Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s visit to the United States last week was capped off today with the broadcast of a previously-taped interview on Fox New Sunday. The interview covered a range of important topics, including the state of the U.S.-Israel relationship and prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace. But it is the Prime Minister’s remarks on Iran that deserve special attention—for these remarks suggest that Netanyahu is embarked on an extremely dangerous course. Netanyahu is pushing the United States to take eventual military action against Iran—a confrontation that would have predictably disastrous consequences for U.S. interests and regional stability, and for which Israel and the pro-Likud community in the United States will be blamed, because they will have led the charge to war. Such a scenario would be far more damaging to Israel and the American Jewish community than anything Iran might conceivably do.
Three points regarding Iran from Netanyahu’s interview with Fox News Sunday warrant particular attention.
–First, Netanyahu said that CIA Director Leon Panetta was “probably right” in his judgment that new United Nations and U.S. unilateral sanctions against will not “stop” Iran’s nuclear program—which Netanyahu characterized as “racing to develop atomic weapons” for the explicit purpose of “Israel’s destruction”.
–Second, Netanyahu argued that the Islamic Republic’s “irrational regime” cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons capability, because “you can’t rely on the fact that they’ll obey the calculations of cost and benefit that have governed all nuclear powers since the rise of the nuclear age after Hiroshima and Nagasaki”. Netanyahu disdained the plausibility of “containing” a “nuclear Iran”: “I think that’s a mistake, and I think that people fall into a misconception”. Indeed, Netanyahu went on to compare Iran to “other radicals like the Taliban” (sic) who sent terrorists to attack the United States without regard to the consequences and characterized the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran as “the ultimate terrorist threat”.
–Third, while noting that “the Jewish state was set up to defend Jewish lives and we always reserve the right to defend ourselves”, Netanyahu asserted that it was only the threat of U.S. military strikes that might prompt Iranian decision-makers to stop their alleged advance toward building nuclear weapons: “There has only been one time that Iran actually stopped the program. That was when it feared U.S. military action”. (We take this as a reference to the U.S. National Intelligence Council’s December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on the Iranian nuclear program, see here, which famously judged “with high confidence” that “Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program” in the fall of 2003, “primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work”.)
Netanyahu’s remarks about Iran are noteworthy, for at least two reasons.
–First, there is an inherent contradiction in the official Israeli analysis of Iranian decision-making on nuclear matters. On one hand, Iran is deemed to be so “irrational” that it cannot be relied on to follow the same sorts of cost-benefit calculations that have presumably guided the decisions of states actually possessing nuclear weapons since the end of World War II. On the other hand, Iranian decision-makers are judged to be sufficiently “rational”, in the instrumental sense, to make logical risk-benefit calculations about the management of their country’s nuclear program. (As the 2007 NIE held, “Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs.”)
We continue to hold that there is no evidence Tehran has taken a decision to weaponize its developing nuclear capabilities, and continue to note that the highest levels of political and religious authority in the Islamic Republic seem to have ruled out such a decision—not least on religious grounds. But the contradiction in Netanyahu’s position affirms our assessment (see, here) that the Iranian nuclear program is hardly an “existential threat” to Israel. The real problem, from an Israeli perspective, is that a nuclear-capable Iran might, at the margins, begin to impose some limits on Israel’s current freedom to use military force unilaterally, wherever it wants, and for whatever purpose it favors.
–Second, while preserving the option of Israeli military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets, Netanyahu is shifting the onus for forestalling the further development of Iran’s nuclear capabilities onto the prospect of U.S. military action. In this context, we note President Obama’s response to a question about the possibility of a unilateral Israeli strike against Iran, in an interview with Israel’s Channel Two television, see here, following his meeting with Netanyahu last week: “I think the relationship between the US and Israel is sufficiently strong that neither of us try to surprise each other…We try to coordinate on issues of mutual concern and that approach is one Prime Minister Netanyahu is committed to”. It is unlikely that Obama would have made such a statement unless he believed he had a commitment from Netanyahu not to “surprise” him by taking unilateral military action against Iran.
Based on our own conversations with well-connected Israelis, we believe that there is an elaborated, long-term logic to Netanyahu’s approach. In essence, Netanyahu is minimizing the risk of an Israeli attack on Iran in the near term to maximize pressure on the United States to take military action against the Islamic Republic in the medium term—perhaps in the next 12-18 months, after a critical mass of opinion concludes that international and U.S. sanctions are not “working”. At that point—having already dismissed the plausibility of containment, the Prime Minister has positioned himself to press President Obama not to “waste time” with a futile strategy and move on to serious consideration of military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets.
At least in theory, Obama could say “no” to Netanyahu’s exhortations—but that “no” would become public knowledge within roughly 15 minutes of its ostensibly private delivery. And, if our assessment of timing is correct, Obama’s “no” would become public knowledge as the President’s re-election bid is gearing up in a serious way.
If Obama says anything other than “no” to Netanyahu, the United States will be committed to military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets. A U.S. attack on Iran would almost certainly result in a much broader confrontation between the United States and the Islamic Republic—with residual U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq at high risk, the strategic outcomes from our military adventures in both of those countries in even deeper jeopardy, profoundly negative effects on the global economy, and international perceptions that reckless and “rogue” U.S. behavior in the strategically vital Middle East was an idiosyncratic feature of George W. Bush’s presidency forever shattered. These eminently foreseeable consequences would have a devastating impact on America’s standing in one of the world’s most important regions.
Some critics of the American invasion of Iraq argue that this decision reflected undue influence by Israel and parts of the pro-Israel community in the United States. As individuals who served at the White House on the National Security Council staff in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, we saw no evidence that Israeli officials and leaders of the American Jewish community (as opposed to some pro-Israel intellectuals like the Saban Center’s Ken Pollack and neoconservative policymakers in the Bush Administration) goaded the United States into invading Iraq. However, if Washington initiates war with Iran over the nuclear issue, it will be primarily in response to pressure from Israel and the more Likudnik parts of the pro-Israel community in the United States. And those actors will bear a significant share of the blame for the consequences of that war.
So, between now and the next U.S. presidential election in 2012, the most important question about America’s Iran policy is this: What will President Obama say, when Prime Minister Netanyahu comes calling again?
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
tzvi – I never used the terms you attribute to me. And actually people who express criticism of Israel are hassled and denied access/ejected from Israel, even if they’re Jewish. Norman Finklestein and Chomsky for example.
Pak — “Child soldiers” are a common phenomenon all over the world however the atrocity propaganda about children human wave attacks to clear minefields (usually further embellished with stories about “Keys to Heaven” around their necks) were long ago exploded as exactly that, atrocity propaganda.
Dear Fiorangela,
Thank you for your response. I will be content with agreeing to disagreeing, because you have provided me a logical and understandable response. You also admit you have an inclination towards Iran, which was my initial concern. But, as an American, your interests rightly extend as far foreign policy only and not Iranian domestic affairs.
“I’m not sure what you’re getting at when you say, “it’s clear that you are pushing a certain agenda.” Care to spell that out?”
I was trying to say that your intense focus on Israel’s arms trading, as opposed to arms trading as a whole, is unfair, because you are singling out Israel. (Unfair is a pretty lame word to use, but I hope you understand what I mean.) And, in the paradigm of international relations, I see no difference between keeping “one’s finger on the pulse of another country’s business” and “warming relations” with another country. Potayto Potato.
“pak wrote: “Please, if you want to defend American values, which you rightly state have been distorted, then defend these values universally and not selectively.”
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here specifically, but I’m educable.”
What I mean is that you want the US to reconsider its relationship with Israel based on American values. If I am on the same wavelength as you, I believe that Iran’s actions, both abroad and domestically, are in violation of the same values. For example, if you do not “wish that Iran would take down Israel”, then Iran is hardly a good candidate to be credited with your support. Also, Khomeini explicitly stated that the Islamic revolution should spread (which is why he prolonged the Iran-Iraq war for 6 years); that is hardly noble.
By the way, your encounter with the Jewish ladies is very haunting.
Tzvi, I think I used the word ‘animus,’ intending to express not hate but bad feeling. I don’t hate Israel. I do have a bad feeling about how Israel behaves, most especially BECAUSE, as the Jane Harman video provided evidence, so many people who advocate for Israel are intent on creating hatred and division. That seems counterproductive.
You’re right; it does seem odd to freight with so much meaning a brief conversation in a coffee shop. I’ve tried and tried to make sense of it. Nobody I know would say a thing like that: we want it, we intend to have it, even tho it belongs to someone else. After our conversation ended, the women spoke between themselves about what ‘the rabbi’ said. Did the rabbi encourage them in that kind of thinking? I had always thought Jewish women were smart, and tough-minded, but these women seemed willing to parrot whatever the rabbi told them, even if it seemed wrong. It’s so counter to my impression of strong Jewish women.
Tzvi, Even tho you are just a humble person, you are certainly aware of the zionist scheme by which Israeli leadership keeps Israelis in a perpetual state of fear. One Israeli general even explained that wars are timed very carefully, to consider how much anxiety Israelis can bear. The Israeli population is being prepared for a war on Lebanon; for example, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3895499,00.html
I’ll bet you will reply that Israelis have been so persecuted that they have to have drills like this, but as was pointed out in an earlier comment, Israel’s narrative of perpetual persecution is not completely factual. Your leaders teach you these things to keep you in a state of fear and anxiety, eager for a war to relieve the tension, like an addict needs a fix to forget about life. Have you ever thought about how your leaders manipulate your emotions and resented it? Are you aware of the Institute for the Study of Rationality, where game theory is applied to calculate how populations will respond, when and how much pressure to apply, when to stage a false flag operation that will motivate a population lapsing into complacency to once again be hyper-alert to non-existent boogeymen?
You expressed disdain for Jonathan Cook’s comments on videos linked several days ago, but he is just a reporter, not an pundit: his narrative was just a report of what he observed as life in lived in Israeli schools (especially). It didn’t sound like a happy lifestyle to me; did it to you? Avigail Abarbenal has studied Israeli society as well; she has observed serious problems in the way Israeli leaders constantly re-traumatize Israeli citizens in what Ian Lustic calls a perpetual “death cult.” Have you observed this? Does it make you afraid?
Are you aware that much of the demonization campaign against Iran was devised by AIPAC because AIPAC had achieved many of their goals and the American Jewish community was no longer terribly interested in participating in pro-Israel campaigns. So they invented a new demon, Iran, with the help of a useful rhetorical hothead, Ahmadinejad. There’s a small Jewish newspaper out of Montgomery County, Maryland that calls Ahmadinejad the best thing that ever happened to AIPAC’s treasury.
Are you aware of how you, a Jew, are being manipulated by wealthy zionist leaders? Do you think their purpose is to make your life happy? In the United States, we see as our right the “pursuit of happiness,” and striving to form “a more perfect union,” but Israel’s leaders seem to idealize the pursuit of fear and, based on the Jane Harman video that Castellio linked, Israel’s advocates in the US seem to think that engendering hatred and division are the ideals to be pursued. Those are not American values. Are they Israeli values? Do you think they will make your life happier?
fiorangela,
2 Israeli women in a coffee shop told you they want Iran’s real estate, and you hate Israel? Are you real? Forgive me for asking!!
Pak & Nasser,
Thanks for your comments.
I am a humble person , knowing that no one owns the complete truth, unlike some people here who think that they have a global view of the truth, and regardless of the subject matter- some how it’s always the Jews or Israel.
I would consider it a laughing matter, but after what the Jews went through, anything can happen. First you prepare the public with atrocity stories and lies, and then go for the coup de grace, what ever it may be.
I don’t think Israel is perfect by any means, but when you examine other nations’ treatment of people they considered dangerous- during war time- IE: Canadians and US treatment of Japanese during 2ND WW, even treatment of indigenous populations-taken from families to residential schools for assimilation in Canada, forbidding Kurds any cultural and linguistic rights in Turkey to day- Israel does fare pretty well visa vie its Arab population.
You see, the only way can I show the true motive behind baseless, monstrous accusations is ask for “facts” especially when I know that there are none. How else would you approach such an accusations if not by asking for facts-any facts, but usually I only get opinions, which are only valid as- baseless OPIHIOHS.
My personal opinion about solutions to the ME, Israel -as-a -Jewish-state/Arab,Muslim conflict is not very positive, which doesn’t bode well for the regions’ future.
As far as the disappearance of the Israeli left, can you blame their disillusionment, when the hate orgy erupted against Israel both after the last Gaza war, and the Turkish Gaza flotilla? How about the years of shooting rockets into Israel. and the clear premeditated attack against soldiers who really had no intention of hurting anybody-at this case- and whom announced that in advance? In both cases felt by the Israelis that they have been hard done by, and that they can expect no justice.
Try to be in a shoe of an Israeli who find himself guilty before being found guilty?
pak, thank you for your response.
you wrote:
“This is an example of where you assume that Iran is the innocent party. In fact, Khomeini was vehemently and openly anti-Israeli long before he came to power. This of course rattled Israel, which triggered a deterioration of relations that has spiralled dangerously out of control. Neither Israel nor Iran has made any attempt to improve relations. I personally put more of the blame on Iran’s foreign policy, which is determined by childish stubbornness and opportunism, not pragmatism.”
Yes, I suppose I do see Iran as the MORE innocent party and Israel as having committed the greater offense. Part of my animus toward Israel stems from a chance conversation in a coffee house in Virginia: I summoned my courage to ask two Jewish women why Israel said so many nasty things about Iran. They told me — these are their words: “Unfortunately, Iran is sitting on a piece of real estate that someone else wants. And we intend to get it.” I was stunned and I still am. But that’s just an anecdote…
Point one: Iran IS Iran’s, not Israel’s, to use and even abuse and exploit. If Iranians dislike the actions of their government, then they can take action to change it — as the Iranian people have, several times. But Iranians do not have the ability to influence Israeli policy, which targeted their government. Furthermore, Israel has displayed a tendency to fail to be mindful of its own boundaries, as evidenced by the overwhelming influence Israel has over US affairs, and
Point two: as Israel did, indeed abuse their status as contractors and advisors in the Iranian government, ie. Israel failed to respect its boundaries as an outsider in Iranian affairs. The students who held hostages at the US embassy discovered documents demonstrating the extent to which Americans and Israelis had used their positions in Iranian society to spy on Iran, exploit Iran economically, conspire with the Shah to use SAVAK to imperil the lives of many Iranians. I believe that’s undue influence by foreign governments on the sovereign rights of a people.
It’s been awhile since I read Khomeini’s letters; I recall they were bombastic. If I recall correctly, their main argument was that the US used Israel as a cat’s paw to keep the Arab and Islamic states from achieving independent nationhood. Khomeini urged that Islam was the unifying element among the Persians, and Arabs, and that united around Islam, they could defeat the designs of the west.
I have to admit to having an emotional barrier to ruthless objectivity when assessing Iran during the post-Revolution period due to unique involvement my family had with Iran. I am also aware, through friendships with Iranian-Americans who were dispossessed from their home country while students in the US, how painful that period was for Iranians. I think its important to realize that in a 30 year period, Iran dealt with a revolution, a ‘civil’ war within Iran to determine its future, and an invasion by Iraq. In comparison, the US revolutionary war ended in 1783 and US was not engaged in another war until 1812; it had 30 relatively peaceful years to craft a constitution and form a system of government. If Iran made major mistakes in establishing its government, it deserves at least a small amount of leeway: it didn’t exactly get a lot of help from US OR from Israel, to start it off in the right direction, quite the contrary.
You wrote:
“Finally, you say:
“…of how Israel cheated Iran; undertook a strategy calculated to result in the deaths of Iranians; undertook no ethical evaluation of those actions; and (tangentially related to a point that Eric Brill has been hammering away at), that Israel’s government was involved at every point in supplying weapons to Iran with the goal of killing Iranians — Israel’s enemy, as well as Iraqis, also Israel’s enemy.”
The fact of the matter is that arms trading inevitably leads to death and destruction. Yet Bergman himself identified motives beyond simply generating business; i.e. attempting to warm relations with the mullahs and repelling an advancing Saddam Hussein. So if this incident truly disturbs you, I insist that you challenge arms trading as a whole instead of isolating Israel. Otherwise it becomes clear that you are pushing a certain agenda.”
No, Bergman did NOT identify motives of “attempting to warm relations with the mullahs,” he wrote that Israel was distressed and discombobulated at being unable to gather intelligence on Iran and that Israel had learned from cases in the past that the best way to keep one’s finger on the pulse of another country’s business is by acting as its arms merchant. One does not get the impression that Israel acted as a wise uncle, seeking to “warm relations with the mullahs” by offering advice and counseling restraint; rather, it would seem that Israel would have been overjoyed at Khomeini’s mania to continue the war longer than was necessary. In its earlier days of relations with Iran, ie. when Iran requested that W Morgan Schuster assist Iran with creating a system of taxation and finance, Iran trusted the US and US DID offer Iran the advise of ‘wise uncle.’ Some elements of the US State Department attempted to play the same role in attempting to dissuade Great Britain from its harsh treatment of Iran in the early 1950s. As Ron and Allis Radosh track in their book, “A Safe Haven,” American advocates for Israel worked diligently to clear the US State Department of “Arabists,” persons studied in US – Arab relations, and to replace them with persons sympathetic to Israel’s point of view. According to the Radoshes, that effort has been successful. The timeline of that effort parallels US involvement in Cold War balance of power policy and unfriendly relations with Iran.
I think I’ve pointed out a number of times on this blog that Robert Gates and David Petraeus are arms merchants and little more; I have linked to their speeches at Manama Dialogs in 2007, 2008, and 2009, where they praise the Saudis and emirates for their wisdom in purchasing billions of dollars worth of US armaments. Again, as Eric has emphasized, although Israel and the US have claimed that “Iran” — the government — supplies arms to Hezbollah, it is not a verifiable fact. On the other hand, Robert Gates’s and Petraeus’s statements that Arabs purchase arms from the US seems pretty convincing that the US government is involved in arming the Arab peninsula, and the US agreements and money transfers to Israel for military hardware is similarly solid evidence that the US government is tightly entwined with arms merchants. I also believe I have written on this forum of the relationship of Norman Augustine, former president of Lockheed-Martin and confidant of George Bush, whose activities I have studied. In the 1980s I had neighbors who were tapped by Lockheed to spend time in Israel selling Lockheed products.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at when you say, “it’s clear that you are pushing a certain agenda.” Care to spell that out?
pak wrote: “That is why I comment on this blog (and I am not going to stop my pestering any time soon); it smells of hypocrisy and double standards. Legitimate concerns about American foreign policy in the Middle East, and Israel, are made illegitimate because people react by cosying up to Iran. Look at the Leveretts: they make some very valid points but then publish ridiculous articles about Iranian domestic affairs, as if they are obliged to because of the position they are defending. To a lesser extent, people like yourself and Eric make similarly valid points, but then turn a blind eye to some things that are just as important yet too distant for you to experience yourselves. I sense that your attitude is similar to proverb, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.”
I can’t speak for anyone but myself: Yes, I do try (too frequently with counterproductive results) to “cosy up to Iran” and even to “turn a blind eye” to some of Iran’s evil deeds. The American public will just have to dig and search and work to discover those carefully hidden transgressions of Iran; goodness knows, US mainstream media does not point them out.
But seriously — I am aware of many of the crimes Iran is accused of, and of the ways in which Iran’s Islamic government constrains Iranian rights. Nevertheless, I think it’s a tactical mistake for US-based advocates for Iran to focus on Iran’s human rights abuses NOT because I do not believe the Iranian people deserve to be treated better by their government but for these two reasons: 1. Iranian-American focus on Iran’s human rights abuses gives US policy makers “comfort” in further bashing Iran, a comfort level that US government scarcely needs. 2. I know from first hand experience that Iranians are resentful of the notion that they need American ‘help’ to claim their rights, and would much prefer to be left the hell alone to reform their government in their own style.
If, by “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” you are suggesting that I wish that Iran would take down Israel, I reject that. I do have a negative attitude toward Israel because they deserve it: right-wing Israel advocates — as well as America’s own right wing — have gotten in the way of several Iranian efforts to effect a rapprochement, however hesitant those gestures were.
It is my perspective that a triple-entente: Israel, Muslim Middle East, and US is eminently possible and desirable, and holds the promise of an extraordinary era of dynamic prosperity and peace: mutually assured cooperation.
To achieve that dream, Israel needs serious psychological readjustment: they have got to move away from their mythologized victim complex. The “anti-semite” card has been overplayed; in my view, no American should be put on the defensive where Israel is concerned: it is not incumbent upon an American to support or defend Israel.
American lawmakers will have to step back and mature a bit — spend more time studying in the Robert Byrd tradition and less time on the rubber chicken circuit; they need to grow a spine and throw Israel advocates as well as arms merchants out of their offices when they come calling, and make their own decisions based on American Constitutional principles. Lobby money has become an addiction like smoking; were congressmen to kick the habit of begging for campaign dollars, they might find the atmosphere a cleaner one to breathe in.
pak wrote: “Please, if you want to defend American values, which you rightly state have been distorted, then defend these values universally and not selectively.”
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here specifically, but I’m educable.
tzvi gross:
Factually, Jews were only persecuted by other West Eurasians who subscribed to religions that were themselves off-shoots of Judaism.
Once you exit that millieu, in South Asia, South East Asia, and Africa, no one cares about the Jews – one way or another.
Furthermore, Jews clearly seem to have been an obsession of Christians over the last 1500 years.
They were not an obsession of Muslims to who Christians, Jews, and other so-called people of the book were benighted people who refused to accept a superior scripture.
So, factually as you like to say, the scope of persecution against Jews is not global and is limited.
Furthermore, even among Christians, the treatment of Jews had been non-uniform. Franco did not do anything to Jews and I think Mussolini did what he did under German pressure. France did worse. And Danes saved the Jews.
Having a country would have helped in 1933; it is of no use now when a Lithium bomb can incinerate a country the size of France.
“I stick out like a sore thumb; you stick out like a hand infected with elephantiasis.”
I for one certainly wish there were a few other pro Israeli voices on this forum to stimulate greater debate.
Groundhog Day
“The imperative is to defang the Iraqi regime by preventing its acquisition of atomic weapons. No inspectors will be able to do that job.” (Benyamin Netanyahu)
In: Jay Bushinsky, “Netanyahu says Israel expects war,” Washington Times, October 23, 2002.
“[T]he campaign against Saddam is a must. Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors.” (Shimon Peres)
In: Marc Perelman, “Iraqi Move Puts Israel In Lonely U.S. Corner”, Forward, September 20, 2002.
“These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction, and a successful move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve.” (Ariel Sharon)
In: Aluf Benn, “Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya, and Syria,” Ha’aretz, February 20, 2003.
“I don’t agree that you need an enormous number of American troops,” said Adelman. Hussein’s army “is down to one-third than it was before, and I think it would be a cakewalk.” (Ken Adelman)
In: Robert Novak, “No cakewalk”, Townhall.com, March 27, 2003.
Dear Tzvi,
I stick out like a sore thumb; you stick out like a hand infected with elephantiasis. I do sympathise with your fear of racism and irrational hatred, which I also sense from the more extreme contributors on this blog.
I however invite you to be more open and welcoming to criticism, a lot of which is very justified. I also notice that you respond to criticism with, “come back when you have facts”, which is pretty annoying to say the least, because it is dismissive and hardly a good way to engage in debate.
My (logical) opinion is that Israeli politics has become dangerously right-winged, so much so that the propaganda inflicted upon the population can be as bad as that in Iran (except thankfully there is still a relatively free press in Israel). Part of this propaganda campaign is to instil the fear that criticism of Israel is akin to anti-semitism, or akin to pursuing the destruction of the state as a whole. A close friend of mine is Israeli (shock horror) and he relays some very interesting facts to me from the heart of Israel. Needless to say, he is very fearful of the direction that Israel is taking. On one occasion he described to me the way that Israeli army conscripts handled their duties, which was very disturbing. And, unfortunately, the liberal, secular, intellectual, somewhat left leaning population of Israel is declining quickly, if not being purposefully marginalised.
If you cannot criticise yourself, then nobody will listen to your criticisms of others.
Dear Fiorangela,
You provide a noble and interesting response, which on the whole I totally sympathise with. I would only like to point out that, in your quest against “American and Israeli predatory capitalism and faux democracy”, you do not turn a blind eye to Iran’s mistakes simply because the regime “attempts to defend Iranian economic and political sovereignty”. The problem with the left is that they often cosy up to the most extreme of right, which in this case is Iran. But Iran is by no means innocent!
“My argument was an attempt to demonstrate that Israel treated Iran badly and intends to treat Iran even more badly. If Israel had bonds of friendship with Iran that stretched back over a thousand years (and included Cyrus’s rescue and support of the Jewish people), and yet Israel seeks to harm Iran…”
This is an example of where you assume that Iran is the innocent party. In fact, Khomeini was vehemently and openly anti-Israeli long before he came to power. This of course rattled Israel, which triggered a deterioration of relations that has spiralled dangerously out of control. Neither Israel nor Iran has made any attempt to improve relations. I personally put more of the blame on Iran’s foreign policy, which is determined by childish stubbornness and opportunism, not pragmatism.
Finally, you say:
“…of how Israel cheated Iran; undertook a strategy calculated to result in the deaths of Iranians; undertook no ethical evaluation of those actions; and (tangentially related to a point that Eric Brill has been hammering away at), that Israel’s government was involved at every point in supplying weapons to Iran with the goal of killing Iranians — Israel’s enemy, as well as Iraqis, also Israel’s enemy.”
The fact of the matter is that arms trading inevitably leads to death and destruction. Yet Bergman himself identified motives beyond simply generating business; i.e. attempting to warm relations with the mullahs and repelling an advancing Saddam Hussein. So if this incident truly disturbs you, I insist that you challenge arms trading as a whole instead of isolating Israel. Otherwise it becomes clear that you are pushing a certain agenda.
That is why I comment on this blog (and I am not going to stop my pestering any time soon); it smells of hypocrisy and double standards. Legitimate concerns about American foreign policy in the Middle East, and Israel, are made illegitimate because people react by cosying up to Iran. Look at the Leveretts: they make some very valid points but then publish ridiculous articles about Iranian domestic affairs, as if they are obliged to because of the position they are defending. To a lesser extent, people like yourself and Eric make similarly valid points, but then turn a blind eye to some things that are just as important yet too distant for you to experience yourselves. I sense that your attitude is similar to proverb, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
Please, if you want to defend American values, which you rightly state have been distorted, then defend these values universally and not selectively.
tzvi
hiccup
Fyi,
I know that many people hate Israel and the Jews, after all they were persecuted for ever, before the creation of Modern Israel. But there is never a frank admission to that,but it’s usually accompanied with imaginary atrocity propaganda, or some other hallucinatory claim, devoid of real, factual proof, so how an ordinary- no Jew baiting-person will be convinced that Israel and the Jews deserve their contempt?
Fiaroangela is a poster proof of this type of hate-it’s counter productive, with her hysterical hyperbole.
Tzvi Gross,
Surely you are not claiming that Americans are well-informed. Or that they bother to obtain news about the Middle East from sources other than their local newspaper and network TV news. If that.
That the US spends as much money on weapons each year, as the rest of the world combined, cannot be laudable in any normal moral assessment of the situation. and what explains the continuing squandering of trillions of dollars on useless or unnecessary weapons, and foolish military adventures in the greater Middle East?
re the crocodile’s quest for justice:
from Exodus, (according to Natan Sharansky, Exodus is the key to Jewish identity)
Uncle Akiva: “The minute Haganah adopts our policy of fighting instead of talking…
…an alliance between us becomes automatic.
Ari: You’re not being fair.
Akiva: When it comes to fighting, Haganah has lost more lives than Irgun.
Ari: We fight to defend ourselves, or to capture positions that we can occupy and hold. When you attack it’s just to spread terror.
Akiva: Your duty is done. You have given me the official line.
But what about you, Ari?
Forget Haganah for one moment, and tell me what you think.
Ari: I think these bombings and these killings hurt us with the United Nations. A year ago we had the respect of the whole world. Now, when they read about us, it’s nothing but terror and violence.
Akiva: It’s not the first time this happens in history.
I don’t know of one nation, whether existing now or in the past…
…that was not born in violence.
Terror, violence, death.
They are the midwives who bring free nations into this world.
Compromisers like the Haganah produce only abortions.
Before you have a country, you have to have people.
Ari: That’s the job we’ve done. Tens of thousands of people smuggled in…
…with the whole British Navy blockading the coast.
The population we’ve built is our most valid argument for independence.
How can we ask the UN for a just decision…
…when we keep blowing up things like a bunch of anarchists?
Akiva: You have just used the words “a just decision.”
May I tell you something?
Firstly…
…justice itself is an abstraction…
…completely devoid of reality.
Second, to speak of justice and Jews in the same breath…
…is a logical uncertainty.
Thirdly…
…one can argue the justice of Arab claims on Palestine…
…just as one can argue the justice of Jewish claims.
Fourthly…
…no one can say the Jews have not had…
…more than their share of injustice these past years.
I therefore say, fifthly…
…Let the next injustice work against somebody else for a change.
Ari: You just changed the subject on me.
Akiva: You noticed.
Ari: I suppose that means more bombings and more killings?
Akiva: I’ll put it this way.
Let the National Committee keep on trying to talk the British out of Palestine.
We have no objections. We will continue to bomb them out.
-Now tell me, how is your mother?
tzvi gross:
There are, in fact, no logical proofs for the existence of anything, including yourself.
Truth & Justice exist in the same way as Love and Hate exist.
They are experienced and cannot be proven or quantified.
I do not know what you are looking for; what is it that you are looking for someone to disprove?
And “true” and “verifiable” facts only exist in narrow fields of applied empirical sciences; such as medicine. And even then there is a long chain of reasoning from the metaphysical assumptions underlying those sciences to their applications.
Arguing, like a Thalmudic scholar, will not get you anywhere as it did not get those scholars either .
Like them, you could be lost in the mazes of your own mind.
tzvi,
burp
Fyi,
I am searching for some one to prove me wrong. I want to believe in truth and justice, but I find so far no logical proof that it exists – in the context of Israel and /or the Jewish people.
Please prove me wrong through factual analysis, not opinion upon opinion devoid of facts.
Anybody can have an opinion, but can they support their underlying assumption with true, verifiable facts?
I offer a challenge-will it be met?
pak – I have neither ability nor, more importantly, right to even express an opinion on how the Iranian government should function; that is for the Iranian people to decide and it is for them to put the effort — and to choose whether they should shed blood — to change their government.
I’m an American. Most of my education took place in parochial schools — does that give you any clues as to how cosmopolitan is my background? My knowledge of Iran is based on friendship with Iranian-Americans, three weeks travel in Iran, and reading the best books I could find. My knowledge is imperfect, simplistic, but sympathetic to the Iranian people and even certain goals of Iran’s government; specifically, with respect to that last point, I am sympathetic with the goal of the Iranian government in its attempts to defend Iranian economic and political sovereignty from the incursions of American and Israeli predatory capitalism and faux democracy. I think of myself as an advocate FOR Iran. I do not wish to see Iran harmed. If the US were to harm Iran, I would be forced to think of my country with the same sense of shame that Germans were forced to think of their country, for an entire generation and more, in the post-war era. I’d rather try to prevent the US from harming Iran than to live in shame for the rest of my and my children’s lives.
In my view, the American government is carrying out foreign policy initiatives in the Middle East that are seriously at odds with the theoretic underpinnings of American values. The American people have been heavily propagandized to the point that many Americans believe that the policies of the government are appropriate. In large measure — not entirely, but in large measure, the so-called Israel lobby or some iteration of it has influenced US policy makers to make the policy decisions they have made, stretching back to Woodrow Wilson’s administration, but mushrooming with the end of World War II, and exploding by 1967. As well, Israel-influenced propagandists control major media outlets in the US and bear no small share of responsibility for the propagandized state of large portions of the American public.
My argument is an appeal to the American people, to warn them that their complicity with Israel in actions seeking to harm Iran, is contrary to American values; that unconditional support for Israel is not in the best interest of Americans, not least because Israel may turn on the American people, once the US has committed itself to an attack on Iran.
My argument was an attempt to demonstrate that Israel treated Iran badly and intends to treat Iran even more badly. If Israel had bonds of friendship with Iran that stretched back over a thousand years (and included Cyrus’s rescue and support of the Jewish people), and yet Israel seeks to harm Iran,why would the American people not be concerned that Israel would similarly turn on the US and seek to harm the US? I am attempting to persuade Americans that their “est une affaire de coeur” with Israel may be an abusive relationship that will cause them great grief.
The truth value of the statement — or fabrication of a statement — by a “highly placed Israeli” is not the most important point; what IS important is that an Israeli journalist whose goal was to persuade his readers that Iran is evil thought that it somehow advanced his agenda of demonizing Iran, and so he included a narration of how Israel cheated Iran; undertook a strategy calculated to result in the deaths of Iranians; undertook no ethical evaluation of those actions; and (tangentially related to a point that Eric Brill has been hammering away at), that Israel’s government was involved at every point in supplying weapons to Iran with the goal of killing Iranians — Israel’s enemy, as well as Iraqis, also Israel’s enemy.
What was the final score from that game? Israelis didn’t die, they collected the money. Iranians died. In Netanyahu’s game with the goal of an AMERICAN attack on Iran, the scoring would be similar: Iranians — Israel’s enemy — will die, Americans will die, Americans and Iranians will bleed treasure; Israelis will not die, they will claim the goalpost.
On my first day in Iran I spent several hours walking through Laleh Park with one of our American tour guides. We encountered a young Iranian boy — maybe 13 years old; we communicated in the way that I came learn all Iranians do, with Americans: with huge smiles and bright eyes. After determining that we were Americans, the boy flashed the Peace Sign and said, “George Bush is great.” Only so much one can say across a language barrier in only two minutes to disabuse the youngster, but we did come to understand that some, perhaps many, Iranians hated their government so much that they thought that the US might topple their government for them, as US had done in Iraq.
There are apparently many Iranians who would welcome a US or Israeli attack on Iran. There are many Americans who think the US and/or Israel should attack Iran and topple its government. I think it’s a very bad idea, and I don’t think it would be a good move for the American government or its people.
Does it “anger” me that Israel profited from Iran’s misery? Yes, a little bit; I don’t generally like cheating. It angers me even more that Israel is extorting money from US taxpayers to pursue Israel’s agenda at the expense of American interests.
tzvi gross:
The national anthem of Israel sings of the “longing in the soul of a Jew”.
The name of the state itself is an emotional invocation of the Covenant.
[The quivalent would be for Italy (as an example) to be called Corpus Christi.]
The religious life of Jews is filled with emotion.
None of these things are logical.
And neither are you.
Fiorangela,
I hope some others read my comments, and see your reply.
tzvi,
yawn
Pak and Nasser,
The 2 of you will always stick out as a sour thumb in this blog, which is primarily composed of people who indeed have no time or regard neither for the Iranian and Palestinian people,or for that matter, any one else in the world.
They will sacrifice anybody in the entire world-and presently these are the Lebanese, the Pals and the Iranian people- in the altar of destroying the Jewish people, but Israel first.
If any of the above will be destroyed in the process- never mind, just let their desire be.
As a patriotic Iranian, paining from what’s going on in your home land,beware of such a hypocritical support, from people for whom your people are nothing but a cannon fodder, a fleeting instrument in their desire of destroying Israel.
You don’t have to agree with me, though- as this is merely my humble, logical opinion
James Canning
JameJuly 15, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Cyrus,
What amazing scaremongering by the Israel lobby in the US you produced! (July 15th, 10:54am). “Iran. . . only months awary from producing [a nuke]“! The liars, warmongers, whores of the armaments manufacturers, and others playing this game, rely on the astounding ignorance, laziness (and, frankly, gross stupidity) of the American public to play this game.
“Liars, warmongers, whores of the armament manufacturers”
Are you looking in the mirror and talking about yourself? At least that would be the Israeli view point of you and friends here,with regard to you demonising a nation were you can visit unmolested even after expressing your and friends fanciful solution for Israels’ demise. Try to visit in one of your favorite nations-Iran- after expressing opinions such as this about her.
Fiorangelo,
fyi,
I acknowledge your correction to my statement and apologize for failing to recognize a set of values more important than geopolitical considerations.
Birds of feather think alike;
I want some Quranic source for the Islamic attachment to the Harem El Sheriff, that you so readily an gallably agree with. Mecca, Medina, and then the different local holy shrines,in;Karbala, Najaf-where competing Islamic groups homicide bomb each others to smithereens-yes,but throughout history, show me once that Islam fought for Jerusalem,or made pilgrimage to it. Revisonism at its’ worst.
pak, do not presume to speak for me, most especially when your retort relies solely on propaganda and your reasoning process relies on sarcasm rather than careful reading and consideration.
Ronen Bergman, a Jewish Israeli journalist, is the source for the statement quoting unnamed senior Israeli leaders. Why did Bergman write what he wrote? If the quote is true, there are reasons that most readers and journalists understand for the source to remain anonymous; the journalist relies on his own credibility to persuade the reader to accept the fact value of the quote. If Bergman lied, why did he lie? Did Bergman concoct the entire scenario? If he did, what point was he trying to make — that Israelis are capable of callous behavior when dealing with their friends?
As far as commercial transactions in which one tries to unload his dated merchandise, I don’t think Israel is in unique position to be so utterly vilified. Have you heard of the adage “buyer beware”. And this is assuming that this “Hearsay” is the truth.
When the American people are told, as they are repeatedly told by Israelis and by their own leaders, that the US and Israel “share values,” don’t Americans have the right and obligation to question their leaders’ understanding of American “values”? From my perspective, American values do not support mass killing as a form of problem solving, and dishonest dealing with the knowledge that it will result in mass death, just because it produces a revenue stream. It fact, that behavior goes against everything that civilization stands for, and is morally repugnant.
“Mass killing”- may I have your source? Have you found a conspiratorial Jewish connection to Mai Lai,Mass civilian killings in Afghanistan, mass murder in Gorny and Kyrgyzstan,and too many more to mention?
“dishonest dealing with the knowledge that it will result in mass death”- proof please
Did you take your valium today?
I utterly reject the claim that I, as an American, share values with an Israeli system that does see killing and cheating as appropriate forms of behavior, and I decry the claim that Americans unthinkingly and unconditionally share those values.
I commented above-I want proof that this is an accepted Israeli tactic, any more then the US, UK, Norway, Russia etc.
tzvi, I consider you and the project you are engaged in — the spreading of right wing zionist propaganda — to be among the most dangerous and despicable in the world. You represent the most insidious kind of enemy — one that masquerades as a friend. Zionism is no friend to the Jewish people nor to Judaism and it is most certainly no friend to the American people. I may not have the carefully developed skills of some on this forum, but I will use every means I can muster to expose your dangerous agenda and to resist relentlessly the threat that you pose to the United States and to Iran.
You are entitled to your opinions-just don’t present them as facts. they may be Hysterical rather then factual historical facts.
By the way-you sound Jewish. Are you?
Humanist,
Yes, absolutely. I agree completely that the effort to portray Iran as the “bad boy” in the Middle East would continue, even if Iran ceased enriching uranium. However, this effort would be much more difficult for the Zionist propagandists (and their fellow travellers).
Cyrus,
What amazing scaremongering by the Israel lobby in the US you produced! (July 15th, 10:54am). “Iran. . . only months awary from producing [a nuke]“! The liars, warmongers, whores of the armaments manufacturers, and others playing this game, rely on the astounding ignorance, laziness (and, frankly, gross stupidity) of the American public to play this game.
Dear Fiorangela,
When exactly did I presume to speak for you? I was merely explaining to Nasser how you were digging a hole for yourself. Do you want to know why I think so? Because you are very well versed when it comes to the US and Israeli politics, but demonstrate time and again a distinct lack of (or purposefully ignored) knowledge of Iranian politics. Would you like me to give you an example? In your last response to me, you mentioned:
USA (or American people) – 7 times
Israel (or Israeli people) – 3 times
Iran (or Iranian people) – ……………………. 0 times!
Were we even talking about the US? No. Were we talking about Israel? Yes, but only in terms of their arms trading with Iran. And I am not saying that Bergman lied, but are you saying that he holds the absolute truth? Why should I believe his super duper, sky high senior source in the Israeli MOD, when the same Israeli sources spew dangerous propaganda against Iran on a daily basis? He is just one journalist with one report. I do not place all my hope on one report just because it fits my narrative, unlike you.
You have qualms about US and Israeli politics; this is certainly not uncommon. I wholeheartedly support you in your crusade to resolve these qualms, but there is no need to drag Iran down with you! Your insistence upon Iran being innocent – simply because Iran shares a common enemy with you – is harming the nation just as much as the neocons in the White House. Which leads me to my final point; I am clearly no match for you when it comes to sarcasm:
“I utterly reject the claim that I, as an American, share values with an Israeli system that does see killing and cheating as appropriate forms of behavior…”
Read Iranian system in place of Israeli system and you should be able to catch my drift.
Eric,
Yes, that’s what I said. They think that they murder others, but not self, as they go straight to their heavenly wedding.
Tzvi,
The difference between a “homicide bomber” and a “suicide bomber” is pretty straightforward: the latter kills himself as well as his victims.
I already knew the answer to my question. I was just curious to see how you might answer it.
“Homicide bombers” vs. “suicide bombers:”
For those who haven’t read Tzvi’s post of July 15 at 12:39, you might find her analysis interesting.
fyi,
I acknowledge your correction to my statement and apologize for failing to recognize a set of values more important than geopolitical considerations.
pak, do not presume to speak for me, most especially when your retort relies solely on propaganda and your reasoning process relies on sarcasm rather than careful reading and consideration.
Ronen Bergman, a Jewish Israeli journalist, is the source for the statement quoting unnamed senior Israeli leaders. Why did Bergman write what he wrote? If the quote is true, there are reasons that most readers and journalists understand for the source to remain anonymous; the journalist relies on his own credibility to persuade the reader to accept the fact value of the quote. If Bergman lied, why did he lie? Did Bergman concoct the entire scenario? If he did, what point was he trying to make — that Israelis are capable of callous behavior when dealing with their friends?
When the American people are told, as they are repeatedly told by Israelis and by their own leaders, that the US and Israel “share values,” don’t Americans have the right and obligation to question their leaders’ understanding of American “values”? From my perspective, American values do not support mass killing as a form of problem solving, and dishonest dealing with the knowledge that it will result in mass death, just because it produces a revenue stream. It fact, that behavior goes against everything that civilization stands for, and is morally repugnant.
I utterly reject the claim that I, as an American, share values with an Israeli system that does see killing and cheating as appropriate forms of behavior, and I decry the claim that Americans unthinkingly and unconditionally share those values.
tzvi, I consider you and the project you are engaged in — the spreading of right wing zionist propaganda — to be among the most dangerous and despicable in the world. You represent the most insidious kind of enemy — one that masquerades as a friend. Zionism is no friend to the Jewish people nor to Judaism and it is most certainly no friend to the American people. I may not have the carefully developed skills of some on this forum, but I will use every means I can muster to expose your dangerous agenda and to resist relentlessly the threat that you pose to the United States and to Iran.
Dear Cyrus,
I was quoting Fiorangela. But the use of youth (a.k.a. child) soldiers in the Basij is a well-known fact. Their specific actions during the Iran-Iraq war are not wholly known to me, but it is not propaganda to say that thousands were killed, often during holy (a.k.a. human wave) missions.
Pak – Iran did not “send children to clear minefields”. That and the “Keys to heaven” lie were atrocity propaganda cooked up during the Iran-Iraq war that have been totally discredited since.
“Blaming the Jews” for an Iran attack is partly self-inflicted, as “Jewish groups” have sought to benefit from the demonization of Iran.
See for example this recent article from New York Jewish Week:
“Jews Brace For Next Phase In Iran Battle
New sanctions surge could lead to new dilemmas for groups that have banked on issue.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
James D. Besser
Washington Correspondent
Recent breakthroughs in the U.S.-led effort to squeeze Iran could change the political calculus for American Jewish groups that have benefited hugely from their decades-old focus on Iran — and which have largely succeeded in making Iran’s threat to both U.S. and Israeli interests a top policy for Congress and the White House.
But many analysts say those breakthroughs are unlikely to divert Iran from a nuclear weapons program that may be only months from producing a usable weapon. And that failure could bring pro-Israel groups here closer to a risky point of no return on the question of U.S. military action designed to do what sanctions can’t — end, not just delay, Iran’s nuclear weapons quest.
And if sanctions do work, there’s the question of what Jewish organizations will do if they can no longer use the Iran threat to galvanize their activist base, unify a community increasingly at odds over a range of Israel-related issues and spur their own growth.”
MORE
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/national/jews_brace_next_phase_iran_battle?nocache=1#comment-1464
Nasser and Fiorangela:
Thank you both for your comments.
Nasser:
I do not know what you mean by a non-ideological Iran. Iran is a religious state, has been since its inception by the Safavids. And indeed Ancient Iran was also a religious state. As long as Jerusalem is not in the hands of Muslims, by definition, Iran will be opposed to Israel. And a plurality of Muslim polities and people hold the same view.
But, note that US is alos in a similar position – namely an emotional committment to a state which does not have any tangible benefits to US. Iranians (and other Muslim states) at least have the intangibles of Justice and Protection of Islam & Muslims on their side.
I completely disagree with your general statements – they might be true at the state level or elite level but certainly not at the street level. For example, there are a lot of things that Syrian leaders may wish to have but they will not sacrifice Al Haram Al Sharif to get them. That would be the death of Alawaite sect.
I also think that the emotional content of the war in Palestine is a direct threat to all these states as their impotence enrages more and more of their populations.
I think that US foreign aide to all Arabs states must be cut as well to force a settlement. Presently, US is directly subsidizing the war in Palestine.
Fiorangela:
You have enumerated the mechanics of support for Israel in US.
But I believe you wrong to think that Iranian people do not support the Palestinian cause. This is about the old and noble idea of Justice and not about geopolitics or machinations of some small group of people influencing the Iranian people. To ask Iranians or indeed Muslims to not support an injured group of largely Muslim people is to ask them not to be Muslims.
Eric,
The way I feel about suicide is that a person is aware of taking his own life, and in our specific case, also murders others.
Homicide-in my mind- on the other hand, is a murder of others. The brainwashed homicide bomber doesn’t see himself dead.He sees himself very much alive, with 72 virgins to his disposal in a celestial orgy, and with “boys like pearls”, if that is his inclination.
His family is forbidden to grieve, to the contrary, is encouraged and obligated to celebrate the marriage of the Sahid.
I always thought that for physical pleasure one needs a physical body-but in this case, never mind.
That’s why I prefer to call those, primarily poor brainwashed devils-homicide bombers.
James Canning (Re July 14 2010, 1:43 PM)
Thanks, I agree with your assertions. I see no sharp contradiction with what I was trying to say.
Dear Nasser,
Fiorangela cannot answer your questions simply because she is wrong and will not admit it; hence why she is digging an ever deeper hole for herself. Again, the fact that she questions why Iran sent children to clear the minefields exposes her lack of (or purposefully ignored) knowledge of Iranian politics. She seems to think that they had no other choice but to send children to their deaths. No, she actually blames the Israelis for this!
“A very senior source in the Israeli Ministry of Defense reveals that the weapons deal with Iran was fraudulent.”
Oooooh, a very senior source! Oh my. I am totally convinced now.
Tzvi,
Why do you use “homicide bomb” rather than “suicide bomb?” Isn’t the latter more descriptive?
Fiorangela,
“If Israel did such a bang-up job arming Iran, why did Iran have to resort to sending their children to clear minefields?”
- Maybe the Islamists wanted to create MORE martyrs as they have not been known to value human life too highly. Why else insist on using idiotic tactics like human wave attacks?! Israel might not have done a bang-up job but at least they were helping to some degree when Iran was in desperate need of assistance. The real question is why did Khomeini insist on perpetuating the war? Why not agree on the reparations once Iran regained her territories?
You go on to write about how Israel basically skimmed off the top in their arms sales. I have to ask: so what?! There’s nothing surprising about weapons manufacturers wanting to make money and “unload” old products.
You accuse me of being unresponsive to your questions but I have answered all your questions but you haven’t answered any of mine. Such as: Are you just mad because the Israelis got paid for their products and services and didn’t just provide Iran with charities? Why all the love for Iraq and the Arabs? How come you have forgiven the Arabs so quickly? And lastly, if it is strategically wise to have better relations with Israel why not do so?
Oh and there’s no need to resort to personal attacks.
Fiorangela,
I repeat, Israel discovered the Gas fields of GAZA and -although was not obligated to-Ehud Barak gave it to Arafat as a good will gesture. Please disprove me-but ignorant remarks are not considered proof.
“Will Israel throw the US under the bus the way it is throwing Iran under the bus?”
How many time do I have to repeat that it was just the opposite-IRAN threw Israel “under the bus”, so there is no factual basis to your mindless question.
Did you get it this time, or the question will be repeated under some other guise.
Nasser, where your response was not illogical, it was nonresponsive.
You wrote: “Well more Iranians would have died without Israeli technical assistance. In case you forgot, the Islamists’ favorite tactic involved the use of human wave attacks!”
If Israel did such a bang-up job arming Iran, why did Iran have to resort to sending their children to clear minefields?
May I suggest a reply? straight from Ronen Bergman’s research: Israel didn’t sell Iran what it needed, it sold Iran what Israel wanted to unload, or could get the best price for. While Israel was selling arms to the shah, Israel sold inferior good — weapons that were useless for Iran’s defense but that the Shah’s regime paid inflated prices for. Iraq’s war against Iran began only a few years after the shah was toppled; Iran’s Israel-supplied arsenal should have been chock full of goodies, but it was not, because Israel had sold Iran warehouses full of junk.
Bergman wrote:
“Under the Shah…Israel and Iran planned to build a tremendous co-production line, the biggest Israel had partnered in until then. There were a total of six projects, Israel was to supply the know-how and Iran the money and test sites. …
“A very senior source in the Israeli Ministry of Defense reveals that the weapons deal with Iran was fraudulent. With each of the six joint projects, the Israelis planned to deceive the Iranians by providing them only an outdated version of the weapons in question, while using Iranian money to build a new generation for Israel’s exclusive use.” pp 5-6.
You just FEEL that “Iran treated Israel shamefully.” Can you explain what makes you feel that way? Do you like the way the words roll off the tongue or is there some basis in fact and logic? Inquiring minds want to know, and tzvi is depending on your answer.
tzvi, Nasser is your source? not mine. I believe Nasser is wrong and told him so, with reasons why.
as I recall you refused to consult the map that I linked to demonstrate that there are gas fields in Gaza’s territorial waters. I have read that Israel has discovered gas in waters off Ashkelon but I have not been able to verify that.
btw, the fact that you consistently change the subject has not escaped notice.
Will Israel throw the US under the bus the way it is throwing Iran under the bus?
Fiorangela, I’ll try to respond to your main arguments:
You write: “But it wasn’t mutually beneficial: you forget the part where Iranians died. By the hundreds of thousands…Iran paid the money; Israel collected it.”
- Well more Iranians would have died without Israeli technical assistance. In case you forgot, the Islamists’ favorite tactic involved the use of human wave attacks! And you are mad because Israel got paid? They aren’t running a charity. It was beneficial for Iran because just about everyone else abandoned her and was busy arming and funding Iraq. Israeli assistance might have been due to selfish reasons but that still should have earned them some gratitude for providing assistance at such a time of need. And if not gratitude then at least the cessation of hostilities.
You also write: “And most importantly of all, what was the situation of Iran AFTER the war as well as today, and what is the comparable status of Israel? Did Iran gain “mutual benefit” or ANY benefit or gratitude from Israel for killing Iraqis on Israel’s behalf, or weakening Saddam for the benefit of Israel? No, Iran did not.”
- Khomeini could have stopped the war a looong time ago but didn’t. You cannot blame Israel for this. Blame the Islamic Republic; blame the US, USSR and the Arabs for arming and funding Iraq. Speaking of which, why the current love affair with Iraq? Didn’t they bombard Iran with chemical weapons? It seems to me if Iran should blame someone it should be Iraq (including the Shias who fought for Saddam) and not Israel.
You also write: “You state here and have stated in other places that Iran treated Israel “shamefully” in response. I don’t understand that.”
– You are right I shouldn’t make emotional arguments. I just felt that way.
You also go on to write: “Would it have been strategically wise for Iran to have allied with Israel in the post-war period? Probably yes, in a theoretical world, but difficult for a hurt and devastated nation, mourning its dead and shunned by the UN and the rest of the world, to accomplish. At that point in a nation’s life, it is for allies to extend the hand of assistance and friendship, as Persia did to the dispossessed Jews in exile in Babylon. Did Israel extend a helping hand to Iran in Iran’s dark, post-war hours? Far from it. Let me anticipate your rejoinder: Khomeini exercised strident Islamic authority in that period that alienated Israel.”
- Yes it would have been strategically wise for Iran to have allied with Israel; there is no question about that. Had it done so it wouldn’t have been targeted for dual containment and find themselves in the mess they are in today. Had Iran a non-ideological government looking out for the best interest of the nation, it would have done so. But Iran had a government that wanted to “Let Iran Burn” for the sake of Islam and I think they have been quite successful in doing so. The Khomeinists went well out of their way to alienate Israel and make them feel threatened. So you cannot blame Israel for this. Now you tell me why couldn’t Iran maintain a relationship with Israel? It did so with North Korea :)
Fiorangela,
The US support of Israel, right or wrong, owes more to the fact that Jews are the richest minority in America, and disposed toward giving lots of money to political candidates. Also, Jews are very prominent in the media and savvy with ways to manipulate the grossly ignorant general public. Another factor is the large number of foolish Christian Zionists.
fiaroangela,
Fiorangela says:
July 14, 2010 at 5:41 pm
tzvi, it is YOU who have not responded to MY question.
I have asked you several times to explain to the American people why they should not expect to be treated perfidiously by Israel, just as Israel has and is treating Iran perfidiously. You have not answered the question.
No, you got it all wrong. as Nasser said, it was Iran who betrayed Israel, and treated it Perfidiously. You got it all wrong, again just like when you claimed that Israel wants’ Gazas gas fields, when it was just to the contrary, it was the Israelis who found and developed those off shore resources and gave them unconditionally to the PA, so that they will not starve, in spite of the fact that they had no obligation to do so-based on the Oslo agreements.
you will be taken seriously only when you will get your facts right, and then, separate them from “opinions”, “assumptions” and “theories”.
Is this too much to ask?
tzvi, it is YOU who have not responded to MY question.
I have asked you several times to explain to the American people why they should not expect to be treated perfidiously by Israel, just as Israel has and is treating Iran perfidiously. You have not answered the question.
it is NOT my ‘major thesis’ “that the US spending it’s tax $s’ to contain Iran, just because Israel said so.”
fyi, you wrote
“Friendship towards Palestinian Arabs and enmity to Israel is not beneficial to Iran.
Similarly, alliance and friendship with Israel and enmity to her opponents has greatly harmed the United States.”
agreed. well said.
you wrote: “It seems to me that both states should cut their losses and move on.
Iranians should cut all their funding and political support to Israel’s opponents while US would cut all such support for Israel. This will disentangle US and Iran from their dead-end policies.
Lack of political, military, and financial support will focus the Israelis and the Arabs in reaching a peace agreement in less than a year (via the one-state solution).”
agreed.
you wrote: “But this alas will not happen.”
also agreed, but for different reasons.
you write: “For US, Israel “est une affaire de coeur” and for Iran the same holds true for the Palestinians. Even Nixon, that great geo-strategist, had a soft spot for Israel in his heart. And the Muslims – including Iran – will never ever accept loss of Al Haram al Sharif.”
I disagree, on several points.
My research indicates that for US, Israel is MORE than “est une affaire de coeur;” it is the ‘love affair’ — abusive, to be sure — that is the outcome of a very deliberate political matchmaking effort that began as far back as the Wilson era, when zionists seduced American religious and political leaders and led them to believe that an affair with zionism would bring them happiness, a sense of belonging, wealth, and power. Some, very few, Christian denominations trace the derailment of mainstream Christian biblicism to the Scofield bible, and trace the origin of the Scofield bible to a financial deal between Mr. Scofield, a scurrilous character, and an early zionist operative. I know, I know: all very conspiratorial. That’s the nature of truth vs propaganda: propaganda is the result of powerful marketing, while truth is a quiet detail in a dark corner. But in general, I agree: it would take a massive effort to decouple the US – Israel alliance.
It is my impression that it would be far less difficult for Iran to draw back from its support for Palestinians.
For one thing, the Iranian people do not share the commitment to Palestine that Americans exhibit toward Israel; indeed, one of the sources of tension in Iranian society is that between Islam and Iran’s Persian culture. My impression is that reformists in Iran — even seculars– would tolerate an Islamic-inflected government including certain hybridized elements of Shari’ia law and finance, but certainly would not endorse full-throated Islamic rule. Iran’s rulers are not stupid, and carefully calibrate the degrees to which they moderate Islamic rule: they tend toward the less Islamic, not more.
Another consideration that could de-couple Iran from Palestine is the evolution of Hezbollah and even Hamas into mainstream elements in their respective political spheres: Hezbollah is firmly seated in Lebanon’s government, and Hamas has shown the ability to establish support institutions and agencies that have made it more than just a fighting force in Palestine. Hamas and PA have held unity talks from time to time and, but for US and Israeli interference, could probably work out a unity deal. Iran is, therefore, less essential to the existence of Hamas and Hezbollah.
A third point is the gathering influence of Turkey, and Turkey’s strong advocacy for Palestinian rights. Turkey’s ascent to this position gives Iran the space to climb down from that position.
Thus, it seems to me it would be not that difficult for Iran to ease out of the Islamic embrace with Palestine.
Unfortunately, the same does not apply to the US relationship with Israel.
fyi,
“For US, Israel “est une affaire de coeur”…” – It is the 51st state as far as I am concerned.
“…and for Iran the same holds true for the Palestinians.” – I dont buy this. A non-ideological government looking out for the best interest of Iran would not get too emotional and harm the national interest this way.
Regarding the Arabs: “Lack of political, military, and financial support will focus the Israelis and the Arabs in reaching a peace agreement in less than a year (via the one-state solution).” – I can’t accept this. The Mubarrak regime is more hostile to Hamas than Israel itself. The Hashemites of Jordan detests the West Bank Palestinians even more so than the Israelis. Syria only wants control of Lebanon and they keep yapping about Israel to keep their Sunni subjects happy. The Arabs (except the poor Palestinians) seem quite satisfied with the current situation. You might hear words of sympathy here and there and shrill shrieks whenever the name of Israel is mentioned but they don’t seem to do anything substantial for the Palestinians. If you try to refute this I’ll cite the situation of Palestinian refugees in places like Lebanon where they are denied basic rights and forced to live in squalor despite being there for decades. Or how about the expulsion of Palestinians from Kuwait and recently from Iraq. Isn’t it embarrassing to hear Israelis brag (& I think rightfully so) that Palestinians in Israel live in better conditions than anywhere else in the Arab world? But the Arabs sure get real annoyed when they hear Iran or Turkey “hijacking” the Palestinian cause!
Fiorangela,
You are anable to defend your major thesis for hounding Israel- that the US spending it’s tax $s’ to contain Iran, just because Israel said so- for every one here to see,
What a pity.
tzvi, you wrote: “The Talmud says that the exceeding wisdom of King Solomon was that he could even give an answer to a simpleton. I will attempt to do the same with you,”
as you assign to yourself the “exceeding wisdom of Solomon,” and to me the intellect of a simpleton, I demur to your exceeding wisdom.
Surely someone as wise as you and Solomon can answer your own insulting questions.
I am too simple to do so.
good day.
Nasser, you’ve addressed only part of the question. You agree that Israel benefited from selling arms to Iran, that Israel benefited from inflicting harm on Iraq.
You say, “Why should that matter, **”It only means that the affair was mutually beneficial.**
But it wasn’t mutually beneficial: you forget the part where Iranians died. By the hundreds of thousands. Israelis didn’t.
Iran paid the money; Israel collected it.
And most importantly of all, what was the situation of Iran AFTER the war as well as today, and what is the comparable status of Israel? Did Iran gain “mutual benefit” or ANY benefit or gratitude from Israel for killing Iraqis on Israel’s behalf, or weakening Saddam for the benefit of Israel? No, Iran did not.
You state here and have stated in other places that Iran treated Israel “shamefully” in response. I don’t understand that. Iran paid Israel for the weapons Israel sold to Iran. That’s the only obligation Iran had to Israel. What more did Iran owe to Israel?
Would it have been strategically wise for Iran to have allied with Israel in the post-war period? Probably yes, in a theoretical world, but difficult for a hurt and devastated nation, mourning its dead and shunned by the UN and the rest of the world, to accomplish. At that point in a nation’s life, it is for allies to extend the hand of assistance and friendship, as Persia did to the dispossessed Jews in exile in Babylon. Did Israel extend a helping hand to Iran in Iran’s dark, post-war hours? Far from it.
Let me anticipate your rejoinder: Khomeini exercised strident Islamic authority in that period that alienated Israel. Also understandable and also not unlike the prototype behavior of Jews in exile in Babylon, when Jews closed themselves in around a religious narrative to reconcile the horror that had occurred with their beliefs about their status in the world.
And the other part of my question is, Can the US expect the same treatment from Israel? The US is experiencing geostrategic and economic challenges unlike any it has experienced before. Israel says it is our friend. What is Israel doing in response to or recognition of America’s constrained situation? Look at what Tzvi is saying: boasting how US dollars flow into Israel; look at what Netanyahu is doing: pressuring the US to engage in still more bloody and costly battles. Are these actions “mutually beneficial?” Not from my perspective; it looks to me like Israel collects the “royalties” on “inventions” and actions that were sown with American sweat and effort. Inasmuch as Israel not only benefited without granting mutuality in its exchanges with Iran, and is now actively seeking to strangle Iran economically and destroy it militarily, can the US expect that Israel will act in the same way towards the US, once Israel has gotten its use of US blood, treasure, and weapons systems?
Nasser:
Friendship towards Palestinian Arabs and enmity to Israel is not beneficial to Iran.
Similarly, alliance and friendship with Israel and enmity to her opponents has greatly harmed the United States.
It seems to me that both states should cut their losses and move on.
Iranians should cut all their funding and political support to Israel’s opponents while US would cut all such support for Israel. This will disentangle US and Iran from their dead-end policies.
Lack of political, military, and financial support will focus the Israelis and the Arabs in reaching a peace agreement in less than a year (via the one-state solution).
But this alos will not happen.
For US, Israel “est une affaire de coeur” and for Iran the same holds true for the Palestinians. Even Nixon, that great geo-strategist, had a soft spot for Israel in his heart. And the Muslims – including Iran – will never ever accept loss of Al Haram al Sharif.
The war will contine.
Fiaroangela,
The Talmud says that the exceeding wisdom of King Solomon was that he could even give an answer to a simpleton. I will attempt to do the same with you, how ever, could you please answer a question I posed you before?
You claim that the US has no other interests in the middle East but to protect Israel, of course -due to the Zionist lobby- and to the US detriment, and that the US has no interest in the ME oil.
I asked you if the US arms the Saudis and the emirates to the teeth, and maintains huge bases and projects huge military might around the Arabian Peninsula, and the Persian Golf, all for Israels’ benefit? You think the Israelis actually happy with the arming these countries to the teeth?
I am awaiting your reply.
Fiorangela,
“GIVEN, that that sentiment was not expressed in Israeli behavior toward Iran: Israel exploited Iran’s suffering under attack by Iraq for the purposes of making money, for spying on Iran, for killing Iranians, for using Iran to kill Israel’s Iraqi enemies, and for neutralizing Israel’s enemy, Saddam.”
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
If I understand your argument correctly, you’re mad because Israel actually benefited from helping Iran! But why should that matter? It only means that the affair was mutually beneficial. Iran’s air force COULD NOT HAVE FUNCTIONED after Saddam’s sneak attack and the Khomeini purges had it not been for Israeli assistance. The only thing that should matter to Iranians is that Iran benefited from Israeli assistance and the fact that Israel perceived Iraq to be the actual threat.
Iran was completely isolated during the war. It was under sanctions, diplomatically shunned and somehow it seemed like everyone was supporting Iraq despite its naked aggression. Both the Superpowers were arming Iraq and the US later directly intervened on Iraq’s behalf. This just goes to show you that Iran has no shortage of enemies and so it need not create new ones. Under such circumstances most people would be very grateful for receiving any assistance at such a critical time of need. But apparently not Iranians. Iran had a hell of a way of showing its gratitude to Israel! I find it quite shameful.
Lastly, I want someone to convince me without resorting to emotional arguments and racism how Iran actually benefits from taking such an EXTREME anti-Israeli stance. You might find such a thing to be emotionally gratifying but what geopolitical benefits does it bring to Iran? Why should Iran care more about the Palestinians than the Arabs themselves? The Arabs aren’t impressed with Iran’s help for the Palestinians just like the Basijis weren’t impressed with the Greens cries of “Allah Huakbar!”
DWZ,
I agree with you that Israel uses the negotiations with Palestinians, as a delaying tactic, allowing what the Israelis hope will be further thefts of Palestinian land, water, etc etc etc etc. I think the UN is going to have to recognize an independent Palestine, with the Green Line as its borders. Further Israel road-building will then be seen as inuring ultimately to the benefit of the Palestinians who will control all roads in Palestine after all Israeli security forces are pulled out.
Speaking for the EU, Lady Ashton has welcomed Iran’s recent expression of interest in re-starting negotiations regarding the nuclear dispute. Will Hillary Clinton have the intelligence and good sense to back up Ashton’s comments? I am not counting on it.
tzvi, you did not address the question, which was about Iran, not US-UK, certainly not Germany, not Sweden, just Iran.
Please focus your attention on just that relationship, as it is critically important: Why is Israel so intent on demonizing and harming Iran, a people and culture with whom Israel has deep historic ties, and what caution should Americans take from the observation that Israel would behave in such a destructive manner toward a state with which it had such a relationship? In short, Is that how you treat your friends? Should Americans expect the same?
wrt the “conspiracy theories,” I believe I have cited, quoted, and linked to the book, “They Knew They Were Right,” by Jewish-American and self-styled former neocon Jacob Heilbrunn. You might be able to google it.
As it happens my SO was a co-inventor on early microchip technology – a very large field with many royalty-producing parts. Those technological skills were later developed into a specialty in patent prosecution and defense; among the first cases handled in that specialty was prosecution of an Israeli company that manipulated US patents in order to reap the harvest of royalties for an invention it had not worked to create. I’m aware of the ways that patents and technologies are purloined. Oh, by the way, you forgot to recite, “Israel invented the tomato” in your litany of Israel’s many marvels.
Nevertheless, it’s good to know that Israel has such deep pockets: Israel will be well situated to pay reparations to those people whose land it has stolen or destroyed, and whose lives it has ruined. Perhaps Israel could earmark royalties from those MRIs for a fund to care for wounded US troops. While Israeli advocates extorted another $203 million from the US president and Congress to pay for Israel to defend itself against the $10. kasams that (infrequently) land in Israeli towns, US soldiers were allocated only $50 million to provide care for the PTSD that an estimated 700,000 US troops do or will suffer, upon their return from Iraqi and Afghani battlefields.
Tzvi Gross,
You should read a bit about the “America First” movement, and other isolationist sentiment in the US, that prevented FDR from intervening in the Second World War, directly, until after Japan attack Pearl Harbor. Even then, if Hitler had not declared war on the US, Rossvelt may have had to fight to get the US Congress to declare war on Germany.
Tzvi Gross,
You claim the British “left a mess” anywhere they pulled out, in Asia or Africa or elsewhere. Is that why Aden was one of the major ports on the planet, at the time the British pulled out? And since then, it has sunk lower and lower, and still lower (as part of Yemen)? In Oman, by contrast, where a British military connection was retained, orderly growth and prosperity have since ensued.
The British did not want to partition India. Jinnah insisted on it.
Many residents of what was Aden under the British, are sorry the British ever left.
Humanist,
Re: July 13th, 10:24pm – - You say that even if Iran suspended enrichment of uranium, Israel and the Israel lobby would come up with some other pretext for demonising Iran. I certainly agree that Israel sees Iran as the primary impediment to accomplishing its goal of crushing Palestinian nationalism permanently. However, the scare-mongering Netanyahu and the other warmongers engage in, in their effort to dupe the ignorant American public, cannot be accomplished without false allegations of WMD. This was true when the neocons conspired to set up the illegal invasion of Iraq — the false claims about WMD were essential.
Fyi,
I didn’t see any case for you to rest. You made none.
I also rest my case as you have provided a non-case.
The only other comment I wish to make,is that the British left a mess anywhere in the world that they had anything to do with, India- Pakistan, ME, Africa, so you are hardly in the position to reproach others who still suffer it’s consequences in the ME and elsewhere.
Divide and rule must have seemed as a good policy then, but today,-61 years later- you still keep the documents of your hateful actions in Palestine under the cloak of secrecy. Why don’t you open those documents for any one to see your perfidy?
Yes, I indeed rest my case!!!
tzvi gross:
I rest my case.
Fyi,
“It’s not your land. Why are you there?”
May I have your narrative how did the Jews got there? Maybe you can give me your factual point of view?? and then your interpretation of the facts. It would be more convincing if you don’t mix the two.
Fiorangela,
Given that the US and the UK were very good friends at least since WW1,
Given that both US and UK are democracies
Given that Nazi Germany was the enemy of democracy,
Then how come the US waited with the entrance to WW2 until the UK practically bankrupted itself by purchasing armaments from the US, to the extent that after the war, NY replaced London as the financial centre of the world, as well as US oil companies replaced British oil interests in the middle east?
The same may be said of Sweden’s’ role during the second WW, supplying both parties to keep killing each other, and amassing a huge fortune in the process.
Does the UK harbour enmity against the US? I think the opposite is true, they are thankful for the fact that the US and Sweden did sell them the arms to protect themselves, regardless of the profit motive involved.
you may be and anarchist, socialist of what ever, but in capitalist societies the profit is the prime motivator, the outcome of protestant religious doctrine.
As far as your contention that neocon Jews hate the US, you are entitled to your unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, but by quoting like minded individuals they don’t increase in credibility, unless you know something that we don’t know, but then please provide better then other’s like minded fantasies.
Have you tried your hand in “fiction”? you may have a hidden talent there.
tzvi, You did not address my question.
GIVEN: that Israel had deep historical roots with Iran going back to 536 BC;
GIVEN, your assertion that “no Israeli hates Iran;”
GIVEN, that that sentiment was not expressed in Israeli behavior toward Iran: Israel exploited Iran’s suffering under attack by Iraq for the purposes of making money, for spying on Iran, for killing Iranians, for using Iran to kill Israel’s Iraqi enemies, and for neutralizing Israel’s enemy, Saddam.
Aware of those patterns of behavior toward people that Israel “does not hate,”
WHY should Americans NOT be very concerned that Israel is doing the very same things to the people of the United States, whom Israel similarly professes not to hate, especially when it has been revealed that a driving motive of Israel advocates in the US is revenge for what they imagine were US failings regarding the holocaust?
tzvi gross:
The fact is that you personally made very very equivocal statements regading leaving the West Bank.
It is not your land.
Why are you there?
Fiorangel
Unless you drop that computer keyboard and swear not to use a computer, you are a Zionist supporter, as the chips inside your computer was designed by the Jews of Israel and the Israeli state gets royalties, etc.
You fault Israel for selling armaments, but Israel sells much more then armaments, and most likely when you get an MRI, and many other medical imagery, you are again benefiting Israel.
But you never reply to anything logically presented to you, but it is interesting to read your mind- full of conspiracy theories and rubbish, empty of logic and facts.
Why would you expect Israel to give the weapons to Iran for free? Israel had a very close diplomatic and military relationship with Iran during the Shahs’ regime, and they hoped to keep having good relationship with the generals, regardless of the regime change. I see the same approach with today’s Turkey. There was a regime change that scares not only the Israelis, but the entire region and beyond, and the Israelis still try to keep up the contacts with the Turkish defence establishment, waiting for a better day politically.
As far as Us-Israel relationship, sometimes they diverge and sometimes they converge.
Regarding Iran, they converge, as the US wished to protect it’s Arab allies in the Arabian peninsula, and it’s Muslim allies in former Soviet Union states,. aswell as it’s oil supplies from an aggressive and powerful nuclear Iran.
Israel doesn’t want to see Nuclear Iran for it’s potential consequences for it’s own security.
What will happen-we just have to wait and see, and endure the hysterical tone of some of the commenters here.
I don’t try to change the subject, but could you please point out for me any concern you have expressed for any other oppressed group on this earth-Darfur gypsies, Baha’i, Zimbabwe and its’ refugees in south Africa who could sorely use some opinionated assistance? Just one please-point it out to me, to convince me that you are not a one race issue person-or in other words- you are a real humanitarian?
pak, being lectured by tzvi. chuckle.
When PapPap catches our 4-year old granddaughter cheating at games, and tells her so, she pouts and stomps her foot and wags her finger at PapPap, reminding him of the rules.
Pak,
I really don’t want to pick an unnecessary fight with you. The only thing I am asking of you, and any other fair minded participant, is to distinguish between FACTS and opinions.
It amazes me, when one biased opinion bearer quotes another with similar opinion, both without facts to base their opinions on.
Please use this yardstick about anything you read, and not only this particular subject.
then, when we are both clear about the FACTS, we may have differing opinions about their interpretation, but opinions devoid of any factual basis, are just that-baseless opinions.
Fyi,
Can you document for the readers how and when “land theft” took place? During the Ottoman empire, the Jew had no option to steal any land. During the British Mandate, the Jew had to purchase land for top $.
In 1948, the Palestinians with the help of 5 Arab national armies tried to steal the land the Jews purchase for top $S, and failed, and the aggressor became a victim. The lesson was lost on the aggressor as the tried another few rounds to push the Jew to the sea, but lost them all.
Now we are crying sour grapes, and blaming the Jew for not stopping it’s hot pursuit of the aggressors at the international border.
Are you aware of the fact, how many borders had been changed with the end of a second WW, and how many aggressor nations lost a huge amount of real estate?
I haven’t heard the Hungarians threatening the Checks or the Romanians with annihilation?
If you wish to be credible Please confine yourself to facts.
Dear Tzvi,
Norman Finkelstein may be shrewd, but not in the way you portray him. Is a Jew not allowed an opinion unless it is in support of Israel? Does that make him akin to Hitler, as you suggest?
You are demonstrating the dangerous right-winged tendency of Israeli politics. I cannot see how you accuse Finkelstein of trying to make money, when he has clearly risked his own status and “integrity” within the Jewish community to speak out against Israeli atrocities. What about Elie Wiesel? Is he not shrewd to make so, so, so much money from being a holocaust survivor? Why did he INVEST his charitable fund into Maddoff’s investment scheme, only to lose it because of you know what? What kind of person would invest other people’s charity money into an investment fund? Dodgy – I think so.
DWZ,
Please be a bit more original,
Quoting the shrewd Norman Finkelstein’s” opinions about the Arab- Israel conflict, is akin to quoting Hitler on National Socialism (Nazism).
The reason I mention his “shrewdness” is that he knows,- just like the Iranian leaders- how to harness Anti-Israel, anti-Jewish racism for his own benefit. He figured -just like his mentor Noam Chomsky before him, how to practically print money and become a self styled millionaire on the back of people like you, who will pay any money to have a Jew, child of Holocaust survivors, stroking his ego, by saying that he is right, and the terrible Israelis are wrong.
There is already an entire industry of such Jews, and they are becoming richer day by day.Just keep quoting their rubbish, and add to their net worth.
tzvi wrote: “as no Israeli hates Iran, and Israel was one of the few countries in the world supporting Iran in it’s war against Saddam.”
The implication is that Israel “supported” Iran as a gesture of bon homie and friendship; the reality is exactly the opposite: Israel supplied Iran primarily for the money — then as now, arms sales are a major source of revenue to the Israeli economy. Secondarily, Israel “supported” Iran by selling weaponry to Iran to ensure that more and more Iranians and Iraqis would be killed, as well as to maintain its spy capabilities deep inside Iran’s government.
Ronen Bergman, Jewish Israeli journalist, wrote:
“[In the aftermath of the seizure of US embassy, US imposed a boycott on Iran. Operation Seashell was Israel's operation to violate that boycott, undertaken for four main reasons.]
First, Israel could not come to terms with the military, intelligence, and diplomatic losses that it had sustained with the disruption of relations with Iran after the revolution. Arms exports would at least give it a foothold in Tehran. In Israel’s defense establishment, the lesson had been learned from many cases over the years that swiftly supplying weaponry and military know-how to a totalitarian state will bring the supplier as close as possible to the rulers….
Second, it was hoped that the infusion of weaponry would intensify the Iran-Iraq War and lead to the mutual destruction or, at least weakening, of two enemies.
Third, Israeli officials feared a victorious Saddam Hussein.
Finally, more than anything else, the weapons industry wanted to make money.”
repeat: “FINALLY, MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, THE WEAPONS INDUSTRY WANTED TO MAKE MONEY.
“As one Israeli Defense Ministry official, a key figure in Operation Seashell, recalls, ‘I do not remember even one discussion about the ethics of the matter. All that interested us was to sell, sell, sell more and more Israel weapons, and let them kill each other with them.”
If this is your version of “no Israeli hates Iran,” tzvi, namely, that Israel simultaneously used Iran’s money to kill as many Iranians as possible as well as have Iranians kill Israel’s enemies in Iraq, shouldn’t Americans be paying very close attention that Israel is using the United States treasure and blood for the very same purposes?
Show us your “logic” and “facts” and “evidence” to REFUTE these charges: that Israel is ONCE AGAIN relying on “the lesson … learned from many cases over the years” that embedding one’s operatives in military and weaponry establishments “as close as possible to the rulers….” in order
to SPY on the United States,
to KILL as many Americans as possible (or at least to be unconcerned with the deaths so long as they are not Israelis),
to use American soldiers to kill as many of Israel’s enemies as possible, and
to keep American money flowing into Israel’s treasury as well as
to maintain access to American weaponry design in order to sell it to other countries to enhance Israeli revenue streams.
If Israel did these things to Iran, with whom it shared deep bonds of friendship going back to 536 BC, why shouldn’t Americans be extremely concerned that Israel is doing the same thing to the United States? After all, according to Jacob Heilbrunn, writing in “They Knew They Were Right,” American zionists, that is, neocons, were motivated by seething hatred of the US for not doing enough to stop the Holocaust. Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Rabbi Dov Zakheim and many others — holocaust survivors or descendants of holocaust survivors, were deeply embedded in the Pentagon and US defense establishment, were in positions to influence ultimate decision-makers to wage wars, and were in positions to ensure that Israel gained (intelligence, weaponry, know-how) as well as financial profit from US wars.
Mr Hack,
“In the end, what matters is that Hezbollah is armed to repel an Israeli invasion of Lebanon”
I think you are naive to really believe that. The Iranian leadership themselves don’t hide their goal of using Lebanon and Hezbollah as a forward basis for the defence of the Iranian regime, by threatening to unleash Hezbollah’s might on Israeli cities (a war crime according to any bodies definition), in case Israel and/or the US dares to attack them, with absolute disregard to the consequences for the Lebanese and Lebanon.
It is nothing more then a cynical game, of harnessing the blind hatred of Israel of a significant segment of a brain washed Muslim populace, who stand to benefit nothing but may lose a lot as a pawn in some one else chess game.
Dear Fiorangela,
“Explain to me how Iran would be blamed for an attack on Iran.”
The fact that you ask this question demonstrates your bias and lack of (or purposely ignored) knowledge of Iranian politics.
Dear Tzvi,
On the whole, I share Nasser’s opinions.
I would like to add that Israel and Iran are natural allies, for the simple fact that they are two minorities in an otherwise majority Arab Middle East. And it is blatantly, blatantly obvious that the current Iranian regime along with regime apologists are taking advantage of the Palestinian situation in order to pursue their own interests. Come on – the regime is bulldozing Bahai houses in Iran and then has the audacity to cry foul when Palestinian houses are being bulldozed! At least – and this is a very cruel at least – Israelis are not abusing their own people, unlike the Iranian regime. The majority of people on this blog are shedding crocodile tears, as evident by their blinkered opinions on post-election Iran. That is why they lack so much credibility.
This however does not diminish the fact that the Palestinian people are being subjected to the worst human rights abuses and atrocities. Israel is also a pseudo-theocracy with a dangerously right-winged tendency. But, I do not share the racist, bigoted opinions on this blog. I believe that Israel, with the right policies and actions, has a bright future. I also believe that Iran will achieve nothing until it recognises Israel as a sovereign state. It is embarrassing to see in my passport that I am not allowed to travel to the “occupied Palestine”.
Tzvi Gross:
There you go again, invoking Shoah etc. and hinding behind that to steal that which does not belong to you.
Mr. Brill: Once again, the problem is WHO sent the weapons? And again, if the Iranian government, including Iranian intelligence agencies, had NOTHING to do with it, you are pretty clearly explicitly saying that someone ELSE is USING Iran to conceal their involvement in sending weapons to Hizballah?
Who would that be? Is Israel sending weapons to Hizballah just to blame Iran? Is the CIA (that I might actually buy)? Is Russia? Is China? Is Pakistan? Is Saudi Arabia?
And all this is going on right under the Iranian intelligence agencies and Iranian customs investigators noses on Iranian soil – even though Iran KNOWS it will be blamed for these shipments?
What’s wrong with this picture?
Again, I can believe some smuggling organizations, whether inside or outside Iran, are big enough to pull this off. But I find it difficult to believe that Iran HAS NO INTEREST in shipping arms to Hizballah, which is the implication of your concept. This just doesn’t seem realistic.
As for why Iran would make denials, please. Governments – ALL governments – do this by reflex. It’s called “deniability”. It doesn’t mean that Iran is going to be terribly worried if its shipping containers and ships are being used to actually transfer the weapons. There’s some value in being known to be doing so while at the same time officially denying it. This is the same policy Israel follows with its nuclear weapons – “ambiguity”. Why shouldn’t Iran follow the same policy on its support to Hizballah? Given that you can make the case that there is no proof given the evidence, why should Iran care if Israel or the US doesn’t believe you? They KNOW the US and Israel and everyone else won’t believe you, so why should they put themselves out by even more carefully concealing their involvement? That’s my point.
Richard,
“In the end, what matters is that Hizballah is armed to repel an Israeli invasion of Lebanon.”
I have no doubt that the Iranian government agrees entirely with you about that. But that does not mean it should not prefer – if it can – to see that happen without having fingers pointed at Iran by certain countries who have large military forces and itchy trigger fingers. Why not leave the dirty work to others if they’re sufficiently motivated and capable?
Richard,
“I think most people would agree that the persons with the most to gain from shipping weapons via Iran to Hizballah would be the Iranians themselves. This really isn’t open to serious debate.”
I disagree. Certainly the Iranian government supports Hezbollah in other ways, and probably is quite pleased that Hezbollah manages to acquire weapons. Possibly you’re even right that Iran’s government has the “most” to gain from shipping weapons to Hezbollah. But very many others – arms smugglers – have more than enough incentive, and wherewithal, to have carried out this operation. There is no reason to conclude it was carried out by the party with the “most” to gain.
“I don’t think Iran really cares that it got caught shipping weapons to Hizballah.”
I don’t think Iran DID get caught shipping weapons to Hezbollah. If it had, though, I think it would care quite a bit. The Iranian government has said repeatedly that it does not supply weapons to Hezbollah. That statement may be true or it may be false. But if it’s false and Iran doesn’t really care whether anyone knows it’s supplying weapons to Hezbollah, why would it waste its breath denying it in the first place? Of course it cares.
Humanist,
I don’t recall the particular incident you mention, but it sounds vaguely familiar. The “Iran supplies weapons to Hezbollah” claim is repeated so often that even died-in-the-wool skeptics rarely question it – very much like the “stolen election” claim. But I’ve yet to see any evidence that the Iranian government has been involved.
I have little doubt that private Iranian smugglers try to supply Hezbollah’s well-known desire for weapons, just as do smugglers from other countries – probably including the US (possibly even Israel, if the real or imagined IDF drug dealers reported by Nasser are sufficiently immoral to branch into other products). But that doesn’t implicate the Iranian government, and nothing else I’ve seen does either.
In the Francop incident, unless the Iranian government is very stupid, I can’t imagine it was involved. That shipment reflected some stupid behavior (see item 2 below) and an evident lack of control over important details (see items 1 and 3 below) that, altogether, leave me fairly confident it was carried out by second-rate private smugglers whose only governmental connections consisted of bribable customs officials at each end:
1. The use of an Iranian shipping line and containers to carry the weapons – not incriminating, as I’ve explained elsewhere, but pointlessly raising suspicion.
2. Internal labeling of crates and cartons with detailed descriptions of the weapons inside, right down to the number and caliber of the bullets and rockets. Why go to the trouble of camouflaging a container’s contents and then advertise the illicit contents to anyone who happens to remove the first layer of camouflage?
3. Transshipping the weapons through a country (Egypt) over which Iran has little or no influence – which resulted in the weapons sitting on an Egyptian dock for six days, being at risk of a search (though one did not occur) when the containers were reloaded, and being transported the rest of way by a Cypriot-operated ship owned by Germans – the very same nationals who had recently uncovered another weapons shipment after voluntarily complying with an Israeli request to search on-board cargo.
Would the operation have been handled this ineptly if the shipper had had the control (and the smarts, one would like to think) that the Iranian government would have had if it had carried this out? It seems highly unlikely to me. And, likely or not, I’ve seen no evidence to support such conclusion.
Hack:
IF MY ANALYSIS IS ‘RANT’ THEN YOURS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED the same you like me believe that the ZIONIST PROJECT expansion based on war, thus Israel is not interested in sharing and peace. THEN STOP BEING ARROAGANT.
{or to use DWZ’s rant, “plays into the hands of Israel”}
IF MY ANALYSIS IS ‘RANT’ THEN YOURS ALSO SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ‘RANT’ SINCE YOU KNOW ZIONISTS ARE LYING SINCE YOU HAVE UNDERESTAND OF THE ZIONIST PROJECT. THEN STOP BEING ARROAGANT.
…
“I hope you can accept my answer, as no Israeli hates Iran, and Israel was one of the few countries in the world supporting Iran in it’s war against Saddam.” Some of us actually remember (some don’t even know) and happen to be EXTREMELY grateful.
“Yes, even though I believe that the entire land belongs to the Jews, I also believe in peaceful coexistence, and compromises for a lasting and mutually prosperous future. So I would support a 2 state solution…Without getting into detail, I can promise you, that Israel, as a viable Jewish State, would recognise a viable Palestinian entity, as a peaceful neighbor.” That is very encouraging to hear.
“I hope you can accept my answer, as no Israeli hates Iran, and Israel was one of the few countries in the world supporting Iran in it’s war against Saddam.” Some of us remember and happen to be EXTREMELY
Finally, I would like to point out the significance of Obama’s recent statements.
Did no one notice that for the first time in the history of US-Israeli relations, a sitting President has not only swept aside the Israeli “ambiguity” over the possession of nuclear weapons, he has also EXPLICITLY said that Israel can have them, that Israel does NOT need to be put under the NPT, AND that Israel’s security is for itself to decide, meaning that Israel has the right to USE those nuclear weapons as it sees fit?
Does no one find this a remarkable statement – essentially freeing Israel to conduct a nuclear attack on Iran at any time it might choose?
At the very least, these statements make hash of Obama’s supposed insistence on including Israel in the UN statement on a nuclear free Middle East! Clearly Obama couldn’t care less about that! He explicitly has excused Israel from being involved in any such nuclear free zone!
What more do you want from Obama to make it clear that he is intent on taking down Iran and doing so at the behest of Israel?
Another point I might make is in response to those who say that Israel’s hostility to the Arab world is based on its “fear of persecution”.
This might apply to the average Israeli citizen, but it cannot be cited as the reason for the Israeli leadership’s behavior. The Israeli leadership knows perfectly well that Iran is no existential threat to Israel in any way. The only threat Iran is to Israel is that against Israel’s goals of dominating the region (and primarily in the narrow area of thwarting Israel’s designs on Lebanon via Hizballah.)
Therefore it is a mistake – or to use DWZ’s rant, “plays into the hands of Israel” – to excuse Israel’s behavior as merely a case of “fanaticism” or “fear”. The behavior of the Israeli state is specific and purposeful and has been stated by all of its leaders for decades back to and before 1947. There is no “fear” involved. Israel knows it has the mightiest military in the region and the backing of the suborned United States. It’s goals are imperialistic, colonialist, racist and terrorist.
Do not make the mistake of excusing Israel’s leaders or confusing them with the ignorant Israeli population.
Mr. Brill: Your point on the implications of the packing around the smuggled weapons and the fact that one would expect an Iranian shipment to NOT be shipped so clearly marked as Iranian are no doubt valid points.
However, that leaves one the question of where did the weapons originate? We can point to certain well known smugglers such as Victor Bout who have the wherewithal to mount an operation of that size.
Nonetheless, I think most people would agree that the persons with the most to gain from shipping weapons via Iran to Hizballah would be the Iranians themselves. This really isn’t open to serious debate. While I can hypothesize that someone wishing to divert blame from themselves to Iran might go to this extraordinary effort to mark everything with Iranian markings and Iranian products, Occam’s Razor I think makes an appearance here.
I don’t think Iran really cares that it got caught shipping weapons to Hizballah. Certainly no one in the Iranian intelligence community cares or the IRGC, whoever was the instigator of this particular shipment. Why should they? They’re already branded as “terrorist supporters” by the US, Israel and everybody else. Why not just ship the stuff directly? “If you have the Devil’s name, play the Devil’s game”. The direct benefit of arming Hizballah against Israel outweighs any opprobrium the Iranians might suffer if one of their vessels gets stopped. And we don’t know how many other vessels made it past the Israelis or Egyptian customs. It’s momentary news and the world moves on.
Iran denies these things because it is expected to. The fact that it plays into Israel’s hands by doing so is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. In the end, what matters is that Hizballah is armed to repel an Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
{If the Israelis indeed believed in raping Arab women, they would have done it to the Palestinians,}
YOU DON’T GET IT, DO YOU?
“Both U.S. and Israeli elites have always believed that the Arabs need to be kept subordinate. However, once the U.S. solidified its alliance with Israel after June 1967, it began to look at Israelis and Israelis projected themselves as experts on the “Arab mind.” Accordingly, the alliance with Israel has abetted the most truculent U.S. policies, Israelis believing that “Arabs only understand the language of force” and every few years this or that Arab country needs to be smashed up. The spectrum of U.S. policy differences might be narrow, but in terms of impact on the real lives of real people in the Arab world these differences are probably meaningful, the Israeli influence making things worse.” Norman Finkelstein
http://justice4lebanon.wordpress.com/2006/08/10/the-israel-lobby-us-foreign-policy-and-the-arab-mind/
{do you support a two state solution in return for peace and regional acceptance?}
This shows people still do not understand what is going on.
Israel is not interested in peace, period. Israel is using “peace process” to buy time to create MORE FACTS ON THE GROUND to steal all of Palestine and beyond. The Zionists are expansionis BEYOND PALESTINE, that is why they have made “security” of the “chosen people” a pretext to expand throught the region. Israel is lying when says, there is no partner. This is nothing but a lie. They are playing game with even Abbas , who is a zionist puppet.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_O5OuU90ru-Y/SWZWsA2fkGI/AAAAAAAAC3s/DWntXsM7viY/s1600-h/17mideast.600.jpg
Today, everyone, including Peres claims is for two state solutions, to buy time in order to steal ALL OF THE PALESTINE.
DUE TO EXPANSION OF ILLEGAL JEWISH SETTLEMENTS, ARE AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW,
TWO STATE SOLUTIONS does not EXIST anymore, therefore, THE ONLY SOLUTION available and feasible is ONE COUNTRY FOR ALL.
IF COLONISTS DO NOT LIKE IT, THEN THEY MUST GO BACK TO WHERE THEY HAVE COME FROM, the Black sea are.
Nasser,
I find you a patriotic Iranian who pains to see the mess Iran is in because of a corrupt, despotic clerical regime. I stand to be corrected, but that’s my impression.
Nasser, I don’t want to see starving Palestinians, or for that matter, starving people anywhere.
I was in Gaza working side by side with Palestinians. It was very interesting, when we all stopped working for prayers, each to his own higher authority.
Yes, even though I believe that the entire land belongs to the Jews, I also believe in peaceful coexistence, and compromises for a lasting and mutually prosperous future. So I would support a 2 state solution.
But Nasser, your question is too simplistic, and I have the feeling that you have wonderful knowledge of the Iranian domestic situation, but that your info about what is really happening in Israel and surrounding, comes not from personal knowledge but filtered through a blog such as this, which is wholly fantastic and unrealistic.
Without getting into detail, I can promise you, that Israel, as a viable Jewish State, would recognise a viable Palestinian entity, as a peaceful neighbor.
I am giving you my personal opinion, as I represent no one but myself.
I hope you can accept my answer, as no Israeli hates Iran, and Israel was one of the few countries in the world supporting Iran in it’s war against Saddam.
Dwz
What does US mistakes in Iraq has to do with Israel? If the Israelis indeed believed in raping Arab women, they would have done it to the Palestinians, right in their neighborhood, rather then setting up the US soldiers in Iraq to do it to the Iraqis, through a book they have published?
And if you claim that they are raping Palestinian women,convince the readers here by divulging your source?
“Would you turn the other cheek, if you would be violently attacked, and constantly threatened with being killed by a native band, who wants nothing less then kill or dispossess you?”
Tzvi, please don’t feed the trolls. But I have to ask, do you support a two state solution in return for peace and regional acceptance? Would you then stop characterizing those “native band” of starving homeless children forced to go through garbage heaps as “fat cats?”
Fiorangela,
Are you that feeble minded that a single “Zionist” can confound you? Have you heard the saying ” if you can’t take the heat, what are you doing in the kitchen”?
Would you turn the other cheek, if you would be violently attacked, and constantly threatened with being killed by a native band, who wants nothing less then kill or dispossess you?
No answer, right? Practicing a boycott, but to no avail, as if you use a cell phone, eat a commercially grown fruit and vegetable, purchasing a generic medicine, utilising solar or thermal energy, and many more items you use daily, you are paying to Israel royalties.
You are a Zionist supporter, regardless of what you do.
“The notion that Arabs are particularly vulnerable to sexual humiliation became a talking point among pro-war Washington conservatives in the months before the March, 2003, invasion of Iraq. One book that was frequently cited was ‘The Arab Mind,’ a study of Arab culture and psychology, first published in 1973, by Raphael Patai … The book includes a 25-page chapter on Arabs and sex, depicting sex as a taboo vested with shame and repression … The Patai book, an academic told me, was ‘the bible of the neocons on Arab behavior.’”
– Seymour M. Hersh, the New Yorker, May 24.
http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2004/06/08/arab_mind/print.html
Fiorangela,
First you completely misunderstand and/or misrepresent my arguments , and then you threaten to ignore them completely.
But I will not ignore you, and will present easily verifiable facts of your and friends illogical opinions, if and when they are presented.
I have replied to most of your facts, but I guess the neutral reader will have no opportunity to read your well thought out reply.
What a pity. but you are pretty good at name calling
Pak: (broke the rule exceptionally)
آخه بدبخت من به چیه تو حسودییم بشه؟
I have reached, on the basis of available options, beyond ,everyone’ as well as my own, expectations, educational, personal, mental…levels and many more to come. though, I have to confess that only if you were the president of a great country like Iran, I would have been jealous of you and your position. that’s the only great position that you can proclaim that I am really jealous of you.
بقول اون آخونده تو فیلم “مارمولک”: برو حالتو بکن، من اصلا به تو فکر نمی کنم، تو چرا فکر می کنی که برام مهمی؟
Nasser:
that guy is not even worth to be mentioned here. his eyes tell everything!
Fyi,
What is your point? Can you refresh my memory about my “insincerity”? That after the way the Jews are and were treated by their hosts over the centuries, they earned the right not to trust the good intentions of their neighbors, and that they deserve their own Jewish state?
Have you heard of Islamic republics and official Catholic states? And they were not threatened with genocide day in and day out, because of their religious affiliation.
I say religious affiliation, because over 50% of Israels’ Jewish population, never left the Middle East, but they are also denied their right for Israel, not only European Jews.
جمهوری اسلامی رو که با سیاستهای کوته بینانه اش اینها رو به نون و نوایی رسونده.}
جمهوری اسلامی نیست که این خود فروشان را به نون و نوایی رسانده بلکه غرب جنایتکار به رهبری صهیونیسم بچه کش است
که با دادن جوایز قلابی ، منابع مالی زیادی به جیب این عاملین ریخته و باعث تشویق خودفروشان به همکاری با صهیونیسم می
شوند. این جاسوسان هم با گرفتن دلار و یورو با دشمنان همکاری می کنند.
عاملین روزانه با بیانیه های خود از هر حرکت دولت ایران بمنظور گرم نگهداشتن پروپاگاندای غرب جهت تیره کردن اذهان مردم نادان و جاهل انتقاد می کنند ولی هنوز یک بیانیه علیه کشتار وسیع مردم عراق ، افغانستان ، سومالی ، یمن ، پاکستان،
فلسطین ، لبنان ، و دیگر کشورها ننوشته اند. ایرانیان باید تا بحال متوجه شده باشند که “حقوق بشر” غرب چیزی جز دروغ
دروغ و باز هم دروغ نیست و فقط برای بزیر کشیدن دشمن این مزخرفات را سر می دهند. دشمنان اگر به حقوق بشر ارج می نهادند اول در کشور خود پیاده می کردند. در عرض چند سال اخیر چهره خبیث “حکومت جهانی ” صهیونیسم که همان “قفس آهنین ” است بیش از پیش عیان شده است.
شیادانی که دم از حقو ق بشر می زنند ولی با دول سلطه گر ، نژادپرست ، جنایتکار، تروریست ، دزد اقتصادی همراه می شوند و جوایز پانصد هزار دلاری ، یک ملیون دلاری ، 300 هزار دلاری و 2 میلیون و نیم دلاری می گیرند ولی هیچ یک از تحریم های
اقتصادی که به فقر مردم مظلوم ایران منتهی می شود اشاره ای ندارند و آن را علیه حقوق بشر مردم ایران نمی بینند چیزی جز شیاد ، عامل و خائن از نظر مردم ایران نیستند.
fyi, I agree, tzvi is exploiting this forum. I suspect he/she is a student in some Israel activism organization who is practicing tactics to confound us weak-minded Americans. It’s amusing in a way that they go to all that effort: all Bibi has to do is say, Give me Money, and Obama says how much? For further amusement, I wait with eager anticipation ;) the full disclosure of how Israel has generously created America’s prosperity.
Repeated exposure to such operatives reveals certain patterns of thought that are very troubling; specifically, the underlying conviction that the relationship between Iran and the US must be one of enmity and hate. One wonders where that comes from, and what strategic value the originators of that doctrine think it has, and how sick a society must be to teach its young people to approach the world by seeking to spread hatred.
Maimonedes said, “I seek no victory; the honor of my soul and character consists in deviating from the paths of fools, not in conquering them.”
Accordingly, tzvi is on my ‘ignore’ list.
Nasser,
I clicked on your photo, and saw children in Gaza? collecting recyclables from the garbage dump. This kind of reality is occurring probably in 90% of world population, but are you sure it’s Israel’s fault?
I could blame many other, more significant factors for the present Situation of the
Palestinians, and the primary factor wouldn’t be Israel.
Europeans and the US practically tripping over each other with providing assistance of all kind to the Pals, unfortunately for them, for the longest time there was no proper Palestinian financial accountability.
Nasser,
Would you say that -with nuclear devices in their arsenal- Iran will still be a non-threat to it’s Arab and Muslim neighbors? Is that’s what you are saying? Even if you say this, which I doubt, would you think that the Americans also think that? Am sure not- I think they expect the worst ,if Iran will nuclearize.
I don’t necessarily claim that a war is imminent, as maybe there is a resignation to the Iranian nuclear reality, and people in the region and the world will just to have to learn to live with it.
I wonder, how leaders who rape, hang, stone and torture their own, will respect their neighbors, once they have an atomic bomb in their possession.
I don’t think the wait will be too long.
Eric, (re Iranian arm shipment)
I remember in 2001? Israelis seized a (Palestinian?) ship allegedly carrying arms for Palestinians. I remember vividly a picture of Ariel Sharon sitting in front of the arms cash. The claim was that (all?) of the weapons were manufactured in Iran and were destined .to equip the terrorists
Soon Iran denied that charge and informed UN? and Western powers? it is willing to fully cooperate with international community to find and punish those who were trying to smuggle Iranian armaments.
As far as I remember, after the Iranian declaration, the issue faded away. I don’t remember reading anything countering the Iranian claims of lacking any knowledge of the whole issue..
Persian Gulf,
“…only “political opportunists” and “charlatans” can abuse a noble notion such as human rights, with the mentioned capacity, to promote their political agenda and deceive a segment of a society.”
I’m guessing you are referring to someone like this fucker right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alireza_Jafarzadeh. In that case I happen to agree with you. That doesn’t mean however that anyone speaking out against the crimes of the Islamic Republic happens to be an opportunist or a charlatan.
Pirouz,
Please see the Iranian article I quoted at my post of today, 8;17 PM, and go argue with the Iranian authors, about the cynical disposable use mentality of their leadership towards Hezbollah, to be used up as an Iranian strategic asset.
Unfortunately, presently, I am not so good and cut&paste technology, so that I will have to approximate the points to which I will reply to.
Claim-U.S doesn’t need ME oil? So why do they arm the Saudis and the Emirates to the teeth? So that they will protect Israel,or due to their important oil resources. Why does the US keeps military bases there and in the golf? I guess all this for Israels’ protection. And I thought -based on your leftist and Islamist propaganda -that the US entered Iraq to steal their oil resources? I guess you have changed your mind since-now they attacked Iraq to protect their Zionist masters – but the US have enough oil.
Israel has very little by way of resources- you are wrong again, and I already refuted this.
Israels’ belligerence to its’ neighbors- only to those who are in a state of war with her, and only when they start hostilities first. you expect them so be sitting ducks for murderous attacks? You are an American- and although the Jews have a claim to the land, unlike you to yours-would you tolerate an Indian native band lobbing rockets, or homicide bomb your? You probably find a good reason for him to do so, and turn the other cheek,right?
Israels’ pariah status-Jewish people are used to this, except that prior to their return to their home land, they deluded themselves that once they are again a nation, it’s all going to be different. But it doesn’t look like it, and I hope they will finally realize, that REGARDLESS OF THEIR SACREFICES, humanness, democracy in face of extreme provocations- they are singled out for censure, and they will stop to bend backward to placate their unceasing detractors and will regain their back bone.
With a group of 50+ Islamic states in the UN, and an army of coward journalist who will protect their skin by selling the truth, and crucifying Israel which will cost them nothing-while writing the truth about radical Islam, may cost them their lives, no longer Israel is a PR disaster,
But I believe in the truth-A ray of light, truth has in it’s power to conquer a lot of lies- darkness.
It was not you, but Rehmat who blamed Israel with 9/11, but no one called him on his hallucinations,which is very common in the Muslim world-or maybe no one read his idiocy?
I have no doubt for “the intellectual capacity” of Iranian human rights activists abroad. only “political opportunists” and “charlatans” can abuse a noble notion such as human rights, with the mentioned capacity, to promote their political agenda and deceive a segment of a society.
من فقط موندم این روشنفکرها کی هستند و چی تولید کردند که بهش گفت محصول روشنفکری .نوری زاده؟ نوری علا؟دباشی؟ بهنود؟ گنجی؟ میلانی؟ عبادی؟ هوشنگ اسدی؟الاهه بقراط؟ بابک داد!؟….یک مشت اح×× که خدا خیر بده جمهوری اسلامی رو که با سیاستهای کوته بینانه اش اینها رو به نون و نوایی رسونده.اینها خودشون نیاز به روشن شدن دارند چه رسد به اینکه بخواهند ملتی رو روشن کنند.
James Canning,
Thanks for your note. I sincerely and eagerly welcome any criticism of my amateurish opinions.
On the basis of what is already published in the western media I am also very suspicious of the Israeli tactics to use the issue of Iran for muddying other waters such as their occupations etc, yet I firmly believe “Iran” is on top of their list of worrisome enemies.
Of course no one can be sure of a definite occurrence of war with Iran or its inevitablity.
I said there is a “slim chance” to stop the war. My reasoning for “slimness” is based on the itemized analysis of real threat of Iran to Israel plus the history of Israel’s relentless, effective and successful efforts to eliminate any source of threat to their existence.
I have been saying it for quite some time that if Iran abandons enrichment today, the next day its adversaries would come up with a new excuse to demonize, de-stabilize, crash the regime, fragment it…. or pave the paths for defanging it (defanging is the word used by an Israeli professor in a Huffington Post article. The use of that word illustrates the degree and depth of their antagonism).
When I was writing that comment I must have been thinking about (from Likudnik’s point of view) the favorable situation of Netenyahu, Sarkosi, Merkel and perhaps Medvedev, Obama and conservative Britts being in high offices. (As well as a VERY sympathetic Congress and Senate in USA). In my view all those vectors point in the direction Likudniks must have planned ie repeating the Iraqi scenario in Iran converting the country to an “irrecoverable ruin” or at least setting it back for decades.
Thus I just can’t dismiss the magnitude and totality of such alarming and persistent force as long as there is no drastic change in the present power structure.
I didn’t mean saying the war will happen soon, in a months or in a year or two. I should’ve said “as long as the present contributory forces in Israel or the West are active in earnest, there is a very slim chance to stop the war with Iran”
Fiorangela,
Before you go any further with your assumptions of what I said, why don’t you ask?As far as homicide bombing-I was referring to militant Islam at large.It’s amusing to see how everyone is jumping-like marionettes on a string, when they think they have a claim to discredit some one-based again on assumptions. When will you -lynch mob- grow up?
I will advance my well supported points as soon as I have time to read some of your ideas.
The hasbara commenter writes:
“If Iran will be seriously threatened, it will probably be happy to fight to the last Lebanese.”
Please refrain from this sort of lazy agitprop. If you believe that Iran’s defense (or deterrence) involves allied forces inside Lebanon, state so with supporting evidence. Otherwise you’re merely “dog paddling” in place of a serious discussion on the matter, for which the topic remains “Who will be blamed for a U.S. attack on Iran?”
Tzvi,
“Please read my source on my posting of today 8:17 PM, regarding Iran’s’ role with Pals, Hezbollah.”
I’m focusing here on the Francorp, Tzvi. I hope you will too.
Let me help you on this first point:
1. Transshipped cargo is usually (though not always) inspected only at the origin and destination, not at interim points where it is transferred from one ship to another. So it was not unusual for Egypt’s customs officials in Damietta to “wave it through” without inspection. The inspection responsibilities for this shipment fell principally on customs officials in Iran and Syria.
Iran and Syria – no wonder Israel was suspicious, eh?
But Egypt apparently was not suspicious, or else it just doesn’t care much about Israel. Egypt is a sovereign country, of course, and could, if it chose, insist on inspecting transshipped cargo that originated in Iran – especially cargo on its way to Syria. Obviously Egypt does not do this – or at least it didn’t with the Francop. Nonetheless, the Israeli government made a point of saying, quite emphatically, that the Egyptian government bore no responsibility whatsoever for the Francop weapons shipment. Are you surprised that Israel would say this about Egypt’s behavior – emphatically, to boot? I am, I’ll confess.
Perhaps, though, the Israeli government has pressed the Egyptian government on this but Egypt has simply refused to cooperate. But would that not mean that the Egyptian government is a “facilitator” of Hezbollah weapons purchases – just like the Iranian government? I can’t help thinking either (1) that the Israeli government has been remiss, if it has not pressed the Egyptian government to inspect transshipped cargo originating in Iran and destined for Syria; or (2) if the Israeli government has tried but the Egyptian government refuses to cooperate, that the Israeli government is being awfully nice to the Egyptian government to absolve it of all responsibility for the Francop incident.
What do you think?
No help for you on the next one:
2. Let’s suppose the Iranian government indeed was a “facilitator” of Hezbollah weapons purchases in the Francop incident. If so, it would appear that the Iranian government accomplished its “facilitating” by having its customs officials turn a blind eye to the contents of the 36 weapons containers. It’s also fair to presume that the shipper of those 36 containers knew in advance that this “wave through” would occur. Otherwise, the shipper would have been taking a very expensive risk with 36 containers full of valuable weapons.
The Israeli government insists that the bags of polypropylene pellets surrounding the weapons crates inside the containers were placed there to camouflage the contents of the container.
So here is my question:
If the Iranian customs official planned to “wave through” the 36 weapons-filled containers, and the shipper knew this, why would the shipper have bothered to camouflage the contents of the containers? Why would it not just fill them up with more weapons, or ship the same amount of weapons in fewer containers?
I can’t help thinking that maybe the Israeli government was right about this: the shipper indeed was trying to camouflage the weapons packed inside the containers – trying to hide them from the Iranian customs officials at the port of origin, probably trying to hide them as well from the Syrian customs officials at the destination.
But then I think: If the Israeli government was right, doesn’t this mean that the Iranian customs officials – the Iranian government – were not “facilitators” of Hezbollah weapons purchases after all?
What do you think?
Fiorangela:
You are wasting your time with Tzvi Gross; he is insincere as he freely admitted when I asked him that a few days ago.
Also, as an American, you are too naive/honest/un-cunning/guileless to deal effectively with people like him.
In regards to the Iranian support for Lebanon’s Shia – this is a relationship that goes back 500 years. Neither Israel, nor US, nor anyone else can tell Iran and the Iranian whom to support. These are ties of religion and blood.
In 2006, there was a security conference in HERZLIYA, Israel – HQ of Mossad.
Sir Michael Quinlan, the former top official at Britain’s Ministry of Defense, was spelling out the terms and procedures that would almost certainly be required — short of military action — to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. There was none.
And the military option required US to be able to assemble a coalition such as Mr. Bush assembled against Iraq in 1991.
There is no diplomatic and military solution (if you like that word). I am not saying there will be no war but that possible war will not prevent Iran from building nuclear bombs if her leaders so decide. Nor will it diminish her influence and power among many Shia of the Middle East. All they need to do is to survive.
Dear Pak,
I find it really quite rich that PressTV is running this story:
http://presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=134644§ionid=351020401 Hahahahaha the irony.
Dear Tzvi,
You write: “Bravo for showing this “enlightened” “Europeans” whom are they foolishly supporting. They have a bleeding heart for the “fat cat” Palestinians , but nothing left for the long suffering people of Iran, who want no part in the Mullahs adventurism.”
I think you misstate my position. I don’t support European interference in Iranian affairs; I don’t support their sanctions and I certainly don’t want them to militarily attack innocent civilians.
You write that no one wants any part of the Mullah regime but I’m afraid there are many that do. There are many that profit from the current system and want to ensure its continuation. There are many lower class Iranians and Basijis that want to force their way of life on to other Iranians. And there are many (like some on this site) that are so extremely arrogant and stubborn that they reject there’s anything to learn from western methods of governance and they thus insist on an “Iranian model” and continue on this path of madness. I cannot speak for Pak, but I was condemning those Iranians that are apologists for the Islamic regime and have the audacity to characterize a government that stones women to death as some form of “liberal democracy.” My beef was with those Iranians, not with the Europeans or Americans.
Lastly, I find your characterization of these children as “fat cats” to be quite offensive: http://www.uruknet.info/pic.php?f=12gaza-children-.jpg
It’s so funny!!
It’s not kosher for Tehran to help fellow Palestinian or Lebanese or Bosnian Muslims. However, it’s 101% kosher for the West, which expelled Jews from almost every country, to provide USAID$3,000 billion since 1970s.
Wait a minute….. Muslims are more ‘anti-Semite’ than the Christians or the Jews, right!
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/who-are-anti-semites-muslims-or-judeo-christians/
Eric A. Brill,
You wrote: “With all due respect to Amiri (emphasis on “due”), he sounds as if he may have a few screws loose. I don’t think anyone would be wise to bank much on his credibility.”
I am not much of a conspiracy theorist and don’t believe all the hoopla regarding this case, as, much of it is spin from both sides. But this much is clear that some claims from the Iranian side are consistent with what may have happened. For example when he disappeared, it was reported as kidnapping in SA. When he re-appeared in the US, the question is how did he get here? Some YouTube commentary speaks to the matter.
On another matter: here is study done recently that shows, people when presented with facts, will not necessarily change their mind, but believe in the falsehood even more strongly as before they were presented with the facts. So, save it with tzvi gross, she will believe that Israel is as angelic as they come (it’s called cognitive dissonance).
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/
tzvi gross: I gather you are Israeli, yes?
You made some claims that are pretty wild:
Are you saying Iranians perpetrated 9/11? Really? If that’s the case, then why aren’t the Jewish owners of the buildings suing Iran? In the Jonathan Cool video linked earlier, Cook explained that Israel has created significant revenue streams from holocaust-related lawsuits targeting European states; Norman Finkelstein wrote about the holocaust INDUSTRY as exactly that — a way for Israel to create revenue. Why wouldn’t Israel as well as the US sue Iran if there was a solid case that Iran was involved in 9/11?
tzvi wrote: “who call the US the Great Satan, who took the US hostages in Tehran,”
That would be Iran.
Your point?
tzvi wrote: “who are the people who homicide bomb any one who don’t agree with their world philosophy.
One doesn’t have to be a political scientist to know that.”
One may not need to be a political scientist but one must be a rational critical thinker. Can you supply evidence to support the claim that Iran “homicide bombs anyone who doesn’t agree with their world philosophy?”
The instances that I am aware of that are usually lodged against Iran are that Iran was involved in the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983; Iran was involved in the bombing of a Jewish community center in South America; Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah. Saddam Hussein, from IraQ, not IraN, was accused of paying the families of suicide bombers. Note: IraQ, not IraN.
The Marine barracks bombing was the act of newly-formed Hezbollah. Hezbollah formed in retaliation for the Falangist massacres at Sabra and Shatilla, an act monitored and protected by Ariel Sharon. Iran was accused, tried, convicted, and heavily fined for that act; Iranian property was confiscated to satisfy those claims.
Iran was also taken to court regarding the bombing of the Jewish community center, in a legal proceeding marked with conflict of interest, political influence, tainted evidence, and general disregard for standard legal safeguards. Such a tainted legal process erodes respect for the rule of law.
re the claim that Iran supports Hamas — Shireen Hunter made an important point in her talk at New America Foundation a fortnight ago: the day after the elections in Gaza, Khaleed Meshaal traveled to Riyadh — not Tehran — to thank his sponsors.
re the claim that Iran supports Hezbollah — Iran’s IRGC provided initial training for Hezbollah, over 25 years ago. Iran also supplied Lebanon with medical facilities, hospitals, doctors, and other civilian support after Israel pounded Lebanon in 1982 and again in 2006. Augustus Richard Norton has watched Hezbollah change and grow; he argues that Hezbollah has evolved to become a mainstream part of Lebanese society.
tzvi wrote: “I am still amazed that in spite of the torrent of anti-Israeli vilification and propaganda in main line and obscure media outlets, that there are still people support the only country with human rights-and no DEATH sentence- Israel.”
‘THE ONLY COUNTRY WITH HUMAN RIGHTS.’ On the ENTIRE PLANET, I presume? And for ALL persons living in Israel, including Arab Israelis, Palestinians, Mizrahi Jews, Bedouin, or only Ashkenazi Jews?
‘NO DEATH SENTENCE’ A habit of assassinating leaders of other people whom Israel does not deem worthy of having been elected by those other people, and of killing innocent civilians who get in the way of Israel’s land grab, but if you say ISRAEL HAS NO DEATH SENTENCE, well, that’s terrific; maybe people will flock to live in Israel, the land of no death sentence. I hear it’s a great place to establish a second home; better if you have a second passport.
tzvi wrote: “I know that for some people any defence of Israel is an anathema, but I usually being encountered by rabid racist opinions- devoid of proven facts.
I actually heard an Iranian here loud and clear about what a bunch of nuts running the Iranian regime. Falsifying Doctorates?”
I’d run this through an on-line translator but I don’t know the original language.
Dear Tzvi, regarding an attack on Iran:
First, I think you grossly overstate the threat from Iran to the Arab oil fields. Iran’s military doesn’t have much force projection capability to try and occupy the Arab oil fields; they don’t even have an air force. Furthermore, there is a large US military presence in all of the Gulf Arab countries and let us not forget that the Iranians had a ring side view of Saddam’s “Mother of all wars” to dissuade them from any adventurism.
Second, I don’t think anyone would rush into attacking Iran without a major provocation because there are a lot of unknowns and a lot of risks associated with such an attack. Iran’s most potent and well publicized counter to such an attack is to try and disrupt energy supplies including attempts to block the Straits of Hormuz. I don’t think the US and the Europeans would risk a major disruption in energy supplies at this critical juncture of their economic recovery. As for the Israelis, maybe they fear that an attack on Iranian nuclear sites might draw a retaliation on Dimona.
There are also other reasons to hold off on an attack on Iran. Maybe the Americans and the Israelis aren’t sure of the quality of their intelligence. There is no way intelligence sources can be sure that they know of all of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Some facilities could be hidden and not known to the outside world and thus would avoid destruction in the event of an air strike. There is also the possibility that the Iranians haven’t actually decided to get a bomb and an attack would convince them of their need to do so.
One more thing, Iran has had a nuclear program since the 50s. They have had some form of assistance from Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, all of whom have been successful in their weapons program. I say if Iran doesn’t have some form of capability by now, they must be so incompetent that they never will.
As pertaining to this article, I thought Netanyahu and Dick Cheney before him were suggesting that Iran needs to be convinced of an impending attack in order for the “stick option” to be credible. They thought that way Iran would be more compliant when negotiating but I don’t think they actually thought a strike was unavoidable.
Fiorangela,
Many portions of your article are only a misguided opinions-not facts, and I will refute them later, as i got to go now.
Eric,
Please read my source on my posting of today 8:17 PM, regarding Iran’s’ role with Pals,Hezbollah.
Fiorangela,
The same time Iran had friendly relations with the US,it was a friend of Israel as well. It has all changed towards both friends for the same reason – the ascend of the Islamic regime.
You claim that Israel is devoid of natural resources. you are again wrong. Your #1 natural resource is your brain power, and #2, maybe fossil resources, both of which Israel has plenty off-Actually Israel may become a net Gas exporter.
I can prove to you, that the American people are owing great deal of their prosperity to Israeli science, in any case, their return on their investment in Israel is positive in economic terms, unlike their investments with the Pals,but this for another time.
http://www.payvand.com/news/10/jul/1102.html
Here is an Iranian article about the cynical role Tehran plays in the Palestinian, Israel, Hezbollah conflict, and their investment and control of their agenda, that’s Hizballah’s’ and Hamas’.
As far as security of US oil supplies-I was not referring to the Iranian Oil supplies, but to the entire ME oil supplies- which the US may like to safeguard from a potentially dangerous Radical Islamic entity of Iran, who may wish to bring the great Satan to his knees, once it has a sufficient number of nuclear devices, by bullying it’s Arab and Islamic neighbors and controlling the passage of oil supplies through the gulf.
Tzvi,
“You did make me reconsider that maybe Iran is not always the direct supplier, but the facilitator of Hezbollah’ armaments.”
And how, exactly, do you believe the Iranian government “facilitated” that shipment?
If the shipper had instead used a non-Iranian shipping line for the first leg of the journey (Iran-Egypt), and that non-Iranian shipping line neglected (as IRISL neglected) to take a peek inside those containers before loading them on board, would you consider that non-Iranian shipping line’s owner (and its government) to be “facilitators” of Hezbollah weapons purchases? Do you consider the Francop’s owner (German) or operator (Cypriot) to be a “facilitator” of Hezbollah weapons purchases because neither of them examined the very same containers when they were loaded onto the Francop in Damietta, Egypt? The Israeli government made a point of saying that it didn’t think so – do you disagree?
Do you think the Egyptian customs officials should have taken a peek inside the containers when they were loaded onto the Francop in Damietta? They didn’t. Would you classify the Egyptian government as a “facilitator” too? The Israeli government made a point of saying that it didn’t think so – do you disagree?
These are tough questions, Tzvi, but I’m confident you won’t duck them.
tzvi gross, The US is not at all dependent on Iran for oil supplies to fuel its economy.
In addition to the massive oil field in the Gulf of Mexico, which will soon be capped, and, after some kubuki court cases, will be back in business pumping oil into the US economy with a year, the US has petroleum resources all over the continent.
The governor of Utah was interviewed recently; the four state region comprising Utah, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado have massive supplies of natural gas as well as oil shale; Pennsylvania/Ohio/West Virginia also have a major oil shale resource in the Marcellus Shale, that is being rapidly developed (bear in mind that Pennsylvania is the home of the first oil find on the continent). Canada is processing oil from tar sands; the same geology as Canada’s tar sands region runs into the US; US has very friendly relations with Canada and will likely share technology to develop tar sands. Texas/Arkansas also have significant oil shale resources. In short, the US will not run out of oil or ways to develop it any time soon. Americans are also a Can Do people: we like to grab hold of a problem and find a solution, whether technological or economic; Yankee Ingenuity will eventually emerge from some creative young person’s garage or laboratory.
That’s just the oil/gas resource.
The US continent has more coal than any other place on earth. Coal can be used to produce electricity and power America’s cities and towns from now until my grandchildren are too old to worry about it.
Your major premise is not true; your argument fails.
The US has abundant petroleum resources, tzvi; we don’t need Iran’s oil and the US does not oppress Iran because the **US** needs something from Iran: US oppresses Iran because US has become locked in a praying mantis embrace as with Israel, which desperately needs to maintain nuclear hegemony over the ME in order to sustain its economic survival: Israel has very little by way of resources and is dependent on others for its economic survival, a major drawback for a state that nasty to most of its neighbors and has descended to pariah status due mainly to the extremely belligerent and unhealthy ideology inculcated in young Israelis by its education system.
Before Israel gained a disproportionate share of influence over US relations, US and Iran had very friendly relations; even in my lifetime I recall that our universities were filled with Iranian students, who contributed a great deal to the academy. US and Iran have a great deal in common, as Stephen Kinzer has pointed out in “Reset: Iran, Turkey, and the US Future,” and, if the gods are kind and keyboard warriors such as some on this forum can continue to push back against anti-Iran propaganda, US and Iran can once again enjoy friendly relations: mutually assured cooperation.
Nasser
Are sure that these people who were hanged in the linked picture you posted are scientists, if you can confirm I appreciate it. By the way have you dog in to stem cell research in Iran lately, I heard that contrary to US before O that is being blasphemously allowed there, you may want to check in to that.
Cheers
Tzvi,
“It appeared in the media, that US navy ships with Isreali and French naval vessels sailed through the Suez Canal towards the Persian Gulf. I am just thinking that the US is holding back from unilateral action in order to cobble some kind of coalition together, but I may be wrong…”
Indeed, you may be.
“… and that’s why I commented that it’s an opinion only.”
You were wise to have made this clear.
Tvi suggests that the US needs to control Iran’s gas and oil for its own self-interest, and posits this as the real reason for a proposed American bombing of Iran.
However, the US does not actually need Iranian gas and oil, what it does need is a much larger investment in true renewables. Germany will have half of its electrical needs met by renewables by 2050, Spain has just built the world’s largest solar energy plant.
The US focus on interminable wars fought on the basis of an oil economy is retarding a stronger, saner evolution of American society. The investment money for a stronger America is squandered in useless and unproductive foreign occupations.
Who is defining American foreign policy? On the basis of what priorities? Certainly not on the welfare of the American people.
tzvi gross
“The only way to convince me and /or anyone else who reading this exchange is logically and factually prove my hypothesis- that the US can’t afford placing the security of it’s oil supply into Iranian hands- wrong.”
There is one other way that I myself have been practicing here in SC for last 31 years it is called fair trade practices, it sure works, this is how it works in exchange for your goods and services you get fair amount of goods and services without trying to cheat or bully the supplier, and in order to make the exchange balanced there is a medium used, which is called currency, this kind of trade practices usually eliminates the need for client states and expensive military bases.
James,
While the Americans may be ignorant about many things, they know-unlike this blog, as no one protested- who the 9/11 perpetrators were, who call the US the Great Satan, who took the US hostages in Tehran,who are the people who homicide bomb any one who don’t agree with their world philosophy.
One doesn’t have to be a political scientist to know that.
I am still amazed that in spite of the torrent of anti-Israeli vilification and propaganda in main line and obscure media outlets, that there are still people support the only country with human rights-and no DEATH sentence- Israel.
I know that for some people any defence of Israel is an anathema, but I usually being encountered by rabid racist opinions- devoid of proven facts.
I actually heard an Iranian here loud and clear about what a bunch of nuts running the Iranian regime. Falsifying Doctorates?
I very much doubt any European country would be foolish enough to join the US in an insane attack on Iran. The German general who is Petraeus’ superior, in the Allied Joint Force Command, says Afghanistan cannot be stabilised without help from Iran (and the other neighboring countries).
Tzvi Gross,
The Iranian government accepts that Hezbollah will make its decisions according to what seems to suit their interests in Lebanon best, not on what is desired necessarily in Tehran.
Eric,
It appeared in the media, that US navy ships with Isreali and French naval vessels sailed through the Suez Canal towards the Persian golf.
I am just thinking that the US is holding back from unilateral action in order to cobble some kind of coalition together, but I may be wrong, and that’s why I commented that it’s an opinion only.
Dear Kooshy,
Why did you leave out the rest of the sentence? I was hoping you could also address the other part of my question, the part about academic freedom. I was arguing that a necessary ingredient for making scientific progress and coming up with new discoveries is the right to blaspheme, the right to challenge conventional thoughts. But doing so in Iran would make you end up like this: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/2008/07/26/public_hangings_iran.jpg. So you see, why I’m not very optimistic about Iran’s scientific development.
Anyone doubting that Americans are remarkably ignorant about the world around them, and the Middle East in particular, should go to the link Fiorangela provided (to Johnathan Cook) and click on the story at right side-bar: “The Americans Who Support ISrael & US Weapons. . .” Questioned on the street, typical Americans could not say what the main religion in Israel was. One guesses Muslim, another Catholic!
Eric,
You did make me reconsider that maybe Iran is not always the direct supplier, but the facilitator of Hezbollah’ armaments.I actually left the source of an article appeared in Haaretz at the previous thread to that effect.
If Iran will be seriously threatened, it will probably be happy to fight to the last Lebanese.
Tzvi,
“By the way, I don’t believe for a moment, that if there will be an anti Iranian strike, it will include the US only, but I think many European nations will also participate-but this is only an opinion.”
Interesting opinion, Tzvi. Who might those “many European nations” be?
Fiorangela,
You still gave no answer to the logical proposition; that even with the absence of Israel the US can’t tolerate a nuclear radical Islamic Iran threatening the US oil supplies, and that the US has to act out of self interest, for the sake of it’s fossil fuel based economy.
Just by calling me names-you have done it before on another article and run away, without bothering to give a logically coherent response- my logical proposition will not go away.
As far as Jonathan Cook, forgive me for not wasting time on quotes of other biased opinions. you guys can feed on each others’ foolish propositions.
The only way to convince me and /or any one else who reading this exchange is logically and factually prove my hypothesis- that the US can’t afford placing the security of it’s oil supply into Iranian hands- wrong.
If you can’t logically disprove this, then not only the entire premise of this article, and the entire anti-Israel corus here is a waste of time, but it would be Israel who is taken advantage of by the US, if they will be pulled into an active participation in a punitive US action.
By the way, I don’t believe for a moment, that if there will be an anti Iranian strike, it will include the US only, but I think many European nations will also participate-but this is only an opinion.
Tzvi Gross,
Given that the CIA has no intelligence that the Iranian government is seeking to build nukes, what is the basis of your claim this in fact is what is going on?
Tzvi,
Any comments on my analysis of the Francop incident?
Eric
tzvi gross,
in the Catholic Church, there’s a book of weekly sermons that are distributed to parish priests — talking points for them to use in their Sunday sermons. One can go to three different churches and hear a sermon on the same topic — delivered with different emphases, perhaps, but from a similar point of view.
Your comment is so much like a comment on several other blogs that one has to suspect there’s a bulletin that goes out from Hasbara Central: Uh oh, folks; there are arguments out there that are saying it’s not a good idea for Israel to stir up trouble in Iran; might cause blowback. Here’s how to counter it….”
Explain to me how Iran would be blamed for an attack on Iran.
Oh, and the answer to your question: The photo is of Obama and Netanyahu. Netanyahu is an insane ideologue; Obama lacks the courage to tell him so.
btw, very interesting video of Jonathan Cook explaining some realities of Israel’s desperate need to retain nuclear hegemony: here
It’s not merely nuclear exclusivity that gives Israel the ability to do whatever it wants with conventional weapons in the region; it’s even more the concatenations of the collapse of Israel’s nuclear dominance: cut to the chase: Israel is reduced in status to that of Jordan or less; wealthy Jews will not see any advantage to investing in Israel, US being preferable (according to J. Cook).
Nasser
“How exactly does Iran intend to make scientific progress when they’re suffering from such a massive brain drain”
If by any chance you have fallowed the very recent news, you would have known that soon if “Transit Visas” become “possible”, they will be getting back at least one their “Drained Brain” scientist
“Who will be blamed for a US attack on Iran”?
Of course, IRAN, unless you are poisoned by conspiracy theories-One even claiming here that Israel was the source of the 9/11 attack on the US.
Even if Israel would haven’t existed, the US couldn’t have tolerated a radical Islamist regime with nuclear bombs, dominating it’s source of life- oil, thus
the US has enough reasons to be concerned, and potentially act to curtail the nuclear ambitions of the criminal theocratic gang of Tehran.
But as usual in this blog-let blame Israel for all the ills on the planet-proof? The question in the title, and whose photo is underneath?
10 points if you guess it right.
Nasser and Pak,
Bravo for showing this “enlightened” “Europeans” whom are they foolishly supporting. They have a bleeding heart for the “fat cat” Palestinians , but nothing left for the long suffering people of Iran, who want no part in the Mullahs adventurism.
Dear Pak,
“Daneshjoo has stated that he intends to remove university professors and students who do not have a proven commitment to Islam and the Velayat-e faqih.”
How exactly does Iran intend to make scientific progress when they’re suffering from such a massive brain drain, has no academic freedom whatsoever, and scientists might get murdered for thinking the wrong way? At least the Soviets were good at espionage and stealing German scientists. The only thing Iranian intelligence seems to be good at is torturing and raping young people, disgusting the international community and provoking the wrath of nuclear armed countries like Israel and America. Im sure Pirouz would jump up and cite the satellite launch to counter my argument. I will respond by saying that that couldn’t have been achieved without foreign assistance and despite Iran having a nuclear program since the 50s they still haven’t managed to catch up to North Korea!
Pak
The most ironic of all: Kamran ‘Daneshjoo’
Pak aziz-e-del, how are you,
What about green’s beloved Zahra Rahnavard the Times magazine’s declared top 100 world thinkers of this American century, who is been “Endured in America” among friends
fyi,
Yes, I agree completely. Shameful is the right word, for utter failure to act in best interests of the people of the US (even if they are too ignorant, lazy and/or stupid to do something about it).
When Robert McNamara helped to persuade Lyndon Johnson to expand the US military presence in Southeast Asia, in order to “win” the civil war the US so foolishly had gotten itself involved in, he warned the president that failure to “win” the war would cause Turkey and Greece to drop out of Nato! This argument obviously was idiotic, but it was not even challenged by the president or any of his other advisers.
Dear Nasser,
The most ironic of all: Kamran ‘Daneshjoo’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamran_Daneshjoo
“Why is the Iranian government infested with backward people who claim to have fake PhDs and degrees?”
Hahahahahaha. The Vice President claims to have a PhD from Oxford. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Rahimi
Fiorangela
“Crowley brushed away more questions than he answered.”
Hum, I think that was all due to the fact that the hummer, took the better part of him.
Dear Persian Gulf,
The biggest hypocrites who walk this Earth are the ones who bask in the sunshine of personal freedoms in North America (which I assume you mean by NA) and then have the cheek to defend a regime that refuses such personal freedoms, among others. But you have taken it one step further; you are calling Iranian human rights activists disgusting! At least these Iranians have the intellectual capacity to understand the value of their freedom, prosperity, wealth and success; such aspects that are all too often denied in Iran.
Others will cry and whine that these aspects are simply hallucinations, such as Pirouz_2, who still maintains that Iran is a liberal democracy. But the facts speak for themselves. Iran has the largest brain drain in the World. Why have some of the most intelligent, successful and open-minded Iranians fled their country? Why is the Iranian government infested with backward people who claim to have fake PhDs and degrees?
My dear friend, enjoy your life in the West. Enjoy your freedom to simultaneously condemn the West (on a CIA blog no less).
I was born in 1987. Believe it or not, it is up to you! I only mentioned it once – a long time ago – but it still bothers you. Why? May be, just may be, you cannot accept my age because you are just jealous that I have the capability to challenge you and others on this blog, despite my young age; so much so that, contrary to your best attempts to ignore me, you just keep on coming back ;)
Pirouz_2, please tell me more about Iran being a liberal democracy!
what countries does Amiri need to transit, for which he needs a visa?
Isn’t it the case that the only visa he needs is from Iran? Iran uses the Pakistan embassy to process visas; is Iran refusing to grant Amiri a visa?
Usual ‘transit’ is through Europe — Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Paris. Major oil companies are refusing to sell fuel to Iran air, the transit from Europe to Tehran. Are there other restrictions, on the part of Europeans, on travel to Iran?
Perhaps Amiri is “transiting to Iran” through Turkey? Is US hassling Turkey?
Crowley brushed away more questions than he answered.
Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public AffairsWashington, DC
July 13, 2010
——————————————————————————–
MR. CROWLEY: Very quickly. Regarding –
QUESTION: He hasn’t started yet.
QUESTION: Oh, okay.
MR. CROWLEY: Regarding Mr. –
QUESTION: Is this on the record?
MR. CROWLEY: Yes, yes, yes, yes. Yeah, regarding Mr. Amiri, he has been in the United States of his own free will, and obviously, he is free to go. In fact, he was scheduled to travel to Iran yesterday, but was unable to make all of the necessary arrangements to reach Iran through transit countries.
QUESTION: I’m sorry, P.J. Can you say that again?
MR. CROWLEY: Sure.
QUESTION: Could you start again, P.J.?
MR. CROWLEY: I can start again.
QUESTION: Thank you very much.
MR. CROWLEY: Mr. Amiri has been in the United States of his own free will, and he is obviously free to go. In fact, he was scheduled to travel to Iran yesterday, but was unable to make all of the necessary arrangements to reach Iran through transit countries.
QUESTION: When did he get here? When and how did he get here?
MR. CROWLEY: I’m not going to comment about –
QUESTION: Why was –
MR. CROWLEY: — about how he got to the United States. He came here of his own free will and he has chosen to return to Iran.
QUESTION: Can you say where he is right now?
MR. CROWLEY: Right now, I believe he’s at the Pakistani Embassy.
QUESTION: Do you know how he got there?
QUESTION: Is that the Iran –
MR. CROWLEY: Huh?
QUESTION: Do you know how he got there?
MR. CROWLEY: He traveled there on his own.
QUESTION: P.J. can you –
QUESTION: He has a car?
QUESTION: — repeat whatever you said at the top? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: It wasn’t by a cab.
QUESTION: What did he ask?
MR. CROWLEY: Huh?
QUESTION: He was dropped off and it wasn’t by a cab. (Laughter.)
MR. CROWLEY: Look, I’m not going to talk about – we’ve been on the record many times before. Mr. Amiri came to the United States of his own free will. He’s been here for some time. I’m not going to specify how long. But he has chosen to return to Iran and is in the process of making appropriate travel arrangements.
QUESTION: When is he leaving?
MR. CROWLEY: That’s whenever he gets the travel documents that he needs to be able to transit other countries en route back to Iran.
QUESTION: Where has he been since –
QUESTION: Did he give you any information about Iran’s nuclear program?
MR. CROWLEY: He has not given me any information. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Where –
QUESTION: Did he give the U.S. Government any information?
MR. CROWLEY: I can’t tell you.
QUESTION: Where has he been since he’s been in the U.S.?
MR. CROWLEY: I do not know.
QUESTION: Is he alone? Does he have any family with him?
MR. CROWLEY: I do not know.
QUESTION: Is there any swap with Iran?
MR. CROWLEY: I mean, Mr. Amiri is free to come and go as he chooses, and he is choosing to return to Iran. I mean, we are obviously – continue to be mindful of the fact we have the three hikers in custody, without charge in Iran. Obviously, they are there against their own free will. We also have – continue to have concern about others, including Robert Levinson. We have asked Iran many, many times for information about his whereabouts and we still do not have that information.
QUESTION: Why is he leaving?
QUESTION: Is it –
QUESTION: P.J., you in mentioning –
MR. CROWLEY: I’ve got to go in about 30 seconds.
QUESTION: In mentioning the hikers, you are suggesting or raising questions in people’s minds about whether you’re hinting at some kind of a swap.
MR. CROWLEY: I’m not –
QUESTION: Do you want them swapped?
MR. CROWLEY: I’m not hinting. We have called for the hikers to be released on humanitarian grounds and that continues to be our position. I wouldn’t specifically link the two. We –
QUESTION: Then why did you?
MR. CROWLEY: No, I didn’t. I was asked about – I was responding to a question.
MR. TONER: Yes.
MR. CROWLEY: So Mr. Amiri has been here as –
QUESTION: As a guest of the United States Government?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, he’s been here under his own free will and he has chosen to leave.
QUESTION: P.J., does this –
QUESTION: Well, how did he get – no, no, no –
QUESTION: Is this an embarrassment, sir –
QUESTION: He’s not going to answer the question.
QUESTION: That’s fine, but how did – did you give him –
MR. CROWLEY: Elise. Elise, I’ve –
QUESTION: You obviously gave him a visa.
MR. CROWLEY: Elise, I’ve got to go. I know you’ll have more questions for us.
QUESTION: Can you tell me about the allegations about torture and all that? I mean, he seems – him and the –
QUESTION: Do you deny those allegations?
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: Pakistani –
QUESTION: And detention?
MR. CROWLEY: All right, I can –
QUESTION: Is this episode –
MR. CROWLEY: He has been here as someone who made a free choice and he is choosing to leave. I have no information to suggest that he has been mistreated while he’s been in the United States.
QUESTION: Did he –
QUESTION: Is this an embarrassment to the U.S.?
QUESTION: Did he tell you – geez.
MR. CROWLEY: All right, I’ve got to go. I’ve got to go.
QUESTION: Did he let –
MR. TONER: Thank you.
QUESTION: — you know that he wanted to go?
QUESTION: But you just left.
QUESTION: Or is this a surprise?
QUESTION: This is all on the record, I –
MR. TONER: Yes.
MR. CROWLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. CROWLEY: I think he has informed us that he wishes to go home.
MR. TONER: Thanks, guys.
MR. CROWLEY: Thanks.
QUESTION: Thank you
Pak:
this is the last time I am answering your comment. I do understand your (as I guess the commentators of this website do) desperation for revenge. it wasn’t my fault after all, but merely yours. I don’t get why you should lie about the simplest fact of your life so to be discredited over here.
I also don’t really know whether I, as the one was born in 1980, will be considered as young or old. the definitions are different. so, I leave it for you to figure that out. my age is even clear from the sometimes emotional writings that I put over here!
don’t worry about my English. English is the fourth language that I am learning. indeed, in less than 5 years of being in NA, I have improved my English language proficiency from almost nothing to something that I can communicate with easily. it’s not perfect yet as it is obvious from the numerous mistakes that I make in this website, but time is still, as you also rightly mentioned, on my side. as well, my job is not English literature but science and engineering.
in any case, the disguising actions of Iran’s human rights activists abroad is not something related to my age or English!
Iran’s nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri from his early youth, around the nominal age of 19 when he became a high positioned nuclear scientist in Iran’s clandestine
Nuclear Operations loved water sports, he dreamed of coming to United States and tries the famous surfs of Malibu California, but he knew he will never afford to travel to US on his own, or be eligible to obtain a visa. So in a cleaver way he thought of the only possible way for him to travel to the sandy beaches of Malibu is to ask for travel arrangements from “American friends of Water Board Sports” which is actually a division of “American Mountaineers Association” to take him to US and show him water boarding. This is the whole story with Shahram’s trip here, one can’t understand what all this fuss is about, he believes he had an exciting trip to here, and on top of that he even got the opportunity to shoot a few clips in Hollywood.
“With all due respect to Amiri (emphasis on “due”), he sounds as if he may have a few screws loose. I don’t think anyone would be wise to bank much on his credibility.”
Are we to expect that in some miraculous way the three American border “wonderers” will be seen in Swiss embassy in Tehran perhaps in a few days? Looks like with the event of past few days we have now passed the “credit swap” period and have entered the “Spy Swap” times, I love this well managed Clinton’s DOS, good job.
James Canning:
“Shameful” in the sense that the welfare of one’s own citizens does not seem to register with US policy makers.
fyi,
I agree it is shameful for the US to treat with such disrespect a country that was supportive after the “9/11″ attacks.
The incoherence, and basic idiocy, of the US in its “Gulf” policy, is to spend scores of billions of dollars, every year, for the ostensible purpose of keeping the Gulf open to maritime traffic. Since this already is Iran’s policy, there is no need for this insane squandering of resources. Again, it is the influence of the armaments manufacturers and the Israel lobby that brings this sustained idiocy into effect.
US and Israel are complaining that Jordan (which apparently sets on one of the largest deposits of uranium in the world) refuses to share its nuclear technology with Israel.
Jordan is a member of NPT.
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/07/the-arab-world-is-filled-with-conspiracy-theories-about-the-israel-lobby.html/comment-page-1#comment-213841
the source article seems to have disappeared from the YNet site.
fyi,
I should add that I think Mottaki is quite right to attempt to keep the Tehran agreement on track (or put it back on the track, if the Israel lobby has derailed it).
fyi,
Obama blundered, and of course he did so to appease the Israel lobby (and their numerous stooges in the US Congress). Russia voted for the sanctions because of concern the matter otherwise would be taken out of the UN Security Council. So, having gotten the sanctions, the US went ahead with more sanctions, unilaterally! Gross stupidity, of course. But typical from stooges of the Israel lobby.
James Canning:
Mr. Mottaki is attempting at keeping options alive.
In fact, there is no chance for the swap deal.
There will a number of meetings later this year – perhaps in September that will end inconclusively – as usual.
Mr. Obama has appeased the so-called Israeli Lobby with the sanctions (tricking for a lack of better term – Russia ) as well.
This has been at a cost of harming prospects with Russia as well as with Turkey and Brazil.
He has paid a price.
He will not discard that which he has bought so dearly, he will let it take its course for 2 years or so. This will give him cover – he would say something to the effect that we need to let the sanctions work etc. That will get him to the end of his first term and no one would expect him to take any drastic measures at that time during the re-election campaign.
I have come to the conslusion that US Strategic thinkers are unwilling or unable to accomodate Iranian power. Who know, they may even think that there is a margin in a US-Iran War for US.
Sakineh,
With all due respect to Amiri (emphasis on “due”), he sounds as if he may have a few screws loose. I don’t think anyone would be wise to bank much on his credibility.
James Canning:
I do think that the policy is incoherent at a very fundamental level which is this: it supports states and polities whose population, by their own admissions, celeberated murder of Americans in 2001 and demonizes the single country in which some people at least – at the personal level – mourned the murder victims. This silence extends at the face of the murder of the American citizen such as Rachel Corey and others like her by Israel.
This incoherence, not standing for your own citizens, is quite shameful in my opinion.
But American people, through their freely elected representatives, are consciously supporting this policy and they desrve to enjoy all its fruits – for good or ill.
The Iranian foreign minister, Mottaki, has confirmed that Iran sees the May 17th Tehran declaration as the basis for talks regarding the Iranian nuclear programme. This provides an opening Obama should pursue. But then, Obama should have seized the opportunity when it was presented in May.
fyi,
I regard US foreign policy (and military strategy) in the Gulf as incoherent and even idiotic, frankly.
Iran’s policy is to facilitate free transit for shipping by all nations, in the Gulf, absent war. Countries doing business in the Gulf can easily work in this environment.
The squandering of scores of billions of dollars each year, by the US, in its “Gulf” policy, is testament to the power of the armaments manufacturers and the Israel lobby. It has next to nothing to do with protecting the national interests of the American people.
James Canning:
With the collapse of Pahlavi Monarchy in Iran, US had to revise the doctrine of Nixon – pass the burden of local security to local states capable of so doing.
US were forced to assume that burden so as to guarantee access to Persian Gulf oil to her allies.
After the end of Cold War, she changed her policy posture to one of denial of energy to any potential adversary – and her leaders assumed that they could maintain that posture at reasonable costs for a long time. Thus we had Dual Containment followed by US-Iraq War of 2002.
The Denial of Energy policy, in my opinion, is untenable. It requires, logically, Closure of the Straits of Hormuz by US and the indefinite occupation of both Iran and Iraq. That will not happen – US does not have the power to do so and such a policy will almost certainly trigger a World War over energy. Russia will not be bankrupted by cheap Middle Eastern oil and Chinese are not going to chocked by lack thereof.
On the other hand, the Shia Fortress called Iran has now become the de facto backbone of support for the Shia in Lebanon, Iraq, in Pakistan, and in Afghanistan as well as in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, and Qatar and even possibly India. This is a self-reinforcing power structure; these non-Iranian Shias have no place else to go for support in face of Sunni hostility at the individual or state level. And the Doctors of Shia Religion in Iran deeply care about the Shia abroad and influence the policy of the Iranian State.
For any type of rapprochement between US and Iran, we would need the strategic interest of US to devolve to free flow of oil and gas out of the Straits of Hormuz. With such devolution, a basis for a mutually beneficial relationship may be found, in my opinion. US can reduce her foot print in the Middle East while Iranians can pursue their fantasy of Pure Mohammad an Islamic Just society for another generation before Reality disabuses them of such fantasies.
However, if the US policy is aimed at realizing the goal of a Denial of Energy position, then no such basis may be found. It will not be just Iran that would oppose that; Russia, China, India, Brazil and many other states also oppose such a unique and powerful position for US. I here speculate the extent to which any of these other states are helping US enemies in Iraq and in Afghanistan (by giving them untraceable cash).
I would add that we are not dealing with US any longer. We are dealing with a hybrid entity called US-Israel.
Dan Cooper,
Iran’s income from oil in the last few years has been more than ten times higher than it was ten years ago. The sanctions reduce economic activity and cause waste, but the Iranian economy is considerably larger now than it was when sanctions began.
I think the greatest danger, is that Obama will be convinced that US military credibility is at risk, if Iran is allowed to continue to enrich uranium. I think the argument is ridiculous, but when Obama has numerous Aipac operatives in close personal proximity, the “pro-Israel” propaganda line gets constant play time.
Humanist,
It is a mistake to conclude that war with Iran is inevitable. The core promoters of yet another idiotic US war in the Middle East, think this is the way to ensure Israel can continue to oppress the Palestinians with impunity. And they want, and expect, deniability. Exposing the conspiracy is an antidote to the poison.
Persian Gulf:
You are right of course.
Like Shoah, Human Rights has become an instrument of political manipulation and coercion.
More importantly: Human Rights Conventions, Chemical Weapons Treaty, NPT, Convention on Torture, Geneva Conventions, and so on must apply to all or they do not apply to anyone.
US, EU, USSR, and China have so far foolishly (in my opinion), in different places and at various times, have shredded any number of these international treaties.
Complaining about their practices will not alter these facts.
fyi,
I think it is a mistake to characterise the US as “an avowed adversary of Iran.” I think Obama still hopes to achieve better relations with Iran. If Dennis Ross is conspiring to prevent that from happening, this demands much wider exposure.
Persian Gulf – stop lying. You are not young! Although I kind of hope you are young, because it will give you time to improve your English.
Dear Persian Gulf,
Indeed; how dare anybody stand up for the rights of Iranian political prisoners, students and ordinary people. How dare they! Those naughty opportunists, charlatans, people who make you sick.
Shahram Amiri has the entire IRI to support him; Iranian prisoners of conscience have the entire IRI against them. Of course this means nothing, because their lives are not worth anything! They are Zionists, Western agents and sell-outs. We should continue to gag them and ignore them; they are khas and khashak, so we simply need a broom and may be a vacuum cleaner to get rid of them.
By the way, when you throw up, make sure you aim at a picture of Majid Tavakoli. He deserves to be puked on.
paul,
Great post. And what a surprise, that WINEP would promote a super-Curveball in its continuing effort to dupe the extremely ignorant American public into supporting yet another insane unnecessary war.
Sakineh Bagoom:
more than Obama Admin., it’s a SHAME for Iranian human activists(read political opportunists, a bunch of charlatans…) as well. it is as if, Shahram Amiri is not human at all, as if he wasn’t tortured, as if his life is not important because he selected a life of dignity and worked as a scientist. instead of getting fund by bashing his country, he has chosen to get paid by the strength of his scientific knowledge and innovation.
کجان این فعالین(شارلاتانهای) حقوق بشر ایرانی که داد حقوق بشر خواهیشون گوش دنیا رو کر کرده؟ حالم از این جماعت حقوق بشری ایرانی بهم می خوره.
Because of Iran’s incoherent, confused and stubborn foreign policy, Iran will be at partial fault as well.
This is unrelated to the topic, but if this report is correct, Shahram Amiri is now in Iranian interest section of Pakistan embassy. Does somebody have an egg on their face?
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/abducted-scientist-surfaces-in-irans-us-office-20100713-109kt.html
Also amusing about weapons shipment: has anyone noticed that it’s always EVIL EVIL EVIL when anyone ships weapons to anyone that opposes Israel, but whenever anyone ships massive amounts of the most monstrous weapons in the world to Israel, that’s always the Work of Angels.
Here is WINEP hosting a Mega-Curveball type clown making war hysteria claims about Iran:
“he pseudonymous Kahlili, whose previous accounts have been greeted with widespread skepticism, also said Iran was planning nuclear suicide bombings with “a thousand suitcase bombs spread around Europe and the U.S.”
“This is a messianic regime. There should be no doubt they’re going to commit the most horrendous suicide bombing in human history,” Kahlili said. “They will attack Israel, European capitals and the Persian Gulf region at the same time, then they will hide in a bunker [until a religious prophecy is fulfilled]… and kill the rest of the nonbelievers.”
Kahlili was showcased Friday by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a Washington think tank founded by a former senior official of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee.
He appeared wearing dark glasses, a surgical mask and a San Francisco Giants baseball cap, and spoke through a voice altering apparatus. Bodyguards stood nearby.
…
“From my sources,” Kahlili told his audience Friday, “I have heard Iran has successfully enriched uranium over the 90-percent threshold, and that was even before they announced the 20-percent experiment. And that they have missiles that they have not publicly shown, because that would verify their intention of carrying out [sic] nuclear warheads.””
Great theater, huh? So why does WINEP’s Dennis Ross have such a big role in the administration, Obama doesn’t want war? I mean, if this represents the level of WINEP warmongering, which I think it obviously does?
And next time someone cites a thinktank as evidence of how much we should respect some opinionator, I think maybe they ought to cool those jets.
Holy Cow – US professor Ian Buruma (Bard College, N.Y.) defends Israel showing his huge ignorance of the facts on the ground.
In an article, titled,’Is Israel a normal country?” – Ian Buruma, in order to cover the over sixty years of European Jew occupation of an Arab country, the on-going genocide of the natives and the neigboring Arab people since 1948, Israel’s wars on all its neighboring countries and occupation for the creation of the Eretz Israel (Greater Israel), a demographic Jewish entity – he calls Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s, reaction to Israeli commandos attack on the unarmed Gaza Freedom Flotilla, killing nine Turkish aid workers, on May 31 – as “hysterical”.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/in-the-defence-of-mass-killers/
THE FRANCOP INCIDENT:
This post is off-topic, but may interest those who wonder what was established by the Israeli navy’s November, 2009 seizure of the container vessel M/V Francop off the coast of Cyprus. In Israel and many Western countries, this incident has been widely accepted as proof that the Iranian government is supplying weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria. But I have found no evidence indicating that the government of Iran or Syria, or Hezbollah, was involved in this arms shipment, or even aware of it.
Although the numerous reports on the Francop incident vary considerably, a great deal of the confusion disappears once one has waded through a number of them. Because my main argument is that unwarranted conclusions have been drawn from these reports, I see no reason to challenge much of what they contain. I will summarize what has been established well enough for my analysis.
The Israeli government established – not indisputably, but close enough to it – that the Francop contained 36 containers of weapons destined for Syria. Given Hezbollah’s past use and predictable appetite for such weapons, the Israeli government’s conclusion that Hezbollah was at least one, and possibly the only, intended customer of the weapons is plausible, arguably even probable. What one looks for in vain, however, is evidence that the Iranian government or the Syrian government – or even Hezbollah – was involved in this shipment, or even aware of it.
On October 14, 2009, the Visea, a container ship owned and operated by IRISL (Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines) sailed from Iran, on its way to the Suez Canal and eventually to Damietta, Egypt, a large port on the Mediterranean Sea. The Visea was carrying (in addition to other cargo) several dozen sealed containers filled with weapons, including thousands of rockets (107 mm and 122 mm), artillery shells, hand grenades and Kalashnikov rifle ammunition, along with many fuses and miscellaneous other weapons. The weapons were reported to have been manufactured in Iran, Russia and China. They were surrounded in the containers by numerous bags of lightweight polypropylene plastic – possibly for padding or, according to Israeli officials, to hide the weapons from anyone who might open and inspect the sealed containers. Labels on the bags indicated that the polypropylene packing material had been manufactured by an Iranian petrochemical company.
IRISL owned some (not all) of the shipping containers into which the shipper (never identified) had packed the weapons. Owners of the other containers were not identified in any reports. Most stories reported that the Visea’s Iranian port of origin was Bandar Abbas, though other stories mentioned Bandar Al Khomeini or Kish Island as possibilities. Some stories reported that the Visea stopped en route at Dubai. Others did not mention Dubai, but mentioned stops in Yemen and Somalia. Still other stories did not mention any stops at all. Altogether, it appears that little was known about the Visea’s journey from Iran to Damietta, but that Israeli intelligence became suspicious for undisclosed reasons after, or shortly before, the Visea reached Damietta.
The weapons containers were unloaded in Damietta on October 26 and sat on the docks for six days. On November 1, the weapons containers were loaded onto the M/V Francop, an Antigua-flagged container vessel owned by a German company and operated by a Cyprus-based shipping company. The Francop left Damietta on November 2, scheduled to stop first at Limassol, Cyprus, then at Beirut, Lebanon, and then at Latakia, Syria. An Israeli navy team boarded the Francorp in international waters on the night of November 2-3, shortly before it had reached Cyprus. A quick search uncovered some weapons. The Francop was escorted to the Israeli port of Ashdod, where a thorough search was performed and weapons were found and unloaded from 36 containers. Many of the weapons were similar to those used by Hezbollah against Israel in the 2006 Israel/Lebanon war.
After interviewing the Francop’s 11-man crew (who were from Poland, the Ukraine and the Far East) and conducting other brief inquiries, the Israeli government concluded to its satisfaction that the presence of the weapons had been unknown to any member of the Francop crew, the vessel’s German owner or Cypriot operator, any of the Egyptian customs officials at Damietta or other Egyptian officials, or any of the dock workers who had unloaded the weapons containers from the Visea, loaded them onto the Francop six days later, or monitored them in between. After a brief delay, the Francop and its crew were allowed to continue on their way with all cargo except the weapons-filled containers.
The governments of Iran and Syria, and Hezbollah, denied any knowledge of the weapons. (The Iranian government has never acknowledged supplying weapons to Hezbollah.)
Some commentators have disputed portions of the above account, but it strikes me as solid enough. Suspicious gaps and inconsistencies appear only when one turns to the Israeli government’s effort to link the weapons shipment to the Iranian government. A few stories note that the Israelis failed to “prove” that the Iranian government was involved in this arms shipment, but even those stories understate the point. No published evidence at all links the government of Iran or Syria, or Hezbollah, to the Francop. Absent such evidence, this weapons shipment appears to have been nothing more (or less) than a private arms-smuggling deal gone bad.
It seems likely that the smugglers, whoever they were, anticipated that these weapons would be significantly more valuable in Syria or Lebanon because of their predictable attractiveness to Hezbollah. If so, that is evidence only of sound business judgment in the amoral world of international arms smugglers. It also is plausible, perhaps even likely, that Hezbollah knew a large shipment of weapons was on its way, that Hezbollah may have made clear to would-be arms sellers that it would be an eager buyer, and even that Hezbollah may have facilitated the shipment in one or more ways. Nevertheless, all of this – plausible, likely or however else one chooses to characterize it – remains pure speculation, not evidence of participation by Hezbollah, much less by the Iranian (or Syrian) government. It no more constitutes evidence of such participation than a large Manhattan pot dealer’s known eagerness for inventory would constitute evidence that the dealer, much less the American or Mexican government, was involved in the Mexico-to-US cross-border drug trade.
The use of Iranian shipping containers to ship some (not all) of the weapons is irrelevant. As anyone familiar with the shipping industry knows, shipping containers, like rail cars, typically are used and re-used hundreds or thousands of times by shippers around the world, each one paying a fee to the owner through a complicated use-monitoring system. If the Israeli government really believed this constituted evidence of Iranian government involvement, presumably it would also have identified the owners of the weapons containers that were not owned by IRISL.
Equally irrelevant are the facts that IRISL owned and operated the Iran-Damietta vessel (Visea), that the Iranian government (presumably) issued customs clearance documents for the Visea’s cargo, and that Iranian dock workers (presumably) loaded the Visea. Absent evidence to the contrary (none was offered), none of those facts is any more relevant than the analogous facts concerning the second leg of the weapons’ journey: the Francop’s voyage from Damietta into the Mediterranean. As noted above, the Israeli government promptly determined to its satisfaction that neither the Francop’s German owner, its Cypriot operator, its Polish, Ukrainian and Far Eastern crew members, the Egyptian customs officials in Damietta or any other Egyptian officials, nor any of the dock workers in Damietta, were aware that weapons were sealed inside the containers they had handled. Absent contrary evidence about the Visea’s Iran-Egypt voyage, the Israeli government’s precisely opposite allegations about the knowledge of entities and individuals involved in that earlier leg of the weapons’ journey is nothing but speculation.
The Israeli government published what it said were photographs of shipping documents associated with the weapons containers. These photographs indicated that the weapons were being shipped via IRISL as far as Damietta, and were ultimately destined for Syria. Surprisingly, the Israeli photographs did not include some other key information one would expect to be disclosed – most important, the name of either the shipper or the intended recipient of the cargo. One item included in these Israeli photographs raised the eyebrows of many observers. Customs labels on some cartons inside the containers had allegedly been issued by the “Ministry of Sepah,” an Iranian government agency that had ceased to exist 20 years earlier. The Israeli government speculated that these customs labels must have been very old. It declined journalists’ and other third-party requests to view the actual shipping documents, and never did identify the shipper or the intended recipient listed on any of the shipping documents.
If the Iranian government was in fact involved in this weapons shipment, it would appear to be in dire need of some basic smuggling advice, hereby dispensed: (1) when smuggling weapons from Iran to Syria, always use a non-Iranian shipping line – not the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line; (2) don’t pack Syria-bound weapons in containers marked “Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line” in large letters on the outside of the containers; (3) don’t use customs labels ostensibly issued by an Iranian governmental agency that has not existed for the preceding 20 years. This advice may be unnecessary, however, since an unnamed Iranian official indicated that all of this had already occurred to him: “The [Los Angeles Times] should know that if a country plans to send a secret arms cargo to another, it will not brand the shipment with a full description of the batch.”
If this Israeli-government “evidence” of Iranian government involvement raised the eyebrows of some skeptical observers, and caused amusement among better-humored observers, at least it exceeded what the Israeli government offered to support its allegations that the Syrian government and Hezbollah were also involved: no evidence at all. Most important, though: however thin and shaky the Israeli government’s “evidence” of Iranian-government involvement may have been, the result of this incident has been anything but amusing. In Israel and many Western countries, the Francop incident has been accepted as proof that the Iranian government is supplying weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria.
Fiorangela:
Pollard is an American.
So is Mr. Levey.
They abused the social trust that underlies US as a polity.
That does not make them any less American.
I understand what you state about Mr. Levey intentions. But God works in mysterious ways.
Just as he did by getting US – an avowed adversary of Iran – to destroy the 2 enemies of Iran that were earlier supported by her and by her allies such as Saudi Arabia and UAE.
I am wondering what would come next; US bombing Israel?
I have said this many times before; only if Iran makes the “mushroom cloud” herself, these saber rattlings are going to be gone. other than that we will be discussing engagement, containment,…or any other c*** for our lifetime without any substantial result. I am willing to bet on this notion. the rulers of Iran better to finish the job instead of waiting for few generations to see what is gonna be coming up in future. now is even the best time as the U.S is bogged down in two wars…, and Obama locked with his noble prize somehow. when America is having difficulties of these magnitudes that makes such a bold threat, I am wondering what would be the situation if she gets out of the two wars and economic pain.
I think some people here forget sometimes that Iran’s nuclear file has been on the top of international politics for almost 8 years by now. I don’t see any reason not to see the continuation of this situation for another decade or two or even many more. probably at that time, I can explain for my grandchildren what was going on for this issue at the begging of 21 century! if I happen to live longer than you people, just for the sake of being a bit younger, I will mention your names (pseudonym and real ones. btw, who wants to be remembered the most?!) with a good faith, and I am sure it will be a lot of fun.
let’s face it, there will be few weeks of ferocity in the international level. probably another resolution and sanction, which is coming anyway, some condemnations here and there, and THAT IS IT. soon after, the interest of nation states starts to diverge and everyone will try to find a way to come to the term of a de-jure nuclear Iran. the U.S, after effectively seen that war is off the table forever, would have no other choice than to get to term of cooperation as well.
What you think the USraeli reaction would be if some Iran say: ““If I were a young Palestinian, I’d fight the Jews fiercely, even by means of terror. Anyone who says anything different is telling you lies”? OR Iranian President had said:“If I had been a born-Palestinian, I would join a terror organization”?
Well the first statement was made by an Israeli Jew – and the second one by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/bigots-ban-indian-muslim-scholar/
Yesterday in a comment to the interview of Gareth Porter by Scott Horton ( antiwar dot com /radio/2010/07/10/gareth-porter-86/) in a 400 word comment I wrote:
“…I am also concluding zealous exceptionally powerful Zionists are their own worst enemy. They are incapable to fathom the tides of history…no evil system can last forever….after 60 years of using tricks, force, deception and gaining super military power they are now weaker than ever. War with Iran might become a turning point, in time awakening the American Public….then that would be the end of their apartheid state..”
One can find flaws in that logic. However while I was writing in back of my mind I was thinking mainly about the following three subjects:
1- Unprecedented mighty strong influence of the Likudniks (who practically act as foreigners, or at least as Israeli-firsters) in affairs of US, especially in the areas of foundation complexes ie economy, industry, elections, legislature, white house, politics, mass media and so on.
2- The inherent weaknesses of Likudniks in the areas of morality, honesty, integrity, respect for life and welfare of others….also their debilities on the areas of ideology, constructive humanism etc.
3- And…..only if Americans knew who really the Likudnik strategist are and what is their real mind-set…only if they knew then things were so different…
At the moment, great majority of Americans do not “know”, they are skillfully kept n the dark … great majority believe the enemies of Israel such as Hezbollah and Hamas are also the enemies of USA..
As an example in the area of ideology it is timely to mention this:
Netenyahu in the recent Larry King show responding to Larry’s question on “how to you cope with the heavy stress and tension of dealing with such complex issues” said something like “on Sabbath I read Bible….with my son ..I used to teach him…now he is 15, he teaches me”
That reminded me how Netenyahu had equated Iran with Amalek, the biblical enemy of Jewish people.
Here is God’s instructions for how to deal with Amalek:
“Go now and fall upon the Amalekites and destroy them, and put their property under ban. Spare no one; put them all to death, men and women, children and babes in arms, herds and flocks, camels and asses”. (1 Samuel 15:3,4)
Take their lands and kill them all?…including their babies and animals? In this time and age of modernity isn’t that a barbaric way of resolving tribal (international) disputes?
Finally…I am questioning……only if the Americans knew?……then lunatic destructive wars couldn’t materialize?…….isn’t that suggesting a SOLUTION?
Informing the public… who have the latent power of stopping any irrational genocide?
Sounds plausible? Not quite….the data suggests out of 6200 broadcasting entities in US only 300 are not under the influence of Likudniks or military-industrial complex…that is about 5%….95 trumpets can effectively silence 5……but since 5 trumpets are playing a nice tune then that “number logic” is not quite valid anymore…..science always batters superstition if it is given enough time and opportunity…Carl Sagan single handedly blew away the large crowd of the followers of Emanuel Velikovsky.
Is there enough time…..and is there the required organization in place to stop the madness of attacking Iran?
I think at the moment, chances of stopping the war is very slim……yet…..informing the public even in small scale might have unpredictable favorable results…it can’t hurt….it is something that potentially could stop lunacy of large scale destruction….so, isn’t a widespread campaign to inform the public what the conscientious people should try to organize….in earnest?
Or as Stephen Kinzer said…..do nothing until the victim gets murdered….and we as bystanders go home…heads down….in sorrow and shame waiting for the dark night to fall?.
Official Lambasts West’s Double-Standard Policy on Iran’s N. Program
TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian President’s Chief of Staff Esfandiar Rahim Mashae’i lashed out at the double-standard policies of western countries on Iran’s peaceful nuclear program and their voracity for modernization of their atomic arsenals.
“Their justification of opposing our peaceful nuclear program is shocking. For instance, they ask you as the oil owner that why do you want nuclear energy?” Mashae’i said.
“This is while they themselves have oil, nuclear energy and nuclear bomb,” he added.
Mashae’i made the remarks addressing a group of Iranian expatriates in Tajikistan.
Washington and its Western allies accuse Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear program, while they have never presented any corroborative evidence to substantiate their allegations. Iran denies the charges and insists that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.
Tehran stresses that the country has always pursued a civilian path to provide power to the growing number of Iranian population, whose fossil fuel would eventually run dry.
Despite the rules enshrined in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) entitling every member state, including Iran, to the right of uranium enrichment, Tehran is now under four rounds of UN Security Council sanctions for turning down West’s illegitimate calls to give up its right of uranium enrichment.
Tehran has dismissed West’s demands as politically tainted and illogical, stressing that sanctions and pressures merely consolidate Iranians’ national resolve to continue the path.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8904210835
‘US attack on Iran a matter of time’
Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad says the US compelled the UN Security Council to impose sanctions against Iran in order to weaken the country and lay the ground for a military attack.
“The world is made to believe once again the lie that Israel’s existence is being threatened by a nuclear armed Iran,” Mohamad said at the opening of the Breaking the Gaza Siege summit in Kuala Lumpur.
He went on to add that these sanctions were adopted despite the fact that Mohamed ElBaradei, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), had repeatedly stated that there is no evidence of Iran pursuing military nuclear program.
Mohamad said that the US followed the same pattern in its previous war against Iraq, and attacked Baghdad after weakening the country by imposing crippling sanctions against it.
The former Malaysian premier added, “It is a matter of time before the war criminals in Israel and the United States launch another war of aggression, once Iran has been weakened by sanctions.”
The one-day International Conference on Breaking the Gaza Siege is expected to conclude with a clear plan on measures and efforts to be undertaken to challenge the siege and eventually put an end to it.
In his election victory speech , Obama said ” … a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth. This is your victory.” If he still believes in this , then he will definitely say ” NO ” to Netanyahu !
Nonetheless as any other U.S president , Obama has the chance to make a good or a bad decision :
- BAD DECISION.Authorizing a military strike against Iran to please his AIPAC campaign donors. In doing so , he will be ignoring the worst case scenario ( which is 99,99% likely ) of Iranian retaliation that will put the lives of U.S troops at risk and will trigger an economic disaster in the U.S and other oil dependent Nations ( including European Union ).Obama will also put the lives of millions of poor and middle class American citizens at risk because of massive unemployment and hyper inflation generated by the Iranian retaliation. Ironically he will be also ignoring the lives of millions of poor and middle class voters , who voted for him under the slogan ” change ” !
- GOOD DECISION. Resist the Zionist pressure to attack Iran. In doing so , Obama will save not just millions of American lives , but also the U.S strategic interest across the Middle East and indeed around the world !
P.S – Some say Obama will commit a ” political suicide ” if he resists the Zionist pressure , I think he will be fine and re – elected if he tells the American people about the disastrous consequences of attacking Iran. I think the vast majority of American people are sick of spending billions of dollars in wars that bring no benefit to their lives , in fact wars put American lives at risk !
Chris,
Most Americans are extremely ignorant about foreign affairs, diplomacy, history, etc., and they are also too lazy to bother obtaining readily available information, and to understand such information even in vague outline. As a result, they rely on spoon-feeding by their local newspapers, and network TV news. So they are easy prey for the stooges of the warmongers, who make careers out of deceiving the American public about what is really in the best interests of their country.
Stephen Hadley, whose astounding incompetence as Condi Rice’s deputy in the NSC set up the catastrophe in Iraq, is now acting as a shill for WINEP (Aipac offshoot) in urging the US to get ready for military action against Iran if the sanctions do not stop Iran’s enrichment of uranium.
It is very frustrating to see the how Israel lobby is totally unhindered by common sense or good reason in their foolish quest for war between the United Sates and Iran. It seems to me no power center in this country can stop them.
Once again, they are pushing this country towards another war in the Middle East for their sinister reasons that serve this country no useful purpose. Yet again, American are jumping for it.
I wonder how long it will take and how much destruction and death it will take for Americans to rise from their slumber. I wonder how much more pain will be inflicted on this country before people will gather enough courage to stand up to them and say ENOUGH!
fyi,
Given that the Russian Empire had been steadily annexing provinces formerly part of the Persian Empire, it is not surprising that the Iranians would admire the Japanese for sinking the Russian fleet and defeating the Russian army in Manchuria.
fyi: aaaaaaggggghh!
“Levey is part of USG however he got in and wherever he got started.”
and
“And if some analysts are to be believed, Levey helped cushion Iran from the economic disasters of the last 3 years.”
Jonathan Pollard became part of the USG also; as the agent of a foreign government. I suggest that Levey “got in” under circumstances not much different. If Levey wants to fight a war for Israel, let him do so in Israel, not in the US and not as an employee paid by my tax dollars: NOT ON MY WATCH, NOT IN MY NAME.
Your second comment that “Levey HELPED CUSHION Iran from economic disasters” is bass ackward: Iran does not run its financial system in the same way as the Western countries that over-leveraged themselves into insolvency then demanded a socialized bailout: the fundamental characteristic of Shari’ia finance militates against excessive interest-taking, and against profiting strictly from the taking of interest (certainly others understand this better than I; I’m still cracking the books on Shari’ia finance).
Moreover, it is beyond obvious that it was not Levey’s intention to “help” Iran in any way, shape or form. It is a fact that one set of fines that Levey’s office extorted from UBS/London (iirc) was repatriated to the US where it was divided 50-50: half to the USG, half to the offices of (former) Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau.
Israel needs Iran. Iran needs Israel..never the twain shall come to blows.
Israel needs Iran as a bogeyman to justify not reaching a peace settlement with the Palestinians: security comes first, peace second.
Iran needs Israel to serve as a symbol of injustice and to rally the Arab and Sunni world against and not the Shia, Persian state which many would regard as the natural enemy if Israel did not exist.
It is amazing how politics actually works.
Iran’s media view of “Obama’s extend hand for peace”
http://jahannews.com/vdchqknzx23nixd.tft2.html
Fiorangela,
Interesting historical notes. One might add that Saints Cyril and Methodius, who converted the Bulgars (and developed Cyrillic script), tried earlier to convert the Khazars – who declined, and remained Jewish. The Old Bulgarian empire was immediately next to the Khazar empire, northeast of the Black Sea.
Dariush,
Any foreign policy “Realist”, in the US, can see that Israel must cut a deal with the Palestinians, or end up with permanent civil war (in effect). To me, the major issue is whether Israel is compelled to get out of the entire West Bank, or instead manages to keep significant portions even if this likely ensures permanent Palestinian hatred.
Iran figures into the equation, by preventing Israel from crushing the Palestinian resistance.
Any foreign policy “Realist”, in the US, can see that America’s identification with the oppression of the Palestinians by Israel, severely damages US national interests.
DWZ — I did not adequately set the context, and to be sure, some in the conference call also questioned why Forough would be “proud” be be the lone Iranian in the group at the Signing ceremony.
Here’s the context: Forough did not CHOOSE to sit next to Levey; a seat for NIAC was reserved by the White House.
Read this next very carefully: She was the lone Iranian in the crowd; Pelosi was there; Obama, Geithner, other big names.
Obama praised Levey for his hard work in shaping the sanctions bill; Levey got a standing ovation: from everyone but Forough.
The crowd applauded numerous other persons and acts of the effort to impose sanctions; everyone applauded: everyone but Forough.
Forough arrived at the meeting wearing a green bracelet and a green shirt. She was mocked when she explained the meaning of the items. She absorbed the insults. SHE WAS IN THE ROOM and she represented Iranian interests.
You may not think she did so perfectly. I know from experience the kind of courage it takes to “speak truth to power” when you are the only one in the presence of so many very powerful people who is doing so: even Code Pink works in pairs, at least, to buoy the confidence of one another.
I commented several days ago that Parsi’s emphasis on human rights was misguided, that it gave the Lobby and the US admin. a wedge to use against Iran. That objection, too, was raised by one of the conference callers. Parsi explained that NIAC is aware of the problem; NIAC hopes to turn that issue against the sanctions regime in this way: Sanctions are the ultimate violation of human rights. Thus, Obama’s words in SUPPORT of the quest for freedom can be turned against him: US actions cause harm to the Iranian people, hardly support for Iranian freedom and liberty.
One more time: NIAC was the ONLY Iranian presence in the room. One. little. young. group. How easy do you think that is? Would you prefer that nobody be in the room?
Fiorangela:
Levey is part of USG however he got in and wherever he got started.
I agree that he is, in a way, harming US interests but that is the nature of all wars. Both sides suffer, may be one side less than the others.
I also think that the sanctions, over the years, has forced Iranians to be better managers of their country’s resources and economic policies. For example, when Mre. Clinton tried to bankrupt them by denying them IMF funds, the Iranians rallied and became more efficient. I expect nothing less here.
US is teaching Iran how to fight. And at the end of the day, I do not think US is going to like what she finds. But, she is a sovereign state and her democratically elected leaders are the best judge of her interests.
And if some analysts are to be believed, Levey helped cushion Iran from the economic disasters of the last 3 years.
Fiorangela:
Actually Israelis like Germany – they find US to be decadent.
Iranians are an aloof people, they do not like very many peole and are suspicious by nature – almost.
The country that they most admire is Japan.
In fact, there is an epic poem in Persian in praise of the Meiji Emperor who won the Russo-Japanese War. It is called “Mikado-nameh”.
But setting aside these tid-bits, I think the issue here is that the Iranian leaders are alway, always ready for a deal that admits of the changed geo-political environment around them.
They are now entrenched in Iraq and God only knows what they are doing in Pakistan with the Shia there.
Even after the US-Iran War, there will remain a core wounded angray Shia that will cunnigly work to expel US and her allies from the Middle East.
The utility of sanctions is that US kicks the can down the road.
Russians get some goodies out of it (which they judged to be of more value thatn their relationship with Iran).
The EU states, in my opinion, are the loosers in all of this.
They have got nothing and there, you cannot say that their government does not have Middle East esperts.
Quite interesting in a perverse sort of way.
fyi: Stuart Levey is not “just following orders” like a good civil servant; he was hand-picked for a position created by WINEP, AIPAC’s think-tank, and he created the program that he runs.
It was HIS idea to strangle Iran by threatening banks and other institutions of other countries that did business with Iran; he pitched the idea to Condi Rice on a plane trip back from Iraq; Condi thought the idea was sufficiently Bushian/draconian and gave Levey the green light to get the project up and running. Levey plies his thieving project from the sheltered and supported infrastructure of the US government Dept of Treasury, but certainly not in the service of the American people; sanctions on Iran have resulted in hardship and loss of revenue for Americans.
DWZ wrote: “No Iranian should trust Turkey.”
That’s a brilliant strategy: “Me and nobody against the world.”
When Israel was close friends with Iran, it actually despised Iranians, or so one comes to believe from the writing of Ronen Bergman and Ari Ben Menashe.
And it appears Israel does not hold Turkey in that great esteem, and Israel certainly does not respect the US, or trust the US, yet Israel does business with both.
Iran can wait for the perfect partner (like Israel insisting it cannot possibly make peace with Palestinians because there is no suitable partner), or it can make the best of the situation as it is: as Flynt Leverett has written, work with the situation as it is, not as one wishes it would be.
Fiorangela:
Stuart Levey is working for USG.
He has to salute the flag and carry one even if he does not approve (which he does in this case).
In regards to all those (Western ) Jews in that signing ceremony, I feel sorry for them. I think they are missing a lot by positioning themselves as enemies of Iran and indeed Islam.
“In fact, in California, the Iranian Jews keep separate from the Western Jews since they (the Iranians) are aware, with metaphysical certainity, of their own superiority.”
:)
fyi -
“…since they (the Iranians) are aware, with metaphysical certainity, of their own superiority.”
smiling emoticon.
Others of you may have just disconnected from the NIAC conference call.
Dr. Forough Parvizian-Yazdani, a NIAC Board member, was called upon at the last minute to attend the ‘ceremony’ marking the signing of Iran sanctions into law. The conference call featured Dr. Yazdani’s experience at that event: among a crowd of about 125, she was the only representative of Iran; all others represented Jewish organizations. She was seated next to Stuart Levey, whom she did not know; Dr. Yazdani informed Levey of the full spectrum of NIAC and many Iranian people’s concerns with the bill, emphasizing that it would be counterproductive.
If others are interested, I’ll type my notes from the conference into a comment.
(It might have been an advantage for Forough not to have known Levey. If it had been me, disliking Levey’s actions as much as I do, I might have been so angry I would have been unable to speak.)
{Iran’s defiance is really bad because it is proving to be infectious…Look at Turkey for Christ Sake!}
Educate yourself on the question of Turkey.
Iran is NOT defiant. Iran’s enrichment program IS LEGAL UNDER THE INTERENATIONAL LAW. ISRAEL his PUPPET TO FORCE IRAN TO STOP ITS LEGAL ENRICHMENT PROGRAM.
Iran’s enrichment program is not against US interest. Israel seeking to erect ‘GREATER ISRAEL’ according to Oded Yinon Strategy, thus, Israel wants USA, to attack Iran to partition the country for the interest of the JEWS. Any US puppet who agrees with this stupid act will be considered A TRAITOR which is punishable in other countries by death.
Don’t be deceived by Erdugan’s slogans which are said for the ignorant people. The relations between Turkey and Israel are as usual. Turkey continues to serve the interest of Israel and US in the region against the interest of Muslims in the region to receive petty helf from Israel and may be accepted to Eropean Union. No Iranian should trust Turkey.
Turkey and Erdugon have targeted Iran popularity among Arab population. Erdugon can not fool anyone except himself.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/world/middleeast/03israel.html?_r=1&ref=world
The relations between Turkey and Israel never went sour. this performances played by Erdugon and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu to give more weight to Turkey act as
a ‘leader’ in Arab world against Iran. Iranians should not be fooled by Erdogan’s performances.
RANNIE AMIRI writes:
{For Turkey, the ties with Israel are equally important. In late June, a military delegation was in Israel receiving instruction on how to operate pilotless aircraft and drones—the same kind used by the IDF against Palestinians. Such technology is coveted by Turkey in their ongoing battle with Kurdish rebels in the southeastern part of the country and northern Iraq.}
Dariush:
YOU WROTE:
“What really maters is not Iran’s nuclear intentions or whether or not Iranians are rational. What matters is that the Iranians refuse to follow orders to stop enriching uranium, to stop helping Lebanese or Palestinian defend themselves…”
While your remarks invite the reader to reach conclusions favorable to Iran (or at least thought by you to be favorable), the route to your conclusions requires that a reader accept, without giving much thought to them, quite a number of assumptions from which others might draw much different conclusions. Here are those assumptions:
1. Iran’s “nuclear intentions” may include nuclear weapons.
2. Iranians may not be rational.
3. Iran is not following “orders” to stop enriching uranium, which implies that someone (the UN, presumably) has authority to issue such “orders” to Iran.
4. Iran is “helping Lebanese or Palestinian defend themselves.”
Before I start considering whether to draw any of the conclusions you invite readers to draw, I’d like to hear whether you believe any of these assumptions is valid and, if so, why you believe that.
Fiorangela:
Thank you for your response.
In fact, in California, the Iranian Jews keep separate from the Western Jews since they (the Iranians) are aware, with metaphysical certainity, of their own superiority.
Iranians consider Israel a threat, but one which they can handle. Some, in fact, look forward to an attack by Israel since they believe – with justification – that they could harm Israel a great deal.
I am certain that Israelis do not understand Arabs, much less the Iranians. They – and their foreign admirers(e.g. Indians) – do not grasp that attacking Iran will unleash Shia religious fury on them that will go on for decades. But, they are welcome to try.
As I stated before in this forum, the war between US and Iran could potentially last as long as 8 years. IBut also note that the war between Spain and Holland was described as the 80-Year War.
The US-Iran War will be the closest thing to a World War we are going to have.
James Canning – thanks for making the connection between Robb and Johnson. I could never fathom why Robb was such a hawk.
You wrote elsewhere: “Quite intelligently, in the naval arena, Iran is focusing on small craft, highly maneuverable and not expensive, to attack (if necessary) much larger vessels in the Gulf. Let’s hope there will be no need for Iran to employ its defensive screen.”
Joe Sestack, who won the primary for senate against Arlen Specter, told his campaign crowds that, as commander of a ship in the Persian Gulf, he considered Persian naval officers to be highly professional and said that US Navy in the Gulf functioned well with Iranian navy.
The speedboats were another matter, said Sestack. He said that US Navy officers never knew what Iranian speedboats were going to do, so his sailors had sport with the speedboats, spraying gunfire from US navy decks just above and just beyond the Iranian speedboats.
1. The Leveretts highlight a contradiction in Bibi’s argument (i.e., the Iranians employ rational cost-benefit analysis in their pursuit of nuclear bomb, but will stop being rational once they get the bomb). Contradictions abound in the US-Israel narratives about Iran and its nuclear program. My favorite is this — Iranians would be irrational not wanting to have the bomb (i.e., claims regarding the peaceful nature of their programs are not credible), but Iranians will behave irrationally once they get the bomb (i.e., they will use it against Israel or give it to “terrorists” even though they know that that will trigger “obliteration” of Iran).
2. Contradictions of the type that Leveretts highlight do serve a purpose. They camouflage the US-Israel overall foreign policy goals. The primary goal is for the US to attain and retain (full-spectrum) global dominance and for Israel to attain and retain regional dominance. “Neocons” and “Realist” in the US — likudniks and Peaceniks in Israel — concur on the desirability of the overall policy goals and the camouflage. They are not equally optimistic in attaining the goals, in the efficacy of use of force in pursuit of the goals, on whether US and Israel goals are fully compatible or not, and when incompatibilities arise whose interests should be pursued and who should bear the costs of the pursuit. In recent years, the Neocons have lost grounds to the Realists and the Peaceniks to the Likudniks; the camouflage has eroded, less in the US than in the rest of the world.
3. Iran and its policies present a major impediments to US-Israeli aspirations. Iran has defied the global and regional orders that US-Israel wish to impose. Iran’s nuclear program has symbolized this defiance. What really maters is not Iran’s nuclear intentions or whether or not Iranians are rational. What matters is that the Iranians refuse to follow orders to stop enriching uranium, to stop helping Lebanese or Palestinian defend themselves, to stop lessening their vulnerabilities to our military attacks, stop offering China an energy source that is not vulnerable to Western interdiction, …, stop being defiant and capitulate. Iran’s defiance is really bad because it is proving to be infectious…Look at Turkey for Christ Sake!
Rehmat: A prediction (I’m not a prophet for profit I just play one on teh blogs):
before too long American mainstream media will begin using the phrase “Israel’s back is to the wall.”
Benny Morris relies on the phrase/idea to justify the “cognitive dissonance” that otherwise-purity-of-arms affirming Jews were responsible for grossly disproportionate rape and slaughter of Arab in 1948, far more Arabs were killed by Jews than were Jews killed by Arabs. But it was justified, Morris argued, because Jews had just left Europe where everybody wanted to kill them and “our backs were to the wall.”
In a campaign speech in Davenport, Iowa, on Aug. 25, 2008 (the Catholic feast of the Assumption), candidate Barack Obama said:
“DAVENPORT, Iowa – U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Monday that the world must increase pressure on Iran over its nuclear program before Israel feels it has its “back to the wall.”
“My job as president would be to try to make sure that we are tightening the screws diplomatically on Iran, that we’ve mobilized the world community to go after Iran’s program in a serious way, to get sanctions in place so that Iran starts making a difficult calculation,” Obama said in response to a voter’s question at a campaign event in Iowa. “We’ve got to do that before Israel feels like its back is to the wall.”" World Must Press Iran before Israel Strikes
interesting to note that the Haaretz article was written by the same, apparently Russian, Reuter’s journalist Natasha Mozgovaya who wrote the recent article about Amitai Etzioni, who urges that Iran must be attacked.
fyi:
That journalist’s apparent Russian background brings up several (disconnected) points, in response to your mention of the genome study of “Abraham’s Children.”
1. After observing the situation for awhile, it became obvious that the neocons were predominantly Jews of Russian or East European background — as is Benjamin Netanyahu. “Before Bibi’s daddy immigrated to Palestine from Lithuania, the family name was Milikovsky.” (palestinechronicle com/ view_article_details.php?id=15832)
2. Israel also likes to keep under wraps the reality that a great deal of tension exists between Mizrahi Jews — those of Iranian & Iraqi origin, and Ashkenazi Jews– European. (I may have the labels wrong; the tags are sometimes shifted to confound the innocents.) Recently, news from Israel reported that Orthodox Jews objected vociferously to the presence in the same classrooms as their children of less religiously observant Jews. But the Israeli education ministry tracks another set of Jew vs. Jew conflict: Mizrahi Jews just don’t seem to measure up the the educational and professional achievement of Ashkenazi Jews; the former claim that Mizrahi Jews are discriminated against in opportunities afforded to them.
3. As well, some Jews claim that East European Jews descended from Khazars, who were converted to Judaism and not descended from the Root of Jesse. The Khazar theory is bitterly denounced by some, but Judah H’a Levey, an Andalusian Jew, contemplated the fact of the Khazar king’s conversion of his populace to Judaism and wondered if the messianic promise of a kingdom was about to be fulfilled; that Jews, who were, in Ha Levey’s experience, prosperous and influential in Spain would finally take that last step and become SOVEREIGNS, masters of the state rather than the most highly placed counselors to the masters (since when is second place good enough?)
What’s even more interesting about the Khazar theory is that the region of the Khazars is very close to the Scythian steppe that is the origin of the original Aryans/Iranians.
4. Finally, most people are unaware that Jews have lived in Persia/Babylon/Iraq far longer (from 536 BC until 1950 AD), far more peacefully, and far more prosperously, than any other place on the globe. Furthermore, for over a thousand years, the seat of Jewish authority was Babylon — Babylon under Persian rule, later under Islamic rule, and finally, Babylon as Baghdad. Jewish bankers held authority and issued judgments over the proper behavior and interpretations of Judaism’s laws, for Babylonian Jews as well as Jews in diaspora, and frequently in fierce contention with Jews in diaspora.
I recommend Jim Lobe’s piece on this topic on truthout.org today: “Stirrings of a New Push for Military Option on Iran”.
http://www.truth-out.org/stirrings-a-new-push-military-option-iran61246
One of the Democratic warmongers, Chuck Robb, is quoted. Robb, of course, will be remembered for having married one of the daughters of Lyndon Johnson. And Johnson was an enabler of Israel militarism, nuclear weapons, further thefts of Palestinian (and Syrian) land, etc etc etc etc.
Medvedev has called for resumed negotiations with Iran, as soon as possible. He is of course quite right. The warmongers in the US, on the other hand, obtained the sanctions in hopes of interfering with further negotiations.
Toledo,
Great post! I have noticed that Sharon’s role in setting up the idiotic US/UK invasion of Iraq has been concealed( or intentionally downplayed), for the most part. In fact, there has been an effort to portray the war as something Israel opposed!
JohnH,
I agree with your comment that there is no need to “contain” Iran because Iran is not developing any offensive military capability that needs to be contained.
Quite intelligently, in the naval arena, Iran is focusing on small craft, highly maneuverable and not expensive, to attack (if necessary) much larger vessels in the Gulf. Let’s hope there will be no need for Iran to employ its defensive screen.
Pirouz,
Re: July 11th, 8:42pm – - You are quite right, that mainstream US news media will spoon feed the American public with a narrative designed to conceal the role of Israel and the Israel lobby in subverting the national security of the American people in order to advance their scheme of perpetual oppression of the Palestinians.
No question the Israel-first segment of American Jews pushed the Iraq War on us. They were every where and they were “bipartisan.” The American people were always skeptical; its not like the Israel-firsters ever won the argument. But the bipartisanship gave them cover. Ken Pollack on Oprah! Beinart every where — what is his credibility other than that he went to Harvard? Friedman and his “Suck on this” vile crap. They thought it was good for Israel.
Stop them now. They have no shame and have endured no accountability for Iraq. They’ll do it again with Iran. (And I have no faith in the 9/11 official theory that 19 amateur hijackers did that, either. The Israel-first cohort had the means, motive and opportunity 1 million times as much as 19 amateur hijackers.)
You wrote: {“we saw no evidence that Israeli officials and leaders of the American Jewish community (as opposed to some pro-Israel intellectuals like the Saban Center’s Ken Pollack and neoconservative policymakers in the Bush Administration) goaded the United States into invading Iraq.”}
Perhaps you missed Ariel Sharon’s office goading us to attack Iraq immediately:
From CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/18/world/main519037.shtml
Israel To U.S.: Don’t Delay Iraq Attack
JERUSALEM, Aug. 16, 2002
Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday.
Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin.
“Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose,” Gissin said. “It will only give him (Saddam) more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction.”
[...]
As evidence of Iraq’s weapons building activities, Israel points to an order Saddam gave to Iraq’s Atomic Energy Commission last week to speed up its work, Gissin said.
“Saddam’s going to be able to reach a point where these weapons will be operational,” he said.
[...]
My politics are very straight forward. I am opposed to violence (unless in clear self defense). This position puts me in conflict with the organized Jewish community in the United States (and elsewhere). It is what it is. If one opposes war, one must oppose organized Jewry. I see no other option. This is about us and them.
That is not to say that I have an opinion on individual Jews one way or the other. The Official Jews, though, are the single greatest obstacle to peace. This includes all the Jewish pundits in America (which means virtually all pundits in the US).
I never thought twice about Jews before 2002-2003. I look forward to the day when I can continue on in my life ignoring them and enjoying a country with them.
One doesn’t need a PhD to understand that most of America’s conflicts and wars have been been the brainchilds of Jewish lobby groups who control the country’s mainstream media and all government and military institutions. Their grip on American thinking can be judged by the recent villification of Lebanese Christian White House press icon Helen Thomas and CNN’s firing of its senior Middle East editor for 20 years, Octavia Nasr, for ‘feeling sorry’ at the death of Sheikh Faddallah in Lebanon.
Iran has not invaded any of its neighbors for the last 150 years – while Israel has invaded and occupied parts of all of its neighboring countries since it was created by Russia, Britain and America. Israel is on record for threatening to nuke Arab capitals but also some European nations too.
Professor Dr. Steven R. Feldman (Wake Forest University) in an article, titled “A Jewish American’s Evolving View of Israel”, published in ‘The American Council for Judaism’ – exposed the suicidal nature of Israel.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/israel-thou-shalt-not-know-the-truth/
Look at the racist and apartheid state of Israel that Obama wants to sacrife Iran for, to keep his petty job at the WH:
{The Nokdim secretariat ruled two weeks ago to bar non-Jewish Russian-Israelis from buying homes in the small Bethlehem-area settlement where Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman makes his home. The decision came after a frenzied debate between residents over whether the entry of individuals not considered Jewish by religious law would lead to “assimilation” or improper behavior on the part of veteran residents and their children.}
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/lieberman-s-settlement-bars-russian-israeli-families-from-buying-homes-1.301170
I am sure every one of them take it into their graves.
MORE TERROR ATTACKS BY THE WAR CRIMINALS TO FRAME MULSIMS, LIKE september 11:
{At least 64 people were killed and a large but as yet unknown number of others were wounded today in a pair of coordinated bombing attacks against two sites in the Ugandan capital city of Kampala today.}
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/07/11/at-least-64-killed-in-uganda-world-cup-bombings/
The war criminals may frame Iran for their own terror attack.
edit: Netanyahu’s FATHER was one of Jabotinsky’s original Irgun members. Irgun was the terrorist arm of the Jewish security apparatus, responsible for bombing the King David hotel.
Netanyahu gave a speech at Council on Foreign Relations while he was in US recently.
He moved the bar. Again.
Zionism has had a number of different faces over the years.
1. First was Herzl’s “flowers bloom in the desert” zionism.
2. Then Jabotinsky ‘improved’ on it; Iron Wall doctrine: Arabs will never like us, but if we kill enough of them, eventually, they will get the message that we Jews may not have a right to this land, but Arabs will be forced to acknowledge that we own it anyway; they will have to give us a de facto right, if not de jure.
3. According to a paper Ian Lustic wrote in 2008, (www dot polisci dot upenn dot edu/faculty/faculty-articles&papers Lustick_MEP_2008.pdf) Israel upped the ante in the post-Oslo years: now, Palestinians MUST acknowledge the right of “Jews to exist” — that Israel is and will be a Jewish state:
“Since the mid-1990s, Israeli leaders have increasingly demanded, not Arab reconciliation to the fact of Israel’s existence, but explicit Arab approval of Zionism itself via demands to recognize the right of Israel to exist in the Middle East as a Jewish state.”
4. In his talk at CFR, Bibi said, Palestinian leaders must educate their people to acknowledge what the Palestinian leaders must agree to: That Israel must be secure, and that Palestinians must acknowledge that Israel is the Jewish national homeland.
Netanyahu insisted that the core of the problem is NOT about land, even tho everybody THINKS its about land. The real problem is that Palestinians don’t want Jews to be there. And it is necessary for Palestinian leaders to educate the Palestinian to no longer harbor the wish that Jews not be there. Richard Haas questioned Bibi pointedly on this: why it was necessary for Palestinians to renounce the internal wish that Jews not dominate Palestine. Bibi reached back to 1920 (the era when Jabotinsky was creating and training Irgun, and Netanyahu was one of the charter recruits) to catalog instances in which Arabs had resisted Jewish dominance of Palestine, to “prove” that the problem was the Arab wish that Jews not live in Palestine.
Bibi demands control of the inner life of the Palestinian people. In other words, Israel will continue to oppress Palestinians until Palestinians love Jews.
But, even then — the Palestinians may SAY this, they may agree to this, they may sign agreements, BUT WILL THEY KEEP the agreement? Or will they change their minds, ‘roll back.’ To ensure that Palestinians don’t change their minds, security must be like concrete. We must have security as strong as concrete. (Bibi fumbled, looking for the right analogy until he settled rather awkwardly on ‘concrete.’ It thought the choice was telling, inasmuch as Israel denies Gazans the right to have cement, the chemical basis of concrete even to build their homes, the fundamental form of shelter: Israel intends to control the ’security’, both psychological and, well, concrete, of the Palestinian people. )
{Iran’s population is also distinct from Israel’s population in that the Iranian people protest their government harsh and horrible behavior, but the majority of the Jewish Israeli population supports its government’s heinous actions.}
When a country, like Iran, is targeted for destabilization and partition, like Iraq, and under sanction to push the population into the street against the government, then, we know Iran does not function under normal circumstances due to destabilization project where force Iranians to be against each other and the government and thus, against Iran’s interest. Any other countries, inlcuding US, under this kind of situation would have divided into many pieces by now.
The attitude of Iranian ‘opposition’ toward Israel attack on flotilla shows how ignorant Iranian ‘opposition’ is. Majority of them are in the service of the lobby and NED. No Iranian takes them seriously.
On the other hand, according to reports, 95% of Jews in Israel supported genocide in Gaza in 2009, and majority of Jews in Israel supported Israel attack on peace activists at the sea.
DWZ: Where does Atzmon say that… I’d like to read it.
Fiorangela: you are a delight.
DWZ: John Mearsheimer recently made the same argument: that Israel is using its nukes to coerce the US.
http://original.antiwar.com/john-mearsheimer/2010/07/08/israels-nukes-harm-us-national-interests/
another factor that should not be overlooked is this statement from the Leveretts’s article:
“Such a scenario would be far more damaging to Israel and the American Jewish community than anything Iran might conceivably do.”
Recall what Avigail Abarbenal wrote: “Fear of annihilation is at the heart of Jewish, not just Israeli culture and it pre-dates the Holocaust. But the climate in Israel today is far more extreme than it was in my time, as Israel on the whole moves further and further to an irrational fanatic position. (www dot avigailabarbanel dot me.uk/growing-insanity.html)
And be aware that Peter Beinart recently wrote an article that has sent shock-waves through the American Jewish community: young American Jews are not that attached to Isael, and they do not like being associated, as Jews, with an Israel that behaves in ways that makes them ashamed (from my notes on a discussion of Beinart’s article at a local Jewish community center). Young American Jews, rather, MOST American Jews want to disassociate themselves from Netanyahu’s growing sociopathic behavior — let’s call it what it is: cognitive dissonance is a gussied up term for trying to justify heinous behavior.
I don’t think I’m reading too much into the quoted sentence from Flynt and Hillary: Netanyahu has said, repeatedly, that Iran threatened another holocaust on the Jewish people; Flynt and Hillary wrote that an attack on Iran would have a worse impact on American Jews than “anything Iran could do.”
In my opinion, American Jews are becoming increasingly afraid that Israel’s leaders — and a large swathe of the Jewish Israeli public* — will destroy the lives that American Jews have made for themselves in the US, where Jews have been more secure than in the “Jewish homeland” whose very establishment was for the purpose of providing security for Jews.
*Stephen Kinzer makes the point that Iranian people protested against their government — a unique occurrence in a region where no Arab states give their citizens a voice in their government. Iran’s population is also distinct from Israel’s population in that the Iranian people protest their government harsh and horrible behavior, but the majority of the Jewish Israeli population supports its government’s heinous actions.
{ I have no responsibility to the Iranian people or anyone else.}
What this statement means? If you are speculating that an attack is unavoidable, then I conclude you don’t care about Iran and Iranian people and you don’t give a damn if your statements plays into the enemies hand.
For the past few days, the Zionist media were spreading lies to observe world’s reaction for a possible attack. This is part of the war propaganda against Iran to make world population insensitive to a possible attack. Therefore, wise people must not give any reason to Zionist Jews to conclude that AN ATTACK ON IRAN {{has a logical progression that must be followed in the real world}}
The Zionists are looking for this kind of statement to claim that the world population is ready for action NOW and we are not going to be blamed.
Arnold,
Regarding your comment at 7:08 pm, I think the red lines to be crossed revolve more around efficiency of enrichment and speed rather than a quantity of low enriched uranium. Given what we know now about Iran’s enrichment capabilities, it would take a bit of time to get from 3.5% to 90%. In the next few years Iran is sure to develop 3rd and 4th enervation centrifuges and possibly even laser enrichment. Meaning Iran could go from requiring several months to get a weapon to a matter of weeks. That would bring Iran much closer to a real japan option. Keep in mind japan does not simply have enrichment, but tons of actual weapons grade plutonium. Which is something Iran will also have once Arak is online. I certainly view that as all to the good and essential for iran’s security.
But the key point is that there are varying degrees of japan option and Iran is on it’s way to higher and higher degrees of it. I’m not surprised that this is of concern to the likes of netanyahu and Obama.
One day Wigwag is belittling Iran for being “pathetically poor.” The next moment she is railing on about how containment, which I interpret her to mean sanctions, won’t work. To hear Wigwag tell it, the US needs to go to war, because containing a “pathetically poor” country can’t possibly work!
Again, I repeat, what’s to contain? A non-existent nuclear weapons program?
On another subject, I would like the Leveretts to address the possibility that Israel is using its nukes to blackmail the United States–if the US doesn’t attack Iran, then Israel will use them. Apparently Israel used this tactic in 1973, threatening to use its nukes after being surprised during Yom Kippur. To prevent this possibility, the US started supplying Israel with conventional weapons. And the price of keeping its nukes under wraps seems to keep getting higher and higher.
http://original.antiwar.com/john-mearsheimer/2010/07/08/israels-nukes-harm-us-national-interests/
Given its brutal behavior in Lebanon and Gaza, the foreign policy establishment may justifiably worry that Israel might well use nukes against some trumped up “existential threat.” The question is, how long can the United States continue to knuckle under to Israel nuclear blackmail?
DWZ is now accusing me of wanting Iran to be attacked. Who is this troll? Anybody can Google what I’ve said on Iran at TPM, at Matt Yglesias blog, here and elsewhere and see that I view any attack on Iran as a total disaster both for Iran (who nonetheless will win eventually) and the US taxpayer and the US economy.
Does this guy even read English properly?
Dan Cooper:
Both in Iran and in Afghanistan Mr. Obama’s policies have reached a cul-de-sac.
He can try to literally blast his way out of these dead-ends but in the process he will annihilate US strategic position in the entire Near East if not among Mulsims the world over.
Moreover, the cost of defense of Israel will become too high for US to bear (very high confidence level).
Paul: I meant no offense. I do think it’s simply reaching to suggest that the Leveretts or others are trying to SUPPORT the Iran war by somehow confusing the antiwar movement.
That just doesn’t make any sense. If we are to assume that sort of thing, then everyone must be suspect – including you. Who are YOU trying to confuse? See the point? That IS paranoia.
Paul: I agree that once Iran inflicts casualties on US personnel or assets in the region that the US would “take the gloves off” and try to destroy Iran as Pat Lang says.
However, it’s not going to be successful. It’s just going to make the entire region a war zone for the US and Israel. It will be a disaster.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to establish here. Your initial comment to Margolis suggests that you’re saying that the US by “taking the gloves off” will somehow WIN this situation. Again, short of nuking Iran into Hillary Clinton’s “oblivion”, or Israel nuking Hizballah into oblivion, that isn’t going to happen because it will be just too damn hard to do with conventional military resources.
DWZ: I have no responsibility to the Iranian people or anyone else. And your ranting is presenting you as a nutcase, not an intelligent person. Please refrain.
For what it is worth, though, I will point out that a forseeable affect points to intention. One doesn’t need any paranoia for that, though in these days of out of control official secrecy, of think tanks and round tables that dominate policy regardless of which party is in power, and of wildly overweening executive powers and so on, anyone who isn’t paranoid isn’t, I think, paying attention.
{Not to mention that “Zionism must be destroyed today” ISN’T GOING TO HAPPEN. It SHOULD happen but IT’S NOT GOING TO.}
Stop your arrogant attitude at once because simply by sitting in your comfortable chair and hitting the keyboard and with making it a 100 percent sure thing according to your “expertise” is NOT GOING TO PRESENT YOU A AN ITELLIGENT PERSON AT ALL, on the country shows that you are using the moment without responsibility to Iranian people to gain something that you LACK, and that is CONFIDENCE IN YOURSELF.
I don’t know about you, but I am Iranian and I care about my country. I am not like traitors and do not buy your arrogant and foolish attitude toward something that I said because I care about Iran and Iranian people. You cannot give assurances in POLITICS, if you were a little bit wiser.
If someone does not know that the main problem of our time IS ZIONISM then should stop their rant about my country and start reading at least articles by GILAD ATZMON, unless they are zionist themselves.
Ok Richard, I’ve tried to talk nicely with you, but now you’ve called me a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Ok. I’ll say no more to you.
Paul: “I do not believe that all these alternapundits are just naively wrong. I think they are knowingly wrong, and I wonder why. And when I try to answer that question, I look at the affects of their deceptions. And what I think see then is that the antiwar movement is confused by these Obama as Secret Peacemaker deceptions. It remains confused about whether to support Obama more against all those mean and nasty neocons dragging him into war, or to oppose Obama’s own obvious intent for war. Encouraging such confusion is, I propose, the purpose of the deception.”
This is putting effect before cause. It’s paranoid. I have given you the more correct answer: cognitive dissonance.
Besides which, the “antiwar movement” IS confused generally. Always has been. Because it’s a “movement” which controls nothing and can stop nothing. It has no power and never did. It was useless in the Iraq war and on top of that got divided over whether Afghanistan was a “just war” (which it was not – it was a breathtakingly STUPID war). The notion that we should spend $300 billion and thousands of lives to take out what was never more than a few hundred individuals is just stupid. But the depth of stupidity of the average person is clearly demonstrated when any number of supposedly smart people like Matt Yglesias CANNOT DECIDE whether Afghanistan is a good idea or whether there is a solution to Afghanistan.
You don’t need a paranoid conspiracy theory for this. It’s just people being morons.
“Fwiw, Obama COULD make a Grand Bargain with Iran, and it MIGHT be political suicide, but it would not NECESSARILY be political suicide, and even if it was, should we not recognize that doing what is right must sometimes supercede selfinterest, in any field of endeavor, but PARTICULARLY in the political field? Yet, somehow the political field seems to be the one field where no such ethical standard is considered to apply, where it is simply assumed that people always will do and must do what will further their careers.”
That happens to be correct. That’s exactly what politics is about. See, you think the concept of “the state” and the “rule of law” is somehow legitimate. I’m an anarchist and I know it’s not. The state ALWAYS screws its citizens.
The essence of the state is as follows: “You do everything I tell you to and give me everything you have and I’ll protect you from the bad people inside and outside our borders. And if there aren’t any bad people, I’ll make some.” It’s an extortion and protection racket, nothing more, and has been so since it came into existence millenia ago when agriculture made it possible for a small band of robbers to control an entire fixed population.
No, Obama is not going to do ANYTHING which is less than self-serving. Get over it.
Paul at 9.11. I disagree that the US wants to “take its gloves off” in Afghanistan. The conversation is all about COIN and the types or size of the COIN operation… Even cold blooded murderers like McChrystal recognize that changing the Rules of Engagement doesn’t advance the effort, it just adds to the dead and the resistance.
And, as pointed out elsewhere, it is the military that is not “gung-ho” on bombing Iran, largely because they don’t know what it gives them, not because they are morally squeamish.
So it is more complex than a mad military gone rogue. Many in the military, unlike in Congress, resent Israel. More should be written on that, and the reasons.
If American people knew how many in the American military truly feel about their on-going submission to Israeli interests and the abject betrayal of their own Congress, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
{Not to mention that “Zionism must be destroyed today” ISN’T GOING TO HAPPEN. It SHOULD happen but IT’S NOT GOING TO.}
Stop your arrogant attitute at once because simply by sitting in your comfortable chair and hitting the keyboard and with making it a 100 percent sure thing according to your “expertise” is NOT GOING TO PRESENT YOU A AN ITELLIGENT PERSON AT ALL, on the country shows that you are using the moment without responsibliytgy to Iranian people to gain something that you LACK,
Richard, I hear what you are saying about the Pentagon not wanting a war with Iran, but what is rarely or never considered in such discussions, I think, is that a war with Iran would be a ‘gamechanger’. We can expect that in such a war, the US would take some early losses, probably one or more naval vessels. Were that to happen, domestic opinion in the US would immediately back a completely different approach throughout the region, an approach of all out war. US firepower could be unleashed without restraint. There would be no more thought of protecting civilians.
DWZ: Please stop ranting. The notion that a rational assessment of Israel’s intentions is somehow assisting Israel is just ridiculous.
Not to mention that “Zionism must be destroyed today” ISN’T GOING TO HAPPEN. It SHOULD happen but IT’S NOT GOING TO.
Ranting doesn’t help.
Richard, I believe that a hidden agenda has to be the case, because the claim that Obama is not on the track to war is just not credible. In general, Obama’s clear MO, demonstrated over and over again is to say one thing and do another. We know of at least one case where he blatantly and knowingly lied in this manner: during the long health care process, he pretended again and again to be pushing for the public option. Many observers pointed out that this was clearly not sincere, and that he clearly intended to ditch the public option. But alternapundits claimed vociferiously that he was a staunch champion of the public option, implying that all we needed to do, as progressives, was to support him more strongly. But once the Health Care Fiasco was safely passed, it was revealed that in fact, Obama had long since given the public option away in smoke filled rooms, so to speak. Barack Obama is not a naive man, as Bush perhaps was. Bacevich talked about this recently and rightly. He is very self aware and very calculating.
Obama’s tendency to say one thing and do another has been very much on display in his dealings with Iran. He has talked endlessly about “engagement”, but the closest he came to engagement was the swap deal, which was clearly a poison deal, in that it demanded that Iran trust Russia and France, two nations that Iran clearly cannot trust. When Iran came back with counterpositions, Obama angrily rejected the very concept of such proposals: but Obama knows quite well that counterproposals are the very essence of diplomacy, negotiation, engagement, an open hand, call it what you will.
I do not believe that all these alternapundits are just naively wrong. I think they are knowingly wrong, and I wonder why. And when I try to answer that question, I look at the affects of their deceptions. And what I think see then is that the antiwar movement is confused by these Obama as Secret Peacemaker deceptions. It remains confused about whether to support Obama more against all those mean and nasty neocons dragging him into war, or to oppose Obama’s own obvious intent for war. Encouraging such confusion is, I propose, the purpose of the deception.
Fwiw, Obama COULD make a Grand Bargain with Iran, and it MIGHT be political suicide, but it would not NECESSARILY be political suicide, and even if it was, should we not recognize that doing what is right must sometimes supercede selfinterest, in any field of endeavor, but PARTICULARLY in the political field? Yet, somehow the political field seems to be the one field where no such ethical standard is considered to apply, where it is simply assumed that people always will do and must do what will further their careers.
But it is very true that the Iran War has, by now, an apparently unstoppable momentum. Obama’s best chance to actually change that was early in his presidency, when following through on his fine words about “engagement” would probably have made a big difference.
Paul: I agree with you that Israel at least would like to take the gloves off. There is not doubt that they are planning another invasion of Lebanon and they intend to try to destroy Hizballah in the process (they will fail).
As to the US, you need to distinguish between what the soldiers on the line want and what the generals want to what the US can afford to be seen doing. Yes, the soldiers want to kill everybody, and the generals want to kill everybody to avoid having too many soldiers under their command get killed (because it looks bad on their record), and the civilians be damned.
But the US cannot afford to be seen slaughtering civilians, even though they did so in Iraq with considerably impunity.
Petraeus will relax the rules of engagement and more civilians will die in Afghanistan. But the US CANNOT win in Afghanistan without deploying FAR more troops than it has available. The COIN doctrine suggests the US would need FIVE OR SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND troops in Afghanistan – it has only one hundred. So even it the US starts slaughtering civilians and burning villages in the Pashtun area, it’s not going to get anywhere at all.
There are MILLIONS of Pashtuns and most of them hate the US at this point. There’s no possible way the US can gain anything by trying to kill most of them.
So the US won’t really “take the gloves off” in Afghanistan.
Now, as to Iran, the Pentagon I think is not happy about trying to fight Iran, a country four times the size and population of Iraq. They remember Iraq too well.
The exception is the US Air Force, which would love to bomb the crap out of Iran because it would look good on their general’s records. And possibly the Navy – although the 2002 war game that got sixteen of their ships sunk possibly gives them some pause.
But the Pentagon will do what they’re ordered to do by the political leadership. They were able to push back against Bush, especially during his “lame duck” period. But I’m not sure they can push back against Obama – except to the degree that Obama appears to be able to be lead by the nose by generals.
We can’t count on the Pentagon to prevent a war with Iran forever. The internal logic of the crisis has to be resolved, as I’ve said elsewhere.
Pat Lang said last week that in his view the only course left now is war, and that the US will have to virtually destroy Iran in order to pull this off. I would say that while the US CAN “virtually destroy” Iran’s infrastructure and conventional military, the US CANNOT “destroy” – virtually or otherwise – Iran at all (short of using nuclear weapons on every significant city and slaughtering thirty million people – which the US will not do.) So whatever the US does will lead to a major asymmetric and disastrous war.
But Israel? Oh yes, they’re going to once again prove how callous and bloodthirsty they are by slaughtering civilians in Lebanon and probably Gaza, and possibly Syria as well.
Dan Cooper,
“The Reader” has spoken again!
As you say, WigWag has been called out. Every time he smells blood, he comes out of his shell to comment here. War is what he want. Nothing else will do.
Kathleen: I think it’s both ways. I think Israel wants to avoid the blame AS LONG AS it thinks it can get the US to attack Iran. BUT if the US actually does dither for another X years, I think Israel will eventually attack Iran.
This is simply because Israel cannot afford to let Iran win this conflict. The whole point of this made up “crisis” is for Israel to gain real benefit from having the US destroy one its enemies and thus advance its overall program to dominate the Middle East economically and militarily.
If the US doesn’t follow the program, Israel must regardless of whether it gets the blame.
Besides which, Israel has been blamed for a lot so far – and what harm has that done it when it continues to control the US Congress and the US media? They have gotten some opprobrium from the rest of the world over Lebanon, and Gaza, and the flotilla, but they’ve weathered that. From a geopolitical calculus, they haven’t lost much. A war with Iran is likely something they feel they can weather again. They weathered Iraq – after, as the Leveretts have said, trying to get the US to attack IRAN INSTEAD of Iraq back in 2003!
So I have no doubt that Israel will attack Iran IF they can’t get the US to do it. But they still want the US to do it just to have their cake with sugar on it.
And they’ll get it because they’ve boxed Obama into a corner, as the Leveretts say here.
Re. Margolis’ comment:
“As the United States feted freedom from a foreign oppressor on July 4, its professional soldiers were using every sort of weapon in Afghanistan, from heavy bombers to tanks, armoured vehicles, helicopter gunships, fleets of drones, heavy artillery, cluster bombs and an arsenal of hi-tech gear.
In spite of this might, bands of outnumbered Pashtun tribesmen and farmers, armed only with small arms, determination and limitless courage, have fought the West’s war machine to a standstill and now have it on the strategic defensive.”
The problem with this view, I think, is that it does not take into account the evident perception in both Israel and the US that the main reason for troubles Israel had in Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in 2008-9, and for troubles the US has had in Iraq and Afghanistan, is that both countries are compelled by inappropriately ‘fine ideas’ to fight with hands tied behind their backs, so to speak. It’s been clear for some time, I think, that Israel longs to ‘take off the gloves’, seeking a rematch in both Lebanon and Gaza, and I think the same is true for the US ‘High Command’, that it wants to ‘take off the gloves’. The McChrystal affair points to this. The main issue underlined by the Rolling Stone article was that the rank and file military wants to ‘take the gloves off’, and the appointment of a general twice involved at Fallujah to Centcom, I believe, tells us that the High Command agrees with this.
Paul: I disagree that the Leveretts or other pundits have any hidden agenda by suggesting Obama is pro-peace. Obama himself may actually think he is. It’s not hard for a politician to fool himself about his motivations in order to conceal his real motivations. People do it all the time.
The problem for people who think Obama doesn’t want to start a war with Iran, as well as those who don’t think a war with Iran will ever occur, is what is called “cognitive dissonance.” They can’t emotionally accept an event because the consequences of the event threaten them and thus the consequences of accepting the event threaten them. So they come up with all sorts of vague reasons why it will never happen. This is a common psychological condition. It’s particularly rampant among Iran crisis watchers.
But the Iran crisis has an internal logic. As I’ve said repeatedly, either Iran blinks or the US AND Israel do. There is no third alternative except that the whole thing blows over because over time it becomes increasingly ridiculous to believe that Iran is making nuclear weapons because they DON’T make any. And if the third alternative does occur, it makes the US and Israel look ridiculous AND insures that they don’t get the benefit from creating the crisis. Therefore the crisis HAS to lead to war. Because Iran isn’t going to stop enrichment, Obama isn’t going to make a “Grand Bargain” (because it would be political suicide), and Israel isn’t going to allow Iran to win this conflict.
Therefore one’s emotional reaction to the situation is not relevant. The situation has a logical progression that must be followed in the real world.
I don’t think Israel or the pro likud community in the states gives a rats ass if they will be blamed if the U.s. attacked Iran. They just want us to do it
As for the current article, the Leveretts are pointing out that Netanyahu is boxing Obama in and essentially forcing the United States to attack Iran on pain of Obama not being re-elected in 2012 (and Democrats losing Congressional seats this year).
Personally I don’t think Obama NEEDS much “boxing in”. I think he is FULLY on board with attacking Iran in the same way he is FULLY on board with escalating the war in Afghanistan. Whether this is based on his own duplicity and support for the “permanent war economy” of the United States, or whether this is based on his total cluelessness about foreign policy and military matters is irrelevant. The end result will be the same.
As to who will be blamed for the Iran war, I have said for years that Israel wants to avoid the blame, which is why they have not attacked Iran YET. This is why Dick Cheney got Israel another $30 BILLION in foreign aid – to bribe them to do so, so the US would not be blamed. That didn’t work. Israel will get the money and didn’t have to do anything because the US has no leverage over Israel.
So the Leveretts are absolutely right that Netanyahu is maneuvering the US into attack Iran. And the US will do so. Why? Because in the end, aside from the possibility of losing an election, neither Obama nor anyone else in the US government will be at risk from such a war. As usual, the US taxpayer and the US military and the civilians in Iran will pay the price. This is the bottom line calculation of ANY politician. They never pay the price. Even if Obama loses the 2012 election, he will go on to have a rich and successful life, just like all other Presidents, and his successor will be stuck with the problem. And if the war occurs after he wins re-election (IF he doe) he will pay no price at all for starting the war because he can’t be re-elected anyway.
Everybody (except the morons) blamed George Bush for starting the Iraq war. Do you really think George Bush CARES what you think? Do you think OBAMA cares what you think? If so, people are really naive.
What matters to a politician is political calculation, campaign funds, greed, power. and securing their ego a place in history, whether odious or laudatory really is irrelevant.
Yes, Obama will attack Iran and he will not care WHO gets the blame as long as his military-industrial campaign contributors get their taxpayer money and as long as his Chicago Jewish mob supporters get their Iran war.
It’s that simple.
Alternapundit after alternapundit (Leverettes, Lobe, Dreyfuss, Porter, etc.) are pushing this same deception, that Obama is a Secret Peacemaker, and that the neocons and Israeli hardliners (ie. all Israeli pols now) are at fault for pushing us into war with Iran. But that was never credible, and it’s not even got a fig leaf of credibility now that Obama has had a demonstration from Turkey and Brazil as to what real “engagement” is, and now that Obama has punched Turkey and Brazil in the face as thanks for their good efforts. Why do alternapundits insist on continuing to sell this deception? Can it be that they seek to keep the Left and the AntiWar movement off balance, to keep us foolishly hoping that in the end, Obama will shake off the warmongers and reveal his secret plans for peace, just in time for another Nobel Prize?
Wigwag is the one who comes off as ridiculous in this argument.
The real question is: what’s to contain? Iran has organized its military for deterrence and for asymmetric defense. Since Iran cannot project power, what’s to contain?
I might remind Wigwag (for the umpteenth time) that Iran’s annual defense budget amounts to about $9 Billion, about what the US spends in a month and a half in Afghanistan alone. You can’t project power with a defense budget like that. And you barely have a prayer of defending your country.
The Leveretts are right–containment won’t work, because there’s nothing to contain.
Van Creveld is likely wrong in his hypothesis that Iran is “zig-zagging” in order to get from the period where they do not have nuclear weapons to the period where they do.
The problem with this hypothesis is that it takes a country like Iran DECADES to get from here to there. Even once they have enough nuclear material for a weapon – or two – or ten – once they really DO decide to weaponize the material, they will be INSTANTLY discovered. It will take a year, two years or more to weaponize enough material for one or two weapons.
NOW where are they, with one or two nuclear weapons WHICH THEY CANNOT DELIVER?!
NOW they are shown up to be complete liars, AND they face a rabid Israel with an estimated TWO HUNDRED FIFTY to FOUR HUNDRED nuclear weapons – and an angry US with THOUSANDS of nuclear weapons AND BOTH countries have the means to deliver them!
If Creveld is saying this is the calculus the Iranian leadership is following, and if that is true, then he is saying and we must accept that the Iranian leadership is NUTS!
There is ZERO evidence that this is the case.
Even assuming that Iran wants nuclear weapons – and while we can probably say that some members of the Iranian military and/or the leadership might so want, we have no evidence that this is POLICY on the part of the overall government – nuclear weapons would do Iran absolutely NO GOOD. And various members of the Iranian policy establishment have said exactly that.
Iran is NOT North Korea! There we have a personality cult leadership far more extreme than in Iran. We have NO democracy in North Korea. We have NO opposition in North Korea (that is visible to the outside world anyway). North Korea has NO support anywhere in the world for its actions except China to a very limited degree, with China mostly acting to restrain North Korea from doing something stupid. North Korea has no viable economy, and is a totally militaristic state. North Korea has no natural resources. North Korea has no strategic importance to the region except its ability to threaten its neighbors.
But EVEN North Korea CEASED its nuclear weapons development under the Agreed Framework and only resumed that work when George Bush (and Clinton before him) reneged on the supplying of fuel oil and light water reactors under the Agreed Framework.
North Korea was able to kick out the IAEA inspectors and restart its nuclear program SOLELY because it has a huge armed military and any US attempt to attack North Korea would result in a million South Korean and North Korean casualties and an estimated fifty thousand US military casualties in the first ninety days according to Pentagon war games.
Thus North Korea was able to continue its nuclear development (resulting in a test widely considered a “dud”) without a major US attack.
Iran is NOTHING like North Korea! None of the conditions surrounding North Korea exist in Iran.
Iran CANNOT expect – and therefore its leaders should know that – to be able to simply withdraw from the NPT, kick out the IAEA inspectors, and start weaponizing. It is simply not a feasible plan, ESPECIALLY since North Korea has already done that once.
The most we could speculate about Iran’s intentions are that they wish to achieve, as Arnold Evans has repeatedly said, a state of “nuclear ambiguity”, or “nuclear breakout capability”, which means they could develop their knowledge of nuclear weapons and their resources to enable them to make nuclear weapons IF the Iranian leadership feels they must. In other words, they would be like Japan IN INTENTION. However, Iran is NOT Japan and does not have the same geopolitical status that would allow Japan to go nuclear if it were threatened by China. Iran can NOT expect to be ALLOWED to go nuclear in the same way North Korea was or that Japan would be. And Iran’s leaders should be logical enough to understand that as well.
When you add in the fact that an Iran with nuclear weapons would further be perceived as a military threat to its neighbors, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the UAE, etc., let alone Israel, having such a perception directed against them would immediately threaten their ability to achieve diplomatic influence in the region except on a basis of fear. And Iranian diplomats have said precisely this, so clearly the Iranian leadership understand this as well.
I continue to insist that what has happened here in the past with the alleged nuclear weapons program is that the Iranian MILITARY (and possibly certain hardliners) have been conducting a nuclear weapons RESEARCH program, NOT a nuclear weapons DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT program. And that US intelligence is not capable from a distance of distinguishing the difference between two such programs.
The Iranian military would like to know HOW to build a nuclear weapon. Fine. So what? That is knowledge any military would like, especially one that is threatened by nuclear weapons. I don’t care if YOU know how to make nuclear weapons. The only issue anyone should be concerned with is who HAS nuclear weapons and who has THREATENED TO USE nuclear weapons.
And in the Middle East there is only ONE such country: Israel.
But Obama has now EXPLICITLY given Israel a pass on possessing nuclear weapons. There is no more “strategic ambiguity” with Israel. Obama has said they can HAVE nuclear weapons AND he has explicitly said that Israel’s security is at their own discretion – meaning Israel can USE its nuclear weapons as THEY see fit.
It should be clear to even the most obtuse observers that both the United States and Israel fully intend to attack Iran within the next few years on the pretext of possessing a nuke program, exactly as Bush did with Iraq. The real reasons for this attack should be obvious to the reader.
I don’t know, Leveretts, I recall the slogan being repeated during the run-up to war in Iraq: “The road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad.”
That slogan, which echoed through many a hallway in US government at the time, is indirect proof of Israeli interests promoting the US war on Iraq.
A US military strike on Iran has been politically ripe for years now. The American public has been sold on the idea by the MSM. What’s been holding back the attack are reservations primarily expressed by the US military, and perhaps certain economic advisors. A US strike remains at least as risky as when President Bush said “no” in 2008. So for a US executive to say “yes”, he will have to override them. I don’t see Obama doing so, but anything is possible for a potential GOP executive in 2013 or 2017. Barring anything unforeseen, these pro-war hawks are not going to go away during this time frame.
Iran, on the other hand, since 2005, has not blinked. It can almost be said their leadership expects war. Evidence for such comes from the fact that in 2007, when Dick Cheney parked 3 USN attack carriers in the PG aimed at Iran, what did the Iranians do? Instead of backing down, they intensified fortification work on an alternative nuclear site (among other military related preparations).
Yes, if and when war with Iran comes and if it turns out adversely, certain American intellectuals will recognize the fault of the Israelis. But ordinary Americans rely on the MSM for their perspectives. And rest assured, they’ll be spoon fed a narrative that will steer clear of Israel and the Israel lobby.
A commentator named Walrus on Pat Lang’s blog made an interesting comment well worth sharing. He says:
“Given that the Likudnik dream is “Greater Israel”, and that its creation requires human rights abuse on a scale not seen since WWII, might not Israel like to have America welded to it at the hip in perpetuity? What better way than to ensure America is vilified by the Muslim world like Israel is? What better way to achieve that than by bombing Iran?”
He suggests, I think correctly, that a primary reason Israel wants the US in a hot war with Iran is not genuine Israeli fear of Iran, but to ensure that coming generations of Americans remain firmly wedded to the Israeli side. All the bad deeds of Israel will be forgiven, because they will be fighting alongside the US against “the enemy”.
Diabolical. Certainly. Part of the calculations? Assuredly.
JohnH,
The neocons succeeded in covering up their conspiracy to set up an illegal war, in large part because most of the mainstream news media aided and abetted the cover-up.
Thomas Powers is quite right, that no investigation of the origin of the war was made, by any official body in the US, beccaue it “would lead too easily, too directly, in troubling directions. Cui bono?
The insane, illegal Iraq War was a scam carried out against the best interests of the American people, to “protect” Israel (meaning, to enable continuing oppression of the Palestinians, general bellicosity, etc etc etc etc).
John H wrote: “in the event something goes seriously wrong.”
no problem, then.
what could possibly go wrong?
What a surprise: Netanyahu as vicious liar trying to dupe the Aerican people into believing the Taliban attacked America in 2001. Then he will tell the ignorant, gullible American public that Iran backs the Taliban, and is preparing for another attack on the US.
Martin van Creveld is excellent as usual: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMN16Fc_sJ8
““There has only been one time that Iran actually stopped the program. That was when it feared U.S. military action”. (We take this as a reference to the U.S. National Intelligence Council’s December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on the Iranian nuclear program)”
I thought Netanyahu was referring to the time when the Khatami government suspended enrichment activities fearing what the Leveretts themselves have described as becoming another “target” for the Cheney-Bush-Rumsfeld gang. I think then he is actually right here.
Those who worry that the neocons are trying to arrange for a false NIE on Iran, in the manner of the intentionally false 2002 NIE on Iraq, should read “The CIA & Iraq – How the White House Got Its Way: An Exchange” in the New York Review of Books for July 15, 2010. In it, Thomas Powers asks: “Why has no official American body wanted to know who went to such lengths to make the case for war?”
Iran has two tons of uranium now. Is Netanyahu proposing the US bomb when it goes from two to three? Three to four? Nine to ten? Meaning there are no more red lines for Iran to cross.
For years now, the US and especially Israel have wanted to use the threat of an attack as a way to pressure Iran but always with the full knowledge that an attack would be counterproductive in terms of preventing Iran from building a weapon or in terms of restraining Iran’s regional growth.
WigWag
I see desperation in the manner you exploit and manipulate Leveretts posts.
“Under-estimate” people’s intelligence at your peril,
you will not be able to fool people in this forum, they have already called your bluff and I can assure you nobody will fall for your garbage anymore.
Read this very interesting article By “Camillo Mac Bica” and learn the truth.
“They wage pre-emptive war, occupy and bomb sovereign nations, utilize video-game technology and robotics to murder and then dehumanize hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children as collateral damage. We who advocate peace and justice say that such acts of war and occupation are illegal, immoral and a barbaric and paranoid response to contrived evil.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25918.htm
Joe Klein was really pushing for this idea that the UAE leaders are supportive and encouraging the U.S. to take a whack at Iran. Rather Creepy
Take a listen at the end of the Matthews Sunday news segment on “tell me something I don’t know”
http://thechrismatthewsshow.com/index.php
Saving Face in Unwinnable War
Sinking in debt and no closer to victory, heads may roll as the U.S. and NATO wrap up their pointless Afghan adventure.
Fire-breathing U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his Special Forces “mafia” were supposed to crush Afghan resistance to western occupation. But McChrystal was fired after rude remarks from his staff about the White House.
A more cerebral and political general, David Petraeus, replaced McChrystal. Petraeus managed to temporarily suppress resistance in Iraq.
Last week, the usually cautious Petraeus vowed from Kabul to “win” the Afghan War, which has cost the U.S. nearly $300 billion to date and 1,000 dead. The problem: No one can define what winning really means. Each time the U.S. reinforces, Afghan resistance grows stronger.
Afghanistan is America’s longest-running conflict.
The escalating war now costs U.S. taxpayers $17 billion monthly. President Barack Obama’s Afghan “surge” of 30,000 more troops will cost another $30 billion.
The Afghan and Iraq wars – at a cost of $1 trillion – are being waged on borrowed money when the U.S. is drowning in $13.1 trillion in debt.
America has become addicted to debt and war.
By 2011, Canadians will have spent an estimated $18.1 billion on Afghanistan, $1,500 per household.
The U.S. Congress, which alone can declare and fund war, shamefully allowed U.S. presidents George W. Bush and Obama to usurp this power. A majority of Americans now oppose this imperial misadventure. Though politicians fear opposing the war lest they be accused of “betraying our soldiers,” dissent is breaking into the open.
Last week, Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele let the cat out of the bag, admitting the Afghan war was not winnable. War-loving Republicans erupted in rage, all but accusing Steele of high treason. Many of Steele’s most hawkish Republican critics had, like Bush and Dick Cheney, dodged real military service during the Vietnam War.
Republicans (I used to be one) blasted McChrystal’s sensible policy of trying to lessen Afghan civilian casualties from U.S. bombing and shelling. There is growing anti-western fury in Afghanistan and Pakistan over mounting civilian deaths.
By clamouring for more aggressive attacks that endanger Afghan civilians and strengthen Taliban, Republicans again sadly demonstrate they have become the party and voice of America’s dim and ignorant.
Obama claimed he was expanding the Afghan War to fight al-Qaida. Yet the Pentagon estimates there are no more than a handful of al-Qaida small-fry left in Afghanistan.
Obama owes Americans the truth about Afghanistan.
After nine years of war, the immense military might of the U.S., its dragooned NATO allies, and armies of mercenaries have been unable to defeat resistance to western occupation or create a popular, legitimate government in Kabul. Drug production has reached new heights.
As the United States feted freedom from a foreign oppressor on July 4, its professional soldiers were using every sort of weapon in Afghanistan, from heavy bombers to tanks, armoured vehicles, helicopter gunships, fleets of drones, heavy artillery, cluster bombs and an arsenal of hi-tech gear.
In spite of this might, bands of outnumbered Pashtun tribesmen and farmers, armed only with small arms, determination and limitless courage, have fought the West’s war machine to a standstill and now have it on the strategic defensive.
This brutal David versus Goliath conflict brings no honour upon the western powers waging it, including Canada. They are widely seen abroad as waging yet another pitiless colonial war against a small, backward people for resource domination and strategic geography.
Most Afghans yearn for peace after 30 years of war. But efforts by the government of Hamid Karzai, Taliban and Pakistan to forge a peace are being thwarted by Washington, Ottawa and Afghanistan’s Communist-dominated Tajik Northern Alliance. India stirs the pot in Afghanistan while rebellion seethes in Indian-held Kashmir.
The heretical Republican Steele was speaking truth when he said this ugly, pointless war is unwinnable. But Washington’s imperial impulses continue. Too many political careers in the U.S., Canada and Europe hang on this misbegotten war. So, too, does the fate of the obsolete NATO alliance that may well meet its Waterloo in the hills of Afghanistan.
Saving Face in Unwinnable War
Sinking in debt and no closer to victory, heads may roll as the U.S. and NATO wrap up their pointless Afghan adventure
By Eric Margolis
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25917.htm
“At that point—having already dismissed the plausibility of containment, the Prime Minister has positioned himself to press President Obama not to “waste time” with a futile strategy and move on to serious consideration of military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets.” (Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett)
The Leveretts are truly hysterical and they must take their readers for idiots. Do they expect that we don’t remember that the first person to “dismiss the plausibility of containment” was Flynt Leverett himself? Wasn’t Flynt Leverett one of the first to argue that a strategy of containment was not only doomed to fail but was likely to lead to a military confrontation between the United States and Iran? Didn’t Flynt Leverett write more than one post at this blog and articles elsewhere that suggested the containment metaphor from the days of the Cold War made no sense in the context of Iran? Didn’t he suggest that the asymmetry in power between the United States and Iran (as opposed to the U.S. and Soviets during the Cold War) made it highly unlikely that a policy of containment could be maintained for the long run and that instead a violent confrontation was almost inevitable if the U.S. tried to contain Iran instead of trying to seriously engage it?
Now that it is clear even to them that engagement is off the table, the Leveretts are furiously back peddling and belittling those who think containment won’t work (which is exactly what they thought just a couple of months ago).
Here’s a news flash Flynt and Hillary. You are in perfect agreement with Prime Minister Netanyahu. He doesn’t think containing Iran is a viable strategy; after months of posts belittling all options other than engagement (including a complete dismissal of the containment option) this is the first post where you suggest that you think containment might be a good idea.
Hypocrisy may be an epidemic when it comes to a discussion about Iran, but the two of you truly take the cake.
A point that needs to be repeated over and over again: “Israel and the pro-Likud community in the United States will be blamed.” If politicians turn to scapegoating, it is easy to see who the target will be. The broader, secular Jewish community should be spooked by this and rise up against an Israeli government and a bunch of largely Jewish neocons who are taking the US to war and potential failure in their name.
The neocons managed to avoid accountability for their behavior in promoting the Iraq fiasco, due in part to their successfully framing the media narrative. However, the US suffered no disaster at the end of that misadventure. An attack on Iran could easily have a different outcome.
I do not believe for a minute that Israel is driving US policy. There are plenty of other powerful interests at play (DOD and defense contractors to name a couple.) But Israel and a largely Jewish group of neocons is very much the public face of the “attack Iran” movement, and they are the ones most likely to be held full accountable in the event something goes seriously wrong.