[Peace-discuss] Gareth Porter interview

[Stuart Levy]

On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 06:39:50PM -0500, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> You wouldn't like to summarize his argument, would you, Mort?  In my dotage 
> I find it hard to listen to these things, and it seems there's no 
> transcript available...

The page Mort pointed to does have a link to Gareth Porter's
pretty readable article though, as well as the 45-minute interview.
Note especially the last paragraph I'm quoting here: that the analysts
he's talking about are pressing for a (US) attack on Iran -- *not* because
Iran is strong, dangerous, irrational, and liable to marshal its own and
other forces to retaliate if attacked -- but because, they say, Iran
is relatively weak, knows that it's weak, would do little in response,
and so attacking it wouldn't be such a risky venture.

So the public story is that Iran is the new powerful Third Reich,
liable to destabilize the world, while their private analysis calls
for attacking Iran *because* it's vulnerable now.  "A nuclear-armed Iran
could dangerously alter the strategic balance in the region," write the WINEP
authors, "handcuffing Israel's room to maneuver on the Palestinian
and Lebanese fronts…."


    http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=13072

    Anti-Iran Arguments Belie Fearmongering 

    New arguments by analysts close to Israeli thinking in favor of U.S. strikes
    against Iran cite evidence of Iranian military weakness in relation to the U.S.
    and Israel and even raise doubts that Iran is rushing to obtain such weapons at
    all.

    The new arguments contradict Israel's official argument that it faces an
    "existential threat" from an Islamic extremist Iranian regime determined to get
    nuclear weapons. They suggest that Israel, which already has as many as 200
    nuclear weapons, views Iran from the position of the dominant power in the
    region rather than as the weaker state in the relationship.

    The existence of a sharp imbalance of power in favor of Israel and the United
    States is the main premise of a recent analysis by Patrick Clawson and Michael
    Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) suggesting
    that a U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear facilities is feasible. Chuck Freilich, a
    senior fellow at Harvard University's Belfer Center on Science and
    International Affairs, has also urged war against Iran on such a power
    imbalance.

    All three have close ties to the Israeli government. WINEP has long promoted
    policies favored by Israel, and its founding director, Martin Indyk, was
    previously research director of the leading pro-Israel lobby, the American
    Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Freilich is a former Israeli deputy
    national security adviser.

    These analysts, all of whom are pushing for a U.S., rather than an Israeli
    attack, argue that Iran's power to retaliate for a U.S. attack on its nuclear
    facilities is quite limited. Equally significant, they also emphasize that Iran
    is a rational actor that would have to count the high costs of retaliation.
    That conclusion stands in sharp contrast to the official Israeli line that Iran
    cannot be deterred because of its allegedly apocalyptic Islamic viewpoint on
    war with Israel.

    [... and lots more, but much less than 45 minutes worth...]
>
> Brussel Morton K. wrote:
>> A very illuminating interview with Gareth Porter about the Iran situation, 
>> the Israeli lobby, and related topics.
>>  (You'll have to click the appropriate link.)
>> http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/07/01/gareth-porter-30/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss