Richard Silverstein's new piece on Bibi's mindset is also worth a read.

BUSH HAD GOG AND MAGOG, BIBI HAS AMALEK

Posted by: Anthony | May 26 2009 8:37 utc | 1

Wrong link sorry, try this one.

Posted by: Anthony | May 26 2009 8:38 utc | 2

From the Guardian, "Barack Obama spoke at the White House last night, denouncing North Korea's action as "a blatant violation of international law". He said North Korea "will not find security and respect through threats and illegal weapons"."

If only he would say the same about a much more deserving target, Israel.

Posted by: otiwa ogede | May 26 2009 9:55 utc | 3

b,

Iran has always been the prize that Israel has lusted for, after all it is only the Persians that stand between them an total domination of the middle east. American will always do as it is told, and no other country in the middle east has the strength and willpower to stand up to the regional superpower.

Iran will be attacked on Obama's watch. The question is how soon.

Posted by: Joseph | May 26 2009 10:00 utc | 4

I must also add that the very idea that the Israelis would launch or succeed in a strike against Iran without US foreknowledge and support is preposterous, and we shouldn't entertain the notion.

This is the US game, to get into a war with Iran with "clean hands" , i.e, either to "protect an ally",Israel, or "in self defense" after an Iranian retaliatory strike.

Posted by: otiwa ogede | May 26 2009 10:13 utc | 5

I thought Aluf Benn's comments were rubbish, but I welcomed them nonetheless. Why the discrepancy?

Because Iran, as you correctly footnoted, b, will not be so stupid as to either take a pre-emptive measure or to 'retaliate' in an unconsidered, amateurish fashion. Iran knows that time is on its side, historically, and that all it has to do is to let the U.S. bleed sufficiently to want out and let Israel clear up its own mess (or, alternatively, to make peace with Iran and enlist its help in establishing regional peace).

Why am I happy with what he said even though I don't give his warnings an ounce of credibility? Because the more Armageddon scenarios are portrayed, the less likely they are to occur. I want the entire world to headline "Israel about to bomb Iran", both to confirm which nation is the aggressor and to awaken Western powers to the dangers of such folly.

Posted by: Parviz | May 26 2009 10:17 utc | 6

There are rumours that Obama has agreed to back Israelis stance on Iran in exchange for dismantelling settlements in the west bank.

Posted by: Anthony | May 26 2009 10:39 utc | 7

There are rumours that Obama has agreed to back Israelis stance on Iran in exchange for dismantelling settlements in the west bank.

Posted by: Anthony | May 26 2009 10:39 utc | 8

Joseph

"Iran will be attacked on Bush's watch" was a pretty consistent refrain too - it never happened, for a slew of very obvious reasons, and was never likely to happen; this was in spite of the fact that there were a fair few principals in the administration who were quite eager to pursue the matter to an explosive conclusion.

Isreal has been threatening to bomb Iran since the mid-1990's, but they're never going to actually do it as it is above their pay-grade, and their planning is premised on the US doing it for them - hence the endless propagandising barrages aimed at US elite opinion, mind games, psych-outs and temper tantrums.

In general, the notion that Israel can engineer a strike that then drags an unwitting US in to a broader conflict is largely meritless. Either the US is in for the pound or it's not - and the US military has been consistently and explicitly messaging since 2005 that it is not.

Posted by: dan | May 26 2009 11:48 utc | 9

Pure speculation and free association, but miniaturized Pyongyang nukes plus a chatty Cheney plus the need for a reason for the US to hit Iran equals one uneasy New Yorker.

Posted by: mats | May 26 2009 12:23 utc | 10

And here's an internal report sent to me confidentially by a very high-powered think-tank whose name I am not permitted to reveal, which shows what Israel is up against:

26 May 2009

Britain, Hamas and Hizbullah

There are indications of some flexibility in British policy towards Hamas and Hizbullah. On 21 May the Foreign Secretary David Miliband made a speech at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (text at
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/newsroom/latest-news/?view=Speech
<http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/newsroom/latest-news/?view=Speech&id=18130489&id=18130489 ) in which he called for "a coalition of consent" between the West and the Muslim world. "When it comes to Hamas," he said "no one disputes that they won the most seats. We are not claiming that their election was 'illegitimate'. We are saying the failure to embrace a political process towards a two-state solution makes normal political relations impossible."

On 24 May he went a bit further in an interview with the Saudi owned
newspaper al-Hayat. This interview has received widespread comment in the region and elsewhere. No English text appears to be available, e.g. on the FCO website or the al-Hayat English-language website. Perhaps as a result it has been misrepresented. For example, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, visiting Damascus on 24 May, was asked to comment on what the questioner described as Miliband's declaration that "it is time to end Hamas's isolation and to resume dialogue." Lavrov replied "I can say that it
is better late than never. This should have been done much earlier, back in 2006, when Hamas won in the elections that were recognized as democratic, free and fair. But for reasons of political bias the leadership of western countries did not recognize the Hamas government. It was then that the causes of the crisis arose that we continue to watch around the Gaza Strip.

I am convinced that in any conflict it is necessary to involve, rather than isolate all influential parties. This holds for Hamas and for Hezbollah and for Syria."

We circulate below our own translation of Miliband's interview (the Arabic text is available at
http://international.daralhayat.com/internationalarticle/19872 ).

Miliband to al-Hayat: Hamas is not Al Qa'ida: we urge armed groups to
repudiate violence

Saturday 24 May 2009, Kamil al-Tawil

The British Foreign Secretary David Miliband set out in an interview with al-Hayat the objectives of his new plan for cooperation with the Islamic world which he launched last Thursday at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. He said that he wanted really to address the groups which use violence, to call on them to repudiate it and enter the political process.

Miliband expressed regrets for the errors which had been committed following the attacks of the Al Qaeda organisation in the United States on 11 September 2001. He said that measures taken to combat terrorism had been judged on the basis that they were against Islam. He said that he had been wrong when he spoke about the Islamic world on the basis that it consisted of moderates and extremists, adding that the Islamic world was too large to be encompassed by this division.

He said that another mistake made by the West was to place the Islamic groups which had national objectives within the same framework as Al Qaeda with its world Islamic programme. He explained that the Taliban movement for example was considered as like Al Qaeda, although it was really a number of groups of Pashtun tribes on the Afghan/Pakistan border with purely local aims, whereas Al Qaeda had its world Islamic programme. He said that the Hamas movement in Palestine and Hizbullah in Lebanon could both also be
placed within the framework of groups which had a national aim, as he had stated in his speech at Oxford University. He explained, "although there are things in the Hamas constitution which raise question marks about the limits within which its aspirations are contained, it is clear that Hamas is not the same thing as Al Qaeda."

On Hizbullah he said "our position was always and up to 2005, the date of the assassination of (former prime minister Rafiq) al-Hariri, that we engage in dialogue with Members of Parliament of Hizbullah, and that ceased after the assassination of al-Hariri. The military wing of Hizbullah remains described as a terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom.but we agreed to resume talking to Hizbullah Members of Parliament, partly because Hizbullah has a minister in the Lebanese government which is committed to the Arab
peace operation. The result was a single meeting which took place between us and Hizbullah attended by our ambassador at one meeting at which a Hizbullah Member of Parliament was present. The outcome now is that Hizbullah is insisting that at any meeting which takes place with us they should photograph our ambassador, and we refuse to allow the photograph to become part of the election campaign in Lebanon. Therefore meetings will not take place. The Lebanese are the ones to decide on their elections and we will not allow ourselves to intervene in them.

He adds "I want to say to those groups which have militias: stop armed action and commit to political activity. We want people to be respected because of their opinions in the framework of political activity. You can not be half in the framework of political activity and the ballot box, and half outside it with a gun in your hand."

Miliband acknowledges that the question of Iraq was one of the points of misunderstanding between the Arab world and the Western world but he declares without hesitation "We have said that the peace building operation in Iraq did not proceed as it was supposed to. But I don't want to look backwards, rather to look to the future. In order to look to the future I must be aware of history. That is what I tried to reflect in my speech. But if we allow ourselves to remain stuck in the past we will achieve nothing."

Posted by: Parviz | May 26 2009 12:29 utc | 11

Anthony (#7 or #8!), it's far more complicated than that. Whoever started such a rumour has an IQ below 50. Ignore it.

Posted by: Parviz | May 26 2009 12:31 utc | 12

If Israel would launch some small attack on Iran, Iran might well, with some justification, retaliate against U.S. interests. This would then trigger an all out attack by the U.S. on Iran. Some action against the just opened French base in Abu Dhabi might even drag in the Europeans.

Helena fears that some people in the Obama administration and Congress would welcome such a chain of events. She urges to stop the still ongoing secret U.S. campaign against Iran and to start real direct diplomacy.

As much influence as Israel has on U.S. foreign policy, especially Middle Eastern Foreign Policy, I don't believe they have the kind of influence that would entice the U.S. to fight a war on four fronts. Iran is no Iraq, Pakistan or Afghanistan. Such an exercise would surely sink the U.S. for good, if it's not sunk already. There must be something more that we're not being told, or to which we're not privy. Otherwise, such a move would be absolute insanity. Maybe things are as bad as Malooga and I have claimed all along...and the U.S. Plutocracy knows it. Maybe they realize things are about to get very insane with the unraveling of the global ecocomy and such an endeavor will be implemented to keep The Masses in line and induce austerity measures likened to rationing in World War II. It's the end of the world as we know it and the world as it's always been since the dawn of civilization With no more frontiers, civilization has no choice but to devour itself.

Posted by: Obamageddon | May 26 2009 12:43 utc | 13

My hope is that chain of events Israel will likely try to ignite would be stopped by two relevant entities:

To your list I would add: Russian resistance, perhaps even defense of Iran.

Little mentioned prior to W's Iraq invasion was Putin moving warships just off coast of Iran, in open defiance/warning, responding to neo-con rhetoric at the time including Iran in Axis-of-Evil. Beyond that, recent cooperation agreements between the 2 nations on marketing/distribution of natural gas & Russian participation in development of Iran's nuclear power/fuel refinement etc.

And lastly, on much larger scale, as Russia has played hardball against US' Polish "star wars installation", not to mention B's well chonicled South Ossetia/Georgia/Russia emroglio (which I would remind left evidence that Israel both trained and provided cluster bombs for Georgia)... Russia has both geo-political and profound economic interest not only defending Iran, but actively preventing Israeli intrustion into their sphere of cooperative & legitimate commerce.

I haven't kept up on political/public sentiment towards Israel on your side of pond in a while. But I would guess that after Israeli's nauseatingly wanton levelling of Lebanon, not to mention last hugely destructive adventure into Palestine... that open EU condemnation of such an endeavor would be loud and unified, if only rhetorical (eg: no action)

Posted by: jdmckay | May 26 2009 14:06 utc | 14

Today Netanyahu's stand on the matter, with an interesting point:

Netanyahu seemed pleased with the results of his US visit, dismissing US criticisms of his plan to expand settlements as “a disagreement between good friends,” and insisting that he had received pledges for several “key pieces” of military aid from the US.

Which "key pieces"?

Posted by: andrew | May 26 2009 14:19 utc | 15

jdmckay, good point mentioning Russia, though I don't trust the Russians as far as I can throw them: The destruction of Iran would make Europe even more dependent on Russian energy supplies as well as shooting oil up to $ 300/bbl AND defining the U.S. once and for all as the bad guys, = a triple whammy in Russia's favour.

Posted by: Parviz | May 26 2009 14:22 utc | 16

Israel and the US are already deeply unpopular in the world. The Iranians aren't stupid so and would not retaliate against an attack and be drawn into a war that they could not win. They know that any aggressive act against them will deepen resentment in the world against both the USA and Israel and speed up their demise.

The US may have many allies amongst governments but importantly the masses are less sympathetic towards them. If for example the UK government tried to go to war in support of the USA the British people may well say enough is enough and prevent this.

It is very possible that the USA like all empires before them could overstretch and get involved in too many conflicts at the same time and be abandoned to their fate by their European allies due to pressure from the masses who now see the USA as an aggressor. Lets hope they come to their senses first.

Posted by: Charles | May 26 2009 14:55 utc | 17

I think that any 'baiting' of Iran by small provocations would depend on underestimating the political savvy and shrewdness of the Iranian regime, in particular, and the Iranian psychology in general.

They were not drawn into open conflict, even with the provocation of the Vincennes shooting down Flight 655, with 300 innocents.

These are master 'chess players'. Look how they stole the 1979 revolution away from the confederation of interests that removed the Shah. The elaborate arrangement of elected bodies and appointed panels in Iranian government look like a labyrinth designed to foil a parliamentarian raised on Robot's Rules of Order. They are in fact, each given a specific set of limited interactions - like Queen, bishop and knight. Israel's cleverness has often come from the Iranian and Iraqi Jews in the midst of their military and intelligence outfits.

I don't expect the situation to change much, despite the possibility of some spectacular incidents.

Posted by: Jerry | May 26 2009 15:22 utc | 18

Dan,

I sure would like for you to be correct and for me to be wrong. I would fine an attack on the Persians to be a horrible thing both morally, strategically, and tactically. Just an awful thing to happen.

However, I remember when President Nixon went to China. It was said that only a certified commie fighter like Nixon could be the one to seek to reconcile our nation with China. I see Obama in a similar way; the will take the Democrats places that the Republicans could never get them to go. They are right now defending Obama's moves in AfPak and his defense of the past administration's torture policies.

Time will tell, but given Obama'a chief of staff and the fact the Republicans are already on-board with an air campaign to destroy Iran I think the Persians are in great peril.

Posted by: Joseph | May 26 2009 15:25 utc | 19

The causus belli for an Israeli attack? Given the triggers for Lebanon 2006 and Gaza 2009, these need be only so slight.

An attack on a non-existent Israeli warship in the Persian Gulf? A low level Israeli diplomat being assassinated in Sarajevo?

The Israeli PR machine, and their hired pens in the US media, can use practically any pretext to justify a disproportionate response.

Posted by: JohnH | May 26 2009 15:40 utc | 20

Iran has at its disposal the simplest and most effective 'retaliation' to any Israeli attack; withdrawal from the NPT with full Russian and Chinese support, and with the blame for that withdrawal falling on Israel. After wards, negotiations will focus on getting Iran to rejoin and not on halting enrichment. Iran need not fire a single missile, though it may fire a few at Israel for the sake of appearances. It certainly will NOT retaliate overtly against the U.S. If the Israelis think they will, they really are underestimating their opponent.

OTH, if roadside bombings increase in Iraq/Afghanistan, Iran will ensure deniability.

Also, notice that oil has marched back up to 60$/bbl and may very well return to one hundred plus over the next year. Hardly points towards mischief.

More likely, someone has yet to come to grips with the changing strategic balance in the region.

Still, in the back of my mind, I do fear the possibility that there is someone in Israel evil/crazy/stupid enough to try the ultimate game changer and launch a nuke. Seems unlikely, but not zero possibility. I'd love to be reassured otherwise.

Posted by: Lysander | May 26 2009 15:41 utc | 21

Lordy, Parviz -- I hope they're right.

@b -- Israel could perhaps take out a large Iranian ship or airliner. I can't imagine anything else that might conceivably provoke an Iranian response. Beyond that, every other scenario would require U.S. complicity and support for attacks on in-country targets, and i can't imagine that happening.

Pat Lang, however, hypothesized that Saakashvili's recent Georgian violence was the consequence of IDF/Mossad attempts to establish a forward base that would provide access to Iran without needing to overfly Iraq or Turkey. Saakashvili's still in power, so however remote, i presume it's still a possibility. I would hope, however, that we'd hear from SOME news outlet that Georgia is suddenly harboring -- or planning on harboring -- a bunch of Israeli aircraft.

@jdmckay and Parviz:

don't forget the Chinese, who have been involved in explicit three-party discussions with Iran and Russia (and others) about setting up an alternative energy bourse. Remember: Hizb'allah took out that Israeli warship with a Chinese-manufactured, Iran-adapted missile. Back about a year ago, China promised the U.S. that it would stop selling those missles to Iran. But if you were China, and you had the opportunity to eliminate a sizable chunk of a U.S. carrier fleet or two simply by lying, wouldn't you seriously consider it?

It's not as if the U.S. would get in a war with Iran, and then flip itself around and start an immediate follow up with China. Taiwan is a pawn in gambit, and both sides know that if it falls then the world economy will take a huge, perhaps insurmountable hit.

That would work in china's favor, right now. So Russia is something to consider, but in this case their interests are closely, almost inseparably allied with China's.

Posted by: china_hand2 | May 26 2009 15:58 utc | 22

Ogamageddon: you always wake me up from my slumber. There are two questions here: 1) is there a plutocracy -- a single entity that is capable of agreeing on one policy and shoving it down the throats of everyone else? And 2) is it rational?

As to 1), there is some evidence that the western alliance is splitting, and Europe is beginning to cast its fate with Russia -- diffidently, of course, because it is still the junior partner. If true, then by "plutocracy" we now mean just the US branch, not the whole western capitalist block. The US branch is of course the current hegemon, though threatened in that role, so maybe it IS taking matters into its own hands, as Bush bragged. If so, then the second question is: is the policy of attacking Iran "rational"?

Of course from our viewpoint, and the planet's, it's not, but from the owners of a lot of the globe's wealth, and its biggest military, maybe it is.

Back in the Washington think tanks, someone probably still takes the idea of the threat of Muslim civilization seriously, particularly one that potentially controls most of the globe's oil. If you, Mr American plutocrat, truly believe, based on the last 100 years of history, that you are entitled and uniquely capable of ruling the rest of the globe, then what is the loss of tens of million of lives (ours and theirs) in the balance? Isn't that just a temporary cost, weighed against the final goal of heaven on earth under a free market economy?

But isn't this insane? No more so, in principle, than the eradication of native Americans in the 19th century to make way for the Great American Empire.

Posted by: senecal | May 26 2009 17:18 utc | 23

China Hand2

The whole Georgia thing strikes me as a huge canard.

For starters, the Georgian military infrastructure is too compromised and austere to actually host the high-end IDF assets. For seconds, it's actually a long way from Israel to Georgia, and anyone flying that route would have to cross Turkish airspace to get there in the first place, and some planes would require in-flight refuelling to make the trip - not the kind of thing that can be done without being glaringly obvious. For thirds, Georgia doesn't share a border with Iran - you still have to cross either Armenian or Turkish airspace to get there, you have to fly high due to the topography, and it's basically a dead giveaway. For fourths, the IAF can maintain some degree of operational secrecy/security whilst based at home; the moment that they start flying en masse to base at an odd destination the secrecy is gone. For fifths, the worst case scenario is that there's some major political fuck-up whilst the planes are on the ground in a less than stable place like Georgia, and whizz-bang, all of a sudden, your pilots are in jail whilst Russian military intelligence are taking apart your aircraft, nicking the avionics and weaponry, the Pentagon are screaming at you for the worst mil-intel debacle in decades, and it's not as if you can suddenly airlift elite IDF units to nick the stuff back...you get the drift.

The argument about Chinese supply of ASM's to Iran was back in the mid-1990's - the Clinton administration objected to the sale of C-802's, and, supposedly the transfers stopped after the first 125 got delivered. I don't know what price China exacted for that - but needless to say, Iran manufactures its own ASM's and isn't dependent on China for this. The INS Hanit was probably knocked out by an Iranian-manufactured C-701, not a Chinese import.

Posted by: dan | May 26 2009 17:57 utc | 24

Wow, Jerry! (#18), I'm impressed.

Posted by: Parviz | May 26 2009 18:05 utc | 25

Dan, what are the arguments that would prevent even the extremists in the Israeli government from contemplating a nuclear strike, perhaps with a missile of some sort? Just looking for reassurance.

Posted by: Lysander | May 26 2009 18:07 utc | 26

Dan, you beat me to it regarding Georgia, and in spades, though I agree with China_Hand's emphasis on the Russian-Chinese-Iranian axis (of good!) as embodied in the SCO of which Iran is an observer and slated to become a full member soon (The U.S.A.'s application was rejected!).

Georgia would be suicidal to go out on a limb on behalf of Neocon-Zionist interests after having been so humiliated recently.

I'm gratified by the high level of discussion on this theme which is close to my heart. I hope some of you guys make it not just to the CFR but to the White House so we can finally have some peace.

Posted by: Parviz | May 26 2009 18:17 utc | 27

"I hope some of you guys make it not just to the CFR"

Nothing personal, Parviz, but I would rather eat broken glass.

Posted by: Lysander | May 26 2009 18:22 utc | 28

senecal, such calculations don't belong to the 21st century. 60 million allies died in WWII and it was considered worth it. 50,000 Americans died in Vietnam and it was initially considered worth it. In Iraq merely 4000 Americans died and there was a national outcry after just the first 2000 deaths. So it's becoming harder and harder, for either side, to convince people of the need for massive fatalities in pursuit of some hegemonistic cause.

I believe any country, whether Iran, Israel or the U.S., that attacks another will have finally dug its own grave.

Posted by: Parviz | May 26 2009 18:25 utc | 29

Lysander, the only way you can change the establishment is to become part of it.

Posted by: Parviz | May 26 2009 18:26 utc | 30

Parviz, I wish it were that easy but almost invariably, the establishment changes you. The rare exceptions--Ron Paul or Denis Kucinich--are sidelined as kooks.

The best means of change is a well informed public taking to the street, protesting and putting their bodies on the line. That's something lacking in the U.S. and without it...well, a nation of sheep breeds a government of wolves.

The second best is waiting till the establishment collapses under its own weight, an event we may live long enough to witness.

Posted by: Lysander | May 26 2009 18:35 utc | 31

Lysander, you've just proven we poor Iranians and you poor Americans have much in common, the same quandary.

Posted by: Parviz | May 26 2009 18:38 utc | 32

Lysander, you've just proven we poor Iranians and you poor Americans have much in common, the same quandary.

Posted by: Parviz | May 26 2009 18:38 utc | 33

Jeez! Either my messages don't get posted at all for hours or they get posted twice in a flash! I hit the 'post' button only once!

b, any explanation?

Posted by: Parviz | May 26 2009 19:21 utc | 34

Lysander

I don't believe that the Israelis are any more suicidal than the Iranians, so I just don't see that scenario coming to pass under current circumstances. I can't see the Israelis nuking Iran on the basis that it might one day have a nuclear weapon capacity - it would be national suicide for them: fast-track to rogue state status, demographic collapse as all the sensible folks with dual nationality scarper, and a guarantee of the dissolution of many of the bonds that currently tie Israel to the Jewish "diaspora". The Israelis hate the idea that Iran will have a functioning civilian nuclear industry, but they'll live with it.

Realistically, Israel and Iran are too distant from each other to get up close and personal in the military sense, so the "Sampson" option type scenarios that we assume constitute Israel's red lines with regards to their use don't come into play.

I suppose if Iran conducted a very public series of nuclear tests, then the calculus might change, but there's precious little evidence that the Iranians have any intention of doing this; and that's the rub - intentions. In the worst case scenario - ie that Iran intends to develop a weapon and has the means to do so - it will follow the ambiguity path that the Israelis have themselves pioneered.

At any rate, for the Israeli political elite, Iran is a useful distraction from the actual, intractable political position its in with regards to Gaza and the West Bank; and it helps not to have to contemplate the really nasty scenarios that may arise when the pharoah next door snuffs it.

The funny thing in all the propagandising that surrounds the endless crap about Israeli military options is that it enables the US to cast itself as "good cop"; now, I don't for one moment believe that the Iranians really take it seriously, but the "story" that they're currently trying to tell is that if it weren't for us good-ole Yankees keeping them 'ornery Isrealis leashed, well, heck....so, please, please give us a break, give us something...anything....please.

Posted by: dan | May 26 2009 19:55 utc | 35

'There is good reason to believe that the goal [of an Israeli attack on Iran] would be not the direct physical destruction/incapacitation of Iran's nuclear programs but rather, to trigger an all-out US-Iran war in the course of which, Israel's planners hope, the US would do the dirty work in Iran that it is unable to do itself.'

Which is more or less what Israel did for the war on Iraq: that was a war the israelis got the americans to fight for them..thanks to the 5th columnist neocons

Posted by: brian | May 26 2009 22:50 utc | 36

Eh. brian, don't forget Chalabi.

The Iranis had a big part in getting the U.S.to fight that war "for them", too.

Posted by: china_hand2 | May 27 2009 1:18 utc | 37

1) is there a plutocracy -- a single entity that is capable of agreeing on one policy and shoving it down the throats of everyone else?

Good question. I call it Plutocracy, but it goes by many other appropriate titles, i.e. The Ruling Elite, The Oligarchy, etc., etc. I believe it is a slightly fungible club that is made up of the wealthiest of the wealthy, and no, they don't always agree and there are various sub-factions, but they all share in common the protection of their wealth, status and power, and are increasingly trans-national and with waning allegiances to a single nation-state. Who would we put in this group? How about Rupert Murdoch? George Soros? Bill Gates? There are numerous others, and they know who they are, even if we don't.

Your second question is also a good question. I suppose it all depends. Like I said, they may very well be privy to information and data to which we will never have access. If so, they may have a sound rationale, but we'll probably never know. But, if we assume that all there is to know is essentially what we're discussing here, then surely the brilliant minds in the Pentagon and State Department have considered every discernible implication of such a move, and would label such an endeavor as a last resort, late stage strategy. Maybe that's what it would be, if they do indeed pull the trigger. Maybe they know that we are running out of oil and they have a grand plan for the Middle East. To not do anything, according to their calculations, would be more disasterous than doing this. That's an unnerving consideration, but we all know if that was the case, they sure as hell wouldn't let us in on it. For certain, there are individuals who have been postulating the end of oil for quite some time now, and the potential apocalyptical implications of having all of our eggs in that precious resource basket, but it's never been officially discussed in this manner by the "Establishment."

Posted by: Obamageddon | May 27 2009 2:31 utc | 38

@dan, #24:

I guess you missed this and this. The Chinese supply of missiles to Iran -- whether anti-ship or surface-to-air -- isn't just a 1990's thing. It's been ongoing, since the '90's; even in only the last six months to a year, the U.S. has prosecuted Chinese firms for supplying missile technology and materials to Iran.

The Chinese have a deeply vested interest in making sure that Iran doesn't get attacked; first, it bolsters their political image with third-world countries under direct threat of U.S. intervention (Venezuela, Bolivia, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Somalia, etc). Such countries are currently, from a geostrategic standpoint, "in play", and will remain so as long as the U.S. continues to fight these obscene wars it has committed itself to. So long as China can persuade nations that it has the means to give protection from U.S. technology, then those nations will continue to gain interest in what they have to offer.

Second, Iran has a lot of oil, and China needs it. A huge lot of oil goes through the Persian Gulf, and most of the stuff headed to Asia goes through the straits of Hormuz. So long as China has a friendly player sitting on top of those straits, it has a strong tool to keep its supply of oil flowing. Add to that the potential for a new oil bourse, the various Central Asian pipelines that are currently being discussed, and so on, and its clear how important a free, independent, China-friendly Iran is to China.

Third, by keeping Iran from getting attacked, the U.S. actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan will continue to deteriorate. Iran is a strong and canny player in Central Asia, and the longer chaos reigns there, the more it will expand its influence.

Russia, however, doesn't have such strong incentives. Central Asia has historically been a place where Russia and Persia are in competition, so in those regions a strong Iran means waning Russian influence. In contrast, Russia's links back to Europe are much stronger than Iran's, and by exploiting European fears of China, Iran, and a rabidly aggressive NATO, Russia could substantially shift European cooperation towards itself and away from the U.S., and succeed in becoming the main European actor in Central Asia.

That, however, is also a powerful incentive for the Russians to keep a peaceable Iran-China relationship: the one thing they can offer Europe that the U.S. clearly can't is a healthy relationship with the rest of the continent. So while the Russians don't want Iran to realize its full potential, they do need it to remain independent and friendly, and of course they really need its cooperation in fighting U.S. moves to monopolize the region's oil reserves.

So Russian missiles to Iran are a much less likely thing than Chinese missiles to Iran. I expect this pattern of behavior we have seen, recently, to be repeated for at least the next five years: i expect China to consistently step up for Iran wherever Russia balks.

Posted by: china_hand2 | May 27 2009 2:38 utc | 39

Parviz (#29): I didn't mean the idea of attacking Iran and setting off a Middle East, maybe global, war made sense -- only that it might be thinkable (or rational) to some people. The neocon "intellectuals", whether influenced by Israel or not, really did seem to believe they could radically shake things up and get away with it. I presume they are still in their quarters at AEI and such places, repackaging their ideas and hoping to return to power.

Someone here seems to think of the military as a conservative force, a source of reason, aware of its own limitations and unwilling to take on a big project like Iran. I'm not so sure. Most of the military types I've read or seen, are either gung-ho or blandly bureacratic (i.e. unable to think about anything except process.)

Posted by: senecal | May 27 2009 3:49 utc | 40

#39, Great post, China_Hand. Yuur summary of Russia-Iran-China relations is first class.

And for your info, Iran trusts China a lot more than it trusts the Russians who are geographically 'too close' and have repeatedly attacked Iran thoughout Iran's history, most recently occupying Iran during WWII and refusing to withdraw from Iran's Caspian Sea provinces until the West forced them to retreat. Russia has also held Iran hostage over its nuclear programme, continually raising the price and/or refusing to deliver components for the Bushehr Nuclear Plant in what amounted to blackmail. The Iranian technocrats I've met have all, without exception, stated that Russia blew its chance to fill the void left by the U.S. in 1979.

Here's some intersting background info by Ariel Cohen in JCPA:

"The Russian Handicap to U.S. Iran Policy "

Posted by: Parviz | May 27 2009 4:09 utc | 41

Senecal, as others have pointed out on this Blog, if it didn't happen under Bush it certainly won't happen on Obama's watch.

Posted by: Parviz | May 27 2009 4:11 utc | 42

China Hand, do you think China and, perhaps more importantly, Russia have gamed out the possibility that the U.S. might make a 180 turn and decide it needs Iran as a strategic partner to confront the other two? I mean if the U.S. were to accept Iran's nuclear program as an acceptable cost of doing business and tried to woe Iran to its side rather than bully it, it would be a disaster for Russia.

I don't believe the U.S. is close yet to such a conclusion, but maybe in 5-10 years.

Posted by: Lysander | May 27 2009 6:07 utc | 43

Lysander, although your question was addressed to China_Hand2, I take the liberty of answering before he does:

In "The Devil We Know" by ex-CIA operative Robert Baer, a book I have recommended often on this Blog, he argues that the U.S. has already mentally ceded the Persian Gulf to Iran and that it's all over bar the shouting. He says the U.S. is basically trying to withdraw as gracefully as possible, hidinbg the fact that it wants to enter into a new relationship with Iran, precisely for the reasons you mention.

The jockeying for position between Russia, China and Iran means that Iran will eventually be the winner, wringing concessions from all 3. The loser will be Israel. Serves it right for being so arrogant, belligerent and dependent for its continued atrocities on a Big Brother which has had second thoughts.

Posted by: Parviz | May 27 2009 8:22 utc | 44

theres a growing school of thought (everywhere outside the Israel-first brigade) that Israel needs to be kept on a tight leash. From the Persian/Russian/Chinese perspective, this presents an irresistible opportunity to add increased thrust for isolating Israel particularly through USA/EU channels.

And there can be no doubt that the Persians will calculate & conjure a scenario that offers Israel's government the opportunity to over-reach again.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | May 27 2009 8:49 utc | 45

@Lysander:

Short version: what Parviz said.

Longer version:

Yeah, i think both have considered that possibility, but i also think that both believe it to be so remote that they don't worry much over it.

Honestly, I'm not that familiar with Russian thought except insofar as i've been exposed to it through the Chinese and European media (U.S. media treatment of Russia is just shallow and uninformed, AFAIC). As for the Chinese, though, i don't think they feel they have a lot to worry over -- the Chinese simply have so much more to offer the Iranis than the U.S. does, and it is all at a much cheaper price. Each has what the other needs, and they are far enough apart that neither need worry about geostrategic pressures from the other.

I believe what we're seeing, right now,is an attempt by the U.S. to violently enforce its hegemony upon a developing "Greater Asian Market" that is delimited by India, China, Iran, and Russia. It's an absurd move -- by which i mean, so unfathomably stupid that one really cannot believe any nation that calls itself a superpower would even attempt it -- but it is what it is. Clearly, detente with Iran would require a partial or total U.S. retreat from its two current wars; i don't think that's going to happen in the next five years, and if Vietnam is any example, once the U.S. finally does pull out it's going to be another generation or two before it can bring itself to even acknowledge its former objects of conquest (including Iran).

So, while i think each has considered it, both believe (and i agree with them) that the current wars in which the U.S. is fighting have doomed it to an inescapable loss of power and prestige throughout the region. Even if today, this moment, the U.S. turned around and started making buddy-buddy with Iran, the diplomatic pressures it's struggling under -- to the Saudis, the Israelis, and Great Britain -- would seriously undermine its value as a partner to Iran.

Neither China nor Russia comes with any of that baggage, and so long as those two countries can offer meaningful protection against the U.S. military, i can't imagine them ever seeming diminutive in comparison.

Posted by: china_hand2 | May 27 2009 9:31 utc | 46

Agreed, China_Hand. Another problem for the U.S.A. is that the forces of isolationism are gaining the upper hand over unilateralism. This is a fight that has been going on inside the U.S.A. for over two centuries, preventing the U.S. from even entering WWII until its own existence became threatened by the prospect of the Axis powers' controlling the U.S.A.'s mercantile supply routes.

Unilateralism has become more and more discredited with each passing decade (albeit temporarily boosted by Bosnia and Desert Storm), but the current U.S. unilateral mess has swung the momentum over to the other side, and Israel is merely kicking and screaming in a last-ditch effort to prevent the inevitable.

China_Hand: Yes, China has no baggage, unlike the U.S. that has pissed Iran off for 6 decades, and Russia, that has invaded us continually for over 500 years. China is well ahead of the other two in this geostrategic game.

As an aside, if Pakistan got its act together and gained admission to the SCO, and if Iran's own application is approved, a serious regional counterweight to U.S. hegemony would arise and probably deal the final blow to the U.S.'s ambitions in my region, as any further resistance would prove too costly: Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, oil-rich Kazakhstan and the other 3 CIS members would rule the roost. If India and Pakistan finally made peace the Bloc would be the strongest on this planet, an exceptional combination constituting the world's biggest democracy (India), the world's future economic/industrial power (China) and two nations (Russia and Iran) that directly supply 20 % of the globe's energy resources and indirectly control another 20 % (including landlocked Kazakhstan, gas-rich Turkmenistan and the hydrocarbon-rich Caspian Sea).

I believe the U.S. has realized this is a fight it simply cannot win.

Posted by: Parviz | May 27 2009 10:04 utc | 47

Senecal, as others have pointed out on this Blog, if it didn't happen under Bush it certainly won't happen on Obama's watch.

Just because others here have pointed that out doesn't make it so. See the Trojan Horse comments by Debs in the other thread. Obama is a Hologram projected to purvey a perception that belies the actions that are atrributed to his mirage.

Frankly, Obama, the man himself, has no say in the matter, whatsoever. He, and his admin., will take their marching orders. No one here can still seriously think that a U.S. President is anything more than a cheerleader these days.

Parviz, if an attack on Iran happens, it will occur because of a 911 false flag precursor. Let's not forget recent history. With the press owned and staffed by the Ruling Elite, The Masses can be persuaded to condone most anything, including their own demise at their own hands. That's how far we've come.

Posted by: Obamageddon | May 27 2009 13:35 utc | 48

I don't see any Obamageddon -- I mean Armageddon -- scenarios in the making, merely a slow erosion of U.S. power and influence.

Don't forget that the so-called 'Ruling Elite' you mention includes some powerful and practical forces, such as the Pentagon that has already been led down a false road by the Neocons-Zionists and has thrown down the gauntlet to anyone trying to mislead them again, this time into attacking Iran.

Israel can't do this on its own, so that's the end of that scenario.

Posted by: Parviz | May 27 2009 13:50 utc | 49

P.S.: Remember how many decades it took for the U.S. to recover from its misguided war in Vietnam? Well, it hasn't yet recovered from its wars of choice in 3 countries (if we include Pakistan) and certainly doesn't have the stomach for more conflict, more body bags, depletion of tthe Treasury and the global loathing that would follow, not to mention obvious reprisals.

And don't claim Obama has no say in the matter whatsoever. That's naive. Obama isn't George Brainless Bush. Quite the opposite, even if I disagree with his foreign policy decisions so far.

Posted by: Parviz | May 27 2009 13:55 utc | 50

Thanx CH2 and Parviz.

The U.S.' last trump card is its military. When all you have is a hammer...

Posted by: Lysander | May 27 2009 14:11 utc | 51

Parviz, as I've mentioned earlier, I don't believe this is all Israel. Has anyone stopped to think that Israel's being used as much as it's using? If Geopolitical concerns are at play here for secure access to the last remanining vestiges of oil on the planet, Israel would be a mere pawn on the chessboard in such an endeavor. Let's face it, the last 30 years we have witnessed an increasingly "go for broke" mentality in regards to the economy. It's as though the harvest has been sown before the first signs of a cold harsh winter approaches. Positions are being secured. The Bush's in Paraguay. Goldman Sachs in Patagonia. Bill Gates and the gang stowing away seeds, like Noah, to cart back out after the great disaster to come.

Also, if it is just as you say, then no need for us to discuss, is there? Nothing to see here. Move along. Just a lot of bluster to keep things quasi exciting, but nothing more.

Posted by: Obamageddon | May 27 2009 14:30 utc | 52

Parviz, I don't believe Vietnam applies, except in the sense that we have had a War Economy since the 40's. The War Economy started with World War II and has gained strength ever since. As Eisenhower indicated, we now have a firmly entrenched Military Industrial Complex. Wars will continue to be fought to justify military expenditures just as surely as the military will spend up to its budget and beyond, often times on useless bullshit, in order to secure the same, or more budgeted funds the next year. That's rational, and highly immoral, microcosmically, but completely insane macrocosmically.

Posted by: Obamageddon | May 27 2009 14:37 utc | 53

Lysander: "The U.S.' last trump card is its military. When all you have is a hammer..."

...................
I'd hammer in the morning,
I'd hammer in the evening,
all over your land.
I'd hammer out danger
I'd hammer out a warning
I'd hammer out the good, and then impose my own justice
All over your land.

it's the hammer of evil,
it's the star of David,
It's the hammer of hate between

Posted by: Parviz | May 27 2009 14:42 utc | 54

Sorry, I stopped because it was too ridiculous.

Posted by: Parviz | May 27 2009 14:42 utc | 55

Parviz, you're the only Iranian I've known who ever listened to Peter, Paul & Mary. If Ahmadinejad finds out, you're in jail. Flee now, before it's too late.

Posted by: Obamageddon | May 27 2009 15:04 utc | 56

Parviz-

It's good to know you have a sense of humor! I'd never have believed an Iranian would be so silly in public... you might have a second career as an Iranian comdedian.

The few Iranians I've met in person seemed very stoic and not prone to remaking American folk songs.

Post like your 54 make the bar a much livelier place!

Thanks again for all your commentary... you're a valuable human and it's good to have your insight. Now if we could get our "leaders" to play as nice as we do, we might eventually be able to enjoy a rather pleasant Earth.

Posted by: DavidS | May 27 2009 15:42 utc | 57

"Remember how many decades it took for the U.S. to recover from its misguided war in Vietnam? Well, it hasn't yet recovered from its wars of choice in 3 countries (if we include Pakistan) and certainly doesn't have the stomach for more conflict, more body bags, depletion of tthe Treasury and the global loathing that would follow. . " (Parviz)

Parviz, you're making the mistake of thinking that US policy makers are rational the way you are. They're perfectly ok with body bags, depleting the Treasury and global loathing. (They're giving cartloads of money away in broad daylight to their buddies at Citibank right now.) I don't think you appreciate how cynical, amoral, greedy, undemocratic these folks really are.

Posted by: senecal | May 27 2009 16:05 utc | 58

Parviz: BTW, the concept of "recovery" from the Vietnam War doesn't refer to rebuilding the physical resources of the military, but to overcoming public antipathy to the war -- which did take about a generation. There is no comparable public antipathy today, except in scattered outposts of the Left.

Posted by: senecal | May 27 2009 16:13 utc | 59

Obamageddon, thanks for the warning. Actually, Spiritual Leader Khamenei is a split personality as he's a famous lover of poetry, so if I get caught I'll appeal to him.

DavidS, you're right about Iranian stoicism, but that's only in public. In private we're loads of fun, in no way an existential threat to Israel.

Have you ever seen mullahs letting their hair down?

Posted by: Parviz | May 27 2009 16:21 utc | 60

Senecal: "There is no comparable public antipathy today, except in scattered outposts of the Left.

Is that really true? Anyone else care to comment?

Posted by: Parviz | May 27 2009 16:22 utc | 61

yeah, i'd say it's a fairly accurate statement of US attitude. you see, lessons were learned after vietnam: don't show the people pictures of what our wars of choice actually does to people. and it's worked depressingly well.

i think more people than i consciously care to acknowledge DO believe this is a war against Islam, and they're okay with that. we've had decades of popular cultural conditioning to shape and project our domestic angst at being exploited by callous corporate interests, and that, also, has worked depressingly well.

that's why, during the campaign, Obama was able to frame his foreign policy as a shift from the "bad war" in Iraq to the "necessary war" in Afghanistan.

i'm afraid something major will happen this summer, probably around the time domestic momentum toward achieving some kind of actual health care reform is about to reach critical mass. i don't think Joe "zionist" Biden's warning in Seattle about Obama being tested in the first six months was a gaffe.

Nadia Hijab, at CP, has this ominous suggestion:

Israel often launches surprise attacks when the world is on holiday or there is a power vacuum. Most recently, it attacked Gaza just before New Year and a few weeks before Obama took office. Summer holidays are just around the corner, as is a political transition -- the Iranian presidential elections scheduled for June 12. If you'd rather not be around for Armageddon, pray for a short, cool summer.

sounds about right to me.

Posted by: Lizard | May 27 2009 16:41 utc | 62

@Parviz #61 "Is that really true? Anyone else care to comment?"

I can only speak from my experience, but I believe that it's true. There seemed to be an almost active propaganda campaign against anti-war activists and conscientious objectors beginning in the late 1970's and continuing to the present which began with attempts to romanticize the collective plights of VietNam War veterans ("They spit on us at the airport! *sob!*") and is manifested today with bumper-sticker grade slogans such as "Support Our Troops!" or "Cowards Cut and Run!" and "They Hate Us For Our Freedom!" which are used to shout down the less bloodthirsty in the populace. Those few who do speak out against war are painted as simple-minded idealists at best and the word "pacifist" most definitely has a dirty connotation in mainstream America; possibly even eclipsing the word "liberal" as a label which will effectively end a debate.

It seemed like there was a push fairly recently by the left(er) to satirize these behaviours with television shows like "American Dad", but it didn't matter how cartoonish the attitudes were shown, the bloodthirsty embraced the image... much like teenagers emulating the antics of "Beavis and Butthead" about a decade or so ago.

Over-the-top warmongering is far more socially acceptable in American circles than quiet, rational debate. Although the battle will continue into perpetuity, I would say the homocidal and militaristic have overwhelmingly won the battle for hearts and minds in America.

Posted by: Monolycus | May 27 2009 16:52 utc | 63

Parviz,

I agree with you that India is a valuable asset for either Bloc, East or West, not only because India is the largest functioning democracy on Earth, but also because it's full of people with lots of technical know-how, especially when it comes to manipulating bits and bytes. But from what I gather, the Indians despise the Chinese too much to share a Bloc with them. This may explain why the US along with Israel are trying hard to form a Bloc with India.

Posted by: Cynthia | May 27 2009 16:53 utc | 64

Lizard: Too cute, IMHO. But let's wait and see whom Iran elects. I want anyone but Ahmadinejad to win, so I want all my American friends on this Blog to use your contacts at AT&T to swing the Iranian vote the way they fixed the American Idol vote:

How AT&T "Power Texts" helped Kris Allen

Posted by: Parviz | May 27 2009 16:55 utc | 65

Link didn't appear. Here it is in full:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/business/media/27idol.html?em

Posted by: Parviz | May 27 2009 16:55 utc | 66

On the more serious side, your comments (Lizard, Monolycus) are most depressing. Think I'm gonna go get drunk (obviously, down here, with utmost care).

Posted by: Parviz | May 27 2009 16:59 utc | 67

yes parviz, depressing as hell. i remember going to a "support the troops" pro-war rally before the debacle in Iraq kicked-off, and i sat on a park bench holding a sign that said: support the troops with diplomacy, not aggression needless to say i was harassed and threatened more than a few times.

even with the homeless folks i work with, when such discussions occur, i'm always saddened to hear how many of them hate muslims, or immigrants, or any other scapegoated group used to cover the asses of the ruling elite who would love nothing more than the overt enslavement of all of us.

it's difficult to be practical and patient knowing how high and numerous the hurdles are to achieving a more sane society in this country. maybe it's time to start learning some good survival skills. can't let the Mormons be the only ones to make it through the crash, right?

Posted by: Lizard | May 27 2009 17:41 utc | 68

Parviz, Senecal

I'd put it this way - Americans will remain happily supportive of wars as long as they're not personally inconvenienced, the casualties remain within tolerable bounds, there's some sense, however illusory, that progress is being made towards something tangible, and there are no supervening economic issues that bring the guns vs butter debates to the fore.

Americans were, in general, very supportive of the invasion and occupation of Iraq to begin with. Succesful invasion, light fatality count that was sufficient for the purposes of US militaristic martyrology and feel-good ( as long as they weren't you or yours ), refracted narratives of heroic sacrifice. The protracted grind of ever-increasing casualties, the relentless stress on the military, the non-stop stop-lossed extended tours and the over-dependence on reserve and NG components eroded support to the extent that in 2008, given a choice between a standard US militarist with the medals and the back-story to prove it, and a much more "Clintonian" peacenik type, the US electorate chose the latter.

Now I appreciate that for most people Iraq can't be over soon enough, but the reality is that the US is on the way out.

This leaves Afghanistan, where as long as the fatality count remains at 200-300 per year levels, and NATO allies are seen to be sharing a good portion of the burden ( ie 40-50% ), there will be sufficient support to continue for a good long time to come.

As regards additional ventures - fuhgaddaboutit. Anyone who has any doubts about this should canvass a random sample of people with the observation that "$5 per gallon gasoline and the drafting of your firstborn is a price well worth paying for military intervention in Iran".

Disclaimer: I take no responsibility for any of you that are beaten to death by an angry mob armed with shovels.

Lizard

The exact same things were being said back in the 2005-2008 period with regards to the monthly lunar cycle.

Posted by: dan | May 27 2009 17:56 utc | 69

Well, Dan, thanks. I somehow felt the U.S. didn't have the stomach for a new war and was surprised at the cynicism expressed by some.

Posted by: Parviz | May 27 2009 18:28 utc | 70

Lizard-

I'd have to say July 4... if there is gonna be some kookiness I'd pick that day – but I wouldn't bet more than a beer on it.

Parviz- no I've never seen a mullah let his hair down... but I have partied with some catholic priest after their high school girls hoop team took state. I remember stuffing myself with many other drunk journalist, coaches and the collared-types into a mini van, one of the priest was driving, which seemed like a good thing; if you're gonna have a drunk drive you around, might as well be someone who can preform last-rites :)

All I seem to know lately is that I don't know... ya' know?

Posted by: DavidS | May 27 2009 23:01 utc | 71