[Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Ufpj-disc] On Iran and Obama.

[Brussel Morton K.]

FYI. From the UFPJ listserve.
I would only add for people on this list: Who has illusions?

Begin forwarded message:

> From: John Walsh <jvwalshmd at gmail.com>
> Date: April 28, 2008 7:39:51 AM CDT
> To: UFJP Legislative lists <ufpj-legislative at lists.mayfirst.org>,  
> UFPJ- Discussion <ufpj-disc at lists.mayfirst.org>,  
> aftermtauburnstreet <AfterMtAuburnStreet at yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Ufpj-disc] On Iran and Obama.
>
> **Please see footer for list protocol**
>
> This is a great piece, especially the part on Conoco versus AIPAC!
> It would appear that putting Petraeus in charge removes the last  
> hurdle to war on Iran.
> Obama has now said that he will vote to confirm Petraeus.  Whether  
> there is a war on Iran or not, a vote for Petraeus is a vote to  
> give Bush/Cheney a free hand to go to war, comparable in some ways  
> to the vote in October, 2002.
> It is time to abandon illusions about Obama.
> jw
>
> April 28, 2008
> Is War With Iran Imminent?
> This time, it's more than a rumor…
> by Justin Raimondo
> The shooting has already started in the Persian Gulf – and chances  
> are we'll be at war with Iran before President Bush's term is up.  
> An American ship under contract with the U.S. Navy – the Western  
> Venture – claims it was in international waters when Iranian  
> speedboats approached and failed to answer radio calls. Shots were  
> fired on the American side. Iran denies the whole thing. Yet you'll  
> recall that in the last incident, involving the capture of British  
> sailors, the story about being in international waters was the same  
> – except, it turns out, they weren't in international waters, but  
> in disputed waters, just as we speculated in this space. There's no  
> reason to expect anything different this time. Clearly, the U.S.  
> and Britain are trying to trigger a new conflict with the most  
> brazen provocations, and they don't really care how it happens –  
> only that it does.
>
> The indications of an imminent attack – the latest incident, the  
> steady stream of accusations coming from the U.S. regarding Iranian  
> influence in Iraq, the nuclear charade, etc. – have suddenly taken  
> a more ominous turn with the recent statement of America's top  
> military officer that the U.S. is weighing military action against  
> Iran. The Washington Post reports:
>
> "The nation's top military officer said yesterday that the Pentagon  
> is planning for 'potential military courses of action' as one of  
> several options against Iran, criticizing what he called the Tehran  
> government's 'increasingly lethal and malign influence' in Iraq.  
> Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said  
> a conflict with Iran would be 'extremely stressing' but not  
> impossible for U.S. forces, pointing to reserve capabilities in the  
> Navy and Air Force."
>
> Speaking of malign influences: since when does an American military  
> officer make foreign policy pronouncements, as if he were the  
> president? It's an indication of the advances militarism has made  
> in what used to be a republic that no one has so much as blinked at  
> the brazenness of such blatant Caesarism.
>
> The reasons for the uptick in the rhetorical and physical assault  
> on Iran by the Americans are entirely due to domestic politics, not  
> anything occurring on the ground in the region.
>
> Hillary Clinton's demagogic threat to "obliterate" Iran, uttered on  
> national television just before the Pennsylvania primary, was meant  
> to buttress her newfound image as a shot-swilling macho up against  
> the effete, Adlai Stevenson-esque Barack "Arugula" Obama. It's the  
> Old Politics, trying to revive the red state-blue state dichotomy,  
> and it's driving us down the road to war with Tehran. McCain, too,  
> is helped by the ratcheting up of tensions in the Persian Gulf:  
> think what the outbreak of war with Iran would do for his underdog  
> candidacy.
>
> Standing behind this developing pro-war Popular Front, the central  
> factor in turning the U.S. toward a policy of confrontation rather  
> than constructive engagement with Iran has been the Israel lobby.  
> Since 1993, the Lobby has been demanding that the U.S. take a more  
> aggressive approach to the mullahs of Tehran, and, with few  
> exceptions, has been largely successful.
>
> The policy of "dual containment," conceived by the Clinton  
> administration during the early 1990s, meant that the U.S. was  
> committed to hostile relations with both Iraq and Iran. The policy,  
> as John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt point out, "was essentially  
> a copy of an Israeli proposal." It meant stationing troops in Saudi  
> Arabia and Kuwait to offset an alleged threat to American  
> interests. Yet there was no reason to assume Tehran had hostile  
> intentions toward the U.S. At the time, Iranian President Akbar  
> Hashemi Rafsanjani was eager to establish friendly relations with  
> the U.S. As pressure built to abandon "dual containment" and  
> initiate a more workable policy that would give the U.S. more  
> flexibility, the Lobby went on the offensive with a relentless  
> campaign to impose economic sanctions on Iran.
>
> The Iranians, determined to signal their willingness to be  
> reasonable, chose an American oil company, Conoco, to develop the  
> Sirri oil fields. As Trita Parsi points out in Treacherous  
> Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States:
>
> "For AIPAC, the Conoco deal 'was a coincidence and a convenient  
> target.' The organization went into high gear to use the Iranian  
> offer not only to scuttle the Conoco deal, but also to put an end  
> to all U.S.-Iran trade. In a report that it released on April 2,  
> 1995, titled 'Comprehensive U.S. Sanctions Against Iran: A Plan for  
> Action,' AIPAC argued that Iran must be punished for its actions  
> against Israel. 'Iran's leaders reject the existence of Israel.  
> Moreover, Iran views the peace process as an American attempt to  
> legalize Israel's occupation of Palestinian, Muslim lands,' it  
> said. Pressured by Congress, AIPAC, and the Israelis, President  
> Clinton swiftly scrapped the deal by issuing two executive orders  
> that effectively prohibited all trade with Iran. The decision was  
> announced on April 30 by Clinton in a speech before the World  
> Jewish Congress."
>
> This wasn't enough for the Lobby, which brought pressure on Sen.  
> Alphonse D'Amato to introduce a bill that imposed sanctions on any  
> countries doing business with either Libya or Iran. The Iran-Libya  
> Sanctions Act passed the House with not a single dissenting vote,  
> and the same scenario went down in the Senate. The Lobby made sure  
> the Iranian peace offering was rudely rebuffed – and the president  
> reminded of just who was in charge of U.S. foreign policy in the  
> Middle East. The White House meekly went along with the Lobby's  
> wishes: after all, the presidential election was but three months  
> away.
>
> The Conoco affair should dispel any myths about the supposedly  
> supreme power of the "oil lobby" as the decisive factor in shaping  
> U.S. policy in the region: the Israel lobby beat them hands down.  
> As James Schlesinger put it, "It is scarcely possible to overstate  
> the influence of Israel's supporters on our politics in the Middle  
> East." The harder the Iranians tried to approach the Americans, the  
> more rudely they were repulsed.
>
> The election of the even more pro-American Mohammad Khatami as  
> Iran's president in 1997 did not break the back of "dual  
> containment" – dubbed "a nutty idea" by Brent Scowcroft, albeit one  
> with plenty of domestic political traction. The U.S. had every  
> reason to pursue a policy of engagement, while that was possible,  
> giving Iranian moderates the political breathing space they needed  
> to ensure the growth   of pro-American forces in the country. The  
> benefits of opening up Iran to American investment are similarly  
> obvious, yet our leaders chose to do otherwise due solely to the  
> power of the Lobby. As Ephraim Sneh, a prominent figure on the  
> Israeli Right, acknowledged: "We were against it … because the  
> interest of the U.S. did not coincide with ours."
>
> In short: Washington policymakers weighed the interests of both the  
> U.S. and Israel, and made their decision accordingly…
>
> From dual containment to regional transformation and "regime  
> change" was not a long road to travel. After 9/11, Washington  
> embarked on a campaign to topple the governments of both Iraq and  
> Iran, as well as Syria, and rid Lebanon of Hezbollah while they  
> were at it. As soon as "mission accomplished" was declared in Iraq,  
> the Israelis and their American amen corner began demanding action  
> against Iran.
>
> In an interview with the Times of London, Ariel Sharon declared  
> that Washington had better start threatening to march on Tehran  
> "the day after" Baghdad was secured. By late April 2003, the  
> Israeli ambassador to Washington was complaining that the demise of  
> Saddam's regime was "not enough." Those indolent Americans must be  
> made to "follow through" by taking action against "great threats of  
> that magnitude coming from Syria, coming from Iran."
>
> Shimon Peres rallied the faithful with an op-ed in the War Street  
> Journal titled "We Must Unite to Prevent an Ayatollah Nuke." The  
> neoconservatives convened a special all-day conference devoted to  
> inciting war hysteria aimed at Tehran, with all the usual suspects  
> – Michael Ledeen, Bernard Lewis, Reuel Marc Gerecht – in  
> attendance. The cry went up: "Regime change!" The only question was  
> which exile faction we were going to support: the royalists, or the  
> cult-like neo-Marxist Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) and its numerous  
> well-connected front groups in the U.S. and Europe.
>
> The leaders of the latter have energetically vied for the role of  
> the Iranian Chalabi, coming up with reams of "intelligence"  
> detailing Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Their  
> "revelations," however, have been definitively debunked by the  
> latest national intelligence estimate, which says Tehran abandoned  
> its nuclear program some time ago. All those diagrams and documents  
> coming from MEK by the truckload were evidence of a nuclear program  
> that no longer existed.
>
> If any of this sounds familiar, then it should.
>
> The efforts of the Lobby aren't limited to war propaganda. The  
> AIPAC spy trial – in which two top officials of the powerful pro- 
> Israel lobbying organization have been indicted for passing top- 
> secret classified information to Israeli embassy officials – is all  
> about Israel's attempt to penetrate U.S. governmental discussions  
> about what stance to take regarding Iran, with the goal of exerting  
> maximum influence on American policymaking circles.
>
>
>
>
> Pre-Order this Book
>
>
> Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran an "existential threat" to  
> the Jewish state, a contention that amounts to little more than  
> absolute nonsense. Their argument goes something like this: Iran is  
> not a normal state, it is run by ideologues who are profoundly  
> invested in apocalyptic religious visions that can only end in war.  
> Deterrence means nothing to them. They want to be incinerated in a  
> nuclear exchange involving Israel, themselves, and quite possibly  
> the U.S., because it fulfills the ancient prophecies and means the  
> return of the Mahdi, or something along those lines.
>
> This makes no more sense than the inverse version of the religion- 
> determines-all theory, which would have the "born again" George W.  
> Bush intent on provoking a nuclear war in the Middle East in order  
> to bring about the Second Coming and the Kingdom of God on Earth –  
> as the Christian dispensationalists who make up so much of the  
> GOP's base fervently believe is entirely possible and certainly  
> desirable.
>
> These latter, of course, are the foot-soldiers of the Israel Lobby  
> in America, a group that GOP presidential candidate John McCain has  
> actively courted in the person of the Rev. John Hagee. Rev. Hagee  
> is a vicious Catholic-hater and all-around nut-job who looks  
> forward to a nuclear war in the Middle East as the fulfillment of  
> Biblical prophecy. Hagee has lately taken up with AIPAC, appearing  
> at their last national confab in a starring role.
>
> This administration, which has been in thrall to the Israel lobby  
> more than any other, has been increasing the volume in its war of  
> words with Tehran since January of this year, and, as Bush's reign  
> comes to an inglorious end, there apparently remains one last act  
> of perfidy the neocons will leave as their legacy. Bush's going  
> away gift to the American people looks more than likely to be  
> another war – one that truly does make the Iraq war seem like a  
> "cakewalk" in comparison. It took a few years for the impact of the  
> war in Iraq to be felt by the American people, and its full impact  
> has yet to hit. Not so with the next war. The firing of a few shots  
> at those speedboats sent the price of oil up three bucks. Think of  
> what a full-scale all-out war would do to the price of nearly  
> everything. And for what?
>
> Iran, a signatory to the Nonproliferation Treaty, says it is not  
> seeking to build nuclear weapons, and that the production of  
> nuclear energy for peaceful uses is the one and only goal of its  
> activities on this front. This is more than Israel can say, far  
> more. Everyone knows the Israelis have nukes – the technology for  
> which they probably stole from us – and they are one of the few  
> civilized countries who haven't signed the NPT and refuse to even  
> discuss doing so.
>
> If ever there was a nuclear rogue nation, then surely it is Israel.  
> As Henry Kissinger said of them in a 1969 memo to Richard Nixon:  
> "The Israelis, who are one of the few peoples whose survival is  
> genuinely threatened, are probably more likely than almost any  
> other country to actually use their nuclear weapons." Although the  
> Iranians claim their nuclear program is geared exclusively toward  
> peaceful purposes, that they have the option to act otherwise,  
> should the need arise, is a challenge to Israel's nuclear hegemony.  
> The Iranians, by American and Israeli lights, have no right to a  
> deterrent.
>
> In a world where "benevolent global hegemony" is the goal of U.S.  
> foreign policy, there is no right to self-defense; that, along with  
> national sovereignty, has been abolished. Defiance is met with an  
> implacable campaign for regime-change in the offending nation. By  
> all indications, Iran is the next victim to be made an example of,  
> sometime in mid-summer, or so the rumor goes.
>
> We know where the presidential candidates stand on this issue.  
> Hillary looks forward to the "obliteration" of Iran and takes up  
> Charles Krauthammer's demand that we extend our nuclear shield over  
> Tel Aviv just as we would do the same for, say, Toledo. Indeed,  
> there are not a few who would argue that we would be fully  
> justified in sacrificing the latter in order to save the former,  
> and not all of them are to be found among Rev. Hagee's deluded  
> flock. In any case, we know what the McCain-Hagee position is  
> without even having to ask.
>
> We also know where Obama stands on all or most of this: he  
> advocates a policy of engagement with the Iranians, just as he has  
> endorsed talking with South American caudillo Hugo Chavez, and for  
> the same very sound reasons: because it's talk or fight. He clearly  
> realizes waging perpetual war is hardly in our interests, even if  
> we had the financial and military capacity to carry out such a  
> crazed policy. Yet, if he's speaking out about this, at this  
> crucial moment – when the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is  
> practically declaring war on the Iranians – then I just can't hear  
> him: he must not be speaking very loudly, or perhaps this gets lost  
> amid all the soaring rhetoric about Change and Hope and A Better  
> Tomorrow.
>
> Hillary voted for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, which designated  
> the Iranian Revolutionary Guards – an official part of the Iranian  
> armed forces – as a "terrorist organization," and now Gen. Petraeus  
> is telling us Tehran is funding, arming, and succoring those who  
> are killing American soldiers and bombing the Green Zone. The main  
> threat against us in Iraq is no longer the Sunni "dead-enders," as  
> Don Rumsfeld liked to call them, it's the Mahdi Army – Iraqi  
> Shi'ites – and the Iranians, who have very close ties to the  
> government our troops are dying to defend. If Bush seeks to  
> obliterate Iranian hopes for regional preeminence by launching an  
> attack before he leaves office, one can hardly see how the Clintons  
> could possibly object: perhaps they'll declare that, this time, we  
> have to send enough troops to "do the job." This, you'll recall,  
> was Hillary's McCain-like critique of the Iraq invasion long before  
> being antiwar was required of all Democratic presidential  
> aspirants. No doubt she'll revert to that when the time comes, but  
> what about Obama?
>
> He could skewer Hillary the hawk with one well-placed arrow, aimed  
> straight at her vulnerability on the Iran issue. With the first  
> shots of a new war already fired, apparently, and rumors of an  
> imminent American strike at Iran flying thick and fast, Obama could  
> denounce her as a warmonger, a McCain in drag, whose short-term  
> political opportunism is helping to embroil us in a quagmire far  
> worse than the one in Iraq, where she played a similar role in  
> 2003. Yet I hear nothing like this coming from Obama's camp.  
> Maureen Dowd nails it, with her typically acerbic take:
>
> "Despite all his incandescent gifts, Obama has missed several  
> opportunities to smash the ball over the net and end the game.  
> Again and again, he has seemed stuck at deuce. He complains about  
> the politics of scoring points, but to win, you've got to score  
> points."
>
> The American people oppose war with Iran, perhaps more than they  
> want out of Iraq: the economic consequences alone will infuriate  
> them far more than any other foreign policy decision of this  
> administration. What the War Party is hoping is that their fury  
> will be directed overseas, at our alleged "enemies" in Tehran, and  
> not at home, in the direction of Washington, where proper blame  
> belongs.
>
> Americans await the advent of a real leader, the sort who could and  
> would focus that anger on the right target. Whether Obama has the  
> gumption – and the strategic sense – to make this fight about  
> policy, not personalities, race, and gender, remains to be seen.  
> He's promised us a new politics, but that doesn't have to mean  
> blandness and an inability to fight. It can and must mean sharp  
> attacks on wrong ideas – and one looks in vain for an idea as  
> wrongheaded as war with Iran.
>
> ~ Justin Raimondo
>
> ***************************************
> This is a list for member groups of United for Peace and Justice to  
> discuss organizing plans and the work of this coalition.
>
> List guidelines:
>
> This list is open to any member of a UFPJ member group. Please sign  
> your postings with your name and the name of the group to which you  
> belong.
>
> Please refrain from off-topic posts. News articles belong on the  
> ufpj-news at yahoogroups.com list.  If you wish to engage others in  
> discussion around a particular news item, campaign, or concept,  
> please write a brief intro above the item you forward that can  
> serve to focus discussion.  This will ensure that the list is a  
> useful tool for communication and debate between UFPJ member groups.
>
> We want to encourage full and vigorous conversation, but also want  
> people to be attentive to overposting.  A good guideline is to  
> limit your posts to one per day, except in unusual circumstances.   
> Personal attacks and racist, sexist, or homophobic language will  
> not be tolerated.
>
> Moderation will be exercised at the discretion of the list  
> administrators, in order to provide a useful platform for  
> discussion that makes space for a diversity of voices.
> _______________________________________________
> Ufpj-disc mailing list
>
> Post: Ufpj-disc at lists.mayfirst.org
> List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-disc
>
> To Unsubscribe
> 	Send email to:  Ufpj-disc-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org
> 	Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-disc/ 
> brussel4%40insightbb.com
>
> You are subscribed as: brussel4 at insightbb.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080428/2e829bde/attachment-0001.htm