We take billionaire financier George Soros up on the bet he proffered to CNN’s Fareed Zakaria this week that “the Iranian regime will not be there in a year’s time.” In fact, we want to up the ante and wager that not only will the Islamic Republic still be Iran’s government in a year’s time, but that a year from now, the balance of influence and power in the Middle East will be tilted more decisively in Iran’s favor than it ever has been.
Just a decade ago, on the eve of the 9/11 attacks, the United States had cultivated what American policymakers like to call a strong “moderate” camp in the region, encompassing states reasonably well-disposed toward a negotiated peace with Israel and strategic cooperation with Washington: Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the other Persian Gulf states, as well as Morocco, Tunisia, and Turkey. On the other side, the Islamic Republic had an alliance of some standing with Syria, as well as ties to relatively weak militant groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Other “radical” states like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Muammar al-Qaddafi’s Libya were even more isolated.
Fast-forward to the eve of Barack Obama’s inauguration as president of the United States, in January 2009. As a result of the Iraq war, the collapse of the Arab-Israeli peace process, and some fairly astute diplomacy by Iran and its regional allies, the balance of influence and power across the Middle East had shifted significantly against the United States. Scenarios for “weaning” Syria away from Iran were becoming ever more fanciful as relations between Damascus and Tehran became increasingly strategic in quality. Turkey, under the Justice and Development Party (AKP), was charting a genuinely independent foreign policy, including strategically consequential partnerships with Iran and Syria. Hamas and Hezbollah, legitimated by electoral successes, had emerged as decisively important political actors in Palestine and Lebanon. It was looking progressively less likely that post-Saddam Iraq would be a meaningful strategic asset for Washington and ever more likely that Baghdad’s most important relationships would be with Iran, Syria, and Turkey. And, increasingly, U.S. allies like Oman and Qatar were aligning themselves with the Islamic Republic and other members of the Middle East’s “resistance bloc” on high-profile issues in the Arab-Israeli arena — as when the Qatari emir flew to Beirut a week after the 2006 Lebanon war to pledge massive reconstruction assistance to Hezbollah strongholds in the south and publicly defended Hezbollah’s retention of its military capabilities.
On Obama’s watch, the regional balance of influence and power has shifted even further away from the United States and toward Iran and its allies. The Islamic Republic has continued to deepen its alliances with Syria and Turkey and expand its influence in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine. Public opinion polls, for example, continue to show that the key leaders in the Middle East’s resistance bloc — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syrian President Bashar Assad, Lebanon’s Hassan Nasrallah, Hamas’s Khaled Mishaal, and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan — are all vastly more popular across the region than their counterparts in closely U.S.-aligned and supported regimes in Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, and Saudi Arabia.
And, now, the Obama administration stands by helplessly as new openings for Tehran to reset the regional balance in its favor emerge in Bahrain, Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, and perhaps elsewhere. If these “pro-American” Arab political orders currently being challenged or upended by significant protest movements become at all more representative of their populations, they will no doubt become less enthusiastic about strategic cooperation with the United States. And, if these “pro-American” regimes are not replaced by salafi-dominated Islamist orders, the Arab governments that emerge from the present turmoil are likely to be at least somewhat receptive to Iran’s message of “resistance” and independence from Israel and the West.
Certainly, any government in Cairo that is even mildly more representative than Hosni Mubarak’s regime will not be willing to keep collaborating with Israel to enforce the siege of Gaza or to continue participating in the CIA’s rendition program to bring Egyptians back to Egypt to be tortured. Likewise, any political order in Bahrain that respected the reality of that country’s Shiite-majority population would be firmly opposed to the use of its territory as a platform for U.S. military action against Iranian interests.
Over the next year, all these developments will shift the regional balance even more against the United States and in favor of Iran. If Jordan — a loyal U.S. client state — were to come into play during this period, that would tilt things even further in Iran’s direction.
Against this, Soros, other American elites, the media, and the Obama administration all assert that the wave of popular unrest that is taking down one U.S. ally in the Middle East after another will now bring down the Islamic Republic — and perhaps the Assad government in Syria, too. This is truly a triumph of wishful thinking over thoughtful analysis.
Many of these same actors, of course, worked themselves up into quite a frenzy after the Islamic Republic’s June 2009 presidential election. For months, we were subjected to utterly unsubstantiated claims that the election had been stolen and that the Green Movement would sweep aside the Iranian “regime.” Like Soros today, many pundits who predicted the Islamic Republic’s demise in 2009 or 2010 put various time frames on their predictions — all of which, to the best of our knowledge, have passed without the Iranian system imploding. (But don’t worry about the devastating impact of such egregious malpractice on the careers of those who proved themselves so manifestly incompetent at Iran analysis. In today’s accountability-free America, every one of the Iran “experts” who were so wrong about the Green Movement in 2009 and 2010 is back at it again.)
From literally the day after Iran’s 2009 presidential election, we pointed out that the Green Movement could not succeed in bringing down the Islamic Republic, for two basic reasons: The movement did not represent anything close to a majority of Iranian society, and a majority of Iranians still support the idea of an Islamic Republic. Two additional factors are in play today, which make it even less likely that those who organized and participated in scattered demonstrations in Iran over the past week will be able to catalyze “regime change” there.
First, what is left of the Green Movement represents an even smaller portion of Iranian society than it did during the summer and fall of 2009. The failures of defeated presidential candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi to convincingly document their assertions of electoral fraud and the Green Movement’s pivotal role in the West’s progressive demonization of the Islamic Republic since June 2009 have not played well with most Iranians inside Iran. That’s why, for example, former President Mohammad Khatami has quietly distanced himself from what is left of the Green Movement — as has every reformist politician who wants to have a political future in the Islamic Republic. As a result of these highly consequential miscalculations by the opposition’s ostensible leaders, those who want to try again to organize a mass movement against the Islamic Republic have a much smaller pool of troops that they might potentially be able to mobilize. This is not a winning hand, even in an era of Facebook and Twitter.
Second, the effort to restart protests in Iran is taking place at a moment of real strategic opportunity for Tehran in the Middle East. The regional balance is shifting, in potentially decisive ways, in favor of the Islamic Republic and against its American adversary. In this context, for Mousavi and Karroubi to call their supporters into the streets on Feb. 14 — just three days after the Obama administration had started issuing its own exhortations for Iranians to revolt against their government and as Obama and his national security team reeled from the loss of Mubarak, America’s longtime ally in Egypt — was an extraordinary blunder.
The Iranian people are not likely to recognize as their political champions those whom they increasingly perceive as working against the national interest. Two of Ahmadinejad’s most prominent conservative opponents — former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and former Revolutionary Guard commander and presidential candidate Mohsen Rezai — have publicly and severely criticized Mousavi and Karroubi over their recent actions and statements. Parliament speaker Ali Larijani, another Ahmadinejad opponent, told his colleagues last week, “The parliament condemns the Zionists, American, anti-revolutionary, and anti-national action of the misled seditionists,” accusing the two Green Movement leaders of falling into “the orchestrated trap of America.”
U.S. attempts to intervene in the Islamic Republic’s internal politics are typically maladroit and often backfire. But the Obama administration’s performance is setting new standards in this regard. Among other consequences, the administration’s latest initiative to stir up unrest in Iran will put what is left of the reform camp in Iranian politics at an even bigger disadvantage heading into parliamentary elections next year and the Islamic Republic’s next presidential election in 2013, because reformists are now in danger of being associated with an increasingly marginalized and discredited opposition movement that is, effectively, doing America’s bidding.
At a more strategic level, the Obama administration’s post-Ben Ali, post-Mubarak approach to Iran is putting important U.S. interests in serious jeopardy. It is putting at risk, first of all, the possibility of dealing constructively with an increasingly influential Islamic Republic in Iran. More broadly, at precisely the time when the United States needs to figure out how to deal with legitimate, genuinely independent Islamist movements and political orders, which are the most likely replacements for “pro-American” autocracies across the Middle East, the Obama administration’s approach to Iran is taking U.S. policy in exactly the opposition direction.
The United States faces serious challenges in the Middle East. Its strategic position in this vital part of the world is eroding before our eyes. Indulging in fantasies about regime change in Iran will only make the situation worse.
This piece was published first on www.ForeignPolicy.com; we would be grateful if comments on the piece could be posted on www.ForeignPolicy.com site.
hey there, my partner and i m listed here yet again, waiting for our next article.
Bussed-in Basiji says: February 27, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Now we are getting somewhere.
You are making referring to the distinction between “jaez” and “fe’li” and further that their application is based on the exegis of time and place.
Can you explain the mechanics of their applications?
What makes “hejab”, per Moral Police, “fe’li”?
And what makes slavery “jaez” now?
Under what circumstances would “slavery” become permissible?
I am certainly not an expert in Shia Legal doctrines.
But when someone defends “rajm” on the basis that it is the (Muslim) Law I will have to rebut that based on the Revelations prior to the Quran.
Furthermore, when the marriage of my relation to a christain man is not recognized among the Shia (but is recognized among Sunni), then I will have to state that the Law is incoherent.
Really, I do not have any issue with the Principles of Jurisprudence; I question the premises from which they all started.
[Although I think those principles can be expanded to take advantage ofwhat has happened over the last 1000 years in Western Legal Theory.]
Arnold, have you seen this new report by CFR a PDF for download is available, if you did I appreciate your comments.
Limiting Iranian Nuclear Activities: Options and Consequences
A CFR Working Paper
Author: Michael A. Levi, David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment and Director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change
Publisher: Council on Foreign Relations Press
Release Date: February 2011
http://www.cfr.org/iran/limiting-iranian-nuclear-activities-options-consequences/p24147
fyi,
None of the Shia mujtaheds deny that they could be wrong. This is called the difference between hukme zaheri and hukme waqei. In ghaybat kubra hukme zaheri is hujjat based on very high probability that it is in harmony with hukme waqei- unlike the Sunni brothers who claim that whatever they have derived is in fact hukme waqei.
I told you once before, first learn about usule fiqh properly, then give your opinion. You keep repeating sweeping generalizations and judgements based on inaccuracies that you have convinced yourself are reality. We know you have issues with sharia, first learn what the views of Jafari usuliyun are, after that call them whatever names you want.
Also slave markets are “jaez”, but they are not currently “fe’li”. That is the difference you don’t understand. Unlike you I don’t try to be holier than God Himself, I try to submit to his command. Think about this a little before you give in to the urge to respond immediately.
Bussed-in Basiji says: February 27, 2011 at 7:44 am
The Living Mudjtaheds are fallaible human beings that are rendering an opinion based on precedent and the body of Law preceeding our times.
I submit to you that they could be wrong.
I also submit to you that some of the existing Laws are wrong since they are in contradiction to the prior Revelations in the Torah and in Acts/Deeds/Words of Jesus.
Even today, no Muslim state enforces the Laws on Slavery. Why not?
What is wrong with have slave markets – they are permitted – are they not?
Once again you and others are defending the indefensible.
It is the individual whose salvation (rastegari) is the aim of the revelations and not the “Collective”.
Unknown Unknowns says: February 27, 2011 at 7:16 am
In your reply to Swiss you wrote:
“But these are the prices that must be paid if a genuinly multi-polar world is to obtain …”
The price, as such, is not being paid by you.
It is being paid by actual human beings that are being uprooted from their ancestral homes due to religious bigotism and prejudice of Pharisee Religiosity of an Iranian Lower Middle Class that, like its Jewish counter-part in Israel, is trying to live a fantasy life.
It is the individual who is the axis around which the entire Body of Revelations revolves and not the collective. The protection of an individual’s inherent rights – given to him by God – is the only aim that a political order based on Revelation can have.
Defense of the Islamic order, such as the one in Iran, neceaarily and a matter of principle, means the protection of Life, Liberty, and Namus of eveyone – including those non-Muslims enjoying the protection of that state.
Hejab is not in the Quran.
The duration and content of daily prayers is not in the Quran.
Cirucmcision is not in the Quran (but is in the Torah).
Should the Islamic Government start checking men to see if they are circumsized?
Should the Islamic state now use GPS and Web Camera technology to monitor and make certain that everyone everywhere is prarying the prescribed daily paryers correctly anbd on time? [Violaters to be punished.]
What price Pharisee Isalm?
Unknown Unknowns says: February 27, 2011 at 2:42 am
Your address to Eric, Arnold, et al is historically and intellectually wrong and rather dis-ingeneous.
The claim to Universality is the claim of the Revelations and not the Enlightenment Tradition.
It was first made by Zoraster who was propagating, as far as we can dimly perceive throught the noise (in the sense of information theory) of History, the Message of the Wise Lord.
This renders the rest of your arguments.
And the screening of the candidates is a form of Pahrisee religiosity which has been explicitly condemned by the Revelations of God through the Acts, Deeds, and Speech of Jesus.
You had raised the issue of bare-chested women; this is spurious. There is and has been, in all human societies, such a thing called “Custom” – “Orf”. It is not the Law of that state that enforces the “Custome” since “Custom” does not require the force of law for adherence to it.
First:
Hijab is both Iranian and Islamic. Hijab was the norm for women- especially nobility- in pre-Islamic Iran. It was forcifully removed by Reza Khan in the 1930s and what we have to today is a reassertation of what is the normal state.
Second:
As I explained earlier, the problem with the hijab laws in Iran today is that that the specific misdaq of hijab is not defined in the law. This causes problems during the enforcement because the officer doesn’t exactly know what to enforce. Thus the law should clearly define what the masadiq of hijab are and everyone will now where they stand. As I explained in the previous posts it has become “rusariye Osman”in terms of domestic politics and the last people who want the hijab matter to be clearly defined are the lefties.
In terms of the basic idea of the law, it is excellent that me and UU and UU’s mother and sister (with all due respect) and Swiss cannot go onto the street anyway we like- BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF PERSONAL CHOICE. Maybe in der Schweiz- but even their public clothing has rules.
It’s clear that the opposition to the Islamic Republic is based on opposition to Islam and its laws. As long as the majority of Iranians want Islamic law as it is currently defined by living mujtahids, implemented and enforced (hint: the majority do), who are gonna have to learn to live with it. Otherwise you can continue to enjoy your “freedom” in Geneva, Bern, Zurich, Basel or whatever other boring provinicial Schweizer “kaff” you are residing in. Gruezi.
Swiss Miss says:
February 27, 2011 at 4:31 am
“You seem to suggest that Islamic Republic’s own constitution cannot be upheld because it would be too uncharacteristic of Iranian culture and religion to implement its own constitution. The right to free assembly and free speech is not a Western ideal, its right there in the constitution. So is the right to free speech and equal access to state TV.”
Swiss Miss: Unfortunately, the above is the only substantive statement of yours which merits a response. I hope and trust that Arnold, Eric, fyi et al can and will do better. [I trust the trolls to remain cluless.]
You mention contradictions between the IRI constitution and its practice. Look: the very juxtaposition of Islamic [and] Republic is a massive contradiction. Massive, OK? The confluence of Iranian modernity and her traditions, which History has juxtaposed, is a contradiction. I’m not denying these contradictions, let alone trying to “justify” them. To the contrary, if you read what I have said here and in previous threads with care, you will see that what I am saying is not that there are no contradictions, but that the contradictions are deeper, systemic, and ultimately, trans-systemic, i.e., take us out of the Wet T-Shirt Nite cultural ballpark and into another one altogether – one whose analysis, topology and ultimately, diagnosis and remedy are not conducive to etic tools and instruments, but require emic, indigenous solutions.
If the European experience is anything to go by, these contradictions will take centuries and not decades to resolve themselves. (As I insinuated well before January 25th, it seems PNAC’s American Century is being superceded by The Unknown Unknowns’s Moslem Century). What I am saying is, the sort of beligerence shown by the US and Europe to the IRI not only belies the Axis of Weasels’s own insecurities and envy, but radicalizes and entrenches radicals and elements refractory to the inevitable historical process of moderity and modernization which is unfolding, thereby retarding the process and giving it an unnatural developmental trajectory whilst at the same time betraying the pre-modern (and hence, reactionary) character of the Axis’s bankrupt foreign policy (in so far as the modern values and ideals that they purportedly uphold domestically – which in itself is becoming more tenuous – are not upheld internationally).
With regard to your other heartfelt point about the compulsoriness of the hejab, etc. (and I address here also fyi’s rejoiner to my response to his earlier comment): Listen, I am half Armenian myself. Of course it pains me that my government acts the way it does towards women and minorities. I part ways here, I am sure, with my esteemed Bussed-in Professor regarding the need for the continuation of a morality police to enforce these coercive policies. It pains me as a Moslem whose sacred text announced to the world that there shall be no compulsion in religion. And it saddens me to see the flight of Armenians to the US and elsewhere because the conditions, while not opressive, and indeed “discrimanatory” in the sense that Armenians are not afforded access to government jobs, no matter how lowly the position.
But these are the prices that must be paid if a genuinly multi-polar world is to obtain (rather than the pseudo-cultural enclaves that our New World Order zoo-masters and wardens have envisioned for us in our respective bantustans (squeezed between the Jewistani Starbucks Coffee and Noah’s Bagels.) And the more stable and secure this regime feels, the less reactionary it is likely to act. And besides, I’m sorry, but I for one do not allow the personal feelings of a small minority, irrespective of whether she is or is not my mother or sister, determine how I evaluate the current situation with respect to the legitimacy and future of the government of the “Islamic Republic”** of Iran.
** I put the phrase in quotes to emphasize its simultaneous impossibility and its undeniable reality. this one’s for you, VoT: it is a Tarantinoesque phantasmagoria and a Ritchiesque extravaganza. A mystery wrapped in an enigma.
Round and round the world she goes
Where she’ll stop, nobody knows
Gather round and place your bets.
And its very unfortunate that you equate the demand for more freedoms and gender equality, including the freedom to choose Hijab to a non-existant desire to hold wet Tshirt contests in northern Tehran. Goes to show how little you know about Iranian women. Perhaps you don’t have a sister or a mother who has been harraassed, arrested and or even beaten for showing one too many hair strands. The hijab law is neither Islamic or Iranian.
UU,
That is the worst justification I’ve seen on this blog for the IRI. You seem to suggest that Islamic Republic’s own constitution cannot be upheld because it would be too uncharacteristic of Iranian culture and religion to implement its own constitution. The right to free assembly and free speech is not a Western ideal, its right there in the constitution. So is the right to free speech and equal access to state TV. And its very unfortunate that you equate the demand for more freedoms and gender equality, including the freedom to choose Hijab to a non-existant desire to hold wet Tshirt contests in northern Tehran. Goes to show how little you know about Iranian women. Perhaps you don’t have a sister or a mother who has been harraassed, arrested and or even beaten for showing one too many hair strands. The hijab law is neither Islamic or Iranian.
“1. Recognize the IRI goverment as legitimate”
How is connecting all former heads of IRI to foreign powers and suggestion that they were all stooges of the West and Israel in any way recognition of IRI government as legitimate. Between Mousavi, Karoubi, Hashemi and Khatami you have at least 24 years of public service of IRI 32 years being questined.
“2. (Thereby) stop its efforts to destabilize and undermine it and the geographical integrity of Iran”
Adventorours foreign policy of the hardliners and their Gadaffi-style rhetoric is doing more to destablize and undermine Iran’s socio-cultural-economic-geographical integrity of Iran.
“3. Pay back with interest the assets of Iran frozen by the US at the time of the revolution.”
How do you expect to get that back when you base your whole foreign policy on Death to this and that?
“4. Allow US and European corporations to bid in and invest in Iran’s economy”
I thought sanctions were good for the Iranian nation – so says president select AN.
“5. Try (for once) not to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.”
Would that mean Iran will have to stop interfering in internal affairs of other countries? ie. Palestine and Lebanon? Iraq and Afghanistan?
Eric, Arnold, et al:
Arnold’s question regarding the issue of screening is akin to Eric’s earlier question regarding the issue of permits for demonstrations; they are both well-intentioned questions that seek to shed light on areas of local politics which do not necessarily jibe with the mainstream understanding of “democracy”, in an attempt to strengthen the local body politic by weeding out problem patches.
The problem with these sort of questions is that in the final analysis, they boil down to – and there is no delicate way to put this that I am aware of – why can’t they be more like us? And of course, when one frames the question thus, the answer becomes very obvious: because they are NOT like us; they are a different civilization entirely.
it goes back to the universalising tendency began in teh Age of En”light”enment, where the attitude was (and remains) that there are laws that have universal adn eternal ontic status. To Moslems, this is *shirk* – assigning partners to God, who is the sole entity with universal and eternal ontic status. And besides, modern science has superceded those quaint notions from “Old Europe”. As an early pioneer in the new thinking, Alfred North Whitehead stated in the early part of the last century that there are no laws, only long-term tendencies [which can be suspended at any time and place at God's will].
So, what I am saying is that one cannot get at the issue of the representativeness of teh body politic of a different culture and civilization by extending one’s own norms and expecting them to apply to the other culture. For one thing (in this particular example, Iran), the body politic is decidedly not, alhamdullilah, a democracy. So stop expecting it to act like one. Now having said that, this does not mean that we buy into the Neocon-cum-PEPI (Progressive except on Palestine and Iran) philosophy that if a polity is not democratic then it is necessarily repressive/ autocratic/ totalitarian/ pick your bogeyman term… Not at all. Iran has its share of problems with the fact that the interests of those in power do not adequately reflect the intersets of the rest of teh population, and certain minorities in particular. However, it is a mistake to assume that by tweaking a certain filtering process or a process whereby permits for demonstrations are issued, that these problems will resolve in favor of a more transparent and representative polity.
This kind of thinking is so ubiquitous that it is difficult to get English speakers to “get it”. I will therefore demonstrate the point with a couple of examples.
1. The possession of motor-cycles with engines having a cubic capacity of larger than 125 cc’s is prohibited by Iranian law. Well-intentioned Universalising question: Why can’t Iran change its laws to allow motorcyclists the “freedom” to ride more powerful motorcycles? Becuase the indiginous conditions cannot allow this. Powerful motocycles which can weave in and out of traffic at high speeds have been used and continue to be used to facilitate the getaways of political assassinations. The latest case in point: the assassination of a top nuclear scientist by a bomb attached to his car by an assassin on a high-powered motorcycle. This kind of “freedom” can only obtain in a state where the killing of a few highly placed figures would not shake the pillars of its polity to its foundations.
2. Why (the innocents at the WTO & GATT – the John Perkins’s and Stuart Levys of the world – ask) does Iran levy a 90% tax on the import of foreign-made automobiles (so as to make these imports prohibitively expensive except for the very few)? Well, it might surprise you to know that while the dynamic of wanting to protect a nascent indiginous car-manufacturing economy does bear on this policy, this dynamic would have been more than over-ruled by the greater dynamic of compradore capitalists wanting to make an easy buck merely from importing foreign goods and selling them at a large profit (and said capitalists not wanting to be hampered by such inconviniences as taxation). The truth is that becuase Iran does not have the administrative infrastructure in place to tax businesses and individuals and real estate, border crossings provide for an easy and convinient way to collect revenue for the government.
3. Why does the Sepah-e Pasdaran’s Khatam ol-Anbiya corporation (and here I’m channeling my mother) get all the large lucrative contracts that the government gives out? Because Uncle Sam prevents others from participating in the bidding process!!
4. (and here I am channeling fyi:) Why are modern-minded young girls and women not “free” to go about braless and in think t-shirts? This lack of personal “freedom” has them up in arms, dammit!
Well, for the simple reason that the Iranian public for whatever reason, and for better or worse, at this period in their history, is likely temporarily to be blinded by the glare eminating from those high-beam headlights shining forth from those exquisitely painful peaks of their mamalian protruberances.
Need I go on??
Packman and Scotty Boy: We are not – repeat, not – going to have Wet T-Shirt Nights in Northern Tehran with all you can drink Bud Light, OK? I’m sorry if that is inconvinient. I’m sorry if it is “undemocratic”. IF you are sincere in helping Iran, then the best thing for you to do is to stop whining about why they can’t be more like you, take your thumb out of your mouth, and agitate for the US to
1. Recognize the IRI goverment as legitimate
2. (Thereby) stop its efforts to destabilize and undermine it and the geographical integrity of Iran
3. Pay back with interest the assets of Iran frozen by the US at the time of the revolution
4. Allow US and European corporations to bid in and invest in Iran’s economy
5. Try (for once) not to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries
By taking these simple steps, which are in the interest of the American people if not in the interest of its out of control military-industrial-congressional complex, then, inshallah and in the fullness of time, Packman can bring his girlfriend for a visit and they can strut around town with high-beams glaring.
All:
I sincerely apologize for mistakenly slander Mr. Hayden.
I was wrong and confused in my attribution; I istook Tom Hayden for Roger Vadim; her first husband.
Sorry about that.
kooshy says: February 26, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Rad Jane Fonda’s book.
While on the subject of scams, I recommend Russ Baker’s “Qaddafi, Bush and the Iraq Big Lie”
http://www.truth-out.org/qaddafi-bush-and-iraq-big-lie68069
R S Hack,
Are you arguing that “ruling elites” in the US and the EU are scamming the people of their countries, by allowing or causing them to believe Iran is developing nukes when these “ruling elites” believe this is not true?
My understanding is that the UK strongly opposes any US or Israeli attack on Iran, but this position would be subject to change if it emerged Iran is in fact developing nukes. There is no conceivable reason to attack Iran if it is not developing nuclear weapons.
Fiorangela: Agree with your post that nukes are not the issue.
Mr. Canning: “Are you claiming that most Europeans and Americans believe Iran has no programme to develop nukes?”
Are you being obtuse here? No one has ever said anything about “most Europeans and Americans”. We’re talking about the people who RUN these countries, not the ignorant populations. The populations will believe whatever the ruling elites convince them to.
Fiorangela is saying, correctly, that whatever the motivations of the anti-Iran position in the Western governments, it’s not because they (really meaning the US and Israel, because the EU is irrelevant to the outcome) really fears Iranian nuclear weapons. Arnold believes they do, which displays an astonishing lack of comprehension of recent history vis-a-vis Iraq and Afghanistan.
Arnold cites people low on the totem pole in running America for his thesis that the US government genuinely fears Iranian nukes, citing public statements by them for which he can’t even prove they’re not simply lying in lock step with their masters. This is naive in the extreme and will be proven so in due time.
Maybe Nima Shirazi can collect a new list of estimates on this issue(when the regime will implode), to add to his nuclear weapons time estimates.
Nima?
Castellio,
Was Iran “at war” with the US in 2001-2002 when Iran helped the US to overthrow the Taliban?
I think William Hague is quite right to say Britain is not at war with any country, and it has no “enemies” at this time, that are countries. There are, however, some countries with which Britain finds it more difficult to deal.
Fio, no argument that there are many ways of being at war (without bombs dropping) and the US has been at war with Iran… I would say since 1979.
kooshy,
I too rather like Tom Hayden. He wrote a good piece calling for US troops to be pulled out of Iraq (Huffington Post, May 14, 2007). He was quite right, of course.
Iran and Syria had offered to help achieve stability during and after the withdrawal of those troops.
Fiorangela,
So do I take it we agree that there is a continuing effort to convince the American and European public that Iran in fact is trying to build nukes?
European leaders take positions that reflect public opinion. If the European public generally perceive that Iran is not developing nukes and is not a threat to any European country, the US effort to damage Iran in order to facilitate continuing oppression of the Palestinians by Israel, will fail.
Not So Fast Leveretts!
“That’s why, for example, former President Mohammad Khatami has quietly distanced himself from what is left of the Green Movement — as has every reformist politician who wants to have a political future in the Islamic Republic. As a result of these highly consequential miscalculations by the opposition’s ostensible leaders, those who want to try again to organize a mass movement against the Islamic Republic have a much smaller pool of troops that they might potentially be able to mobilize.”
Khatami came out in full force today:
:http://www.kaleme.com/1389/12/07/klm-49189/
Motahari (a Principalist) came out swinging too:
:http://radiozamaneh.com/news/iran/2011/02/26/2085
So did a Grand Ayatollah:
:http://www.kaleme.com/1389/12/07/klm-49216/?theme=fast
And then there is Hameshemi. Who appears to be taking the side of the regime. But then with him you have to read in between the lines. Specially when a video of his daughter being called a whore by Basijis surfaces…
:http://hashemirafsanjani.ir/?type=dynamic&lang=1&id=3620
Not that Soros is any more credible than you. But you pretty much have no credibiity left over. You can present a single analysis on Iran that differs from what appears on Fars News or IRNA. A bunch of lies. I am surprised they don’t arrest you for espionage in the US.
Fyi
For Tom Hayden I worked in his collage campaign back in early 70’s in collage, besides he is my neighbor of last 15 years I haven’t seen anything except modesty and decency regardless of his politics(Obama support) which some I no longer share. I don’t believe that could be true.
FYI today at 1.45… you can back that up?
MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Rachel Maddow, Richard Engel, 60 minutes, CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, Fox News, Cspan, NPR’s Terri Gross who endlessly goes after Iran and repeats unsubstantiated claims about Iran they will all be working to help what Soros has said about Iran come true. Our MSM has been going along with the bad bad bad Iran agenda ever since the invasion of Iraq…while ignoring the Goldstone Report, UN report on the massacred on the Mavi marmara, never shine their cameras on the expansion of Israeli illegal settlements. It will more than likely be more bad bad bad Iran out of all of these complicit media outlets
OFF – OFF – TOPIC !
Wonder if anyone read this article by Alexander Baron , who attended the Holocaust Conference in Tehran in 2006.
Since 3 years I am writing in a quite famous German Blog and when I posted this link 2 days back , just to bring some evidence in a very fierce deabte, they threw me out without pior notice . This is freedom !!! of speech , which SL & SP are advocating .
“The Truth About The Tehran Holocaust Conference – By One Who Was There”
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=547346
…When Alexander Baron returned from the Holocaust Conference in Iran which he attended, he found that the conference Western media “reported” about might as well have been on a different planet.
The above sums up the consensus on the recent Tehran Conference on the Holocaust and on its convenor, Iran’s charismatic President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As a participant in that conference I can report that the Western media is up to its old tricks of lying in unison again, this time in order to stoke up the fuels of fire against Iran. Not content with sending nearly three thousand American and over a hundred British servicemen to their deaths in Iraq while plunging that country into a civil war in all but name, the hawks in Washington are now preparing to start another war, this time against Iran.
Iran we are told is a threat to world peace, it is developing nuclear weapons which will be used against Israel. The lies go on. So what is the truth?
The truth is that the roots of this conference lie in a series of blasphemous cartoons which the enemies of Islam thought were hilarious; now the boot is on the other foot and the Islamophobes are laughing no more. In September last year a Danish newspaper published a number of cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad. Although Islam is far from the intolerant, patriarchal, totalitarian philosophy it is often portrayed as, there are two things you never do. You do not spit on the Holy Koran, and you do not guy the Prophet. The prohibition against any representation of Muhammad is particularly severe, not because he is regarded as divine or sacred; unlike Jesus of Nazareth he did not claim to be the Son of God. Muhammad was a real historical person, he actually existed. Just take it from me, you dont mess with Muhammad……
Link to interview with Cat Stevens/Yosuf Islam on “my people”
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/rizkhan/2011/02/201122484440953389.html
Check this out. Up lifting
Yosuf Islam/Cat Stevens interview about his new song “my People” and the Music of Revolution ?
link to english.aljazeera.net
“Many of these same actors, of course, worked themselves up into quite a frenzy after the Islamic Republic’s June 2009 presidential election. For months, we were subjected to utterly unsubstantiated claims that the election had been stolen and that the Green Movement would sweep aside the Iranian “regime.” Like Soros today, many pundits who predicted the Islamic Republic’s demise in 2009 or 2010 put various time frames on their predictions — all of which, to the best of our knowledge, have passed without the Iranian system imploding. (But don’t worry about the devastating impact of such egregious malpractice on the careers of those who proved themselves so manifestly incompetent at Iran analysis. In today’s accountability-free America, every one of the Iran “experts” who were so wrong about the Green Movement in 2009 and 2010 is back at it again.)”
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow pounded on the Iranian President and the what she sold as a stolen election along with NPR’s Terri Gross, MSNBC Richard Engel have all repeated unsubstantiated claims about Iran. After Mubarak fell most of the MSM pivoted and turned their cameras towards Iran in unison. As if they had all been ordered to do so.
———————–
“U.S. attempts to intervene in the Islamic Republic’s internal politics are typically maladroit and often backfire. But the Obama administration’s performance is setting new standards in this regard. Among other consequences, the administration’s latest initiative to stir up unrest in Iran will put what is left of the reform camp in Iranian politics at an even bigger disadvantage heading into parliamentary elections next year and the Islamic Republic’s next presidential election in 2013, because reformists are now in danger of being associated with an increasingly marginalized and discredited opposition movement that is, effectively, doing America’s bidding.”
Is this due to Dennis Ross’s failings?
James Canning @ February 26, 2011 at 1:29 pm
No, James, I am NOT “claiming that most Europeans and Americans believe Iran has no programme to develop nukes.”
As Pirouz2 pointed out upthread, most Americans, and probably many Europeans, know only what their governments and zionist-monitored media tell them that they know. Therefore, what most Europeans and Americans BELIEVE is, most likely, misinformed or ill-informed, and therefore irrelevant.
Those Americans and Europeans who ARE well informed are aware that the propagandized fear surrounding the possibility that Iran may have a programme to develop nuclear weapons is a red herring, a pretext, just as Iraq’s WMD was a pretext, for another kind of destruction that the West intended to exact on Iraq. In other words, well informed people know that the nature of Iran’s nuclear programme is irrelevant.
@Pirouz:
Regarding your message to Arnold, on February 26, 2011 at 12:47 pm
I don’t know how much I agree with you on that one. I have seen so many people who don’t have a clue about what is going on in the world, who are completely apolitical, people who have not read a single book or a single serious newspaper in their life and yet keep talking about “freedom” and complain of the oppression of the IR.
I have said it to such people on a few occasions, that in order for a person to really support the free expression of ‘opinion’, first (s)he must have AN opinion.
In order for one to complain of censorship of books, one must first be interested in reading books, then (s)he should look for a book and once (s)he finds out that the book (s)he was looking for is banned, (s)he can complain of lack of freedom.
I have seen so many many people who have not read a single book in their entire life and yet they complain.
IMHO, the chief cause of the complaints for A LOT of people (and I am not saying everyone but for a lot of people) in the green opposition in Iran is mostly cultural.
Take away the turban, the beard, the Azan and the perfume of Shahabdolazeem and replace it with neck tie , clean shaved face, western pop music and the perfume of christian dior and A LOT of the complaints from the green opposition will go away.
All:
The BPP was slated to go online in April of this year; 27-th if my memory does not fail me.
So far, the Iranians have not announved any postponements of that date.
I personally doubt very much that the Russians or the Stuxnet worm have caused this.
The Russians have obligations to Iran that they have to discharge and they would not deliberatelky throw a monkey-wrench into their own construction now. Furthremore, they aspire to be a major source of nuclear power plants in the world; they have too much reputational risk to indulge in this type of activities that does not help them.
The Stuxnet or any such thing could be removed by reformatting all hard-drives and by re-installing software from their original installation media.
The crowing of some in the West that the BPP is fundamentally flaws (from an engineering point of view) leads me to believe that their statements are a form of propaganda.
The core of the reactor, in my opinion, cannot be fundamentally flawed from a design stand point. It might be flawed in terms of construction defects. But it is difficult to believe that such construction defects are only now discovered. If that is the case, then Russians cannot be trusted to build a LW reactor anywhere in the world. And thus more busines for the non-Russian suppliers.
We will know by the end of March if thisis indeed a serious issue.
Bussed-In Basiji,
Disagree with Soros.
But I confess I rather like him.
Pirouz says: February 26, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Tom Hayden should have been disqualified for running on moral grounds.
For years he was sending his wife out – the actress Jane Fonda – to hire prostitutes to join them in marital bed so that he could act out his sexual fantasies.
Arnold,
Iran has said for years it is producing LEU for operating nuclear power plants. This means 5% maximum purity. Only exception has been for tiny amount of 20% U needed for TRR. And Iran was willing to suspend the 20% enrichment if its IAEA application to refuel the TRR is approved.
Fiorangela,
Are you claiming that most Europeans and Americans believe Iran has no programme to develop nukes?
Yes, Arnold, the vetting process is regrettable. In my opinion, this is the primary cause for the disenfranchisement of student types you see rebelling on 25 Bahman and 1 Esfand–they have no true representation in the current makeup of Iranian politics.
At least in the American anti-establishment era, a figure such as Tom Hayden had access and could enter the political establishment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Hayden
But it doesn’t appear this is the case currently in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Right now, it’s perceived as being too much of a threat. Again, this is regrettable. I would hope that if the Leverett’s policy advocacy for the US was ever implemented, reduced tensions would allow for an easing of this vetting process.
Arnold Evans
Re: your question on candidate selection
I think the Uruguayan system of selection is interesting. Here is the relevant PDF file:
http://www.wfu.edu/politics/conference/pub/Chapter%207%20Moraes.pdf
James Canning said, @ February 25, 2011 at 2:48 pm
fyi,
I think you are missing my points entirely. The object I stress is to work toward educating the people of Europe with a view toward convincing their national interests are threatened by the Israel-lobby-driven foreign policy of the US.
If an idiotic war happens, of course Italy or Germany would not help Iran. Only an idiot would expect that!
w respect James, you’re not making any points that are supported with evidence beyond name-calling and parochial perspective.
Merkel has spent several years demonstrating that Germans are prostrate — PROSTRATE with holocaust guilt, but eventually, that gig gets old. Earlier this week, Merkel reamed out Netanyahu http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=125350#axzz1F5DNvZh0
and now Germans are circling the spat, sniffing the air and waiting to see which side of the fight to join :http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,746932,00.html
Israeli leaders have a pattern of overplaying their hand, and cascading national bankruptcies encountering intransigent Israeli and Israel-addled American finance manipulators might create the elements of a major parting of the ways: Israel has had its 15 minutes of fame; it’s over.
Iran has deep historic roots with Italy and with Germany, and even today share extensive commercial, cultural, and tourist ties. Many, many Iranians whose lives are walking deaths after having been harmed by chemicals dropped on them by Iraqi forces flying American helicopters in the Iran-Iraq war, are treated in German hospitals.
You also wrote:
There will be no war, in my view, if Iran continues to avoid developing nuclear weapons. I would expect war as being more likely than not, if the Iranian government takes your advice and tries to develop nukes on the sly.
The Canning-Brill tag team.
Absorb this fact: NUKES ARE NOT THE ISSUE. Nukes are the subterfuge.
If nukes are not the issue, then nothing that Iran does relative to its nuclear project will make a farthing’s worth of difference whether US-Israel wage war on Iran.
The west nearly put its arms out of joint patting themselves on the back that the terror of being “Iraqed” induced Qadafi to give up his nukes. So Liby went nuke-less. Did that make Libya a better place? No. And listen to or read what the West has to say about the evil of Qadafi today. Did denuking make him a better person? No. (Granted, madman Qadafi w/ nukes today would have been terrifying, but a) there’s still Pakistan; and b) Iran is not under the control of a unitary authority; and c) Iran is not irrational as is Qadafi.
Which cycles us back to George Soros: I boldly voted AGAINST Soros’ prediction.
BUT — as stated above, the issue is not Iran’s nukes, the heart of the matter of the zionists’ orgasmic and psychopathic compulsion to dominate Iran is the same as Samuel Untermyer’s compulsion to dominate Germany in 1933, and Soros’ compulsion to dominate Malaysia in 1997. When Soros was called to account by the Asian Prime Minister, sure as night follows day, the prime minister was called antisemitic, was make to apologize, and Soros wrapped himself in virtue and victimhood.
If George Soros laid the bet that Iran would be changed by year’s end, one should be at least a little suspicious that Soros has some sting operation up his sleeve–Soros does not make bets that are not carefully hedged. Why did Stuart Levey leave Dept of Treasury — after he had gained access to the heads of central banks and major corporations throughout the world? What is Soros up to?
Question for the floor:
My feeling is that the most, and as far as I know the only significant, deviation in Iran’s political system from democratic principles is the candidate vetting process.
The problem is that a money-based primary system like in the United States would be very prone to manipulation by outside forces if implemented in a small country like Iran with rich potential adversaries.
The Egyptian proposed candidate selection process seems credible to me.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/26/us-egypt-constitution-presidency-idUSTRE71P17Q20110226
Bishri said presidential candidates must either have: the support of 30 members of parliament; or the backing of 30,000 eligible voters across about half the country’s governorates; or be nominated by a registered political party with at least one member elected to either the upper or lower house of parliament.
What do you think of this candidate selection process and candidate selection processes in general?
Someone asked God, “What surprises you most about humankind?” God answered: “That they lose their health to make money and then lose their money to restore their health; that, by thinking anxiously about the future, they forget the present, such that they live neither for the present nor the future; that, they live as if they will never die, and they die as if they had never lived…”
Matt says:
February 26, 2011 at 11:22 am
Disagree with Soros.
The NY Times article is co-authored by David E. Sanger. Not, long ago, the same Muslim-loving, Iran-adoring Sanger had authored a piece on the 19 midium range missiles which Iran supposedly received from N. Korea.
See NYT Oversells WikiLeaks/Iranian Missiles Story
at http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/11/29/nyt-oversells-wikileaksiranian-missiles-story/
Now to the issue at hand. A decision was made to remove fuel from the reactor. That, in a nutshell is all that is known. However, David Sanger gets to call it at a minimum ‘embarassing’, and adds hopefully, ‘a show stopper’.
Well here is The Voice of Russia’s account of the exact same news:
,http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/02/26/46330258.html
“Iran will take the fuel out of a reactor of its Bushehr nuclear power plant under advice of Russian technicians who constructed the facility, Iran’s envoy to the IAEA Ali Asghar Soltanieh told the ISNA news agency on Saturday.
The fuel will be taken out for a while to conduct some experiments and technical work, the official said, noting that security issues were priority during the construction and the plant complies with the world’s toughest security standards.
The fuel was put in the reactor last December.”
Everything else is simply, spin, wishful thinking, disaster-desiring on the part of David Sanger with absolutely no basis in facts.
1. I agree with the statement, “There are many Americans, and there are many ways of waging war. From the perspective of this American, US DID, or rather, continued, the war it has been waging against Iran since at least 1995, maybe as early as 1979.” (made by Fiorangela).
2. When Soros and the like make predictions of that sort, their statements need to be decoded as follows:
“We are using various means at our disposal to create a public perception that Islamic Republic of Iran will be out in a year. Myself making this statement, too, is part of that strategy.”
When the only tool one has at one’s disposal is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. Speculative banking/accounting/financing, speculative economy, speculative demonstrators, speculative uprising, speculative shadow entities (each with 100s of facebook accounts), speculative democracy, speculative freedoms, speculative terror nets, and speculative speculations of spectacular expectations. It is this method of thinking that makes a giant snake out of so-called worm, 10 people on YouTube become tens of thousands demonstrators, a country with 14+ trillion dollar borrowed from central banks of China and Japan is labeled as “the richest country” in the world [http://www.usdebtclock.org/], a country with the highest numbers of prisoners is labeled as “the freest country” in the world, men who create bloodbaths are labeled as “men of peace”, and those who refrain from using weapons of mass destruction (even when they themselves were the subject of it) are labeled as terrorists.
Translation/interpretation from Hafiz Shirazi:
“If I told you the truth about God
you might think I was an idiot.
If I LIED to you about the Beautiful One
You might parade me through the streets shouting,
‘this guy is a genius.’
this world has its pants on backwards,
It carries its values and knowledge in a jug with a big hole in it.
Thus, having a clear grasp upon the situation,
If I am asked anything these days,
I just laugh.”
Disagree with Soros.
(Waiting in anticipation to read analysis of the latest news on Bushehr and the press insinuation’s that Stuxnet may be the cause. When I read the NYT piece I posted below, I immediately recalled a couple posts on iranaffairs.com: “Debunking the Stuxnet hype” [:http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2011/01/debunking-the-stuxnet-hype.html and “Suspicious timing of the Stuxnet-Iran story” [:http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2011/02/suspicious-timing-of-the-stuxnet-iran-story.html. Any thoughts on the timing of this story and the way it is hyped as a “major setback”? Do we need to wait for more information before making conjectures about the actual circumstances and the way it’s being covered in the press at this particular moment?
Disagree with Soros
Castellio:
By America I mean the foreign policy apparatus of the United States, currently led by Obama, executed by people who are part of a chain of command under Obama and influenced by all of the influences to the president, including private sector supporters and also colleagues and peers who are not in government.
I say there is a visible consensus of the US foreign policy apparatus that Iran’s nuclear program and specifically Iran’s possession of a certain amount of LEU poses a strategic challenge for the United States. I infer this from comments I’ve read by members of the Obama administration such are Gary Samore and members of the military such as Robert Gates and Mullen on the topic of Iran’s nuclear issue. This view is shared by people who are not directly part of the administration but who are considered colleagues of administration nuclear policy officials such as David Albright and a lot of others.
RSH and Eric disagree with what seems to me to be a clear consensus of the extended US policy making community when they assert that Iran gets no strategic benefit from its weapons program unless it builds a weapon or could in a very short time period of days or a couple of weeks or less.
If the US policy community agreed with RSH and Eric, they could offer that Iran limit its stockpile of LEU to ten tons or more as long as it is at 20% enrichment or less. Even 20% LEU takes longer to weaponize than RSH or Eric consider strategically useful.
The attempts to persuade Iran to limit its domestic stock to less than a ton, as well as US efforts to prevent Iranian enrichment themselves indicate a different conception on the part of the US nuclear policy community of the strategic implications of Iran’s nuclear program, even when a substantial distance away from an actual weapon than the one we see from RSH and Eric.
I bring this up both as an argument from authority, that the US nuclear policy community understand the issues better than RSH and Eric do even if I fail to explain the reasons to their satisfaction and also as an argument that right or wrong, the perception of the US nuclear policy community of the strategic implications of an Iranian nuclear program that is a substantial distance from a weapon to a large degree comprises itself the strategic implications of such a program. If the US policy community thinks there is a strategic implication, then that by itself means there is a strategic implication since the US foreign policy community itself is an important relevant actor in strategic scenarios.
RSH and Eric part ways at this point. To my memory, Eric has never responded to these arguments. RSH responds that I’m wrong about the perception of the nuclear policy community, that members of this community agree with him that there is no strategic benefit to Iran having a nuclear program that is a substantial distance from a weapon and are lying when they say otherwise. I can’t penetrate that. I’ve made the best argument I can. RSH and I are going to disagree on this point.
I consider the issue of shareholders in weapons companies is to be a separate issue. I disagree with RSH on the degree of their ability to direct US policy. Neither of us can convince the other on this point either.
Gates: ‘US cannot win conventional wars’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/gates-us-cannot-win-conventional-wars/
definitely the Islamic Republic of Iran will survive longer than Soros himself! be it six months, one year or a few years more!
if I were him, I would have given a longer period so that I could be sure I won’t see the wrongness of my prediction, unless he will not actually be alive next year this time :D does he have a serious disease? ;)
here is what I say a “like” option is needed for the comments. it would be great if people could vote on every comment made here. a “+” or “-” option shouldn’t be that difficult to add.
Castellio @ February 25, 2011 at 8:12 pm
“There are many “Americas”. . . .
I did expect a US attack on Iran in 2006 precisely because I thought the US was losing the Iraq war. I thought the US would double down. They didn’t, at least not at that time.”
There are many Americans, and there are many ways of waging war.
From the perspective of this American, US DID, or rather, continued, the war it has been waging against Iran since at least 1995, maybe as early as 1979.
Disagree with Soros
haven’t read the article, as per usual, but nonetheless:
Disagree with Soros! Bigtime.
BIB: Disagree with Soros.
Persian Gulf, thanks.
BiB:
Disagree with Soros ( Dieses Sackgesicht )
Leveretts: Disagree with Soros (with your permission to get things started)
BiB: Disagree with Soros
BiB
Disagree with Soros
Back to the real subject of this thread:
I guess we all agree that the Islamic Republic of Iran in its current form (i.e. “the regime”) will exist at the end of the year. Right? Anyone agree with Soros?
Let’s take a simple little survey of the participants (Scott that would be an “unscientific” survey unlike the ones that prove overwhelming support for the Islamic republic, Supreme Leader and Ahmadinejad, so you can relax on this one).
A simple “Agree with Soros” or “Disagree with Soros” will do. Thank you.
Castellio says:
February 26, 2011 at 12:33 am
I would say start with “Sociology”, then go for “Capitalism and modern social theory”, “A contemporary critique of historical materialism” (a bit difficult to comprehend though), and “New rules of sociological method”. For his work on modernity, “The consequences of modernity” is a must read book and I think the most famous one of his work.“Modernity and self-identity: self and society in the late modern age” is fine , although intellectually confusing and not well structured, still a few chapters of it are highly recommended. “The transformation of intimacy” is worth reading, although it differs from his other books as he explores the social development in a very personal and psychological level. His work on politics in recent years are not comparable with his earlier work, in my view. I would say books like “Beyond left and right: the future of radical politics” and “The third way” are half worth reading, probably because of his focus on issues not so important for me. “Runaway world: how globalization is reshaping Our Lives” is also worth looking at. I don’t know why he didn’t continue writing about this subject in detail. In fact, he had a come back with his another valuable book: “The politics of climate change”; though with mostly leftist perspectives.
Fio,
The predatory finanical system turned against some Jews recently when Bernade Madoff ripped of countless of people, many of whom were Jews in NY.
Predatroy finance is turning more in to Cancerous Finance.
@fyi
Russia is still working hard to intergrate closely with Europe – and is doing this via its energy driven foriegn policy, as energy security is what Europe wants and what Russia feels she can offer, via its nord stream and south stream pipelines. As well as co-opting European energy firms with lucrative contract in Russia, like the recent agreement with BP that was signed in London with the blessing of UK govt. something that the USA was not happy about.
The wild card in this has been the USA – it knows Russias game and is playing hard to ensure that Russia does not pull Europe away from USA – she does this via NATO, missle defence, and especially using the eastern european states to antagonise Russia, which ten causes an bigger crisis which has to be dealt with at the EU level rather then at national level.
Unfortuantely for Russia apart from energy she has got nothing else to offer Europe. The only two things she can offer, weapons and military security is currently been given by USA. So she continues to play the energy game and plays hard to keep foreign competitors away from providing energy to europe. How Russia will deal with Isreal, offering its new found gas wealth in the mediteranean sea to Europe with USA backing, only time will tell. But I am sure, the Russian “Jews” in Isreal will play a part in that soon to Russias interest.
Fio,
I would argue there is a “Judeao-Christian” tradition.
The Christian concept of the Trinity has been taken on by modern Jews, who have their own holty trinity:
1. Shoah
2. Zionism
3. Isreal
Unfortunately, most Europeans accept and respect the Jewish trinity and reject & dis-respect the Christian trinity.
James Canning says:
February 25, 2011 at 6:29 pm
“You should pay more attention to what David Cameron and William Hague are saying, regarding how the neocons caused the US to drive itself over a cliff.”
How do you explain David Cameron’s recent speech in Doha where he continued spewing Iran is a threat to the region and wants nukes propaganda??? His govt will be working with USA and France to turn the screws on Iran even further to deter their nuclear programme, whilst Isreal is busy stealing Palestinian lands, bombing Gaza and violating Lebanese airspace – his got nothing to say to isreal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/09/cameron-scapegoating-muslims-toxic-impact
In a previous thread I commented about his infamous speech in Munich and you replied by saying that Cameron wants Muslims to be economically succesful in UK. Well, who doesnt want to be economically succesful, no one needs DC to tell Muslims or anyone else that. That argument does not deal with the content of his speech.
The Conservative Party has been hijacked by the neo-conservatives, such as Micheal Gove, Osborne, Fox et al.
Everybody – to understand the policy of the UK govt, this article will shed some light on it:
—————————————————————–
Cameron’s scapegoating will have a chilling, toxic impactBlaming Islamists and multiculturalism for the backlash from US and British wars risks fuelling violence on the streets
by Seamus Milne, Guardian.co.uk, 9/2/11
In parts of Britain, Muslims are effectively under siege. They are routinely spat at and abused in the street. Over the past couple of months there have been arson and other attacks on mosques in Hemel Hempstead, Leicester, Scunthorpe, Stoke and Kingston, as well as desecration of a Muslim graveyard and fire-bombing of a halal shop.
Most of these outrages weren’t even reported in the national media, let alone the occasion for a supportive visit from a government minister. As elsewhere in Europe, far-right organisations such as the British National party have increasingly switched the focus of their hatred from Jews and migrant populations in general to Muslims. More than half the “significant demonstrations” in the past 18 months, according to the Inspectorate of Constabulary, were mounted by the English Defence League, which only targets Muslims, smashing shop windows and assaulting passers-by whenever it manages to break through police lines in mainly Muslim areas.
As the Conservative party chairwoman Sayeeda Warsi said last month – and was roundly abused for doing so – Islamophobia has also “now crossed the threshold of middle-class respectability”. It is the last socially acceptable form of bigotry, often dressed up in the clothes of liberalism.
So when the EDL organised a “homecoming” march last weekend in Luton, did the prime minister use the opportunity to condemn the racially inflamed provocation of a gang of Muslim-baiters and show solidarity with fellow British citizens under threat? Not a bit of it. He didn’t even mention what was going on in Luton. Speaking the same day in Munich, of all places, he turned his fire instead on “Islamists”, “state multiculturalism” and “non-violent extremists” in the Muslim community.
Muslims must embrace “British” values of freedom, democracy and equal rights, he declared, as if the vast majority didn’t do so already. Jihadist terror attacks were not driven by British and US wars in the Muslim world, he insisted – in the face of his own intelligence reports – but by an “extremist ideology” rooted in problems of “identity”.
And, grotesquely comparing non-violent Islamists to “rightwing fascists”, he warned that there would be a strict checklist of Muslim bodies the government would not now work with or fund (including the umbrella Muslim Council of Britain). He did criticise Islamophobia, but that passing comment was drowned out by the drumbeat of condemnation targeted at Muslims and their political organisations.
Not surprisingly his speech has been hailed by the far right. The BNP leader Nick Griffin called it a “huge leap for our ideas into the political mainstream”. EDL activists, who constantly echo the established political and media discourse about “extremism”, and “Islamism”, were jubilant that Cameron had “come round to our way of thinking”.
It also represents a decisive and dangerous victory for the neoconservative group in the Tory leadership, including Michael Gove, William Hague, George Osborne and Liam Fox. Backed by the government-funded Quilliam Foundation and their media cheerleaders, the neocons have pressed tirelessly to end residual official engagement with mainstream nonviolent Islamist groups, hitherto aimed at isolating the genuinely extreme groups actually in the business of blowing up buses and tubes.
On the other side, one-nation Tories and Liberal Democrats such as Warsi, Dominic Grieve and Nick Clegg have tried to hold the line for a more inclusive approach towards the kind of Muslim political activism you might imagine would be welcome in the prime minister’s world of British values.
Cameron himself warned three years ago about the “lazy” use of terms such as “Islamist” that risked demonising the Muslim community, as Warsi did about “extremism”. He’s now carried out a U-turn, just in time to give a dog whistle to Tory supporters drifting away under the barrage of coalition cuts – and to a party for the most part yet to come to terms with multicultural Britain at all.
The silence from the Lib Dems, who dined off Muslim votes in the aftermath of the Iraq war, has been deafening. Labour’s Sadiq Khan accused Cameron of “writing propaganda for the EDL”, but much of the ground for Cameron’s neocon turn was laid by Tony Blair and New Labour – and politicians such as Phil Woolas, who unsuccessfully tried to play the Islamophobic card to save his skin.
By blaming the threat of terrorism on multiculturalism, Cameron has signalled that ethnic minority policy will now be driven by an alarmingly skewed conception of state security. By groundlessly claiming that “we” have held back from condemning forced marriages among Muslims because they’re not white, he’s feeding racist prejudice.
And by branding political Islam as extremist, he’s playing on the ignorance of those for whom Muslim and Islamist are as good as indistinguishable. What is called Islamism includes a wide spectrum of political trends, peaceful and violent, socially conservative and progressive, from Turkey’s ruling party to al-Qaida. Mainstream Islamists, certainly including almost all the groups Cameron is now casting into outer darkness, are in fact committed to democratic freedoms.
What Cameron and the bulk of the British political class cannot acknowledge is that their continued support for the war on terror and occupation of Afghanistan, far from keeping the streets safe, is the crucial factor in the continuing threat of terrorism in Britain.
The revolutionary upheavals taking place in Tunisia and Egypt should offer the western powers a chance to change direction. After all, backing for despots across the Arab worlds such as Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak has long been one of the central grievances at the heart of Islamist (and nationalist) politics, in the region and beyond. It would be bizarre if just as the British and other western governments are having to come to terms with Islamist movements in the Middle East, they were treating their counterparts at home as enemies of the state.
The practical policy consequences of Cameron’s neocon turn may be modest. But its wider impact is likely to be chilling and poisonous. If the government’s message is that peaceful independent Muslim political activism is beyond the pale, it won’t just be regarded as hypocritical and undemocratic – it will strengthen the hand of those committed to violence.
Pak,
I share your sentiments re Rafsanjani. (I would add, however, that I think position is different with Faezeh Hashemi, who is enduring intimidation and harassment to press her case on civil and political rights.)
Latest reading this morning….
*There appears to be a concerted move by a significant bloc in Iranian politics to position itself between the Ahmadinejad-led Government and the opposition.
Former Presidential candidate Ali Akbar Nategh Nouri has defended former President Hashemi Rafsanjani by saying, “We should not make the circle of people under the Revolutionary umbrella too narrow.”
Rafsanjani has been facing a serious challenge from the Government, both through Ahmadinejad allies challenging his re-election as head of the Assembly of Experts and through intimidation and threats of prosecution of his family, including his son Mehdi Hashemi and his daughter Faezeh Hashemi (see 1055 GMT).
While trying to hold their ground against the Government, both Rafsanjani and Nategh Nouri have also put up a public face of joining regime celebrations and opposing recent demonstrations, such as the march of 14 February. As we noted yesterday, Nategh Nouri was at this week’s session of the hard-line Association of Theological Teachers of Qom Seminary, which emphasised its “utter repugnance with the seditionists”.*
http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/2/26/the-latest-from-iran-26-february-uncertainties.html
S.
Reza,
“How can you possibly write about U.S foreign policy and the CIA without access to the officials responsible?”
Because I am an extremely good analyst and a very smart guy.
And I am also modest.
S.
Come Back, IranPhD, wherever you are!
My horseplay with you was too rough for a neophyte, and I am sorry :o(
Do come back :o)
CHECKMATE!!!!!!
(Keeping the current events in mind) I.R. of Iran will force the United States onto its knees and end the era of a unilateral world order due to two simple reasons:
1. The dire state of the U.S. economy and the American psyche, will not be able to handle high oil prices, most of which are driven by speculations due to uncertainty and confusion in the global financial markets
2. I.R. of Iran holds the OPEC presidency, which has given the country the power to significantly put the U.S. under pressure.
The only missing piece is a headline similar to this one: “Protests have reached Saudi Arabia!”
Once the U.S. economy feels the pinch, Obama and Co. will run to OPEC/Iran and beg them to increase the supply and act to calm the markets. Tehran will act accordingly, but in return Washington needs to decide whether she will be on the side of the ‘resistance’ or Israel.
ScumPack says:
February 25, 2011 at 7:34 pm
SP , read this:
“It is not fascism , when We do it.”
http://www.anunews.net/
“…As the Washington historian William Blum has documented, since 1945, the US has destroyed or subverted more than 50 governments, many of them democracies, and used mass murderers like Suharto, Mobutu and Pinochet to dominate by proxy. In the Middle East, every dictatorship and pseudo-monarchy has been sustained by America. In “Operation Cyclone,” the CIA and MI6 secretly fostered and bankrolled Islamic extremism. The object was to smash or deter nationalism and democracy. The victims of this western state terrorism have been mostly Muslims.”…
I hope that Cyrus Safdari or others can shed some light on this recent news story: “Iran Reports a Major Setback at a Nuclear Power Plan” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/world/middleeast/26nuke.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss).
Castellio: “the timing is determined by the actions necessary within the United States to maintain a working coherence among competing elites to maintain advantage for the most powerful.”
Agreed. This is why I don’t predict the exact timing of the war, nor do I make the assumption that since it hasn’t happened to date that it can never happen. Arnold and others are looking for reasons why it hasn’t happened. I don’t need a reason more than the above.
The war will happen when a consensus among the ruling elites is reached on when, how, and the cost benefit to the people who will profit from it – not the people who will pay for it (the taxpayer), or the people who will fight it (the Pentagon), or the people who will die in it, or probably even the people who will vote on it (the Congress). This may or may not be related to whatever else is going on at the time – such as Iraq, Afghanistan, revolts in the Arab world, the plans for Pakistan or who knows what else is on the plate of the elites. It might even depend on internal domestic politics to some degree, that wouldn’t surprise me. Maybe everyone is waiting for the next Republican President. Who knows? Certainly not us.
Arnold: “Is your position that the United States does not care about the 1 ton threshold?”
Yes, I think that’s correct. Now whether that was done to make their position plausible to the international community or whether they really think that would matter (assuming, for example, that they really believe Iran might be trying to get a nuke at some point). I couldn’t say.
As you pointed out, correctly in my opinion, if that deal was made so Iran could get fuel for the TRR reactor, then it’s probable the US would have reneged on that deal anyway.
In any event, it’s clear Iran is not going to allow itself to be held under one ton. I don’t know whether that’s because they really want a full Japan Option or whether there are other technical or political reasons for that. I just doubt Iran would agree to it absent some significant US concession, at the very least providing the TRR fuel in a timely manner.
“Is your position that Iran does not care if its stockpile is above or below that threshold?”
See above. Iran may have various reasons unknown to us as to whether it should have that stockpile, even if Iran does not want a full Japan Option. Since the Japan Option is inherent in mastering the fuel cycle, Iran may wish to keep its options open rather than committing to never being able to have a larger stockpile.
It has other reactors under development – it might wish to keep the stockpile for them, or in case some other circumstances make it desirable.
It might even wish to export that LEU if it gets enough of it over its needs to some other country for money. Who knows? I don’t remember the US offering to pay Iran for the stuff. If the US offered that, and paid in advance of the removal, I might take the idea more seriously.
“the idea that the US does not consider Iran’s nuclear program to have strategic value is preposterous.”
I want to point out that you’re rather generalizing here. It may well be that the US thinks an Iranian nuclear weapons program would have strategic value. But Iran may not think so. Or some people in the US government might think so – but the ruling elites don’t care. There are a lot of possibilities that don’t necessarily fit in that one general statement. Also, as I pointed out, there is geopolitical value, there is military strategic value and the two are not the same.
We can disagree on whether an Iranian nuclear weapons program – depending on how many and how well they can be delivered – has strategic value or could be acquired before the US could prevent that from happening and what the consequences would be if such an arsenal were used.
It’s irrelevant anyway unless and until Iran actually develops nuclear weapons or the US backs down and actually never does attack Iran (and Israel follows suit). The instant a war starts, your whole argument will go out the window. So I have a definite endpoint where my case will be proven. Yours will be in limbo as long as the US does not attack. The longer that occurs, the stronger your case will be. But it will never be as solid as the resolution of my case if and when it occurs.
So enjoy your temporary advantage while it lasts. I have confidence it won’t last forever. History argues against it.
Pak:
Re your post on February 25, 2011 at 7:34 pm
That is precisely why people see you as downright dishonest. First at any moment that you can, you call USA and West in general as “well-lubricated”, “well-matured”, “oiled-up-and-ready” democracy and as a model to follow, then the moment that you are challenged on the democratic (!!!) nature of the western democracies, you fall back on the non-sense that you are neither an American nor a US resident and therefore try to escape the heavy (actually impossible) burden of defending the western democracy as a model for Iran to follow (a model which is actually being followed faithfuly by Iran)
Arnold, just to make a nuisance of myself, in your question “Is your position that the United States does not care about the 1 ton threshold?”, who is the United States?
Is it people who work for the government in the Pentagon, Secretary of State, and perhaps members of the Congress and the White House? When RSH thinks to answer that question, should he think of those people, or should he think (as he does) of the major shareholders and owners of Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, General Dynamics, KBR, etc.?
The first group might care about the one ton threshold, the second group might not. They are both America.
Which group is more powerful in determining policy? I agree with RSH that it’s the people who own the production and have the assets and purchase the politicians who are more determinant in the long run than the policy professionals, although the latter do have their moment.
The point I’m trying to make is simply that it is neither one group nor the other who, in rational discourse, will determine the timing of the war: the timing is determined by the actions necessary within the United States to maintain a working coherence among competing elites to maintain advantage for the most powerful.
Persian Gulf, given your use of the term “glorious”, is there a specific work from that time you might suggest?
Castellio says:
February 25, 2011 at 3:06 am
I dare to say Giddens’ understanding of non-western, in particular Islamic, societies are limited. He even admitted that in his books. I agree with his general idea of continuous high modernity, but his work in the past decade are not that impressive, compared to his glorious time. As you know, his best work are for 80s and 90s (I think he said what it supposed to be said at that period). Although he is a genius, it seems he sees history somehow one dimensional in a sense that all societies follow the same trajectory as the western ones.
RHS:
The US put an offer on the table in 2010 and again in 2011 to de-escalate tensions over Iran’s nuclear issue if Iran holds its stockpile of LEU under 1 ton.
Is your position that the United States does not care about the 1 ton threshold?
By your and Eric’s analysis it should not. Every statement, action and policy of the United States indicates that it does.
Iran rejects these offers.
Is your position that Iran does not care if its stockpile is above or below that threshold?
By your and Eric’s analysis it should not. Every statement, action and policy of the Iranians indicates that it does.
This idea of yours that Iran’s nuclear stockpile does not matter unless it already has a weapon is something you believe on faith. Nothing anyone has said or done confirms or could confirm this belief.
I’ve read a whole lot of statements by US officials and non-government members of the US nuclear policy community and the idea that the US does not consider Iran’s nuclear program to have strategic value is preposterous.
If you think everyone is lying, we just have to agree to disagree, because now we’ve arrived at a proposition that is immune to evidence or any objective validation.
We just come back to, then let’s see who predicts behavior better.
There are many “Americas”. I tend to feel that RSH and Arnold reflect different aspects of America through their critique of the different concerns of distinct, if sometimes overlapping, elites: RSH considering the big-money neo-con nexus, and Arnold the foreign affairs / military operational bureaucracy.
I did expect a US attack on Iran in 2006 precisely because I thought the US was losing the Iraq war. I thought the US would double down. They didn’t, at least not at that time.
I do think the US intends on remaining in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I think even that is getting to be quite a challenge. I also think the US wants to move into a position where it can quickly control the Pakistani nukes. (Yes, I think the US engages in false flag operations to create such conditions.)
And the US has always been frightened of what is currently happening throughout Arabic lands, the rising up of Islamic peoples led by positive self-images of themselves and their future, united in shared and fundamental values (which are not equated with American values).
Attacking Iran would lead to further losses of power and influence in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and throughout the Middle East and North Africa. That’s a high price to pay for what, exactly? Dimishing Hezbullah and Hamas? And it might not even do that, would it?
George Bush made critical errors in foreign policy, Obama has continued building on those errors. No sanity is in sight. Only through reversing its direction can the US begin to repair its wounds… yet leaders both Republican and Democratic are lining up wanting to “double down” on using military force. They think if they can bomb Iran they “behead the snake”. (They live in a metaphorical universe.) However, these fanatics hardly represent the majority of the American people (not that that matters too much) who are looking for some break in an economic mismanagement of the country which is certifiably bi-partisan.
So while it doesn’t seem like an attack on Iran is immanent or wise or useful, that doesn’t mean that contesting elites might not decide to come together to bomb Iran precisely as a means of unifying their control of the home base.
Or not.
The conditions are in a tight balance right now. Individual actors and actions have real consequence.
Isn’t that what happened prior to the invasion of Iraq: the big oil/ military industrial interests and the pro-Israel Zionist neo-con movement, united in Cheney, consolidating their control of the American government by uniting in war?
So, irrational as it is, I think a war against Iran is likely sooner rather than later, as a reflection of a range of centrifugal forces in the US which are easier to manage through the momentary unity of another nationalistic war.
Finkelstein and Canadian Jewish Lobby
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/finkelstein-and-canadian-jewish-lobby/
Arnold: “No US planner or member of the US security apparatus has ever described bombing Iran or any country to the stone age as a viable way to prevent a country with capacity to manufacture a nuclear weapon from doing so.”
Perhaps you misunderstand my point.
If Iran is attacked by US conventional forces, and the US has any inkling that Iran is building a nuclear weapon which can be deployed either against any significant number of US forces or outside Iran’s borders, the US will destroy Iran’s conventional military forces with tactical nukes.
Nukes, like any bomb, are only useful if you have a military left to take advantage of them. Iran will not. Nukes are also only useful if you have a population left to take advantage of them.
If the US wished to utterly destroy Iran, it could do so by reducing Iran’s 73 million population by half or two thirds by bombing every Iranian city over a given size. Tehran alone has nearly one fifth the population of Iran in it.
Whatever population or military forces are left would be unable to do more than garner up a weak insurgency. The best they could do would be to prevent the US from completely occupying Iran. From the point of view of counter-attacking with any nuclear weapons, it would be a joke.
This is the point every one ignores. Sure, you can’t stop Iran from building a nuke during a war – provided of course Iran has planned for that and has all the materials stored in a secret location which can withstand conventional and nuclear bunker buster attack.
But such a nuke does you no good if the rest of the country’s military, and then possibly a significant portion of the population, has been destroyed.
Whereas all you can do with that nuke is kill maybe ten thousand US troops. So what? From a cost-benefit analysis, YOU LOSE!
This isn’t the US vs Russia, where both sides could lose 100 million people and most of their infrastructure. And thus they can both credibly threaten each other.
The US can kill the bulk of the population of Iran. Iran can kill what? 10,000 US troops IF they get lucky?
And this is a calculation acceptable to the Iranian leadership? This is a “deterrent”?
It’s a joke. And the Iranians know it. You’re the only one who doesn’t.
Arnold: “One or two weapons could kill a substantial number of US troops. I disagree that the US doesn’t care about that.”
Not in terms related to whether the US could continue to conduct a conventional, let alone nuclear, war after such a strike. The US is prepared to fight on a nuclear battlefield. It has been so throughout the Cold War against an enemy considerably more powerful than Iran.
“I think Iran could probably build a weapon in a year from here. My confidence in this increases as time passes. By the time Obama leaves office I expect to be pretty sure Iran could build weapons in one year.”
Again, that would be irrelevant if said weapons 1) are untested, 2) cannot be delivered. If the US believes otherwise, the war will occur at that point.
“Probably, but Iraq at the time of the invasion didn’t “probably” not have a nuclear weapon. If US generals could not be more sure than “probably” that Iraq didn’t have one or more nuclear weapons then that would certainly have had an impact on their planning.”
“Having an impact” does not mean “giving up and going home.”
“Iraq if it had a weapon would most likely have used it on US troops.”
So what? I’m not sure about the organization of US troops in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia at the time, but the use of a, let’s say ten kiloton, weapon against dispersed troops wouldn’t be strategic enough to defeat the US forces in the field. Not to mention that said forces could be reinforced rather quickly. Not to mention that the retaliation by the US using perhaps DOZENS of tactical nukes against Iraqi forces would have decimated the Iraqi military much more quickly as a result.
“The point isn’t to kill Americans and endure US retaliation. The point is to threaten to kill Americans and have US policymakers consider the threat in deciding whether or not to attack.”
And if the US policymakers don’t care? If the US policymakers merely take that threat into consideration and both accelerate the war plans and enhance them to deal with that threat? Which is exactly what the US would do.
“No, not almost useless, they would, if constructed, increase the number of US soldiers who would be expected to die in attacking Iran by some number of thousands. That would be very useful and an attack that is worth it if 1,000 killed in action is anticipated may well not be worth it if 8,000 killed in action is anticipated.”
You really don’t comprehend warfare or military doctrine. As I said above, if such an attack is anticipated, the US will take measures to 1) ensure such an attack is not launched, and 2) if launched, will not be successful to the degree that it becomes a deterrent. This is War 101.
What it would mean for Iran is that Iran would be nuked first, tactically at first, strategically if necessary.
“Ok. That’s also where we are headed and Iran has a very good chance of thwarting any US attempts to prevent Iran from reaching this position over the next 15 or 20 years.”
Based on what? First of all, no one has said the US will wait that long. Second, you’ve provided no argument to explain how Iran can thwart the US for that length of time – other than returning to your basic idea that somehow Iran has a sufficient deterrent AT THIS TIME and for all time in between. I believe that’s considered a circular argument.
“Crude weapons though, can have strategic value. Missiles are better but gun type devices would impact US military calculations in a way favorable to Iran.”
This is a general statement with no concrete application. Specify exactly how and how the US could not counter such a deployment.
“Obama, Bolton and Takeyh reflect the US foreign policy consensus on this issue.”
Oh, really, I’m supposed to treat this as a serious argument? Really? You’re relying on John Bolton now as an expert in foreign policy – or even as not a born-again liar? Really? You’re quoting John Bolton propaganda in furtherance of attacking Iran NOW as a reason the US will NOT attack Iran? Really?
You might wanna reconsider.
“You, Eric and Alan all seem to have decided that you understand one or another issue better than the relevant US planners.”
And you’ve decided that you and John Bolton understand these issues better than the relevant US planners – and the US ruling elites – who you don’t know, and can’t cite in detail.
Lame. Very lame.
“Even if you’re right, the fact that US planners, and the US president think Iran having nuclear capacity has strategic value, by itself means Iran having nuclear capacity has strategic value.”
First of all, you don’t KNOW what Obama’s “perceptions” are, only what he has – and the bunch of neocons you’ve quoted – said. This isn’t necessarily true, as I’ve pointed out over and over again.
Second, everything I’ve ever read from these clowns is intended to establish that Iran should not have nuclear weapons and it is my opinion – in fact, I would regard it as fact – that the intent of these statements is SOLELY to justify the US position against the Iran nuclear program. Your ASSUMPTION that these statements are either true or relevant is questionable at best.
I have argued repeatedly – and so have others – that even if Iran HAD nuclear weapons NOW, it would not justify the US position against Iran because Iran would receive very little benefit from having them, especially in terms of Iranian influence in the region. And I have quoted Iranian sources as agreeing with this assessment.
And MANY others have argued that the worst that would happen if Iran had such weapons is that it would constitute a “MAD” situation. In fact, I have repeatedly argued here that such a “MAD” situation would only reflect on Israel and Iran’s neighbors, not the US. Even Israel would not be particularly concerned as long as it had its second strike capability – which Iran does not have and will not have for years even if it starts now. So the best Iran could hope for is that the notion of regime change would be taken off the table by Israel and the US.
This is what I used to believe. Today I don’t even believe that. I don’t believe Iran would gain ANY benefit from having nukes unless it could acquire enough of them and be able to deliver enough of them to be a credible threat to both Israel and the US. It will take years, probably decades, to be a credible threat to Israel and defintely decades to be a threat to the US. There is simply too much disparity between both the conventional military forces and the nuclear forces of both Israel and the US compared to Iran.
And I reiterate that Iran’s leaders appear to agree with that assessment, which is why they have repudiated Iran’s possession of nukes repeatedly.
“We do disagree on this.”
And we will apparently continue to do so.
“You seem to have an idea of the US being undeterrable, except when it’s being deterred.”
You seem to have the idea that the US is deterred simply because a war hasn’t happened yet. This simply does not logically nor historically follow. It’s an ASSUMPTION, nothing more.
“Every US official who has spoken on Iran’s nuclear issue says that Iran having the capacity to build a weapon changes the strategic calculations of the region. Many have publicly explained in detail how it would change the strategic calculations.”
And many others have argued that the strategic calculations would not basically change, and certainly not in a way relevant to the military capabilities of Iran vrs the US – or even Israel – which is the relevant question here. Whether Iran’s geopolitical influence or economic influence would be changed by possession of nuclear weapons is not the issue we are discussing – and that IS the context in which most analysts have referred to.
“You think the US does not care about threats to the lives of substantial numbers of US soldiers.”
The question is one of degree. I believe the US does not attack North Korea because 50,000 US troops dead in ninety days is unacceptable. I do not believe that Iran can achieve such a result in any near term time frame in an Iran war – nukes or not -unless it got really lucky.
More importantly, if the US did attack North Korea and sustained such losses, it would resort to tactical nuclear weapons. And I believe it would do so in Iran as well.
“I think it does. All we can do now is predict events given our different understandings of US motivations.”
So even though you believe Israel is the tail that wags the dog, you believe that the US will NEVER EVER attack Iran despite the fact that Israel will be increasingly disturbed by Iran amassing tons of LEU, developing missiles capable of reaching Israel, and developing warheads for those missiles to contain nukes?
So you believe that the US and Israel will continue to do NOTHING but make empty threats and impose equally empty sanctions for the next 10, 20, 30 years regardless of Iran’s push to a full-scale Japan Option with the potential to make dozens of nukes within one year of pulling out of the NPT whenever it wants to?
Really? The US AND Israel are utter paper tigers who can do nothing to harm Iran in the slightest? It’s all some sort of giant bluff to mollify domestic politics at home in each country, or divert everyone else from the Palestinian situation?
Really?
Meanwhile, I will continue to predict what the Leveretts are clearly most concerned about – that the increasing demonization of Iran, imposition of sanctions, threats, and saber rattling may well lead to a war.
“Neither of us predicts a war in the next five years.”
I don’t recall saying that. In my opinion, there could be a war any time within the next five years or outside of that time frame. I don’t predict the exact time of wars because I’m not in charge of starting the war.
“mine is based on the idea that over the next five years Iran will be able to kill substantial numbers of US troops in any conflict.”
And the question remains: What is “substantial”? And is “substantial” enough to convince the ruling US elites that such losses would be “unacceptable” to the US public enough to offset their war profits? Neither of us can answer those questions with any precision because we are not the ruling elites.
“As far as I can tell, you have no explanation for why the US did not attack Iran yesterday. The US is some big mystery that will attack Iran at some mysterious and unpredictable time, and you’re right whether it does or not. That’s not an analysis, it is not a prediction.”
As far as I can tell, you have no explanation for why the US will not attack Iran at any time. The US is some big mystery that will not attack Iran EVER, and you’re right since it hasn’t done so to date. That’s not an analysis. It is not a prediction. It’s an assumption.
“If Iraq had been nuclear capable, even as nuclear capable as Iran is today, the “reasonably low cost” condition would not have held and the US would not have attacked.”
You accept Obama’s statements that Iran has a nuclear weapons program and therefore the US will NOT attack Iran, while George Bush equally claimed that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program – and therefore DID attack Iraq. So you think George Bush was a liar, that he didn’t believe Iraq had a nuclear weapons program (not to mention all the alleged chemical and biological “WMDs”) and therefore the cost to attack Iraq was acceptable. but Obama is not a liar, really believes that Iran has a nuclear weapons program (despite the fact the IAEA says no diversion of material), and because Iran COULD MAYBE SOMETIME IF IT WANTS TO have nukes he therefore is afraid to attack Iran?
What’s wrong with this picture?
I’ll tell you – it’s inane.
By the way, if Iraq had some competent military personnel at the time, it could have inflicted “thousands of US casualties” on the invading forces – which didn’t deter Bush for a second. But Saddam essentially demobilized his forces and told them to disperse and wait for another opportunity. They put up a token resistance, most fiercely from the Fefayeen forces, while the main Iraqi military faded away. But Bush couldn’t have known that. It didn’t stop him. Neither did the warnings that a serious insurgency could arise.
Your arguments are lame, contrary to common sense, military doctrine, and known historical behavior of the US for decades. They are based solely on your incomprehensible but clearly dominant emotional belief that Iran is somehow immune from being attacked. I’d have that looked into before it embarrasses you.
Dear Reza,
No – I am neither an American national, nor an American resident.
I see that no-one has called out the Leveretts on their lies. I wish I had such an easy crowd to appease.
Arnold,
I think you are well wide of the mark when you claim that “everyone” knows the US can use nukes against Iran should it choose to do so. In fact, I think it can be stated categorically the US would not use nukes against Iran unless Iran attacked Israel with a nuclear weapon launched from Iran by ballistic missile (and known to have been launched from Iran). And that event is almost impossible to conceive.
You should pay more attention to what David Cameron and William Hague are saying, regarding how the neocons caused the US to drive itself over a cliff.
fyi,
As you will recall I assume, Iran and Syria offered to help the US to withdraw from Iraq in 2006, and to help achieve stability in the course of that withdrawal and afterwards. Warmongering neocons and the Israel lobby (which overlap), talked Bush into the so-called “surge”. (General Petraeus also played a role.)
Bush did not make a deal with Iran because he was incapable of thinking clearly and acting in the best interests of the American people, on a larger scale than merely vetoing the insane notion of attacking Iran when there was no intelligence the Iranian government was building nukes.
No one is saying the US would. What is clear is that once the US had any clear indication that Iran was manufacturing a nuclear weapon, the US would, in a very reasonable time frame calculated to be less than the time it takes to manufacture and deploy such a weapon in a manner enabling it to be used, launch conventional air strikes on any and every facility that would be remotely connected with that weapon.
…
What part of “bomb them into the Stone Age” don’t you get?
You and Eric express a lot more confidence that this could work than any actual US planner ever has.
No US planner or member of the US security apparatus has ever described bombing Iran or any country to the stone age as a viable way to prevent a country with capacity to manufacture a nuclear weapon from doing so.
Every US planner and member of the US security apparatus who has ever spoken of Iran attaining the capability to produce a weapon, even if it does not deploy any, as having a tremendous impact on the strategic situation.
Maybe they’re all lying. Maybe they don’t understand “bombing to the stone age” as well as you.
More likely they’re right and you’re wrong. Iran having the technology and materials necessary to build a weapon, even if it never actually builds one, would, among other things deter any US invasion of that country and would have an impact on Iran’s strategic position with respect to the United States.
I don’t think the US would care one whit if Iraq had one or even two untested nuclear weapons.
One or two weapons could kill a substantial number of US troops. I disagree that the US doesn’t care about that.
And I don’t think Iraq could have produced a nuke that fast even if they did have a full one year before the invasion.
I think Iran could probably build a weapon in a year from here. My confidence in this increases as time passes. By the time Obama leaves office I expect to be pretty sure Iran could build weapons in one year.
And I don’t think the US would have tried a ground invasion too soon. They would simply have stepped up the air assault and done it sooner – which probably would have prevented Iraq from constructing a weapon.
Probably, but Iraq at the time of the invasion didn’t “probably” not have a nuclear weapon. If US generals could not be more sure than “probably” that Iraq didn’t have one or more nuclear weapons then that would certainly have had an impact on their planning.
The worse case scenario for the US would have been that Iraq would construct a nuke, put it on a SCUD and drop it on the King of Saudi Arabia
Iraq if it had a weapon would most likely have used it on US troops.
Anything less than that would have done nothing but enrage the US and result in Baghdad being nuked.
Iraq was destroyed anyway. The point isn’t to kill Americans and endure US retaliation. The point is to threaten to kill Americans and have US policymakers consider the threat in deciding whether or not to attack.
You’re basically saying that Iran’s Supreme Leader, having declared nukes as “un-Islamic”, would then reverse himself and declare otherwise, even knowing that one or a few nukes, untested, would be almost useless to deploy.
No, not almost useless, they would, if constructed, increase the number of US soldiers who would be expected to die in attacking Iran by some number of thousands. That would be very useful and an attack that is worth it if 1,000 killed in action is anticipated may well not be worth it if 8,000 killed in action is anticipated.
Now if you want to fast forward a decade or two, and Iran has missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, and they have the designs and manufacturing plants ready to produce such warheads and missiles, and they have a new Supreme Leader who has decided to issue a different opinion, then perhaps you might be correct.
Ok. That’s also where we are headed and Iran has a very good chance of thwarting any US attempts to prevent Iran from reaching this position over the next 15 or 20 years.
Crude weapons though, can have strategic value. Missiles are better but gun type devices would impact US military calculations in a way favorable to Iran.
A FULLY nuclear armed Iran could not be invaded – at least until such arms would located and destroyed (which they probably could be, eventually). But an Iran with one or two gun type nukes, untested, with no delivery mechanism? Utterly irrelevant.
And I wouldn’t quote John Bolton or Ray Takeyh as an expert on anything related to this area of discussion.
Obama, Bolton and Takeyh reflect the US foreign policy consensus on this issue. You, Eric and Alan all seem to have decided that you understand one or another issue better than the relevant US planners. Even if you’re right, the fact that US planners, and the US president think Iran having nuclear capacity has strategic value, by itself means Iran having nuclear capacity has strategic value. If Obama is wrong that Iran having this capacity would limit US options, then the fact that his perceptions of US options are what matter, means he’s still right.
Really, this is just absurd. We’ve repeatedly explained that the Iranian nuclear program is a red herring to cover other US motivations for demonizing Iran. The US couldn’t care less about Iran’s nuclear program.
We do disagree on this.
You seem to have an idea of the US being undeterrable, except when it’s being deterred.
Every US official who has spoken on Iran’s nuclear issue says that Iran having the capacity to build a weapon changes the strategic calculations of the region. Many have publicly explained in detail how it would change the strategic calculations.
You think the US does not care about threats to the lives of substantial numbers of US soldiers. I think it does. All we can do now is predict events given our different understandings of US motivations.
As of right now, our predictions are in line. Neither of us predicts a war in the next five years. I don’t know how you arrive at your prediction, but mine is based on the idea that over the next five years Iran will be able to kill substantial numbers of US troops in any conflict.
As far as I can tell, you have no explanation for why the US did not attack Iran yesterday. The US is some big mystery that will attack Iran at some mysterious and unpredictable time, and you’re right whether it does or not. That’s not an analysis, it is not a prediction. If you think the US is rolling dice and will attack Iran the day it gets double ones, then there is no informational content. It is the same as not saying having any analysis at all.
Are you seriously suggesting, like Mr. Canning, that George Bush really believed Iraq had nuclear weapons and that he was thus justified in attacking Iraq
I think the United States attacked Iraq because it believed, as I believed, that it could at a reasonably low cost install Chalabi to be Iraq’s Mubarak and add Iraq to the US regional colonial structure with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait and others.
If Iraq had been nuclear capable, even as nuclear capable as Iran is today, the “reasonably low cost” condition would not have held and the US would not have attacked.
RSH,
Re: “Without a clearer record of the investors, senior staff, whether it’s a subsidiary of some other company, etc., there’s no direct evidence of an Israeli connection other than being in an Israeli-funded real estate project.”
Such information will be indeed useful.
Arnold: “There is a real taboo against using nuclear weapons.”
Why do you think the US is using the made-up threat of Iranian nukes? Why do you think the US used that made-up threat against Iraq? Because it’s a good “boogy-man”.
What do you think the world would think if Iran actually threatened to or actually did use nukes first against US forces or a US ally?
I can assure you, the world would have no problem whatsoever with nuking Iran in that case.
The taboo against nukes is mainly against FIRST use of nukes, especially against a non-nuclear country. But YOUR scenario implies a FIRST use of nukes against the US by a NUCLEAR country, by definition, in response to a conventional war launched by the US against that country.
The taboo does not apply in that case.
Arnold: “It is pretty clear that if Iran pulls out of the NPT today, the US will not attack it with nuclear weapons tomorrow. The use of nuclear weapons is a much more complicated and involved process than that.”
No one is saying the US would. What is clear is that once the US had any clear indication that Iran was manufacturing a nuclear weapon, the US would, in a very reasonable time frame calculated to be less than the time it takes to manufacture and deploy such a weapon in a manner enabling it to be used, launch conventional air strikes on any and every facility that would be remotely connected with that weapon.
And if the US did not, Israel would – with no interference from the US.
And if the conventional air strikes did not convince the US that Iran has not halted production of a weapon, the strikes would be continued with nuclear bunker busters.
And if then the US became convinced that Iran had STILL managed to produce AND deploy one or more nuclear weapons capable of being used outside of its borders, the US would threaten a full-scale war – to include the potential use of strategic nuclear weapons – against Iran.
And if Iran actually used a nuclear weapons against US forces in such a war, the US would at the very least nuke the bulk of the Iranian conventional forces and probably would use at least one smaller nuke in an attempt to take out the Iranian leadership.
Failing that, all bets are off. The US would nuke Tehran.
THAT is the sequence of events according to any rational application of US strategic doctrine.
Arnold: When BiBiJon says Iran will not leave the NPT, he obviously is referring to a situation where Iran is not under imminent threat of attack.
And if Iran IS under imminent threat of attack, who cares if they leave the NPT? I doubt they would even bother to leave the NPT because that would be a mostly symbolic act at that point.
North Korea left the NPT because the US reneged on an agreement. I don’t believe Iran will ever do so because they have no agreements with the US.
This is another pointless argument because the NPT is not relevant once Iran’s nuclear facilities are under attack, obviously.
Arnold: “Iran is, by most standards I’ve seen, nuclear capable today and the US has not used nuclear weapons on it. The US did not use nuclear weapons when North Korea tested more than one nuclear weapon under Obama’s leadership of the US.”
You’re really hauling out the most ridiculous arguments today.
As I have repeatedly pointed out here, the US will not attack North Korea because of North Korea’s massive CONVENTIONAL forces – which are far greater than anything Iran can offer up – rather than North Korea’s probably “dud” nukes, assuming they actually have any they can deploy in any way.
It’s ridiculous to cite North Korea as an example here. There is simply zero comparison between North Korea and Iran.
Really, you are just so desperate to prove that there cannot EVER be a war with Iran that you’re grasping at painfully thin straws here.
Arnold: “nuclear weapons attack actually would not change the response of a nuclear capable Iraq except to make its efforts even more urgent and justifiable to various parties inside and outside of Iraq.”
So you’re saying if the US had nuked Baghdad after Iraq had used a nuclear weapons against the US forces in the ME or some ally, that Iraq would then have continued to produce and use nuclear weapons.
This is little short of ridiculous.
What part of “bomb them into the Stone Age” don’t you get?
If ANY military power anywhere in the world uses nukes against US forces or a major US ally, the US will stomp them into the ground regardless of any “negative perception” in the world. Perceptions can be managed. A nuclear threat is real.
And yes, such a nuclear attack on an US enemy will result in that enemy being unable to construct nuclear weapons. The only possible exception – due to the size and population of the country – might be China.
Once you fry the bulk of an enemy’s military forces in a nuclear firestorm, there is no incentive to continue building nukes, even if you could.
It’s ridiculous. You’re on crack at this point.
Arnold: “If the generals convinced Bush not to attack because of the threat Iran could pose to US forces in Iraq, then that is exactly an Iranian deterrent.”
No, it is a circumstantial deterrent. Meaning it was the circumstance that Iraq’s military and insurgent forces would turn entirely against the US in favor of Iran, and thus complicate the US strategic plan against Iran, that was the deterrent. And possibly also the fact that the US was engaged in Afghanistan at the time which also applied to the negative circumstances.
This is not anything Iran did that was a deterrent. It was merely a favorable circumstance for Iran that Iran could turn to its advantage.
It’s also not necessarily a real deterrent. I merely suggest that the Pentagon may have been able to make the case that it would be better until the actual Iraq situation calmed down before considering an attack on Iran. And this might have made sense to Bush, if not Cheney or Israel.
I also don’t claim that this WAS the case, only that it is a possible reason – or one of several other unknown reasons – why the US did not attack in 2006 or 2007, when the Iraq insurgency was at its height.
And today we have the Afghanistan problem requiring a “surge” of US troops, which provides much the same problem for the Pentagon.
A commonplace rule in war is not to fight on two or more fronts. I assume the Pentagon doesn’t like the idea of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. I assume they like even less the idea of fighting against an even bigger and more capable adversary like Iran at the same time.
Is this so difficult to comprehend?
OTOH, as I’ve said before, first, this is irrelevant to the ruling elites. If they order the Pentagon to do it, the Pentagon will do it. Second, if the US really wants out of Afghanistan, preparing for an attack on Iran would be a good way to do it without admitting defeat in Afghanistan. And third, if the goal really is never to leave Iraq, re-committing forces there for an attack on Iran would be seen as a viable idea, even if it did cause Iraqis to turn against the US.
I think as long as the US isn’t bogged down in Afghanistan AND Iraq AND Iran, that an Iran war is quite acceptable to the Pentagon – especially if they think they can get away with it being mostly an air and naval war (at least initially).
We must also keep in mind that the generals and politically appointed civilian staff are in no danger from a war with Iran, and such a war offers plenty of opportunity for career advancement – as long as it doesn’t turn into a total debacle right off the bat.
So the suggestion that the circumstances are not yet “right” for an Iran war does not mean that Iran will have such favorable circumstances forever, and it is not something Iran should count on, nor is it anything Iran can necessarily influence by itself.
This is not what is normally meant by a “deterrent”.
POTUS specifically foresees circumstances under which US would nuke Iran, it speaks of a perceived profound helplessness
I find it less interesting that the POTUS forsees circumstances, but that the US spoke about using nuclear weapons on Iran publicly. These plans could be just as well kept secret and passed to Iran, if at all, through secure channels which we know exist.
The US has nuclear weapons. Everybody knows this. The US can use nuclear weapons on Iran if it chooses. Everybody knows this.
Saying it publicly accomplishes nothing, except making Obama feel or seem tough or virile. It is really irrational.
I forget the name of one of the deans of US nuclear strategy who described public position statements regarding the use of nuclear weapons as silk threads wrapped around steel anchor chains. That wasn’t his exact analogy but it was something like that.
There is a real taboo against using nuclear weapons. Breaking that taboo would have unpredictable, negative and widespread global consequences. If the decision to use nuclear weapons is to be made by a US president, nuclear posture reviews are irrelevant. These reviews have nothing to do with the real reason the US does not just use nuclear weapons in its disputes.
I don’t think anyone serious in Iran felt more threatened the day after the posture was issued then they did the day before. All it did was made a propaganda statement that helped paint the US as Iran’s enemy internally and for the US let people who identify with the US get a jolt of a feeling of power.
It was a childish position to take that makes Americans feel good, but did not impact the strategic situation in the least.
Arnold: “I don’t believe if Iraq was where the Iran is today in terms of its nuclear program that the invasion would have been authorized.”
I disagree completely. I don’t think the US would care one whit if Iraq had one or even two untested nuclear weapons. And I don’t think Iraq could have produced a nuke that fast even if they did have a full one year before the invasion.
And I don’t think the US would have tried a ground invasion too soon. They would simply have stepped up the air assault and done it sooner – which probably would have prevented Iraq from constructing a weapon. It would also have prevented Iraq from conducting any serious assaults against US forces in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, other than a few Scuds – which the US also wouldn’t care about.
The worse case scenario for the US would have been that Iraq would construct a nuke, put it on a SCUD and drop it on the King of Saudi Arabia. Anything less than that would have done nothing but enrage the US and result in Baghdad being nuked.
And the same would happen with Iran. If Iran developed and threatened to actually use a nuclear weapon, nothing would stop the US from bombing Iran, including using nuclear bunker busters on every target for which they could be used.
So I say you’re completely wrong on all counts.
“If the US does provoke Iran, the US is not entitled to, does not have, and has never been offered by anyone in Iran’s leadership any certainty that Iran will continue with its anti-nuclear weapons position.”
And who said anything about certainty? That is irrelevant. What Iran knows is exactly what I know – that if Iran starts waving nukes around, things will only go worse for them. Certain Iranian officials have said that Iran does not NEED nukes and that nukes would only make things worse for them. This is quite true and in the light of those statements well known to the Iranians. And it is well known to the US planners as well.
You’re basically saying that Iran’s Supreme Leader, having declared nukes as “un-Islamic”, would then reverse himself and declare otherwise, even knowing that one or a few nukes, untested, would be almost useless to deploy.
Now if you want to fast forward a decade or two, and Iran has missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, and they have the designs and manufacturing plants ready to produce such warheads and missiles, and they have a new Supreme Leader who has decided to issue a different opinion, then perhaps you might be correct.
But as of now and the foreseeable future, that is not the case.
“a nuclear Iran would not be invaded”
A FULLY nuclear armed Iran could not be invaded – at least until such arms would located and destroyed (which they probably could be, eventually). But an Iran with one or two gun type nukes, untested, with no delivery mechanism? Utterly irrelevant.
And I wouldn’t quote John Bolton or Ray Takeyh as an expert on anything related to this area of discussion.
“Most importantly, if the United States thought Iran having enrichment did not have any strategic application, then how do you explain the vigor of US efforts to prevent Iran from having enrichment?”
Really, this is just absurd. We’ve repeatedly explained that the Iranian nuclear program is a red herring to cover other US motivations for demonizing Iran. The US couldn’t care less about Iran’s nuclear program.
I’m amazed to hear you suggest that the US is actually SERIOUS about Iran having nuclear weapons. Are you seriously suggesting, like Mr. Canning, that George Bush really believed Iraq had nuclear weapons and that he was thus justified in attacking Iraq? Do you think Obama really believes Iran has a nuclear weapons program and is not lying about that?
If so, I don’t know what to tell you. Your naivety is astonishing and apparently impenetrable. I’ve expressed this to you before. You simply appear incapable of understanding the depth of US corruption in this regard.
Pak,
These are my own terms for democracy in America:
1) Allow independent inquiries on 911, the Waco massacre, the LA riots and other violent incidents where there exists a large measure of controversy.
2) Investigate claims of electoral fraud in Florida 2000 and more generally in the voting process at a national level.
3) Allow Americans access to foreign broadcasters like Al Jazeera and Al Manar. At the same time, apply standards of broadcasting so the public is not deliberately misinformed.
4) End the practice of gerrymandering.
5) Remove obstacles that prevent candidates for the presidency of the United States from appearing on the ballot in all 50 states.
6) Resolve the issue of political lobbying, funding of politicians and the influence of special interests. Stop the practice of huge corporate donations to parties.
7) Investigate instances of police brutality and prison abuse and hold those responsible to account.
8) Allow anti-war and anti-capitalist demonstrations to be freely held.
You live in America, so why are you not bothered about what goes on there?
I tend to believe Iran takes the nuclear threat seriously enough not to ever contemplate leaving NPT.
If the US masses invasion forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan or other Iranian neighbors, I expect Iran to leave the NPT. I also expect it to leave if the US bombs Tehran, or at least threaten to leave if an attack of Tehran is seriously threatened, or if anything like a no-fly zone over Iran is contemplated or under any set of similar provocations.
I don’t expect any of these provocations to ever happen. In part because Iran has options to respond to these provocations which includes, as a minor option today but possibly more important later, pulling out of the NPT.
It is pretty clear that if Iran pulls out of the NPT today, the US will not attack it with nuclear weapons tomorrow. The use of nuclear weapons is a much more complicated and involved process than that.
Arnold,
Sorry about crossing responses in cyber space.
But, let me respond to “It seems like people change the way they think when the term “nuclear” is raised more than is warranted.”
I think when the POTUS specifically foresees circumstances under which US would nuke Iran, it speaks of a perceived profound helplessness. A country large enough to be immune from convensional attack, savey enough to walk on a knife’s edge forever, and stuborn enough to carve out an independent foreign policy which is creating political space for everybody else to start calling a spade a spade (e.g. Erdogan) has created a dilema for the US.
I tend to believe Iran takes the nuclear threat seriously enough not to ever contemplate leavving NPT. I aslo think noone would nuke Iran because that would be a NPT-shredding event making acquisition of nukes a top priority for every nation on the planet.
BibiJon:
“All options are on the table”
It is a threat I guess the US likes to make. That statement is not more than a posture, and does not change the underlying strategic situation in any way.
Iran is, by most standards I’ve seen, nuclear capable today and the US has not used nuclear weapons on it. The US did not use nuclear weapons when North Korea tested more than one nuclear weapon under Obama’s leadership of the US.
The US, more than I can rationally explain, enjoys making threats. The actual decision to use nuclear weapons, and the effect of a US decision to use nuclear weapons is much more complicated than the posture the US takes in these policy documents.
I’m pretty certain that if Iraq had been nuclear capable in 2002 that 1) the US would not have used nuclear weapons on it and 2) using nuclear weapons would not have “worked” in any reasonable strategic or even tactical sense for the US in that situation.
Nuclear capability, as John Bolton and Ray Takeyh say, deters US ideas of bombing countries.
I’m not clear what you’re saying though BibiJon. What impact do you think Iran’s current nuclear program has on US military options regarding Iran?
West: ‘Best time to occupy Libyan oilfields’
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/west-best-time-to-occupy-libyan-oilfields/
Arnold,
If you meant “where” has the US addressed the situation of a nuclear capable country such as Iran, then the NY Times article I posted seems to me to spell it out — US has put Iran on notice that she will nuke Iran.
I’m not sure how elese to read that defense posture review.
BibiJon:
If you’re saying your link means the US would have used nuclear weapons on Iraq in 2002 if Iraq had been nuclear capable as Iran is now, 1) you’re probably wrong, using nuclear weapons in the situation would have very serious long-term strategic consequences for the US that could not be compensated by the gains the US hoped to get from an invasion, much less from the gains the US could hope for from invading a post nuclear attack Iraq. 2) nuclear weapons attack actually would not change the response of a nuclear capable Iraq except to make its efforts even more urgent and justifiable to various parties inside and outside of Iraq.
It seems like people change the way they think when the term “nuclear” is raised more than is warranted.
Arnold,
I understood the following to be a scenario under discussion:
“My main argument is that if Iraq had been where Iran is today when the first clear preparations for the 2003 invasion were made in summer 2002, Iraq would have pulled out of the NPT in summer 2002.
Maybe the US would have immediately attacked Iraq when it left the treaty, in which case Iraq would have attacked the not yet prepared US troops in Kuwait.”
BibiJon:
The scnario of ‘if Iraq were where Iran is’ has been addressed.
Where?
Arnold Evans says:
February 25, 2011 at 4:07 pm
The scnario of ‘if Iraq were where Iran is’ has been addressed.
Quote
President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons.
But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.
From http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html
RSH:
But whatever the reason was, it wasn’t because Iran had a serious deterrent. There may well have been some Pentagon push back because 2006 (and 2007) was the height of the Iraq war insurgency problem. Maybe the generals convinced Bush that attack Iran at that point would have put US forces in Iraq at even greater risk and perhaps the US should wait until Iraq had settled down.
We must define deterrent differently. If the generals convinced Bush not to attack because of the threat Iran could pose to US forces in Iraq, then that is exactly an Iranian deterrent.
What do you mean when you say “deterrent”?
RSH:
I find both statements to be ridiculous. The Vatican couldn’t care less about Iran. And Iran can never develop a nuke program in time to prevent a war – and any attempt to do so will accelerate that war.
Not to mention that it’s pretty clear the Supreme Leader and most of the Iranian government disagree with you on that prescription.
Especially this: “Iran can never develop a nuke program in time to prevent a war – and any attempt to do so will accelerate that war”
My main argument is that if Iraq had been where Iran is today when the first clear preparations for the 2003 invasion were made in summer 2002, Iraq would have pulled out of the NPT in summer 2002.
Maybe the US would have immediately attacked Iraq when it left the treaty, in which case Iraq would have attacked the not yet prepared US troops in Kuwait.
The invasion force under these conditions would have taken longer to prepare, and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would have been taking a much bigger risk in hosting the US as it put together the invasion force.
It is not certain that they would have agreed to do so if Iraq was where Iran is with regard to its nuclear program today.
And to be clear, it was very well known, with no effective doubt, that despite claims that there may be remnant stocks or chemical weapons that could be reconstituted, that Iraq did not have any enriched uranium in 2002 or 2003. Iraq was not in 2002 in a situation anything like where Iran is today, much less where Iran will be next year when it has 5 tons of 5% LEU and over 100 kgs of 20% LEU.
So the US would attack Iraq’s hypothetical Iran-like nuclear program in 2002 when it pulled out of the NPT. The US could not be clear by 2003 how much of the program was effectively destroyed and whether or not Iraq was able to salvage enough to make a weapon.
This is very important. The United States could have some confidence, but not certainty that Iraq could not have assembled a nuclear weapon over the year between when Iraq pulled out of the NPT and when the US would be, under the changed conditions, ready to attack. In the real 2003, the US policymakers were certain Iraq did not have an operational nuclear program. If Iran had been where Iran is now in 2002, US policymakers wouldn’t even be confident that Iraq could not produce a weapon before any invasion.
Maybe the US would have invaded anyway, willing, if it gambled wrong on the progress of Iraq’s nuclear program, to take at least thousands of US killed in action in one event. Maybe though, it would not. Such a program, just by introducing this uncertainty, would have a strategic advantage for Iraq, and this is the strategic advantage it gives Iran.
To be as polite as I can to Eric, this uncertainty has little to do with whether or not Iraq implemented the additional protocol, Iraq would leave the AP in summer 2002 just as it left the NPT. With the Additional Protocol, the US probably could do a more confident job attacking Iraq’s centrifuge component production and storage facilities. So if Iraq in this scenario had implemented the additional protocol, it would have been a mistake. On the other hand, AP or not, the US still could not be certain how much of its centrifuge program Iraq had protected or salvaged between the last AP update and the US attack.
If Iraq had been where Iran is today in 2002, any invasion would be more costly and uncertain for the US. There would come a point that the increased cost and uncertainty would actually prevent the invasion from happening at all. The Iraq invasion was conceive and advocated as an inexpensive project. If Iraq had been in 2002 where Iran is today, that would not be possible.
I don’t believe if Iraq was where the Iran is today in terms of its nuclear program that the invasion would have been authorized.
pretty clear the Supreme Leader and most of the Iranian government disagree with you on that prescription
What makes you think this? Iran has said it will not build a weapon and nothing further. If the US never masses troops in Iran’s border or similarly provoke Iran, then this commitment will hold. If the US does provoke Iran, the US is not entitled to, does not have, and has never been offered by anyone in Iran’s leadership any certainty that Iran will continue with its anti-nuclear weapons position.
Here is John Bolton explaining that an invasion of Serbia would have been impossible if Serbia had been nuclear capable:
:http://mideastreality.blogspot.com/2009/08/john-bolton-we-couldnt-have-gotten.html
Here is Ray Takeyh from the US Council on Foreign Relations explaining the same thing directly regarding Iran and in more detail:
:http://mideastreality.blogspot.com/2010/02/james-lindsay-and-ray-takeyhs-essay-on.html
The advent of a nuclear Iran — even one that is satisfied with having only the materials and infrastructure necessary to assemble a bomb on short notice rather than a nuclear arsenal — would be seen as a major diplomatic defeat for the United States.
…
However, obtaining nuclear weapons is unlikely to help Iran achieve these aims, because nuclear weapons, by definition, are such a narrow category of arms that they can accomplish only a limited set of objectives. They do offer a deterrent capability: unlike Saddam’s Iraq, a nuclear Iran would not be invaded, and its leaders would not be deposed.
Here is Ali Larijani, speaker of Iran’s parliament saying Iran is building a nuclear program like Japan’s:
:http://mideastreality.blogspot.com/2010/03/larijani-explicitly-said-iran-wants.html
Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani has stated that Iran will follow the Japanese model in its nuclear program. Japan has nuclear technology but does not possess any nuclear weapons and Iran will follow the same path in its nuclear program, Larijani said in a meeting with Japanese House of Councilors President Satsuki Eda in Tokyo.
Here is Barack Obama explaining the US commitment to prevent Iran from getting the capability to produce a nuclear weapon:
:http://mideastreality.blogspot.com/2010/04/barack-obama-iran-must-not-develop.html
All the evidence indicates that the Iranians are trying to develop the capacity to develop nuclear weapons. They might decide that, once they have that capacity that they’d hold off right at the edge — in order not to incur — more sanctions. But, if they’ve got nuclear weapons-building capacity — and they are flouting international resolutions, that creates huge destabilizing effects in the region and will trigger an arms race in the Middle East that is bad for U.S. national security but is also bad for the entire world.
Most importantly, if the United States thought Iran having enrichment did not have any strategic application, then how do you explain the vigor of US efforts to prevent Iran from having enrichment? Iran offered to implement the AP and restrict its program further than any other in the world if enrichment was allowed to continue. Why does the US oppose this?
You say Iran agrees with you. Nobody agrees with you. Not Iran’s Supreme Leader, not John Bolton, Ray Takeyh, not Barack Obama. Nobody but you and Eric think it is ridiculous to claim that Iran gets strategic benefits from its nuclear program.
BiBiJon: “I think he is saying regime change (the euphemism used for conquest) cannot be achieved in distant lands, period.”
If he says and believes that, he is correct, of course.
“So, is SecDef essentially taking the military out of POTUS’ tool belt for ‘fixing’ countries like Iran?”
The problem is he doesn’t have that authority. And if he thinks he does, he will find himself out of a job, just like Admiral Fallon who un-ambiguously stated “no Iran war on my watch” – whereupon he lost his watch.
What Gates says is completely irrelevant to anything and should always be ignored. He’s a flunky, nothing more. Just like Rumsfeld and Weinberger and all the others.
Richard,
I read Gates remark differently. I think he is saying regime change (the euphemism used for conquest) cannot be achieved in distant lands, period.
As you say, naval and air power will achieve little, and so commencement of any hostilities must foresee the land invasion as inevitable if the objective is to be achieved.
So, is SecDef essentially taking the military out of POTUS’ tool belt for ‘fixing’ countries like Iran?
Fyi: “I stated my opinion about the Vatican since that state is still being gudied by the Revelations of God.”
Let me assure you, the Vatican is not being guided by anything but the desire for power and money. That has been true since Paul was a double agent for the Romans. You’re delusional if you think otherwise.
The Christian Church was a scam from the get-go. When descendants of Jesus approached the Bishop of Rome (before he was re-titled “Pope”), they asked for a cut of the take. The Bishop told them to “kick rocks”. If the Vatican could destroy Islam, they would. They just know that with a billion Muslims, they really can’t.
They would also destroy Judaism if they could, since they hijacked a Jewish prophet – that is the basis of why Catholics hate Jews, because the Jews can expose the Christian scam. That’s why the Dead Sea Scrolls were concealed from the world for forty years by Catholic priests studying them. One priest even absconded with one of the scrolls and hasn’t been seen since.
“I think that you are wrong in your assessment of the Iranians detrrence capabilities.
They must have been sufficient to dissuade US back in 2006.”
No, they weren’t. Circumstances may have been sufficient, but not any Iranian “deterrent”.
BiBiJon says: February 25, 2011 at 3:31 pm
That does not mean much.
US Military leaders said as much after the Viet Nam War.
It is their Grand Stargetgy that is causing the wars and not their military leaders’ wisdom.
And their Grand Strategy was formulated by their Ministry of War (nowadays no countries have war ministeries, only defense ministeries).
In case of war with Iran, regardless of a variety of war scenarios, Americans will have to inavde Iran with land forces. This is an inevitable consequence of war with Iran.
BiBiJon: Re Gates’ remark: Of course that doesn’t argue against sending a large Air Force and Navy force against Iran. It just means he’d prefer not to send ground forces in. Which only means he’s an idiot because in any war against Iran, inevitably ground forces will have to be committed because no air or naval war can defeat a country.
In other words, he’s BSing the troops – which is his job as SecDef.
Fyi: “I do not know why US changed her mind.”
Exactly my point. We don’t know. But whatever the reason was, it wasn’t because Iran had a serious deterrent. There may well have been some Pentagon push back because 2006 (and 2007) was the height of the Iraq war insurgency problem. Maybe the generals convinced Bush that attack Iran at that point would have put US forces in Iraq at even greater risk and perhaps the US should wait until Iraq had settled down. That in itself would be a reasonable argument that might have swayed even a determined President – especially Bush given that he was already under severe criticism for screwing up Iraq to date. Had he attacked Iran at that point and Iraq had gone over entirely on the offensive against the US, the situation might have threatened the 2008 elections for the Republicans even more than it did.
But beyond that reason, we can’t be sure what the reasons were.
All we can be sure of is that Bush and Cheney remained adamant about continuing the propaganda campaign against Iran subsequently – and Obama has inherited and continues that propaganda campaign today – as we can see by that latest IAEA report I mentioned below. The justification for war continues to be built lie by lie.
Dear Professor Lucas,
Fence-sitting is not really a principled strategy when it comes to life/death situations, such as the fate of political prisoners, or the crackdown on opposition activists. In other words, Rafsanjani is simply manoeuvring to retain his own power. In British politics they use the term kingmaker to describe these types of people. Rafsanjani is essentially the kingmaker.
He is only relevant both to the current people in power, and the opposition, because of his substantial contacts within society, and to a greater extent his wealth. If it came down to his principles, nobody would give a damn. Hence he is sly, a cunning fox, or a shark, or whatever else people call him.
Just in:
“In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it,” Mr. Gates told an assembly of Army cadets.”
From http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/world/26gates.html?hp
Richard Steven Hack says: February 25, 2011 at 3:21 pm
The Axis attack on Islamic Iran is a declaration of war against Islam.
The Vatican knows that there is no margin in war against Iran.
Furthermore, when it comes to the Revelations, the positions of the Vatican and the Islamic Republic are very close.
I stated my opinion about the Vatican since that state is still being gudied by the Revelations of God.
I think that you are wrong in your assessment of the Iranians detrrence capabilities.
They must have been sufficient to dissuade US back in 2006.
Pak,
These are very basic demands, right? And characteristics of a democratic state.
How much are the “basic standards of democracy” that you have laid down are upheld in the United States?
Reza
Bravo here is another great one from professor Hossein-Zadeh,
Weekend Edition
February 25 – 26, 2011
Aspirations for Independence
Intifada Beyond Palestine
By ISMAEL HOSSEIN-ZADEH
Remember the neoconservatives’ plan of “domino effect” following the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq? It was supposed to be followed by the toppling of other “unfriendly” heads of “rogue states” such as those ruling Iran and Syria who do not cater to the US-Israeli interests in the Middle East. It was not meant to threaten the “friendly” regimes that rule Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain and their cohorts that have been firmly aligned with the United States. Indeed, it was supposed to replace the former type of “noncompliant” regimes with the latter type of “client states” that would go along with the US-Israeli geopolitical designs in the region.
Barely a decade later, however, the political winds in the Middle East are shifting in the opposite direction: it is not the US-designated “rogue states” that are falling but the “moderate American friends” who are crumbling. How do we explain this truly historical twist of fortunes?
A number of important factors that are clearly contributing to the breathtaking social upheavals in the Arab/Muslim world are economic hardship, dictatorial rule and rampant corruption. While these relatively obvious factors are frequently cited as driving forces behind the upheaval, a number of equally important but less evident forces are often left out of this list of contributory influences. These rarely mentioned factors include: aspirations to national sovereignty, frustration with the brutal treatment of the Palestinian people, and outrage by the malicious smear campaign against the Arab/Muslim people’s religious and cultural values. In other words, the Arab/Muslim people are not just angry with government repression, corruption, and economic hardship; they are also angry with their rulers’ subordination to or collusion with imperialism, both US imperialism and the (mini) Israeli imperialism, as well as with the insidious offenses against their religious and cultural heritage.
The overwhelming majority of the Arab/Muslim people who are up in arms against the status quo harbor a strong sense of humiliation by the fact that they are ruled by tyrannical heads of state who subordinate their interests to the economic and geopolitical imperatives of foreign powers. Equally demeaning to this people is the brutal treatment of the Palestinian people. The creation of the colonial settler state of Israel through terrorization, ethnic cleansing and eviction of at least 750,000 Palestinians from their homes, and the continued violence perpetrated daily against this people is viewed by the Arab/Muslim people as a degrading violence against them all.
Corporate media and mainstream political pundits in the United States tend to deny or downgrade the galvanizing role that anti-imperialism/anti-Zionism plays in the uprising. For example, the New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman recently opined (in a February 16, 2011, column): “Egypt has now been awakened by its youth in a unique way – not to fight Israel, or America, but in a quest for personal empowerment, dignity and freedom.” Obviously, Mr. Friedman must have a very narrow and unusual definition of dignity and freedom—as if such universally-cherished values are unrelated to foreign domination of one’s government or country.
The fact remains, however, that aspirations to national sovereignty and sentiments of anti-imperialism play important roles in the uprising. They explain why the unrest cuts across a wide swath of society. Not only the economically hard-pressed poor and working classes but also the relatively well-off middle classes are joining the youth in the streets. Professional strata such as lawyers, doctors and teachers, as well as people from the arts and intellectual life are joining too.
Just as the thrust of the Palestinian Intifada (uprising) is to end the Zionist occupation of their land, so does the more widespread unrest in the Arab/Muslim world represent a broader intifada designed to end the imperialist domination of their governments. Indications of such sentiments were reflected in many views and slogans in Cairo’s Liberation Square, which were directed not only at Mubarak’s regime but also at the United States and Israel:
“We are not with America or any other government. We are able to help ourselves. . . . We are against the US interfering in Egypt’s establishment of a democratic government. We are against any foreign interference. . . . We are Egyptians and we can decide our fate on our own. . . . “I don’t think that Israel is a state. I don’t believe in it. Israel is just an occupation. I personally, as an Egyptian, do not acknowledge the existence of Israel. Any Arab government that deals with Israel or works under Israel I do not acknowledge it either” (source).
Such keen aspirations to independence from foreign influences led Graeme Bannerman, the former Middle East analyst on the US State Department Policy Planning Staff, to acknowledge (on National Public Radio, January 27, 2011) that “Popular opinion in the Middle East runs so against American policies that any change in any government in the Middle East that becomes more popular will have an anti-American and certainly less friendly direction towards the US which will be a serious political problem for us.”
An indication of how passionately the Arab street detests their leader’s catering to the US-Israeli interests, or how they resent the brutal treatment of Palestinians, is reflected in the fact that, according to a number of opinion polls, they have consistently expressed more respect for the Iranian leaders, who are neither Arab nor Sunni, than their Arab leaders—because, contrary to most Arab leaders, the Iranian leaders have (since the 1979 revolution) firmly stood their ground vis-à-vis the egotistical imperialist policies in the region.
Egyptian regimes of Hosni Mubarak and Anwar Sadat (before him) were especially despised for their subservience to the United States and Israel. From the time of its creation in 1948 until 1979 no Arab country recognized Israel as a legitimate state. In 1979, however, Egypt (under President Sadat) broke ranks with the rest of the Arab/Muslim world when he signed a “peace agreement” with Israel, which came to be known as the Camp David accord.
Although the accord was officially between Egypt and Israel, the United States was a key broker and the main partner. The US agreed to supply Egypt with substantial financial and military aid, amounting to nearly $2 billion a year, in return for its recognition of Israel and its compliance with the US-Israeli geopolitical and economic imperatives in the region. As Alison Weir, writer/reporter and the executive director of “If Americans Knew,” recently put it, by thus recognizing and normalizing its relation with Israel, “Egypt led the way for other nations to ‘normalize’ relations with the abnormal situation in Palestine.”
Since then Egypt has been a de facto ally of Israel, as well as bedrock of economic and geopolitical interests of the United States in the Middle East. It has opened its air, water and ground spaces to US armed forces. It has worked to coax or coerce governments and political forces in the region to comply with the US-Israeli interests. And it has served as a counter-balancing force against countries like Iran that defy the imperialist plans of the United States and Israeli in the region. As a “peace partner” with Israel, Egypt has also been complicit in Israel’s colonial policies of vicious oppression of the Palestinian people.
Although under the US-Israeli influence, Anwar Sadat was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (along with Prime Minister Begin of Israel), for the Camp David “peace” accord, proponents of Egypt’s national sovereignty and defenders of the rights of the Palestinian people considered the accord as treason and capitulation to Zionist expansionism and US imperialism.
The outrage that the Camp David betrayal generated in Egypt and the broader Arab/Muslim world was epitomized by the tragic assassination of Anwar Sadat, presumably for having signed the giveaway “peace” accord with Israel. The following is one of many accounts that attribute Sadat’s assassination to the “peace” agreement:
“In the months leading up to his assassination, he was hugely unpopular in the Middle East for making peace with Israel, which was considered a ‘traitorous’ move against the Palestinians. There were several criticisms and death threats made against him and his family.
“It was no surprise to many that he was assassinated, but the circumstances under which he was assassinated are still peculiar. Many reports have claimed that Egyptian Security forces knew well in advance that an attempt on Sadat’s life would be made, but did little to stop it. Some even claimed that Egyptian Security forces helped train the would-be assassins. Some see this as a plausible scenario, since the assassins were able to bypass several layers of checks and inspections prior to the military parade in Cairo” (source).
While President Reagan lamented Sadat’s death when he bemoaned: “America has lost a great friend, the world has lost a great statesman, and mankind has lost a champion of peace,” Nabil Ramlawi, a Palestinian official at the time, stated: “We were expecting this end of President Sadat because we are sure he was against the interests of his people, the Arab nations and the Palestinian people” (source).
An often latent goal of the current uprising in the Middle East/North Africa is to end the suffering of the Palestinian people by restoring their geopolitical rights within the internationally agreed upon borders. In subtle or submerged ways, the atrocious injustice perpetrated against Palestinians seems to be the “mother” of all the Arab/Muslim grievances. Viewed in this light, the uprising in the Arab/Muslim world represents an expanded intifada beyond Palestine. Without a fair and just resolution of the plight of the Palestinian people, the political turbulence in the region is bound to continue, with potentially cataclysmic consequences.
Once source of hope in the face of this gloomy picture is that more of the Jewish people would come to the realization that the expansionist project of radical Zionism is untenable and, therefore, join many other Jewish individuals and organizations (such as Jews for Justice for Palestinians) that have already come to such an understanding, and are working toward a just and peaceful coexistence with their historical cousins in the region.
Radical Zionism pins its hope for the success of its project on the support from imperialist powers. As has been pointed out by the critics of Zionism, many of whom Jewish, this is a very dangerous expectation, or hope, since the support from imperial powers, which is ultimately based on their own nefarious geopolitical calculations and economic interests, can precipitously come to an end, or drastically withdrawn, as the geopolitical equations in the region change. As the renowned Jewish thinker Uri Avnery recently put it:
“Our future is not with Europe or America. Our future is in this region. . . . It’s not just our policies that must change, but our basic outlook, our geographical orientation. We must understand that we are not a bridgehead from somewhere distant, but a part of a region that is now – at long last – joining the human march toward freedom.”
To sum up, the long pent-up grievances of the Arab/Muslim world are exploding not just in the faces of local dictators such as Mubarak of Egypt or Ben Ali of Tunisia but, perhaps more importantly, against their neocolonial/imperial patrons abroad. As the astute foreign policy analyst Jason Ditz recently pointed out, “the resentment is spreading beyond Mubarak and his immediate underlings, and toward the United States and Israel.” This means that the uprising represents something bigger than the buzzwords of abstract, decontextualized personal freedoms, or the money-driven, carefully-scripted bogus elections – called democracy. It represents a growing culture of resistance to neocolonialism that started with the great Iranian revolution of 1979.
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh, author of The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan 2007), teaches economics at Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa.
Mr. Canning: “The conspiracy in the Pentagon to set up the illegal war, against the wishes of the President, is an issue needing more attention.”
You’re hallucinating now. Really. This isn’t “Seven Days in May”.
James Canning says:
February 25, 2011 at 3:20 pm
You wrote: ” Bush and Rice said “no attacking Iran if Iran is not building nukes”.”
If that were indeed the position USG at the time of the Presidency of Mr. Bush, then I fail to see why, at that time, he could not have come to an understanding with the Iranians.
Nor why Mr. Obama could not get a settlment with the Iranians either.
The behavior od the United States towards Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Iran is perfectly understanable on basis of her Grand Stratgy as articulated by Dr. Khalilzad.
War with Iran, per that Grand Strategy, is only a matter of time as R.S.H. states.
US could convey “No Nuke – No War” to Iran; but she has not; to my knowledge.
Mr. Canning: “Bush and Rice said ‘no attacking Iran if Iran is not building nukes’”
No, what Bush CLAIMED in his book is that the 2007 NIE took the rug out from under his attempts to start such a war because he couldn’t justify it to the US public.
That’s a very big difference from saying Bush wouldn’t attack Iran if Iran wasn’t building nukes – but Bush and everyone else, as I’ve said repeatedly here, KNOW Iran is not building nukes. You only have to read the IAEA reports to KNOW that. And Bush can read, even if he can’t talk straight.
And I don’t believe him even then. I suspect there were other reasons why he didn’t start the war. Certainly Cheney was up for it right up until after the 2008 elections. If Bush didn’t want to start the war, it wasn’t because of the US public because he never gave a damn about the US public – ever.
Fyi: :”The only state that I trust in Europe, personally, to be not against Iran is the Vatican. Iran is on her own and only rapid nuclearization will guarantee her safetly.”
I find both statements to be ridiculous. The Vatican couldn’t care less about Iran. And Iran can never develop a nuke program in time to prevent a war – and any attempt to do so will accelerate that war.
Not to mention that it’s pretty clear the Supreme Leader and most of the Iranian government disagree with you on that prescription.
The bottom line: Neither Iran, Europe, China, Russia nor anyone else including the US population can do anything to prevent the US from starting a war with Iran. Period. Full stop. End of story.
No one has any control over the US ruling elites whatsoever – short of killing them.
James Canning says: February 25, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Media as tools of propaganda have always been used by states to further this or that objective of the government.
Was this any different than Heast’s campaign against Spain?
I think not.
R S Hack,
I am well aware you have predicted a US attack on Iran even if Iran does not develop nukes.
FYI,
The CIA told G W Bush that it had no intelligence Iran was developing nukes, and Bush and Rice said “no attacking Iran if Iran is not building nukes”.
Pak says: February 25, 2011 at 2:42 pm
In regards to your objectives:
I think there is a better chance of those objectives being realized through the Iranian courts than through this type of street protest.
R S Hack,
It seems clear that Colin Powell was duped, and that Powell knows he was duped. But Powell does not cut the guts out of the conspirators who set up the illegal invasion of Iraq.
Bush said many time that it appeared Iraq had nothing to do with the “9/11″ attacks and nothing to do with al-Qaeda. The conspiracy in the Pentagon to set up the illegal war, against the wishes of the President, is an issue needing more attention.
Bush and Rice were complete idiots, in the final analysis. US news media played a huge role in the making of the catastrophe. Dan Rather is a great source on this topic.
Richard Steven Hack says: February 25, 2011 at 3:12 pm
I disagree.
In 2006 there was an actual threat of war and I do not know why US changed her mind.
Mr. Canning: I think you misinterpreted me.
Iran can NOT deter the US in ANY way, intelligent foreign policy or not, military strength or not.
Not even the current “Arab Awakening” will stop the US from pursuing war on Iran in the reasonable future. If it’s not Obama, it will be the next guy – and they will be fully complicit in starting the war. There will be no “bamboozling” done.
The US government is corrupt right up to the Oval Office. There is zero evidence to the contrary.
James Canning says: February 25, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Then your object, “…education of Europe..” is hopeless.
In my judgement, about half of the European population are a self-satisfied lot with a belief in their own moral superiority to the rest of the world (including Americans).
Furthermore, there is a strong Cult of Shoah and deep prejudice against Islam and Religion.
The only state that I trust in Europe, personally, to be not against Iran is the Vatican.
Iran is on her own and only rapid nuclearization will guarantee her safetly.
Fyi: “Then why has not the war already started?”
We’ve been over this a hundred times here.
The US will not start a war on YOUR timetable, only on it’s own. A question such as yours ASSUMES that the US can start a war on any given day with a snap of the fingers just because it has the military capability to do so.
That’s not how it works.
R S Hack,
Bravo! And spot-on. Iran does not need to waste billions of dollars on weapons, when it can secure its own safety merely by pursuing an intelligent foreign policy.
Which means not trying to build nukes on the sly.
Mr. Canning: “I think Bush and his incredibly incompetent National Security advisor (Dondoleezza Rice) were bamboozled.”
Not that it would have been hard to bamboozle both those morons, but there isn’t a shred of evidence to support that contention. Dick Cheney was THE pusher for the war on Iraq. Bush knew exactly what was going on, at least to the extent that Cheney kept him informed. And Bush was fully on board with attacking Iraq regardless. It’s completely pointless to try to absolve Bush from full complicity.
The same will apply to Obama when the Iran war starts. He will be fully complicit.
Richard Steven Hack says: February 25, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Then why has not the war already started?
Or was not started in 2006?
Pak says: February 25, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Yes, just like Spring of 1979.
Fyi: “The only way to stop a US-Iran War is to make Iran powerful enough to deter US.”
Which is not possible. Iran cannot even deter Israel. Only the US is deterring Israel from attacking Iran at the moment – and in fact, it’s more Israel deterring Israel because Israel doesn’t want the US public to blame it for starting another ME war.
kooshy,
Yes, “Iranium” is a vicious piece of propaganda and it serves to warn those of us who see that the effort to educate the people of Europe about the threat to their national interests, posed by the Israel-lobby-driven foreign policy of the US, must be expanded. The American people in general are poorly informed and scarcely even know where to find Iran on a map.
fyi,
I think you are missing my points entirely. The object I stress is to work toward educating the people of Europe with a view toward convincing their national interests are threatened by the Israel-lobby-driven foreign policy of the US.
If an idiotic war happens, of course Italy or Germany would not help Iran. Only an idiot would expect that!
There will be no war, in my view, if Iran continues to avoid developing nuclear weapons. I would expect war as being more likely than not, if the Iranian government takes your advice and tries to develop nukes on the sly.
Bravo Touraj Jan, well done
February 25 – 26, 2011
Neve Ilan’s Latest Piece of Cinematic Propaganda “Iranium”
Projecting the New Bogeyman: Iran
By TOURAJ DARYAEE
This month a new film was released in the US entitled Iranium, which is a combination of name of the country Iran with uranium. In the past Hollywood had made a number of movies such as Not Without My Daughter, filmed in 1991 in Neve Ilan, Israel and more recently the more nuanced movie 300 which tried to demonstrate the notion that Iran (Persia) has been at war with the “peaceful” and “free-loving” West for the past 2500 years. That movie too was the work of conservative and neocons projecting current problem in the Middle East onto the past in the guise of a graphic-novel. What makes Iranium different from the above mentioned Hollywood films is that it claims to be a powerful report or a documentary on Iran on what has been happening for the past 30 years and its nuclear program. Indeed this film is as serious and report-worthy as the movie Star Wars is on the state of our galaxy. Still facts and fiction have been cemented together for one aim and that is the bombing of Iran, so that it becomes prosperous, free and democratic like Iraq and Afghanistan of today.
Nowadays a new boogieman has entered the American public life and that is Islam, and even those who are born in the Middle East. However, what makes the movie Iranium different from those mentioned above is that it has a clear message and intention and it is paid for by certain interested entities for a very clear reason. The movie emphasizes the hate that supposedly Iran has for the US and the international community and the danger of the destruction of the world (more precisely, Israel). The movie suggests that the US has not done anything to contain Iran, a sign of its weakness. This is of course in clear ignorance of the fact that Iran has been surrounded by US forces in Iraq, Republic of Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and a host of Persian Gulf Arab States and that it has been under heavy sanctions for decades. The film suggests that from the Iranian hostage crisis to Obama’s administration, the US has been soft against Iran in the past 30 odd years.
Iran is blamed for every bombing in Africa and the Middle East. From the bombings in Beirut in 1983 to the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 to Yemen in 2000, to even the 9/11, there are innuendos that Iran was involved in some way. The movie suggests Iran is behind every mischief that is taking place in the world in the past 30 years. Some of these allegations are documented and some are unclear, but many more is so far from the truth that one wonders why people with big titles and representatives of the US or other countries would make such claims that “Iran gave support to hijackers” of the 9/11 bombings. This claim is as accurate as stating that Darth Vader from outer space helped the hijackers in their aim.
“Experts” from many news programs are prodded and the most trusted and accurate of them all, Fox News takes the majority of these showings in the film. But the first 40 minutes of the film is just a setup for what those behind the film really want to tell and that is Iran’s nuclear threat to the US, Israel and the world. The maps and diagrams show Iran’s capability through it proxies reaching Spain, Sweden, UK and Russia, or more directly their ability to load a dirty bomb or through missile attack on a cargo ship hitting such places as “Washington DC, Baltimore and New York.” Again, it is suggested that it is possible that Iran could launch an electromagnetic bomb in the atmosphere above the US which according to the film, in a year will kill 9 out of 10 Americans!
This is a good story for films that would be on the same shelf as the Day that the Earth Stood Still to The Blob. This part of the film certainly reminded me the science fiction movies and quite interesting in the range of imagination and paranoia. What is more disturbing to me and many other Iranian-Americans is the contention that Iranians may be able to infiltrate the US through the US-Mexico Border. How do you distinguish between the “good” and “bad” Iranians? Do you gather all of them and place them into camps and interrogate all 2 million of them? What do you do with the millions of Iranians in the US who have already “infiltrated” the country and are now lawyers, doctors, university professors and successful entrepreneurs? In fact the Iranian-Americans are one of the highest educated minorities in the US and their contribution has been enormous. These Iranians came here for a better life and not to infiltrate the US to bomb it. However, this film is bent on creating fear and by mixing the incursions through the border and linking it to your Iranian neighbor in the US, a nice psychological warfare program for the English speaking audience is created. Thus, anyone else coming from the border or on planes to the US is fine, but just watch for the Iranians.
The message of the film is that “we” have been tolerant of Iran and that the US has no will to take action. What needs to be done is to have crippling sanctions and then military strikes on Iran. This aim follows the US policy towards Iraq, where from the time of President Bush Sr. in 1990 to the “Compassionate Conservative” President Bush Jr., according to UNICEF (United Nations) some estimated 500,000 children died as a result of these “compassionate” sanctions and “collateral” war, and another estimated 600,000 were killed in the war that lead to the freedom and democracy in Iraq. This is the prescription that is laid out at the end of the film by the talking-heads, and cemented together by the Iranian born Hollywood actress, Shohreh Aghdashloo. At the end of the film, the pitch is this: we should not wait for Israel to strike, the US will be blamed anyway, and so we might as well strike Iran first. This logic would not be acceptable even from a grade-school child, let alone from a motley crew of educated talking-heads.
But a little research into the foundations and personages behind the film points things to a certain direction. The movies if financed by several organizations, mainly the Clarion Fund, whose president is Raphael Shore who is also the co-producer of the film. Mr. Shore is a Canadian-Israeli film producer and Rabbi belonging to a Jewish Orthodox non-profit organization named Aish HaTorah. This organization seeks to amplify the danger of Islam to the world. His other “documentary” masterpieces include Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West (2005) and The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision for America (2008).
The director is Alex Traiman who lives in the Israeli West Banks settlement of Beit El. Kenneth Timmerman whom Simon Wiesenthal believes is “tracking down the murderers of tomorrow,” is at work in helping the victims of the September 11 attacks sue the government of Iran because of its support of al Qaeda, appears at rallies for the support of the Iranian monarchy, and has written on the plight of Christians in Iraq, the destruction of Israeli towns during the Hezbollah rocket attacks, and a novelist is one of the main talking heads in this “documentary.”
Other talking heads include Arnold Resnicoff who in the film is identified as the US Military Chaplin, but a quick search identifies him as conservative Rabbi and military officer as well; Dore Gold who is the President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and former advisor to the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon; Michael Ledeen, a board member of the Coalition for Democracy in Iran, founded by Morris Amitay who was the former Executive Director of American Israel Public Affairs Committee; and Chet Nagle who is the author of the novel entitled: Iran Covenant which deals with Iranian attempt to have a multi-pronged attack on Israel (again, mind you, this is a novel).
Then there are US representatives as well who take part in the interviews, namely James Woolsey, the former CIA Director; former Ambassador to the UN John Bolton; NY Representative Eliot Engel, a vocal supporter of Israel, condemning Palestinian rocket attacks by Hammas and sponsoring the resolution in the Congress that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel; Nevada Representative Shelly Berkley who according to the Natasha Mozgovaya’s Israeli Newspaper Haaretz had said, “Berkley, a Jewish politician well-known for her support of Israel, backed the Israeli operation in Gaza during December and January, and even told Haaretz that Israel may have been too tolerant (earlier),” among other talking heads in the film.
There are also scholars such as Bernard Lewis whose politics is clear and has significantly changed since 1967. More intriguing is Clare Lopez, of the Center for Security Policy, and who believes that President Obama’s administration has been infiltrated by Islamists (Vali Nasr) and their supporters and that such organizations as NIAC and its President Trita Parsi (a Zoroastrian) are lobbyists for the Islamic Republic of Iran. Her repeated showings jives well with her general paranoia that the US is being attacked from all directions, all the way to the US government. Simply put, no Iranian and certainly no Muslim born person should have any contact with the US government.
Lastly, there are few Iranian figures that are used, or I should say, were bought to bring the native element into the picture. Richard Perle’s Iranian sidekick, Amir Fakhravar, the leader of the rarely heard Independent Student Movement – who was much publicized through his contacts with Perle (Neocon theorist who pushed for attacks on Iraq). He is included in the film entitled: The Case for War: In Defense of Freedom; Mandana Zand Ervin, the President of the dubious organization called the Alliance of Iranian Women who has written an article objecting the award of the Noble Peace Prize to Shirin Ebadi, the first Iranian, and Iranian woman to get such honor, in 2003 (how ironic is this!); Mohsen Sazgara, former member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, then turned Green (supporter of the democracy movement in Iran), and now in his third metamorphosis, as a conservative talking head.
Finally, there is Shohreh Aghdashloo, who has achieved stardom in Hollywood and the US by playing such inspiring roles as a depressed, suicidal racist female Iranian (House of Sand and Fog), an Iranian woman being stoned (The Stoning Soraya), funded by Christian right-wing zealots, and as an Iranian female terrorist (TV series 24), certainly none of these roles can be claimed to provide a positive image of Iranian women and Iranians in general. I am not sure whether to congratulate her for getting these parts or sigh in providing cinematic stereotyping of Iranians as monsters and demons. She may have become a star in Hollywood, but she is no star for me, who never misses an opportunity to poison what the American audience gets to see from her about Iran and Iranians. In the early 20th Century starting with D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation, African-Americans were portrayed as slaves, criminals and brutal rapists, until Sydney Poitier objected this typecasting and played in such films as Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner and In the Heat of the Night in the 1960s. He could have played the docile or mad or villainous African-American and get paid for it, but his consciousness would not allow it. He and others changed the image of African-Americans in Hollywood and gradually in the US. Ms. Aghdashloo unfortunately lacks such consciousness and has become the actress in a host of negative roles about Iranians in Hollywood, and who narrates this “documentary.”
All of these people were brought together to make a propaganda film to instill fear into the hearts and minds of Americans that Iran and Iranians are coming to get them from Mexico, on cargo ships, with rockets and nuclear bombs. The message is to bomb Iran before they bomb “us,” or more correctly, “Israel.” There is a clear and overwhelming right-wing Israeli or pro-Israeli agenda and mission behind this film with its message. No matter how one feels about the current government in Iran, with its abuse of human rights and other evil that is doing upon its people, the inclusion of some facts with more lies and fantastic stories bound together, only serves the interest of Israel and no one else. The Middle East did not become violent and war-ridden in 1979 with the Iranian revolution, but that was only the symptom of the problems created by European and American imperialism in the past two centuries.
Touraj Daryaee is Professor of History at University of California, Irvine
http://www.counterpunch.org/daryaee02252011.html
Dear fyi,
“Do you have any knowledge of the social and political demands of the Opposition in Iran that you can share here?
Likewise, what are your own personal political and social demands for Iran?”
Basic political demands:
- Release political prisoners
- Adhere to the constitution (e.g. allow peaceful protests)
- Hold politicians accountable for the crimes committed since 2009
- (My own demand) Allow an independent commission to investigate the elections
Basic social demands:
- Freedom of the press
- Removal of internet filtering
- Reinstate professors who were sacked or forcibly retired, and stop starring students
- End the police state
These are very basic demands, right? And characteristics of a democratic state.
I have my own demands, but so does everybody. I believe that a free, democratic state will be able to accommodate everybody’s demands to an extent, by allowing people to express their opinions freely.
Arnold,
I recommend that you look more closely at the various statements made by George W. Bush in the wake of the “9/11″ attacks. And beware of propaganda put out by Donald Rumsfeld and others who try to cover up the conspiracy to defy the wishes of the commander-in-chief to set up and execute an illegal invasion of Iraq.
Dick Cheney would not have been so adamant about keeping extensive intel buried at Langley, showing that Iraq had no WMD and posed no threat to the US or even Israel, for that matter, if he knew Bush was in on the game and was only pretending Iraq had WMD. In other words, I think Bush and his incredibly incompetent National Security advisor (Dondoleezza Rice) were bamboozled.
James Canning says: February 25, 2011 at 2:30 pm
EU states will support war against Iran by US.
I this I have very little doubt.
Do you seriously think Germany will sanction US if she attacks Iran?
Do you think Italy will sell weapons to Iran to help her fight a war against US?
I respectfully suggest that it is you who is delusional about the importance of US Grand Stratgy and the relative un-importance of the Israel’s Partisans.
The only way to stop a US-Iran War is to make Iran powerful enough to deter US.
No EU state will help Iran in that regard; I can state that with metaphysical certainity.
Once US-EU Axis are willing to set aside their strategic superiority and engage the Iranians in a real Hegelian process of give-and-take, then we would see the possibility of peace.
But not until then.
For the Axis powers, just like Isrsel, are willing to exploit their superiority for tactical gains and live with the strategic consequences; in my opinion.
fyi,
Stated another way, the object of those who wish to help prevent yet another idiotic illegal war in the Middle East, is to show how the Israel lobby in the US is trying to manipulate European foreign policy, so that the Israel-lobby-driven foreign policy of the US, is matched step by step by European countries. In other words, the idea obviously is to identify issues and areas where the interests of the people of European countries are damaged by foreign policy imposed by the Israel lobby in Washington.
James:
The CIA had extensive intelligence to hand, that Saddam Hussein destroyed all Iraqi WMD in the 1990s. The castastrophe of the Iraq War was caused by the suppression of that intelligence by the warmongers and their foolish newsmedia accomplices.
I disagree that the war was caused by the WMD claims. The US had a president who wanted a war and a populace that wanted a war and got the war they wanted.
In hindsight it was a mistake but at the time there was essentially no US debate over the war.
James Canning says: February 25, 2011 at 2:04 pm
You wrote: “…The castastrophe of the Iraq War was caused by the suppression of that intelligence by the warmongers and their foolish newsmedia accomplices…”
Not at all.
US was going to war, per US Grand Strategy, with Iran being the last of the seven states to be overthrown.
Now, clearly there was an split in US-EU Axis on the war against Iraq. UK, Spain and a number of other supporting it while the Franco-German Entente did not.
Furthermore, that was not a catastrophe for Shia Iran or the Kurds of Iraq or the Shia of Iraq. It was only a catastrophe for the US-EU Axis and the local potentates.
In fact, precisely because this catastrophe has enhanced Iranian power that US has been able to supress dissent among EU states and shepherd towards the future war against Iran.
The economic crisis of 2007 and the current political crisis (of legitmiacy and bread) among Arabs has only delayed that war.
The pre-planned propaganda war against “nuclear Iran” is part and parcel of the same war planned cooked a while back before the current widespread political crisis of the Arab states.
This period of time, I should think, will be used by Iranians and their allies to counter and prepare for the inevitable pressure of US-EU Axis which the leaders of the Axis powers will hope to resume soon after the dust settles among the Arabs.
Well, that dust will not settle any timn soon and Iran is relatively safe from a war in the medium term (3 to 5 years) m- in my opinion.
fyi,
It seems to me you do your best to convince your readers that the EU is Tweedledum to the US Tweedledee. And that you show little or no interest in calling attention to foreign policy decisions or wishes, that obtain in various European countries, that conflict with the Israel-lobby-driven US foreign policy. I think this is a major tactical error if your object is to help prevent yet another idiotic illegal war in the Middle East.
James Canning says: February 25, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Will you please state where, in your opinion, I am delusional about US-EU Axis?
One is never too old to learn something new, is one?
kooshy,
You should welcome effective and accurate intelligence gathering by US, French, German and other “Western” intel services, regarding Iran and its nuclear programme.
The CIA had extensive intelligence to hand, that Saddam Hussein destroyed all Iraqi WMD in the 1990s. The castastrophe of the Iraq War was caused by the suppression of that intelligence by the warmongers and their foolish newsmedia accomplices.
R S Hack,
David Sanger of the New York Times often serves as a conduit for false intelligence employed to discredit the government of Iran, to “benefit” Israel. I welcome any challenge to this statement.
fyi,
As you no doubt are well aware, the Soviet Union did not comply with significant provisions of the Yalta agreement. The world is fortunate not to have been destroyed in the long period of Cold War, due to miscalculation etc.
I think you are a bit delusional about a so-called “US/EU axis” and it weakens your analysis of the situation that obtains in the Middle East.
Scott says:
Denied.
If that were so, how can you possibly write about U.S foreign policy and the CIA without access to the officials responsible?
You know Flynt – he is a former CIA analyst.
Richard Steven Hack says: February 25, 2011 at 12:34 pm
“I sense a new propaganda campaign against Iran being orchestrated by the US vis the IAEA.”
Of course, what else did you expect?
IAEA cannot be turned into a disarmament agency.
US-EU Axis is quite adept at abusing the post-WWII international treaties and institutions to gain leverage against their adversaries. That they, in long run, are harming themselves, is a risk they are willing to accept.
Really, complaining about such things is useless.
Iran and other independent-minded states have to create facts-on-the-ground to counter such machinations. Sort of like Israel in the Occupied Territories.
US-EU Axis have been creating a New World Order since the end of the Peace of Yalta. I seriously doubt that they are going to be happy with its results.
Lucas says something random like “Sorry — that’s not really a coherent consideration of either Eshraghi or my response.”
Like that even means anything in English or even Klingon.
This guy is one of the most pathetic debaters I’ve ever seen on the Internet. Even Zionist hasbara do better than him and they’re just lying with every word.
Remember: He’s ONLY here to get hits on HIS Web site. Don’t fall for it and don’t go to his Web site. And don’t bother trying to “engage” him here either since he never makes any coherent responses other than the stuff like that above.
RSH,
Sorry — that’s not really a coherent consideration of either Eshraghi or my response.
S.
Reza,
“I stated you had contacts/ties with the CIA which you undoubtedly do. I don’t think you would even deny this fact.”
Denied.
S.
In fact, while browsing for more info, I came across this article at Antiwar.com which reflects the EXACT SAME CONTENT – LAST YEAR!
Read the IAEA Reports on Iran
:http://original.antiwar.com/peter-casey/2010/02/28/read-the-iaea-reports-on-iran/
Quote
On Feb. 19, New York Times reporters David Sanger and William Broad filed a story about the International Atomic Energy Agency’s latest report [.pdf] on its inspection and monitoring work in Iran. The lead of story, “Inspectors Say Iran Worked on Warhead,” announced the Feb. 18 report’s shocking discovery:
“The United Nations‘ nuclear inspectors declared for the first time on Thursday that they had extensive evidence of ‘past or current undisclosed activities’ by Iran‘s military to develop a nuclear warhead, an unusually strongly worded conclusion that seems certain to accelerate Iran’s confrontation with the United States and other Western countries.”
End Quote
This is almost IDENTICAL to the Reuters and other reports mentioned below.
In other words, the exact SAME propaganda campaign they tried LAST year is being ramped up for THIS year – and ALMOST IN THE SAME MONTH!
It’s incredible.
Scott
“Still looking forward to all that proof you have of my day job in the CIA….”
Is it that shameful to overtly work for the CIA, in your reply to reza I felt a tune of shame or is it rather not enduring enough?
Professor Lucas- By the way, reading your comment to Pakman I couldn’t resist to notice that thanks god for time being, perhaps PAK’s job after all is saved, I hope the same is thru for your own job with Mr. Big (s), me and other Iranian expats, thank you for helping our fellow Iranian with a good paying job in this difficult economic times.
Back on topic for a change:
Anyone got any more details on this?
IAEA says gets info on possible Iran military work
:http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/25/nuclear-iran-idUSVIF00006220110225
Also there is this from February 9 which I assume is basically the same info, but more detailed.
Inspectors: Iran possibly working on nuke. What’s the evidence?
:http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/0219/Inspectors-Iran-possibly-working-on-nuke.-What-s-the-evidence
One thing to keep in mind is that the IAEA has no authority whatever to investigate any of the stuff listed in the CSM article, with the possible exception of the “green salt” project which I thought was dismissed ages ago. All those items listed are relevant only to Iran’s military technology and are outside the IAEA’s concern.
More importantly, all those items listed vis-a-vis nuclear weapon design issues relate to my repeated insistence that if Iran EVER had a “nuclear weapons program”, it was a program to learn how to design and construct a nuclear weapon, NOT a nuclear weapons MANUFACTURING and DEPLOYMENT program – which is all the IAEA and anyone else should be concerned about.
We also don’t know how much of this “new information” is primarily based on the “laptop of death” which has been dismissed up to now by everyone including the IAEA. If the IAEA under its new director is prepared to ramp up that nonsense again and claim that it is supported by “extensive, consistent in technical detail, and ‘collected from a variety of sources over time.’”
I sense a new propaganda campaign against Iran being orchestrated by the US vis the IAEA.
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 25, 2011 at 11:20 am
“…Don’t fall for it and don’t go to his site.”
Richard , which website ??
I only have the German one:
“HAU DEN LUCAS” = “HIT THE LUCAS” , another version…
http://www.schlaues-spielzeug.de/abbildungen/wilesco_antriebsmodell_hau_den_lukas_M95.jpg
Richard Steven Hack says: February 25, 2011 at 11:30 am
This is all true but US-EU Axis will continue to hope for a revolution or unrest to advance their geopolitical agenda.
In the abssence of credible chance of non-miliatry demise to the Islamic Republic, war will be their only choice. But, at the moment, they are not willing/able to undertake that.
I think US-EU Axis positions in North Africa, in the Levant, in the Persian Gulf, and in Central and South Asis is being eviscerated.
I think the Axis Powers are tangled in their own webs and do not know how to extricate themselves: in Palestine, in Lebanon, in North Africa, in the Persian Gulf and in Afghanistan-Pakistan war theatre..
Specifically for Iranians: they have to sit and measure the margings of their gains.
Turks, also, have much to gain, specially if the current Axis policies towards Iran continues: giving them the same opportunity as they had during Iran-Iraq War to satisfy the Iranian Market.
Now, of course, all the hyenas are on the move.
From the Asia Times article:
Quote
Among those who are peeling away are Ayatollah Abbas Vaez Tabasi, custodian of the Imam Reza shrine in Mashhad and its economic assets including industries, farms and real estate, provided both moral and financial backing for Mir Hossein Mousavi when he ran against Ahmadinejad in 2009.
Now, however, he is describing the participants in the February 14 protests as “seditious instigators who undoubtedly deserve to have God’s verdict delivered upon them”.
Ali Akbar Nategh Nouri, who heads the supreme leader’s Inspectorate, and one of the most influential leaders of the conservative clergies, is another former Mousavi supporter. He has been quiet for some time, but broke his silence after the February 14 demonstration by saying both Mousavi and his ally Mehdi Karroubi lacked political sense and patriotism and recommending they both be put on trial.
“Our enemies need to know that we may have differences among ourselves, but we all defend the regime together,” he said.
End Quotes
This reinforces what I’ve said – the Iran government is under attack, and the Green Movement (which now Lucas wants to “distance” himself from by claiming it’s no longer the “Green Movement” but “something else” for which he has even less evidence) is clearly recognized as a “seditious, foreign-backed” group with little mainstream Iranian support.
Lucas now wants to suggest that the real issue is the “reform” movement or some nebulous collection of complaints by the Iranian population about anything and everything.
This does not make a revolution.
Quote
Despite economic pressures including recent price rises on food and fuel, residents of the poor areas of southern Tehran were not motivated to come out and protest on February 14.
In a speech following the 2009 protests, a veteran Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps commander, Saeed Ghasemi, said the time to be afraid would come if the poor of south Tehran ever “went crazy” and withdrew their support for the supreme leader.
Economic concerns did not feature large among the demands voiced by the protesters, and when they occasionally did – complaining about the price of bread – it rang hollow given that these were people who could clearly still afford it.
The lack of blue-collar support for the opposition is exemplified by industrial action at the Abadan Oil Refinery on the same day as the first February protest. Opposition websites tried to play the strike up, comparing it to the mass oil industry strikes during the 1979 Islamic revolution. In reality, only about 50 workers were involved in the strike, which concerned one specific issue, unpaid wages, and did not reflect support for the Green movement.
Nor has the opposition engaged the wealthy classes of north Tehran. Throughout the unrest, holidays to Malaysia, Turkey, Thailand and Dubai were fully booked up.
All this shows that the Green movement has not yet created all the preconditions for becoming a dominant force.
End Quote
Precisely. Egypt, Tunisia, Libya are all about the effects of their oppressive governments on their personal lives, economically and politically. Nothing similar exists in Iran. See the following which says the same thing.
Quote
The bigger headache of all for the Green movement is that its aims are unclear, and that it has not translated them into language that convinces people that it is seeking emancipation for all, rather than for specific social groups.
The Egyptian and Tunisian demonstrators had an obvious goal – the end of the regime.
When the Green movement took shape after the 2009 presidential election, its message was straightforward – the vote had been rigged and the electorate cheated. That brought three million people out into the streets.
But what now? Does it still want Ahmadinejad to be removed and a new election held? If so, it is not apparent from the slogans shouted by its supporters. Does it want the Islamic system of government to be dismantled, or just for Khamenei, to step down? Does it favor constitutional reform and the abolition of the position of supreme leader, or merely better government within the current framework?
Green movement leaders have not been helpful in disentangling these ambiguities and presenting a clearer message that would recruit more Iranians to its cause. The messages continue to be confused – the February 14 demonstration was supposed to be in solidarity with the Egyptians and Tunisians, but the main slogans heard were against the supreme leader.
Leading opposition members say the recent demonstrations were a victory in that they proved the Green movement was still alive. But did that have to be proved? If their main aim is to show the government that they still exist, street protests are reduced to being a kind of carnival, unfortunately featuring police batons and tear gas rather than balloons and refreshments.
End Quote
Lucas says: “Sorry, none of this has value unless you offer sources.”
Which, of course, he never does – unless you go to his Web site, that is.
Which is his goal – to leech visitors from this site to his so his revenue from his paymasters goes up.
Don’t fall for it and don’t go to his site.
Empty: My impression from their Web sites is that both companies are the same outfit just operating under two different names. Not unusual.
Without a clearer record of the investors, senior staff, whether it’s a subsidiary of some other company, etc., there’s no direct evidence of an Israeli connection other than being in an Israeli-funded real estate project.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB26Ak01.html
I red this, very interesting may be useful for na_pak and othre guy
A fizzling protest movement in Iran has merely given the government a chance to gauge the opposition’s strength, with apathy the most apparent among the holidaying classes. Despite the rising cost of food and fuel, the Green movement is struggling to live up to its mantra, “we are countless”.
Empty: So the industrial park is more like a “gated community”. That’s not too surprising. I still don’t see an Israeli connection similar to what we’ve seen in other directly-Israeli-invested companies such as the one that used to run the CALEA program in the US.
I’m fully aware that Israel uses “dual citizenship” security corporations to conduct its spying operations worldwide. But this company is a pretty small outfit and it’s security products don’t impress (it’s antivirus detects only 30% of viruses in independent tests which is really bad.)
The only interesting thing is that it detected Stuxnet first. So in that respect it might be an Israeli front or was used by Israel for some unknown reason to reveal the existence of Stuxnet.
Pak says: February 25, 2011 at 9:20 am
Do you have any knowledge of the social and political demands of the Opposition in Iran that you can share here?
Likewise, what are your own personal political and social demands for Iran?
Scott:
Still looking forward to all that proof you have of my day job in the CIA….
I stated you had contacts/ties with the CIA which you undoubtedly do. I don’t think you would even deny this fact. You are a private offshoot of the U.S intelligence and information propagation machine. I think I will be more careful what i say to you in the future – I don’t want to be designated an “enemy of the state”.
Pak,
In my opinion, Rafsanjani — amidst the pressure on his family as well as the Assembly of Experts challenge — is fence-sitting. What he has been trying to get for several months is Supreme Leader’s backing against the Executive — consider, for example, his approach in September to Khamenei with the files of political prisoners — but Khamenei has been far too careful and cagey to offer that.
On Farokhnia’s article on the clerics’ special session, this is our posted summary from today….
* Hamid Farokhnia reports from Tehran on the special two-day session of the Association of Theological Teachers of Qom Seminary.
Few details came out of the meeting, and a lot of Farokhnia’s piece is speculative. However, there are some useful points.
The meeting put forth the current hard-line against opposition protests, “The clergy, these combatants of God and soldiers of Imam Mahdi….stating their utter repugnance with the seditionists [the Green Movement activists]….demand from the elite and the leaders an unambiguous and explicit repudiation of the American-Zionist sedition movement.” Farokhnia goes further in his interpretation, seeing this as a challenge not only to Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi but also Hashemi Rafsanjani, as he campaigns for re-election as head of the Assembly of Experts.
More substantial was the presence of certain figures, such as former Presidential candidate Ali Akbar Nategh-Nouri, who has generally kept a low profile during post-election political maneouvres. And Farokhnia ponders, though without a conclusive explanation, why no invitation was extended — for the first time in five years — to President Ahmadinejad.*
Best,
S.
Matt,
Thanks for the link to the interesting piece by Eshraghi, which we are likely to re-publish on EA.
Some rich points here, especially about the debate within the opposition over aims — we had a similar analysis a few days ago. And he is also on the mark about difficulties of co-ordination.
But Eshraghi sets up an artificial standard, probably in light of the excitement over developments in the Arab world, of “Revolution”. There has never been a unified line amongst the opposition for that, and none of the activists in Iran were predicting the imminent demise of the Islamic Republic. The phrase “marathon, not a sprint” has been the dominant one.
His framing of the “Green Movement” is also artificial. We are well past the period just after the 2009 election when Green could cover the specific protests against the vote. There are wider civil rights issues beyond that, which means there are a range of groups in play for the opposition. The phrase “Green” might be used from time to time, but Mousavi’s Green Path is an obsolete notion — look at the approach of the statement in the names of Mousavi and Karroubi this week.
So this is far more than Eshraghi’s artificial framing of a north Tehran movement. The shrewder people in the opposition know that they have to look to other social movements and economic groups to move forward. The public revival through the marches is merely the sign that the opposition is still alive. The challenge will be to turn that into plans and objectives for change.
S.
Reza,
“‘Enduring America’ is just a subset of VOA and Radio Liberty.”
No way — EA WorldView is way better than VOA and Radio Liberty.
Still looking forward to all that proof you have of my day job in the CIA….
S.
Dear Reza,
Great. But did you actually read the article?
Objectivity means judgements based on observations, not emotions. Objectivity does not simply mean pro-regime. The article I cited is only based on observations. It does not even offer much of an analysis, so why are you so afraid to read it?
Your objectivity in determining objectivity is not objective.
Iranian says:
The more you claim otherwise, the more I become convinced that your are really doing nothing but producing propaganda for your government.
“Enduring America” is just a subset of VOA and Radio Liberty. It may be privately-run but it is in the same camp. Lucas has extensive ties to the intelligence community.
Reza,
There are a number of prominent reformist MPs — none of them is the “spokesman” for the faction. Arguably, that has been a drawback for the opposition as a co-ordinated political line from the reformists has been lacking for much of the post-election period.
S.
Pak,
Tehran Bureau is just a front for the Green movement. Its director, the horse-faced Kelly Niknejad, is a vocal anti-regime advocate. You can’t take their reporting seriously as they don’t even know what the word “objective” means.
Iranian,
Sorry, none of this has value unless you offer sources.
S.
Coincidence?
As I was writing my last post, this article was published by Tehran Bureau:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2011/02/hardline-clerics-hold-hush-hush-convention.html
Dear imho,
First of all, it is important to note that all the opposition figureheads – Mousavi, Karroubi, Khatami, and Rafsanjani – are loyal to the revolution. None have called for the overthrow of the regime.
Anyway, the article you cite quotes Rafsanjani as saying:
“…all activity that does not comply with the law is haram (forbidden under Islam)…”
Fair enough. Nobody denies that breaking the law is illegal. Maybe he was referring to protesters setting bins alight. Or maybe he was referring to the fact that protests are legal according to the constitution, therefore any crackdown is illegal. Who knows? It is Rafsanjani at the end of the day.
If you put this quote into the context of the statement coming out of the Assembly of Experts, then it all makes sense:
“[The Assembly of Experts] condemned the opposition protests and said the “leaders of sedition … best served America and the Zionist regime”…”
Then again, have you seen the campaign under way to stop Rafsanjani being re-elected chairman of the Assembly of Experts? Here are some examples:
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA-Wk4sQea8
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XRC96rLdf0
:http://www.khabaronline.ir/news-131137.aspx
Finally, look at this article on Rafsanjani’s website, published on 25 Bahman:
:http://www.hashemirafsanjani.ir/?type=dynamic&lang=1&id=3555
To me it appears that the Assembly of Experts condemned the opposition, which it has done consistently since the elections. But there is absolutely no evidence showing that Rafsanjani has “publicly and severely” condemned the opposition.
By the way, you are welcome to have him for yourself. His actions since 2009 only prove that he is sly, a cunning fox, a shark, or whatever you want to call him. The only thing on his mind is how to retain power; nothing else.
Scott,
Kavakebian *is* the minority leader in the Majlis – he speaks for the 50-60 reformist MPS on every occasion: you just don’t pick up on this.
The reformists will contest the 2012 elections – many as independents.
Khatami is not even in control of the party he is affliated to, the MRM. As such, he cannot dictate the terms by which reformists will participate.
The moderate reformist Kargozaran party (linked to Rafsanjani) will field a full list of candidates for every seat.
I suspect some centrist parties will be formed before the elections, combining moderate elements from both principlists and reformists.
A new article from Ali Reza Eshraghi (who, I believe, has pro-Green sympathies?) regarding the ineptitude and increased isolation of the Green Movement may be relevant to the recent assertions of Pak and Scott Lucas: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB26Ak01.html
Pak says:
February 24, 2011 at 6:45 pm
“2. Where is your evidence showing that Rafsanjani has “publicly and severely” criticised Mousavi?”
Rafsanjani changes his mind: Opposition protest ‘Haram’
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=44437
Scott Lucas
The minority reformist MPs have completely distanced themselves from Mousavi by actually condemning him in a statement read by Dr. Khabbaz.
Kavakebian, contrary to what you claim, is a reformist leader.
There is no green movement. There are just some rich kids getting their orders from western backed TV stations.
There was no rally after the small one on Bahman 25. The more you claim otherwise, the more I become convinced that your are really doing nothing but producing propaganda for your government.
Pak for Gods sake spread your exile propaganda elsewhere, you dont represent the average iranian.
George Soro: The 51st. Jewish Messiah’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/george-soro-the-51st-jewish-messiah/
VoT,
I like the looks of that game — personally, I’m aiming for “Superman”.
Best,
S.
SL , you’re a joke.
“HAU DEN LUCAS” = “HIT THE LUCAS “, New Version …
http://www.rumpelspielchen.de/typo3temp/pics/Hau-den-Lukas-alle_ca636f0ee0.jpg
Iran Special: The Regime Debates “Arrest #Mousavi and #Karroubi?”
http://tinyurl.com/6zj362e
Pirouz,
Consideration of the dynamics amongst the opposition — both those within the establishment and those outside — is definitely in order.
In Kavakebian’s case, however, I don’t think the “radical students” are the issue. The most recent tension has been whether the reformists should participate in the 2012 Parliamentary elections. Mohammad Khatami set his three conditions — freeing of political prisoners, adherence to the Constitution, and guarantees for a free and fair election — for participation. Kavakebian indicated he and those allied with him would participate, regardless.
In general, the opposition is far more than “radicalised students”. That is not to just it’s co-oordinated at the moment. The latest statement on behalf of Mousavi and Karroubi both recognises that and tries to make a move with the reach-out to women’s rights groups, miniorities, labour, and the underprivileged.
S.
“it would be far more productive to look at Kavakebian’s recent political moves.”–Scott
That’s something I would be interested in reading: analyses on the more liberal political dimensions of Iran’s political establishment. They only received a little over 30% in the last election, and my guess is the slender, vocal minority of radicalized students are hurting their chances in upcoming elections. That is to say, radicalized elements of a “green movement” or what ever else you care to call this disenfranchised slender minority are counterproductive to the left end of Iran’s political establishment (as the Leverett’s also point out).
I guess what I’m asking for is a more balanced and realistic assessment on the affect these rebel students are having on Iranian politics as a whole, instead of the simplified and in certain key respects hypocritical democracy versus tyranny narratives that are perpetually peddled in GM communique-type fashion.
I don’t think anyone has posted this yet. It is, surely, priceless.
“If Gadafy is sincere about reform, as I think he is, Libya could end up as the Norway of North Africa”
by Anthony Giddens
The Guardian: Friday 9 March 2007
“… Gadafy steps into the vacuum left by the absence of effective mechanisms of government, and the result is a de facto dictatorship. Libya will not progress if the current system stays intact. Libya needs a new constitution, and representative government must play a significant part in it. On economic change, Gadafy was less equivocal. He was not negative about globalisation, as so many politicians in developing countries are, and recognised that Libya must change to prosper. He accepts the need to reform banking, diversify the economy, train entrepreneurs and dismantle inefficient state-owned enterprises. Impressive progress has been made towards these objectives in the past three years.
As one-party states go, Libya is not especially repressive. Gadafy seems genuinely popular. Our discussion of human rights centred mostly upon freedom of the press. Would he allow greater diversity of expression in the country? There isn’t any such thing at the moment. Well, he appeared to confirm that he would. Almost every house in Libya already seems to have a satellite dish. And the internet is poised to sweep the country. Gadafy spoke of supporting a scheme that will make computers with internet access, priced at $100 each, available to all, starting with schoolchildren.
Will real progress be possible only when Gadafy leaves the scene? I tend to think the opposite. If he is sincere in wanting change, as I think he is, he could play a role in muting conflict that might otherwise arise as modernisation takes hold. My ideal future for Libya in two or three decades’ time would be a Norway of North Africa: prosperous, egalitarian and forward-looking. Not easy to achieve, but not impossible.
· Anthony Giddens is a former director of the London School of Economics
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/09/comment.libya
Pirouz,
I appreciate your suggestion very much. EA does sometimes take an irreverent tone, especially in our lighter pieces, towards those in power — not just in Iran but in other countries. And, personally, I have an interest in the promotion of justice, civil rights, and civic society. Again, this is not just regarding Iran; it has been a prime reason why we are building up our specialism in coverage of the Middle East and North Africa.
But irreverence and that position should not get in the way of the prime objective of delivering news and analysis, especially in cases where the “mainstream” media is not noticing the situation or is prevented from covering it.
With EA now established in its specialist areas as one of the leading providers of latest news and analysis, we will be reviewing our approach. Your suggestion will definitely be amongst that consideration.
Thanks again,
Scott
“Mostafa Kavakebian is the reformist minority leader.”
No, he is not. And the claim that he is distancing himself from the post-election opposition because he questioned Mousavi and Karroubi as “leaders” of the movement is an exaggeration. There has been a sustained debate amongst the opposition, both in the politicians within the establishment and the activists outside it, as to whether there should be anyone identified as a “leader”.
This one piece of “evidence” was thrown up a year ago to try and prove that all of the Green Movement had disintegrated. It was dissected then, and it is a weak challenge to try and revive it now — it would be far more productive to look at Kavakebian’s recent political moves.
Behind the Arab revolt is a word we dare not speak
http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/behind-the-arab-revolt-is-a-word-we-dare-not-speak
by John Pilger
Shortly after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, I interviewed Ray McGovern, one of an elite group of CIA officers who prepared the President’s daily intelligence brief. McGovern was at the apex of the “national security” monolith that is American power and had retired with presidential plaudits. On the eve of the invasion, he and 45 other senior officers of the CIA and other intelligence agencies wrote to President George W. Bush that the “drumbeat for war” was based not on intelligence, but lies.
“It was 95 per cent charade,” McGovern told me.
“How did they get away with it?”
“The press allowed the crazies to get away with it.”
“Who are the crazies?”
“The people running the [Bush] administration have a set of beliefs a lot like those expressed in Mein Kampf… these are the same people who were referred to in the circles in which I moved, at the top, as ‘the crazies’.”
I said, “Norman Mailer has written that that he believes America has entered a pre-fascist state. What’s your view of that?”
“Well… I hope he’s right, because there are others saying we are already in a fascist mode.”
US puts sanctions on 2 Iranian officials
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hDoDlpmv9HDnwi8uQ_hJGVXx9bNw?docId=786eeb96b6a44909835ed7612c237476
As they say in Persian “ The only one in Iran that US hasn’t sanctioned yet is Khajeh Hafez of Shiraz” and that is because Khajeh passed away 700 years ago otherwise by now Hillary Clinton would have gone after him to get him US sanction.
Fiorangela,
Very interesting. I don’t know if you ever got a chance to watch the link I posted for you a few days back to the documentary “The Corporations.” In that documentary, they actually psycho-analyze the corporations and their behavior and diagnose them to be all psychopaths (similar to your diagnosis of the predatory financiers that “They are completely amoral, sociopathic.”).
I agree with you regarding China’s long-term planning (See here, for example, ;http://www.cresp.org.cn/uploadfiles/2/967/medium%20and%20long-term%20development%20plan%20for%20re%20in%20china%20eng.pdf). Although, I wonder how long would take for the same group of people who created a corrupt financial system in the US to also infiltrated the Chinese system.
RSH,
I just noticed that you are talking about the virus company (which I don’t think is clear who it is) and I am talking about the company that “discovered” the virus (i.e. the antivirus company) and am not suggesting that they produced it.
Empty says: February 24, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Of Gambles, Bets, and Wagers….
while you were actively researching, analyzing, concluding, Empty, I was passively listening.
Jim Sinclair, gold trader and son & colleague of Bert Seligman on the sociopathology of today’s high financiers, for whom destroying corporations is kindergarten work, they are competing to destroy nations.
Iceland — Greece — Ireland — Spain — Portugal — Great Britain — US.
according to Sinclair,
~Bernanke & Fed’s SIGNALS that it intends to print more money is NOT a means of setting US on a sound footing, it is a way of trying to move the world market: US is busted; it needs to place a massive borrowing. It can only do so at rates that are not crippling by practicing feints, which Sinclair explains.
~The predatory financiers “would toss their mothers in the microwave if the price was right.” They are completely amoral, sociopathic. They are competing one with the other to amass the greatest wealth, to destroy nations.
~China runs its economy on sound principles: when Chinese bankers took outrageous risks with other people’s money, the Chinese did NOT bail them out, they put them in jail. China has a 10-20-100 year plan; no one knows for sure what it is, but the Chinese look ahead, think it through, plan carefully, and stick to the long-range plan.
~Sinclair’s father, one Seligman, was partners with Livermore when Livermore was TOLD by J P Morgan that he WOULD cover his shorts in order that the US market would not fail. Morgan put his own capital and reputation behind the effort to keep the US financial system from failing, and when he bailed out the banks, he demanded that the capital infusion be used to build US industry and infrastructure. In 2008, when US govt bailed out bankers, the financiers hoarded the money and use it as a ‘stash’ to hedge the next derivative/bet, NOT to revitalize US economy or industry, manufacturing, innovation.
LOOK AGAIN at the delegation David Makovsky and Robert Satloff took to Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Ramallah: WINEP (the think tank that AIPAC created) trustees who are New York bankers and venture capitalists. :http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/TripRep
What does it take to get America’s leaders to realize that Israel is robbing US blind, while US is giving god damned zionists political cover to kill children?
zionists have done this before: SAMUEL UNTERMYER!!! Remarque the name! HE was one of the drivers behind both World War I and World War II. Those wars were started by Jewish financiers with the goal of funding the creation of the “zionist entity.” Hitler led a resistance movement to Jewish and accomplice British and American financiers who did to Germany what they are doing to the US today and wish to do to Iran — suck it dry. Untermyer was a principal in creating the Federal Reserve bank in US. Stuart Levey, a 21st century Untermyer, should be strung up by his #@$$%; he is a crook. WAKE the Carlin up!!
RSH,
My understanding of the relationship between the “residents” and HTP is that there is an elaborate process (registration, rigorous review process, and final approval by the HTP board) for an entity to become an HTP resident (94 thus far if I’m not mistaken. they don’t even have to be physically located there). It has a strange make-up as it behaves like a multi-national/multi-industry corporation formed as a conglomeration of many companies (banks, oil & gas, IT, etc.). They pay no taxes and behave like an “international country” within a country (as paradoxical as it may seem). So, when you look at the profile of a company like VirusBlokAda Ltd., you’ll find very little. As if HTP has become the Bermuda triangle of shadow games. It appears the financial fate of the companies are somehow linked once they are approved as residents.
Pak,
I saw/heard the Majlis only chanting death to Mousavi and Karroubi. The “leaders of the sedition movement” does not refer to Khatami at all – check recent Fars News reports.
http://english.farsnews.net/newstext.php?nn=8911271530
Anyway, Mostafa Kavakebian is the reformist minority leader who debated Shariatmadari live on state TV last year. He is not just any reformist politician.
I am pretty sure that the MRM, Mardomsalari and Kargozaran parties do not endorse Mousavi and Karroubi…or the Green movement.
James Canning says: February 24, 2011 at 5:37 pm
I believe a President of Harvard was behind it – in early last century – to help status of Jews. But I have read (if I recall correctly) the term in connection with 19-th century cultural history.
Empty: I think you’ve got it a bit wrong.
The virus company is merely HQ’d at the industrial park. The virus company itself appears to be Russian, operating out of Belarus.
I don’t see an Israel connection except the industrial park. Fishman Group is invested in the industrial park, not the antivirus company as far as I can tell. The antivirus company doesn’t have much company info on their Web site but there is no connection to Israel, no indication of foreign investors. The company appears to be entirely operating in Belarus, their entire client list is in that country.
Pak,
It will be interesting to see if >1000 demonstrators will turn out this Tuesday, and if any significant numbers will be represented beside student types of north Tehrani stock.
Anyone have video evidence to point to of NAJA’s police presence today in Tehran?
Of Gambles, Bets, and Wagers….
Soros gambles. Leverett & Mann Leverett bet. Bussed-in-Bassiji, who should certainly refrain, does it too. That brings me to Stuxnet and Richard Steven Hack’s referenced article, “How the ‘NYT’ swallowed the Stuxnet worm” examining New York Times about a worm that turned into a giant snake overnight. Thanks to magic shows, illusions, and “reliable” newspapers, of course, things are not what they seem. So, if Stuxnet wasn’t that which it was supposed to be, what was it then? Rehment Qadir (author of the article posted by RSH) has done an excellent job presenting the evidence of what Stuxnet was not about and debunking NYT. However, when he got to offering an alternative theory of what it could have been about, he simply failed. One cannot blame him, of course. Sometimes one cannot see the jungle for the trees.
Rule #1: Follow the $.
Rule #2: Stick to the basics and do not get distracted.
Rule #3: If you want to know “who done it,” see who profits from it.
Rule #4: The truth is always in plain sight.
Rule #5: Magic shows are about distracting you with one thing when they are doing something else (pickpocketers do this too).
~ Stuxnet was “discovered” in July 2010 by VirusBlokAda Ltd., an antivirus software vendor in Belarus.
[Source: ;http://www.anti-virus.by/en/index.shtml
~ VirusBlokAda Ltd. is a resident company of Belarus Hi Tech Park (HTP) which gets a Gold anti-Rootkit protection award on April 2010. A rootkit is a software program or coordinated set of programs designed to gain control over a computer system or network of computing systems without being detected.
[Source: ;http://www.park.by/post-69/
~Belarus HTP was financed and built by Svitland Ltd. in 2008. Svitland Ltd. is a unit of Fishman Holdings.
[Source: ;http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:fBWkUt1wyaAJ:old.kamunikat.org/download.php%3Fitem%3D6563-1.pdf%26pubref%3D6563+Belarus+High+Tech+Park%2BNYSE&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiIDFQ_oxR0cGejAx0YUXpBvs8xzjZraDqTWBmB9X5n_sYLNL4MzC816ei0752TXF-sqNlDshp8h7mRodVZBNSVF2dxUaH9YNrLwvfh5-E48Z59-pom8s6CooWLbT0JWfNiOYCA&sig=AHIEtbSMao5QK8bMqWUMsRiFML1AWQsd7g
~ Fishman Holdings is part of Fishman Group and one of Israel’s largest and most renowned private investment groups.
[Source: ;http://www.fishmanholdings.com/19-en/FishmanHoldings.aspx
~ Fishman Group It is one of 90 Israeli-related companies on NASDAQ. In 2007, they bragged about Israeli stocks as follows [excerpts]: “International stock exchanges and investment banks are clamoring for listings of Israeli companies, and most of the major investment banks like Merrill Lynch, Jeffries, William Blair, UBS, and Lehman Brothers have set up shop in Tel Aviv or visit frequently. Goldman Sachs is even having its next board of directors meeting in Jerusalem….Late last year, the NASDAQ held an Israel Company Day to highlight many of the Israeli companies that trade on its exchange. Since the crowd was standing room only, the NASDAQ has decided to make it an annual event. Israeli stocks like Magal Security, Teva, Checkpoint, Syneron and Perrigo are more than 50% owned by American institutions. …More Israeli companies are also finding their way on to the London Stock Exchange (LSE). The initial public offering of Africa Israel’s Russian subsidiary, AFI Development, is the fifth largest real estate company on the LSE. It will probably be added to one of the LSE’s indexes this year. Fishman holdings subsidiary, Mirland Development is also in the top 20.”
[Source: ;http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Israel+beyond+politics/Israeli%20stocks%20ring%20the%20bells%2011-Jun-2007
Yes, the global financial system is built on convincing people that “something is an asset” (even though it is not). That a fabricated “asset” is of some value (which is not). That one would make a lot of money gambling on mis-perceptions and misfortunes of others (which one would). To do that, one definitely needs New York Times.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“They ask you about intoxicants and gambling; say, ‘There is great harm in them and some benefits for some. However, their harm greatly outweighs their benefits.’”
Translation/interpretation from Quran, Chapter 2, Verse 219
Pak, that video is amazing! Oh to have an American Congress with that much courage and passion! Best that the US can manage is to conceal the puppetmaster’s strings.
fyi, you counseled earlier, in response to my rant about Steve Clemons’ coddling zionist James Glassman, that “Clemons had to stay relevant,” or something like that.
1. Revelations 3:16
2. Here’s how real men behave
Sudan’s break-up: Bringing Nile water to Israel
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/sudans-break-up-bringing-nile-water-to-israel/
Pak: Not only your HTML skills, but your reading skills – or perhaps you eyesight – also suck.
“he confirms that the Leveretts are lying when they say that Khatami has distanced himself from the Greens.”
What part of Reza’s “Khatami, as the Leveretts write, has not met with Mousavi and Karroubi in over a year” can’t you see or read?
This is why no one takes you seriously. You can’t even be bothered to get basic facts straight or even read anyone’s posts correctly. Among many other faults which I have listed here before.
Reza: “SL refers to Scott Lucas and not the Supreme Leader.”
Since Lucas thinks of himself as the Supreme Leader of the Green Movement, what’s the difference? :-)
Damn my html skills suck. I really thought I got that one right.
Dear Reza,
Thank you for identifying one reformist politician who has spoken out against the Green Movement. Coincidently, he confirms that the Leveretts are lying when they say that Khatami has distanced himself from the Greens.
Also, take a look at our lovely parliament in the video below. Note that they are saying Marg bar Mousavi o Karroubi o Khatami
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMPW9fZQ1pA
Credible sources, however, claim that the video above has been manipulated, and instead point to this video as being the original:
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1lXJW-gQFw
Pak says:
Where is your evidence showing that the reformists have distanced themselves from the Green Movement? Do you classify imprisonment or forced exile as distancing oneself?
It has been this way for quite some time.
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=228028
MP says opposition should not claim reformism leadership
Moderate pro-reform MP Mostafa Kavakebian has said Mohammad Khatami and Mir-Hossein Mousavi can not claim that they are leaders of reformists. The MP has said the fact that the reformist parties have supported Mousavi and Khatami during the elections does not mean that these two figures are reformists’ leaders. The MP has also asserted that reformists are loyal to the Islamic system, so the ‘green movement’ can not be considered a reformist group.
Khatami, as the Leveretts write, has not met with Mousavi and Karroubi in over a year.
Pirouz,
EA is actually SL’s tweeting page. It is not a serious blog like RFI is, and its very title is jingoistic and imperialistic in nature. Lucas doesn’t disguise his support for the GM and clearly sees it as a fifth column with which to undermine the IRI whilst promoting the foreign policy agenda of the White House in the region and wider world.
Btw, SL refers to Scott Lucas and not the Supreme Leader.
Dear Leveretts,
You have still failed to explain your lies. I will list my concerns again for your convenience:
1. Where is your evidence showing that the reformists have distanced themselves from the Green Movement? Do you classify imprisonment or forced exile as distancing oneself?
2. Where is your evidence showing that Rafsanjani has “publicly and severely” criticised Mousavi?
3. How is the Green Movement doing “America’s bidding”? Please list the Green Charter, and explain point by point how it is to America’s advantage.
4. Finally, what is STRATEGA, and why do donations to this website go to the New America Foundation? Also, while you are at it, why does Hillary Mann’s biography ignore her work for WINEP, the AIPAC-established think tank?
Cheerio.
P.S. More protests are planned for Tuesday. And does anybody know why Tehran was a police barracks today?
Fiorangela,
I laughed out loud! Jews “forced further into the deep trenches of assimilation and sniveling co-dependence on the Goyim”! Is this for real?
Is it not true that half of the richest people in the US are Jewish? When Jews are 1.8% of the population of the US.
Back in the 1950s and early 1960s, the Roman Catholic Church in the US tried to discourage mixing by young Catholics with Protestants. Too dangerous.
quoted in full: There is no such thing as ‘Judeo-Christian values’
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Judeo-Christian Values?
7th Candle of Hanukkah 5770
Dear Arutz 7 (Israel National News) Broadcaster,
Recently, I heard a broadcast of yours. It included an excellent interview, in which you were able to keep your guest focused and have him share a great deal of information in a relatively short period of time.
In the second segment of your show, there was another interesting interview. Yet, something odd caught my attention. You used the expression “Judeo-Christian values,” even though such values do not exist. Jewish values are based on Torah (that includes Oral Torah) and halachah (Jewish Law), items which Christians do not possess. Certainly I would agree that Jews and Christians share a few similarities. But, I could also say the same, if not more so, about Muslims. So, why not talk about Judeo-Islamic values?
No, the concept to which you were referring is an illusion, one which has developed over time during our in exile in the West, due to our vulnerability and desperately trying to survive both physically and spiritually in Galuth (diasporah) coupled with the poisonous influence of the Christians surrounding us.
So, why is it that you were using such an oxymoron of a term?
Well, I have come up with a few possible answers:
1. You really do believe in the existence of this concept, and have yet to discard this particular qelipah (counter-spiritual shell).
2. You have a very short memory, and have forgotten the Christian-based, anti-Semitism which encouraged Jews to seek out our own Homeland and culture, in the first place, OR has forced them further into the deep trenches of assimilation and sniveling co-dependence on the goyim.
3. Even though you are religious, and working for the sake of many important Torah-based endeavors, you have still fallen into the trap of today’s version of Hellenism, the belief that some or all Western sensibilities are inherently compatible with Torah. (I recommend you take a serious look at this during this holiday of Hanukkah.)
4. You have received a directive from your management that you use this expression in your broadcasts in order to exploit attract Christian dollars to your radio station.
Considering the introduction to your show, which included instructions to listeners as to how to “support” the station financially, I would say it is the last of the four. (Although I would not rule out option number three so quickly either.)
In line with said instructions, when potential contributers are contacted, some of their background information is, no doubt, revealed. You are able to get a general idea as to whom your listeners are, from where they hail, and which deities they worship, thus providing your station with sufficient feedback as how best to flatter placate them.
Certainly, you must also be able to obtain relatively precise information as to how much of Arutz 7′s funding comes from Christians (…and thus how much of a conflict of interest Arutz 7 may appear to have).
I would guess that your managers have actually rationalized that it is better to take money from ovdei avodah zarah (practicioners of foreign worship; Mishnah Torah, Hil. Avodah Zarah 9:4 ), for the greater good of continuing your broadcasts to, as well as on behalf of, Religious Zionists and residents of Yehudah and Shomron (Judea and Samaria).
Now that we Jews are able to resettle our promised Homeland, we have no excuse but let go of our co-dependence on the goyim, and change strategies.
The doors to Eretz Yisra’el have been opened for Jews, but seeing the miracles done for us, and the prophesies being fulfilled, the Christians are also knocking on the door, begging, borrowing, and stealing their ways in.
They are developing their own strategies to obtain residency and even citizenship. Some send their children to “volunteer” in the IDF. Some set up “charitable” foundations, with the intention of “helping” us. Some even do so with the heksher of rabbis. There are Christians “helping” us in Ari’el, Itamar, Har Brachah, and Qedumim, among others. “Helping” us do what, I would like to know. And why do we need their help? I would like to know that as well.
How are any of these sneaky strategies to steal our inheritence, to get a foothold on our Holy Land, to pollute our Holy Land by spreading the worship of their false deity, and stealing our children’s souls, in the least bit related to “Jewish values?”
So-called Christian Zionist, or Christian “Friends of Israel” are, at the very least, passive missionaries, and the very worst, better liars than active missionaries.
How will Arutz 7 report the sneaky, yet not so secret plans, of the Likud Party, and possibly some within the Jewish Agency (confirmation needed) itself to bring Christians to settle in Israel.
How will your station’s acceptance of Christian funds influence your reporting? Will you just ignore it?
And just two more questions, please:
1. How much [or how little] does Rabbi Zalman Melamed know of your station’s use
of the term “Judeo-Christian Values?”
2. How much [or how little] does
Rabbi Zalman Melamed know of your station’s acceptance of Christian money?
They, too, believe they are doing this for the greater good,…even though we Jews “do not yet realize it.”
But, what’s the harm in taking their money?
Simple. You’re letting them get a foot in the door, you are taking their “we’re your friends” bait, hook, line, and sinker, and thus you are aiding and abetting Esau (Christians/U. S./UN/EU/the West – who truly hates Ya’aqov). These liars may lie differently than Yishma’el (Arabs/Muslims) but they still lie. And, you are truly a co-dependent freier (sucker), if you think Esau will ever really be our friend. He wants his birthright back; he wants his b’rachoth back (See B’reishith 25 & 27).
It is forbidden to allow them to gain any foothold on our Land (Mishnah Torah, Hil. Avodah Zarah 10).
Esau is the pig, throwing out its forelegs to show you its split hooves; he is the pig moving its jaw up and down, pretending to chew his cud. He cries out, “Look at me! I’m kosher!” Yet, he’s as treif as they come!
Since 1400′s Spain (at least), we have attempted to pacify, reach out to, and assimilate amongst Christians to some degree or another, in order to reassure them that we are no threat to them, and even “just like them,” believing this to be our only strategy for survival while in Western Galuth. Aligning ourselves with them against Yishma’el is just today’s version of this.
This strategy has never worked.
“Insanity is repeating the same thing over again, expecting different results.” -Albert Einstein
May your managers receive a complete speedy recovery from this insanity.
There are no such things as “Judeo-Christian Values.”
rated 4.17 by 6 people [?]
You might like:
* Esser Agaroth: Kehila Blogging Carnival – Shevat/Adar Alef (this site)
* Havadalah! :: Esser Agaroth (this site)
* Why the Tunisian revolution won’t spread (Foreign Policy – Stephen M. Walt )
* 10 Reasons Americans Should Care About the Egyptian Revolution – By Stephen M. Walt (Foreign Policy)
Posted by Ben-Yehudah at 10:20 PM
Labels: Aliyah, Avodah Zarah, Beth-El, Christian Missionaries, Christian Threat, Christian Zionists, Galuth, Israeli News Media, Judea and Samaria, Life In Israel
2 comments:
Smartasawhip said…
I would disagree with Esser Agaroth and assert that there are indeed, Judeo-Christian values. Certainly the 10 Commandments given to Moses are believed by both religions to have been given by G-d. All of the writings of the Jewish prophets are also seen by true Christians as teachings of g-d that must be obeyed.
There has been much anti- semitism that has been promoted by Christians that were ignorant of the Christian Scriptians. There are some sentences in the Christian Gospels that say some negative things about “the Jews”, but the writer was not using the term “Jews” as it is often used today.
The writer was not saying anything negative about the Jewish Religion or anyone that practiced the Jewish religion. The writer was an Orthodox Jew himself.
The writer was referring to those people who lived in Judea as opposed to Samaria, or the Galilee.
January 10, 2010 10:51 AM
Ben-Yehudah said…
Thank you for writing.
1. Anything you quote from the Torah as related to Christianity is incomplete, if not distorted (Christians distorted it, not you.), as they do not have the entire Torah, which, of course includes the Oral Torah, which is not for them.
2. Christian gospels? Christian texts are nothing but lies and distortions, and thus irrelevant when it comes to proving anything one way or another.
3. To which writer are you referring? You mean broadcaster?
January 11, 2010 7:49 PM
Fiorangela,
Hadn’t most of the Jews who remained in Palestine converted to Christianity by the 5th or 6th centuries AD? Then they changed again, to Muslims, after the Arab conquest of the Eastern Roman Empire’s holdings in the Levant.
Fiorangela & FYI,
My understanding is that the Israel lobby and organized Jewry in the US promoted the use of the term “Judaeo-Christian” to encourage Christians in the US (and elsewhere)to view Jews in a more favorable light. A president of a Jesuit university in the US told me this years ago.
Fiorangela says: February 24, 2011 at 4:23 pm
The Catholics are trying to prove that they are good Americans (and not Papists) while the Jews are foolishly advertising, for whomever cares to note, that their loyalty is to another country.
Loyal: OK.
Didn’t get the point of that one at all. :-)
Scott,
I’ve a suggestion to make for EA. How about a dispassionate tone and objective reporting? If you were to make these changes, I’d probably bookmark your effort and become a regular reader. But the way it is now, it’s insulting to my intelligence to read such obvious GM communique-type pieces (no offense).
I wish Soros worked in conjunction with a Vegas casino to publicly offer this bet. I’d bet just about everything against him, and I’m not the gambling type. That’s actually why I’d make the wager: it’s not really gambling when the bet is so much of a sure thing. Especially with the price of crude oil climbing the way it is.
Is Soros just grandstanding, ill informed or both? His bet is Ghadafiesque (that’s my new word submission for ’11).
Reza Esfandiari @ 3:47:
“It just goes to show how you can never separate mosque from state and religion from politics. The two are very much intertwined.”
Admittedly, it’s been quite awhile since I was in a Catholic church, but I have never been in a Catholic church in the US where the flag of the US was not in evidence.
Nor have I been in a synagogue in the US where the flag of Israel was not in evidence. (Oddly, in the past few years, I have spent far more time in synagogues than in Catholic churches.)
It is interesting how Friday prayers are used in these Arab countries as rallying events for the opposition, whereas in Iran they are used to express pro-government sentiment. It just goes to show how you can never separate mosque from state and religion from politics. The two are very much intertwined.
Scott says:
Check today’s updates — we’ve mentioned Al Maliki’s call on Iraqis not to march
Only in passing. It deserves a separate post for itself. Maliki is warning that the protests may turn violent and ugly. The Kurds are beginning to turn on the two governing factions in the North.
There are protests planned in Qatif province in Saudi Arabia and in Doha, Qatar. It will be interesting to see if people attend these and how the authorities will react.
Things look very critical in Bahrain and Yemen. The protesters are becoming more radical in their demands. It seems the government don’t have a solution.
Fiorangela says: February 24, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Thank you for your response.
In fact, I was first made aware by a Jew that the conceptualization of a “Judeo-Christian” Tradition is unacceptable to Orthodox Judasim; that there is Judaic Tradition and then there is a Christian Tradition (that owes a lot to Judaic Tradition but is not an extension of it).
Now, as a Jew you can study Christian tradition and as a Christain you can study the Judaic Tradition but the common practice has been for the Christian (like the Muslim) to ignore the study of the Judaic Tradition and go on his/her merry way.
The Judeo-Chrisiatn-Muslim Tradition, in an analogous manner to the false coceptualization embodied in the “Judeo-Christain” Tradition is not possible. No amount of scholarship can fudge the gap between the Militant Monotheism of Judaism and Islam on one side and the Trinity of the Nicean Creed on the other.
As I have tried to outline before, a Muslim response to Judaism and Christianity can be attempted on the basis of the Principle of the Unitarity of the Revelation. This is a program of analysis, synthesis, and scholarship which seek to recover the earlier Revelations of God in the Judaic and Christian Traditions for incorporation into the Islamic Tradition. But this could only be a Muslim program since the Touch Stone would be the Quran and Kalam.
[Even this program has scant chance of being carried out; I am again the proverbial minority of one, the man in the wilderness who envisions the vistas that it opens.]
fyi @ 1:04 pm
ah, Richard Bulliet — he never disappoints.
His terrible fate to have been present but in the background when Columbia’s Bollinger behaved so disgracefully.
regarding Bullier’s essay, novelist Donna Leon made a similar point in “Doctored Evidence.” One theme of the novel was that Italian culture (Leon’s novels are set in Venice) has abandoned the “seven deadly sins) as well as the seven virtues.
I take issue with Bulliet’s use of the term, “Judeo-Christian.” Such a hyphenated god is like a house divided against itself – it cannot stand. It is becoming increasingly apparent to me that one of the major battles zionism waged against Germany in the early 20th century, has been waging against Christianity in the 20th and 21st century even up to Abe Foxman’s latest publication***, is an attempt to erode the moral foundation of Christianity and especially of Roman Catholicism (zionism had coopted American Christianity by 1913).
*** see Foxman, :http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Jewsand In the Q and A after Foxman’s comments about his book, he was asked about his “progress” in getting the Roman Catholic church to be more respectful of Jews. Foxman said he was making progress — that the Vatican was gradually breaking down its doctrine of “supercession,” the idea that the Church had “superceded” Jews as the path to salvation.
Many Conservative Catholics are deeply opposed to this effort of Pope Benedict’s to appease Jews. I agree with them.
It’s worthwhile noting that Jews in late 19th century Germany attempted to pit Christians against Catholics in Germany, and also raised holy hell against German Christian schools of theology that sought to understand Jesus as a human person, rather than a divine being. The Jewish objection posited that those Christian schools were attempting to claim that Jesus was not Jewish, not of the Jewish tradition, thereby undermining Jewry’s claim to have given the world the most unique idea of all time, the idea of one, universal god. Foxman is picking up where those 19th century Jews left off.
It is also worthwhile realizing that throughout their history, the sons of Abraham’s son Isaac have followed in Abraham’s footsteps, smashing the icons of other people’s religious beliefs. Religious beliefs hold communities together. Foxman and his ilk make careers out of destroying people’s beliefs, and the moral values that are sustained by their beliefs, and thereby destroying other people’s communities. He has come close to succeeding in destroying the American moral value set.
In may admittedly shallow study of Jewish history, I have been surprised to learn that Jewish scholars claim to have no records of the state of Jewry when it encountered Islam. That is very surprising — Jewry claims to have unearthed evidence to support claims about Jews 700 years BEFORE Christ, but can’t find records of Jewish life in the Levant/Middle East 600-700 years AFTER Christ. Methinks somebody is hiding something. Why?
My final quibble with Bulliet’s use of the term, Judeo-Christian, is this: how then shall we incorporate Islam? Shall we call the Abrahamic faiths the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition? Then ask yourself this question: do the Greeks call their culture the Atreus-Socrates tradition? Are the acts of Atreas given the same weight and value as a foundation of the legacy of Greek culture as is given to Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle? Zionist still celebrate the “feast” of Exodus, when Hebrews killed Egyptian babies and later, killed all the inhabitants of Canaan. Indeed, zionists are attempting a reenactment of Joshua’s destruction of Jericho. Shall we look forward to a Greek reenactment of the slaying and preparation for dinner of a tantalizing dish of Pelops?
The ‘Frankfurt school’ is still busily at work implementing just the sort of moral liquification that Bulliet wrote about.
Loyal
very funny and very accurate tarnslation.
Richard Steven Hack says:
Loyal: Someone’s gonna have to translate that for me.
A fake psychic who called himself “Locust “(spelling!) Found his way to be a King’s personal future teller.
Suspected King decided to test the psychic and hide a locust (insect) in his hand and asked the liar what he was hiding.
Locust the liar psychic was trapped and knew he was caught , out of desperation he rhymed Eric Clapton’s Revolution
Locust: I told you once,
I told you twice
…You never listen to my ..
That was Liar’s confession while King was thinking of insect.
They happily married and no banning was involved
All:
Imperialism disguising itself as Benevolence
http://nationalinterest.org/bookreview/battle-hymn-the-diplomats-4912
The way I read it, US confrontation with rising powers will continue indefinitely – it seems.
Rehmat,
Rich Jews in America will not allow any candidate to compete for the presidency unless he or she grovels at the feet of Aipac etc etc.
While I like George Soros, I agree he is dead wrong in predicting the Iranian government will be overthrown within one year. And I think it is in the best interests of the American people if the various Arab countries have better relations with Iran.
All:
Excellent article on the role of religion:
http://nationalinterest.org/article/the-fundamentalists-4891
A very good piece and very accurate.
The union of two ‘Islamophobe’ must be music to the ears of Israeli-agent Abraham Foxman (ADL) and ‘Israel-Firster’ billionaire Rupert Murdoch!!
George Soro since bankrupting Ukraine believe that he can play that part in Islamic Republic too. George Soro’s network was behind the so-called pro-democracy protests (Green movement) in Iran in 2009. Now, he is trying to steal 2012 election for Ben-Obama, whom he think is the best pro-Israel candidate – especially Congressman Ron Paul.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/murdoch-israel-and-jews-under-attack/
Loyal: Someone’s gonna have to translate that for me.
***
Richard Steven Hack says:
…Really, any other Web site who had this kind of hits troll on their site would ban him purely on Web etiquette grounds.
***
Why ban?
Haven’t you read funny story of King and swarming behavior of Locust the lier ?
مردی برای اینکه به بارگاه شاه راه پیدا کرد ادعا کرد که رمالی بلد است
وغلامان شاه یکی دو بار اورا امتحان کردند وبرایشان ثابت شد که او رمال خوبی است بنابراین او را نزد شاه بردند . چند روزی در بارگاه شاه بود تا اینکه
شاه ملخی را دید خواست ملخ را بگیرد اما ملخ فرار کرد
دوباره اقدام کردباز ملخ فرار کردبرای بار سوم شاه موفق شد
. ملخ را درون دستش پنهان کرد و پیش رمال برد و از پرسید:
که رمال یا بگو درون دستم چیست یا تورا میکشم
.و رمال چون این کار از دستش ساخته نبود دانست که این بار گیر افتاده گفت :
یک بار جستی ملخک
دوبارجستی ملخک
آخر به دستی ملخک
و شاه که متوجه نشداو خودش را میگوید به اوپاداش داد واورا تحسین کرد
Just FYI folks – “CyrusS” is not me.
No, we’re not going to “check today’s updates” because we don’t give a rat’s ass what you do on your site, you hit trolling lame.
Really, any other Web site who had this kind of hits troll on their site would ban him purely on Web etiquette grounds.
Soros will not last to see anything like that or to witness fulfillment of what he told M. Khatami.
Islamic Republic of Iran will last much longer than this ill-wisher hope for.
Iran has never been as strong, as stable, and as influential for decades despite devastations of imposed war, sanctions, and sabotage and regime change policies of enemies.
Reza,
Check today’s updates — we’ve mentioned Al Maliki’s call on Iraqis not to march.
S.
scott lucas @ 4:12 am
“A straw-man figure (Soros), ”
this made me laugh.
from some dank corner of a basement in the low rent district of an unknown locale, scott lucas calls out billionaire (in parentheses) Soros.
we believe you scott. really we do. hang on your every word. convinced we are. yoo da man, scott.
JohnH says: February 23, 2011 at 10:32 pm
Again, per your point:
Yesterday, Mr. Cameroon was threatening Iran with more sanctions in the Persian Gulf while today he is apologizing for being tardy in getting UK citizens out of Libya.
Do these Western leaders have no sense of shame?
Reza Esfandiari says: February 24, 2011 at 7:42 am
It is not insance; it is a stubborn application of US Grand Strategy that entails the destruction of Islamic Iran.
Until and unless US alters this Grand Strategy the current situation between the the 2 side will persist.
The US-EU Axis consider loss of trde, potentially higher oil and gas prices, deterioration of their own political position, drugs, terrorism, nuclear non-proliferation as not to be that important to them compared to the undesirability of the Iranian power.
They have paid a very high price indeed in pursuit of the aim of the US Grand Strategy and a retreat now would entail not just an admission of error but also that all their expenditures of political, diplomatic, economic resources has been for naugh.
In other words, 20 years of the application of that Grand Strategy has succeeded in destroying Yugoslavia (ushering in 2 narco/crime states in the Balkans), another Shia Republic in the Persian Gulf, and a fundamental change in the nature of politics in Lebanon.
A few more such victories for US-EU Axis and I think Iran will be in a pretty good place, geopolitically speaking.
Reza Esfandiari says:
February 24, 2011 at 7:42 am
another link to the same in case you can’t see it in ft:
http://www.cfr.org/iran/irans-protests-economic-realities/p24166
I wonder if she actually agrees with Leveretts or she’s just saying it’s harder in Iran.
The following extract is a little disturbing:
“We don’t know the extent to which there is a new generation of leadership emerging in Iran, as emerged in Egypt and Tunisia…If those people exist, we won’t recognize what they’re up to until we see it play out on the streets. It’s an opposition movement we can neither orchestrate nor anticipate…”
First of all, where are those leaderships emerging in any of those countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, etc. Can you name me one ?
Yet the uprisings were particularly well organized… Hmmm Was she talking about NED as leadership ?
Also, is she not implicitly saying it is harder to “orchestrate” the same in Iran ?
Scott,
I still see no real mention on EA of the protests in Iraq and the massive one planned for Friday. This will be a real test of Iraq’s transition to democracy:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0223/Iraq-attempts-to-defuse-huge-protest-planned-for-Friday
The situation is pretty tense.
It is interesting that Fareed Zakaria himself was proclaiming that the IRI was in its “death throes” back in July 2009 when he interviewed Dr. Marandi. He also insulted the Iranian professor who, characteristically, refused to reciprocate.
Btw, Suzanne Maloney of the Brookings Institute agrees with the Leveretts:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/090f291a-3f92-11e0-a1ba-00144feabdc0.html
Also, I really can’t see the logic in applying sanctions against Iran when oil is reaching $120 a barrel. It is insane….but then so is AIPAC.
A very good piece. Scott Lucas has wet his pants again.
Similar voices from the NYT:
Arab Unrest Propels Iran as Saudi Influence Declines
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/world/middleeast/24saudis.html?hp
Lucas keeps babbling as he sees the consensus going against him. Meanwhile he trolls for more hits on his lame site. He’s apparently unaware that the Leveretts have been on the Foreign Policy site before and that they have vastly more credibility there than he has. As the Leveretts contend, a year from now the Green Movement will be even more irrelevant thanks to US diplomatic missteps and Lucas will be even less credible – if that’s possible.
From Tunisia/Egypt to Libya/Iran: Notes of Caution on Sudden Change
http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/2/24/from-tunisiaegypt-to-libyairan-notes-of-caution-on-sudden-ch-1.html
A straw-man figure (Soros), diatribe against the US, sniping at others in the media, and unsupported claims about the internal situation in Iran (except for one paragraph on the rhetoric against Mousavi and Karroubi — failing to mention the house arrests and latest wave of detentions)….
Nothing significant here. I am surprised that the authors of RFI tried to unleash on the Foreign Policy site — I’m pretty certain they won’t put it to the Gulf 2000 list of analysts, where it would be dissected in double-quick time.
Best,
S.
Soros will certainly be wrong. Even Fareed Zakaria did not believe Soros prediction- look at Fareed’s body language in the CNN video.
One important thing to note is that there are no charismatic leaders leading these revolutions and uprisings. People seem to be acting upon some kind of collective anti-American-puppet awareness and this awareness is certainly mostly Islamic.
Long, detailed analysis of what’s wrong with the notion that Stuxnet damaged the Iranian enrichment program. Very interesting but complicated.
How the ‘NYT’ swallowed the Stuxnet worm
:http://mondoweiss.net/2011/02/how-the-nyt-swallowed-the-stuxnet-worm.html
Ray McGovern on his assault during a Clinton speech. Well worth reading.
The Push of Conscience and Secretary Clinton
:http://original.antiwar.com/mcgovern/2011/02/23/the-push-of-conscience-and-secretary-clinton/
Afrasiabi’s latest essentially agrees with the Leveretts that Iran is going to benefit from the Arab Awakening.
Iran on new voyage of discovery
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB24Ak03.html
Quotes
Although Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US military, in his latest interview implicitly accused Iran of stirring the troubles in Bahrain, the fact is that many Bahraini Shi’ites look to Iraq’s holy city of Najaf and the spiritual leadership of Ayatollah Ali Sistani, while a minority emulate the guidance of Khamenei.
Regardless, the inevitable empowerment of Bahrain’s Shi’ites – who outnumber the ruling Sunnis – one way or another (such as through outright revolution or the government-proposed “national dialogue”) , will be widely interpreted as an important gain for Iran. This will cause both Bahrain and other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to demonstrate greater deference to Iran’s rapidly rising power in the region. The GCC, created in 1981, comprises the Persian Gulf states of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
This recognition of the changing political tides favoring Iran, America’s bete noir in the Middle East, can already be seen in Saudi Arabia’s unprecedented decision to allow a port visit by Iran’s warships (that traversed the Red Sea and the Suez en route to the Syrian port city of Latika). However, the olive branch to Iran might also have been motivated by Riyadh’s fear of an uprising by its own discontented Shi’ites (about 2 million out of a population of 26 million).
The irony is that the net result of the US’s policy has been the exact opposite of what was intended: its allies are falling while Iran is only minimally impacted by the “democratic fever” gripping the region, as a result of which Tehran considers itself in the driver’s seat of dictating the terms of any US-Iran dialogue. This is because the US is perceived as having been weakened, on the defensive and in “panic mode over the dominos falling”, to quote a conservative Tehran daily’s editorial.
End Quotes
How does it look when Obama calls for reform in Iran, while continuing to crush hopes and aspirations in Palestine? Many Americans can’t see the contradiction, but I suspect most Iranians see it all too clearly. No doubt they see the contradictions of their own government’s policies too, but the reform movement surely MUST effectively distance itself from association with US geopolitical/military strategy.
For reform to associate itself with the country that is about to legitimize the MEK … how is that going to work?
I propose that all the forum participants who think that “the regime” will exist in a year pool money and challenge Soros to put in a billion dollars on his side. At the end of the year the winnings will be donated to charity in Iran. I pledge $100. Soros doesn’t have the balls to take this bet.
JohnH says: February 23, 2011 at 10:32 pm
“Hillary used a Gulf dictatorship as a platform to excoriate Iran …”
And Mr. Bush harangued Iranians, who had shed some tears for the victims of 9/11/2001, from UAE where there were days of jubilations in their cities after the 9/11 attacks.
What price Grand Strategy, one has to wonder.
The Leveretts:
I think it would have been helpful if your article had reminded its readers that a popular movement for changing the current constitutional order in Iran is not likely due to the lack of support of Azeri Turks and the Shia mullahs for such a project.
Leveretts: “a majority of Iranians still support the idea of an Islamic Republic.”
In fact, as the poll I posted in the last thread showed, a majority of MOUSAVI SUPPORTERS support the idea of an Islamic Republic!
This must really irk Lucas and Pak. The people they are supporting don’t support THEM!
Leveretts: “(But don’t worry about the devastating impact of such egregious malpractice on the careers of those who proved themselves so manifestly incompetent at Iran analysis. In today’s accountability-free America, every one of the Iran “experts” who were so wrong about the Green Movement in 2009 and 2010 is back at it again.)”
Including our boy Lucas and this idiot Pak who rushed in to post first with his usual content-free assertions unbacked by any evidence whatsoever.
It is truly astounding to watch how clumsy Obama and Hillary are. If they were serious about regime change in Iran, how could they have so publicly sided with the protesters? And how could the protesters have allowed themselves to be goaded into action by Hillary and Obama?
But this is nothing new. Hillary used a Gulf dictatorship as a platform to excoriate Iran about dictatorship. More recently she delivered a speech about respecting the rights of protesters, only to have Ray McGovern, a silent protester, got roughed up and kicked out. Then there was Joe “Mubarak is not a dictator” Biden, and of course Barack “no change” Obama.
Iran may not be paradise. But at least they seem to have competent leadership, which is a lot more than you can say for the United States.
Dear Leveretts,
You are more than welcome to promote a government like this if you wish:
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMPW9fZQ1pA
But it would be nice if you could stop lying. I think you have taken one too many Kayhan pills, given to you by your chum Marandi.
1. “That’s why, for example, former President Mohammad Khatami has quietly distanced himself from what is left of the Green Movement — as has every reformist politician who wants to have a political future in the Islamic Republic.”
- Where is the truth in this statement? Could you please name the list of “every” reformist politicians who have distanced themselves away from the Greens? (You could alternatively calculate the number of reformist politicians, and their associates, in prison.)
2. “Second, the effort to restart protests in Iran is taking place at a moment of real strategic opportunity for Tehran in the Middle East.”
- What do you mean by strategic interest exactly? Do you mean something along the lines of “the Eastern Mediterranean [becoming] part of the Persian Empire”, as described by Reza Esfandiari elsewhere? Iran would pursue its strategic interests not through expansionist, interfering policies – i.e. replacing one meddler with another – but through demonstrating a successful, prosperous form of governance (which includes not gunning down protesters on the streets while simultaneously denouncing dictators who gun down protesters on the streets). Just look at how the Egyptians are trying their hardest to distance themselves away from the mullahs, instead of jumping into their arms, as envisaged by Khamenei.
3. “The Iranian people are not likely to recognize as their political champions those whom they increasingly perceive as working against the national interest.”
- Indeed, you are correct here, which is why many Iranian detest Ahmadinejad.
4. “Two of Ahmadinejad’s most prominent conservative opponents — former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani…”
- This is a lie. Where is your proof? Marandi does not count!
5. “Parliament speaker Ali Larijani, another Ahmadinejad opponent, told his colleagues last week…”
- Parliament speaker Ali Larijani said a lot of things; refer to video above.
6. “…reform camp in Iranian politics at an even bigger disadvantage heading into parliamentary elections next year and the Islamic Republic’s next presidential election in 2013…”
- I know you guys are not naive, but neither are your readers, so please stop treating them as such. Anybody with knowledge of Iranian politics knows that what we know as the reformist movement is dead, and has been dead for a while. The 2009 elections proved that the regime is unwilling to reform, even in the slightest. In fact, they prefer reminiscing about the 80′s, when they imprisoned, tortured, and executed their “opposition”.
7. “marginalized and discredited opposition movement that is, effectively, doing America’s bidding.”
- What exactly do you mean by “America’s bidding”? This term has been thrown around like a rag doll, with little attention on what the meaning is. If you refer to the Green Charter, which is the only official manifesto of the opposition, there is nothing “American” about it, not even in the slightest. If by “America’s bidding” you mean destabilising the regime, then that is wholly the fault of the regime. You cannot shoot yourself in the foot, and then blame your enemy.
8. “The United States faces serious challenges in the Middle East. Its strategic position in this vital part of the world is eroding before our eyes. Indulging in fantasies about regime change in Iran will only make the situation worse.”
- The irony of your proposed policy – ditching old, powerless dictators, for new, powerful dictators – is not lost. But fair enough, you have shown your cards, and we know where you stand. Well, nearly. I would be grateful if you could tell me more about your STRATEGA consultancy firm, and also why donations to your website go to the New America Foundation (whose “Leadership Council” includes George Soros’ son, Jonathan).