Here-here Noah.I often wonder why the "pro-peace" crowd ignores any number of military aggressions perpetrated on the watch, with the funding and support, etc...of Iran and other client states. In people like Justin's world, there is no Hezbollah (or if they do exist, they are liberators or protecting the legitimate interests of the Lebanese people) who do not attack Jews worldwide (apparently we have no memory of the bombings in Argentina in the mid-90s). The inherent flaw within such arguments such as Justin's is that it sets up a narrative of western/Israeli aggression, ignoring any historical context or larger socio-political forces that exist. As such, rather, perhaps Israel's war with Hezbollah and Hamas is precisely that; part of a war, which includes action and response. Sadly it seems as if wars rarely end without a clear victor--until one side surrenders or gives up its ultimate goals in waging war.

Seems rude to take shots at Justin when he is no longer here to defend himself.

He was invited.

Do I sense a pattern?

Honestly, now, what is the point of devoting pixels to Justin Raimondo?

He is an unremitting bigot, with pathologies frankly too tiresome and familiar to be worth dissecting. To the extent that anything vaguely related to him is at all interesting, it's the fact that he occasionally associates with media types who are still treated as mainstream, like Pat Buchanan, who espouse unabashedly hateful sentiments about minorities, including Jews.

Why not read Ahmadinejad in his own words? "What have the Zionists done for the American people that the US administration considers itself obliged to blindly support these infamous aggressors? Is it not because they have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors?" [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad%27s_2006_letter_to_the_American_people]

HILARIOUS...they are now talking about a preemptive nuclear strike against Iran's nuclear program if they 'have to' -- yes, let us bomb a country with nukes in order to prevent them from getting nukes. HILARIOUS.

Your obsession with the smelly radical Islamists verges on sexual attraction. Why don't you just move to Iran where you can give blow jobs to all the Islamofacist Jew-haters and their ape-man leader. That would be paradise for an anti-semite like yourself.
You should refrain from using technology created in Israel since you hate "Zionists" so much. This means no more computers or internet for you. You'll just have to watch televison, oh never mind, it's also controlled by the Jews.
Jews are prevalent in practically every field so that means you'll have to move to another palnet. Sounds good to me.

I love it when Jews claim to have invented everything. Are you saying that computers and the internet was invented in Israel? Jews are so pathetic when they try to prove that they are some kind of Master race. Try and give me some evidence here. And I should warn you, I am in the technical field myself, so I can shoot down any bullshit you post.

Why is it so hard to believe that Iran really would nuke Israel?

The ayatollahs made some pretty astonishing comments through the years, some along the lines of 'even if Israel retaliates and kills 20 million Muslims, there's lots more Muslims in the world.' Ahmadinejad is pretty explicit about his desire to wipe Israel off the map.

History has generally taught us that when people, nations, and leaders say they want to destroy the jews, THEY MEAN IT. Even the most minimally aware moron knows that from Nasrallah and Arafat and Yassin and Nasser back to Hitler, Czars, Cossacks, Catholic inquisitors, England and France back when they expelled all their Jews, and on back to the Romans and Philistines, has there been any people who were only joking around with their threats against the Jews?

Iran just wanting regional hegemony is the BEST CASE SCENARIO. The burden of proof is on those who DON'T think Iran would use its nukes on Israel. Iran is an apocalyptic theocracy; while it acts like a 'rational actor' at times, it is far less predictable than we would like to believe. I hate to say it, mr. Pollak, but if you start the discussion at the dangers of Iranian regional hegemony, you are conceding the biggest point to idiots like Mr. Raimondo.

"The burden of proof is on those who DON'T think Iran would use its nukes on Israel."  There's no such thing as proving future events, much less the absence of them.  But I might be able to point out something that would call into question this constant drive to equate Ahamdinejad or Khameini with Adolf Hitler.   

Iran has the largest population of Jews in the mid-east other than Israel--when Khomeini took power and upped the anti-Israel rhetoric, Iranian Jews still suffered far less than did The Ayatollah's political opponents.  From what I understand, Jews are still more free to wear a star of David around their neck to this day than they are to deviate from the regime's modesty standards.  The Islamic Republic has had over 20 years to murder its Jewish population and hasn't yet done so--they've killed more Iraqis than Jews.    

A nuclear theocracy would be horrible and anti-Semitic rhetoric is not to be explained away or taken lightly.  Regime change is necessary and desirable--most Iranians agree.  Iran is well on its way to regional hegemony--one of the Iraq War's huge failures was that it enabled the expansion of Iran's influence.

On the flip side, Iran is a nation of young people held hostage to a paternalistic, radically conservative regime.  The majority isn't complicit in the actions or rhetoric of the regime--they risk life and limb on a regular basis trying to get rid of the mullahs themselves.  Hasty, irresponsible military action borne of alarmism would only show that the West hasn't yet learned it's lesson about Iran.  From the Arabic Islamic invaders to the British and Russians, to the 1953 coup--a sense of hatred for being told how to live and what to do, say and worship has animated Iran's political turbulence--it continues to the day.  If Iranians hold Khomeni in any esteem, its only because they're more content to have one of their own telling them how to live, rather than an outsider.  But mostly they resent their current leadership just as they've resented foreign manipulations for centuries. 

Just because the Iranians have not (yet) killed off their remaining Jews doesn't mean they won't nuke Israel as promised. Muslims, to their credit, seem to be very patient and bide their time. Because they believe Allah will reward them "later", there is no problem wasting their current entire lifetime waiting for a better deal. That's why they haven't done what most rational peoples would have done...cut the best deal possible with Israel and move on. No, they'll wait generations and generations to get their strip of sand "back" (their perception that it was taken) and impoverish millions of lives in refugee "camps" just to prove their point.

Foolish. Make your best deal and let the economies of the entire middle east thrive like Israel's thrives. Fools. Fools.

..'cause nobody likes it save for the few in power who benefit.  Iran could also have accepted a very reasonable and far earlier end to the war with Iraq.  Was that irrational?  Or did it instead obey the oldest law in the book: war is a good tool for supressing dissent at home.  Interestingly enough the clerics say this outright, unlike we would in the West.  They say that they used the war to strengthen the revolution (which plenty of Iranians saw going awry from a very early date).   It was a popular revolution to start, and who knows--it could have been as swift a counter-revolution. 

First off, we're not talking about "Muslims."  We're talking about an ideology embraced by a few Muslims, rejected by most (including most Iranian citizens).  Those adherents of this stupid ideology are actually not generally good at "biding their time," if they were, al-Qaeda would have waited until such time as they had access to a nuclear weapon--so would Saddam--before launching their attacks against the U.S. and Kuwait.  Iran has thus far, however, proven itself the most rational of the fools because it is, again, a flimsy revolution.  In Talibanized Afghanistan, do you think it would have been permitted to widely and openly celebrate non-Islamic holidays?  In Iran it is--because the mullahs know what their limitations are.  Iranians resisted Arabization, and really, they took only so much of Islam.  That's why they stiill speak Persian and why Sufi, mystical, and humanist (even anti-superstitious) variants of Islam are some of the most popular amongst Iranians.  Its a full time job for the Islamofascist regime to repress such a lively, vibrant and strong-willed people.  It's an overtime job, really.  I don't give them too much more time.   Some (like Robert Gates) might say that's wishful thinking on my part.  But then again, what has that fucker ever gotten right about Iran?      

Your comments sound like prior comments that "the street" in Iraq would welcome liberators. If the Iranian people are really held hostage to the few in power, then they need to revolt. Again, after seeing the "non-revolt" in Iraq I don't know if I believe it about Iran either.

Also, I hear very few, if any, "moderate" Muslims speaking out against what you deem as "extremism". Failure to speak out is a tacit endorsement. It's a religion gone awry.

"... doing so would require me to empty my brain of everything I've learned about both the Middle East and foreign policy."

What's wrong? Can't spare two seconds?

Justin still rocks and hopefully can enlighten enough of my fellow citizens to prevent people like you from destroying this country.

Justin Raimondo's latest article is right on the money. AIPAC and it's sycophants in America are one of the largest and most costly problems we have. This treatment of Israel as a "special friend" must end, and end soon. http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11132

Who really gives a flying f*** if Iran wants to bomb ISRAEL??? I DON'T!! Why should MY COUNTRY..and the country most of you BENEDICT ARNOLD pricks are mosting from...bomb Iran when it poses NO THREAT to us??? HEZBOLLAH can't reach us, they want Israel. So again, all this crap means is that you f*ckers want the US to enter another war for Israel. Go to hell. Fight your own damn battles. If you can't take the heat, get the f*ck out of the desert!!!!! Go back to Germany and Austria where you actually came from. Barring Sephardim, none of the so-called "Israeli's" belong in PALESTINE. By the way, while you're talking about how much Muslim's hate Jews and how innocent Jews are, don't forget this gem:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070612/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_muslim_graves;...

Iran supplying the Taliban? Iran (a shi'ite state) supporting sunni insurgents?? This bullsh*t smells worse than the one that got us into Iraq. I guess all you Islam experts fell asleep the day the talked about Shi'ism, Sunni, and Secular Islam, huh??

Knock Raimundo all you want. He's on to something and the rest of America is catching on fast. Hopefully fast enough the pull the plug on this nonsense. Mark my words, in 15 years time Jews will have no one to blame but themselves for the hate people will feel for them again.

Judaism is a racist religion. Thats why they don't preach to non-jews. You have to be racially jewish to be a "real" jew. The jews(who actually practice) believe that they are Gods chosen people so who gives a crap about everybody else!? Surprise, surprise, they also tend to be racist and intolerant of the rights of others. When jewish/white/any supremecists/fundamentalists wield great power then nobody else has a right to do anything but obey or die.

I applaud the muslim/arabs who choose to die but I hope they don't forget the lesson they are learning about the evil of racism and supremecists. The jews seem to have completely forgotten and it makes them look horrible. Really sickening.

mazel tov

Anyone notice how those of Pollack's political persuasion are unable to maker an argument without a litany of lies and distortions? It's quite remarkable that on the 40 anniversary of the six day war, there are those who still believe that Israel was attacked in 1967, when in fact, Israel destroyed Egypt's air force with a shot being fired by the Egyptians. Or that the 1973 war was not almost entirely cause by British and Israeli meddling in the region?

The fact is that Israel has not been invaded since 1948, and ironically, occupied land it stole from it's Arab neighbors.

Then there is the notion of the status quo - the balance of power in the region. In Pollack's opinion, there is nothing wrong with the US having military bases dotted throughout the region, much to the consternation of the local population. One can only imagine what America's reaction would be to China or Russia building military bases in Mexico and Canada.

For Pollack, Iran acting in it’s own interests is an act of destabilising the Middle East. For him, the only acceptable position is for Muslim countries to live by Washington’s and Tel Aviv’s dictates and accept our winner take all control of the region.

The other filter that Pollack uses here it to dismiss the notion that Hamas and Hezbollah are acting in their own interests, insisting that they are merely puppets of Iran. Never mind that neither would exist were it not for Israel’s actions and policies.

Do tell Noah, how would U.S. economy ever be controlled by Ahmadinejad? How is it that you insist that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons when there is not a shred of evidence to support this?

Can you not make even the most basic argument without propping it up with a lie? The only ones who insist that Iran is a threat to the US, or even Israel are those that cannot tolerate the idea of incluential Muslim states in the middle east ME that might challenge Israel's dominance.

If Jews don't give a shit about anyone else, then why do they share the vaccines for polio and smallpox, the theory of relativity, the micro-processor (invented in Israel), and the Beastie Boys with the rest of the world?
People take little pieces of information and stitch them together as the whole story and then get excited about that story. How do you deal with these people? Ask them to consider more facts? Hope they'll recognize a deeper stream of logic and humanitarianism?
But what if that doesn't work, so you kick their ass? And then they call you the bloodthirsty aggressor and go and get better weapons so they can still stick to their crazy theories without getting humiliated?
What then, huh?

"Your comments sound like prior comments that "the street" in Iraq would welcome liberators. If the Iranian people are really held hostage to the few in power, then they need to revolt. Again, after seeing the "non-revolt" in Iraq I don't know if I believe it about Iran either."

The democracy movement has steam and widespread popular support. Demonstrations are common and the regime sees them as a threat (that's why they send thugs out to beat and kill the demonstrators who are so numerous and so passionate that even the brutal tactics can't squash their spirit). It is in a remobilization period right now because many thought that Khatami-styled reform would work (you must understand after witnessing the disaster wrought by 1979, they're not enthused about radical revolution). The anger and discontent with the regime is still there. (The so-called non-revolt in Iraq can also be attributed largely to theose who purposefully blow up mosques and holy sites of other Muslims in a bid to incite hatreds and foreclose on any chance of unity or democracy).

"Also, I hear very few, if any, "moderate" Muslims speaking out against what you deem as 'extremism'. Failure to speak out is a tacit endorsement. It's a religion gone awry."

Look deeper. I couldn't hope to say it better than Jewcy contributor Stephen Suleyman Schwartz in his article 'The Myth of Muslim Silence.'

if US cut off its billion $$ annual aid to Israel, Israel wouldn't last a week in a war with the Arabs. Unforunately, Israel has become a parasite in Americas back. that won't last forever though.
Israel has defied and broken more Un laws than any other nation yet none of its leaders /generals are prosecuted. Nuclear weapons ? Israel has them and nobody should question their existence !! Bomb Lebanon to oblivion , kill innocents and destroy the whole country if you can't defeat Hezbollah, nobody should raise even an eyebtow !!
It's sad that Israel is using a dark page in its history ( Holocaust) to become a truly terrorist nation..

josh, while i agree with you that the persian population is far less extreme than its leadership (a cursory exploration of the farsi blogosphere is enough to demonstrate that) and that the majority of the Iranian people do not want either war with the west or apocalyptic confrontation with israel, how can you think that means the west or israel are safe?

 The regime is theocratic and repressive, with a body count that may already include as many as 200,000 internal opponents and hundreds of thousands more Iraqis (admittedly that was two-way) and via proxy Hezbollah, the mullahs can also count several hundred Argentines, Americans, French, and Israelis as their victims.  They ARE in power, not the moderate population; and some of their statements are VERY alarming, esp wrt nuclear weapons and Israel.  While I do not believe, as of this writing, that they REALLY would bring about MAD, i don't know this for sure, and NEITHER DO YOU.  As I said, minimally rational planners in israel, america, and europe have to accept the possibility that these theocrats mean what they say, and the burden of proof is on those who say they are not dangerous.

mmausner,

Whatever you make of the Iranian regime, you need only look at Iran's track record. How many countries have they invaded ot gone to war with in the last century?

And please, do tell, where do you get the body count of 200,000 internal opponents? Why do you insist that Hezbollah is a proxy of Iran, when it is a 100% Lebanese nationalist movement with no aspirations beyond it's borders? How did the several hundreds Argentines, Americans, French, and Israelis come to be victims of Iran, unless of course, you want to count the 1300 Lebanese lives Israel laid to waste last year.

Their statements alarming? Are you basing this on the incorrectly translated speech made by the Iranian president? What about the grand bargain Iran offered Washington in 2003, where they offered to recognize Israel? Why do alarmists like yourself stake your entire argument on what the Iranian president did not say, while ignoring what they DO say when it is a ground breaking and peaceful offer?

Shingo: What'd you read some Juan Cole and figure you were ready to roll? Leaving aside the supposed contentiousness of said speech, the regime's statements are often alarming au general, not only with regards to Israel. It's naive to imagine that because some Western scholars dispute the translation of one speech that the clerical oligarchy is somehow not worthy of malign or that it hasn't said similar or worse things in far less contentious manner. Unfortunately, the figure of 200,000 internal opponents rings rather low to my knowledge if one takes the long view and begins with the Stalinesque purges of leftists, homosexuals and other 'undesirables' that took place shortly following Khomeni's siezing of power. It's also absurd to imagine that just because Iran hasn't officially invaded another country with an official force that it participates in no hostilities toward its neighbors. The aid and support of proxies and paramilitary groups (as has been shown by the U.S. government in Latin America) can often do the trick. You more readily take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at his word than the citizens of Iran!! A "peaceful offer?" How dare you disgrace the efforts of Iranian dissidents who put their lives on the line to discredit and dismantle the regime. The fact is that just as anti-American sentiment became popular under the oppressive pro-American Shah, pro-American sentiment is now popular under the oppressive anti-American Ayatollah. The so-called 'opening up' was more likely calculated as a propaganda tool with the knowledge that it had no real diplomatic currency. Knowing the Americans would reject it, but knowing that Iranians want an opening of relations with the U.S., it can more accurately be seen as a tool in the mullah's fight against philo-Americanism. You've apologized for, given credit to, and downplayed the atrocities of a severely unpopular totalitarian government.

mmausner: I certainly never meant to say, nor do I believe I ever said anything that would suggest that I believe that the U.S. or Israel is 'safe.' Do I think that Iran will reach lethal nuclear capacity prior to major internal changes in the country? That I'm more skeptical about.

Plus, I'll go out on a limb and reveal my own personal sympathy with the dominant Iranian dissident polity. Whereas Michel Foucault idiotically looked to the Iranian revolution as a new 'political spirituality,' I now see the emergence of a movement with which I find it very easy to identify. I'd go so far as to say it may be one of the most exciting political moments of the post-Cold War era. Having tasted a pungent cocktail of idealistic Marxism and Islamism, living with the ruin that a closed society inflicts, bearing the recent memory that idealisms can fast become totalitarianisms, having been once virulently anti-American but now aware of certain positive elements about American life and aware that anti-Americanism is its own brand of chauvinism, I do not want to see this movement lose.

The mere fact that America is loudly offering aid to dissidents--against their express warnings--has had a crushing enough effect. It has given the regime an excuse to crack down. Military intervention from Israel or the U.S. would far more severely ruin things, and it could not garauntee the eradication of all of Iran's nuclear facilities. It would punish the people and set back the movement in the service of a small or non-victory for 'security.' If anybody hopes for a democratic Middle East, where democracy is a product of the civil society's demand for it and understanding of how it will function, how can they possibly afford to treat this lighty or clumsily? While supporting dictators in the Middle East proved disastrous, bombing the shit out of them hasn't proven to be a brilliant tactic either. There exists a chance for something remarakable to happen in Iran, something that could re-shape the Middle East.

I wouldn't put the burden of proof on those who say the current regime isn't dangerous--I'd barely give them the time of day. Of course it's dangerous. But let's be honest--Israel has a track record of taking chest-puffing populist Middle Eastern leaders at their chest-puffing and taking its response further than necessary. Nobody can study the political climate of the late 1960s and fail to see that Nasser was like a tough guy on a playground, with all the other kids saying he wasn't so tough. As the celebrity figurehead of the Pan-Arabist movement, he was playing a popularity game more so than he was on the march to Jerusalem. Does that excuse the way he played out those games? No. But does it mean that the way another side plays popularity games can and has been manipulated to effect by those with particular interests? I think it does, and I hope this story plays out differently.

Hey idiot, the smallpox vaccine was invented by Edward Jenner, an English doctor, not a Jew. Why do Jews use the inventions of Western Civilization? The microprocessor was not invented in Israel, you liar, and Einstein was not the only one who did research on the theory of realtivity. Are all Jews such liars?

Josh,

The quote attributed to Ahmadinejad was not even his own, but a statement he quoted from Khomeini. It doesn’t need a Juan Cole explanation to figure out that no mention was made of Israel or wiping anyone off the map, so it is only contentious in the minds of those that enjoy watching the antagonism towards Iran exacerbated. Even so, you are comparing the translation offered by someone who speaks Farsi with the MSM, the same MSM who doesn’t see the necessity to distinguish between a domestic nuclear program and nuclear warheads or bother to ask if Iraq really was a threat.

FYI, the statement from Ahmadinejad was:

“The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”

I do not condone this statement, but let's at least get things correct for the record shall we?

If you want to pin your argument onto inflammatory rhetoric, knock yourself out. We could go at this for days slugging it out, given the volume of inflammatory rhetoric that has been verbalized by Zionist, Israeli and US leaders.

I am happy to accept your 200,000 figure, just so long as you are able to produce a link to substantiate it. Sadly, Zionist apologists are usually shy when it comes to sharing credible sources. Bandying about numbers with lot’s of zeros makes for a colorful narrative, but as we have seen with the predictions about what would be found in mass graves in Kosovo, the reality usually comes up significantly short. For a country that is supposed to be so rabidly anti-Semitic, it’s remarkable how few Jews were killed during the 1979 revolution, and that 25,000 Iranian Jews remain and refuse to leave.

I have to laugh at the indignation by Iran haters, that while the US occupies a country on the other side of the planet and operates over 7800 military bases, that Iran has no business meddling in the affairs of countries with which it share it’s borders. Every country does it, especially the US, Britain, Israel and Saudi Arabia, but as you pointed out, when the protagonist are white, it’s often considered a worthy and noble cause.

Yes the 2003 memo was a peaceful offer. It not only fulfilled all the demands made on Iran by the US and Israel today, it exceeded than, and it proceeded the ascendancy of Ahmadinejad, so one need not take his word for it when you have Flynt Leverit and Brent Scowcroft from State Department to confirm that such an offer was made.

I wish dissidents of the Iranian regime every success, but you’ll excuse my cynicism regarding so called dissident movement after the farce that was Chalabi and the IRC, not to mention the US utilizing the Marxist MEK (listed by the state department as a terrorist organization) and Sunni Jihadist groups in Pakistan, whom would otherwise be being bombed right now if they did not share a common hatred of the Iranian mullahs with Washington.

I don’t know what plant you’ve been residing on for the past six year, but Anti American sentiment is spreading like never before not only throughout the Middle East, but the entire planet, and you are deluded if you believe this is the world of Iran’s Ayatollahs. In fact, it has been the lunacy of the Bush regimes foreign policy that has not only empowered the Mullahs, but which help lift Ahmadinejad to political success. His star would have fallen long ago were it not for the constant barrage of threats emanating from Washington and Israel.

Perhaps your tarot cards may help you divine what the Mullahs were really thinking when they sent the Memo to Washington, but the only way we would even have known would have been to explore it rather than close the door on it a la Cheney. I am not apologizing for the Iranian leadership, but it’s Orwellian to hear you speak to atrocities, unpopularity and totalitarianism while ignoring the elephant in the room that was the Shah.

What you fail to appreciate is that the revolution you thirst for is going to be the first victim of US/Israeli aggression against Iran and that tensions right now are stifling such efforts. When and if the US bombs Iran, their weapons will not distinguish between the Mullahs and those that seek to overthrow the theocracy. Surely the experience of Iraq has opened your eyes to this fact. It was overt US interference in Iran that led to the decent of Iran into Islamic fundamentalism the first time. What makes you believe it will produce a different outcome the second time?

If indeed something remarkable is to happen in Iran, it needs to happen from the inside out. But even if all goes to plan, do you really believe the US will tolerate a truly independent a sovereign Iranian government sitting on all that oil? Take a look at Allende, Arbenz, Torrijos, Chavez, and Aristide and if you don’t see a pattern, then get back to me - I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I’d like to sell you.

"you are comparing the translation offered by someone who speaks Farsi with the MSM"

I spend a great deal of time around fluent speakers of Farsi. I don't need Juan Cole or the MSM to translate anything for me. I think neither is worth paying too close attention as far as this issue is concerned. And besides, I specifically said that leaving that letter aside, the same point can be made. Have a look at this billboard in Tehran.

"If you want to pin your argument onto inflammatory rhetoric, knock yourself out. We could go at this for days slugging it out, given the volume of inflammatory rhetoric that has been verbalized by Zionist, Israeli and US leaders."

Do you think for a moment I'd actually disagree with the assertion that U.S. and Israeli leaders are guilty of inflammatory rhetoric?

"I am happy to accept your 200,000 figure, just so long as you are able to produce a link to substantiate it."

Go here. Grab a calculator and set aside some time.

"Sadly, Zionist apologists are usually shy when it comes to sharing credible sources."

Pray tell--how'ave you got me pegged as a "Zionist apologist?" I bet I could give you lessons in all that's wrong with Zionism.

"Bandying about numbers with lot’s of zeros makes for a colorful narrative, but as we have seen with the predictions about what would be found in mass graves in Kosovo, the reality usually comes up significantly short."

So the body counts weren't high enough to move you? What is this a fucking contest?

"For a country that is supposed to be so rabidly anti-Semitic, it’s remarkable how few Jews were killed during the 1979 revolution, and that 25,000 Iranian Jews remain and refuse to leave."

I've made this point already.

"I have to laugh at the indignation by Iran haters, that while the US occupies a country on the other side of the planet and operates over 7800 military bases, that Iran has no business meddling in the affairs of countries with which it share it’s borders. Every country does it, especially the US, Britain, Israel and Saudi Arabia, but as you pointed out, when the protagonist are white, it’s often considered a worthy and noble cause."

So you believe there more white people than Muslims fighting for survival and democracy in the Middle East? I think the Kurdish peshmerga fighters, whose opinion on Saddam Hussein neither rises nor sets with the actions of United States are an excellent example of noble non-white protagonists. A liberal democratic country deposing a dictator (an agressor against Iran, at that) is quite a different thing from the nuclear armament of a Stalinistic Islamist theocracy that murders gays, lesbians, and political oppositionists in the thousands yearly. Oh and by the way, the occupation of Iraq is carrying on under a U.N. mandate. Not to say it isn't a distaster, but yeah, while invasion wasn't approved by the U.N., the occupation is. Funny, since the invasion was a success and the occupation a disaster.

"Yes the 2003 memo was a peaceful offer. It not only fulfilled all the demands made on Iran by the US and Israel today, it exceeded than, and it proceeded the ascendancy of Ahmadinejad, so one need not take his word for it when you have Flynt Leverit and Brent Scowcroft from State Department to confirm that such an offer was made."

Brent Scowcroft is a Kissingerian scumbag and I don't give two fucks what tripe spills out of his mouth.

"I wish dissidents of the Iranian regime every success, but you’ll excuse my cynicism regarding so called dissident movement after the farce that was Chalabi and the IRC, not to mention the US utilizing the Marxist MEK (listed by the state department as a terrorist organization) and Sunni Jihadist groups in Pakistan, whom would otherwise be being bombed right now if they did not share a common hatred of the Iranian mullahs with Washington."

I'll excuse your cynicism? Not likely. The U.S. should keep it's paws out of it, let the people make changes and those who genuinely wish the dissidents success can't afford to also be cynical.

"I don’t know what plant you’ve been residing on for the past six year, but Anti American sentiment is spreading like never before not only throughout the Middle East, but the entire planet"

Yes, by now it's the most fashionable prejudice of so-called progressives. I myself don't find prejudice becoming. Sure American blundering has struck a blow to the tide of pro-Americanism in Iran, but if you think Iranians are as sad to see Saddam gone as the Western left is, I think you're very much mistaken. They have, how shall we say, not too fond memories Saddam's Iraq.

"and you are deluded if you believe this is the world of Iran’s Ayatollahs. In fact, it has been the lunacy of the Bush regimes foreign policy that has not only empowered the Mullahs, but which help lift Ahmadinejad to political success. His star would have fallen long ago were it not for the constant barrage of threats emanating from Washington and Israel."

Ahamdenijad's ascendancy was due to his populism and to his promises to improve the economy. Iranians care about a militant U.S. to be sure--but they care more about jobs.

"Perhaps your tarot cards may help you divine"

Never, ever again mention my name and tarot cards in the same breath.

"what the Mullahs were really thinking when they sent the Memo to Washington, but the only way we would even have known would have been to explore it rather than close the door on it a la Cheney."

I've a better idea. No Cheney, no mullahs. 'Mullah,' in case you didn't know, is a common term among the Iranian citizenry and is understood most generally to be a derogatory term.

"I am not apologizing for the Iranian leadership"

Yes, you are.

"but it’s Orwellian to hear you speak to atrocities, unpopularity and totalitarianism while ignoring the elephant in the room that was the Shah."

Orwell would be more offended to hear you say that because of the U.S.-supported Shah's crimes it makes no sense to talk of the Stalinist mullahs' crimes. Or that, because the U.S. and Israel aren't peaceful isolationists, we shouldn't condemn groups that blow up Israeli nursing homes.

"What you fail to appreciate is that the revolution you thirst for is going to be the first victim of US/Israeli aggression against Iran and that tensions right now are stifling such efforts."

I believe I'm warning against precisely that. The second the U.S. makes a single move, I'll be ready to get out in the streets and turn over some cars, whatever it takes to loudly oppose it.

"When and if the US bombs Iran, their weapons will not distinguish between the Mullahs and those that seek to overthrow the theocracy."

That's why I adamantly oppose dropping a single bomb on Iran.

"Surely the experience of Iraq has opened your eyes to this fact."

The experience of Iraq has opened my eyes to the fact that letting countries rot under dictatorships breeds extremism that can become so lethal even a major superpower can't stamp it out. The U.S. doesn't purposefully blow up marketplaces or the minarets of mosques.

"It was overt US interference in Iran that led to the decent of Iran into Islamic fundamentalism the first time. What makes you believe it will produce a different outcome the second time?"

Nothing makes me believe it would--that's why I don't advocate the U.S. interfering.

"If indeed something remarkable is to happen in Iran, it needs to happen from the inside out."

Exactly.

"But even if all goes to plan, do you really believe the US will tolerate a truly independent a sovereign Iranian government sitting on all that oil?"

If they don't tolerate an independent, sovereign liberal democracy in Iran because of oil interests, then we've got a major problem. That remains to be seen.

"Take a look at Allende, Arbenz, Torrijos, Chavez, and Aristide and if you don’t see a pattern, then get back to me - I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I’d like to sell you."

Of course I see a pattern--they're just about all handled according to the foreign policy philosophy favored by Mr. Scowcroft. While Scowcroft was Condoleeza Rice's mentor, she's not a cynical realist like he is. The demonized Paul Wolfowitz is practically his opposite. So whattaya want? You want foreign policy architects that try in spite of daily brutal sobotage to establish unified democracies or do you want a world of Husseins, Asads, Shahs, and Pinochets? Or because I've just pointed out this uncomfortable confluence of facts, do you wanna just take the easy route and call me an apologist for the crimes of the Bush administration? My guess is (and I'd love to be proven wrong) that you'll more likely tell me that because I say the real enemies in Iraq and Iran are violent Islamists and that defeating them is a service to the majority of civilized Iranians and Iraqis, that I must somehow be flippant about Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, or Iraqi civilians who have suffered at the hands of U.S. forces. But as I said I'd love to be proven wrong. I'd love for just one instant somebody to come along and understand that you can oppose the crimes committed by your own country as well as those of others. I'd love if somebody actually could grasp that pointing out the crimes of one's own country should not be a means of lessening the crimes of others. Or maybe even that the goal of liberating people by military force, while contentious and worthy of debate, can be seen as morally superior to the goal of establishing or maintaining murderous, illiberal regimes.

josh, i agree wholeheartedly that the Iranian opposition is a beacon of hope to the world, and has its own well-developed set of dialogues and blogging, civil disobedience and deeply-thought out critique, and in general a highly literate and conscious potential for civil society.

 That being said, it is simply irrelevant to Israel's or America's planning with respect to the dangers of a nuclear Iran (or even to the dangers the regime already poses).  As long as the current regime is in power, funding destabilizing terror groups in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and elsewhere, they are an active threat to the world.  The presence of internal opposition is neither here nor there; opposition to Hitler in Germany was at least as strong if not stronger, but against a totalitarian regime, of negligible impact.  We have to take as hard a line as possible, up to and including military measures, and just hope and pray that the opposition wins out before we all wind up with a war none of us want (but which may truly be necessary).

But Josh, as far as Israel 'overreacting' to chest-thumping Arab dictators, archives have clearly, abundantly shown beyond any shadow of a doubt that in 1967 Egypt, Jordan and Syria (and all accompanying armies) DID intend to destroy Israel and throw it into the sea, killing most Jews; that Egypt nearly launched operation 'dawn' a few days before June 5, which because of Israel's lack of defensible borders might have done a lot more damage than one wants to believe; in short, that Israel WAS threatened with real destruction.  Nasser's incompetence may have helped save Israel, but the intention of all the Arabs to utterly destroy Israel, and the means of their 5-to-1 advantage in soldiers and comparable or superior armament (in '67, Israel only had obsolete French stuff), attest to the fact that '67 really was a war for Israel's survival itself and nothing less.  No serious historian disputes this anymore, only Arab apologists (which I don't think you are, any more than you are a zionist apologist). 

Shingo, if Hezbollah has no aspirations beyond its borders, why did it cross Israel's border unprovoked to kidnap Israeli soldiers?  Why does it proclaim the 'liberation of Palestine' as one of its goals?  Why did Hezbollah committ two horrible terror bombings in Argentina (with Iranian collaboration) in the 1980s?  Can you answer these questions, or are you just a ranting sock?

Josh,

“Have a look at this billboard in Tehran.”

Which is supposed to tell us what exatly? The fact that Nasrallah’s popularity sky rocketed after the 2006 war is no secret and nor is it a mystery that Iran would exploit his image for their own propaganda.

“Go here. Grab a calculator and set aside some time. “

Oh my, you are reaching. Could you be any more obvious? A little poking around this web site turns out a who’s who of usual suspects.

“National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a broad coalition of democratic Iranian organizations, groups and personalities, was founded in 1981 in Tehran upon the initiative of Massoud Rajavi, the Leader of the Iranian Resistance.”

Massoud Rajavi of course is the deranged leader of the Marxist Cult, the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, which has been listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organization. The great irony here is that the one terrorist organization that was supporting has turned out to be the new darlings of the neocons and the AEI. This is Chalabi and his IRC on steroids. You really need to get out more.

“So the body counts weren't high enough to move you? What is this a fucking contest?”

How about you provide some numbers by Amnesty international or the UN, rather than some BS from a lunatic cult than that paradoxically pretends to be in favor of a democratic Iran while simultaneously claiming the mantle of Ian’s rightful leadership? And for someone who laments the bombing of nursing homes in Israel, you seem to have a found a selective tolerance to a group that is setting of bombs in Iran in the name of “democratic” revolution that will put them in power.

“Oh and by the way, the occupation of Iraq is carrying on under a U.N. mandate.”

Oh please, try a little less hard to soil yourself in public. Firstly, what U.N. mandate called for the invasion and occupation to begin with? What UN mandate declared that US occupation troops are not subject to Iraq’s laws? What UN mandate gives the US the right to build US military bases in Iraq, build walls around Iraqi cities, incarcerate over 10 thousand Iraqis or have the liked of Malaki getting on the phone to Washington to ask them if they have plans to overthrow him?

“Brent Scowcroft is a Kissingerian scumbag and I don't give two fucks what tripe spills out of his mouth.”

Nice sidestep. Scowcroft like Leveret, simply testified to the existence of the offer.

“Yes, by now it's the most fashionable prejudice of so-called progressives. I myself don't find prejudice becoming.”

That’s like argue that heroin addiction would not be a problem is society simply learned to embrace it.

I never said that Iranians were sad to see Saddam gone. Not only is it understandable given that an enemy of Iran is now gone, but Iran’s prestige and influence throughout the Middle East has increased by an order of magnitude. Your ad hominem attack on the let is pretty juvenile as it amounts to witnessing the use of a shotgun to remove the flies off the back of a horse and accusing those who mourn the death of the horse as empathy for flies.

“Ahamdenijad's ascendancy was due to his populism and to his promises to improve the economy. Iranians care about a militant U.S. to be sure--but they care more about jobs.”

True, and in spite of the fact that he has failed miserably to fulfill these promises, US threats and bluster towards Iran has served as a life preserves for him.

“Orwell would be more offended to hear you say that because of the U.S.-supported Shah's crimes it makes no sense to talk of the Stalinist mullahs' crimes. Or that, because the U.S. and Israel aren't peaceful isolationists, we shouldn't condemn groups that blow up Israeli nursing homes.”

You are addicted to seeing world in binary terms and quote the conspiracy theorist. Once again you dismiss the possibility that anyone in the region is acting on behalf of their own inertest, but insisting that everyone is either Western or Stalinist proxy.

"The experience of Iraq has opened my eyes to the fact that letting countries rot under dictatorships breeds extremism that can become so lethal even a major superpower can't stamp it out. The U.S. doesn't purposefully blow up marketplaces or the minarets of mosques.”

Thee is no such thing as “letting countries rot under dictatorships”. By their very nature, dictators can only exist so long as they have a lifeline from a benefactor. Not one of the dictator in the Middle East would survive beyond a few months if the West were to cut off the supply of protection, arms and aid.

I am always amazed at how people can somehow accept that starting a war will guarantee civilian casualties while simultaneously insist that civilian causalities are unintended.

“If they don't tolerate an independent, sovereign liberal democracy in Iran because of oil interests, then we've got a major problem. That remains to be seen.”

We’re on the same page, but think about it. What oil producing nation apart from Venezuela and Iran, does not take their orders from Washington?

You seem to believe that the neocons represent a departure from the foreign policies of the likes of Scowcroft. While they may disagree about the execution, they are essentially two faces of the same backside. The Bush doctrine is not new, it just happens to be traditional US foreign policy without the sophistication.

Like I said earlier, the Husseins, Shahs, and Pinochets of this world would not exist were it not for the support of the US in one form or another. As for Asada, he’s only on the radar now because like Saddam, he has outlived his usefulness.

The uncomfortable confluence of facts, as you call them, cut both ways. The US foreign policy did not begin on 911, but has been a work in progress for the better part of the past century.

You still cling to the notion that the Islamists must be defeating, while failing to appreciate that this approach is simply pouring gasoline on a fire. Just the dictators of the ME, the Islamists only exist so long as they are fueled by the hatred born of Western interference in the region. If you want the Islamists to go away, the way to do it is to let them burn themselves out. Before 911, Bin Laden was an obscure figure in the region. Today, he has become almost mainstream by virtue of the fact that he has tapped into the cesspool of resentment, injustice and hatred created by the Iraq invasion. Without such sentiments, he would still be obscure, if not entirely irrelevant.

“Or maybe even that the goal of liberating people by military force, while contentious and worthy of debate, can be seen as morally superior to the goal of establishing or maintaining murderous, illiberal regimes.”

How on earth can it be? Who apart fro the 24 percenters still believes that Iraq had anything to do with liberating people by military force? Can you not see that you are simply advocating a “cure” that will introduce side effects that are even worse than the problem? It would be wonderful for the Iranian population to be living in a free and open democracy, but in all honesty, do you really believe that their current situation is worse than the realities facing the people of Iraq today?

You seem to fancy yourself as a realist, but from what I can see, you are simply ignoring the percentages.

mmausner

A perfect example of w post from someone who long ago, gave up their ability to think for themselves.

“But Josh, as far as Israel 'overreacting' to chest-thumping Arab dictators, archives have clearly, abundantly shown beyond any shadow of a doubt that in 1967 Egypt, Jordan and Syria (and all accompanying armies) DID intend to destroy Israel and throw it into the sea, killing most Jews”

On the contrary. On the 40th anniversary of the conflict, what has come to light I the fact that the six day was very much a war of choice.

The overwhelming consensus is that in spite of the bluster, the Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, never intended to attack Israel and that from as early as 1954, the Israelis were trying desperately to provoke a war with Nasser. Nasser didn't take the bait and in 1956 they launched an invasion with the British and the French.

The conquering of the West Bank, the Sinai, and the Golan, were not the primary goal. The primary goal was to deal a deathblow to Arab nationalism, which was achieved by crushing Nasser. As with all wars, the Israeli leadership saw to it that the population of Israel was sufficiently fearful with many being led to believe they were facing a second holocaust.

“Shingo, if Hezbollah has no aspirations beyond its borders, why did it cross Israel's border unprovoked to kidnap Israeli soldiers?”

This is beyond delusional. The jury is still lout as to where this skirmish took place, given that the Israelis were never able to recover the destroyed tanks (Which would have been straightforward had ti taken place in Israeli territory).

Nonetheless, Israel to this day still controls the Shabba farms, which belongs to Lebanon, and yet an incursion into Israel (if indeed that is what happened) is regarded as an act of war? Uneblievable!!

Furthermore, the “kinap” of the Israeli soldiers was hardly an isolated case. Cross border skirmishes have been taking place since 2000, with Israel killing Lebanese civilians with rocket attacks into Lebanese territory. It’s common knowledge that Israel has this war n the planning for many moths and merely seized on this event as an opportunity to carry out their plans.

Oh and I noticed you made no mention of the regular incursions by Israel into Gaza to “kidnap” Palestinian leaders. Does this mean Israel intends to reoccupy Gaza?

“Why does it proclaim the 'liberation of Palestine' as one of its goals?”
According to whom?

“Why did Hezbollah committ two horrible terror bombings in Argentina (with Iranian collaboration) in the 1980s?”

Terror bombing as oppose dot what, lawful Israeli style bombings like the killing of 1300 Lebanese civilians?

What proof of there of that Hezbollah and Iran had anything to do with the bombings in Argentina ? Oh that’s right, someone in the US State department thinks they did it, so that’s proof enough right?

Hezbollah denied any involvement. The investigation under the Nestor Kirchner's government into the event was deemed a national disgrace, with reports that the governments had covered up facts. Now why would they do that if the culprits were Hezbollah?

And then in subsequent investigations, who popped up but so called “witnesses” who turned out to the members of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK,) which is designated as a terrorist organization by the US and sworn enemy of Iran’s leadership?

“Can you answer these questions, or are you just a ranting sock?”

No I can answer them with ease. Now of you go and do some real research into the1967 war. Your knowledge is extremely poor and you have much work to do.

shingo, read 'six days of war', by michael oren, a great historian and one i know personally, who was the first historian to gain access to both Israeli gov't and military archives, and much of the Arab, American, and soviet archives of the time.  There isn't even the slightest shred of doubt.  If you want to continue to rant, you're welcome, but history isn't on your side, and i'll put you on the equivalent of 'ignore.'

josh, good thread on the orwellian doublespeak of criticism of israel and america.  i don't at the moment believe that israel should attack or invade iran, and i would need a lot more information before i could make a truly informed decision about it.  (by contrast, i think Israel should actively besiege Gaza right now.)

mmausner,

Thanks for the advice, but your ignorance has been overwhelmingly demonstrated.

Does Oren's book mention anything about details in declassified documents from the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas, that indicate that top officials in the Johnson administration — including Johnson’s most pro-Israeli Cabinet members — did not believe war between Israel and its neighbors was necessary or inevitable, at least until the final hour?

In these documents, Israel emerges as a vastly superior military power, its opponents far weaker than the menacing threat Israel portrayed, and war itself something that Nasser, for all his saber-rattling, tried to avoid until the moment his air force went up in smoke. The diplomatic role of Nasser’s vice president, who was poised to travel to Washington in an effort to resolve the crisis, has received little attention from historians, sop I would not be surprised on Oren is one of them. The documents sharpen a recurring theme in the history of the Israeli-Arab wars, and especially of their telling in the West: From the war of 1948 to the 2007 conflict in Gaza, Israel is often miscast as the vulnerable David in a hostile sea of Arab Goliaths.

Nicholas Katzenbach, U.S. undersecretary of state at the time, recalled: “The intelligence was absolutely flat on the fact that the Israelis … could wipe out the Arabs in no time at all.”

"by contrast, i think Israel should actively besiege Gaza right now."

As opposed to what they have been doing for 40 years?

I am shocked that this site would "dialog" with an anti-semite...oh sorry, Anti-Zionist such as Raimondo. What is it about Leftist Jews that makes them want to dialog with people who hate them...oh I am sure some his best friends are Jews.
Very sad

Judaism is not a racist religion. Period. Your ignorance is beyond belief. Jewish people teach their children to care about the world, the whole world. That is why many Jews people work in occupations such as healthcare and human services. You are misinformed person who needs to read up on the realities of this religion. It is a compassionate religion. There are many converts. It is really sad you are full of such hate and ignorance. I truly feel sorry for you.