Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Iran: Here We Go Again?
“We will not build two (nuclear) bombs in the face of (America’s) 20,000,” said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in response to an International Atomic Energy Agency report this week that accuses Iran of doing just that. He called Yukiya Amano, the head of the IAEA, a US puppet, saying: “This person does not publish a report about America and its allies' nuclear arsenals.”
Well, that’s true, actually. Amano will never publish a report about America’s nuclear weapons (only 5,133 of them now, actually). He hasn’t said anything about Israel’s, Britain’s and France’s weapons of mass destruction either. And his report is largely based on information fed to him by Western intelligence agencies.
But apart from that, Amano is as impartial and free from US influence as you would expect a career Japanese diplomat to be. Only cynical people will see any resemblance to Colin Powell’s performance at the United Nations in 2003, when the US defense secretary held up a test tube and assured us all that Iraq really was working on germ warfare.
Iraq was allegedly working on nuclear weapons, too: former President George Bush’s famous “smoking gun,” which also subsequently went missing. And on the basis of this “intelligence” about Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction,” the United States and its more gullible allies invaded the country. Hundreds of thousands died, no weapons were found, and nothing was learned. Here we go again.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The same intelligence agencies are producing the same sort of reports about Iran that we heard eight years ago about Iraq’s nuclear ambitions, and interpreting the information in the same highly prejudiced way.
Many people in the West realize that they are being hustled into yet another attack on a Middle Eastern country, but they don’t really worry about it too much. After all, it will only be air strikes, and we all know that an air-only war is practically casualty-free for the side with air superiority. Look at Libya, for example.
But how many citizens of the United States or Britain know that Iran has ten times as many people as Libya? Maybe one in ten, maybe one in twenty. How many know that Iran is a partially democratic, technologically proficient state with no history of attacking its neighbors, not a tinpot dictatorship run by a vicious loon? About the same number. How many realize that the war would not end with a few days of air strikes? Practically none.
The interesting exception to all this is Israel, where people do know those things, and where there is a vigorous debate about whether attacking Iran is a good idea. A lot think it is not, and that also goes for both of Israel’s intelligence agencies, Mossad and Shin Bet. Meir Dagan, the recently retired head of Mossad, said last January that an attack on Iran was “the stupidest idea” he had ever heard.
So Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak, who do both want to attack Iran (or rather, have the United States do it for them), have gone public. If the Western powers don’t act at once, they warn, then Iran will get nuclear weapons and Armageddon will be just around the corner.
There are two things wrong with this proposition. One is the evidence. If you believe it all, it shows that Iran wants the knowledge and equipment that would let it build a nuclear weapon very quickly if necessary: an Israeli nuclear threat, a military coup in nuclear-armed Pakistan that brings young Shia-hating officers to power, whatever.
The evidence does NOT show that Iran is actually building a nuclear weapon now, or has any present intention of doing so. And having the knowledge and equipment that would let you do so fast in an emergency is entirely legal under IAEA rules.
The other problem with the accusations against Iran is the logic behind them. Building a nuclear weapon now would be extremely costly for Iran in terms of economic sanctions, global diplomatic isolation and the like if it became known. But it would be completely pointless from a deterrence point of view if it remained secret.
Deterrence is the only logical reason that Iran would ever want nuclear weapons, since it would be suicidal for it to attack anybody with them. As Mahmoud Ahmadnejadi pointed out (above), it would have at the most a few nuclear warheads. The United States has thousands of them, Israel has hundreds of them, and even Pakistan has dozens.
If Iran’s leaders were completely logical in their thinking, they wouldn’t waste a minute thinking about nuclear deterrence. They’d just rely on the fact that their military can completely shut the Gulf to oil traffic and bring the global economy to its knees if anybody attacks them. However, they are still a lot more rational than their Western counterparts – or at least than their Western counterparts can afford to seem in public.
You heard about that recent exchange between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US President Barack Obama that went out on an open microphone? Sarko said “I can’t stand (Netanyahu) any more. He’s a liar.” And Obama replied: “YOU’RE sick of him? I have to deal with him every day.” What about? One gets you ten that it’s about bombing Iran.
83 Comments so far
Show All"You heard about that recent exchange between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US President Barack Obama that went out on an open microphone? Sarko said “I can’t stand (Netanyahu) any more. He’s a liar.” And Obama replied: “YOU’RE sick of him? I have to deal with him every day.” What about? One gets you ten that it’s about bombing Iran."
No hadn't heard about that. But I have now:
"The French leader and the US President were so anxious to rip Bibi apart that they blurted out their feelings openly, both of them unaware that the private conversation was being broadcast for over three minutes on the headsets still on the ears of journalists.
In order to protect the confidentiality of Sarkozy and Obama, the reporters who heard the insulting remarks were then asked to protect the two leaders by "signing an agreement to keep mum on the embarrassing comments."
One member of the media confirmed that "there were discussions between journalists and they agreed not to publish the comments due to the sensitivity of the issue." Like what? The sensitive issue that Barack Obama is a phony, two-faced, Israel-hating liar?"
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/jeannieology/111109
"The conversation apparently began with President Obama criticizing Sarkozy for not having warned him that France would be voting in favor of the Palestinian membership bid in UNESCO despite Washington's strong objection to the move.
The conversation then drifted to Netanyahu, at which time Sarkozy declared: "I cannot stand him. He is a liar." According to the report, Obama replied: "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!" "
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4145266,00.html
What sort of reporter agrees not to publish something like this?
The kind of Corporate appeasing lapdog who wants to keep his job.
Good point about what passes for journalists these days. But let's return to Oblahblah and the Zionist running France, shall we? Yeah, they don't like Bibi because Bibi is a buffoon and a liar. (Strange how liars can't stand other liars, by the way.) But this doesn't mean that they don't agree with Bibi.
And, of course, why would Obama have to listen to, and deal with Netanyahu everyday unless he was getting some marching orders from him?
As for the bombing of Iran, the Russians are not going to sit on the sidelines for this one.
I have always felt that Netanyahu might trigger World War III, and he just might do that.
Sad thing is that it's just too damn easy to whip most Americans up into a flag waving, frothing a the mouth xenophobic fervor...
War is a force that defines us, and gives us meaning, indeed.
* * * * *
BTW, the new Call of Duty is out, if you hadn't seen the billboards everywhere! Good for the reflexes and aids concentration and problem solving skills! The latest and greatest in 1st person shooter graphics and realistic responsiveness! Fun for kids of all ages! Black Ops and Zombies, what could be more wholesome?
Salusa Secundus,
Bingo!
Whip the flags and around you, can't go wrong. Even the dumbest folks will follow you to hell. I like your words usage. I couldn't do it.
"frothing a the mouth xenophobic fervor" like mad dogs? Excellent choice of words. :-)
Re: "Excellent choice of words."
Well, minus the inevitable typo, thank you. : ) And don't be discouraged... you too can be an unapologetic US exceptionalist, and an ultra-nationalist mad-dog if you just put a little effort into it... We've got a whole political system and a deeply ingrained worldview that will encourage and support you in your quest for reactionary aggression and war zealotry! Its one of the fundamental character traits of this nation!
Bibi, the Middle East yahoo, wants the U.S. to incinerate the Iranian people and 'gardenernorcal' thinks that any off mike remark by Sarkozy and Obama about Netyahoo is 'insulting'?
Obama, in this case of his, Hillary's SD, the FBI, and CIA crusade against Iran, is being a pragmatist. He knows that he would not be in the White House if AIPAC found itself inconvenienced by his presence there. He, and every member of the House and the Senate are aware that that is a political fact of life. Some participate reluctantly in their treasonous subservience to AIPAC and their obsequious relationship to the Israeli Likud Party, an absolute requirement for entry into establishment game of US politics. Another few of them participate gladly in placing the interests of Israel before those of the US. I don't understand the US voting public in its dealing with this issue of the US putting another nations whims and perceived needs before its own national policy and interests. The good (but rather dense) people of Connecticut voted into the US Senate the candidate of a third party of one, the Joe Lieberman Party. The general admonition of "vote third party" cannot in all reason apply in every case
This attribution of pragmatism to the president is not intended to dismiss the general mendacious and politically self-serving behavior of B Obama.
Money is power. Bankers control the money. Banking is international. The bankers are being threatened and would like some chaos to disrupt the threat. (To say nothing of the traditionally huge profits of war.)
mermaidblue,
Are we going to have another war? But, this one will be special, the Democrats loves it. Obama will assure a second term. This one is special b'cuz it is a nuclear war. Bomb the hell out Iran and we will “feel” much safer. It is not insanity, but the NeoCons wishes and hopping Obama would go ahead and fulfill their dreams which Dubya could never have archived.
mermaidblue,
Never underestimate Obama and the so-call liberal’s Democrats in both Houses of Congress. They are even more NeoCon than Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bolton and Ashcroft combine. If Obama could stomach murdering Americans’ citizens, continue Dubya's evils-deeds and add "Drone.” I cannot envision why he will not do it. Mind you he couldn’t careless about his black brothers and sister and even deported more Hispanic than his predecessor. Theses are facts and not made up!
I honestly believe the utterly pathetic line up on the Republican 'challenger' side (challenged side is more like it), is due to the fact that the 1% (more accurately, the .01%) are for good reason, happy as can be with their Trojan Horse boy, Obama.
The idea, is that he'll be re-elected, and therefore reconfirmed as 'America's preference', a 'moderate centrist', who knows how to get 'practical, real reform' passed, reform that helps 'all Americans', left or right, just like Obama's Health Deform legislation, which the US populace has readily and vociferously endorsed and embraced!
Uh, no, not really.
Obama to me is just another wannabe Roman emperor, throwing bread and circuses at the masses, while taking the world to war and busy fiddling all the while.
American Democracy is truly dead, and what we have is just a show, produced and performed in very very poor taste.
"Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee."
—Helen Keller, 1911
Even the blind and deaf knew and sensed the truth, over a hundred years ago.
Salusa Secundus,
Yep, this is a terrible world we're living in. Especially the NeoCon (Dim and Repug) bending on dragging us into a terrible nuclear war, which no one will win. I don’t believe the Irian or the crazy fundamentalists will remain silence should Israel bomb Iran. Since 2008, we get nothing but horrible news one after another. How on earth could the Democrats continue to support Obama and the rest of the pigs is beyond me.
Very good quote from Helen Keller, how and where did you find it? Thanks
Helen Keller was pretty amazing for more than just her heroic story of overcoming overwhelming challenges... She also came to be as much a political firebrand as any you're likely to find on these boards. She joined the Socialist Pary in 1909, and was a prominent spokesperson for them throughout her adult life. So I can't say when or where I 'found' the quote, I just keep a list of some of the best from my various readings, and paste them to my posts when appropriate.
Cheers and Peace to you, sivasm.
Helen Keller was brilliant. She made a very astute observation regarding the Suffrage Movement. She was certainly not opposed to equality of the right to vote but asked another to look to the example of MEN voting for the past few hundred years and whether it had really improved their lot a heck of a lot.
This is when they were being sent off to wars and working in Coal mines on 12 hr shifts 6 days a week and dying of black lung at 40.
GwNorth,
Well said Amen.
I understand you are replying to Salusa Secundus and very often get mixup. I always paste the person I'm replying to avoid confusing. Good one :-)
I agree with everything the article says, (with fury!), except for one small piece of absolute bullshit:- "a tinpot dictatorship run by a vicious loon".
It seems that demonisation is such a very powerful weapon of propaganda that that this author is completely sucked in. Or perhaps because certain pieces of propaganda are needed in order to be published in Al Jazeera.
Libya was one of the best countries to live in. Free education, medical, housing for those who needed it, charity for neighboring countries, major works, a trillion invested around the world.
In Libya, women were never locked in their homes, while their husbands, fathers and brothers go to work. Gadaffi forbid restricting women's mobility. In Libya, women are allowed to move about the city, go shopping or visit friends without a male escort. Unbelievable as it sounds, throughout most of the Arab world, such freedoms are strictly forbidden.
This was a war that had to begin at the borders, because that is where we had our agents. A war where the UK SAS and the CIA have been caught red handed in forming "the rebellion". A war where the rebel leader was a CIA asset, having lived for years in the USA.
This was a war where Nato backed the “rebels” with a fabricated story about Gaddafi planning “genocide” in Benghazi. This was a massive issue IN OUR MEDIA. This is a war where NATO has committed massive war crimes that they will never be made to answer for. Can you remember the claims that NATO had to be involved for humanitarian reasons, claiming that Gadaffi was going to bomb innocent civillians. NATO has done that many many times over and this has NEVER been an issue in our media.
Here is a picture of Sirte:- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049108/ Libya-wars-stand-Sirte-Pictures-city-shelled-smithereens.html
Gaddaffi emerged from a scene where US oil companies were making a fortune and at the same time bleeding the locals dry. Their puppet, Idris, and his cohorts were rich, the US oil corporations were making a fortune, and the general population was poor. Gadaffi reversed that completely by spending the oil money in Libya. HENCE THE ENDLESS CAMPAIGN OF DEMONISATION LEADING TO THE BOMBING OF LIBYA WAR.
The pretext for the war on Libya was just as phony as the cause bellicose in Iraq: in place of weapons of mass destruction, in Libya charges of genocide and rape were fabricated. A UN resolution claiming the right to militarily intervene to “protect civilians” was cooked up, and NATO launched an 8 month war based on nearly 30,000 air attacks
the writer said Iran is NOT run by a tinpot dictator.
It seemed quite clear to me that the "tinpot loon" the writer was referring to was Gaddafi.
A google search of terms like "Gaddafi atrocities" brings up virtually nothing... except numerous recent articles about atrocities comitted by Gaddaafi's opponents. Even the biased Human Rights Watch which has leveled criticism of supposed human rights violations against Chavez (like revoking the license of a TV station driectly involved in a coup attempt against a democratically elected government) and even the Jean-Bertrand-Aristide (for, well, not being liked by Bill Clinton), has no published dirt on Gaddafi.
And yes, Libyans enjoyed the highest standard of living in all of Africa - far better than that darling of the west, South Africa - thanks to Gaddafi's social programs.
And under Gaddafi's secular, socialist government, libiyans certainly enjoyed far more civil liberties than the oppressive theocracy of Iran - not that I don't support the entirely separate issue of Iran's right to defend itself against the imperialists and zionists through the most vigorous means possible.
there is an excellent piece on the on the history of the nato invasion of Libya at the London Review of Books by Hugh Roberts:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n22/hugh-roberts/who-said-gaddafi-had-to-go
quote:
So Gaddafi is dead and Nato has fought a war in North Africa for the first time since the FLN defeated France in 1962. The Arab world’s one and only State of the Masses, the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriyya, has ended badly. In contrast to the bloodless coup of 1 September 1969 that overthrew King Idris and brought Gaddafi and his colleagues to power, the combined rebellion/civil war/ Nato bombing campaign to protect civilians has occasioned several thousand (5000? 10,000? 25,000?) deaths, many thousands of injured and hundreds of thousands of displaced persons, as well as massive damage to infrastructure. What if anything has Libya got in exchange for all the death and destruction that have been visited on it over the past seven and a half months?
[....]
unquote
First of all for those who are making excuses for the author use of "a tinpot dictatorship run by a vicious loon" - he obviously was referring to Khadaffi - though not by name!
One BIG potential Risk of FUK-US NATOs 'victorious' assault on Libya is- it will likely fuel a drive toward Nuclear Weapons Proliferation- especially by those who like Iraq & Libya [IE: Iran & Syria] know, or should know, they are next on the US NATO {s}Hit List! The US & UK attacked Iraq falsely claiming that Saddam had WMDs & an active nuke weapons prog. They then cut a deal w Khadaffi to give-up his alleged so-called WMD prog - probably lying to him that they would then take him off their {s}Hit List [Obviously they Did NOT!]. Then 7 - 8 yrs later FUK-US NATO goes all out after Khadaffi's head & didn't stop till they got it! So now all the usual suspects [US, UK , France, Israel, etc] are still rattling sabers over Iran's alleged nuke weapons prog [much will be made about the 'new' IAEA report- more on that below]- which is the same ole-same ole twice warmed over, BUT They've been crying wolf over Iran's thus far non-existent nukes for most of the past decade! But Wait- N Korea was also on the Bushites' 'Axis of Evil' List, BUT when N.Korea confirmed it Really Did Have Nuke Weapons by Exploding a Couple in so-called 'Tests' - Guess What Did NOT Happen to Them! In fact no-one is even openly speculating about attacking N.Korea like they did Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc!
So what is the lesson that those from Venezuela, to Cuba, to Sudan, to Zimbabwe, to Iran, to N.Korea, etc... are likely to learn? If you ain't prepared to kiss-up to & bend over to be ASS Raped by the FUK-US NATO powers while grinning that you like it - Maybe you should consider all options are on the table- Including Nukes! O-bomb-em came to power claiming he wanted to End nuclear proliferation & work toward eliminating all nuclear weapons period [IE: Total Nuclear Dis-armament]. But his part in the Libyan assault is likely to have just the opposite effect! This is exactly the Wrong Thing to encourage for a stable & livable long-term future. Not only should Nuke Weapons be Completely Eliminated but, as Fukushima has shown again, fission nuke reactors should also be completely phased out! But w all this saber-rattling over Iran's alleged nuke weapons [NOT!] - they might just give Iran a justified reason to GO For IT - Especially if the NeoCon / NATO / Likud Axis so-call 'preemptively' attacks Iran! If that happens, as Stevie Wonder said- 'Heaven Help US All'!
More on the 'New' IAEA's Chief's & supposed nuke weapons 'Expert' David Albright's roles in hyping the alleged Iranian nuke so-called 'Threat to World Peace' - from Rob Parry @ Consortium News Nov 8 Article: 'An Iraq-WMD Replay on Iran?'
> 'In summer 2003, after the promised Iraqi WMD caches proved NON-Existent, journalism watchdog group FAIR did a study on the American press corps’ gullibility and citing the role of weapons 'expert' David Albright... Albright was cited in hundreds of news articles and made scores of TV appearances as an authority on Iraqi weapons. One prewar quote from Albright (CNN, 10/5/02) was: ‘In terms of the chemical and biological weapons, Iraq has those now'... Yet, when the W-Post cited Albright on Monday, as the key source of a front-page article about Iran’s supposed progress on “nuclear capability,” All History of Albright’s Role in the Iraq Fiasco DisAppeared... Albright said IAEA officials have concluded that Iran ‘has sufficient information to design and produce an implosion nuclear device’ using highly enriched uranium as its core... The Post cited Albright as describing a key breakthrough for Iran when it obtained the design for an R265 generator, “a hemispherical Aluminum Shell with an intricate array of high explosives that detonate with split-second precision - which compresses a sphere of enriched uranium to trigger a nuclear chain reaction”... ' <
Besides this David Albright [I wonder if he's related to Madame 'I think the lives of 500,000 Iraqi children are worth it' Albright] Guy having been Completely Wrong on Iraq's NON-Existent WMDs - there are other red flags for those who have some basic theoretical knowledge about nuke warheads. Though I am definitely NOT an expert, there is some basic info available from open-source [IE: non-classified] sources. First- The past history of the development of nuke warheads have begun w prototypes that use the gun-type trigger using U235 [though its theoretically possible to build a warhead using U235 w an implosive trigger], because its technically much easier to build, though less efficient & the ability to miniaturize it is quite restricted. BUT- Pu239 Warheads Must Use the Implosion Method- Pu239 warheads simply won't work w a gun-type trigger. 2nd- And Even more curious is that the implosion trigger allegedly of Iranian design uses an AL shell- according to Wikipedia you also need to use either Iron, Lead, Tungsten, or perhaps U238 in this shell either w or WithOut AL for 2 specific reasons- 1} Iron & lead, Tungsten, U238 etc- are much better than AL at reflecting neutrons back into the fissile core thus increasing the efficiency of the nuke fission reaction. 2} Because iron, lead, tungsten, U238- is much heavier & denser than AL so they're better as acting like a implosion momentum driver [IE: tamper] to compress the Fissile material past its Critical mass density & hold it together as it is fissioning.
Again I could be wrong - but to me this sounds like the Iranian equivalent to - 'Iraq sought to buy yellow cake uranium form Niger' [NOT! - Plus the French have control over Niger's Uranium supply - So it would have been very unlikely that Saddam could have tried to get large amounts of Uranium without the French knowing about it] & the aluminum tubes hyped controversy - which ALL turned out to be a Bunch of BS!
An Even Bigger Red-Flag on this Albright Guy comes from IPS' Gareth Porter [Here @ Common Dreams Report - Nov 9 Headlines: IAEA's 'Soviet Nuclear Scientist' Never Worked on Weapons'] & ex-UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter.
First Porter: > 'The report of the IAEA published by David Albright's think tank Tuesday repeated the sensational claim that a former Soviet nuclear weapons scientist had helped Iran construct a detonation system that 'could' be used for a nuclear weapon...But it turns out that the foreign expert, identified as Vyacheslav Danilenko, is not a nuclear weapons scientist but one of the top specialists in the world in the production of nanodiamonds by explosives... In fact Danilenko has worked solely on nanodiamonds from the beginning of his research career and is considered one of the pioneers in the development of nanodiamond technology, as published scientific papers confirm... A book covering the history of Russian patents related to nanodiamonds documents the fact that Danilenko's centre developed key processes as early as 1963 that were later used at major "detonation nanodiamond" production centres... The technology is based on an explosion chamber 100 cubic meters in volume, which Danilenko designed... The IAEA and David Albright {director of the International Institute for Science and Security in Washington} who was the source of the news reports about Danilenko, never bothered to check the accuracy of the original claim by an unnamed "Member State" on which the IAEA based its assertion about his nuclear weapons background... Albright gave a "private briefing" for "intelligence professionals" last week, in which he named Danilenko as the foreign expert who had been contracted by Iran's Physics Research Centre in the mid-1990s and identified him as a "former Soviet nuclear scientist"..., The unnamed member state that informed the IAEA about Danilenko's alleged experience as a Soviet nuclear weapons scientist is almost certainly Israel, which has been the source of virtually all purported intelligence on Iranian work on nuclear weapons over the past decade... Israel has made no secret of its determination to influence world opinion on the Iranian nuclear program by disseminating information to governments and news media, including purported [suspect] Iran government documents. Israeli foreign ministry and intelligence officials told journalists Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins about the special unit of Mossad dedicated to that task at the very time the fraudulent documents were being produced... Jerusalem Post's Yaakov Katz reported Wednesday that Israeli intelligence agencies had "provided 'critical information' used in the report", the purpose of which was to "push through a new regime of sanctions against Tehran…." '<
For the potential use on Nano-Diamonds in more efficient cooling for Nuke Power Plants [IE: making nuke fission REACTORS Safer] see the following article: www.abazias.com/diamondblog/diamond-news/the-future-of-diamonds-in-nuclear-power-plants
For Scott Ritter's dissection & take-down of alleged nuke weapons 'expert' David Albright self-hyped & exaggerated credentials see Ritter's June 26 2008 article at Truthdig: 'The Nuclear Expert Who Never Was' [ www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080626_the_nuclear_expert_who_never_was/#166524 ]
It's about the OIL!
Who can access it. WHo can process it. Who can sell it. who will profit from it. who, will ultimately CONTROL it.
That's all it has EVER been about. From the 'Seven Sisters' of the oil world dividing up the Middle East in 1928 up until this morning.
Here we go again - the Zionists pushing the "about Oil" lie. They never back it up.
AIPAC controls our Middle East policy. Our access to oil is now MORE PRECARIOUS.
The only way to stop impaling ourselves in the Middle East is to decountrify Israel and force Zionists to pay reparations for the worldwide harm they have done.
Thank you very much, Gwynne Dyer, for writing rational thoughts about Iran, and thank you, CommonDreams, for posting it. Dyer wrote that hundreds of thousands died in Iraq. Most analyses put it at more than a million. Imagine how many millions suffer from wounds and war PTSD. Five million Iraqis fled their homes and jobs. Then there is the matter of Depleted Uranium dust from our armor-piercing ballistics cause more deaths and horrific birth defects. And now we want to do it again to an even larger nations?
Thankyou S.C. I am glad you pointed those things out.
Every day? Is Israel and it's supporters telling the president of the United States what to do? YES! And they are lying.
"He called Yukiya Amano, the head of the IAEA, a US puppet ..."
Yup. A bought and paid for stooge as exposed some time ago by WikiLeaks. See Nuclear Wikileaks: Cables show cosy US relationship with IAEA chief at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2010/nov/30/iaea-wikileaks
"And on the basis of this 'intelligence' about Iraq’s 'weapons of mass destruction,' the United States and its more gullible allies invaded the country."
It had nothing to do with gullibility; it was pure political calculation. At least in the case of our primary ally, Great Britain, we now know that they were perfectly aware that the case for war with Iraq was a fabricated lie. The Downing Street Memo basically acknowledged that the Bush Administration had fabricated facts and intelligence to fit the predetermined war policy, and that the "case was thin."
Virtually every country knew the USA was lying but for "Diplomatic reasons" would not come out and state it the case.
The USA sent a team up to Canada with a power point presentation in order to get Canada to join their unholy alliance. The memo sent from the team that watched it to the Prime Minister suggested in "diplo-speak" that they were making the entire thing up out of nothing.
This knowledge that the US was lying was NOT limited to the levels of Governments. I along with many tens of thousands of others were pointing out the discrepancies in the evidence and suggesting it all a crock. This in spite of the rah rah effort to war of the media.
One of the greatest reasons so many of the others were so "gullible" is that brain numbing , dumb downing it too much work for me to think thing we call "Patriotism".
(if one needs a more recent example of this wherein the lie as accepted in spite of the evidence look no further then Libya)
It had nothing to do with gullibility in Australia too. I cannot tell you how angry I was at the time.
Australian prime minister John Howard was tripping back and forth to the USA, and kowtowing before the Australian Israeli friendship society, and pronouncing the lies that Iraq was threatening the entire world. How sicophantic! How sickening!
When our CIA franchise, called ASIO produced a report which stated that there was little or no evidence of this, the ASIO chief became a target for demonisation in the Australian parliament. Another report that said the opposite of the original report was demanded, and the ASIO chief complied.
Mr. Dyer wrote, "If Iran’s leaders were completely logical in their thinking, they wouldn’t waste a minute thinking about nuclear deterrence. They’d just rely on the fact that their military can completely shut the Gulf to oil traffic and bring the global economy to its knees if anybody attacks them."
Precisely. Americans must realize that we have a military run by morons -- really morons. They didn't understand what would happen in Iraq, they have bungled whatever they planned in Afghanistan, they destroyed Libya and left it in shambles for factions to fight over, etc. Petraeus, McChrystal, and the rest don't seem to understand that Iran easily could shut down all oil shipments from the Persian Gulf.
Would they do it? Maybe if provoked. Bibi and the rest of the Israeli right have the narcissistic belief that Iran would retaliate against Israel, when it fact Iran could much more effectively and easily retaliated against the West by shutting down oil shipping.
I have been very suspicious of all this hype about Iran's evil intentions to make a couple of nuclear bombs. It would be extremely expensive and the resulting bombs would not really be good for anything except ending the world. The smart money today is on unmanned drones and missiles, computer worms targeting industrial software, selling small arms to low-income malcontents, and information management through the media and WikiLeaks-type projects.
Unless of course you really believe that killing a lot of people is fun, profitable, and the best way to perpetual power.
The only one dropping bombs nowadays, the terrorist triumvirate US/Britain/Israel, is the same who profits from war--not only in manufacturing and selling munitions, but by knowing when to buy futures in oil right before the straits are closed off. You can be sure an attack on Iran will be preceded by a buying frenzy of insider trading.
There is no denying that killing people is profitable for the 1%--the fun part is optional.
So, when we say it would be stupid/insane to attack Iran, we are really talking about for the 99%--for the 1% attacking Iran is the best course of action and a wise business move.
It comes back to Greece--who is telling us what to do? Who is making our nation's decisions? It sure ain't WE THE PEOPLE.
Democracy can only flourish when there is peace, so war must be waged constantly to keep power from the people. Wake up you stupid monkeys--time for the apes to rise against their cruel overlords.
"have been very suspicious of all this hype about Iran's evil intentions to make a couple of nuclear bombs. It would be extremely expensive and the resulting bombs would not really be good for anything except ending the world. The smart money today is on unmanned drones and missiles, computer worms targeting industrial software, selling small arms to low-income malcontents, and information management through the media and WikiLeaks-type project"
As a defensive weapon, the smart money is on nukes, not "unmanned drones and missiles, computer worms targeting industrial software, selling small arms to low-income malcontents, and information management through the media and WikiLeaks-type project". Nukes are a far better deterrent, to prevent greedy invaders, than any other weapon.
"However, they are still a lot more rational than their Western counterparts – or at least than their Western counterparts can afford to seem in public.
This is so typical of Dyer's world view. He continually suggests that Western Imperialism is irrational, rather than understanding what Imperialism is all about. It's suggestive that if Iran could be taken out without any fear of the oil traffic being jeopardized, then everything would be ok with this imperialist venture. He doesn't even try to suggest that Western Imperialism has no right to try and control the world and keep it safe for global capitalism. Why? Because he doesn't understand it or chooses not to understand it. He'd rather talk about the mistakes made by Western Imperialism and if that could be corrected, then invasions such as this would be acceptable.
"If Iran’s leaders were completely logical in their thinking, they wouldn’t waste a minute thinking about nuclear deterrence."
Oh really? I'm sure Iran's leaders keep up with the news. They see that Western Imperialism isn't invading North Korea precisely because North Korea has this deterrent. The West only attacks weak countries. Countries with nuclear weapons are indeed a deterrent to Western ambitions.
It's time Dyer that you stopped and thought a little more about geopolitics and see that the problem is Western Imperialism wanting to control every part of the world for the benefit of the huge corporations. It has nothing to do with how smart or dumb the military planners are.
Like all authors, or anyone else for that matter, Dyer's perspectives reflect his personal experience and mindset to a considerable extent. Because Dyer's background is military rather than geopolitical, he tends to see things in terms of military issues and strategic considerations. Not an excuse, just an explanation.
"One gets you ten it is about bombing Iran" . Probably true. The military just announced the largest ever joint exercise between the U.S.and Israel.
Bibi is in a class by himself, but I pray no American leader would be so stupid as to attack Iran. Of course, I could be wrong. Wasn't it H.L. Mencken who said: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people"...or something like that.
The United States and Israel are terrorizing the world with their insane and arrogant demand that Iran not have the right to have nuclear weapons and unfortunately we now have so many cowardly right wing regimes in Europe that are willing to do whatever the big boss says that their is almost no hope to avoid a disasterous war. The idea that Israel has the exclusive right to have these weapons is utterly ridiculous.
Why would Iran build a bomb when they can buy some ready made? If Netanyahoo attacks Iran, nukes are likely to come into play
America could be nuking itself with the launch of "Curiosity".
Has Gwynne Dyer read the 1,000 pages of evidence on which IAEA says its conclusions are based? He doesn't say he has. See "Iran's Nuclear Program" in today's liberal if not left wing New York Times.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/nuclear_program/index.html
Which is more reliable, the conclusion of someone who looked at the evidence, or the conclusion of one who has not, and is just relying on his gut. I would take the conclusion of those who look at relevant, credible, corroborated evidence with each fact corroborated by more than one source.
Iran originally obtained its nuclear technology under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty which provides that countries can obtain that technology from other countries if it promises to refrain from using it to build weapons. The US obtained its technology by itself. So did India, Pakistan and Israel. So they did not need to promise not to build nuclear weapons. Iran made that promise and is now ignorning it. According to the Iranian State Broadcasting Company the English translation of what Ahmadinejad promised, was to "wipe Israel off the face of the world".
"The US obtained its technology by itself. So did India, Pakistan and Israel."
Yeah, right. And the tooth fairy is a little winged creature that flies around at night exchanging money for children's teeth.
NYT has had its reliablilty called into question many times in the last several years. its not as bad as WoPo, tho.
Isreal never signed the NPT nor did India and Pakistan. Iran did. thats why the IAEA inspects Iran, but not Isreal.
Isreal didn't develop them by itself, they had help from South Africa.
Salubrius,
Just heard from BBC, Your Dennis Ross is stepping down from Obama administration's Middle East envoy. Something cooking and it's no good. You may get your wish and see the Middle East conflict expanded.
What garbage. The USA laid down thousands of "Pages of Evidence" that suggested Iraq had WMDS and was supporting terrorists and were a grave an imminent danger.
it was all a crock. It was all a lie.
It was NOT more reliable then MY gut instincts . Putting a lie to paper does not make it a truth.
Further the translation of what was said was another lie by the western Media. Ahamadinejad was directly quoting of Israel LIKE THE USSR must disappear from the pages of history.
No one bombed the USSR and it is GONE.
"Has Gwynne Dyer read the 1,000 pages of evidence on which IAEA says its conclusions are based? He doesn't say he has. See "Iran's Nuclear Program" in today's liberal if not left wing New York Times."
1. You can have a billion pages of evidence and they prove nothing. Not if the evidence comes from biased sources, not if the evidence is nothing more than made up lies.
2. Yes, the NYT is liberal. The ones beating the drums of war the LOUDEST are the (neo)liberals. The 2 English language papers beating the drums of war the loudest are neoliberal NYT and the neoliberal Guardian. (Neo)liberals WANT invasions and war.
"Iran originally obtained its nuclear technology under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty which provides that countries can obtain that technology from other countries if it promises to refrain from using it to build weapons. The US obtained its technology by itself. So did India, Pakistan and Israel. So they did not need to promise not to build nuclear weapons. Iran made that promise and is now ignorning it. "
ROFPML. A whole farrago of lies that amounts to, "we have a right to nukes, but no one else does".
"According to the Iranian State Broadcasting Company the English translation of what Ahmadinejad promised, was to "wipe Israel off the face of the world"."
So?
Israel obtained its technology by itself????? LBJ looked the other way when Israel diverted weapons grade uranium from the NUMEC plant in Apollo, PA leaving behind nuclear waste that resulted in thousands of excess cancers. Grant Smith and Stephen Greene wrote a series of articles on it.