All Options on the Table?
August 8, 2008
It is likely resolution H. Con. Res. 362, to blockade Iran, was not just ‘supported’ by the Israel Lobby but was written and driven through congress by them too. I’m not convinced it was anti-war pressure that stopped this effort either. Otherwise a good article by Chomsky, although vague as to why the US wants a war on Iran, which only the Israel lobby is driving for.
NUCLEAR threats and counter-threats are a subtext of our times, steadily, it seems, becoming more insistent. The July meeting in Geneva between Iran and six major world powers on Iran’s nuclear programme ended with no progress.
The Bush administration was widely praised for having shifted to a more conciliatory stand — namely, by allowing a US diplomat to attend without participating — while Iran was castigated for failing to negotiate seriously. And the powers warned Iran that it would soon face more severe sanctions unless it terminated its uranium enrichment programs.
Meanwhile India was applauded for agreeing to a nuclear pact with the United States that would effectively authorise its development of nuclear weapons outside the bounds of the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), with US assistance in nuclear programmes along with other rewards — in particular, to US firms eager to enter the Indian market for nuclear and weapons development, and ample payoffs to parliamentarians who signed on, a tribute to India’s flourishing democracy.
A War of Self-Destruction
August 4, 2008
Chris Hedges on the consequences of an attack on Iran.
 |
| AP photo / Hasan Sarbakhshian |
| Iranian protesters burn a U.S flag in a demonstration marking the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. |
An attack on Iran, which Israeli and Bush administration officials appear set to carry out if Iranian uranium enrichment is not halted, would ignite a regional war in the Middle East and lead to economic collapse and political upheaval in the United States.
“In short and simple terms, we would be plunged into a depression that would make the Great Depression of the 1930s in which I spent my childhood look like boom times,” said William R. Polk, former professor of history at the University of Chicago and a member of the Policy Planning Council under President Kennedy. “Industries would fail, banks would collapse, government revenues would dry up, universities would have to close, health care, even as limited as it now is for roughly 75 million Americans, would virtually cease. In short, something like [what] the South suffered at the end of the Civil War would plague the country.”
The passage of vast amounts of oil and liquefied gas through the Persian Gulf would be disrupted. Iranian attacks, carried out with rocket- and bomb-equipped speedboats and submarines, would be deadly and effective. A classified Pentagon war game in 2002 simulated these swarming attacks by Iranian speedboats packed with explosives in the gulf; the Navy lost 16 major warships, according to a report in The New York Times. Iranian oil, which makes up 8 percent of the world’s energy supply, would instantly be taken off the market. And oil would jump to over $500 a barrel and perhaps, as the conflict dragged on, to over $750 a barrel. Our petroleum-based economy would come to a halt.
The Mearsheimer and Walt Effect
July 30, 2008
In just two years John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have had more of an impact on the debate over US Middle East policy than the so-called Left has in the past twenty (Mostly because with few exceptions, the left studiously avoids specifics in favour of dogma-sanctioned generalities; slogans and rhetoric in place of analysis). The space that they have created has not only empowered others to speak out, but has also put enough heat on the lobby that some of its erstwhile fellow-travelers feel compelled to decry its excesses, if only to make its influence sustainable over a longer term. So it was that we had Joe Klein — an avowed Zionist, and author of the Clinton election roman a clef, Primary Colors – come out indicting the Jewish neoconservatives with ‘divided loyalties’ for leading US into the war in Iraq. Denunciations were issued from the usual quarters led predictably by the ubiquitous Abe Foxman of the ADL. Klein refused to back down. And now we have one of the war’s boosters, Jeffrey Goldberg, interviewing Klein where despite his generally hawkish Zionist views, he speaks out against the possibility of a new neoconservative misadventure.
Philip Weiss, by far the finest blogger, has already done a fine job of parsing the interview and offering his insights.
Klein and Goldberg Establish Code for Critiquing Neocons’ Religious Agenda: 1, Be Jewish…
Jeffrey Goldberg has a great interview with Joe Klein on his blog, remarkable for a few things. First you see Klein unbound. He’s really smart. He stands by his criticism of Jewish neocons as having dual loyalties and then sounds the realist when he says that Iran is seeking nukes as a deterrent against western threats
I think that my reading on the nuclear issue is, given the level of threats that they’ve been getting from the United States, and from Israel, it’s a logical thing for Iran to want nuclear weapons as a deterrent. I don’t think they’d ever actually use it. First of all, they don’t actually have it, but if they did have it, they’d contaminate at the very least the third most holy site in Islam, and they’d kill a hell of a lot of Muslims.
Brilliant. Klein also opens up the essential conversation that I have been calling for for years, for non-neocon Jews to dime out the neocons’ religious agenda in the Middle East.
Acts of War
July 29, 2008
‘The war between the US and Iran is already on,’ writes Scott Ritter.
The war between the United States and Iran is on. American taxpayer dollars are being used, with the permission of Congress, to fund activities which result in Iranians being killed and wounded, and Iranian property destroyed. This wanton violation of a nation’s sovereignty would not be tolerated if the tables were turned and Americans were being subjected to Iranian-funded covert actions which took the lives of Americans, on American soil, and destroyed American property and livelihood. Many Americans remain unaware of what is transpiring abroad in their name. Many of those who are cognizant of these activities are supportive of them, an outgrowth of misguided sentiment which holds Iran accountable for a list of grievances used by the U.S. government to justify the ongoing global war on terror. Iran, we are told, is not just a nation pursuing nuclear weapons, but is the largest state sponsor of terror in the world today.
Much of the information behind this is being promulgated by Israel, which has a vested interest in seeing Iran neutralized as a potential threat. But Israel is joined by another source, even more puzzling in terms of its broad-based acceptance in the world of American journalism: the Mujahadeen-e Khalk, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group sworn to overthrow the theocracy in Tehran. The CIA today provides material support to the actions of the MEK inside Iran. The recent spate of explosions in Iran, including a particularly devastating “accident” involving a military convoy transporting ammunition in downtown Tehran, appears to be linked to an MEK operation; its agents working inside munitions manufacturing plants deliberately are committing acts of sabotage which lead to such explosions. If CIA money and planning support are behind these actions, the agency’s backing constitutes nothing less than an act of war on the part of the United States against Iran.
Christian Zionists target Iran
July 26, 2008
A Brazen Evil
July 22, 2008
Benny Morris argues for nuclear genocide against Iran.
Once Zionism tried to hide its original ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Then Israeli historians such as Ilan Pappe and Benny Morris uncovered and published the facts. For men of integrity such as Pappe, these facts made it impossible to identify with the Zionist narrative. For men of no integrity, on the other hand — men such as Benny Morris — the facts made it necessary to justify ethnic cleansing, if committed by Jews. In A Brazen Evil Justin Raimondo condemns the further moral degeneration of Morris as he calls for an American attack on Iran.
Evil usually hides its face, because the sight of it repulses all but the depraved. However, in the case of Benny Morris, writing in Friday’s New York Times, we see something new: a proud evil, glorying in pure malevolence. His piece is a cold, calculated attempt to simultaneously shock and intimidate, one that succeeds at the former but fails miserably at the latter.
Here’s the shocker, really a double jolt: “Israel,” he avers, “will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months.” Either that, he writes, or else Israel will eventually have to launch “a preemptive nuclear strike.” His message to the West: take out Iran, or we’ll nuke ‘em!
The Israelis have been threatening to strike for the past six months, so nothing new there, except for the tone of certainty. Morris is no fringe nut-job flailing away on his obscure blog; he’s a prominent Israeli historian writing on the most noted opinion page of them all, a veritable bulletin board for governing elites worldwide. As such, he is almost certainly speaking with some insight into Israeli government plans. It is, in any case, almost inconceivable that he wrote his piece without the foreknowledge and consent of Israeli government officials.
Coercive ‘Diplomacy’ – Prelude to War
July 20, 2008
‘Don’t be fooled by Washington’s diplomatic overtures to Tehran‘, writes Justin Raimondo. And I must admit, I share his skepticism.
The conventional wisdom is that the US government is taking a new tack when it comes to confronting the Iranians. As a recent piece on Breitbart.com – and dutifully posted by Matt Drudge – put it:
“The Bush administration is changing course on Iran in its final months. The hope is that engagement can jolt a stagnant effort to resolve concerns about Tehran’s disputed nuclear program where war drums could not.”
This is flat out wrong. The war drums are still belting out a martial ditty, albeit accompanied by a “diplomatic” chorus. To get closer to the truth about what is really happening on the front lines of our latest Middle Eastern crusade, take a look at this Washington Post report on the same “diplomatic” dog-and-pony show:
“With negotiations now a real possibility, the Bush administration, which had largely subcontracted the nuclear diplomacy with Iran to its European partners, also appears intent on making sure that Iran hears its voice directly, rather than having it filtered by other interlocutors. … U.S. officials wanted to ensure that the preliminary talks did not veer off course and lose sight of the suspension demand.”
The Europeans, who tend to resent Washington’s unbridled arrogance, don’t want a war that would wreck the world economy. They can’t be trusted to deliver our intended message to Tehran: surrender or die. This is just foreplay – if such a thing can be said of an intended rape – and White House spokeswoman Dana Perino didn’t try very hard to put a good face on it:
“The substance remains the same, but this is a new tactic. What this does show is how serious we are when we say that we want to try to solve this diplomatically.”
Candidates Punt on Iraq-Israel
July 19, 2008
Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern discusses his recent article on the probable Israeli/U.S. attack on Iran, Israel’s need for new war in Iran to keep the U.S. military in the Mideast due to the failure in Iraq, the outspokenness of the military brass against an attack on Iran, AIPAC’s drafting of the new Iran war resolutions, Bush and Cheney’s loyalty to Israel, the never-ending conflicts created by the Israel occupation of Palestine, the need for the American people and Congress to understand the catastrophe that would ensue from attacking Iran and the urgency of impeachment.
Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years – from the John F. Kennedy administration to that of George H. W. Bush and is a co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
Obama’s Brave New World
July 18, 2008
Ray McGovern on The Real News: Is Obama realistic about pulling troops out of Iraq and will he face up to ‘big oil’?
Pepe Escobar on Obama’s speech on Iraq and Afghanistan
Obama, McCain Allergic to New Iraq Reality
You say you expected more rhetoric than reality from Senators Obama and McCain yesterday in their speeches on Iraq and Afghanistan? Well, that’s certainly what you got.
What I find nonetheless amazing is how they, and the pundits, have taken such little notice of the dramatic change in the political landscape occasioned by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s bombshell on July 7 — his insistence on a “timetable” for withdrawal of US troops before any accord is reached on their staying past the turn of the year.
Responding to a question at his press conference yesterday, President George W. Bush showed that he was vaguely aware that the timetable is, as Robert Dreyfuss says (in Truthout, July 7), a “big deal.” Bush even alluded haltingly to the possibility of extending the UN mandate still further.
Israel’s War with Iran
July 17, 2008
James Petras on ‘The Zionist Power Configuration in America and Israel’s War with Iran‘.
“My strong preference here is to handle all this (US conflict with Iran) diplomatically with the other powers of government, ours and many others as opposed to any kind of strike occurring…From the US perspective, from the United States military perspective in particular, opening up a third front (Israeli and/or US act of war against Iran) would be extremely stressful to us.”
– testimony of Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, July 2, 2008.“If Iran continues its nuclear arms program – we will attack it. The sanctions aren’t effective. There will be no choice but to attack Iran to halt the Iranian nuclear program.”
– Shaul Mofaz, Israeli Minister of Transportation in Yediot Ahronot , June 6, 2008.“The present economic sanctions on Iran have exhausted themselves. Iranian businesspeople who would not be able to land anywhere in the world would pressure the regime.” Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, speaking to US House Speaker, Senator Nancy Pelosi in favor of a unilateral, pre-emptive US naval blockade of Iran.”
– Haaretz, May 21, 2008.“It was a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organization (AIPAC), the most powerful group in the US Israel lobby, had never seen anything like. Seven thousand Jewish functionaries from all over the United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington elite. The three presidential hopefuls (Hillary went too) made speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. Three hundred senators and members of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wanted to be elected or re-elected to any office came to see and be seen.”
– Uri Avnery, London Review of Books, July 3, 2008, page 18.House Resolution 362 received unanimous support from all the Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations including the 7,000 delegation attending the AIPAC Conference in Washington DC on June 2-4, 2008.
“Resolution 362 became our chief legislative priority.”
– according to AIPAC’s website, June 4, 2008.“The President should prohibit the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products imposing stringent inspection requirements in all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo ships enters and departing Iran.”
– US House Resolution 362 introduced May 22, 2008.Resolution 362 gained 170 co-sponsors or nearly 40% of the House and 19 co-sponsors in the Senate in less than a month.
