Neil Clark writes:
As I've said on many occasions, when it comes to conspiracy theories, the neocons are in a league of their own. In 1999, they peddled the fiction that Yugoslav forces were committing 'genocide' in Kosovo. Four years later, they peddled the lie that Saddam Hussein's Iraq possessed WMD. (Whatever happened to them, I wonder?) Now in 2009, the neocon conspiracy theory is that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme.
Never mind that US intelligence agencies published a report claiming that Iran has no such programme, or that not a scrap of evidence exists to show that Iran is developing nuclear weapons- the neocons still continue peddle the theory.
Here's 'Mad' Melanie Phillips, writing on her Spectator blog:
"As was entirely predictable, the Iranian government has reacted with utter contempt to the exciting new approach of US President Obama towards resolving the crisis over Iran’s nuclear weapons programme."
Note that Ms Phillips talks of a 'crisis' regarding a country's non-existent nuclear weapons programme- the neocons, like their jack-booted predecessors, love to stoke up artifical international 'crises' every three years or so to get the wars they are so addicted to.
And in The Times, arch neo-con Daniel Finkelstein writes, "As Iran gets a nuclear weapon", as if Iran getting a nuclear weapon were as inevitable as night following day.
In the same way that neocons felt obliged to write of 'Iraq's WMD' in every article they penned in the lead up to the 2003 war, they now feel obliged to write of 'Iran's nuclear weapons programme' as a matter of fact, when it most clearly isn't.
Now there are conspiracy theories and conspiracy theories: Professor Cornelius Wacky-Backy's view that little green men made of cheese live on Mars might be silly, but it doesn't cost any lives. The neocons' conspiracy theories do - at the latest count 1m in Iraq.
Which is why it is so important that we should not allow their unsubstantiated claims regarding 'Iran's nuclear weapons programme' to go unchallenged.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
David,
ReplyDeleteMr. Clark does not have his facts quite right. The intelligence report he cites to spoke of probabilities, not of facts. That is an important consideration when one speaks in no uncertain terms as he does.
Moreover, the report was criticized severely - and not just by Israelis or by those friendly with Israel. The French government indicated its view that the report was wrong. It is my impression that such was based on their own assessment of the discoverable evidence. Further, the author of the US report has now said that his report was not as strongly considered as it might have been - meaning that it was embarrassed when the French and Israeli intelligence agencies produced evidence that supposedly halted activities were not only still continuing but, in fact, not a major part of a weapons building program anyway.
Moreover, there is a crisis with Iran, which has a government which appears to make judgments based religious insanity including, most particularly, the idea that by human agency, the return of the imam can be coaxed out from occultation. That is a troubling thing for the world, since the main aim of this insanity is to coax Muslims into a fight with Europe - and not just with Israel. Hence, those missile launches ought to scare Europeans into defending themselves instead of excusing the return of Medieval logic in a world with modern weapons.
In other words, shame on Mr. Clark.
Now, the fact is that, apart from people in the know in Iran, none of us know Iran's real intentions. What is known for sure is that Iran makes a lot of ugly noise, claiming that they are in a long war with Christian Europe - as, for example, Ahmadinejad stated at his nasty world without Zionism conference.
Then, of course, there are the military parades on which there are missiles bearing the insignia "Death to Israel" on them. And, there are the signs given out at the parades that say the same thing.
My theory: the belligerent talk about Israel relates to claims against Europeans, with Israel serving a symbolic role in that war. Whether Iran means to act on its threats is unclear. What is, however, clear is that none of this is any good for anyone - not for Europeans, not for Israelis, not for Arabs and not for Iranians. Rather, all the nasty talk is pushing people towards war - as the brash talk scares people.
Were I an Iranian leader, I would be opening up for the inspectors, would be seeking to bury the hatchet with Europeans, with Americans and with Israelis. That, however, is not going to occur because, most likely, the source of Iran's belligerency is homegrown and not merely a reaction to belligerency by Westerners, Israelis and others.
"The French government"
ReplyDeleteA Bush Era throwback, like the German and Italian ones.
"Iran, which has a government which appears to make judgments based religious insanity including, most particularly, the idea that by human agency, the return of the imam can be coaxed out from occultation"
Much like the government that existed in the US until less than a month ago. And people who hold pretty much those sort of views are the mainstays of support within the US for your own position on the Middle East.
"That is a troubling thing for the world, since the main aim of this insanity is to coax Muslims into a fight with Europe - and not just with Israel"
There is absolutely no evidence at all for that. Quite the reverse, in fact. The only Muslim attacks in Europe have been by those inspired and funded by the same people who fund the Bushes and the Clintons. And they despise no one more than the Shi'ites, as their treatment of them in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Saudi mother-country and elsewhere amply demonstrates.
"the belligerent talk about Israel relates to claims against Europeans, with Israel serving a symbolic role in that war"
Utter nonsense.
"Rather, all the nasty talk is pushing people towards war - as the brash talk scares people"
Well, there's no arguing with that...
"Were I an Iranian leader, I would be opening up for the inspectors"
Didn't do Iraq any good. Here as there, if you are being paid to "find" something that does not exist, then you have to keep saying that it is being "hidden".
"the source of Iran's belligerency is homegrown"
Like what? And what "belligerency"? When did Iran last invade anywhere?
Mercifully, Neal, no one is listening to any of this anymore. Left to herself, Hillary Clinton would have done. That AIPAC-endorsed woman promised to nuke Iran (with a reserved parliamentary seat for a Jew, and with more women than men at university) if so instructed by her Jew-hating, misogynistic paymasters in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE. But she didn't win. Thank God.
And those with views closest to your own not only lost, but have destroyed the party that they hijacked in the first place. It is, in many ways, a great loss (although its best features are being carried on in such forms as the ending of the Iraq War and the promotion of detante with Iran). But they are not.
David,
ReplyDeleteI am a very liberal Democrat, as that term is understood in the US. So, your characterizations of my losses seem, at least to me, a bit premature.
As for what the Iranians have said, must I quote it for you? Evidently I must. Here is Ahmadinejad's explanation of what his objection to Israel is about - and note that it has rather little to do with Palestinian Arabs and a whole lot to do with a perceived rivalry with Christiandom. In fact, he looks at the Arab Israeli conflict as an episode in the conflict with European Christians. Here are his words:
We need to examine the true origins of the issue of Palestine: is it a fight between a group of Muslims and non-Jews? Is it a fight between Judaism and other religions? Is it the fight of one country with another country? Is it the fight of one country with the Arab world? Is it a fight over the land of Palestine? I guess the answer to all these questions is ‘no.’
The establishment of the occupying regime of Qods [Jerusalem]was a major move by the world oppressor [ the United States] against the Islamic world. The situation has changed in this historical struggle. Sometimes the Muslims have won and moved forward and the world oppressor was forced to withdraw.
Unfortunately, the Islamic world has been withdrawing in the past 300 years. I do not want to examine the reasons for this, but only to review the history. The Islamic world lost its last defenses in the past 100 years and the world oppressor established the occupying regime. Therefore the struggle in Palestine today is the major front of the struggle of the Islamic world with the world oppressor and its fate will decide the destiny of the struggles of the past several hundred years.
The Palestinian nation represents the Islamic nation [Umma] against a system of oppression, and thank God, the Palestinian nation adopted Islamic behavior in an Islamic environment in their struggle and so we have witnessed their progress and success.
That sounds a lot like a statement that the fight against Israel is a means to an end. And, the end relates to the world oppressor, the West led by the US but, since he goes back, it also means the West as in European Christiandom.
Now, as for your view that the US government was also run by religious fruitcakes, my answer is that such tells me, if it is a correct assessment, about the US. It tells me very little, whether or not it is a correct statement, about Iran. And, the issue here concerns Iran's intentions, which require an examination of Iran, not the beliefs of former President Bush.
As for belligerency, I noticed that the head of Hamas was in Iran, thanking the country for its role in the Arab fight against Israel. So, to say that Iran has had no belligerency is to speak incorrectly. What can be said is that Iran has not itself invaded any country but, notwithstanding that, it has established a network of other NGO groups which, whether or not such groups have their own reasons to fight, are willing to act belligerently on behalf of Iran. So, this is belligerency by other means.
You indicated that Iraq did what I suggest Iran do. That is not so. Iraq played games with the inspection regime, as noted by the inspectors. They, however, still did not believe that Iraq had weapons but that is a different thing from suggesting that Iraq cooperated, since the opposite view was stated by the inspectors at the time.
As for what happens in the Muslim regions going forward, it is anyone's guess. I was not advocating war and I do not advocate war. I have no use for war, so you misunderstand my position entirely.
I was saying that Iran is doing nothing to halt the march towards war - something it could do if it wanted. It is not clear that it wants to change the perception. That unwillingness to change the perception may be out of fear. It may be that it really plans to build the bomb. It may be a cultural inclination to be defensive. It could be a lot of things. The one thing, however, that it is not is smart, since all of Iran's neighbors - Arabs and others - want Iran contained, if not de-fanged. So, I would not bet for much of a non-belligerent US stance going forward.
The US will do what it believes serves US interest, as has always been the case. And, likely Obama, if he thinks Iran is moving towards having the bomb real soon will act militarily - because US policy (i.e. the policy of the Obama clique and all other US presidents going back to the end of WWII) calls for preventing any and all parties from obtaining the means to challenge US dominance in the oil regions.
If you think Obama will change that policy, you live on a different planet. The forces for that view are so strong in the US that even if he opposed that view - and there is no evidence to suggest he does -, he would be forced to uphold it.
In any event, he has already said that he would, if necessary by force, keep Iran from challenging US supremacy in the oil region, and such was repeated by his administration this very week and by more than one official.
There is, lastly, the point that the Israelis, whether or not correctly, are afraid that Iran means what its leaders say. Never again means something to them. And, no American president will challenge Israel from defending its interest, no matter what you think Obama believes. That would amount not only to political suicide. It would make him a pariah among Democrats.
So, the bottom line here is that the US, one way or the other, is not going to sit idly by for Iran becoming a challenge to the US. And, if it does nothing, the Israelis are going to act anyway- lest you think that Netanyahu is bluffing. And, Europeans, collectively speaking, have made themselves irrelevant to the calculations of the Israelis by being so disproportionately hostile to Israel. Which is to say, the Israelis could care less what Europeans think because Israel will, no matter what it does, be condemned by the bigots in Europe.
"I am a very liberal Democrat"
ReplyDeleteStill, a candidate of your foreign policy persuasion failed to be nomianted, and then another one afiled to be elected.
Ahmadinejad, with a Parliament in which three seats are reserved for Christians (and onbe for Jews, of course), does not use the word "Christendom" or anything approaching it.
If anything, he seems to have bought into the Americanist-Zionist definition of the West specifically without reference to Christianity (the only way in which it can embrace either the American Founding Fathers or the State of Israel), complete with its weird projection of itself back onto the Europe that both the Founding Fathers and the Zionists so despised (as the latter still do), and then back even further onto that civilisation's Classical and Biblical roots.
"What can be said is that Iran has not itself invaded any country but, notwithstanding that, it has established a network of other NGO groups which, whether or not such groups have their own reasons to fight, are willing to act belligerently on behalf of Iran."
No, they "are willing to act belligerently on behalf of" themselves. Iran just helps them out (because, it must be said, taht is what her voters want), which is hardly a good thing, but which it is very distinguish from how Britain has operated well within living memory (at least), or how France operates in Africa, or how the US operates all over the world.
In any case, there are only two such "NGOs", Hamas and Hizbollah. Not much of a network. No one has ever established the sligtest link between Iran and, say, the insurrgency in Iraq. It is just presupposed, and then repeated endlessly in order to give it currency. Mercifully, no one any longer believes, or even listens to, those who do that repeating.
"The US will do what it believes serves US interest, as has always been the case."
Quite right, too. Which is why he certainly will not have a war against Iran, no matter what.
"Obama, if he thinks Iran is moving towards having the bomb real soon will act militarily - because US policy (i.e. the policy of the Obama clique and all other US presidents going back to the end of WWII) calls for preventing any and all parties from obtaining the means to challenge US dominance in the oil regions. "
By the time that Iran is anywhere near a bomb (which in ant case she does not want and is not seeking), Obama and his successors (as it would be by then) will, one trusts, be well on the way to delivering energy independence, and thus independence from the Middle East.
Within that region, Obama (who is President) is far more concerned about good relations with the woman-educating, Jew-representing, election-holding, culturally refined Iran than about good relations with the woman-hating, Jew-hating, election-hating, culture-hating Saudi Arabia preferred by Clinton (who is merely Secretary of State) just as by her husband and most or all previous Presidents since the War, certainly including Bush.
I don't just mean that they preferred Saudi Arabia over Iran. They preferred Saudi Arabia over any other country in the Middle East, including Israel. Coming second to somewhere else has long, even always, been Israel's lot. But coming second to Iran is lot better than coming second to Saudi Arabia and those who come with her in Kuwait and the UAE.
"The forces for that view are so strong in the US"
Obama has already defeated them, first in the primaries and then at the polls.
"In any event, he has already said that he would, if necessary by force, keep Iran from challenging US supremacy in the oil region"
Which she is not attempting to do. And there has been no "US supremacy" there. There has been Saudi-Kuwaiti-Emirati supremacy, with American politicians literally as their hired help.
"Never again means something to them."
Oh, don't even try it! A war between Iran and Israel (not that it is going to happen) would just be a war between one country and another. That is all. They might as well be Britain and France, or Zambia and Zimbabwe, or Wherever and Wherever Else.
"no American president will challenge Israel from defending its interest"
Nor should he. But nor should he go in with them. And nor would this President do that.
"It would make him a pariah among Democrats."
Not anymore, it wouldn't. AIPAC threw everything at nominating Clinton instead of him. It lost. It is a busted flush.
"if it does nothing, the Israelis are going to act anyway"
Against what? There is no threat. Of course, if there were, then that would be a different matter. But it would be their problem. Not Britain's. And not America's.
No one is listening to the warmongers anymore. Thank God.
David,
ReplyDeleteHow about some evidence that Obama's position on Israel differs from Mrs. Clinton - other than his promise to support Jerusalem as Israel's capitol.
How about some evidence that Israel's friends have lost out in the US election. That would come as a surprise to people like Professor Alan Dershowitz, who is avidly pro-Israel and pro-Obama - advocating Obama to Jewish audiences as Israel's true friend. Do you think Dershowitz is misinformed? Do you really think that? Or, is your view wishful thinking. Here is a suggestion for you: Dershowitz is well informed - really well informed and really influential in the US. He is on everyone's short list of candidates for a place on the Supreme Court, notwithstanding his odd views on torture.
You are very far removed from the debate in the US. Obama will be a liberal in the American (i.e. true)sense of the word. That means he will, as a matter of logic, be very pro-Israel and he will also be very supportive of traditional liberal advocacy to keep the US as top dog in the Middle East. And, that requires him - since the Saudis (who supported him, by the way) and Jordanians and Israelis and Egyptians demand such as the cost of permitting US ascendancy in the region.
So, I do not agree with your assessment at all.
As for your assessment of Iran and its belligerency, paying others to fight wars - whether or not like having a foreign legion - is belligerent by any understanding of the word.
As for Iran's intentions, you and I do not have a crystal ball. We only know what is said by third parties, none of whom really know. And, that means that decisions all around will be made by parties who really do not know what Iran is up to.
Again, I have no idea if Iran is remotely interested in nuclear weapons. On the other hand, many countries think that is the case. And, since a lot of belligerent talk out of Iran has been directed at Israel, I would expect Israel to do what its next leader says - since such is what Netanyahu really believes.
You make a point that Iran allows Jews set aside places in the Parliament. That, to me, means nothing at all. Iran's policy towards its Jewish population is one of terrorizing them. Recall that Israel has been paying Iran to release its Jewish population, at the cost of $50,000 per person. So, frankly, I think you have no idea what you are talking about. Iran, historically, is among the most intolerant countries on Earth - a country where, historically, non-Muslims were forced to remain indoors on rainy days. Do you know why? Because such was perceived as having the potential to make Muslims who come in contact with such rainwater, impure, ritually speaking.
It is also a country that, even now, has had pogroms against Jews. And, Jews are regularly accused of being spies.
So, the country has token representative. Big deal. It is meaningless, since to be a Jew in Iran amounts to having no rights.
"How about some evidence that Obama's position on Israel differs from Mrs. Clinton"
ReplyDeleteHe's all in favour of detante with Iran. I bet she isn't. And her backers in AIPAC (or in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE, for that matter) certainly aren't.
"Dershowitz is well informed - really well informed and really influential in the US. He is on everyone's short list of candidates for a place on the Supreme Court, notwithstanding his odd views on torture."
Obama nearly exiled Clinton to the Supreme Court until she publicly rebuffed the offer before it had even been publicly made. Looks like he's going exile Dershowitz to it instead.
"That means he will, as a matter of logic, be very pro-Israel"
Not according to the "very pro-Israel" people, he won't. He cares more about Iran than about Israel. Any why not? Iran is enormous, populous, strategically situated, and possessed of oil. If he didn't care more about Iran than about Israel, then that would be a problem. But this isn't. Quite the reverse, in fact.
"decisions all around will be made by parties who really do not know what Iran is up to"
That rules out the neocon/"liberal interventionist" fantasists and liars, then. Thank God for that.
"On the other hand, many countries think that is the case."
One does (if it really does), and it's not yours.
"since a lot of belligerent talk out of Iran has been directed at Israel"
The reverse of the truth.
"You make a point that Iran allows Jews set aside places in the Parliament. That, to me, means nothing at all."
No, I don't expect that it does.
"Iran's policy towards its Jewish population is one of terrorizing them."
Total falsehood. Thank God that no one who talks like this now has any real influence over the President of the United States.
"Recall that Israel has been paying Iran to release its Jewish population, at the cost of $50,000 per person."
"Release" them from what? All this means is that they have no desire to leave Iran. Why would they have?
"Iran, historically, is among the most intolerant countries on Earth"
Utter rubbish! The intolerant streak in immediately post-Revolutionary Iran was an abberrtion, pretty much at an end now. Tehran may not be San Francisco, but even so.
"a country where, historically, non-Muslims were forced to remain indoors on rainy days"
Well, let's not start about witch-burning, or slavery, or Jim Crow, or...
"It is also a country that, even now, has had pogroms against Jews."
When? Like the pogroms that you imagine are happening in Britain, I suppose. Blogged about for credulous American readers by the likes of Melanie Phillips.
"to be a Jew in Iran amounts to having no rights."
No, to be a Jew in Iran is, among other things, to have a guaranteed seat for you community in Parliament, and to be so settled that the Israelis have to pay you to leave (but even then, you won't).
I don't think that either Americans or Israelis, or even Europeans at times, quite get just how long the Jews have been in Iran. They are part and parcel of it like nowhere else on earth except, perhaps, Yemen or Morocco.