Neocons Using Iran Election To Push For War
It helps that the neocons in both the United States and Israel made emphatically clear how much they wanted Ahmedinejad re-elected. If they had kept their mouths shut -- and pretended that they preferred the moderate Moussavi -- they would have a bit more credibility now as they shout that Ahmadinejad's election justifies an end to diplomacy.
But they didn't prefer Moussavi; they preferred the thug and said so. The internal contradiction in their argument can be seen in these words from Israel's very neocon deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon today.
"We had no illusions about these elections in Israel," said Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, "because on the nuclear issue there was no fundamental difference between the candidates." Nevertheless, he added, Ahmadinejad's election removes "any glimmer of hope for change in Iran."
Got that? Even though there was no difference between the candidates, Ahmadinejad's "victory" removes "any glimmer of hope...."
Here is Elliot Abrams: "Both the apparent victory and the apparent fraud greatly complicate the Obama strategy. My advice is that they had better be thinking about more sanctions....Sanctions that bite might be a powerful tool and might push the regime into a serious negotiation. But it is more likely that the engagement strategy has been dealt a very heavy blow.
So what do these guys want?
They want confrontation with Iran, no matter who runs the government. Above all, they want President Obama to stop thinking about diplomacy and give Israel the green light to attack Iran that George W. Bush refused to give.
It's not going to happen that way because the argument for diplomacy, and against war, is as strong after the stolen election as it was before.
America's interests are the same regardless of the state of democracy in Iran. And those interests (the safety of American troops in Iraq, the survival of Israel and our other allies in the region, the supply of oil, eradicating Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and preventing Pakistan's collapse, etc) all require us to prevent the neocons from leading us into another debacle -- a twin pillar of failure to erect next to the Iraq war.
I'll leave it to the experts to explain exactly why and how to pursue diplomacy. But for now, here's my rule of thumb. The neocons are always wrong. They were wrong when they led the American cheering for Ahmadinejad and they are wrong when they lead the moaning over his "victory." In fact, they have not been right any issue in the 30 years or so since Norman Podhoretz invented neoconservativism.
Neocons are a great and true weathervane. They always point in the wrong direction, the very opposite of a moral compass.
"Therefore, while my heart goes out to the many Iranians who desperately want the vile Ahmadinejad out of power, my head tells me it's best that he remain in office."
Was it Pipes who said this, or one of the Iranian theocrats he ostensibly despises? Their "hearts" seem to be in the same place.
June 13, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The latest Newsweek article goes so far as to say....
"When it looked like Mousavi might win, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC ) started sending out e-mails to American journalists and opinion makers insisting that Mousavi was a very bad guy, too. Specifically, they said Mousavi was responsible for the secret deal with the underground network of Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan that laid the foundations for Iran's nuclear program."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/201934
June 13, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iranian democracy, such as it was, has been overthown by Iranian theocratic madmen (your terms Rosenberg, your terms). Iran now faces the very real possibility of a bloody terrible civil war...or an even bloodier attack by fearful foreigners...and all you and your acolytes can think about it how to blame it all on Americans and Israelis.
I've never met scum like you. You don't deserve citizenship in any country in the world, or even membership in the human race.
June 13, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ordinary, not to change the subject (slightly), but I'm curious to know more about your worldview.
You've stated your belief that Israel will be at risk if it stops expanding its settlements.
If settlement growth were to theoretically continue unabated for 20 years, what would Israel's borders be? What about 100 years from now?
If Israel somehow kept expanding, "tranferring" the Palestinians to Jordan, would Israel then feel safe with the Jordanians/Palestinians just across the river?
Would Israel be at risk unless it kept expanding its borders? What if Israel eventually ran low on water?
And what are the precise boundaries of Eretz Israel, as told in the Bible? What land did God give to the Jews?
Just curious.
June 13, 2009 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to say a little more about the election, before I respond to you.
I thought Ahmadinejad would win because I thought the Iranian people hated Israelis and Americans more than they resented their isolation, poverty, and lack of freedoms. It seems I was wrong. It seems they hated Israelis but not Americans and looked hopefully to rapproachment with the West. So had Moussavi taken power (assuming he really won) it would have been better for America, better for Iran, but worse for Israel. I've already described how I thought the Israelis would have responded but it would have given Obama a better chance. Maybe he could have surprised me. It certainly would have been a better situation than we now have.
All this assumes the current reports are correct. It's nonsense if Ahmadinejad really won.
Now to your questions. I've already told you that this has nothing to do with God, as far as I'm concerned. Insisting that I'm lying is not a good start.
As long as the Arabs refuse to make peace, it's in Israel's interest to keep expanding, at least until their borders make some military sense. Current borders are not sensible because they are armistice lines.
Demographic pressures and resource shortages are not Israeli/Palestinian or Israeli/Arab or Jewish/Muslim problems. They are problems for all of humanity.
June 14, 2009 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I forgot about the religion thing.
What would be a specific example of militarily defensible boundaries? Do you have any specific ideas, or just a general feeling that Israel needs to keep expanding?
And given how successful your government has been in convincing you that all (or most all) Iranians hate Jews and want to risk certain annihilation to attack Israel, don't you think an atmosphere of insecurity could be created by the Israeli military-industrial complex to make Israeli's insecure within any expanded borders? I don't see the Jordan river as being enough to make you secure.
Am I correct on that?
June 14, 2009 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Golan Heights in the North, the Jordan river in the East, the Sinai passes in the South. Those are "reasonable, defensible" borders.
Will these borders be sufficient to provide Israelis with security? Of course not, if Muslims continue to threaten them. Did two oceans and the mightiest military machine in history provide us with absolute security against the Soviets? Did the greatest land empire ever assembled protect the Soviets against the Germans? Defensible borders and more land are much better. That's all.
The rest of your stuff is cant. Because we've come to different conclusions you assume that I've been fooled by my government and/or somebody's military/industrial complex while you can see through it all to the truth. Pretty insulting.
This is a pretty telling error. It should be"I don't see the Jordan river as being enough to make ISRAELIS secure?"
You're not the only one to make that error. What do you suppose it means?
June 14, 2009 4:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The sentence is still erroneous. It should have read "I don't see the Jordan river as being enough to make WEST BANK SETTLER-FANATICS secure."
Walking, swimming, and quacking settler-advocates can concoct any rubbish they want about "defensible borders." Israel has a military, despite its recent cowardice and corruption, that can lick the rest of Mideast put together and nukes besides. If Israelis as a whole allow themselves to be conned by the settlers, that is fundamentally their business. It does not mean that AMERICA's interest is not, as it always has been, two states divided at or near the 1967 line, as called for by the UN and accepted by nearly the entire world, including most Arabs, for decades.
June 14, 2009 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to know the Israeli military is so powerful. And to be reassured that it is so despite recent cowardice and corruption. Wow!
June 14, 2009 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Still coveting the Sinai, I see. No wonder the Arabs don't trust what Israelis say.
June 14, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
How strong the Israeli military still is, is a mainly matter of concern and/or "reassurance" for Israelis, not Americans. Ordinary settlers being un-ordinary examples of the former, and having no legitimate say in what the latter do.
June 14, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
?
The IDF is the most powerful military in the region; no one disputes that fact.
It's also corrupt in terms of the religious officers and soldiers weakening it from within by becoming a liability to the number one rule of any military, unquestionably following orders. When that internal discipline is weakened, the IDF becomes in effect, an military entity with a State rather than an arm of the State.
Most observers naturally assume that the IDF mirrors modern armed forces with long histories of being subservient to the King or whatever entity, usually civilian, is acknowledged as the legitimate leader of a nation. The IDF is not completely subject to civilian oversight unless the state of Israel is under the control of an assertive and ruthless military strongman such as Ariel Sharon who knew which heads to crack.
It's a grave error to imagine the IDF is somehow comparable to the US military in terms of it's relationship to the political leadership.
However, the internal problems of the IDF are, at this point, only of concern when it comes to dealing with the Palestinians and the settlers. Sympathy for the latter group has made it impossible for the IDF to deal with proposed removal of entrenched settlements. This is where the breakdown of traditional military discipline is problematic.
This is NOT a factor when the IDF is dealing with foreign entities.
The problems the IDF had in '06 were somewhat due to organizational, structural, and procedural errors but the miscalculations made by the IDF and sold to inexperienced Israeli leaders was the prime factor. CoS Dan Halutz made the typical mistake of an air force man by thinking that the IAF could bomb Lebanon into submission. He ignored our experience in Iraq and even worse, the earlier Israeli experiences on the ground in Lebanon. All modern militaries now understand that assymetric warfare has changed the rules of the game. Sharon understood this reality.
As far as defensive systems go, Israel has access to the best of the best from the American arsenal and is only constrained from our most closely held secrets. For example, we have established the first-ever American military base in Israel in the Negev. It's an X-band radar system that can instantly detect anything, from drones to missiles, that is launched within a range of 2,000 kilometers.
I could go on and on detailing the strengths, both offensive and defensive, of the Israeli state. But, I've learned that gibbering fearfulness and eternal victimhood is such an integral part of the modern Zionist mantra that factual evidence directly contradicting those religiously held tenets is considered a threat rather than reassurance by many who adhere to their distorted "visions".
Israel is currently training brigades for a land invasion of Syria and no doubt, Lebanon. It's sending a message of endless military confrontations which naturally results in the targets taking measures to defend themselves.
Israeli aggression is THE problem and those who claim she only wants "peace" are fucking liars.
June 14, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
More irony? Can you imagine the reaction if the Syrian or Iranian presidents told the world that they were training brigades "just in case" they needed to attack Israel?
Apparently, only the USA and Israel can claim to support peace while actually threatening military action against other states.
June 14, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awhile back, you sarcastically suggested that if Syria refused to give up the Golan heights, Israel would consider that position to be a casus belli for war.
Obviously, that's an exaggeration. But several years ago, the Israelis threatened that Syria assembling it's ground forces along and within it's own borders would constitute a provocation for an attack.
(Israel has never de-mined areas of the Golan Heights, which to the cynic, could indicate they do envision returning it to Syria someday)
June 14, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Helena Cobban:
"All this commentating in the American media about whether the Iranian powers-that-be have negated the results of the election held there yesterday prompt me to ask about the Palestinian parliamentary elections of January 2006."
It's a power struggle but there are no madmen involved.
North Korea and Israel are a different stories.
Iran may have just had its Tiananmen.
June 13, 2009 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The neocons have an itch. Nothing will relieve that itch except war, war, war with Iran. Their Viagra must have worn out. They can't fuck their wives. Might as well fuck Iran.
June 13, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
They sometimes admit as much...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZumilAQtL8c&feature=related
June 13, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So to all those Americans out there tonight who are saying, you know what, taking on Iran is a good thing… . And if we use nuclear weapons, the genie ain’t going back in the bottle until an American city is taken out by an Islamic weapon in retaliation. So tell me, you want to go to war against Iran, pick your city. Pick your city. Tell me which one you want gone. Seattle? L.A.? Boston? New York? Miami? Pick one! Because at least one’s going. And that’s something we should all think about before marching down this path of insanity." Scott Ritter
June 14, 2009 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yo MJ, here's Perle and Gaffney saying it's all Obama's fault anyways (laughable and tragic at the same time)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6493623.ece
June 14, 2009 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only way to get rid of the current dictatorship in Tehran is by having the Iranian people do it themselves. An attack by the US or Israel would be completely counterproductive probably allowing the government, whose credibility has taken a big hit in the wake of the fraudulent elections, more popular support with the Iranian people. It will unify them against their attackers and greatly strengthen the regime's hold on power. It is the absolute worst course of action right now.
What would help would be the UN, that body representing the world, and hopefully some of the moderate Middle-eastern countries to question the result of the election. And hopefully it could be done in a high profile. Help turn up the heat on the Iranian Street and see if anything boils over. This was a huge misstep for the ruling mullahs in Iran...the absolute last thing anybody should want to do is let them off the hook with their own people by attacking them. For anyone who has studied Persians/Iran know the one way to unite them, and have them put aside their differences, is to attack/invade their country. But as always neocons are renowned for making the absolute worst foreign decisions. And after the 2000-2008 period why the hell would anybody put any stock in what they have to say? I think Dick "Dead Eye" Cheney needs some new hunting targets...ummmm...partners.
June 14, 2009 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are many angles to the unending saga of this region. They change over time but the central conflict between religions remains as the timeless constant.
There is a twist this time though. The U.S. role in the modern era has never dismissed the war alternative as much as the Obama presidency does. Call it being hard headed or whatever else you want but having diplomacy presented as the only alternative is distinctly different. It looks different, it feels different and it makes all involved act different.
An alternative result might just serve as a basis to inform the players there is a better way.
June 14, 2009 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to single you out but I keep on reading in many of the comments about how 'religion' is almost an insurmountable obstacle to overcome. I don't see it as such. We have decent relations with many Muslim countries, most notably Turkey, Jordan and Egypt. So I see no reason that 'religion' is a major obstacle in better relations between Iran, or any Middle-eastern country, and the US.
June 14, 2009 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Throughout history religion has always been an obstacle between people. Its impossible to offer a credible refutation of that fact.
June 14, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well right now our relationships with Jordan and Egypt fly in the face of that.
June 14, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regardless of what the real vote in Iran was, the result reinforces the assessment that it will take carrots as well as sticks to avert more instability if not disasters in the Mideast. This applies to the hardliners running Israel as well as the hardliners in Iran.
I cannot dissent from the fundamental claim that the neo-cons have always been amoral and usually recklessly incorrect in their judgments, but I don't think making that assertion is particularly helpful go forward, even as a rhetorical exaggeration. The neo-con-artists were not turfed out of power in Washington because they were morally crooked liars, chickenhawks and tricksters; they are now in the minority because of their monumental and unrelenting incompetence on the job. What matters most now is that the Obama Administration show competence and skill at tackling thorny issues -not the output of the BS mill cranked by has-been hypocrites- and that "liberals", "progressives," and Democrats back him in the clutch. Ahmadinejad's re-instatement makes the task of achieving a sane and stable Mideast even more difficult than it already was, but still not impossible.
June 14, 2009 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
One paradigm that needs to die right now is the Western conceit that any politician who rejects us is illegitimate. Iran has a lot of poor, rural people. They happen to Admadinejad's base. His Council of Conservative Citizens, as it were.
Did I want him to lose? You betcha.
Do Tehran college students represent the majority of Iranians? Unlikely.
If you watched the BBC coverage, many Iranians were pretty fired over in favor of Ahmadinejad. (I found that depressing.)
Was there fraud? Almost certainly.
Was it sufficient to change the results? We don't know yet.
Personally, I don't see anything positive about Ahmadinejad. Why would people go to his rallies?
But then I felt the same way about Sarah Palin's rallies last year.
June 14, 2009 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just to add. Ahmadinejad has been accused of running "a charity economy." Sarah Palin could never be accused of doing that.
It's the reformers who complain about welfare queens.
http://djavad.wordpress.com/
June 14, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
" 'Tabriz voted 80 per cent for Ahmadinejad. It was he who opened university courses there for the Azeri people to learn and win degrees in Azeri. In Mashad, the second city of Iran, there was a huge majority for Ahmadinejad after the imam of the great mosque attacked Rafsanjani of the Expediency Council who had started to ally himself with Mousavi. They knew what that meant: they had to vote for Ahmadinejad.'
My guest and I drank dookh, the cool Iranian drinking yoghurt so popular here. The streets of Tehran were a thousand miles away. "You know why so many poorer women voted for Ahmadinejad? There are three million of them who make carpets in their homes. They had no insurance. When Ahmadinejad realised this, he immediately brought in a law to give them full insurance. Ahmadinejad's supporters were very shrewd. They got the people out in huge numbers to vote – and then presented this into their vote for Ahmadinejad."My guest and I drank dookh, the cool Iranian drinking yoghurt so popular here. The streets of Tehran were a thousand miles away. ' 'You know why so many poorer women voted for Ahmadinejad? There are three million of them who make carpets in their homes. They had no insurance. When Ahmadinejad realised this, he immediately brought in a law to give them full insurance. Ahmadinejad's supporters were very shrewd. They got the people out in huge numbers to vote – and then presented this into their vote for Ahmadinejad.' "
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-iran-erupts-as-voters-back-the-democrator-1704810.html
June 14, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then the question is - can the United States, Israel and the West accept true democracy in Iran? Also, how much neocon machination was a factor in Ahmadinejad's victory? Many of them, including Pipes, Abrams and Krauthammer, have openly admitted they wanted this divisive figure to stay in power. A moderate Iran could hardly be attacked and bombed; as long as Ahmadinejad is the figurehead leader of the country, they can paint Iran as an extremist foe seeking nuclear weapons. Since this bloc of the Right still has powerful connections, did they actively steer funds and "resources" so Ahmadinejad could retain his post?
June 14, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
A true democracy in Iran would still enrich uranium. (The program is very popular there.)
We can't handle real democracy in the ME: do you honestly think that real, accountable governments would be laundering their money through the federal reserve? Buying all those ludicrous weapons systems that they will never use?
No, they would keep the money at home for the enormous human development projects that the region sorely needs.
June 14, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then the question is - can the United States, Israel and the West accept true democracy in Iran? Also, how much neocon machination was a factor in Ahmadinejad's victory? Many of them, including Pipes, Abrams and Krauthammer, have openly admitted they wanted this divisive figure to stay in power. A moderate Iran could hardly be attacked and bombed; as long as Ahmadinejad is the figurehead leader of the country, they can paint Iran as an extremist foe seeking nuclear weapons. Since this bloc of the Right still has powerful connections, did they actively steer funds and "resources" so Ahmadinejad could retain his post?
June 14, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
A hard right fundamentalist group won popular elections in Israel recently--how exactly is Ahmadinejad different that Avigdor Lieberman? How are the hard-right Israelis different than the hard-right Israelis?
June 14, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The hard right Iranians are assholes.
The hard right Israelis are insane.
June 14, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The hard right Israelis are as-holes too. The mullahs have no monopoly on that trait.
June 14, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
In case anybody is interested in some facts and figures concerning "Iranians" re-electing "their" president:
According to surveys taken in Iran in early 2008 by WorldPublicOpinion.org and Terror Free Tomorrow:
(66%) of those polled approved of "the way President Ahmadinejad is handling his job as president"
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/527.php
Another poll by the same organization says:
"In a rare independent nationwide survey before the June Presidential elections, Iranians of every political inclination are united in their desire for greater democracy, economic progress and better relations with the United States. While our uncensored poll shows incumbent President Ahmadinejad in the lead with a plurality of support"
http://terrorfreetomorrow.org/articlenav.php?id=5
The poll was presented and here's the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSH8-LYJ9nM
June 14, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
n the nuclear issue there was no fundamental difference between the candidates." Nevertheless, he added, Ahmadinejad's election removes "any glimmer of hope for change in Iran."
Got that? Even though there was no differen
tool bag manufacturer
August 11, 2010 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
iPad Converter This article is very interesting. Thank you very much for sharing . Hulu Downloader
August 14, 2010 4:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you very much for sharing . flv converter
August 14, 2010 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of windows 2008 hyper v, iscsi target 3.2
March 29, 2011 5:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of sql server high availability
April 28, 2011 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
car shipping, auto transport, car transport, car transportation, vehicle shipping, car shipping.
April 29, 2011 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
car shipping, auto transport, car transport, car transportation, vehicle shipping, car shipping.
April 29, 2011 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink