yes, but why is this leaked? If it was policy surely Obama would say so publicly?

Posted by: outsider | Mar 3 2009 20:46 utc | 1

yes, but why is this information leaked? If it was Obama's policy, surely he would say so publicly?

From the Washington Post:
"Feltman is an interesting choice for the diplomatic mission. As ambassador to Lebanon during Bush's second term, he so angered the Syrian government that at one point State Department security officials were concerned that Damascus had ordered his assassination. "

Posted by: outsider | Mar 3 2009 20:51 utc | 2

FT: Dennis Ross, the administration's point-man on Iran and the Gulf

i am not convinced of this, not in the least. it would be everybody's worst nightmare.

Posted by: annie | Mar 3 2009 21:10 utc | 3

This is going to sound stupid, so I'm ready for the ridicule.

You know that phrase "tell-a-graph, tell-a-phone, tell-a-mary (or whomever you are accusing of being a tattler)? Dennis Ross may fit this bill and it may be that that's what Clinton and Obama are counting on.

This administration is much more Machiavellian than I had given it credit for.

Posted by: vachon | Mar 3 2009 21:24 utc | 4

A hat tip to those, including myself, who believed rapprochement was highly unlikely, if not impossible, considering.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Mar 3 2009 21:30 utc | 5

b, why do you think the administration leaked this to the nyt? it says 'american officials'. tho it references 'top administration officials' as delivering the letter, but that doesn't mean they are the same as 'the officials' that describe the contents of the letter.

i think you are being spun. there are numerous sources all pushing this meme. now, why. i think they are undercutting and pressuring the situation. from lobe's link

Dennis Ross — has apparently signed on.

[UPDATE: 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.

this is what they do, they release numerous reports from multiple sources, many unidentified, in a timely manner, using allegations that are unsubstantiated.

Obama vows to reboot relations with Russia

WASHINGTON, March 3 (Xinhua) -- U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday dismissed a report saying he has offered a deal with Russia on Iran's weapon program, but stressed that Washington needs to reset and reboot the U.S.- Russia relationship.

"I think that the report that was in the New York Times didn't accurately characterize the letter," Obama told reporters in the White House alongside visiting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

The newspaper said Tuesday that Obama has sent a letter to his Russian counterpart Dmitri Medvedevl three weeks ago and offered a secret deal suggesting Washington would not need to proceed with anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe, if Moscow helps stop Iran from developing nuclear warheads and ballistic missile.

"What I said in the letter is the same thing that I've said publicly, which is that the missile defense that we have talked about deploying is directed towards not Russia, but Iran," said the president.

"What I said in the letter was that, obviously, to the extent that we are lessening Iran's commitment to nuclear weapons, then that reduces the pressure for the need for a missile defense system," he added.

....

"We've had a good exchange between ourselves and the Russians. I've said that we need to reset or reboot the relationship there," said Obama, adding "My hope is that we can have a constructive relationship where, based on common respect and mutual interest, we can move forward."

Obama and Medvedev are expected to meet for the first time on April 2 in London.

Posted by: annie | Mar 3 2009 21:30 utc | 6

The situation regarding Iran is coming to a head because apparently Iran has obtained enough radioactive material to build a bomb. However building the bomb may still be in the distant future, but a missile or several can be tipped with radioactive material and if they are accurately aimed and distribute the material widely then Israel, and Israel is a very small country, would be emptied of people. Iran might be destroyed in the process and this reminds me of the set of intertwined antlers in Isle Royal National Park. The two animals clashed, got entwined and died from starvation. Perhaps this is the destiny of Israel and Iran, their mutual destruction. But if my speculation is close to the mark there is great probability that the USA will allow Israel to attack Iran and soon.

Posted by: jlcg | Mar 3 2009 21:43 utc | 7

press briefing transcript

Posted by: annie | Mar 3 2009 21:48 utc | 8

Well, that certainly raises the temperature somewhat, but I agree with annie's comment

"i am not convinced of this, not in the least. it would be everybody's worst nightmare."

And remember, there's an Iranian election on June 12th. What would be the point of strengthening Ahmadinejad and the hardliners beforehand? Oh, yes, I see: "The U.S. wants to ensure a hardliner victory in order to be able to declare war on Iran afterwards" .....???!!! I want the Hollywood film rights.

Posted by: Parviz | Mar 3 2009 21:49 utc | 9

jlgc apparently Iran has obtained enough radioactive material to build a bomb.

i'm going to assume our position at this point is:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran is not close to having a nuclear weapon, which gives the United States and others time to try to persuade Tehran to abandon its suspected atomic arms program, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday.

"They're not close to a stockpile, they're not close to a weapon at this point, and so there is some time," Gates said on NBC television's "Meet The Press."

Gates' comments followed a televised interview with Adm. Mike Mullen, head of the U.S. military Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told CNN's "State of the Union" that he believed Iran has enough fissile material to make a nuclear bomb.

obviously there are 2 contradicting messages going out, both being disseminated simultaneously. is this coordinated on purpose to confuse us, or are there 2 teams competing?

Posted by: annie | Mar 3 2009 21:58 utc | 10

That is more or less Iaraeli policy dictated to Obama admistration.
Obama has no choice but to follow and he will do as he Israel ordered.

Obama consistantly has been clear about his policy toward Palestine,Lebanon , Syria and Iran. Hios policy is extention of Bush policy dictated by criminal Neocon Zionists.

There won;t be any meaningfull opening toward Iran, and there won't be policy change only methods and tactics.

Iran's plan is to continue current policy. Under Israel pressures, US, France, UK. Will introduce more sanctions and restrictions and Iran's response will be to leave IAEA, and that is start of new whole war game.

Iran won't benefit from opening relationship with Neocon control US and should prepare for different confrontations. Dialog with US for an opening to save Israel not to help US or Iran. Israel should go down and will....
Most id not all might find it unimaginable but sooner than later as early as 2 years from now US will be in deeper socioeconomic crisis and will face angry street demonstrations... some angers will target Zionists and Israelis…
Time is In Iran’s side. comming to term with satanic regimes of USrael is not something to desire .

Posted by: | Mar 3 2009 22:04 utc | 11

11= Loyal

Posted by: Loyal | Mar 3 2009 22:04 utc | 12

Someone ought to point out the direct conflict inherent in these two stories: one story that has Iran arming/encouraging anti-Israel actors in Gaza and Lebanon, and another story that has them preparing to bomb those same actors out of existence. A nuclear strike on Israel would destroy Gaza, the West Bank and much of southern Lebanon.

Posted by: Tantalus | Mar 3 2009 23:14 utc | 13

The Israeli fear of a nuclear Iran, or even the uncertainty of a nuclea,r Iran is that their free hand to do as they please in Palestine would be constrained. Nobody, least of all they, thinks Iran would nuclear bomb Israel.

It's the completely free hand they're after. Victimology notwithstanding.

Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Mar 3 2009 23:27 utc | 14

That's assuming that Israel fears a nuclear Iran and doesn't want to suck the US into armed and political conflict with Iran, just like they and theirs did with Iraq. They've really ratcheted up their demands for earth and water.

Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Mar 3 2009 23:34 utc | 15

Iran is not going to nuke Israel, and Israel knows this. Israel wants to thwart any hint of a worthy adversary in the Middle East. It knows that if Iran develops nuclear weaponry, it will stake its claim at the bargaining table. Israel would like to see Iran dismantled like Iraq, and so has aligned itself with the NeoCons and influenced U.S. foreign policy to corner Iran. Iran, or dare I say, Persia, as Parviz has indicated, is much too savvy to be easily cornered. Iran understands the score. It is up against tremendous odds, but it has the whole of history at its back.

In the least, we know that Big Oil wants Iran's oil. Using Big Oil's rulebook, Iran can set itself up like Saudi Arabia, and hand it over peacefully leaving some fabricated dignity in tack, or it can go the way of Iraq. I agree that it is coming to a head, and I think we all know the outcome. So long as the hardliners in Iran remain in power, or close to it, Big Oil's going to make an Iraq out it.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Mar 3 2009 23:44 utc | 16

"Big Oil wants Iran's oil" (Obam..)

Not sure about that. Have you read anything by Jonathan Nitzan and Shimson Bischler (York Univ.)? They would say that Big Oil has solidified its dominance among US capital sectors over the past six years and will lay back for awhile. They didn't get a single drilling right in Iraq, but still made out like bandits because of sky-high prices (caused by the war.) I'm more afraid of Israel than Big Oil -- the latter being here for the long run, the former trying to head off imminent self-destruction.

Posted by: seneca | Mar 4 2009 0:19 utc | 17

Okay, I'm only 22, and only three to four years or so ago I was new to the political news/blog scene.

Every once-a-few-months the "USA is going to all-out attack Iran" meme has gone around.

I believed it at one point; that for sure Bush would do it before he left office, but, turns out he did not. After all, it was pointed out, this would be a stupid move from the POV of U.S. government. The insurgency of the Iranians under occupation would be far greater, and much more cohesive/united than in Iraq or Afghanistan. No?

You could maybe persuade me that the U.S. as a whole (perhaps like any large group) is not a rational actor, though, so the above objection is moot...

Posted by: Cloud | Mar 4 2009 0:23 utc | 18

Seneca, IMO, Big Oil's more than just business. It's intertwined with the MIC, so there's much more at play than just profits. He who controls the spice, controls the planet. To me, it's something along those lines, and even though demand for oil has subsided considerably because of this downturn, there's no denying that the scamble for access to the world's last drops is in play. Big Oil will make every effort to mitigate a pact between Iran, China and/or Russia. Big Oil will do everyhting it can to thwart an emboldened and independent Iran. Sure, they'll utilize other means first, but if those means fail to succeed, they will up the ante.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Mar 4 2009 0:41 utc | 19

if there was a means to attack Iran, eliminate its nuclear installations & pacify it, Bush would have done it. And if he did'nt Obama is certainly not going to do it. We already took the long road to reality with the financial bust & it looks like we're going to do the same with Iran. Looking back, all GWB & the neo-cons did over the last eight years is vent-off at Iran. On the other hand, Iran scored a load of points in Lebanon and also the last Israel/Hiz war. And of course Iran got pretty much all it wanted in Iraq,

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Mar 4 2009 1:03 utc | 20

sometimes it is difficult for me to see the frontier of the sickness of my body & the sickness of this world. my health deteriorates rather than improves tho my will is strong - there is much to do but the deterioration of this world is extraordinarily rapid

i neither underestimate the stupidity of those who rule from the roll of dollars, their palpable fear of events being quite out of control. obama has not made my world safer, on the contrary - his humanity or otherwise is completely secondary. the forces that built capital are now facillitating its collapse

& the collapse is clear for me - they can give any date they want in the 'future' but i cannot see how they can, 'they' being the empire & its minions - can correct their catastrophe other than a generalise war & yes that could take many forms - not necessarily a 'great war' but that too should be included in the list of possibilities

it is utterly clear to me that we are the barbarians & i don't see our barbarity ending any time soon

armed islam says that we love life & they love death - in fact that is nothing other than pure rhetoric & sudanese shits his pants in exactly the same way as a parisian does. all humanity wants to reach the possible. a greater humanity wants to demand the impossible but these last 15 years have torn the hearts out of humanity & the darker angels of our nature are being given first voice

i imagine it is entirely possible that iran will be attacked, indeed she already is being attacked & the language we are hearing amongst our failing elites is that the want war

my mother would have sd that its the absence of a classical education -- that the elites we sustain barely understand their own language let alone another, that the starstudded mba know nothing about maths or simple accounting, that western civilisation is so culturally impoverished it has to wait until some sppedfreak in california decides to produce a film on something before it becomes 'human'

my vision is apocalyptic & i suppose it always has been - not in the sense of the endtimers who construct faith from fear - because of our basic barbarity. for me it begins with the murder of 4 million vietnamese, laotians & cambodians & humanity cannot see that instead of condemning genocide - they create & celebrate it

when the sack of baghdad occurred & i wept knowing what was being destroyed - it was the underpinning of 'civilisation' - all western civilisation could see was another gook people getting wiped away from the face of this earth. they did not understand when the sacred texts, books & sculptures were being destroyed - so were we & perhaps we would not survive it

so the ancient culture of persia faces the same threat & i feel it as a very real thing - & yes i have thought & spoken it here for a long time - i am not ashamed to be a doomsayer in a world so plainly full of doom

(today in my beloved cuba - so dear to me - there has been some shifts in state power that from here seem worrying - she has been an exemplar of the courage & dignity of a people, of the simple things like common sense & decency, a sense of proportionj & a heartbreaking patience)

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 4 2009 2:16 utc | 21

The Candidate for change...who isnt....
The US proves that its version of democracy is a one party system with two right wings.

Posted by: brian | Mar 4 2009 3:13 utc | 22

annie 10) State's running a post-election focus group to see which strategy wins the most votes and most baaksheesh, driven by the Cheney profit urge to destroy more oil production in the face of falling demand, viz an imminent growth in iraqi oil supply. So SecState rattles the saber until more silver shekels and petro dollars fall from the heavens, then she demures until more rials and dinars fall from the heavens, then she... face it, Hillary still has a long way to go to drag herself out of bankruptcy. Won't you see your way clear to help? Just 22c a day will "put Hillary over the top".

Boycotting. Not paying taxes. More than those two shakes, and you're playing with it.
For my part, I've moved my 401k out of NYC, and am boycotting Oscar Meyer weiners. % )

Posted by: Peristroika | Mar 4 2009 3:56 utc | 23

I'm not expecting much in the way of Iran-U.S. reconciliation for reasons I've stated many times. But I'm very convinced there isn't going to be any war between the U.S. and Iran. We've discussed the reasons before, but for now lets suffice it to say that no U.S. president will ever openly **SAY** he isn't attacking Iran. He needs to maintain the bluff...not to frighten Iran, which probably isn't loosing a moment's sleep...but because the neocons and the rapture right at home have to have something to hope for. And for the Israelis, if they are threatening some dire action, why not lead them up the sunshine path, promising all sorts of actions but in the end cutting a deal behind their back.

In fact, the more Israel huffs and puffs, the more I'm thinking maybe a reconciliation IS possible and Israel knows it will end up the odd man out. Deep down Israel knows they are nothing but a heavy albatross whereas Iran could be a real ally.

I also don't believe big oil is on the same page here. They would like nothing more than to compete for contracts in Iran (maybe not now with oil at 40, but later) No one is going to invade the oil fields and give it to them and they know it. Might as well cut a deal.

Posted by: Lysander | Mar 4 2009 4:21 utc | 24

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/63192.html

they have no strategy.

Posted by: outsider | Mar 4 2009 4:46 utc | 25

From the McClatchy link above:

At a joint White House news conference Tuesday with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama was asked about that letter [to Russia].

"To the extent that we are lessening Iran's commitment to nuclear weapons, then that reduces the pressure for, or the need for a missile defense system," Obama said, inviting Moscow to help in its own interest.
...
Kerry said the U.S. must not be lured into protracted negotiations with Iran. A timetable must be established and consequences set if progress isn't made, he said.

"I mean tougher economic sanctions, further restrictions on trade and finance, which will apply meaningful pressure on the Iranian regime at a time when oil prices have plummeted and its economy is hurting," Kerry said.

Posted by: b | Mar 4 2009 5:15 utc | 26

Elements of doom can be aligned in the way r'giap suggests; therefore the empire is capable of setting off a world war, or a horrible regional war that would essentially be a proxy war like Vietnam except much bigger. But is the new administration disposed to such an extreme step?

Mr. Ross may not speak for everyone in the White House. I am suspicious that the leaks, and the circulated story about the attack on Iran may be a manipulation and disinformation. The neocons, who were the ideological core of the Bush administration, yearned with every fiber of their being, to attack Iran; and yet during two presidential terms they could not really generate the pretext, and were without international support. Seymour Hersh has been reporting for years that there has been deep and constant resistance within the US military to such an attack.

Moreover, harsher sanctions would never make it in the Security Council, over Russian and Chinese objections. The US cannot afford to throw away the goodwill of Russia and China over its strange obsession with Iran.

Contrary to what the story suggests, the attack, if it should come, would most likely be an Israeli show. I have come to the conclusion that it is unreal to suggest an attack against Iran would be the result of client state Israel putting diplomatic pressure on patron state USA, or visa-versa. No, I think the attack can only come, if it does, because the Israeli leaders are crazy enough to do it.

There is enough in the record of the Bush regime to convince us that they would have dared to attack Iran if the opportunity had truly presented itself, if only in their macho fantasies. "Real men go to Tehran", don't you know? However, whatever conclusion you come to about the motives of Obama and his people, it is hard to feature that they are insane and heedless of consequences, and would attack in unilateral fashion, and touch off a powderkeg.

So I conclude that there is something illogical about a Sunday Punch or Pearl Harbor style attack on Iran by the US. Also the transparent aggression of building up to such an attack by a one-sided series of provocations is also a losing propositition diplomatically, and would be a catastrophe for the Obama administration,--tragically destroying with one stroke--the carefully cultivated image of civilized conduct the president is trying to present.

Would the Israeli government, as paranoid and right-wing as it is now, take into its hands such an aggression? I think the probability is high that it would.

Posted by: Copeland | Mar 4 2009 5:17 utc | 27

Neocon watcher Jim Lobe of IPS agrees with my take:

That Obama essentially confirmed today’s New York Times report about a proposed deal with Moscow whereby it would go along with increasing sanctions against Iran in exchange for Washington’s non-deployment of anti-missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic only adds to the impression that some version of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s September ‘08 report on Iran strategy (drafted by hard-line neo-cons Michael Rubin and Michael Makovsky and signed by Ross), which I wrote about here, is in the process of being implemented.
...
I also have the impression that Ross and the so-called “Israel Lobby” whose interests he represents believe that enhancing conditions on the West Bank, combined with diplomatic engagement with Syria, will somehow be sufficient for Washington to regain its credibility in the region and rally the Sunni Arab states — along with the European Union, Russia, China, etc. — behind a policy of confrontation with Iran.

Posted by: b | Mar 4 2009 5:35 utc | 28

@ #7 "...Iran has obtained enough radioactive material to build a bomb."

Uh, if I thought I heard what El Baradei actually said is correct, Iran has enough refined U to juice a reactor, that is, uranium with a % of U235 in the single digits. Weapons grade U must have U235% in the high double digits.

@ #18, cloud, I'm pushing 68, I don't understand either. That the Codpiece would whack Iraq was a right-on. Other ghastly scenarios have, thankfully, not played out. Why?

My guess is that "taking Saddam out" was Bush's own, personal, agenda -- which fit hand in glove with neo-con / PNAC wet dreams, and the US military, in particular the Air Force was itching to show what they could do.

With Iran, too many players balked at the obvious consequences of an over extension.

Finally a minor observation. The Codpiece refused to pardon Libby and this teed Cheney off to no end -- was this petulance, making the point the he was the POTUS? Was he dragging his feet on other things Cheny wanted? I'll never know -- as young as you are, perhaps you might at least live to hear (some of) the "truth" about JFK and others...

But my point is, just as Bush entered office with hidden agendas, I suppose Obama has a small portfolio -- these he will pursue, whatever they are.

@ #21, ah, rgiap, for me also the shadows lengthen in the late afternoon -- but that is not why my vision of what is coming is so darkly apocalyptic. For me, it began with the media flap about Hiroshima every time my birthday rolled around

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Mar 4 2009 5:36 utc | 29

Prof. Stephen Walt with a similar thought as me above:

Thus far, the Obama administration hasn't strayed very far from the Bush administration's failed approach, which was in essence to tell Tehran "first, you do what we want, and then we'll talk to you about the things you care about." Obama does say we're willing to talk, but there's no sign that we are planning to make them a "yes-able" offer and his secretary of state apparently thinks direct diplomacy isn’t going to work.

This behavior is deeply puzzling, because a military strike on Iran is an unattractive option and we ought to be energetically looking for a diplomatic alternative. Beginning that process with a lot of tough talk and saying that we aren't expecting success doesn't strike me as a very promising way to start the process. Maybe it's just a coincidence that this sounds like the strategy new Iran point man Dennis Ross endorsed last summer, and not that different from the approach that the Israeli government is reportedly urging on Secretary Clinton during her visit to Jerusalem. As I've said before, if you think the debate on a military strike on Iran ended when Bush left office, think again.

Posted by: b | Mar 4 2009 5:54 utc | 30

To the people who still dont want to see that the Obama-cons are for real, here is a recent article by Paul Craig Roberts (He seems to me to be a pretty much 'mainstream' US establishment guy). Apart from totally trashing the Obama-cons budget proposal, and health care etc, I will only quote below the juicy bits related to this thread. You can read the rest of the article yourself. First the war bit.

...

The Chinese government’s budget shows China’s military spending at $59 billion in 2008. (The Pentagon claims Chinese military spending is between $97 billion and $139 billion.) Russia’s military spending in 2009 is projected to be about $50 billion.

In the midst of the greatest economic crisis in US history when trillions of dollars are being added to US national debt, Obama’s budget spends more on two pointless wars than the total military spending of China and Russia combined. Obama’s wars serve only the profits of the military/security complex and the promotion rate of military officers. The longer the wars continue, the larger the number of officers who can retire at higher ranks, thus further swelling future annual deficits and the national debt.

Moreover, as is becoming apparent, the Bush/Obama war in Afghanistan cannot be fought without fighting a war in Pakistan.

As if this isn’t enough war, Obama parrots Dick Cheney’s charge, totally unsupported by any evidence, that Iran is making nuclear weapons. The chances are high that the new White House Moron will have us at war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq. As Obama’s wars expand, the $205 billion for war in Iraq and Afghanistan will become $400 billion annually and then $600 billion annually.

and on Isreal.

With Rahm Israel Emanuel, an Israeli dual citizen, in charge of the White House and Obama’s schedule, Obama will have an even less independent foreign policy in the Middle East than Bush. Somehow someone among the Obamacons managed to put forward an appointment that could challenge the Israel Lobby’s stranglehold. Charles Freeman, former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, former top Pentagon official, and president of the Middle East Policy Council, was chosen by Admiral Denis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, to head the National Intelligence Council.

The neocons went berserk. Steve Rosen, formerly of AIPAC, currently indicted as an Israeli spy, Gabriel Schoenfeld, who wants the New York Times indicted for allegedly violating the Espionage Act for reporting the Bush regime’s illegal spying, Daniel Pipes, who sees Muslim terrorists under every bed, Michael Rubin of the warmonger American Enterprise Institute, and Frank Gaffney, possibly the goofiest person in America, damned Freeman’s appointment as "deeply troubling," because Freeman has an open mind on the Middle East situation.

In other words, if you are not on Israel’s side, you are disqualified.

To those who are still in an illusion about Obama. The policies have not changed, only the facade, or the mask has changed. With the economic depression setting in they are getting even more desperate and dangerous.

Posted by: a | Mar 4 2009 6:18 utc | 31

oops #31.

Did not put in the link to the article.

a banana republic by 2012?
Change for the Worse

Posted by: a | Mar 4 2009 6:20 utc | 32

I recall that the last opportunity for an Israeli Air Force attack on Iranian reactors (in the last days of Bush), was planned in cahoots with Saakashvili, from secret bases in Georgia. The plans were aborted as a result of the Georgian leader's attempted blitzkrieg in South Ossetia. I think we read here at MoA that the Russians got wind of these plans, and arranged with the Iranian government to set up the lastest Russian surface-to-air missile system in the north of Iran.

Nothing needs diplomatic mending more than the US-Russian relationship. At some point, picking at the Iranian scab will cause blood to flow, and this can't be in the interest of the US.

There's another odd thing about the story that doesn't sound right: it claims that it's important whether the Israelis initiate the sortie at the behest of the Americans, or if the attack is otherwise American-led, as a service to Israel. The people of the Middle East and the whole world will be certain that it's a matter of collusion in any case. Why is one arrangement more tolerable than the other? Why would one produce a tragic cascade of repercussions, and the other be less of an ongoing disaster?

Have the Israelis decided to do the attack themselves?--and do they expect Washington to handle diplomatic damage-control? Are the Israeli leaders counting on Iran to counter-attack and give US neocons their "dream come true" to "bomb Iran back to the Stone Age"?

Posted by: Copeland | Mar 4 2009 6:30 utc | 33

Steve Hunt at the newshogggers: Clinton Exposes Negotiation Pretense

I've been saying for some time now that the Obama administration's promise to negotiate with Iran, to find some common ground and try to defuse three decades of mutual saber-rattling, was going to be simply a pretence at diplomacy as long as Hilary "Madame AIPAC" and her coterie of neoliberal hawks had anything to do with it.

Now Clinton has sent that message loud and clear, by authorising an officially unofficial leak of her intentions. ...
...
Here, Clinton admits to a policy of strategic ambiguity, pressuring Iran into a corner by agitprop, saber-rattling and international deals designed to isolate it and put it's rulers in fear of fiery US and Israeli retribution. These negotiations will be given one chance, made to fail, and it'll be back to the hawk's game again. Unfortunately, that will only bolster Iran's hardliners, which will in turn bolster US and Israeli interventionists, and the whole thing will circle around until bombs start dropping. Iranian moderates, who have been crying out for a new detente, must be horrified at being proven correct on Clinton's undermining.

Posted by: b | Mar 4 2009 6:31 utc | 34

This is well worth reading for its humorous take on rapprochement:

"Viewed from the ancient marketplaces of the Middle East, the warriors of the Bush administration seem to have been replaced by the negotiators and traders of the Obama administration.

This month, if you look around Washington, Tehran, Damascus and Gaza, you can see sellers of carpets and dreams putting their bags of samples on the table and opening them, while glancing pointedly at the other's offerings -- diplomatic bazaar body language that they are interested in talking business”.

"Even America's Foes Want to Talk" (Rami G. Khouri)

Posted by: | Mar 4 2009 6:47 utc | 35

"We'll meet again, don't know where,
don't know when; but I know we'll meet again
some sunny day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Posted by: Copeland | Mar 4 2009 6:50 utc | 36

@Lysander,

But I'm very convinced there isn't going to be any war between the U.S. and Iran.

You mean to say, your convinced that isn't going to be an overt war against Iran. Because as you say, we have discussed it many times, and the conclusion I reached was there is already a war against Iran, by covert and proxy means.

and Copeland et al ...

Also the transparent aggression of building up to such an attack by a one-sided series of provocations is also a losing propositition diplomatically, and would be a catastrophe for the Obama administration,--tragically destroying with one stroke--the carefully cultivated image of civilized conduct the president is trying to present.

And thus my fear, because, I suggest, it's not the singer but the song. I have questioned here and elsewhere, if our new fabulously marketed and lavishly spent president even has control over the MIC, especially it's branches such as the CIA,while, Obama may have some power in the domestic realm, I highly suspect Cheneyco and his criminal international fiends still dictate foreign affairs, if covertly and indirectly. Read, black ops.

I still read Jr.'s 'mission accomplished' as just that; Aesopian. He methodically did two things, he got our foot in the door, and to hell with the consequences, even if it's quicksand and blood in the desert, knowing we can't get out, there is money to be made, and they are masters at controlled chaos. Second, his admin softened up the people, by starving it to the point where the next admin will look like a benevolent ruler by giving the people scraps off the table. To a fasting populace, even bread crumbs will do in the moment. Same symphony, different conductor. Yet, I say it once again, It's the overture.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 4 2009 6:54 utc | 37

Humour aside, I believe Obamageddon is a bit too quick in self-congratulation (#5).

War with Iran (directly, via proxy Israel and with or without a wink and a nod from the U.S.) would push the U.S. economy over the brink and possibly lead to civil war. Those who claim this can't happen in the U.S. don't realize just how thinly the fabric has been stretched. The utter contempt in which America's warmongers and Israel are held would lead to outright rebellion if Israel were to start yet another war of aggression.

Moreover, war with Iran would negate everything Obama stands for. His political credo has always been "negotiation with Iran" and I can't suddenly see him out-Cheneying Cheney and destroying a major pillar of his credibility.

So what is the meaning of all this? I think Khouri (post 35) has it right. "Many a true word is spoken in jest".

Posted by: | Mar 4 2009 6:55 utc | 38

Sorry, #35 and #38 were by me, Parviz. I don't know why my personal info got deleted.

Posted by: Parviz | Mar 4 2009 7:11 utc | 39

annie, yours has been the voice of cold reason and logic on this thread. From the IHT:

"Medvedev .... dismissed the notion of a deal in which the United States would shelve its planned missile defense system in exchange for Russian help in Iran."

"If we talk about some bargain or exchange, I can say that the issues were not raised in this way, because it's counterproductive," Medvedev said in Madrid, where he was meeting with Spanish leaders."

I don't believe the U.S./Israel would be able to do anything without Russia on board, which it certainly isn't.

Medvedev strongly denies quid pro quo

Posted by: Parviz | Mar 4 2009 7:17 utc | 40

Uncle $cam, your last paragraph (#37) makes exciting reading, but let's be honest, an open Neocon-Zionist war with Iran (which is what this thread is about because a 'covert' war wouldn't delay, let alone eliminate, Iran's nuclear programme) would remove any remaining 'scraps on the table' for the American public. It would irreparably destroy the Obama Administration's credibility and terminally destroy his economic initiatives through the increased costs associated with increased hostilities with Iran.

I personally don't think Obama's stupid, and I don't believe Cheney is still running the show behind the scenes. His policies have been totally discredited. Even the Pentagon has been screaming for at least 3 years that it is solidly opposed to any kind of armed conflict or even escalation of hostility with Iran, because it needs Iran's help with Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Those are a lot of problems to be risking (not to mention economic deterioration of the U.S. economy that is already on life support) for the sake of knocking out Natanz and pleasing Israel. Does the U.S. actually enjoy getting screwed?

Posted by: Parviz | Mar 4 2009 7:30 utc | 41

Lysander (#24): "In fact, the more Israel huffs and puffs, the more I'm thinking maybe a reconciliation IS possible and Israel knows it will end up the odd man out. Deep down Israel knows they are nothing but a heavy albatross whereas Iran could be a real ally."

Very well stated.

r'giap (#21), thanks, we're on the same page on this one.

Copeland (#27), you've posed the $ 64,000 question: "Would the Israeli government, as paranoid and right-wing as it is now, take into its hands such an aggression? I think the probability is high that it would."

Here's where we disagree. The Israelis are coldly and calculatingly barbaric, with the emphasis on 'calculatingly'. I don't believe "the Israeli leaders are crazy enough to do it", as you surmise. The world is already against them, and any such action would leave them as isolated as Hitler, with not even the U.S. willing to condone any further appeasement of its problem child.

Posted by: Parviz | Mar 4 2009 7:44 utc | 42

It would irreparably destroy the Obama Administration's credibility and terminally destroy his economic initiatives through the increased costs associated with increased hostilities with Iran.

Exactly, that's why they would do it.

I'm reminded of Emile Durkheim's quote, in that, "From top to bottom of the ladder, greed is aroused without knowing where to find ultimate foothold. Nothing can calm it, since its goal is far beyond all it can attain. Reality seems valueless by comparison with the dreams of fevered imaginations; reality is therefore abandoned."

The Neocon Strategy hasn't changed, further, PNAC's stated mission was and still is, to wreck the American economy.
Finally, I'd like to see some evidence that Cheneyco has been discredited as you say.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 4 2009 8:17 utc | 43

(#43):

"PNAC's stated mission was and still is ...."

You're a little behind the times on this one. The PNAC was closed down ignominiously in 2006:

End of the neo-con dream

Posted by: Parviz | Mar 4 2009 8:46 utc | 44

Parviz@44: But the AIE and others like it are alive, vibant and thriving. I mean, SOMEone is running all these insane GOP and NEOCON media campaigns in opposition to Obama's Admin. Those SOMEone's I suspect are PNAC minions. Who drives them? The same one's in opposition to Obama's stated visions and goals.

To back up a bit, I'd like to posit one singular thing that runs thru the insanity, details, and complexity and confusion that's upon us right now . . .

1) There are likely roughly ten or more MAIN characters/orgs/interests all competing for at times, similar needs, at times singular needs. By needs, I mean either publicly or not publicly goals.

So when one speaks of War With Iran, as in the context B has posted in the thread, it's IMPOSSIBLE to figure out, because each and every one of those 'ten' elements is at play, in accord, in opposition . . .

When one speaks of failed fiscal/econ policies in USA, built on houses of inflated debt ratings, it's IMPOSSIBLE to figure it all out, definitively, because again there are 'ten' in play.

Factor in deregulation of business and government across the board, consolidation in biz, outsourcing, elimination of small owners (farms/businesses), lowered wages . . . influences on building weapons, maintaining 'war', centralization of wealth and power upwards . . . .

Tell me, just who the hell is gonna figure any of this out as it plays out?

And so, I close with this wrap. Obama is who he says he is. Within his admin, and without, are forces and personnel who are part of the 'ten', fighting and jousting and weaving all their ways around and thru our nations challenges, our nations peoples, and our nations elected officials . . . all to get an upper hand for 'their' agenda(s).

In other words, a total clusterfuck that CAN'T be explained from any one point of view, by any one theory.

It's a myriad of forces at work and in play layered with all the intelligence and sophistication and mind boggling planning, details, subterfusion and designed confusion that goes into furthering one's particular agenda/goals.

Sometimes dots connect. Sometimes they don't. EVERYONE releases information, writes articles quoting 'unnamed hi level sources', everyone is running psyops distortions in the media, be it mainstream or not, be it domestic or international . . . . everyone is gaming.

To make sense of it at times, is simply not possible. Sometimes the tea leaves can be read, sometimes the entrails tell a different tale. And sometimes, no one, NO one really knows what the fuck is gonna happen.

And that's where we are at with at LEAST Iran, likely Iraq and Afghanistan, our financial situation, and the balance of power and control in the USA . . . will the people ever get back any sense of power and control of their potential to better themselves?

Not without jobs, education, healthcare and the elected officials who will fight and deliver those things.

Will the wealth of our sweat equity continued be be diminished as it is forced upwardly into the hands of the few?

Likely, if the 'system's' not fought and changed.

Are we headed to global wreck and doom as a species? Likely.

Can we figure any of that out? Not phreakin hardly.

But it's always entertaining and illuminating to read about it all from those who know more than I do, or ever will. And I'm one skeptical and pessimistic person. And still, individual people and their courage and efforts on behalf of others jump up to command my attention and surprise me.

Figure it out? HAH!

All we know is we are born into this ride, and at some point, we get off the ride.

Where and when the ride starts and stops even the gods are only 7/10th's sure about, at times.

Thanks for the ride, so far . . . MOB and all in here.

Posted by: Larue | Mar 4 2009 9:48 utc | 45

AEI, I meant AEI at the top of my #45. But then, most knew that, I hope . . .

R'Giap . . . I spent '53-'63 in SE Asia as a child. Saigon, Bangkok, Vientienne. Those were the first 10 years of my life.

I recall vividly the land, culture and peoples and foods.

The politics involved I learnt about later in my life beginning in my teens. AID, USOM, thinly veiled refugee resettlement programs . . . my father's work and our 'demise' of being 'umemployed' from there with just a ticket home and some forwarded belongings.

That region, that period, the minute the French lost Dien Bien Phu and USA decided they could step into that vacuum . . . defined it all . . . . it was the beginning lost gambit that brought together State Dept, MIC, Politicians and Big Biz and has wrought all else after it. At least I can make a case that it was all that . . . history goes MUCH further back than that of course, but man, that was a pivotal moment in the planet's space/time fabric, so to speak.

I remember Võ Nguyên Giáp.

Posted by: Larue | Mar 4 2009 10:06 utc | 46

Thanks to all for an interesting thread with various (conflicting) points of view well and politely presented. What is clear, and a view substantially shared by all participants, is that the AIPAC-Likudnik lobby continues to press for "harsh measures" against Iran: no surprise there. What is still unclear, at least to me, is the degree to which they can dictate administration policy (which is not necessarily the same releasing those clouds of "free floating rhetoric" that emerge from high levels of the Obama administration). The Israeli lobby plays the long game: a time horizon of 20 years or more to implement a U.S. attack on Iran would be a replay their persistence in pushing for war with Iraq (now denied with comic chutzpah). There is plenty of reason to be pessimistic, including the (presumably ongoing) covert operations against Iran which are tantamount to war, albeit for now to only a low-grade conflict. So too Obama's groveling at the feet of AIPAC, his guaranteed kosher rhetoric on Iran, and some of his appointments (Rahm Emmanuel, Dennis Ross, Hillary herself, and others) all signal continuity with Bush and the neocons.

So far, however, it seems early to conclude that the door to a more illuminated Iran policy has been definitively closed, despite the obvious covey of Israel-first doormen huffing and puffing mightily to slam it shut. It seems that some sort of "provocation" will be required for these surly concierges to succeed in their efforts. Unfortunately, the creation of such a "provocation" does not seem to be beyond the means of their sponsors. Indeed, the presence of counter tendencies (the appointment of Freeman, military distaste for a patently dangerous adventure, economic difficulties, even opposition from the blogosphere) may give those pushing for military action a sense of urgency in conjuring up some putative casus belli . The fact that Israeli plans to rev up colonization of the West Bank causes hardly a raised eyebrow in Washington shows that the "framing" of MidEast reality for the U.S. public is still firmly in the hands of the Israelophile media; we may be sure, in contrast, that any Iranian misstep or affront will be trumpeted far and wide, and exagerated so that every hamlet will feel the threat of Iranian nuclear potential. Obama is surely well aware of these constraints: whether his Iran policy will, in the end, be determined by them, or will instead be skillfully redirected to a new route remains to be seen. I must, alas, agree with those who, at present, see more cause for pessimism than optimism.

Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | Mar 4 2009 11:04 utc | 47

Parviz, throughout this thread you're assessment and conclusions have been logical, accurate, concise and I think, correct.
The diplomatic deckchairs are being reshuffled but nobody wants the war djinn let back out of the bottle at this stage. Obama's election is a catalyst for peace. The foul remnants of the chimp regime still stink up the political atmosphere and there are provocoteurs always sniffing out opportunities to destabilise the good work that ethical govt's strive to achieve. But like Gush Pimpwhore, they're merely loud bullying cowards who'll soon be relegated to back under their rocks.

Posted by: waldo | Mar 4 2009 11:42 utc | 48

Larue (#45), the situation today is not dissimilar to the Cuba Missile Crisis, in the sense that hardliners on both the Russian and U.S. side were crying for a pre-emptive first strike, and both Kennedy and Khruschev faced unbearable pressure from their respective hawks not to give way.

In the end, as we all know, Russia removed its missiles from Cuba and the U.S. removed its own missiles from Turkey.

I don't deny "the ghost of Cheney" still roams the corridors of U.S. power, but it's just a ghost. The Neocons/Zionists have as much ability to force Obama into a war with Iran as John Kerry had to prevent Bush from invading Iraq.

Posted by: Parviz | Mar 4 2009 12:41 utc | 49

Part of the "study" strategy:

U.S. sanctions 11 companies tied to Iranian bank

WASHINGTON, Mar. 3 (Xinhua) -- U.S. Treasury Department on Tuesday imposed sanctions on 11 companies linked to Iran's Bank Melli Bank, which was viewed by Washington as a proliferator for its role in Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

"The international community has recognized the proliferation risks posed by Iran's Bank Melli," said Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levey.

"We will continue to take steps to protect the integrity of the international financial system by exposing the banks, companies, and individuals supporting Iran's nuclear and missile programs," he said in a statement.

Posted by: b | Mar 4 2009 13:02 utc | 50

The Zionists offer a new "study" -

just released from WINEP:

Presidential Study Group Reports
Preventing a Cascade of Instability: U.S. Engagement to Check Iranian Nuclear Progress

With the Middle East having emerged as a focal point of American foreign policymaking, a complex array of regional issues now compete for the urgent attention of our nation's leaders. In preparation for the first presidential succession of the twenty-first century, The Washington Institute has assembled three independent Presidential Task Forces. Each is composed of its own bipartisan, blue-ribbon group of experts and practitioners, and each charged with addressing a discrete issue high on the Middle East policy agenda.

About This Report

Preventing a Cascade of Instability: U.S. Engagement to Check Iranian Nuclear Progress is the final report of The Washington Institute's Presidential Task Force on Iranian Proliferation, Regional Security, and U.S. Policy, a bipartisan, blue-ribbon commission of diplomats, legislators, strategists, scholars, and experts. The task force has been meeting since October 2008 to devise a comprehensive strategy for the United States to prevent, mitigate, or counteract regional instability triggered by Iranian nuclear progress.

The task force warns that, without strong U.S. leadership, countries in the Middle East may accommodate Iran, attack it, or try to match its new capabilities. The way forward, the report argues, is for Washington to engage Tehran while at the same time increasing diplomatic leverage on the Iranian leadership, including incentives. This would involve closer consultation and coordination with allies, as well as reinforced security measures and tougher international sanctions.

According to the report, now is the time for the United States to promote a policy of "resist and deter" rather than "acquiesce and deter" within the international community. Assertive action now to build U.S. leverage is more likely to prevent Iran's emergence as a military nuclear power. But time is short if diplomatic engagement is to have a chance of success and military confrontation avoided. Iran continues to produce enriched uranium, of which it already has a sufficient amount -- if processed further -- for a bomb, as stated on Sunday by Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen.

The Middle East is looking for strong U.S. leadership and reenergized relationships. Vigorous steps to shore up regional defense cooperation could enhance stability and serve to check regional perceptions that U.S. influence is weakening. As part of the solution to the impasse, Washington could propose measures that would also serve to shore up the global nonproliferation system.

download at the link

Posted by: b | Mar 4 2009 13:09 utc | 51

Someone here mentioned recently that "paleo-cons" are often to the left
of "traditional liberals" on foreign affairs. Here's an example
straight from this ex-CIA horse's mouth. The only point that I find unconvincing is the notion that a two-state solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict is still within the realm of possibility. Otherwise the rhetoric and "talking points" of this "right-winger" seem compatible with the MOA ethos.

Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | Mar 4 2009 15:20 utc | 52

I haven't even finished reading this thread, and I'm really fucking scared! The PTB do not give a flying fuck about America and it's people. They are absconding with the cash, and appear to be planning to leave the army in a 'holding position' here in-country. I think the more trouble they can stir up domestically and abroad, the less chance that a gang of 10+ million vigilantes will march down to Paraguay (or Dubai) with torches and pitchforks in hand.

It looks totally hopeless...and the California sky weeps today. R'giap, you have broken my heart! Good luck to you.

Posted by: Dr. Wellington Yueh | Mar 4 2009 16:31 utc | 53

They want to turn Iran into a pathetic toady state like Jordan or Egypt that genuflects before their USrael masters.

That can't be achieved with war but that won't stop these psycopaths from trying it anyway.

Posted by: ran | Mar 4 2009 16:43 utc | 54

Mind boggles! After the collapse of the US supply route to Afghanistan via Pakistan and a surge planned, the only viable supply route the US has left is via Russia. In fact, the route is already being used. Given this, the US has very few bargaining chips left to play roulette against Russia just at the moment. All Russia needs to do, in case US does go ahead with its Polish and Czech Republic adventure, is to establish its own missile base at Kaliningrad targeting these two eastern European countries. I thought Obama was going to reduce the defence budget!

Posted by: TutuG | Mar 4 2009 17:30 utc | 55

be steel r'giap.

Posted by: beq | Mar 4 2009 17:57 utc | 56

r'giap@ 21

Biology produces our bodies, but we are not fully human until wisdom, pain and compassion makes our soul. You sir have have been molded, and I believe you have achieved soul. I am better for knowing you through this medium. You are the heart and soul of this board. Thank-you.

I too, am not ashamed of being extremely myopic. We can only speak from our experiences, our truths. We have earned it.

However, we are empathetically myopic. John Tarreant writes, "In psychiatric diagnostic manuals, despair is called depression, as if it were a weather system", we see clearly the true suffering and betrayal of humanity, and worse, what it could be. For no one escapes the descent without the gift of vision. "Descent refines us so our pain becomes more and more authentic."

Our bodies hold that pain, but we are so much more than our bodies. Never apologize for showing feeling. When you do so you apologize for truth.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 4 2009 17:57 utc | 57

Israel and the US are locked together at the hip in an unholy alliance, which is based on just one thing - dominating, or even outright attacking, other countries in the ME.

The US has to maintain and show military dominance, even if its ‘wars’ achieve precious little, except for the usual, funding the military industrial complex, scaring other people and nations to death, and keeping many Americans deluded in power fantasies, etc. Its indulgence to its minuscule and dependent ally, or better partner, thus knows no bounds, and obliges them to be on Israel’s side on the Palestine question.

-- The US would on the one hand prefer this problem to vanish, have a ‘united’ Israel, a ‘true democracy’ which actually ‘works’ on their side, as State number X - I believe this was Bush’s stance though I’d be hard put to document it, in view of his submissiveness to the neo-cons, better simply called pro-Zionist, faction. His obsession with Iraq and his being a ‘war’ president after 9/11 fitted in with the Zio crowd.

-- On the other hand, to keep Israel stuck in its aggressive and paranoid path, it is necessary to support, applaud, or at least not hinder, its territorial expansionism, its crazed ethnicism, its crackpot laws, its violent military sorties. And to fund it to keep it alive. If a one-state solution (or even possibly a two-state solution, though I myself don’t believe in it) could be achieved, Israel would be at ‘peace with its neighbors’ as the current expression goes. Israel would rapidly stop its fear, hate, mad killing, there would be no reason for it. As a ‘normal’ country it would trade with Syria, Jordan, they would have ‘paired cities’, folklore meets, the border with Egypt would be a 3 minute zip, they would enter the Euro Vision song contest together, etc. Israel would have a grand time, as with the certain massive US/EU/etc. financial support it would become a ‘hub’ at the edge of the ME. It would also solve its water/oil etc. resources problems speedily.

> That is not acceptable to the US who wants to conserve the little snarling mad dog. The US wants to be able to excuse actions of its shoddy, tiny partner with all the usual blah.... the special status of Israel, the Holocaust, etc. etc. Wearing thin by now.

> At the same time, a solution (‘peace’) is not acceptable to Israel in its present state. The people who run the place, not the ppl living there, lives off its aggression, its paranoid hubris, its ‘fake democracy’, its financial high jinks (ignored), its presumed military clout, etc. With ‘peace’ Israel would be subject to International law, would no longer be an extraordinary exception, would not be able to collect tremendous booty from rich patrons..

Therefore, neither party will envisage changing the arrangement.

Posted by: Tangerine | Mar 4 2009 18:22 utc | 58

TNR - Iran Amok

According to the State official, Ross will play a "strategic policy planning" role, akin to the department's Office of Policy Planning, which currently lacks strong expertise in Iranian and Middle Eastern affairs. One former Foggy Bottom official likens Ross's shop to "an in-house mini think tank" focused on Iran policy. And, when it comes to guiding policy, he's likely to make his mark fast. Ross is a workaholic with what one person who knows him calls "legendary" bureaucratic maneuvering skills, which have allowed him to flourish in both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Posted by: b | Mar 4 2009 18:23 utc | 59

chris floyd picks up b's post

Posted by: b real | Mar 4 2009 19:27 utc | 60

U$37) Maybe we should retitle Darth Cheney as "Chenyenko" instead of CheneyCo.
Read your Soviet history on Andropov. Chenyenko indeed!

Posted by: Pish Posh | Mar 4 2009 21:05 utc | 61

@ Parviz #44: PNAC old website has closed, here's their new one: http://newamericancentury.org/index.html

"Making world a worst place since 1996!", they could write on the homepage.

Posted by: andrew | Mar 4 2009 21:36 utc | 62

For people still slumbering under blankets of optimism.

Clinton Declares Iran a Threat

Ayatollah Warns US on 'Wrong Path'

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lashed out at the Iranian government today, declaring them a threat to the Middle East, Europe and Russia. Clinton also claimed that “it is clear that Iran intends to interfere with the internal affairs of all of these people.”

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei expressed disappointment with the Obama Administration’s foreign policy today, saying that the new administration was pursuing the same “wrong path” as President Bush did.

Though President Obama campaigned on the idea of approaching Iran diplomatically, his officials have repeatedly publicly accused the Iranian government of attempting to acquire nuclear weapons and has rebuffed Iranian attempts to improve relations.

Posted by: a | Mar 5 2009 5:37 utc | 63

and here's Jim Lobe picking up the MoA post. b, you're clearly doing a great and inspirational job:

Jim Lobe Blog

Posted by: Parviz | Mar 5 2009 5:38 utc | 64

b, I just spotted this on the IHT Blog. It's so superb you may wish to consider highlighting it on a new thread:

Israel Is Nobody’s Friend

If civilization can survive the cynical path it’s on, future historians will identify three great cons that were played out upon the world during this time; the fractional-reserve central-banking system, the war on terrorism and Israel. All three are equally dangerous to the future of mankind, are presented with equal deception, and emanate from the same source.

Much of the intentional confusion surrounding Israel is due to Israel presenting itself as a Jewish state - it’s not ­ Israel is a Zionist state. When people mention the word Jewish, they are usually mixing together three very distinct, different elements.

There are the Hebrews…the Semitic race generally referred to in the bible. Many Hebrews, however, are not Jews, there are also Christian and Arab Hebrews…all are true Semitic peoples. Then there is Judaism, the religion. Lastly, there is world Zionism, a geopolitical movement that is atheistic in nature and worships wealth and power…and all that follows in its wake. As Joe Biden recently pointed out in a speech given in Israel, “I’m a Zionist; you don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.”

The roots of Zionism, and the House of Rothschild, can be traced back to the Kazars of Southern Russian ­ an important piece of history that’s been swept under the rug. The Kazars were of mixed Turkish and Mongol blood who made their living by raiding caravans traveling through their territory. Eventually, Kazaria became an empire and developed Kings and an aristocracy who began to look for a way of making a living that was less hazardous to their health.

With their empire situated at the nexus of the caravan route, the Kazarian aristocracy decided to create wealth through usury - by charging interest on money lent. The Kazarian population was about one-third Christian, one-third Moslem and one-third Jewish - all getting along pretty well together. The problem was, at that time in the Middle Ages, both the Moslems and Christians considered charging interest - usury - a sin. Only Judaism allowed for the charging of interest to the Goyim - the non-Jews.

The aristocrats of the Kazars made the calculated announcement that they had converted to Judaism, and from that time on, made their living loaning and exchanging money. After being driven out of Russia, these Kazarian (pseudo) Jews moved into Eastern Europe, and eventually into Western Europe and Germany.

Over the centuries, the Kazarians perfected the practice of usury and came to acquire great wealth and influence in the countries they occupied ­ with the House of Rothschild emerging as the undisputed master of manipulation.

After seeing that the Rothschilds were financing both sides of the war between England and France, Napoleon made this insightful statement that reflects the enormous power they wielded, “When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.”

While genuine history shows that the Rothschilds financed the Nazi’s into power; while at the same time financing the war effort in England, the story of Rabbi Michael Dov-Ber Weismandel illustrates the hidden hand of the Rothschilds in sacrificing orthodox Jews to allow for the state of Israel to be created.

In November 1942, Rabbi Weismandel negotiated a deal with the Nazi government to have all the Jews in Western Europe and the Balkans released out of Germany for a mere 2 million dollars. Weismandel sent a courier to the Rothschild-led World Zionist Organization in Switzerland. The request was refused with a message for him… “If we do not sacrifice any blood, by what right shall we merit coming before the bargaining table when they divide nations and lands at the war’s end? ….for only with blood shall we get the land.”

From 1933 to 1935, the World Zionist Organization turned down two-thirds of all the German Jews who applied for immigration certificates. As late as 1943, while countless Jews in Europe were dying, the U.S. Congress proposed to set up a commission to “study” the problem. Rabbi Stephen Wise, who was the principal American spokesperson for Zionism, came to Washington to testify against the rescue bill because it would divert attention from the colonization of Palestine.

From the perspective of genuine history, there’s no paradox in seeing Israel emulating the Nazis in waging a genocidal war against the 4 million Palestinians imprisoned in the concentration camp Israel has created in Gaza. Nor is it surprising to see the extreme racial prejudice of the Israelis being brainwashed into thinking themselves the ‘chosen people’ while looking upon the Palestinians as worthless humanity. In the case of Nazism and Zionism, as one philosopher put it, “the poison and the antidote were brewed in the same vat.”

It should come as no surprise that Baron Rothschild is commemorated in Israel as ‘The Father of the Settlement’ nor that the motto of the Israeli Mossad reads “By way of deception, thou shalt do war.” The fractional-reserve central-banking system, the war on terrorism and Israel are all reflective of a war by way of deception - a war on humanity itself.

Unless Jews, Christians and Moslems can find some way of breaking free of the web of deceit together, we’ll all find ourselves trampled under the crushing boot of Zionism.

[56] Posted by: John Lund UK — 04 March 2009 7:24 pm

IHT Blog Comment #56

Posted by: Parviz | Mar 5 2009 5:51 utc | 65

#65 Very interesting Parviz.
Can't say I've ever seen the lemon sliced quite that way. Makes the fundy operators here in the U.S. look like pikers.

Posted by: anna missed | Mar 5 2009 9:23 utc | 66

anna_missed, the difference is that U.S. fundy operators are in it for their own personal short-term gain while Zionist planning is decidedly longer term.

Posted by: Parviz | Mar 5 2009 15:07 utc | 67

The guy's previous post is also interesting:

Israel - We Control Stupid Americans

‘An Israeli spokeswoman, Tzipora Menache, stated that she was not worried about negative ramifications the Israeli onslaught on Gaza might have on the way the Obama administration would view Israel.

She said “You know very well, and the stupid Americans know equally well, that we control their government, irrespective of who sits in the White House. You see, I know it and you know it that no American president can be in a position to challenge us even if we do the unthinkable.

What can they (Americans) do to us? We control congress, we control the media, we control show biz, and we control everything in America. In America you can criticize God, but you cant criticize Israel”

[55] Posted by: Lund UK — 04 March 2009 7:20 pm

Posted by: Parviz | Mar 5 2009 15:11 utc | 68

One of the most sober and intelligent articles I have come across, written by someone highly qualified to judge:

Why negotiating with Iran won’t be easy

By John Mundy, February 25 2009, Ottawa Citizen and Canada’s last Ambassador to Iran who was expelled in 2007

It won’t be easy for U.S. President Barack Obama to negotiate with Iran. I had the chance to live there for most of 2007 and observe its government — before being expelled. Here are 10 reasons why the Americans are going to have a very hard time establishing a better and more productive relationship with Iran and its leader:

1) The top man does not travel.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad travels all the time but he is not Iran’s leader. The top man, Iran’s Supreme Leader, is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He has not travelled outside of Iran since he succeeded Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989. Not only does he have virtually no first-hand experience of the outside world, but he also makes little effort to meet any world leader who might challenge him.

2) Khamenei is not Khomeini.

Ayatollah Khomeini, the famous leader of Iran’s 1979 revolution had the charisma, revolutionary credentials, religious authority and political dominance to make really big foreign policy decisions on his own (e.g. peace with Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in 1988). Iran’s current leader doesn’t have the same stature, despite his longevity. He needs the backing of Iranian power brokers for such an important decision.

3) There are a lot of Iranian power brokers.

Iranians themselves have trouble figuring out who has real influence in their government system. For the foreign observer, very few of whom have long living experience in Iran or speak Farsi, it is very difficult. When I was in Tehran a partial list of Iranian power brokers would have included: the Supreme Leader and at least one of his sons, President Ahmadinejad and former presidents Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammed Khatami, various ayatollahs including one under house arrest, serving and retired generals particularly from the Revolutionary Guard, former presidential candidates, key officials in the Supreme Leader’s office, at least one newspaper editor, the national oil company, the heads of the biggest Bonyads, key Bazaaris, key Majlis MPs and the heads of the many security services.

4) Negotiating with the U.S. is a toxic file.

Probably nothing is more dangerous for an Iranian power broker than negotiating with the Americans. The Mossadegh coup of 1953 is not forgotten. The 1979 revolution painted the Shah as a tyrannical American puppet. The Iranian government took me on a special tour of the Shah’s old torture prison, now a lurid museum, just to make this point. The huge revolutionary murals around the old American compound in downtown Tehran are being kept up. When the United States and Iran last tried a public rapprochement in 1998 (With overtures between Khatami and secretary of state Madeleine Albright), Iranian hard-liners quickly emasculated then president Khatami, whose political career was subsequently almost destroyed by president George W. Bush’s Axis of Evil speech.

5) The regime is afraid of the Americans.

Many Iranian power brokers fear that a rapprochement with the U.S. would undermine their intimidation of Iran’s middle class — whose children face a lifetime of unemployment or underemployment. It almost happened in 1999 when Khatami and Albright were reaching out to each other and the students revolted.

6) The regime is not afraid of the Americans.

The regime seems to believe that it could absorb the most aggressive military option still on the table — the bombing of its many, nuclear sites (by America’s ally, Israel). The leadership must believe that its population would rally to them.

7) Nuclear ambiguity doesn’t look that bad — seen from Tehran.

Iran has few real friends and is surrounded by nuclear powers: Russia to the north, Pakistan to the east, the American Navy to the south and Israel to the west. Looking in just one of these directions and recalling that Iran almost went to war against Afghanistan when its Taliban government executed Iranian diplomats in 1998, how best should Iran protect itself should the Pakistani state fall under the influence of the Taliban? While we may not like it, some sort of nuclear capability is an option Iranian security planners will want to retain.

8) Iran is a zero sum game negotiator.

In Tehran, the idea of engaging in a win-win negotiation is considered to be naïve.

9) American diplomacy has already given Iran much of what it wants.

The American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan deposed two regimes implacably hostile to Iran and replaced them with leaders much more friendly to Iranian interests. These are important geopolitical gains for Iran. Why would Iran’s leadership pay for them now by making concessions to the United States?

10) Iran miscalculates its influence.

With 5,000 years of culture and historical tradition, Persian chauvinism impedes a realistic calculation of Iran’s true power and influence. Iran often does not respect its near neighbours (e.g. Iranian editorials about the territorial illegitimacy of Bahrain). Iran’s diplomatic allies are friends of convenience (Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and Belarus). Iranian power brokers have very little or very dated western experience. Iran’s support for Hamas and Hezbollah is brinkmanship that could miscalculate with terrible consequences for the region.

For these reasons it won’t be easy for the United States to develop a more productive relationship with Iran’s current leadership despite the many advantages of doing so. Alas, there is another unpredictable factor at play that is likely to bedevil President Obama. Iran seems to have a genius for gratuitously offending other countries.

It has happened many times, with many different countries. For Canada it happened in 2006 when our foreign minister attended the first meeting of the new UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. For reasons known only to Iran, it included Saeed Mortazavi in its own delegation to this meeting. Mortazavi was (and remains) the Prosecutor General of Tehran who had been implicated by Iran’s own Parliament in its report accusing the Government of covering up the brutal death of poor Zahra Kazemi, a Canadian citizen, in Tehran’s Evin prison. When he turned up at this meeting Peter MacKay and the whole country went ballistic and our relations with Iran have yet to recover.

Perhaps the Americans will have more luck.

Posted by: Parviz | Mar 6 2009 6:31 utc | 69

#65 Very interesting Parviz.
Can't say I've ever seen the lemon sliced quite that way.

i have read about this and more on Ethnic Ashkenazim Against Zionist Israel, a blog i keep tags on occasionally.

Posted by: annie | Mar 6 2009 17:07 utc | 70