On the evening of February 3rd,
Piers Morgan of CNN was interviewing the unorthodox Republican presidential
candidate, Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is, as everyone knows, an outspoken antagonist of
big government and global interventionism. He is against “undeclared” wars,
such as America’s assault on Iraq and Afghanistan, and unlike his Republican
rivals on the campaign trail, he is strongly opposed to a potential American
military attack against Iran.
Ron Paul’s position regarding the
Iranian issues has been unabashedly expressed by him before and during his
campaign as a presidential candidate. He does not believe that Iran is actually
on the way to developing atomic weapons, and that Iran would be a threat to
Israel, the region or the United States. He also has said that we should not be
surprised by Iran's nasty reactions to the threats of regime change and
military attack, as well as actual acts of sabotage and assassinations
committed or otherwise aided and abetted by the United States and Israel.
Piers Morgan pressed on rather
belligerently by asking Ron Paul about the merits of a preemptive attack by
Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities. He had further buttered up that question
by commenting, among other thing, that the Iranian President had already
declared that Iran aimed at wiping Israel off the face of the map.
Congressman Paul, a man who is
not known for eloquent spontaneity or debate skills, struggled to wedge his
fragmented responses through the barrage of interruptions by the clearly
irritated host, by pleading to be allowed to complete his sentences. He started
by commenting that Ahmadinejad had never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the
face of the map, and that the statement was a distortion created and
perpetuated by our own media. He further explained that both the Israeli and
American top security officials, as well as the IAEA people, do not believe
that Iran is developing nuclear weapons or posing a threat to anybody.
Well, the frustrated Piers Morgan
had simply done what he was supposed to do, and having carried out his duty,
secured the continuation of his tenure as the host of that CNN evening program.
The day before, MSNBC, supposedly
the anti-FOX, "liberal" station, showed its true colors again, when
the morning anchor on the Morning Joe program, Joe Scarborough, was
prompted, as though on cue, by his sidekick, Mika Brzezinski, to comment on
Iran's nuclear threats. Joe was clearly waiting for that signal, and entered
into a totally non-sequitur commentary on the dangers and the unacceptability
of a nuclear Iran! He talked about the dangers to not just Israel, but to
Europe and the United States. He further pointed out that if Iran were to
acquire nuclear weapons, an arms race would ensue in the region by the Arab
regimes who are wary of Iran's ambitions. Why did Joe Scarborough feel obliged
to make statements like that?He did the
same thing a few weeks ago, and I commented on it in one of my previous articles quoted below:
This portrayal has been aimed
principally at the American people through the endorsement of America’s mass
media and the entertainment industry, as well as through the influence and
money of the Zionist groups and lobbies that affect political campaigns and
their outcome. In other words, as long as the American public remains convinced
that this “friend and ally”, this imaginary beacon of democracy and Western
values, is in danger of annihilation by the evil “mullahs”, the Congress has no
problem passing any resolution to accommodate Israel’s wishes and demands, with
the Executive Branch forced to oblige or face public condemnation. Even the
supposedly anti-FOX, liberal-leaning MSNBC morning anchor, Joe Scarborough, has
to casually and very as-a-matter-of-factly refer to Iran as the real threat to
the world, as he did the morning of January 6th in order to keep his job on the
network. I have no doubt that this former congressman and John Wayne imitator
knows better!
In the face of this
well-orchestrated, nonstop, media frenzy, is it any surprise that over 50% of
Americans, as the surveys show, would support a preemptive attack on Iran.
Let us also keep in mind that the
annual AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington, is to be held March 2-4, where
all the bigwigs of our government bureaucracy will be attending, as they do
every year, to pledge their unwavering support and allegiance to the Zionist
state.
Again, ask yourselves, Why?
These are especially sensitive
times, considering the presidential elections here, as well as in the Islamic
Republic of Iran, . President Obama has, realistically speaking, no choice but
to appear as tough or tougher against the Zionist-created enemy, Iran, when his
Republican rivals, excluding the one and only Ron Paul, vow to attack that
country if elected. Doing otherwise would be tantamount to committing political
suicide. Obama's position on Syria is no different.
From the other side, we have just
heard Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamaneh'i, declare for the first time
in his latest State of the Republic address, that Zionism is a cancerous tumor
that must be removed (my direct translation of his Farsi text).
Now let us see what purpose such
hostile rhetoric by both sides actually serves or is intended to serve.
Ignoring for a minute the
overzealous media's agenda-driven interpretation of what James Clapper had
meant to say at the Senate Committee on January 31st, below is an excerpt from
his remarks:
The man in charge of all of America's intelligence
gathering testified today before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
for the annual Worldwide Threat Assessment. The following are excerpts from
National Director of Intelligence James Clapper's prepared remarks as provided
to ABC News.
On Iran: We Don't Know If They'll Go for The Bomb,
'Concerned' About Attack on U.S.
"We assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop
nuclear weapons, in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better
position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not
know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.
Iran nevertheless is expanding its uranium enrichment capabilities, which can
be used for either civil or weapons purposes."
"Iran's technical advancement, particularly in uranium
enrichment, strengthens our assessment that Iran has the scientific, technical,
and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons, making the
central issue its political will to do so. These advancements contribute to our
judgment that Iran is technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium
for a weapon, if it so chooses. We judge Iran would likely choose
missile delivery as its preferred method of delivering a nuclear weapon… Elite
infighting has reached new levels, as the rift grows between Supreme Leader
Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad."
What that all means is that Iran
could, possibly, embark on developing nuclear weapons capabilities, if Iran
chooses to do so. Daa!!!! Well, a fertilizer plant can also produce ammonium
nitrate in quantities and forms that could create huge explosions that might,
if positioned properly, potentially destroy an American aircraft carrier in the
Strait of Hormuz, if the plant managers decide to do so!
Should the Israelis or the
Americans be concerned about that, too? Is this really a cause for alarm?
So, what is truly the reason
behind all the war rhetoric?
I continue to hold the position
that the charade, as I continue to call it, is to keep Iran as a perceived
threat to Israel and now to the United States as well, for the following
reasons:
1- Israel will continue to
benefit from all the economic, diplomatic and military support from the United
States, with American taxpayers' support and the automatic endorsement of the
US Congress.
2- The Arab oil states,
supposedly threatened by a hostile, nuclear armed Iran, will remain compliant
to American demands, and as military budget shortcomings may require, shall
purchase tens of billions of dollars worth of American or Israeli arms to
better defend themselves. Incidentally, Mr. Scarborough should differentiate
between the Arab regimes and the Arab nations when he states that they are wary
of the dangers of a nuclear Iran and might start an arms race. First of all,
the Arab regimes he refers to do not share those views with the Arab nations
they lead. Secondly, why did they not embark on an arms race when Israel, their
true nemesis, started developing its vast nuclear weapons industry?
3- If Iran's possible or
potential goal is to someday acquire nuclear weapons capability, it would be
abundantly more logical for that capability to serve only as a deterrent
against threatening enemies, rather than as an offensive tool, which would
result in Iran's own total destruction. If it is the proliferation of nuclear
arms technology in the region that is viewed as the main concern, it would be a
lot easier to monitor those Arab regimes over whom we do have almost
unchallenged influence and to prevent that from becoming a problem.
4- I therefore conclude as I have
done many times in my past analyses that an Iran portrayed as a great threat to
the strategic Middle East, to Israel, and now even to the United States, serves
the purpose quite adequately. The American public opinion has been successfully
brewed to fall for that narrative.This
is something that a compliant Iran or an Islamic Republic perceived in good
light would not provide. And, as an added bonus, all the negative portrayals
and threats against the Islamic Republic help exacerbate the internal problems
within Iran, which strengthens the position of Iran's own hardliners and helps
validate those negative portrayals - a true vicious circle!
5- Finally, why start an actual
costly war with all its likely horror and devastation to all sides, when the
mere threats of war and saber rattling could accomplish the objectives?
I still maintain that the
pressure on Iran will relent when Pakistan replaces Iran as the region's pariah.
REFLECTIONS ON OBAMA'S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS
January 25, 2012
Less than half of the Americans who had watched last Sunday's elimination pro-football games, also watched the State of the Union Address by President Obama, and so did I, with great anticipation.
I knew that, as it is customary, foreign policy issues would be left to the end of the speech just before "Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America."
Obama delivered, in my opinion, one of the best State of the Union speeches I can recall. But that's not how he started out. Soon after he started out he declared, "We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world."
I do have a problem believing that claim- I've been around, you know! There is indeed a big difference between respect and fear. Listening to the Republican candidates' bellicose chest thumping on the debate stage one gets the distinct impression that to some people fear is synonymous with respect. But I don't believe Mr. Obama thinks that way; at least I hope he does not.
The President did finally get to the foreign policy issues. I was quite concerned as to how he would approach the subject, particularly when it came to the Iran issue. This is an elections year and the public has been amply saturated with anti-Iran sentiments and well primed to accept the Iranian "threat" as real and deserving of America's serious response. While his Republican rivals, specifically Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney (let's ignore the pipsqueak American ayatollah, Rick Santorum), are gung-ho to start bombing Iran, how could anyone expect Obama to shy away from similar bombastic remarks?
Here is where Obama's genius shone through. No, he did not shy away from making equally boisterous threats against Iran, but with a telling and quite significant caveat. He said, "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal." (My emphasis)
Please note that in spite of all the hype about the threats by Iran of closing the Strait of Hormuz, which the Administration had warned would trigger a US response, no mention was made by the President of this "red line". No mention was made, either, about a blockade against Iranian oil exports through the Persian Gulf, an act that Iran had declared would lead to Iran's attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz, even though the issues of an oil blockade and the promised Iranian response would have been the main triggers for a military action by the United States based on the "no options off the table" phrase!
Well, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency and all other intelligence sources and experts in the field, there is no evidence that Iran's legal nuclear enrichment and research activities are aimed at developing nuclear weapons; not yet, anyway.
The Iranian government has also declared repeatedly that its nuclear enrichment and research operations are peaceful and within their rights as signatories to the Non Proliferation Treaty, which the nuclear-armed Israel has refused to join.
So, as long as there is no evidence to the contrary, President Obama shall have no reason to opt for any military action against Iran, regardless of what options remain on the table. That's good!
Of course, that's not to say, should the shifty-eyed Romney or the charlatan Gingrich somehow end up in the Oval Office, that bombing of Iranian strategic targets would begin. Unlike their colleague, Rick Santorum, both these men do have the brains to differentiate between campaign rhetoric and realities on the ground.
Am I an incorrigible optimist? Perhaps I am. But, at least based on my track record, you'd better pray I am right this time, too!
I BEG TO DIFFER!
IS IRAN REALLY IN THE CROSSHAIRS?
I Think Not.
January 6, 2012
Kam Zarrabi
Ever since the establishment of the Islamic revolutionary regime in Iran thirty-two years ago, and especially since the harsh rhetoric spewed by George W. Bush during his State of the Union address in 2002, in which he portrayed the Islamic Republic as a member of the Axis of Evil, "containing" Iran and expending efforts toward a regime change by any means short of a direct military engagement with Iran have been the officially expressed policy of the Unites States.
This is not to say that the threats of a preemptive military attack against Iran's infrastructure, military installations and nuclear operations' facilities by the United States or the Israeli regime have not been flooding the mass media on a regular basis, creating anxieties that a new war front might be opened, this time against a country three times the size of Iraq and much better equipped to defend itself. The policy of "Dual Containment" whose architect, Martin Indyk, a staunch Zionist, became Bill Clinton's Assistant Secretary of State on Middle East affairs, was carried over after Iraq's demise as the main policy toward Iran during the presidency of George W. Bush, and remains basically in effect to this day.
In the meantime, various overt and covert acts of interference, sabotage, assassinations and outright terrorism against Iran, aimed at damaging and crippling the government in the hopes of creating instability and encouraging a public uprising against the regime have been ongoing. Dissident groups within the country, mostly the members of the former upper crust, the intelligentsia, and the urban youth, were targeted for support and encouragement to rise up against the regime, demanding democratic reforms that, if successful, would limit the clerical power and dominance and bring about a more pliable and less confrontational political atmosphere in Iran.
Promoting democratic reforms, freedoms of expression and other grand and noble liberal ideals by a foreign superpower that regarded the Islamic Republic of Iran as a threat to regional and even international peace and stability was rightly viewed by the Iranians with great suspicion. America's open support for the so-called Green Movement, pro-democracy activists and proponents of the "velvet revolution", after the disputed 2009 presidential elections in Iran, was also interpreted as America's ploy to plant a Trojan Horse inside Iran in order to exploit the situation. This seemingly brash and thoughtless support for the anti-regime movements did prove counterproductive by tainting an arguably meaningful opposition movement and discrediting it as a tool of foreign, anti-Iran, propaganda campaign. But was this really a "thoughtless" act, or was it actually intended to damage the image of the reform movement?
In spite of all the propaganda rhetoric, there is realistically no sign that the increasingly harsh unilateral economic sanctions imposed by the United States against the Islamic Republic would inflict the death blow to the Iranian regime, this time either.
In short, none of the measures adopted by the US administration to effect a meaningful movement toward a regime change or a softening of the defiant stance in Iran have been successful. But all those efforts have indeed resulted in a very predictable series of developments, most of which appear clearly to have been counterproductive for the objectives officially expressed by the US administration. Again, does the United States, or Israel for that matter, truly want to change Iran's defiant and supposedly threatening image? Think about it!
Now, here is the question: Is it reasonable to consider the policy makers at the highest levels of the Administration as a bunch of incompetent fools who are incapable of formulating foreign policy decisions that could be fruitful? I am not talking about the sleazy bunch of lobby-selected members of Congress who mole their way into the various strategic committees of the House or Senate. After all, what can one say about a body where nutcases like Rick Santorum could find a seat in the US Senate, or where seditious slaves of the Israeli lobby are found at the House or the Senate committees dealing with issues in any way connected with Israel's strategic interests. These lawmakers sit and pass resolutions that serve the interests of their master, even if in direct conflict with the interests of their constituents who had sheepishly voted them into office.
Fortunately, it is the Executive Branch that is responsible for implementing these resolutions, and the Chief Executive does have a degree of leverage in exercising that authority. It is here, at the executive level, that foreign policy decisions are finally crafted and executed. Here is where, I believe, people in charge do know, or must know, what to do and have a clear view of the consequences of what is to be done. The Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of State, the President himself, and sometimes even the Vice President, do make mistakes and miscalculate, but they are by no means imbeciles or maniacs. They do understand what the realities are, even though, due to various political constraints, they might not be capable of implementing the policies that they believe to be in the best interests of the nation. Why is it so? Read on:
The American democracy, as imperfect as it is, has given the citizens the right and the ability to choose their leaders, albeit in a confusing fog of propaganda, misinformation and disinformation when it comes to anything outside of the nation's geographical boundaries. As we have seen during the current Republican campaigns, all the competitors, with the exception of Ron Paul, have gone out of their way to kiss up to Israel and show their readiness, even anxiousness, to start bombing Iran if elected President. The intellectually immature zealot, Rick Santorum, honestly believes what he says; he might even believe that Earth is flat and that dinosaurs walked hand-in-hand with man in peace and harmony before they were corrupted by the Moslems and became carnivores! But the likes of the chief charlatan, Newt Gingrich, or the shifty eyed, Mitt Romney, must know better but feel they have to appeal to the mindset of the gullible lot they address during their campaigns to get their votes. I just wonder what Gingrich or Romney say in private, or when not connected to a mike, about the "danger" Iran might pose to United States, or their true feelings about Israel. We have had a glimpse of Bill Clinton and Barak Obama's views about the Israeli leadership! Gingrich, in public and on the microphone addressing his followers at the end of the Iowa caucuses stated that the United States must stand by and support Israel for "moral" reasons. This coming from a man whose moral and ethical pedestal he stands on is shorter than a micron, is indeed a joke!
The Republican lot has been accusing the Administration of not being hard enough on Iran. The Congress passed a new resolution that the President signed into law on December 31st. This National Defense Authorization Act also deals with the imposition of a radical new sanction on Iran's Central Bank, which under internationally recognized norms, is tantamount to a declaration of war!
As part of the ongoing dispute over Iranian uranium enrichment, section 1045 of the NDAA imposes unilateral sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran, effectively blocking Iranian oil exports to countries which do business with the United States.[37][38] The new sanctions impose penalties against entities -- including corporations and foreign central banks -- which engage in transactions with the Iranian central bank. Sanctions on transactions unrelated to petroleum take effect 60 days after the bill is signed into law, while sanctions on transactions related to petroleum take effect a minimum of six months after the bill's signing.[38] The bill grants the U.S. President authority to grant waivers in cases in which petroleum purchasers are unable, due to supply or cost, to significantly reduce their purchases of Iranian oil, or in which American national security is threatened by implementation of the sanctions.[38][39]"
It is the section I have underlined and highlighted that is the bone of contention between the Republican presidential hopefuls and President Obama.
In the domain of public opinion, Obama must also walk the tightrope. He must appear as tough and unbending on Iran as his Republican opponents, while making sure that all the deceptive and the agenda-driven prefabricated rhetoric doesn't really get out of hand and lead to a calamity.
The people in the know in the Administration do not want a war with Iran. Neither do the decision makers in the Israeli administration, in spite of what the thug, Netanyahu, says publicly to appease his own people. The Iranian government is certainly not looking forward to a military entanglement with anybody, Israel or the United States, which would doubtless result in its total devstation.
On his part, the Iranian "Supreme Leader", Ayatollah Khamaneh'i, is also playing a moderating role between the extreme right hardliners and the reform minded moderates. He also has to publicly appear uncompromisingly tough against the United States and its threats on one side, and the secularist moderates who look toward a rapprochement with the United States and who might potentially capitulate prematurely, on the other. He also has a "public mindset" to cope with. Both the Obama administration and the Iranian leadership have been playing their roles rather well, considering the circumstances where an unwanted accident could ignite an unstoppable hellfire.
The Iranian administration, in the face of undeniable evidence to the contrary, does not officially blame the United States, Great Britain or the Israelis for the acts of terrorism and sabotage and assassinations in Iran in order to keep the public's understandable rage and demands for reprisals under control. In the United States, scenarios like the Iranian used car dealer from Texas and his FBI mole in a Mexican drug cartel supposedly planning to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington are also kept from gaining undue attention in the public domain for the same reasons.
Now the bottom line; this is what I believe:
A. Regarding Iran:
1- Suspicions and accusations against Iran regarding its nuclear projects and the desire for nuclear weapons development are not based on factual evidence, but hyped to serve other purposes.
2- Even if Iran were to acquire the “ultimate” weapon, it could only serve as a defensive tool or a deterrent against a massively armed enemy.
3- It would not serve Iran’s interests in any conceivable way to initiate an attack, with or without atomic weapons, against Israel or any other US ally anywhere in the world.
4- Western threats, sanctions and antagonisms have had the effect of bolstering the Iranian regime’s resolve to remain steadfastly defiant, have legitimized the hardliners’ position and weakened the efforts by the reformists to make any headway toward an opening to the West.
B. Regarding Israel:
1- Regardless of all the rhetoric coming out of the Likud regime, Israeli administration is fully aware that Iran is not an “existential threat” or likely to initiate an attack against the Jewish state.
2- Under increasing pressure by the international community to accommodate the Palestinians’ legitimate demands for statehood and to resolve their grievances, etc., Israel needs and fully depends on America’s diplomatic support and veto power in order to avoid making any concessions or compromises unless in its own terms. Israel also depends on America’s financial and military support to retain its unchallenged status as the region’s superpower.
3- In order to enjoy America’s unquestioned and unequivocal support for its policies and agendas, Israel has managed to portray itself as America’s true friend and ally under the threats of annihilation by evil neighbors and their chief supporters, Syria, and the monster Iran!
4- This portrayal has been aimed principally at the American people through the endorsement of America’s mass media and the entertainment industry, as well as through the influence and money of the Zionist groups and lobbies that affect political campaigns and their outcome. In other words, as long as the American public remains convinced that this “friend and ally”, this imaginary beacon of democracy and Western values, is in danger of annihilation by the evil “mullahs”, the Congress has no problem passing any resolution to accommodate Israel’s wishes and demands, with the Executive Branch forced to oblige or face public condemnation. Even the supposedly anti-FOX, liberal-leaning MSNBC morning anchor, Joe Scarborough, has to casually and very as-a-matter-of-factly refer to Iran as the real threat to the world, as he did the morning of January 6th in order to keep his job on the network. I have no doubt that this former congressman and John Wayne imitator knows better! (Regarding liberal versus conservative voices in the American media, let's not kid ourselves; there ain't no such animal. Only rags like the Nation or Mother Jones and a few other obscure publications are perhaps the remaining faint voices of true liberalism, and they have to print their few pages on recycled toilet paper due to a lack of public support.)
C. Regarding the United States:
1- It would take politically motivated charlatans, evangelical zealots or supporters of Zionism here to not acknowledge that our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan were ill advised and total failures as far as America’s interests were involved. For those who want to follow the steps that finally led to those military operations, please check out the following websites: A Clean Break, and PNAC, and here.
2- America’s public mindset is the product of the affluence and honest, non-skeptical or innocently “believing”, atmosphere created through the successes of the consumer-based capitalist economy that has only recently faced any serious challenges. Money or capital rules the system and the system has been working elegantly, making it unnecessary and in fact almost unpatriotic to question those perceived moral, ethical, and democratic values in which average Americans pride themselves.
3- It is exactly this lack of skepticism in a democracy that allows for propagandists with their own ulterior motives to pollute the public domain with their agenda driven misinformation, which when unchallenged for a time, becomes the accepted narratives and conventional wisdom.
4- Yet, America as a true global superpower does have strategic interests in vital areas of the world, not least among them the Middle East with its vast energy resources, which deserve realistic appraisal and handling. Even though America’s imports of oil from that region amounts to about 10% of its total crude imports, having control over the production, pricing and allocation of the Middle East crude plays an important role in America’s management of the world’s economic balance of power.
5- To preserve America’s strategic interests, the Administration must engage in a delicate balancing act to do what must be done and, at the same time, appear to not be violating what the American public perceives as what should be done! Against all odds, in my opinion at least, Obama has succeeded thus far. As I have mentioned many times before, creative, positive hypocrisy is the indispensible tool of statecraft.
We have seen how the deadlines for a preemptive attack on Iran by the United States or Israel have repeatedly been breached and the goal posts moved further ahead almost on a regular basis. We have seen how “crippling” sanctions imposed on the Iranian economy and international trade have proven rather less than crippling. And the game goes on and on.
In the meantime, the threat of a potentially catastrophic and counterproductive war with Iran looms greater and greater on a near horizon. Organizations dedicated to opposing these looming threats have devoted their websites to campaigning against a war with Iran. Some are clearly opposed to Iran’s current regime but feel that a war against the Iranian nation is not the right thing to do and, instead, better results could be achieved through more severe targeted sanctions and support for democratic movements and human rights within Iran. Some, on the other hand, do not view the Iranian regime as the evil depicted by the Western media, and blame the US media and the Administration for hyping Iran’s so-called nuclear ambitions and threats Iran poses to the world as pretexts for a military attack upon Iran. Still others attempt to defuse the threats of a military attack against the Islamic Republic by publishing a comprehensive array of articles on the subject on a daily basis. And there are anti-war websites that oppose any military adventurism against Iran or elsewhere for pragmatic, as well as ideological, reasons.
What is shared by all these organizations, however, is the belief that there exists, in actual fact, some concerted effort, indigenous, as well as through Israel’s influence, to drag the United States into a war against the Islamic Republic, or at least allow the Israeli’s to take on that job with America’s blessing and support.
Here is why I beg to differ!
1- As we have already witnessed many times in the past decades, whenever it was rightly or wrongly perceived by the United States that attacking another country was necessary, the mission was carried out without hesitation or regard to international laws or global opinions.
2- If the United States truly felt that attacking Iran would be beneficial for America's strategic interests in the Middle East, there have always been enough concocted pretexts to justify such an attack with the blessings of the American public. All polls show that a majority of Americans do regard Iran as an evil enemy and would not object to a preemptive attack if such action were presented in the context of national defense.
3- If the United States truly believed that imposing economic sanctions and even embargos and blockades against the Islamic Republic would bring about any desired results, nothing could have stopped the Administration to go all the way, rather than implement half-ass measures that only have the appearance of seriousness, with enough escape holes for Iran to wade through.
4- If the Israelis truly believed that attacking Iran would safeguard them from the "wrath of the Ayatollahs", they would also have done that, knowing full well that, whether the United States approved of such action or not, they would have the full support of America's military and diplomatic power.
5- Finally, when mere threats of war are accomplishing the objectives, whether desirable or by default, it would be plain stupid to engage in an actual costly war.
To further elaborate on this last point, I invite the readers to visit my website and read the last few articles. I also elaborated on this issue in the "Conclusions" section of my recent book, IRAN, Back in Context.
My conclusion:
No, there is NOT going to be a war on Iran and there never was a serious consideration by the Administration to attack Iran preemptively. And here is where I have always disagreed with my anti-war colleagues who have so feverishly warned us about the efforts underway to drag us into such a war.
I have also disagreed with the Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist and whistle blower, Seymour Hersh, every time he warned that, based on his solid information, the attack on Iran was imminent and would take place before such and such a date. He, as many others, seem to have finally tired of making such predictions.
That is not to say that an outbreak of war would be impossible, but it is highly unlikely, and could only occur by accident or ignited by some rogue elements in the region. This is why a hotline connecting the militaries of Iran, Israel and the United States is a vital necessity and, I believe, such a hotline does exist despite the denials by all sides.
IRAN REMAINS THE MAIN TARGET OF
THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES' TELEVISED
DEBATES ON FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES.
December 12, 2011
Watching and listening to the roster of Republican Party candidates for the presidency of the United States debating matters of foreign policy should bring tears to the eyes of any sane adult. Who comprise this rather strange menagerie; how could they be best described?
Contrary to the conventional wisdom, a politician's campaign strategy in not to educate or reveal to the public what he or she honestly believes to be the best policies for the administration to adopt. No; the politician's aim is to woo his or her constituents by gauging their beliefs and emotions and catering to their mindsets in order to gain their votes. So, if you are a politician running for the mayor of a small town in the perfectly flat plains of rural Kansas, by golly, the earth is flat and there ain't no two ways about it!
By the same token, how could a politician running for office as a conservative Republican candidate not act hawkish and belligerent toward the issue of Iran? Some of our War Party candidates must know better, but choose to appear aggressively enough hawkish in order to compete with the others on national TV. Some are basically illiterate when it comes to international affairs, but feel the pressure and swim with the prevailing currents. Others suffer from deep religious or other prejudices and cannot see beyond their myopic, intellectually sophomoric beliefs.
In the roster of our Republican candidates there are two who actually do not fit the mold: Ron Paul, the Libertarian, actually calls it as he honestly sees it and is not willing to sell out his integrity. He doesn't have to, since his chances of becoming the Party nominee is less than nil. Jon Huntsman, is the only other candidate who does not seem to belong with that egocentric, sleazy bunch. He chooses his words carefully enough to not upset the voting audiences, and yet measured enough to not sound as a stupid warmonger like his rivals. In a recent interview with Farid Zakaria on CNN, his response as to how he would treat Iran's nuclear dilemma was very cautiously and intelligently diplomatic. He said if we find that we cannot live with a nuclear-armed Iran, then he'd take all the necessary steps...... The key word was "if". In other words, Mr. Huntsman does leave room for the possibility of "living with" a nuclear Iran, and doesn't reject that possibility out of hand as do his rivals. Unfortunately, the likelihood of his nomination in the primaries is perhaps even less than that of Ron Paul.
The chief charlatan among the rest of the group is Newt Gingrich, rising in the polls and overtaking Mitt Romney, at least for now. Oh, he's the consummate politician: he is brilliant, he is a master hypocrite, he exaggerates, lies and distorts as he deems necessary, and above all, he lacks, or can easily turn off, any sense of honor and ethics to achieve his objective.
Regarding Iran, he has stated that he would overtly engage in a range of covert terror operations to bring down the regime by any and all means available, as long as we could maintain a necessary degree of deniability! So, this unabashed jerk would break the international law, the United Nations charter and even the American law, and violate America's own constitutional principles, as long as he could get away with it by plausible deniability!
To make himself an even more ominous anti anything Iranian or Islamic, he has already picked the Zionist slave, John Bolton as his running mate. I am sure his pick for the Secretary of State would be Dennis Ross, and perhaps William Kristol of the Weekly Standard as the White House Press Secretary!
What is even more troubling is that 'the Newt' says out-loud what his competitors think but are not as outrageously frank to verbalize.
Newt's closest rival is Mitt Romney, who prides himself in being a "businessman" and not a career politician. Much as did the now dethroned pizza king, he thinks his successes in business vouch for his ability to cure the nation's and even the world's economic ills. Both he and the absent minded Texan, when he doesn't have his foot in his mouth, have repeatedly pledged their support for the Zionist lobby, which is without doubt an absolute must for any politician who runs for any office in these United States, and have promised to deal with Iran in the strongest possible terms if elected.
Poor Iran!
Then we have the cry baby, Rick Santorum. Oh, he was so visibly hurt when, during a televised debate a few months ago, Ron Paul mentioned something to the effect that perhaps we could put some blame on American foreign policies for the acts of terrorism aimed at us. His voice crackling and appearing so pitifully sad as though his pet canary had just died, his innocently superficial sense of patriotism could not allow him to accept such remarks. He could not even conceive of a case where America would act with any motives other than the most righteous, honorable and noble. The always somewhat sad looking Rick, however, never objected to Newt's recent remarks about engaging in illegal, unethical and un-Christian acts of sabotage, assassinations and terrorism in Iran, as long as we could lie and deny we were engaged in such acts! Where was your sense of Christian righteousness, Mr. Santorum, when it came to dealing with Iran?
Last but not least is the original Tea Party favorite, Michelle Bachman. Aside from her controversial and rather bizarre positions on homosexuality, what stands out when you think about her continuously more dismal presence in the candidates' roster are: she hates the "Obamacare" and she is running for the presidency of the Unined States as she pronounces it, not the United States, of America. Her foreign policy credentials and her knowledge of the Iranian issues rival those of Sarah Palin and the discredited pizza man.
Finally, how much better off will we be in a second-term Obama presidency?
When it comes to dealing with Iran, the Administration, whether Democrat or Republican, remains under the thumb of the Zionist lobby's all pervasive influence; the Republicans eagerly, and the Democrats perhaps begrudgingly.
Obama at least has managed to "keep all options on the table" and not allow those option to leave that table by tilting the pot without allowing the beans to spill over. His latest posturing was asking Iran to return the top-secret American spying drone that was captured by the Iranian military inside Iran. There must be some dry humor in this!
Obama administration is, of course, no less indebted to the Zionist lobby's influence and money. Joe Biden played his expected role diligently from the very beginning when he announced during a visit to Israel that, even though he wasn't Jewish, he remained a staunch Zionist to the core.
In my analysis, as long as the indoctrination of the American public to overtly or subliminally favor any policy that supports Israel's agendas remains effective, no candidate for presidency or a congressional seat could break this bond and survive. Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton know it, and so do the potential nominee of the Republican Party. The motto of candidates for office in the United States should be summarized as, In God We Trust, and On Zionist Lobby's Support We Depend!
Since it is clear that a war with Iran would not be in anyone's interest, the hope is that the charade of threats and saber rattling will continue to appease the gullible public and allow Israel to reap the rich harvest with the blessing of American taxpayers, and this way, avoid an expensive and counterproductive new military involvement with potentially catastrophic global blowbacks.
Might the secret American high-tech spying drone recovered inside Iran be a modern Trojan Horse that could pave the way to opening the gate of behind-the-scenes negotiations between Tehran and Washington? Or do you actually believe this scientific marvel simply malfunctioned and landed safely and without any visible damage in the wrong place? If you do, you must be a Nintendo or Play Station addict.
THESE ARE SENSITIVE TIMES
FOR RESPONSIBLE CRISIS MANAGEMENT
My new book, IRAN, BACK IN CONTEXT, available through Amazon and Xlibris.com can also be purchased directly from me, with an added bonus. I have prepared a pdf file format text of this book on a compact disc, which included numerous additional photographs in full color, for those who are able to open the file on their computers.
To order a signed copy of the book, plus the bonus CD, please send your remittance of $25.00, which covers the cost of Priority Mail, to:
K. Zarrabi
TUNDAR
110 W. Yankie Street.
Silver City, NM 88061
Also note my recommendation of a recent book under "Reading" PLEASE NOTE THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF MY NEW BOOK UNDER "ANNOUNCING" BUTTON
A NUCLEAR-ARMED IRAN
A BLESSING IN DISGUISE
11/11/11
They say if god didn't exist, we'd have to invent him.
I was actually shocked when I saw the news on my laptop about the casual exchange between Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama in Cannes, France, over microphones that were inadvertently left open. Sarkozy tells Obama, "I can’t stand to see him anymore, he’s a liar.", referring to the Israeli PM Netanyahu; to which Obama responds, "You are fed up with him, but me, I have to deal with him every day."
I was shocked not because I was surprised to hear the honest feelings of two among most global leaders regarding the Israeli Prime Minister, but because, when it comes to news about the Jewish state, the American and European media are usually extremely careful not to reveal anything that might blemish Israel's pretty face. But, here it was; what many already knew but weren't supposed to talk about was suddenly out there for the world to see.
But the world did not, and will not, get a chance to hear any in-depth review or analysis of the potential implications or ramifications of that exchange. The event has already been pushed under the rug and damage control, both here and in Europe, is underway. The supposedly free and uncensored Western media have thus far only tangentially glanced at the topic with bemused, dismissive casualness of discussing, say, Mr. Obama's efforts to quit smoking or how some bimbo celebrity was dressed at the Country Music Awards event!
We are being bombarded with the alarming news of possible Israeli and/or American military attack on Iran and potentially opening the gates of Hell in the process. We are talking about another step closer to a WWIII if the crazies are allowed to implement their objectives. As the global economy nears potential collapse and socioeconomic chaos seems to be spreading out of control, the prospects of another war in the Middle East should be taken more seriously than even the earth shaking news about the Pizza Man's sexual misadventures some twenty years ago, or Rick Perry's not remembering the third federal department he'd eliminate as the President.
Does Veterans Day mean anything anymore? Is going to another war, bloodshed and mayhem just another source of entertainment, like the Tonight Show or Monday Night Football, in the media's mind?
The increasing intensity of steps currently underway to create the groundwork in the public domain to initiate a war with Iran is strangely taking the back seat to Penn State sex scandal and Mat Lauer's globetrotting adventures. All this, while the media hype about Iran's nuclear ambitions and the West's reaction could lead to a global catastrophe more horrendous than Vietnam. Remember, it's Veterans Day!
Does this make any sense?
There's little doubt that Israel is the actual ringleader or master manipulator behind the big hype about Iran, and Netanyahu's bark is getting louder about Iran's alleged nuclear bomb projects and the need to eliminate that possible threat by preemptively bombing Iran's strategic targets.
So, what's really going on here? To answer that question, let's start with another one:
What is the best thing that could serve the agendas of the Likud-led Israel?
Answer: A nuclear armed Iran, in actual fact or perceived as fact!
I am not the only one who thinks that the threats of regime change and military attacks against Iran during the past decade have been giving the Iranians more reasons and justifications to beef up the nation's defenses and even to acquire the technology needed to create the ultimate deterrent, the nuclear weapon. Most impartial observers in the field are of the opinion that the Iranians are still in the process of acquiring that technical knowledge, with so far no assurance that the regime would actually embark on developing the bomb.
The most recent IAEA report is no more than a slightly modified, politically motivated repeat of the previous series of allegations of maybe, could be, perhaps, and other less-than-concrete statements, where the interpretation or conclusion by any observer depends entirely on the observer's own motives and agendas.
Again, I am far from being the only analyst who believes that, should Iran ever manage to obtain or manufacture a nuclear device, it would only serve as a deterrent. It would not be to Iran's advantage in any conceivable way to initiate an attack on anyone, near or far, with or without a nuclear capability. And that includes attempting to wipe Israel off the face of the map, a phrase that was cunningly and deviously attributed to the Iranian President Ahmadinejad a few years ago, an absolute lie that has now been established as a historical truth, like so many other so-called undeniable truths that have wormed their way into our untouchable historical archives.
It seems as though the nonstop allegations, accusations, sanctions and threats were designed to push the Iranian regime toward procuring nuclear capabilities and, at the same time, empowering the hardliners within the Iranian government to impose stricter controls against any internal opposition that seemed potentially likely to weaken the regime. This combination of imageries assured the success of the portrayal of the Islamic Republic as a dangerous, unpopular rogue state that aimed at destabilizing the oil-rich region for gaining control over the industrial world's bloodline, oil, and ultimately pushing the West's only vanguard or sentinel, Israel, into the sea.
The Israeli regime has been, and continues to be, benefiting from this charade. And as long as this portrayal of Iran remains at play in the public domain in the United States, the American Congress and the Executive leadership see clear sailing, albeit begrudgingly (hence Obama's comments to Sarkozi about Netanyahu), in accommodating the Israeli demands in exchange for the support of the powerful Zionist lobby and its vast tentacles, come election times.
No doubt Israel is facing hard times. It is increasingly isolated and mistrusted globally, its manipulated (by the United States) alliances with Egypt and Turkey are rapidly breaking up, and its image as a ruthless apartheid regime that remains in violation of international law and the UN Security Council resolutions is not helping it either.
The only thing that is helping the Jewish state stay afloat is the financial, military and diplomatic support by the United States through a parasitic relationship that is gnawing on the host and benefactor.
Interestingly, and as expected, no matter what the Israeli regime does that raises the ire of the international community, the negative global reaction is taken by the Zionist mind as yet another proof why Israel, in dire straits, deserves more friends and assistance. This reminds me of the oft repeated anecdote about the Jewish boy who kills his parents and demands mercy because he has been orphaned!
Quoting LA Times: Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, faulted the president for not disputing the claim that Netanyahu is “a liar.’’ “President Obama's response to Mr. Sarkozy implies that he agrees with the French leader,’’ Foxman said. “In light of the revelations here, we hope that the Obama administration will do everything it can to reassure Israel that the relationship remains on a sure footing and to reinvigorate the trust between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, which clearly is not what it should be.’’
Back to the topic; initiating a new war in the Middle East is quite clearly to nobody's advantage, not even to Israel's, and definitely not to America's. But how do we avoid getting into this catastrophic mess in the face of the unrelenting barrage of hostile rhetoric, fabricated stories of assassination plots and baseless IAEA insinuations against Iran?
I submit that the only way to prevent the lit fuse to reach the powder keg is to assume that Iran already has the dreaded nuclear weapons and the capability of launching them aboard their successfully tested missiles.
We are actually pushing the Islamic Republic in that direction and we have been doing that for some time. If we drag our feet and continue playing this cat and mouse game a little longer, as we are actually doing, it would give Iran enough time to at least appear as though the goal has been achieved.
The benefits of a nuclear-armed Iran
1- First of all, a nuclear capable Iran would not benefit in any conceivable way by using this weapon to initiate any aggression regionally or globally. The worst case scenario would be if Iran might use this deterrent capability to engage in other types of regional adventurisms with greater impunity. That possibility, however remote, leads us to the next point:
2- Our clients Gulf states, supposedly fearing Iran's emboldened ambitions, will be sold tens of billions of dollars worth of American made arms, mostly outdated or obsolete stuff, and technical assistance to protect themselves against their big, powerful neighbor.
3- Large scale sale and shipment of arms to the Arab regimes would automatically force the US Congress to approve increasing military, financial and diplomatic aid to the Israelis to "defend their lives" by maintaining Israel's military superiority against the combined forces of the entire Arab states.
4- Furthermore, under such circumstances, it would appear increasingly "unfair" to press Israel to bow to international pressures to compromise anything toward the settlement of the Palestinian grievances and other illegal or inhumane activities.
5- Israel would no longer be expected or pressured into disclosing its own nuclear arsenal or to join the IAEA, and the whole concept denuclearization of the region would become a moot point, especially when there is actually no likelihood of ever implementing such program on a global scale.
6- With an already nuclear-armed Iran, there would no need to continue ever harsher economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic, as the main purpose and justification for the imposed sanctions was to prevent Iran from accessing the nuclear weapons.
7- That would open the door to a rapprochement with Iran, which would reinvigorate Iran's economy and boost its trade with the West, particularly the United States, and channel much of Iran's resources and markets away from the East and toward the West.
8- The normalization of relations with the West, particularly with the United States, will undoubtedly lead to a moderation of the current "state of emergency" antidemocratic internal policies in Iran, and tilt the scale in favor of reform oriented, more secular liberal elements, a much anticipated and long awaited social evolution.
So, why not?
DOGS OF WAR BARKING AGAIN
November 3, 2011
October is over and the sky hasn't fallen on Iran as yet. Once again the advertised deadline has come and gone and the goal posts moved back for the next "imminent" threat by Israel or its surrogate ( the roles are now reversed ), the United States, to launch a preemptive strike against the Islamic Republic.
But wait! The Israeli paper Ha'aretz is reporting that Prime Minister Netanyahu has begun, again, to push the Knesset to approve attacking Iran's nuclear facilities before the cloud covered winter skies over Iran would make the task more difficult; which means within the next few weeks! Meanwhile, the British paper, the Guardian , is reporting that Great Britain, another Israel surrogate, is preparing their armed forces for possible military action against the Islamic Republic. The United States is now "officially" showing concerns that the Israelis, having just successfully tested their nuke-capable long range (to reach Iran, that is) ballistic missile, might just take the initiative and strike Iranian targets rather than wait for the newly reinvigorated American imposed sanctions to work.
Should one ever wonder how it is that a state known for aggression against its neighbors, which possesses nuclear weapons and has just tested its long range missiles, is allowed to threaten another regional state with no record of aggression or the proof of possession of such weapons, and do so repeatedly with impunity, as well as with our complacency?
Now, that should scare the daylights of the Iranian regime and, hopefully, force the ayatollahs to trade in their turbans and robes for suits and ties and go hide somewhere and wait for the sons and daughters of Kurush the Great to hand over the nation's destiny to their former masters on a silver platter.
Wishful thinking or daydreaming? Once again, Yes. My friends, this ain't part of the plot!
Remember, whenever the pit-bull, Netanyahu, ratchets up the threats of attacking Iran, unilaterally if need be, something else is going on behind the scenes, or right up front, if we are talking about that small pie-slice of the public that is endowed with IQs above two-digits. This gangster is up to something again; he wants something and, the American public can bet their bottom tax dollars that he's going to get it.
The State Department or the Pentagon is not really "concerned" that the Israelis might strike at Iran preemptively and drag American armed forces into yet another disastrous quagmire on the eve of pulling out of the previous one in Iraq. No. The whole charade is about convincing the already well primed American public that the poor, defenseless "Chosen People" must be supported and sheltered in the face of a persistent "existential threat" posed by the only remaining member of the "Axis of Evil!"
By the way, the phrase Axis of Evil was coined by one, David Frum, another darling of the Zionist camp, Benador Associates, for George W. Bush's State of the Union address in 2002.
Anyway, the game plan calls for providing Israel with whatever, and however much, in economic, military and diplomatic aid that the Unites States could possibly afford, regardless of how that might affect America's legitimate interests in that region. Israel has never stopped, and is in the process of redoubling its efforts, to expand its illegal housing projects in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel is also about to increase its barbaric military operations in the blockaded and starving Gaza, as the world is watching powerlessly, thanks to the United States veto power in the Security Council.
So, the recent muscle flexing by Netanyahu, as convincing as it is to scare the American public into believing that another costly war might lie ahead, is no more than another ploy by the Jewish state to extort America's endorsement for its illegal and brutal activities, all with the blessing of the American Public - it is the elections times, don't forget.
The clearly phony allegations and the seemingly amateurish plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in DC by the Iranians, which we were all told amounted to a declaration of war and deserving of the most serious retributions against the Iranians, have also fizzled out without even a whimper. What remains of the initial saber rattling by the President and his Secretary of State is the imposition of more economic sanctions against the "enemy", this time supposedly even more "crippling", but actually designed to be as ineffective as the previous menu of sanctions against the Islamic Republic.
Whoever concocted that ridiculous assassination scenario, or for whatever reason, didn't leave any alternative for the Administration to respond in the initial bellicose manner - it's the elections season, don't forget! In times like this, who'd want to appear less "patriotic" than the Republican candidates, the Tea Partyers or their supporting chorus of evangelical radicals?
But while these hyper-patriotic, God-loving and Christ-worshipping hypocrites dance on the stage in front of Fox News spin artists, the Administration has to indulge in a high wire trapeze act, appeasing the gullible public, while engaging in the fine art of "Realpolitik", trying to keep the Titanic from colliding with the iceberg.
What do you truly want President Obama to do? No; really!
The poor fellow has been, and continues to be, albeit somewhat more subtly, accused of being a Moslem! Look up the word 'accuse' in your dictionary. He has defended himself, I suppose you might say he had to protect his honor, by denying the accusation and proclaiming his true Chrisitianness many times! Why did he have to bow down to the inquisitors by acting so sheepishly "unpresidential"? One should wonder if we are in fact living in a secular democracy, or are we deluding ourselves when we talk about the separation of church and state in our thoughtlessly routine vernacular. Could a self-proclaimed atheist, but otherwise a highly qualified person, ever succeed in running for the office of the President of the United States, or for any other state or local office, in our country? But those who do succeed all wear suits and ties - or fashionable dresses, as the case might be.
When the current Republican front-running candidate, the Pizza Man, Herman Cain, sings (he actually sounds half-way decent as a singer) at the Press Club about how Jesus loves him, or how practically every other competitor invokes Jesus and prides himself or herself as a strong Christian and a person of deep faith, it's all very fine and dandy. But somehow it seems barbaric, archaic and downright "unmodern" when the Iranian leaders or politicians recite verbiage from their Holy Book and call on Allah for support. I guess when you are wearing a suit and a tie or a fashionable dress, your faith or religious devotion is simply another attribute you can add to your qualifications as a national leader. Not so with a turban and a cloak or with a face unshaved or without tons of makeup!
The political chess game between the Islamic Republic of Iran and its Western antagonists, meaning basically the United States and Israel, is an ongoing process until, as I have tried to explain in my previous essays, a diplomatically face-saving way is found to shift the pole of the Axis away from Iran and onto Pakistan. Even though the Iranian government has openly refused the offer by the US to open a line of communication between the two states to prevent an accidental mishap, such as might have occurred as a result of the prefabricated assassination plot, there is little doubt that channels are already being established.
We really don't need Mr. Farid Zakaria to point to the need for more open dialogues between the two states. From Beirut, Lebanon, he wrote that column making statements of the obvious. When he's back in his chair at CNN on Sundays, he sounds quite "patriotic"! Some time ago, I called him a bottom-feeding catfish who was doing everything to rise to the top of the food chain of journalism. Well, he's made it; now he is appropriately a chameleon, changing his colors and tone to fit the time and place. That's OK, too.
As the subtitle of my new book, Iran Back in Context, says, the place I visited was "a Land and a People Seemingly Immune to Fear and Unfazed by Threats."