spent untold millions to figure out where the power centers were in Iranian government, and how US could influence them to “change Iran’s behavior.” %*$@%$#&!!!!
better now
My advice to Hayden: Visit Iran?? ya think?
Anyway, the Irish figured out that tourism was one major way Ireland could make its presence known to the world as a friendly place.
You see, this yet another example of why the so-called Greens and anti-Iran narrators lack credibility:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/
They say one thing, then back pedal. Then they say another, then back pedal.
What is China saying to IAEA?
“China hopes that the agency and its director-general continue to adopt an objective and impartial stance on the nuclear issue in Iran, and play a constructive role in monitoring the issue as well as helping to promote a proper solution,” said Li Song, deputy head of the Department of Arms Control of China’s Foreign Ministry.
In his latest report on the Iranian nuclear issue, IAEA head Yukiya Amano said the agency could continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran.
At the same time, Amano said, the agency was unable to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran was for peaceful purposes.
Li told the IAEA board meeting that China hopes Amano could provide further information regarding certain aspects of the report, for example, the sources of information cited.
From http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-03/09/c_13769489.htm
Eric
“I wonder what other country they’ll think of.”
How does Grenada part II sounds to you, which could get the first black president reelected with just a few maundered US forces if war is what this society is so accustomed to for electing its presidents? On the other hand the country that you might have thought of is too big for the warmonger’s mouth to swallow, for some strange reason is even getting bigger by the day. The situation in Libya is not comparable to 92 Iraq; as this is an internal conflict and not invading a sovereign US client state, you are putting too match efforts to relate the two unrelated circumstances.
According to a study conducted by Russian daily Trud (Labour) – eventually the main losers in the destablization situation in the Middle East will be United States, Israel and Russia in that order. The winners, in the long run, from the current Arab crisis would be Islamic Republic followed by Turkey and Syria.
Iran: ‘Manhattan Project’ and winner in the Arab crisis
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/iran-manhattan-project-and-winner-in-the-arab-crisis/
Dan Cooper,
Yes, one might very well ask if the US Supreme Court has helped to subvert the Republic by making it impossible to control campaign spending.
US inability to act in the best interests of the American people, due to power of Israel lobby, gets worse as the years go by. What percentage of the “oligarchs” are ardent supporters of Israel right or wrong?
Pak @ 4:57:
“You need to suggest something more challenging.”
Bring children into the world and raise them to be fine adults
or
Bungee jump WITHOUT someone standing at the other end
To be fair, Scott’s not the only one who plays the unnamed sources game.
Whenever I see reports describing Iran’s government as “regime” and uses unnamed sources as backup for a given narrative, I generally stop reading.
The government of the United States does not represent the American people.
It represents the oligarchs.
The way campaign finance and elections are structured, the American people cannot take back their government by voting.
A once proud and free people have been reduced to serfdom.
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/all_columns.htm
More likely, it’s another blatant lie from Lucas. Truly, he’s just making this stuff up as he goes.
More likely is right. About the way it is more likely that the sun will rise from the east tomorrow morning than the west.
Scott Lucas is an idiot.
But interestingly, if you saw the 9 interviews of Iranians done by the LA Times (a source alread sympathetic with Mousavi and his opposition), then saw Scott’s spin of those interviews then the lengths to which he is willing to stretch the facts to spin his “opposition to the regime is increasing” narrative are clear for all to see right there.
Scott Lucas
March 7, 2011 at 3:08 pm
vs.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/03/iran-tehran-vox-pop-on-recent-protests-and-where-things-might-be-heading.html
It is bizarre that he would think anyone after that would trust his word for supposedly secret sources.
Of course, he presents his own secret sources as more authoritative than multiple professionally administered polls.
Just insane. There is no question that he is paid by parties hostile to Iran and also that he posts here largely to lift EA’s profile in search engines.
Because of that, from now on every post of mine that mentions him will contain at least one sentence describing Scott Lucas as an idiot.
Just to give google some balance when raceforiran’s comments section links to his website so often.
Eric: I think your position on whether Obama will conduct some limited military activity in Libya is not unreasonable. I agree with much of your analysis in that regard. Obama needs something concrete in foreign policy to stave off Republican criticism of his complete failure in Afghanistan, Iran (from their and the Israel Lobby’s point of view) and the Palestinian issue, not to mention losing a major US ally in Egypt. I’m not sure Libya will be enough to help him, but he might try it.
It’s not clear yet whether it will get that far before being overtaken by events on the ground. The Saudis apparently have good reason to arm the rebels, so perhaps the Saudis (which US encouragement, of course) will take the lead rather than Obama.
We’ll see.
I do think that preceding the 2012 elections Obama will get tougher with Iran – perhaps not to the point of an air strike, but almost certainly more sanctions and more threats.
The question remains: what will he do if he wins another four years – another four years of having to deal with the problem without resolving it, which will continue to make him look like a loser and threaten the Democratic mid-term and 2016 elections. As I’ve indicated, I don’t see the Iran crisis as not being resolved at some point. Whether that will be in the next five years I cannot predict. But if Obama causes the Dems to lose the 2016 elections, and we get a Republican President, I’d say the odds go way up for a military strike during that President’s 4-to-8-year term. Nor do I discount completely the possibility of Obama doing so during his next four years (assuming he wins.)
Mr. Canning: “The UK, France and Germany increasingly see the need for Europe to push forward a resolution of the Israel/Palestine problem because the US is unable to act…”
And they will fail at that, because the US will continue to support Israel regardless precisely because of the Israel Lobby.
Once again, a Palestinian “state” in crowded, weak, oppressed and controlled West Bank and Gaza is nothing to the purpose.
People need to get it through their head. Israel wants a cowed, controlled, slave population in the West Bank and Gaza so they can continually ratchet up the pressure eventually forcing the Palestinians into Jordan, Egypt or anywhere else but Israel. They have absolutely no intention of allowing ANY “Palestinian state”, and if one forms regardless, they will destroy it by war at the first opportunity, citing international law as their excuse.
There will be no genuine Palestinian state without an overwhelming economic and/or military threat against Israel to back off completely to the 1967 borders – and even then it won’t work because Israel will continue to sabotage that state.
There is one and only one correct solution to the Palestinian issue: Israel must be de-legitimized by the UN, its state dissolved, and a new state erected which covers both Israelis and Palestinians.
And that’s not going to happen either without direct and overwhelming economic AND military threat to Israel’s Zionists. And without the United States behind that economic and military threat, it’s not going to happen.
Period. End of story.
Voice of Tehran,
Yes, in some neighborhoods particularly, American has more churches than one can count, but they are storefronts or coverted old houses, etc. Other neighborhoods, more posh, have no churches.
Unknown Unknowns: “I am just saying it for Richard’s sanity.”
Thanks, I could use some. :-)
I’m spending far too much time arguing absurdities with a troll plus Eric in the midst of one of his obsessions.
The only significance Libya has to this site is how it may prove to be another disastrous US military intervention. Why anyone would care whether the Libyan revolt is the same as the Egypt revolt – and it isn’t entirely, as Pepe Escobar has laid out – is beyond me.
We’re concerned with Iran here specifically and bad US foreign policy generally.
The internals of any country are mostly irrelevant except as they are spun to support bad US foreign policy, as I’ve said repeatedly here to no avail.
Lucas now claims to be getting his information from an Iranian intelligence source: “Which is true in the case of the Tehran source we are discussing.”
I wonder if the IRGC knows about this.
More likely, it’s another blatant lie from Lucas. Truly, he’s just making this stuff up as he goes.
pak, How about being decent, If some body support Israel, It is shameful and worst make a sample for decency, just grow up
Dear nahid,
I jumped the world’s highest bungee jump in South Africa a few years ago, off a 216m high bridge overlooking a river mouth. You need to suggest something more challenging.
Dear Fiorangela,
I think we are operating on different wavelengths, because you are talking about organised religion, where as I am talking about individual religion. I used Wikipedia, because I already knew that the majority of Americans classify themselves as religious, but I did not have a figure to refer to. If you do not trust me, then read the article that fyi linked to earlier.
My Dear Fiorangela
This guy (pak) should jump in the ocean or revir or cliff , if he has guts, wow
Pak, re this part of your comment:
““Can you make a more nuanced distinction between Iran and Israel?”
Yes, I can – the Israeli government protects its own citizens, where as the Iranian government slanders, imprisons, tortures, and executes its own citizens. You have very leftist slant on things: states that kill other citizens are bad, and states that kill their own citizens are good. In my mind, both are equally bad.”
Left, right, progressive, regressive, etc. are meaningless to me.
I agree that is is bad for a state to kill, etc. its own citizens, and it is bad for a state to kill, etc. other citizens. If that simplistic metric is the only guideline for judgment, then we must judge the US as three times bad, since it kills its own citizens, kills other citizens, and enables Israel to kill other citizens.
Scott Lucas
Anyone who has read the different threads on this website, knows that you have nothing to do with any good fight. A well funded person like you who constantly lies, is a mercenary.
Pak, you were not “interpreting” your own religious views, you were commenting on the sociological and historical phenomenon of religiosity in the US based upon information in Wikipedia. Now, as soon as Ben Franklin invents spectacles so I can see what I’m typing on my laptop, I will explain to you through my toothless mouth why that is an intellectually weak position.
If you are not aware of the severe contraction in church membership and the strain that has put on churches as national organizations and, even more, on the communities where there are vacant churches, closed schools, abandoned rectories and parsonages, then you do not have the beginning of comprehension of the situation of organized religion in the US.
You may be aware of the strident health care debate that is taking place in the US. Forty years ago, religious denominations provided a large portion of medical care. Denominations built and staffed hospitals: for example, orders of Catholic nuns provided free or very low cost nursing and other services in very many Catholic hospitals throughout the country. As the numbers of women entering convents dwindled, and fewer religiously-motivated philanthropists were willing or able to underwrite the increased costs of hiring highly skilled workers at competitive wages, religious hospitals closed, or consolidated, or transitioned to adult day care, etc.
Back in the 19th, when I still had my teeth, wealthy businessmen competed with each other to build the grandest tribute to their god; it is not at all uncommon to see six massive church buildings in a two-block section of even a medium-sized town. And chances are pretty good that one or two of those buildings is boarded up or, at least, under-utilized. Mindful that churches occupy property in prime locations that is not taxed, a non-functioning church building on a prime parcel of land represents a significant drain on the tax base that must be made up by increasing the taxes on everybody else in the neighborhood. When the people in the neighborhood are already struggling to pay for dentures, the increased tax burden could cause genuine hardship to a family’s ability to stay together, to properly educate their children, etc.
Now it’s time for my toddy and a little nap before I return to crocheting that black, green, and orange afghan that will look so lovely, don’t you know, on the divan. zzzzzzzzzzz
fyi says:
March 9, 2011 at 2:12 pm
As an individual and in the absence of protection offered by either wealth or social connection, you can only preserve yourself thus.
*
Nietzsche says that one must (i.e., by necessity) wear masks, for if one does not, society’s ignorance will project masks on you.
True. And I would go further and say with Nietzsche that even when one wears a mask, society will still lash out with its projections.
f. Scott Fitzgerald (in the only interesting thing of his that I remember reading) defined an artist as someone who can hold two contrary positions and still function.
Nietzsche’s uber-mistake (and Richard’s too, seemingly) was to react to the Planet of the Apes by trying to find the spaceship. Not to ruin the ending of a classic film, but we all know what Roddy McDowell (or was it Kirk Douglass) found at the end of THAT journey. You have gone down that same dead-end.
Hafez has a way out of that Chinese finger-trap (or should I say ego-trap?). It is his concept of Rendee. He does not reject society. Nor does he even hold himself at a higher level than the average person. It is a positive, solid, optimistic orientation to society that gives religion the central role it necessarily must have in society, bows to the boundaries without which we could never be free, but does not break over backwards. And, like the Prophet whom he held as a role model, he always has a slight smile on his face, as if naturally high on life. Neither of the two great men ever complain about life: the one’s ahadith and the other’s living letters are full of the joy of being alive, despite their both being outliers and not being on the same wavelength of their contemporaries.
Society is all we have, and we must cherish it. As Nietzsche says, amore fati!
We are moral only in relation to society, and as inescapable as our morality is, so is our bond to our society, which is the social embodiment, the social incorporation, if you will, of our religion.
Only sociopaths are free of this bond. The French film “With a Friend Like Harry” envisages this truth brilliantly (by taking Nietzsche’s uber Will zur Macht (will to Power) to its ugly logical conclusion.
Pak says: March 9, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Very many human beings, throughout recorded history, have behaved according to socially sanctioned codes of behavior that has guided their actions.
[There have been few who attempted to live their lives without compliance with these socially sanctioned guidelines. Some succeeded and some punished. This latter group has always been a minority for whenever it has become a majority, society has ceased to exist.]
I think what you are asking is can someone who is not exposed to Revelation can be righteous within the moral system of the Revelation.
The answer is “yes” if you are a Muslim (ibn Sina and Rumi) and “no” if you reject Vatican II in case you are a Christain.
Remember, God guides whomever he desires and leads astray whomever he wishes.
James Canning says:
March 9, 2011 at 2:57 pm
James , USA has 1 church on 865 citizens , by far the highest number worldwide .
Arnold,
It sounds like we agree on one thing: the US ought to stay out of this.
But Obama’s remarkably unambiguous statement that Gaddafi ought to relinquish power makes me think the die may be cast.
If Gaddafi recovers everything except the eastern coastal region (roughly 25% of the population), as appears likely, Obama can always claim he tried but that other countries didn’t belly up to the bar. That may satisfy most Americans (I and you, presumably, will require no “excuse” at all from Obama for minding the US’ own business), but undoubtedly his opponents will argue he’s backing down from his initial “get out” statement.
When that happens, maybe Obama will have a sufficiently strong backbone that he’ll simply repeat his “Goodness knows we tried” explanation. I hope so, but with an election around the corner, I can’t help but think he’ll be tempted to rattle his sword a bit more.
Dear James,
I have seen this in the UK, where a friend of mine lives in a converted church (very cool). But I have never seen this in the US. Then again, the US is a big country.
Pak,
Many hundreds of Christian churches in the UK and the US no longer are used for religious services. And in the center cities in the US, most of the “old line Protestant” churches are too large and expensive to maintain for their dwindling congregations. Most new churches are built in the outer suburbs and reflect the continuing idiotic urban sprawl that is contemporary America.
Voice of Tehran says:
March 9, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Rather : ” Sturm und Drang ” ….
Dear fyi,
So is this guide derived from communal values, or can it be derived individually?
Basically my first question was a leading one, because I now want to ask this:
Do you believe that an individual who has never known religion will have morals?
Iranian says:
March 9, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Scott Lucas
“Go get some rest.”
Iranian , ” hyper well informed and ultra well placed sources” in Tehran told me that SL is on bad drugs , you know this new and ugly designer stuff , however business has priority and they need the money , that’s why we need a bit more patience to overcome this ” Strum und Drang ” period.
Dear Fiorangela,
Religion is something to be determined by the individual. My interpretation of religion is my own, as is yours. You should respect this fact, unless you want to be a grandma by lecturing me about the good old days, when children were caned if they could not recite the bible, or whatever it is you guys did in the 19th century.
“In the US, the magnificent churches built by Italian stonemasons a century ago are no longer churches; they are now used as bars and night clubs –“bouncy-castles” where yuppies drink and flirt.”
Where in the US do you live? I have personally not seen a single church that has been converted into a bar/night club. In fact, every time I visit, the landscape has changed, and most often because new places of worship have been erected.
“Can you make a more nuanced distinction between Iran and Israel?”
Yes, I can – the Israeli government protects its own citizens, where as the Iranian government slanders, imprisons, tortures, and executes its own citizens. You have very leftist slant on things: states that kill other citizens are bad, and states that kill their own citizens are good. In my mind, both are equally bad.
Therese,
Thanks for the link to Pat Buchanan’s March 8th comments opposing any US imposition of a no-fly zone on Libya. I recommend it to those who have not read it yet.
Pak says: March 9, 2011 at 2:35 pm
I am puzzled by your question.
Morality (Ethics) is a gudie for human action within a group, a gudie for the right conduct.
[However, huamn record contains various moral systems.
Those based on Revelation are one among many possible such systems.]
A guide for the right conduct is not a vlaue (in my opinion) since it must contain, within itself, multiple values.
Dear fyi,
Do you believe that morality is an intrinsic human value?
By the way, “The Fundamentalists” was a very interesting article. I once met an American who taught English in Afghanistan during the Taliban years. His family are an interesting lot: both the parents, and their four children, speak fluent Pashtun, and the father donned a Taliban-esque beard for years. I am convinced that the father is a missionary though, and not an English teacher, because of the things he tells me, and because of where they live now.
BiBiJon,
Good relations between Iran and India are good for the entire Middle East. As are good relations between Iran and Turkey. They also serve the best interests of the American taxpayers.
fyi says:
March 9, 2011 at 2:12 pm
“As an individual and in the absence of protection offered by either wealth or social connection, you can only preserve yourself thus.”
Fyi , please , it is sad and bitter to read such statments. You are such a valuable person ; I see what you are writing and I am not ready to believe , that this your ‘last truth ‘ , NEMISHEH.
BiBiJon,
What is the project in the Middle East, of the US, that is “doomed” in your view? The US effort to help Israel retain the Golan Heights? Or for Israel to keep most of the West Bank and prevent a viable independent Palestine from emerging?
Eric:
Your 1:40 comment does not strike me as consistent with your 11:58 comment but 1:40 is a clearer statement of your expectations of these conflicts. I’m not sure Gaddafi will be dislodged since his forces seem to have been making progress over the past few days. Egypt is already not as willing to help the US as it was under Mubarak. Without Egypt it will not be easy to get large amounts of equipment to the rebels.
I know what outcome the US would prefer to see in Libya, but I’m not sure that outcome is achievable.
Iranian,
Thanks for best wishes, but no need for rest — it’s your support that give me the energy to keep fighting the good fight.
Best,
S.
Unknown Unknowns says: March 9, 2011 at 1:59 pm
As an individual and in the absence of protection offered by either wealth or social connection, you can only preserve yourself thus.
Scott Lucas
Go get some rest.
You’ve pretended to have connections many times before. No one believes anything you say.
fyi says:
March 9, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Thus if you are an non-conformist to this consciousness, and in the absence of legal protection and respect for the right of the individual to be non-conformist – it follows that you either have to leave or – in case you cannot – live the life of a Lie and develop utter contempt for those who made you live a life of lies.
Revelations are addressed to every single individual human being and not to the Collective.
This is a false dichotomy, spoken, again, from the perspective of the disenfranchized, radically individualized autonomous entity, severed from the umbilicus of succour of the community (a phrase which, incidently, describes adequately a large topography of the impoverished mindset and soul of modernity)
Falak raa ‘adat-e dirineh een ast
Ke baa aazaadegaan da’em be keen ast
Mirza Nasir-e Esphahani (12th C)
That, fyi, is a given. It is a reality which at some pre-eternal (azali) level, you chose. I suggest that your reaction of root and branch rejection is your initial one, and that as the journey of your spirit unfolds, you will learn to embrace your outlier status, and engage with, and ultimately rejoin your community, insha’llah. Ameen.
Eric & Arnold,
I agree: US attack on Iran before 2012 election is extremely unlikely. And there still is no evidence available to demonstrate the government of Iran wants nuclear weapons.
Arnold,
It’s always easier to criticize what you wish someone had said.
In contrast with the Egypt situation, in which Obama waffled until the outcome appeared inevitable and only then claimed to have thought that Mubarak’s departure was a good idea from the outset, he came out early and unequivocally this time with a statement that Gaddafi should relinquish power. I assume he thought through the implications of that statement before he made it, and I can’t foresee him backing down from it.
Nor, however, can I foresee Obama accomplishing that objective without at least some “military” action – not necessarily “overt,” as you insist I said, but “military” nonetheless. He almost certainly will prefer that the military action not be overt. If he can accomplish his goal, for example, simply by arming the rebels (which I suspect is either already happening or soon will be), that will be preferable to overt military action. If he needs to up the ante with a “no fly” zone (for example, because arming the rebels merely yields more bloodshed without resolving the matter, as I predict will occur), that will be the next best thing – “limited overt” military action, if you will. (He’ll undoubtedly continue to look for some “international” support for that, but if he can’t find it at the UN, or NATO, or the African Union, he’ll probably settle for the Dubuque, Iowa Gardening Society, with perhaps the Marshall Islands tossed in for a little international flavor.) If he needs to bomb a few runways and airfields, as Secretary of Defense Gates has predicted will be required in conjunction with a “no fly zone” tactic, he might step it up to that as well – though only if he’s persuaded it will make a difference (many argue that it won’t matter because Gaddafi will still be able to use helicopter gunships and ground vehicles to attack the rebels). I don’t think Obama will get much more “overt” than that, though – no US ground troops, for example.
If all of this eventually works, it will probably at least take some time, which will yield two advantages for Obama: (1) it will cast him attractively as the reluctant warrior – tough enough to do what was necessary, peace-loving enough to accomplish his goal without avoidable bloodshed; and (2) it will push the ultimate resolution closer in time to election day 2012, thus leaving him with the “martial glow” I mentioned.
If all of this fails, Obama will nevertheless be able to argue that he took all of the steps that a responsible, manly president should take – short of sending American boys onto the “shores of Tripoli” (to borrow from the Marine Corps hymn), which public opinion polls will almost certainly show to be unpopular among the American voting public. He’ll probably be able to add that he’s been more manly than other world leaders, since a failure at that point will probably reflect the unwillingness of other Western nations (and Russia and China) to “stand up to aggression.” His wimp-to-warrior transformation will thus be nearly complete, even if he fails.
In short, with Libya, I foresee a “can’t lose” set of choices for Obama, all involving limited – and possibly entirely “covert” – military action. His only prospect of political failure would follow from not upping the ante at least to the extent I described three paragraphs above, and I just can’t imagine him not proceeding as far as necessary along that path.
As for Iran, I can’t imagine any overt military action before the 2012 election; I’m not sure what gave you a contrary impression (other than the observation I made in the very first sentence of this post). What I can imagine, however, is Obama being boxed into a political corner from which he fights his way out by taking a much tougher stance against Iran – a stance which might (but probably won’t) lead to war with Iran if Obama gets re-elected but very well might lead to war with Iran if his Republican opponent wins. In the latter event, I see the risk of war with Iran becoming especially high if the US succeeds in ousting Gaddafi with nothing beyond a “no fly zones” approach. If that works in Libya, the pressure to try the same thing against Iran will become considerable. Modifications will be necessary, of course, since the Iranian government isn’t, and probably won’t be, bombing its internal opponents any time soon. But the US government is nothing if not imaginative when it comes to modifying forms of aggression to fit the situation. I’m just speculating here, but I can imagine, for example, closing the Persian Gulf to Iranian shipping, shutting down pipelines, various other forms of economic warfare and an arm-twisting “you’re either with us or against us” diplomatic approach toward any fence-sitters (Turkey, for example).
Not quite overt war, but much more unpleasant for Iran, and much more dangerous for the US and everyone else in the world.
Kathleen,
Yes, and what about the numerous Israeli war crimes in Gaza and the Lebanon? Illegal use of cluster bombs against civilians, illegal use of phosphorous bombs, etc etc etc.
A shameless massacre in Gaza, cheered on by the moron in the White House (and Condoleezza Rice).
Kathleen – The International Criminal Court (ICC) is just as much occupied by Zionist mafia as is the US, Germany, France, Britain, Canada, Australia and Israel are.
While ICC has convicted Sudanese President for ‘genocide against humanity’ – it refuses to bring to trail the Israeli leaders who have committed genocide of Palestinian and Lebanese at much greater level than Khartoum could have done.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/international-war-crimes-probe-against-israel/
Unknown Unknowns says: March 9, 2011 at 1:18 pm
You wrote:
“…that it is the consciousness of the masses and ITS criticality – when IT reaches critical mass – that is the determinant of change, or rather, IS change itself – and not that of the consciousness of intellectual outliers…”
This is factually correct.
Thus if you are an non-conformist to this consciousness, and in the absence of legal protection and respect for the right of the individual to be non-conformist – it follows that you either have to leave or – in case you cannot – live the life of a Lie and develop utter contempt for those who made you live a life of lies.
Revelations are addressed to every single individual human being and not to the Collective.
Typo @ response to fyi, 5th line s/r: Iran in particular.
Kathleen,
The UK, France and Germany increasingly see the need for Europe to push forward a resolution of the Israel/Palestine problem because the US is unable to act (due to ISRAEL LOBBY).
James Blitz has interesting report in today’s Financial Times: “Britain steps up pressure for Mideast peace deal.” William Hague announced that Britain in effect is recognising Palestine as independent or soon to be independent, by upgrading the status of the Palestinian delegation in London to full diplomatic mission.
Oh and this discussion was right on topic with the Leveretts latest. Quite a bit of hooey being thrown about human rights and all.
Libya: The Politics of Intervention
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-03-09/libya-politics-intervention
It is both alarming and telling just whose grip the International Criminal Court is in. What hypocrisy! Calling out Gaddafi for crimes against humanity but never called out the Bush administration warmongers for the invasion of Iraq based on a “pack of lies” and the hundreds of thousands of deaths , injuries and millions displaced? HMMMMM
From the standard of justice and accountability that the ICC is allegedly all about I would say Gaddafi needs to get in line at the International Criminal Court behind the Bush war criminals. What a blatant double standard?
“James Canning says:
March 8, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Kathleen,
Some of the journalists are rabid workers inside the Israel lobby. Others are opportunistic stooges who see their own financial and career interests as profiting from serving as propagandists for the Israel lobby. Some might call them whores”
The journalist that continue to recycle these warmongering liars are complicit in keeping the American public heads and minds up where the sun does not shine.
Folks may find this disturbing.
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/03/nyu-students-feature-israeli-soldier-who-attacked-mavi-marmara-during-israel-peace-week.html
.
The discussions of the site have, as usual, been taken over by the mundane concerns as to whether or not a troll’s opinion is valid, is sufficiently documented, etc.
In brief, the main stream of the discussion has degenerated into pure anarchy. And for the sake of the sanity of our esteemed anarchist (lest teh cognitive disonnance send him into exquisite paroxysm), I humbly suggest that those who are interested in this kind of discussion take teh discussion to sites such as Enduring Weasels and Iranian.com, where the audience is likely to benefit from your point of view.
In other words, you would be doing a double good: weeding out posts which the community here is not interested in (and is not going to be moved by), and at the same time, by moving your comments to the other sites, you will be sheding teh light of day of your insights onto the dark crevices of ignorance that abound in those sites.
For example, your post (at Enduring Weasels, for example) can say: Scotty Boy stated on RFI: ” … “. But he is wrong becuase of X, Y and Z.
I don’t have a problem filtering out this noise: I am just saying it for Richard’s sanity. And it would sure improve the S/N (Signal to Noise Ratio, for you non-audiophiles) of the community.
fyi:
thakns for your response of today @ 10:29, which confirmedfor me the inkling that I had that your idea of Islam is an intellectual one, divorced from the everyday practice of the community around you (much as mine is, by the way). As such, you over-emphasize abstract concepts and historical perspectives at the expense of what the living, breathing *community* of Moslems think and feel. I personally agree that Islam in general and Islam in particular would be better off without the arrogant literalists (or Pharisees, as you misleadingly call that tendency, for some reason) which have arrogated all sorts of rights to themselves since the times before Hafez (who referred to them as “zahid” and “vaaez” – both terms of denigration and pejoratives whereever they appear in his divan). And the tradition goes all the way back. Sa’di before him, for example:
Man az aan gozashtam, ay yar, ke beshnovam nasihat
Boro ay zahed o baa maa maforoush parsaaee
All this is well and good, as far as it goes, *as long as you do not forget the context*. And the context is that these critics always criticized from *within* the community. It is one thing to be antinomian while respecting the outward trappings of the law, no matter how misguided or out-dated, knowing that it is the consciousness of the masses and ITS criticality – when IT reaches critical mass – that is the determinant of change, or rather, IS change itself – and not that of the consciousness of intellectual outliers. It is quite another to be critical of the norms of the community *in toto*, rejecting it root and branch (which is, by the way, invariably the interpretation othat every “green” will give to Hafez when he tells his audience to “stain their prayer rug with wine”). It is one thing to criticize from within and push the envelope of change, as did Rafsanjani and Khatami and the 2nd of Khordad movement beofre him; it is quite another to pierce that envelope and no longer have any respect for the system of governance, like the green movement’s leaders and their deminishing minions. It is one thing to maintain that the government has many structural problems which need to be dealth with vigorously; it is quite another to maintain that Islamic Iran in its current adumbration is “a catastrophe” and “a nekbat”.
Therese — yes, such statements are kabuki — the same people making the same (erroneous) analysis, reaching the same (erroneous) conclusion, taking the same self-serving actions to placate their electors and please themselves. In old-style Roman Catholicism, masturbation was a sin.
But Kerry made a larger point that he didn’t even realize he made: he said Libya is in a civil war and others should not intervene in a civil war.
Yes.
Properly assessed, Israelis have been at civil war, Jew upon Jew, “semite” upon “semite,” for a couple thousand years. Let’s skip the incident where Joseph’s brothers hated him so much that they threw him in a well and fast-forward to Arthur Ruppin, who “produced” the Hebrew culture that defines Israel to this day by ’selecting out’ Orthodox Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Oriental Jews.
According to a paper by Tel Aviv University PhD candidate Etan Bloom, Ruppin was firmly committed to the idea of racial purity, an idea he absorbed from his German Nazi correspondents and fellows in planning the Jewish state in Palestine (Ruppin created and headed the Palestine Office, PO, from 1908-1940). His vision was related to Herzl’s quest that “the Maccabeans will live again;” Ruppin wrote that through his efforts, by the early 1940s
“a new sub-race, “the Maccabean type,” . . . had emerged. . .“Most of the young generation in the Land display a new type of Jew, a kind of Maccabean type from the past” (Ruppin 1940b, 287).” [Bloom p. 144]
Bloom footnotes this statement:
“Ruppin believed that his eugenic culture plan was working, see e.g. what he wrote at the end of the 1920s: “If today the level of the diligence of the agriculture workers is greater then 10 or 15 years ago we must first of all give the credit for that to the work of selection among the groups [kvutzot]. From the thousands that passed through the groups, a large part was discarded, maybe most of them. Those who stayed were those who passed the test of fire” (Ruppin 1928, 42)”
Early on, Ruppin defined the parameters of his eugenic quest for racial purity, and what eugenic types would be selected in- and which eugenic types selected out- of the “The Borders of the Modern Hebrew Social Space:”
He outlined his plan in a
“memorandum of 1907, [in which he] repeated, in a general way, the analysis he had presented in The Jews of Today. He described the groups existing at the time in the social field of Palestine and analyzed their position with regard to the new social field he planned to establish. . . . Ruppin aspired to create a new biological type for the new Jewish society in Palestine, and, as the new source or “gene pool” for this new Jewish Volkskorper, he chose the East European Jews. . ..
The two groups that Ruppin saw as unsuitable and even antagonistic to his plans were, on the one hand, the Orthodox Ashkenazi Jews and, on the other, the Sephardic and Oriental Jews whom, as he put it, he “lumped together” and defined disparagingly as “Oriental or Eastern Jews” [Heb. yehudey hamizrach].”
In other words, the goal of Arthur Ruppin, who created ‘modern Israel,’ was NOT to create a “homeland for the Jewish people” but to create a Jewish master race, and to select OUT “unsuitable” Orthodox, Sephardic, and Oriental Jews in order to achieve his vision.
In the following footnote from Bloom’s paper, Ruppin’s analysis of the “material” from which he would select and build zionism’s “new Jew” is defined:
“In his lecture The Land of Israel in the Year 1907, which he delivered to The Jewish Settlement Association in Vienna in 1908, Ruppin divided the Jewish population of Palestine into what he defined as four “distinct strata” (Ruppin 1908, 1):
“The first is made up of those Sephardic Jews who have lived in the country for centuries, have become closely assimilated, in mores and in their general mode of life, to the local Arabs and who, side by side with Ladino, speak Arabic too. A good picture of the life of these Jews is furnished by the town of Saida (the ancient Sidon) where 2,000 Jews – all of them Sephardic – may be found. They receive no Chalukkah, earn a difficult and pitiful living as small merchants and artisans, are poorly educated and of a not particularly high moral standing. The Jews of Morocco, Persia and the Yemen, who have come into Palestine in recent years, may be lumped together with this group” (ibid). This group, according to Ruppin, though “poorly educated” and lacking a “particularly high moral standing,” had one advantage: “They receive no Chalukkah”; an important sign of their productivity. In these early definitions we can detect Ruppin’s constant urge to verify his theoretical writings concerning the Semites through his observations in the Middle Eastern and Palestinian social field. As described at length, the ‘Orientals’ were always marked by him as unintelligent, nonmodern, bestial and immoral. Their only good quality and path for regeneration lay in their ability to be useful as an unskilled workforce.”
According to Bloom, alone among the several projects of socially engineering Jews, Ruppin’s project was successful:
, what makes Ruppin’s case so different from that of the other social scientists is that he was able, like only few other eugenicists (e.g. Galton), to undertake a practical implementation of his ideas, as will be discussed in chapter five.
Indeed, as Penslar notes, there were other attempts at social engineering of the Jews, and at linking Jewish economic and physical health with planned colonization. This frame of work was shared by a variety of Jewish international relief agencies that experimented, from the 1870s until the 1930s, with social engineering in South America, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East (Penslar 2001, 223). Nevertheless, the Palestinian-Zionist project was the only one of these experiments to succeed in radically transforming modern Jewish identity and, in particular, the Jewish body. The successes of Zionism cannot be overestimated: from one of the many political and cultural options for identity in the culture space of the turn of the century it became, at the end of the twentieth century, a cultural synonym for Judaism.
Several clinical psychologists –most notably, Avigail Abarbanal, have written of the “psychopathology” of Israeli society. Abarbanal sees the roots of this maladaption to civilized society in a profound identity crisis. [see :http://www.avigailabarbanel.me.uk/gaza-2009-01-04.html ]
The zionist “Jew” is a synthetically engineered being. Is it any wonder it experiences an identity crisis? And has the US helped or harmed itself and the entire Middle East by involving itself in zionism’s ‘civil war’ upon its fellow Jews?
And a final point: As Ben Gurion University professor Haggai Ram illuminates in “Iranophobia: The Logic of an Israeli Obsession,” the abiding hatred of Iran that zionism expresses and has injected into the American body politic is an essential element of the zionist programme to build the “racially pure” “new Jew.”
[see :http://www.meforum.org/2620/iranophobia nb. I chose this particular review of "Iranophobia" because its author derides and denies the very concepts that Etan Bloom demonstrates were essential to the founding of Israel as far back as 1908.]
Fiorangela says:
March 9, 2011 at 11:25 am
Fio , Israel was listed , I think on position 36.
However we know that all the World Zionist Mafia have a safe heaven in Israel , unfortunately I could not find a comprehensive report , thus would appreciate your input.
Eric A. Brill says:
March 9, 2011 at 12:20 pm
I’m not sure how you reached that conclusion.
Eric A. Brill says:
March 9, 2011 at 10:58 am
… Obama, by contrast – at least if he paces it carefully – probably can be left with plenty of martial glow as late as election day in November 2012.
However Obama handles it, though, I’m having a harder and harder time thinking of how he can avoid ensuring that Gaddafi goes and that the US (i.e. Obama) gets ample credit for that. The moment he wavers, his Republican opponents will hammer away at him.
And if (as I anticipate) Obama doesn’t waver and thereby takes away that foreign-policy issue from the even-more-belligerent Republicans, they’ll need to – and predictably will – come up with some other, even tougher, test of Obama’s manhood.
Some other country.
I wonder what other country they’ll think of.
You anticipate Obama not wavering on Libya. I take that to mean you anticipate Obama intervening overtly on Libya. What do you mean, if not that?
You predict that Republicans will come up with another test for Obama’s manhood. Clearly you’re hinting at Iran.
You gave the deadline of election day 2012.
If you weren’t saying that you expect US interventions in both by election day, it is very unclear, at least to me, what you were saying.
While you hinted about Iran, you said directly that you anticipate Obama intervening in Libya before election day 2012. I disagree with that and we’ll see who was right relatively soon.
Rd. says:
March 9, 2011 at 10:19 am
Rd, thanks for the link.
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC10Ak03.html
Another quote from the article regarding Iran-India relation:
Most important, Menon’s arrival in Tehran at the present tumultuous juncture on a major path-breaking political and diplomatic mission to energize India-Iran strategic understanding also underscores the growing recognition in the region that the era of Western dominance of the Middle East is inexorably passing into history and the world order is not going to be the same again.
======================================================
U.S. should forget about trying to bribe Russia and China in a Mid East project which is doomed. The window of opportunity to kiss and make up with Iran is closing faster and faster by each passing hour.
nahid says:
March 9, 2011 at 8:15 am
Good one! :o)
Arnold,
“So Eric, we have you down as predicting US overt military action in both Libya and Iran before election day 2012?”
I’m not sure how you reached that conclusion.
RSH,
“‘Well connected’ means nothing unless one is, for instance, talking about the contacts someone has in the intelligence community, i.e., access to real information.”
Which is true in the case of the Tehran source we are discussing.
S.
So Eric, we have you down as predicting US overt military action in both Libya and Iran before election day 2012?
I’m pretty sure neither will happen.
Fiorangla: What basically means “we want to pull the whole world down into a war, we (the US) dont want to take responsible for what could backlash”.
Kerry, clinton, bush, average joe and so one…same shit different name.
John Kerry:
“It would be better to have [UN] authorization” to impose no-fly zone over Libya, than for US to act unilaterally.
The Fundamentalists
http://nationalinterest.org/article/the-fundamentalists-4891?page=1
Voice of Tehran @ 10:41.
BREAKING NEWS! Ahmadinejad has succeeded! Israel has been wiped from the map —
I did not see Israel on the “Corruption Index” Map.
Pak says, @ March 8, 2011 at 6:41 pm
Pak has a simplistic, inchoate view of religion. Above, fyi goes to the heart of the matter when he writes that “Revelation and its ramifications are . . .central to both the Western Civilization and to Islam and the interactions between these two.”
What fyi calls “Revelation” I call the myths of organized religion, within the definition of religion as –explanation of the metaphysical; ritual; ethics; institution.
I do not know where you get the belief that America is godless, because actually a large proportion of the American population is religious (according to Wikipedia, only up to 15% identify themselves as “unaffiliated”; according to my own eyes, I agree with Wikipedia). Even though the American political system is secular, I have not seen one presidential candidate who has not proven his/her commitment to God.
If anything, it is Europe that you should be focussing on, where church attendance is falling dramatically. So much so that in Italy they have resorted to erecting bouncy-castle style blow-up churches on beaches to attract the youth. Again, according to Wikipedia, only 38% of British people believe in God; again, according to my own eyes, I agree with Wikipedia.
In the US, the magnificent churches built by Italian stonemasons a century ago are no longer churches; they are now used as bars and night clubs –“bouncy-castles” where yuppies drink and flirt.
It is ironic that in America there is a secular system of governance, but a largely religious population. And in Europe it is the opposite, with political systems that are affiliated to the church, but populations that are largely not religious.
Your attempt to bring religion into your arguments is weak.
Pak does not quite know what religion is, if his best source is Wikipedia.
And by the way, most of the European population view Israel in the same light as Iran, i.e. negative. There is very little sympathy for states that use religion to justify heinous crimes.
Can you make a more nuanced distinction between Iran and Israel?
Be specific: what “heinous crimes” are being committed by Iran, and justified by using religion? Hanging gays? Stoning adulterers? Jailing alleged subversives?
What crimes are being committed by Israel and justified by using religion – theft of other people lands, homes, farms; destruction of other people’s olive trees, orange groves, water treatment plants, universities; bombing and shelling of innocent civilians including children, with white phosphorus (in Gaza) and cluster bombs (in Lebanon), both internationally proscribed weapons?
Do you see these as morally equivalent? Are the acts of both countries, Iran and Israel, defensive (protective of the population & culture) or offensive (aggressive and predatory)? Do both countries act from the same motives and goals, or from different motives and goals?
btw Pak, are you a high school student or a middle school student?
Pirouz,
“Likewise, at this point in the armed conflict, attempting to determine the relative popularity of each side seems pointless. Like I said, the outcome will be determined by each side’s respective resolve and the clash of cold steel on the battlefield.”
I wrote that whether Libya’s people prefer that Gaddafi stay or go ought to determine the outcome, not that it will. As you write, cold steel will determine that now – it shouldn’t, but it will. As I wrote, the “cold steel” test seems to favor Gaddafi if the West stays out of it, and likely to go against him if the West gets involved. Indeed, Gaddafi’s loss seems almost certain if the West gets involved, since it would be political suicide for Obama or any other Western leader to get his country involved and not succeed in that effort. However much Obama might prefer to stay out of this, it appears to me that it will become a very big election issue if he does. It’s hard for me to imagine any outcome short of a Gaddafi ouster that wouldn’t burnish Obama’s image as a foreign-policy wimp.
At this point, Obama’s principal political concern may well be the timing of the resolution. He’s got a dumb-luck advantage over George Bush the elder in his similar test of manhood (Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in July 1990). Bush’s “wimp” test arose 28 months before the 1992 election and was resolved too early (January 1991) to help him in the election. That resolution (kicking Saddam out of Kuwait) boosted Bush’s approval rating to a near-record 91%, but gave the Democrats an ample 22 months to change the issue to “It’s the economy, stupid” and chip away at Bush’s war-boosted popularity. Obama, by contrast – at least if he paces it carefully – probably can be left with plenty of martial glow as late as election day in November 2012.
However Obama handles it, though, I’m having a harder and harder time thinking of how he can avoid ensuring that Gaddafi goes and that the US (i.e. Obama) gets ample credit for that. The moment he wavers, his Republican opponents will hammer away at him.
And if (as I anticipate) Obama doesn’t waver and thereby takes away that foreign-policy issue from the even-more-belligerent Republicans, they’ll need to – and predictably will – come up with some other, even tougher, test of Obama’s manhood.
Some other country.
I wonder what other country they’ll think of.
Scott Lucas,
There is no doubt that you are motivated by money. You are morally bankrupt.
The US have reduced all its credbility it haved (which isnt much to begin with).
Lets break it down.
Demonstrations in Egypt erupted.
Demonstrations in Bahrain erupted.
Demonstrations in Tunisia erupted.
Demonstrations in Oman erupted.
Demonstrations in Morcco erupted.
Demonstrations in Saudiarabia erupted.
Demonstrations in Yemen erupted.
What did the US say?
Lines like “this is internal affairs x people”, “we dont want to take sides”, “we condemn the violence (on both sides)”, “We have no intentions about sanctions..” etc, and there was no talk about military interventions whatsoever..
But what about Libyia, what did the US/west approach this demonstrations? Did they refused to take sides? NO, in fact they support one of the sides, even giving them weapons! Did they refuse to use sanctions? NO, sanctions are imposed! Did they refuse to use their military? NO there are talks about a no-fly zone (which basically is a declaration of war) and attack on Qadaffi’s strongholds.
Put it gently, US are a horrific hypocrite. Like the Leverettes point out, are the US blind to the message from Iran about resistance?! Are the US delusional? Dont they know that the people in this region may hate their puppet leaders but what they hate more is foreign interventions, especially, by the US!
And all we hear by this ugly warmongering clinton hag, is about Iran. Iran, Iran, Iran. She have completely lost her mind and her grip of reality. Her obsession with Iran is sickening. She isnt interested a bit in democracy, she is interested in keeping status quo in the middle east, that is defending the apartheid anti-democratic regime israhell and the flow of oil.
Pat Buchanan put it concise the other day:
“”
We backed the dictators Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, who were as autocratic as Gadhafi, whom we demand be deposed.
We support the dictator in Yemen, the absolute monarch in Saudi Arabia, the king in Bahrain, the sultan in Oman, and the emir in Kuwait, but back pro-democracy demonstrators in Iran, though there have been more elections in Iran than in all those other nations put together.
America has taken a terrible beating for what she has done and tried and failed to do in that region for a decade.”
http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2011/03/07/its-their-war-not-ours/
US/ISRAEL, LEAVE THE AFRICAN PEOPLE ALONG, LET THEIR SOCIETY AND POLITICS EVOVLE NATURALLY WITHOUT YOUR GREEDY FINGERS PULLING THE STRINGS!
BiBiJon says:
March 9, 2011 at 9:09 am
Bibijon , the world “Corruption Perception Index” from Tranparency International was pulblished in Jan. 2011.
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results
Besides the fact that this organisation is sponsored by a very influential western financial Group in Germany the findings are ‘funny’.
If you open the table Venezuela , Nicaragua , Bolivia are listed after, Haiti , a country with a rudimentary government ( at best ) and also after the Narco Regimes of Columbia and Mexico.
Haiti is even placed before Iran , which I found very amusing…..
BiBiJon @ 9:09, re BBC poll –
such polls seem to be more like market tests of propaganda campaigns: what’s working, where, should we ramp up here or cut back there?
The Nazi party had very sophisticated feedback mechanisms to get the ‘right’ information or pamphlet or high-profile speaker (or entertainer: Nazi party sponsored many dances, cultural activities as part of building movement) to the right place for maximum effect.
So does every marketing organization, and spreading “freedom” and “democracy” today has been reduced to the commodification of the political process. The latest “must have” graduate degree offered by the universities in Washington — ie. George Washington, Georgetown, George Mason — is the masters degree in political campaign management. fuggedabout the Classics, Petrarch, or Chinese wisdom; learn how to package, brand, and sell a candidate.
Unknown Unknowns says: March 8, 2011 at 11:29 pm
My statements were not garbled; only concise.
Outwardly, Islam is a simple religion (compared to Christianity or Judaism). It has been an excellent religion for common people and has endowed their lives with inward dignity and peace. However, this non-hierarchical understanding of Muslim practice has historically caused Muslim polities to value outward orthopraxis to inward belief. Thus there is no tolerance for finer intellects and more delicate sensibilities that deviate from orthopraxis.
Al Ghazzali advised Muslims – in my opinion – not to use their Reason to question the Revelations. For a 1000 years Muslims have flocked to his flag and have put their minds and brains on auto-pilot; specially among the Sunni Muslims where Philosophy, the synthetic science that tries to make sense of the world, died more than 800 years ago. So you have a population that is not used to thinking for itself, clutching to an intellectual tradition that is falling apart under the stress of new worlds of Knowledge and History. The Reaction has been the same: kill those who do not agree with the received Wisdom; e.g. Suhrewardi. And arrogate to themselves the Power to Judge who is and is not a Muslim based on their outward conformance to orthopraxis that itself is of dubious religious validity. This is Pharisee Islam.
It is clear to me that only God knows what is in the hearts of men. That orthopraxis is not a definition of being a (good) Muslim but only an indication that the person is taking upon himself the spiritual exercises that strengthen his character. That, in fact, everyone is a Muslim; including Jews and Christians. And that if Abu Sufyan was a Muslim, then anyone born into a Muslim family and raised there is a Muslim – questioning his or her faith is God’s task and not Man’s.
In regards to Muslim Civilization, there is no prior civilization in most Muslim polities that you can identify which has contributed to the Muslim Civilization. They were all discarded with the advent of Islam and very little trace of them has remained.
When Muslim Civilization was forming, excepting Iran which contributed quite a bit to Islam, everyone else entered a new world (so to speak). Islam brought a Civilization with it: architecture, art, scholarship, calendar, sciences, laws, etc. So, for Turkic people, for Pakistanis, for Afghans, for the Malay, for the Arabs, and for Sub-Saharan Africans, there was never a prior historical experience of a civilization other than that of Islam.
[You really have to pay close attention as I have to non-Iranians to see the extent to which they envy contemporary Iran for its claim ancient-ness. Look at the pathetic former Tourism Minister of Tunisia claiming that Tunisia was the inheritor of Ancient Carthage. Then he would get all upset when someone pointed out to him how they threw babies into fire for their rites of sacrifice. Look at this artificial country called Azerbaijan Republic whose official news service is called “Turan”; as though they are the inheritors of the ancient Turanians of the Ferdowsi ‘s Shah Nameh.]
Again, Iran was different and has remained different. People of the Iranian plateau, in historical times have been exposed to the Civilizations of Mesopotamia, Elam, Greece, and India. They borrowed from all. They also had historical experience with various claims to Revelations, some authentic and some perhaps not so. These were the Revelations of Zoroaster, Jesus, Buddha, Mani, and Mazdak. Islam was the last in a long chain of Revelations. Therefore, in my opinion, the people of the Iranian plateau were mentally prepared to substitute a new Revelation for another one and keep much of the rest of their ancient internal and external culture intact.
You may contrast this with the Europeans for whom the Christian Civilization was built on the foundations of Rome, that its legacy in Administration, Jurisprudence, Literature, and Architecture was kept alive to a far greater degree than that which preceded Islam (even in what was Iran).
my bad, RSH; I did not trace Lucas’s comment to its precedent, I merely commented on the absurdity of the broad point that Wolfowitz is out of the loop. I know, I know, very bad journalistic practice, one that would NEVER be tolerated in MSM today.
Arab revolt reworks the world order
By M K Bhadrakumar
India, brazil, and South Africa have put a spoke in the American wheel!!!…
“It is very problematic to intervene militarily in a situation of internal turmoil,”
Delhi has embarked on a major overhaul of its Middle East policies…
Away from the glare of television cameras, Menon handed over a letter from Manmohan to Ahmadinejad. “Iran and India are both independent countries and they will play significant roles in shaping up the future of the international developments …”
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC10Ak03.html
Is India making a turn about? Sounds like the axis “may be” less dependent (less loved) by another friendly (India).
Empty says: March 9, 2011 at 7:07 am
Thank you for your commnets with them I am mostly in agreement.
One small quibble: “The Spanish Inquisition” did not report to the Pope, only to the King of Spain. In fact, when you compare the hundreds of thousands of people who were murdered in Europe, in Russia, in China, and in Cambodia for various un-Godly reasons, you will come to appreciate the extent to which the enforcement of the Catholic Orthodoxy by the Church was benign. The treatment of Gallileo is a case in point, he would have been summarily executed by the likes of Hitler and Stalin or Mao.
Iranian historian Iraj Afshar dies
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/169024.html
New BBC Poll: Iran Unloved, But Not Isolated, by Marsha B. Cohen, once again lays bare how MSM deceives.
BBC conducts a poll and completely misrepresent the findings in an attempt to manufacture global consensus which in fact their own data shows clearly does not exist.
Highly recommended reading:
http://www.lobelog.com/new-bbc-poll-iran-unloved-but-not-isolated/
Fiorangela: You may have missed by point as well.
My point was that Wolfowitz is as “well connected” or more so within the US establishment than anyone Lucas knows in Iran. And Wolfowitz is a lying scumbag with his own agenda. So why should we consider Lucas’ “sources” as any different just because he alleges they are “well connected” in Iranian society?
“Well connected” means nothing unless one is, for instance, talking about the contacts someone has in the intelligence community, i.e., access to real information – not opinion.
I repeat for everyone to read: Lucas’ “evidence” is anecdotal, i.e., worthless.
Lucas makes another moronic remark: “I don’t think Paul Wolfowitz is well-connected within the Iranian establishment.”
Ignoring the obvious point being made in my post as he always does because he’s too smarmy and intellectually dishonest to engage a real point.
Truly a scumbag on a par with the worst Zionist trash a la Dershowitz. You can tell when he’s lying because letters appear on a Web site.
Lucas @ 8:26 –
“I don’t think Paul Wolfowitz is well-connected within the Iranian establishment.”
simplistic reply.
Mossad, other Israeli assets, and NGOs run by neocons such as Jeff Feltman and James Glassman provide much of the intelligence (I use the term loosely) on Iran that US decision makers rely upon.
One has to assume Wolfowitz works closely with those intelligence gatherers; he certainly had unique access to information Douglas Feith developed to drive US to war in Iraq — Wolfowitz & Feith ‘produced’ it together.
If Israeli or US-Israel operatives have information about Iran, Wolfowitz does or can have access to it.
RSH,
I don’t think Paul Wolfowitz is well-connected within the Iranian establishment.
Best,
S.
M. Ali,
The change was because you — wittingly or unwittingly — indicated that the message about Iran and international came from EA’s correspondent and not the Tehran source. For the record, here is what the Tehran-based source wrote:
“I asked another friend, “What do you want us to do? And what could be done from the outside?” He said:
‘We don’t want intervention, we want attention. We need the media attention to be on Iran. The more the international community condemns what is happening, the more the international media reports it, the more pressure the regime is under. This will save lives, but we can also see that the more pressure they are under, the more they divide & fight among themselves, and everyone knows that division leads to weakness and fear — and bad decisions.’”
Hopefully that clarifies matters,
S.
Scott Lucas,
To be fair to your “evidence” that every body asking. You are numerous.
http://jahannews.com/vdcezo8zfjh8nei.b9bj.html
fyi says: “The reason is because Revelation and its ramifications are, in my opinion, central to both the Western Civilization and to Islam and the interactions between these two.”
It is interesting to observe the historical evolution of these interactions that could be summarized in one and only phrase, لا اله الا الله [there is no "elaah" (idol/center of worship/mini gods) but Allah (One God)]. While countless efforts have been made to operationalize the concept of “any elah but Allah”, genuine monotheistic movements (that include all believers of One God) have tried to operationalize the paradigm of “no elah but One God.” In fact, it is amazing to observe that most “learned” of the society would rationalize and justify worshiping money, humans, satan, Hollywood stars, technology, nature, political boundaries, ethnic divisions, spirits of east/west/north/south, and whatnot but have problem with and reject the One God. Even more amazing is the fact that if all the historical evidences of wars and violence are examined critically and honestly, they have all been for the sake of, and perpetuated by proponents of, all these “elahs” (even Medieval and Spanish inquisitions which were to replace papal tribalism with the tribalism of catholic orthodoxy) but when constructing the historical narratives, they have all been falsely given “Made by One God” stickers.
I see their parallels with other contemporary phenomena. A lot of “greenwashing”, for example, is used by numerous companies/corporations/governments under the guise of ecological sustainability and green movement. They even receive “Green” stickers (pun very much intended) are certified as such, unfortunately however, donkeys are painted in black and white and being sold as zebras.
M.Ali says:
March 9, 2011 at 5:51 am
“Offtopic, what do people think about “freezing assets” as a punishment to other countries. I always found it an uncomfortable practice.”
As long as the cleptocrats in Washington and London decide about the fate of the ‘ assets ‘ , it is indeed very uncomfortable.
The US still ‘ owes ‘ billions of dollars to the Iranian Nation , which they stole after the revolution in 1979.
As Max keiser would say :
“People steal money on purpose . The kleptocrats steal money, because they want to steal money. They don’t accidently steal money. It’s done on purpose. It’s premeditated. Thieves steal money, because they want the money.”
Eric, in the photographic and video evidence of rebel held territory, I’m not seeing the need for armed occupational efforts, that is to say the populace appears to be either part of the rebellion, sympathetic to it or apathetic. This doesn’t appear to be the case in the territory held by loyalists.
There’s the usual controversy of terms over declaring this an uprising or civil war. I favor the classification of civil war but I don’t see the need for arguing the point. It is an armed conflict.
Likewise, at this point in the armed conflict, attempting to determine the relative popularity of each side seems pointless. Like I said, the outcome will be determined by each side’s respective resolve and the clash of cold steel on the battlefield.
Offtopic, what do people think about “freezing assets” as a punishment to other countries. I always found it an uncomfortable practice.
Oh my God, Scott! Thats what you YOURSELF said! I’m copying and pasting your OWN text and you are changing it! No wonders its so frustrating to debate with you, because you live in a strange fantasy world!
Here, I’ll copy it for the third time. Based on this letter which mentions the friend’s opinion on what “you” need from “us”, you conclude by saying,
“The Iranian people have asked to get the message out that they want the world’s media attention. That’s it, that’s all they want. People even asked specifically to get that message out.”
Lucas says his source “is well-connected in the establishment. That’s the bottom line.”
So is Paul Wolfowitz. How right has he been over the years?
It’s anecdotal evidence, i.e., worthless.
M. Ali,
“Why should we consider [the source in Tehran's] opinion as The Iranian People?”
You shouldn’t. You should consider it as the view of one person inside the establishment, based on his/her discussions with other members inside the establishment.
S.
Lets say that your source is well-connected. You won’t tell us who it is, but even if I take you at your word (and I will, because I’m a very trustworthy person), it depends who he is well-connected to. Hashemi Rafsanjani’s son is very well connected, but don’t you think his opinions will be extremely biased? From what your source says, it seems he was well-connected to the opposition and was an outsider (by saying, what do YOU want from US).
But even if the above issues, even if he is unbiased, well-connected, trustworthy, best-source-ever contact, why should we consider his friend’s opinion as The Iranian People.
M. Ali,
“You are motivated by money.”
Go on — prove it.
S.
M. Ali,
The source in Tehran who provided the letter, through an EA correspondent, on the internal situation is well-connected in the establishment. That’s the bottom line.
Most readers will understand why EA cannot give further details of the source. Those who consider EA’s news and analysis reliable will take this as the legitimate observations and opinions of one person inside the Iranian system. Those here who don’t want to think of EA as reliable will denigrate the source. Fair enough.
S.
“In such countries, “trickle down economics” may actually occur to some degree. I’m not an expert on the UAE so I can’t say for sure. ”
Having lived in UAE for many years, you are completely right here. They get free land, free house, easy access to loans, free education, and highly paid jobs when they enter the workforce.
M. Ali: “Getting rich from the running an office does not always get you the people’s ire.”
Didn’t say that, but it is the most common scenario.
“For example, the UAE sheikhdom’s have amassed a ridicolous wealth, but the people are behind the skeikhs (for now, at least).”
Operative word is “for now”. Also some of those countries are small enough to have high per capita income, at least for a significant part of the population and compared with many other Arab nations. In such countries, “trickle down economics” may actually occur to some degree. I’m not an expert on the UAE so I can’t say for sure.
“But I will also stick to the rule of thumb, I think is true, which I feel you will agree with. Major revolts do not happen in countries that have strong support for their leaders.”
Yup.
M. Ali: “based on gut feeling.”
It’s not based on gut feeling, I’m an anarchist, He’s a dictator. That’s all the justification I need.
Once again, Gaddafi is a KNOWN asshole going back forty years. This is not a question of “spin” by some neocons. There is no comparison with Iran.
Pirouz,
“This is an outbreak of civil war.”
Calling it “civil war” rather than “rebellion” gives it an apparent legitimacy, I suppose, but doesn’t its legitimacy really depend more on how many Libyans actually support the rebels (or the “civil warriors,” if you prefer that term)? If the rebels numbered only 10, for example, I doubt you’d call it a “civil war;” if they numbered 100,000, I doubt I’d hesitate to call it a “civil war.” Obviously, the two of us either have different impressions of how many supporters the rebels really have, or else we have different thresholds for upgrading a “rebellion” to a “civil war” – or maybe it’s a combination of the two.
You wrote earlier that the rebelling Libyans are just “sick of” Gaddafi because he’s been there 40 years. As best I can tell, that pretty well sums up the basis for this rebellion (though I think James also made an interesting observation a day or so ago about the West’s having arbitrarily forced three provinces together to form Libya – notably the two dominant coastal provinces, Tripolitania and Cyrenaica). In the video coverage I’ve watched, I sense a remarkably low level of conviction among the rebels, and an even lower level of specific complaints about Gaddafi. I certainly haven’t seen anyone who strikes me as likely to rush forward into battle with a knife clenched between his teeth.
It certainly seems true that Gaddafi’s plainly expressed distaste for political parties, or similar groupings (“classes,” for example) that might give the group’s leaders a political base – and his consequent prohibition of parties – has left a leadership void that no one but he has been able to fill (since he doesn’t need a party behind him to stay in power), and I think that bodes ill for an orderly transition (a point that Arnold made yesterday, though not in exactly the same way). But whether Gaddafi’s present rule is harsh for the Libyan masses is still an open question for me. I’m hard-pressed to recall any specific complaints from people within Libya, including those rebelling against him – other than their complaints about how he’s reacted to the rebellion, which may or may not be valid but aew in any case irrelevant to the question of whether the rebellion was justified in the first place.
The displays of wealth by a couple of Gaddafi’s sons are unseemly, but I don’t see that complaint fairly being lodged against Gaddafi himself. (I hope you’ll indulge me by agreeing that Gaddafi probably hasn’t deposited $35 billion, or even $1, of his personal funds in US banks, and perhaps by acknowledging that there’s no real evidence that he’s salted away some vast sum anywhere else.) Nor have I read the usual tales about secret police dragging people from their homes in the middle of the night, or about a gaggle of corrupt fat-cat sycophants surrounding Gaddafi (other than his sons). Maybe I’ve just missed all this, but have you read such things?
“The matter will be decided by cold steel on the battlefield.”
Maybe so, but will that really show whether Gaddafi ought to stay or go? As matters now stand, the rebels appear to have little chance of taking over Libya (though I could imagine them holing up for quite a long while in Benghazi and other towns in the east) if they receive no Western support, and, conversely, little chance of losing if the West decides to support them. Either way, what will be proven about whether Gaddafi should stay or go?
Isn’t the real question whether or not he has the support of the Libyan people? If so, are you really persuaded that the rebellion is sufficient proof that he does? If you say “yes,” why did you think just the opposite when hundreds of thousands of angry Iranians took to the streets of Tehran after the 2009 election?
Richard, I would also like to say another thing.
Getting rich from the running an office does not always get you the people’s ire. For example, the UAE sheikhdom’s have amassed a ridicolous wealth, but the people are behind the skeikhs (for now, at least).
But I will also stick to the rule of thumb, I think is true, which I feel you will agree with. Major revolts do not happen in countries that have strong support for their leaders. A strong, vocal minority might be able to disrupt the nation, BUT I think any nation with a strong, respected government will withstand it, as long as it does not have overt and strong foreign intervention.
That is, if in Iran, the Greens had succeeded, I’d have put a big blame on the Iranian government.
Scott, please be honest,
“and/or we clearly state it is the impression/opinion of an individual, giving as much as we can about their position and situation.”
Your previous “well-placed” source had a quotation from “a friend”. As readers, we neither knew anything about the “well-placed” source or the friend, but not only did we had to take it at face value, but you did the outrageous analysis of taking the friend’s opinion and ending your report by saying it represented “The Iranian People”.
I remind you, as I knew you’ll try to weasel your way out of it like previous times we’ve caught you out. You made this statement from the opinion of the well-sourced, friend:
““The Iranian people have asked to get the message out that they want the world’s media attention. That’s it, that’s all they want. People even asked specifically to get that message out.””
That would have been as relevenat as me having a few drinks with my friends, and having each of their opnions represent their whole nation.
I was very patient and respectful towards you, while others in the site might have had less patience with you, believing that you had good-intentions but slightly blinded by your passion. But now I fear that you are calculating in your reports. You know what you are doing and you aren’t ashamed in continuing to do it.
Unlike others, I don’t think you are directly paid, but you are motivated by money. Taking such stances as you take is popular in the media, and gets you invited to events and conferences. It is a good career move to be passionately anti-Iranian and even more so, when one claims to be objective. The western media loves that. They don’t have to source you as “supporter of the opposition” but “Iranian analysist”, as the final reader of THAT paper or show will be more willing to listen to any spin they are doing.
Richard, I’m concerned that some of your methods of argument is the same style and tone used by anti-Iranian people.
For example, I have seem to have heard this line in other formats,
“Frankly, I’m losing interest in whatever your problem is here. Permit me to continue to think Gaddafi is an asshole who deserves to be killed by whoever wants him dead for any reason whatsoever.”
I’m not defending Gaddafi, I’m just against blanket brushes over a person or an event based on gut feeling.
Eric: “’Maybe you’re right that whoever is “leading” this revolt is some sort of Western plant.’ I’m not sure why you think I believe that. Nothing I wrote suggests that I do.”
“Frankly, I haven’t seen evidence that they do – beyond a few hundred rebels, “led” by some guy who claims he has proof that Gaddafi ordered the Lockerbie bombing but can’t seem to produce it.”
After you’ve read Escobar’s stuff, try repeating that “few hundred rebels led by some guy” trick. The revolt in Libya is involving a significant portion of the country’s tribes, perhaps a majority.
It’s bullshit.
As for who you’re “lumping in”, this is what you said:
“People on this website claim to agree with that, but many of them tacitly support those who feel the US should intervene by describing Gaddafi as a madman or a ruthless dictator – without having any discernible basis for those claims, at least as they apply to Gaddafi’s behavior toward his people.”
How am I supposed to read that?
Now you’re backing away from that?
And you still haven’t established a single coherent point here, other than questioning the story that Libya is a home grown revolt. Read Escobar’s stuff about the tribes and the dynamic in Libya. That seems to explain it quite well to me. Gaddafi did what every dictator does – he co-opted a portion of the population, paid them well, used them to screw everyone else – until people who were on the outside had enough.
It’s that simple. It always is.
As for how the West viewed Gaddafi, it’s also like every other dictator. When they’re screwing around, we don’t like them. When they suck up to us or serve some geopolitical purpose (like Saddam in the Iraq-Iran war), we’ve over there shaking hands. When we want them out for our own purposes, we do that, too.
I don’t see any big mystery in any of this. It’s all laid out in Escobar’s articles.
Eric,
The Libyan issue is not a matter of determining the legitimacy of an election or a sovereign right to nuclear technology. This is actually well beyond that. This is an outbreak of civil war. The matter will be decided by cold steel on the battlefield.
Should a moral judgement be applied to Ghadaffi for purposes of determining NATO intervention? Personally, I’m opposed to US involvement.
The course of this civil war is difficult to predict but at this point in the campaign, the loyalists lack the military resources to both re-conquer and fully pacify the rebel held territory, while the rebels have a ways to go in terms of offensive firepower capability and logistics.
Air power doesn’t appear to be as decisive a factor as Saddam’s pacification of the Shia and Kurds following Desert Storm. In my opinion, a US/NATO imposed no-fly zone would represent a level of intervention that might only serve to escalate into an ever greater military commitments. I dare say readers here are aware of the historical examples of such.
For those interested in Libya, here are links to Pepe Escobar’s Asia Times pieces over the last couple weeks.
‘Brother’ Gaddafi, you’re going down
:http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB23Ak01.html
Gaddafi goes Tiananmen
:http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB24Ak05.html
The tribes against the bunker
:http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB26Ak05.html
Quotes
Libya’s is a tribal revolution. It was not, and it is not, being led by young urban intellectuals, like in Egypt, or by the working class (most of it in fact composed of foreign workers). Even though the actors of the anti-Muammar Gaddafi uprising may be a mix of ordinary Libyans, educated and/or unemployed youth, a section of the urban middle classes and defectors from the army and the security services, what trespasses all them is the tribe. Even the Internet, in the Libyan chapter of the great 2011 Arab revolt, has not been an absolutely decisive actor.
Gaddafi’s prospects are grim. The Awlad Ali tribe, on the Egyptian border, is against him. Az Zawiyya has been against him since early this week. Az-Zintan, 150 kilometers southwest of Tripoli, revolves around the Warfalla; they are all against him. The Tarhun tribe – which, crucially, includes more than 30% of Tripoli’s population – is against him. Sheikh Saif al-Nasr, former head of the Awlad Sulaiman tribe, went on al-Jazeera to call southern tribal youngsters to join the protesters. Even some people from his own, small tribe, Qadhadfa, are now against him.
The inevitable result of this tribal political system was the smashing of a civil society based on democratic institutions. The educated middle class was left with nothing. Then came the United Nations embargo – which lasted for a decade. The economy – already in bad shape – spiraled down; there was never any decent redistribution of the oil and gas wealth. Inflation and unemployment shot up. The rhetoric was always of “direct democracy”; the reality was the few “winners” were part of a reactionary state bourgeoisie, be they reformists, led by Saif; conservatives (faithful to Gaddafi’s Green Book); or technocrats (those eyeing juicy deals with foreign corporations).
No wonder the uprising started in Benghazi – which was kept out of any development strategy, in a region, Cyrenaica, with absolutely lousy infrastructure compared to Tripolitania.
Now the officially called Jamahiriya – the “state of the masses” – is about to collapse. It’s year zero in Cyrenaica. It’s impossible not to be reminded of the first days of “liberated” Iraq, in April 2003. The state has disappeared. Popular committees, Islamic groups and armed bands now control territory. No one knows how this will evolve. What may happen after the battle of Tripoli (assuming the opposition is able to get hold of some serious heavy weaponry)? A strong possibility is the emergence of self-governed, tribal-controlled territories, like in Afghanistan and Somalia; in fact whole regions seceding, although the exiled opposition is trying very hard to dispel these fears.
End Quotes
War porn is back in Libya
:http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC03Ak03.html
Quotes
In their Sheen-style hysteria – with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton desperately offering “any kind of assistance” – Western politicians did not bother to consult with the people who are risking their lives to overthrow Gaddafi. At a press conference in Benghazi, the spokesman for the brand new Libyan National Transitional Council, human-rights lawyer Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga, was blunt, “We are against any foreign intervention or military intervention in our internal affairs … This revolution will be completed by our people.”
The people in question, by the way, are protecting Libya’s oil industry, and even loading supertankers destined to Europe and China. The people in question do not have much to do with opportunists such as former Gaddafi-appointed justice minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, who wants a provisional government to prepare for elections in three months. Moreover, the people in question, as al-Jazeera has reported, have been saying they don’t want foreign intervention for a week now.
The Benghazi council prefers to describe itself as the “political face for the revolution”, organizing civic affairs, and not established as an interim government. Meanwhile, a military committee of officer defectors is trying to set up a skeleton army to be sent to Tripoli; through tribal contacts, they seem to have already infiltrated small cells into the vicinity of Tripoli.
Whether this self-appointed revolutionary leadership – splinter elements of the established elite, the tribes and the army – will be the face of a new regime, or whether they will be overtaken by younger, more radical activists, remains to be seen.
And what to make of Anthony Giddens – the guru behind Blair’s “Third Way” – who in March 2007 penned an article to The Guardian saying “Libya is not especially repressive” and “Gaddafi seems genuinely popular”? Giddens bet that Libya “in two or three decades’ time would be a Norway of North Africa: prosperous, egalitarian and forward-looking”. Tripoli may well be on its way to Oslo – but without the Gaddafi clan.
The US, Britain and France are so awkwardly maneuvering for best post-Gaddafi positioning it’s almost comical to watch. Beijing, even against its will, waited until extra time to condemn Gaddafi at the UN, but made sure it was following the lead of African and Asian countries (smart move, as in “we listen to the voices of the South”). Beijing is extremely worried that its complex economic relationship with oil source Libya does not unravel (amid all the hoopla about fleeing expats, China quietly evacuated no less than 30,000 Chinese workers in the oil and construction business).
Once again; it’s the oil, stupid. A crucial strategic factor for Washington is that post-Gaddafi Libya may represent a bonanza for US Big Oil – which for the moment has been kept away from Libya. Under this perspective, Libya may be considered as yet one more battleground between the US and China. But while China goes for energy and business deals in Africa, the US bets on its forces in AFRICOM as well as NATO advancing “military cooperation” with the African Union.
End Quotes
The lion wants his juice back
:http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC05Ak05.html
Fly me a Tuareg on time
:http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC08Ak01.html
Quotes
In the standoff – not civil war – between state power in Tripoli and a tribal-based parallel government plus “irregular militias”, identifying key players in Libya gets increasingly murky. It’s a long (1,000 kilometer), windy, desert road from Benghazi to Tripoli, or from uprising to victory, with a crucial midway stop in Sirte – Muammar Gaddafi’s Tikrit (Saddam Hussein’s home town) – until something emerges out of the final battle in a Tripoli encircled by a ring of steel. There’s no evidence Gaddafi is about to embrace the daring, brand new Barack Obama administration Middle East strategy of “regime alteration”.
Let’s try to survey the battlefield. As much as tribes in Cyrenaica – eastern Libya – were always his number one strategic nightmare, Gaddafi’s notorious co-option of tribal leaders is now history.
He still can count on some western and southern tribes, including
his own and Magariha, the tribe of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbeset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. But most – but not all – tribes remain against the bunker (see The tribes against the bunker Asia Times Online, February 25), including the top one, Warfallah (influential in the army), plus Zawiya (based in the oil-rich east), Bani Walid (they stopped collaborating with the security services), and Zintan (formerly allied with Gaddafi’s own tribe).
If – or when – Gaddafi falls, Libya’s provisional government will almost certainly be a mix of tribal leaders, with once again the more developed Tripolitania clashing with neglected Cyrenaica (one can’t forget that Gaddafi’s “modernizer” son Saif al-Islam blamed the uprising on tribal factions). Libyan tribes indeed have fought each other for centuries – much like in Afghanistan; but now the difference is that most are united against the common king of kings enemy.
End Quotes
The perfect (desert) storm
:http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC09Ak01.html
Quotes
For starters, the enlightened, democratic West has decided Muammar Gaddafi has to be taken down – or out.
The George W Bush administration invaded both Afghanistan and
Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of people in the process, directly and indirectly; and as everyone knows, with no end in sight, and with total impunity. Now it’s the turn for the law of the (wild) West to be applied, via the Barack Obama administration, to the African king of kings – as in it’s OK if we bearers of the White Man’s Burden kill a lot of people, but not OK if the killer is a John Galliano-dressed Bedouin weirdo.
This is the absolute bottom line; either the West arms the eastern liberated Libya rebels to their teeth, or Muammar Gaddafi will win this war, by switching the fight from cities to the desert, and by applying slightly increasing degrees of force. Thus, in a slightly duller version of endless plot advancements in mafia movies, the “debate” from Washington and Brussels to Riyadh concerns the most effective method for taking him down (or out). Enter plans A and B.
People change beats regime change
Plan A – Washington has placed a “highly classified” request for the House of Saud to arm the rebels, as The Independent’s Robert Fisk has advanced, without details (none available in Arab media, either). So essentially this would be – what else is new – history repeating itself as farce; a remix of the Ronald Reagan-era Iran-Contra scandal, with Washington possibly betting on control of Libya’s oil and gas (echoes of Iraq neo-conned; make it history twice repeating itself as farce).
The House of Saud has every reason to arm liberated eastern Libya with much-needed anti-tank rockets, mortars and ground-to-air missiles against Gaddafi – not least because aging Saudi King Abdullah hates his guts (no wonder; Gaddafi put a contract to kill the king over a year ago). According to al-Arabiyya – a mouthpiece of the House of Saud – Gaddafi is the only Arab dictator left in power, which proves once again that the desert family oil hacienda is indeed impervious to irony.
The added irony that this scheme also copies the Saudis distributing weapons for the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s via Pakistan (make it history thrice repeating itself as farce) obviously escaped everyone in Washington. Hail to Benghazi as the new Peshawar!
Anyway, the Saudi reward for riding along is already inbuilt in the Obama administration’s brand new Middle East strategy of “regime alteration”. Everything one needs to know about the doctrine is here. [U.S. Wavers on 'Regime Change' - :http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580004576180522653787198.html ]
Then there’s Plan B – the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) takes over to fight “crimes against humanity” and “genocide”. Essentially this would be Kosovo all over again (make it history repeating itself for the fourth time).
As a no-fly zone over Libya is the object of fiery debate, NATO has already decided to increase AWACs surveillance flights over Libyan territory to 24/7, according to US ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder. Translation; they’re already searching for targets. Even as a reticent Pentagon has admitted on the record that a no-fly zone means war, febrile NATO secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen insisted NATO is ready to raise hell until, predictably, he backtracked.
As this is not a remix of Bush and the neo-conservatives – at least not officially – first there must be a mandate from the United Nations Security Council; France and Britain are feverishly working on a draft resolution. And then support must be assured from Russia (already said no), China (already said nothing), the toothless Arab League (almost a given) and the African Union (more complicated, because Gaddafi bought a lot of its leaders).
As for all those US-protected beacons of equality in the Persian Gulf – now hands-free to keep repressing the democratic aspirations of their people and the army of Asian slaves who service their elites – support is a cakewalk. A statement released by the foreign ministers from the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) “demands that the UN Security Council take all necessary measures to protect civilians, including enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya”.
NATO intervention, if it happens, will be sold to the whole planet as the return of humanitarian imperialism. From the point of view of NATO/ Pentagon/European Union public relations purposes, that’s another cakewalk. Former terrorist Gaddafi has now been rebranded as “the new Hitler”, after Slobodan Milosevic in Yugoslavia (as well as Saddam Hussein in Iraq; make it history repeating itself as farce for the fifth time). And Gaddafi is a much easier sell; the total terrorist freak show package.
Cui bono?
There’s no question Gaddafi and his gang are practicing “human-rights abuses” in Libya. But what about those tens of thousands killed by the Pentagon from Baghdad to Fallujah and beyond? Were they inhuman, and holders of no rights, by any chance?
Moreover, the same enlightened West that’s now so worried about the people of Libya did not give much of a damn to the people of Egypt until it was absolutely certain that Mubarakism was gone. (Gaddafi by the way was perfectly aligned with Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, British Prime Minister David Cameron and Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi in the early days of Tahrir Square).
While he was servicing the masters, the walking terrorist freak show with his portable tent and Ukrainian nurses could not be a better friend. He merrily embraced neo-liberalism; he opened up the energy holy grail to European corporations (BP, Repsol, Total, ENI); he lavishly bought their weapons (Italy, France, UK and Germany were the top four providers); he got the US$70 billion of the Libyan Investment Authority to prop up European businesses; and most of all he put a lid over the migratory flux from the Maghreb and black Africa towards Europe.
And what about then-US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice in 2008 extolling the US and Libya’s permanent shared interests, including “human rights and democracy”?
The problem now is that the West is simply clueless on what post-Gaddafi Libya could turn out to be. The “rebels” include everyone from progressive, secular intellectuals to hardcore Islamists and neo-liberal-addicted businessmen. Libya is not Tunisia or Egypt – which can be monitored and even relatively tamed by Washington/Brussels.
Libya without Gaddafi could be a complex collection of clannish tribes with no experience of Western-style political culture slouching towards “anarchy”. Thus the reasoning for a NATO intervention; so “we”, the enlightened, can control those barbarians’ worst impulses, facilitate an “orderly transition” (US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, anyone?) and profit from their energy wealth. Besides, the Mediterranean is a NATO lake already.
True democrats the world over cannot but rate “regime alteration” as a pitiful, pathetic Obama administration strategy. Moreover, there’s absolutely no guarantee that NATO won’t go for its own take on regime alteration; a balkanization of Libya just as it happened in Yugoslavia (or just like the Pentagon, via local oligarchies, tried in Bolivia in 2008).
The White House cannot possibly want a real war against the African king of kings. Obama is being set up by the neo-cons – who as the Clintonistas of 1999 and themselves in 2003 in Iraq, brandish the always misleading sweet sword of so-called humanitarian intervention.
End Quotes
Richard,
“Once again you decide to lump everyone in who might have the generally accepted view that Gaddafi is an asshole with those who want US intervention.”
I don’t know why you say that. I explicitly acknowledged just the opposite.
My point is that some who post on this website who sincerely don’t “want” the US to intervene in Libya nevertheless tacitly support those do want the US to intervene. They do so by describing Gaddafi as a madman or crazy – apparently based entirely on his often bizarre “outward” behavior toward the rest of the world, without claiming to know anything at all about what really matters: his “inward” behavior – how he treats his own people and what they think of him.
Many Americans think Iran’s leaders should be overthrown – based principally or entirely on their displeasure with the “outward” behavior of Iran’s government toward the US. But most of those people at least claim their desire for regime change in Iran is based on their noble desire to free the Iranian people from oppressive leaders.
With Libya, people don’t even seem to be claiming that. Maybe I’ve simply overlooked it but, before this rebellion began, I don’t remember hearing about much internal dissatisfaction in Libya. Granted, it’s hard to find out much about Libya’s internal affairs, but I would have expected something to leak out. True, people have complained about Gaddafi’s harsh reaction to the rebellion – as people complained about the Iranian government’s harsh crackdown on post-election protesters – but I seriously doubt that any government would have responded much differently to a rebellion. If the equivalent happened in the US – for example, if some rebel group took over the entire Eastern seaboard, roughly equivalent to what the rebels have done in Libya – I don’t doubt for a moment that the US military would attack its “own people” involved in that rebellion, and I doubt that you doubt that either.
Eric,
We have not cited Kahlili’s claims because they are not verified. When we use sources that cannot be named or are use pseudonyms, we have cross-checked the information and/or we clearly state it is the impression/opinion of an individual, giving as much as we can about their position and situation.
S.
Richard,
“Maybe you’re right that whoever is “leading” this revolt is some sort of Western plant.”
I’m not sure why you think I believe that. Nothing I wrote suggests that I do.
Eric: “many of them tacitly support those who feel the US should intervene by describing Gaddafi as a madman or a ruthless dictator”
Oh, NOW I get it!
Once again you decide to lump everyone in who might have the generally accepted view that Gaddafi is an asshole with those who want US intervention.
I explicitly reject that.
I also explicitly reject your implicit attempt to link this with your notion that anyone accepting Iran’s position on things – such as not unilaterally implementing the AP – is contributing to Iran’s demonization.
Because that’s what you’re trying to do here: Make a case for one of your obsessions by using Libya as an example.
Sorry. Won’t work. You gave too much away with that last bit.
Anyone who has read a paper for forty years knows Gaddafi was an asshole for a long time, then he sucked up to the West and got “un-demonized”, and now that some of his people have decided to revolt against him he’s been “re-demonized” for the benefit of the US desire to intervene in another ME country – mostly because having lost Egypt, the US wants to try to regain some ground by dumping Gaddafi and slipping another puppet in his place.
But there’s ZERO evidence that this revolt is any different than any of the other Arab revolts. Until there IS some evidence that this is just a coup by the US, and EVEN if it’s proven that it is, so what? Gaddafi still needs to go.
Again, the only thing that is important is that the US stays out of it. I read today a headline, not the story, that Robert Fisk is saying the US has a secret plan to arm the Libyan revolutionaries. Maybe that’s true. Maybe you’re right that whoever is “leading” this revolt is some sort of Western plant.
So what? That STILL doesn’t prove anything about Gaddafi and does NOT reverse the consensus historical opinion of him going back forty years.
So your attempt to hijack him in support of your Iran obsession is not particularly clever.
Eric: “$35 billion in question is Gaddafi’s, as distinguished from Libya’s sovereign wealth fund or some other account of the Libyan government. I confess that I find it very difficult — impossible, frankly — to believe that Gaddafi would be stupid enough to deposit even $1 in a US bank.”
Gaddafi runs Libya. Do you agree with that much?
However, you believe that Libya would deposit such sums in an American bank.
You didn’t bother to think that one through for one second, did you?
Clearly he could do what he wants with Libya’s oil wealth, and it is a canon for the last forty years by everyone who has ever visited Libya and/or Gaddafi that it is exactly what he has done.
Now you come along and based on a few newspaper articles that aren’t terribly well sourced claim that maybe none of that is true.
Fine. Like I said, maybe Gaddafi is just being vilified for no reason at all.
But until you come up with with some sort of coherent theory, rather than random questions based on apparently zero knowledge of Libya’s history for the last forty years, I’m not holding my breath over your concerns.
Richard,
“Eric: ‘Do the people in Libya want to overthrow their government?’
… You want me to throw up my hands and say I don’t know?”
Only if that’s the case.
“Permit me to continue to think Gaddafi is an asshole who deserves to be killed by whoever wants him dead for any reason whatsoever.”
You’ve always had that right. I was inviting comment only from anyone who might have reasons for how he felt. You’ve acknowledged that you don’t, and I don’t deny your right to believe whatever you believe, reasons or not.
For the Libyan people, though, the question is not whether some American has some gut feeling that their leader is a bad guy, but rather whether they think he’s a bad guy. Frankly, I haven’t seen evidence that they do – beyond a few hundred rebels, “led” by some guy who claims he has proof that Gaddafi ordered the Lockerbie bombing but can’t seem to produce it.
I spent some time in Egypt a few decades ago, and was quite surprised at how much was written about Gaddafi in the Egyptian press, how strongly favorable almost all of it was, and how much that writing included reports of strong popular support for Gaddafi among his countrymen. Ever since then, I’ve tried to pay close attention to the distinction between (1) what the rest of the world (often including I) feel about Gaddafi’s sometimes bizarre foreign policy actions; and (2) how he treats his own people and what they think of him. It’s hard to find out much about the second point, but what rare snippets I’ve picked up over the years have given me no reason to think he’s not very well like in Libya – not by everyone, obviously, but apparently by quite a few Libyans.
To me, that’s what matters. It’s up to Libyans to decide whether he should go or stay. People on this website claim to agree with that, but many of them tacitly support those who feel the US should intervene by describing Gaddafi as a madman or a ruthless dictator – without having any discernible basis for those claims, at least as they apply to Gaddafi’s behavior toward his people.
Arnold: “So far I can’t see the importance or relevance of whatever point you’re trying to make.”
Me neither.
This seems to be another one of his “obsessions”, like unilaterally implementing the AP.
Eric: “Do the people in Libya want to overthrow their government?”
Do the people in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain?
Take your pick.
You want me to throw up my hands and say I don’t know?
Fine. I throw up my hands and say I don’t know. Maybe it’s all French Situationists from 1968 behind all these riots…
Frankly, I’m losing interest in whatever your problem is here. Permit me to continue to think Gaddafi is an asshole who deserves to be killed by whoever wants him dead for any reason whatsoever.
And if someone else as bad or some clown in servitude to Obama takes over, well, it’s another day in the Middle East. Big surprise.
Once again, until you make a point of some value, I’m going to just ignore all this.
BiBiJon says:
March 8, 2011 at 6:08 pm
what do you think is the origin of “morality”?
I am aware of the “evolution” being the source itself, and gave thought about it a bit. but not convinced firmly as yet.
A few questions for Scott at the end.
Here are some excerpts from the March 8, 2011 Christian Science Monitor article cited by FYI, written by “Reza Khalili” — a pseudonym, according to the CSM, but who can doubt such vivid stories?
QUOTATION:
“No makeup was allowed [for any Iranian women, by law], and they could not be seen with anyone other than their husbands or relatives. Anyone caught disobeying the law was subjected to lashing and imprisonment .…Thousands of innocent young girls have been brought to prison for the most specious of reasons. They’re thrown into small cells, designed for just a few, along with sometimes 30 of their fellow victims. As a CIA spy in Iran, I was a witness to this.
Every few days, guards call out names over a loudspeaker. These women know what it means to have their names called, and they hold hands, praying that this will not be the day they are dragged out of their cell and executed. Those whose names are not called for execution are lined up and lashed. Many of them faint from the lashing, never knowing what the guards do with their unconscious bodies.
If they are called, they are raped before execution so they are no longer virgins and therefore, according to hardline Islamic beliefs, can no longer go to heaven. None of these girls would ever know the joys of romantic love. None of them would ever hold her own baby in her arms. Their final days have been filled with a level of abuse few can imagine.”
END OF QUOTATION.
Sound pretty bad? Turns out it was even worse than that. This was not the author’s first piece in the Christian Science Monitor. He had this to say in an August 2009 article:
QUOTATION:
“I’ve been inside those [prison] walls and I’ve seen teenage girls who were raped before execution so they were no longer virgins and therefore, according to their Islamic beliefs, couldn’t go to heaven. I’ve seen hundreds hung on cranes. I’ve seen women and men lined up in front of firing squads after being severely tortured; their families would be forced to pay for the cost of the bullets. Western officials were quite aware that this was happening, but they let their thirst for oil blind them.
…Many Iranian officials have Interpol arrest warrants, and even supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei has been recognized in courts as one who has ordered such acts [also including "the attack on the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut on Oct. 23, 1983, killing 241 US servicemen" and "the attack on the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires on July 18, 1994 that killed 85 and injured more than 100"].”
END OF QUOTATION.
Scott:
Sure, these claims are anonymously sourced, but so is virtually everything you write on your website. So why don’t you run stories like this, or at least link to this one? Do you doubt what the author claims, or are you simply envious of his imagination? If you do doubt what he writes, would it be appropriate for you to say so – so that, if for no other reason, your comparatively modest claims are not tainted by such similar but hyperbolic assertions?
fyi:
In regards to actual Muslim polities; the best you can hope for, ever, is that the Pharisee Islam will be discarded. A non-Islamic political order is impossibility since outside of Islam, nothing exists for these people. The boundaries of Religion and Civilization coincide (Iran being the only exception that proves the point.)
This is garbled. Kindly unpack.
*
BiBiJon says:
March 8, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Right now I’m inclined to think that just as science to the ‘true’ scientist is the key to understanding science’s limits, religiosity can be a path to understanding the impossibility of the burden of morality, while never denying the importance of spiritual pursuits.
Thank you for sharing that beautiful thought. I would replace impossibility with difficult challenge :o)
Michael Hayden was a guest on C Span Washington Journal. His remarks made me ashamed to be an American. He stated that he was “pleased” that Obama had decided to keep the prison at Guantanamo open, and that his policies reflected a “powerful continuity” with the presidency of George Bush.
Hayden said that the “Egyptian [intelligence] service has been a good partner of the United States.” US sends people to Egypt to be tortured. Is that the good service Hayden was praising?
According to Wikipedia, Hayden is a Roman Catholic who graduated from a Roman Catholic high school and received a bachelor’s and a master’s degree from a Roman Catholic university.
If Americans are so religious, as Pak claims, what guidance does their religion provide to them? In the eight to ten years Michael Hayden spent in Roman Catholic schools, did he learn anything about just war theory, or whether it is or is not moral to inflict torture on another person?
Rev. Brian Harrison has made an extensive study of “The Church and Torture”. His research concludes that the Church’s position on torture shares some of the same ambiguities as politicians rely upon. He writes:
The overall testimony of our authorities — Scripture, Tradition and the magisterium — over three millennia is by no means very clear, or even obviously consistent, in regard to the morality of intentional infliction of pain.
Noting that recent Cathlic statements have strongly condemned torture, Harrison observes, nevertheless, that what torture means is unclear. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes torture as “physical or moral violence” (CCC 2297);” but “the words violence and severe are themselves somewhat vague.”
Harrison was not able to find a authoritative Church statement condemning torture until the late ninth century, when Pope Nicholas I responded to the recently converted Bulgarian prince, Boris, who asked . . .for guidance on how a Christianized society should be run.”
Regarding torture, Nicholas I wrote to Boris:
“If a [putative] thief or bandit is apprehended and denies the charges against him, you tell me your custom is for a judge to beat him with blows to the head and tear the sides of his body with other sharp iron goads until he confesses the truth. Such a procedure is totally unacceptable under both divine and human law (quasi rem nec divina lex nec humana prosus admittit), since a confession should be spontaneous, not forced. It should be proffered voluntarily, not violently extorted. After all, if it should happen that even after inflicting all these torments, you still fail to wrest from the sufferer any self-incrimination regarding the crime of which he is accused, will you not then at least blush for shame and acknowledge how impious is your judicial procedure? Likewise, suppose an accused man is unable to endure such torments and so confesses to a crime he never committed. Upon whom, pray tell, will now devolve the full brunt of responsibility for such an enormity, if not upon him who coerced the accused into confessing such lies about himself?”
Nicholis I’s reprobation of torture as a means of extracting confessions prevailed for about four hundred years. By the mid-thirteenth century, popes and clerics — even sainted clerics — permitted and even practiced torture. That sorry state prevailed until 1816, when torture was forbidden by a papal decree.
A century and a half later, the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes, denounced “physical and mental torture” as one of many other “disgraceful” social evils that today “poison human civilization” and “debase the perpetrators more than the victims.”
The Church reaffirmed that position in a public papal statement in 1982, and by including the position in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church. Then-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was the major force behind the new Catholic Catechism.
Thus, while bright-line parameters may be hard to discern, the philosophical and moral position of the Church regarding torture is quite clear: it debases the human person, both the one who tortures and the one who is tortured.
When John Kerry was a candidate for president, leaders of the Roman Catholic church used his presence on the national and international stage to draw attention to the Church’s position on birth control and abortion; John Kerry was refused Communion at Catholic Mass because his political stance differed from Church teaching.
Has the Roman Catholic church similarly denied the sacraments of the Catholic church to Michael Hayden, who endorses and has, apparently, made us of torture?
Why is Hillary Not Defending the Rights of Saudi Protesters?
By Eric Blair
March 08, 2011 “Activist Post” — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been exhaustively in front of cameras promoting the right for people to protest in Egypt, Bahrain, Iran, and Libya. She’s been touting freedom to use social networking sites as a way for Arab people to organize against their oppressive regimes. Now, the Administration is even considering arming the opposition in Libya.
Clinton’s perpetual propaganda efforts exposed the blatant hypocrisy on the subject when a silent peaceful protester was violently removed from one of her speeches on the very subject. However, the hypocrisy now seems to go much deeper in her deafening silence over the prospect for protests in Saudi Arabia.
After Human Rights Watch revealed that a nationwide “Day of Rage” protest had been planned in Saudi Arabia for this week, March 11th, Bloomberg reported that the Saudi government claims that demonstrations and marches are “strictly” prohibited by law. A Saudi Interior Ministry official said protests “contradict Islamic values” and “They harm public interest, infringe on the rights of others, spread chaos and lead to bloodshed.”
This prohibition of popular dissent proves beyond a shadow of doubt that Saudi Arabia is indeed the most tyrannical authoritarian regime in the Arab world. Yet, U.S. Administration officials have been strangely silent about supporting the people’s uprising there.
Perhaps they think the protests won’t be large enough to warrant a response. Well, they certainly did stop their best propaganda push to stoke the puny protests in Iran, so the size or ferocity of unrest shouldn’t matter to their exploits of supposedly backing human freedom. And one would think that given what has happened to oil prices due to the unrest in Libya and Egypt, even a minor protest in the largest oil-producing dictatorship in the world would draw more public response from the White House.
Or perhaps the Administration believes that the hastily-crafted $35 billion social aid package ordered by King Abdullah will be enough to tamp down escalating tensions in Saudi Arabia. So far, there have only been reports of small Shiite protests in Saudi Arabia, mostly demanding the release of political prisoners held by the Sunni monarchy.
These protests would seem to be very minor in comparison to the sea of people revolting in Cairo. However, the revolutionary whispers must clearly be getting louder as the Saudi stock market plummeted 11% in just two days of wild trading to its 7-year low on fears of civil unrest. It’s noteworthy that the plunge was reportedly led by large banks and insurers.
If Clinton is to stand by her new-found rhetoric, certainly she’ll call for restraint on the part of the Saudi government should a protest erupt, right? And surely she’ll demand that the kings of Internet censorship in the Arab world, Saudi Arabia, will open communication channels so the people can freely unite, right? And if push comes to shove in Saudi Arabia, she’ll definitely support arming the people’s opposition to the royal family, right? Eh hum . . . don’t count on it.
Regardless, many analysts believe the Saudi regime is the next to fall with or without the help of the U.S.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27639.htm
fyi,
Thank you for posting the link to the over-the-top Christian Science Monitor article. Worth relisting the link for those who haven’t yet read just how low that once-respectable newspaper is willing to go:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0308/Iran-s-brutality-toward-women-should-shock-West-into-seeking-regime-change
It is Obvious that the US government has been meddling in Iran for the past 60 years and not vice versa.
It is perfectly normal for Iranian to be against the policies of their government but it is suicidal if they ignore the tremendous danger that Iran faces from Israel and USA.
Professor Morandi from Tehran University is right about the US being heavily involved in Iranian internal affairs helping with extremist groups as well as with the violent opposition.
This article is By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term.
Click on this link:
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/090619_iran.htm
When you open the above link, you will find several other fascinating links inside the article, Please open those links and read them one by one.
One of the above links also refers to an article which was written three years ago.
It Confirmed CIA is funding and assisting the Jundallah terrorist groups in Baluchistan and other parts of Iran.
Last year we witnessed Jundallah’s terrorist activities In Iran.
This proves the above article was 100% authentic.
In August 2007, Israeli Mossad chief, Meir Dagan, pushed for using ethnic groups (among others, Baluchis) in Iran to destabilize Iran and with the purpose to instigate a regime change…
Click on this link
,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundallah,
Open this link and read the section,
“Alleged international support” by United States”
James Canning says: March 8, 2011 at 6:19 pm
You asked:
“Are you suggesting that American (or European) hostility toward Iran rests in the fact the relgious leaders play a significant role in the government?”
Yes, I do. Because this goes against the grain of their universalit anti-Church, anti-God claims.
The “..fanaticism such as was demonstrated during the Iran-Iraq War” was what kept Iran from being defeated by Iraq. Men were inspired to walk to their deaths so that others could live. The Russians exhibited as much during the Great Patriotc War.
There was no other way.
James Canning and Pak:
I am making an observation based on my persoanl experiences.
I did not state that US is un-religious, only that the positive vision of the future they portray is without religion.
The Europeans are very uncomfortable with religious-based political system. They are still fighting the Church, it seems. Their intellectuals, in their anti-God zeal, supported Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, each in turn since each one promised the possibility of ushering the Godless utopia that the Enlightenmnet tradition sought to create. No crime was too big to forget and forgive on the path to Utopia, just like the so-called American neo-cons.
Yet, when it came to late Mr. Khomeini all they had was denigration and contempt for the Philosopher-King that they were priviledge to observe in their lifetime. They could not accept that Iran in particular and Muslims in general had their own traditions and customs and they, the Europeans and Americans, either had to accept them or leave them alone.
Chinese and Indians accepted that and had relations with Iran. The Axis powers could not and would not and set about destroying Islamic Iran.
You aksed me why I inject religion into everything.
The reason is because Revelation and its ramifications are, in my opinion, central to both the Western Civilization and to Islam and the interactions between these two.
I have tried to explain the relevance of Revelation and Responses to Revelation to this specific historical moment. That the Revelation’s impact on human pysche is, from a phenomenological point of view, a historical force both in terms of human emotions and in terms of human intellectual history.
About the Axis powers: their civilization, from the point of view Revelation (as far as I can grasp it) is Godless. It is a less brutal and more sophisticated version of the Godless civilization that the Communists were trying to build in Eastern Europe and USSR. But Revelation is no longer its centeral pillar and source of its values.
Richard,
YOU WROTE:
“If you have reason to believe that everything said about Libya over the last forty years is the same as that said about Iran for the last thirty, then provide some evidence that it’s all spin and none of it is true. If ANY of it IS true, then your case falls apart.”
MY RESPONSE: It’s very difficult to prove a negative, Richard – usually impossible. If that’s your test, I fail it. I note that, on some other issues, you consider a demand to “prove a negative” to be unreasonable.
YOU WROTE:
“For me, I see absolutely no reason to believe that an absolute dictator like Gaddafi doesn’t have hard cash available to him, or hasn’t been screwing his population over to get it in the process.”
MY RESPONSE: Of course Gaddafi has hard cash available to him; I’ll accept that without asking for proof. But why do you believe the second part? Is that considered to be true unless one can disprove it? If so, I can only repeat my response to your first point above.
YOU WROTE:
“So you’re saying that salting away some $35 billion in US banks – which is the amount alleged to have been frozen by the US – which seems like a credible source to me and I’ve seen no indication that the sum is the “Libyan government’s” – how is that different from Gaddafi in practice? – sounds like an “honest” transaction?”
MY RESPONSE: Even if one treats the US government as a “credible source” on this (I note that, on other issues, you often express doubt about its credibility), I’ve not read (have you?) that the $35 billion in question is Gaddafi’s, as distinguished from Libya’s sovereign wealth fund or some other account of the Libyan government. I confess that I find it very difficult — impossible, frankly — to believe that Gaddafi would be stupid enough to deposit even $1 in a US bank. This leaves your unsupported assertion that the $35 billion in Libyan accounts in US banks effectively belongs to Gaddafi. What can one say in response to that but “Oh.” You’re free to believe it, but you’re merely speculating with no basis. Many others do the same thing. I was asking whether anyone had any reason for believing it.
James Canning — American zionists rely heavily on Christian zionists; more right wing Jews in US believe they can find more support for their warmongering and Islamophobic agendae from Christian zionists than from American Jews; even J Street, which I consider only the second string of AIPAC and not an opposition team to AIPAC, is not sufficiently hawkish for many right wing Jews; Christian zionists are.
Evidence: ~ Christiane Amanpour at Cooper Union yesterday. Amanpour appeared with Dr. Izzeldin Abuleish, the Palestinian physician and peace activist whose daughters were killed by IDF in Operation Cast Lead. Abuleish was speaking with Israeli TV journalists when he got word that his home had been shelled and his daughters killed. The next day, Abuleish was at an airport in Tel Aviv and was interviewed briefly. The interview was interrupted by a crowd of Jews who screamed at Dr. Abuelaish that Hamas must have been hiding in his house otherwise the “most moral army” IDF would not have targeted the house.
Dr. Abuelaish’s response to those outrageous taunts are, in my estimation, the icon for the entire zionist project: as the Jews were shouting at him, he put his head in his hands and moaned, “The do not want to know the truth.”
The Amanpour – Abuelaish was supposed to be videocast to other gatherings, and from the 92nd Street Young Hebrew association, but the arrangement was cancelled because a Jewish person who was to have appeared with Abuelaish cancelled her appearance, and 92nd Street Y would not present a Palestinian without a “balancing” Jewish minder.
This balancing act that Jews insist on only works one way. Several years ago, Deborah Lipstadt was to appear on C Span to discuss her newly published book, which was about the trial she had won against author David Irving, who is branded a holocaust denier, that worst of all possible creatures, worse even than killer of a million Iraqis (Bush) or killer of 1500 Palestinians (Olmert).
C Span invited Irving to appear in the event. When Lipstadt learned of the invitation to Irving, she went ape@%$t. She demanded that C Span rescind the invitation to Irving. When C Span politely refused, explaining that they sought “balance,” Lipstadt made use of the pages of NYTimes to declare that there IS no ‘balance’ where holocaust is concerned. She corralled professors of history to write letters of complaint to C Span, and ultimately cancelled her appearance on C Span, rather than confront someone who had produced evidence, facts, and an analysis that was different from the received narrative.
Last week, Irwin Cotler while addressing Israel Lobby groups at the Beth Zion Synagogue in Cote St. Luc (Montreal) made ‘Israel’s day’. In his rant against the Islamic Republic, which has diplomatic relation with Canada at the lowest level and practically no trade due to US imposed sanctions against Tehran, he said: “We needed to sound the alarm in what I call the critical mass of threat in Iran: the nuclear threat, the threat of state-sanctioned incitement to genocide, the terrorist threat and the threat of massive domestic assaults.”
Pinning Israeli crimes on Iran
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/pinning-israeli-crimes-on-iran/
Irshad,
Neocons tend to run their mouths nonstop about Iran’s being an “enemy” of the US (or whatever). By contrast, William Hague stresses that the UK has no “enemies” in the world at this time. No “enemies”. However, Hague recognises that some countries are easier to deal with than other countries.
“There is very little sympathy for states that use religion to justify heinous crimes.”
This is the same reason that Europeans tend to hate Bush/Blair. But who does not, to be honest.
Dear fyi,
I do not know where you get the belief that America is godless, because actually a large proportion of the American population is religious (according to Wikipedia, only up to 15% identify themselves as “unaffiliated”; according to my own eyes, I agree with Wikipedia). Even though the American political system is secular, I have not seen one presidential candidate who has not proven his/her commitment to God.
If anything, it is Europe that you should be focussing on, where church attendance is falling dramatically. So much so that in Italy they have resorted to erecting bouncy-castle style blow-up churches on beaches to attract the youth. Again, according to Wikipedia, only 38% of British people believe in God; again, according to my own eyes, I agree with Wikipedia.
It is ironic that in America there is a secular system of governance, but a largely religious population. And in Europe it is the opposite, with political systems that are affiliated to the church, but populations that are largely not religious.
Your attempt to bring religion into your arguments is weak. And by the way, most of the European population view Israel in the same light as Iran, i.e. negative. There is very little sympathy for states that use religion to justify heinous crimes.
Irshad,
I must have missed the bit about neocons trying to control The Conservative Party in the UK. David Cameron and William Hague are deeply sceptical about neocon arguments and in fact regard them as delusional in some instances.
How did Russia “stab Iran in the back”?
China is the largest buyer of Saudi crude. The US encourages this to lower the amount of Iranian crude China buys.
India likely will want the Iran-Pakistan-India natural gas pipeline to be built, but not for a number of years (especially if India has to pay costs of it).
fyi,
I wonder where you get the idea that Americans and Europeans are opposed to churches and religion. I know a good number of Americans, Brits, and other Europeans, and I can number on one hand the total who have told me they are opposed to religion and have none.
fyi,
America certainly has millions of “low church” Protestants who seem to wish to erode the separation of church and state in the US. But most of these people in fact are badly educated. Just look at the crowd attending the annual convention in Washington of the Christian Zionists.
Are you suggesting that American (or European) hostility toward Iran rests in the fact the relgious leaders play a significant role in the government? I don’t think this is correct, though many clear-thinking Europeans see a danger in the fanaticism such as was demonstrated during the Iran-Iraq War.
fyi says:
March 8, 2011 at 5:57 pm
You know, I personally struggle to fathom the meaning of these things. Right now I’m inclined to think that just as science to the ‘true’ scientist is the key to understanding science’s limits, religiosity can be a path to understanding the impossibility of the burden of morality, while never denying the importance of spiritual pursuits.
fyi,
Reza Kahlili’s Iranophobic propaganda piece on csmonitor.com today should not get you overly excited. Kahlili does not mention the millions of lives wrecked by the insane and illegal US/UK invasion of Iraq. An alleged mistreatment of women is not a lawful basis for war with Iran.
Iran will do best to continue to seek to strengthen the NPT and not to develop nukes.
Americans in general are rather tired of the foolish military adventures in the greater Middle East.
BiBiJon says: March 8, 2011 at 5:37 pm
The Axis ideology is one in which everyone should be without religions.
You could see in the only consistently optimistic vision of the future in American television; the world of Star Trek and related TV series.
No one has any religion except such primitive people as those of Bejor or the single Black man who is a Muslim in the original series and is tortured to death by the aliens.
The closest that they come to endorsing religion is the character who is an American Indian and has a (pagan) Spirit Helper.
In this mental world of the Axis powers, only Jews are entitled to have a religion. Thus they ignore the Rabbanite in Israel (which makes Shia Doctors of Religion look like stark mad raving liberals).
My broader point is that this mentality among the Axis population makes them unsympathetic, and indeed hostile, to a religious-based system (except for Jews).
The Axis are still fighting the Chruch, in my opinion.
fyi’s discussion of prostitution is, of course, right in line with the purposes of this forum. or not.
there’s another perspective — on what drives men to do the less socially acceptable things that men do.
One of my son’s went to college in a rather remote location in Pennsylvania, near Newt Gingrich’s home town. There was not much industry or commerce in the area, and the houses that we passed on the way to the campus were quite poor and shabby. However, there were numerous pornography outlets in the area, and clubs that advertised topless dancers and the like. When people have no other means of both earning a living and expressing the creativity that is the mainspring of employment, they resort to the lowest common denominator.
It also seems to be the case that older men who have not fathered children are more likely to be sexually, um, adventuresome, than would be expected of men who do have children. This is nature talking: as mortality grows more imminent, the need to replicate oneself becomes more urgent.
What drives men to fight and kill? Both Paul Chappell and Sanho Tree argue that to kill another human being is an unnatural act. Chappell, a West Point graduate, states that the motivation to kill that is used to train men at West Point is the motivation of love for their comrades. In this logic, killing is always an act of defense of the ‘loved one’ and that category is extended from the ‘loved ones’ back home to the fighting man next to you: if your fighting buddy is threatening, you will risk your life to protect him. Group cohesion is a prime value among fighting men. Many veterans of war have a very hard time adjusting to civilian life because they are no longer surrounded by a cadre of people who are committed to their wellbeing and survival as they were in war.
Sanho Tree argues that men are trained to kill by relentless conditioning that dehumanizes both the killer and the victim. In Viet Nam, American soldiers killed “gooks;” in Iraq and Afghanistan, civilians killed are “collateral damage;” non-civilians killed are “terrorists” or “Islamofascists” or “Al Qaeda” — bad guys all — or not guys, really, just bad. Tree explains that the soldier/killer is also dehumanized to enable him to kill. Tree agrees with Chappell that killing another human being is an unnatural act, but has a slightly different assessment of how a person in induced — or seduced — to carry out that act. Technological wizardry goes a long way in tricking the human in a soldier into thinking that what he is doing is not unnatural — the machine is doing the killing; he is just using the machine.
The other day a reporter in Libya commented on the complete lack of military training, discipline, and strategy among the people who were fighting in opposition to Qaddafi. There were few trained leaders and no trained fighters, and nobody responded to orders or had a plan. Thus,when a bomb landed in the sand near an oil field that the rebels were surrounding, rebels with weapons fired randomly in the air or, impossibly, at the bomber/plane, or ran off thither and yon chasing they knew not what enemy to do they knew not what. (In contrast, it is my impression that Basiji are not highly trained military men, but they could be expected to obey orders and handle weapons with at least a minimum of skill.)
Perhaps fighting is a kind of prostitution.
Reza,
Here is how the official Government newspaper, “Iran”, introduced “this Arjomand fellow” to its readers five years ago (during Ahmadinejad’s presidency). Read and pay more attention next time when you spew nonsense about people:
http://www.kaleme.com/1389/12/17/klm-50869/
fyi says:
March 8, 2011 at 3:27 pm
All:
War propaganda at its finest….
,http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0308/Iran-s-brutality-toward-women-should-shock-West-into-seeking-regime-change
Iran must nuclearize as rapidly as possible.
===========================================
Folks may have problems nearer home to fix first
http://www.utoronto.ca/wjudaism/journal/vol1n2/v1n2grae.htm
Pak says: March 8, 2011 at 4:50 pm
I am fully aware of the 70,000 or so of them in Tehran.
Reasons for prostitution are many: coercion is one, and so is poverty, rape, pregnancy, and lust for men.
But when someone who is beating his or her chest for the females of another society and never ever mentions prostitutes there, you have to start wondering what that person’s agenda is.
In the United States, very many comely young women decide, on their own, to become prostitutes since they like to make easy money and also they like sex.
And US is a society that has spent a lot of effort in promoting women.
There are economic, academic, and political opportunities in US that are only open to (unqualified, in fact) women.
Poverty, rape, incest, un-wanted pregnancy are not the causes of prostitution in US or in Western Europe any longer.
It all is about what is the best/optimum/desirable goal for a woman in her life.
This is interesting:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/168894.html
Shamgen visa
Dear fyi,
You are living in dreamland if you believe that prostitutes do not exist in “God-full” Iran.
And of course you have religiously-sanctioned prostitution too.
@James Canning – what makes you think that India is not frozen out of Afghanistan?
To get access to Afghanistan India needs to either go through Pakistan or Iran – same with Central Asia. Pakistan is going to ensure India stays out and India, got in bed with USA for some nuclear goodies and burnt its relations with Iran. The Iranians had enough and realised India will not change and have moved on. I am sure, Irans new strategic cooperation will now be with Pakistan, Turkey and China – a relationship stretching from the eastern Mediteranean to the Pacific ocean. How is India or USA goignt o deal with this?
Russia wants good relations with Iran, whilst its busy stabbing Iran in the back. How should Iran react – or just force a smill and put up with it?
And whats your view regarding the neo-conservative elements have hijacked the Conservative Partys foriegn policy in UK? I posted about this to you in an previous thread.
Voice of Tehran says: March 8, 2011 at 4:32 pm
It does not matter what is going on with Iranian women.
This is war propaganda and Truth is irrelevant.
During 1990s, there was a flood of young women from Russia, Ukraine, Belarussia, Romiania into the Western Europen states and elsewhere to make money at prostitution.
No one had put a gun to their heads to do so; it was the logical (Rational, as “Pak” would say) application of the fact that in a godless society, money is the supreme value of all activities.
Hardly anyone in the Western Europe or North America cared.
Even today, you have them on the roads outside of many European cities: in the Cszech Republic or in Italy. Clealry, these women must be considered by the Axis countries to the be the epitome of women’s liberation and progress.
From my point of view, such are the wages of defeated people; their women are to be used for the pleasure of the conquerers.
fyi says:
March 7, 2011 at 5:43 pm
I totally agree with you that India is a rising economic power and nothing more – I have to say that even with the rising level of wealth in India, millions, if not hundred of millions of people still are and will be libing below the powerty line. And the hindu caste system will ensure that this exisits – leaving a significant portion of the population out the the economic benefits causing them to be angry at the state and in future more internal civil strife for the Indian state, in the future.
In terms of naval growth – like Iran, India too is facing difficulty in getting the old fox, the Russians to refurbish the aircraft carrier the Admiral Gorshkov, with a squadron of aircrafts to be delivered soon. The Russians have been stalling to do this leaving the Indians red faced. But it will be a game changer when it is delivered vis-a-vis India, nut I suspect the Chinese have forced the Russians to delay completion until they have set up and solidified their conrol of the “string of pearl” across the Indian ocean ( deepwater ports at strategic position for the safe delivery of oil in Gawdar, Sri Lanka, Burma etc).
fyi says:
March 8, 2011 at 4:15 pm
“You do not understand Americans. They have a special place in their hearts for foreign women”
Yes , you are right , in this respect I do not understand Americans and I am not planning to understand them.
From my ‘international’ perspective , I see the Iranian woman’s stand , among the top 20 in the world , with rapid improvement in all aspects .
No power can hinder this natural development.
Voice of Tehran says: March 8, 2011 at 4:10 pm
You do not understand Americans.
They have a special place in their hearts for foreign women.
[In practice, all they care about is if a woman has the right to sell/rent her womb or vagina without the interference of her relations or the state.]
So a propagandist can push the right button, in a manner of speaking, on their psyche and they would be open to suggestions on how to ameliorate that situation.
In cases of Iran and Afghnaistan, the best apparently is to bomb thir men.
You are quite right about many other places that are much worse than Iran: Egypt where 70% of women have suffered geniltile mutilation or India where Dalit orphan girls are given to village temples so any Hindu male villager can partkae of them.
As the late Mr. Khomeini stated: “Our sin is that we oppose America.”
Correction in my previous posting:
meant to say: “… both Mr. Blair and Mr. Cameron, in less than 60 days…”
rather than “… both Mr. Blair and Mr. Cameron, in less than 60 years…”.
fyi says:
March 8, 2011 at 3:27 pm
All:
“War propaganda at its finest….”
Fyi , I would not call the CSM article from an Ex- CIA spy , necessarily as WAR propaganda , still it is Anti-Iran propaganda ‘at its finest ‘ , no doubt.
If we would dig into the worldwide injustice being committed towards women on a daily basis , there will be far more cruel and inhumane horrors to report , but who really cares , if it doesn’t serve a special purpose ?
Around 2 years ago , among thousands of criminal acts against women in Europe ( slavery , prostitution , organ theft etc. ) , this one was a bit more severe:
“”Authorities in Austria are trying to piece together the details of how a 73-year-old man managed to keep his daughter imprisoned in a windowless cellar for 24 years while he repeatedly raped her and fathered her seven children.”"…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/28/austria.internationalcrime
Fiorangela says: March 8, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Doubt it.
The way the game is played in Washington DC is that US sells some weapons to Saudi Arabia or some other such client Arab state and then the Partisans of Israel clamor for matching weapons to be given for free to Israel to equalize the (non-existent) Arab might.
No, these items are part of the coordinated propaganda effort to keep the project for the destruction of Islamic Iran alive and well.
This is why both Mr. Blair and Mr. Cameron, in less than 60 years, attack Iran verbally and allude to the need for war with Iran.
Nothing has changed since Mr. Obama was elected; the Axis Grand Strategy marches on and only more disatsers befalling the Axis powers is going to derail their War-with-Iran project.
They might even get their wish; I do not believe that the fullfilment of that wish is going to deliver to them a world that is more beneficial to them.
fyi, do you suppose your link @ 3:27 this date is related to this:
Israel may ask U.S. for $20 billion more in security aid, Barak says
Israel must be on guard considering the unrest sweeping the Arab world, adding increased aid could help make Israel a ’stabilizer in such a turbulent region’.
After all, Israel has an exquisite record as a “stabilizer” in the region.
M.Ali says: March 8, 2011 at 3:44 pm
In principle yes.
In the near-future no because of government discrimination.
You may have heard the story of the atheist that used to go the Imam’s circle and argue with him about the existence of God without fear of physical assault?
That was 1000 years ago
That level of self-confidence does not obtain in Iran or anywhere else among Muslims.
Most will recall this story, from February 23:
“Libya’s ex-justice minister on Wednesday was quoted as telling a Swedish newspaper that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people in 1988. “I have proof that Gadhafi gave the order about Lockerbie,” Mustafa Abdel-Jalil was quoted as saying in an interview with Expressen, a Stockholm-based tabloid. Abdel-Jalil, who stepped down as justice minister to protest the clampdown on anti-government demonstrations, didn’t describe the proof.”
Does anyone know whether Abdel-Jalil ever supplied the promised proof?
Pak says: March 8, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Thank you for your comments.
I did not state that “…basic human rights…” was derived from the hadith of Jesus that separate God’s and King’s dues.
You have stated that opinion.
In fact, the concept of human rights derives from the Revelations.
I am quite familiar with the European Enlightenment Tradition.
The Enlightenment Thinkers, contrary to their champions in Iran or elsewhere, actually spent a fair amount intellectual effort in challenging the Orthodoxy of the Catholic Church and, in fact, all Religious dogma.
They also ridiculed the Revelation and believers in it by elevating Human Reason to the level of godhead. And they were clever enough in their formulations to hide the fact that their entire anti-clerical and anti-God scheme rested on assumptions and axioms that themselves could not be justified on basis of Logic, or Reason, or Science (which itself requires an a priori metaphysical system of thought to be comprehensible).
As the Enlightenment Tradition claimed to have done away with God and set men to be free of the Yoke of the Divine Law, it so transpired that any man’s idea of what the aims of Man’s existence ought to be, became as good as the any other man.
So, if an obscure Thinker by the name of Chamberlain had claimed to have discovered, on basis of Human Reason, Scientific History, and Research, that Jews were the common diseases of all hitherto existing civilizations and that they had been the cause of their demise, then it stood to (Human Reason) for an equally obscure ex-corporal of Austro-Hungarian Empire to set for himself the goal of cleansing Europe from that disease so as to usher in a Rational and Bright new Pan-European Civilization.
This is my personal view of the Enlightenment Tradition.
The Axis powers seek to expunge God from the historical scene, per their roots in the Enlightenment project. In the meantime, they also would enhance their material and strategic position, or so they think.
In regards to actual Muslim polities; the best you can hope for, ever, is that the Pharisee Islam will be discarded. A non-Islamic political order is impossibility since outside of Islam, nothing exists for these people. The boundaries of Religion and Civilization coincide (Iran being the only exception that proves the point.)
James Canning says: March 8, 2011 at 2:45 pm
I agree with you a lot of flexibility can be shown in practice when adjudicating the demands of the sacred and the profane life of a society. At the moment, at least in Iran, we are not yet at the stage that this type of flexibility and compromise can be achieved as a matter of course. Tens of Millions of Iranians still are charmed by the vision of the Islamic Just Society and are not going to give that delusion up any time soon. Situation among the Sunni Muslims is even worse.
fyi, I need your opinion on something.
Do you think Iranian sunnis can play a role in Iran’s political future? Do you think there is any near-future possibility of Iranian sunnis holding significant governmental positions?
Kuwaiti Shias push for rights
Tue Mar 8, 2011 3:27PM
Share | Email | Print
Stateless Arabs stage a demonstration in Jahra, northwest of Kuwait City, February 20, 2011.Senior Shia figures and lawmakers in Kuwait plan to hold talks to discuss ways to realize demands by Shia Muslims for greater civil and religious freedom.
Kuwaiti Shia group Thawabit al-Shia issued a statement on Tuesday, saying the response of Prime Minister Sheikh Nasser al-Mohammad al-Sabah’s government to the opponents will determine the group’s future planning to claim demands of the Shia community in Kuwait.
Kuwaiti youth groups have planned to hit the streets on Tuesday to demand the removal of the incumbent prime minister and push for political reforms in the Persian Gulf state.
The protests are deemed as a challenge to the Kuwaiti government, which bans demonstrations without prior permission.
An increase in Shia mosques and equality between Shia and Sunnis in terms of official posts and government portfolios are among the demands voiced by Kuwaiti Shias.
Kuwait’s al-Dar newspaper also announced imminent meetings among the country’s Shia figures and efforts for the creation of a Facebook webpage. Shia sources have ruled out the possibility of sit-in protests in front of the Kuwait Parliament, known as Sahat al-Irada.
Demonstrations in Kuwait come amid a recent wave of anti-government protests across North Africa and the Middle East, which managed to topple decades-long rule of dictator in Tunisia and Egypt.
The Kuwaiti premier, a nephew of the ruler Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah appointed in early 2006, has faced with constant parliamentary opposition ever since.
Five of the Sheikh Nasser’s six cabinets have been forced to resign, and the parliament has been dissolved three times.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/168871.html
All:
War propaganda at its finest….
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0308/Iran-s-brutality-toward-women-should-shock-West-into-seeking-regime-change
Iran must nuclearize as rapidly as possible.
ex·pert adj n v \ˈek-ˌspərt, ik-ˈ\
X = unknown quantity
spert/spurt = drop of water under pressure
Xspert = unknown drip under pressure
Breaking News:
Enduring America, One Weasel at a Time reports:
A “highly placed source” has stated that notwithstanding $36 billion dollars of free sandwiches and Sunquik – all bribes designed to keep the natives OFF the streets of Riyadh and other Arabian cities – King Abdullah fears that he may not have provided enough free sandwiches, and that the natives, especially them pesky Shi’a, will eat the sandwhiches, wash them down with the fake orange juice, and be all the more fortified come this Friday, March 11th.
In other Saudi news, there has been an apparent run on Depends in Saudi supermarkets around the Royal Palaces and their environs. More are being airlifted in from Tel Aviv, where a healty stockpile has been maintained since January 25th of this year.
Bussed-in Basiji says:
March 8, 2011 at 6:44 am
Congratulations that Hashemi is no longer in such a sensitive position given his, well lets call it, “issues”.
LOL
*
Fiorangela says:
March 8, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Kathleen, James, re media dominance & censoring:
I suppose it’s antisemitic to bring this up.
Call me Ishmael, but the very term anti-semitic is anti-semitic. It is a relic of 19th C thinking which applied its “progressive” attitude to the Jews but not to their Ismaelite cousins, who of course also just as semitic as they are.
To use the term anti-semitic in reference to a semite, an Arab, is to fail to acknowledge his semitic origins and identity; it is to fail to acknowledge the Arab cousins as even part of the discussion, as even existing. Such is the arrogant and ignorant Eurocentrism of the 19th C with respect to the Other, the echoes of which atavism we hear so loudly still today.
Of course, I realize, dear Fiorangela, that this is nothing new to you – our resident expert – and that I am preacihng to the choir.
To call an Iranian, Arab or Moslem an anti-semite is to show one’s ignorance of the fact that all Moslems believe Mohammad, with whom be the peace and blessings of God, a semite, is the most perfect of all creatures. That is a very deep and blameworthy ignorance indeed. As a Moslem, I am anti-Jewish (and anti-Christian) in so far as the practices of those religions contradict or go against my creedal values and beliefs (which, unlike theirs, affords them the liberty to maintain and practice their own religion); but how can I possibly be anti-semitic?? Is it really going to take another century or two for the ignoramuses of Jewistan and Christendom to recognize Ishmael, their Dark Cousin? Oh spare me, please.
Pak,
This Arjomand fellow is now based in Paris. He is in direct contact with the exiled royalists and MKO fanatics there. He also helped broker the arms deal with Israel that was part of the Iran-Contra scandal. Mousavi and his aides doe have a shady past.
Anyway, he has been lying about Mousavi’s detention in Heshmatiyeh which Scott Lucas has been seizing upon like the idiot he is.
http://www.english.rfi.fr/asia-pacific/20110308-mousavi-home-not-jail-says-site
Reza
Pak and FYI,
Yes, the Age of Enlightenment was crucial in Chritian Europe, and that Age grew directly out of and in reaction to the horrific slaughter and cultural destruction brought about by the lunacy of the religious wars that ripped Christian Europe asunder for nearly two centuries. Utter lunacy.
Liz is right.
Bahraini Shias tend to be very pro-Iranian. Many are of Iranian origin themselves.
It is interesting that PressTV has been blocked in Bahrain because the opposition was using it as a source of news on their own situation.
How long can the Al-Khalifa regime hold out under siege from the public?
fyi,
Just consider how the charging of interest on loans of money was a mortal sin in Christian Europe. Then along came the Knights Templar during the Crusades, and they devised ways of circumventing the religious difficulty. The Venetians were also good at it.
Dear fyi,
Learning is a two-way thing:
“This Hadith is the sole basis of the separation of Church and State among the contemporary Christains. And it was not used as such until a few hundred years ago when the Western Christains revolted against the Western Catholic Church. None had any issue with papal states for centuries, in fact.”
The concept of separation of church and state in Europe, as well as many other concepts, such as basic human rights, was not derived from this Hadith you are talking about. These concepts were borne out of the age of Enlightenment, which was the culmination of a process that began when Europeans woke up from their prolonged slumber in the dark ages.
The age of Enlightenment was characterised by using logic, reason, and science to derive the meaning of things. This naturally meant that divine right (theocratic rule) was overthrown, and ridiculed.
“If you wish to propose a separation of Religion and Polictics among Muslims, then I suggest you be prepare to reason to that position from the Quran and Hadith – that is the only way that Muslims might at least listen to you… In the last 100 years, everytime that there has been a secular (anti-Islam) political order in any Muslim polity, it had been maintained by bayonets of the Armed Forces of that state.”
Previous secular political orders in the Middle East were imposed; they were not naturally occurring. Given that over 60% of Iran’s population is under 30 – and therefore only ever experienced theocratic rule – I can see a naturally occurring push for secularism happening in Iran over the next few decades.
Just look at Ahmadinejad – even he is playing the nationalist card above religion, much to the dismay of the mullahs. As much as I despise him, I commend his efforts to sideline the mullahs, because he has realised that they are merely a hindrance to progress. He is doing other peoples’ dirty work, yet he cannot get his hands dirty, because they are already dirty.
Fiorangela,
Thanks for the link. Don’t miss Gideon Rachman’s take on Peter King and the hearings (ft.com). I think GR regards King as a horse’s arse.
fyi,
I share your deep interest in the historical and theological origin of contemporary political thinking. And I believe one cannot understand history without understanding the relgious history that is part and parcel of the story.
The “Founding Fathers” of the USA were deeply steeped in the political thinking of England in the wake of the Civil War.
I think Ireland only became free when the power of the R C Church was seriously compromised. One might think the decline in the power of Islam in various countries will (or would) tend to foster better economic growth.
James Canning says: March 8, 2011 at 2:18 pm
I really do not mind if people do not care about the genesis of the ideas that underlies their polities.
I do care about such thing in this forum because the discussion of these and similar ideas helps to illuminate what is and is not possible among the Muslim polities.
If I am correct in my surmises, secular political programs have no chance of success in the Muslim world; they would all have to come to rely on bayonets to maintain an order that is hostile to a key conception of Islamic society. It can never ever be democratic.
Caveat for both Muslims and non-Muslims who seek to re-order Muslim states.
Kathleen, James, re media dominance & censoring:
I was gratified to see this article: Chicken a la King: The hearings sponsored by Peter King and the campaign against sharia are two sides of the same Islamophobic coin.
pleased with the writing and concepts until I got to this sentence:
“But as legal scholar Noah Feldman points out . . .”
I suppose it’s antisemitic to bring this up.
Why would an author go to a Jewish “legal scholar” to explain Shari’a law? Is there not ONE Muslim scholar in Feffer’s universe that might give his audience an authentic sense of the characteristics of Shari’a? Would Feffer seek out a Roman Catholic bishop to comment on halakah?
fyi,
Most educated Americans do not give a fig what Jesus Christ said or allegedly said regarding separation of church and state. I could be more graphic. They would laugh out loud if one suggested it was an important factor in the equation.
Civil War in England, Scotland and Ireland, thanks in part to religion, is the key historical fact. My own family were involved in these matters so I take a special interest in them I suppose.
Tom Seger, an Israeli historian, is quoted in Spiegel online today:
“We could have made peace with Bashar Assad a long time ago. It didn’t happen because Netanyahu did not want to give up the Golan Heights.
Most Americans, of course, have no idea whatever that Syria has offered peace to Israel FOR THREE DECADES. Why are they so ignorant? ISRAEL LOBBY. (Plus basic intelectual laziness).
Pak says: March 8, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Then I suggest you go back and study a little bit.
“Loose” and inaccurate usage of terms is a hinderance to understainding.
There is a famous hadith of Jesus in which he states: “Give to the King what is his due and Give to God what is his.”
This Hadith is the sole basis of the separation of Church and State among the contemporary Christains. And it was not used as such until a few hundred years ago when the Western Christains revolted against the Western Catholic Church. None had any issue with papal states for centuries, in fact.
[And it is not clear if this is a valid Hadith; per chance it might be similar to what Abu Hurayre was doing for Al M'awiya.]
But, in Islam not such Tradition exists: not in the Quran and not in the Traditions of the Prophet.
Again, this is consistent with the Judaic Tradition and further casts doubt on the authenticity of the Christian hadith.
If you wish to propose a separation of Religion and Polictics among Muslims, then I suggest you be prepare to reason to that position from the Quran and Hadith – that is the only way that Muslims might at least listen to you.
If you want to advocate it based on Western political thought and models, which in turn are based on a dubious Hadith of Jesus, you will find no traction among Muslims.
In the last 100 years, everytime that there has been a secular (anti-Islam) political order in any Muslim polity, it had been maintained by bayonets of the Armed Forces of that state.
In other words, what you seek, in my opinion, is not possible.
M. Ali,
Hope you found your way back.
There was discussion after 14 February’s revival of public protest of marches each Tuesday but the plans were made for a march on 1 March — initially for Mousavi’s birthday, then as a call for the release of Mousavi, Rahnavard, and the Karroubis. There is also discussion of a march on 15 March for Chaharshanbeh Suri. There has never been a plan from the opposition for a march today — the statements from Coordinating Council, student groups, reformist parties, and activists have been in recognition of International Women’s Day.
S.
Dear fyi,
I know that I am using these religious terms loosely, because to be honest it is not my area of expertise. Unfortunately, given that both Saudis and Iranians like to mix politics with religion, I am forced to wade into this dangerous territory against my natural instincts.
But as long as my point gets across – which it did – I am happy.
fyi,
Yes, “clerics” should be in inverted commans, when discussing Shia Islam. And with the Druze there are no churches, no mosques, and no synagogues.
Pak,
Yes, there is a marked contrast between Iran, with clerics holding a wide range of viewpoints, especially regarding social change, and Saudi Arabia.
And we should bear in mind that Wahabi Sunni Islam was political from the beginning, and it gave the essential power basis for the Arabs in what was called the Nejd or Najd to maintain their independence from the Ottoman Sultan in Constantinople.
Pak says: March 8, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Your formulation, once again, is inaccurate.
The graduates of Muslim Univeristies are not “clerics” in the sense that the word “cleric” is used among Christians. They are not deputized, like the Christain priests, to administer religious rites through the authority passed from Jesus to Peter to them.
They are Doctors of Religious Sciences of Islam, for the most part.
They are analogues of Jewish Rabbies.
There are also 2 qualitative differences also between Sunni Doctors and Shia Doctors.
One is the acceptance of the Doctrine of Ijtihad by the Shia.
The other is the absence of Philosophy among the Sunni Doctors – Kalam is dead among Sunnis.
A m
Kathleen,
Another factor that enables idiots like David Frum and Paul Wolfowitz to flourish is simply the appalling ignorance of the average American. This clears the way for rubbish to be delivered in MSM while careful, honest commentary is suppressed or discouraged.
Dear James,
Given their heritage, the clerics in Saudi are best characterised by the most reactionary clerics in Iran, and there is little variation in their attitude. Where as in Iran, clerics occupy a wide spectrum of political attitude, from reactionary to liberal (too liberal in some cases, such as Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, whose story is well known, and also less publicised stories, such as Ayatollah Boroujerdi, who is fading away in prison for advocating the separation of religion and government).
The current King of Saudi Arabia is well known as wanting to reform/liberalise the country (by Saudi standards), but he is afraid of/being held back by the ulema. And unfortunately the next few people in line for the thrown are not so liberal.
Dear Liz,
You clearly have never stepped foot in Bahrain then. Why are you putting words into their mouths?
PressTV today quotes Iran’s deputy oil minister as saying Iran’s natural gas exports to Europe this past year were up 25% or more from the previous year. This trend will continue.
fyi,
In my view, Stratfor often and perhaps more often than not, puts out poor ME policy anaysis. This latest from George Friedman is seriously flawed. And I agree with you the Shia in Bahrain would only seek Iranian help if they are repressed in the manner of what happened in Lebanon (or Iraq).
Friedman likes to be a scare-monger regarding Iran. He is a helpful ally of the armaments salesmen.
Liz says: March 8, 2011 at 1:29 pm
No, all that implies is that they love their religion.
There is nothing of Iran-ness left in Bahrain; there is more of it in Central Asia actually.
The Shias of Bahrain love Iran. All you have to do to find out is to go to Qom or Mashhad and meet some of them.
James Canning says: March 8, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Thank you for your comments.
Will you please take the trouble of explaining why the entanglement of the Axis powers in a war in Libya does not help Iran?
Will you please explain to me in what manner my “primitive zero-sum game” view is in contradiction with the current reality of the situation (and not some future situation)?
Arnold,
I thinkl the appellation of “technocrat” is intended to imply that someone favors using industrial or economic logic to determine the best way forward, as compared with using religious logic or clan logic. Logic could be put in inverted commas, of course.
All:
Freely available from Stratfor:
I do not believe that Iran has any action-able influence among the Shia of Bahrain at all.
Those Shia, from all appearances, consider themselves Arabs first and foremost.
Unless they go through searing and brutally violent experiences similar to those of the Shia of South Lebanon or the Shia of Iraq, they will not be seeking Iranian help.
==============================================================================
Bahrain and the Battle Between Iran and Saudi Arabia
March 8, 2011 | 0955 GMT
By George Friedman
The world’s attention is focused on Libya, which is now in a state of civil war with the winner far from clear. While crucial for the Libyan people and of some significance to the world’s oil markets, in our view, Libya is not the most important event in the Arab world at the moment. The demonstrations in Bahrain are, in my view, far more significant in their implications for the region and potentially for the world. To understand this, we must place it in a strategic context.
As STRATFOR has been saying for quite a while, a decisive moment is approaching, with the United States currently slated to withdraw the last of its forces from Iraq by the end of the year. Indeed, we are already at a point where the composition of the 50,000 troops remaining in Iraq has shifted from combat troops to training and support personnel. As it stands now, even these will all be gone by Dec. 31, 2011, provided the United States does not negotiate an extended stay. Iraq still does not have a stable government. It also does not have a military and security apparatus able to enforce the will of the government (which is hardly of one mind on anything) on the country, much less defend the country from outside forces.
Filling the Vacuum in Iraq
The decision to withdraw creates a vacuum in Iraq, and the question of the wisdom of the original invasion is at this point moot. The Iranians previously have made clear that they intend to fill this vacuum with their own influence; doing so makes perfect sense from their point of view. Iran and Iraq fought a long and brutal war in the 1980s. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Iran is now secure on all fronts save the western. Tehran’s primary national security imperative now is to prevent a strong government from emerging in Baghdad, and more important, a significant military force from emerging there. Iran never wants to fight another war with Iraq, making keeping Iraq permanently weak and fragmented in Tehran’s interest. The U.S. withdrawal from Iraq sets the stage for Iran to pursue this goal, profoundly changing the regional dynamic.
Iran has another, more challenging strategic interest, one it has had since Biblical times. That goal is to be the dominant power in the Persian Gulf.
For Tehran, this is both reasonable and attainable. Iran has the largest and most ideologically committed military of any state in the Persian Gulf region. Despite the apparent technological sophistication of the Gulf states’ militaries, they are shells. Iran’s is not. In addition to being the leading military force in the Persian Gulf, Iran has 75 million people, giving it a larger population than all other Persian Gulf states combined.
Outside powers have prevented Iran from dominating the region since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, first the United Kingdom and then the United States, which consistently have supported the countries of the Arabian Peninsula. It was in the outsiders’ interests to maintain a divided region, and therefore in their interests to block the most powerful country in the region from dominating even when the outsiders were allied with Iran.
With the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, this strategy is being abandoned in the sense that the force needed to contain Iran is being withdrawn. The forces left in Kuwait and U.S air power might be able to limit a conventional Iranian attack. Still, the U.S. withdrawal leaves the Iranians with the most powerful military force in the region regardless of whether they acquire nuclear weapons. Indeed, in my view, the nuclear issue largely has been an Iranian diversion from the more fundamental issue, namely, the regional balance after the departure of the United States. By focusing on the nuclear issue, these other issues appeared subsidiary and have been largely ignored.
The U.S. withdrawal does not mean that the United States is powerless against Iran. It has been reconstituting a pre-positioned heavy brigade combat team set in Kuwait and has substantial air and naval assets in the region. It also can bring more forces back to the region if Iran is aggressive. But it takes at least several months for the United States to bring multidivisional forces into a theater and requires the kind of political will that will be severely lacking in the United States in the years ahead. It is not clear that the forces available on the ground could stop a determined Iranian thrust. In any case, Iraq will be free of American troops, allowing Iran to operate much more freely there.
And Iran does not need to change the balance of power in the region through the overt exercise of military force. Its covert capability, unchecked by American force, is significant. It can covertly support pro-Iranian forces in the region, destabilizing existing regimes. With the psychology of the Arab masses changing, as they are no longer afraid to challenge their rulers, Iran will enjoy an enhanced capacity to cause instability.
As important, the U.S. withdrawal will cause a profound shift in psychological perceptions of power in the region. Recognition of Iran’s relative power based on ground realities will force a very different political perception of Iran, and a desire to accommodate Tehran. The Iranians, who understand the weakness of their military’s logistics and air power, are pursuing a strategy of indirect approach. They are laying the foundation for power based on a perception of greater Iranian power and declining American and Saudi power.
Bahrain, the Test Case
Bahrain is the perfect example and test case. An island off the coast of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are linked by a causeway. For most purposes, Bahrain is part of Saudi Arabia. Unlike Saudi Arabia, it is not a major oil producer, but it is a banking center. It is also the home of the U.S. 5th Fleet, and has close ties to the United States. The majority of its population is Shia, but its government is Sunni and heavily linked to Saudi Arabia. The Shiite population has not fared as well economically as Shia in other countries in the region, and tensions between the government and the public have long existed.
The toppling of the government of Bahrain by a Shiite movement would potentially embolden Shia in Saudi Arabia, who live primarily in the oil-rich northeast near Bahrain. It also would weaken the U.S. military posture in the region. And it would demonstrate Iranian power.
If the Saudis intervened in Bahrain, the Iranians would have grounds to justify their own intervention, covert or overt. Iran might also use any violent Bahraini government suppression of demonstrators to justify more open intervention. In the meantime, the United States, which has about 1,500 military personnel plus embassy staff on the ground in Bahrain, would face the choice of reinforcing or pulling its troops out.
Certainly, there are internal processes under way in Bahrain that have nothing to do with Iran or foreign issues. But just as the internal dynamic of revolutions affects the international scene, the international scene affects the internal dynamic; observing just one of the two is not sufficient to understand what is going on.
The Iranians clearly have an interest in overthrowing the Bahraini regime. While the degree to which the Iranians are involved in the Bahraini unrest is unclear, they clearly have a great deal of influence over a cleric, Hassan Mushaima, who recently returned to Bahrain from London to participate in the protests. That said, the Bahraini government itself could be using the unrest to achieve its own political goals, much as the Egyptian military used the Egyptian uprising. Like all revolutions, events in Bahrain are enormously complex — and in Bahrain’s case, the stakes are extremely high.
Unlike Libya, where the effects are primarily internal, the events in Bahrain clearly involve Saudi, Iranian and U.S. interests. Bahrain is also the point where the Iranians have their best chance, since it is both the most heavily Shiite nation and one where the Shiites have the most grievances. But the Iranians have other targets, which might be defined as any area adjoining Saudi Arabia with a substantial Shiite population and with American bases. This would include Oman, which the United States uses as a support facility; Qatar, headquarters of U.S. Central Command and home to Al Udeid Air Base; and Kuwait, the key logistical hub for Iraqi operations and with major army support, storage and port facilities. All three have experienced or are experiencing demonstrations. Logically, these are Iran’s first targets.
The largest target of all is, of course, Saudi Arabia. That is the heart of the Arabian Peninsula, and its destabilization would change the regional balance of power and the way the world works. Iran has never made a secret of its animosity toward Saudi Arabia, nor vice versa. Saudi Arabia could now be in a vise. There is massive instability in Yemen with potential to spill over into Saudi Arabia’s southern Ismaili-concentrated areas. The situation in Iraq is moving in the Iranians’ favor. Successful regime changes in even one or two of the countries on the littoral of the Persian Gulf could generate massive internal fears regardless of what the Saudi Shia did and could lead to dissension in the royal family. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Saudis are moving aggressively against any sign of unrest among the Shia, arresting dozens who have indicated dissent. The Saudis clearly are uneasy in the extreme.
Iran’s Powerful Position
The Iranians would be delighted to cause regime change throughout the region, but that is not likely to occur, at least not everywhere in the region. They would be equally happy simply to cause massive instability in the region, however. With the United States withdrawing from Iraq, the Saudis represent the major supporter of Iraq’s Sunnis. With the Saudis diverted, this would ease the way for Iranian influence in Iraq. At that point, there would be three options: Turkey intervening broadly, something it is not eager to do; the United States reversing course and surging troops into the region to support tottering regimes, something for which there is no political appetite in the United States; and the United States accepting the changed regional balance of power.
Two processes are under way. The first is that Iran will be the single outside power with the most influence in Iraq, not unlimited and not unchallenged, but certainly the greatest. The second is that as the United States withdraws, Iran will be in a position to pursue its interests more decisively. Those interests divide into three parts:
1.eliminating foreign powers from the region to maximize Iranian power,
2.convincing Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region that they must reach an accommodation with Iran or face potentially dangerous consequences, and
3.a redefinition of the economics of oil in the Persian Gulf in favor of Iran, including Iranian participation in oil projects in other Persian Gulf countries and regional investment in Iranian energy development.
The events in the Persian Gulf are quite different from the events in North Africa, with much broader implications. Bahrain is the focal point of a struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran for control of the western littoral of the Persian Gulf. If Iran is unable to capitalize on events in Bahrain, the place most favorable to it, the moment will pass. If Bahrain’s government falls, the door is opened to further actions. Whether Iran caused the rising in the first place is unclear and unimportant; it is certainly involved now, as are the Saudis.
The Iranians are in a powerful position whatever happens given the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Combine this with a series of regime changes, or simply destabilization on the border of Saudi Arabia, and two things happen. First, the Saudi regime would be in trouble and would have to negotiate some agreement with the Iranians — and not an agreement the Saudis would like. Second, the U.S. basing position in the Persian Gulf would massively destabilize, making U.S. intervention in the region even more difficult.
The problem created by the U.S. leaving Iraq without having been able to install a strong, pro-American government remains the core issue. The instability in the Persian Gulf allows the Iranians a low-risk, high-reward parallel strategy that, if it works, could unhinge the balance of power in the entire region. The threat of an uprising in Iran appears minimal, with the Iranian government having no real difficulty crushing resistance. The resistance on the western shore of the Persian Gulf may be crushed or dissolved as well, in which case Iran would still retain its advantageous position in Iraq. But if the perfect storm presents itself, with Iran increasing its influence in Iraq and massive destabilization on the Arabian Peninsula, then the United States will face some extraordinarily difficult and dangerous choices, beginning with the question of how to resist Iran while keeping the price of oil manageable.
Pak,
I think it is fair to say that the clerics in Saudi Arabia prevent the Saudi government from doing too much too fast in changing social relations in the kingdom.
There is an element of this is Iran, of course.
Kathleen,
Some of the journalists are rabid workers inside the Israel lobby. Others are opportunistic stooges who see their own financial and career interests as profiting from serving as propagandists for the Israel lobby. Some might call them whores.
FYI,
Your “zero sum” analysis is too primitive to reflect accurately how Iran’s interests are best served in the Middle East. Hoping for war is really a bad idea. The solution is to continue to work to expose the prostitutes of the Israel lobby and the armaments manufacturers who have wreaked such havoc in the Middle East.
Kathleen says: March 8, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Actually an Axis intervention in Libya that further entraps them in fighting Muslims is in the national interest of Iran. It further weakens the Axis powers.
“James Canning says:
March 7, 2011 at 6:20 pm
David Frum is calling for the US to intervene in Libya. This alone is a strong case for not doing so.”
What is with all of the MSM journalist who are more than willing to recycle many of the Iraq warmongers who were deadly wrong about Iraq like David “axis of evil” Frum, Bill Kristol, Tom Friedman, Wolfowitz lately (while hawking his book). MSM talking heads seem incapable of finding other alleged experts on the middle east other than the pack of warmongers who lied this nation into Iraq. Do they think the American public are complete numb skulls? Or are they the numb skulls?
Persian Gulf says:
March 8, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Re: Susulhayeh Iran Nadideh
PG , meanwhile I admire you comments , my deep respect , thanks.
Persian Gulf says: March 8, 2011 at 12:26 pm
I was sorry to see these young women in Toronto, 20 years ago, distributing leaflets in support of the MEK.
It was not just that they were misguided in supporting MEK; it was that their parents were using them as instruments to advance a misguided political cause in a country to which these young women had only tenous connections at best.
Those young women had the chance to live better and fuller lives in Canada, one of the best-run countries in the world, yet the parents were dragging them into a fight that was not their children’s.
The parents were trying to live their own youthful dreams through their offspring, thus ruining their lives as well.
Pak says: March 8, 2011 at 11:54 am
I do not know the answer to your question.
M.Ali says:
March 8, 2011 at 9:44 am
شما هم عجب انتطاراتی دارین از یه عده بچه سوسول.
In fact, many youngsters screaming abroad don’t have an idea of what an average Iranian look like.
One of them was here. he was organizing protesters last year and is continuing to write about Iran! what was striking is after 4 years of knowing me (we actually worked in a team of an Iranian association for nearly 2 years), hanging out … he was unable to recognize my social base as he called me at the end an urbanite and privileged one with elitist view. hahahaha. he studied “social sciences” here in a prestigious university. I told him, look at yourself, you couldn’t even understand me and now writing articles about Iranian people and Iran’s political structure, and worse organizing people for the cause of the people of a country that you just lived for your first 7 years of life. I dare to say most of the Iranian opposition abroad writing in English are like that. one thing the radical opposition abroad has done well is to win the heart of these young, talented, and uninformed people outside of the country.
Pak,
Comparing Iran and Saudi Arabia is absurd.
Are we expecting a clarification from the media on this?
http://www.kaleme.com/1389/12/17/klm-50902/
And of course Saudi Arabia, where the clerics share power with the Saud family.
Dear fyi,
So what do you think is the role of religion in the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere in the MENA region?
Pak says: March 8, 2011 at 11:30 am
Your statement is not accurate.
Only in Iran the Shia Doctors of Religion have been decisively politically active over a period of more than 150 years; from Jubesh-i Tanbaku until now.
This model does not apply to the Sunni polities whereby the Armed Forces have been politically active.
Libya, actually is an interesting case: The Sufi Zonuzi Order was instrumental in the state formation and Armed Forces, under Qaddafi, altered the state afterwards. In the absence of leadership from the Zonuzi order, or from Sunni Doctors of Religion, or the Armed Forces of Libya; the tribes are going to fight one another.
The tribal civil war has been going on since the death of Ziad Bare in Somalia and was going on for more than 40 years in Iran after the disintegration of the Safavid state. It is still going on in Afghanistan.
By threat I mean thread.
By the way, based on the general theory being pushed on this threat – that social movements in the Islamic World need the backing of religious scholars – we should not expect to see an uprising in Saudi Arabia any time soon.
Like Iran, the clerics in Saudi Arabia are already in power, so they have no reason to uphold any morals.
Pak,
I don’t think that was implied. However, for your information Ayatollah Khomeini was in France for only a few months. Your knowledge of contemporary Iranian history is not so good it seems.
Dear Reza,
Those headlines are not interesting at all, least of all Javan. Any conspiracy nut like yourself can write an article like that.
Just because some Iranians are abroad, does not mean that they have links to foreign intelligence services. Unless you want to extend your theory to Khomeini, who spent years living in total peace in the suburbs of Paris. Damned Zionist spy!
“Ardeshir Amir-Arjomand, a royalist connected to the MKO and Israel”
I think he is gay too.
It is nice to see my name being thrown around here, despite my lack of presence.
Arnold, I asked those “leading” questions because I am interested in the role that ethics plays/does not play in international relations, which raises some interesting questions, such as:
- the role of state sovereignty in the modern world
- the role of the UN
- the moral obligations (or lack of) of human beings to help other human beings out (i.e. cosmopolitanism)
- consequentialism
It has nothing to do with advocating, or calling for a particular action. Seriously, you guys are overestimating my ability to influence events (which is basically 0).
Arnold Evans says: March 8, 2011 at 10:44 am
Indeed!
The Axis powers turned down his olive branch back in Clinton days.
I find the West’s love affair with Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani very intriguing.
Here from BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12677071
Iran’s leading pragmatic politician, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, has lost his position as head of the country’s highest clerical body after withdrawing his candidacy during the latest election in the Assembly of Experts.
This could signal the beginning of the end of the political career of this leading moderate technocrat within the system.
“Leading pragmatic politician”? What does that mean?
Another term I’m starting to notice is “technocrat” which I guess means a person in government who does not have any ideological position, except that to not have an ideological position, in effect is an ideological position – in favor of whatever status quo prevails.
Some interesting views in the Iranian press from yesterday, particularly from Javan.
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=237036
Monday’s headlines
HAMSHAHRI: 4 regional countries (Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Iraq) agree on issuing joint visa
KAYHAN: Al Saud’s fear of Islamic revolution; Malik Abdullah orders fire (on demonstrators)
KHORASAN: U.S. secretary of state concerned about Iran’s military and defensive power
JAME JAM: Majlis gives confidence vote to energy minister
JAVAN: Chairman of the Society of Qom Seminary Teachers says Ayatollah Mahdavi Kani is socially popular
HEMAYAT: Hashemi Rafsanjani says keeping unity and country’s solidarity is above personal interests
MARDOM SALARI: 36 government ratifications run contrary to law, Majlis announces to president
RESALAT: Tehran Mayor Qalibaf says I hope municipality problems to be resolved with president’s support
IRAN: President says management of cities entails a new and ‘revolutionary’ model
SHARQ: (Deputy culture minister for press affairs) Mohammadzadeh says it is necessary to increase press subsidy
DONYAYE EGHTESAD: Government draws up housing market plan for next year (March 2011-March 2012)
TAFAHOM: SAIPA is the country’s largest automaker
Leading articles
In an interview with TEHRAN-E EMROOZ newspaper about the building of artificial islands by the United Arab Emirates in the Persian Gulf, international expert Davud Hermidas Bavand says according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, countries can exploit natural resources and also build islands within their sea borders, but the UAE has no right to construct artificial islands near Abu Musa island as the sea border between Iran and the UAE has not yet been determined. However, if the border is delineated, the UAE has the right to build islands within its own territorial waters. However, until the sea border is not marked the UAE has no right to do that. He added since the UAE has ownership claims over three Iranian islands of Abu Musa, and Greater and Lesser Tunbs in the Persian Gulf if it builds islands near Iran’s territory then it can cite those islands as the reasons for its claims. The expert said it should first be clear what the purpose of the UAE is in building such islands in the Persian Gulf.
JOMHORI ESLAMI in a news story says Turkey’s tourist officials have announced that the number of Iranian tourists who will visit the country during the approaching Norouz holidays in comparison to the last year will increase 10 percent. During Norouz holidays last year more than 1.8 million Iranians visited Turkey, and in this year’s Norouz holidays, which start on March 21, it is expected two million Iranians visit the country. The Turkish newspaper Hurriyet reported that the Turkish economy grow much between March 13 to April 2 as tourists from eastern neighboring countries pour into the country.
JAVAN in a news report quotes a member of the Central Council of the Combatant Clergy Association as saying that the moves by Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mahdi Karroubi are the same as Abolhassan Banisader. He said during the 2009 fitna (sedition) Banisadr supported Mousavi. The rhetoric used by Banisadr, Mousavi and Karroubi in withstanding velayat-e faqih (the rule of supreme jurisprudent) and the law are synonymous and they are backed by foreigners. He goes on to say that Banisadr had direct relations with the CIA. He also said Western intelligence services in the West, under the cover of scientific studies in their universities in Europe and the U.S., select competent individuals and train them as their agents in order to make use of them at a proper opportunity. He compared the persons close to Banisadr, Mousavi and Karroubi and said today Ardeshir Amir-Arjomand, a royalist connected to the MKO and Israel, becomes a top member of Mousavi’s election headquarters, and Vahedi (first name not given), with all his bad record, runs all the affairs of Karroubi’s election campaigns
OK Eric.
What specific contentions do you think I or any commenter accepts as fact that is not true or may not be true?
What makes you think I or another commenter accept that contention as fact, please use a direct quotation, with as few ellipses as possible if you can.
If that contention had been true, have I argued, do you argue or has anyone argued that the contention justifies any specific action by the US regarding Libya? If not, what relationship do you think there is between the contentions you claim we’ve accepted and US action regarding Libya?
You seem to think you have an important point to make. So far I can’t see the importance or relevance of whatever point you’re trying to make.
Arnold,
“Except maybe [for] Pak… I [have] not seen one advocate of US intervention of any kind in Libya’s civil war in this comments section.”
In the lead-up to the Iraq war in 2003, the New York Times published hundreds of articles laying out the “factual” bases for the US government’s decision to attack Iraq. A few days before the war began, as US troops were locking and loading, the New York Times published an editorial emphatically opposing war with Iraq.
Richard,
“For me, any time a population wants to overthrow their government, as long as it’s not entirely sponsored or controlled by the US or some other colonial power, it’s ipso facto proof that their government should be overthrown.”
Do the people in Libya want to overthrow their government?
Guys, I’m going to take my stuff to the laundry now and I’ll be passing by Vanak Ave., if I dont report back, be sure Ive been lost in the protests! see ya
Protests were supposed to be every Tuesday. I havent followed the events, but has the narrative changed?
BiBijon,
Exactly
Scott Lucas…
thinks it will be quiet today, because he knows he can’t pretend there are rallies every week.
Chaharshanbeh soori is a day when everyone goes out and throws firecrackers,… Scott Lucas thinks that he can fool people into thinking that this will be linked to Mousavi.
He should also include football matches. He can claim the fans are in fact protesting and not watching there favorite team.
“I think March 15th is the day before Chaharshanbeh soori. If so, expect the greens to use the early morning hours of the 16th to set Tehran on fire.”
Pirouz,
Thanks — that is shaping up to be a valuable discussion, and it’s good to have your thoughts.
S.
Reza,
You do need to read carefully. We knew since the marches last week that the opposition were not planning for a presence on the streets on 17 Esfand; the planning was pointing to next Tuesday. We re-stated that this morning.
S.
Scott Lucas says:
Despite the chatter about International Women’s Day, no significant protests expected today
Backing out already?
I suspect next Tuesday will be a different matter with opposition trying to put people on streets.
I think March 15th is the day before Chaharshanbeh soori. If so, expect the greens to use the early morning hours of the 16th to set Tehran on fire.
You know Scott, after the treatment I’ve received at Iranian.com and Tehran Bureau, I haven’t many places left to go. So we’ll take you up at EA. Thanks for the invite.
Pirouz,
Not only is that a sharp reading in a few sentences of Rafsanjani’s position — remember that a lot of analysts still see him with significant influence — but the responses from EA readers are offering a rich discussion beyond any critique so far in Iranian or “Western” media.
Despite the chatter about International Women’s Day, no significant protests expected today — as we noted this morning, the declarations from opposition are symbolic to reach out to women’s rights groups and to show it is pressing its claims.
I suspect next Tuesday will be a different matter with opposition trying to put people on streets.
S.
Eric:
I’m not sure what you mean by this:
Comments posted here use phrases such as “my slightly informed take,” and “I’m not sure,” and “I doubt he put as many people in prison as Egypt,” and “I doubt he was as brutal as Mubarak,” and “we’ll never know now” whether he had majority support, and “he and his family are richer than they deserve to be.” Is that really all you need – just a hunch, a doubt, another doubt, a guess at Gaddafi’s net worth, and a presumption that he stole it all? Can’t Iran’s critics say exactly the same thing (in fact, many of them do) and claim a right to bomb Iran? (One wonders, incidentally, whether Gaddafi would once again support Iran if that happened, as he did during the Iran-Iraq war.)
I didn’t guess at Gaddafi’s net worth, except in the broadest terms, that it is more than it would be if he was not a dictator.
If I’m not sure about something and I write that I’m not sure, I can’t figure out what you think the problem is. I do know that Gaddafi is not subject to any democratic process in Libya and that he justifies this with some in-his-mind revolutionary doctrine.
Gaddafi is, in my opinion, about as bad a guy as Castro for a very similar set of reasons. Neither is as legitimate as, for example, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez who is subject to the Venezuelan constitution and holds himself for elections.
Khomeini, who did not pass rule to a family member but left it in institutions each of which is subject to Iranian political competitions was both very laudable and unlike Gaddafi and Castro in that respect.
Bringing what I wrote (and others) into your conclusion that the commenters at RFI accept without proof the contention that a war with Libya is justified is just bizarre. It has nothing to do with what I wrote, I had not seen one – except maybe Pak, but even he didn’t assert but asked leading questions – I had not seen one advocate of US intervention of any kind in Libya’s civil war in this comments section.
Until you started making whatever point you’re making I had not seen one demonization of Gaddafi.
What are you doing, Eric?
Bussed-in Basiji says:
March 8, 2011 at 5:15 am
It is noteworthy that over the past 32 years, so many prominent figures representing different poles of public opinion have successfully served and have been replaced without fuss, according to constitutionally mandated democratic procedures.
Whoever is devising policies based on the ‘fragility’ of Iran’s system of government needs their head to be examined.
Gideon Levi: Israel is ‘half a democracy’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/gideon-levi-israel-is-half-a-democracy/
Good grief, Scott, that’s an analysis?
Honestly, I admit it’s been a while since I left the university. But I can tell you this: back in the day the professor would’ve given me a flagpole for that one.
The Shark is old and washed up. He won’t be SL. But what can you expect after the shenanigans his faction pulled in June 2009?
M.Ali is right. For moderate liberal voters like ourselves, the actions of M/K have brought on the wilderness for our political persuasion.
So have the “tens of thousands” come out yet today? Oh, I see there’s still 15 minutes till kickoff time.
And immediate analysis re Rafsanjani….
http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/3/8/iran-snapshot-what-now-for-rafsanjani.html
BiB,
Don’t worry — we’ve got the Assembly of Experts story covered as well….
http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/3/8/the-latest-from-iran-8-march-from-international-womens-day-t.html
S.
RSH,
Please don’t be jealous: you are also very special to me.
Best,
S.
On bashing Libya vs bashing Iran
I searched around a little and found nothing ‘unbiased’ or 100% reliable.
I have, therefore no way of ‘knowing’ anything about Libya, and therefore, I cannot rule out the possibility that my ‘hunches’ may be a result of years and years of media/USG manipulation. For all I know, Qaddafi’s issue is not being an SoB. His problem is mostly is that he ain’t our SoB.
Which brings me to the situation with Iran where there is data that makes it possible to have an ‘informed’ opinion, and which rubbishes blind support, and blind hostility towards Iran as is routinely done by the Leverets, Eric, Arnold, Pirouz etc.
One word of caution, if I may.
When we talk about Iran, or Libya, assumed threat of war creates an highly emotional state that drives folks to argue extreme positions. Lets assume there will be no foreign military intervention, or if there were to be one, that it would/should be roundly condemned by progressives.
I think it is fair to say whatever style of governance existed in Libya, it is now governing through the barrel of a gun; Qaddafi has failed to govern.
M.Ali,
According to the constitution Khobregan is not supposed to play an active role in the daily affairs of the state. If you read the aticle it mentioned that the significance of Khobregan comes into play in times of determing a Supreme Leader. Congratulations that Hashemi is no longer in such a sensitive position given his, well lets call it, “issues”.
why congratulations, BiB? I havent seen the Assembly of Experts play any significient role in Iran for the last several years, at least
News from the real world:
While the trolls are busy proving 1,000 here, 3,000 there from their “well-placed sources” (i.e. well-placed in their a-holes)- the real action is somewhere else…
“Iranian ex-leader Rafsanjani loses powerful role”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/08/AR2011030800589.html
Congratulations to all who love Hazrate Imam(r), Hazrate Agha, the shohada, the Islamic revolution and the Islamic republic.
Richard Steven Hack says:
March 8, 2011 at 4:27 am
“”Lucas once again demonstrates what a smarmy …… “”
Richard , I found following definition for “smarmy” , does it found your valuable approval? :-)
Definition of SMARMY
1: revealing or marked by a smug, ingratiating, or false earnestness
2: of low sleazy taste or quality
— smarm·i·ly \-mə-lē\ adverb
— smarm·i·ness \-mē-nəs\ noun
See smarmy defined for English-language learners »
Examples of SMARMY
Yes, he’s a smarmy know-it-all with the personality of a hall monitor, the kind of guy everyone hides from at a Christmas party. —Bill Simmons, ESPN, 2 Aug. 2004
Origin of SMARMY
smarm to gush, slobber
First Known Use: 1924
Rhymes with SMARMY
army, barmy
Lucas once again demonstrates what a smarmy asshole he is: “Yes, it has confirmed how special Liz is to me.”
For this reason alone, he should be banned and certainly no longer engaged with.
Eric: “In light of how little appears to be necessary to persuade most people that the West ought to help toss Gaddafi out on his ear, do you still believe it will be difficult for the US government to sell a war against Iran? If the US comes up with some “war lite” tactic like “no fly zones” that works in Libya, how long will it be before John McCain or Mitch McConnell suggests the same thing for Iran? What will you do then – reverse course and insist on proof?”
I have to say I think this is a major over-reaction. NO ONE in Iran has the same reputation that Gaddafi does. NO ONE. Western spin or not. This guy has a forty year history of doing weird stuff, fully acknowledged BY HIM, IN PUBLIC, over and over again.
While I can certainly see your concern that Iran could be demonized with a similar brush, that is not relevant to the history of Libya.
If you have reason to believe that everything said about Libya over the last forty years is the same as that said about Iran for the last thirty, then provide some evidence that it’s all spin and none of it is true. If ANY of it IS true, then your case falls apart.
For me, I see absolutely no reason to believe that an absolute dictator like Gaddafi doesn’t have hard cash available to him, or hasn’t been screwing his population over to get it in the process. Maybe there are differences, but to me in the end, as Spock has said, “A difference which makes no difference is no difference.”
And even if all that you say is true, it’s irrelevant to Iran because Iran is ALREADY demonized by the West. Whether that demonization is based on the same or different reasons than Libya really isn’t relevant to anything.
Finally, it’s not relevant to me what the concerns are of the Green Movement in Iran, nor is it relevant to me what the concerns of the Libyan uprising is or the Egyptian uprising or the Bahrain uprising or the Tunisia uprising. I don’t care what their complaints are or whether they’re Islamists or socialists or secularists or Neo-Nazis. That’s THEIR goddamn problem and not the concern of anyone in the West.
For me, any time a population wants to overthrow their government, as long as it’s not entirely sponsored or controlled by the US or some other colonial power, it’s ipso facto proof that their government should be overthrown.
What matters is what the US should be doing about it – which is nothing. Period. Full stop. End of story.
So what you and the rest of us should be concerned about is this notion of Obama’s of US intervention. There is a reason for that notion, because the US doesn’t do this stuff unless it stands to benefit. So figure out that reason and there’s why Gadaffi is being demonized again.
But that doesn’t automatically mean that he shouldn’t be considered a crook. The fact that a dictator like Saddam gets demonized and then is invaded for the benefit of the war profiteers doesn’t automatically transform the dictator into some poor, misunderstood politician, whether or not he’s a scapegoat.
Iranian@Iran,
“Don’t you think that your exchange with Liz yesterday should have taught you a lesson?”
Yes, it has confirmed how special Liz is to me.
S.
Fara says:
March 8, 2011 at 3:11 am
“Israel may ask U.S. for $20 billion more in security aid”
Why not , $20 billion sound good , peanuts for the USG with around $15 trillion in offical nationl debt.
“”People Of Earth: Prepare For Economic Disaster”"
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/people-of-earth-prepare-for-economic-disaster
…”The entire global financial system is a gigantic Ponzi scheme. It is designed to keep everyone enslaved to perpetual debt. If at some point the debt spiral gets interrupted in some significant way, we are going to witness an economic disaster that is going to make what happened in 2008 look like a Sunday picnic.
The more research that one does on the current global economic situation, the more clear it becomes that we are absolutely doomed.
So people of earth you had better get ready.
An economic disaster is coming.”
Israel may ask U.S. for $20 billion more in security aid
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/israel-may-ask-u-s-for-20-billion-more-in-security-aid-barak-says-1.347866
Scott Lucas
Don’t you think that your exchange with Liz yesterday should have taught you a lesson?
Accept the fact that your knowledge about Iran is really next to nothing and in addition since you’ve grown more and more dishonest everyone can see your inconsistencies.
Eric makes excellent points and I would suggest you all to read it carefully and not jump on any bandwagons.
No one seems to be really addressing the fact that Gadaffi himself came about in almost the same circumstances.
I don’t fully understand you, Eric. Are you seeking a moral compass for the Libyan civil war? From what vantage point? Libyan or American?
It’s a war. Bad things happen in a war. But this appears to be a Libyan matter.
Are you looking at this in the context of a limited NATO intervention? As if a moral compass would provide direction for such? It’s a lot more complex than that, Mr. Brill.
Wars are darn tricky things to predict.
Have you read Tom Engelhardt’s latest?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC08Ak04.html
He touches on Libya. His advice? “Intervention doesn’t work. Not in the long run, often not in the short one either. Not these days. Not at all.”
All I have to say is look at the price of gas–and this is just Libya. Imagine what a full shooting war with Iran would be like. No wonder there’s been no war against Iran, and no wonder the Iranians keep saying “all options are on the table” is merely empty psychological warfare.
Pirouz,
That is a good pick-up from the LA Times piece on the claim about the NAJA buses. Thanks….
S.
I must say I’m a little concerned by much of what I’m reading here.
What got me interested in Iran’s situation in the first place was my impression that it was getting a bum rap – especially on its nuclear program and the 2009 election. I couldn’t figure out what the charges against Iran were based on –- particularly with respect to the election — and I still couldn’t figure it out after looking more closely. I worry that I may be seeing the same thing here concerning Libya.
It’s provable that fraud did not occur in the 2009 Iranian election. It’s not provable that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons (though I doubt it is). Yet I reach the same conclusion on both issues: Iran is innocent until proven guilty, and I think most people on this website agree. But the general reaction to my observations about Gaddafi makes me think that most people have sided with Iran based solely on prejudice, and that they side against Gaddafi for the same reason.
People who don’t ask for proof are easy marks for propagandists. Enemies of Iran knew that most Americans would readily believe that every Revolutionary Guard commander has an 8-figure Swiss bank account. Little if any evidence would be asked for and, of course, none was offered. The same was true with Mubarak, whose net worth was estimated as high as $80 billion during the Egyptian crisis, and we’re already seeing the inevitable stories about links between Egyptian military leaders and private business.
With Gaddafi, it’s much the same, with one spending estimate today set at $1 trillion – $1 trillion — and this from a writer who, it appeared, expected to be taken seriously. The people who put this stuff out know from years of success that little if any evidence will be asked for, and that’s precisely why they put it out. If Ahmadinejad and Khamenei did not so obviously live low-budget personal lives, they’d undoubtedly be accused as well — indeed, they haven’t escaped entirely: I’ve seen several estimates of Ahmadinejad’s net worth at well over $1 billion, with his ascetic life style ironically offered as proof that he’s hiding his wealth.
Comments posted here use phrases such as “my slightly informed take,” and “I’m not sure,” and “I doubt he put as many people in prison as Egypt,” and “I doubt he was as brutal as Mubarak,” and “we’ll never know now” whether he had majority support, and “he and his family are richer than they deserve to be.” Is that really all you need – just a hunch, a doubt, another doubt, a guess at Gaddafi’s net worth, and a presumption that he stole it all? Can’t Iran’s critics say exactly the same thing (in fact, many of them do) and claim a right to bomb Iran? (One wonders, incidentally, whether Gaddafi would once again support Iran if that happened, as he did during the Iran-Iraq war.)
Do any of you have any reason whatsoever to believe that the LIbyan rebels would establish a corruption-free democracy and sleep on a grass mat on the kitchen floor? Who are these guys, anyway? Are you persuaded they’re nice people just because they say they want democracy? When was the last time a new guy didn’t assure the people that democratic bliss and economic plenty were just around the corner? How often does it actually happen? More to the point, how often does it happen when we don’t even know who these guys are or what they have in mind – other than to kick out the old guy and get the key to his safe-deposit box?
I don’t mean to suggest Gaddafi is a nice guy to his own people –- just that I don’t know. I’m not inclined to conclude that he is a bad guy just because the US government tells me that and some clown estimates he’s stolen and spent $1 trillion and so he’s a crook even if the actual number is only 1% of that. The manipulative hand of the US government is obviously at work here, and I’m amazed and disappointed to see how easy it is finding it to persuade even the intelligent and well-informed people on this website – people who, in other settings, assure me in no uncertain terms that the US government will never succeed in ginning up a war against Iran.
In light of how little appears to be necessary to persuade most people that the West ought to help toss Gaddafi out on his ear, do you still believe it will be difficult for the US government to sell a war against Iran? If the US comes up with some “war lite” tactic like “no fly zones” that works in Libya, how long will it be before John McCain or Mitch McConnell suggests the same thing for Iran?
What will you do then – reverse course and insist on proof?
Eric: “But I’ve not read credible allegations that they’ve actually acted dishonestly or that Gaddafi himself has been involved in their transactions.”
So you’re saying that salting away some $35 billion in US banks – which is the amount alleged to have been frozen by the US – which seems like a credible source to me and I’ve seen no indication that the sum is the “Libyan government’s” – how is that different from Gaddafi in practice? – sounds like an “honest” transaction?
Really?
Or perhaps you think all the real estate transactions are “honest” despite having been soaked from Libya’s oil income at the expense of the population?
I’m quite confused. What is your point here? To whitewash Gaddafi? If not, what?
My slightly informed take on Libya is that Gaddafi really is crazy and really intended to hold power forever, until passing it to his son.
I’m not sure if his son in his heart intended to reform Libya’s government.
Long ago, maybe ten years ago I read an interview by Gaddafi in which he put forth his “Green Book” as the epitome of revolutionary thought. According to Gaddafi, similar now that I think about it to Castro, Libya is a democracy because even though there is no choice for the President, there is choice for representation at local-level councils.
These local level councils, when I first heard about them, struck me as having the potential to filter close, detailed and maybe even intimate information about every member of society up through the governmental apparatus. So while Gaddafi presents them as the effective level of government, which in a way they probably were – they probably were responsible for requesting money for roads and/or schools for example, they also had a large potential for exercising control over the people under his rule. I’ve always assumed this potential has been exploited, but have not had or cared to look for direct reports.
It would not be a bad analogy, as far as I know, to think of Libya as a richer – because of oil exports – Cuba in North Africa.
Gaddafi clearly has some support from the Libyan population. He possibly has majority support. We’ll never know now. There was no graceful way to get him out of power which is a major weakness in his political system and nobody has been measuring his support.
He and his family are richer than they deserve to be. He has a monopoly on state power and if he did not very likely would have been replaced either when a Libyan came onto the scene with more political talent than he has or when he got unlucky.
I doubt he put as many people into prison as Egypt, because the Egyptian state, since Nasser, has been in conflict with the leading Muslim organization in the country. I doubt he was as outwardly brutal as Mubarak but I don’t know, haven’t seen statistics.
His main failing is that he put himself into a position where the Libyan people could not express a desire to remove him from power, or to disapprove of his policies or leadership short of a civil war. That failing, combined with several other factors that came together at this unique moment in history, produced the current civil war in Libya.
Some of the other factors are: the feeling of revolutionary change in the region, the fact that he has opposed Western domination in many venues in the world and the fact that Western policy-makers see Libya as a way to avenge what looks like their loss of Egypt and want to get as much use as an example out of Libya as they can.
And I have to tell you, the contempt I felt towards the Shah was how I felt as an American, not an Iranian.
As an American, I couldn’t accept such a contrived, silly and corrupt form of unreliable leadership. That it was externally imposed made it all the more contemptible.
Anyway, there were masses of Iranians who felt a lot more than contempt, I can tell you that. And it came to a head in ‘78/79.
Eric,
I see your point. That’s why I included the links to the photo/video evidence, as well as the link to the 7 page thread from that military forum. My intent in providing this is to give you a sense of the scope and high stakes of the conflict.
If you’re looking for ideology, that’s all I have to offer. Bear in mind, this conflict was sudden in nature.
All I can tell you Eric is to get a better grasp of what it’s like living under the rule of a vane despot, you have to experience it for yourself. Some of us Iranians are old enough to remember what it was like under the Shah. That’s the best I have to offer you.
Eric
“Some people accept all this on faith, just as Pak and Scott Lucas and many others accept criticism of Iran on faith. I don’t”
I fully agree, there is nothing better than seeing it for yourself, obviously the same goes for Scott’s corny stories and innuendo’s, which as I have experienced this last few days nothing like what he claims even exist here. Not even serious concerns of it.
Roger Waters of Pink Floyd gave an elegant interview on Al Jazeera recently. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdX5WpRrwtM&feature=player_embedded
Waters mentioned that he’s had some communication with Iran’s green movement.
Wouldn’t it be terrific if Pink Floyd/ Roger Waters played Iran?
When I was in Iran one of my travelling companions had his portable cello with him. He played it in a mosque in Shiraz (?) (I think) where the acoustics are such that sounds played in a spot at the entry level can be heard in an upper level iirc.
Wouldn’t it be terrific if Pink Floyd played Iran?
I don’t mean to disrespect Islam, or Iran’s extraordinary architecture. I just think Roger Waters would be impressed by the Iranian people. It’s important that public people like Roger Waters follow in the footsteps of Rick Steves and put the lie to the relentless bad press Iran gets in the US and elsewhere.
Do it, Roger Waters. You won’t be sorry. contact Prof. Marandi — you always wanted to be the warm up act for Pink Floyd, didn’t you, Prof Marand?!!
“Plop plop fizz fizz.. oh what a relief it is!” Alka Seltzer
Obama creates indefinite detention system for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay
“President Obama signed an executive order Monday that will create a formal system of indefinite detention for those held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who continue to pose a significant threat to national security. The administration also said it will start new military commission trials for detainees there. “
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/07/AR2011030704871.html?hpid=topnews
Pirouz:
Your link is nothing more than a pronouncement from the rebels (quoted below). Unsubstantiated allegations, extremely biased source — I’ve read enough of that sort of thing already. I’m just wondering whether it’s true.
Some people accept all this on faith, just as Pak and Scott Lucas and many others accept criticism of Iran on faith. I don’t. It may be true; it may not be. Richard cited, as a serious source, some guy who estimates that Gaddafi has “spent, spent, spent” somewhere between $250 billion and $1 trillion. Some readers may find that assertion good enough (and, for one reason or another, are not troubled by the $750 billion difference in his high/low estimates), but I don’t. I’m surprised you do.
Here’s what appears at the link you cited:
The Council’s statement
In this important historical juncture which Libya is passing through right now, we find ourselves at a turning point with only two solutions. Either we achieve freedom and race to catch up with humanity and world developments, or we are shackled and enslaved under the feet of the tyrant Mu’ammar Gaddafi where we shall live in the midst of history. From this junction came the announcement of the Transitional National Council, a step on the road to liberate every part of the Libyan lands from Aamsaad in the east to Raas Ajdair in the west, and from Sirte in the north to Gatrun in the south. To liberate Libya from the hands of the tyrant Mu’ammar Gaddafi who made lawful to himself the exploitation of his people and the wealth of this country. The number of martyrs and wounded and the extreme use of excessive force and mercenaries against his own people requires us to take the initiative and work on the Liberalization of Libya from such insanities.
To reach this goal, the Transitional National Council announced its official establishment on 5th March 2011 in the city of Benghazi, stating its perseverance towards the aim of relocating its headquarters to our capital and bride of the Mediterranean, the city of Tripoli.
To connect with our people at home and abroad, and to deliver our voice to the outside world, we have decided to establish this website as the official window of communication via the world wide web.
May peace and God’s mercy and blessings be upon you
Long live Libya free and dignified
END OF QUOTATION.
James Canning says:
March 7, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Unknown Unknowns,
Are you arguing that if even 150 countries vote for a UN resolution, this vote would not represent the “international community”? What in your view does constitute the “international community” when the matter to hand is diplomacy?
James: perhaps the issue is definitional. My take is that inter-national relations have yet to reach a level whereby they can properly be described as communal. As the late great iconoclast Frank Zappa once said (of the US), “We don’t have society, what we have is a colony of animals.”
But then again, maybe I have not understood your question.
And here is a thread from another military forum containing a wealth of photos and videos on the Libyan conflict, MilitaryPhotos.net:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?195079-Libyan-Conflict-Photos-and-Videos
James Canning says: March 7, 2011 at 6:00 pm
EU supported the Junta against Islamic Salvation Front.
Did not admit Turkey into EU since its was a Muslim polity.
Supported the Christians in Lebanon against others in Lebanon in 1980s and earlier.
Supported the policy of strangulation of Gaza after 2006.
IS part of the military alliance that has threatened Islamic Iran with Death and Destruction since 2003.
Has been directly involved in providing traning and intelligence for the supression of mainly Islamic political activity in Bahrain, UAE, and Oman.
Has supported Israel: case in point: 3 submarines given to Israel for free.
EU is neutral against the religion of Islam – no doubt.
The view from Tehran: Iran’s Lebanon policy in Nasrallah’s hands
By Nadim Ladki
Daily Star staff
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
TEHRAN: Iran is a key player in Lebanon, there is no doubt about that. But if Lebanese visitors to Tehran are expecting Iranian officials to indulge in lengthy conversations over the political crisis in Lebanon and the role of their ally Hezbollah in domestic Lebanese politics then they are in for a surprise.
Government officials respond to questions about the troubled country with general, brief statements, urging the formation of a Cabinet with wide representation and expressing satisfaction with the political developments in recent weeks, namely the ousting of caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri.
They say they will work with any government that is supported by the Lebanese people and look forward to implementing economic agreements signed by Hariri himself during a visit to Iran late last year. They denounce the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) investigating the 2005 assassination of statesman Rafik Hariri and say they don’t expect an Israeli war with Lebanon soon.
“Lebanon has shown that it is on the road to political maturity,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told a group of visiting Lebanese journalists and media figures. He said Tehran backed the formation of a new government by Prime Minister-designate Najib Mikati “that represents the various sectors and political parties of the Lebanese people.”
When told that March 14 groups, who represent a large segment of Lebanese, had already announced that they would not be taking part in Mikati’s Cabinet, Mehmanparast said with a smile: “But he [Mikati] was from March 14.”
While the officials speak of the importance of the resistance in the face of Israel, they rarely discuss in detail Hezbollah’s role.
One official explained why: “The file of Lebanon is in the hands of the supreme leader [Sayyed Ali Khaminei]. And he entrusts that file to Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.”
Iran’s strategic policy in Lebanon goes through Nasrallah, who is a key figure in actually determining that policy, the official told The Daily Star.
Nasrallah is held in high esteem by the Iranian top brass and their supporters. At a ceremony marking the anniversary of the death of the founder of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini last June, government supporters stopped Khomeini’s reformist grandson, Hassan Khomeini, from delivering a speech.
“You are not Khomeini’s son,” they chanted. “Hassan Nasrallah is Khomeini’s son.”
An Iranian analyst said the regime and its supporters see Hezbollah as an extension of the Islamic Republic, a powerful and reliable ally. But the Iranian opposition say Iran was wasting badly needed financial resources on Hezbollah at a time of economic hardship back home.
Asked what sort of help Iran was providing the Lebanese group, the analyst pointed to reconstruction projects in Lebanon after the 2006 war with Israel. Pressed on military help, the analyst said: “Iran did not give Hezbollah a fish. It taught it fishing.”
Iranian officials’ stand on the STL echoes that of Hezbollah. They see it as “a conspiracy” against the group and reiterate that Iran will reject it and its finding.
The tribunal is set to charge members of the group in the assassination.
“This trend and this movement by the Tribunal [toward] indicting Hezbollah [members] is a conspiracy,” Mehmanparast said.
“Lebanon through its parties and people must be alert and not get dragged into strife [by the indictment],” he said.
Mehmanparast said it was unlikely that Israel would strike against Hezbollah soon. “Israel doesn’t see that the circumstances are appropriate for military operations because it knows it would be met with a strong response,” he said, explaining that with the fall of the regime in Egypt it was difficult for Israel to attack Lebanon or Gaza.
“If Egypt is not on its side, Israel can’t launch a war,” the spokesman said.
Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=125730#ixzz1FyNQEhOh
For folks interested in the military side of this conflict, here is the newest page of a thread on one of the leading military forums, ACIG.org:
http://www.s188567700.online.de/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6658&start=135
And here are maps of rebel/loyalist positions and battles:
http://ntclibya.org/english/map-of-revolution/
Hope this helps.
Eric,
Maybe this will help:
http://ntclibya.org/english/
James Canning says: March 7, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Iran benefits not from NPT.
I am not even sure UN membership is worth that much any more to Iran.
Fiorangela,
“Eric — based on the historical background in the Virtual Library link that you posted, Libyans are faring less badly than most of the other Arab states.”
Maybe so. But if not, part of the explanation may be that the US has been making life rather difficult for Libya for the past several decades. Since Castro came to power in Cuba over 50 years ago, the US has prohibited trade with Cuba, notably including its sugar. 90% of Cuba’s sugar exports were immediately terminated, as well as a high percentage of many other exports. Cuba suffered, an entirely predictable consequence of the US’ trade embargo that nevertheless has always been blamed on Castro.
As Arab regimes fall, Iran rises
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
As dramatic events in the Arab world continue to unfold this spring, one frequent topic bandied about by pundits is the impact of the Arab upheavals on the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The most striking impression one gets from all the chatter about Tehran is the boundless ignorance of too many of the would-be cognoscenti unspooling ready-made theories about the direct results that Tahrir (Liberation) Square will bring about in Tehran. For the most part, the political leadership and the publics of the U.S. and European nations receive their wisdom about Iran from think tanks located in the West, in articles penned by commentators sitting in Washington or London – and for the most part these authors have no idea how the institutions of the Islamic Republic function or the subtleties of the varied constituencies among Iran’s population of more than 70 million.
The truth about the Iranian regime is that it has a coherent and long-term agenda for expanding its influence throughout the region, and it pursues that agenda single-mindedly. Regardless of how one feels about the relative qualities of that influence, it must be granted that Tehran has done a remarkable job of achieving so many of its objectives in the 32 years since the clerical regime emerged – and instantly became a bogeyman to many Arab and Western countries.
In 1979 few would have imagined that the Islamic Republic would forge close ties with Turkey or the Hamas party ruling Gaza. In addition to the strategic alliance with Syria, Iran has also gained major influence in Iraq, and it plays a key role in Bahrain and Yemen, aside from its historical ties to the UAE.
In Lebanon we know the intimate relationship between Hezbollah and Iran, but no one should fall under the mistaken impression that Tehran’s sway depends solely on the Shiite faith, or even the propagation of political Islam. The Islamic Republic has significant economic interests, and it has also built its standing and alliances partly on opposition to Israel.
The Arab popular uprisings riveting the world’s attention are leading Tehran to accelerate the implementation of its agenda. If Iranian leaders feel any trepidation at the collapse of the Egyptian and Tunisian autocracies, they are hiding it well, for they continue to project confidence.
In their eyes, their only true rival is Washington; this region, they reckon, can be managed. Still, reality is that all actors here must wait and see how events develop in Egypt; Iran and Turkey were able to become regional powers partially because Cairo had languished in a coma for decades. The turmoil in Egypt could lead to Cairo again seizing a pivotal role in the region. However, any aspirant for power in the Middle East these days will have to deal first with Iran.
Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=17&article_id=125709#ixzz1FyJVY5Hm
On March 2, 2011 – Hillary Clinton told Congress that the American government was losing an information war around the world as foreign media entities continue their rise to power, explaining that the US government needed to step up propaganda efforts to promote its international objectives as the American media was becoming increasingly irrelevant.
She was defending her department’s US$50 million budget to compete with Arab Al-Jazeera, Russian RT and new Chinese Global Network.
The Islamophobe Glenn Beck, talk-show host at Zionist propaganda outlet CNN got pissed off at Hillary’s praise of the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera. He claimed on his radio show: “You have the Secretary of State of the United States of America saying you cannot get real news here in America. You can only get it from Al Jazeera and everybody knows it a propaganda arm of Islamic extremism. This is insanity”. I guess the idiot doesn’t like to admit that Al-Jazeera English is controlled by pro-Israel Jewish management. Al-Jazeera is nothing but the mouthpiece of Qatar’s ‘royals’. In the current Libyan turmoils – Al-Jazeera’s reportings are not much different than anti-Muslim CNN, BBC or FoxNews.
Russian TV channel RT, while shows courage to criticize some western policies which could have negative effects on Russia or it allies – but when it comes to Islam – it’s no different than CNN, BBC or FoxNews. How many viewers know that Anna Vasilyevna Chapman, the Jewish Russian spy who was busted along with nine others on June 27, 2010 on charges of working for the Russian intelligence agency, the SVR has her own show at Russian TV.
I am curious why Hillary Clinton did not mention the so-called ‘terrorist TV stations’, such as Lebanese Al-Manar and Iranian Press TV. Al-Manar has the second largest Arab viewers after Al-Jazeera. Al-Manar is banned in the US, Canada and several European countries.
“Regarding Al-Manar, it’s personal for Israel. The reason is that Al-Manar did to Israeli government propaganda machine (Hasbara) during and following July 2006 war what Hezbollah fighters did to Israeli troops. Al-Manar kicked butt. That station must be made to disappear. The plan is to stop 15-20 million daily viewers of Al-Manar from receiving its transmission and well as to intimidate all the other Middle East TV channels that are suspected of moving toward the growing “Culture of Resistance” spreading in the Middle East from Lebanon,” A Washington DC observer of how Israel controls the US Congress 12/9/09.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/hillary-us-is-losing-propaganda-war/
James Canning: “Is Italy a “decaying empire”?”
On this, I have to second RSH who says: “Italy is a DEAD empire — has been since WWII — or before.”
I am reminded of a line by an Italian man speaking with Yosarian in the book/movie “Catch 22″. He says, and I am paraphrasing here, the best thing that could/would happen to Italy is a defeat, a major defeat. Then we can get on with building our country. Which, they have done for the most part, along with some of the most exquisite cuisine on earth.
To those who engage trolls,
You are really not setting the record straight with them. Again and again they try to hijack every thread. Silence is the best way to treat these fools (javaab-e ahmaghaan khaamooshist). For as long as this site reads from bottom up, you could put a disclaimer (cut & paste) like below for that casual lurker(apologies to Eric who appears below):
——****** Reader Beware, what appears immediately below is pure propaganda!****–
——————–****** Read at your own peril. ***—————
Richard,
“A quick Google gives this from the Indian Express…”
I’ve done all the Google searches, and find them unpersuasive. Most often, they fail to distinguish Gaddafi from the Libyan government or its sovereign wealth fund, or from his son’s foundation. Others just strike me as speculation, particularly those that assert Gaddafi’s salted away billions of dollars in US banks (please — at least give the guy credit for a triple-digit IQ).
At least two of his sons are alleged to be very wealthy, and I’m persuaded by what I’ve read that they indeed are very wealthy. I’m also willing to believe that they’ve “traded” on the family name to achieve their wealth (as do other politicians’ sons, all over the world, including here in the good old USA). But I’ve not read credible allegations that they’ve actually acted dishonestly or that Gaddafi himself has been involved in their transactions. Maybe these and other bad things have happened, but all I’ve read are just the usual gossip-column mud-slinging, not evidence.
People say a lot of bad things about Iran too, and many people on this website take those allegations with a large grain of salt. Why not the same large grain of salt for allegations about Gaddafi?
nahid says:
March 7, 2011 at 10:01 am
همونطور که قبلا هم اینجا گفتم نمی دونم چطوریه که هر چی زمان می گذره ارادتم به عمو محمود بیشتر می شه!
محمود دوست داریم!
Pirouz,
“Eric, people are just tired of [Gaddafi]. I lived in Tehran for a year just preceding the revolution. After decades of this wannabe-cult figure indulging himself in self-serving whims, with a super corrupt family, people were livid.”
Maybe that’s it, but are you sure most people feel that way in Libya, or just a small minority? I don’t know the answer to that question, but I don’t think the mere fact of rebellion by a few thousand people, out of six million total, is its own justification.
I understand you were “sick of” the Shah, and I would have been too, but is that really all it takes? What if some people in Iran — Pak, for example — tell you they’re sick of Iran’s current government and thousands of them march through downtown Tehran shouting “Death to Khamenei?” Good enough for you? Good enough for the US to declare a “no fly” zone over Iran, maybe bomb a few runways and military bases?
Or would you try to figure out whether those protesters reflect the prevalent view of their government?
Has it occurred to anyone else that the “Arabs oppressing Arabs” focus of the Western press over the past several months has drawn a great deal of attention away from a certain other government that does a little Arab-oppressing of its own? Not to minimize Gaddafi’s misconduct toward his people (once I figure out exactly what it is), but — speaking of Arab-oppressing as we are — isn’t the worst Arab-oppressing government of them all getting a bit of a free pass here?
Eric, people are just tired of it.
I lived in Tehran for a year just preceding the revolution. After decades of this wannabe-cult figure indulging himself in self-serving whims, with a super corrupt family, people were livid.
Present day Iran isn’t perfect. But at least they have different branches of government which are either directly or indirectly representative. You don’t see Khamenei wearing outlandish military uniforms or sporting a personal nurse with big jugs. And you don’t see Ahmadinejad in a private jet on his way to vacation on the French Riviera.
There will be a new president in two years and new MPs next year. There will also be a vote on Khamenei. Some people might not be satisfied with this form of republic and representation but the public opinion polls consistently show them to be a minority by at least 1:3.
Speaking as an American living in Shah-era Tehran, I can tell you I was appalled by the poverty I saw and by the contemptible leader atop it all.
I can’t say for sure but it sure looks like a lot of Libyans are feeling the same way.
Richard and BiBiJon,
Richard:
“Does it matter if Gaddafi soaked away $1 billion – or $500 million? Or $10 million? What’s your definition of “living frugally” in this instance?”
$0. I’m asking whether there’s reason to believe the number is higher than that.
Richard:
“If you’re trying to find out what the Libyan’s complaints are, well, ask them.”
Usually they volunteer that information. Other than vague allegations about billions of dollars salted away, this time they haven’t (unless I’ve just missed it). That’s why I’m asking.
BiBiJon:
“Qaddafi is a ruthless dictator whose every whim was the law.”
That explains it well enough, I guess. I was hoping for some detail, but I’ll take your word for it.
Eric A. Brill says:
March 7, 2011 at 6:51 pm
Qaddafi is a ruthless dictator whose every whim was the law.
I posted Lynch’s piece as a reponse to the question: what is specific about Libya. I agree with Lynch that country-specific issues are irrelevant in what is engulfing the ME. I quote again:
The greatest structural change of the last two months is not the fall of Mubarak but the region-wide empowerment of Arab publics. All of this is playing out in a unified political space, shaped primarily by al-Jazeera and social media and by the demand by Arabs of all stripes to now be heard and felt. That means that the whole idea of “diffusion” or “contagion” from one country to another is misguided — from the perspective of Arab publics, this is all a single story of challenge and revolt in which all are involved. Yemenis don’t watch Tunisia as spectators but as participants, and al-Jazeera shows five-way split screens of simultaneous protests in different Arab cities. I see Saudi Arabia as particularly vulnerable, but nothing would really surprise me — not Syria, not Jordan, not Kuwait. OK, maybe Qatar.
End Quote
Put another way, analogous to Eastern Europe in late 80s, did it really matter what specifically had various communist leaders done to their respective countries? All that seemed to matter is that none had legitimacy in the eyes of their populations who rose as East Europeans. People had to confront their local henchmen, but their struggle did not have local routs per se. But surely it would have made no sense then, or reprospectively now, to talk about the pecularities of one country that distinguished her from another.
The Arab people have woken up and want to have nothing to do with world order that was imposed on them in the 1940s and 50s. They will root for one another, and celebrate each victory as their own.
Me thinks.
Ed Koch: ‘Afghanistan is not a country’
“I don’t believe that we should fight them the way they want us to fight them. I believe we should bomb them with drones. Afghanistan – it’s not a country,” Edward Irving Koch 86, former Jewish-gay Congressman (D-NY, 1969-77) and Mayor of New York city (1978-89) tells in an interview with Andrew Marantz, published in Jewish magazine Tablet, March 4, 2011.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/ed-koch-afghanistan-is-not-a-country/
A quick Google gives this from the Indian Express:
Quote
Libyan despot Muammar Gaddafi has spread his wealth, estimated to run into hundreds of billions of dollars across at least 35 nations on four continents, as Western bankers attempt to unravel his financial tentacles.
His bizarre mix of investments range from luxury real estate and publishing companies in Britain to hotels in the Middle East and a prized stake in Italy’s famed Juventus football franchise, the CNN reported.
These, the channel said, were his well-known investments, but the Libyan strongman in recent years has turned away from the West and is believed to have poured hundreds of billions of dollars in unstable African nations, with reports that Gaddafi even holds a major stake in a Zimbabwe’s giant commercial bank.
All these come on top of billions of dollars that Libya has stashed away in the United States’ largest and most influential investment banks.
Libya and its maverick leader are sitting on huge stockpiles of cash dollars and according to Western estimates they are using this money to hire mercenaries from North Africa to keep the dictator in power.
The CNN said when UN lifted its economic sanctions on Libya in 2003, Gaddafi and his financial experts created a sovereign wealth fund, which today ranks among the world’s largest and reported to be worth USD 60 billion.
Compiling details of Gaddafi’s assets, the CNN said that the Libyan leader had about USD 32 billion in liquidity stored in US banks and in nearby Canada, his investments include taking over a oil-rig company Verenex Energy for USD 320 million.
The American channel said the Libyan dictator’s assets in Italy included stake in oil giant Eni, defence company Finmeccanica and UniCredit, Italy’s largest bank.
The Libyans also have 7.5 per cent stake in Juventus.
The American and European bankers and financial experts say that they have only touched the tip of the iceberg as they believe that his major investments are held through proxy names.
End Quote
Seems credible to me.
And from the Independent comes this piece from 2009:
Quote
Ian Birrell: Warning: it is dangerous to get too close to Gaddafi
Amid the fading grandeur of Tripoli sits one of the world’s best museums, offering a glimpse into Libya’s astonishing heritage. Alongside ancient rock carvings and vivid Roman mosaics, there is a collection of artefacts paying tribute to the nation’s ruler: a sky-blue VW Beetle in which the Great Leader stirred up protest against King Idris in 1969, plus paintings, statues and documents proclaiming his glory.
Three “secret” policemen were sitting on a sofa in a roped-off area when I visited, for all the world like some contemporary artistic installation. They were there to stop treacherous comments, but as I wandered past a bronze statue of Muammar Gaddafi on a horse, a local whispered sarcastically in my ear: “Another Caesar, just for us, eh?”
There is no doubt that Gaddafi is a deeply unpopular leader, a repressive autocrat rightly blamed by many Libyans for the stagnation of the country despite its massive oil wealth. But as we debate whether it was right to hand back the Lockerbie bomber, a more fundamental question is ignored: the wisdom of cosying up too close to this desert despot.
There is a story Libyans tell of a Dubai prince who visited soon after Gaddafi seized power. Looking around at the dazzling wealth, he vowed that one day his nation would be as rich and successful. Now Libyans lives in the shadow of those skyscraper city-states, where, for all their faults, the rulers at least ensure their people have superb public services.
In Libya, by contrast, the infrastructure is crumbling, poverty is endemic, power cuts a way of life. Educational standards are poor, wages low and unemployment, especially among the young, is high. All this in a country where, although the population has grown fast, there are still only 6 million people sitting on huge reserves of some of the world’s best crude oil.
Gaddafi is like a pools winner, who has spent, spent, spent a fortune – some say $250bn, others $1trillion – of oil money, much of it blown on vainglorious ventures. It is easy to dismiss him as a clown, with the batty badges, the crazy costumes, the female bodyguards. But he is a brilliant political operator, as one would expect of a man who seized power in his twenties and has clung on to it for four decades. He devised a bewildering form of government that claims to be a unique form of direct democracy but, in reality, places him at the heart of everything, supported by his security machine – the one part of state apparatus that works. The military has been purged, Islamic fundamentalists crushed, opponents executed and rivals played off against each other.
Now, of course, he has come in from the cold, renouncing his bad old ways as a global revolutionary and abandoning his quest to build weapons of mass destruction to become the poster boy for the war on terror. This suits him, because he needs Western support and money to help repair his country and its oil industry. And it suits us, because we need friends in the region and, of course, access to those vast oil reserves. All of which makes perfect sense for both sides.
Except for two things. Firstly, as we have seen in recent days, Gaddafi does not play by the normal rules of diplomacy. To say he is quixotic does a disservice to Cervantes. He has been a disruptive influence on the African Union since, rejected by the Arab world, he decided to become leader of Africa, and he is a dangerous figurehead to ally ourselves with in the region.
More fundamentally, Gaddafi is 67 years old. What happens when he is not there to pull all the strings? Libyans, infuriated by their impoverishment, know what life is like outside their borders and are fortified by the expectation of change when he dies. But the old guard will want to cling on to their corrupt ways. A younger generation – the last one educated abroad – want reform. One of Gaddafi’s sons tours the world as the voice of reconciliation while another is national security adviser. And the military and security forces lurk in the shadows. It is a combustible legacy.
Western diplomats make soothing noises, pointing to disunity of opposition forces and arguing that whoever wins power has too much to lose by abandoning rapprochement. But Russia is making overtures, China waits in the wings. There is muttering among Libyans of typical Western hypocrisy in doing deals with the dictator, tribal divisions remain and Arab nationalism remains a powerful force.
An army of workers is clearing rubbish, resurfacing roads and planting palm trees along Tripoli’s waterfront in preparation to celebrate Gaddafi’s 40 years in power. Dozens of heads of state will pay homage, many with an eye on that oil wealth. Britain has led the way in welcoming Gaddafi back into the international fold, anticipating huge dividends. But we should be wary of hugging him too close. As the furore over the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi shows, the only certainty when dealing with Gaddafi is that nothing is certain.
i.birrell@independent.co.uk
End Quote
Eric: If Gaddafi didn’t hide a ton a money, he has to be one of the most moronic dictators in history.
The claims for Mubarak’s wealth were equally incredible, but I see no reason to doubt them. And even if I did, so what? Does it matter if Mubarak soaked away $40 billion – or $1 billion?
Does it matter if Gaddafi soaked away $1 billion – or $500 million? Or $10 million? What’s your definition of “living frugally” in this instance?
The US President gets, what, a couple hundred thousand a year? Of course, they make much more on the side and they have no expenses, so that works out pretty good. But compared to any dictator, it’s chump change. Dick Cheney took a huge pay cut becoming VP – but of course he hid his stock holdings, IIRC.
If you’re arguing that Libyans aren’t solely pissed about Gaddafi’s wealth vs their own, well, all I can say is, duh. I’m sure the range of complaints about the government is massive, and includes Gaddafi’s relations with the US as BiBiJon’s Marc Lynch post indicates is common across the uprisings.
If you’re trying to find out what the Libyan’s complaints are, well, ask them. Don’t ask us. That was a common mistake made by the media all during the Egyptian revolt. My guess is, if you could stir up the US population, plenty of complaints would surface across a wide spectrum.
People generally don’t like their government even as they continue to believe they need one. This is no surprise to an anarchist. It’s human history.
I’ll add a point about Lucas.
Some people think engaging Lucas is worth while because it will educate the “lurkers” on this site.
In my view, NOT engaging Lucas communicates quite well to the lurkers what we think of him and his contentless, hits leeching posts.
More importantly, the lurkers can make up their own minds whether his posts are worth anything, just as they will from all the posts here.
If the regulars here simply post articles like the LA Times piece, it will do more to educate the lurkers than any direct engaging of the Lucas troll.
There is an article going around the Net about using “cognitive therapy” to deal with trolls. The notion is that if you engage them calmly and ask them what their “real motivations” are, and suggest that they have more agreement with you than they think, that eventually they will moderate their behavior.
I am extremely skeptical of this approach. It might work on someone like Pak who appears to be just another ignorant student. But one thing I’m quite sure of is that trolls who are “astroturfers” or “hasbara” or “hits leechers” (like Lucas) aren’t going to modify their behavior under any circumstances. So engaging them really is a waste of time.
Other than what appears to be gossipy speculation in a couple of Wikileaks cables (consider the source), some unsubstantiated (and occasionally outlandish) allegations that Gaddafi has “secretly” stashed as much as $32 billion in US banks (which, if true, means he should be deposed for being very stupid), and complaints that a couple of his sons have become rich by exploiting the Gaddafi name but not dishonestly (quite possibly true, but George W. Bush wasn’t allowed to invest in the Texas Rangers baseball team because the other investors liked his smile), I’ve yet to see any credible evidence that Gaddafi has abused his position.
My understanding is that the guy lives quite frugally. While he spends Libya’s money freely to support numerous foreign organizations — sometimes wisely, sometimes not — I see no reason yet to suspect he personally benefits from any of those expenditures.
Can someone point me in the direction of some credible evidence?
Mr. Canning: “I see the primary issue as putting Israel on notice that it cannot change the borders of Palestine by growing illegal colonies of Jews in the West Bank.”
I note two things. First, the declaration and even recognition by anyone of Palestine as an “independent state” is not going to change Israel’s actual on the ground actions. “Putting on notice” is irrelevant if no one is going to back it up with either sanctions, blockades or military action against Israel for continuing to do so. And that’s not going to happen.
Second, the diversion of the real issues of the situation from Israel’s illegal status and actions for fifty years to the side issue of the settlements is one of Israel’s great victories. Israel has managed to pin the argument down to whether it gets to set up another 20,000 people on Palestinian territory rather than the fact that it doesn’t belong ANYWHERE on Palestinian territory. And as long as the US supports Israel in the UN and on the ground with money and weapons, this is not going to change.
Its not going to be effective to try to “chip away” at Israel’s settlements. Look how successful Obama was in even getting a ninety day extension on a freeze! It was a joke in all respects! Even if the UNSC wants to recognize Palestine as an independent state, the US will just veto it!
The whole thing is a farce. So you’re being completely unrealistic with your policy prescriptions.
The ONLY thing which will alter Israel’s course is a direct and overwhelming economic or military threat by someone capable of carrying out that threat. Which means either the EU in concert with the rest of the international community – or the US. And neither is likely.
Eric — based on the historical background in the Virtual Library link that you posted, Libyans are faring less badly than most of the other Arab states.
It’s sad that MSM has provided so little of honest background reporting on how the various states in the region got into the situations they are in. Even the Foreign Policy report on Libya’s relationship with Italy was a bit embarrassingly thin. Perhaps facts would get in the way of certain agendas? The pollyanna in me wants to believe that the American people would prefer to do the honest and right thing, rather than the short-term gratifying thing.
Mr. Canning: “Are you arguing that the Israeli response to a missile fired from the West Bank, against a target within Israel proper (1967 borders), would be more robust if Palestine has been recognised as independent by most of the world’s countries?”
I think my post was quite clear as to what I expect.
Please refrain from rephrasing my posts.
Quote my post, then address your concerns, please.
I am explicitly saying that if Palestine conducts itself as a state instead of an occupied territory, regardless of who does or does not “recognize” it (as long as actual serious military support is not forthcoming), Israel will use the excuse that Palestine is a “sovereign state” to destroy Palestine worse than the last time if anyone in Palestine attacks Israel in any way, shape or form. And Israel will cite international law allowing it to do so.
Is that clear enough?
I have no idea why you’re raising the Balkans as an issue.
James,
The letter you mentioned sheds very little light on the question.
“Many rebels apparently object to the riches the Gaddafi clan have amassed.”
Every ruling group is alleged to have amassed riches, and I understand that the foundation run by Gaddafi’s son is well-funded. But is Gaddafi or his family alleged to be living high on the hog?
David Frum is calling for the US to intervene in Libya. This alone is a strong case for not doing so.
fyi,
Iran benefits from being a signatory to the NPT and thereby keeps the moral high ground regarding its nuclear programme.
Irshad,
Russia wants good relations with Iran, and has wanted good relations with Iran for years now.
Is India “frozen out” of Afghanistan? Not very likely.
I agree it was a good thing for Iran to send the two ships to Lebanon and back.
By Marc Lynch
http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/07/taking_stock_of_the_arab_revolutions
The greatest structural change of the last two months is not the fall of Mubarak but the region-wide empowerment of Arab publics. All of this is playing out in a unified political space, shaped primarily by al-Jazeera and social media and by the demand by Arabs of all stripes to now be heard and felt. That means that the whole idea of “diffusion” or “contagion” from one country to another is misguided — from the perspective of Arab publics, this is all a single story of challenge and revolt in which all are involved. Yemenis don’t watch Tunisia as spectators but as participants, and al-Jazeera shows five-way split screens of simultaneous protests in different Arab cities. I see Saudi Arabia as particularly vulnerable, but nothing would really surprise me — not Syria, not Jordan, not Kuwait. OK, maybe Qatar.
…
But what is not uncertain is that even where existing regimes survive, they will be far more attentive to the views of these newly empowered publics.
That has real consequences for U.S. policy towards Israel, towards Iran, and across the region. We should not fool ourselves into believing the common refrain that these revolts are not about the United States. Foreign policy is not the driver or the main slogan of the protests, but the foreign policy of these regimes is an organic part of the wider critique of their incompetence and failure. The al-Jazeera narrative criticizing the Arab order has always equated domestic repression with a foreign policy subordinated to the U.S. and Israel. The empowered Arab public really does care about Palestinians, even if their leaders didn’t much, and is far less enthusiastic about confronting Iran. If Obama tries to align the U.S. with these other aspirations but avoids Palestine or other foreign policy issues, he will fall on deaf ears. But while I’m skeptical of a grand new peace initiative right now in such turbulent conditions, it’s worth pointing out that the current upheavals strongly suggest that the Israeli-Palestinian status quo, which seems so comfortable for many involved, is just as unsustainable as the status quo of Arab authoritarian regimes.
Eric,
The Financial Times today has an excellent letter from a Brit who lived in Libya in the late 1960s and was very well aware of the antagonistic feelings many people in Cyrenaica had toward the people of Tripolitania. The writer suggests that King Idris’ plan to move the capital from Tripoli to Benghazi (or new city nearby) helped to trigger the coup that overthrew the monarchy.
Many rebels apparently object to the riches the Gaddafi clan have amassed.
Eric, just a guess but I venture to guess a lot of folks are just plain sick and tired of having a silly leader for 40 some odd years. I mean, even the British got tired of Margaret Thatcher after 11 years.
fyi,
In what way is the EU “against Islam”? Because France objects to the admission of Turkey into the EU?
Maybe I’ve simply not looked hard enough, but can anyone tell me exactly what the Libyan rebels are complaining about, and what they propose to do differently — or even whom they purport to represent?
Irshad says: March 7, 2011 at 5:31 pm
They are a rising economic power but not diplomatic or military.
They have been rebuilding their navy to be able to traverse oceans for the last 20 years – much to the concern of Australians.
They are unable to perform combined operations.
Diplomatically, Brazil, with 1/10 of the population of India, is more significant than her.
Let us ee what happens a few years down the road.
Irshad says: March 7, 2011 at 5:31 pm
I think it will be a good idea to develop ECO to the fullest extent possible. I think the former West European Common Market could be a useful template for the member states of ECO.
Visa-free travel, efficient roads and rail-road links, cross-border energy transport, and removal of tariffs will have the most direct and lasting effect on the livelihood of ordinary people on that part of the world.
Geopolitics, beyond issues of immediate security, is not going to benefit ECO member states.
@pirouz – sorry I meant to have said, Russia told Isreal that it will be supplying the anti-ship missles to Syria. (which I am sure will find its way to Iran)
@Pirouz – well the Russians could have decided NOT to have release the plane due to “UN sanctions”. – They did. I think the Russians, after losing the $4billion weapons sale to Gaddafy, will be desperate to to keep their armamenet industry running and with Egypt still unstable, the Algerians, angry/upset at been sold rubbish planes, will force them to start offering weapons to Iran. This will be due to economic necessity – see how they have told Isreal that they will be supplying supersonic anti-ship missles with range of 300km – something Isrealis not happy about.
@fyi – thank you for informing me about the meeting between Iran and India – they are locked out of ME but still claim to be a rising power! I personally see Iran working closely with Pakistan and China to counter balance India.
Maybe allowing China to have docking rights for her warships in a Iranian port will cause a political earthquake for both India and the axis powers.
Any updates regarding Iran presidents visiting Riyadh.
سادوونیکوف در گفتگو با مهر:
نیروگاه بوشهر فقط یک سمبل نیست/ ما این پروژه را به پایان می رسانیم
http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1243983
Irshad says: March 7, 2011 at 4:43 pm
Russia, China, India have very little in the Middle East.
I think Chinese have influence in Indonesia and in Malaysia.
I also think, as you have observed, India is locked out of Islamic World; her deputy-US aspirations notwithstanding.
The course of events among the Arabs is diminishing the influence of the Axis powers and with it those who bet on the Axis powers.
When the Axis powers of the West were facing the Axis powers of the East during the cold war, they had a positive program for the East: consumerism, democracy, freedoms of press, association, religion, travel, etc.
The Axis Powers in the Middle East have no positive program. Consider:
They are against Islam.
They are champions of Israel.
They are for democracy when it suits them and against it otherwise.
They have nothing concrete in terms of economic development to offer.
They have nothing concrete in terms of technical/scientific development to offer (except in the case of Iran whereby they offered to teach Iranians how to use their excrement for agriculture, in a way that it would not affect the delicate ecological balance of the Iranian desert (1/3 of the country) if they stopped their indigenous nuclear development work).
And when things do not go their way, they are ready for yet another war against another Muslim state.
I think India should be quite happy to be locked out of the Middle East; at least she will not be associated, at this time, with the disasters of the Axis Powers. Likewise for Russia.
On a less rhetorical plane: the Indian National Security Advisor and the Secretary of the Iranian National Security Council met in Tehran yesterday to discuss several regional development. I would not read much into it, however. Just an exchange of views with the Indians trying to assess if there is any scope of working with Iran on Afghanistan and in Central Asia.
That will not happen however. India is not worth that much to Iran any longer.
Irshad,
Not sure about that claim. Last September there was an IRGCAF IL-76TD returned to service after one year by acquisition of an engine formerly belonging to a commercial carrier IL-76TD (Yas Air).
That particular IL-76 was among the “gifts” sent over by Saddam back in ‘91.
@fyi – yes I agree with you that todays “fringe group” will be needed to rehabilitate the Judai-Zionist warriors of Isreal.
Also, whats your views in regards to India, re-thinking its alliance with USA due to the current upheavel in the Middle East, and the relative stability of Iran (lets ignore Scot Lucas claims of millions protesting in Tehran for a minute!) and the resistance-axis, whilst USA current allies face uprisings and revolts?
They have been frozen out of Central Asia and Afghanistan, are they really desiring to be frozen out of the greater Middle East, especially with high oil prices and worries of oil supplies (they only recently paid Iran $2.08billion to Iran for backdated payment for oil imports and still havent decided how to make future payments).
I think the Russians have seen their impotence in the Middle East, clearly as a result of the Arab uprisings and have been shown to be wanting. I am sure there will be policy makers in the kremlin arguing for a re-set of relations with iran (I read somewhere else that Russia recently upgraded and re-painted Il-76 military transport planes belonging to the IRGC). This will further be strentgthened, if the link you posted that the president of Iran is due in Saudi Arabia, along with that of Turkey, Sudan, and Syria in the coming days.
Also, well done to the Iranian ships from the mission to Syria and re-crossing the Suez heading back to base.
http://qifanabki.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/iran-mastercard-qifanabki2.jpg
Scott,
When is the next protest you are hoping takes place: will it be tomorrow or Thursday?
Btw, are your friends also planning a protest to coincide with Chaharshanbe Soori?
What about on Islamic Republic Day?
Reza
That sample of opinions provided by the LA Times is non-scientific.
But I did find it interesting that one of the respondents claimed that buses were used to transport arrestees. I have seen NAJA marked buses parked alongside deployed policemen at the drill taking place after 25 Bahman but I’ve yet to see a video depicting its use in transporting arrestees. A future video of such would confirm this practice.
Matt says: March 7, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Thank you for your comments.
Russia and the United States are playing with Bushehr at their own risk.
Both have a lot to loose; specially if Iranians start whispering that Russians have deliberately sabotaged that station. It would be not only the death of Russia’s hope of ever becoming a reliable global supplier, but it would almost certainly be the death of NPT.
Now I suspect that very many of those who go by the name of strategist among the Axis powers think nothing of any of this; they are so against Iranian power that they are willing to castrate themselves if that would advance their anti Iran agenda, but I also suspect that there is a minority who has realized the steep price the Axis powers have paid in opposing Islamic Iran.
Paradoxically, the delay in the announcement that Bushehr is yet again delayed – this time indefinietly – is helpfull to Iran. It keeps Iran in NPT (there will be no overt reason to opt out) while Iran completes her other nuclear projects.
Once further delays in Bushehr are announced, Iran could opt out of NPT, stating repeated “betrayals” by Russia and “sabotage” by other powers in its civilian nuclear program.
Should the Axis powers have militarily intervened in Libya and are stuck there in a fractured civil war like Iraq or Somalia, Iran will be in the best position to leave NPT.
As I said before, it is in the interest of the Axis powers, US, China, and India for Iran to stay in NPT. [Iran, at the moment, is not getting anything out of NPT.] It then stands to reason the P5+1 should fly to Tehran, on their knees and with their cheque books, begging Iranians to stay within NPT.
Liz says: March 7, 2011 at 3:36 pm
There is a political problem in Islamic Iran; there are disenfrachised people who are quite angry about that and about the way they are governed. Their perception is that the Guardian Council has been interefeing in the elections process in Iran for 25 years with its dirty tricks (eventhough perhaps legal).
This group of people, at the moment, are clearly confined to the less-religious and to the Persian speakers. But that may not remain so.
I personally do not think that this group will ever be able to overthrow the present constitutional order in Iran; for that many more things have to occur such as complete eradication of support of the Shia Doctors of Religion for the Islamic order in Iran.
As long as the ruling circles insist on With-Us and Not-With-Us and continue disenfranchising this group, this problem will persist – a kind of head-ache.
Interstingly, Ahmadinejad has moved himself away from a strictly religious position into a Nationalist-Religious position. Others have noticed that in Iran and went after him but could not get traction against him. Even Khamenei is moving away from an exclusive Islamic point-of-view.
fyi says:
March 7, 2011 at 9:22 am
Points well taken in regards to Russia’s need to complete the project at Bushehr in order to maintain a credible reputation for future projects. However, one does have to at least entertain the suspicion that there may be more ’sinister’ motives at work, as Bhadrakumar hints at in his important new article on Libya which you have already posted:
“Clearly, Obama’s “reset” with Moscow is coming into play. Obama has successfully pandered to Russian demands to be treated as an “equal power”. Now, there could even be more US-Russia tradeoffs in the coming months in the wake of the Middle East crisis. Iranians already voice disquiet that Moscow is again playing hide-and-seek on the commissioning of the Bushehr nuclear power plant.” (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC08Ak02.html)
Similar to your comment that the Bushrer project is the “only anchor that keeps Iran in NPT”, Dr. Afrasiabi recently speculated that the Ahmadinejad government might be obliged to hasten the achievements of the domestic nuclear program if it becomes clear that the Russians have capitulated to Washington once again and the delays are stretched to a timeline of a couple years (in this article, Afrasiabi seems to attribute any possible delay to technical issues; however, I believe his point stands in the context of Russian deceit, perhaps even more so):
“If the setbacks at Bushehr continue, Tehran is likely to compensate for the deficit at that level by showcasing more progress on other levels. There is, in other words, a direct correlation between two that has evaded Western attention so far, but will likely become more and more pronounced in the coming months, particularly if the marathon delay at Bushehr continues” (:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC01Ak02.html).
M.Ali,
Don’t worry about Scott Lucas. He is well fed and funded by people in power.
The LA Times is completely green, but even they have no choice but to admit that things aren’t going well.
I dont want to feed the troll, but Scott’s comments are an insult to Truth and 70 million Iranians.
Scott, do you still claim to be none biased?
“There is a range of views on whether the opposition protests are building”
There is no range of views on that. Not one of them claim the protests are building, dont twist your report. The closest I can find to claiming the protests are “building” might be the first one which says, “The demonstrations will be escalating if the suppressive militia lets up and is a bit lenient.” but even that is a stretch, because he is basically says ITS NOT BUILDING. On the other hand, several of them directly says it is diminishing.
“and whether the challenge has gone beyond figures such as Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi,”
Its not that they are claiming the challenge has gone beyond them, but that people are distancing themselves from them.
Mohammed “I think the people who voted for Mousavi and Karroubi are distancing themselves from them”
Hamid “People like me think that it is not worthy to take to the streets and be beaten up or arrested or killed for the sake of Mehdi Karroubi and Mir-Hossein Mousavi and ex-President Mohammad Khatami. ”
Javad “People who were among the 13 million who voted for Mousavi are now disillusioned and are realizing the ill intentions of the sedition leaders”
Mehdi “Some friends who were supporters of and voted for Mousavi and Karroubi are now distancing themselves from them”
The only one that could somehow support your statement is “I was in the demonstration on March 1 but not for Mousavi or Karroubi.”
“with comments such as ‘we are subversive’ and ‘we need militant groups’.”
Why not highlight comments such as,
“Mousavi and Karroubi have used their supporters as a bridge to reach to their goals. Now people are realizing the reality.”
“I am pessimistic, and the demonstrations seem to be diminishing in size”
“The demonstrations are shrinking in size and number, ”
“England, the U.S. and Israel are behind the sedition. ”
“In short, the majority of Iranian society is religious, and those who want to raise the banner of secularism and separation of state from the mosque are mistaken, and that is why I think the sedition or green movement or whatever you call it is diminishing. ”
“But on Feb. 20 and March 1, the wooing and lulling techniques failed”
Why not mention those instead of some 24 year old student who says “We are subversive.” and some 54 year old bookseller who wants a military option in a way to make a casual reader assume thats the main highlight of the article.
” But while there is division on those important questions, seven of the nine respondents are united by the perception of discontent — and thus the likely continuation of some form of resistance — within Iran.”
How about other numbers?
6 out of 7 didnt go to the protests.
5 out of 7 believe the protests are diminishing
7 out of 7 arent behind M&K
6 out of 7 certainly dont seem to be attending future protests
A more precise summary of the 9 interviews in the LA Times:
“There is a range of views on whether the opposition protests are building and whether the challenge has gone beyond figures such as Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, with comments such as ‘we are subversive’ and ‘we need militant groups’. But while there is division on those important questions, seven of the nine respondents are united by the perception of discontent — and thus the likely continuation of some form of resistance — within Iran.”
http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/3/7/iran-first-hand-voices-in-tehran-on-protests-and-the-opposit.html
Bibijon, I saw that, and its interesting to note that most people are distancing themselves over M&K. Even the most anti-government of them seem to not to have much faith in the protests or M&K.
fyi,
Yes, Iran is not moving ahead vigorously to privatize many industrial and other concerns that will be sure not to operate efficiently if they remain part of the state sector.
And I well remember Margaret Thatcher’s battles in the UK back in the 1980s.
http://www.rajanews.com/detail.asp?id=81252
James Canning says: March 7, 2011 at 2:03 pm
While some of the actions of the Provisional Government in nationalizing of banking and insurance sectors helped Iran at the time, the much larger confiscation of private property were harmful since it destroyed incentives and trust for private investment – “What if I invest my money in a factory and per Middle Eastern tradition of autocratic arbitrariness, someday the government decides to nationalize it and without compensation?”
Thus those who had money put it in Real Estate since Islamic Law actually offered more protection in that pre-Industrial sector than in the newer industrial sector.
Furthermore, at the start of the Islamicization of Iran campaign [as though Iran was a country of heathens just Conquered by Islam] in Iran in 1980, the Revolutionaries ardently desired to get rid of the technocratic elite. They stated, repeatedly to such people: “Leave!” because they coveted their positions both in the government and in the private sector.
It was the experience of the War with Iraq and the Re-construction after that War which induced Iranian leaders to back-track. But it takes a long time to privatize an economy that is 80% state-owned. If I recall correctly, during the premiership of Mrs. Thatcher, her government managed to privatize – over a 12-year period – only 16% of the Crown Corporations.
Iranians are not yet ready to privatize aggressively their economy.
We have to wait another decade.
PressTv has a Reuters piece today, quoting the head of the IAEA: “We are not saying that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme”.
Rehmat,
Iran obviously has the natural resources and the population necessary to become one of the major “powers” (top ten or twelve). One can fairly say that the economic growth of Iran has been less than what might have been accomplished, due to foreign policy mistakes. And FYI points out inefficiencies in the management of major industrial enterprises that discourage the return to Iran of well-educated Iranians living abroad.
Iran almost certainly will accept Israel within its 1967 borders, if the Palestinians accept that outcome. Stupidity on the part of Israeli leaders may achieve the failure of the entire project.
M.Ali, and Pirouz
A few witnesses here:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/03/iran-tehran-vox-pop-on-recent-protests-and-where-things-might-be-heading.html
fyi,
Yes, the fiasco of nuclear power plant construction in Washington State (NW US) was epic, to say the least. Vast sums were spent on one of the plants which was never finished.
R S Hack,
Are you arguing that the Israeli response to a missile fired from the West Bank, against a target within Israel proper (1967 borders), would be more robust if Palestine has been recognised as independent by most of the world’s countries?
The US refused to recognise the annexation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. This did not mean the US sought to prevent the USDSR from setting ethnic Russians in the Baltics. Instead, it was a matter of public record that the US hoped to see the Baltics re-emerge as independent states at some point in future.
I see the primary issue as putting Israel on notice that it cannot change the borders of Palestine by growing illegal colonies of Jews in the West Bank.
Scott Lucas,
You know so little. The Mubarak regime never had diplomatc relations with Iran. The two countries only have an Interest Section in each other’s capital city. This is a major shift coming from the Egyptians even before elections and real change in the Egyptian regime. Sorry for the bad news. Perhaps, your other oppressive allies will stay in power in order to “contain” Iran.
Scott Lucas,
Liars like you have short memories! lol The rest of your sources and claims are garbage too.
Scott Lucas says:
February 27, 2011 at 4:09 pm
To my knowledge, this significant news has not yet been acknowledged by Iranian state media (if it has, I would be grateful for info):
*MIR HOSSEIN MOUSAVI, ZAHRA RAHNAVARD, AND MEHDI AND FATEMEH KARROUBI ARE IN A REVOLUTIONARY GUARD SAFE HOUSE.
“Iranian government sources” have told CNN — to be specific, the reliable CNN reporter Reza Sayah — that the four were placed in a safe house for their own welfare, although they have not been arrested.
R S Hack,
Surely the 130 countries supporting the UNSC resolution regarding illegal Jewish colonies in the West Bank, constitute a large part of the “international community”. This is not to say the US and Israel comply with the wishes of the international community, regarding Israel/Palestine.
Fiorangela,
Why do you think Egypt will not continue to observe its treaty with Israel?
Unknown Unknowns,
Are you arguing that if even 150 countries vote for a UN resolution, this vote would not represent the “international community”? What in your view does constitute the “international community” when the matter to hand is diplomacy?
Pirouz,
“More so than Marandi?”
That’s a good approximation of the source and his/her contacts.
S.
Liz,
“A few days you said the ‘well connected’ CNN reporter in Pakestan had spoken to well informed sources in the Iranian government.”
No, you’re confused. I did not.
Thank you for the links — nothing striking. I would be most surprised if Egypt did NOT want diplomatic relations with Iran, given that the Mubarak regime had such relations.
S.
Libya: America’s new war for oil or Israel?
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/libya-americas-new-war-for-oil-or-israel/
More bad news for Scott Lucas:
http://www.fardanews.com/fa/news/140119/وزير-خارجه-جديد-مصر-خواهان-برقراري-روابط-ديپلماتيك-با-ايران
Scott Lucas,
Funny thing, I just saw this by chance right now and it reminded me of a lie of yours over a year ago. I’m sure you remember.
http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/152342/خداحافظی-«عموپورنگ»-با-اجرای-زنده
M.Ali,
Scott Lucas is a joke and it’s partially our fault. He is constantly shown to be dishonest, ignorant, and unscholarly on this website and as a result we’ve made Iran his obsession.
lol
“He/she is well-connected within the Iranian establishment”–Scott
More so than Marandi? lol
Scott Lucas,
You’re the one in a bad mood, because you’re constantly being humiliated and exposed here.
A few days you said the “well connected” CNN reporter in Pakestan had spoken to well informed sources in the Iranian government. That turned out to be a lie too remember?
lol
M. Ali,
Sorry you are in such a bad mood, as it is quite a beautiful day here.
We ran the piece because of the source. He/she is well-connected within the Iranian establishment, so the opinions expressed — however strong/weak or subjective — are not just his/hers but those of the people within the establishment with whom he/she has been dealing.
How far those opinions extend is, of course, an important question. This letter is only one piece of evidence to consider in making an assessment.
S.
All:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC08Ak02.html
M.Ali go to this site. You be happy that supporetin your Goverment the best so far, be happy :))
http://www.goftamgoft.com/?Pn=view&id=924
M.Ali says:
March 7, 2011 at 8:58 am
Re.: ” Hit the Lucas ” and ” Well-Placed ”
M.Ali , certainly you are perfectly correct in your reasoning , but please , the RFI history showed us , where this Ping-Pong e-mails will lead us to.
The whole thread will be hijacked by SL again and we would miss valuable comments.
What ” well – placed ” is concerned , I can only imagine of one *THING* that would be ” well-placed” in SL’s face . LOL
Word plays:
Other countries have governments, Iran has a regime.
Other countries arrest, Iran abducts.
Other countries have prisoners, Iran only has political prisoners.
Other countries jail terrorists, Iran jails political activists.
In other countries, a person being jailed for drug use is reported as being jailed for drug use. In Iran, a person is jailed for “drug use” according to officials.
I’m sorry for the continuous posts, but I’m on a roll now.
The thing that annoys me the most about the Greens and Mousavi is that Iran has been at the thresh hold of history last few years and instead of helping to grow it, they’re just throwing mines on their way. With the Taliban and Saddam gone, Iran has been able to grow significantly in its neighboring countries. With the empowerment of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria, and growing regional power of Turkey, Iran’s friends are of more importance. And the downfall of US-backed countries has helped Iran’s standing. And then we had this generations worst global recession which not only Iran faced comfortably but was not hit by a falling GDP, but increased instead. And now we have the Economic Transformation.
And what has Mousavi and Greens done AT ALL in the last 2 years that can even be considered slightly to the advantage of Iran and the Iranian people?
And here is something I can say with utmost confidence being in Iran and having connections in sharestans.
Almost NO ONE cares about Mousavi/Karoubi anymore. If the elections are repeated, I doubt they’d even get 10% of the votes they got last election, and that 10% is probably just people wanting give the NO vote to other party.
Pirouz, the biggest shame is that they really are KILLING the reform movement. I’m a bit like you (and certain other Iranians in this site) where we are not fanatic supporters of the governments. I’ll be the first advocate for reform if I feel they were going in the right direction, but its such a shame about how badly they have handled things.
I’m one who voted for Mousavi and I am also one who was actually protesting in the wake of the election (not in Iran, but in front of the embassy in UAE). Like many others, I was sure there was fraud and my trust in the candidates led me to act first and question second. It was as time went on did I realize how easily I was manipulated. I’m not the only one in the days after the election that were led astray by Mousavi and his actions have pushed people like me (and millions others) away from him.
I have so many issues with the way the government is run, but until there is better alternatives, I will support them. I like Khatami, but he did not have Ahmedinijad’s courage TO GET THINGS DONE. For all his faults, Ahmedinijad has been a person that has stepped on many toes, not to enrich himself, but to get his plans into action. I am disappointed that after the elections, all the reformists tried to do was throw obstacles in his way. I’m not surprised by actions of the Larijani clans, as being the elites for the last 30 years, they didn’t want the new kid on the block spoiling their comfortable lifestyle, but one expects more from the reformists.
Sorry for the long post. EA just puts me in a bad mood.
Unknown Unknowns says: March 6, 2011 at 6:49 pm
The mass production of this weapon is militarily very significant in fighting land wars; self-propelled artillery had been the wek point of the Iranian Armed Forces for several decades.
Matt says: March 6, 2011 at 6:36 pm
The last few nuclear reactors built in US had large delays and had exceeded their allocated budget (I vaguely recall the one built in Washington state last century as particulary late and over-budget.)
Russians have to comission the Busher reactor since that 1: is an obligation of that state, 2: is the only anchor that keeps Iran in NPT.
They also have to be very careful that the plant is safe and can be safely operated. A serious accident in Bushehr will greatly harm their ability to sell more such plants to other states.
I expect the plant to be comissioned this year.
M.Ali.
You’re a better man than me. I lack the patience to comment at length on Scott’s unsatisfactory responses. I simply provide a dash of constructive criticism and leave it at that.
Is there some dishonesty going on? Could be. I made the same observation over at at Tehran Bureau when Muhammad Sahimi kept insisting on starting every one of his articles with “rigged election.” Look where it got me: censored at a PBS site.
These so-called “Greens” and their sympathizers don’t have much tolerance for inconvenient truths and well articulated opposing views, provided on a consistent basis. I’ve also been banned over at Iranian.com for the same thing.
For these folks and their so-called democracy movement, it’s like Gunny Highways “democracy in action”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Pc7zIkUlhI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5HuGZPm9iQ
“If anyone chooses to be guided, s/he is not guided for anyone else but for the benefit of herself/himself. If anyone goes astray, s/he does so to her/his own detriment. No one will be punished for another person’s wrong doing. And no one will be punished unless s/he has been guided in advance by a messenger.” [Chapter 17, Verse 15]
“If we were to annihilate a community, we will have corrupt and self-serving people to rule over its people. Then they will be advised to justice. Upon their refusal, then we will annihilate them such that is an example of annihilation. [Chapter 17, Verse 16].
~~Translation/interpretation from Quran, Chapter 17, Verses 15 & 16].
I hate to turn this thread into another Scott-debatefest, but I can’t resist it.
This is mainly for lurkers who pass by, rather than Scott himself.
Scott linked to a personal report as a proof that his sources can be trusted.
I will now repost his source’s story and comment on them, to show that not only is it biased but not of much use as a factual account.
The story is headlined with, “Iran Special: First-Hand from Tehran “The Government Is Finished”" already something we know is not objective.
The story starts with, “A well-placed Iranian source in Tehran sends this letter through an EA correspondent:” Notice, the word “well-placed”. What does this mean, is this person in the government? How is he well-placed?
“For 21 months friends and family have been exceptionally careful about what they discussed on the phone or email. Yes, they talked about the economy, the high prices and difficulties they were facing. They even talked about the increase in crime — unknown in our area before — we have all questioned if this is connected to the economic difficulties. ”
Iranians, like a lot of middle Easterns, talk about politics constantly. Go sit in any taxi in Iran and talk about politics, and the taxi driver will engage you. I dont see how this has changed in Iran, but lets ignore that personal reflection of the author, but instead wonder why he says “increase in crime — unknown in our area before — we have all questioned if this is connected to the economic difficulties”.
It would be good to have facts here. Has crime rate increased in Iran? Can we have facts? How much has it increased by? Where is “here”? Are there economic difficulties that exist today that did not exist years back, which is forcing this increase in crime?
“Then a young unemployed vegetable vendor, Muhammad Bouazizi, set himself on fire and sparked revolutions in Tunisia and then Egypt. The consequences of his actions appear to have broken the last bonds of fear that held my friends’ tongues in silence.
I hear the same thing being repeated: the regime are terrified, divided and thus making very bad decisions. (Bad for them, and their survival!) People are agreed that the arrests of [Mehdi] Karroubi, [Mir Hossein] Mousavi and their wives will only create more enemies for the regime. People who have consistently supported them are now beginning to turn against the regime, saying ‘enough’. Even my contacts [within the regime] are aware that, with every passing day, more and more hardliners are turning against them. One friend told me, “There are too many bosses, but no one is really in control”.”
Notice the many uses of the words “regime”. My advice to any reader is that whenever they see the word “regime” in connection with Iran, read everything with careful skeptisim.
“I asked another friend, “What do you want us to do? What could be done from the outside?” He said:”
Notice this. “What do you want US to do”? Who is us? Obviously someone from outside. So, this “well-placed” source is an outsider!
“We don’t want intervention, we want attention. We need the media attention to be on Iran. The more the international community condemns what is happening, the more the international media reports it, the more pressure the regime is under. This will save lives, but we can also see that the more pressure they are under, the more they divide & fight among themselves, and everyone knows that division leads to weakness and fear — and bad decisions. The arrests of Karroubi and Mousavi are a desperate act.”"
Who is this friend speaking for?
“I was curious to know if those that I knew really believed that change is inevitable. My friend replied, “The Government cannot survive — but they will not give up easily, this could get even bloodier and much worse, and I don’t know how long it will take, but they are finished.””
What is this source aside from an outsider’s friend’s personal opinion?
The letter finishes, and EA comments on it,
“The EA correspondent, drawing from this letter and other sources, summarises the signficance:”
Look at the way the sentence is phrased, giving it an air of importance, as if the letter came from the office of the President or a General, rather than some unnamed outsider with unnamed, unidentified friends. Basically, this is as significient as a conversation at a “mehmuni”.
“1. The fear of the regime (in the words of sources in Iran, they are also “deluded” and crazy);”
Scott still doesn’t let go of the word “regime”. But now we can call them also deluded and crazy, this is the highest form of objective analysis?
“The fact that there are too many bosses, and no one in the regime really knows who is in control (I mean no one in the regime knows who is in control!”
Is EA and the source upset that Iran is not a dictatorship? What happened to Marg bar Dictator? what happened to the slogans, whether shah or the doctor, we dont want a dictator? What happened to claims that Ahmedinijad was now in complete control of the country via the Revolutionary Gaurds or even the fact that he was just a puppet and everything was in the hands of Agha?
Now the significiene of this letter is that in Iran there are two many “bosses”? But that’s what a democracy IS. Its not that there are many bosses, its that IT IS NOT A DICTATORSHIP.
Is the well-placed outsider source, a monarchist?
“The Iranian people have asked to get the message out that they want the world’s media attention. That’s it, that’s all they want. People even asked specifically to get that message out.”
One source’s friend’s opinion has turned into THE IRANIAN PEOPLE. ONE PERSOn”S OPINION SUDDENLY REPRESENTS 70 MILLION PEOPLE. NO NEED FOR EVIDENCE.
In my previous discussions, I have tried my best to retain my composure and remain objective. I’m not a fanatic “regime” supporter but media reports like this just tire me out.
What is this, Scott?
What is this aside from a propaganda piece that has NO OBJECTIVETY in it. AT ALL. WHat is the state of academia when a professor engages in activities such as this that is so shameless? At least, proclaim your bias, and stop pretending you are reporting with a keen, objective, unbiased eyes.
This is not harmless. All this leads to people completely misunderstanding Iran. This is the Green’s biggest failure, relying on such useless, worthless propaganda, that leaves them isolated in Iran.
Washington maintains its military presence in over 145 foreign countries – but it’s not called ‘meddling’ because the US forces are there to protect the pro-US ‘democratic rulers’ and ‘liberate’ womanfolks by bringing over 100,000 of them to work as prostitutes in the US and Israel. According to US report, close to 100,000 (US) and 5000 (Israel) new prostitutes are added each year.
When USSR promised Fidel Castro a few nukes in US backyard – John F. Kennedy called it ‘meddling’ in North America. Now, if Islamic Republic wants to secure its border by establishing friendly relations with its neighbors to keep US-Israel attacking it – it’s a ‘meddling’ in the region – which as if was bought by the US for Israel’s domination alone.
But, as the events are folding – it’s not not Islamic regime in Iran but the Zionist regime in Israel, which is DOOMED.
Here is what I predicted two years ago.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/islamic-iran-is-destined-to-become-a-world-power/
So, a fellow was visiting a mental health facility. He came across a man who was holding a large volume book. He asked the man what the book was about and the man explained how the entire book was based on his thorough and careful examination and exploration into movement, gait, and galloping in horses. He explained how it had taken many years for him to study the phenomenon, research it, spend many hours a day over many months to observe, carefully record, analyze, authenticate, and write the data in the large volume book he was holding. He further explained that the book was now ready for publication. The visitor, while listening to the man, had become increasingly more fascinated and impressed by the man’s dedication, thorough research, and analytical skills. He thought to himself that such a book would be an instant hit and knew of so many people who would be interested in a rare in-depth look at horse galloping. Furthermore, he could make quite a lot of money in the process. He was sure the man would not have the means to contest it and he could always take credit for it himself. So, he told the man he could get the book published for him. However, the guy wasn’t budging. After a long discussion and back-and-forth bargaining, he finally convinced the man to allow him to find a publisher and publish the work. Happy with his bargain, he got the book and began searching for a good publisher. When he found a good one, he took the book to the publisher and the publisher opened the very impressive some 1000-page book and saw line after line and page after page it’s written, “pitiko pitiko pitiko”. The thousand-page volume was then turned into a Hollywood production trailer to which can be listened to here: http://www.freesound.org/samplesViewSingle.php?id=32727
MK Bhadrakumar: After the revolution: where will Egypt go from here?
http://gulftoday.ae/portal/0233e420-4a9d-4e1d-af88-fa9d919f2d10.aspx
Pirouz,
Yes, our published estimates of numbers are based on exchanges with participants and correspondents, beyond their reports, on areas such as numbers of both demonstrators and security personnel.
The piece this morning is far more than a “personal impression” — the author, well-placed in Tehran, is basing this on conversations with other equally well-placed people.
S.
Thanks Scott.
That link is to what I would consider a personal impression. I was thinking more in terms of designated eyewitnesses with whom EA would provide competent briefing and debriefing services, in order to ascertain locations, head counts of protesters, head counts of various law enforcement and security, etc., with the intention of better reliability in reporting of such.
It doesn’t appear EA engages in such, which isn’t surprising since neither does the MSM or sites such as Tehran Bureau.
There’s a new video seen on YouTube that shows ~100 protesters in Tehran on 10 Esfand. So far, nothing suggesting anywhere near “tens of thousands.”
If and when your eyewitnesses are properly debriefed and supportive evidence is provided, then I’ll be able to make use of this kind of reporting.
Pirouz,
Further to last e-mail re sources, an example….
Iran Special: First-Hand from Tehran “The Government Is Finished”
http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/3/7/iran-special-first-hand-from-tehran-the-government-is-finish.html
S.
By the way, I agree with the article. The US continues to learn the hard way.
Scott Lucas
You have provided no evidence for your other claims either. You’re simply making up facts to serve your personal interests, period.
Scott Lucas
There was no protest on 1 Esfand (20 February). You are fabriating a story.
Pirouz,
“That figure of 1,000 to 2,000 demonstrators for 25 Bahman appears to be the first government figure I’ve seen that is plausible.”
Given that the Government is denying that there was any protests on 1 Esfand (20 February) or 10 Esfand (1 March) and given that it presented confusing and contradictory information on arrests, and given its tight control on Iranian media, “plausible” here is a leap of faith.
I understand that commenters here will not want to acknowledge any sources on the ground, let alone read the reports, but at least those claims can be considered and tested to some extent.
Re sources, in light with your earlier question: we only run a claim from an eyewitness with appropriate framing — “unconfirmed” or “personal claim”, for example — unless we know the eyewitness, we have an EA correspondent who is contact with the eyewitness, or we know a reliable journalist or source who is in contact with the eyewitness.
S.
James Canning says:
March 6, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Unknown Unknowns,
130 countries supported the UNSC resolution so foolishly vetoed by the US (re illegal settlements in occupied Palestine). Are these 130 countries not “the international community”?
No. All current international organizations, including Islamic ones, are rooted in and hence falsely premised on the En”light”enment core belief that (1) reality has an axiological order, and (2)that this order is universal and eternal (a monist ontology). While this is true at the kosmic level, it is not true on the historical and sociological levels and at the levels of the transactions of peoples with each other. In other words, it is true intra-nationally, if you will, but not inter-nationally. The impetus of much of the geopolitical changes-to-come of the 21st century will be the awakening of various religious identities to this reality: Huntington did not contribute any new insight in his essay “The Clash of Civilizations”; he merely predicted the effect of the corrective swing of the pendulum back from the en”light”ment error – a pendulum of which he was and continues not to be aware, and an error which Moslem sages never committed our nation (umma) to (unlike those of your forebears), having heeded the words of and submitted to the ministry of the last and greatest of God’s prophets (with whom be peace), and having heeded that call, avoided errors Gnostic, errors Pauline, errors Nicene, and other such churlish trinities. Lakum dinukum wa li ad-din. Sadaqa’llah al-alim.
Pirouz
“That figure of 1,000 to 2,000 demonstrators for 25 Bahman appears to be the first government figure I’ve seen that is plausible. “
There is nothing going on here not even talk of demonstrations, Scott and co are dreaming if anything , they are so dumb if they think they can start a snow ball by EA or even convincing me and you on RFI. I would no longer even try to tease him, with his foolishness.
continuing the Makovsky-Satloff comments from their report on the WINEP delegation to Israel, Nov 23 2010.
Satloff followed up Makovsky’s response to Slavin’s question about the possibility of a US-Israel formal treaty. Satloff was nothing if not opaque. Here’s a minute or two of his comment:
“On this last point [a treaty] I do think that as we see a re-engagement of diplomacy, we very well may see more US-Israeli discussions on an entire range of topics that one way to get around a decision point question is the old idea of deposits with the United States, uh, which are not necessarily deposits to the other side, and negotiating positions you have to put on the table. But there are ways that you can clarify your position in confidence.”
TRANSLATION: “We advise Israel to work behind the backs of the Palestinians — and of the American people– to extract money awards from the US to Israel that would not be matched by money awards to Palestinians.”
Scott McConnell has just written an assessment of the Camp David negotiations that demonstrates the way in which Begin double-dealt, or double-crossed, Carter, in that negotiation. McConnel observes,
“In the midst of the Egyptian revolution, a concerned Benjamin Netanyahu told his cabinet that the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace was “the cornerstone of peace and stability, not only between the two countries, but in the entire Middle East as well” –a pronouncement that soon made its way to the front page of the New York Times. While the peoples of Lebanon, Iraq, Gaza and the West Bank might well wonder how much peace and stability they got from the deal, Camp David did indeed usher in a golden age for Israel, which was freed to pursue aggressive policies without having to worry about the Arab world’s largest military.
How did this happen? A strategically-dominant Israel was not a goal of Jimmy Carter and the other Americans who negotiated the Camp David accords.
Notes to Oded Yinon’s “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s” (see below) reveal that Israel was experiencing a financial squeeze at the time of Camp David, in addition to serious concern about its ongoing oil needs. Recall that from the early 1950s until the Iranian Revolution, Iran and Israel were partners in a corporation through which Iran shipped oil to Israel, which Israel used for its domestic needs, and sold the remainder to Europe, realizing both cheap satisfaction of its own energy requirements and a generous revenue stream.
The Notes seem to imply that Israel “borrowed” money from the US to cover the costs of implementing the Camp David agreement, the entirety of which worked to Israel’s benefit anyway. Satloff’s rhetorical contortions suggest that Israel would demand similar “deposits” from the US, to cover Israel’s costs of returning to the proper owner that which it stole.
As for Israel’s oil distress in 1980, that situation too was resolved by the Camp David treaty between Egypt and Israel: Egypt has been selling its gas to Israel at below market prices.
Foreign and Defense Committee Chairman Prof. Moshe Arens argued in an interview (Ma ‘ariv,10/3/80) that the Israeli government failed to prepare an economic plan before the Camp David agreements and was itself surprised by the cost of the agreements, although already during the negotiations it was possible to calculate the heavy price and the serious error involved in not having prepared the economic grounds for peace.
The former Minister of Treasury, Mr. Yigal Holwitz, stated that if it were not for the withdrawal from the oil fields, Israel would have a positive balance of payments (9/17/80). That same person said two years earlier that the government of Israel (from which he withdrew) had placed a noose around his neck. He was referring to the Camp David agreements (Ha’aretz, 11/3/78). In the course of the whole peace negotiations neither an expert nor an economics advisor was consulted, and the Prime Minister himself, who lacks knowledge and expertise in economics, in a mistaken initiative, asked the U.S. to give us a loan rather than a grant, due to his wish to maintain our respect and the respect of the U.S. towards us. See Ha’aretz1/5/79. Jerusalem Post, 9/7/79. Prof Asaf Razin, formerly a senior consultant in the Treasury, strongly criticized the conduct of the negotiations; Ha’aretz, 5/5/79. Ma’ariv, 9/7/79. As to matters concerning the oil fields and Israel’s energy crisis, see the interview with Mr. Eitan Eisenberg, a government advisor on these matters, Ma’arive Weekly, 12/12/78. The Energy Minister, who personally signed the Camp David agreements and the evacuation of Sdeh Alma, has since emphasized the seriousness of our condition from the point of view of oil supplies more than once…see Yediot Ahronot, 7/20/79. Energy Minister Modai even admitted that the government did not consult him at all on the subject of oil during the Camp David and Blair House negotiations. Ha’aretz, 8/22/79.
conclusion: do NOT forget what M J Rosenberg has referred to as Israel’s 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not be a freier.
That figure of 1,000 to 2,000 demonstrators for 25 Bahman appears to be the first government figure I’ve seen that is plausible.
Judging by the YouTube videos which mostly showed dozens of demonstrators, if twenty locations had 100 demonstrators or ten locations with 200 (or some combination of such), than the higher figure would be in the ballpark. But to reach the “tens of thousands” figure claimed by Scott, at a minimum there would have to be some combination involving 20 locations of more than 500 or 10 locations of more than 1000, for which there is zero video/photographic evidence.
Monday, March 07, 2011
The view from Tehran (2): Iran is not Egypt or Libya
Islamic Republic is unlikely to witness a massive popular uprising, analysts say
By Nadim Ladki
Daily Star staff
TEHRAN: For most outsiders, Iran seems to be a natural candidate to soon join the growing list of Middle Eastern countries embroiled in political turmoil sweeping the region.
The power of the international media and statements by senior U.S. officials lead many to believe that Iran is about to witness the kind of popular uprisings that swept away the presidents of Tunisia and Egypt and threaten several other authoritarian rulers from Libya to Yemen.
Large-scale opposition protests in the wake of the 2009 presidential election and a subsequent crackdown against the movement and its leaders had fueled speculation that the 32-year-old Islamic Revolution was running its course and that the dramatic changes in the Arab world would only pour petrol on the fire.
But Iranian officials and independent analysts in Tehran dismissed the notion out of hand.
“It is laughable,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said in response to comparisons between the political situation in the troubled Arab countries and Iran.
“They are trying to picture that what is going on there is going to happen in Iran, while the fact is the internal situation here is nothing like that of Egypt or Libya,” he told a group of visiting Lebanese journalists and media figures.
Mehmanparast said the Iranian government was not worried over recent protests against it in Tehran.
“Most of the Iranian people support the [Islamic] Revolution [in Iran]. Forty million Iranians took part in demonstrations across the country to show their support on the anniversary of the revolution on Feb. 11,” he said.
“Three days later 1,000 to 2,000 people demonstrated against the regime. That is not a major movement, and democracy means the minority should respect the opinion of the majority, which is clear here.”
An independent analyst agreed that the government was in control and it was highly unlikely that the opposition would pose a threat in the short term. But he said the opposition movement was much more popular than officials are willing to admit.
“The opposition is not to be underestimated. But the will and the courage of its supporters are no match to those of the regime’s supporters,” the analyst, who requested anonymity, told The Daily Star, adding that heavy police presence and tightened security measures were stifling the protests.
“In the short term there is no threat of things getting out of hand.”
The analyst said things might change in the long term if bickering between senior officials escalated. He pointed to the election of the head of the powerful Assembly of Experts in the coming days as a chance to gauge how the leadership plans to proceed in tackling the political situation.
If incumbent Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is re-elected, he argued, it would reflect that the leadership was willing to engage its opponents. If Rafsanjani is ousted then the situation would get more complex and the opposition could be boosted should the veteran leader choose to become more vocal in his criticism of the leadership.
Another key test for President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad will come when he pushes through the final phase of his economic reform plan – the lifting of all subsidies on essential goods – in the next year or so.
Officials pointed out the fact that a partial but substantial cut in subsidies in recent months that led to a sharp rise in the prices of bread, gasoline, electric power and water went without any dissent showed how popular Ahmadenijad’s government was.
“People who speak of uprising here don’t understand the relationship between the government and the people,” Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance Mohammad Hosseini said.
“We go to the provinces to be between the people, listen to what they have to say and then implement their wishes. There is no separation between the government and the people,” he said.
Ahmadenijad has taken his whole Cabinet to the country’s 31 provinces 87 times over the past five years.
The president’s populist touch, a strong ideological governing system and economic policies designed to help the poor indicate that for the time being at least an uprising is not on the cards, analysts say.
“The breeze of the Arab spring, when it gets to Iran, turns into autumn,” the analyst said.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/printable.asp?art_ID=125696&cat_ID=2
March 6, 2011 at 6:42 pm Unknown Unknowns says: to fyi says:
Israelis have no interest in joining a formal alliance with US or with NATO.
that is counter to the trial balloon that Barbara Slavin floated last November (2010):
Makovsky Satloff WINEP Middle East Trip Report, Nov 23 2010
Barbara Slavin asks (@1:06): “On the understanding with the US — is there any sense that what the Israelis are looking for is some kind of security treaty that would actually be formalized, perhaps approved by the Senate?”
Makovsky: (@1:11) ” . . .about the security treaty — it’s interesting because there’s a kind of zionist ethos of self-reliance, traditionally, which says, Israel, once it signs a treaty, will be bound, won’t be able to make decisions. But others say, well, that will be a hop, skip and a jump to a deterrence policy– you could deal with Iran with a bomb because you have a security treaty, so some see that as defeatism somehow. Others will say, not necessarily ‘n they could all work together and I think there are people who would, you know, support a security treaty.
I don’t think we’re there yet but I think you raise a very interesting question — once those talks get going, I think there’s a very interesting question.; …this issue could re-emerge.”
some thoughts on that Q&A:
1. Having lost Egypt as a treaty-bound security buffer, Israel may be more inclined to seek a formalized alliance with the US.
2. Israel would think itself in a pretty strong position in the US Congress just now to press forward with such a treaty.
3. Israel’s posting of polls showing that a majority of Americans support Israel are (a) probably not worth the paper they’re written on;
(b) used as much by Israel to assure Israelis of American steadfastness and to (c)demonstrate to Congress that they need to please the American public, but
(d) anecdotal evidence, such as unprecedented calls to reputable fora that are critical of Israel; Abe Foxman’s implicit acknowledgment that the ground is shifting under the American public, such that he felt compelled to write a book re-enforcing the need for Americans to guard against antisemitism, with particular worries about internet expressions of ‘antisemitism’ and the troubling fact that people are reading Mein Kampf (!; and finally, the fact that many, many people are making use of internet sites to communicate inconvenient truths about zionism, all converge to suggest that Americans are NOT as closely tied to Israel as Israel would prefer. I conclude from this that Israel would produce poll results to demonstrate to Congress that the American people luv Israel, in order to accomplish what Israel wants to accomplish before America’s leadership catches up with Americans.
On the other hand, we all — and Israel — know that Iran is not a threat to Israel that Israel cannot handle with its existing military strength. Therefore, if Israel does NOT seek a treaty with US, it will be an implicit admission that Israel does not and need not consider Iran a threat.
But, with the unravelling of Israel’s neighborhood in ways that presage nothing but uncomfortable days for Israel, the Jewish and democratic might seek a treaty with the US to lock in a relationship that shows signs of fraying.
However, as you may recall, in the earliest days of the Egypt protests, at least one Israeli academic declared that Israel might move away from its alliance with US and make friends with China, India, or EU in its stead.
What should be a Known Known is that Israel’s network minders are fully engaged. With luck, some poor schlub of a country will be persuaded that its alliance with Israel is a good deal, and the US might be plucked off the Israeli hook.
Mr. Canning: “Is Italy a “decaying empire”?”
Italy is a DEAD empire – has been since WWII – or before.
“130 countries supported the UNSC resolution so foolishly vetoed by the US (re illegal settlements in occupied Palestine). Are these 130 countries not “the international community”?”
And exactly how much influence do those countries have over the US and Israel? I submit: None. Nada. Zero. They COULD have if they were to actually get together and do so – but they don’t. I also recommend that the “international community” should do something about the Palestinian situation – but the reality is they can’t unless they’re prepared to make direct opposing moves, economically and otherwise, against the US and Israel – and thus they won’t.
Your notion that having the Palestinians declare themselves a state is going to accomplish anything is not only naive in the extreme – it actually plays into the hands of the Zionists. Because the minute some extremist faction of the Palestinians launches a home made rocket into Israeli territory from the “Palestinian state”, the Israelis will utterly destroy the “Palestinian state”, claiming it’s a direct attack from another “sovereign state” – instead of an “occupied territory which is what it is now – on the sovereign state of Israel.
And all international law will back up the Israeli response.
Is this what you want? How do you propose to stop it?
There can BE NO “Palestinian state”, recognized or not by anyone else, unless there are actual physical military constraints on Israel preventing them from attacking said state using some trumped-up excuse. And that means either the countries surrounding Israel have to be able to militarily threaten Israel – which they cannot, at this point – or the US and the EU has to be able to militarily threaten Israel against such an action. And that isn’t going to happen.
Wikipedia: ‘Rajshekar is India’s Ahmadinejd’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/wikipedia-rajshekar-is-indias-ahmadinejd/
“Israel no longer thinks in terms of peace with its neighbours, but instead seeks to widen its sphere of influence to include countries like Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and areas like the Persian Gulf and Africa, and in particular the countries of North and Central Africa,” Sharon Doctrine, 1980s.
Hesham Tillawi PhD is an US-Palestinian citizen and host of Current Issues TV. Recently, he was interviewed by Iran’s Press TV. He told the interviewer that the current revolutions being carried in the Arab world were not planned by the Arabs but the foreigners.
“When the Arab revolution part I (in the 1930s) stopped, and they woke up to see what was really happening Israel was on the map. Israel was not on the map before. When this dusts settles, the West Bank which is supposed to be part of the Palestinian state, will be on the map of Israel. This is what the whole story is. You have to look at all the players and see what they will get out of it,” said Tillawi.
It seems, Hesham Tillawi is driving his conclusion from Oded Yinon’s article entitled A Strategy for Israel in the Ninteen Eighties published in ‘A Journal for Judaism and Zionism’, in February 1982.
“The Arab Moslem world, is not the major strategic problem which we shall face in the Eighties, despite the fact that it carries the main threat against Israel, due to its growing military might. This world, with its ethnic minorities, its factions and internal crises, which is astonishingly self-destructive, as we can see in Lebanon, in non-Arab Iran and now also in Syria, is unable to deal successfully with its fundamental problems and does not therefore constitute a real threat against the State of Israel in the long run, but only in the short run where its immediate military power has great import. In the long run, this world will be unable to exist within its present framework in the areas around us without having to go through genuine revolutionary changes. The Moslem Arab World is built like a temporary house of cards put together by foreigners (France and Britain in the Nineteen Twenties), without the wishes and desires of the inhabitants having been taken into account. It was arbitrarily divided into 19 states, all made of combinations of minorites and ethnic groups which are hostile to one another, so that every Arab Moslem state nowadays faces ethnic social destruction from within, and in some a civil war is already raging,” wrote Oded.
However, during Israel’s second Lebanon War in Summer 2006 – Hizbullah fighters shattered Israel’s invinsible military myth.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/israel-behind-me-turmoil-to-abort-palestinian-state/
The statement by Mr Mumbengegwi in the last paragraph represents what everyone in the ME knows; given this, Iran’s enduring example as a state which has been successful in forging its own independent path despite everything the ICW (International Community of Weasels) has thrown at them, has acted as a catalyst whose 32-year long fuse has finally brought the political consciousness of the Arab beebol to its critical mass. That is what Ayatollah Seyyed Khamenei would have said in his speech of two weeks ago, were he able to articulate his thoughts in English. In a similar way, when his enraptured audience interrupted his speech with their chants which invariably are given incorrect and misleading literal translations of “Death to America,” what they are actually saying, and what is understood by all in attendance as well as by the fringe elements in the oppositon is: “We, the Iranian peepol, desire the immediate demise of arrogant US policies in our region.”
Daily Telegraph:
Zimbabwe is to defy United Nations sanctions in a deal to sell uranium to Iran
Robert Mugabe wants to sell uranium to Iran and has attacked international sanctions Photo: AP By Aislinn Laing, Johannesburg 3:03PM GMT 06 Mar 2011
Simbarashe Mumbengegwi, Zimbabwe’s foreign minister, said the sanctions – which prohibit member states from providing Iran with raw materials that it could use to make a nuclear weapon – were unfair and hypocritical.
He said that Zimbabwe, which is also the subject of sanctions over human rights abuses perpetrated by President Robert Mugabe’s supporters, would benefit economically from the agreement.
A leaked intelligence report suggests Iran will be awarded with exclusive access to Zimbabwe’s uranium in return for providing the country with fuel.
The report – compiled by the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog – said Iran’s Foreign and Co-operative Ministers had visited Zimbabwe to strike a deal, and sent engineers to assess uranium deposits.
Experts say the move contradicts Iran’s claim that it now has enough domestic uranium supplies to sustain its nuclear energy ambitions. They say Zimbabwe’s defiance of sanctions and its support for the pariah state will scare those considering investing in its economy, which is only just starting to recover after years of hyperinflation.
Uranium ore, or yellow cake, can be converted to a uranium gas which is then processed into nuclear fuel or enriched to make nuclear weapons. The UN imposed fresh sanctions on Iran last year after it refused to halt uranium enrichment.
Zimbabwe’s uranium stocks consist of an estimated 455,000 tons at Kanyemba, north of Harare. One metallurgist with knowledge of the deposit said it would take two to three years of development before it produced uranium and it would be exhausted in about five years. Mr Mumbengegwi said: “Zimbabwe has rich uranium reserves, but is faced with shortage of funds and does not possess the technical knowledge and equipment needed for extracting [them] … Any country has the right to use peaceful nuclear energy based on international rules.”
Mr Mugabe has previously dismissed as “illegal” the US and EU sanctions that target him and members of his regime.
“Western states follow the approach of sanctions towards countries which do not yield to their domination and act against their interests,” Mr Mumbengegwi, a member of Mr Mugabe’s Zanu PF party, said.
Sakineh,
Is Italy a “decaying empire”? Italy does not see much room for a military intervention in Libya. Surely this is just good sense.
Unknown Unknowns,
130 countries supported the UNSC resolution so foolishly vetoed by the US (re illegal settlements in occupied Palestine). Are these 130 countries not “the international community”?
Tehran Times:
TEHRAN – Iran’s first domestically manufactured wheeled 155-mm self-propelled howitzer was unveiled in Tehran on Sunday.
“The 155-mm self-propelled howitzer has been designed and manufactured by the Defense Industries Organization’s creative and innovative experts with the aim of increasing the mobility of artillery units of the Iranian armed forces,” Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said in a speech at the unveiling ceremony, which was held at the Defense Industries Organization of the Iranian Defense Ministry.
Increased mobility, enhanced maneuverability, longer firing range, a higher rate of fire, and lower production costs in comparison with the tracked self-propelled howitzers are the distinguishing features of this artillery gun, Vahidi stated.
He went on to say that maintaining and repairing the new howitzer is also easier and cheaper.
In the near future, this artillery gun will be mass-produced and delivered to the artillery units of the Iranian armed forces in order to enable them to carry out their operations more smoothly and efficiently, in a shorter time, and with smaller crews, he added.
fyi says:
March 6, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Unknown Unknowns says: March 6, 2011 at 12:26 am
Israelis have no interest in joining a formal alliance with US or with NATO.
For to do so would mean that they need to have fixed borders.
That’s exactly what I said. Of course, you have a better accent ;o)
*
fyi says:
March 6, 2011 at 1:59 pm
James Canning says: March 6, 2011 at 1:34 pm
There is no “International Community”.
There is only US-EU Axis that have arrogated to themselves that appelation.
A-men brotha, A-men!
Off topic, but a brief update on the Bushehr plant: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/168439.html
Quote:
If Russia continues to delay the inauguration of Bushehr nuclear power plant, the Iranian Parliament (Majlis) will definitely table a motion to demand compensation from Moscow,” said the deputy head of the Majlis Energy Commission, Abdollah Kaabi, on Saturday. …
The remarks came after Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast on Tuesday denied reports that fuel has been removed from the core of the reactor at Bushehr nuclear power plant in the southern Iranian port city of Bushehr, saying operations at the facility “are running their normal course.”
He expressed hope that Russia would be able to implement the project as planned so that the Bushehr facility will join the national grid as scheduled. …
End quote.
Irshad says: March 6, 2011 at 5:06 pm
The author has designated them as “fringe grouo”, a pejorative term.
They are as much a “fringe group” as the early Muslim community was one in Mecca.
No doubt, it is this group that will enable the Jewish Partisans of Israel to find their way back to the Righteous Path.
Welcome back Eric! Good to see you here again.
I too have been away, but closely following the posts.
Something to see and think about – “Coexistence – An Incredible Photo”
(you would like this Fiorengella!)
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/coexistence-an-incredible-photo.html#entry10673835
Like many people who only recently have recognized that the plight of residents of Libya has for several decades been the heaviest burden upon their weak hearts and souls (or is it Egypt, or Bahrain, or Yemen – I get confused from one day to the next, certain only that it’s not Palestine, whose residents seem to have dropped to the very bottom of Western hand-wringers’ lists of oppressed Arab minorities), I have found it exceedingly difficult to locate any writings on Libya’s internal situation that strike me as reliable. I’m left to compare and contrast what appear to be highly biased accounts. That said, this one struck me as useful and, considering the source, relatively unslanted:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Qaddafi.html
These are all signs of a falling/decaying empire. No coherent policy. No military solution. Mendacious meddling and duplicitous rhetoric.
Well done U.S. Well done!
Well said. The point made about Bahrain also shows the hypocrisy of the US position.
Britain sent a team of diplomats/warriors to Benghazi to ascertain what is going on.
I too think American military involvement in Libya would be counter-productive. All all the ranting about Iran is really tiresome. But all-too-predictable.