One of the rewards of the AIPAC policy conference was the ability to watch liberal hawk Ken Pollack up close for an hour. Pollack is a key figure in our policy mess in the Middle East. A smart, goodlooking liberal Jewish Democrat, married into mandarin Washington (Ted Koppel's daughter), Pollack was granted a platform in the New York Times in 2002-2003 to push for the Iraq war. At that time, Pollack failed to anticipate an insurgency and said that, downside, the war-plus-rebuilding Iraq might cost us as much as $30 billion over ten years.
In person, Pollack seems like a nice guy. Affable, reasonable. Journalists I talked to said he always tries to answer even adversarial questions. He struck me as equivocal, saying both tough things and soft things to try and please both sides of the house. For instance, he said that while he was all for the Congress voting tough sanctions to inflict real economic pain on the Iranians, he said with real feeling that the actual penalties should not be imposed, because he doesn't want babies starving-- that was a public relations disaster during the Iraqi sanctions of the '90s for good reason.
Then Ilan Berman, his co-panelist, of the American Foreign Policy Council, said that the big mistake of both Bush and Obama administrations was their belief that the "faultline" is between reformists and conservatives in Iranian government, when in fact, it’s between the regime and the Iranian people, who don't want the Iranian regime. Well that is good ole neocon religion: Regime change. And what did Pollack say?
"Actually Ilan I completely agree with that, I think you’re absolutely right in your analysis," he said. For while he approved the Obama approach by and large--working through back channels to reach out to the Iranian government to make it feel comfortable--
"What they’re potentially missing is this critical divide between the regime and the people. And that ultimately one of the things we need to convince the regime of is that we are going to appeal over their heads to the people if they’re not going to come to the table with real compromises."
Pollack said that we should publicly offer the Iranians a light-water reactor to deal with energy needs, a "technology consortium" to deal with high-tech needs, and security guarantees to deal with those concerns. And in that way we can win the Iranian people over to us by promising them "a better economy, a better relationship with the world."
The unreality of Pollack's statement is that he leaves out the enormous fear that the Iranian people have of us and "democracy" ever since we destroyed their neighbor, Iraq. Would they really trust us? Both Mohammad of Vancouver on this site and Roger Cohen in the New York Times have argued that there is great popular consensus in favor of the Islamic revolution. And of course Pollack always leaves out the Palestinian issue. Yes Ahmadinejad seizes it and uses it. But to suggest that it doesn't represent a real grievance to Muslims across the region, and they don't blame the problem on us--that's ideology talking, and ideology of a religious character, pro-Zionist. "It's always wonderful to be back at this conference," Pollack said at the start.
what's a pollack without a lie. a lie a day an hour a minute a second helps make jewry happy and out of touch except with itself.
"Ken Pollack says the Iranian people will trust us over their own leaders" Yeah, and they will all magically learn to speak English, and start reading right-wing websites, and slap their foreheads and say: "If only we had known all along how wonderful these Americans and Zionists are!" Iranian attitudes, from what I've read, are amazingly positive towerds us considering the treatment they have received. But I really doubt whether Ken Pollack's plans for engaging their total loyalty are pratical. Look how well they worked in Iraq, and that's right next to them.
"…have argued that there is great popular consensus in favor of the Islamic revolution." Might as well be, if the CIA is going to overthrow any secular Iranian government on the grounds of being "commie" or something. And gee, hasn't Islamic revolution been the only thing which has proven resistant to being infiltrated, subverted or overthrown?
I trust Iranians over American leaders and Brookings Institute war pigs. Many of the Democratic leadership voted for the invasion of Iraq, including our current Sec. of State, and Pollack has been a cheer leader for killing Arabs since at least 1992.
Billboards Criticizing US Aid To Israel Stopped Robert Busser, Rense.com, May 6 2009 A few weeks ago we posted about ten billboards going up around Albuquerque, NM calling for congress to cut off aid to Israel. They were put up by The Coalition to Stop $30 Billion to Israel, a multi-ethnic, multi-religious coalition working to “end to the ten year commitment of $30b in US taxpayer-funded military aid pledged to Israel in 2007 by the Bush administration.” Today, the coalition sent out a press release saying that although Lamar Outdoor Advertising had signed a contract to run the billboards for eight weeks, they are coming down after three. From the press release: On April 8th, the Coalition to Stop $30 Billion to Israel erected the billboards throughout the Albuquerque area in order to inform the public about the misuse of their tax dollars, denominated in human lives. The group was motivated by concern for the Palestinian people who had recently been subjected to a massive invasion of the Gaza Strip by the Israeli military. Over 1,400 Palestinians mostly civilian, including three hundred children were killed and over 5,000 were injured. In 2007 the Bush administration signed a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion of U.S. taxpayer dollars to Israel over a ten year period beginning in 2008. The majority of these dollars will be used to purchase American-made weapons. The design of the billboard had been approved by Lamar and the billboards’ wording and final image were suggested by Lamar’s graphics designer. According to information from Lamar, it appears groups claiming to be pro-Israel have conducted a campaign to pressure Lamar to remove the billboards. The Coalition believes this is a deliberate attempt to silence its right to free speech because the humanitarian message of the billboards supports equal rights for the Palestinian people, thereby necessitating criticism of Israel.
Far too much is made of the 'fault line' between the Iranian people and leadership. Sure, as a first-order abstraction it is a useful descriptor, but let's keep our thinking grounded in a realistic context: one can say with just as much veracity that such a 'fault line' exists between the American people and government, and many others. Colonial Zionist/neocon attempts to push policy based on the assumption that this sort of simple conceptual model has useful predictive capability for large-scale structural political, social, and economic change shows that their analytical capability is just as intellectually mediocre as before the Iraq War, and/or just as disingenuous.
Obama actually has the public mandate to speak over the heads of the USA political status quo in Middle East foreign policy– he should dare to do it. I don't think he will, but he's still got time to prove my guess wrong. If he doesn't trust the American masses by speaking directly to them on Iran & I-P entanglement issues, what makes anyone trust the Iranian masses? They have less experience than Americans with democracy. The disconnect is ideology speaking.
Iranians, despite creating a state based on their religious identity, have not become colonizers, unlike the US and Israel.
Wow! Obama talking on TV right now. First time I've seen a flag with a crescent standing behind a US President. Of course, the American flag is on the right. Good for Obama.
"And of course Pollack always leaves out the Palestinian issue." And you both ignore the American masses who would have to pay for this technology transfer made in Israel's name! These people really do view average Americans as their tax slaves. I can't wait to see how this ends. No matter how unhappy the Iranian people are with their government, the chances of them siding with Israel and the U.S. against their leaders while being threatened is slim, and only fanatics and liars would say otherwise. I absoultely hate my leaders, but I would still side with them if other nations would do to the U.S. what Israel and the U.S. are doing to Iran. I can't believe that many Americans truly view the U.S. and Israel as the good guys in the Middle East.
This group is small and local–email them in support. They will ask if they can use your email on their web site.
Never over-estimate the masses. Historically they don't wake up until they nearly literally get slapped in the face; the rest of the time they never notice you took their wallet and future until it is too late for them. They buy swill. Love it. Argue about who's swill is better.
Ken Pollack has to be really relieved that the Aipac Rosen espionage trial has been dismissed. He was allegedly USGo1 i and David Satterfied was believed to be USGO2. Some of those U.S. classified intelligence was either handed to them o. Not sure exactly what their roles were. But they were sure to be subpoened Who the hell would listen to anythihg Pollack has to say that guy is drowning in the blood of the Iraqi people and American soldiers. Hell is father in law did some propaganda for Frontline on Iran "The Most Dangerous Nation" Iran Real subtle Koppel. Repeating unsubstantiated claims about Iraq and Iran must be family tradition as well as pushing for wars while no being willing to serve yourself or encourage any of your own family members to sign up. Cowards, pushers of unnecessary wars runs in that family
Exactly what country is America or israel colonizing? If you refer to history, Iran (Persia) is one of the great war mongering and colonizing nations.
Yes, just check out Israel's colonization, starting with Jericho. OTH, if you are talking about the last couple of centuries, Iran has not attacked anyone; compare Israel, and its predecessor, the Jewish Agency.