(Photo from Iranian.com)
Predictably, the Istanbul talks have ended without positive results. And, it seems clear that the discussion came to a dead end over two issues:
–the Islamic Republic wanted explicit recognition of its right to enrich uranium which the United States (at least) was not prepared to do; and
–the United States proposed a plan for refueling the Tehran Research Reactor that was more demanding on and less rewarding for Iran than the plan advanced last fall.
As it is not clear when the P-5+1 might meet again with the Iranians and the Obama Administration’s efforts to “engage” Tehran are increasingly being written off as a failure, public discourse in the United States is already turning to a consideration of non-diplomatic “next steps”. The Obama Administration will almost certainly push to expand U.S. and international sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Beyond that, we also anticipate that there will be increasing calls for the Administration to embrace “regime change” as the declared goal of America’s Iran policy.
On this front, one of the more noteworthy developments is an accelerating campaign to remove the mojahedin-e khalq, or MEK, from the U.S. Government’s list of foreign terrorist organizations. Over the last few months, a number of prominent Republicans—including John Bolton, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former White House homeland security and counterterrorism coordinator Fran Townsend, and new House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen—have been publicly agitating to delist the MEK. But this effort has now gone bipartisan and big time, including engaging the services of a Washington, DC consulting firm.
To document this last point, we link here to the video of an event held in Washington last week, clearly designed to build public support for delisting the MEK as part of a U.S.-led campaign for regime change in Tehran. The event was organized by Executive Action, LLC, which describes itself as “a McKinsey & Company with muscle, a private CIA and Defense Department available to address your most intractable problems and difficult challenges”. (Exactly who engaged Executive Action’s services for this event is not clear.) Featured speakers included not only Republican figures like Mukasey, but also retired U.S. Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni; former New Mexico Governor, Clinton Administration cabinet officer, and Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson; former Democratic New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli; and retired Marine Corps General James Jones—who just stepped down, in November 2010, as President Obama’s first national security adviser. All of the speakers argued for bringing down the Islamic Republic and forging a new political order in Iran—and for embracing the MEK as the foundation of a new Iranian “opposition” capable of bringing about both of these objectives.
History, Mark Twain allegedly observed, doesn’t repeat itself—but it does sometimes rhyme. We are struck by how much the ongoing campaign to rehabilitate the MEK in Washington, as part of a broader, regime-change-in-Iran strategy, “rhymes” with a similar campaign in the 1990s and early 2000s to promote Ahmad Chalabi’s expatriate Iraqi National Congress (INC) to overthrow the Iraqi government. That campaign featured high-profile Washington lobbyists, lawyers, and public relations specialists, extensive use of media, and the recruitment of high-profile political figures and former U.S. Government officials to sell both the dangerous idea that coercive regime change was the optimal U.S. policy option and a completely detached-from-reality assessment that Chalabi and the INC could deliver on the ground in Iraq. The United States will truly deserve what it gets if it falls for this again with regard to the MEK and Iran.
Jones’ participation in the event is particularly appalling, and should unsettle those who reflexively defended the seriousness of President Obama’s commitment to “engage” Tehran, and kept insisting that Obama’s approach to Iran was fundamentally different from that of George W. Bush. After listening to his remarks, we challenge anyone to make the case that, for the Obama Administration, “engagement” with the Islamic Republic was ever anything but a Dennis Ross-style, “check the box” exercise.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
kooshy says: January 28, 2011 at 3:59 pm
That discussion is behind the course of events.
The Iranians have created facts on the ground that cannot be eradicated unless that country is completely defeated and occupied.
When Mr. Ahmadinejad stated in 2007 that “this is over” he was not engaging in hyperbole. He was stating facts.
But, in the absence of an alternative positive policy, we have these journalistic fora that only serves to inflame the Iranians and their people.
Davos panel on Iran can agree on one thing: A military strike could spark a huge counterattack
By Dan Perry (CP)
DAVOS, Switzerland — A diverse panel of decision-makers and experts from the United States, Europe and the Middle East found common ground on just one thing when it comes to dealing with the Iranian nuclear program Friday: A military strike could well spark a devastating counterattack.
In the debate at the World Economic Forum, former top U.S. diplomat Richard Haass said there were no good options should diplomacy fail, but stood apart from the others in advocating force as a viable option. He sparred repeatedly with Saudi Arabia’s Prince Turki al-Faisal, who urged the United States to instead pressure Israel to quit its own reported nuclear weapons as a way of coaxing Iran to drop its suspected weapons program as well.
Haass countered that there was no time for this because of the speed of Iran’s program — and rejected the assertion by Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Ali Babacan that the program might be civilian, as Tehran has repeatedly claimed.
The Davos panel thus reflected the basic disagreement that divides world powers and bedevils diplomatic efforts: All seem to oppose Iran producing a nuclear weapon, but there are disagreements over whether to believe its protestations. And down the road lies the open question of whether war is worse than acquiesence.
Iran “is not interested in any serious way to produce electricity,” said Haass, who is president of the Council on Foreign Relations, an influential U.S. think-tank . “Let’s not kid ourselves: This is about a sustained Iranian commitment to either develop nuclear weapons or get 90 per cent of the way there” — perhaps sufficing with a status as “a ‘threshold nuclear weapons state’ in the belief that they could derive most of the benefits (without) incurring most of the costs.”
Most of the other panelists at the debate hosted by the Al-Arabiya satellite TV channel stressed that diplomacy should be the focus of current efforts.
“We should use every single opportunity to reach our goal on the diplomatic path,” said German Defence Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg.
Babacan argued that “there is a huge misunderstanding between the Western world and some in the (Middle East) and Iran. … Marginalizing Iran more and more, or cornering them more and more … is not going to give any kind of (solution).”
“The Iranians see diplomacy as a tactic to buy time,” Haass countered. “I don’t think it’s going to work.” Although he advocates tougher sanctions as a tactic, Haass said he feared an ultimate choice between two bad options: accepting a nuclear-armed Iran — or using military force to set back the Iranian program however possible, despite the risk of only partial success.
“I do believe that force is a serious option,” he said, arguing that a nuclear Iran would place this region on a knife’s edge. It would take the most dangerous, unstable part of the world and place it on steroids. This has tremendous consequences which we should not underestimate.”
The panelists were aghast at the prospect on a stricken Iran, bent on revenge.
Khalid Al Bu-Ainnain, a former top Gulf military official, said Iran would “attack Israelis and U.S. forces in the Gulf” and the Gulf states might be drawn in as well.
Turki, a former Saudi intelligence chief who is a brother of Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, said that “Iran will strike back wherever it can, throughout the globe. My country and other countries — all countries — will be in the firing line. Iran has assets all over the world that it can use.”
Guttenberg said Europe may get drawn in: “The (Middle East) is on fire and then … we will have European discussions on being involved, yes or no. This is a sheer disaster. … Let’s try to avoid it diplomatically.”
Not to be outdone, Haass added that Iran might interfere with the flow of oil as well.
Haass said that he took part in past U.S. deliberations on what to do about North Korea’s nuclear program, and that force was discussed then also. With North Korea and Pakistan now both possessing nuclear weapons, his conclusion is that the world has been too lax: “If there were (ever) a mix of terrorism and nuclear materials, that dangerous mixture is more likely to come from Pakistan in our lifetime than anywhere else.”
“A nightmare scenario,” sighed Turki, emphatically agreeing with his American co-panelist at last.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hpQqEzA_Plw0oFSoi5QWab3foBjw?docId=5789628
Passerby,
You quoted Pak with approval:
“If you are not universal in your values, then you are a hypocrite. Pure and simple.”
Exactly. This is precisely what makes Pak a hypocrite. He supports “democracy” only when it yields good results for his favored candidate. When it does not, he no longer supports democracy, though he will still claim loudly that he is doing so.
My previous comment should be directed at Passerby, who wrote the passage I quoted, not Pak.
Pak,
“I wonder if we’re going to see an analysis of the Mubarak’s election numbers and how they must be true because their State department reported it (80+ % vote for Mubarak was it?). I wonder why it is okay for people in Egypt to use violence as a means to overthrow their oppressive regime but not for Iranians (who were at first very peaceful).”
Simple, Pak: In Egypt, the “elections” were not fair. In Iran, they were. That’s a very important difference.
Lets see if I have this right: If you support the incarceration of one person you should support universal incarceration…. if you support the overthrow of one government you should support universal overthrow of all governments…
The argument is silly and facile.
BiBiJon, Kinzer’s article is very good. Remarkable that it is in Newsweek.
Pak,
They are all hypocrites indeed! NOTHING could have demonstrated this better than Egypt. I wonder if we’re going to see an analysis of the Mubarak’s election numbers and how they must be true because their State department reported it (80+ % vote for Mubarak was it?). I wonder why it is okay for people in Egypt to use violence as a means to overthrow their oppressive regime but not for Iranians (who were at first very peaceful). I wonder if Egyptians had Basijis people here would have supported them just as they were doing back when they were attacking student dorms and killing innocent Iranian youth. I wonder why they think the Iranian protesters were all rich northern-Tehranis when a great majority of those killed and those still serving time are poor and from lower-middle-class families.
You said it best:
“If you support the right of people to protest and voice their concerns, then you should do it universally. If you condemn brutality, then you should do it universally. If you are not universal in your values, then you are a hypocrite. Pure and simple.”
Persian Gulf,
Abject stupidity on the part of Obama and his team have wrecked the Middle East peace process. Really pathetic but entirely to be expected, sadly. I have said for years the US is incapable of acting in its own best interests in matters pertaining to Israel, and that this disastrous situation actually is against the true best interests of Israel.
BiBiJon,
Iran’s interests are best served by stability in the region, and the current Saudi government is more in the best interests of Iran than what would take its place in a “democracy” – - due to Wahabi fundamentalism.
Israeli extremists will not want ElBaradei in power in Cairo, that is for sure. But ElBaradei in fact would be good for Israel’s true best interests.
I recommend Philip Stephens’ fine piece in the Financial Times today (Jan 28): “Settlements bury a Palestinian state”.
Quote: “Mr Obama’s White House team clings to the bankrupt notion that saying Yes to Mr Netanyahu is the only possible route to a deal.”
Stephen Kinzer on why the U.S. should abandon its self-defeating strategy in the region:
“Whom does America bet on to counter these rising forces? The same friends it has been betting on for decades: Mubarak’s pharaonic regime in Egypt, Mahmoud Abbas and his Palestinian Authority, the Saudi monarchy, and increasingly radical politicians in Israel. It is no wonder that Iran’s power is rising as the American-imposed order begins to crumble.”
From http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/28/egypt-protests-show-american-foreign-policy-folly.html
Reza Esfandiari says:
January 28, 2011 at 1:27 pm
I think it is important that the demonstrators in Egypt remain peaceful and don’t provoke the security forces into shooting them.
Let ’s hope for the best and pray to God , that casualties remain low.
However with over 40 million people living below 2 $ / day , I am afraid it is just a ‘ dream’.
What must happen , will happen.
I guess it’s too late for the Israeli embassy (though there may still be some documentary goodies extant), as their staff has reportedly been helicoptered out already, but how about another US embassy siege? :o)
C’mon you Moslem Brethren of mine, where is your ghayrat (spiritual jealousy)? The world is watching.
Oh, and don’t forget to storm the Gaza border crossing.
Cheers!
I think it is important that the demonstrators in Egypt remain peaceful and don’t provoke the security forces into shooting them. Things are now ominous as the army has taken to the streets and they will fire live ammunition, not just rubber bullets.
We saw in Iran and other countries that a few riotous elements can hijack peaceful protests and this leads to inevitable accidents and the loss of life.
BiBiJon says: January 28, 2011 at 12:28 pm
They current faction of US rulers do not care about objective reality.
One reason is that they are partisans of Israel and cannot accept or concede that there are legitimate moral as well as strategic reasons for opposing that states by many other states.
However, beyond that lies their innate belief – since they are raised in the United States, that they, at the personal level, and their country, at the national level, could achieve anything that they set their minds into it.
Add to this their dangerous Jacobin delusions and you get the current situation.
Historically, Americans as a polity, have been rather poor at creating positive outcomes for alien peoples with whom they have interacted: internally one could think of the Cherokee Nation and externally of the Philppenese (why isn’t Manila as great a place as Hong Kong or Singapore?), of Panam which was created by US (why is not Panam another Denmark?).
One could also point out to Iran, Viet Nam, Cambodia, South Korea where US leaders could never replicate liberal democracy on their own.
The enormous confidence of US leaders in their ability to achieve positive outcomes see to be completely derived from the cases of Japan and Germany and in those 2 cases US success was more accidental.
Eric,
Yes, ElBaradei might be expected to press for a more nuanced approach toward Iran. Something very welcome indeed.
Sergei Rybakov, deputy Russian foreign minister, said this week that the sanctions are ineffective. Not news to those posting on this site, of course.
Castellio,
Interesting nugget. Let’s hope US forces will not be used to keep the Gaza crossing to Egypt closed.
Because things are the way they are, they cannot continue to be the way they are.
Bertold Brecht.
I’m not sure at all what this means:
“Groton – Connecticut National Guard Detachment 2, Company I, 185th Aviation Regiment of Groton has mobilized and will deploy to the Sinai Peninsula, Egypt, to support the Multinational Force and Observers.
The unit left Connecticut Jan. 15 for Fort Benning, Ga., for further training and validation. The unit operates C-23C Sherpa aircraft and has deployed three times in the last seven years in support of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The unit will provide an on-demand aviation asset to the Multinational Force and Observers commander to support its mission of supervising the security provisions of the Egypt/ Israel Peace Treaty.
Chief Warrant Officer Four James Smith of Ivoryton commands the aviation unit.”
http://www.theday.com/article/20110124/NWS09/301249955/-1/nws
Arnold wrote (12:00 PM):
“[The] Obama administration believes the US colonies of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and others should “reform”. But that certain areas should remain outside of popular accountability. It is clear now that Obama does not think the people of Egypt should effectively be able to vote on where Egypt sides in a dispute between Hamas and Abbas of Fatah, or a dispute between Hezbollah or the US/France/Israel supported political groups in Lebanon, on where Egypt sides on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program and other issues of interest to Israel.”
Well put – I agree. Imagine what might happen if the US really supported democracy in Egypt – elections and that sort of thing – and Islamist parties gained control. How long would Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel last? Or suppose the secular choice – El Baradei – prevailed. How would the US react when El Baradei (predictably) recommended a more nuanced international approach to Iran’s nuclear program? Those are two questions (among others) that the US government would prefer not to see posed in the first place. As long as Mubarak (or maybe a spruced-up “reform” Mubarak, or some hand-chosen successor from his party) remains in power, the US knows exactly where Egypt stands on those two important questions: right where the US wants it to stand. Democracy in Egypt would be a fine thing in the US government’s view, as long as it doesn’t make the answers to those questions uncertain. But if it appears that it would, …
I often tease people like Scott, Pak and Binam for their apparent (and actual) disdain for democracy. But beneath my occasionally good humor on the subject lies a deep disgust for the disrespect they so openly show for the concept of democracy. If one really believes in democracy, one must accept that his preferred candidate might lose. Most of us here in the US understand and accept this – grudgingly at times, but we accept it. If an election is close (as with Bush/Gore in 2000), we do and should question whether the election was democratic, and we press hard for proof that rules were properly followed. Even if our candidate should lose by 30,000,000 votes (the rough population-adjusted US equivalent of Ahmadinejad’s victory margin in 2009), we would and should protest loudly against electoral fraud if we saw it – even if the fraud could not have affected the outcome. But when we can’t point to any evidence of fraud, we accept the result and move on. We do not do what Scott and Pak and Binam, among many others, have done: show utter contempt for the concept of democracy by making entirely unsubstantiated claims that “democracy” didn’t happen merely because our guy lost. We don’t insist that our choice of leaders should depend on which side can send more protesters out into the streets, or that a harsh crackdown on protesters proves that the protester-supported candidate really won the election, or that only citizens with Twitter accounts should be allowed to vote. If the government crackdown was excessive and illegal, we complain loudly about the crackdown, but we don’t claim it proves anything about the election. We accept the result and move on.
Democracy often disappoints. I think most of us would like a benevolent dictator to run things – if we could just be sure he’d be benevolent. For most of us, “benevolent” means “he pretty much agrees with me on most things.” The problem, of course, is that the dictator (and his supporters) might not agree with most people on most things. He may even stop agreeing with most or all of his supporters as time passes. Then he’s just a plain old dictator, not a benevolent one. And that’s why we have democracy.
That’s “democracy,” not “hypocrisy,” Pak and Scott and Binam and others. To keep the difference clearly in mind, I suggest that each of you ask yourselves these two questions:
1. If Tunisia holds democratic elections and an Islamist party takes power, and an Islam-based constitution and governmental system thereafter gets put in place, will you consider that preferable to what existed before the uprising in Tunisia?
2. Same question for Egypt.
OK, maybe a third question – just for Pak, in light of the all-but undeniable warm and fuzzy feelings I detected for the Shah in some of his writings from about a month ago: Knowing what you know now about how the 1979 Iranian revolution worked out, would you prefer that the Shah had remained in power if that were the only alternative to what actually came about?
A US National Guard detachment from Connecticut, Senator Joe Lieberman’s home state, will deploy to Sinai.
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2011/01/for-husni-mubarak.html
“Connecticut National Guard Detachment 2, Company I, 185th Aviation Regiment of Groton has mobilized and will deploy to the Sinai Peninsula, Egypt, to support the Multinational Force and Observers. The unit left Connecticut Jan. 15 for Fort Benning, Ga., for further training and validation. The unit operates C-23C Sherpa aircraft and has deployed three times in the last seven years in support of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The unit will provide an on-demand aviation asset to the Multinational Force and Observers commander to support its mission of supervising the security provisions of the Egypt/ Israel Peace Treaty.”
To quote UU in one of his remarkable comments :
“..In a sense, then, the 20th century was indeed a short one, starting with the War of 1914 and ending not with 9/11/2001, nor yet with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, but with the Revolution of February 1979…
The REVOLUTION in Egypt is entirely and directly linked to the Islamic Revolution of Iran.
I see the events in Cairo and still I am unable to understand them in their ‘higher’ spiritual significance but I know I am truly overwhelmed.
wikileaks printed in UK Guardian show that US Sen Joe Lieberman consulted with Gamel Mubarek on how US should deal with Iran — proving that Egypt was just as P J Crowley said — the US anchor for USian ’stability’ in the Middle East — that is, Egypt was a bulwark to protect Israel.
Mubarek Jr. said to trim Iran’s sails, Israel should make peace with Palestine. The tenor of the cables suggests that Joe Lieberman did not think that the best option; he persisted in asking for a different solution.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/193343
Why does the U.S. continue to support Mubarak? The State Department’s assistant secretary Crowley said just yesterday:
“Egypt is an anchor of stability in the Middle East … It’s made its own peace with Israel and is pursuing normal relations with Israel. We think that’s important; we think that’s a model that the region should adopt.”
It reminds me a lot like the fall of 78, even with EB (Bakhtiar) will not work for more than few months, for all practical proposes it’s over , somehow we all knew we will come to this day a long ago.US/ west foreign policy in the middle east is compeletly done one can put a fork in it.
Is it too early to suggest a ray of hope the inhumane siege of Gaza might sometime be lifted out of all of this, from Egypt’s side?
Pak,
You back oppression and, like the US, you support a minority that tries to overthrow a majority because they think like you.
fyi says:
January 28, 2011 at 12:06 pm
“BiBiJon says: January 28, 2011 at 11:10 am
Let me congradulate you on painting a positive view of the future with winnings for every state actor in the Middle East.
The absence of an articulated vision such as you have stated here is the fatal flaw of the US-EU Axis in the Middle East.
All they offer is more war and more chaos.”
Fyi, thank you.
You know, regardless of neocons’ rosy scenarios, surely the objective reality on the ground ought to persuade them that if the end result is abject defeat in Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia, etc ., then surely there are cheaper ways of it.
Dear Iranian,
“…opposed to western backed murderers…”
That is the difference between me and you. I do not limit my opposition to “western backed” murderers, but you do.
Liz:
I’m not familiar with this person Hillary Clinton. Do you mean Loudmouth Hillary?
:-)
Did you just watch Hillary Clinton? Way too little and way too late. She even called on the people on the streets not to use violence!
Another difference between Egypt now and Iran in ‘09:
Egyptian authorities just imposed a curfew on Cairo, To my knowledge, a curfew was never imposed on Tehran, post-2009 election. Nor was martial law ever declared.
Pak
The people in the ME are opposed to western backed murderers and we in Iran want to to see a free Egypt. Mubarak’s backers are like the greens, they are a small minority of pro-western elites and they don’t understand the people on the streets.
Pak,
I like to see Mubarak and his American backers suffer for their crimes against the Egyptian people. The oppression of the people of the Middle East is, slowly, coming to an end.
BiBiJon says: January 28, 2011 at 11:10 am
Let me congradulate you on painting a positive view of the future with winnings for every state actor in the Middle East.
The absence of an articulated vision such as you have stated here is the fatal flaw of the US-EU Axis in the Middle East.
All they offer is more war and more chaos.
Dear Liz,
Trust me, I am incredibly excited too. But for different reasons. You see, I do not like to see others suffer. You explicitly stated that you do.
Pak,
That’s right. I’m very very happy tonight. Don’t be so bitter.
Pak says:
January 28, 2011 at 11:43 am
You are conflating dissatisfaction with bureaucracy, with how people think generally about the ’system’ of government today, and/or how they would feel about the prospects of a better bureaucracy under any other viable future system of government.
The point you make about inherently unreliable polls should be addressed to polling organizations who stupidly despite years of experience in conducting opinion surveys in the middle east, still put their reputation, money, and effort in nonsensical endeavors which even you, Pak, can tell them beforehand not to waste their time.
Dear Liz,
Did I see the US again in your comment? Yep.
Pak. Support for the heroic Egyptian people is in fact a celebration of the failure of US policy. Don’t you understand that?
Another difference between Egypt now and Iran in ‘09:
AP is reporting the Egyptian military has been activated and is deploying on the streets of Cairo. (In Iran’s case, the military was not activated.)
I want to talk about Biden in the terms of the question I raised earlier to the Leveretts.
Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the rest of the Obama administration believes the US colonies of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and others should “reform”. But that certain areas should remain outside of popular accountability.
It is clear now that Obama does not think the people of Egypt should effectively be able to vote on where Egypt sides in a dispute between Hamas and Abbas of Fatah, or a dispute between Hezbollah or the US/France/Israel supported political groups in Lebanon, on where Egypt sides on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program and other issues of interest to Israel.
The US, including Obama and the Obama administration believe Israel should be outside of democratic accountability, though reforms in other areas is acceptable and even encourageable. In these areas the Egyptian government is and should be accountable to the US government.
Clearly, there is no reason that would be the case for Egypt and not for Iraq or Iran. The United States favors “democracy” in those countries where policy on issues important to the US are not under democratic control, which is not democracy at all.
The Leveretts speak in glowing terms of Egypt’s policies with respect to Israel, which are not under Egyptian democratic control. The US also does not pursue a policy of non-interference with respect to Egypt (and I should have thanked the person who introduced that concept to the discussion last time).
The fact that the United States supports this non-democracy, that they might describe as constrained, or limited democracy or potentially “reformed” dictatorship means that the US certainly favors the same outcome, if it is possible for Iran, Lebanon, Tunisia and anywhere else in Israel’s greater region where it may have influence.
The question was do the Leveretts support this non-democracy? Democracy only as long as only approved policies are allowed on subjects important to Israel? Because if they support this non-democracy for Egypt, it is not clear on what principled basis they could oppose it for Iran.
Pak
You deny the US role in propping up the Egyptian regime? Amazing.
The only thing that props up the Islamic Republic is popular support.
Dear Iranian,
Your supposed success in Lebanon is Hezbollah voting for an American-educated billionaire to become Prime Minister. Congratulations.
No mention that Lebanon is once again on the verge of civil war, and ordinary civilians will suffer as a result.
Anyone have an updated version of this map? (Showing Lebanon’s demographic distribution by religion)
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RFZFZSp8QnA/TTnmBviPa4I/AAAAAAAAA5M/9ZoVtJBQ4XY/s1600/lebanon.gif
Dear Liz,
Why do you relate absolutely everything to the US? Do you not actually care about the aspirations of the Egyptian people? I have not seen one person here support the Egyptian people, beyond celebrating it as a failure of US policy.
I am a foreign policy realist: states will always pursue their own interests. That is why I condemn Mubarak for oppressing his compatriots, the same goes with the regime in Iran. Do you see me condemning China and Russia for propping up the IR? Nope.
You guys are a bunch of hypocrites. That is why it is amusing when you chant monafegh.
Former British Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament (MP), Baroness Jenny Tonge says that Palestinian people consider Islamic Resistance Hamas as the only organization in the occupied territiries in which they could have confidence.
“It is necessary for the international community to include Hamas in the Middle East peace process, as it is the only trusted faction in the occupied territories in which the Palestinian could rely upon. The longer Hamas is being kept out from the talks, the more difficult will become the situation in the Gaza Strip, and this is probably what the Israeli regime wants to use it as a pretext to launch a new war on Gaza”, Baroness Tonge told IRNA in an exclusive interview in London.
Israel, the US and the Israeli agents controllong the EU countries – love to project their double agent, Mahmoud Abbas, as the ‘elected’ representative of Palestinian people. In fact, Mahmoud Abbas’ mandate as the President of Palestinian Authority (PA) had expired in January 2009 – and since then he has been controlling that title by a ‘decree’. He refuses to call a new election fearing that Hamas will win it once agains.
Baroness Jenny Tonge has been a critic of Israel’s Zionazi activites for a long time (Watch her speech in the House of Lord below). In February 2010 – her call for an investigation into Israeli medical team allegations that its medical teams in Haiti harvested organs of earthquake victims for use in transplants. For making such ‘political wrong statement’, the ‘British Friends of Israel’ lobby goons called Jenny Tonge an ‘anti-Semite’. As result, the party leader Nick Cleggy removed Lady Tonge as a Lib Dem health spokeswoman in the Lords, describing her remarks as ”wrong, distasteful and provocative”.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/baroness-tonge-applauds-hamas/
Pak
Why are you so bitter about the US defeat in Egypt, Lebanon, and Tunisia? The Iranians that I know are all happy, while you and a couple of greens that I know are bitter.
Pak,
If you were honest with yourself you would be condemning the US for imposing its will on the people of the Middle East and Egypt in particular and you would condemn the US for trying to overthrow an independent and popular political system in Iran. Being religious or secular shouldn’t be important.
Dear Arnold,
Q: Why have we seen polls showing widespread support for the Iranian regime and never any showing similar support for the Egyptian regime?
A: To begin with, I have not seen any polls for Egypt, because my main concern has always been Iran. And I did not say that the polls have lied. What I mean is that polls about Iran taken in the West are naturally unreliable, because they have to be conducted from abroad, and by telephone. This automatically raises questions about their accuracy, given the situation in Iran. Statistics are very narrow; there are numerous other factors that need to be considered. For me, the polls confirm that there is support for the regime in Iran. I never doubted that.
Q: But about the situation inside Iran you say the anger is more dispersed. Do you mean there is the same level of dissatisfaction with the regime, just allocated among different people? What would make you think that. What if you’re wrong?
A: Firstly, what if you are wrong? That is a non-question.
Secondly, I am not sure if you understand the dynamics of Iranian politics. You seem to be asking rudimentary questions.
I mean that the anger is aimed at different institutions, all within the IR structure (which is one reason why the IR survived the protests in 2009). Some are opposed to the Guardian Council. Some are opposed to the judiciary. Many, like myself, blame Khamenei, because as Supreme Leader he is ultimately responsible. However, I am also aware that his removal means nothing, if other changes are not made.
Overall, there is great dissatisfaction with the regime. But given its structure, the dissatisfaction is dispersed. The reason why the Green Movement has wilted is because the current opposition – i.e. Mousavi et al – is too afraid to unite its dissatisfaction into a single target: the IR itself. Or is it being pragmatic?
Why is this the case? Because the Green Movement has to remain loyal to the revolution, and loyal to Islamic governance, in order to survive. Otherwise, the level of tyranny being targeted at the movement would multiply infinitely.
Ben Gurion University professor Haggai Ram should be delighted with the rapidly changing landscape in the Arab States: he will have to revise “Iranophobia: The Logic of an Israeli Obsession.”
One of Ram’s theses in “Iranophobia” is that Israel requires a scapegoat, and that status fell upon Iran at this convergence of events:
1. Israeli-Egyptian peace process 1977-1981 — when peace broke out between Israel and Egypt, Egypt had to be removed from the list of enemies (scapegoat material) of Israel.
2. Irani Revolution, 1979
wrote Ram: “To the extent that Israel needs an existential threat, . . .Israel’s march toward peace with Egypt, the Arab world’s most dominant power, immediately turned the limelight onto the newly emerging menace from peripheral Iran. In short, in making peace with Egypt Israel instantaneously found in the 1979 revolution the opportunity to replace one existential (Arab) threat with another (Iranian).”
In a 2006 speech before a hostile audience in Cleveland, Ohio, Steve Walt and John Mearsheimer concluded their presentation about their book, “The Israel Lobby,” with the prescription that they make in the book: that it is in the interests of the US to treat Israel like any other state in the world.
Hands shot up, and the first voice to the microphone said, “But Israel is surrounded by people who want to kill us [ie. Jews].”
Not so, responded Walt and Mearsheimer: Israel has peace treaties with Jordan and with Egypt.
Five years later, “peace” relationships between Israel and its Arab neighbors are coming unravelled. How will Israel respond?
That Hillary Clinton sent the former
butcherambassador to Lebanon, Jeffrey Feltman, to Tunisia, suggests that the US will exert all efforts to maintain the status quo.P.J. Crowley has got to have the best timing of any single person in government: one day after explaining that US would respond to a democracy movement in Egypt by attempting to triangulate in order to maintain its allegiance to Israel, P J Crowley’s successor as administration press spokesperson was announced and P J is off the hook.
What will Israel do, and even more importantly, what will the Israel lobby and the many, many pro-Israel advocates in the US do? With hawkish GOP in a position of greater influence in the Congress, and the 2012 presidential election campaign already in gear, it is reasonable to expect a doubling down of efforts to demonize and increase punishments on Iran; to dig in and resist the demands of the people of Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen for autonomous and sovereign government; to continue the brutalization of Palestinians.
Only when the American people rise up and overthrow their government, the government that is keeping all the other tyrants in power, will Middle East states be able to create their own governments.
That is, assuming the American man in Cairo falls!
Iran and Egypt are the exact opposite. The Islamic Republic’s strength is the general population and not the elites. That is why pro-IRI rallies are so large.Egypt’s government relies on a pro-western (green) elite along with the US for is’s survival.
This is a big day for Iran, because it is no longer alone in the region.
Pak,
You’re blind to the truth. The Egyptian regime was propped up by the US. The Islamic Republic of Iran is popular despite US attempts to overthrow it.
Unconfirmed reports suggest that 3 Egyptian armoured divisions have been put on standby.
There are anecdotal accounts of isolated incidents of security personnel joining the protests.
Video of Egyptian protester shot by security forces:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XnhHzs91MY
Dear Liz,
My eyes are open thanks. But supposed they are not: what should I be seeing that I am not?
Is it that the regimes in Egypt and Iran are awfully similar? Is it that both regimes are undemocratic? Is it that both regimes imprison, torture, and murder their oppositions? Is it that both regimes crush protests, shut down internet access, and deny journalists the right to do their job? Is it that the Egyptian opposition learned from the Green Movement, by using similar tactics to organise protests?
If you support the right of people to protest and voice their concerns, then you should do it universally. If you condemn brutality, then you should do it universally. If you are not universal in your values, then you are a hypocrite. Pure and simple.
Pak:
Q: What proportion of Iranians do you think want to see Khamenei removed from power completely?
A: My instinct is that 95% of the expatriate population want to see Khamenei removed, and the entire IR disbanded. Inside Iran, I believe that while Khamenei is the face of the regime, people’s anger is more dispersed. For them, removing Khamenei is only half the problem. Even the politicans they support, such as Mousavi, are still a part of the problem, because Mousavi was Prime Minister when thousands of Iranian youth were slaughtered.
1) Why have we seen polls showing widespread support for the Iranian regime and never any showing similar support for the Egyptian regime?
Do you think there is nobody in the West willing to lie in favor of Mubarak? Look again at Joe Biden talking about Mubarak:
JIM LEHRER: The word — the word to describe the leadership of Mubarak and Egypt and also in Tunisia before was dictator. Should Mubarak be seen as a dictator?
JOE BIDEN: Look, Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things and he’s been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interests in the region: Middle East peace efforts, the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing the relationship with Israel.
And I think that it would be — I would not refer to him as a dictator.
You would think that if Western polling organizations were to lie in favor of anybody, it would be Mubarak rather than Khamenei.
2) Your response is that 95% of expatriates want to see Khamenei removed completely, which is probably somewhat an exaggeration but does capture the idea that the regime is more unpopular outside Iran than inside.
But about the situation inside Iran you say the anger is more dispersed. Do you mean there is the same level of dissatisfaction with the regime, just allocated among different people? What would make you think that. What if you’re wrong?
If I said the same thing, that contrary to polls and falsified election results, 95% of people in the United States oppose the government, what could convince you that I was wrong about that?
Pak,
Your problem is that you talk to yourself all the time. You are like the US government and the Egyptian regime.
Open your eyes.
My last post is addressed to Arnold.
Just to drive home the costs of US boneheaded policies:
Here is my energizingly hopeful answer to
Jeff Goldberg’s fantasy about “Benjamin Netanyahu, has just ordered roughly one hundred F-15Es, F-16Is, F-16Cs, and other aircraft of the Israeli air force to fly east toward Iran” about which he felt deep paralyzing ambivalence.
So, suppose the USG had accepted Leverett’s recommendations in their “Time for a U.S.-Iranian ‘Grand Bargain’“ published on October 7th 2008
in the New America Foundation. What would recent history look like?
George Bush had opened an American consulate in Tehran. But the news of the October 15th 2008 was largely focused on resumption of direct flights between NewYork JFK, and Imam Khomeini International airports.
Ahmadinejad’s re-election served as the pivot for new mid east policy. The pre-election US media coverage of a spirited duel between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad, plus various reports of ordinary Iranian’s pro-American proclivity allowed the USG to lift unilateral sanctions starting with the end of prohibition on sale of American passenger planes and parts to Iran in August of 2009.
By October 2009, the scene was set for a major breakthrough on the nuclear issue. And, indeed the P5+1 meeting in Geneva bore fruit. Iran was to keep less than a bomb’s worth of LEU in Iran, and deposit the rest in Turkey as an on-going process, until US completed a nuclear fuel manufacturing plant in Isfahan. At that point LEU deposits would return to Iran from Turkey in batches to fabricate nuclear fuel rods. The slated time for completion of the fuel fabrication plant was set for October 2010, which also served as a date when all US unilateral, and UNSC sanctions would be lifted to coincide with re-implementation of the additional protocol.
All this was the visible aspects of a far-reaching discussion behind closed doors. Since October 7th 2008, Turkey, Iran, Syria, Qatar, and the US had started charting a new Mid East paradigm. The ideas taking shape were essentially borrowed from the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the deft management of its fallout by the then POTUS, George Herbert Walker Bush. In these meetings it was acknowledged that various regimes in the region were unsustainable. And, it was noted that when (not if) uprisings occur in Yemen, Algeria, Egypt and Tunis, then the formula of a quick and peaceful dissolution of prior political order, as happened after the liberation of Poland in other East European countries would be more manageable than the aftermath of a bloody revolution.
Iran, Pakistan, India gas pipeline was inaugurated on November 2010 as a result of a successful cooperation between India, Russia, US, Iran companies. Under an arrangement where 60% of transit fees collected by Pakistan, in addition to 10% of the profits made by Iran was to be re-investment in Baluchistan had already created an investment opportunity in Western Pakistan where international investors were ceasing on the anticipated economic growth of that region.
Various Arab governments started to hold genuine elections having prepared themselves for a ‘complete’ transition of power. The first state was Tunisia in December of 2010. This was to serve as a model for a peaceful, albeit ‘complete’ transformation of despotism to democracy, for other US client Arab states to follow.
Israel remained aloof until the Tunisian experiment was completed successfully. But, within 24 hours of a new Tunisian government being seated on January 3rd, 2011, Israel formally accepted the Arab Peace plan and set an 18 month time line for handing 1967 delineated territory to the Hamas government. Some attribute this turn of events to new Tunisian government’s first day foreign policy initiative — an invitation to Israel to open an Israeli embassy in Tunis.
Above are some of the catalysts that has transformed the region. Barely 2 years has passed since the Egyptian president, Mohammed Badie, signed a deal with Intel to build a chip manufacturing plant in Suez, that the plant is being inaugurated ahead of schedule.
On a blustery January morning in 2015, it is not easy to remember what the mid-east was, and how a once unloved US today is an indispensable and heartily welcome partner in a region where everyone is smiling.
…
Q: What proportion of Iranians do you think are unhappy with their rulers?
A: I cannot be certain, but my instinct is that a significantly large proportion of Iranians are unhappy with their rulers. There are some who accept the IR, and are overall happy. There are some who accept the IR, but are unhappy with the current situation. There are some who accept the IR, but want to reform it. There are some who do not accept the IR, but want reformists to change the IR from within. And there are some who outright reject the IR, and want to see it completely disbanded.
Q: What proportion of Iranians do you think want to see Khamenei removed from power completely?
A: My instinct is that 95% of the expatriate population want to see Khamenei removed, and the entire IR disbanded. Inside Iran, I believe that while Khamenei is the face of the regime, people’s anger is more dispersed. For them, removing Khamenei is only half the problem. Even the politicans they support, such as Mousavi, are still a part of the problem, because Mousavi was Prime Minister when thousands of Iranian youth were slaughtered.
Q: You’ve seen the poll that says it is a very small proportion of the population, even if you are in that small proportion. I guess you think that poll was wrong. What do you think the real answer is, and why do you think that is the real answer?
A: Firstly, even if the polls are correct, the proportion of the population you refer to are not “very small”. Iran has a population of over 60 million people. My instinct is not to rely on any polls or statistics: there are lies, damned lies, and statistics! Confirming legitimacy is not done by using foreign polls. Neither is legitimacy confirmed by arresting, imprisoning, torturing, murdering, executing, and raping hundreds of politicians, lawyers, activists, and ordinary people.
Q: In your words, how do you believe the electoral process in Iran compares to the electoral process in Egypt?
A: I believe they are quite similar in the sense that neither are democratic. In Egypt, a very small opposition is allowed to run, otherwise candidates are all from the ruling party. In Iran, a very small opposition is allowed to run, yet even this opposition is confined to within the ruling system. Otherwise, candidates are all from the ruling system. Your assumption that Iran is more democratic is similar to Marie Antoinette’s assumption that the people had enough bread.
Helena Cobban does some fine writing and has good contacts throughout the Middle East.
This morning she reported that activities suggest that provocateurs are being installed in Egypt. :http://justworldnews.org/archives/004133.html
Yesterday, Cobban wrote a piece about the Muslim Brotherhood joining the protest, and what that portends for Israel-US imperium; The MB is far and away the largest force in Egypt’s opposition. It has pursued a determinedly nonviolent path for nearly 30 years now– though that has not prevented the Mubarak regime from engaging in a sustained campaign of often horrendously abusive repression against its leaders and many of its cadres. The MB’s leaders have responded to the repression by sticking to a political course that is very conservative and non-confrontational. . . .
Americans are daily fed the information that Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Hamas, IRGC are “terrorists.” Oh — but MEK should NOT be lumped into that category.
I wish the Egyptian protests had a leader, but Egypt has done a very thorough job apprehending all potential opposition leadership.
Pirouz:
Obviously. For me at least, the thought had not crossed my mind that it could be anyone else. Loudmouth Hillary is pretty much a proper name. Like Prince, it really only applies to one person.
Pak:
I contend that support for removing Mubarak in Egypt is much greater than support for removing Khamenei is in Iran.
I contend that if popular dissatisfaction with Khamenei reaches the level of popular dissatisfaction with Mubarak then Iran’s political mechanisms would remove Khamenei far more easily than Egypt’s mechanisms could remove Mubarak
I contend that the 2009 protests were driven largely by a false accusation of electoral fraud while the Egyptian protests are not motivated any such event
I contend that the 2009 protests in Iran were supported at least vocally and possibly materially by outside forces that are hostile to the idea of governments being accountable to their people, at least on issues related to foreign policy.
Do you disagree with or challenge any of my contentions?
Pak,
“I personally support secular governance, but if I am not a majority, then I would accept that.”
Really? I hadn’t notice that.
Pak,
The guardian council that you are talking about is in DC. However, it is Game Over for the US ally in Egypt.
Dear Eric,
You are right – it was a mistake to add that third criteria. I sounded a lot like the Guardian Council!
Pak,
“If you look at the Wikileaks relevant to Egypt, you will see that the Americans were already fully aware that Mubarak was losing his grip on the country. In light of this, may be they already have a contingency in place (ElBaradei?), and will soon abandon Mubarak too.”
Maybe you’re right, Pak. Having been highly critical of El Baradei when he was the head of the IAEA, doing all it could to hasten his departure and diminish his authority in the meantime, I have little doubt that the US government now feels great remorse and wants to make amends by putting its former nemesis in an even more powerful position.
Protestors are praying on the streets of different cities in Egypt. Probably a Hezbollah and Iranian conspiracy, if one takes Pak seriously!
Pak,
“I should elaborate that I am happy for any party to contest elections so long as they are peaceful, democratic, and promote the best interests of their respective nation.”
I count three separate criteria there, Pak. Suppose you’re satisfied that the first two have been satisfied: a peaceful, democratic election. That would leave the third criterion. How and by whom would you recommend it be determined whether that third criterion had been satisfied?
(Obviously I meant Mrs. Clinton, not Mrs. Leverett.)
Pak,
“Sure, go count the number of votes that Mubarak achieved in 2005, and then tell me what you think about the current protests in Egypt.”
My question about what to do if the vote-count and the protester-count were vastly different was an effort, apparently unsuccessful, to remind you that that dilemma is what existed in Iran after the 2009 election.
I should elaborate that I am happy for any party to contest elections so long as they are peaceful, democratic, and promote the best interests of their respective nation.
Tunisia overthrown by the masses, Lebanon overthrown by political maneuver, Egypt teetering, Jordan wobbly, Yemen wobbly, Iraq tilted toward Iran…
Where’s that loudmouth Hilary? She’s got a real mess on her hands that seems to be growing beyond her control.
Pak:
What proportion of Iranians do you think are unhappy with their rulers?
Which is an interesting question that hinges on a definition of measurement of “unhappy”, so let me try to ask something clearer:
What proportion of Iranians do you think want to see Khamenei removed from power completely?
You’ve seen the poll that says it is a very small proportion of the population, even if you are in that small proportion. I guess you think that poll was wrong. What do you think the real answer is, and why do you think that is the real answer?
Are you claiming now that the proportion of Iranians who wanted to see Khamenei removed from power in 2009 is the same as the proportion of Egyptians who want to see Mubarak removed from power today?
Second question:
In your words, how do you believe the electoral process in Iran compares to the electoral process in Egypt?
I’d pose the questions not only to Pak, but to anyone who has or will come by and argue that I am being inconsistent in supporting protesters in Egypt more than protesters in Iran in 2009.
About Iran 2009, I don’t think there would have been any protests if Mousavi had not claimed to know for sure that the election results were fabricated. It seems now that Mousavi’s claim was false. Nothing Mousavi has produced would support the claims he made immediately after the elections.
In response to your question about post-revolution elections (which I did not see), I am happy for any party to contest the elections, as demonstrated by my support for Mousavi, an ardent Muslim and follower of Khomeini.
I personally support secular governance, but if I am not a majority, then I would accept that. I would instead pursue a campaign to educate people about the benefits of secular governance, using Turkey as my role model, and using the IR as my demonstration of failed theocracy.
Dear Eric,
If you look at the Wikileaks relevant to Egypt, you will see that the Americans were already fully aware that Mubarak was losing his grip on the country. In light of this, may be they already have a contingency in place (ElBaradei?), and will soon abandon Mubarak too.
Pak,
Shortly after the Tunisian uprising, I asked you, in essence, whether your enthusiasm would remain if the eventual outcome were democratic elections in which Islamic parties prevailed.
No response so far. I’d be curious to hear whether you would consider that preferable.
Careful as you appear to be, about a month or so I detected a slight fondness in your writing for the good old days of the Shah. Undemocratic, but at least he didn’t give the great unwashed any say in government.
Scanning Yahoo news photos, there are certain differences between antiriot forces fielded currently by Egypt and Iran in ‘09.
Egyptian law enforcement is utilizing their armored water cannon vehicles, where Iran didn’t. And elite Egyptian antiriot forces are street-side, armed with HK MP5 submachine guns.
In terms of the protesters, many are carrying banners with a line drawn across the face of Mubarak. Most banners state explicitly they seek an end to Mubarak’s rule. This was not so evident in Iran in ‘09.
Egypt reminds me a lot more of Iran in ‘79, focused as the crowd is on the removal of the Western propped dictator. Mubarak may be physically weak, as was the Shah in ‘79. Time will tell if the security apparatus remains loyal.
Have to say, NAJA cadre and attached Iranian Army conscripts appear more professional than their Egyptian counterparts.
Pak,
“The Shah was also a “heavyweight”, yet he was overthrown. Or are you saying that Mubarak is more like the current regime in Iran, ready to use massive brute force (including torture, murder, execution and rape) to crush the will of the people?”
I’m saying this:
1. Look back at my post from 9:59, particularly the passage quoted from the NY Times.
2. Read the second sentence of that passage.
3. Repeat step two six or seven times.
The Shah did not have the “will of the people” behind him. Mubarak appears not to either. There’s a similarity – you’re right about that.
The US essentially decided to abandon the Shah. Maybe the US chose to, maybe it had little or no choice. In any case, it did. Do you think the US government ever second-guesses that decision – enough, perhaps, to do what it can to prevent the same outcome in Egypt?
I’d consider that possibility, and then consider whether the strong backing of the US and Israeli governments might make a difference this time.
Just to put this out there:
Differences between Egypt 2011 and Iran 2009 protests
1) Egypt does not have competitively contested elections
2) Egypt’s protests are not supported by parties outside of Egypt that openly oppose the idea that countries in Israel’s greater region should have public or democratic accountability over their foreign policy
About the question of if the regime will recover:
Maybe it will, the US desperately wants it to and Barack Obama has attached the US to the regime far more than I would have expected, but maybe it will not. Egypt has not dealt with this level of popular mobilization before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJyTdnXu8TA
Question for the floor:
Among other things, so as not to pull this blog off of its focus, where is there good information and commentary about the events in Egypt?
Mubarak never had the support of the people but the Islamic Repubic of Iran does. Hence, the many enormous pro-Islamic Republic rallies.
Pak,
People like you who are pro-western are the real opponents of freedom. The fall of Egypt, Tunisia, and the Hariri regime are all terrible news for the “democratic” west and great news for the Islamic Republic of Iran and the people of the region.
Dear Eric,
“Count the number of votes in an election?”
Sure, go count the number of votes that Mubarak achieved in 2005, and then tell me what you think about the current protests in Egypt.
Pak,
“We should all be supporting the aspirations of any population who are unhappy with their rulers.”
Indeed. How should we figure out what the population wants? Count the number of protesters on the street? Count the number of votes in an election?
What if we do both, but those two counts yield different numbers?
Dear Eric,
The Shah was also a “heavyweight”, yet he was overthrown. Or are you saying that Mubarak is more like the current regime in Iran, ready to use massive brute force (including torture, murder, execution and rape) to crush the will of the people?
From today’s New York Times:
“The protests came after weeks of turmoil across the Arab world that toppled one leader in Tunisia and encouraged protesters to overcome deep-rooted fears of their autocratic leaders and take to the streets. But Egypt is a special case — a heavyweight in Middle East diplomacy, in part because of its peace treaty with Israel, and a key ally of the United States.”
I haven’t been able to follow the discussion here lately; others may have made this point. If anyone really thinks Mubarak is about to be violently overthrown, I suggest re-reading the second sentence from the passage above. About six or seven times.
Dear Passerby,
The reason why people here are supporting the Egyptian revolt is because it is in their interest to do so. It has nothing to do with democracy (which does not exist), human rights (which is a “Western” notion), and the right to protest (which is sedition). The protests in Iran were not in their interests, so they were labelled as Western-backed riots.
Despite the fact that not one anti-Western slogan has been muttered by the protesters, people here will hijack their cause (a la Ahmadinejad, who said that the West was interfering in Tunisia, while simultaneously announcing that the Tunisians want an Islamic government). People across the Arab world are protesting against unemployment, corruption, and political repression (much like Iran in 2009). They are not protesting for significant structural reforms, which was the case in Iran in 1979 (hence the weakness in comparisons between the two events).
We should all be supporting the aspirations of any population who are unhappy with their rulers. But people here are hypocrites, and cannot see the irony of their thoughts, which would make any ordinary person collapse in laughter. If you want a forum to discuss democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, this is not the place!
Associated Press reported earlier today (Jan 28) that ElBaradei and the “pro-democracy” movement followers who were surrounding him to protect him, were attacked with water cannon, and the followers were beaten with batons.
At 9:45 am EST C Span read an AP report that ElBaradei is under house arrest.
@ RFI’s Resident Three Stooges:
When the victory of God has come, and victory [is at hand],
And you see the populace entering into the religion of God in throngs,
Then exalt Him with praise of your Lord and ask forgiveness of Him.
Verily, He is ever-accepting of repentance.
I repeat: Fa sabbih bi hamd-i rabbika wa’staqfir!
It is amazing to listen to all the very “smart” analysts from various think tanks in DC opine on Egyptian crises.
Stepping back, they almost sound like saying, “all we need to do is to replace democrats with republicans (metaphorically speaking) and all will be fine in Egypt, for another 4 years or 30 years! Right. Dumcracy US style. El-B to the rescue, may be. Likely too late.
Watching the western media, it seems that Mohamed ElBaradei is being groomed by the west to steal the revolution.
Joe Biden’s “Mubarak is not a dictator” quote is much worse than I thought.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june11/biden_01-27.html
JIM LEHRER: The word — the word to describe the leadership of Mubarak and Egypt and also in Tunisia before was dictator. Should Mubarak be seen as a dictator?
JOE BIDEN: Look, Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things and he’s been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interests in the region: Middle East peace efforts, the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing the relationship with Israel.
And I think that it would be — I would not refer to him as a dictator.
Good morning America!
The US is facing an abyss. As someone said, the center can’t hold.
Egypt, today is yours.
http://www.livestation.com/channels/43-al_jazeera_arabic
الله اكبر وتحيا مصر
مصر تتنفس عبير الحرية
قوم يامصري مصر بلدك بتناديك
…a major defeat for the EU, the US, the Zionist regime, the Saudi regime, the Jordanian King,…A great day.
It’s obvious that supporters of the political establishment in Iran are an overwhelming majority. Hence, the events in Egypt are welcomed by Iranians as a defeat for the US and for all pro-western groups and regimes in the region including Hariri and the greens.
Passerby – Would you like to discuss the unreported Jewish protests going on in Israel along with the Egyptian, Tunisian and Yemeni?
I am sure it would be an ‘anti-Semite thing to ask, right!
Zionists and Jews – Padding in chicken soup
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/10/31/zionists-and-jews-padding-in-chicken-soup/
@Passerby says:
January 28, 2011 at 5:16 am
May be you find your answer here :
http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2011/01/why-tunisia-and-not-iran-.html
January 26, 2011
Why Tunisia and not Iran? Simple really.
Steven Heydemann asks at the biased Iran Primer wonders why the revolution in Tunis was successful and why the so-called Green Movement in Iran wasn’t.
In Tunisia, a small, homogeneous state on the southern Mediterranean, a popular uprising forced the overthrow of a long-ruling dictator in early 2011. Ruthless repression of mass protests failed. In just one month, Tunisians ousted an entrenched authoritarian regime.
In Iran, a mass uprising that lasted six months was brutally suppressed. The Green Movement of 2009 never became a “Green Revolution.” Instead, an entrenched authoritarian regime reasserted its authority. The regime’s violent repression succeeded. The opposition was broken, and the regime has since tightened its grip on power.
Four factors help explain the success of mass protests in Tunisia and their failure in Iran…
Here’s a classic example of setting up a strawman argument. Having already decided that the so-called Green Movement was a “mass uprising” (it wasn’t) against an “entrenched authoritarian regime” comparable to the one-man puppet dictatorships such as in Tunisia (it isn’t) he then proceeds to give his explanation for why things didn’t work out the way he had wanted them to. Nevermind that there was never any actual evidence of any “rigged” election in Iran to justify any such post-election “mass uprising” or that poll after poll shows that the people did in fact vote for Ahmadinejad, or that the “Green Movement” itself is entirely nebulous and only exists as a supposed movement because of Western media hype.
In fact, he contradicts himself on the issue of the “authoritarian” nature of Iran’s government and his attribution of the failure of the movement to the “violent repression” of the Green Movement, when he very grudgingly admits that the “regime” in Iran isn’t exactly unpopular either:
And the regime, however it might be viewed in the West, retains significant popular support among some segments of Iranian society, especially the poor and marginal who continue to view it as a source of opportunities, employment, and social benefits.
(Wow – the nasty government of Iran provides “opportunities, employment, and social benefits” to the poor. HOW DARE THEY! lol)
In other words, Why Tunisia and not Iran? Because like it or not, the people of Iran seem to support their “regime,” Steven.
The people on the streets in Egypt are of the same social classes as those who support the Islamic Republic in Iran:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_mideast_protests_iran;_ylt=AoDmVuyQVqN1kNf4DexxXG9n.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTM2ZGdzdGk4BGFzc2V0Ay9zL2FwL21sX21pZGVhc3RfcHJvdGVzdHNfaXJhbgRjY29kZQNtcF9lY184XzEwBGNwb3MDNARwb3MDNARzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2lyYW5jbGVyaWNtaQ–
The pro-western greens are a small minority and like the pro-western Egyptian government they do not represent the aspirations of the Iranian or Egyptian people.
Passerby,
The difference between Egypt and Iran is that the majority of people in Iran support the government and the Supreme Leader. Also the Supreme Leader is not a dictator whereas Mubarak is. If you would like to discuss it based on facts, that’s fine. If you want to do something else, as a “passerby” who will eventually have to move along.
@Passerby, this web site is about Iran not Egypt. I am sure you can find better sites else where.
Why aren’t the Leveretts condemning and or downplaying the Egypt uprising – after-all the protesters aren’t exactly peaceful, are they? Weren’t they and a few of the contributors on this site who called the Iranian protesters hoodlums who were setting everything on fire? Why are they now applauding the Egyptian protesters when their Iranian counterparts in 2009 were more peaceful (at least at first), showing up in more numbers… Don’t even bring up the elections – I’m talking about rising up against two dictators: Husni Mubarak and Ali Khamenei.
Turkish film in anti-Semitism row
http://english.aljazeera.net/video/europe/2011/01/201112863519554254.html
Fiorangela, thank you for the post. I love your ability to scan horizons both close and distant, and your ability to laugh and self-critique. You’re a find.
Pak,
It would have been good of you simply admitted you were wrong.
James Canning:
Israel does not exist in the minds of the people of the middle east, nor for that matter the Muslim world as a whole. the peace plan is a joke. I don’t think it is very hard to comprehend.
سقوط حسني مبارك بالاسكندرية
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6G9YTibL5g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hturPaeqR6M
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzPyt8YzPGQ&feature=player_embedded
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZAYsd5ge2c
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwD0g4oz_W0
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvUybJTYjq8
Fiorangela: I put the links to AccessNow up on my Twitter.
Friday will be an interesting day in Egypt if the mass demonstrations are joined by those attending mosque services.
A rather iconic photo:
:http://asset.soup.io/asset/1486/4177_d366_960.jpeg
Wkkipedia has this:
File:25th Demonstration Against The Government in Cairo in Tahrir square.png
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:25th_Demonstration_Against_The_Government_in_Cairo_in_Tahrir_square.png
“Nominated for deletion”, however! Someone doesn’t want the extent of those demonstrations being seen outside Egypt! Probably the US State Department…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAS-lMLl2bY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjmcdFhobD4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XnhHzs91MY
Richard Steven Hack: there are some attempts at work-around to create communications for Egyptians:
“. . .How can you help the Egyptian people?? Go to this campaign by Access to preserve internet access for the brave and inspiring voices in the streets of Cairo, Alexandria, and Suez. There you can donate bandwidth on your site and donate a few dollars (why not 10 each?) “to help keep the protest movement alive by contributing funds for the urgent setup of servers that will help people reach blocked sites like Twitter. 100% of your donation will go to supporting those behind the firewall. Help us by clicking here.” There’s also a petition at the site.”
:http://mondoweiss.net/2011/01/egypt-shuts-down-the-internet-on-eve-of-protest-as-the-world-community-gathers.html
:https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/help-egypt
:https://www.accessnow.org/page/contribute/Help-Egypt-With-Tor
edit: “Letherian” should be LUTHERAN.
Castellio, yes, food for thought: “How are you any different from James in this regard… [insisting that US values are what I stomp my foot and demand, not the evidence US offers to the world] who insists, against all historical evidence, that British values are not what they appear?”
A little bit of research reveals that US history — particularly the religious history interrelated with political and economic development of US– is a lot less innocent than my fantasy world wishes to admit.
Some poor PhD student has probably attempted a dissertation on a comparison of the post-Revolutionary war land-grab of American pioneers to today’s settlers in Israel. Mike Pence, who may run for president in 2012, is from Indiana, and a prime specimen for close examination for religio-political-settler-like characteristics. Indiana entered the union in 1816, in the period of one of the US’s “great awakenings” of religious fervor. The great awakenings were triggered by a tremendous uptick in economic prosperity brought about by the development of the Erie Canal. The period of sharp economic growth seemed to go hand-in-hand with a period of moral decay and dissoluteness — or so it seemed to so many Americans in whom Puritanism was a latent force. These religionists reacted to the “moral panic” of the times and established many new denominations of Christianity, made possible by the Letherian concept that each person was his own intepreter of the bible. Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, lived in the center of the most intense of this religious fervor; he wrote his own holy book, The Book of Mormon (Mitt Romney, a Mormon, also might run for president in 2012).
At the same time, new lands were explored and claimed by people bouyed by the prosperity of the age, and motivated by the religious fervor of the age — a formula eerily similar to the situation in Israel, where wealthy Jews (as well as American Christian zionists) are funding the claiming and settlement of lands belonging to another. Of course, in the US, nobody lived on the lands claimed by settlers in Indiana, Kentucky, etc., (irony alert) just as there were no Palestinians in Palestine, as far as Golda Meir was concerned.
To add another element to the comparison, it should be noted that Americans and indigenous people in North America more-or-less coexisted for perhaps 100 years. Official US policy was not harsh towards indigenous peoples (until Andrew Jackson’s presidency). It was rather the case that pioneers and settlers pushing the boundaries of US expansion forced the government’s hand in defending the settlers in their inevitable clashes with Indians.
I recall when my family first acquired a television set in the 1950s, and that some of the first programs broadcast on TV were cowboys and indians programs: cowboys were the good guys, and we thought nothing of applauding when indians were killed.
Catholicism was not much caught up in the Great Awakening phenomenon. For one thing, the largest migrations of Catholics had not yet occurred: the Irish were among the first, or most clamorous, of the large waves of Catholic immigrants to US; they came here in reaction to the potato famine, in 1840s. Furthermore, Catholicism has never been fervently based on the bible but on hierarchically controlled dogma and doctrine. Its powerful and centralized institution structure had no category or tradition for break-away or independently established groups: one was either in or out of the Catholic church.
Update on the situation in Egypt from Twitter posts:
Things are seriously heating up. Special forces have been deployed, the Internet and Blackberry networks are shut down, and the phone system is about to be shut down. Police agents are setting cars on fire in the street to blame on the protesters. Everyone is sure a massacre is being planned. In Suez, police assaults have already injured 130 people. Egyptians desperately need access to the outside world to call attention to the government’s actions.
US is clearly supporting Mubarak in this. El Baradei is not considered a viable contender in DC, apparently, and no on expects him to speak up during this crisis. But if someone influential doesn’t, it’s likely this rebellion will be crushed. Which of course only means it will be worse next time.
Once again, Obama demonstrates that he is a liar and a military-industrial complex thug and a poodle of his Jewish backers. Anyone who can give Obama any credence after his record to date is just delusional.
Rd, many Russians wanted to let go of Eastern Europe (the Empire) to save the motherland. They wanted it and said it and acted upon it. We don’t recognize that in the “west” because we prefer the myth of Reagan….
Is bidden testing the waters for obama?
Joe Biden told Jim Lehrer (PBS Newshour);
“does not consider [mubarak] to be a dictator”
“The vice president was hesitant to link protests in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen as part of a unified trend, saying he didn’t “see any direct relationship, other than it might be argued that what is happening in one country sparks whatever concern there is another country.”
So, sounds like the US decided to support mubarack?, while sending El-B to the rescue (Bakhtiar moment?). and he does not see any direct relationships?? Obviously dear joe, you don’t say….. guess it should Not be surprising they don’t see.
Are there not amazing parallels (similarities) with the soviet fall?
Gulag = guantanamo
Bankrupt bear = bankrupt US
And now the domino effect.. one after another ..
at least the russians had the foresight to save the mother land and let go of the empire…
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/exclusive-biden-discusses-unrest-in-egypt-keeping-us-competitive.html
Two comments beneath the article by David Warren are worth quoting in full, as they put into context what Mr. Warren habitually does:
“Sigh! Here we go again. Same old rhetoric with no substance or consistency.
Remember when Toronto City Council tried to yank the Gay Pride parade funding because the Queers Against Israeli Apartheid were planning to march? Or when the Toronto School Board contemplated yanking The Shepherd’s Granddaughter from school shelves because it was deemed uncomplimentary to Israeli soldiers? Or when MP Cotler tried to pass a bill criminalizing any “dehumanizing” speech about Jews, including the term “Zionist” (Bill C-412)? Or when the CPCCA tries to pass of the use of the term “apartheid” towards Israel as anti-Semitic?
Why doesn’t Warren attack such efforts to stifle fee speech? Why does he always defend calling for genocide of Muslims (ala Coulter) or Levant’s homophobic attacks as bastions of free speech? Why does free speech only exist where his ideology is being supported, even when it falls under the definition of hate speech?”
“Despite many opportunities, Mr. Warren has yet to defend the rights of those he disagrees with. Until he does, one must assume that he’s not upholding the principle of free speech – just exercising another partisan opportunity.”
“Haim Saban, a worldwide pioneer and leader in the entertainment industry, is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Saban Capital Group, Inc. (“SCG”).
A native of Alexandria, Egypt, Mr. Saban immigrated to Israel at the age of 12 where he attended agricultural school and served in the Israeli Defense Force. While in Israel, he built the country’s premier tour promotion business.”
OK…. according to Shadi Hamid, Ben Obama should support Islamist in Egypt before they come in power and turn against Israel.
Shadi Hamid, a ‘specialist on political Islam’ with the Zionist Jewish think tank, Saban Center for Middle East Policy (associated with Brookings Institute and is directed by Martin S. Indyk, former American Jewish ambassador to Tel Aviv and co-founder of WINEP, a think tank of Likud. It was name after his sponsor, Jewish millionaire Haim Saban, co-owner of Fox TV), wrote for The Atlantic (January 25, 2011) under the heading ‘After Tunisia: Obama’s Impossible Dilemma in Egypt’, that fortunately, pro-US-Israel Mubarak regime will not fall tomorrow. “It (Washington) can begin distancing itself from Mubarak by stepping up public criticism of regime repression and deepening contacts with the full range of Egyptian opposition – liberals, leftists, and, yes, Islamists alike. It is better to have leverage with opposition groups before they come to power than afterward,” Shadi advised Obama administration in order to sabotage the future genuine revolution.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/the-pharoah-is-doomed/
OK… According to nahid, Iran is now Chairman of the Vienna chapter of the G77.
According to Press TV, Iran is now President of the G77 (a position that does not exist). In the body of the article, Press TV says that Algeria handed over the Chairmanship to Iran. The position of Chairmanship is actually the highest authority in G77 (previously held by Yemen); however, Iran is now Chairman of only the Vienna chapter, and does not head the entire G77.
According to nahid, Argentina will take over the position of Chairmanship in 2011.
Here is the G77 website: http://www.g77.org/doc/
In conclusion, the Press TV article is a load of bull. As a result, my argument that Iranian media inflates Iranian achievements still stands, and I can also add on the argument that Press TV does not even know what it is talking about.
Rehmat – I cannot determine from the g77 website whether the group holds elections. Where did you find out there are elections? Please keep me informed, thanks.
Oh Canada.
(faint) Praise: You have bold, brave, (tho bug-eyed) journos to defend your right to speak freely!! Huzzah!!
A free hit for free speech by David Warren, The Ottawa Citizen
re my comment at 10:30 am, “Iranium is coming.”
The people behind Iranium are the very same people as the group that convened at the Willard Hotel to rally for removal of MEK from terror watch list – http://www.iraniumthemovie.com/about/interviewees/
In other words, anti-Iran war hawks are a discrete, relatively small, wealthy, well-organized, well-connected group.
Al Qaeda was a relatively small, well-financed, disciplined group as well. US took its army and nation to war; spilled the blood of over 4,000 soldiers and spent the treasure of three generations of Americans; destroyed two sovereign nations and is threatening to destroy a third — all with the stated goal of avenging the acts of that small band of evil-doers.
What is my country prepared to do to protect me from the evil acts of THESE evil doers?
Iran’s Ambassador to IAEA Ali Asghar Soltanieh today was elected the chairman of the Vienna chapter of G-77. He replaces the Algerian ambassador to IAEA.
The G-77 was founded by UN’s 77 developing countries in Algiers in 1967, and since then its membership has grown to 131 countries. This year, the overall Chairman of G-77, the organization’s highest ranking officer, will be the Argentine Ambassador to the UN. The group also has chapters at UN offices worldwide, including Vienna, Geneva and Rome. Soltanieh will head the Vienna chapter in 2011.
Pak – The Chairmanship of G77 is NOT rotating but is voted by 133-member group.
Your dispute of Iranian ‘achievements’ remind me of Israeli Hasbara idiot David Brooks’ January 12, 2010 Op-Ed column ”The Tel Aviv Cluster’ in the New York Times boasted many Jewish achievements considering they make-up only 0.2% of world’s population.
Let us see who lies – Iranian press or the Zionist press!
Jewish or Israeli Achievements
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/jewish-or-israeli-achievements/
Not true Pak. It was a political decision.
Dear Liz,
I am always happy to see the UN upholding its mission to integrate the international community. Seeing Iran engage in diplomacy, as opposed to bellicose rhetoric, is also promising.
Just out of interest, did you know that the chairmanship is rotating? Iranian news has a habit of inflating Iranian achievements:
http://www.mehrnews.com/en/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1239501
“Tehran transport system named world’s third best”
Arnold,
I’m not saying that Mubarak is not unpopular – I think most Egyptians are weary of his rule after 30 years. But the opposition has its strength in Cairo, Alexandria, Suez and the big cities. Nobody know what public sentiment is really like beyond these places.
The greatest problem for the opposition is that few know who they are.
Anyway, tomorrow is crunch day. If Friday prayer protests fizzle out then the regime has stemmed the tide. If not, then we could be seeing a revolutionary movement. It is a battle of wills.
Persian Gulf,
Israel would not have to fight on any front, if it accepted the Saudi peace plan. Ironically, foolish American failure to support that plan is putting Israel’s long-term stability needlessly at risk.
Fiorangela,
Yes, Richard Perle is a neocon charlatan who has wreaked havoc with the national security interests of the American people. Perle, however, is protected by US news media.
Liz, re http://www.presstv.ir/detail/162244.html “Iran becomes G-77 President”
game on.
Pak,
Iran and the international community:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/162244.html
Fiorangela says: January 27, 2011 at 10:13 am
I feel sorry for the Jews in America, the partisans of Israel are making the Jew a person with dubious loyalty to the United States.
Iranium is coming.
“the première of Clarion Fund/Aish Hatorah’s latest magnum opus in its epic trilogy of Islamophobia. Iranium is coming. It will be premiered (where else) at the Heritage Foundation and introduced by one of the great neocon charlatans, Richard Perle. It will be screened at New York City AMC Theaters. Years in the making and with a cast of neocon thousands (well, OK maybe “tens”) and a seeminly unlimited budget (fronted no doubt by far-right Jewish Republican fatcats like Barre Seid who spent $17-million promoting Obsession), Iranium will scare the wits out of you (well, maybe not you) and send you crawling to your local Congress member demanding that they do something, anything about Iran before it’s too late. . . .”
popcorn anyone?
Previous post addressed to Reza Esfandiari
I think it would be naive to suppose that the demonstrators in Egypt represent the people – Mubarak retains some support outside of the big cities.
I disagree. I don’t think Mubarak could win a contested election without drastic changes in policy – without ending his current position as a US colonial subordinate.
That’s not to say his support is exactly zero, he may even be more popular than Mousavi is in Iran, but given approximately equal campaign resources, I don’t think there is any question that Mubarak today could not beat a candidate fielded by Kefiyah or the Muslim Brotherhood.
I’d be more than happy to be proved wrong, for Mubarak to participate in fairly contested elections and win.
I don’t think Barack Obama would allow that to happen, as it would put Egypt’s policy regarding Israel under the control of the Egyptian people. Keeping Egypt’s policy regarding Israel under US control is “stability” and the single most important US objective in the region.
Voice of Tehran, thanks for the link to the AP article about Iran, “Iran’s allies gain clout and possible softer edges.”
“”Certainly there is more visible Iranian influence around the region,” said Salman Shaikh, director of The Brookings Doha Center in Qatar. “But these are no longer just vassals of Iran. As they move into political roles, there will be changes that Iran cannot control. We shouldn’t look at Lebanon as a zero-sum game between Iran and the West.”"
http://www.brookings.edu/doha.aspx
“About Us
The Brookings Doha Center, a project of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, undertakes research on the socio-economic and geopolitical issues facing the Muslim world and encourages greater understanding between policy-makers in the United States and the Muslim world.”
Israelophiles are going to have to be dealt with and lived with. But so are the rest of us. Those who seek the advancement of all peoples, rather than a vision that is skewed to one, tiny, chosen people, must embolden themselves to speak their values with as much clarity and persistence as those who sponsor the Brookings Doha Center (for example). We should not allow one small group to frame the debate, and we should stop allowing ourselves to be intimidated. (Starting with you —> or you –> but not me!)
Voice of Tehran – please don’t scared the hell out of already paranoid ‘Israel-Firsters’ by posting the popularity of Iranian regime in the world outside Israel and its western poodles.
World’s top independent leaders
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/12/23/worlds-top-independent-leaders/
I think it would be naive to suppose that the demonstrators in Egypt represent the people – Mubarak retains some support outside of the big cities. But people have warned that revolution was brewing in Egypt for years now and if Mubarak decides to run again ,or to put his son on the throne, the country will erupt.
It seems the security forces have been ordered to show restraint.
Re: Neocons want MEK taken off terrorist list. Once again the neocons fail to learn the lessons of their earlier stupidities. Anyone who lived in Iran during the 1970’s can tell you that the MEK was responsible for a number of political murders, including that of a number of U.S. military personnel. Putting that aside, do they seriously think that the average Iranian would welcome the presence of these traitors and criminals in Iran? We need regime change there, but not by this bunch.
I mean useful news regarding Iran in Associated Press :
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_s_reach_1
Since ages I heven’t read anything ‘usesful’ regarding Iran. This one is a bit different :
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_s_reach_1
“DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – From the Afghan badlands to the Mediterranean, evidence of Iran’s reach is easy to spot: a mix of friend and foe for Kabul leaders, a power broker in Iraq, deep alliances with Syria and a big brother to Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Hamas in Gaza.
Tehran’s proxy portfolio suddenly has a bit more aura after Hezbollah’s political gambit — bringing down a pro-Western government in Lebanon and moving into position to pick its successor.
To those keeping score, it would appear that Iran is winning some important points around the Middle East at the expense of Washington and its allies…
This is just getting more and more fascinating;
“Thousands of Yemenis are demonstrating in the capital Sanaa, calling on Ali Abdullah Saleh, president for more than 30 years, to step down.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12295864
The current situation reminds me of Professor Mohammad Marandi’s article where he said “the center cannot hold”:
“In Tehran, there is a strong belief that the region is changing dramatically in favor of Hezbollah, the Palestinians, and the Resistance. The rise of an independent Turkey, whose government has a worldview very different from that of the U.S., German, British, and French governments, along with the relative decline of Saudi and Egyptian regional influence, signals a major shift in the regional balance of power. Saudi military incompetence during the fighting with Yemeni tribes along the border between the two countries, the general decline of the Egyptian regime in all respects, and the almost universal contempt among Arabs as a whole for the leaders of these two countries and other pro-western Arab regimes and their corrupt elites, are seen as signs that the center cannot hold. The fact that the Iranian president and the Turkish prime minister are so popular in Arab countries, while most Arab leaders are deeply unpopular, is a sign that the region is changing.”
One of the interesting things about the western media is that they are silent about a number of things. First they ignore the fact that the strongest movements in Tunisia and Egypt are religious and, for examply, they regularly play up small groups such as they Kefaya as well as ElBaradei. Also, they don’t say anything about public anger in these countries towards the west and their absolute hatred for Israel. The western media is also silent about the hypocrisy of Obama in his State of the Union speech as well as the general hypocrisy of the Obama regime in its public statements about the current Tunisian regime and Mubarak. Also they are not at all happy!
Juan Cole is a hypocrite. Hezbollah supported the majority in both countries.
Juan Cole is running a piece written by a student in Montreal who is calling Hizbullah hypocritical for its support of the demonstrations in Tunisia, but not in Iran.
Anzalone: Hezbollah’s Double Standards: Tunisia and Iran
http://www.juancole.com/2011/01/anzalone-hezbollah’s-double-standards-tunisia-and-iran.html
Arnold, thanks for the link. Rattansi is great. A real interview, imagine.
As for Crowley: I think, against all odds and sense of shame, he takes his arguments seriously. When pushed, as you point out, it’s all about Israel and the accompanying code words, “stabilizing force in the region”.
Egypt, stabilizing? Only if your eyes are firmly closed.
Has the Secretary of State just had the wrong people in place for so long that they are really “out of it” to this degree?
(I am still reeling with the idea of Feltman to Tunisia… was that for real or someone’s idea of a funny moment?)
PJ Crowley being grilled on Al Jazeera
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmEcQMwprIo
A great excerpt begins at 5:42.
Shihab Rattansi: But you have more leverage than that. Surely you can think of, the President or the Secretary of State can speak to Mr. Mubarak and say: “Call off your repressive security forces, now begin a transition to true democracy and stop torturing people while you’re at it.”
PJ Crowley: But again, you’re casting this in zero sum terms and I reject that. We respect what Egypt contributes to the region. It is a stabilizing force. It has made its own peace with Israel and is pursuing normal relations with Israel. We think that’s important. We think that’s a model that the region should adopt broadly speaking. At the same time we recognize that Egypt, Tunisia, other countries do need to reform. They do need to respond to the needs of their people and we encourage that reform and we are contributing across the board. Across the region to that reform.
Shihab Rattansi: Finally there must be a discussion that if in a time of austerity a repressive client regime can’t guarantee stability for the billions of dollars Washington is spending, what’s the point of all this expenditure?
PJ Crowley: Well we have a, Egypt is an ally and we have, rely on Egypt as an ally to be a stabilizing force in the region and that’s exactly what they are and we contribute in terms of military and security assistance to help Egypt because that has benefits across the region as a whole
Shihab Rattansi: Because democracy would be destabilizing to the region wouldn’t it?
PJ Crowley: Well again, we want to see the region reform. We believe that as countries develop, as countries prosper, they are likely to become more democratic. We want to see those kinds of reforms. We want to see greater political economic and social opportunity. And we are
Shihab Rattansi: So Egypt’s not ready for democracy?
PJ Crowley: We are investing in that. But again, how these countries develop will be on a case-by-case basis. This will not be a cookie-cutter approach for all of the Middle East. We have to evaluate the dynamic in Egypt and look for ways to contribute to that just as we look individually at the dynamic that is happening in Tunisia or other countries.
Off topic, but… amusing or aggravating, here is the Tea Party reply to Obama.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/25/sotu.response.bachmann/
Historic Video Ayatollah Khamanie (vice minister of defense) vesting John Lambert when in Tehran during the hostage crises
http://www.tarikhirani.ir/fa/files/8/bodyView/66/فیلم.گفتوگوی.آیت.الله.خامنهای.با.لیمبرت.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/70225554@N00/sets/72157625912035318/show/
fyi says: January 26, 2011 at 10:11 pm
Obviously Egypt is the key. If it happens in Egypt, definitely it will ignite Algeria, Jordan, and probably Bahrain (I am not too sure of Syria though). the population in Saudi is nowhere near the revolution.By happens I mean, changing the status quo no matter what comes next. whatever comes out is a blow to the U.S/Israel in the region. I don’t think Israel can fight another big war, nor for that matter these states that are on the verge of the revolution. but a constant state of hostility between them and Israel, something of the sort we see between Iran and the U.S, is inevitable. that itself will kill Israel and it’s spirit without actually shooting any bullet. it’s not 60s or 70s for Israel anymore. they can’t fight on all fronts.
Let’s hope for a change in Egypt first.
Fiorangela: Thanks for the link to the FPJ article on Feltman. I was highly amused.
Nasrallah: 1 Obama: 0
Again.
Whatever Obama says, you can expect the opposite behind closed doors. This is very far from over.
All:
If these revolution succeed and new popular dispensations are setup in Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, and Tunisia (or Egypt and Tunisia alone) without a doubt there will be war with Israel.
The leaders of the United States must be prepared to decide on neutrality or war on behalf of Israel.
http://warincontext.org/2010/10/30/how-the-us-is-being-outmaneuvered-by-iran-and-saudi-arabia/
How Iran and Saudi Arabia are Outmaneuvering US — and Infuriating Jeff Feltman
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/11/01/jeff-feltmans-really-great-plan/
““Let’s blame (Imad) Mughniyah for killing Hariri. He’s dead so the investigative trail ends. Just say, ‘We had no idea what he was doing’. No more tribunal. Everyone is happy. And as a sweetener we’ll take Hezbollah off our Terrorism list.” — US undersecretary of State for Near East Affairs Jeffrey Feltman to Hezbollah via the Saudi-Syrian, back channel on October 10, 2010
“Do you think we’re that stupid?” — Hezbollah (smelling a set-up) to Obama via the same channel, October 23, 2010
Nasrallah and Tunisian ‘Yasmine Revolution’
“We’ve heard yesterday that Feltman (a Zionist Jew) has headed to Tunisia. This is bad omen. The Tunisian people should be aware because when Feltman wants to talk procedures and elections with the interim Tunisian Government, this definitely means an American conspiracy in the making. Wherever this juggler Feltman appears, desolation and strife appear with him.”
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/nasrallah-and-tunisian-yasmine-revolution/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkMqqXhME40&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BSBj2fHoSo
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_egypt_protest
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhLmTrn7Nds
Fiorangela: But that is the point, isn’t it, you say that the Kagans et al don’t represent American values… but yours is a voice in the wilderness (to use a reference from somewhere…).
The world “has concluded”, not “is concluding”, that American values “are” as American values “do”, not as American liberals claim. How are you any different from James in this regard… who insists, against all historical evidence, that British values are not what they appear?
Fiorangela: I suspect your intuitions on Levey are correct… although have no information. I suspect, too, that Frum’s “nolabels” is part of a new configuration-push for control of the American political spectrum. This is not a struggle aimed at compromise.
El Baradei is correct to return.
Feltman to Tunisia? Truly, truly, that goes well beyond tone deaf… just plain startling in its absurdity. Who is running US foreign policy… (I’m sorry, I didn’t really mean to ask that.)
James, I thought all the British experts were busy supporting Dahlan in Palestine and teaching terrorism to the Pakistanis, or did I miss something?
just to keep in fighting trim, James, I must respond: If UK Arabists are so good that US should ‘borrow’ them, how is it that UK got itself into such a mess?
The conversation we were having about “The Invention of the Jewish People” opened up some important insights into the ideological makeup of the zionist/Jewish mindset. Evangelical Protestants share much of that same Torah-based mindset.
It has been my observation that converts to one faith or another are peculiarly prone to extravagant commitment to peculiar religious beliefs; as a convert, Blair certainly fits that pattern. Toss in greed, power hunger, and voila, demagogue extraordinaire. As Jack Ross wrote in the American Conservative article about Iran, Israel’s Iran obsession is not rational, and neither is the Blair/neocon/American rush to war in Middle East. THAT may be the burden your UK Arabists labored under: they are rational people dealing with deluded, crazed warmongers.
The tragedy that is taking place in the US is not that there are no American experts on the Middle East who also reflect the American value set — such people exist. Flynt and Hillary are two examples; John Esposito, Chas Freeman, John Tirman, Shibley Telhami, John Entalis, are several others. The tragedy is they are viciously and effectively silenced by people like the Kagans, Jeff Feltman, Dennis Ross, Stuart Levey, who do NOT NOT NOT NOT represent American values but who are willing and able to stoop to the most vicious tactics to topple these good people who DO speak for Americans.
We Americans should be out in the streets risking our bones and blood and futures, just like those young people in Egypt and Tunis, but we — I — simply cannot summon the courage. We set many of these injustices in motion, at least, our representatives did, many years ago and not so many years ago. We are responsible for allowing Condi Rice, George Bush, and Jeff Feltman to devastate Lebanon — they did that in our name. Similarly, Gaza was brutalized with our tacit permission. So, on a day when Egyptians are risking their lives, what do we demand of our government? That opposing parties sit next to each other. I want to be sick.
Goli,
Shouldn’t ElBaradei be credited with resisting US/Israel pressure to demonise Iran re: its nuclear programme?
Goli, I HOPE elBaradei speaks for Egyptians. I would have thought he’d gotten a bellyful of Americans & Israelis.
As I read the Reuters report I couldn’t help but think what complex set of fear and passion he must be experiencing just now. It could be very dangerous to try to ride that three-headed (Egypt people, Egypt establishment, rest of world) tiger and stay alive, and succeed. Much more pleasant to remain in Vienna.
Reposting with an inserted comma for clarity.
Fiorangela,
I am sure, right this moment, El Baradei is getting an earful from the US/EU. Is he the last hope of the Americans/Israelis, or the Egyptians?
Fiorangela,
I am sure, right this moment, El Baradei is getting an earful from the US/EU. Is he the last hope of the Americans/Israelis or the Egyptians?
Rd. and others may enjoy this quote from Bovard’s article in March 2011 American Conservative magazine that I mentioned earlier:
“Adam Garfinkle, who worked as a speech-writer for Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, said in 2007, ‘No one in a senior position in this administration seems to have the vaguest notion of modern Middle Eastern history.’” This obviously was a large part of the problem, and it opened the way for idiot neocons, Zionist warmongers, et al. to wreak havoc.
Rd.,
Do we know the name of the general who told Wesley Clark, on or about Sept. 20, 2001: “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” So invade Iraq on false pretenses!
Rumsfeld wanted to try out the new style of warfare he had been working on, in real time with a real “enemy”. Millions of people have their lives ruined due to his viciousness and stupdity? Not a problem as far as most US news media are concerned.
must see:
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentMulti/4885/Multimedia.aspx
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFrZeDFbFrk
Scott
It sounds like the Green’s are going to have big troubles; Mr. Mussavie was paid $50 mil. By a Palestinian business man to setup a radio station
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/26/palestinian-distrust-iran-leaked-papers
When Wall Street Journal or Foreign Policy report on the 2009 Iranian protests they are evil Zionist puppets with no credibility. When they report on the Egyptian protests they are so credible and trustworthy that Fars News’ first and second headline quotes them.
First Headline (2:20am Tehran Time):
Wall Street Journal: The Day Of Anger In Egypt is a Historic Day
Second Headline:
Foreign Policy: After Tunisia, Which One of the Arab Dictators Will Fall?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRzDt6TSDE8
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=527yso22KfA&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKe9nOqQu5M
Fiorangela,
No, I was not kidding. Bear in mind Britain wanted the US to support it in pressuring Israel to get out of all of the territories occupied during the June 1967 war. UK predicted major problems if this was not accomplished. Dead right.
British Arabists largely opposed invasion of Iraq. This is the reason the neocons in Washington took pains to keep the British away from the planning for the invasion. British experts said post-overthrow, it was imperative to keep lowest possible profile to avoid setting off an insurgency. Idiot neocons spurned this advice.
MUST SEE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3yuPlQv-sU&feature=player_embedded
الله اکبر
الشعب يريد إسقاط النظام
Rd.,
Yes, neocon delusions that were pretty frightening. And G W Bush with an ignorant butt kisser for a National Security Advisor! Bush seems to have been played for a fool, by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Sadly, Tony Blair helped the scheme get carried forward (to invade Iraq on knowingly false pretenses).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ruGuHTLXNs
El Baradei plans to return to Egypt tomorrow
http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptNews/idAFLDE70P2JL20110126
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwl9-tctIy8
ترابك يا مصر
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85ltMcSBg6c&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OsqN8kTPqE
Could it be that the western stranglehold over the region is slowly coming to an end?
Some excerpts from obama’s smart speech in Cairo.
we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: “I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be.”
I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year. (Applause.)
The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (
This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. ………….. and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect.
Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments — provided they govern with respect for all their people.
With exception, Islamic Republic, Lebanon, Hamas,,,,, (he probably skipped the fine sprint on his smart speech).
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-cairo-university-6-04-09
Gen Wesley Clark; “So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?1997-Wesley-Clark-Says-Neocons-Plan-To-Overthrow-7-countries-in-the-next-5-years.
7 countries in 5 years! right.. Tunisia, Egypt and counting….
fyi says:
“The Iranian leaders love the overt support of US-EU Axis for the MEK.”
Act of desperation by the axis.
Rehmat,
Where are you? Wake up! Couple items right up your alley.
1) French railway apologizes for Holocaust 65 years after the fact (and I used that term loosely) to get American contracts.
2) YouTube channel aims to educate Iranians about the Holocaust, as Iranian President Ahmadinejad reiterates his belief that the Holocaust is a myth. Haaretz
All:
The Iranian leaders love the overt support of US-EU Axis for the MEK.
That plays very well indeed into their over-all propaganda and so-called information warfare.
The overwhelming remianing members of MEK are men and women in their 50s with no discernible following in Iran.
They are a spent force.
But US-EU Axis overt de-criminalization of them would be a welcome event for the Iranian leaders.
James, is that a joke — Obama should borrow Middle East experts from UK?
Thanks Mom, but no thanks.
The more I learn about the Middle East the more I am forced to conclude that British empire and greed (and Churchill) have done more to destabilize the region and abuse the people of the entire area than just about any other single agent, zionists included.
Besides, the US has plenty of experts on Middle East and Iran. Zionism has forced them underground, or at best, to speak very cautiously. The worm will turn.
Fiorangela,
Yes, agreed. And is Obama unable to retain the services of some NON-JEWS to deal with Middle East policy? Maybe he should approach the UK and borrow some British Middle East experts.
James Canning, re Stuart Levey, — I have a tin hat fetish: Jennifer Rubin wrote that Levey is retiring “for exactly the reasons he stated, he’s tired and it really is time to move on.”
When someone like Rubin says something like that about someone like Levey, check your wallet pocket: something else is afoot. A lot of zionists are in motion; the region is more volatile than any time since Bush smashed into Iraq.
Fior,
Are you suggesting Stuart Levey will just be moved somewhere else, to continue his nasty machinations? And Dennis Ross advocated the overthrow of the government of Syria! What an idiot! But still in the thick of things trying to wreck the chances of a resolution of the Israel/Palestine problem.
Fiorangela,
I laughed out loud when I saw your comment that some of the delusional Zionists are claiming Israel could recapture the Sinai! What better way would there be to convince the world that Israel is a dangerous fungus needing removal?
James Bovard reviews Derek Leebart’s new book (“Magic and mayhem: The Delusions of American Foreign Polciy from Korea to Afghanistan”) in the March 2011 American Conservative magazine. Leebart says the foreign policy “experts” in Washington are con men, “drag[ging] America into one bloodbath and debacle after another”.
Fiorangela,
Yes, Feltman to Tunisia! What stupdiity.
Mohammed Nahavandian, the head of Iranian chamber of commerce, hailed the resignation of Stuart Levey. As do we, of course. Nahavandian says US and European businessmen oppose the sanctions against Iran. I think he is right about this.
Protest U.S. Senators’ War Drive on Iran
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/oppose_us_sanctions_on_iran/
According to this report out today from the semi-official Fars News Agency
http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8911030869 ,
the head of the Hariri tribunal, Antonio Cassese, has been advocate and legal advisor to the cross-Atlanic campaign to take MEK off official terror lists. I checked Google images of the jurist and they match the bald man pictured with terrorist Maryam Rajavi during what Fars said was a high-profile 2008 conference to push de-lisitng (there have been a few, actually).
too unbelievable for words.
US is sending Jeffrey Feltman to mediate Tunis.
unbelievable.
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/US-Sends-Senior-Envoy-to-Tunisia-114518994.html
nb. VOA is one of Feltman’s pet projects.
Kev.,
Thanks for the excellent link. It just shows how sick and dishonest western leaders like Obama really are.
http://www.iran-interlink.org/?mod=view&id=9327
Intresting facts about the Mossad ring in Iran by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach, Global Research, Jan 26 2011
:http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22962
Useful Iranian site on Diplomacy
http://www.irdiplomacy.ir/index.php?Lang=en&Page=00
Iran should offer to send IranAir craft to fly Egyptian and American & other western embassy personnel out of the country.
Voice of Tehran:
Did you mean Cleopat(ra) instead of Cleptocrat?
I don’t see the Egypt situation dying down because 2011 is presidential election year.
Mubarak must decide to run for yet another term, position his son as successor or hold free and fair elections. If he chooses the first two options, he will provoke an angry response from the public. We shall see in the forthcoming months.
“U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also said that the United States believed that the government of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, in power for three decades, was stable and looking for ways to meet the Egyptian people’s aspirations.”
She might as well have called it the Island of stability!!!!!
“If I’m right, then Israel is going to be forced to either implement some drastic changes in attitude”
Looks like they may already have tried(?) Isn’t the Dagan declaration of Iran’s “supposed” nuclear [non existence] bomb capability delayed an attempt to buy Israelis some space whilst in the midst of the Arab uprisings? Summer temps must be arriving in telaviv a bit early this year.
Moscow airport bombing: Another False-flag operation!
By Mossad for Russia’s support for an independent Palestinian state?
By CIA to stop military budget cuts for Israel-Firsters’ new wars against Lebanon and Iran?
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/moscow-airport-bombing-another-false-flag-operation/
Absolutely amazing!
http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/144489/عكس-رئيس-دادگاه-حریری-با-مریم-رجوي
http://www.presstv.com/detail/162041.html
“Egypt president’s son has fled to Britain as thousands continue to protest across the country against Hosni Mubarak’s decades-long rule. ”
One Cleptocrat less….
That is just a great picture.
This is from Jenifer Rubin’s latest blog in WP, read her latest post and a comment left by a commentator and have a laugh it is sadly funny
Posted at 2:05 PM ET, 01/25/2011
Stuart Levey departs
By Jennifer Rubin
“We have seen no evidence of this. A computer virus and some well-timed car accidents slowed the progress of Iran’s nuclear program, but not the regime’s determination to obtain nuclear weapons. And Iran’s influence through surrogate terrorist groups continues to increase, most recently in Hezbollah’s virtual takeover of Lebanon. Iran is still on the rise; the U.S. is still in retreat in the region.”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/01/stuart_levey_departs.html
Comment left for this post
————————-
“A computer virus and some well-timed car accidents slowed the progress of Iran’s nuclear program, but not the regime’s determination to obtain nuclear weapons”
Well-timed car accidents????
This is incredible Ms. Rubin, vehicles rigged by explosives exploding on the streets can be objectively called car accidents.
We would be rightfully outraged if an Iranian journalist referred to 9/11 as “aviation mishaps involving plane crashes”
I get the whole, “if we do it, it’s ok, if they do it, it’s the manifestation of evil on earth” arguments.
But this is a bit too far, we, or the Israelis or our Iranian proxy groups blew up vehicles killing Iranian scientist.
This type of distortion diminishes your paper.
Posted by: BG75 | January 25, 2011 2:37 PM | Report abuse
WPost Still Talking Tough on Iran
By Robert Parry
January 25, 2011
Just as some Republicans view tax cuts as the answer to all domestic problems, the Washington Post’s neoconservative editors see “regime change” in hostile Muslim nations as the only acceptable option, ignoring the slippage in U.S. influence in the Middle East that has resulted from following that approach in Iraq and elsewhere.
The Post was at it again on Tuesday with an editorial about the latest round of talks with Iran over its nuclear program. Noting the lack of progress – and apparent failure of new economic sanctions to soften up Tehran – the Post’s editors were dreaming again about “regime change” in the form of helping the “Green Movement” topple President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
“By doing more to support the Iranian opposition, the United States could press the regime where it actually feels threatened,” the Post wrote. “It could also send an important message to Iranians: that the international coalition seeks not to punish them but to weaken the government they despise.”
But the Post’s position reflects a narrative of recent history that is so full of neocon distortions and fallacies that it is hard to know where to begin. Indeed, the Post’s predictable embrace of “regime change” again demonstrates the danger to U.S. national security and world stability that comes from having the foreign policy “elite” of a major superpower live in a fantasy world.
Instead of dealing with facts – such as the clear evidence that Ahmadinejad actually won the 2009 election and the reality that his government was willing to agree as late as spring 2010 to relinquish nearly half its supply of low-enriched uranium – the Post’s editors simply shifted into a different narrative, one aligned with neocon propaganda.
In that world, Ahmadinejad stole the 2009 election; the Islamic government is a dictatorship despised by Iranians who are on the edge of revolution; and Iran’s negotiators deceived the world last year about their readiness to trade low-enriched uranium for isotopes needed to run a medical reactor.
Yet, whatever one thinks of the blustering Ahmadinejad, the Post’s narrative is simply not real. For instance, there’s the troublesome fact that virtually all available evidence indicates that – contrary to Western hopes and desires – Ahmadinejad won the June 12, 2009, election in Iran and that his chief challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi didn’t even come close.
As an analysis by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes discovered, not a single Iranian poll – whether before or after the election, whether conducted inside or outside Iran – showed Ahmadinejad with less than majority support.
These polls also showed a consolidation of support behind the government after the election, despite demonstrations by Mousavi’s supporters seeking to overturn the results. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Ahmadinejad Won, Get Over It!”]
Brazil-Turkey Initiative
Then, there were the efforts in spring 2010, led by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, to get Ahmadinejad to agree to relinquish Iranian control of nearly half the country’s supply of low-enriched uranium.
This initiative revived a plan first advanced by President Barack Obama – and the Turkish-Brazilian effort had his private encouragement. However, after Ahmadinejad accepted the deal, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other U.S. hardliners switched into overdrive to kill the swap and insist instead on imposing harsher sanctions against Iran.
Clinton’s position was endorsed by editors at the Washington Post and the New York Times, who mocked Erdogan and Lula da Silva as inept understudies on the international stage. If anything, the Post and Times argued, the United States should take an even more belligerent approach toward Iran, i.e. seeking “regime change.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “WPost, NYT Show Tough-Guy Swagger.”]
As Clinton pushed for the new round of United Nations’ sanctions last spring, Lula da Silva even released a letter from Obama that had urged the Brazilians to press forward with the swap arrangement. However, with Washington’s political momentum favoring another confrontation with a Muslim adversary, Obama retreated and lined up behind the sanctions.
Now, it appears that the sanctions have only served to harden Iran’s negotiating position, with Ahmadinejad’s emissaries refusing to even consider a modified swap arrangement unless the sanctions are lifted as a precondition.
So, predictably, the Post’s editors have returned to their favorite default position, “regime change,” via covert U.S. support for the Green Movement. It is the same kind of “tough-guy” wishful thinking that led the Bush administration to believe that the invasion of Iraq would be “a cakewalk” with Iraqis welcoming U.S. troops with flowers and candies.
It also represents the kind of false narrative that may be popular at Washington’s dominant neocon think tanks but has contributed to a string of U.S. setbacks in the strategic Middle East, from Lebanon to Iraq.
Indeed, despite the expenditure of at least $1 trillion and thousands of American lives over the past decade, the position of the United States in the Middle East is weaker than it has been at any time in recent history. But that is a reality the Washington foreign policy “elite” seeks to wish away.
So, the neocons are still pitching the notion that the “victorious” U.S. war in Iraq should have payoffs in the form of a long-term American military presence there and a lucrative U.S. claim on Iraqi oil resources.
But the hard reality appears different, with the United States facing declining influence and the power of radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in the ascendance. As al-Sadr takes a more prominent role in Iraqi politics, his movement remains insistent that U.S. military forces undertake a complete and irrevocable withdrawal by year’s end.
The U.S. government may be given a few consolation prizes as it is led to the exit door, but objective historians are likely to interpret the final reality in Iraq as a humiliating defeat for the American Empire.
Saudi Disgust
Even longtime U.S. allies have expressed private disgust at the consequences of ousting Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein, who had been viewed by the oil-rich Persian Gulf sheikdoms as a crucial bulwark against Shiite-ruled Iran.
According to a U.S. diplomatic cable from December 2005 – released by WikiLeaks – Saudi King Abdullah lashed out at George W. Bush’s administration for ignoring his warnings against invading Iraq in 2003, noting that the new Iraqi government was dominated by Shiites with close ties to Iran.
“Whereas in the past the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Saddam Hussein had agreed on the need to contain Iran, U.S. policy had now given Iraq to Iran as a ‘gift on a golden platter,’” the U.S. Embassy cable quoted the king as complaining.
Similarly, in Lebanon, U.S. policies in line with Israel have failed to contain the militant Shiite movement, Hezbollah. Though the United States has joined Israel in condemning Hezbollah as a “terrorist” organization, it is widely regarded in the Middle East as a resistance movement and is now poised to gain control of the Lebanese parliament.
Hezbollah’s rise has marked another victory for Iran, which worked with Syria to back the movement. Meanwhile, Washington’s long-term allies – the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Egypt – are viewed as losing ground in the regional rivalries.
A key factor in the eroding U.S. position is that Washington’s foreign policy elites – the think tanks, the leading news outlets, etc. – are still dominated by neocons who have imposed their own narrative, one that increasingly deviates from the ground truth.
This neocon take on the Muslim world – the “clash of civilizations” favored by right-wing Israelis and far-right Christians – reached a high point under George W. Bush, who followed the neocon notion that violent “regime change” could be used to reshape the region in ways acceptable to Israel and amenable to the secure extraction of oil resources for Western economies.
Though that strategy foundered over the Iraq War, there has been no appreciable change in Washington’s thinking.
President Obama tried to shift the U.S. strategy somewhat – with such policies as engaging Iran over its nuclear program and pressing Israel on Palestinian peace talks – but he ran into obstacles from the neocon-dominated punditocracy and from his own appointees, like Secretary Clinton.
Faced with this political resistance, Obama soon retreated, even backing away from his own letter of encouragement to Lula da Silva regarding negotiations on the Iranian fuel swap.
The Republican congressional victory in November is only making matters worse, with spectacles like the planned hearings to investigate alleged radicalization in America’s Muslim community.
While this investigation – pushed by neocons – may succeed in whipping up public fear and anger against this minority group in the United States, it is sure to be viewed with disgust among the world’s one billion Muslims and further damage America’s image.
But perhaps an even bigger obstacle to the United States adopting a more effective policy toward the Islamic world is the refusal of Washington’s foreign policy “elite” to adapt to the shifting realities regarding the region and American power. The truth is that U.S. influence in the Middle East is receding; the post-Cold War “uni-polar” moment is ending.
But Washington’s pundits and politicians remain wedded to the belief that the United States is all-powerful and that Muslim nations can — and must — be bullied into submission.
The gap between the world’s hard realities and Washington’s macho rhetoric is widening into a dangerous chasm – and the Washington Post’s editorial board has chosen the side of illusion.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2011/012511.html
the most ridiculous moment of the speech was when Obama was talking about sanctioning Iran and the camera was focused on the face of the monster.
and “we support the aspirations of all people [in fact, I am afraid to talk about Egyptians as they seem to be screwing us hour by hour]“.
he has already started working on his re-election. there is no way Iran can reach an agreement with this guy, at least for the coming 2 years.
Dont forget that the STL Tribunal for Hariri Tribunal leader Cassese is a MEK supporter.
http://www.iran-interlink.org/?mod=view&id=9327
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgh1iOXI6sQ&feature=player_embedded
James Canning — yes, Levey is resigning without resigning. It could be a “Dennis Ross” style move — a really bad actor moving into an even more influential position, while keeping the old position functioning in just the same way as before. In other words, Wait and see . . .
Thanks for the link to the Shlomo Sand video, Castellio. Several thoughts on things Sand did NOT say in the video, that are very interesting (for later).
Hasbarist/ultra-zionist bloggers on other fora are claiming that whatever happens in Egypt will be good for Israel: if a power vacuum occurs in Egypt, Israel will retake the Sinai and Egyptians will have to “beg” US to return it to Egypt.
My gut says otherwise: Israelis may be at the zenith point of their psychosis, but much of the rest of the world is weary of Israeli intransigence, AND, Iran’s “green revolution having created a model for Westerners to be sympathetic to Islamic/Arab states to rebel against their governments, many Westerners (the populare if not the podesta WILL tend to be sympathetic to the masses who are rebelling. It’s what Americans do — root for the underdog — that’s why US was so sympathetic to Israel in the early days; why Americans were cheering for the Tianamen Square protesters, . . .
If I’m right, then Israel is going to be forced to either implement some drastic changes in attitude (extremely difficult, for the reasons that I’ll talk about re the Shlomo Sand video); or Israel will attack Egypt/Lebanon or SOMEBODY; or Israel will fracture — which might be the best of all possible outcomes. If Jewish Israel falls apart, Israeli Jews will have to concentrate on pulling themselves back together again, which will give Palestinians and Egyptians breathing space to tend to their own affairs without having to look over their shoulders and defend against Israel.
If liberal Israeli Jews and American Jews can muster the courage, they should attempt to overthrow the Israeli government; seize the property of the 16 oligarchs who run Israel; form a new nation, “conceived in liberty, with justice for all.” The American military knows their way around in Israel; US troops could take control of Dimona and of Israeli weapons systems til Israel rights itself.
pop.
oh.
I was dreaming.
The ‘Nice Jewish girl’ and the ‘Koran Baby’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/the-nice-jewish-girl-and-the-koran-baby/
If these protests in Egypt and Tunisia were happening in Tehran, you can bet it would make the headlines of the NYTimes and Wash Post. But because the ruling regimes of these countries are secular and pro-western, there is more trepidation than euphoria at the prospect of growing democracy in the Arab world.
Mubarak is not going to resign but I think the hope of the protesters is that he will not run again in the presidential election this year. He is too old anyway.
MUST SEE 25.01.2011 Egypt Cairo People ripping picture of Hosni Mubarak:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPtX4H7a7Kg&feature=player_embedded
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR6VD28Z96E
:http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1239489
Fiorangela,
Did you notice that Stuart Levey resigned? He is being replaced by David Cohen.
احنا مصر – We are Egypt
Persian Gulf, I pray for you and your friends in Egypt.
Irshad,
Let’s hope in years to come that more genetic testing will reveal the extent to which modern Jews are related to the Khazars. Simple logic would argue in favor of the relationship.
For a laugh, we can consider the position of the Mormon Church that the “American Indians” are the descendants of the “lost tribes” of Israel. I wonder if Mitt Romney thinks the Iroquois have a right to build houses in the West Bank when Palestinians are not allowed to.
Most rich English Jews were anti-Zionist, prior to the First World War. They regarded themselves as Englishmen and Englishwomen who just happened to be Jewish by religion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc000YDVY5o&feature=player_embedded
وَلاَ تَهِنُواْ فِي ابْتِغَاء الْقَوْمِ إِن تَكُونُواْ تَأْلَمُونَ فَإِنَّهُمْ يَأْلَمُونَ كَمَا تَأْلَمونَ وَتَرْجُونَ مِنَ اللّهِ مَا لاَ يَرْجُونَ وَكَانَ اللّهُ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا ﴿۱۰۴﴾
و در تعقيب گروه [دشمنان] سستى نورزيد اگر شما درد مىكشيد آنان [نيز] همان گونه كه شما درد مىكشيد درد مىكشند و حال آنكه شما چيزهايى از خدا اميد داريد كه آنها اميد ندارند و خدا همواره داناى سنجيدهكار است (۱۰۴)
and never get fragiled when persecuting the group (enemies): that if you suffer, they do suffer in the same way too; whereas you have hope from God they don’t have that hope, and God is always the learned and the deliberate one.
Hizbullah 3; Israel 0
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/hizbullah-3-israel-0/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb_HKf_uM3Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIqBI6R_jxs
“Suzan Mubarak just arrived at Heathrow airport in London – Egyptian terminal workers at London Heathrow Airport.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVleqraFN9A&feature=youtu.be&a
Fiorangela: thank you. I am very excited about this event! can’t keep up with my Egyptian friends on facebook!! the time has come.
Dear Persian Gulf,
Did you by any chance find that video off Professor Lucas’ website? ;)
I am so proud of the Egyptian people, finally rising up. The use of Facebook and Twitter to organise protests sounds familiar, as does the blocking of mobile phone and internet services by the regime.
Let us all hope and pray that the Mubarak regime does not clamp down on the protesters, beating, imprisoning, torturing, murdering, executing and raping its youth. Let us all hope and pray that the Mubarak regime is humane, and not animal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_emuOVvlbU&feature=player_embedded
وَالَّذِينَ إِذَا أَصَابَهُمُ الْبَغْيُ هُمْ يَنتَصِرُونَ ﴿۳۹﴾
و كسانى كه چون ستم بر ايشان رسد يارى مىجويند [و به انتقام بر مىخيزند] (۳۹)
And those who, when oppression is inflicted on them, seek help (defend themselves and rise up).
الشورى
in my previous post, (two slashes), sorry B-)
Persian Gulf: a colon in front of a hot link ‘cools’ it with fewer keystrokes — like this:
:http://mondoweiss.net/2011/01/today-in-cairo-protesters-rundown-egyptian-riot-police.html
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/01/today-in-cairo.html
Persian Gulf says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.(!!!!!)
January 25, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Egypt: President’s son and family ‘have fled to the UK’: ROFL
http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/Aki/English/Security/Egypt-Presidents-son-and-family-have-fled-to-the-UK_311591050596.html
Yaaaaaahhhhooooooooooooooooooooo =)) =)) =))
http:(2 backslashes) www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=jJrJSSOTPgc :D
kooshy says:
January 25, 2011 at 4:22 pm
“…government of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, in power for three decades, was stable and looking for ways to meet the Egyptian people’s aspirations.”
Diktatore , Kherefte 82 saleh , ba ye pash too ghabre….
Clinton urges restraint by all sides in Egypt
Reuters Africa – 3 hours ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States on Tuesday urged all sides in Egypt to refrain from violence following clashes between security forces and …
“U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also said that the United States believed that the government of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, in power for three decades, was stable and looking for ways to meet the Egyptian people’s aspirations.”
Fio, Rehmat, Castellio,
Thank you all for your views.
Fio – its interesting that you raised about the Khazars and their conversion to Judaism . this is an angle of the Jewish people that not many people raise or talk about.
Please bare with me, as I am going to share a story with you about this.
About 10 years ago, I attended a lecture given by Ahmad Thomson, who really studied the Judiasm and the Jewish people. He wrote a book called “The Next World Order”, where he spoke in length of the Khazars and their conversion to Judaism, and looks at the different tribes and groups who all claim to be the original Jews and hence belive having a historical right to a Jewish homeland. This book was really villified and objected to by the Zionist gang but there is nothing anti-semitic in it at all. It goes on talking about the New World Order and the role of Zionism in this.
Anyway back to the lecture – he said that the Jewish people, suffering pograms and killing in Europe, decided in the late 19th and early 20th century on two mode of of action to ensure that they was not vicitmised and killed – one was Socialism/Communism – this was an appeal by one group of Jewish thinkers in trying to convert the MASSES in Europe to work towards improving the social and econimic welfare of all people, regardless of race and religion – everyone is equal in trying to work for their well being. In this project, there will be no more pogroms and stigmising the Jewish people as now everyone is working for the general good.
This was opposed by an another group of Jewish thinkers – who rejected the 1st groups idea of trying to remain in Europe and work with the indigenous population in improving their lot. This 2nd group, believed that Jews must have their own homeland – hence the political ideology of Zionism was formulated and promoted – but this was geared and directed towards the rich Jewish people – they needed the financial support to set up their own homeland. Also, Zionism saw itself to convert the rich elite (ideally the banking elite) in European countries to their cause. Forget about the general population – they was too manny to appeal to and anyway whenever their was economic hardships, they turned against Jews. So Zionism worked hard in trying to garner the support of rich Jews and non-Jews.
They identified many places that should be the Jewish homeland – including, Madagascar, Cyrenicia (in Libya!), and Argentina (cant remember exactly) – but this didnt catch the imagination of Jewish people or the rich Jews. So then they started focusing on Palestine….they even approached the Ottoman Sultan Abdal Hamid II that they wanted to set up a Jewish homeland in Palestine and if he allowed this, then the Zionist will ensure that rich Jewish bankers will ensure that all the debts of the Ottoman Empire is paid off and they will give £150million in gold. He refused, this was his answer:
“Even if you gave me as much gold as the entire world, let alone the 150 million English pounds in gold, I would not accept this at all. I have served the Islamic milla and the Muhammadan ummah for more than thirty years, and never did I blacken the pages of the Muslims- my fathers and ancestors, the Ottoman sultans and caliphs. And so I will never accept what you ask of me.”
Hence the project went in to place to remove him and then in 1908 this happend. Later WW1 start and the rest is history.
Anyway this was his view and his understanding of the subject matter.
But I would reccomend his book.
Cairo Protests in Real Time
http://www.thetakeaway.org/blogs/takeaway/2011/jan/25/cairo-organized-online-protesters-take-streets/
VOT
“Seems another chapter of ” Emdade Gheibi ” is unfolding…’
After all it started on the day of Arbaeen
kooshy says:
January 25, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Twitter Blocked in Egypt
Seems another chapter of ” Emdade Gheibi ” is unfolding…
Twitter Blocked in Egypt
PC Magazine – Leslie Horn – 53 minutes ago
Demonstrations that were organized via Facebook and Twitter brought thousands into the streets to speak out against failing economic policies, …
One wonders if Hillary Clinton cares to ask them to expand thier service for this set of anti government twitting?
ای کشته که را کشتی تا کشته شود باز……..
fyi,
The sulking and vindictiveness of the US after the reunification of Vietnam was petty, pathetic, and something I expected entirely. I proposed the trade mission to Vietnam, to serve as a trial balloon of US public opinion, that preceded the normalisation of US-Vietnam relations. (I assume others did so too.)
Let’s remember that the late Richard Holbrooke wanted to overthrow the government of Cambodia, installed with help from Vietnam after the murderous Pol Pot regime was overthrown.
My dear Americans I am here tonight to confirm that the state of our union is strong; however in light of that I wished I could have expand my enthusiastic assurances for our client states in the Middle East, namely Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan, Palestine, Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Bahrain, Afghanistan, Pakistan, last but not least Yemen at this rate I hope I have not missed any worthy name that region.
BiBiJon says: January 25, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Of course it is an inconsistency but that is the nature of the international relations where power rules.
USSR was the country that saved the Jews of Europe from complete extinction.
USSR was also the country that prosecuted the largest number of war criminals – not Israel, not US, and not Germany.
Yet she was consistently vilified by the partisans of Israel.
The Islamic Republic of Iran had accepted more refugees than any state since the end of World War II; both in absolute and relative terms – not US, not EU states, not Lebanon, and not any one else.
That state should have been awarded the Peace Prize for that.
Viet Nam saved the people of Cambodia from a murderous dead-end in history but for almost 2 decades US and Chinese governments had nothing better to do than to harm her (US made sure India would not export water buffalos to Viet Nam.)
Yugoslavia was the un-official member of NATO against USSR, but US-EU Axis had no hesitation of going to war against her.
Power is the key to security and prosperity in the international arena.
Things aren’t looking good for the US in Lebanon, Tunisia, or Egypt.
fyi,
Whether it is to keep the issue warm, as you suggest, or it is an excuse for why they haven’t dared make good on years of threatening to bomb Iran, was not my point.
I see a devestating inconsistancy. Am I right?
Fiorangela,
Bravo. How absurd for Friedman to argue that Iran would not welcome honest negotiations. And I agree his subtext is that the US can be expected to be duplicitous.
Arnold: Agree about Friedman. He’s essentially useless. His suggestions boil down to Obama continuing to do what he’s doing – except don’t withdraw from Iraq because Iran might have too much influence there.
Who cares if Iran has too much influence in Iraq?
Friedman by this notion declares himself a toady of the military-industrial complex whose goal at all times is to keep wars going anywhere and everywhere. So the US has to stay in Afghanistan – and preferably expand into Pakistan – and stay in Iraq – and preferably expand into Iran – and preferably add North Korea, Yemen, and the rest of North Africa to the list. Oh, and attack Lebanon to crush Hizballah for Israel as well. And make sure China stays as a future war. We see Obama pushing all of these approaches.
What used to be “what’s good for General Motors is good for America” has become “what’s good for the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex is good for America.”
Thanks for that critique of precisely the passage in Friedman’s article that I, too, found objectionable.
You seemed to have taken a roundabout path to explain the most objectionable part, that “a negotiated understanding with Iran. . . .latter might not be attractive to the Iranians.”
Why wouldn’t Iran find HONEST negotiations “attractive?”
That Friedman used that specific language suggests that Friedman, and the Israeli-centric perspective that he represents, presumes that “negotiations” are and would not be Honest, but would be a continuation of the sham they have been all along.
One need only look at the long, shameful history of the “peace process” between Israel and Palestine to see the extent of American and Israeli perfidy in ME negotiations. Unjust as it is, Iran’s position vis a vis United States in “negotiating” is comfortable, compared with the daily deprivations Palestinians suffer while STILL pressing forward against Israeli “condescension, obfuscation, and endless legalistic pettifogging”
Palestine and Iran. Iran and Palestine.
The West’s “obsession with Jews.”
BiBiJon says: January 25, 2011 at 1:57 pm
The US-EU Axis have to keep the issue alive to heat it up when needed.
At the same time, the US-EU Axis is quite serious on its aim regarding no enrichment in Iran.
They will not relent.
The problem with the objective is that short of occupying Iran, there is no way that they can be assured that there is not some hidden enrichment taking place somewhere in Iran.
On the nukes, I have a question for all.
Rememeber the 2007 NIE? The one NY Times was so upset about?
We all know Dagan affirmed the 2015 timeline at the earliest. Now today we get:
“The question is not when Iran will have the bomb. The question is how long it will take for an Iranian leader to decide to have the centrifuges start enriching at 90 percent,” Brigadier-General Aviv Kochavi told a meeting of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.”
From http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/new-mi-chief-iran-could-have-nukes-within-two-years-1.339137
Another words, Kochavi is confirming the 2007 NIE that Iran has not made a decision to make a bomb.
Here is my question. How can you concede Iran has not even made a decision to make a bomb, and also claim (insist) Iran must be hiding something?
Fiorangela says: January 25, 2011 at 1:37 pm
I am always surprised that Israel always shows up in discussions of US-Iran relations.
Muslim Iranians do not obsess about Jews or Judaism; they way Europeans have.
It is inconcievable for me that a Muslim would write a book titled “The Jewish Question”.
Or a man, inaugurating a new magazine in Persian devoted to Mysticism, would start the first issue with an address to the Jews.
Nor someone predicating a new (Muslim) Civilization on the expulsion of Jews from the existing Muslim polities.
Iranians visiting US or Europe are often struck and wonder why these countries care so much about Jews.
BiBiJon,
Mainstream US news media in effect conspired with Dick Cheney and the other warmongers to set up the illegal invasion of Iraq, and they have in effect conspired to protect the perpetrators of one of the greatest crimes of recent decades.
MUST SEE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWr6MypZ-JU&feature=player_embedded
rise up Egypt!
Kathleen,
I join you in condemning the vicious propaganda by C-Span, trying to deceive the viewing public so that they believe it is accepted as fact that Iran is trying to build nukes. Can we identify the stooges of the Israeli warmongers who set this up?
Shlomo Sand’s lecture in New York, where he covers his book and also deals with questions at the end: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EmvANgw9Mk
fyi,
I agree with you that Iran can accept Israel within its June 1, 1967 borders (aka cease-fire line).
And how interesting that Condoleezza Rice wanted to relocate the Palestinians in Lebanon, Syria etc to Chile and Argentina!
fyi, your comment at 12:57 makes one sputter in frustration.
phooey.
no further response.
Fiorangela,
I also agree with you that it is fascinating to observe the frantic reaction of some Jews, to the fact that many Jews have partially Turkic origins. In fact, probably most Jews have Turkic origins, if those Jews originated in Central or Eastern Europe (excluding Mediterranean fringe).
The Jews from North Africa and Southwest Asia who relocated to Israel after 1948-49, have a significant descent from the “Arabs”, Berbers, etc etc etc with whom they lived for 2000 years.
Arnold,
George Friedman is apparently incapable of grasping the fact the very presence of the US troops in Iraq negatively affects US relations with Iran. And only an idiot would argue the US should “deal with Iran” before getting out of Iraq. Obama should have pulled all US troops out of Iraq by now.
Fiorangela,
The Khazars were a Turkic tribe, and very much distinct from the Aryans that relocated to the Iranian plateau.
There seems to be no doubting that the Palestinians largely descend from the people resident in what is now Israel/Palestine, 2000 years ago.
The late Rafiq Hariri was greatly interested in the origins of the people of the Levant, and he paid for genetic testing of coastal Lebanese to establish they descend from the population of what is now Lebanon 3000 years ago.
This sentence pretty much captures why I don’t like George Friedman:
If the United States is prepared to complete the withdrawal of troops from Iraq in 2011, it must deal with Iran prior to the withdrawal. The two choices are a massive air campaign to attempt to cripple Iran or a negotiated understanding with Iran. The former involves profound intelligence uncertainties and might fail, while the latter might not be attractive to the Iranians.
He presents his first option, massive airstrikes, and drastically underplays the costs to the US, which are much more than “they might fail”. There is no sense in which the US could even conceivably “cripple” Iran’s government from the air, much less than Israel “crippled” either Hezbollah or even Hamas from the air.
So for the objective of resolving the threat Iran poses to the US, massive airstrikes, rather than “might fail” would be certain to fail, and would be certain to result in Iran harming US interests in the region much more than it would have if there had been no air campaign.
His second option, negotiations, “might not be attractive to the Iranians”. What he means is that there might be a mismatch between outcomes the US and Iran consider superior to the status quo. In other words, the deal the US would be willing to make might not be attractive to the Iranians while the deal the Iranians would be willing to make might not be attractive to the US. But this is a mutual problem. This is not one side not being attracted.
Specifically, the US clearly intends to attach conditions or restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. Yes, Iran might not consider the conditions the United States seeks to impose acceptable but Friedman has come up with a way to present this as an Iranian refusal to adjust its demands rather than the equally true refusal of the US to adjust.
If there is such thing as objective, then Iran would be completely satisfied with the same rights and obligations Japan, Brazil, Canada, Netherlands and other countries have. The United States finds Iran having those rights, applied equally, unacceptable. Friedman has reversed this so that it is Iran prevents an agreement.
George Friedman, like most of the US foreign policy establishment sees the region through Israel-colored glasses. If his writing is useful, it is less for its accuracy than for specific examples of the consistent biases of the US foreign policy community.
I’m beginning to enjoy all the right-wing Iran rhetoric from the Yankees. I’d bet the farm that the Pentagon’s soft target specialists are far from thrilled by the prospect of being sent to attack Iran – for Israeli lies and concocted paranoia.
Three years ago Iran showcased a suite of weaponry which included long and medium range rockets with significant warhead/payload capability, supersonic anti-ship missiles (with the optional ability to seek and intercept aircraft FROM high altitude), high speed torpedoes and long range ‘passive’ radar. Since then, Russia has assured the US that it won’t fulfill its contract to supply S-300 missiles to Iran. However, one of the earlier reasons given was a contract obligation (of indeterminate inception) to supply 15 S-300 installations to China.
China?
Which air force would the Chinese be in fear of attack from over the next few years? I would suggest nobody’s – and China hasn’t told anyone that it won’t supply S-300s to Iran.
There’s no ‘minimal risk’ Iran option for the risk-averse WWII era US Military. If “China’s” S-300s have found their way into Iran then ANY aircraft or ship the US can send to a ‘theatre near Iran’ will be on a spectacular and public Kamikaze mission.
The Pentagon can’t afford to put US bluster at risk by inviting humiliation at the hands of Iran and its allies.
I have said that the soul is not more than the body.
And I have said that the body is not more than the soul,
And nothing, not God, is greater to one than one’s-self is,
And whoever walks a furlong without sympathy walks to his own funeral, dressed in his shroud,
And I or you pocketless of dime may purchase the pick of the earth,
And to glance with an eye or show a bean in its pod confounds the learning of all times,
And there is no trade or employment but the young man following it may become a hero,
And there is no object so soft but it makes a hub for the wheeled universe,
And any man or woman shall stand cool and supercilious before a million universes.
And I call to mankind, Be not curious about God.
For I who am curious about each am not curious about God,
No array of terms can say how much I am at peace about God and about death.
Why should I wish to see God better than this day?
I see something of God in each hour of twenty-four, and each moment then
In the faces of men and women I see God, and in my own face in the glass;
I find letters from God dropped in the street, and every one is signed by God’s name,
And I leave them where they are, for I know that others will punctually come forever and ever.
Walt Whitman; Leaves of Grass
excellent work, Race for Iran
Fiorangela says: January 25, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Books such as “The Invention of the Jewish People” are symptomatic of the Western people’s obsession with Jews.
From an Iranian perspective, the origin of the Jewish Iranians has never been an issue; nobody cared or even thought about that. Like Zorastrians or Chaldeans or Sabeans, they have been there for millenia with their own religion and customs.
But we, in the Middle East, have to deal with consequences of the temprary ascendancy of the Western People in Levant; projecting their own issues onto us.
Rehmat,
Why so much hostility? Relax, brother. There is a reason for everything; everything is in good hands. Not a leaf falls without God willing it to do so.Kick back a little and enjoy the phantasmagoria ;o)
Irshad, I have not read “The Invention of the Jewish People.” I’m aware of Shlomo Sand’s main idea, that Jews are NOT “one people” always and everywhere, and that they were NOT kicked out of the Levant by the Romans after the unpleasantness in 70 AD that culminated in break-away Jewish rebels committing suicide rather than be vanquished by Roman troops at Masada.
That’s not new news: Josephus records that in punishment for the crimes of the rebel group, Herod’s temple was destroyed (Romans had paid for it, so…) and all Jews in the region were barred from entering the precincts of Jerusalem –emphasize: Just the temple precincts; Jews were NOT kicked out of the Levant. Get the fr*%#ing facts straight!
I am also aware of the connection of Jews to Khazaria — a connection that many zionists quite vehemently reject. I find that rejection fascinating, and the whole issue of Jews-and-Khazars ironic, in view of its Iranian connection.
First the Iranian connection: As I understand the story, the king of Khazar, having considered the relative merits of Byzantine Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, and, in about 750 AD, converted his people to Judaism. The Khazar region is north and east of the Black Sea, which is also the origin of the Scythian people, the first “Aryans,” or “noble ones,” the original Iranians (who later split and migrated, some to India & east, others to Persia). (I might have this all wrong, which will be embarrassing, but I hope that someone who knows better will correct me if I’m wrong.) :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvjTayq3Tuk
In other words, ancient Iranians and Khazar/Ashkenazi Jews may have the same origins, in the Scythian plateau; that would explain the bitterness Israelis feel toward Iranians: 1. identity crisis, big time; 2. no one feuds as bitterly as kissing cousins.
It’s amazing that zionist Jews reject the Khazar connection since Judah Halevey, a Spanish Jew who lived in Andalusia in around 1050 AD, wrote extensively of the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism. Halevey was a physician and writer, who had the idea that the inclusion of Jews in a “kingdom” might mean that god’s promise was being fulfilled; Jews really would become a kingdom again. So compelling was this idea that Halevey pulled up stakes in Spain and migrated to Palestine, where he died. Many zionists consider Halevey to be the prototypical zionist, based on his writing about Khazars.
It probably happened that a king converted his people to Judaism, and that many of the later Jewish people who descended from those converts peopled the area, extending into Germany and further into Europe, up until the recent past.. It is also a fact that Jewish traders established trading centers at key points on the Rhine, as far back as 700 AD. Jews were merchants and traders; they travelled the Silk Road (having been introduced to trade and the Silk Road by Persians during Jewry’s long sojourn in Babylon and the rest of the Middle East).
In order to respond to your question directly, I looked around for some good reviews of Shlomo Sand’s book and came upon an article by Phil Weiss: At NYU, devilish Shlomo Sand predicts the Jewish past and pastes the Zionists
Goli says: January 25, 2011 at 12:43 pm
They are fools; I agree.
If I were them, I would have taken the HAMAS Hudna offer.
BiBiJon says: January 25, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Not possible, there is no mechanism that could help realize it.
US does not have the power to do much in Palestine by herself.
fyi,
“The parameters of the so called Palestine papers” is not acceptable by any Israeli government. There will be no cease fire no peace.
fyi,
I’d go a step further. US should back the call for a referendum in Palestine.
BiBiJon says: January 25, 2011 at 12:29 pm
I do not think that partisanship on behalf of Israel and Jewish Fantasy Life & Project by the People and Government of the United States will be considered as legitimate by the Muslim people and states.
Unless US can lower her profile partisanship on behalf of Israel, I do not see Iran touching US, lest she be (ritualistically) polluted.
I can only see as a legitimate concern of US the security of the Southern Persian Gulf states from external agression.
Iranians may be willing to concede the security of Israel within the cease-fire lines of 1967 as a legitimate objective of US – but that will be as far as they could go without losing their Muslim Legitimacy.
“Jones’ participation in the event is particularly appalling, and should unsettle those who reflexively defended the seriousness of President Obama’s commitment to “engage” Tehran, and kept insisting that Obama’s approach to Iran was fundamentally different from that of George W. Bush.”
I was shocked that Jones would take part in this totally lop sided panel.
Sure did not invite Flynt, Hillary, Juan Cole, Seymour Hersh or some really diverse perspectives on Iran. Took the opportunity to build their case and C Span plugged it for them.
Flynt when will their be a panel or conference on Iran with more diverse views?
Watched that MEK conference. They were all on the same page take MEK off the terrorist list. Real diversity of opinion.
Torecelli and Woolsey seem to be mad men.
James Jones actually mentioned the I/P conflict and how the resolution of this issue would change everything in the middle east for the better. Then he went silent. No on else brought it up.
Also not a whisper about pressuring Israel to sign the NPT. Not a whisper.
Was really pissed off by the way CSpan had the conference listed on their screen. NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM: IRAN. As if it has been confirmed that Iran absolutely has a nuclear weapons program. C Span must have some Israeli supporting minders in control of programming. There has been a distinct shift at CSpan.
fyi,
Late-in-the-day raproachman essentially means that the US will be expected to cooperate with the ‘norther tier’. In return, despite the overwhelming anti-americansim in the region, northern tier will expend substatial political capital to ensure US’ legitimate interests are unmollested, and US is treated fairly.
As for that volcaic eruption of anti-Mubarak-BenAli, I wonder if ” the monstrous acts ordered by Cheney, Addington, Haynes, etc. will ever be a subject of court action given the damage they have done to the US.
Goli says: January 25, 2011 at 11:58 am
In my opinion, the parameters of the so-called Palestine papers are acceptable for a 99-year “Cease Fire” – but not Peace.
Without the Al Haram Al Sharif being unbder Muslim sovereignity, there can be no peace.
But a 99-year “Cease Fire” will at least help the Palestinians move on with their lives; the young people in the Occupied Territories will have a future – so will the unborn.
That means that the No War – No Peace between Israel and Muslim states would continue indefinitely. The Golan Heights will remain in Israel’s hands, Hizbullah will remain there etc. But, it will not be as emotionally inflamatory.
This vision will also not be realized because of the asymmetry of power between Israel and her immediate neighbours as well as the US-EU Axis’s partisanship on behalf of Israel.
I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that only war will roll Israel back – just like in Lebanon.
The Palestine papers make abundantly clear a fact that should have been known all along. Obama, not withstanding his empty salamu alaikom rhetoric, is more in the pocket of the Israel Lobby than his staunchly pro Israel predecessor, Bush Jr.
Obama’s so called “engagement” with Iran has translated into duplicitous diplomacy through double-talk, lies, and deceit, resulting in more Iranian isolation, more international and unilateral sanctions, and heightened threat of military action.
Obama’s “engagement” in the ME peace process has made more acceptable a previously difficult contention to broach, that the 1967 recognized borders are no longer the point of departure for any future Palestinian state. In fact, the point of reference, the discussion of which is at the mercy of Israel and Israel alone, could be anywhere on the map that Israel dictates,or, nowhere. Never mind the law. And of course, we know what happened to the full settlement freeze promised at the Cairo speech.
Americans should rid themselves of this two-faced president by electing Sarah Palin next time around.
BiBiJon says: January 25, 2011 at 11:40 am
Yes, I saw the video.
Rapproachment of US-Iran will revolutionize US position among Muslims in the world – not just in the Middle East.
But I do not think that the Iranian leaders find much in such a rapproachment with US.
It is for US leaders to specify the gain for Iran.
I have never seen any concrete elaboration of benefits to Iran in such an event made by the US-EU Axis.
What I have seen elaborated is in the nature of what used to be called “Trade Goods”; colored beads, axis, and cloth traded to the “savages” by European traders.
In the article fyi submitted, Georg Friedman says: “The two choices are a massive air campaign to attempt to cripple Iran or a negotiated understanding with Iran. The former involves profound intelligence uncertainties and might fail, while the latter might not be attractive to the Iranians.”
Why did Friedman not add what he said on Aug 19, 2010? http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LH19Ak01.html
“Airstrikes are always possible, but as the United States learned over North Vietnam – or from the Battle of Britain or in the bombing of Germany and Japan before the use of nuclear weapons – air campaigns alone don’t usually force nations to capitulate or change their policies.”
fyi,
Did you see the video Persian Gulf posted?
Friedman is generously giving Obama all of 2011 to get decicive. I very much doubt that events in Tunisia and Egypt are pregnant with the luxury of time.
Iran continues to be the one stable country in the region. It is breath taking that the utility of an Iran-US raproachmant eludes US foreign policy establishment. Fires are burning out of control from Pakistan to Tunisia, and Gen. James Jones finds utility in MEK. Breath taking!
Sounds like today is a great day for the state of the union speech as president Obama and co. have a lot on their desk, the southern and eastern Mediterranean shores is on demonstrations.
Rehmat says: January 25, 2011 at 11:21 am
A Jew and a Muslim are not necessarily enemies.
Just as two Muslims are not necessarily enemies.
A Muslim, a Jew, a Christian are at times confronted by moral choice.
Each, as an individual, may make a choice that is morally wrong.
There is nothing in Judaic Tradition that is against Islam – in fact – Islam’s Revelation is an invitation to all of Mankind to enter the Revelation of Judasim.
fyi – by lying and distorting my responses – Jews like you prove that French philosopher Rev. Martin Luther was right calling the Jews – “World’s greatest liars”.
Now, tell me why Jews need Muslims as enemies – when they have creeps among them?
Also relevant:
ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE
http://www.mepc.org/capitol-hill-conference-livestream
It underscores – implicitly – the religious nature of the war in Palestine.
Irshad – No one was more surprised than Shlomo Sand that his latest academic work has spent 19 weeks on Israel’s bestseller list — and that success has come to the history professor despite his book challenging Israel’s biggest taboo.
Dr Shlomo Sand argues that the idea of a Jewish nation — whose need for a safe haven was originally used to justify the founding of the state of Israel — is a myth invented little more than a century ago.
There are dozens of myths created by European Judeo-Christian Zionists to legitimize their colonial outpost in the heart of Muslim world. It’s impossible to address all of them in a short article, except the following, which are propagated the most:
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/israel-occupation-based-on-myths/
Rehmat says: January 25, 2011 at 11:04 am
I respect Dr. Friedman’s views.
I know that he is a Jew but that is not an issue for me for I treat people individually.
Lavrov ‘Talks were not failure’
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/161926.html
Lavrov was also quoted as saying the sanctions should be lifted in return for Iranian cooperation. Looks like Jalili’s probing did actually find those cracks that Ashton denied existed. China is characteristically silent, but i don’t think they would be any cooler on the idea than the Russians. Looks like things are going to stay stalemated until the US agrees to link any missile control systems in Asia to Russia’s radar network, and give god knows what to the Chinese.
fyi – It would have been more credible if you have posted something written by Helen Thomas than the Israeli Hasbara idiot.
Freely available from Stratfor.com
Obama’s State of the Union and U.S. Foreign Policy
January 25, 2011 | 0953 GMT
By George Friedman
U.S. President Barack Obama will deliver the State of the Union address tonight. The administration has let the media know that the focus of the speech will be on jobs and the economy. Given the strong showing of the Republicans in the last election, and the fact that they have defined domestic issues as the main battleground, Obama’s decision makes political sense. He will likely mention foreign issues and is undoubtedly devoting significant time to them, but the decision not to focus on foreign affairs in his State of the Union address gives the impression that the global situation is under control. Indeed, the Republican focus on domestic matters projects the same sense. Both sides create the danger that the public will be unprepared for some of the international crises that are already quite heated. We have discussed these issues in detail, but it is useful to step back and look at the state of the world for a moment.
Afghanistan
The United States remains the most powerful nation in the world, both in the size of its economy and the size of its military. Nevertheless, it continues to have a singular focus on the region from Iraq to Pakistan. Obama argued during his campaign that President George W. Bush had committed the United States to the wrong war in Iraq and had neglected the important war in Afghanistan. After being elected, Obama continued the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq that began under the Bush administration while increasing troop levels in Afghanistan. He has also committed himself to concluding the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of this year. Now, it may be that the withdrawal will not be completed on that schedule, but the United States already has insufficient forces in Iraq to shape events very much, and a further drawdown will further degrade this ability. In war, force is not symbolic.
This poses a series of serious problems for the United States. First, the strategic goal of the United States in Afghanistan is to build an Afghan military and security force that can take over from the United States in the coming years, allowing the United States to withdraw from the country. In other words, as in Vietnam, the United States wants to create a pro-American regime with a loyal army to protect American interests in Afghanistan without the presence of U.S. forces. I mention Vietnam because, in essence, this is Richard Nixon’s Vietnamization program applied to Afghanistan. The task is to win the hearts and minds of the people, isolate the guerrillas and use the pro-American segments of the population to buttress the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and provide recruits for the military and security forces.
The essential problem with this strategy is that it wants to control the outcome of the war while simultaneously withdrawing from it. For that to happen, the United States must persuade the Afghan people (who are hardly a single, united entity) that committing to the United States is a rational choice when the U.S. goal is to leave. The Afghans must first find the Americans more attractive than the Taliban. Second, they must be prepared to shoulder the substantial risks and burdens the Americans want to abandon. And third, the Afghans must be prepared to engage the Taliban and defeat them or endure the consequences of their own defeat.
Given that there is minimal evidence that the United States is winning hearts and minds in meaningful numbers, the rest of the analysis becomes relatively unimportant. But the point is that NATO has nearly 150,000 troops fighting in Afghanistan, the U.S. president has pledged to begin withdrawals this year, beginning in July, and all the Taliban have to do is not lose in order to win. There does not have to be a defining, critical moment for the United States to face defeat. Rather, the defeat lurks in the extended inability to force the Taliban to halt operations and in the limits on the amount of force available to the United States to throw into the war. The United States can fight as long as it chooses. It has that much power. What it seems to lack is the power to force the enemy to capitulate.
Iraq
In the meantime, the wrong war, Iraq, shows signs of crisis or, more precisely, crisis in the context of Iran. The United States is committed to withdrawing its forces from Iraq by the end of 2011. This has two immediate consequences. First, it increases Iranian influence in Iraq simply by creating a vacuum the Iraqis themselves cannot fill. Second, it escalates Iranian regional power. The withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq without a strong Iraqi government and military will create a crisis of confidence on the Arabian Peninsula. The Saudis, in particular, unable to match Iranian power and doubtful of American will to resist Iran, will be increasingly pressured, out of necessity, to find a political accommodation with Iran. The Iranians do not have to invade anyone to change the regional balance of power decisively.
In the extreme, but not unimaginable, case that Iran turns Iraq into a satellite, Iranian power would be brought to the borders of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria and would extend Iran’s border with Turkey. Certainly, the United States could deal with Iran, but having completed its withdrawal from Iraq, it is difficult to imagine the United States rushing forces back in. Given the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan, it is difficult to see what ground forces would be available.
The withdrawal from Iraq creates a major crisis in 2011. If it is completed, Iran’s power will be enhanced. If it is aborted, the United States will have roughly 50,000 troops, most in training and support modes and few deployed in a combat mode, and the decision of whether to resume combat will be in the hands of the Iranians and their Iraqi surrogates. Since 170,000 troops were insufficient to pacify Iraq in the first place, sending in more troops makes little sense. As in Afghanistan, the U.S. has limited ground forces in reserve. It can build a force that blocks Iran militarily, but it will also be a force vulnerable to insurgent tactics — a force deployed without a terminal date, possibly absorbing casualties from Iranian-backed forces.
Iran
If the United States is prepared to complete the withdrawal of troops from Iraq in 2011, it must deal with Iran prior to the withdrawal. The two choices are a massive air campaign to attempt to cripple Iran or a negotiated understanding with Iran. The former involves profound intelligence uncertainties and might fail, while the latter might not be attractive to the Iranians. They are quite content seeing the United States leave. The reason the Iranians are so intransigent is not that they are crazy. It is that they think they hold all the cards and that time is on their side. The nuclear issue is hardly what concerns them.
The difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is that a wrenching crisis can be averted in Afghanistan simply by continuing to do what the United States is already doing. By continuing to do what it is doing in Iraq, the United States inevitably heads into a crisis as the troop level is drawn down.
Obama’s strategy appears to be to continue to carry out operations in Afghanistan, continue to withdraw from Iraq and attempt to deal with Iran through sanctions. This is an attractive strategy if it works. But the argument I am making is that the Afghan strategy can avoid collapse but not with a high probability of success. I am also extremely dubious that sanctions will force a change of course in Iran. For one thing, their effectiveness depends on the actual cooperation of Russia and China (as well as the Europeans). Sufficient exceptions have been given by the Obama administration to American companies doing business with Iran that others will feel free to act in their own self-interest.
But more than that, sanctions can unify a country. The expectations that some had about the Green Revolution of 2009 have been smashed, or at least should have been. We doubt that there is massive unhappiness with the regime waiting to explode, and we see no signs that the regime can’t cope with existing threats. The sanctions even provide Iran with cover for economic austerity while labeling resistance unpatriotic. As I have argued before, sanctions are an alternative to a solution, making it appear that something is being done when in fact nothing is happening.
There are numerous other issues Obama could address, ranging from Israel to Mexico to Russia. But, in a way, there is no point. Until the United States frees up forces and bandwidth and reduces the dangers in the war zones, it will lack the resources — intellectual and material — to deal with these other countries. It is impossible to be the single global power and focus only on one region, yet it is also impossible to focus on the world while most of the fires are burning in a single region. This, more than any other reason, is why Obama must conclude these conflicts, or at least create a situation where these conflicts exist in the broader context of American interests. There are multiple solutions, all with significant risks. Standing pat is the riskiest.
Domestic Issues
There is a parallel between Obama’s foreign policy problems and his domestic policy problems. Domestically, Obama is trapped by the financial crisis and the resulting economic problems, particularly unemployment. He cannot deal with other issues until he deals with that one. There are a host of foreign policy issues, including the broader question of the general approach Obama wants to take toward the world. The United States is involved in two wars with an incipient crisis in Iran. Nothing else can be addressed until those wars are dealt with.
The decision to focus on domestic issues makes political sense. It also makes sense in a broader way. Obama does not yet have a coherent strategy stretching from Iraq to Afghanistan. Certainly, he inherited the wars, but they are now his. The Afghan war has no clear endpoint, while the Iraq war does have a clear endpoint — but it is one that is enormously dangerous.
It is unlikely that he will be able to avoid some major foreign policy decisions in the coming year. It is also unlikely that he has a clear path. There are no clear paths, and he is going to have to hack his way to solutions. But the current situation does not easily extend past this year, particularly in Iraq and Iran, and they both require decisions. Presidents prefer not making decisions, and Obama has followed that tradition. Presidents understand that most problems in foreign affairs take care of themselves. But some of the most important ones don’t. The Iraq-Iran issue is, I think, one of those, and given the reduction of U.S. troops in 2011, this is the year decisions will have to be made.
Fio,
I still await to hear your view on The book The Invention of the Jewish People…. :-)
الله اکبر
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=artnDy4CKWY&feature=player_embedded#!
victory is right on the corner!
اذا جاء نصر الله والفتح
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12272836
thanks Sakineh Bagoom; I guess Pak was unable to defend his vague accusation so he walked away from it.
RSH — so THAT’s what “transhuman” means — actual people. I thought the term referred to herding sheep from one pasture to another . . .
re Condi Rice’s suggestion: population transfer has ALWAYS been at least the number 2 resolution of the “Arab Problem” in Palestine. The Two-state solution was always a distant last-place solution; zionists never intended for it to actually occur, and we are seeing how Israel has delayed-distorted-dissembled the various “road maps” that were to lead to the Two state. Zionists must have called in some chips and demanded that Rice make a statement in support of her masters.
re the Jack Ross essay in American Conservative: Ross stated all the right analysis but I would have preferred that the first point be stated more clearly. Ross wrote:
“1. Iran is Israel’s problem and no one else’s, period end of sentence.”
This construction seems to give Israel leave to do whatever it will with respect to Iran. I hope Ross meant, “Iran and US are not in conflict; Israel has a conflict with Iran and is entangling US in it, with negative impacts to US interests.”
Ross’s second statement is spot on:
“2. The Israeli obsession with Iran is simply not rational and cannot be understood in rational terms. Iran is nothing but a scapegoat for all of Israel’s problems – with the Palestinians as well as with the rest of the world.”
Haggai Ram has dissected the irrationality of Israel’s obsession with Iran in, “Iranophobia: The Logic of an Israeli Obsession.”
Prof. Ram’s book is complex; this review of “Iranophobia,” by Serge van Steenkiste, gets at some important points that are central to Ram’s thesis and to the nature of Israel’s ideologically-based, government-induced insanity.
For today I stopped reading the ‘ Palestine Papers ‘ , as it is disgusting.
The massive support of the US , Europe for Abbas and Fatah is now more understandable. C. Rice suggested to ‘deport’ 5 million PA to a country in South America
Gaza might be an open air prison , but at least their leaders have dignity.
“Documents reveal PA offered Israel “biggest Yerushalayim” in history, but the beast wants more”
http://uprootedpalestinians.blogspot.com/2011/01/documents-reveal-pa-offered-israel.html
“I would vote for you” Thus promised the monkey (Qurei, the Cement supplier of the seperation wall) to the war criminal Tzipi Livni (the Lawyer against the Law especially the International law). Instead with their “Historical” offer (TRAESON) the stupids voted for Netanyahu and gave him is a clear grean light for land theft, ethnic cleansing, Judaization and mass home demolition.”
Richard Steven Hack says:
January 25, 2011 at 1:40 am
Whether there will be further talks as Ahmadinejad has suggested is completely and totally irrelevant if they don’t go any further than last week’s talks.
And they won’t. Because the US has no intention for them to do so.
The “diplomatic engagement” process is OVER. End of story. Now we start the ramp up to war – which may still take a couple years of futzing around, or could happen tomorrow.
=======================================
David Bromwich:
If Obama commands or consents to the bombing of Iran, he is responsible. Moral judgment is only intelligible as moral if you infer the motive from the action. You can’t read in the motive you are comfortable with “against the very grain of” actions. That way lies a no-fault system of self-justification. It is the same argument the apologists for the Iraq war use to justify Bush. (Obama in Iran, of course, would be not a whit less guilty than Bush in Iraq, who also had the lobby to contend with). A version of the same argument has been offered by willfully sympathetic liberals to palliate the monstrous acts ordered by Cheney, Addington, Haynes, etc., on the ground that these men did what they did out of a “deep concern for their country.” Obama unhappily is one of the people who have spoken that excuse for them. But, morally, we are what we do–not what we say we meant. And this must hold so long as moral identity has any meaning. If I do a thing but later say that I did not mean to and would have preferred not to, the person who extends his approval to me for my good intentions has drained the word “I” of all meaning.
From http://mondoweiss.net/2009/07/morally-we-are-what-we-do-not-what-we-say-we-meant-bromwich.html
Sobhanallah!
Lebanese lawmakers backed Najib Mikati, the billionaire businessman nominated as prime minister by Hezbollah and its allies, to form a government as supporters of rival parties took to the streets in protest.
Mikati had the backing of 68 lawmakers, a majority in the 128-seat assembly, to 55 for caretaker premier Saad Hariri as of midday in Beirut. President Michel Suleiman, who has been canvassing lawmakers for a second day, is due to invite the candidate with most support to form an administration.
I wonder what our resident trolls, who have been thankfully absent of late, will have to say about more real democracy at work in the middle east?
It should be needless to say that this was a rhetorical musing, and not intended to solicit the opinions of the Three [Westoxicated] Stooges: clearly, no-one gives a damn what they think.
Here is the Link:
http://rt.com/news/modern-warfare-execution-airport/
The continued terror attacks are a bad omen for Russia and regional stabilty as a whole:
Moscow airport terror mirrors video game
“”The bloody scenes of the Moscow attack are reminiscent of what can be seen in a year-old computer game, the scenario of which controversially involves a character who is urged to kill civilians in an imaginary Russian airport.
In the mission dubbed “No Russian” the player goes on a terrorist rampage, helping to massacre civilians in a fictitious Moscow airport. It may have seemed too gruesome and tragic ever to come true.
But far-fetched it is not, for this week’s events at Domodedovo International Airport are very real indeed. Thirty-five people have been killed, and over 180 injured in what investigators believe was a terrorist attack committed by a suicide bomber inside the international arrivals of Russia’s busiest airport.
As for the video game scenario, it appears a lot more people have been involved in the violence. The game was released by the American company Activision in November 2009, and in just a few months, sales surpassed $1 billion worldwide. The “No Russian” segment can be found with a simple YouTube search. With so many seemingly downloading, watching, and playing this game, you have to consider that this bloodbath would ever-so-closely resemble reality…
Just got round to reading the Spiegel interview with Jalili. Jalili was excellent! His best line?
SPIEGEL: In your speeches, you repeatedly advocate peaceful competition and speak in pacifist tones. But Iran would strike back with full force if there were an attack on its territory [?].
Jalili: … Of course … Our armed forces haven’t exactly been furloughed.
LOL. You just gotta love this guy!
Whether there will be further talks as Ahmadinejad has suggested is completely and totally irrelevant if they don’t go any further than last week’s talks.
And they won’t. Because the US has no intention for them to do so.
The “diplomatic engagement” process is OVER. End of story. Now we start the ramp up to war – which may still take a couple years of futzing around, or could happen tomorrow.
Right now, Israel is in a bad situation. The “Palestine Papers” have killed the “peace process” dead and exposed the Palestinian Authority, Israel and the US as fundamentally a bunch of scumbags. That leaves Hamas in charge. In Lebanon, Hizballah’s fortunes have risen and they will form a majority government with a moderate Sunni as President. The STL Tribunal is essentially a dead issue now.
Israel will not doubt try military attacks on Gaza and Lebanon next – and they will fail. The Palestinians will be motivated to return to terrorism, which frankly is their best option given their situation – provided they stop blowing up buses and concentrate on killing Israeli politicians. Hizballah will bloody Israel considerably in the next Lebanon war. It’s even possible that Syria will become involved.
As for Iran sending ships into the Mediterranean, that is a smart move to enable better intelligence gathering against Israel (to be shared with Hizballah) and to enable easier smuggling of weapons to Hizballah in Lebanon. If Israel tries to board an Iranian military ship in pursuit of smuggled weapons like they do commercial ships, it will start a war.
In short, Israel and the US are being outflanked and out-maneuvered in every way by the resistance groups in the Middle East. And that is a Good Thing in the end.
Fiorangela: “right now, the US is worried about how it is going to take care of its senior citizens.”
Non-issue. With the rise of nanotech-based medical advances and more advanced research into delaying the onset of old age symptoms, it is likely within the next 25 years or so that most people under the age of 40 now will live to 100 or more in good health. And by the time they hit 100 by end of this century, either immortality will be feasible – or we Transhumans will have wiped out most of the human species anyway.
Social worries are always decades behind technology.
Off topic, but speaking of this beyatch Rice, is this disgusting or what?
Condoleezza Rice: send Palestinian refugees to South America
:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/24/condoleezza-rice-palestinian-refugees-south-america
They fired Helen Thomas for suggesting Israeli Jews could stay in their homelands, but this is considered acceptable for a ranking US official to suggest ethnic cleansing.
This should make things clearer about why the US is in Iraq and whether the US intends to STAY in Iraq:
Rice: US army presence in Iraq protects Israel
:http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=204986
“Secretary Rice inserted, ‘At this time there is no threat from the east because our forces are in Iraq and will stay there for a long time.’ Chief Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erekat added, ‘For a very, very long time.’”
Iran to deploy destroyer in Mediterranean
Press TV, Sun Jan 23, 2011 6:52PM
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/161614.html
WTF???
Until I hear it from the lips of Press TV’s gorgeous Homa Lezgee, I won’t believe it.
I guess the good Deputy Commander Rear Admiral Gholam-Reza Khadem Bigham is figuring Hamas’s next agenda item (after opening the border with Egypt is to take control of Suez Canal traffic? LOL
Kooshy,
I agree – the Jack Ross piece was excellent. He’s got some links I haven’t read yet, but expect to like them as well given their placements at key spots in his article.
Thanks.
Fio,
So that you are not left hanging, re the video Pak posted in the previous thread.
Like you said, “Every person in the picture has a back.”
I think what Pak is trying to convey (of course I don’t claim to read minds) is that all the buses you see are the buses that brought the people to the show/rally (i.e. they were brought there via coercion/pay off etc.)
Of course, how does one get to the rally? Buses?
As for the comment below the video, it says, I see it, but don’t get what the big deal is.
btw, have you noticed the picture credits on the new article on this site?
Leveretts are listening!
Nigeria: Obama rescues Zionist Cheney
The western history of colonization, slavery, racism and greed. A model the USrael want to see in Lebanon, Syria, Sudan, Pakistan and Iran.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/nigeria-obama-rescues-zionist-cheney/
fyi,
I think the people of the EU have enough sense to avoid more stupidity in the Middle East that causes yet another war. I am aware, of course, of the powers of deception of the warmongering element of the Israel lobby, who are ready for endless war to enable Israel to continue to oppress the Palestinians, and perhaps stupidly try to keep the Golan Heights. Numerous stooges of the Israel lobby in the US Congresss try to make this happen.
kooshy,
Yes, a great piece by Jack Ross that you linked.
I rather like his comparison of G W Bush to Napoleon III, who indeed was stupid beyond belief to help Prussia unify Germany under Prussian dominance. Romantic delusions were all of a piece with the last emperor of France (or French Empire).
James Canning says: January 24, 2011 at 5:44 pm
US-EU Axis could do that, but they won’t.
They have to get burnt more in the Middle East.
Rd.,
How does Hezbollah keep Israel in check? Do you mean that an idiotic Israeli attack on Iran is much more difficult if Israel has to worry about an attack from Hezbollah?
Some Blunt Truths about Iran
Jack Ross
http://www.amconmag.com/postright/2011/01/24/some-blunt-truths-about-iran/
kooshy,
Weapons grade is 95% or just a bit lower, so Iran’s stock of 20% U does not indicate a wish to be able to rush forward with building a nuclear weapon.
If Jalili wants Iran to abandon its IAEA application to refuel the TRR, I think it is a mistake.
BiBiJon,
I agree with you more talks are likely. And that they should take place. China is right in saying the deal that needs to be done cannot be accomplished with just a few meetings.
BiBiJon,
Germany is the most powerful country in Europe and a major trading partner with Iran. P5+1 makes eminent good sense.
FYI,
EU can offer trade agreements with countries in the Middle East. Turkey will remain an ally of the west even as it enjoys good relations with Iran, Iraq and Syria.
Voice of Tehran,
The USSR brought about its own collapse by poor policy choices over an extended period of time. And yes, foolish Americans got fat-headed thinking the US had “won”. In fact, it was largely a matter of waiting for the inevitable to occur. But the world is fortunate Mikhail Gorbachev was on hand to preside over the collapse, even though he did not want it to happen.
@All
God in His endless benignancy , will punish those who are acting in blind arrogance against humanity , by depriving them of their senses and consequently of proper judgments.
The US ‘empire’ did not defeat the Soviet ‘empire’ because of her superiority . The collapse of the Soviets , as predicted by Imam Khomeini , was an prescripted ‘event’.
Now the scenario against Iran follows the same pattern.
The US in her blind and furious rage against another presumed ‘rogue’ , thinks that if she was able to cause the demise of the huge Soviet empire , she is more than ever able to bring down Iran and the misjudgments and miscalculations go on and on . To say it in plain Latin words : ” Abyssus abyssum invocat”.
I think this is by far the worst situation one can get into , the road to hell so to say. ( was it Chris Rea ?)
BiBiJon, Kooshy, and others:
The meeting in Istanbul was a diplomatic exercise in delay tactics.
Both for the Iranians and for their interlocuters.
All sides know that no agreements can be reached.
It is also quite clear that no tactical cooperation on any issue is possible between these antagonists.
This decade will witness the continued strategic competition between Iran and her allies and the US-EU Axis.
There is a difference, howeverm between teh two sides.
The Iranians, in the Middle East, are within their own region and are not consumed by this strategic competition with the US-EU Axis.
The Iranians are engaged in the so-called “Northern Tier” activities that creates a Win-Win situation for the core states (Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria) and the periphery (Lebanon, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan).
The US-EU Aixs is operating under the handicaps of distance and culture.
It is a very rich Christian Alliance (now in its post Christian Phase) that is consumed by security concerns; it has no other agenda or vision for a positive future for that people of the region.
Future will tell how things will pan out.
For Fiorangela:
Iran: Germany’s special friend
Analysis: For anyone wondering why Germany joined the Iran talks, there is in fact an answer.
Published: January 22, 2011 13:14 ET in Europe
When Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili sat down for talks in Istanbul with six world powers this week, he could have quoted German philosophy and poetry.
Henning Riecke, an analyst at the German Council on Foreign Relations, once took part in a discussion session in Tehran in which Jalili demonstrated an impressive knowledge of Germany’s intellectual history.
“He could easily quote German philosophers like Hegel and Heidegger and the closeness of Goethe to the [Persian poet] Hafez,” Riecke said.
Iranians feel a kinship with Germany, experts say. For anyone wondering how Germany came to be tacked onto the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council to make the ad hoc P5+1 group dealing with Iran’s nuclear ambitions, there is in fact a sound logic behind the inclusion.
From http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/germany/110122/iran-nuclear-program-talks?page=0,0
Iran-P-5+1 nuclear talks conclude in Istanbul; what led to the failure?
http://www.irandiplomacywatch.com/2011/01/iran-p-51-nuclear-talks-conclude-in.html?utm_source=BP_recent
kooshy says:
January 24, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Not so fast STEVEN ERLANGER, says Robert Dreyfuss.
In fact, the situation is not bleak. Not only will the talks resume again, and probably soon, but the reports that the talks were useless or counterproductive are simply wrong. In fact, despite the breakdown of the negotiations, President Ahmadinejad of Iran said on Sunday that they’ll be back. According to The Daily Star, of Beirut, “Iran hopes to resume talks with world powers on its nuclear program, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday, a day after discussions ended in stalemate with no clear agreement to meet again. ‘If the other party is determined and committed to law, justice and respect, there is hope that in the next sessions good results would be achieved,’ Ahmadinejad said in a televised speech to a crowd in the city of Rasht.”
From http://www.thenation.com/blog/157976/iran-talks-not-over-says-ahmadinejad
MEK, and specially their “leaders,” are perhaps the only group that are hated in Iran more than the mullahs. These SOB’s have now been converted into a pure cult, whose “Leader” has gone into hiding for years now, and left his n-th wife in Paris to make statements.
With all that said, I enjoyed the conference speakers, minus of course some who were calling for removal of MEK from terrorists list. Speakers made it clear what terrible gangsters are running Iran, despite Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett’s try to legitimize these gangsters.
You should specially hear what Director Freeh of FBI was saying. How could you support gangsters running Iran after Mr. Freeh spilling the beans on Kobar Towers attack in 1996 by mullahs?
Wake-up!!
Liz, Kooshy, and others:
US-EU Axis is engaged in an information war against Iran that goes together with their economic war against Iran.
These are the wages of strategic competition; complaining about them is silly, in my opinion.
“All is permitted in Love & War.”
Liz, thanks, you are absolutely right, as you know, this is the twisted kind of news we read about Iran here in the west, I was interested to know what you think the Iranian’s public sentiment is with regard to this issue.
January 24, 2011
Iran Rules Out Fuel Swap PlanBy STEVEN ERLANGER
PARIS — At the talks between Iran and six major powers in Istanbul over the weekend, Iran said it was “no longer interested” in a fuel-swap deal proposed to it by Washington and the others, a senior Western diplomat said on Monday.
In Istanbul, the lead Western negotiator, Catherine Ashton, said only that her Iranian counterpart, Saeed Jalili, had refused to engage on the details of a revised offer to swap most of Iran’s low-enriched uranium for fuel rods to power a declining Tehran reactor that produces medical isotopes.
After she laid out the proposals, Ms. Ashton, the head of the delegation of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany, told journalists, “I made it clear that they should consider them and come back to us.” Asked if Mr. Jalili agreed to do so, she said that he listened, but “He didn’t say, ‘Oh, O.K., I will.”’
American officials briefing reporters also left Mr. Jalili’s response vague, saying that the proposals remained on the table and that the six powers were prepared to negotiate without preconditions.
But the senior Western diplomat, who would speak only anonymously, in keeping with diplomatic protocol, was more explicit, saying that Mr. Jalili told Ms. Ashton and the other powers that “Iran was no longer interested in the Tehran reactor,” because it had found its own source of uranium and could produce the fuel itself.
While Iran’s view may change, the Jalili statement in private to the group made it less likely that talks will resume any time soon, and it is likely to increase pressure on President Obama and others to ratchet up targeted sanctions against Iran while they see if Tehran changes its mind. Russia and China are likely to be reluctant to go for another round of United Nations sanctions just a few months after the last.
Instead, the diplomat said, Mr. Jalili simply repeated his demands that the group make a statement “recognizing Iran’s right to enrich” and lifting existing sanctions immediately, as preconditions for further movement.
All six nations — the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — rejected the preconditions and said that Iran must come into compliance with the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency before sanctions could be lifted. While the West recognizes Iran’s right under the treaty to civilian nuclear energy, that does not mean an explicit right to enrichment, and the Security Council has repeatedly demanded Iran stop enrichment because of its deceptions about its nuclear program and its unwillingness to answer all questions from the nuclear agency.
The idea of the fuel swap was proposed by the United States in October 2009 as a confidence-building measure. The idea was to reduce Iran’s stock of low-enriched uranium by 75 percent, to about 300 kilograms, which is less than is required to build a single bomb. But now Iran has nearly three times the amount of low-enriched uranium it had then plus about 40 kilograms of uranium enriched to 19.75 percent, more than halfway to bomb grade.
The diplomat said that the proposal made to the Iranians was not specific on numbers, but that the intention was the same — to leave Iran with only about 300 kilograms of uranium enriched to between 3.5 and 5 percent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/world/middleeast/25iran.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
kooshy,
In the west it’s called democracy at work, checks and balances,…When it comes to Iran, I guess the west will call it internal bickering, instability,… lol
The Story Behind the Palestine Papers
How 1,600 confidential Palestinian records of negotiations with Israel from 1999 to 2010 came to be leaked to al-Jazeera.
Watch video
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27324.htm
James Canning says:
“in fact, Hezbollah is not even a problem for Israel unless Israel attacks Lebanon or Iran.”
Actually, Hezbollah is a problem for Israel. For Hezbollah’s existence (resistance) keeps Israeli’s in check. Hence, why Israel dispenses so much capital (from US) to try and undermine Hezbollah. Perhaps one of the reasons US FP in ME is in disarray.
For every gain there is a loss and in every loss there is a gain. That simple lesson is yet to be learned by US. Holds true for economy as well. No such thing as permanent growth, nor is there a permanent domination (colonization) of a region. US inability to adjust its FP to the dynamics of the region is, the very sign of her decline.
C Span had an interesting discussion this morning — Richard Jackson talked about the ability of the US to take care of its aging population. He mentioned that US, of course, has large cohort of >65 persons, but that US also has achieved replacement fertility rate, plus pretty-well integrated immigration, so that once the baby boomers all die, in about 30 years, US will reach a demographic plateau that it will likely retain for 100 years.
On the other hand, European states — especially those most heavily impacted by WWII, like Germany, Italy, France; and Japan, are not reproducing themselves and do not have a tradition of growing by means of immigration. The European states are in demographic distress. On the other other hand, Fr. Bernard Marx, “godfather” of the Catholic pro-life movement, has said that Muslims are “taking over Europe” and they are reproducing at a rapid rate; “theirs is the future.” So — Muslim immigrants could be the salvation of Europe’s demographic problem. Who said the US hates Muslims?
But Japan is in a world of hurt: the Japanese have done studies that can predict (statistically) when the last Japanese person will die, and it’s not that far out.
Empty mentioned a few days ago that men who have been defeated in war experience “truncated” sperm production. The states that the US and Great Britain terror-bombed — Germany and Japan — have lower reproduction rates. We did not just destroy the glory of their past — ie. Dresden — and their then-present, “The Greatest Generation” destroyed their future.
Another thought from that discussion on C Span, and I wonder if any “revisionist historians” have studied this: right now, the US is worried about how it is going to take care of its senior citizens. I wonder what the demographics were in Europe, especially among Jewish people, in the pre-war years. It’s reasonable that the soldiers who died were young, but what was the age-range of civilian casualties of war, and were decisions made NOT to attempt to save certain age-categories?
- Arthur Ruppin was the father of demographic analysis for the zionist Israeli culture that he helped create. (Ruppin was active in Palestine from about 1908 – 1940).
-Ruppin kept meticulous demographic records.
-Rupppin was an advocate of eugenics.
-Ruppin and Jabotinsky were appalled at the hygiene habits of Eastern European (esp. Hungarian & Slavic) ultra-orthodox Jews.
-The largest numbers of deaths of Jews occurred among Hungarian and Polish-Russian Jewish populations.
-German Jews were wealthy and, presumably, healthier than Slavic Jews; many German Jews left Germany (and France) before the situation became life-threatening; most took at least some of their fortunes with them (ie. the Warburgs).
Iranian@iran and BIB, Goli, Liz, any comments about this news,
http://www.farsnews.net/newstext.php?nn=8911040404
What is broken about Japan? Her culture and heritage. She was truncated by Hiroshima, nagasaki, and the consequent surrender of their Emperor. The Rising Sun’s rays shine no more on the Japanses flag. Recommend Yukio Mishima’s *The Sea of Fertility* quartet, esp. the last volume, *The Decay of the Angel*
James:
One way or another, America is going to have a rude awakening to the nightmare that she has been to the rest of the world; it is just a question of whether the sleepwalking giant is going to step on an oil slick and break its ankle, or walk face first into one of the Bushehr reactor’s cooling towers, or be broadsided by an Iran Khordo Samand LE.
China, Shmina!
Unknown Unknowns,
Japan is one of the riches countries on earth. What is “broken” about it? Too high a level of governmental debt?
Rehmat,
I agree with you that the “Israel-First” crowd in the US see Hezbollah as an “enemy” of the US when this is ridiculous; in fact, Hezbollah is not even a problem for Israel unless Israel attacks Lebanon or Iran.
Most of the people in what became “Lebanon” after the First World War, opposed separation from Syria.
ct’d…
It amazed me to learn that the only other team that could beat teh US in baseball (i.e., Cuba), was excluded from the “World” Series, leaving poor old Uncle Sam on his lonesome (i don’t count the Canadians or that once-great broken nation, Japan).
UnknownUnknowns,
Iran continues to signal it will suspend enriching to 20% if the TRR “fuel exchange” goes forward. The problem seems to be that the US, once again, is “trying to do too much” and is foolishly blocking the Iranian IAEA application. China wants more talks.
Fiorangela:
Is that for the “World” Series or merely teh International Community’s eries? LOL
Unknown Unknowns:
#8. Steelers (aka Stillers) beat Jets to claim trip to Texas and Superbowl.
What a week!
Let’s see:
1. Tunisia
2. Sa’d Hariri learns the hard way not to go down a well using an American rope (Persian expression: ba tanab-e Amrika be chah pa’in naro)
2a. The false-witness transcripts
2b. March 8th (Hezbollah) unity government?
3. Al-Jazeera/ Guardian 1,600 document leak at long last putting the final nails in teh Fatah coffin
4. Russia recognizes Palestine
5. Iran becomes the only team to beat all three opponents in teh first round of the Asian Cup
6. Iran tells the Internatiional Community to take a hike while the World community cheers her on.
If #7 would have read Iran decisively defeats South Korea to become clear front runner to win Asian Cup, I would say that the signs are unmistakeable that Amrika is finally on the verge of doing her dirty deed and making her fatal mistake against Iran and the Islamic world. But it seems He who “controls the reality studio” (to quote Marshall Mcluhan) has decided to spin this yarn out a little longer.
In Allah-u kayr-un makerin.
R S Hack,
I think a number of foolish “liberal” Democrats do in fact want Iran injured badly, by war if necessary, if this is what they see as necessary to “protect” Israel. And their conception of “protecting” Israel is to enable Israel to violate international law at will, for year after year after year. Obama is responsive to the demands of these “liberal” Democrats, even though I very much doubt he wants another war in the Middle East.
The fact John Bolton supports a certain proposal is virtually absolute proof the idea is a bad one. Bolton argues for confrontation with China, and accuses Obama of being weak on defence when Obama is squandering hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
What a great idea: proclaim yourself as engaged in a war on terror, and support terrorists!
When Westerners think of Croesus, I suspect they think only, “Gold!”
Persians might recall another aspect of the myths of Croesus: He was feeling pretty powerful — and rich — so he thought he might take on the Persian empire. First, tho, Croesus consulted the oracles. He sent messengers to a bunch of oracles–John Hagee, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Bibi Netanyahu — BushObama, er, Croesus covered the oracular spectrum.
Come decision time, Croesus listened to the Delphic Oracle:
“If the great King of the richest and powerfulest superpower in the world goes to war, he will destroy a great empire.”
So Croesus took the empire of Lydia to war against the Persians, and he DID destroy a mighty empire: his own.
fyi:
I think you would enjoy some of these excellent books
www[dot]fpp[dot]co[dot]uk/menus/bookdownloads[dot]html
The introduction to the Second Editiion of Churchill’s War is a nice short read which will give you a flavor of the man’s work if you are not familiar with him already.
Fiorangela: An excellent article of his, “Batttleship Auschwitz” can be found in the IHR database.
Irshad – thanks for the info on India , in light of that ,I think contrary to many predictions we read, that a new world order is shifting toward a multi polar political environment, I think the west, and in particular the US is actually working hard to force the world’s political back to a bipolar order, this is because, since the US was incapable to completely achieve and maintain a western centric unipolar world order, the next best environment for US’s control on world affairs would be a bipolar environment, shifting the world order back to a bipolar environment will maintain US’s position to set her side’s agenda for world affairs with only one other world power, that like in the cold war period is much easier to attain then in a multi polar world.
Unknown Unknowns says: January 24, 2011 at 12:33 pm
I do not know about Hitler, but certainly the English were hoping for a war between Germany and USSR.
To wit, they did all they could to kill Stalin’s proposal for a triple alliance (Britain, France, USSR) against Germany.
Stalin’s point man was Litvinov, a Russian Jew, who advocated that policy.
When the English made certain that the proposal would not go anywhere – through the usual diplomatic machinary, Stalin removed Litvinon and replaced him by Molotov who was an advocate of coming to an understanding with Germany.
Britain, more than any other country in the world, bears responsibility for WWII.
Off Topic as usual?
Hint: The Western obsession with absurd wars is nothing new… (I guess more fodder in support of Richard’s position)
Did Hitler Want War?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
On Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier. On Sept. 3, Britain declared war.
Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished. Britain was broken and bankrupt, Germany a smoldering ruin. Europe had served as the site of the most murderous combat known to man, and civilians had suffered worse horrors than the soldiers.
By May 1945, Red Army hordes occupied all the great capitals of Central Europe: Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Berlin. A hundred million Christians were under the heel of the most barbarous tyranny in history: the Bolshevik regime of the greatest terrorist of them all, Joseph Stalin.
What cause could justify such sacrifices?
The German-Polish war had come out of a quarrel over a town the size of Ocean City, Md., in summer. Danzig, 95 percent German, had been severed from Germany at Versailles in violation of Woodrow Wilson’s principle of self-determination. Even British leaders thought Danzig should be returned.
Why did Warsaw not negotiate with Berlin, which was hinting at an offer of compensatory territory in Slovakia? Because the Poles had a war guarantee from Britain that, should Germany attack, Britain and her empire would come to Poland’s rescue.
But why would Britain hand an unsolicited war guarantee to a junta of Polish colonels, giving them the power to drag Britain into a second war with the most powerful nation in Europe?
Was Danzig worth a war? Unlike the 7 million Hong Kongese whom the British surrendered to Beijing, who didn’t want to go, the Danzigers were clamoring to return to Germany.
Comes the response: The war guarantee was not about Danzig, or even about Poland. It was about the moral and strategic imperative “to stop Hitler” after he showed, by tearing up the Munich pact and Czechoslovakia with it, that he was out to conquer the world. And this Nazi beast could not be allowed to do that.
If true, a fair point. Americans, after all, were prepared to use atom bombs to keep the Red Army from the Channel. But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet’s, or Fidel Castro’s, was out to conquer the world?
After Munich in 1938, Czechoslovakia did indeed crumble and come apart. Yet consider what became of its parts.
The Sudeten Germans were returned to German rule, as they wished. Poland had annexed the tiny disputed region of Teschen, where thousands of Poles lived. Hungary’s ancestral lands in the south of Slovakia had been returned to her. The Slovaks had their full independence guaranteed by Germany. As for the Czechs, they came to Berlin for the same deal as the Slovaks, but Hitler insisted they accept a protectorate.
Now one may despise what was done, but how did this partition of Czechoslovakia manifest a Hitlerian drive for world conquest?
Comes the reply: If Britain had not given the war guarantee and gone to war, after Czechoslovakia would have come Poland’s turn, then Russia’s, then France’s, then Britain’s, then the United States.
We would all be speaking German now.
But if Hitler was out to conquer the world — Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia — why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can’t get out of the Baltic Sea?
If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?
Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?
Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?
Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser’s fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?
Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.
Hitler had never wanted war with Poland, but an alliance with Poland such as he had with Francisco Franco’s Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, Miklos Horthy’s Hungary and Father Jozef Tiso’s Slovakia.
Indeed, why would he want war when, by 1939, he was surrounded by allied, friendly or neutral neighbors, save France. And he had written off Alsace, because reconquering Alsace meant war with France, and that meant war with Britain, whose empire he admired and whom he had always sought as an ally.
As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?
Winston Churchill was right when he called it “The Unnecessary War” — the war that may yet prove the mortal blow to our civilization.
Go Fio!
When the public think of Iran, they think nuclear weapons or wipe Isreal off the map. This perception needs to be challenged and changed.
@Hans
This should help regarding what I was talking about:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/nuke-test.htm
Irshad — funny story — The first pro-Iran activism I engaged in was to get people together to watch “Bam 6.6.” I created all the advertising, ferreted out groups and venues, bribed people to let us use their restaurant/hall/ etc.
I needed to buy about a dozen copies of the DVD, so I asked the (Iranian) seller if he would give me a discount.
How do you say, Heck no! in Farsi?
Anyway, we got a lot of people to view “Bam 6.6,” and to take aboard some positive information about Iran.
There is a Persian (may be Yazid) proverb that I think, it finely fits the current desperate US foreign policy toward Iran, that goes like this:
“Dastat ke nemirasad be Bibi, Dryab kanizeh matbakhi ra” translation is: “if you can’t reach the lady of the house settle for the maid of the kitchen”
دستت که نمیرسد به بی بی
دریاب کنیز مطبخی را
Now, if the US can’t come to term on how to talk (respect) with the elected government of Iran(Lady) what should US do?, well out of desperation some discredited US politicians think the best next thing to do is, to support the discredited MLK ( indeed a US maid).
@Hans – I havent seen any to claim that the Tsunami happened due to an nuclear test in the Indian ocean – if this was the case I am sure Pakistan, China, Indonesia et al. would have been comemning it.
What I have read is that, Isreal colluded with South Africa in developing and testing a nuclear device in the Indian ocean off the South Africa coast in the early 80s (i think maybe 70s cant remember). Fisherman from the area reported seen a bright flash and explosion which rocked the sea…many analysyt believe this was a nuke test.
By the way, shouldnt the IAEA or all the FAS, etc.look in to the role of how Isreal colluded with aparthied South Africa in developing and testing a nuclear device?
Hell NO!….Toooo busy feeling self righteous and busy blaming the brown/Muslim man/women of the worlds problems.
I remember Prof Marandi, use to say repeatedly on various shows on Al-Jazeera, that it seem Iran can be blamed or accused of everything under the sun but the only thing it has not so far been accused of is global warming!
Fio,
Going back to the holocaust discussion – I remember that a few years back after the furore of what Ahmednejad said – that Iranian state TV ran a drama series on the role of the Iranian embassy in Paris in saving the lives of Jews in France. The Iranian embassy gave false papers to Jewish people making them seem to be Iranians (or Aryans!) so they could escape Europe.
I forgot the name of the series but am sure someone here can remind us all.
Thinga like this should be put forward against the Hasbara crowd and Isreal right or wrong crowd to show the world and the public that this is not a problem between Muslims and Jews rather, its the indignous people of the ME confronting Zionism which is racist and expansionist and seeks to create the worlds first utopia in the ME.
@Irshad Also – to those who continue pushing the line that Iran intends to build a atomic bomb – if Iran was to do this, where would it test such a device? Where is Iran’s Algeria (Frances nuclear test ground or the South Pacific), Novaya Zemlya or Seminaplatisnk (USSRs testing ground), Nevada (US test range)? Where is Israel’s test bed, some say the tsunami was due to a nuclear device triggering it of the coast of India. Could it have been Israel?
Irshad says: January 24, 2011 at 11:19 am
Thanks Irshad, did not know that.
UK steals 1.5 billion dollars from Iran and gives about the same amount to India.
Pirates they have been since the time of Drake and pirates they still are.
Thank God for WWI and WWII that finally destroyed their Empire.
fyi, kooshy,
soory going off topic here but thought that you should know (if u dont know already) that Britain gives £825million in annual aid to India, some of the money goes towards funding Indias space programme(!).
This came up, in last October in the british papers – and believe me the British public is not happy to support a country with growth rate of 8% compared with the UK stuck in a recession and the cost of everyday goods has gone up.
Irshad, flattery will get you everywhere!
I was just reflecting on a long comment Unknown Unknowns posted several days ago.
To my knowledge, only Pat Buchanan and writers at IHR criticize the British in WWII and treat Churchill with anything other than complete adulation. Rufus Fears is particularly obnoxious in his elevation of Churchill to the status of god.
I think Churchill was an out-and-out monster with serious personality ‘challenges’ that embroiled the world in wars it did not need to fight. (Is anti-Britishism a crime yet?)
One snippet from a David Irving “discovery” about Churchill:
When Churchill came to the shores of the United States he did not receive unanimously favorable fan mail. The FBI files, which I’ve been going through for my Churchill research, contain some prize letters which were intercepted by the FBI, including this anonymous letter from a California mother of three:
Every time you appear on our shores, it means something very terrible for us. Why do you not stay at home and fight your own battles instead of always pulling us into them to save your rotten neck? You are taking foul advantage of our blithering idiot of a president. (June 19, 1942).
You see, if I’m known for anything as a historian, apart from being a pain in the neck, it’s because I uncover things. And uncovering things does not necessarily mean you go into the archives and see something and say: “Look at this, this is something quite extraordinary.” If you go into the archives long enough, ten or twenty years, you become what I would call a “gap-ologist” I can spot gaps in archives and they’re much more difficult to spot, because they’ve been papered over, and the files have been closed.
——-
The “gap-ologist” concept is particularly appealing. Maybe I’m part cat; when I see a sign that says “Do Not Enter” pasted to a passageway (to knowledge and information), I’ve GOT to snoop around and try to figure out what is so scary or so damning that it has to be kept hidden. If Jews did not raise such a fuss about holocaust denial, I wouldn’t give it another thought.
Summary: Unknown Unknowns: tell us more!
Fiorangela says: January 24, 2011 at 10:22 am
You wrote: “My country has gone quite mad.” in regards to the Stuxnet – I imagine.
That computer worm has done tremendous damage to the United States software and related information technology industry. That is, one of the remaining healthy sectors of US economy, the information technology sector, is now globally suspect. The suspicion is now extended to shrink-wrapped software, firmware in the hardware, and IT solutions and services coming out of North America.
So Microsoft, Google, Apple, IBM, HP, Texas Instrument, NVIDIA, Boeing (avaiation software), satellite builders, etc. are now exposed to the open-source software competition. Large markets in Russia, China, and India will become closed to products coming out of the US-EU Axis.
Whoever wrote and eployed Stuxnet gravely harmed US.
Thank you for that translation of Saeid Jalili’s statement, BiBiJon.
Iran’s “preconditions” were clear, rational, and honest.
Implications within this sentence indicate that US has NOT been negotiating honestly –
Saeid Jalili said: “We believe in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy there are cooperative endeavors that can be undertaken. In the area of safety and security.
US and Israel and even the supposedly objective media sources (such as C Span Washington Journal moderators) have been quite gleeful at the “success” of Stuxnet. Have they thought one step further — that Stuxnet is a tremendous, and uncontrolled, threat to the “safety and security” of nuclear power generation?
My country has gone quite mad.
Fio,
I have to say your posts are very interesting and insightful to read – please keep it up. There are loots of gems in it!
Also, have you read, Sholom Sands – The Invention of the Jewish People? Whats your view on it?
Also – to those who continue pushing the line that Iran intends to build a atomic bomb – if Iran was to do this, where would it test such a device? Where is Iran’s Algeria (Frances nuclear test ground or the South Pacific), Novaya Zemlya or Seminaplatisnk (USSRs testing ground), Nevada (US test range)?
Can anyone show any proof of this? Or does Iran intend to build a atomic bomb without testing it hoping that it works if its ever used? If this is so, then wheres the logic in this?
Leveretts wrote:
“Predictably, the Istanbul talks have ended without positive results. And, it seems clear that the discussion came to a dead end over two issues:
–the Islamic Republic wanted explicit recognition of its right to enrich uranium which the United States (at least) was not prepared to do; and
–the United States proposed a plan for refueling the Tehran Research Reactor that was more demanding on and less rewarding for Iran than the plan advanced last fall.”
I have not seen any actual quotes from the Iranian negotiators in English.
Here is a translation of the first 2 questions/answers from clip I found on YouTube.
Parts of the long press confererence of Saeid Jalili in Istanbul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k98GWNiTLEM
Chinese reporter (not sure from which news agency) asking in Farsi:
Ms.Ashton says you have put pre-conditions for the talks. What pre-conditions have you placed? In your opinion who should accept responsibilty for the faliure of the talks?
Saeid Jalili:
Thank you. I stressed two points in the talks. I think it is appropriate that that the world community, and international community pass judgement on the two points that I stressed. One: respect for the rights of nations. Two: Avoidance of confrontation with the rights of nations. Can these be called pre-conditions?
These are the basis of the logic of engaging in talks.
Reuters’ Hafezi:
Hello, my question is about exchange of fuel (TRR deal). Did P5+1 make a new proposal? What is your opinion of that proposal.
Saeid Jalili:
Regarding the concept of nuclear cooperation which we have tabled, one of the areas that can be a part of nuclear cooperation, and we have stressed, is this very area of fuel swap.
We believe in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy there are cooperative endeavors that can be undertaken. In the area of safety and security. This itself is a very important topic. In the area of power plant construction. In the area of endeavors which would create the possibility for all nations to take advantage of peaceful nuclear technology.
One of the topics that gets discussed is the idea of fuel swap. Swaqping fuel in the framework of cooperation among nations can take shape. But, as I said before, when we talk about cooperation among nations for peaceful uses of nuclear energy, then the prerequisite of any such endeavors must be the outlook/intent of cooperation. I mean it must stem from a position that respects the rights of nations,and avoids actions that contradict/confront the rights of nations, and if there have been such actions they must be corrected.
MEK has already benn ‘de-listed’ by the EU in January 2010. Like the other USrael-sponsored terrorist groups like Jundallah – MEK’s re-birth is not going to stop the Islamic Republic as the regional power along with Turkey.
If you ask any ‘Israel-Firster’ US lawmaker, he/she will tell you: “It’s Hizbullah, stupid, we should be worried about and not Tehran”.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/obama-blackmails-lebanon-for-israel/
The US wants to recognize the MEK bloodthirsty murderers? That’s how they want to win hearts and minds?
It is quite proper and natural for the US government to work and collaborate with the terrorist organization MEK as the birds of a feather flock together. The world makes better sense when that is the case.
کبوتر با کبوتر باز با باز….کبوتر کی کند با باز پرواز
Doves flock with doves; hawks flock with hawks
Who has ever seen doves flying with hawks?
FYI: You asked me a good question the other day, and when I know how to answer succinctly, I’ll do so.
Castellio: “I think Obama’s larger agenda continues to get clearer all the time: announce the Bantustan version of Palestine as an accomplishment; militarily re-attack Hamas, Hizbullah; continue “weakening” Iran through sanctions and internal special ops; stay in Iraq and “draw down” (slightly, for domestic reasons) in Afghanistan, while continuing to focus on how to neutralize Pakistani nukes. In short, full spectrum dominance continues with a better salesperson.”
Agree completely. Nice recap of Obama’s agenda which is indistinguishable from Bush’s except, as you say, we’ve got a President who can con the gullible liberals that it’s all not really true.
Sakineh Bagoom: “BTW, isn’t against the law to be talking to a terrorist group?”
Exactly. A number of prominent US politicians are precisely in the boat of providing “material support to terrorists” – which is illegal – by engaging with this group in any way.
U.S. Politicians Provide Material Support for Terrorism – So Where’s the FBI?
:http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/us_politicians_provide_material_support_for_terrorism_so_wheres_the_fbi
Leading Conservatives Openly Support a Terrorist Group
by Glenn Greenwald
:http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01/04-6
Quote:
The Council on Foreign Relations has detailed that the MEK has been involved in numerous violent actions over the years, including many directed at Americans, such as “the 1979 takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by Iranian revolutionaries” and “the killings of U.S.military personnel and civilians working on defense projects in Tehran in the 1970s.” This is whom Guiliani, Ridge, Townsend and other conservatives are cheering.
End Quote
Potkin, don’t throw a stone and run, answer the questions, make your case.
Make your case Potkin. Explain why you believe what you claim. Or at least answer two very simple questions; do you think MEK should be taken off the terrorist list, and why….
Pak is the only intelligent person on this listserve. The rest of you are totally bi-kar. Leveretts, do you have no sense of self-awareness whatsoever? It appears to just about everybody in the world that you are the official PR agents of the Iranian government. I’m sure you would disagree, but you’d be wrong.
I think Obama’s larger agenda continues to get clearer all the time: announce the Bantustan version of Palestine as an accomplishment; militarily re-attack Hamas, Hizbullah; continue “weakening” Iran through sanctions and internal special ops; stay in Iraq and “draw down” (slightly, for domestic reasons) in Afghanistan, while continuing to focus on how to neutralize Pakistani nukes. In short, full spectrum dominance continues with a better salesperson.
I don’t think there’s much distinction worth talking about between Israeli, NATO and American policy.
Disgusting. These MEK cult members should spend the rest of their days in maximum security prisons. They have murdered countless Iranians. They would torch houses and burn their opponents alive. They would attack homes in Tehran and cut people’s heads off in front of their children. Before murdering their captured victims they would torture them and in some cases they even used irons! They fought for Saddam Hossain for many years and murdered many Iraqi Shias and Kurds. When their leader in France was briefly arrested, their cult members would burn themselves alive in European capitals. What sort of barbarians would show any sympathy, let alone support such animals?
Sakineh Bagoom — who knows the sound of one rat splashing.
The Sting must be nearing completion; time for con artist Levey to leave someone else holding the bag.
Wall Street Journal doesn’t have a clue that the US has been taken for a ride; they’re lavishing praise on these scoundrels.
Pak,
“I am not surprised these idiots have embraced the Mujahedin, given their distinct lack of creative thinking.”
“To be fair to the Mujahedin, they have renounced violence and embraced diplomacy (much like a learning curve).”
My God! Your discription of these mass murderers as well as those who support them is sickening. They are MASS MURDERERS and their supporters are supporting mass murderers.
Pak,
I am not surprised these idiots have embraced the Mujahedin, given their distinct lack of creative thinkingak,
Your discription of these mass murderers as well as those who support them is sickening. They are MASS MURDERERS and their supporters are supporting mass murderers.
I am not surprised these idiots have embraced the Mujahedin, given their distinct lack of creative thinkingak,
Your discription of these mass murderers as well as those who support them is sickening. They are MASS MURDERERS and their supporters are supporting mass murderers.
This just in.
“The point man for the Obama administration’s financial wars on Iran, North Korea and al Qaeda, Stuart Levey, has decided to leave his senior U.S.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704213404576099901505709750.html
MEK, PMOI, this is the same group that used to kill Americans for a living, isn’t it?
My, how the world has changed. We’ll forgive your past deeds, if you help us in the future. Delusional that MEK can bring regime change, like Sha’ban bi mokh and Kermit Roosevelt.
BTW, isn’t against the law to be talking to a terrorist group?
The Leveretts:
The disturbing thing was the participation of Gen. Zini.
He actually knows and understands that war against Iran by US require US invasion of Iran.
Pak: “In fact, they seem to be pushing this agenda rather than explaining it, and in the process encouraging Iranians to take more extreme positions.”
Ridiculous. As is the notion that MEK has “renounced violence”. They’re a frickin’ personality cult on a par with North Korea’s Kim cult.
Makes me wonder if Pak works for MEK or some other dissolute anti-Iranian Israeli front.
I am not surprised these idiots have embraced the Mujahedin, given their distinct lack of creative thinking. Right-winged extremists are the same across the board, from John Bolton to Ahmadinejad.
Regardless, I am pretty confident that the Mujahedin have precisely 0% support in Iran, beyond actual members of the cult.
To be fair to the Mujahedin, they have renounced violence and embraced diplomacy (much like a learning curve). Given the track record of the Leveretts, surely they should be sympathetic in this regard?
“After listening to his remarks, we challenge anyone to make the case that, for the Obama Administration, “engagement” with the Islamic Republic was ever anything but a Dennis Ross-style, “check the box” exercise.”
The Leveretts’ argument is still legitimate, but it is getting weaker by the day, considering that a military attack has not occurred yet, nor does it seem imminent. In fact, they seem to be pushing this agenda rather than explaining it, and in the process encouraging Iranians to take more extreme positions.
Fiorangela: I assume you were tweaking Eric there, right?
The great Iranian nuclear guessing game
:http://blogs.reuters.com/bernddebusmann/2011/01/21/the-great-iranian-nuclear-guessing-game/
Starts out with:
On April 24, 1984, the respected London-based Jane’s Defence Weekly reported that Iran was in the final stages of producing a nuclear bomb that could be ready in two years. Sound familiar?
“Jones’ participation in the event is particularly appalling, ”
Zinni’s participation equally appalling.
All is not lost, RSH; Iran needs only engage the Additional Protocol.
Fully agree.
Once again, this shows that the basic game plan for Iran has never ever been different than the one for Iraq. The goal is war and has always been war.
As said, all the “engagement” has been nothing but a “check the box” exercise. Now we can get on to increasing sanctions, and eventually a casus belli for military attack.
Obama is a corrupt liar, just like George W. Bush – except he can speak a full sentence without stumbling over the words. He’s owned and operated by the US elite just like Bush was. No difference. Period. End of story.
The release of the “Palestine Papers” also establishes that the US never intended to resolve the Palestinian issue at all, but merely to allow Israel to destroy any possibility of a two-state solution. This leads inexorably to another intifada, another war on Gaza, and with Hizballah establishing a majority government in Lebanon, another war on Lebanon as a prelude to a war with Iran.
And in all of these wars, Obama will be fully complicit and an active partner with Israel.
And yet I KNOW a bunch of people here and elsewhere will STILL say that it’s all a sham and nothing will happen, despite all the obvious and inexorable progress every single day toward war. Only a blatant inability to recognize reality can maintain this sort of head-in-the-sand view.