Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
October 24, 2008

Dennis Ross Prepares For War On Iran

Yesterday two former 'bipartisan' senators had an op-ed in the Washington Post calling on the new U.S. president to launch an outright attack on Iran after some sham negotiations:

[W]hile a diplomatic resolution is still possible, it can succeed only if we negotiate from a position of strength. This will require better coordination with our international partners and much stricter sanctions.
...
Both to increase our leverage over Iran and to prepare for a military strike, if one were required, the next president will need to begin building up military assets in the region from day one.

That op-ed is the based on a report (pdf) by an allegedly Bipartisan Policy Center.

Jonathan Schwarz summarizes the logic of the op-ed:

We're Going To Attack You If You Try To Get The Power To Stop Us From Attacking You.

Now that would be correct if Iran would really try to get the power to stop the U.S. from attacking, i.e. to acquire nuclear bombs. But the IAEA and the U.S. intelligence community say Iran is not even trying. The correct summery of the op-ed's logic is thereby:

We're Going To Attack You If We Assume You Try To Get The Power To Stop Us From Attacking You

Glenn Greenwald shows how little real 'bipartisanship' the Bipartisan Policy Center really includes. Its report (pdf) is essentially an AIPAC product written by the American Enterprise Institute neocon Michael Rubin.

Helena Cobban points to the role of Dennis Ross, the zionist-neocon ex-Reagan, ex-Bush I, ex-Clinton hand. Ross is now Obama's middle east adviser and a member of the 'bipartisan' group. 

Jim Lobe suspects Dennis Ross is trying to maneuver Obama into attacking Iran:

According to a variety of sources, Ross was the main drafter of Obama’s pander (except on the settlers) to AIPAC’s annual convention here in May and has since raised his hopes for a top post in an Obama administration, possibly even secretary of state. Frankly, I doubt that the latter prospect is realistic, but — and here’s the main point — I have it from several sources close to the campaign that he is more eager to gain control over the Iran portfolio (possibly special envoy) than to work on the problem that he knows best from his long experience, the Israel-Palestinian conflict. If he succeeds in his quest and if this report is any reflection of his views, then the U.S. could very well find itself at war with Iran within a remarkably short period of time.

He later updates:

Make sure you also read in this connection today’s New York Times article by David Sanger, particularly the part about the purported e-mail from Obama that was routed through an unidentified “aide,” who I presume to be Ross. The coincidence of the appearance of this article with the Coats-Robb op-ed suggests an effort to box Obama into a pre-election position. The Iran part of the story by Sanger, who considers himself a foreign-policy player, as well as a reporter, tracks the report’s narrative quite nicely.

The Sanger piece Jim points to includes this:

Mr. Obama, the candidate who has expressed far more willingness to sit down and negotiate with the Iranians, said in an e-mail message passed on by an aide that in any final deal he would not allow Iran to produce uranium on Iranian soil, the same hard-line view enunciated by the Bush administration.
...
Mr. Obama’s position is closer to the zero-tolerance approach adopted by the Bush administration. “I do not believe Iran should be enriching uranium or keeping centrifuges,” he said in an e-mail message passed on by aides.

Jim is right to suspect some concerted action by Ross and his 'bipartisan' group. Today said Dennis Ross is interviewed by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz (which introduces him as possible Sec State). First the usual lies:

Preventing Iran from going nuclear is a very high priority for [Obama], not only because it's such a threat to Israel, but because it's such a threat to the United States.
...
Today Iran is a nuclear power - it doesn't have nuclear weapons yet, but in 2001 it was not yet able to convert uranium or uranium gas, it didn't have a single centrifuge. Now it's stockpiling highly enriched uranium.

"Stockpiling highly enriched uranium" - 4-5% enriched is all Iran does says the IAEA.

Then Ross pushes the point of the 'bipartisan' bomb-Iran report. Negotiate to gain leverage with allies, but expect the negotiations to fail, which would then lead to and 'justify' an attack:

When Senator Obama suggests that he would be prepared to meet with [Ahmadinejad], he says such a meeting first has to be prepared. What he means is that you have to coordinate with your allies - all your allies. Secondly, it means you have to check whether you can put together an agenda for a lower-level meeting. If it becomes clear that you can't put together such an agenda, then you don't hold a meeting at a high level - the presidential level - because it's not going to lead anywhere.

Imagine Dennis Ross as special Iran envoy in an Obama administration trying very hard to "put together an agenda for a lower-level meeting" only to fail to get such an agenda. Because that would be exactly the logic of the report, fake negotiations with Iran to get allies with the next step being bombs dropping on Iran.

Dennis Ross is maneuvering to get to that point.

Additionally the danger of a conflict with Iran increased today because the attempts of the Israeli prime minister-designate Tzipi Livni to form a coalition with Labor and the ultra-religious Shas failed. This will likely lead to snap-elections and a future Israeli government with the leader of the far-right Likud party, Netanjahu, as prime minister.

Netanjahu as prime minister and Dennis Ross as Obama's Iran envoy would be a very deadly combination.

Posted by b on October 24, 2008 at 13:30 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Thanks for the tip. Always looking for the last shoe to fall, the trigger event, before we head for Australia.

I wonder though if the economic meltdown isn't going to eclipse all other events and initiatives. I at least am more worried about that than the perennial rumors about attacking Iran.

Posted by: seneca | Oct 24 2008 15:00 utc | 1

Did anybody inform them that USA is on a brink of bankruptcy?
They keep talking this shit...They need this war on Iran (and I have a feeling that they are not going to be supported in it in any significant way ) just as one needs an ulcer on his ass …excuse my French…

Posted by: vbo | Oct 24 2008 15:08 utc | 2

B - you know, between this, the latest little melt-down in the market, a possible Russian debt default, and the IMF being back in business, I think I'm gonna need a drink tonight. Serious shit is coming down the pike in the next 5 or 6 months and I'm afraid we're only getting a mild whiff of it now.

Posted by: InTheCity | Oct 24 2008 15:09 utc | 3

Consider what would happen if Iran totally complied with the neocons' demands. The neocons would immediately find another pretext to attack. This is because the neocons simply will not allow Iran to dispose of its own massive energy assets.

For some reason, they adamantly refuse to reveal their true ambitions. But how else can you explain their march to war, when their underlying rationale is phony? Evidence points to Iran NOT having a nuclear weapons program. (IAEA verifications, NIE) And Iran has little to offer the West beyond its obvious potential as an energy superpower, largely off-limits to Western exploitation today.

The biggest problem is that the neocons have once again taken control of the narrative, creating a fantasy which most Americans believe. And nobody in the foreign policy community (including their megaphones in the corporate media) is about to reveal the neocons' true goals. They all joined in the jingoistic orgy or cowered silently while America marched into a devastating war in Iraq. And today they are either joining the anti-Iran frenzy or cowering in a corner, as neocons fix the case for another devastating, fruitless adventure. They would rather see America march blythely into another catastrophe than try to explain America's real ambitions.

I recently confronted a well known foreign affairs blogger on his adamant refusal to discuss America's real ambitions in Iraq (and Iran)--energy. He responded that he "finds the subject matter predictable, an obvious issue, and boring." Each of these "experts" has his own favorite rationalization for not confronting the neocon mythology with an alternative, candid narrative. And they will find a way to dissociate themselves from themselves from the consequences of their silence.

Posted by: JohnH | Oct 24 2008 16:08 utc | 4

Yeah, but isn't this the exact same playbook that's been hawked since 2005 for Bush/Cheney to do this? Not worked out too well thus far....the persistent refusal to sit down and negotiate without the silly preconditions has been an utter failure.

It feels like I've been reading the same editorial for a good 4 years now.

Attacking Iran is pretty much the equivalent of wishing ponies into existence by force of will.....

The Israelis will now be stuck in their electoral cycle for the next 180 days - and no one has a clue as to how that process is going to work out. I'd expect Livni to win - but not by enough to avoid the country being in a protracted state of political limbo for quite some time to come. In any case, it matters little - the Israeli plan for "dealing" militarily with Iran revolves around the US military actually doing the actual fighting; the US military, quite sensibly, is having none of it.

Posted by: dan | Oct 24 2008 16:17 utc | 5

No war on Iran.

The mutterings about it are purely sops to the Israelis. And scare mongering for US citizens.

The US cannot enter a third theater and has no reason to. Attacking Iran would be dire in many ways. (Discussed for years here.)

Commerce is going on underground all the time.

This is just the ordinary pressure on an oil producer, a secret ally, or major deal breaker, in Iraq, etc. The hysterical media pressure is one arm - very nasty, stupid, un cool- of US agit-prop.

Nobody believes in its reality, the posturing is pathetic. Specially as the US itself set up Iran as the major ME power, by knocking away Saddam, etc.

It is perceived so by other powers, and by the Iranians, who are doing fine so to speak, thank you very much, with deals with Russia, Germany, France, etc. The US has not been able to stop these, probably doesn't even wish to.

Posted by: Tangerine | Oct 24 2008 17:05 utc | 6

is there no end. jesus, this is just exhausting.

The biggest problem is that the neocons have once again taken control of the narrative, creating a fantasy which most Americans believe.

i don't agree about what allegedly 'most americans believe'. their narrative always includes sounding like they represent the masses but they don't and there is no reason to believe they do. they are freaks and should be exposed as the freaks they are. who the f died and made them ruler of the universe. they aren't the rulers of the universe they just like to pretend they are and think everyone will fall in line.

fuck them fuck them fuck them. pardon my french. i don't think anyone can assume what an obama presidency would and would not do.

It is crucial that, immediately after Election Day, Congress and the president-elect begin to work on the exceedingly difficult policy measures that will be required if the United States is to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability.

immediately? like on NOV 5th? wapo is irresponsible to print this crap. if these guys don't want a reputation of controlling the world they should stfu. i am ASSUMING obama is not going to be a puppet on a string following these aholes to the depths of hell w/us in tow.

Posted by: annie | Oct 24 2008 17:23 utc | 7

McCain surrogate tells students to prepare for war with Iran in next four years

A Republican charged with representing the views of presidential candidate Sen. John McCain told Dominican University students Thursday that war with Iran in the next four years is inevitable.

The prediction came during a campus event in which teams of Dominican students presented the positions of McCain and his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, on six key issues: the economy, foreign policy, environment, health care, education and ethics.
...

After each presentation, brief comments were added by Republican William Grayson, president of a San Francisco hedge fund company and former general counsel for the San Francisco Republican Central Committee, and Tony West, a
partner at a San Francisco law firm and co-chairman of the Obama campaign's California finance committee.

"Let me assure you of this," Grayson said after the student presentation on foreign policy. "The next president, whether it is Senator Obama or John McCain, will go to war, and he will go to war with Iran.

"They are very busy developing nuclear weapons. They will use those nuclear weapons against Israel or any of its allies, and that is a war that we're going to fight," Grayson said.

To which West responded, "I guess this is where we start to disagree."

"I do not believe it is a foregone conclusion that this nation will go to war with anybody in the next four or eight years," West said.

Students on the foreign policy team said Grayson's war forecast surprised them.

"It kind of caught everybody off guard," said Jena Goyner, 21, who is studying history and political science at Dominican. "College students don't want to hear that. We don't want to hear that we've been trapped in war for six years, and we're about to go get into another one."

Posted by: annie | Oct 24 2008 18:06 utc | 8

The crazy woman that carved a B on her cheek, Palin's refusal to call abortion clinic bombers terrorists, her wardrobe hypocrisy, the nutcase base at McCain rallies, lots of big republicans endorsing Obama. In the face of already falling poll numbers -- and now the prospects of another big war? Can only add up to no less than a huge Obama/Democratic
LANDSLIDE - LANDSLIDE - LANDSLIDE - LANDSLIDE - LANDSLIDE.

Posted by: anna missed | Oct 24 2008 19:07 utc | 9

[Each of these "experts" has his own favorite rationalization for not confronting the neocon mythology with an alternative, candid narrative.]

It's just peer-pressure. No one wants to sound like a conspiracy theory touting America hating closet muslim.

Posted by: Rabia | Oct 24 2008 19:09 utc | 10

LANDSLIDE - LANDSLIDE - LANDSLIDE - LANDSLIDE - LANDSLIDE.

oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please

Posted by: annie | Oct 24 2008 19:22 utc | 11

There just isn't the manpower/cannonfodder for a war with Iran at the moment but the zionists know that, and are just putting a line in the sand.

Landslides won't prevent Obama's first move as prez elect being to prepare the ground for '12 and re-election.
That means he ain't gonna throw out the zionist loons he was told to take into his tent at the AIPAC summons on the eve of his nomination, he will decide to keep them on and 'keep an eye on them'.

We already know how that works. Both Bush 1 and Clinton1 tried that and while the damage done by the zionist crazies in both administrations seemed mild in comparison to what has happened since, they beavered away through those years laying the groundwork fior the inevitable arrival of a weakling in the gig. Someone who wouldn't stand up to the racist pricks, either through his inherent weakness or inherent laziness and ignorance.

In the meantime attitudes which had seemed really 'out there' for ordinary amerikans in '88 had become conventional wisdom. This because the assholes had sat so close to the seat of power for so long accepting the small favours dispensed by the corrupt prez's who thought they were mollifying the 'crazy jew vote'. The prez's didn't seem to notice the loons were using those favours to win influence and secure the position of nazi zionism at the top of the table in both parties.

Of course Obama could stand up to the pricks and if he did it straight away using his position to strengthen the resolve of those in congress who want out from under he could probably reduce the AIPAC influence to a minor irritation by 2012. Power feeds off power and taking AIPAC off the hind tit would slim the fuckers right down.

He won't though. It goes against a politicians better judgement to chase away neatly parcelled votes such as those AIPAC reckons it delivers, and he probably lacks the strength of will required to withstand the pressure that would come straight back at him.

The Hussein calls would get really loud really quick, he will rationalise that the fight would take his mind and political capital away from 'important' stuff like the economy and of course it would always come back to rule number one. 'Never do something that can only cost you votes'.

Most of the peeps that want him to do this are gonna vote for him anyway, but about half of those who are strongly opposed and who wouldn't vote for him because of this, will vote for him in 08.

So the best that is likely to happen is that Obama will keep the zionist pricks in his administration, while not giving in to the worst of their demands but giving in to enough to further solidify the zionist position close to power in any administration.

If amerikans want to change this they are going to have to do it from the ground up. Create a stable bloc of voters opposed to murdering the people of the ME just because some other country has corrupted the process and installed traitors at the heart of the amerikan government.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Oct 24 2008 20:57 utc | 12

Is Barack Obama a Snake in the Grass?

is Obama a SHEEP in WOLVES' CLOTHING?

I can see why those of us with limited perception (i.e., everyone, approximately) might think that Obama is a member in good standing of the War Party. He talks like one. They treat him like one. He has the endorsement of Colin Powell, you betcha.

But follow me through the steps of a Gedankenexperiment. Let us suppose, as we have already seen, that Obama is dedicated to gaining power by any means necessary. Clearly, the road to the White House is barred to anyone who does not welcome the embrace of the MICFiC (military industrial congressional financial corporate media complex). Let us reduce our occupation force in Iraq, says Barack - so we can put more boots on the ground with guns in their hands pointed at the inhabitants of Afghanistan. This is just what a suitable prospective Commander in Chief in Charge of Killing Foreigners would say.

But although Obama says things like this with apparent sincerity, what if he's lying to us - for our own good? What if he really is a Christian - not a Christianist, like Gov. Palin, but someone who tries to live according to the teachings of Jesus?

Recall Matthew 10:16 - the King James Version, which some believe is what Jesus would have said, if English had been invented at the time, is:


"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."


As Brian said, "Blessed are the cheesemakers" - which should be understood to include all those involved in the production and distribution of dairy products.

On the other hand, maybe the following verse, following the format of Lewis Carroll's The Mad Gardener's Song, is a better prediction of the future:


She thought she saw a candidate
Who'd put an end to war.
She looked again, and found it was
The Same Game as Before.
"If that's the way it goes," she said,
"Then what is voting for?"

I'm planning to send a personal letter to Susan Eisenhower, prominent Obamacan [former Republican endorsin g Obama]and Ike's granddaughter, asking her to use her influence with Obama to transform the bipartisan foreign policy consensus in the direction of less mass murder, as her grandfather would have wanted. She's never heard of me, but it seems vaguely possible that her flow of unsolicited letters is so small that she might actually read some fraction of them herself.

Posted by: mistah charley, ph.d. | Oct 24 2008 21:44 utc | 13


mistah charley, ph.d. @13,
Seems like a very good idea. And please let her know that despite her age, she is the future of America.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Oct 24 2008 22:11 utc | 14

Oh good, Mistah Charlie and annie and all others who refuse to take Barak Obama at his word but have always held George Bush and McCain at his word (fear, fear).

Suddenly Susan Eisenhower, an absolute no one, is going to hold sway over all the corporations who donated over one billion dollars to Obama's candidacy. Yes, Guru Barak will cut military expenditures by half and end US meddling in EVERY country (Somalia, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Georgia, Cuba, Colombia, Venezuela, Equador, Bolivia, Albania where surprise, surprise, Gomer Pyle, oil has been discovered and the US luckily has a massive base to protect "ITS INTERESTS", while Germany controls the previously nationalised auto manufacturers, etc.) No more militarism as a means of securing contracts for corporations. How great! Where can I get a PHD that will allow me to slough off my responsibility for death as easily as the two of you do?

Yes, Mistah Charlie, let's pin out hopes on Susan Eisenhower pulling us out of this morass, since even Michael Huson, Roubini, Phillips, Roberts, Justin Raimondo, and William Engdahl obviously cannot.

I truly wish that all registered Democrats would take time to read the past few years of Arthur Silber's postings since you will all be busy excusing your parties blood because of "political imperitives," or some such nonsense, as you did Clinton's (1 million deaths in Iraq, daily bombings). But, at least, your buddies will be making money in the think tanks.

(My destruction is well intentioned, while yours was vindictive.....)

Posted by: Malooga | Oct 24 2008 22:28 utc | 15

On second reading, Mistah Charlie, I really can't believe your naivete, or what psychologists would call tranference.

But as one of my past favorite blogs used to say, "Do what you want. You will anyway.)

March on, Corporate Waldo, you've done well..... We will sleep well the night after the elections, knowing that we have concluded our tiny role as activists, and the empire is now secure. Thanks to Susan "but it seems vaguely possible" Eisenhower.

Posted by: Malooga | Oct 24 2008 22:40 utc | 16

who refuse to take Barak Obama at his word but have always held George Bush and McCain at his word

excuse me? i can't stand some of the things he's said, but still he's better than the alternative. i ain't refusing, but i am assuming he's playing a game to win.

what's so glorious about bomb bomb bomb iran? that's he speaks his truth? that's no prize.

Posted by: annie | Oct 25 2008 0:06 utc | 17

I do not believe Obama will be able to do anything significant in foreign policy even if he wants...or he'll be dead pretty soon. Full stop.
He'll make some positive movements inside USA and that would give American voters anesthesia for their pains if only the world today is not that much "globalized". We are all in this deep shit that greedy few on this planet created and having in mind that next big war will definitely be nuclear there is no fix to this by war. Small wars are not working except for few greedy and temporarily...They'll try everything in war department but this time it does not seem to work. What after wars when we all find out this? People may really put their heads on sticks …literally.

Posted by: vbo | Oct 25 2008 0:27 utc | 18

Just an ad hominem, traveling in the ME in the 1980's, you'd just get on the plane, there was hardly any security (got in and out of every country with just a quick visa stamp), more than one family or single stranger invited me to dinner or had me to their home for a meal, even letting me sleep over in inclement weather, and you could wander wherever you wanted, openly a tourist, for months at a time.

Twenty light years later down the doppleganger, traveling to the ME in the 2000's, had to apply a month in in advance for visas at local consulates, endure previously unimaginable *hours* waiting in lines for passport stamps and baggage inspections, the only people talking to me outside of my pre-arranged hosts were storekeepers and ticket agents, and at one point had to get dressed like a local goat-herder so I wouldn't be dragged out of the taxi and be beaten, kidnapped or murdered.

What changed? Americans, thanks to AIPAC, are now persona non grata across the ME. Imagine pumping many $T's down the rathole of Pentagonal Wikkanism, until now we're shunned by a majority of the world's people. Nice work, Halliban!

Twenty years into a 2020 unlikely future, we'll have to dye our skin / hair brown, months of immersion Arabic and Spanish language training, pay massive baaksheesh for visas and a fake Mexican passport, route our trip to Dubai through Madrid, and even then, dressed like pilgrims, speaking Arabic, we'll likely be tipped off to local authorities by hovering Ashkenazim, looking for a quick dip in our pockets.

And this AIPAC Alliance has improved American security, ... HOW!?

Posted by: Amab OKarab | Oct 25 2008 4:47 utc | 19

In 2020 I doubt Americans will be welcomed anywhere in the world...not even UK...haha

Posted by: vbo | Oct 25 2008 5:01 utc | 20

Obama isn't going to attack Iran on the say so of morons and in spite of the speculations of doomsayers, skirt clutchers and anarchists.

#16 - Malooga, if you read my comments you'd know that after the night of the election our work starts.

Posted by: waldo | Oct 25 2008 12:45 utc | 21

Susan Eisenhower:
Spokesmodel for Peace and Justice

First of all, I'm kidding about the "and justice" part. My nom de cyber is intended to be slightly ridiculous, even though it is also literally true - I am an American male of European descent with a doctoral degree. You may have recognized the reference to Monty Python with my quote from the Life of Brian, "blessed are the cheesemakers." As a writer and humorist, I aspire to follow in the tradition of Mark Twain, Josh Billings, Kurt Vonnegut, Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, and Wavy Gravy. I very much like Mr. Gravy's line, "as I said to the mirror the other morning, 'It's all done with people' ".

And it IS all done with people. Malooga has clearly expressed an opinion of my plan to attempt to have an impact on policy. It may indeed be futile, as I explicitly admitted in my previous post. Or maybe not.

But there are some things which ARE clear. For example, Ms. Eisenhower is NOT "an absolute no one" - she is a hereditary member of what C. Wright Mills called the power elite, she appears at their think-tank events, has had op-eds published in the Washington Post, was nationally televised as she spoke from the stage at Democratic National Convention in August, has been interviewed on CNN, written about in corporate media articles in USA Today, Newsweek, etc. See the Wikipedia article about her for more details.

Will she have influence over Obama, who seems on the verge of being elected President? Maybe. Obama courted her endorsement, and put her on the stage at the convention. She's been campaigning for him in Republican areas in Florida (although she changed her party registration to Independent this year - and her father changed his registration in 2004).

Would she want to move the worldview of the American elite, and the American people in general, towards a more cooperative, less violent stance in the world? Yes, I think so.

Would a letter from me make a small bit of a difference? As the Harvard Law of Animal Behavior puts it, "Under carefully controlled experimental conditions, the organism does what it damn well pleases."

The complacency, self-satisfaction, and loyalty to the Empire that are imputed to me (along with the application of what is apparently the equivalent to 'macaca' here in the MoA comments column, "Corporate Waldo") are based on imaginings about me, not knowledge, either of my cyberspace or meat world activities.

Posted by: mistah charley, ph.d. | Oct 25 2008 13:37 utc | 22

This post and your previous one should be linked. More precisely, a global and total economic meltdown has to happen now, as in next week or in a few weeks at least, before the US can do something *really* stupid. Then, the economy will be so bad they'll have too much trouble at home to do anything serious abroad.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Oct 25 2008 15:19 utc | 23

mistah charley, i agree she isn't a nobody. she's the daughter of the president who first warned us of the looming military industrial complex. then name eisenhower will go down in history for this.

Posted by: annie | Oct 25 2008 16:57 utc | 24

Soi much for far left lunatic fairness, they keep deleting my post-- Chicken shit lefties!

It's about freaking time!

If Hussein Obama signed onto this plan, Go Hussein!, I say!

Let's decapitate that nasty regime in Tehran, and then have ALL Iran regime mullahs--bar none-- heads on spears on a world exhibition tour, especially in Russia, Iraq, and of course China, Gaza strip and Lebanon, too.

And then send Khatami's head especially; to Euro-senators Biden and Kerry both personal buddies of Euro-mullah Khatami of Iran regime
I am sure the 2 faggot European(EU) stooge senators named will enjoy receiving this gift before dinner.

Posted by: Iran Citizen | Oct 25 2008 23:14 utc | 25

Anyone who wants a regime change in a country other than the one he/she resides in, should go to that country and fight for it there. Asking someone else to do it for you from afar is chickenshit. Especially if your parents were gutless parasites who ran out of the country when the former murdering and torturing regime that existed only for the benefit of a few inside that country, got chucked in the shithouse it belonged in, by angry locals.

That Pahlavi scum and their cronies left with anything and anything they could get their hands, all of which they had stolen from the people of Iran ever since 1951 when USuk staged a coup against the elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh, because they wanted control of Iran's oil resources.

The fat assed sons and daughters of those murdering pricks, who have been raised on lies about the wondrous lives every Iranian lived before the Ayotollah are now cranking up corrupt USuk pols to stage another coup to steal the resources back from ordinary Iranians and split the booty up once more.

Why should amerikan lives be spent stealing stuff for the cowardly offspring of some SAVAK torturer?

If the Iranian government was that unpopular the people would rise up, just as they did in 1979. The regime then was far more oppressive than the one now, so one has to recognise that the reason the average Iranian isn't trying a revolution is that the government enjoys support from the people.

Of course these outsiders don't want a popular revolution. They want government by a small elite for a small elite.

I cannot think of a single instance where regime change bought about by foreign intervention hasn't caused more misery and bloodshed than the allegedly despicable regime that the foreigners claimed they were getting rid of.

The reason is simple. No foreign state goes to war unless there is a great deal in it for them. Any regime which is expected to 'cough up big cash' to foreign interests after a coup gets pretty old with the locals, pretty quick. So the new government uses tyranny to stay in power.

As for waldo's silly generalisations about what he imagines the average MoA-ite may be, I would say two things.

Firstly call us what you like, but it won't change the fact that MoA commentators have been correct about 90% of the major issues since the site was founded. Correct that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Correct that Iraq would be a bloodbath if amerika went in, correct that the corrupt dems in congress wouldn't try to oppose shrubs illegal invasion of Iraq. Correct that if the dems won Congress in 2004 that they would perpetuate the war, allow, Guantanamo Bay to flourish in all its unconstitutional shame, correct that the dems would regard it as being smart politics to leave the criminals bush and cheney in power, that impeachment may have saved the lives of a few hundred thousand sand-n***ers, and a few thousand amerikan soldiers but that wasn't 'smart politics'.

MoA-ites were correct when they wrote that that not only would a post 2006 dem majority in congress not overturn the unconstitutional laws allowing government spying on citizens, it would probably push through some new repressions because "you never know when they may come in handy".

For me the test of Obama's prezdency will be if the low level dem hacks who come in here peddling their specious bullshit about being the only legitimate voice of the left, are still using the same nyms next year when the reality of an Obama administration is in plain view.

We've seen the names change several times over the years, although the tired and shopworn cliches about the "party of the people" never changes.

The dems who came into MoA before 06 trying to shout down the views expressed here that a dem majority wouldn't change a thing in Iraq, haven't been come around under those nyms since just after that election. I expect the same from the current crop of lame party spruikers. Within a few months of the new administration revealing itself in all it's corrupt and self-serving slime the current crop of apologists for anything goes, will be long gone.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Oct 26 2008 4:11 utc | 26

#26 ~ I'll bet money that won't happen.

Posted by: waldo | Oct 26 2008 7:47 utc | 27

I will take that bet Waldo. name the sum.

Posted by: dan of steele | Oct 26 2008 7:57 utc | 28

Iran is on record as having proudly spent years lying to the EU while going ahead with its nuclear program. Nobody can trust Iran NOT to weaponize its nuclear knowledge. Beware!

Posted by: Tory Torrison | Oct 28 2008 7:06 utc | 29

Iran is on record as having proudly spent years lying to the EU while going ahead with its nuclear program.

Bullshit - any proof for that assertion?

Posted by: b | Oct 28 2008 10:46 utc | 30

What we see in the world today is utterly sickening. Governments can squander millions on war and hatred (be it USA or Iran) and NEGLECT their people. It shows that these guys whether politician or ayatollah (ayatollahs qualify in social studies as well as everything else) do not care about social work and the good of their societies as politicians prove and religion decrees. Instead, they prefer to repress the people and go to war.

Iran may or may not want nuclear weapons. Some US politicans would love to bomb Iran. Some Iranian politicians would love to continue the hatred while the Iranian and US people want to END all of this shit!!

The latest example from Iran is crackdowns on socalled western clothing. Another tax. Iran is supposed to be a low tax economy but all these repressive laws are for collection of revenue and not religion. In fact, Iran had none of these laws ever in its tradition - it just copies an idea from Saudi Arabia in the early 1980s. No rich people connected to the party in Iran have to obey these laws and wear and drink what they like. We in the West have our road safety repression - the same thing, for tax.

Where does this tax go? To fund war, hatred, anger, bad feeling. The Iranian government SHOULD embrace Obama and change. It's excuse is over. Hopefully, it will. However, there are too many unelected elements who will stop the elected elements from making a deal. Obama and Ahmadinejad may want to talk and probably want to solve a lot. However, it is the rich bazaar and religious fatcats (all unelected) that run Iran and the large corporations that run the US. It is against a lot of interests for them for peace. So, the world will see the same old same old - rich, uncaring governments who hide behind ideology.

Posted by: All corrupt governments must go | Dec 4 2008 14:40 utc | 31

The comments to this entry are closed.