Lamis Andoni says:

'Worry about America, not about Iran'

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/lamis_andoni/2007/10/worry_about_america_not_about.html#more

Lamis says:

“Talk of an American war against Iran has provoked anxiety and uncertainty here in the Arab world, especially in the Gulf Region, Jordan, Palestine, Syria and Lebanon. People are still reeling from the effects of the continuing war in Iraq and the lack of resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.”

You should be worried Lamis. The inmates are in charge of the insane asylum.

Why do Americans irrationally support Israel unconditionally against our own best interests?

See this link for answers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy[1] (a condensed version used the title The Israel Lobby[2]) is the title of a work by John Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, The Robert and Rene Belfer Professor of International Relations at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, that has gone through several versions from 2002 to 2007. The most recent version is The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, a New York Times Best Seller, published in September 2007 by Farrah, Strauss, and Giroux.

The work claims that "the United States has been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state [Israel]", and further that U.S. Middle East policy is driven primarily by the "Israel Lobby," defined as a "loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction."[2]

The authors state that the "core of the Lobby" is "American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel's interests." They note that "not all Jewish-Americans are part of the Lobby," and that "Jewish-Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies."

The paper was originally commissioned in 2002 by The Atlantic Monthly, which then rejected it.[3] It became available as a working paper at the Kennedy School's website in 2006. The paper was finally published in March 2006 by the London Review of Books. Philip Weiss discusses some of the background to the creation of the paper in an article in The Nation.[4] A third, revised version addressing some of the criticism was published in the Fall 2006 issue of Middle East Policy. The authors state that "In terms of its core claims, however, this revised version does not depart from the original Working Paper."[5] In late August 2007 an enlarged version was published as a book.[6][7]

What World War III May Look Like:

http://antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=11666

Mr. Ettefagh says about a possible U.S. attack on Iran:

'Of course, this is an absurd hallucination. As a mature and stable democracy, America must first make the case to its citizens before wasting treasure and blood.'

Nope, no easier said than done, for we are all nuts!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/31/104328/05

Americans support bombing Iran

by Hiraga

Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 07:48:55 AM PDT

According to "Raw Story" Zogby International reports that 52% of Americans polled support air strikes against Iran.

In spite of all the talk on this site about Bush's approval ratings tanking, Bush "best Democratic strategist ever", and so on, this poll is absolutely devastating. The American public is ignorant, fearful, and violent as ever. I've never felt this way before, but what this 52% number means is that we - the progressive, reality-based community have lost. Media consolidation, the concentration of power in the hands of a corporate elite, the military industrial complex, the hubris of empire - all of this institutional power that the reactionary right has - is too much for us.

This country is on a glide path to a bloody, reactionary, anti-democratic late imperial demise. I'm sick to my frickin' stomach.

Also did you see PBS’s News Hour day before yesterday? Here’s the link to the transcript:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec07/iran_10-29.html

“JUDY WOODRUFF: And the debate goes on outside Congress with perhaps even more intensity. Commentary magazine editor Norman Podhoretz wrote in June that military force was "required" to stop Iran from getting a bomb and offered this description of Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Quote, "Like Hitler, he is a revolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism," end quote.”...

...“Gentlemen, thank you very much for being with us.

Norman Podhoretz, let me begin with you. You wrote over the summer that, if Iran is to be prevented from going ahead with a nuclear program, then the United States has "no alternative" but to strike against Iran. Do you still believe that? And if so, why?”

“NORMAN PODHORETZ, Foreign Policy Adviser, Rudy Giuliani: Very much so. It seems to me that most people in the world, at least until recently, agreed that it would be catastrophic to allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear capability. The only debate was over what the best means to prevent this from happening might be.

Well, for over four years, diplomacy has been tried, first by the Europeans and then with some American participation, and all they've accomplished, these negotiations, is to buy the Iranians more time with which to move forward inexorably toward a nuclear capability...

...So that leaves us with only one terrible choice, which is either to bomb those facilities and retard their program or even cut it off altogether or allow them to go nuclear. And I agree with what Senator McCain has said in the past: The only thing worse than bombing Iran is to allow Iran to get the bomb.”

“JUDY WOODRUFF: Fareed Zakaria, the choice, either strike Iran or allow them to go nuclear, are those the only two choices?”

FAREED ZAKARIA, Editor, Newsweek International: Well, there is a third choice, Judy, which is the choice we have used for pretty much every other country that has developed nuclear weapons, and that is deterrence.”...

... “This would be the third invasion of a Muslim country that the United States would have undertaken in the last five years; that seems to me a pretty serious business. And we've seen deterrence work against all these other countries...

...Let us even assume that Iran gets the bomb, and it's not clear that it will. Why are they more crazy than Kim Jong Il, a man who let two million of his own people starve in the last decade?”

“JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, you pose several points that I want to bring to Norman Podhoretz, but, number one, this question of deterrence. If these other countries Mr. Zakaria is listing have listened to the argument to use nuclear weapons they be destroying themselves, why do you think that argument doesn't work with Iran?”

“NORMAN PODHORETZ: Well, I'll tell you why. First, I want to say that I think the attitude expressed by Fareed Zakaria represents an irresponsible complacency that I think is comparable to the denial in the early '30s of the intentions of Hitler that led to what Churchill called an unnecessary war involving millions and millions of deaths that might have been averted if the West had acted early enough...

...The reason deterrence can't work with Iran is that there's a different element involved here than was involved with either Mao or even Kim Jong Il or Stalin, and that is the element of religious fanaticism.

The fact of the matter is that, with a religious fanatic like Ahmadinejad and the "mullahcracy" ruling Iran generally, there's no assurance that self-preservation or the protection, preservation of the nation, will deter them.

And let me tell you why. Here is what the Ayatollah Khomeini, of whom Ahmadinejad is a devoted disciple, once said. He said: We do not worship Iran. We worship Allah, for patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land of Iran burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.

Well, you can't deter a nation that is led by people with that kind of attitude...”

FAREED ZAKARIA: “You know, I had a feeling Norman would bring up that one quotation that he's used before, so I have one from now. "If the worst came to worst and half of mankind died, the other half would remain, while imperialism would be razed from the ground." This is what Mao said.

And it wasn't just his words. It was his actions. He was actively aiding revolutionary movements and killing Americans all over the world.

So the question about Iran's rationality rests on this: They've been in power for 30 years. What have they done? Iran has followed a pretty rational, national interest-oriented foreign policy.

If you look at the way in which they opposed al-Qaida and the Taliban, this was another Islamic revolutionary movement. You'd think that they would find them sympathetic, but, no, they were the sworn enemies of al-Qaida and they helped the United States depose the Taliban.

By and large, over the last 30 years they've been fairly calculating, they have followed their national interest. When it has bumped up against the United States, they have worked against us. When they have thought that our interests were in common, as in Afghanistan, they've worked with us.”...

JUDY WOODRUFF: Gentlemen, we would love to have this go on for an hour. Unfortunately, we have only a minute or less left, so I have one final question...

I do want to ask you both, because I think it's important. Mr. Podhoretz, do you think that, as you wrote a few months ago, this administration, this president intends before he leaves office to strike Iran?”

NORMAN PODHORETZ: “Yes, I do believe he will, because he has said many times -- or at least two times that I know of in public -- that, if we allow Iran to get the bomb, people 50 years from now will look back at us the way we look back at the men who made the Munich pact with Hitler in 1938 and say, "How could they have let this happen?"

Well, unlike Fareed Zakaria and the foreign policy establishment that is complacent and irresponsible, in my opinion, I think the president recognizes the danger. I think he knows that time is short, that time is not on our side. And I think he will take military action, not an invasion, but air strikes before he leaves office.”

JUDY WOODRUFF: “And, Fareed Zakaria, if you would, a brief response.”

FAREED ZAKARIA: “Oh, I would doubt it. Look, in the early 1980s, Norman Podhoretz and the neoconservatives believed the Soviet Union was going to take over the world and Finlandize Europe. When Reagan started talking to the Soviets, started talking to Gorbachev, Mr. Podhoretz excoriated him, called it the "Reagan road to detente" and such.

It turned out he was wrong. It turned out that the Soviets were not that powerful, and that history was on our side, and that things were going to work out as long as we kept our cool.

I believe in just the way that we have deterred the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Kim Jong Il, history will prove that we can use deterrence and containment to contain the problem of Iran and that we do not need to launch a third unilateral invasion just to do that.”

NORMAN PODHORETZ: “God help us if we follow that counsel.”

JUDY WOODRUFF: “Norman Podhoretz, we thank you. Fareed Zakaria, gentlemen, we thank you both very much.”

Get real! You don't really think that President Bush would attack Iran do you?

Didn't you see this Tim Russert interview of Vice this weekend?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/opinion/28dowd.html?ei=5087&em=&en=3b06bd6ceca4de30&ex=1193803200&pagewanted=print

W.M.D. in Iran? Q.E.D.

TIM RUSSERT: Mr. Vice President, welcome to “Meet the Press.”

VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: Good morning, Tim.

RUSSERT: How close are we to war with Iran?

CHENEY: Well, I think we are in the final stages of diplomacy, obviously. We have done virtually everything we can with respect to carrots, if you will. It’s time for squash. Not to mention mushrooms, clouds of them.

RUSSERT: But you squashed Iraq and that didn’t work out so well.

CHENEY: Iraq will be fine, Tim. It just needs a firmer hand. We learned that lesson. We’re not going to get hung up on democracy this time. (Expletive) purple thumbs.

RUSSERT: Isn’t Secretary Rice still pushing carrots for Iran?

CHENEY: The more carrots Condi feeds ’em, the better they’ll be able to see the bombs coming....

The rest is at the link.

AMviennaVA: I've never fully understood why anyone would base an argument for something like a genocide on the words of Adolph Hitler but I realize that they do just like they say nothing can be done (as if it would be) about genocide in Darfur unless the U.S. Government "approves" genocide as a description for the Ottoman Empire breakup and the Armenian Revolt from 1894 through 1915. In my opinion (and yep I've read the history) there are very few parallels between the Jewish Holocaust and the Armenian situation in Turkey (Has anyone ever heard of a Jewish Revolt against the 3rd Reich?) but it's OK with me if historical scholars, not legislatures make a determination about the Armenian question. It's ironic that in your judgement against Israel you seem to illustrate the very "selectivity" that you claim to abhor:

"Sadly, as Hitler said, who remembers the Armenians. Apparently neither Israel nor its supporters want to! Face it, the Holocaust by the Germans happened; but too many are selective in their outrage. That makes any mention of holocaust-denial by Ahmadinedjad simply hypocricy!"

Anyway, the Armenian genocide question is for another debate/another day. I personally don't doubt the Holocaust and find repugnant any world leader who denies the event and even goes so far as to hold a cartoon drawing contest to make sport of human suffering and misery. If you can honestly say that any leader in the world can equal that feat and deserves nuclear technology and the new long-range missiles he has, then you and I see the world through totally different perspectives. I have to wonder how outrageous Mr.Ahmadinedjad needs to be to turn off those who apparently will support anything or anyone who opposes the U.S. or Israel.

ANVIENNAVA

So, let's do it and put an end to this endless mess. It will be much cheaper for mainland USA taxpayers too, and may be, just may be....Americans will realise that there is an entire world out there aside from the Middle East and the gang fights of the Arabs and Israelis over a very small patch of territory....about the size of a private ranch in Texas!

Then the rest of the world will also drop this issue and get on with their lives. And to pacify the Jews, let them formally rule America and end all this political lobbyist stuff! Am I crazy? or a realist? Afterall, Tony Blair has already found a hiding place in Israel, as he cannot face his voters back home!

Tom Miller: I was trying to avoid calling President Ahmadinejad names.

I guess Victoria and Amviennava don't get it. If they seriously believe that Iran's possession of a nuclear weapon will give it some of security, that is foolish. Certainly, Iran is not going to have any first strike capability against Israel or the US.

And, the argument falls flat on its face vis-a-vis N. Korea because that country has agreed to dismantle its nuclear weapons program.

Of course, both tacitly recognize that Iran's President's denials about the nuclear program are poppycock - they both, at any rate, want Iran to have that capability.

If people would go back and read my posts, I clearly said I am against an attack on Iran, clearly not satisfied with the Nuclear Club and the premise of the NPT.

Yes, the US invasion of Iraq was a mistake and I've clearly said that.

However ... well, I give up ... no sense talking to a stone wall.

Mozart: Ironically, the greatest beneficiaries if Israel became the '51st' state will be the Palestinians. First, the policies the Israeli government is pursuing will end, because they are violations of all civilized standards and contrary to the US Constitution; second, there will be no restriction to their return to their ancestral homes, and they can pursue claims in Federal courts; and third, they will actually get rid of the corrupt government that now oppresses them.

Tom Miller @October 29, 2007 11:39 PM: "And when he denies a historically documented event ..." Sadly, as Hitler said, who remembers the Armenians. Apparently neither Israel nor its supporters want to! Face it, the Holocaust by the Germans happened; but too many are selective in their outrage. That makes any mention of holocaust-denial by Ahmadinedjad simply hypocricy!

A Handle @October 29, 2007 5:26 PM: I see that you still have not gotten one ;)

"Well, isn't threatening the existence of another nation enough cause to say that Iran should not have nuclear weapons?" In a word, NO!!!!! There is only one country I know of that has actually used nuclear weapons, and this same country feels free to determine which country is too dangerous to have them. Also remember that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons, and N.Korea got Bush to budge after they exploded a device. In short, with a Bush anywhere around, a nuclear weapon is actually a defensive measure. It would be best if that was not true, but as I said, with a Bush or Cheney or their like anywhere on the globe (that includes almost all the Republicans running for President, by the way), a country is apparently safe only if it has nuclear weapons.

I take exception about Iran injecting itself in the affairs of other countries. The last time Iran invaded another country was ... well a VERY long time ago. The last time the US invaded another country was ... 2003? The last time the US sent 3 carrier fleets to the Persian Gulf was ... 2007? The last time Israel invaded another country was ... 2006? The last time the US funded a group to take up arms against the Iranian government was 2007! (A group by the way, PJAK, that shares the same camps as the PKK). In other words, it is the US that is actually threatening Iran!

Lastly, if Israel really wants to avoid the 'demographic' problem, all Israel has to do is vacate ALL the occupied territories. Vacating Gaza only postpones the inevitable.

Why does Bush, the president of an independent United States of America, threaten World War III because another independent state, Israel, has been supposedly "threatened"? It seems that Bush is putting the interests of a foreign country ahead of his own, and that used to be called treason!!

If Americans really care that much about Israel, let them incorporate it as the 51st state, or formally occupy it to protect its people. ....but I forgot that Mr. Bush has no clue about the Geneva Conventions and the protection of the occupied.

Let the absurd hype continue......

A HANDLE- well- it was bush who put israel dead center into the equation-
israel - which by the way - DOES have nuclear capability -thanks to american generosity-
and HASN"T signed on to the non-proliferation treaty-

so when israel or the US has the bomb- its understandable for their security-

but when the US fights for many years to keep it out of irans hands- monopolizing the NPT talks with its obsession with keeping iran defenseless-

and you state with a straight face-

"It is perfectly clear that the only reason Iran would want nuclear weapons is for potential offensive use - no country threatens a non-nuclear Iran in any way."

and bush gives a speech threatening the world at large with WWIII- (i dont know how old you are- most people think of WWIII as an intercontinental ballsitics missile systems exchange between russia and US)
targeting iran specifically-

is iran supposed to feel safe?
is this a comforting policy for them?

the ONLY thing that would prevent their potential annihilation IS a bomb to PROTECT themselves with- just like america has- or israel

but this is the most extreme imblananced statment you made-

"Note that Iranians including Ettefagh are quick to criticize the US for injecting itself into the affairs of other countries - Iraq and Afghanistan are the most recent examples - but seem to see nothing wrong with Iran's doing the same vis-a-vis the Palestinian-Israeli issue."

you are trying to find some possible correlation with sending troops in, killing civilians- making sanctions that debilitate an entire people-
with HAVING AN OPINION AND SAYING WORDS?

this is a false comparison
the two are not equal in any way

Israel isnt a signee of the NPT
India isnt a signee of the NPT

both are within range of iran-
bth have been given enormous military aid from the US

both are antipathetic towards the country of iran

"injecting itself into the affairs"

benignly stated when it describes american military agression

malignantly accusatory whe it describes iran having a political opinion

what a bizarre and backward connection you make

unequal components of an equation with unequal values assigned to them

as of today-
"the atomic energy chief from the pentagon has just announced that there is no evidence that iran has the capability to build a bomb.

does that increase your sense of security?

even israel has stated that it doesnt feel any threat from an iranian nuclear strike

again i ask-
do you want to send my kids to die in iran to protect israel?

(actually i dont have kids- but if you do- i bet you dont want them to go)

i dont want to sacrifice any more american kids at the altar of imperialist stupidity
(that includes zionist colonialism)

i feel pretty strongly about it

A Handle - Let's take Israel out of the equation: I believe that when the leader (even if a hand-picked puppet of a more hysterical religious dictatorship) of a country seeking nuclear technology announces at the same time that he wants to obliterate any country on earth the world should take notice. And when he denies a historically documented event and even sponsors an assembly of crackpots along with a cartoon contest to monk one of the lowest pages in world history the world again should take even more notice. When the same man denies that his country has any gay people when we know that you can be hung for being gay in Iran and when he and his country have supported violent activities in Lebanon (surely you remember Hezbollah?) and Iraq the world should also take notice. Has everyone seen the video of Mr. Ahmadinejad describing how an aura encircled him and world leaders froze for 20 minutes comtemplating the wisdom of his words when he spoke at the U.N.? Sure, he denied the video and claimed it was photographic trickery but it looks very much like the duck that he is. You can hate the U.S. and George Bush all you want but if you love peace in the world you wouldn't defend this guy, his government, and certainly not their wish to have a nuclear weapon.

Amviennava

There has been some discussion in the US press about whether Pres. Ahmadinejad's comments were properly translated, i.e., might he have merely said that the Israeli government will not endure, for example, by the sheer force of demographics as the Arab population overwhelms the Jewish population? One of the Israeli government ministers (or perhaps it was a member of the Knesset said something about the reasons why Israel gave Gaza included that this allowed a large number of Arabs to be outside Israel instead of in it (my loose paraphrase of something I read a long time ago).

Two problems here: (i) Pres. Ahmadinejad has been asked about his comments - I saw the interview with Mike Wallace and also read another account - but he has not; and (ii) the Supreme Leader of Iran did say that Israel could be wiped out with one big bomb. Note that Ettefagh echoes the same idea in his fantasy projection of the Big One being dropped. Well, put that aside, the US may have enough nukes to vaporize Iran but the human and environmental catastrophe would be horrific not just for oil but to mankind in general. It ain't going to happen.

You say that the ONLY reason that people suggest attacking Iran is that it has threatened Israel and then you add that another reason is Ahmadinejad has questioned the holocaust.

Well, isn't threatening the existence of another nation enough cause to say that Iran should not have nuclear weapons? That is what is being said.

I think people who advocate bombing Iran are nuts and there is no cause for attacking Iran. If Iran were a real nuclear threat to Israel, I am sure Israel could deal with that and it is unlikely that Iran will be a nuclear threat to the US.

The fundamental question is why Iran needs nukes at all. If the nuclear program is truly for peaceful purposes and power, it is easy enough to arrange for cooperative inspections. Lest anyone complain that Iran should not have to endure the humiliation of this, remember that Iran voluntarily signed the NPT and Pres. Ahmadinejad purports to be in full compliance with El Baradei's agency.

A more basic question that no one has answered is why Iran should inject itself into the Israeli-Palestinian issue at all? In what way does it remotely concern Iran that Iran should be prepared to support Hamas and Hisballah or to threaten Israel? Note that Iranians including Ettefagh are quick to criticize the US for injecting itself into the affairs of other countries - Iraq and Afghanistan are the most recent examples - but seem to see nothing wrong with Iran's doing the same vis-a-vis the Palestinian-Israeli issue.

It is perfectly clear that the only reason Iran would want nuclear weapons is for potential offensive use - no country threatens a non-nuclear Iran in any way.

Let's get realistic here - there are many nut cases who talk about attacking Iran, etc. But the proper response for Iran is not to declare itself an innocent victim, but to act in accord with what Pres. Ahmadinejad says are its true intentions - peaceful use of atomic energy and research for scientific advance and development.

Get Israel out of the discussion for a moment and see if that makes a difference.

Victoria: Correct. Ahmadinedjad said something to the effect that the Zionist regime must surely perish. That has been widely interpreted as advocating that Israel disappear, butit is very far from the case. However, as always, it is the impression that stays with people.

actually ahmadenijad hasnt threatened israel's existence-
it was zionism that he said should be eradicated.

zionist colonialism- the only people who have benefitted from it are israeli jewish citizens-
($23,000 a year per citizen including babies at last years figures- 300 BILLION over the last 60ish years) america spends vastly more on israelis than it does its own people.

the loudest anti-zionist voices in america are jewish voices. no one can accuse them of being anti-semitic-(the usual silencer) although there is an invented term, the self-loathing jew that has popped up-even books on it!

AIPAC (the israeli lobby)american israel public affairs committee- has such a grip on our politicians that if one doesnt toe that party line thewyre not even in the race.

barak obama made a statement that simply referred to the 'suffering of the palestinian people'
apparently, a pres future candidate cannot even mention or validate their suffering-

a week later he was in front of AIPAC- with long and loud proclamations of support for everything israel is or will be-

o, the comment about the suffering of palestinian people?

it was easily explained away-
they are suffering because of THEIR OWN ACTIONS.

there are lo

AMNVIENNAVA
The real reason is lobby money, at least $1.5 million every day. If some one comes into Washington and dumps $2.5m a day, he will win and can change policy of USA.

It is now a riddle. So, no body thinks about it any more or about the fact that America has given all that the Israelis / Zionists wanted after WWII. Support for their independence, large amounts of money over the last 65 years, political support etc. It might seem that the Israelis that wanted independence have gotten it. It baffles the mind why they want more? unless we believe that America has surrendered its own independence to a small country.

Many are wondering why anyone would associate Israel with our (US) policy and march to war against Iran. The answer is very simple, and obvious to anyone who listens to the news: the only consistent reason given by the advocates of the policy is that Ahmadinedjad has threatened Israel's extinction. As though that is reason for the US to go to war!

Another very popular reason has also been that Ahmadinedjad has questioned the Holocaust. This 'reason' has been downplayed lately, following our refusal to acknowledge the genocide against the Armenians.

So, the link between Israel and our march to war is very strong indeed.

See New York Times and its editorial of 29 October 2007 Trash Talking World War III

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/opinion/29mon1.html

to VIC VAN METER

Your comments are well-taken.
First, I sincerely believe that W in his name is for war. He knows nothing else.

Second, I think Bush (or his Israeli lobbyists) wants to set up a ruse for Iran to blink and fire the first shot. But Ahmadinejad said it cool and clear that there is no reason for Iran and USA to go to war. That busted the psychological war atmosphere.

Third, we all should note that that at all times, Bush, America & Co. have been putting pressure on Iran to prove a negative....that it does not have a military nukes. This is an absurd and childish approach to political issues.

Finally, If any one thinks that WW III will start instantly, he has absolutely no clue about how the world functions. So, I think Dr. Ettefagh above is correct by saying that the statement was a raw and childish comment pointed to President Putin of Russia. Whatever happened to diplomatic messages and private talk and being polite? War, let alone World War, is no joking matter.

i have to admit i did get pretty distracted by that WWIII statement-

the irresponsible bellicosity of it all

I think Ettefagh is missing a pretty crucial point. He seems to think this trumpeted war is about Iran and Israel. Or even Iran and America. This war drive is ALL about George W Bush.

To be honest, the only points of contention between Iran and America are in proxy countries like Israel, Palestine, Iraq, and so on. In fact, if there wasn't so many hostile stand-offs between the two, Ahmedinejad and Bush would make out of Iraq like a bandit. Iran has a HUGE interest in the Shiite part of Iraq and America needs all the foreign stability it can get. Really, they've got a lot between them they can help each other with.

Another sad fact is that their threats at each other are very similar in substance. They're designed to keep our minds off domestic policy and on foreign policy. Sorry to sound like a conspiracy theorist for a second, but all this rhetoric keeps us in fear of the outside when a lot of corruption charges are going unanswered in the government. And last I heard from my hombres in Tehran, not everything is peachy-keen in the country there either. But as long as we're more afraid of the outside than we are outraged at the inside, we'll vote with our fear rather than our reason. And this is why Iran has been pulled from the deck.

Israel and the proxy conflict there is another story, but the two countries, if they could get off the soapboxes with each other, could benefit a lot in Iraq from cooperation. Not that we can expect this rhetoric to stop between them, but I am going to posit that both leaders are banking on making more political capital against each other than with each other.

In the end, Ettefagh is right about one big point. Yes, America would wreck Iran in the opening invasion. And yes, the occupation would be absolutely disastrous. Given that there's no consensus and most people in America are hearing all this war-drumming with an eerie look of suspicion at the White House (at least where I'm at in Ohio), Bush has no reason but his own to go into Iran. Ahmedinejad will find it almost impossible to have a weapon capable of striking the States, it'll take years to have something capable of threatening Israel, and Bush has never shown his evidence to us that Iran is shipping weapons into Iraq (and I'm not giving him an ounce of breathing room after Iraq and his WMD crap).

So don't lob this one on us Americans who are very disatisfied with our government, especially lately. I'd rather they started patching up differences with Iran and start using their government to our advantage. Ahmedinejad is just like every other politician and his currency is power. Everything else, Israel, Iraq, and our relationship, is all negotiable as long as we can move around enough political capital.

I agree with ANALYST and question the posters above that oject to the writer and his references, realistic references, to Israel.

Israel has been a source of trouble in the region and still continues to keep the soup boiling. If America and Israel are one and the same, then let's quit the childish games and either merge the two countries or let there be a formal federalisation and make Israel the 51st state of USA.

If they are separate and independent, then each must follow its own interest and foreign policy as an adult.

It is amazing to see Americans and their presumption that USA and Israel are some how hoined at the hip as one body. Last time I checked, they are two different sovereign nations, supposedly independent and adults.

If America is really worried about Israel, and if Israel is really accommodating of its only friend in the world, why is it that USA has not set up any military bases in Israel over all these years, eh? Afterall, it is no secret that USA is a blind supporter of Israel.

I could only think of one reason why it has not happened: the Israelis don't allow it and they do not want full access to American observation how things get done there. It is an issue of honesty, I think.

GEORGE BUSH SPEECH OCT.17TH
We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," Bush said at a White House press conference after Russia cautioned against military action against Tehran's supect atomic program.

"So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," said Bush.

there arent too many scenarios one can surmise from this-
iran bombs israel- israel bombs iran-
iran runs out of bombs- israel goes on mideast bombing spree flowing over into europe somehow?

can someone reasonably explain to me why american or world security is synonymous with israel's security?

it is not a given- israel is about as far from america as iraq and turkey

so far- no one in america has been hit by iraqi crossfire-

o- american SOLDIERS?
well, they had to go to iraq to get shot, didnt they?
without, for some reason- any troops from our ally israel.

where is our ally israel in the war on terror?
i dont mean killing palestinians or lebanese- who also pose no immediate danger to america.

but in iraq?

so why should we send more soldiers to die in iran to protect israel?

and why should we kill iranians anyway?

Redefining the war in Iraq
Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:43:07
Interview with Alan Hart by Ismail Salami, Press TV, Tehran

Alan Hart has been engaged with events in the Middle East and their global consequences and terrifying implications - the possibility of a Clash of Civilizations, Judeo-Christian v Islamic, and, along the way, another great turning against the Jews - for nearly 40 years:

- As a correspondent for ITN's News At Ten and the BBC's Panorama program (covering wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world).

- As a researcher and author. (His first book Arafat, Terrorist or Peacemaker? was published by Sidgwick & Jackson in 1984 and subsequently in several updated editions over a decade).

- As a participant at leadership level, working to a Security Council background briefing, in the covert diplomacy of the search for peace.

Alan Hart thus brings to the pages of his latest book, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, and to the debating chamber, a deep understanding of why, really, the Countdown to Armageddon is on and how it can be stopped.

He has been to war with the Israelis and the Arabs but the learning experience he values most, and which he believes gave him rare insight, came from his ONE-to-ONE PRIVATE conversations over the years with many leaders on both sides of the conflict. With, for example, GOLDA MEIR, Mother Israel, and YASSER ARAFAT, Father Palestine. The significance of these private conversations was that they enabled Alan to be aware of the truth of what leaders REALLY believed and feared as opposed to what they said in public for propaganda and myth-sustaining purposes.

Alan has long believed that what peacemaking needs above all else is some TRUTH-TELLING, about many things but, especially, the difference between Zionist mythology and real history, and, the difference between Judaism and Zionism and thus why it is perfectly possible to be passionately anti-Zionist (anti ZIONISM's COLONIAL enterprise, that is) without being in any way, shape or form anti-SEMITIC.

an excerpt from the linked interview

"It is, of course, true that since George “Dubya” Bush came to power, the neo-cons have been calling most of the policy shots in America. But also true is that many of the neo-cons are hardest core Zionists. In my analysis it was these Zionists, led by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, who were the prime pushers for war with Iraq. And their main concern was not oil, but creating a situation in which the Zionist state of Greater Israel would remain forever the unchallenged and unchallengeable superpower of the region. We know from their own revealed documentation (their briefing paper to incoming Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, for example) what their strategy was and is….. To take out Saddam Hussein, to roll back Syria and then to go for the kill - regime change - in Iran.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=26308§ionid=3510302

peace

I am surprised that no one else seems to appreciate the use of this forum by Ettefagh as a vehicle to jab at Israel. As I said I am not an Israeli - I'm not Jewish either and not a yahoo right wing Christian and not a Bush supporter.

I think the use of war as an instrument of foreign policy is wrong and probably outdated.

I believe that there is no percentage whatsoever in an attack on Iran.

However, Mr. Ettefagh states that Iran has never trampled on the dignity of any one (sic). How about the US after the Khomeini ouster of the Shah? How about the dignity of Israel?

Although Israel has done nothing to Iran and in fact, under the Shah, Iran was certainly not calling for the destruction of Israel, the Grand Leader (Ayatollah) and President (Ahmadinejad) have decided that Israel should not exist.

Hey, it's okay to voice your opinion that since the Holocaust took place in Europe, it is not right that the Palestinian people should have paid for it with their land. But that is far from saying that Israel should be wiped out.

I understand Ahmadinejad's and the Ayatollah's position that they can't abide the idea of a Jewish state in the middle of Muslim countries. But then, if you take that type of position, you have to put up with people like George Bush who cannot abide the thought of people like Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah with nukes.

Mr. Ettefagh, the premise of your argument, that it is all Israel's doing is wrong. The other premise, that Iran is somehow a victim, an innocent victim, is even more wrong.

I am surprised that no one else seems to appreciate the use of this forum by Ettefagh as a vehicle to jab at Israel. As I said I am not an Israeli - I'm not Jewish either and not a yahoo right wing Christian and not a Bush supporter.

I think the use of war as an instrument of foreign policy is wrong and probably outdated.

I believe that there is no percentage whatsoever in an attack on Iran.

However, Mr. Ettefagh states that Iran has never trampled on the dignity of any one (sic). How about the US after the Khomeini ouster of the Shah? How about the dignity of Israel?

Although Israel has done nothing to Iran and in fact, under the Shah, Iran was certainly not calling for the destruction of Israel, the Grand Leader (Ayatollah) and President (Ahmadinejad) have decided that Israel should not exist.

Hey, it's okay to voice your opinion that since the Holocaust took place in Europe, it is not right that the Palestinian people should have paid for it with their land. But that is far from saying that Israel should be wiped out.

I understand Ahmadinejad's and the Ayatollah's position that they can't abide the idea of a Jewish state in the middle of Muslim countries. But then, if you take that type of position, you have to put up with people like George Bush who cannot abide the thought of people like Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah with nukes.

Mr. Ettefagh, the premise of your argument, that it is all Israel's doing is wrong. The other premise, that Iran is somehow a victim, an innocent victim, is even more wrong.

Great post by Conscience-to-the-world!

I guess it is part of the intellectual rip-offs that the writer has said.

We all need to cool our heads and tell leaders of supposedly free countries that going to war is THE worst choice. As Chavez has said, Bush has lost it.

Superb and realistic views. Bush talks about war and world wars as if he is talking about weather.

Hello World! and especially to all Developing Nations!

The real terrible facts found on this present world to all to view and think as:

Fact-1: China and Russia are two most terrible and most treacherous and harmful nations sitting in UNSC, exploiting this organization inhumanly and dangerously to flare up, initiate and promote devastations to several nations, and to influence, convince, condone and support the world criminals and tyrants, especially those naive and mindless nations (i.e., Syria, Iran, Sudan, Venezuela, Burma, N. Korea, etc.,) to practice violence of all sorts, domestically and globally, and all acting like their Russia and China terrorizing communist masters such as: Iran, Syria, N. Korea, Burma, Venezuela, Central Asian nations, etc., to follow their brutal violences, lawless and uncivilized ways to run their terrorizing businesses at home and to other nations!

Fact-2: Iran, the land of fanatic terrors and terrorists that relentlessly loves to apply the murderous deeds and efforts to devastate other nations and including its own unfortunate brainwashed citizens, who suddenly turn themselves naively from harmless innocents previously into the present very blood-thirsty crazy murderers and terrorists! as proven worldwide!

These Fact-1 and Fact-2 are the main ingredients to boil up this world and all unfortunate nations and their citizens have directly and indirectly become infested by these world diseases caused by the both offending, very bloodly communist Russia, China and the mindless and shallow-minded followers as shown to the world that the unfortunate and foolish tyrants have volunteerly become slaves for their China and/or Russia or both masters in order to be able to exploit all resources and lives in their own nations!

The problem partly is due to this world is full with naive and mindless and have-no-value tyrants who are very easily to be corrupted by their masters, that these naive tyrants have forcibly gained controls their own nations and have deadly opportunities be able to enslave and devastate their own innocent citizens like animals and no-more-and-no-less than the millions of suffered animals in this world today!. And sadly, these very little valuable UN and UNSC can do nothing to help them while the both harmful and treacherous China and Russia that only want them to die in suffering, in torturing of all sorts in their own lands as the entire world have seen for years!
In essence, the entire mindless nations ruled by their own bloody, iron-fisted tyrants these devastating folks are nothing more than the volunteered victims for both China and Russia!, and unfortunately, only China and Russia can harvest all benefits greedily for themselves at the cost of millions of innocents suffering mentally and physically and endlessly as seen by all mankind!
And these are the very sad things of human misery that all mankind have to see in the days in and days out in several unfortunate nations where people here should deserve the better lives instead of valueless life of the slaves or born to be automatically become slaves as seen!

Thanks and have a good weekend to all!

Good article.
You forgot to say that Bush still has the environmental problems and global warming to deal with! The fight he picks against Iran is just a diversion, to avoid real problems we have.

Overall, a fair assessment of what is going on. Those who try to equate Ahmadinejad and Bush are missing a very large point. These guys are not equals in terms of options available to them. Yes this world would be in an even worse position if Ahmadinejad was the President of the United States but he is not. He is an unpopular President of a third world nation with no offensive capability. From Israel's point of view it makes all of the sense in the world to strike a blow against Iran now at the beginning of a century that is going to see oil prices sky rocket as opposed to later when Iran can be an even stronger position. I am not sure if US interest is served by the same logic. US is also looking at the next 50 years and does not like the idea of having to deal with a group of guys who try to out bargain you every chance they get. The problem is the we have demonstrated that beyond the shock and awe stage we are very inept at getting anything else done and we may end up costing ourselves a lot more than whatever gains the control of oil might bring us.

Overall, a fair assessment of what is going on. Those who try to equate Ahmadinejad and Bush are missing a very large point. These guys are not equals in terms of options available to them. Yes this world would be in an even worse position if Ahmadinejad was the President of the United States but he is not. He is an unpopular President of the a third world nation with no offensive capability. From Israel's point of view it makes all of the sense in the world to strike a blow against Iran now at the beginning of a century that is going to see oil prices sky rocket as opposed to later when Iran can be an even stronger position. I am not sure if US interest are served by the same logic. US is also looking at the next 50 years and does not like the idea of having to deal with a group of guys who try to outbargain you every chance they get. The problem is the we have demonstarted that beyond the shock and awe stage we are very inept at getting anything else done and we may end up costing ourselevs a lot more than whatever gains the control of oil might bring us.

Overall, a fair assessment of what is going on. Those who try to equate Ahmadinejad and Bush are missing a very large point. These guys are not equals in terms of options available to them. Yes this world would be in an even worse position if Ahmadinejad was the President of the United States but he is not. He is an unpopular President of the a third world nation with no offensive capability. From Israel's point of view it makes all of the sense in the world to strike a blow against Iran now at the beginning of a century that is going to see oil prices sky rocket as opposed to later when Iran can be an even stronger position. I am not sure if US interest are served by the same logic. US is also looking at the next 50 years and does not like the idea of having to deal with a group of guys who try to outbargain you every chance they get. The problem is the we have demonstarted that beyond the shock and awe stage we are very inept at getting anything else done and we may end up costing ourselevs a lot more than whatever gains the control of oil might bring us.

So only America thinks that war and destruction are the way to resolve a conflict? Does anyone seriously doubt that (1) Iran created Hezbollah in Lebanon, armed it to the teeth, and promotes it's provocations with Israel; (2) Iran encourages Syria's secret police to murder any and all opposition in Lebanon leadership, (3) Iran arms Shia groups throughout Iraq to keep the turmoil going. Obviously, Iranian leadership may think these activities are in their best interests but to pretend that they aren't violent is absolutely absured. What a simple world this would be if ONLY America and ONLY George Bush promoted violence. If "erase a country" can be interpreted non-violently (and conveniently I might add), then telling people that World War III can be prevented if Iran stops it's development of a nuclear weapon is even less a threat in my mind. Again, I don't support Bush and never have but at least I deal with reality.

A realistic view. Thank you for this eye opener.

All of those that are posting stupid arguments as comments should note and think what will you do if you were facing a bully? A madman like Bush?

Excellent!

Americans always cry when they start violence and then when they loose soldiers. So, all Yankees take notice: you are playing with fire and your own lives if you attack Iran.

Great article. War, let alone World Wars, are very serious matters.

Those people above, and the U.S. president, that has taken Ahmadinejad's statement of "Israel must be wiped off the map" forget that there are many ways to wipe off a dangerous regime of the map: Vote of the people is known to work best....in East Germany, USSR, ex-Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Zimbabwe, East Pakistan which is now known as Bangladesh.

But again, Americans think war and destruction is the only way to change regimes. So, the author is right to say that America is suffering from pyschosis.

Fair enough but shouldn't we also ask what President Ahmadinejad and his spin-meisters meant when he said that Israel needs to be wiped off the map? Are you saying that this remark was non-aggressive and should just be ignored. Oh, don't mind him, he didn't mean it? And then there's the video of Ahmadinejad describing the aura around him during his U.N. speech where he describes that the entire world leadership was in rapture over his speech. Oh, that's OK because he claims it's phony photography? Does this sell in the Mid-East? If so, I should sell used cars there because they'll believe anything. I don't support the rhetoric coming from Bush or Cheney about World War III but I refuse to stick my head in the sand and pretend that all of the world's aggression lies in the mind of George Bush or Dick Cheney and America. Iranian politicians and organized street mobs spend so much time screaming Death to America (and Americans) that I hardly think they should be ignored. Do you seriously expect me to believe that your perspective is seriously unbiased? :) It takes two to tango and if you really want peace I would think you would at least suggest that the Iranian leadership has a lot to account for. Ignoring that fact will not lessen tensions and bring any serious diplomacy to the table.

Ali:

Substitute "Iran" for "United States"; "Ahmadinejad" for "Bush"; and "Israel" for "Iran"...and your article reads more intelligently and is closer to the truth.

With very best wishes.

C

You got it. I'm lately either avoiding or arguing with my fellow Christan "friends". Israels actions "does the end justify the means?" I ask. Silence. Next: "Hamas refuses to Israels' Right to Exist' . Ask "What Israel?" Biblical? 1948? 1967? 73? You get no answer, but Palestine is a non- state. Who cares what they say? I don't think Canada should exist..why I don't know... but I'm a non-state like Palestine so who cares?

Thank you. It is the truth.

Thank you, Dr. Ettefagh, for your true words of wisdom.

Mr. Ettefagh

In the past I have written to disagree with a lot of the nonsense you have posted. A couple of my comments were deleted although they contained no profanity or personal attacks.

This time I agree with much of what you have written, but you still write a lot of nonsensical stuff. I think I have read that you live in Iran and it sure sounds like you are espousing some Iranian establishment response and an anti-Israeli one too.

I am not an Israeli and I do understand the argument that AIPAC and Israel somehow are behind wanting to have the US attack Iran. It's hard to argue against people who make such assertions and whether it is true or not, President Bush does seem hell bent on preventing WWIII even if he has to go to war to do so! Israel doesn't seem to be either an propellant or a deterrent.

The truly astounding proposition for me is the notion that an American President in the 21st Century is still acting as if war and military action is the solution to foreign policy issues.

It seems to me that the Chinese have found some sort of right mix - rather than treating every one as an enemy, they treat them as rivals and set out to beat them in the sphere of competition. Of course, one might have to rethink the apparent breadth of that statement when considering Tibet and also the fact that China went to "war" with India over territory. And if Beijing should decide to annex Taiwan ... well, you get the point.

Your "analysis" of the history of the major wars should have provoked you to consider that all of this Iraq stuff started as a "conflict" between neighbors when Saddam Hussein (now Noosein) invaded Kuwait. I won't get into the armchair psychology of this President's obsession with his father's lack of a final putsch.

You write: "He should also remember that both world wars were uniquely European affairs and a confusing conflict amongst Christians-- militarist aggressors on one side, others at the receiving end and some (historically documented) collaborators in between."

See? This is the kind of silliness that gets me. Neither of those wars was a war over religion. And if one considers that the Iran-Iraq war was among Muslims, what of it?

Your fantasy has one big flaw - if they do drop the Big one as you suggest, or at least enough to wipe out 72 million people, there won't be any occupation. But you see, this fantasy is part of the craziness of your Supreme Leader who once said that one Big one could destroy Israel.

The problem here is that President Ahmadinejad is tweaking Pres. Bush. Of course, it is better if Iran does not have nuclear weapons or capability to get them. But then, it is difficult to prevent some countries from getting them while allowing others to do so. And I see no justification for France or UK or China or Russia or the US to have them either ... never mind India, Pakistan and