Mohammad of Vancouver writes:
I have no illusions about Obama. I began having doubts when the Lieberman mentorship issue surfaced, and these doubts solidified into actual fears when I saw his speech at the annual AIPAC conference in June 2008. It seems highly possible to me that he approved Israel’s high-tech pogrom in Gaza, setting up the condition that the conflict needed to be over before his January 20th inauguration. Obama’s cowardly silence on Gaza itself should be read as an implicit support not only for Israel but the whole idea of pre-emptive attacks on civilian populations as a method in fighting terror.
Having said all of this, I find it troubling that a scholar like James Petras easily jumps to the conclusion that the Gaza war was a dress rehearsal for a wider war with Iran and that Obama is secretly preparing for a war with Iran.
Petras is not alone. A number of the alternative media’s known voices have consistently alarmed
their readers about the possibility of a USA/Israel attack on Iran since the USA invaded Iraq in 2003.
I used to share the belief that Iran would be attacked in Bush’s second term, but after Israel’s miserable failure in the Lebanon war, I slowly modified my thoughts. Today, I believe that tough sanctions are the worst measures of war USA and its European allies can wage against the Islamic Republic of Iran and that these world powers in no way shape or form are prepared for an actual military engagement with Iran.
Before explaining that opinion, I'm going to focus on James Petras’s latest piece. His methodology is not only problematic, but symptomatic of ideologically-tainted analysis that sidesteps contradicting evidence, ignores influential factors on the other side and builds a narrative that smacks of third world Marxist Leninist propaganda.
In Petras’s model, USA and Israel are repeating the German/Italian strategy of identifying an ideological enemy to all of the West (in the Nazis' case it was Communism, in USA and Israel’s case, it is Islamism or Islamic terrorism) and building a propaganda campaign around some smaller invasions and wars to prepare the world for the final big battle with Iran.
Petras meticulously lists the personnel around Obama who are collaborators with Israel on the plan to attack Iran, or have been placed in their position to secure Israel’s wishes in regards to Iran. This is actually the most scientific part of his essay. Yet one has to be dubious when reading claims such as:
How can this be true? We all remember the overwhelming number of neocon crazy Zionists that were crawling all over the White House and the media during the last 8 years. How can people around Obama be any more scary than Wolfowitz, Perle, Pipes, Libby, Ashcroft, Cheney, and many other such people? How can someone who used to say Bush would do anything for Israel now claim that Obama is more subservient to Israel than Bush?
Petras’s theory doesn’t only suffer from what’s in it, but from what’s missing from it. Here are a few missing points:
1. Iran is not a passive player here. Note my essay published yesterday on this site. The Iranian army has had the ten-year war with Iraq on its C.V. and has been fed with a lot of oil money for the last 20 years--resulting in advanced military purchases and training. In fact, as other more serious critics have claimed, the only thing preventing a military strike against Iran by USA and Israel is Iran’s military capability. Here is the most comprehensive piece written on the topic of the Iranian military (an excellent report from 2004) PART ONE: PART TWO.
2- The quiet struggle between different branches of the ruling elite in USA.
Since the failure of Bush/Olmert in the Lebanon, there has been a revolt within the American ruling elite regarding the future of the American empire. The Iraq study group’s report, the intelligence community’s report on the Iranian atomic projects, the appointment of Robert Gates to the Pentagon and the moderating influence of Condoleezza Rice on foreign policy towards Iran are all signs that even though the neocons and warmongers still have power within the media and thinktanks, their influence in other sectors like the Pentagon and the State Department has been largely reduced. Obama’s presidency itself is a great sign that not only the realists have won the battle, but that they will be on guard to make sure that the crazies cannot enter the decision making rooms from the window. The struggle between the realists and the crazies is not a public one, even though the presidential campaign allowed a big chunk of the fight to get out in the public. Just because we don’t see powerful people scream at each other in public, doesn’t mean they are all getting along and planning the next war.
3- The Nation of Islam.
Americans are great in naming things. Many decades ago when the Nation of Islam was created by Wallace Fard Muhammad and Elijah Muhammad, no one really thought about the potential of all Muslims coming together one day and claiming a national identity. Thanks to the USA’s stupid response to 911 and Israel’s ongoing intensification of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, today most Muslims in the world feel more Muslim than they do members of their actual nation states. This newly born billion-person-plus nation stands with Iran, because the Iranian leaders have been quick to acknowledge and respect their force.
Israel can have all the Western governments and the media in its back pocket, but Iran is not alone either. Iran understands the pulse of the Muslim nation and has tried very hard to build its credibility among millions of Muslims. Every time I ride a cab with a Muslim cab driver, I am reminded of the respect these average western Muslims have for Iran, its foreign policy and its central role in resisting both Globalization and the USA/Israel war on terror. Iran of course functions as mostly a symbolic force, but in our postmodern symbolic universe Iran possesses more than what warmongers like John Bolton and Richard Perle can fathom, when they count missiles and New York Times editorials.
4- The Iran Lobby.
We all know about the Israeli lobby. But Iran also has a powerful lobby in USA that works its way through the corridors of power. From Trita Parsi to Hooshang Amir Ahmadi, from Christiane Amanpour to Hillary Clinton’s assistant Homa Abedin, the wealthy and influential Iranian elite has been able to play a major moderating role on the American administration of George Bush, an influence that only is going to get more intense under the Obama administration. Having learned a lot from the mistakes and the excesses of the Israeli lobby, the Iranian lobby knows how to quietly and successfully pursue small objectives one step at a time.
I disagree with the goals of this web site, I think one can find some valuable tidbits about the powers of the Iranian Lobby in USA in its numerous pages. +++
I could list a few other factors in the debate about war with Iran, but a quick comparison to America’s wars with Muslims (Afghanistan and Iraq) shows that Iran possesses much larger options when it comes to confrontation.
What is the point of painting a bleak and dark picture of the situation when the reality on the ground is much more complex and multifaced? What is Petras trying to achieve? I understand he is limited by his brand of Marxism in writing anything positive about the Iranian Goevrnment, but what about a class-based analysis of the American ruling elite? What stops him from seeing the material conflict between the realists and the crazies? What makes him assume that American cannot learn from the very recent past? What have 8 years of aggressive warmongering brought to the USA and Israel, and why would they continue on the same course?
I am not questioning Petras's sincerity, or his research. But why allow the spectacular nature of one side of the argument to blind you to the realities of the other side? James predicted in 2005 that Israel had set a deadline (March 2006) for attacking Iran. When that prediction did not come true and Israel’s stated plans morphed into the actual Israeli attack on Lebanon, he modified his ideas and claimed that the Lebanon war was a preparation for an upcoming war with Syria and Iran. Later on in 2007, Petras began predicting again that Israel was planning a war on Iran. Beginning with the capture of British Navy seals by the Iranian forces in the waters of Persian Gulf (March 2007) and throughout the 2008, Petras, along with other alternative thinkers and commentators, kept predicting an attack by Bush and or Israel against Iran, and even though they were right to predict a major military action by Israel, they were wrong again about the target. Again, instead of Tehran, another Arab city was ransacked from above.
I don’t think that this means there will never be an attack on Iran by USA and Israel. Instead, the complexity of the USA/Israel confrontation with Iraq requires us to approach this question with much more consideration and thought, something that James Petras seems to be lacking in his judgments.
What are you talking about. The black messiah is no more likely to attack Iran than Phil Weiss is likely to come out against the blood libel.
Hi
A friend called my attention to this blog, calling me to "defense" of Iran. But I see these points expressed by Mohammad of Vancouver are very similar to what I talk about in Neo-Resistance.
The state of misunderstanding AND ignorance about Iran is amusing. You are doing a great job in debunking some of those notions.
Thank you!
Naj
Iran is incrementally confrontational.
Consider its recent very public presentation that it launched a satalite.
Is it true? Who knows.
Iran is pushing. Its not co-existing. It wants to dominate the middle east, and regards its competition to be Saudi Arabia on the one hand, and Israel on the other.
It knows that it has no possibility of dominance further east, even as it does compete in ways with Pakistan and India.
It is one of very few remaining powers that actively supports proxy militias seeking to undermine sovereign states.
There is a prospect of reconciliation with Iran, but NOT with its subtle and not-so-subtle saber rattling.
You call yourselves progressives, but illustrate as you declared the power of lobbying. You are not critics, except incidentally.
Thank you Mohammad. This is a thought-provoking response to Petras' theory (which I have posted here previously). I think the most important consideration is simply the fact that Iran has a formidable military and serviceable, if not spectacular, weaponry.
"Thanks to the USA’s stupid response to 911 and Israel’s ongoing intensification of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, today most Muslims in the world feel more Muslim than they do members of their actual nation states. This newly born billion-person-plus nation stands with Iran, because the Iranian leaders have been quick to acknowledge and respect their force."
This is the key to understanding why the Zionist crazies (both Jewish and Christian) are hell bent on lopping-off any Islamic head that isn't completely corrupt and cynical: because they understand the inherent potential of the Islamic masses to completely overwhelm Zionist forces, if only they had some unity and leadership that wouldn't slit its own people's throats for a few bags of Western silver as Egyptian and Saudi leaders have.
In other words, it's Iran's earnestness that the corrupt Zionist alliance (which has betrayed the Christian West in the same way that corrupt Saudi and Egyptian leadership has betrayed the Islamic masses) finds so threatening.
The Zionist alliance knows that at this point, its crimes are too profound, and its abuses and usury too epic, for the Islamic masses to ever trust it again. Its best hope is to keep them disorganized, disjointed, and at each other’s throats. Throttling Iran may be the only way to accomplish this. On the other hand, it may have the opposite effect, and unify them more than ever.
This is what happens to the West when it allows itself to be infiltrated and overtaken by “leaders” who subscribe to the post-Christian, cynical and greedy, corrupt Zionist ethos: it finds itself perpetually between a rock and a hard place. As a product of this corrupt system, Obama will only be able to paper-over the problem for so long. Tinkering isn’t going to be able to accomplish much, and tinkering is clearly all the corrupt Establishment is willing to let Obama do before it demands war with Iran.
Here's what one Iranian media outlet is reporting:
Netanyahu: I Convince Obama to Give Green Light for Iran War
A source familiar with US Mideast policies said the Israeli prime ministerial frontrunner will win a US blessing to enter war with Iran, according to Reuters.
Aaron David Miller, the US State Department's top analyst in the 1980s, said Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu will be able to convince President Barack Obama that a military attack is the only solution to the Iranian nuclear issue.
"The Israelis will be pushing [Washington] to ensure that Iran never gets to that point and failing that, they will consider a military strike," Reuters quoted Miller — who is a former US Middle East peace negotiator and is currently an analyst at the Woodrow Wilson Center — as saying late Friday.
"It need not be conclusive or threatening, but it will be very serious and … scare the daylights out of the president that unless the international community mobilizes to address the situation, the Israelis will," he said.
Tel Aviv accuses Iran, a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of having plans to develop nuclear weaponry.
Tehran, however, insists that it enriches uranium for peaceful purposes and that it has the right to the technology already in the hands of many others.
Israeli leaders, who have in their possession the sole nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, have intensified their go-to-war rhetoric against Iran in the run-up to Tel Aviv's elections set for February 10.
Israeli election frontrunner Benjamin Netanyahu said last week that his first mission, if elected prime minister, would be to "thwart the Iranian threat" once and for all.
"[Iran] will not be armed with a nuclear weapon… It includes everything that is necessary to make this statement come true," warned the leading candidate for the prime minister post.
Israeli legislator and weapons expert Isaac Ben-Israel, meanwhile, claimed that Tel Aviv has only a year to pull off a unilateral strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, asserting that any attack would only delay, rather than sabotage, Iranian breakthroughs in nuclear technology development.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has also stressed that possible Washington-Tehran talks "should be kept short and followed by readiness to take action".
British strategist Mark Fitzpatrick, however, has asserted that Israeli military action against Iran was "a significant possibility, but not a probability".
"That point will probably be some time towards the end of this year," said the senior fellow for non-proliferation at London's Institute for Strategic Studies, adding that Israel should consider the negative consequences before it makes any move.
Netanyahu: I Convince Obama to Give Green Light for Iran War
Mohhamad, you have pointed out why Iran has not been attacked– yet. As our new regime and Israel's unfold in the next few months,
perhaps you will more clearly see that the crazies won't have to come in through the windows. They will be walking in the door gracefully, speaking eloquently. Much better prepared to do both than Shrub was. I don't read what you say as inconsistent with what
Petras says at all. Petras assumes all you say. The pieces are still being put into play.
Witty: "You call yourselves progressives, but illustrate as you declared the power of lobbying. You are not critics, except incidentally."
To Witty, "progress" is ever-further Western surrender to the corrupt Zionists value system. It was this kind of "progressivism" that, over time, revealed many Jewish "liberals" for what they really were.
A history of progress will demonstrate that progressivism has gone down many false paths and dead ends, and has had to turn back and redouble many times, to make true progress. Zionism and its collaborators are one of those dead ends. Yet they would have the West follow them over the cliff under the banner of "progress."
Witty: Israel is the one rattling the saber endlessly. Why not, he got it for free from Americans now looking for homes.
Iran says it will consider ‘new and positive’ proposals
MUNICH, Feb. 7 (MNA) – “Iran will consider new and positive proposals” about its nuclear program, Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani said on Saturday.
He made the remarks in a meeting with the European Union foreign-policy chief Javier Solana on the second day of the Munich security conference.
Larijani said that the EU is capable of playing a more constructive role on the international scene, adding, “Iran wishes to continue to hold positive talks on its nuclear program.”
The senior lawmaker pointed out that the world has entered a new era and that the powers should not adopt the same old approaches in regard to Iran’s nuclear issue.
The EU foreign policy chief pointed to Iran’s significant role in the world and stressed that Iran and the EU should continue to have more interaction.
The EU is willing to cooperate with Iran to address regional issues such as the security situation in Afghanistan.
Iran says it will consider ‘new and positive’ proposals
Iran is pushing. Its not co-existing. It wants to dominate the middle east, and regards its competition to be Saudi Arabia on the one hand, and Israel on the other.
That's true. And really the heart of the whole Iran issue – mushroom clouds over Tel Aviv is scary talk for the punters. How bad would it be? Certainly not in America's material interest; although who wouldn't get some satisfaction seeing the Saudi pigs get slapped around a little?
It is one of very few remaining powers that actively supports proxy militias seeking to undermine sovereign states.
True. There's Iran…there's the US…that might be about it.
USA/ISRAEL threat and military complex are like big infections. Iran/hezbollah/hamas weak threats are like the vaccination (made from the weaker version of the disease. We should not destroy the vaccine because the disease will take over.
Mohammad — Now this is a very intelligent analysis. The US will not attack Iran in spite of some of the ambiguous statements that Obama and Hillary may have made over the past two years to suggest they are open to do so.
First,Israel does not have the reach to carry out anything more than mere anoyance. The 800 mile separation is just too far for them to be able to project their power. Especially if the US does not give them permission.
Second, the US could inflict serious pain on Iran with its forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf, but Iran could inflict serious pain against American forces in the Persian Gulf and Iraq in response. We discussed some of this yesterday about Irans ability to sink most any ship in the Persian Gulf if they were forced into it. Plus the fact that Iran could mobilize Iraqi forces (including those controlled by the current government) against the American occupation forces if the US attacked Iran. Quite frankly, if the US forced such a war now they could face a spectacular military defeat in the region in a war short of one using nuclear weapons.
These are the same reasons that Bush and Rice backed off their threats against Iran. It is totally absurd to think Obama would dare tread where even those fools feared to go.
This leaves as the only and pleasing option for the US to enter into peaceful negotiations with Iran that will lead to friendly economic and cultural ties.
syvanen, strong points, concisely made. Thank you. I imagine some forethought about how Russia, China, and India might play add to why it would be risky to attack Iran also. Those nations will be watching all signals carefully, including all appointments in key slots made by Obama and the pending new regime in Israel. I don't see Iran conceding the right to have nukes. Merely having a few basic ones would be single biggest tool they could have towards what they see as their rightful place in their part of the world. Butting heads with Israel seems inevitable. What would Obama have to promise
Iran to meet Iran's POV on their own security, especially in light
of Israel having the only local nukes?
Iran has no right to have nucs, so it is conceding nothing. If they continue their illegal path, they may find their rightful place is the toilet.
Mohammed says:
"I disagree with the goals of this web site, I think one can find some valuable tidbits about the powers of the Iranian Lobby in USA in its numerous pages. +++"
What web site?
Petras has been right in highlighting the possibility of an Israeli/lobby instigated US attack on Iran, and placing predictive deadlines. The "Gulf of Wonkin" incident, the US warning to Israel not to attempt a false flag operation to touch off conflict, and the incessant drumbeat for war in the media made the Petras timelines worthwhile. He was not the only one saying "this propaganda drive seems to have a d-day on this date." He and others did not get the date wrong, but rather probably thwarted real timelines.
Also, the very worse Israel lobby "embeds", like Stuart Levey in the US Treasury Department (recently picked by Obama to stay on), are already engaged in war with Iran by attempting to disrupt its trade and finance through covert means and threats to international banks and shippers.
Calling Petras a commie doesn't mean if the situation were reversed, the US would probably consider it an act of war.
There are a lot credible thinkers about Iran, as well as a raft of "Iran Lobby" refugees from the days of the Shah in the US. Many of the refugees pine for the good old days when the Shah was buying Concordes, starving the people, and having Savak torture dissidents to keep a tiny elite in power.
There is a lot of unfinished business between the US and Iran, and voices like Petras who don't think the military offers a reasonable solution are adding more to it than the Stuart Leveys and other Israel lobby embeds.
link to dissidentvoice.org
Witty, what the hell are you talking about? Your post was one big non-sequitur. Apparently you think that opposition to an attack on Iran means support for the rulers of Iran.
So since I oppose military attacks on Israel , does this mean I like their government or their policies? I'll give you a hint–no.
Ever since we went into Afghanistan there was never any turning back on the confrontation between the West and Islam.
Iraq was just one episode–the preface or first chapter, who knows?
The Iranians don't strike me as being as singleminded, ruthless and vendetta-bent as Arabs–so hopefully we won't have to do a Hiroshima on them. They might cave in long before that.
I don't recall seeing many shi'ite muslims commiting suicide to kill the enemy.
The Iranians don't strike me as being as singleminded, ruthless and vendetta-bent as Arabs–so hopefully we won't have to do a Hiroshima on them. They might cave in long before that.
Hey Suzanne, who is the "we" you're referring to here?
Suzanne: "Ever since we went into Afghanistan there was never any turning back on the confrontation between the West and Islam."
Suzanne, quit describing yourself as "we" vis-à-vis the West; you are a Zionist, and Zionism is culturally and politically distinct from Western values. The fact that you may reside in the West doesn't make you Western, because you in fact embrace the Zionist value system.
A favorite Jewish Zionist tactic is infiltrating Western institutions, changing the trajectory of their values in a Zionist direction, and then claiming that Muslims are going against "the West" when they resist projection of the corrupt Zionist agenda.
Jewish Zionists can never forgive the West for the Holocaust (even though Nazism was culturally distinct from Western civilization, as is Zionism), so by lying, badgering, coercing, and upbraiding the West into endless conflicts with Islam, they see themselves as killing three birds with one stone: Christians, Muslims and gentiles.
Western Jewish Zionists are and always have been a subversive, festering cauldron of repressed and open resentments. Just look at how often and bitterly Zionists on this site bring up the Holocaust and use it as evidence of why no gentiles can be trusted. Do Americans really want such Christian/gentile haters in charge of their country and policy?
Re: Netanyahu 'getting the greenlight' … i thought he was going to "harness" American administration. It raised concern among some Americans who were upset that the Zionists consider the US administration as their donkey! :)
Naj, yeah I noted his verb too: "harness"
Pretty much says it all. Just get Obama boy on the phone and tell him Hillary has to eat her UN vote on her own proposal.
Ed, excellent response and so direct to the point. You demolished
Suzanne's cheap zionist lingo.
Scott, you read my mind. Who you mean "we?"
Stuart Levey's work is an act of war on Iran–Iran knows what he
is doing. Too bad the MSM here does not give that more coverage
so the masses can see which way the wind is blowing.
Ed – you do very well as a hate mongering propagandist. I hear you can get a job at Sormfront. I'll be glad to give you a recommendation.
FROM CHRIS BEREL, ABOVE: "Ed – you do very well as a hate mongering propagandist. I hear you can get a job at Sormfront. I'll be glad to give you a recommendation"
ME: That is "mighty white" of you, Chris!
Western Jewish Zionists are and always have been a subversive, festering cauldron of repressed and open resentments. Just look at how often and bitterly Zionists on this site bring up the Holocaust and use it as evidence of why no gentiles can be trusted. Do Americans really want such Christian/gentile haters in charge of their country and policy?
No.
From the way Dan is carrying on here, posting love notes about Iran & stuff…I get the feeling Mohammad is a total hottie. :-)
Must be. Along with Dicky.
The Israeli militarists — for all their might — are nothing more than chicken hawks in disguise. To be blunt they can dish it out but they cannot take it.
The idea of Israel actually taking on a powerful nation that can make them pay a huge price for brazen acts of aggression is an absurdity. That is why they are continually trying to get dumb American goy to attack Iran for them.
Mohammed says:
"I disagree with the goals of this web site, I think one can find some valuable tidbits about the powers of the Iranian Lobby in USA in its numerous pages. +++"
it is THE IRANIAN LOBBY
The sooner we or Israelis nuke Iran the better! Hopefully, it's gona happen in a few months from now.