Long before John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argued that Israel exerts a dominant force in the formulation of American foreign policy, Raimondo was essentially saying the same thing.
On Oct 2, 9:24 am, "M. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: > Debunking the War PartyGreenwald Slaps Down HuffingtonbyJustin Raimondo, > October 02, 2009 > The long-awaited firsttop level meetingin thirty years between US diplomats > and their Iranian counterparts in Geneva is over but we are far from done > with what promises to be a long, involved, and often quite scary drama, > likely to unfold slowly-but-ominously over the next year. Odds are that, at > this time in 2010, we’llstillbe talking about > Iran’scompletelynonexistentnuclear weapons program, with rival versions of > what Tehran is really up to battling it out within the administration and in > the arena of public opinion. The opening shots of that war have been fired, > and,whilethe War Party,spearheadedby the powerfulIsrael lobby, is bound and > determined to strike at Iran, the news out of Geneva is not good for the > "bomb bomb bomb Iran" crowd. > The Iranians, having preceded the negotiations with a fusillade ofhard-line > rhetoricand the testing ofshort-range missile, came out of the session > touting the talks as "constructive" and sounding a lot more relaxed than when > they went in. State-run Iranian television described the talks inpositive > termsand reiterated the desire of the Iranian government to broaden the scope > of the discussions. The Americans, for their part, also characterized the > talks as "constructive," yet tempered this generally optimistic tone with an > oration by President Obama that reverted tolecture mode. It was a statement > in which the word "must" was oft-repeated, and the imperious tone was > effectively projected by a man whose bearing can surely be described as > regal, as George W. Bushnever was. Yet beyond the haughtiness, which seems > reflexive, there was a significant concession: thePresident said, that Iran > has the right to pursue the peaceful generation of nuclear power, "as all > nations do." > This is a reference to theNuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which accords the > signatories that right: and indeed, the NPT framework loomed large in the > President’s remarks, including his indirect reference to Israel’srefusalto > sign that treaty. "This is not about double-standards," said Obama, "or > singling Iran out," but of course that’s just what it’s about. At this very > moment Israel has a great deal of its nuclear arsenal – containingat least > 200atom bombs– aimed straight at Tehran, as well as god-knows-how-many other > Middle Eastern capitals. Who is threatening nuclear holocaust in the Middle > East? It isn’t the Iranian mullahs, that’s for sure. > Unlikeour last emperor, this one is no dummy: he knows perfectly well that > Israel’s possession of weapons of mass destruction is the real issue that > hangs over the entire region, a nuclear sword of Damocles in the hands of > whateverrabid rightistholds the reins of power in Tel Aviv. Also unlike Bush, > Obama is not beholden to the Israel lobby in the same waythe Republicanswere > and are: not that Democrats are immune to the Lobby’s power. Far from it: on > the eve of this apparent breakthrough in the US-Iranian stand-off, the > Democratic majority in congressvoted to impose sanctionson foreign companies > that import gasoline into Iran. > Unlike the Bush White House (and the congressional Democratic majority), > however, Obama can survive without the Lobby backing him, whereas the > abandonment of a pro-Israel agenda by the GOP would decimate the ranks of > their activist base (where dwellthe Christian dispensationalistswho have > theological reasons for supporting Israel over and above the interests of > their own country). The Democratic party base, on the other hand, ishostileto > the idea of going to war against Iran – not that this will prevent the > Lobby’s allies in the party from tamping down anti-interventionist sentiment. > Witness the following extraordinary exchange between Arianna Huffington, > whoseHuffington Postweb site was set up to reflect the view of the party’s > liberal wing (Hollywood division), andGlenn Greenwald, the fearlesscivil > libertarianandanti-interventionistwhose enormously popular Salon.com column > has earned him a reputation as the conscience of the progressive movement: > Arianna reiterates the Lobby’s talking points in a tone of bored > condescension – "Iran is challenging the existential presence of Israel, they > don’t accept the reality of the Holocaust," and they therefore "represent a > major threat to Israel." According to the doyenne of limousine liberalism – > just back from atrip to IsraelIran must be subjected to draconian sanctions > and possible invasion because they say nasty things about Israel. And she > doesn’t even have her facts straight: anyone in the blogosphere who’s > readJuan Cole’s translationof Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s infamous remarks, rather > than MEMRI’s, knows that the usually over-the-top Iranian president was > having one of his rare moments of calmness when he said Israel would "vanish > from the page of time" without war, as part of a natural process, just like > the Soviet Union. > It was great watching Glenn Greenwald take Arianna apart with his hardheaded > appeal to both realism and common sense – and his mention of the > Unmentionable Israeli nuclear arsenal. Greenwald demolished her talking > points, methodically and unmercifully, and he did it by simply sticking to > the facts: look, he said, at what Iran and the US have actually done. It is > the US that has occupied nations on Iran’s borders, inIraqandAfghanistan, > while you have to go back a thousand years to pin down the last time the > Iranians (then the Persians) crossed their borders and invaded another > country.It was the USthat backed Saddam Hussein when he invaded Iran, in a > war in which hundreds of thousands were slaughtered. So who is the real > aggressor here? > Typically, Huffington framed her remarks in terms of Obama’s personal triumph > in getting the Russians togo alongwith the fake outrage accompanying the Qom > revelation: once apartisan hackalways a partisan hack, and it doesn’t matter > if, like Arianna, you’ve switched parties. Yes, the "international community" > (i.e. the West) is "more united than ever," as she put it – they all agree > that Iran is the next target. > The reality, however, is quite different: the international community is very > far from unified on the Iranian issue. TheRussiansand theChineseare not going > to go along with the "get Iran" lynch mob now lining up behind French > President Sarkozy and the vehemently anti-Iranian Germans. More importantly, > the Iraqis aren’t going to go along with it, either – and good luck enforcing > a blockade when goods can pass freely between Iraq and Iran. It can’t be > done. > Our president knows this, and is by no means eager for a conflict with Iran: > this is what has the Israelis furious with him, and it has the Lobby in a > tizzy. The news out of Geneva – aface-to-face bilateral discussionon the > margins of the conference, thesurprise two-hour visitto Washington by the > Iranian foreign minister, theadded fillipthat the Iranians will export some > of their enriched uranium for medical purposes, and thegood newsthat Qom will > be open to inspectors very shortly – has the War Partyin the doldrums. But > don’t worry: they’ll bounce back soon enough. They always do. > We have much to look forward to in the coming months, as the propaganda war > goes into full gear. First up: yet more "revelations" of supposed nuclear > installations. The news out of Geneva was barely posted on the internet > before stories of a top secret "parallel network" of clandestine nuclear > sites began to circulate like autumn leaves in the wind. All offered without > evidence – just the speculative theories of various "experts" with > impressive-sounding titles, including the ubiquitous anonymous "officials" > whispering sweet nothings into reporters’ ears. > The battle for public opinion is going to be decisive in the coming months, > and that’s why Antiwar.com is more essential than ever. You can bet your > bottom dollar we’ll be treated to more surprises – sudden "revelations" of > "secret intelligence" that will somehow find its way into the spotlight – and > instant debunking is going to be available right here. That’s what’s needed > 24/7 in order to keep the War Party at bay. > It’s interesting to note, in this context, how Greenwald’s slap-down of > Huffington ended: the "moderator," a MSNBC hack, intervened on the pretext > that Greenwald had somehow impugned the "integrity" of the media by accusing > them of demonizing Iran – while, at that very moment, unbeknownst to > Greenwald, MSNBC was running scary captions underneath his image as he was > speaking: "Iran: Defiant and Dangerous"! What > hypocrites!http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/10/01/on-your-mark/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
