An important debate took place on Wednesday:
What to do if Iran gets nukes? at the Miller Center of Public Affairs
at the University of Virginia. Two neoconservatives, Elliott Abrams and
Joshua Muravchik, were pitted against the newly-realist Martin Indyk
and Karim Sadjadpour of Carnegie. A few observations:
–The
neoconservatives used feverish language. Both Abrams and Muravchik
opened by using the word "holocaust." Muravchik: "second holocaust."
They said the nukes are worrisome because of Iran's threat to Israel
(to "annihilate" Israel, Abrams says, which is a misrepresentation of
Ahmadinejad's (repulsive) language), but by the end said that a country
that says "Death to America" must never get nukes. I'm confused: Israel
or America.
–Indyk, as I have indicated here before, says that
we can deter Iran as we deterred the Soviets. This places him in the
Mearsheimer/Zakaria camp. He also refreshingly states that Israel has nukes in the basement, something Obama can't even acknowledge, and that destroying Iran's capability
would only set the program back 3 or 4 years and make them more determined
to get nukes. Logical and helpful.
–Abrams and Muravchik say you can't deter them
because they're Islamofascists. They are a theocracy like we have never
seen and are willing to die, Abrams says, for life in a better world;
so no "historic deterrent" will work. Muravchik meanwhile talks about
them as "fascist" "Nazi" "Stalin" "paranoid" "paranoid" "paranoid" and
"Hitler." Do you trust this man? Indyk wisely says that notwithstanding
the bluster, Iran is not a "superpower." Sadjadpour says all the talk
of exporting Islamic revolution has fostered Hizbullah and not much
more. A reality check.
–The craziness of the neocons emerges
when we get into the regime change argument. Muravchik says if we bomb
them, then they're likely to be like Argentina after the Falklands
disaster: the people will throw out the militant government. Again:
does anyone believe this? Sadjadpour explodes it. He speaks of the case
of Ahmad Batebi, the human rights activist famously on the cover of The Economist, who
spent 10 years in Iranian prisons, in solitary, before escaping to the
west; well, Batebi said that if the U.S. bombs Iran he will go back
there to fight for his country. The people will hate the U.S. even
more.
Abrams's response: "It's a theory." The ayatollahs are
"extremely unpopular." And: "We are not talking about the Americans
killing civilians, bombing cities, destroying mosques, hospitals,
schools. No no no." (Very Amy Winehouse.) We are talking about
destroying a hidden nuke site. And the people will then turn on the
ayatollahs, saying, Who got us into this mess?
"They no doubt want freedom more than they want nuclear weapons."
No
doubt? Abrams is espousing the same old regime-change theory, after we
have destroyed an Arab society killing tens of thousands and ruining
our image in the world. Abrams is obviously dug in on his doctrine. And
he is showing some real ignorance about Iranian society. It must be
pointed out here that there is some high degree of consensuality of the
people of Iran with respect to the character of their government. Read
Roger Cohen. Read Mohammad of Vancouver.
Indyk then wisely says, Israel said that about Gaza– that the people would turn against Hamas– and where did that get them?
To
which Abrams says, "I'm not persuaded that's true in Gaza." The people
may be turning against Hamas. Oh my. This is delusion, with a religious
basis, I would say.
Final point. The panel is three Jews, all
pro-Israel, and an Asian. I want to see more diversity on such panels.
Also, why are the neocons hanging around? What is their power base?
(Phil Weiss)
choose between israeli jew 1 or israeli jews 2. karim?
does israeli 1 say why and from what iran must be deterred. a peaceful life?
when do we have a 'debate' between camera and flame.
Elliott Abrams and Joshua Muravchik are theocrats: no amount of empirical evidence will ever change their minds.
Bombing Iran will only cause its people to rally around the leadership. This is historically true of just about any bombing in the entire world. See also 9/11: if the Radical Towelheads thought it would make the US change course, they've been proven sadly mistaken.
Bomb their [Iranian] 'nuke sites' and they'll rebuild in record time but better and deeper.
The 'Mullahs' aren't 'mad', they've shown themselves shrewd and skillful players in diplomacy. To nuke attack Israel would be thoroughly suicidal. No collectivity would carry out such an attack, in the full knowledge certain death would follow it.
Elliott Abrams and Joshua Muravchik need mental health care, not a soapbox.
someone needs to say 'if we bomb israel' the people will turn against the ultra conservatives and welcome freedom for 2 states to live side by side….
Bill Kristol was on CSPAN a few mornings ago. Expressing conviction and confidence, the usual damning abstract pejorative nouns sliding off his lips as if nobody ever had a second thought about 9/11, Iraq invasion, and now Iran.
Israel and the USA are in the foxhole together, and must jump forth against the Islamo-Fascist hoardes or get pushed into the sea. What is his power base? He's so glib, who possibly takes him seriously?
I guess the same question can be asked of the big bankers, fed reserve, treasury foxes Obama is determined to keep guarding the hen house they've destroyed.
This country is day by day turning into a corporate state run by an elite; such is being institutionalized ever increasingly, the masses having ever less power to change anything, ever less control of their own lives. It's frightening. Some day, long in the future, the people will rise up with pitchforks and go after them all. History indicates this. Then the politicians will allow themselves to be rolled by the populist
anger at last, as Roosevelt allowed himself to roll over after his Obamaesque New Deal came to nothing. Nag your congress people every chance you get, and your Prez too–even if they'd like to
get out of the squeeze, they can't without a groundswell of popular support.
"Also, why are the neocons hanging around? What is their power base?"
Obama not knowing how to tell a white guy to go fuck himself, that's their power base. And for a white guy in a General's uniform, Obama just falls over and pees himself. "More drone attacks" he quails, "Yes, sir"!
Of course, if Obama acts like anything but a spineless invertebrate, it'll mean the ascendancy of the Black Muslims and Panthers over white folks.
We need to arrest these Neocons for subversion. Many of them began as members of the Communist Party, and morphed into Neocons post-Scoop Jackson. We need to put the Neocon movement on the Attorney General's list of subversive organizations, and arrest those who have found their way into top secret government positions.
I'd still like to know how convicted perjurer Scooter Libby's crowd in the Vice President's Office knew to request Cipro on the evening of September 11 [1], and why all of Manhattan was abuzz about where to find Cipro later that month, weeks before [2] the first Anthrax attack was launched, [by government insiders, we now know]. Why the knowledge that one should obtain Cipro in anticipation of an Anthrax attack leaked out from Cheney's office through the ranks of the cognoscenti, who later bragged about how early in the process they learned of the danger [3]. And why the initial Anthrax attack, when it came, was so vigorously blamed on Saddam Hussein by these same Neocons, complete with additional phony reports of chemical signatures, etc., completely made up for political purposes [4]. If we don't hold these subversive liars accountable for Anthrax and Iraq, what evil will they unleash next????
[1] "At least some White House personnel were given Cipro six weeks ago. White House officials won't discuss who might be receiving the anthrax-treating antibiotic now.
"On the night of the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House Medical Office dispensed Cipro to staff accompanying Vice President Dick Cheney as he was secreted off to the safety of Camp David, and told them it was "a precaution," according to one person directly involved."
link to washingtonpost.com
[2] "''People are carrying survival packs to fine restaurants,'' said Patricia Wexler, a Manhattan dermatologist who has been prescribing antibiotics and sleeping pills for her jittery patients. ''Women are taking their little black Prada techno-nylon bags and slipping in gas masks for the couple, Cipro, a flashlight, a silicone gel tube — you shmear the silicone on your skin so hopefully it doesn't absorb the spores as fast. It's truly scary. We worry about crop dusters over Midtown. It would be so easy to contaminate the reservoir.'' Maureen Dowd
link to nytimes.com
[3] "The attacks were not entirely unexpected. I had been told soon after Sept. 11 to secure Cipro, the antidote to anthrax. The tip had come in a roundabout way from a high government official, and I immediately acted on it. I was carrying Cipro way before most people had ever heard of it." [Richard Cohen]
link to slate.com
[4] ""I'd say that part of [Ross'] re-reporting ought to include a full explanation of exactly who was peddling the bentonite lie in the first place, and why they were doing it." Kevin Drum quoted from Washington Monthly by Glenn Greenwald.
link to salon.com
We need to put the Neocon movement on the Attorney General's list of subversive organizations, and arrest those who have found their way into top secret government positions.
What would be the charge? Being Neocons? I didn't realize political perspectives were illegal.
Sadjadpour says all the talk of exporting Islamic revolution has fostered Hizbullah and not much more.
I agree completely with Phil's choice of the word 'fostered' to describe Iran's relations to Hezbollah. Some folks would have us all believe that Iran created and controls Hezbollah, but this is a lie. It was organized by Lebanese Shiites to resist Israeli occupation of their land after Israel's 1982 invasion and rape of Beirut. Hezbollah would not exist but for Israel; Iran has merely helped them (a lot) to be able to defend themselves. Of course they do not help Hezbollah out of the goodness of their hearts, but because it also serves one of their objectives: keeping the 'front lines' away from their own borders.
What would be the charge? Being Neocons? I didn't realize political perspectives were illegal.
…was a response to doppler's first paragraph.
What the hell do these idiots ingest to make them spew bullshit like this?
If Iran is bombed it will mean a world nuclear war. All but a small percentage of humanity will be destroyed.
I'm beginning to think maybe these idiots want war, because it gives them purpose for living. Otherwise they're good for nothing more than fertilizer. Sad thing about it is, they have no purpose whether or not they start a global war.
doppler wrote:
"I'd still like to know how convicted perjurer Scooter Libby's crowd in the Vice President's Office knew to request Cipro on the evening of September 11 … weeks before [2] the first Anthrax attack was launched."
doppler, have you considered that it was merely given as a prophylactic measure due to some protocols worked up by our giant government security bureaucracies saying that in the event of any attempted mass terrorist attack on what they call the "national authority" (read, "the President and other top gov't leaders and advisors"), the use of anthrax was to be assumed until proven negative, and so Cipro was to be administered merely as a precaution?
I.e., you know these gov't agencies; they've got intricate plans for what happens should Mars attack. So they see these planes hit, clearly trying for Washington, it triggers a plan, they administer Cipro on the basis that the terrorists could have brought anthrax on the planes with them, just like they probably immediately started testing the crash sites for radioactive stuff in case the planes were in essence also "dirty bombs" packed with that stuff.
As I understand it scratch anyone familiar with bio weapons and they will tell you that the absolute first one that jumps into their minds as most likely to be used is indeed anthrax. So nuts, I wouldn't be surprised if a particularly ugly guy behind the ropes along a parade route accidentally sneezes on Obama when shaking his hand and poor Obama's gonna be taking a Cipro shot that night.
(If not as soon as he climbs into his limousine, which is probably hardened against nuke and EMP strikes, has snorkels in case of the need to drive to France for safety, and has a supply of tinfoil hats in the trunk just in case they do detect brain waves emanating from Saturn.)
Margaret,
Being a Communist disqualifies one from holding national security clearances. Being a Neocon is today's version of Communism – an evolution that occurred among the founders of the Neocon Movement, mostly former Communists. Libby perjured himself in connection with the investigation of the outing of a CIA agent, done by the Neocons to punish and silence realists who were pulling back the curtain on their lying about Iraq. He and his colleagues armed themselves against Anthrax immediately upon the 9/11 crisis, and warned their friends, "on the QT," to do the same. When the Anthrax attack came, the Neocons jumped to blame it on Saddam Hussein, complete with phony evidence of a chemical signature. It is now established that the Anthrax attacks originated from from within US bio-weapons sources. The Neocons now lie that they never urged an Iraq invasion. They did what they could to secure a pardon for Libby, despite his obvious perjury in service of Neoconism. They are lying and they are subversive, and they seek now to ignite a war with Iran. And still they are treated as if they are wise Americans – "conservatives," even – providing important analysis of the world we live in, while Walt and Mearsheimer and Carter and Tutu are banned. Something is rotten in the United States, and the smell comes from the Neocons and their enablers. Only among those under their influence do they retain the least credibility. They are unAmerican, they are subversive, they are intent on starting blunderous wars, and they need to be stopped.
The swarmy Elliot Abrams ought to be charged with treason. While at the NSC he undercut every effort by Condi Rice (who was much more authentic than her boss) to push the Israeli government to serious negotiations with the Palestinians.
Obama should tell Netanyahu and his right-wing zealots: You want to bomb Iran, then go right ahead. If you do, then you're on your own and live with the consequences because we won't intervene. Not even to call for a ceasefire. Perhaps the Israel Lobby will send its sons and daughters too fight for you. Meanwhile, the US will watch from the sidelines at the Security Council It's your fight!
I'm confident the Israeli people will get the message, even if its leaders don't.
"Of course, if Obama acts like anything but a spineless invertebrate, it'll mean the ascendancy of the Black Muslims and Panthers over white folks."–Mooser
This disappoints me–I'm not totally sure why, but Mooser, care to explain? Are you suggesting collective guilt, the subject on a different thread on this blog very recently? Perhaps then you not being consistent, judging from your comments–don't you think USA foreign policy is affirmative action too? Like Zunes?
Sin Nombe, you read my mind–that's the most benign view of course as to how quickly those you mentioned got the anthrax antidote into their purses or back pockets. It gets problematical when you look into other things happening then, like the engineer and demolition expertise on the fall of the towers, and those 5 dancing Hebrews, so quickly spirited away like the investigation of the USS Liberty or Rachel Corrie's demise. And this, not even talking about the false flag attack on Egyptians to blame the USA, back in the day.
seethelight, wasn't Abrams a man already with clear dual or one loyalty (to Israel) issues on the record way back; this didn't hurt his career at all; cf Chas Freeman.
Sin Nombre,
It is of course possible that there is an innocent explanation for why the VP's office was expecting an Anthrax attack. It is possible that Al Queda and other terrorist organizations were suspected of developing Anthrax. Where are the documents to support that explanation? The August 6 2001 Presidential Daily briefing that warned of an impending Al Queda attack on the United States does not mention it. link to thesmokinggun.com
In fact, it was our own government that was the source of the Anthrax attacks. Don't you think it makes sense to inquire of those in government who armed themselves against the attack exactly why they were concerned? Why should it be left to speculation as to why the VP's office was concerned? Why was the Post Office left out of the defensive measures? Why do we read about Manhattan dermatologists advising on how to protect against bioterror, but not Congressional personnel? Why do we not know what government official falsely told ABC News that the Anthrax contained Bentonite, a chemical signature implicating Saddam Hussein in the attacks? You make it a forbidden meme to assign Neocons subversive motives, dismissing all evidence as requiring paranoia to be believed. Why would a group who would call for war to enforce regime change in Iran, Iraq & Syria, realize and state that it will take another Pearl Harbor to convince the US public of the necessity, lie us into war in Iraq, disclose to Ahmad Chalabi that we had broken the Iranian code, embrace forged Niger documents, out Valerie Plame to punish her husband for debunking the forgery, perjure themselves re the latter, later lie that they had nothing to do with Iraq, now be above suspicion in connection with a government-based, false-flag Anthrax attack, that specifically targeted political leaders opposed to the Neocon-backed Patriot Act? I'll agree with you that there may be an innocent explanation, if you'll agree that there may be a nefarious explanation. These guys should be investigated thoroughly. And just because most of them likely knew nothing of the plot doesn't mean a handful didn't plan and execute it. Reagan claims he didn't know about Iran-Contra. Cheney advised the President that he needed to delegate to him so he could protect him from the stuff that brought Nixon down. Operation Northwoods was a real Joint Chiefs of Staff plan to initiate false flag attacks against America in order to start a war with Cuba. Why isn't there an open inquiry to assure us that Anthrax wasn't a false flag attack by those itching for war against Iraq? Gee, is there any reason to believe that our media and our Congress and the Neocons in the Pentagon and elsewhere weren't doing their job?
"Obama not knowing how to tell a white guy to go fuck himself, that's their power base. And for a white guy in a General's uniform, Obama just falls over and pees himself. "More drone attacks" he quails, "Yes, sir"!
Of course, if Obama acts like anything but a spineless invertebrate, it'll mean the ascendancy of the Black Muslims and Panthers over white folks. "
Translation: He's not ghetto, therefore he doesn't fit into your archaic, racist, patronizing definition of black.
I'm sure you'd do the same to Palestinians who don't conform to your lowly perception of them either. They'd better re-examine who their friends are.
Sometimes I feel like an Iranian citizen, whose representatives speak foolishly of aggression and govern through power not expressly popular, but then realize my governmental representatives and public 'intellectuals' are much more dangerous. The US should open relations unconditionally with Iran and sign any nonaggression treaty they want for reassurance, but instead American leadership not only uses the same aggressive rhetoric as the Iranians (and Israelis), but has a couple of air craft carrier groups and troop landing ships cruising the Persian Gulf shores of Iran while openly discussing whether or not to nuke it. Iran has not become the Napoleonic Shiite revolution spreading empire the military and oil industries said it would and is not a threat to anything more than US, Israeli and Saudi hegemony in the region.
doppler wrote:
"I'll agree with you that there may be an innocent explanation, if you'll agree that there may be a nefarious explanation."
As a principle of simple logic of course I admit there might. Because of the even more relevant principle of logic in the form of Occam's Razor however, I don't believe it.
Regardless, love your effect.
Also, why are the neocons hanging around? What is their power base?
Good question.
Occam's Razor is fine as a tool for deciding between two possibilities, in the absence of additional evidence clarifying things. It is not an excuse for failing to thoroughly investigate matters of the utmost importance, or to enforce taboos. It surely is not an excuse for suppressing incriminating or potentially incriminating evidence, such as the identity of the government sources who identified Bentonite in the Anthrax, and who alerted Richard Cohen that he should be taking Cipro. I have a hunch they were both Neocons. My hunches aren't always right, but they're pretty good. I'd like to see them questioned about whether they knew in advance about the Anthrax attacks under oath and under the lie detector, which is used routinely in connection with security clearances and breaches. I have a hunch that, among the Neocons closest to the VP's office, someone knew in advance. "Thorough investigations" that fail to mention or consider false flag scenarios, expecially when the investigation is under the influence of Neocons and their fellow travelers, aren't a substitute for thorough inquiry. Occam's Razor is fine, as far as it goes, but here's Doppler's Hunch: if people repeatedly lie and cover up and personally smear their critics, they're hiding something. If it's the same crew doing the lying, the covering up and the smearing in connection with multiple problems, then it's not just a one-off scam. Oh, and throw in the Georgia October Surprise, last August, for good measure. link to truthdig.com
Wonderful, sin nombre. That was hilarious.
You are of course right.
Still, I think the timing of the Anthrax mails was peculiar. As was the whole scenario or non-act scenario surrounding it. Including the rumor mills. It somehow reminded me of mail-bombs over here in Europe, slightly elaborated to serve the larger WMD danger scenario.
and don't forget the targets.
LeaNder
And don't forget that Judy Miller – who based on leaks she refused to disclose tipped off Muslim charities to Patrick Fitzgerald's search warrants and later shared Aspen roots with Scooter Libby – got a fake version of the Anthrax letter right in the NYTimes Newsroom! Some pretty discriminating targeting going on. Follow the leaks. Question under oath and under lie detectors. It is our only hope.
LeaNder wrote:
"Still, I think the timing of the Anthrax mails was peculiar."
Why? Or, rather, looking at it from the other end of the telescope, why not that timing given the way that conventional suspicion has gone towards some domestic bio-weapons nut?
That is, for a purported attack by Islamic radicals not just the timing but all kinds of things seem even more peculiar, no? I mean if it *was* an al Queda thing why not a more spectacular attack, (al Queda's usual attempted hallmark), at different targets such as the Prez and etc. Or the NY subway system? And why not sustained? And why not *syncrhonize* with the 9/11 attacks instead of a couple of weeks later, again at different targets types entirely? And why didn't bin Laden acknowledge same?
And if it was some *other* Islamic militant group, kinda funny that they'd be all set and primed to be able to mount such an attack just a couple weeks after 9/11, right? And again why attack … Tom Brokaw? Or Daschle? Or etc.?
So what's the alternatives? Well, that it wasn't some Islamic thing at all with no "Islamic" message at all but instead another one that could still be made by disguising it as an "Islamic" message, by someone with some access to this stuff of a very high grade. And someone who most definitely *didn't* want any spectacular bystander deaths and the terror that would accompany same, but enough to make a point, right?
What point then? Well, as our hopefully reasoned guesses so far go, it's a non-Islamic radical person in the bioweapons field already and what kind of point or gripe would they like to make? Well, the one that their attack *did* make: without killing hundreds or people better start understanding the importance of bioweapons and the heroic, underpaid folks working on them to defend from that horror.
For such a person then with the willingness to launch such an attack they have thought it out at least somewhat before, and then … along comes 9/11! Perfect. They can hide behind the identity of Islamic radicals to make their point. So … hurry hurry get your stuff together and send the stuff, but it still took two weeks or so to accomplish, and thus that timing seems to fit pretty damn perfect, no?
And don't forget Drs. Zack, Rippy and Assaad, the first two virulent Muslim haters, and the anonymous letter received by the FBI just before the Anthrax attacks, tying to frame Assaad. link to archive.salon.com
Why does that phony frame job letter not get tied into the official Anthrax story? Especially after Zack has disappeared? I'd like to hear how Bruce Ivins legal counsel was going to raise reasonable doubt that it wasn't his client.
Abrams, now there's a guy any American patriot can trust.
Well, the one that their attack *did* make: without killing hundreds or people better start understanding the importance of bioweapons and the heroic, underpaid folks working on them to defend from that horror.
yes, I scanned the Wiki article and that somehow sticked out. Cui Bono.
I am never too enamored with these matters, as I told the 911 investigation mad and fighting circles. Although I basically understand their motivations. Without knowing at least what the government knows, and how and why they distort what they pass on, your mind can float freely. It was all like a bad script, of a much too fast solved case. Almost like phantom Arabs, figments of a hot imagination.
Since many of the 911 investigation people were rather paranoid, fighting each other, I once suggested, maybe they only used secrecy to produce exactly that, an immensely contradictory rumor mill, freely delivered products of collective imagination. A creative effort to understand. And needed no secret service or other plants at all. But what do I know.
But you are right. It made no sense compared to 911. And it felt like somebody taking a chance in the larger confusion scenario post 911. It obviously paled in comparison … the most peculiar part of it. How do you squeeze the America/Israel angle into your scenario? Could it have been added since the hijackers left no such notes?
For such a person then with the willingness to launch such an attack they have thought it out at least somewhat before
I can't tell you why, but I would prefer the carpe diem seize the day. But it is an aesthetic choice.
**************************************************************************
Which brings me to the eternal wisdom of mother Suzanne, which she shares so freely with us her naughty children:
One: It's always more rewarding to serve the powers that be, or use the structures for your own advancement, than to investigate their actions. Otherwise you may end up as a loser. Something supported by evidence both post Nazis and post collapse of the Controlled Collective System in East Germany. So it may well be an eternal truth mothers should tell their children.
Two: They will tell us, when they think, we may know what we suspected all along, only not the dimensions. If the files do not mysteriously disappear, or end up in shredders. In any case we look at another onion, that quickly collects fictive dimensions around itself, before we even start to peal, to find out what's beneath it.
I add: We still shouldn't give up hope, and start studying power elites and biopolitics. Otherwise later generations might wake up in the Orwellian dystopia. Democracy is a constant fight, power loves control. I once had amazing results by e.g. following a name here in Germany Jim Lobe once mentioned, close to no trace on the net, but in municipal business databases. There suddenly was a connection to a spectacular German case, in the ambit of the even more spectacular visa scandal, I had watched more closely. The world is small, in power and money circles. Unfortunately the matter is complex. So its hard to see who is master and who is servant in this special case. But something is clearly hidden, and doesn't quite conform with official reports.
Hmmm? He uses frames you have to click on German Power Structure Research on the page. Which again links to the frame: Who Rules America? An Internet Guide to Power Structure Research, which is in English.
Leander, you have begun to sound incredibly pompous in the last few days, please revert to your normal, simple, healthy unpretentious self. Thank you.
http://commera.wordpress.com
Abrams and Muravchik kept speaking of Iran’s “desire” to annihilate another country, basing this on the remarks from Ahmadinejad regarding Israel. But Iran has no such desire. The rhetoric today coming from the Iranian military is one of deterrence. They brag about their missile technology in the press, or announce the creation of longer range missiles, etc., as psychological deterrent and expression of military might in the face of an opposing military. It is arguable whether this actually works or if it just fuels Israel’s desire for preventative action, but it is certainly a strategy to make Israel think twice about aggressive actions against the Islamic Republic. We can argue in circle which state the threat came from first, but as of now Israel is the stronger state and with nuclear weapons mixed with Israel’s unilateral and aggressive foreign policy Iran feels vulnerable and is afraid.
It can be argued that Israel’s posture in respect to Iran actually fuels Iran’s perceived need for nuclear weapons capability. Israel has acted preemptively in many conflict situations, while the Islamic Republic has not.
Why is Elliot Abrams still influential?
http://commera.wordpress.com