January 22, 2007
Israelis, America and Iran
It sounds like the stuff that conspiracy theories are made of. In a coastal resort near Tel Aviv, senior Israeli politicians and generals confer with top officials and politicians from Washington to discuss the threat of a nuclear Iran. In any good conspiracy theory, however, these talks would be going on in secret – preferably in an underground bunker. In fact the Herzliya conference on “Israel’s national security” is taking place perfectly openly in a smart hotel. And I am in the audience.
The Israel participation is, as one would expect, high level. The conference is scheduled to close with a speech from Ehud Olmert, the prime minister. The lunch-time speaker yesterday was Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud leader, and maybe the next prime minister. We’re hearing from the foreign minister, the defence minister and a string of present and former generals.
But what has really struck me is the number of top Americans who have bothered to come over for the conference. The speaker at dinner last night was Gordon England, America’s deputy defence secretary; earlier in the day we heard from Nick Burns, the number three at the State Department. Several contenders for the presidency in 2008 have also felt obliged to tip their hat to Herzliya. Mitt Romney, who is probably second favourite for the Republican nomination, is turning up in person. John McCain, the GOP front-runner is appearing by satellite, so is Rudy Giuliani. For the Democrats, John Edwards is also scheduled to make a satellite address. I cannot think of any other country in the world that could summon up this level of American participation for a conference like this. Certainly not Britain.
Also well represented among the participants are well-known hawks like Richard Perle, Jim Woolsey (the former CIA director), Newt Gingrich and Jose Maria Aznar, the former Spanish prime minister. A lot of these chaps were very prominent in the drive to go to war in Iraq. Now, flushed by their undoubted success there, they are turning their attention to Iran.
There is no doubt that the war drums are beating pretty loudly here in Herzliya. The main topics of conversation that keep coming back and back – in the corridors and also in the conference hall – is how close is Iran to the bomb. Can anything short of military action stop the Iranians? If it comes to bombing, could the Israelis do it alone – or would they have to rely on the United States? Would President Bush give the order? (This place is full of people who claim to have spoken to somebody who has spoken to the president about this very issue, but they all seem to have different stories).
Netanyahu claimed that Iran is 1,000 days away from having nukes. But the Israelis tend to argue that military action would have to come much sooner than that, before the Iranians learn how to enrich enough uranium to make a bomb. Shaul Mofaz, Israel’s deputy prime minister, argued that Iran is bent on building a “hegemonic empire in the Middle East” and presents an “existential threat to Israel”.
The official American speakers have tended to be a little more circumspect. Nick Burns talked a lot about diplomacy and the UN. But he earned a big round of applause, when he declared – “It is the policy of the United States that we cannot afford to let Iran become a nuclear-weapons state.”
The unofficial Americans are much less careful. Jim Woolsey, a former director of the CIA, castigated Burns for his caution and his emphasis on diplomacy. He also likened Iran to Nazi Germany. Funny thing is I distinctly remember hearing a similar speech from Woolsey at an international conference in 2002, when he likened Saddam Hussein to Hitler. Now Hitler is back – except that this time he’s Iranian.
Israelis,America & Iran
I guess Mr Rachman is in Herliya with all the Iraq hawks (more like vultures because the animal is dead) as they prepare to wave their magic wands—well, press their itchy trigger fingers— and do for Iran what they did to Iraq. Their zeal for bombing the former makes you wonder whether chaos and misery has always been their real objective, all that stuff about spreading democracy notwithstanding.
But if GR really wanted to witness a power transfer he should be in New York as Mayor Bloomberg prepares to release a report detailing the movement of money from New York to places both east and west.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0c0095ba-a986-11db-9185-0000779e2340.html
I had a prof that once spoke about little noticed moments occurring under the fabric of written history. Large scale real estate sales in Manhattan by British firms in the 1920s were generally ignored by the London press (and by the NY press also). New York property had appreciated dramatically and the firms were being good capitalists, taking their profits, and moving the funds back to the UK. But the massive disinvestment—the properties were purchased by American investors–also meant financial power was moving from London to New York. Now in remarkable symmetry it’s moving back to London as well as to Britain’s former colony Hong Kong.
While the world’s only (?) superpower, the US, is fixated on the ME, real power is moving away. The reasons are many, although at least a few have been reported (as news, not commentary) in the FT: the arrest of Peter Dicks, the complaints about difficult and unpleasant immigration guards barring the way into the US specifically & American xenophobia generally. This gradual movement of funds and peoples (little commented upon) is what will make the difference in future years, Iranian adventure or no.
Posted by: Mary Seaton | January 22nd, 2007 at 3:16 pm | Report this commentDear Mr. Rachman,
I heartly recommend that you read the enclosed interview between the American journalist Seymour Hersh and the former UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, which deals with many of the issues you raise:
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/890
Quote
SCOTT RITTER: One of the big problems is — and here goes the grenade — Israel. The second you mention the word “Israel,” the nation Israel, the concept Israel, many in the American press become very defensive. We’re not allowed to be highly critical of the state of Israel. And the other thing we’re not allowed to do is discuss the notion that Israel and the notion of Israeli interests may in fact be dictating what America is doing, that what we’re doing in the Middle East may not be to the benefit of America’s national security, but to Israel’s national security. But, see, we don’t want to talk about that, because one of the great success stories out there is the pro-Israeli lobby that has successfully enabled themselves to blend the two together, so that when we speak of Israeli interests, they say, “No, we’re speaking of American interests.”
It’s interesting that AIPAC and other elements of the Israeli lobby don’t have to register as agents of a foreign government. It would be nice if they did, because then we’d know when they’re advocating on behalf of Israel or they’re advocating on behalf of the United States of America.
Unquote
and
Quote
SCOTT RITTER: Well, again, I think it comes down to — you know, the Bush administration likes to talk a lot about the nexus, the nexus between weapons of mass destruction and terrorism.
I’ll talk about the nexus between the neoconservatives in Washington, D.C., and the right wing of the Likud Party in Israel. These elements, these political elements have been working hand-in-glove for many, many years. And now that the neoconservatives in Washington, D.C., have seized power, have gained power, attained power, now that they’re in power, the right wing in Israel has to play this game. They have to deal with the cards that they’ve been dealt. And so, they’re not going to stand up to the United States. You’re not going to sit there and try and encourage the United States to make a move on Iran using fact-based information.
You’ve got to understand there are certain buttons you need to push in Washington, D.C., to get American politicians to move in a certain direction. And you’ve got to keep it simple. And the simplest thing is to say that there is a nuclear weapons program in Iran. And then, you’ve got to push some more buttons, because you don’t want to treat that in isolation. You want complicate it further: that nuclear weapons program is in the hands of a nation that is a state-sponsor of terror — Iran. And the terrorist organizations that they sponsor are inclusive of Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Liberation Organization Fatah wing. This is all part of the same problem, you see.
And in doing so, Israel now complicates America’s overall policy posture vis-a-vis the Middle East, because now it becomes very difficult to treat the Palestinian situation in isolation. It becomes very difficult to treat the Hezbollah situation in isolation or to treat Iran in isolation. Israel has lumped it all together, because they know how to play the American political game, I think, better than we know how to play the American political game. So this is about domestic politics trumping intelligence and sound analytical processes.
Unquote
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 22nd, 2007 at 5:27 pm | Report this commentThere is no question that the immense pressure from AIPAC is ruling american foreign policy. People wonder why the media becomes so defensive at any criticism of Israel. This is not an accident. In fact every major American university and media outlet has AIPAC “agents” working in their domain with the sole intent of incriminating and destroying any critic of Israeli policy as anti-semitic and anti-american. This is ridiculous but this is the programme. Since AIPAC owes it allegience to Israel, clearly, and not the US, then in effect these agents are all Israeli spies.
Posted by: Baz | January 23rd, 2007 at 2:22 am | Report this commentand whats more, the comparisons of ahmadinejad with hitler are deplorable. This is another example of how the Israeli dominated media fabricates stories to serve their interests. Firstly, neither the word “wipe” or “map” were ever used in Ahmadinejads speach even though westn media frequently reports it as such. Secondly, Hitler arrested jews, stole their property and had them executed in his own country. There is no such thing taking place in Iran, where in fact jews are living free and protected. Funny that the actions above better describe what Israel is doing to Palestinians. Does that qualify Olmert as a Hitler understudy?
Posted by: Baz | January 23rd, 2007 at 5:24 am | Report this commenthttp://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/
To Baz and anybody else interested in the in the particular Ahmadinejad speech, the above short article, written by an Iranian, explains in detail what Ahmadinejad actually said on the issue.
The impartial reader can draw their own conclusions about how news get distorted by the Zionist interests to chime with their war drums.
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 23rd, 2007 at 10:39 am | Report this commentMr Rachman’s criteria for success would be interesting to have made explicit. He says:
“A lot of these chaps [Perle, Woolsey, Gingrich, Aznar etc] were very prominent in the drive to go to war in Iraq. Now, flushed by their undoubted success there, they are turning their attention to Iran.”
Their “undoubted success”? Do please explain, Mr Rachman. By what standards or reference to what objectives can the huminatarian and security disaster of the Iraq war be counted an “undoubted success”?
Yes, these gentlemen succeeded in ensuring that the war was indeed prosecuted. If success in that venture is what you mean, perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to why they regarded the war as a desirable project in the first place? There has been quite a lot of evidence to suggest that it had nothing to do with WMD or even the undoubted nastiness of Saddam Hussein - so what made the war a good idea; and does this relate to its “undoubted success”?
If you know, Mr Rachman, don’t hold out on us loyal readers. Do make it plain.
Regards,
Reflector
Posted by: Reflector | January 23rd, 2007 at 11:11 am | Report this commentp
thanks for that link. I wish every american and european could read it and learn the truth. There is very little of it going around these days. But this is all a planned coup to create outrage in the world against iran so the US can destroy it. Bush’s agenda is no longer one of regime change in Iran. The growing power of the country has forced bush tp accept the AIPAC and neocon view that regime destruction is the best long term solution. They plan to turn Iran into a federation of states after taking out all elements of government in an extensive bombing campaign. THe US and Israel no longer have an arab bullwark to weaken iran but they martyred saddam for the benefit of the wahabi extremists who are now calling for death to all persians. So here we go again. The US and ISrael are setting arans and iranians to destroy eachother while they sit back and laugh about moslem naivete
Posted by: baz | January 23rd, 2007 at 11:28 am | Report this commentP - thanks for that link, it really enlightened the whole issue for me. I can clearly see the difference between “wipe Israel off the map” and the following:
“The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”
Yeah, I think I can sleep a lot better now. Look, I agree with many of the things that have been posted here. I think that the US gives Israel way to much room to move given the extent the US supports Israel. I don’t think that Israel is a great friend of the US. Israel looks out of Israel. I also find the current situation in Israel regarding the treatment of Palestinians unacceptable. I do not think, however, that any state should be able to wipe Isreal off the map and I do not think you should be an apologist for a man who is even being criticized by Iranian Imams for his inflamatory rhetoric. You do not need to compare the man to Hitler just to figure out he is not a good fella. The US should not attack Iran, but it takes two to tango and the Iranian president should remember this. He is not helping Iran at all. Saddam Hussein took a gamble thinking the US would not evade - bad calculation. Tehran should not make the same assumptions.
Reflector - I think GR means that the neocons reached ’success’ in the fact that they got the war started and ousted Saddam. The end. They don’t really care so much about the fallout - time to take out the next bad guy. I agree with you entirely, but sadly these guys do not see it that way.
Posted by: Mike Williams | January 23rd, 2007 at 11:43 am | Report this commentDear Reflactor,
I don’t want to defend GR, but I think he was being sarcastic about the “undoubted success”.
English style sarcasm: hard to get.
Posted by: Gino Pino | January 23rd, 2007 at 11:50 am | Report this commentDear Mike Williams,
I don’t know if you are being facetious when you say “Yeah, I can sleep a lot better now”, but I can assure you that the state of your sleep is highly unlikely to be disturbed by us, the Iranians.
After all, it is over two centuries since Iran invaded any of its neighbours but Iranians have been at the receiving end of much aggressions throughout that time (From Tsarist Russia, The British Empire and Iraq, et al. Iran, despite declaring impartiality during both World Wars, was invaded and occupied,causing great hardship to Iranians. In fact, it is claimed by some Iranian historians that millions of Iranians died in a silent holocaust during WW1 after the British military appropriated much of the country’s food stocks. The enclosed link is in Farsi, in case anybody reading this is familiar with the language: http://www.shahbazi.org/pages/majd2.htm )
Having said the above, I agree fully that Ahmadinejad is an incompetent president who gives ammunition to the enemies of Iran and puts Iran in harm’s way.
He is the classic “strawman” and is being used as such, very successfully, by those with aggressive agendas against the native people of the Middle East.
As an ordinary Iranian, I would love to see him impeached and removed from the scene. (By the way, this would not be the first impeachment of an Iranian president, but the second.)
Finally, in my very humble opinion, nobody should attempt to wipe anybody else off the map. However, I believe that Israel, as it stands today, is a racist entity that practices a form of apatheid and aggression against its neighbours and has committed terrorist acts (assassinations etc.) on a world-wide basis. Let’s remind ourselves that Israel is in breach of 60 UN resolutions and quite a few others were vetoed by the US against the generality of the world opinion.
I look forward to a day when Israel is replaced with a democratic, secular government where Jews, Muslims, Christians, Agnonists and Atheists can live in peace and harmony together.
Best wishes,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 23rd, 2007 at 12:13 pm | Report this commentP
Posted by: baz | January 23rd, 2007 at 12:23 pm | Report this commentI couldnt agree more with you. Let us just hope that this result does not come at the cost of Tehran being nuked by Israel. And let us not forget that 2 of those people with their fingers on the Israeli nuke button are actually Iranian Jews. Go figure…..
Gino Pino
Yes, doubtless you are correct. I apologise for my naiveté and outrage: it never occurred to me that one might ironise in such bland terms about such terrifying events.
I’ve been English all my life, by the way.
Reflector
Posted by: Reflector | January 23rd, 2007 at 1:30 pm | Report this commentHi Reflector,
Posted by: taters | January 23rd, 2007 at 2:24 pm | Report this commentYes, the sarcasm button is on. However, there are those that would say that in earnest, as you well know. So please - don’t feel bad about it.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june03/americas_role_1-10.html
From The News Hour, 1/10/03
WILLIAM RASPBERRY: I want to tighten the point I was hoping to make. That if he is a threat to do something with these weapons we believe he has, isn’t he more of a threat to his immediate neighbors and to the countries between Iraq and Tony Blair’s England?
There are a few other countries that also don’t seem to be particularly upset about this. What is the direct threat to us?
JAMES WOOLSEY: Well, the countries that are near him, and many of our European allies, are sort of trying to play it both ways, and see if they could avoid drawing his attention if we should back down. And they’re behaving very much like Britain and France did in the 1930s, vis-à-vis Hitler. It’s essentially appeasement.
What we are doing, I think, is trying to save the situation in the Middle East from Saddam’s behavior and the follies, in a sense, of some of his neighbors, such as Saudi Arabia. I think what we have to do is keep him from becoming essentially a Hitler of the Middle East. It would have been a lot easier to have stopped Hitler in 1935-36 than it was once he started the war in ‘39. And I think it would be a lot easier to stop Saddam now than it would be two or three years from now when he would be almost certain to have nuclear weapons.
Posted by: Steven Rappaport | January 23rd, 2007 at 4:17 pm | Report this commentWith all due respect to their good intentions, I wish posters would choose a historical analogy OTHER than Munich, 1938. It’s been done to death! Used by Americans whenever & whereever they decide to have a wee war followed by an uninvited occupation it really has served its purpose. It also fits niftily into ‘appeaser’ followed by ‘anti-Semite’ charges which–as night follows day–almost invariable ensue!
Please.
Posted by: Mary Seaton | January 23rd, 2007 at 4:56 pm | Report this commentI am also somewhat unimpressed (hint: this is understatement!) with the thirty-year record of the US in its role of “saving” the Middle East.
I would ask you next time to save someplace else. Alabama or Texas maybe…see how they like it. Y’know…do unto others & all that.
Posted by: Mary Seaton | January 23rd, 2007 at 5:03 pm | Report this commentI meant do unto YOURSELVES as you do unto others, or don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want done to yourselves or to Texas or somewhere like that!
Posted by: MS | January 23rd, 2007 at 5:10 pm | Report this commentI’d be interested in at least a summary of Edwards’ appearance. I do hope what he says here matches the sort of stuff he’s saying at home.
Posted by: Joe Helfrich | January 23rd, 2007 at 5:49 pm | Report this commentTo Joe Helfrich
This is the report of what John Edwards had to say. Obviously he felt he had to pay obeisance at court of AIPAC and other assorted Zionist organisations that dominate the US corporate media and hold the purse strings for any ambitious and venal US politician:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467790614&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
No doubt others like John McCain will try to outdo him!
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 23rd, 2007 at 6:16 pm | Report this commentThis week’s conference is not a surprise. Only a few new names seem to have had their PR people seizing it as an op to join the wannabe winning side. Still, unless this initiative is lead by Israel, it is likely to be suppressed under the more circumspect wisdom of eldres like King Abdullah in Riyahd.
It is interesting to know what presence one observed of one non-American name: Sarkozy. What is his standing in the neocon camp these days? He is a longtime friend of Netanyahou, and Richard Perle has moved in. Not sure if it is just “in Paris” or a bit closer. This AIPAC front deserves more coverage.
Posted by: Charles | January 23rd, 2007 at 8:25 pm | Report this commentA central question is whether the United States has a military option which can be implemented without excessive risk. In the 2002 Millenium Challenge war game, Lt.-Gen. Paul Van Riper, playing the Iranian side, decided to strike first and use unconventional methods. He sunk a significant part of the American fleet. Rather than investigate the problems raised, the Pentagon planners preferred to refloat the fleet and have the Iranians behave as they were supposed to. In 2004, the Atlantic Monthly got Colonel Sam Gardiner, a war games specialist, to war game an attack on Iran, with the help of various military and other experts. His conclusion was: ‘You have no military solution for the problem of Iran.’
An account of the exercise is at: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows
The fact that there is an American army in Iraq, which requires to function enormous quantities of supplies, including vast quantities of fuel, and has highly exposed lines of communication, complicates matters. There is evidently acute anxiety about this among informed American military analysts. See for example the ‘worst case scenario’ published on the blog run by the former DIA Middle East chief Colonel W. Patrick Lang.
Link is at:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2006/04/how_bad_could_i_1.html
Of course, the Iranians have an enormous amount to lose. But by making ‘regime change’ the objective, the Bush Administration has abandoned normal ‘compellence’ strategy, as this becomes problematic if the antagonist comes to feel that he may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.
Accordingly, while a military attack could go well, there are very significant military risks – as well of course as very great economic ones, as there are various ways in which the Iranians could act to disrupt global oil supplies.
As is obvious from earlier comments on this blog, the inhibition of criticism of Israel in the United States is coming into question. If an attack on Iran precipitates either a military catastrophe or serious economic problems, this process will be accelerated. The American public support on which Israeli security ultimately depends could collapse very rapidly. Moreover, attempting to treat anti-Zionism as though it were self-evidently anti-Semitism could backfire very badly, as indeed it is beginning to do today. It involves a very serious risk of eroding the taboo on anti-Semitism which has been a central feature of post-1945 Western culture.
Posted by: David Habakkuk | January 24th, 2007 at 6:52 am | Report this commentHonestly, i think the Iranian desire for nuclear weapons is exagerated. They dont want a traditional bomb. The Americans and Israelis know this. The rhetoric is just useful for media. Believe it or not, this still comes down to oil. How? With a dirty bomb, Iran could render Saudi arabias biggest oil well useless for a thousand years. For the US, which uses 25% of the worlds oil, this would be an economic holocaust. Regime change? I dont think so, try regime destruction. They plan to turn Iran into a federation after obliterating it!
Posted by: Baz | January 24th, 2007 at 8:48 am | Report this commentGood Morning.
Did anybody read the recent comments from the retired US 4 star general Wesley Clark?
Here are his credentials, so he is no pipsqueak (e.g. he was Supreme Allied Commander of Nato Europe for 3 years):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark
This is what he said:
Quote
When we asked him what made him so sure the Bush administration was headed in this direction [ military attack on Iran], he replied: “You just have to read what’s in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.”
At one point Melinda reminded him that she was taking down everything he said (a fact that would have been hard to miss, since she was taking notes on a not-inconspicuous legal pad). His response: ‘Yes, I know.” For Clark, this is the biggest foreign policy issue facing the U.S. “I’m worried about the surge,” he said. “But I’m worried about this even more.”
Unquote
You can read it in Arianna Huffington’s blog: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/dc-notes-wes-clark-is-_b_37837.html
I rest my case (you’d be glad to know!) that any attack on Iran, like the US invasion of Iraq, is a dog’s dinner cooked for the Americans in the kitchens of Tel Aviv.
This unappetising menu of slaughter and mayhem is being handed down, by the American Zionist lobby, to the venal US politicians (like the ones attending the conference Mr. Rachman mentions at the top of the thread) who will force-feed it to the American public. The Zionist domination of the corporate media will further lubricate the wheels of the war (witness today’s doze of manufactured “news” by the Daily Telegraph” about Iran-N Korea nuclear co-operation!!).
Best wishes,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 24th, 2007 at 10:35 am | Report this commentCartooning enemies into good and evil has been a characteristic of American politics for more than a century. Castro is one of the most lasting caricatures. Saddam was another. After Khomeini’s convenient dark glare, the word “Iran” has proven sufficient. As the comment by Baz makes evident, Iran can only be seen as an absolute threat to rather distorted and self-serving definitions of civilised life. Even when perceived vulnerabilities change (i.e., from aggression towards her geographic west to the West through the destruction of Arabian oil fields).
America–and her leaders–must accept that Iran is not evil personified. The sun rises and the sun sets each day over Iranian lives just as elsewhere. “Regime destruction” (followed by “federation”) shows an ignorance of this country’s geographic and cultural integrity that unfortunately extends to the top of the US Administration.
Political correctness, as well as a tendency to “cartoon” evils, should be checked at this terribly late stage in this debate. Accordingly, one should ask why the performance of the US Secretary of State, who should be more expert on foreign affairs than the President she serves, escapes critical analysis and comment.
This President, flawed as he is, is not well served. Judging his counsel was fair when it was Rumsfeld. Cheney plays a foxy game with the media. Pelosi’s press clippings are not those of a ground breaker. Why is Rice cut such slack? Is her performance really better than it seems?
Posted by: Charles | January 24th, 2007 at 10:50 am | Report this commentSpeaking of cartooning, one must be vigilant not to permit Israel to assume only two dimensions/colours. As the Rabbi of France noted four years ago, Israel should be regarded as a nation and a member of the international community. Her government’s actions should not be imputed inappropriately to Jews or the Jewish Diaspora. Ditto for AIPAC. Teh fact of Israel will rest more quietly when greater care is taken on this point.
Posted by: Charles | January 24th, 2007 at 11:01 am | Report this commentPacifist
Wow your sources are really something -I mean the huffington blog, what a news source. Oh and let’s not forget he was supreme commander of Nato. Nato hmmm remind me what that is again?
The truth is that saudi Arabia (and most other arab nations) are just as worried as Israel about Iran going nuke. Weve seen what the sunni and shia barbarians like to do to each other.
Oh and your apologia for ahmidina-jihad regarding the comments “wipe israel off the map” are typycal of a radical-left conspiracy website afficionado. You thick dog - you reveal your true colours with statements like those.
“The Zionist domination of the corporate media”
Now let me think where was the last place in history that conspiracy theories like this one were branded about….
those zionists, they have a secret plot to control the world dont they….
idiotic twat
Posted by: antileft | January 24th, 2007 at 9:17 pm | Report this commentI did not hear of any instance that mr. Ritter was prevented from speaking critically on Israel. The historian Robert Kagan explained in several interviews how U.S policies remain fairly consistent over very long periods of time, regardless of the party in power the policies seldom change in a big way. Just because some policy thinkers in different countries have similar views does not make their exchange of ideas, usually a matter of public record to become automaticalyy a conspiracy. When the Left smears with name calling, inaccurate accustations and pure vilification it is legit. When academics from the conservative camp meet, it is portrayed as a conspiracy and a betrayal.
Posted by: Von Dolla | January 24th, 2007 at 11:46 pm | Report this commentDear Anti-left,
Don’t you think it’s better to leave out porofanites like “twat” and insults like you “thick dog” out of these kinds of discussions? They really add no value.
As for Wesley Clark’s credentials, please re-visit the wikipedia page I mentioned. Have you done more than him in your life?
Isn’t it ridiculous that the former president, Jimmy Carter, and somebody like Wesley Clark are perfunctorily dismissed as being anti-semitic because they don’t put rightwing, Likudnik policies ahead of US national interests?
Think about it.
My best wishes to you.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 25th, 2007 at 9:30 am | Report this commentWhile working at BBC, we were frequently inundated by calls ( in the thousands) from members of Jewish groups and also the Israeli embassy to stop us from interviewing prominent Palestinians and Iranians to give their side of the story on controversial issue. On occasion, given the profile of our intended interviewee, even the British foreign office would call and tell our producers boss very frankly not to air such interviews.
Posted by: baz | January 25th, 2007 at 9:55 am | Report this commentAlso,
Posted by: baz | January 25th, 2007 at 10:01 am | Report this commentin US media outlets like CNN and fox (which is operated by AIPAC members and donators), you cannot even get that far because they are so repressed by the jewish lobby. In fact, the mere mention of interviewing a palestinian and asking fair questions is enough to end your career in the US
Unless I misunderstand, it is the primary responsibility of senior European, US and Asian politicians to ensure that they do everything within reason maximize the wellbeing of their citizens. This holds true regardless of their personal affiliations.
I personally do not see how permitting volatile and reckless adventures in the Middle East can possibly achieve this objective. Most G8 citizens, if consulted, could not give a damn about Iran, Israel, Syria or any other local regional players.
I believe that all the discussions above show that the major problem is that of too much unsupervised devolution of initiatives to local players in this region. The best way forward has to be to begin imposing confidence-building measures on all parties to calm everything down, under carefully scripted supervision in order to systematically begin to dismantle what in essence are tribalistic rivalries and antagonisms whose potential costs if left unsupervised are too horrible to contemplate. In due course, some form of regional economic and political integration can (and will) be promoted, thereby hopefully mitigating these dangerous and volatile animosities.
If Europe could achieve this after the horrors of WW2, I am certain, that with some firm and clear leadership, it should not be that difficult to achieve a similar regional consensus in the Middle East.
It is time to address the issues from a big-picture perspective; this is not a football game where we can safely cheer on one side as the consequences are both too unpredictable, costly and dangerous to contemplate.
Remember, in conclusion, how an assassination in Sarajevo managed to trigger WW1- the consequences of certain actions are sometimes rather difficult to predict without the beneit of hindsight.
I for one do not wish to take the risk of seeing my family’s wellbeing disturbed by an unnecessary conflict that can reasonably easily be mitigated.
Posted by: Ipanema Surfer | January 25th, 2007 at 11:33 am | Report this commentDear ipanema.
Posted by: baz | January 26th, 2007 at 2:42 am | Report this commentWe from the middle east feel the same way, however, it is the CIA and MI6 that have been crafting these hatreds in the middle east purposely to keep arab and iranian governments weak. For example: 1)Islamic fundamentalism was founded by the MI6 in Egypt with the formation of the Islamic brotherhood to keep mubarak in check after Nasser was murdered by the mossad. 2) Al-qaeda was built by the CIA for the same reason in Saudi to keep the royals from starting another oil embargo. 3) the taleban were supported by the US up until 9/11 because the fought the soviets and kept the iranians pre-occupied. 4) saddam was supported by the US which gave him WMD to use against iran and crush the regions sole natural super power so it would not threaten Israels hegemony. 5) the Sunni-Shia divide was originally exploited by the MI6 and further utilised by the CIA to keep muslims at eachothers throats and minimize the chance of unifying the arab nation. This is most obvious now. All this manipulation exists to keep muslim countries weak. Why? To maintain Israels hegemony and force them to pump oil to feed their people. If you want to look after your families well being, ask the US and UK to leave us alone for a change
To Charles
Posted by: Peter | February 12th, 2007 at 5:46 pm | Report this commentCharlie, that you question Jewish dominance of American media is a testimony of your oblivion to basic, easiliy verifiable facts.
And the truth is, Saudi Arabia is not worried about Iran’s hypothetical (10 years from now) nuclear weapons, but about Israel’s existing 200 nuclear warheards.
I’m also glad you mentioned treating Israel a member of international community. Then, peace forces shoould be immediately deployed to Israel and other severe sanctions imposed, since Israel failed to follow UN resolution to withdraw from Jerusalem - and next year we’ll celebrate 60th anniversary of this resolution. Have any other ideas and facts you would like to share, Charlie?
Mr. Rachman, it is not possible sometimes to post comments. THis occurs when the post is too long. but there is no any worning or explanation. It is just says smth. like “correct the error. we think it is spam”. software bag.
Posted by: OM | February 28th, 2007 at 5:15 am | Report this comment