The development of a nuclear weapon by Iran is the great, glowing, neon "red line" of American politics today, one that every single major player in the American power structure says cannot be crossed. An ironclad bipartisan consensus has formed on the issue: Iran will not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. Period. End of discussion. "All options are on the table" to prevent this from happening, George Bush has repeatedly declared, with John McCain singing along. Meanwhile, Barack Obama has hammered home the point even more forcefully: "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon -- everything."
"Everything" in a president's power includes the largest military machine in human history and the largest nuclear arsenal on earth, so this is not exactly an idle boast. In fact, the American bipartisan political consensus on Iran amounts to precisely this: putting a gun to someone's head and saying, "If you don't do what I want, I'm going to blow your goddamn brains out."
This Bush-McCain-Obama line was underscored this week by one of Obama's top foreign policy advisers, Anthony Lake, who said "the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is the biggest threat facing the world," the Financial Times reports.
Think of that: the biggest threat facing the world. Bigger than global climate change. Bigger than poverty and disease. Bigger than growing conflicts over shrinking resources. Bigger than terrorism (which was the last greatest biggest threat facing the world). Bigger than organized crime. Bigger than the Terror War operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and Somalia, which continue to spawn so much death, ruin, extremism and economic turmoil. Bigger than all of these -- and all other threats facing the world -- is the prospect that Iran might, in Lake's words, "get on the edge of developing a nuclear weapon."
This is certainly a remarkable state of affairs, and one which provokes a very simple question: Why? Why is an Iranian bomb (or even the prospect of Iran "getting on the edge" of having one) the ultimate danger facing the world today -- a prospect so dire, so infinitely evil that even the most "progressive" operators in the power structure insist they would be willing to use nuclear weapons to stop it?
Nothing in the modern affairs of nations has been more exhaustively analyzed and debated than the utility and dangers of nuclear weapons, and yet the dangers posed by Iran with a bomb have been barely discussed. They are treated as a given. The core idea is that Iran cannot be trusted because the country is run by religious fanatics crazy enough to use a bomb if they had one. This is not the first time such arguments have been made. Some Americans, including Air Force generals, believed in the late 1940s that a pre-emptive war against the Soviet Union was justified by the peril of Moscow with a bomb. Twenty years later the Russians, in their turn, were so alarmed by the prospect of Beijing with a bomb that they quietly proposed to the Americans a joint effort to destroy the Chinese nuclear development effort with a pre-emptive attack.
The world's experience with nuclear weapons to date has shown that nuclear powers do not use them, and they seriously threaten to use them only to deter attack. Britain, France, Russia, China, Israel, South Africa, India, Pakistan, and North Korea have all acquired nuclear weapons in spite of international opposition. None has behaved recklessly with its new power. What changes is that nuclear powers have to be treated differently; in particular they cannot be casually threatened....
We must demur slightly from this excellent analysis to note that one nuclear power has in fact used its nuclear weapons: the United States. Back to Powers:
So set aside the question of whether Iran wants an enrichment program to make bomb-grade material or only for the production of electricity... What we ought to ask, then, is why Iran wants its own production capacity for making the stuff of bombs?
What US officials say, when they say anything at all, is that Tehran wants a bomb in order to dominate the Persian Gulf region and to threaten its neighbors, especially Israel. This is a misreading of how other nuclear powers have made use of their weapons. As tools of coercive diplomacy nuclear weapons are almost entirely useless, but they are extremely effective in blocking large-scale or regime-threatening attack. There is no evidence that Iran has a different motive, and plenty of reason for Iran to fear that attack is a real possibility.
Indeed, the Bush administration, far from trying to quiet Iran's fears, makes a point of confirming them every few months. These threats are not limited to words, but are supported with practical steps....
The seriousness of American threats is confirmed by the fact that no significant national leader in the United States has ever disowned or objected to them in clear, vigorous, principled language. It is as if the whole country listens to the administration's threats with breath held, wondering if Bush and Cheney really mean to do as they say, and in effect leaving the decision entirely to them. Americans may count on the President to think twice, but why would leaders in Tehran, responsible for the lives of 70 million citizens, want to depend on President Bush's restraint for their survival and safety? Bush has a history. On his own authority, without the sanction of any international body, he attacked Iraq five years ago and precipitated a bloody chain of events that shows no sign of ending. It would be natural, indeed inevitable, for any government in Tehran, seeing what has happened next door, to ask what could save Iran from a similar fate. An answer is not far to seek: nuclear weapons with a reliable delivery system could do that.
Powers then considers the possibilities of an imminent American strike on Iran:
Bush and Cheney prefer the language of flat command that implies "or else." A long list might be appended here of their frequent warnings that the United States does not trust Iran with the knowledge to enrich bomb-grade uranium and will not tolerate an Iranian bomb. Many of these warnings have been issued in the last month or two and we may expect a continuing barrage until their final days in office. The President's frustration is plainly evident: Saddam Hussein may be gone, but Iran remains defiant, and more powerful than ever. The President's male pride seems to have been aroused; he said he was going to solve the Iranian problem and he doesn't want to back down. The intensity of Bush's desire to crush this final opponent is evident in his words and his body language, but does he retain the power to carry out his threats?
From one point of view the answer seems obvious. It is too late. With the exception only of the neoconservative faithful, every close observer of the American–Iranian standoff says that the administration's threats are empty, that the United States does not have the military resources, or the political support at home, or the agreement of allies abroad, to carry out a full-scale air attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, much less to invade and occupy the country. Two of the skeptics, Gates and Mullen, are running the Pentagon, and their cautioning remarks, only a step this side of insubordination, would seem to make attack impossible. But if attack is impossible, why does Bush talk himself into an ever-tighter corner by continuing to issue threats? Does he believe Iran will cave? Are these the only words he thinks people will still listen to? Is he hoping to tie the hands of the next president? Or is he preparing to summon the power of his office to carry out the last option on the table? One hardly knows whether to take the question seriously. It seems alarmist and overexcited even to pose it when the realities are so clear. But it is impossible to be sure—Bush has a history.
Bush indeed has a history. He has a history of launching military aggression. He has a history of launching military aggression on the basis of manufactured threats. He has a history of launching military aggression without the agreement of allies abroad. He has a history of launching military aggression against the advice of "military skeptics," whom he either "retires" or sidelines or ignores when he launches the aggression. He has a history of launching military aggression regardless of the strain it puts on the armed forces or the national treasury.
And he does not need "political support at home" to launch another act of military aggression, if by "political support" Powers means popular backing from the public. Bush is not facing re-election, and never will again. And he has already been given full support from the Democratic-controlled Congress in a series of measures which fully embrace Bush's bellicose stance toward Iran, as well as the specious casus belli he has advanced.
We are indeed simply waiting to see if Bush decides to carry through with his clear intent -- and waiting helplessly, for exactly the reason that Powers outlines: because "no significant national leader in the United States has ever disowned or objected to [the threat of war on Iran] in clear, vigorous, principled language." Indeed, as noted above, all of our "significant national leaders" are in lockstep on this issue, and in their willingness to do "everything in [their] power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything in [their] power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon -- everything."
So yes, Bush has a history of military aggression. And the United States has a history of incinerating civilians with nuclear bombs. What seems to be forgotten in all the bloodlusting furor is that Iran has a history of neither.
Stephen Cohen is right on Russia in "Wrong on Russia." After first outlining Russia's global importance and then the vast dangers of the accelerating deterioration in US-Russian relations, Cohen notes in the International Herald Tribune:
How did it come to this?
In the U.S. policy elite and media, the nearly unanimous answer is that Russian President Vladimir Putin's antidemocratic domestic policies and "neo-imperialism" destroyed that historic opportunity. You don't have to be a Putin apologist to understand that this is not an adequate explanation.
During the last eight years, Putin's foreign policies have been largely a reaction to Washington's winner-take-all approach to Moscow since the early 1990s, which resulted from a revised U.S. view of how the cold war ended.
In that new triumphalist narrative, America "won" the 40-year conflict and post-Soviet Russia was a defeated nation analogous to post-World War II Germany and Japan - a nation without full sovereignty at home or autonomous national interests abroad.
The policy implication of that bipartisan triumphalism, which persists today, has been clear, certainly to Moscow. It meant that the United States had the right to oversee Russia's post-Communist political and economic development, as it tried to do directly in the 1990s, while demanding that Moscow yield to U.S. international interests. It meant Washington could break strategic promises to Moscow, as when the Clinton administration began NATO's eastward expansion, and disregard extraordinary Kremlin overtures, as when the Bush Administration unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty and granted NATO membership to countries even closer to Russia - despite Putin's crucial assistance to the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan after 9/11. It even meant America was entitled to Russia's traditional sphere of security and energy supplies, from the Baltics, Ukraine and Georgia to Central Asia and the Caspian.
Such U.S. behavior was bound to produce a Russian backlash. It came under Putin, but it would have been the reaction of any strong Kremlin leader. Those U.S. policies - widely viewed in Moscow as an "encirclement" designed to keep Russia weak and to control its resources - have helped revive an assertive Russian nationalism, destroy the once strong pro-American lobby, and inspire widespread charges that concessions to Washington are "appeasement," even "capitulationism." The Kremlin may have overreacted, but the cause and effect threatening a new cold war are clear.
Yes, it's our old friend American Exceptionalism again: we are imbued with divinity (or blessed by history for the secular exceptionalists), so everyone must hew to Washington's paternalistic line -- or else Daddy spank. American elites can never comprehend the reality of the outside world because they are too busy admiring their special, exceptional selves in the mirror.
Cohen then outlines some immediate steps we could take to reverse the dangerous situation:
Three are essential and urgent: a U.S. diplomacy that treats Russia as a sovereign great power with commensurate national interests; an end to NATO expansion before it reaches Ukraine, which would risk something worse than cold war; and a full resumption of negotiations to sharply reduce and fully secure all nuclear stockpiles and to prevent the impending arms race, which requires ending or agreeing on U.S. plans for a missile defense system in Europe.
Sounds like a good plan. What do our wannabe leaders have to say? Uh oh:
American presidential campaigns are supposed to discuss such vital issues, but neither John McCain nor Barack Obama has done so. Instead, in varying degrees, both have promised to be "tougher" on the Kremlin than George W. Bush has allegedly been and to continue the encirclement of Russia and the hectoring "democracy promotion" there.
Great. Not only more of the same disastrous course -- but even more of more of the same.
As a follow-up to the two previousposts, John Pilger reports on the treatment meted out to a young Palestinian journalist, Mohammed Omer, who, despite seeing family members killed and maimed by Israeli forces, "is a moderating voice, urging Palestinian youth not to court hatred but seek peace with Israel."
Here's what Israel's security organ, Shin Bet, does with moderating voices who seek peace with Israel.
Yesterday's post on the rise of racism in Israel drew this comment:
I don't think it affects your larger point, but "Hitler's Willing Executioners" is, at best, controversial. (Personally I think it's mostly crap.) Check out "A Nation on Trial" by Finkelstein and Birn in English or "Ein Volk von Moerdern" in German while Goldhagen is still fresh in your mind.
I don't speak German, but I am aware of the work by Norman Finkelstein and Ruth Birn, and of the controversies surrounding Goldhagen's book. Some of the latter stem, I believe, from a misreading or over-interpretation of Goldhagen's work, which states repeatedly that is dealing with one narrow, specific aspect of the Nazi phenomenon and the Holocaust: namely, the actions of the people who actually inflicted the torments and perpetrated the killings (and those who administratively facilitated these actions). It deals with the fact that almost all of the perpetrators acted of their own free will -- very often with enthusiasm and initiative, above and beyond the call of duty -- even when, in many if not most cases, they could have refused such duties without penalty.
Goldhagen also deals with the anti-Semitism that soaked German society, the obsessive idea that there was a "Jewish problem" that needed to be solved in one way or another, and the overwhelming acceptance of the notion that Jews should be segregated and removed, in one fashion or another, from German society (which Finkelstein also acknowledges). Goldhagen states repeatedly that this pervasive anti-Semitism was not the sole and inevitable cause of the Holocaust; but he does assert that it was an indispensable element in the development of the "Final Solution" of mass deportation, mass suffering, and mass murder. Without this baseline, without the pervasive belief that Jews were somehow lesser beings, were destructive, poisonous "Others" whose very presence caused terrible harm to the German nation, then the Nazis would not have been able to move from the Nuremberg Laws (which, as Finkelstein notes, were met with overwhelming public approval) to the death-camps.
Goldhagen also makes clear that even with the pervasive anti-Semitism -- "eliminationist" in that it wished and approved the removal of Jews from the life of German society -- the mass killing and worst depredations would not have occurred if not for the war, and the savagery it unleashed. (Unleashed on all sides; the indiscriminate Allied bombing of German cities and the resulting mass civilian deaths were repeatedly cited by death-squad leaders and other officials as "justification" for their own killing of unarmed, non-combatant civilians, especially Jews, who, in the widely-accepted Nazi mythology, had somehow "caused" the war.)
The heart of Goldhagen's book are the hundreds of pages of descriptions of the activities of the perpetrators, told often in their own words, and the direct evidence of their positive attitude toward their activities -- activities which were more widely known in society than is generally assumed. As he notes, many of these testimonies have been ignored or under-utilized in examinations of the Holocaust, and thus the focus of his book is filling out this neglected niche in the vast field of Nazi-era studies. Goldhagen also makes clear, repeatedly, that these events had nothing to do with any racial, biological, national, spiritual or any other inherent quality in the German people; they arose out of a certain specific set of historical conditions.
Nor does he say, anywhere, either directly or by implication, that "the Germans are a species apart with their pathological anti-Semitism, [which] absolves them of all normal standards of moral culpability," as Birn alleges. She accuses of Goldhagen of having a "sugar-coated version of the Holocaust" (!), "which eliminates the need for people to constantly think about the ethical choices of right and wrong. " This conclusion simply cannot be supported by a reading of the book. Goldhagen repeatedly and explicitly rejects this thesis, and instead points out, over and over and over again, that the atrocities were carried out by individual moral agents, who were responsible for their actions, and who had to make constant ethical choices of right and wrong every single day -- especially given the fact, as Goldhagen demonstrates, that many if not most of the perpetrators could have stopped taking part in the atrocities at any time. Indeed, the moral culpability of individuals is in many ways the whole point of the book.
What Goldhagen is trying to do is to understand why so many Germans in that era made the choices they did to take part in such a monstrous activity. To try to understand a motive is not the same as explaining it away or absolving the perpetrator of his or her moral culpability. The latter is the argument made by apologists for the Terror War -- that you are "pro-terrorist" or "blaming the victim" or "absolving the terrorist" if you try to understand what motivates someone to take such an extreme action. It is also the argument made by apologists for Israel's manifold depredations against the Palestinians. And Finkelstein and Birn -- especially Finkelstein -- obviously do not fall into the camp of such apologists. Yet they are using a version of that discreditable argument in the case of Goldhagen's book.
Again, this is not to endorse every single conclusion that Goldhagen draws from the evidence and the testimonies he examines. Nor do I have the slightest desire to wade into what is in many ways an academic cat-fight, and one which has more to do with present-day politics than historical truth. (On the political side, I am much in sympathy with Finkelstein, who has been subjected to censorship, prejudice and banishment (from Israel) for his own scholarship; including his critiques of Goldhagen.) I don't know what Goldhagen's politics are. I don't doubt that the book has been put to partisan use, or that it contains conclusions and interpretations open to dispute or refutation. What work of history doesn't? But I am not an academic, or an intellectual, or an ideologue. What I am interested in are the historical facts that he presents, and what they say about human nature, and the patterns and dynamics of human behavior, especially in the context of large-scale actions initiated by a powerful state.
With the backing and the blessing of local government and the police, the anti-Semitic organization takes its program into the local schools, to hammer home its stern, unyielding message: Girls, do not give your bodies to the racial enemy! Do not let them seduce and defile your innocence with their devious ways!
The city's own welfare representative heads up the program of the "Anti-Assimilation Department." He shows the schoolgirls a film -- "Sleeping with the Enemy" -- which dramatizes how the filthy Semite worms his way into the affections of an innocent girl then cruelly abandons her. This "abnormal phenomenon" is plaguing several cities in the area, says the police chief; there have already been many cases of racially pure girls "joining with" Semite men. The propaganda efforts of the Anti-Assimilation Department are aimed at eliminating the sexual machinations of the "exploitative" Semites.
Even though these Semites are citizens of the country -- indeed, many of them serve in the armed forces -- the Anti-Assimilation Department's view is gaining wider and wider acceptance in the nation at large. Racial consciousness has reached new heights in the country, a recent study shows: more than half the population now favors the removal of these minority Semite citizens. And 74 percent of the nation's youth now believes that these Semites are "unclean."
Another new study shows that dozens of these Semite citizens have been killed by police, military and private security forces in the past seven years, with almost no legal repercussions for the killers.
*** A report taken from the crumbling pages of Der Stürmer or some other German paper of the 1930s? No; it all comes from Haaretz, the liberal Israeli paper, and is happening right now. The Semites now being accused as sexual predators, racial defilers, devious operators and "unclean" subhumans who should be removed from the land are the Arab citizens of Israel.
As Haaretz reports this week, the Anti-Assimilation Department of the religious group Yad L'ahim -- "which works to prevent Jewish girls from dating Muslim men" -- has taken its "Sleeping With the Enemy" program into the schools of Kiryat Gat, where the city fathers also fret about local Jewish girls "joining with Bedouin men."
The Anti-Assimilation Department says its relentless efforts to prevent sexual contact between Jews and Arabs "is not racism, because it is not mutually exploitative, "says Chaim Shalom, the presenter of the program."This is a matter of racism on their end," because it is "the exploitative Arab, the exploitative Bedouin," who pursues the Jewish girls.
The Kiryat Gal program comes in the midst of a steep rise in racism among Israelis, as Haaretz noted a few months ago, citing a report by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel:
"Israeli society is reaching new heights of racism that damages freedom of expression and privacy," [ACRI president Sami] Michael said. The publication coincides with Human Rights Week, which begins Sunday. "We are a society under supervision under a democratic regime whose institutions are being undermined and which confers a different status to residents in the center of the country and in the periphery."
The number of Jews expressing feelings of hatred toward Arabs has doubled, the report stated...Among Jewish respondents, 55 percent support the idea that the state should encourage Arab emigration from Israel and 78 percent oppose the inclusion of Arab political parties in the government. According to a Haifa University study, 74 percent of Jewish youths in Israel think that Arabs are "unclean."
In March, a report by Mossawa, the Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens of Israel, also detailed the increasing support for "the delegitimization, discrimination and even deportation of Arabs," Haaretz notes:
The report, written by Mossawa director Jafar Farah and others, mainly examines racism against Arabs in Israel, using criteria taken from the anti-Semitism reports in Europe.
The report covers Arabs killed by the security forces and by Jewish citizens, anti-Arab incitement by leading Jewish public figures, workforce discrimination by private Jewish organizations, the barring of Arabs from public places, and the destruction of Arab property. The report particularly highlights what it calls the government's helplessness in the face of the problem.
The report lists Arab citizens killed by police, soldiers, security guards and Jewish civilians over the past seven years. It notes that only one Jewish citizen, of Ethiopian origin, was killed under similar circumstances during this period. Indictments were issued in only seven cases, the report states. In two cases, the assailants were found not guilty, and the State Prosecutor appealed the verdict in one of these cases.....
We've said it before and we'll say it again: there are no exact historical parallels, but there are resonances that can be instructive. As Arthur Silber notes (in explaining the nature of his questions and warnings about the thrust of the Obama campaign):
NO, I do NOT think Obama is Hitler reincarnated. I must note, however, that his full embrace of the U.S.'s truly insane foreign policy of aggressive, non-defensive war is not precisely unHitlerian, just as his full embrace of corporatism bears a rather disturbing resemblance to aspects of Hitler's political program. But the same could be said of every major American politician.
...What I have been getting at are very broad cultural and political dynamics, general patterns that repeat throughout history, assuming one studies and understands history. [emphasis mine] So, no, Obama is not a Hitler duplicate, but, to a readily noticeable and troubling extent, he is someone riding a similar kind of cultural wave and response, and he may well use an already existing authoritarian-surveillance state that repeatedly engages in aggressive war to wreak great destruction both at home and abroad.
I came upon the Kiryat Gal story just hours after finishing a most instructive work of history examining cultural and political dynamics: "Hitler's Willing Executioners," by Daniel Goldhagen. And no, I do not think Israel is Nazi Germany reincarnated, despite its many brutal policies; a reading of Goldhagen's book, with its copious detailing of what the hands-on perpetrators of the Holocaust -- most of them "ordinary" Germans, non-Nazis, good family men, thousands and thousands of them -- actually did, would make anyone wary of hair-trigger equations of other regimes to the Nazis.
But equation is not the issue; as Silber notes, it is resonance, pattern, the dynamics of human behavior in certain particular configurations of political, social, cultural and psychological currents. Israeli society is clearly sliding toward something similar to the "eliminationist anti-Semitism" that permeated -- saturated -- German society in both the pre-Nazi and Nazi eras. Israel has already walled off the "unclean" Arabs in horrendous ghettos where they must live degraded lives, subjected them to collective punishment and repeated military attacks, forced them from their homes, and so on. The resonances of Israeli policy with other race-based oppressions in modern history have long been painfully clear.
The increasing brutalization and coarsening of Israeli political culture has also long been evident, as well as the inexorable, apparently irresistible rise of extremist sectarian factions whose obsessions and strictures mirror those of some Islamic extremists and, yes, have strong resonances with the German anti-Semitic extremists who rose to state power in the 1930s.
There is no good destination at the end of such a road. There is no good outcome to the dynamic of eliminationism and dehumanization. It leads, quite literally, to madness and death and ruin. Israel is not the only nation on that road; the dynamic is not specific to any country, creed, race, religion or polity. It belongs to all of us, it's a danger we all face. And it requires vigilance, skepticism, action and awareness to break up these patterns as they rise among us, to derail the dynamic -- before it's too far gone and must play out, in one way or another, in the given extent and circumstances of the historical moment, to the bitter end.
A Note on "Willing Executioners" You're way off on Goldhagen. who's an ahistorical Zionist hack who talks about "unremitting" German antisemitism. If so, just how was German Jewry emancipated in the l9th century?
Three Amigos: Bush, McCain, Obama Draw a Blood-Red Line on Iran What are they waiting for? What is going to be different in the near future that will make it possible or 'necessary' to attack?
Antifa, you are right. We've got to follow the capitalist imperialist dream wherever it may lead.
Russian Roulette: A Bipartisan Consensus for Disaster What in the hell are you talking about? Your first post is still up there. I'm looking at it right now. I went in "under the hood" of the site on the technical side just to confirm it's still there. You do understand how comments work, don't you? Go ...
Russian Roulette: A Bipartisan Consensus for Disaster BTW Chris,
I'm impressed. You simply took down my first post. I didn't use any foul language and yet you appear to be unables to tolerate any serious disagreement.I think it was complacent and I think it is lamentable that you both neglected to giv...
Russian Roulette: A Bipartisan Consensus for Disaster Chirs,
"You do understand that the Cohen article refers to America's dealings with Russia AFTER the collapse of the Soviet Union -- the political entity which oppressed the now free and sovereign East European nations to which you refer, don't you?[...
Elimination Round: Hurtling Down History's Dark Roads I wonder to what degree the "coarsening of Israeli political culture" might be an export of our own racist ghetto wars in the likes of Bed-Stuy and Dorchester.
Come to think of it, didn't the "Stern Gang" owe some of its political refinement ...
Three Amigos: Bush, McCain, Obama Draw a Blood-Red Line on Iran And, oh, you're right about Iran not having engaged in military aggression against another nation-state, but haven't they been behind terrorist attacks abroad? Not to mention domestic repression at home. I am not disputing your opposition to an attac...
Three Amigos: Bush, McCain, Obama Draw a Blood-Red Line on Iran Chris,
Given the irrational religiosity of Bush, I can see a fundamentalist Christian like Bush carrying out an attack regardless of rational concerns. After all, this is a supposed "war for civilization", right? And Bush is the allegedly divinely i...
Three Amigos: Bush, McCain, Obama Draw a Blood-Red Line on Iran Andrew Bacevich writes in the July 1 2008 Boston Globe:
[quote]By showing that Bush has put the country on a path pointing to permanent war, ever increasing debt and dependency, and further abuses of executive authority, Obama can transform the elec...
Three Amigos: Bush, McCain, Obama Draw a Blood-Red Line on Iran Ever since North Korea blew up that nuke they went from being part of the 'Axis of Evil' (God, our president is retarded) to being our bestest buds.
I can't imagine why Iran would want to follow suit...
Worried Yet? Saudis Prepare for "Sudden Nuclear Hazards" After Cheney Visit
Sunday, 23 March 2008
(NOTE: Apologies for the server problem that blocked access to this link for several hours on Monday.)
I. One Tick Closer to Midnight Last Friday, Dick Cheney was in Saudi Arabia for high-level meetings with the Saudi king and his ministers. On Saturday, it was revealed that the Saudi Shura Council -- the elite group that implements the decisions of the autocratic inner circle -- is preparing "national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following experts' warnings of possible attacks on Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactors," one of the kingdom's leading newspapers, Okaz, reports. The German-based dpa news service relayed the paper's story.
Simple prudence -- or ominous timing? We noted here last week that an American attack on Iran was far more likely -- and more imminent -- than most people suspect. We pointed to the mountain of evidence for this case gathered by scholar William R. Polk, one of the top aides to John Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and to other indicators of impending war. The story by Okaz -- which would not have appeared in the tightly controlled dictatorship without approval from the top -- is yet another, very weighty piece of evidence laid in the scales toward a new, horrendous conflict.
We don't know what the Saudis told Cheney in private -- or even more to the point, what he told them. But the release of this story now, just after his departure, would seem to be a clear indication that the Saudis have good reason to fear a looming attack on Iran's nuclear sites and are actively preparing for it.
II. A Nuclear Epiphany in Iran? And they certainly should be bracing themselves. A U.S. attack on Iran will come suddenly, and if it is indeed aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities -- a "threat" being talked up again with new urgency by both Cheney and Bush lately -- it has the potential for unimaginable consequences. As we noted here in a previous piece:
Twelve hours. One
circuit of the sun from horizon to horizon, one course of the moon from
dusk to dawn. What was once a natural measurement for the daily round
of human life is now a doom-laden interval between the voicing of an
autocrat's brutal whim and the infliction of mass annihilation halfway
around the world.
Twelve
hours is the maximum time necessary for American bombers to gear up and
launch an unprovoked sneak attack – a Pearl Harbor in reverse – against
Iran, the Washington Post reports.
The plan for this "global strike," which includes a very viable
"nuclear option," was approved months ago, and is now in operation. The
planes are already on continuous alert, making "nuclear delivery"
practice runs along the Iranian border, as Sy Hersh reports
in the New Yorker, and waiting only for the signal from President
George W. Bush to drop their payloads of conventional and nuclear
weapons on some 400 targets spread throughout the condemned land.
And
when this attack comes – either as a stand-alone "knock-out blow" or
else as the precusor to a full-scale, regime-changing invasion, like
the earlier aggression in Iraq – there will be no warning, no
declaration of war, no hearings, no public debate. The already issued
orders governing the operation put the decision solely in the hands of
the president: he picks up the phone, he says, "Go" – and in twelve
hours' time, up to a million Iranians could be dead.
This potential death toll is not pacificist hyperbole; it comes from a National Academy of Sciences study sponsored by the Pentagon itself, as The Progressive reports. (Although Bush's military brass like to peddle the public lie that "we don't do body
counts" of the enemy, in reality, like all good businessmen they keep
precise accounts of their production outputs: i.e., corpses.) The
Pentagon's NAS study calibrated the kill-rate from
"bunker-busting" tactical nukes used to take out underground facilities
– such as those which house much of Iran's nuclear power program.
Another
simulation by scientists, using Pentagon-devised software, was even
more specific, measuring the aftermath of a "limited" nuclear attack on
the main Iranian underground site in Esfahan, the magazine reports.
This small expansion of the Pentagon franchise would result in stellar
production figures: three million people killed by radiation in just
two weeks, and 35 million people exposed to dangerous levels of
cancer-causing radiation in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Bush has
about 50 nuclear "earth-penetrating weapons" at his disposal, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Nor is the idea of a nuclear strike on Iran mere "liberal paranoia." Bush himself pointedly refused to take the nuclear option "off the table" this week. But what's more, Bush has made the use of nuclear weapons a centerpiece of his "National Security Strategy of the United States,"
issued last month, The Progressive notes. While reaffirming the
criminal principle of "pre-emptive" attacks on perceived enemies which
may or may not be threatening America with weapons they may or may not
possess, Bush declared that "safe, credible and reliable nuclear forces
continue to play a critical role" in the "offensive strike systems"
that are now a key part of America's "deterrence."
In
the depraved jargon of atomic warmongering, a "credible" nuclear force
is one that can and will be used in the course of ordinary military
operations. It is no longer to be regarded as a sacred taboo. This has
long been the dream of the Pentagon's "nuclear priesthood" and its
acolytes, going back to the days of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For
decades, a strong faction within the American power structure has been
afflicted with a perverted craving to unleash these weapons once more.
An almost sexual frustration can be discerned in their laments as time
and again, in crisis after crisis, their counsels for "going nuclear"
were rejected – often at the very last moment. To justify their
abberant desire, they have relentlessly demonized an ever-changing
array of "enemies," painting each one as an imminent, overwhelming
threat, led by "madmen" in thrall to pure evil, impervious to reason,
fit only for destruction. Evidence for the "threat" is invariably
exaggerated, manipulated, even manufactured; this ritual cycle has been
enacted over and over, leading to many wars – but never to that
ultimate, orgasmic release.
Now this paranoid sect has at last seized the commanding heights of American power...they have found a
most eager disciple in the peevish dullard strutting in the Oval
Office. Under their sinister tutelage, Bush has eviscerated 40 years'
worth of arms control treaties; officially "normalized" the use of
nuclear weapons, even against non-nuclear states; rewarded outlaw
proliferators like India, Israel and Pakistan; and is now destroying
the last and most effective restraint on the spread of nuclear weapons:
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The treaty
guarantees its signatories – such as Iran – the right to establish
nuclear power programs in exchange for rigorous international
inspections. But Bush has arbitrarily decided that Iran – whose nuclear
program undergone perhaps the most extensive inspection process in history
– must end its lawful activities. Why? Because the country is led by
"madmen" in thrall to pure evil, impervious to reason, who one day may
or may not threaten America with weapons they may or may not have....
So the NPT is dead.
As with the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution, it now means
only what Bush says it means. Force of arms, not rule of law, is the
new world order. The attack on Iran is coming...The obvious,
murderous insanity of such a move in no way precludes its
implementation by this gang – as their invasion of Iraq clearly shows.
The
nuclear sectarians have waited decades for this moment. Such a chance
may never come again. Will they let it pass, when with just a word, in
just twelve hours, they can see their god rising in a pillar of fire
over Persia?
Bush and Cheney should be impeached within an hour of news that they have made any sort of military action against Iran or any other country and the Senate should promptly convict them and remove them from office. THey should then be arrested for their many violations of US law and International Treaties which, the Constitution says, have the force of law of the land.
Meanwhile, Congress should make it clear than no military action can be taken by Bush/Cheney without prior Congressional authorization. Acting without prior Congressional authorization is an impeachable offense.
I also hope you are wrong but I just read that one of our nuclear subs just passed through the Suez Canal on its way to Iran. This made more nervous and now your article, I believe we will hit Iran soon, it will have to be when there is no moon let us all hope it doesn't happen but what frightens me even more is the possibility of no Elections in this Country since the President has sign in Executive Order 51 which deems him "dictator" and is able to shut the country down under martial law.
If a false flag operation against US troops were to occur, say a faked missile attack or incursion over the Iraqi border, than Bush would legally claim merely to be retaliating, and THAT is perfectly legal to do without congressional approval. Best case scenario- oil instantly hits two hundred a barrel. worst case scenario- permanent loss of mid eastern oil to the US, administration is all hung for treason and war crimes, and a quick but savage war with Russia, India and China spanking our asses. They warned us that such attacks would be met with retaliation with equal weapons. Good luck everyone.
The next new moon is 07 April, if they're gonna do it this lunar cycle it will be 07 APR /- 24h when night vision and stealth tech advantages are maximized by the new moon. My advice to any/everyone in the Gulf on or about 07 April, 'DUCK' !
SteveG -- The U.S. has something like 20,000 nuclear weapons and is led by an egomaniacal, militant, fascist religious fanatic and mass murderer who has his finger on the button 24/7. Iran MIGHT have a nuclear weapon at some point in the future. Who did you say you think I should worry about?
"Any discussion of global security must take poverty into account. The widening gap between those who have more than enough and those who have less than they need must be central to any discussion on global security and making the world a safer place for everyone".
This is an excerpt from a globalresearch.ca article on NATO's policy of preemptive use of nuclear weapons.
steveg- only one country of the two we're talking about has actually used nukes, and one has been most aggressive militarily in the last 8 years- now which one should i worry about being in possession of nukes?? hm...
Bush is all of a piece. If a great president is a war president, then he will be a war president, any way he can.
If the greatest president is the one who can nuke at will, then he will want to be the Greatest President of All.
Bush is not harder to figure out than that.
As I recall, a nuclear attack against Iran was attempted in late August last year (the North Dakota to Louisiana transport event). If that was not an overt attempt to nuke somebody, then the event was otherwise inexplicable. Bush & Cheney learned from it. Did we?
From President Cheney's point of view, he's just serving the fat assholes who are pursuing the American Dream of having more than plenty of everything.
They can't do that without plenty of petroleum, so Cheney's been after the petroleum for four decades now, serving the fat ass American pubic.
He, and his Boy Wonder, will be genuinely astonished if the American public reacts to their midnight smiting of the Persians with anything less than patriotic pride and fervor.
Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear power? Israel has it. The USA has it. Many other nations have it.
Oh, I forgot. According to people like Steve G, the brown-skinned towel-headed camel jockey heathen are inhumane and terroristic.
Right.
One detached look at the USA's conduct in Iraq makes me think that if ANYONE should not have nuclear power or weaponry, it is the USA.
But Steve G's turgid patriotism and self-imposed ignorance won't allow him to reach that perspective, apparently.
How incredibly sad, and how frustrating.
"Yeah Right" talks about "libtards." I guess when you can reduce a whole group of people to a derogatory term, and never have to talk to those people in any sort of sensible dialogue (like Steve G also refuses to do re. Iran), then what will become of your perspective? It will become hate-fueled, ignorance-based, and ready to lie on a whim.
It's funny, you know? I despise the use of the term "liberal" because most who hold him- or herself out these days as a "liberal" seem to ignore liberty. Most seem to be fonts of political correctness and other forms of hypocrisy. Look at the support given Barack Obama -- a man who doubtless will continue the tactics of Bush-Cheney, albeit under a different rhetoric with changed buzz-words. Likewise Hillary Clinton.
The modern "liberal" is about symbolism, appearance, and appeasement.
So I can understand why "Yeah Right" would be inclined to talk about "libtards."
But I don't understand why telling the truth, sharing relevant facts, is "spreading fear."
Obviously "Yeah Right" feels fear when he reads Mr Floyd's essay.
If "Yeah Right" were open-minded and intellectually vigorous, he/she would see that his/her fear is a signal that perhaps something is wrong with this drive toward the use of nuclear weaponry against a totally harmless nation -- Iran.
But then, I don't expect "Yeah Right" has spent much time being intellectually vigorous.
I believe you are relying upon a mistaken assumption -- namely that the Congress is independent, and that impeachment only just now is warranted.
The Congress are a rubber stamp. So that does away with the independence angle. My proof? The constant caving-in to every legislative and budgetary request sent to them from Bush-Cheney.
As to impeachment, we have had sufficient ground to impeach Bush and Cheney since 9/13/2001, when those two characters began blaming Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden for the events of 9/11/2001. Reality check: the individuals involved in pretending to be the "masterminds" and participating "terrorists" of 9/11/2001 were Saudi Arabian citizens. Reality check: Saddam Hussein never posed any threat to the USA that wasn't pre-approved by the US Government. Reality check: Saddam Hussein rose to power courtesy of the US Government. Reality check: Osama bin Laden is a friend of the Bush family. Reality check: "al Qaeda" is a CIA-created fiction.
So let's not talk about finally reaching the grounds for impeachment. And let's not talk about the Congress acting independently.
It's time to jettison the whole danged federal government.
Disarming all nations with nuclear weapons, including the U.S., would be of greatest benefit to everyone on the planet. The only way for that to take place would be for the U.S. to take on a leadership role in nuclear disarmament; instead, its rulers have chosen the path of increasing its nuclear arsenal.
Since neither the leaders of the U.S. nor Israel are interested in nuclear disarmament, a nuclear armed Iran would actually help restore some balance of power in the Middle East, as opposed to Israel's lopsided nuclear blackmail in the region, and increase the chances that Israel and the U.S. would negotiate in good faith in Middle East affairs, rather than continue the U.S.A.'s "owner of the world" mentality, as Chomsky so eloquently explains it.
Nice to see so many people here aware of the U.S.'s tactic of attacking during a new moon.
The implications of Saudi attention to prospective radioactive hazard is perhaps better understood in the context of the Doctrine for joint Nuclear Operations published by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This includes the chilling phrase: “Friendly forces must receive advance warning of friendly nuclear strikes.” This continued with the statement, in the 2003 draft “Consideration should also be given for dissemination of STRIKWARN information to allies.” Nuclear Proliferation Treaties have been dead for some years as far as the US Government is concerned. The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations was published in Draft form in September 2003. An updated version is dated 15th March 2005. Extracts follow. Compare and contrast the earlier draft with the later version.
2005 Version: Page 28 "Friendly Nuclear Strike Warning. Friendly forces must receive advanced warning of friendly nuclear strikes. This allows them to take actions to protect themselves from the effects of the attack. In theater operations, the commander ordering the strike issues the initial warning to subordinate headquarters whose units are likely to be affected by the strike. Geographic combatant commands must develop procedures to ensure multinational forces receive warning if they are likely to be affected by the effects of US nuclear strikes. Commanders must ensure that warning is given in enough time for friendly units to take act."
2003 Draft: Page 22 "STRIKEWARN). Friendly forces receive advanced warning of friendly nuclear strikes to ensure they mitigate unnecessary risk can take actions to protect themselves from the effects of the attack. In theater operations, the commander executing the strike issues the initial warning to subordinate headquarters (HQ) whose units will are likely to be affected by the strike. Commanders must ensure that STRIKWARN messages are disseminated in a sufficient amount of time for subordinate units to take actions to mitigate the possible consequences of US use of nuclear weapons. Consideration should also be given for dissemination of STRIKWARN information to allies. The commander also ensures coordination with adjacent commands and elements of other commands in the vicinity, giving them sufficient time to provide warning and take protective measures. Theater Joint forces potentially affected by the effects of US nuclear strikes are informed of nuclear strikes through a STRIKEWARN message. Geographic combatant commands must develop procedures to ensure that multinationalcoalition/allied forces receive STRIKEWARN information if they will be potentially are likely to be affected by the effects of US nuclear strikes. Disseminate nuclear STRIKEWARN messages as rapidly as possible and, when instructions contain authentication procedures and encoding instructions for disseminating STRIKEWARN messages. STRIKWARN messages may be sent in the clear if the issuing commander determines that safety warnings override security requirements."
The 2003 Draft and 2005 Publication can still be accessed on the Web. The 2003 Draft has been withdrawn from most sources, while the 2005 version was withdrawn from US Govt websites in September 2005. A broader list of related sources, including references to both these documents, can be found at www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/lib...index.html
The President can order a nuclear strike and whether he physically has his hand on any button is IRRELEVANT. The Military must follow the President's orders.
Everything else Steve G says is irrelevant, and is some kind of proud patriot speech that falls on deaf ears. Steve G seems to think that Mr Floyd's audience are lovers of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter -- foolish people who have more patriotic pride than they do intelligence or wisdom.
Steve G doesn't know anything about Islamic or other non-American, non-Christian, non-Judaic cultures -- and he demonstrates that by lumping them all under one banner of evil behavior, of irrational angry terrorism.
Steve G tries to say that our Presidents have "a better track record".
Regarding what? Use of force?
Hmmmm. Grenada, Bosnia, Serbia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, VietNam, Korea.
And that's not even discussing Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- where millions were annihilated and millions more poisoned with radiation, just so a few morons could claim "revenge" for "Pearl Harbor" -- an event that Truman knew was going to happen, and did NOTHING to stop.
So then let's see... we murdered innocents in each of those countries, at the request of the then-sitting US Presidents. That's a great track record worthy of admiration?
Only if you are blindly patriotic and totally brain-dead.
Sent to both Army and Naval War Colleges: Heed General Lenoid Ivashov’s warning.
Post Lebanon I have discounted all the Internet hype concerning possible US attack on Iran until now. Lebanon was complete surprise and the only person I know who predicted level of resistance was former Swiss Army officer, Michael St. Clair. Sure, it was part of the ‘plan’. But the neocon ‘plan’ has gone to poof ten ways to the middle and they continue to continue it. For first time I have serious reason for concern we are building for near, very near, attack. Reader should read these links first. http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070327/62697703.html http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1888.shtml and, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Mahan-Al.html General Lenoid Ivashov also had an article in an America
Subscribe to this comment's feed
