Recent Items

Objective of US and Israeli Policy is Economic Warfare Against Iran

Posted on by

Right after 9/11, Iran went out of its way to be helpful to the US, to the point where Stratfor regularly wrote about “the coming US-Iran alliance”. This interview with Gareth Porter discussed the current state of play in US relations with Iran, and discusses how the negotiations with Iran over its enrichment program look increasingly like cover for a an economic program designed to weaken Iran.


More at The Real News

Print Friendly
Twitter20DiggReddit0StumbleUpon0Facebook15LinkedIn4Google+0bufferEmail

72 comments

    1. American Slave

      And lets not forget how cheap gas has become after we attacked Iraq and Afghanistan I mean its so cheap right now that I Just dump fuel on the side of the road because I don’t know what to do with it. Im sure an attack on Iran would make gas even cheaper there’s no doubt about that especially with tar sands in the mix.

  1. Conscience of a Conservative

    There should be no argument that Iran has been progressing on enrichment front and building the capability for both creating and delivering a nuclear weapon. It should also not be open to question that the Iran has a less than benevolent role in Lebanon and the violence there that is often directed at Israel.
    On the U.N. front one has to question their committment and ability to deliver peaceful solutions. We see that they have failed repeatedly to broker any type of solution with Syria, and worse yet previously admitted that country to both its Security council and to its human rights committe.
    The only legitimate question here is does taking military action on Iran’s growing nuclear abilities justify the cost and if there are other ways of dealing with the threat. It’s not entirely clear that Iran would want to make good on this threat or to use it when bullying it’s allies, etc. It’s also possible that missile shields may be a more effective solution, as a military strike might only buy a few years time.
    When one hears the saber rattling coming out of Iran, its bankrolling and training of Hezbollah and the translated statements coming from its leaders, one can’t be hopeful here.

    1. Conscience of a Conservative

      The world needs to better with its carrot and stick. For instance Russia could be harnesse here, and in exchange for dropping its nuclear ambitions promise greater buying of Iranian oil or an agreement to build an oil refinement facility which would counter the Iranian argument that they need the nuclear power plant for domestic power (e.g. electricity).

    2. bob

      “There should be no argument that Iran has been progressing on enrichment front and building the capability for both creating and delivering a nuclear weapon”

      Having a nuke is the only thing that stops the US from bombing “evil” countries. See “Pakistan”, or “North Korea”. Great incintive structure.

      “On the U.N. front one has to question their committment and ability to deliver peaceful solutions”

      One letter wrong, with the whole paragraph… U.S. not U.N.

      “When one hears the saber rattling coming out of Iran, its bankrolling and training of Hezbollah and the translated statements coming from its leaders, one can’t be hopeful here.”

      Where does one hear the “sabre rattling” coming out of Iran? I hear much more coming out of the TV, by the US, and by conservatives extremists both here and there. Can’t you guys meet somewhere in the desert for a wedding?

      The US has spent much more time and money setting up and bankrolling extreme groups in the ME.

      Why can’t one be hopeful? Is that against the law now too?

      The “fox news” false dichotomy of the last decade, wrapped up in the “logical” cost argument-

      “The only legitimate question here is does taking military action on Iran’s growing nuclear abilities justify the cost and if there are other ways of dealing with the threat.”

      1. digi_owl

        Well as long as there is/was a al-quaida/taliban threat in Afghanistan, pakistan functions as a good guy.

        In essence, international politics has its own theory of relativity.

        1. tom allen

          “a al-quaida/taliban threat in Afghanistan”

          Would you mind telling us what this threat is? Are a few hundred loosely organized radicals about to take down the entire USA? Are al-Qaida leaders, even assuming they’re competent enough now to pull them off, restricted to Afghanistan? And is Pakistan at all willing or capable to stop the Taliban?

          You do know that Pakistan and the Taliban are buddies, right?

          http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/story/2012-06-05/ieds-pakistan-taliban-afghanistan/55409724/1

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/9314319/Pakistan-and-Taliban-acused-of-poisoning-Afghan-schoolchildren.html

    3. James

      Actually, nearly all of the saber rattling in the world today originates in one place: Washington D.C. and it’s associated power centers NYC and London. And the motives are completely transparent to anyone who isn’t asleep or on drugs. World domination and the imposition of the rapacious casino capitalist industrial and economic model. And it’s working pretty well so far, although I’d be hedging for the long term – if there is one.

      1. Expat

        Very succinctly put. And the situation will continue until we of the 99% create a countervailing force to keep these rascals in check. Jail time for billionaires, anyone?

        I would note, on the nucelar side, that now that we’re post-Fukishima, a nuclear weapons program is superfluous. All you have to do is threaten to turn the cooling system off at your giant nuke plant and you (should) have the world’s greatest powers begging to negotiate. Of course, this would be a Doomsday scenario, but so is any nuclear weapons exchange.

    4. stopped & frisked

      Strike. Na Ga Happen. Last time the Lady Liberty attacked Iraq, she got her tit caught in the international law wringer. Remember that? Biggest naval battle since WWII? God Bless America invoked UN Charter Article 51 on self-defense, and the International Court of Justice laughed it out of court? Meaning the US had breached the international legal imperative of pacific dispute settlement.

      This time, the world has Rome Statute Article 9 bis criminalizing aggression. And legal precedent makes it clear that crimes committed with impunity now can be prosecuted later, when the world is ready. Congress has been very careful to stay off the criminal-aggression hook. They are happy to let President Obama hold the bag. Think he’s man enough to face his day in court, and make his case? Does he have the stones of a Liddy or a North? The question answers itself. No strike.

      Enjoy your breakout, Iran. Enjoy your deepening alliance with China and the SCO. Enjoy America’s long slide to uggabugga 3rd-world atavism.

      1. OpenThePodBayDoorHAL

        Best. Comments. Ever.

        Hilary said that a a cyber attack by one nation against another was “an act of war”. That means the US has already carried out an unprovoked act of war against Iran (and others). Now it seems the UN High Commissioner has finally found some stones himself and is investigating if/how/whether God/Obama’s drone strikes are completely illegal.
        Probably won’t amount to anything except in the dustbins of history. Don’t expect Bush/Cheney/Obama/Holder doing any perp walks anytime soon. But “the truth will out” eventually, and reveal the US as the uber-evil empire of all times. Quite a change from when we liberated the world from Hitler and Tojo’s maniacs. Killing one al-qaeda and ten of his family and neighbors with a $2 million missile does not make America safer. Neither does borrowing $435 million apiece for a new fighter jet that is virtually *useless* against our so-called “enemy”.

        1. Goin' South

          “Hilary said that a a cyber attack by one nation against another was “an act of war”. That means the US has already carried out an unprovoked act of war against Iran.”

          Silwy wabbit. Don’t you know the fundamental principle of international law?

          IOKIYM.

          It’s OK if you’re ‘Murca.

    5. jsmtih

      To carry over and apply my comment from yesterday:

      If you are an American citizen and actually think that Iran and/or ANY OTHER assorted “terrorist” group is a viable threat to the United States, you are a fucking idiot.

      Period.

      If you believe any shred of any part of the War on Terror narrative – from the offical story of 9/11 on down – you are even more of fucking idiot than a person believing that there’s just no more money left in the U.S.

      Seriously, it’s embarrassing having to listen to my fellow citizens happy-talk their way into even deeper debt slavery but to watch them swallow the elite’s propaganda turning them into fearful murderers, torturers and thieves is beyond conscionable.

      Again, if you believe in the War on Terror, you are a fucking idiot.

      So when a politician tells you that there’s no money left for your survival realize that EVERY WORD coming out of his mouth is bullshit.

      When a politician from ANY country tells you that we have to fight evil scary “terrorism” realize that EVERY WORD is a lie.

      The U.S. and Israel are the largest threats to peace the world has seen in over 60 years.

      1. jsmith

        This was supposed to be its own post not a response to COAC who – although a seemingly brainwashed and misguided mouthpiece for the empire – I was not specifically responding to.

    6. exomike

      Conscience of a Conservative wrote:
      “There should be no argument that Iran has been progressing on enrichment front and building the capability for both creating and delivering a nuclear weapon. It should also not be open to question that the Iran has a less than benevolent role in Lebanon and the violence there that is often directed at Israel. etc. Bla, Bla, Bla.” ad nauseam…

      “Conscience of a Zionist” would be more correct except that “Zionist Conscience”, would be an oxymoron.

      Amazing this comment would be written the day after the 45th anniversary of the Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967 and by someone calling themselves “Conscience of a Conservative”. One Irony here is that the cover-up of the Liberty Incident in involved none other than Admiral John McCain the father of Conservative Senator John “Songbird” McCain a current pro Zionist war monger.

      Another Irony is that Israel is sitting on 300+ modern deliverable nukes and is now arming their new German Submarines with nuclear tipped missiles and has a leader with Messianic delusions and is enough of a Sociopath to use them. Who says Netanyahoo [sic] has Messianic delusions? The goddamn entire Israeli intelligence community, that’s who!

      See: The USS Liberty Incident — Truly a National Disgrace By Sidney O. Smith III
      http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2009/08/the-uss-liberty-incident-truly-a-national-disgrace-.html#more

      The entirety of the U.S. and Israeli intelligence communities agree that everything you “know” is wrong. How can you send email out from under that rock when no information can get in.

      1. Nathanael

        There are several possibilities with the “rogue state” of Israel:
        (1) They use common sense and don’t start an international war.
        (2) They start a conventional war, but have the sense not to fire nuclear weapons. They get worldwide condemntation, lose, and after sufficient atrocities, are obliterated by one of the regional powers or perhaps one of the Great Powers.
        (3) They are insane enough to use nuclear weapons. Russia — after notifying the US of their intentions and receiving agreement (which Russia would!) — bombs the entirety of Israel into a smoking pit within a week, just to make sure they don’t try it again. This would be very sad for everyone living in the area.

    7. Doug Terpstra

      Dick Cheney, is that you?

      “There should be no argument…”
      “It should also not be open to question…”
      “The only legitimate question here is…” when do we start shock and awe?

      Well, alrighty then, without a doubt it’s a slam dunk. Couldn’t you work in the specter of a mushroom cloud in there somewhere?

      Your handle is typically oxymoronic. Conservative with a conscience? Please.

    8. steelhead23

      So, tell me, if Iran is a warmonger, who exactly has the State of Iran attacked in say the last 20 years? Exactly nobody. Yes, Iran’s rhetoric is scary, but I have long assumed that such belligerence is aimed at placating internal militants and developing national pride. Yes, Iran should be watched, but this attempt at isolation is misspent. If Iran does develop nuclear weapons (and I think that is likely) it would be far better to be on friendly terms with them as if they remain isolated they may feel more unity with the real crazies in this world (e.g. N. Korea) and could aid in proliferation rather than work against it. It is time to be smart, rather than aggressive.

  2. Charles Frith

    Israel is the loose nuclear cannon in the middle East. We need to muzzle the dog.

    1. Conscience of a Conservative

      And there would be peace in the Middle East if Israel were not there…..

      1. proximity1

        You”retort”, “And there would be peace in the Middle East if Israel were not there…..”

        That’s supposed to mean what? That since, in any imagined absence of “Israel” absence, we cannot reliably posit that peace would “break out”, we’re supposed to therefore take Israel and all that goes with it as some sort of necessary ‘given-fact’ or fatalistic fact of world affairs?

        That people of conscience are supposed to passively accept the horrors that Israel perpetrates just because, as you imply, “if” ‘it (i.e. ‘Israel’) weren’t “there”, there’d still be no assurance of “peace” in the “Middle East” is not just rubbish, it’s vile rubbish that plays apologetically for the continuation of systematic murder and oppression.

        We might further apply your pseudo-logic and reveal it for what it is —

        I guess you might, by the same token, object (as do (or have done till recently) the Chinese and Russians:

        “And there would be peace in the Middle East if Bashir al-Assad were not there…..”

        or likewise with the regime in Burma, or any other bunch of corrupt, illegitimate occupiers of power.

        1. Conscience of a Conservative

          what’s going on in internally in syria has nothing to do with israel, nor the civil war that occure in Lebanon, nor the iraqi attack on kuwait, while israel made peace with egypt and jordan. the point is with all the craziness in the middle east and if you include the larger region, the internal struggles in egypt or what’s happened last year in iran as part of the arab spring..all this had nothing or very little to do with israel, so the original statement was nonsense.

  3. HEY YOU

    If Isreal uses nukes, they had better hope all the nuclear fallout stays inside Iranian borders.If not those down wind might not be happy.

    1. hespeler1

      Never mind Israel using nukes, the bombing of a reactor would be worse. This does not seem to be part of the gov. and media narrative of warmongering, but nonetheless would be an atrocity of staggering proportions

  4. James

    Jeez, the American Christian-Jewish alliance conspiring to wage war on another Islamic country that just happens to occupy strategic real estate as well? Who’d a thunk? Isreal’s a cancer imposed on the middle east due to US/European WWII holocaust guilt. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and now we’ve got a perpetual Hatfields and McCoys drama playing out on the world stage with nuclear weapons thrown in just for fun. Of course all of it is just play acting at the power broker level to accomplish larger strategic goals. The masses do like their dramas before they rubber stamp global wars of imperialism, now don’t they?

    1. Richard Kline

      So James, couldn’t agree more. US policy on Iran is Imperialism 101, without morality or even functionality in the real worls sense; not even realpolitick. “We can do it, they can’t make us stop.” THAT is the only real driver. Imperialism needs a crippled dog to kick to overawe all the others. We’ve just elected Iran for the role ‘s all. Helps that US policy directors in Israel like it too. Iran’s actions are really _quite irrelevant_ to our policy, we just decided to ‘do them’ for fundamentally irrational and odious reasons. –And if it wasn’t them, it’d be someone else.

      Seriously, blowback is all America deserves from this. Hard to say what happens, other than nothing good . . . .

  5. Paul Tioxon

    Iran is the legacy of the ancient Persian Empire, not Arab or Sunni majority, but Shia minority and allied with Russia. It is 2nd in population, after Eygpt and bigger than Turkey in the Middle East. Iraq may double by 2025 and still have fewer people than Iran does now. And it has a lot of oil and is strategically located to dominate the shipment of oil by land or sea. It is the keystone state of region on many borders. Just as they once were projected to be the US ally and the platform for economic and military domination of the region, in order to create political stability, they are now a disruption to many policies for that region and with Russia, serve to hold in check most any hopes for real influence in the area. Israel is at best a PR diversion. The chances of it bombing Iran are so slim, mainly due to the operational difficulty of flying over Arab states and at too long a distance to effectively conduct air warfare. The planes won’t fly to Iran without refueling and encountering no resistance from anybody. What makes you think Russia won’t blast them out of the sky, much less the Saudis, the Turks, etc etc?

    For the most part, nation against nation full on war is the last policy alternative, not the default hair trigger option. It is too costly to go to war against big countries, such as Iran, so it is better to conduct military hostilities on a smaller scale or even better, cyber warfare, a digital neutron bomb against capacity we would rather the adversary not have, without the death of civilians to be broadcast on CNN, RT, Al Jazeera etc. And then, there is all of that lost business, blown up real estate and other capital investments of the global trade system that I believe the felated banksters and would be fascists would simply clutch their pearls and swoon if they had to watch it all go up in the flames of war. WWII left a really lousy taste in everyone’s mouth over there!

    1. Fiver

      Israel is quite capable of seriously degrading Iran’s program on its own, but in any case, within a day of real fighting, the US is also effectively in, and Iran’s days as a functioning state would be numbered. They are no threat to anyone, weak and, as we all know by now, the object of stated US policy has bee aimed at a State institutions collapse or wholesale regime lift for nearly 2 decades.

      Russia is not going to risk anything for anyone, and the odds that Russia would down an Israeli military aircraft are just about zero.

      Any serious confrontation was put off until next year at the Obama/Netanyahu meeting early in March. If there is no agreed solution by early next year, an absolutely unjustifiable policy of “pre-emptive” war is back on the front burner. Personally, I think Iran wants a deal, and very badly, gut that the real force driving the outcome are the ups and downs of Netanyahu’s megalomania.

      1. Nathanael

        I think you underestimate the geopolitics and the military geography; within a week Turkey would have obliterated Israel.

      2. Nathanael

        And don’t underestimate Russia, which is perfectly happy to throw its weight around. If Israel attacks Iran, I would expect Putin to call the US and tell the US to stay out or risk starting WWIII.

        And Obama is sane enough that he won’t risk WWIII. Heck, even Romney is probably sane enough that he won’t risk it.

  6. Eureka Springs

    Iran has not initiated an attack/war on another country in something like 400 years. The US is a serial global terrorist of the worst order who just can’t stop. Clearly Israel and Saudi want and keep us that way and both parties are more than delighted to maintain a constant red mist.

    The difference between capability of enriching power generation or weapons grade is rather significant. Even the IAEA says Iran is nowhere near weapons grade capability/development. You have to read or listen to actual IAEA reports instead of reading NYT WAPO MSM reporting of the reports to know this. There is no justification for US to lie as we always do when refusing to make this distinction about research, energy levels of enrichment vs. weapons grade.

    It is unfortunate, but we (the US NATO UN) need to stop ourselves… we need to face the fact it is our own who cannot be trusted at all. That should begin with dramatic change in relationship with Israel and Saudi. In my opinion even if that means an end to the dollar… an parallel end to MIC would be well worth it. Especially in terms of US national security over the long haul.

    Frankly considering who were are and what we have wrought both inside Iran since pre Shah days as well as all around Iran active wars and multiple bases with constant surveillance, infiltration and threats…. Iran has demonstrated remarkable restraint and calm.

    1. Nathanael

      It is rare for a deranged empire to stop itself. It is more common for it to be stopped by outside forces.

      Well, to be more specific, the usual pattern is for the empire to get involved in long, bloody foreign wars which it LOSES, but still keeps trying to pursue, and THEN for the empire to get hit with a food crisis at home, leading to a revolution, after which the new leadership turns isolationist.

      That’s a fairly likely scenario for the US — we are already losing the bloody foreign wars and global warming will provide the food crisis if the kleptocratic elite doesn’t engineer one first.

      So I think the big question is who will be the new government during & after the revolution. It could be nice friendly democratic socialists, or it could be fascist thugs, or religious nutcases, or anything else.

      Anyone who does the “bloody obvious” fixes of feeding everyone, giving everyone work, ending the wars we’re losing, and destroying the power of the current financier elite, will be accepted. I hope we can get someone good, but we’re equally likely to get a Hitler unless we do something to prevent it.

  7. Middle Seaman

    Gareth Porter is yet another voice in a sea of “experts” and “knowledgeable” people who for some reason see evil coming from the US. He, like many others including US administrations, fails to see the complexity of the Iran problem. On one hand you a country which cannot be denied the right to even nuclear weapon in the neighborhood of Pakistan, India and Israel, while on the other hand the Iranian regime is authoritarian, meddling in the affairs of other countries and quite deadly.

    Porter also takes a free ride on the old “Israel” is the danger; mind you India and Pakistan the non-country are fine guys. Nice work Gareth.

    1. NotTimothyGeithner

      Saddaam Hussein considered the U.S. and Baathist Iraq natural allies too (a combination of a secular, wishy-washy facist state with decent standards of living and overtures to a sky fairy. What Hussein didn’t understand was the U.S. is bought and owned by the House of Saud. Israel is the red herring. We’ve isolated or actively prevented democratic nation-states from developing (see Egypt under Mubarak).

      A strong, vaguely secular, vaguely Islamic nation-state represents a threat to theocratic house which lords over a population which may get ideas from the millions of pilgrims who arrive every year. The Sauds have the money to buy the necessary people to shape U.S. policy, and the family network dependent on Saudi supremacy for their position which necessitates loyalty.

      1. jsmith

        Nope.

        So, Bill Kristol brags about removing all of the “Arabist” leaders from the Republican party – ie. Scowcroft, the Bush gang, etc – and you think Israel is a red herring?

        http://news.yahoo.com/bill-kristol-purged-arabists-070000542.html

        Either you’re embarrassinlgy misinformed or you’re trying to deflect attention from where it belongs: on Israel.

        So, the reports about every politician being afraid of AIPAC are just fabrications?

        The fact that not a single person votes against/criticizes Israel in the US government ever is a sign that we are really the bitches of the Sauds?

        The fact that we have vetoed how many UN sanctions against Israel and allowed Israeli spies – even nuclear – caught in this country to get off scot free is a sign that we’re run by the SAUDIS?

        So, with the War on Islam – oops, Terror – in which we’ve whipped up hatred over the last decade against a religion that is BASED in Saudi Arabia – that is more evidence that we’re the Saudis bitches?

        Again, either you’re disinformed or an apologist.

        Take your pick.

        1. NotTimothyGeithner

          Israel is still a shit desert country with a few hokey shrines. They have to beg the citizens of another country for their lobbying efforts which pail in comparison to the cash the Saudis hand out.

          I know international Jewry has been the enemy for centuries now (Henry Ford/Central Banks and all that), but the editor of the Weekly Standard just doesn’t hold that much influence.

  8. joebhed

    First, remember it was WE in the US who pushed the Shah into nuclear power, after we had militarily overthrown the democratically elected government of Iran, using OUR Tehran-based embassy to control the operation.

    Second, immediately after the Iranian revolution that took back that embassy for its illegal shenanigans against the sovereign state of Iran, we began our economic sanctions against all of Iranian industry, but especially the nuclear power effort we had begun.

    These sanctions were another violation of Iran’s sovereignty, a violation by the US of Iran’s inalienable rights as an NPT participant.

    This illegal US action is what drove Iran to the nuclear black-market for materials, technology and expertise, bringing them into the circle of Pakistan’s Dr. Gloom.

    Had the US and Britain merely agreed to pay the small tariff on Iran’s oil that Mossadegh had required, rather than decide on an overthrow of the democratic government, the world would be a far different place today.

    International sanctions hurt the ordinary Iranians and neither the power-elite nor the religious leaders really care if those suffering people end up hating the US and Israel for these actions.

    I wish for Iran to end their nuclear energy program, but it is within their rights to pursue this technology.

  9. jsmith

    Mr. Porter and every single other progressive of repute – Chomsky, Hedges, Cockburn, Rall – needs to do a bit more than sit around and tell the American people what should be obvious to all but the most blinded and obtuse: that the War on Terror is a total and complete fraud.

    They need to “put on their big boy pants” and finally initiate a discussion of the day which started this whole murderous bullshit parade: 9/11.

    I mean, if people like Porter really want to get to the bottom of things – and I’ll withhold my cynicism for a second – then they need to start with the horseshit that was shovelled to the American populace beginning on 9/11 and show that the entire litany of murder, torture and theft has been all along based on nothing more than lies.

    Let’s start with Iran and Syria and work our way back in time, labelling what stories the elite have peddled to us that have been discovered to be bullshit – in whole or part – “bullshit”, shall we?

    Iran nukes: bullshit
    Syrian “uprising”: bullshit
    Osama’s death: bullshit
    Qaddafy massacres: bullshit
    Reasons for Gaza War: bullshit
    Underwear bomber: bullshit
    Shoe bomber: bullshit
    Other homegrown “terrorists”: bullshit
    Guilt of Guantanamo prisoners: bullshit
    Toture’s effectiveness: bullshit
    Daniel Pearl: bullshit
    Jessica Lynch: bullshit
    Pat Tillman: bullshit
    Iraq WMD: bullshit
    Reasons of Afghan war: bullshit
    Anthrax villain: bullshit

    There are many many others that people can add but if you keep going back in time you finally get to:

    9/11: the God’s honest truth.

    Now it sure is peculiar that EVERY journalist will point out that EVERYTHING we’ve had to endure in the WOT has been shown to be at best a half-truth, at worst an out-and-out fabrication but NO ONE will question the narrative of the day that started it al, huh?

    The lying just all started on September 12th, right?

    Americans can either keep believing that they need to be cowardly murderers and thieves because of some horseshit story ginned up by the elite or they can finally say enough:

    I sick of being treated like a fucking idiot.

    It’s all lies and all of you leaders are a bunch of goddamned war criminals.

    1. Susan the other

      The quest for control of Caspian oil has a bodyguard of lies. Funny how it is never mentioned. Access to oil in a middle eastern free-for-all, without the control of the US to set the price and dictate allocations, would be disastrous to global stability. “Global stability” is a serious euphemism of course. How do you stabilize 8 billion pissed off people? Well, by depriving them of energy and money. How convenient that there is the perfect commodity to do this. The petrodollar.

    2. Doug Terpstra

      Thanks, jsmith. Always a clear voice of reason, even when using the f-word.

      The lying and murder goes on and on for decades, but the most astonishing part is the abject gullibility of the American people.

    3. Nathanael

      Jsmith: the lying started before 9.11.01.

      Look back to the election theft of 2000. The Iraq war was already being suggested by G. W. Bush’s aides before 9/11 (this is documented), Bush just hadn’t found a way to sell it to people yet.

      9/11 was an opportunity seized upon by the liars, but the rule by liars goes back at least to the election theft of 2000.

  10. ltr

    President Obama’s foreign policy is destructive, illegal or un-Constitutional and immoral. I am appalled.

  11. Lloyd C. Bankster

    This country faces two critical problems which can be summed up as follows:

    1. A budget crisis caused by trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities.

    2. The ticking time bomb of Iran’s nuclear threat.

    The solutions are as follows:

    1. Fire the teachers, and privatize, then eliminate Social Security, Medicare, the Post Office, Public Libraries, etc

    The money saved should go towards the newly created Blankfein/Dimon Job Creator Fund (formerly known as the Banker Bailout Fund), so if you already mailed your check to “Banker Bailout Fund”, don’t worry, it will get to the right people.

    2. Increase defense spending and have Bushbama bomb Iran for the sake of Halliburton, Israel and the military industrial complex, as well as the security and safety of our nation.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3851426890212250833

    1. rotter

      Oh GOOD Show L.B.!! Throw in something about capitlal gains and youve got it all figured out.

      1. Ms G

        You are on a roll LCB. Glad to know my cheque (sent to the Banker Bailout Fund will get to the right people). Phew!

  12. Elbert

    If the Israel Lobby gets America into a war with Iran, it will not be Jewish Americans who bear the brunt of the casualties.

    A Jewish American soldier’s column in the Cleveland Jewish News states: “A significant imbalance exists between the percentage of Jews in American society and that of Jews in the services. Jews are about 1.78% of Americans, but they only represent about 0.2% of the armed forces. There is a cogent argument that military services should proportionally represent the population that they are charged to defend.”

    Read more: http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2009/05/06/opinion/commentary/doc4a01e377b2771537249803.txt

    That means while about 2 out of every 100 Americans are Jewish, only about 2 out of every 1000 troops are Jewish. Among those members of our Armed Forces who actually do the fighting, Jews are even more rare: only .1% of Marines (one in one thousand) is Jewish.

    So, if you are Jewish and want America to attack Iran, ENLIST.

    1. K Ackermann

      I’m just going to say this, and then you can flame me all you want…

      I don’t think identifying a group to take the blame or to deflect to is wise. If American Jews are under-represented in the military, then smart of them.

      You can’t hold American Jews responsible for the sick, immoral behavior of Israel and the US.

      I wish we could discourage everyone from joining the service. If needed, they can have a draft. The US won’t even consider a draft for the kinds of wars we fight now. Every ranking officer would be shot or thrown out a helicopter during their first deployment. Anyone think Patton or Eisenhower would tolerate orders to run drug interdiction with their troops on foreign soil? Or chase fantom enemies? Our military leaders are pussies being ordered around by criminals.

    2. Nathanael

      American Jews overwhelmingly oppose war with Iran.

      Think about it: the craziest of the American Jews mostly moved to Israel, and the sanest of the Israeli Jews have been moving to the US. :-P

  13. Hugh

    The consensus opinion of American intelligence agencies remains that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. So that when Conscience of a Conservative tells us that Iran’s having a nuclear weapons program is “beyond question” what he/she is really doing is blowing smoke and telling us it’s gold. It’s a neat trick if he/she can pull it off.

    We also should take off the rose-colored glasses. Kleptocracy is the dominant political economic system on the planet. It just plays out in different ways in different countries and regions. This overlays religious and ethnic conflicts which various groups have sought to exploit in various regions. With regard to the Middle East and Central and South Asia, oil and natural gas resources critical to the world economy sharpen the potential for conflict even further. And then you have Israel as a kind of bonus complication.

    What this comes down to is that there are only black hats in this region. Iran is run by thugs. B

    1. Hugh

      Sorry this posted in mid-thought.

      Iran is run by thugs. So the US puts regime change on the table. But the KSA, Saudi Arabia, is a far harsher dictatorship than Iran. So US policy is to sell them arms. When South Africa pushed apartheid to the limit and established bantustans, the world, even US policymakers to some extent, protested. Israel pursues the same policies on the West Bank and there are only expressions of support, especially from the US. Israel has 100-200 nuclear weapons, Pakistan ~110, and so of course, US policy is tied up with Iran which has none and does not yet even have a program to make them. Israel and Pakistan are US allies although they constantly subvert and sabotage US policy. Iran is an adversary, mostly it looks like because it is not an ally.

      Iran’s choice of allies is not terribly surprising either. Shia is a minority despised by many of the majority Sunnis. What Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Hezbollah have in common is that they are all run by Shia. And it’s not like Shia fears are misplaced as the brutal repressions in Bahrain (70% Shia but run by Sunnis) showed. These repressions were facilitated by Saudi and UAR troops who piled in and during all this the US which uses Bahrain as the home of its Persian Gulf fleet was particularly lowkey.

      I am just scratching the surface with all this. But US policy in the region was dominated by two considerations, oil and Israel. To this, we can add the War on Terror, although this is mostly used as a generic excuse against anyone US policymakers do not like. But if you look at US policy and look for any coherency you won’t find any. This is especially true if you apply the reverse test to Iran, that is if you considered how Iran would be viewed if it did to us what we are doing to it.

      1. rotter

        “Iran is run by thugs”
        what exactly is a thug? americas rulers arent? so is this a class or race thing? or both? if iran were run by thugs with yale diplomas, would they still be thugs?

        1. Hugh

          Think of a thug as Obama without the three piece suit. Both use violence against their opponents, but Obama is better dressed. /s

          My real point was simply that just because our illegitimate elites have designated Iran as repellent doesn’t mean that A) Iran’s government isn’t repellent or that B) the US doesn’t consider regimes far more repellent than that of Iran friends and close allies.

  14. Sleeper

    Look it is simple -

    We only go to war if oil is involved or in the case of Afghanistan an oil pipe line.

    Iraq – Oil
    Libya -oil
    Somalia – oil
    Iran-oil

    Afghanistan – oil pipe line (projected)

    Note we don’t interfere with other nuke rattling countries -

    North Korea, Pakistan, India, South Africa

    Oh the Washington folks might talk about it but fact is it is about oil.

    And note that we don;t say a word about ugly dictators – Polpot, Syria, nasty little banana republics,and we actually aid murderous drug cartels.

    Sorry folks this is another ginned up crisis.

  15. aeolius

    Sure Iran hates us for backing the Shah. But its longer hate and far deeper is against the Sunni. Can one see their opening to us post 9/11 as anything but a possible way pulling us away from the Sunni AQ?
    I actually have never figured out why Iran is sooo anti Israel. Is it actually pro- Moslem or more anti-US. But in any case I think that the actual reason that Iran feels thsat it needs the bomb is because Pakistan has them. The US has for far too long befriended the Pakis. Probably because military usually feel more comfortable with other military. As long as we tilt toward Pak. Iran will have to oppose us.

    “You can’t really understand Barack until you understand Hawaii.” ~ Michelle Obama.
    IIRC this is the first election where neither candidate had military service. So perhaps following up Michelle we must look at Hawaiian military history to understand Barack’s military mind. Since Andrew Jackson he may be the POTUS who best understands non-traditional war.
    All war is total. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The friend of my enemy is my enemy. The old lady who hides the guns in the daytime and gives them back to fire at us at night should be treated as much of a combatent.
    Obama uses drones and if only civilians are killed we say sorry and maybe pay Weregelt.(The same as any corperation would do in a civil settlement of wrongful death.)

    1. Nathanael

      Iran is not particularly anti-Israel, particularly when contrasted with Israel’s actual neighbors.

      The Israeli government has been an extremely bad actor and very dangerous for the past 50 years, so it is only good sense for any country in the neighborhood to arrange deterrents against them.

    2. Nathanael

      Obama doesn’t understand total war at all, though — he’s failed at the first gate, which is that of figuring out who your enemies actually are.

      (Hint: the Koch Brothers.)

  16. rubensky

    Since Independence, not a single war of the U.S. has been a ‘good’ or “just” one, for moral or humanitarian reasons. All them have been imperialistic agressions against weaker countries, to plunder their riches, or struggles against some other equeally bad empire, using lies and false accusations as a pretext, starting with their invasion of Canada in 1812 and ending with the bombing of Libya in 2011, using as its excuse an imaginary massacre of Gadhaffi opponents in Benghazi. In Iraq 2003 it was Hussein’s WMDs; in Afghanistan, a phantasmal Ben Laden; in Yugoslavia, Serbian death camps; in Nicaragua, Sandinistas planning to invade Texas; in Panama, a trivial drunken brawl; in Granada, university students in danger—which they themselves denied; in Vietnam, imaginary Viet boats firing at US ships. And the list goes on: Mexico in the 1850s, Spain in 1989, etc. Not even WWII was its good war, as the U.S. oligarchy was all for Nazi Germany but Roosevelt preferred to back the decomposing British Empire, and so get the spoils, rather than having to deal with a powerful new German kid in the block. And as Washington had cut off the oil supply to Japan and sent long range B-17s to China and Philipines, all capable of bombing Japanese cities, they left no choice to the—even worse—Rising Sun Empire. As for the Civil war, the North didn’t need any more slaves as it had an unlimited supply of them, immigrants from Europe, for its industrial revolution and it needed anyway the South with its natural ressources (above all, cotton for its textile industry) and its cheap labor.

    1. K Ackermann

      Everything you say is true, except I’d disagree on WWII. We would’ve prefered to stay out of the war… and we did for the first few years, but once in, we were all in, and fought for a better world. You could see it later in the Marshall plan and the trials.

  17. Man+steel

    From the title one might believe that Iran is promoting democracy and free markets while pushing forward its healthcare-focused nuclear research in multiple underground sites only to be bullied for such admirable deeds. In reality, the Middle East arena serves the superpowers to reshape the global economic and military balance. Russia is exploiting past US mistakes by helping Iran, Syria and their proxies. The goal is to pull the US and EU into conflicts, weaken pro-western regimes, push oil prices up and undermine economic recovery and corporate globalization. Egypt and Iraq are already in a transition phase. Syria and Lebanon are nearing chaos which will force/serve as an excuse for other parties to intervene. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states fear change and are actively supporting counter-proxies. Israel fears existential non-conventional threats and instability along all its borders. And, China chooses to buy oil and wait on the sidelines, which is far from assuming a neutral stance under the circumstances. In this context, the US and EU strive for transformation through non-violent means, yet may shift to all-out-war if faced with systemic financial failure. Focusing on US+Israel VS. Iran is misleading.

  18. David

    I must say its remarkable why Iran would want nuclear weapons for any other reason than deterrence, given that the massiv retliation that would follow would truly return the place to the stone age. All this talk of attacking them must be making the acquisition nuclear weapons by Iran well nigh inevitable. Well, shucks another reason to attack them, right? Abject surrender to US corporate interests is the sole goal of the saber rattling.

    1. K Ackermann

      That’s right. When you ask the basic questions and think for yourself, you see it doesn’t add up. You begin to realize the media doesn’t even try to get near the truth… even in code, but in fact are the new useful idiots.

      It’s 1984, and we are waging a war on something called terror. We actually drop bombs on it.

  19. rubensky

    To be fair, I still have to find a single case of a nation, kingdom, empire going to war, in History, simply for moral or humanitarian reasons. The reasons why I single out the U.S. are 1) the U.S. is the present global empire–or at least the wannabe–and so what it does now is part of our reality and we must react to it at least with an opinion and 2) It may be the only empire in Human History that has launched each one of its wars–or at least all those in the modern era–under a false humanitarian or ethical facade (the war on the South was to free the slaves; WWII was fought to save the Jews, preserve democracy, etc). I have seen no other empire in History doing that. Even Churchill was very frank about it and never forgot to mention that his cause was the survival of the British Empire. U.S. presidents, Secs. of State have NEVER had that intellectual honesty.

    1. Man+steel

      Of course, one might consider mentioning Russia as it is pushing its way back into an unstable Middle East; China buying the resources of the world; Europe controlling former colonies; the Saudis buying peace and quiet by sponsoring proxies all over the world; Iran intervening in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, etc.

  20. Nathanael

    Meh. The US is certainly continuing to engage in economic cold war against Iran… but the US has already lost. Everything the US could do has been done and Iran has survived it and figured out how to deal with it.

    Then the US gave Iran two large gifts by destroying Afghanistan and Iraq, leaving them open to become Iranian satellites. Oh, US alienation of Pakistan helps too, as it drives Pakistan and Iran closer together, and they’re traditionally opposed. Bad behavior by the US, Europe, and Israel towards Turkey also helps Iran by driving Turkey towards Iran.

    Iran has won the geopolitical game already, thanks to repeated unforced errors by the US (and Israel and Europe, to be fair) and the US government officials just haven’t noticed.

Comments are closed.