[Peace-discuss] Diplomatic revolution (one in a series)

[Morton K. Brussel]

Some remarks follow.


On Mar 31, 2009, at 9:11 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> Borrowing a phrase from 18th c. European history, I suggested a  
> while ago that, unlikely as it seems, the USG may soon seek an  
> entente with Iran, even if it means impairment of the US-Israel  
> alliance.
>
> For fifteen years in the 1950s and '60s America's chief client in  
> the Mideast was Iran, not Israel.  The replacement of the former by  
> the latter, which began in the late sixties, was not complete until  
> the  overthrow of the US puppet in Iran in the seventies.

Of course we were friendly with them in the late 50's and 60's. We  
installed the Shah there after Mossedegh was deposed with CIA  
connivance, and he was in our orbit.
>
>
> The overriding goal of US policy in the Mideast for more than fifty  
> years has been and continues to be control of Mideast energy  
> resources -- not the support of Israel.  (It's because Mearsheimer  
> and Walt ignore the former point that they get the latter wrong.)

These assertions are not either/or. Both can be true (or false).

>  It may happen, and soon, that a new alliance with Iran, like that  
> which existed for a generation, will serve that constant American  
> interest.
>
> If the new Netanyahu government in Israel shows itself recalcitrant  
> in following orders (or even if not), the USG may move towards a  
> rapprochement with Iran (which will soon have a new government  
> too).  A friendly Iran will
>
>   (a) add its own energy resources to those influenced/controlled by  
> the US;
>
>   (b) aid in the administration of a pacified, Shia-governed Iraq;
>
>   (c) supply logistic, diplomatic, and even military aid in the  
> geopolitical control of Afghanistan and hence Pakistan -- the chief  
> US concern a the moment;
>
>   (d) solidify the alliance with India via the Iran–Pakistan–India  
> gas pipeline ("Peace pipeline"); and
>
>   (e) prevent the incorporation of the region into the Asian energy  
> and defense grid promoted by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
>
> It will also dampen the much-trumpeted concern -- mostly propaganda  
> -- about Iranian nuclear power (which the US supported under the  
> Shah).
>
> The new Israeli government (like the old) is alive to the threat  --  
> and on the edge of hysteria in trying to prevent it. Today's  
> evidence is below. --CGE

This could be a "healthier" turn of events, but at this stage I'm  
afriad that it is whistling in the dark. Iran has interests which  
strongly collide with those of the USG, both with respect to its  
resources and economy and with respect to its geostrategic interests  
in the region; it does not want to be  a compliant second fiddle in  
this region.  Yes, wouldn't it be nice if we were all friends; much  
could indeed then be accomplished, but that's "begging the question".

--mkb
>
>
> =======================================
> 	Netanyahu's Ultimatum to Obama:
> 	Either You Take Out Iran's Nukes Or We Do
> 	By M.J. Rosenberg - March 31, 2009, 12:58PM
>
> On Friday, I wrote that I thought that incoming Prime Minister  
> Netanyahu may have moderated over the years.
>
> Not for the first time, I was wrong. Big time.
>
> Check out this interview Netanyahu gave the Atlantic's Jeff Goldberg  
> today. Netanyahu says flatout that either the Obama administration  
> deals with Iran's nuclear development or Israel will have no choice  
> but to act unilaterally (i.e, with bombs).
>
> Pretty incredible. An Israeli attack on Iran would jeopadize a  
> myriad of American interests in the region, starting with 130,000 US  
> troops but Netanyahu talks as if he can call the shots without any  
> regard for our interests. The fact is that, in the eyes of Iran (and  
> the world), there is essentially no difference between an Israeli  
> attack and one by us. Israel is viewed as our client. In other  
> words, any blowback from an Israeli attack is as likely to be  
> against us as against Israel. Americans in Iraq, or here at home,  
> could pay the ultimate price.
>
> President Obama needs to get on the phone and let Netanyahu know  
> that Israel can take no action vis a vis Iran without full  
> consultation with Washington. Obama is pursuing diplomacy which  
> means, whether it lkes it or not, that Israel is too. And that,  
> quite simply, means that Israel cannot act unilaterally as if it is  
> a free agent. It isn't. Like the Britain, Germany, Canada, or  
> France, it cannot take unilateral actions that would endanger  
> Americans.
>
> That is a message Obama needs to deliver not diplomatically but  
> directly and unambiguously.
>
> In this week's New Yorker, Seymour Hersh reports that, just before  
> leaving office, Dick Cheney told the Israelis that Obama is a wimp  
> and could be ignored.
>
> Netanyahu appears to have bought into the Cheney thesis and is now  
> testing it by insulting the President on the day he is sworn in as  
> Prime Minister. Let's see if Obama let's him get away with it. My  
> guess is that Bibi just made the first major blunder of his tenure.
>
> It is also not a coincidence that Netanyahu trash talked Iran while  
> US Special Envoy Holbrooke was holding the Obama administration's  
> first face-to-face meeting with an Iranian official in The Hague.  
> This is in keeping with the pattern set by President Shimon Peres  
> who sent a nasty greeting to the Iranian people simultaneously with  
> Obama's friendly overture. The name of the game is to make it  
> impossible for Obama to achieve a breakthrough with Iran by always  
> leaving the impression that America is in thrall to Israel. Clever.  
> And dangerous.
>
> http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/31/netanyahus_ultimatum_to_obama_either_you_take_out/
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss