The thing of it is that we're trying to get Iran to co-operate with us in Iraq and it's hard to see how we can make that work if the president is going to run around the country declaring the overthrow of the Iranian government to be one of our war aims.

What are you suggesting, a return to the status quo ante where we treated tyrannical regimes with respect and decorum and didn't let their 'internal affairs' get in the way of doing diplomatic business (and other types of business) with them?

Look, for many decades it was perfectly clear to the U.S.S.R. that our goal was the end of communist police states (and theirs the end of capitalist democracies) and yet that did not prevent us from having (appropriately tense) diplomatic relations with the Soviets.  Yes, the Iranians will try to thwart Iraqi democracy (as the Soviets used to support communist revolutionaries), but Iran would do that anyway, regardless of U.S. diplomatic niceties (or lack thereof).

Our goal absolutely should be to see the end of islamist police states, and there's no benefit in pretending otherwise.  But as for Iranian nukes -- they're going to develop them, and there's not f**k all we can do about it.  We're not going to take military action, and there's no way the other major powers are join us in tough-enough economic sanctions to have an effect.  The Mullahs want nukes and I'm pretty sure they're going to have them.

Well goading Bush seems pretty easy, especially if no one is willing to tell him "Hey Mr. President, they're just trying to piss you off. Chill buddy. Just call down."

I suppose I should remind people that Iranians are NOT Arabs. Iranians I've talked to get very touchy about this.

I'm not saying people are conflating them, its just a precaution.

I worry that the tendency of western diplomats to explicitly link the Israel and nuclear issues every time Ahmadinejad launches one of these tirades is a mistake.



I worry about that too, Matt.  If we continue to pursue this linkage, the law of unintended consequences will surely come into operation.  This type of "diplomacy" will likely backfire.

Whar passes for US "diplomacy" today is mostly pathetic.  We do and say so many things that are not even in our own self-interest, much less in the interest of any other country.  It seems to consist of chest-thumping to show how tough we are and  lecturing others on the error of their ways. Maybe we should put the high echelon folks in the State Dept. on sabbatical and let the careerists run the place for a while.  

...they're going to develop them, and there's not f**k all we can do about it.  We're not going to take military action.

Iran's developing nuclear weapons is a totally separate issue from Iraq - or, for that matter, any other political/diplomatic issue in the Middle East, save Israel's survival - and there's not a shadow of doubt we won't allow them to produce weapons, come hell or high water. To think otherwise is just crazy.

I am totally and unalterably opposed to the Iraq war, but admit it's a fait accompli. But we cannot and will not let Iranian nukes become reality. The day when even one Iranian weapon is made would be the day the countdown commences to Israel's utter destruction, in fact not concept. And Israel's destruction to any degree will so destabilize not just the Middle East but the entire world, not one government would seriously take military steps to defend Iran's bomb-making enterprise.

I deplore the way we behave internationally these days, and I'm a peacenik besides, but I wouldn't for a second regret our using military action to take out an Iranian nuke-making facility. It must not happen!

"And Israel's destruction to any degree will so destabilize not just the Middle East but the entire world, not one government would seriously take military steps to defend Iran's bomb-making enterprise."

Absolute nonsense.

The opposite is true - Israel's removal from the Middle East problem would leave the Arabs with nothing to do but attack each other as they have been doing for centuries. None of that would be relevant to the United States as long as we stayed out of it and made the necessary concessions to the resulting winners to get the oil. Of course, it would be better if we didn't NEED the oil, but as long as the economy and the state are run by the oil companies and other corporate elites, that isn't likely to happen.

The idea that Iran will use the few nuclear weapons they could get to destroy Israel is completely preposterous as well. Iran knows full well that while they could undoubtedly destroy Tel Aviv and perhaps Haifa with one or two nuclear weapons, they would be instantly incinerated by the 100-200 nuclear weapons the Israelis possess, not to mention the thousands the US possesses and would not hesitate to use against them should the Iranians launch an aggressive nuclear war against anyone, let alone Israel.

This sort of propaganda about Iran's nuclear intentions comes straight from AIPAC and Sharon and the neocons, nowhere else - and it's just as egregiously false as the crap about Iraq's WMDs were - and for the same reasons.

The fact of the matter is that Israel is run by Zionist nationalist fanatics who see the US as their hand maiden in creating "Greater Israel" that drives out the Palestinians in an orgy of genocide and rules the Middle East from the Nile to the Euphrates.  This has been the cornerstone of Zionist philosophy since the late 1800's and has been publicly reiterated by every major Israeli political leader since Israel was formed in 1948.

Israelis were fanatical nationalists two thousand years ago until the Romans - who were really good at it - kicked them out of their own country. And they're still religious and nationalist fanatics who justify their criminal actions by the notions of being "God's Chosen" and "history", neither of which are true or relevant to their actions in the world. 

The Iranian leader's notion of removing Israel and putting it in Europe somewhere - while completely impossible and obvious hyperbole - is actually a very clear exposition of the fundamental problem of the Middle East (aside from their vacuous Islamic religion) - Israel is a cancer on the whole region.

And Israel's dominance of US foreign policy is a cancer in the US. It is not the only cancer, and probably not even the major one, but it is a cancer.

The US could raise its esteem in the eyes of the entire Muslim world overnight by: a) cutting off ALL military aid to Israel; b) requiring Israel to recognize the right of the Palestinians to the borders specified by the UN in 1947; c) requiring Israel to unilaterally disarm ALL its nuclear weapons on pain of being referred to the UN for total economic sanctions.

The fact that NO US politician can even contemplate advocating these steps proves that the US government is owned and operated by the Israelis and their Jewish supporters in the US and elsewhere. 

This has nothing to do with "anti-Semitism" - I'm an atheist myself and couldn't care less about distinguishing the Jewish religion from the Muslim or the Christian religions - a pox on the lot of these fanatics.

And here is Michael Scheuer's take on that:

"We are at the point where where we can no longer tolerate that Israel dictates the policy the US must follow. It's time we play the great power in the relationship and not the minor power. Fifty years is enough. I think Israel should do whatever it needs to defend itself. I have no qualms about that, but I don't think it's worth one dead American."

However, he also said: "It's so much more than Israel. We are so dependent, along with our European allies on oil from the Gulf, we still are going to be supporting the al-Saud tyranny. "

And as for the effect of a Democratic victory in 2006 or 2008:

"If the Democrats come in, they are viewed by the militants as more pro-Israel than the Republicans."

As the neocon "Senator from Israel" Joe Lieberman has demonstrated recently...People are starting to wonder if Lieberman is coordinating his Iraq policy statements with Karl Rove...

And Hillary's statements on the issue are a joke... 

You seem to be at the wrong website sir. You might want to redirect yourself to Stormfront.org  I'm sure you'll find a more appropriate audience there.

What specific statement did in the parent post did you find hateful?  I'm really curious.

Ah, Matthew, what makes you think that "we're trying to get Iran to c
o-operate with us in Iraq"? We're doing no such thing. We're trying to create permanent bases in Iraq, from which we can invade Iran and overthrow its government before it develops nukes. That's been the plan since Day 1. Who cares about Arab public opinion? I mean, who in the US government cares about Arab public opinion? Arab public opinion isn't going to protect us, or Tel Aviv, from Iranian nukes.

You make a persuasive-sounding argument. I wrote as I did at risk of being taken for an hysteric. I'm not really. I think that every possible effort must be made to resolve nuclear disputes wisely and diplomatically. Any less would be unconscionable. But it should be made clear and unequivocal in such negotions what the limits are as to what may be possible and what certainly will not. I think it would further be necessary to put forth in clear and specific terms what limits there will be in responding to a material threat.

It behooves us meanwhile to commit every available resource to obtain, within civilized limits, as much and as high quality intelligence as may be required to best ascertain what a nation - in this case Iran - is capable of and intentionally developing. That should be as major a commitment of resources, in principle, as those now directed to military occupation.

I'm arguing that above all else it must be made clear to Iran and all nations - not limited to specific actors or regions - that further development of nuclear weapons by policy shall be deemed unacceptable and will not be permitted under any circumstances.

It really is reasonable and prudentto establish and declare such a policy, and spell out exactly what we are prepared to do to enforce it.

Finally, for those who toy with ideas that embrace nuclear weapons development for some imagined or conjectured purpose e.g. balance of power, M.A.D., need to think again, especially in regard to Iran. That nation's possessing nuclear weapons dangerously unbalances any conceivable schema to stabilize the region. We have no evidence that Iran will refrain from destabilizing action if it deems it to its advantage. Do we really want them to have that kind of leverage? It's ludicrous to speculate what they might or might not do with it.

I worry that the tendency of western diplomats to explicitly link the Israel and nuclear issues every time launches one of these tirades is a mistake.

It is a mistake, I agree. If the linkage is obvious, or obviously understood, which it is, why belabor it, especially since Ahmadinejad and those Mullahs who secretly (or not so secretly) egg him on, don't need to be played to to enhance their propoganda.

... Greater Israel ...

... absurd conspiracy theories ...

I'd say  the writer overstates the case here.  "Hate" is a stronger word than I'd use though.  I'd also say that Greater Israel is more a goal acknowledged to be unachievable for now than it is not a goal of a substantial portion of Israeli leadership.

... no US government official can contemplate abandoning Israel ...

... fifth column ...

You have to add the word "secret" that the original writer did not use to try to invoke Godwin's law. 

I wouldn't use language this hyperbolic myself but I'd have trouble saying this guy hates Jews, or that only someone who hates Jews could write that post. 

Is there a way to parse between calling the Jewish state a cancer that must be excised and anti-Semitism?  No.

The thing is that traditional liberals oppose ethnic based political structures.  They oppose Alabama being a white state.  They oppose South Africa being a white state.  They oppose Germany being an Aryan state.  They oppose Israel being a Jewish state.  They oppose Israel's refusal to admit those who were driven from their homes and their descendents if the reason Israel must not admit them is that to admit them would damage Israel's ethnic identity.

Does that mean traditional liberals hate Jews?  I think you might say yes. But that is not hatred, and the accusation of hatred that flows freely when Israel's mission to maintain its ethnic identity is attacked devalues the accusation.

"Jews secretly control the American government. That's a textbook anti-Semitic canard."

And accusing anyone who opposes Israeli policies of Nazism is the standard Zionist canard. I expect the Holocaust will be the next reference to pop up. (And for the record, I am NOT a "Holocaust denier".)

Also for the record, I am an anarchist, and thus could never be remotely conceived to be a Nazi sympathizer.

What I said was that Israeli interests dominate American foreign policy concerns in the Middle East (at least when access to cheap oil does not dominate) - which is obvious if you look at the voting record of the US in the UN where anti-Israeli resolutions have been concerned, or if you look at the excessive influence of organizations such as AIPAC in the US Congress, or any number of other reasons easy to find with a Google, not to mention billions of dollars of foreign aid (larger than any other recipient) given mostly for military purposes to Israel.

Another poster says that no Israeli leader has ever advocated Zionist goals. This is almost too easy...a quick Google provides the following:

"We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle  on even one centimetre of Eretz Israel...Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours." Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces - Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983.

"We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do return." David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, as quoted in Michael Bar Zohar's Ben-Gurion: The Armed Prophet, Prentice Hall, 1967.

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people...It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist." Golda Meir, Statement to the Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969

"The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism.  Without settlement we will not fulfull Zionism. It's that simple." Yitzhak Shamir, Maariv, 02/21/1997.

"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories.." Benjamin Netanyahu, then Deputy Israeli Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister, speaking to students at the Bar Ilan University,  from the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989.

"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or the Jewish State,  without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." - Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agency France Presse, November 15, 1998.

"Our task consists of preparing the Israeli army for the new war approaching in order to achieve our ultimate goal, the creation of an Israeli empire." - Moshe Dayan, 1952, cite unknown.

"We want assimilation to be replaced by a new law: the declaration of belonging to the Jewish nation and Jewish race. A state built upon the purity of nation and race can only be honored and respected by a Jew who declares his belonging to his own kind. " Joachim Prinze, German Zionist, later head of the American Jewish Congress.

You were saying something about me being racist perhaps? 

Thank you for playing, come again. 

Anyone who thinks Israel is going to stand still while such rhetoric is on the upswing  is sorely mistaken. No amount of U.S. attempts to moderate things is going to alter the radical Islamic uprising we have promoted in the region. We are simply seeing the result of our regional policies. The promotion and or formation of anti-democratic forms of governance should not be unexpected. This is the all too predictable push back. Did anyone really think there would not be a wider price to pay for our military and political intervention in the region? Just ask yourself what might be our rection to a similar intervention in the Americas? Our regional intervention is being met by a logical and totally predictable opposition. This entire episode is so in line with all the fuck-ups to ever come out of Washington. One gets tired of watching. Its the same old plot line with a predictable outcome that can be seen from miles away. Its a modern day Shakespearean tragedy.

thepeoplechoose