[Peace-discuss] Gareth Porter interview

[C. G. Estabrook]

Thanks for the reference, Stuart.

Of course the U.S. needs a fantasy Third Reich in the Middle East as an excuse 
for its military descent on the region (and also to justify its cost to the US 
public), because it can't admit the real nature of the enemy whom it's ranged 
against: people in the Middle East who want the US to get out of their country 
and stop taking their resources.

We call them terrorists, insurgents, militants, Al-Qaeda, Taliban and the like, 
but they're engaged in wars of local defense and national liberation (cf. 
anti-imperial struggles from the 18th century up to anti-colonial struggles in 
the 20th). The US encouraged religious identification in the region a generation 
ago to undercut secular nationalism (Nasser, Arafat) and succeeded too well: now 
religious identification is an organizing principle for resistance to US plans.

Given the bed-rock US policy -- control of Mideast energy -- the only 
alternative to permanent US war is the neocon fantasy of a region of obedient 
client states -- which admittedly Iran and Egypt have recently been, after 
attempts at national liberation (Iran by coup in the Eisenhower administration, 
Egypt by purchase in the Carter administration).

What the US can't stand in current conditions is for peace to break out. --CGE


Stuart Levy wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss