[Peace-discuss] Gareth Porter interview

[Sarah Tedrow-Azizi]

I would hardly put the Taliban in the same catagory as those "engaged
in wars of local defense and national liberation."


On 7/2/08, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>