Does this sound familiar? Here's neoconservative Eli Lake, writing in the Washington Times:
The United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that the benefits of bombing Iran's nuclear program outweigh the short-term costs such an attack would impose.
The UAE has denied that its ambassador made such a statement. Does it even matter? Here is Joe Lieberman in Israel, in Jerusalem Post:
The US will address the Iranian threat "through diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions if we can, but through military action if we must," said Lieberman.
Where are Judy Miller and Jeff Goldberg and the New Yorker and Brookings? Bill Keller of the Times? Your country needs you, Keller.
Of course the UAE is now saying they said no such thing and their remarks were taken out of context.
While it is certainly true that Zionist warmongers will stop at nothing to invent and foment support for their long-wished attack on Iran, the Gulf states could do a lot more to prevent this. They could state unequivocably that they would oppose militarily any aggression against Iran.
They don’t say this. Their passive hostility towards the Iran regime only leaves openings for its enemies to claim they are actively hostile.
Ah, the disgusting hypocrisy of it all. If ever there was justification for a pre-emptive strike, Iran has it in spades. And, yet, if they were to strike first, they would be branded (even more than they currently are) as villains, as the new Nazi Germany, as a terrorist state.
Israel and America, on the other hand, are permitted to feel fear and to invade and destroy with impunity when they don’t get their hugs.
The fucking hypocrisy of it all.
ELJAY- From the declaration of independence onward, hypocrisy has been as American as apple pie. One could almost define it as a secular American religion, at least among the elites (any elites, for that matter).
“the Gulf states could do a lot more to prevent this. They could state unequivocably that they would oppose militarily any aggression against Iran.”
I don’t know a lot about the relations of other GCC countries to Iran but the ties with the UAE are deep, especially Dubai. As Tehran expanded it’s reach in the early 1900s it began levying taxes on Persian Gulf port cities – much of the arab population migrated the short distance across the Gulf and settled in Dubai which had few if any port taxes. There’s a huge Iranian expat community, and Dubai has been for Iran during sanctions, what the tunnels have been for Gaza – a lifeline. I don’t know about today but a few years ago Iran was the top destination for flights out of Dubai. Recently I’d heard that credit in Dubai for Iranians has dried up as part of the US sanctions squeeze.
I really don’t know what to make of this. A few Dubai commentators I keep track of believe their ambassador was misrepresented. The offending comments apparently came after this panel, during which Al Otaiba had been interviewed by Jeffry Goldberg:
link to aifestival.org
I haven’t listened to whole interview yet but at the beginning Goldberg does something quite bizarre: he jokingly introduces Al Otaiba as the Ambassador to Israel, then goes on to sat he always confuses the two.
The BBC is today reporting that the appointed European Commission is banning two thirds of Iran aircraft from Europe over what it calls “safety concerns”.
Perhaps Iran’s planes would be safer if the US allowed them spare parts for their ageing Boeing aircraft? I’m not sure why the A320s are also banned. Probably the spineless EU acting under threats of sanctions by the US.
Sickening.
I think it’s because they aren’t allowing the planes to refuel, so they fear they’ll fall out of the sky.
The benefit of a Nuclear strike on Iran. Who talks like this?
Well, with the neocons and aipac’s plugs in congress/media calling openly for war, and with zionist liberals and fake leftists/progressives demonizing Iran more subtly to pave the way, how much longer before zionism, inc. gets their way on this?
If we don’t learn from history we are apt to repeat it. The rational behind the attack on the USS Liberty, was that if Israel could sink the ship, they could blame it on Egypt, and bring the US into their war. The Liberty, after being straffed and torpedoed remained standing, with 30+dead and 170 wounded. The same drum beats are being heard now. Clinton said that Iran may have suitcase bombs, the time for Iran to go nuclear has moved from 10 years to about 1. Perhaps Russia could build an air defense system for Iran, like the US is doing in Poland, just in case those who hate Muslims want to attack. Our Congress and Administration is already bought and paid for, they are just looking for an excuse. Unfortunately, most Americans are tired of our wars in Iraq and Afganistan, and they’ll need to whip us up and give us a reason to support their new cause. Obama is becoming more like Pres. Johnson, who was reported as saying that they could kill the entire crew (USS Liberty) and sink the ship rather than embarrass an ally, when he recalled the planes sent to protect the Liberty. Muslim countries need to unite, because after Iran, who knows who will be next. The US as an “honest broker”, now that’s funny. I hope the reporters didn’t miss BiBi patting Obama on the head, after their meeting.
Not attacking Iran – The Reasons
link to youtube.com
The Iranian threat is generated as a way of keeping us from examining our domestic political situations, particularly inside Palestine and also wherever we live.
Iran has a growing list of allies, and a growing inventory of ballistic missiles which can hit Israel’s Nuclear facilities and any shipping in the Gulf.
From Wikipedia:
BP: The Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) was founded in 1908 following the discovery of a large oil field in Masjed Soleiman, Iran. It was the first company to extract oil from the Middle East. In 1935 APOC was renamed the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and in 1954 became the British Petroleum Company (BP), one of the antecedents of the modern BP Plc.
link to en.wikipedia.org
morris – you left out the *best* bit… …that Anglo-Iranian was the oil company Mossadegh nationalised after they refused to negotiate for more reasonable oil concessions. From memory AIOC were paying only 16% while another state – Abu Dhabi I believe – had recently negotiated for 50% of the profits. AIOC then plotted w/ the CIA to overthrow the democratic Iranian Government and install that Shah.
It’s hard to think of one company that’s caused more trouble for the US – because of the US’ own stupidity – than BP.
Yes I just started to learn about BPs history, after making this.
But it just reinforces my hunch that the Gulf debacle happened because BP rocked the boat, eg wanted to do biz with Iran. It will now be filled with new investors …
It will have to begin before upcoming Congressional elections, if Obama is to be kept neutralized.
Goldberg on the Al Otaiba thing. Sounds like he and the WaPo were at different events:
‘UAE Ambassador on the Challenge of Iran
link to theatlantic.com
“Where are Judy Miller and Jeff Goldberg”
Gulf Arab Support for Attacking Iran:
The Strange Case of the UAE
by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
07.07.10
(excerpts)
According to Eli Lake in the Washington Times, Yousef responded to a question from Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic about the possibility of an attack against Iranian nuclear facilities with the following remarks:
“I think it’s a cost-benefit analysis. . . . I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion . . . there will be consequences, there will be backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what. If you are asking me, ‘Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran,’ my answer is still the same: We cannot live with a nuclear Iran. I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the UAE.”
Goldberg himself reports the following observations from Yousef:
“There are many countries in the region who, if they lack the assurance the U.S. is willing to confront Iran, they will start running for cover towards Iran. Small, rich, vulnerable countries in the region do not want to be the ones who stick their finger in the big bully’s eye, if nobody’s going to come to their support.”
“Countries in the region view the Iran threat very differently. I can only speak for the UAE, but talk of containment and deterrence really concerns me and makes me very nervous. Why should I be led to believe that deterrence or containment will work? Iran doesn’t have nuclear power now, but we’re unable to contain them and their behavior in the region. What makes me think that once they have a nuclear program, we’re going to be able to be more successful in containing them?”
And here is how Goldberg renders Yousef’s response to the question, “Do you want the U.S. to stop the Iranian nuclear program by force?”:
“Absolutely, absolutely. I think we are at risk of an Iranian nuclear program far more than you are at risk. At 7,000 miles away, and with two oceans bordering you, an Iranian nuclear threat does not threaten the continental United States. It may threaten your assets in the region, it will threaten the peace process, it will threaten balance of power, it will threaten everything else, but it will not threaten you. . . . I am suggesting that I think out of every country in the region, the UAE is most vulnerable to Iran. Our military, who has existed for the past 40 years, wake up, dream, breathe, eat, sleep the Iranian threat. It’s the only conventional military threat our military plans for, trains for, equips for, that’s it, there’s no other threat, there’s no country in the region that is a threat to the UAE, it’s only Iran. So yes, it’s very much in our interest that Iran does not gain nuclear technology.”
Earlier today, a senior official at the UAE Foreign Ministry in Abu Dhabi declared that the statements attributed to Yousef were “inaccurate”: “These statements came as part of general discussions held on the sidelines of an unofficial gathering and were taken out of their context in which Al-Otaiba was speaking.”
The UAE Foreign Ministry official went on to clarify the Emirati position vis-à-vis Iran, noting that the UAE “believes in the sovereignty of other states and in the principle of non-interference, of all forms, in their internal affairs”:
“Already, the UAE declared, more than one time and in official statements issued by the Foreign Ministry, its position on the Iranian nuclear issue. . . . The UAE totally rejects the use of force as a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue and rather calls for a solution through political means that are based on the international legitimacy, transparency as well as the need for working, through the International Atomic Energy Agency, on the right of all states to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The UAE, at the same time, believe in the need of keeping the Gulf region free of nuclear weapons.”
Goldberg has already offered the following reflections on Yousef’s remarks:
“[T]he ambassador’s position, though stated more plainly, and publicly, than usual, is the standard position of many Arab states. It is not only Israel that fears the rise of a nuclear Iran; the Arabs, if anything, fear such a development to a greater degree. The Jews and Arabs have been fighting for one hundred years. The Arabs and the Persians have been going at for a thousand. The idea of a group of Persian Shi’ites having possession of a nuclear bomb scares Arab leaders like nothing else — it certainly scares them more than the reality of the Jewish bomb.”
We can expect more commentary of this sort in the days and weeks ahead. It is important to push back against this kind of (deliberate?) misreading of regional attitudes about a U.S.-Iranian confrontation. In fact, attitudes in the countries that make up the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC, encompassing Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, as well as the UAE) regarding Iran are much more conflicted and less clear-cut than they are usually portrayed in neoconservative commentary.
link to mrzine.monthlyreview.org
The zionists would make goebbels blush with their lying and turn hitler green with envy with their ability to engage in any aggression without facing the consequences.
A great illustration of how Zionists just make things up as they go along. Goldberg just spews out lie after lie after lie.
ISRAEL SHALOM- The American Congress has no loyalty to Israel whatsoever (or to the US for that matter). Take away AIPAC and the campaign contributions, and Congress would throw Israel into the garbage dump along with Social Security.
Keith, the majority of both House and Senate sign letters of support for Israel whenever the Israeli lobby ask them to. More than 50% of BOTH parties funding comes Jewish sources, and their investment pays great dividends.
Now that being said, if we don’t want another war created, and further decimation of our economy, millions more goyim killed, we need to be VERY Pro-Active in letting Congress know it’s not in our best interests to be attacking Israel and we resent their attempts to jinn up further excuses for waging war on goyish lands.
This is the real world, not some Zoharian dream that was cooked up by a couple of Rabbi’s and a small boy hiding in a cave.
https://www2.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search&pattern=RGVzdHJ1Y3Rpb24gb2YgdGhlIDcwIElkb2xhdHJvdXMgTmF0aW9ucw==&where=verses&sort=rate
You know very well I meant to say, “Tell our leadership attacking IRAN” is not in our best interests. Freud would love that typo, wouldn’t he?
Unfortunately I once believed Obama really meant what he said in Cairo, but the “Appeaser -in-chief ” may try to come up with a good reason to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities. There was an article I read a long time ago that stated if Iran’s nuclear facilities were bombed, the scientists could not definitely say that the result would not lead to a nuclear cloud that could follow the air currents and eventually cover Europe, and eventually make it’s way across to the US. It’s a shame Iran signed the Non proliferation treaty, then they could have demanded to do what Israel has done. How many failed states does the US want to be responsible for, since Iraq and Afghanistan are already considered failed states. Doesn’t Obama realize that when you do the same thing over and over and come up with the same result that it’s really crazy to keep doing it. But in his zeal to appease BiBi, I think he’d be more than willing to do it.