[Peace-discuss] Iran in the crosshairs?

[C. G. Estabrook]

I don't think you can believe what you want.  A lot of the difficulty the 
anti-war movement finds itself in comes from believing what it wants -- wishful 
thinking -- rather than trying to determine what is the case.

But if by cynicism you mean the view that political actors are motivated by 
group self-interest rather than honorable or unselfish reasons ("Obama's trying 
to do the right thing!") -- as Chomsky puts it, a little obscurely, "states are 
not moral agents" -- I agree.  --CGE

Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> I was showing what /Israelis/ are saying, and what they may fear. I don't
> necessarily disagree with your interpretation, but I'm not so sure as you
> about what discussions and strategies are occurring in the inner sanctum of
> the administration. As usual Obama is trying to triangulate and propagandize
> by 1) seeming to support a two state solution (without specifying what that
> would entail), perhaps in order to tell the Israelis to back off in their war
> cries against Iran while 2) not alienating Israeli apologists/Likudists and
> 3) while not compromising US's hegemonic objectives.
> 
> It can be conjectured—all this is conjecture at this point—that George 
> Mitchell has a hand in what is going on, expressing sympathy towards the 
> Palestinians. But it can also be conjectured that Dennis Ross wouldn't mind
> putting the screws on Iran for the benefit of Israel and inciting the
> Israeli's to continue their threats. It may well be that he would like to
> destroy any possible rapprochement with Iran, so that Israel would feel more
> free to have its way to convince the Americans to look the other way in an
> attack by Israel. . That Ross has been given the Iran portfolio would not
> seem to imply any peace-like overtures to Iran. But then again maybe he's
> opposed by some advising the administration, such as  Bryzhinski(sp), Baker,
> Clinton(?)…. Etc.
> 
> It's a complicated scenario. You can almost believe what you want, and be
> cynical with respect to any statements emanating from either Washington,
> Teheran, or Jerusalem (not to speak of Sarcozi, Brown, Medvedev/Putin, Abbas,
> etc.).
> 
> --mkb
> 
> 
> On Apr 20, 2009, at 7:42 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
>> This seems backwards. The USG doesn't care what Israel does with the 
>> Palestinians, with the important proviso that no part of Palestine should
>> become a base for opposition of the general US control of the Middle East
>> (hence the rejection of Hamas for "terrorism" = resistance to US
>> domination).
>> 
>> So the US and Israel have for a generation rejected the world-wide 
>> consensus in favor of a two-state solution.  But now the US (in both the
>> Bush and Obama administrations) and elements within Israel (including
>> Yisrael Beiteinu) are supporting a Palestinian state(let) on the basis that
>> it be a sort of Indian reservation for Palestinians, under Israeli control.
>> They just have to find a Palestinian (probably Abbas) to act as a
>> trustee/jailer for the Palestinians.
>> 
>> But Iran's cooperation with the US in regard to both Afghanistan and Iraq
>> is far more important to the US than what happens to the Palestinians.
>> That's what worries the Netanyahu government so much, and why they keep
>> rattling the saber against Iran so loudly. They keep calling in their
>> markers in the Congress and elsewhere, because they're worried that the
>> Obamans have decided that Iran can do them more good in their general
>> program of control of the Middle East (the "diplomatic revolution") than
>> Israel can.
>> 
>> It's an unstable situation. In a similar impasse a generation ago, the 
>> Israelis kept warning Washington that they could "go mad" -- e.g., they had
>> nuclear weapons that could reach the USSR...  --CGE
>> 
>> 
>> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>>> Note especially the interesting 4th paragraph. ---mkb ... /There appears
>>> to be also an American effort to link an operation against Iran with a
>>> more favorable approach by Israel to peace with the Palestinians. An 
>>> article in Yedioth Ahronoth last week suggested that the United States is
>>>  hinting that its willingness to attack Iran (or permit Israel to do so)
>>> will be directly related to the Netanyahu government's flexibility on
>>> issues such as evacuating settlements, pullbacks from the West Bank and
>>> progress on a peace accord with the Palestinian Authority. /
>> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list 
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss