[Peace-discuss] What's "no secret"? N-G on US, Iran, & Israel

[C. G. Estabrook]

The poor N-G editorial writer (it's no secret who it is) is deathly afraid the US executive is getting into bed with the mullahs...


On Mar 6, 2015, at 9:27 PM, E. W. Johnson <ewj at pigsqq.org> wrote:

> It's no secret that the N-G is a neocon fishwrap.
> 
> The US government has a long history of not complying with anything other than the
> whims of expediency, and cannot be trusted.  That's also no secret.
> 
> 
> On 03/07/2015 04:16 AM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote:
>> Cf. the psychoanalytic notion of the  'primal scene': <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primal_scene>.
>> 
>> Comment in the News-Gazette from David Green: "The N-G editorial page, including this, the cartoon, and Charles Krauthammer, reflect an intensely demagogic, lurid, and racist mentality regarding Iran, which offers no indication of building nuclear weapons, and Israel, which has from 100-200 [nuclear weapons] in violation of international law, and consistently threatens Iran. The repetitive invocation of  'it's no secret...' (four times in this editorial, a persistent pattern in N-G editorials) belies a twisted view of the world, made from whole cloth and adjusted daily to meet the needs of the 1%. It's all about American hegemony and our employment of Israel to that end. It's all about the lies to keep us from understanding that."
>> 
>> ======
>> Editorial
>> Can't ignore Bibi's warning
>> Fri, 03/06/2015 | The News-Gazette
>> 
>> The political squabble surrounding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu's address to Congress shouldn't distract from the substance of his policy objections to a pending nuclear agreement with Iran.
>> 
>> President Barack Obama made no secret of his objections to Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech to Congress, pushing a boycott of the speech by members of his administration and congressional Democrats before the speech and dismissing it as mere "theatrics" after.
>> 
>> But no spin — however clever — can overcome the substantive case Netanyahu made during his electric appearance Tuesday on Capitol Hill.
>> 
>> "This is a bad deal. It's a very bad deal. We're better off without it," said Netanyahu, complaining that the impending agreement with Iran assures that it will gain access to nuclear weapons with which to threaten the entire Middle East, including Israel's very existence.
>> 
>> President Obama dismissed Netanyahu's arguments, noting that negotiations are not yet complete. But they will be soon, given the March 24 negotiating deadline.
>> 
>> Both men raise valid points, and the proof will be in the pudding — the agreement that is ultimately reached.
>> 
>> But here's the problem. Netanyahu is calling on Congress to play the role of critical overseer on the substantive details while Obama intends to share the agreement with Congress but exclude it from any role in approving it.
>> 
>> "What I can guarantee is, if it is a deal I signed off on, I will be able to prove that it is the best way for us to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon," Obama said after Netanyahu's speech.
>> 
>> In other words, whatever Obama negotiates — if he thinks it's appropriate — that's it.
>> 
>> If that's the way it's going to be — and Obama has made no secret of his preference to go around Congress — then Netanyahu was correct to cite two very big red flags:
>> 
>> 1) Iran has a long history of not complying with international agreements and cannot be trusted.
>> 
>> 2) Permitting Iran to maintain its nuclear program and putting a 10-year time limit on the agreement would leave it on the cusp of obtaining nuclear weapons complete with intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities that would pose a threat far beyond the Middle East.
>> 
>> Obama does not dispute Iran's duplicitous nature, stating flatly that "we don't trust them." He defends the proposed agreement on the grounds that it's better than no agreement, suggesting nothing short of war can deter Iran's nuclear ambitions.
>> 
>> But it's no secret that economic sanctions imposed on Iran have exacted considerable pain on that country. Those plus the oil price decline have wrecked the country's economy. Additional sanctions threatened by Congress — opposed by Obama — would make things even tougher, perhaps persuading Iran to make concessions it has so far refused.
>> 
>> Iran's leaders care little about the suffering of their citizens, so there are no guarantees new sanctions would bring about a change of heart. But lifting the current sanctions — as Obama intends to do — while permitting Iran to maintain its nuclear facilities would further solidify the ruling government's hard-line stance.
>> 
>> 
>> As for the 10-year limit on the agreement, administration officials are hoping that a more moderate leadership will displace the theocrats who've established a ruthless Islamic dictatorship. Given the country's history of crushing dissent, that's a long shot, even more so if the control is enhanced by the proposed nuclear deal.
>> If Iran stands on the brink of becoming a nuclear power, it would pose a dual threat to the most chaotic region of the world. Other Middle Eastern countries — including Saudi Arabia and Egypt — might feel compelled to obtain nuclear weapons of their own. Even more ominous is that Israel, which Iranian leaders regularly threaten to destroy, could launch a preemptive strike.
>> 
>> When the Israelis promise that "never again" will they submit to the threat of destruction, they mean it. Given their history, who can blame them for refusing to rely on the forbearance of enemies who make no secret of their genocidal intentions?
>> 
>> In circumstances such as these, participants and pundits alike find it impossible to resist making historical allusions. Hence, the inevitable comparison to World War II, characterizing Netanyahu as Winston Churchill warning of dark Nazi intentions and Obama as Neville Chamberlain naively negotiating treaties with untrustworthy adversaries.
>> 
>> At this point, that analogy is overwrought, but only at this point.
>> 
>> ###
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>