RE: 10 Things Americans should know about Iran
A couple days ago, I posted a link to Juan Cole's brief blog over at Salon.com about the threat of nuclear weapons in Iran and the need to silence the beat of war drums. A commentator posted this from the New York Times. Today Huffington Post highlights an article written by Fareed Zakaria which outlines three options we have as a country. As I stated in my original post, I think there are some who have taken the war drum out of storage and are beating it extremely and excessively loud. It reminds me of the sounds that lead us to the illegal war in Iraq. I just wanna know what lessons--if any-- did we are learn as consumers of news in this country?
Advertisement
Fareed Zakaria does a nice job of laying out options but his advice does not touch on several important elements.
If the U.S. attacks Iran, the response on the "Arab street" will be the least of our problems. The Iraqi Shiite population will expel the U.S. occupation. Civil war will engulf the country. The Kurds will give up on the Iraq experiment and declare an independent state.
Zakaria couches his argument against the idea of negotiations on the basis that the Iranian regime needs to stay isolated to remain legitimate. His point that attacking Iran will kill the opposition movements in that country is well taken. But isn't the refusal to enter into a dialogue tantamount to calling for regime change that also isolates that opposition because it validates the interfering outsider meme?
When I look at the loose ends of Zakaria's arguments as intentional omissions, it looks like he is defending the right to use force more than he is arguing against it.
This article reminds me of the lead up to the Iraq invasion.
October 4, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
*puts fingers in ears*
Lalalalalalalalala...
I wish we all could do that.
October 4, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the U.S. attacks Iran, the response on the "Arab street" will be the least of our problems. The Iraqi Shiite population will expel the U.S. occupation. Civil war will engulf the country. The Kurds will give up on the Iraq experiment and declare an independent state.
We are playing fire. We put the Iraqi fire with money--for the moment. Do we have a few billions to douse Middle East and Central Asia flames?
Aren't Afghanistan and Pakistan in the neighborhood?
October 4, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billions go missing in Pakistan?
October 4, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Juan Cole is about the only honest voice you can find in America that will tell the truth about Iran without any blinders on. The anointed puniteers of the mass media rarely mention Cole and rarely want to confront his factual, unbiased information. What we continue to hear is essentially hysterical bullsht and lies designed to whip up enough animus toward Iran so our bloodthirsty ruling class can punish them for having the temerity of throwing off our puppet regime 30 years ago. Anyone who has actually paid attention for the past 30 years, and there are precious few in this country who have, has noticed by now that all the beligerence, hostility, threats, and lunacy eminates not from Iran but from Washington DC! Everything we've done to try and make Iran pay for breaking the yoke of our tyranny has backfired until this week. Almost instantly there were "signs of hope and progress" that came from just one day of talking. Naturally, the warmongers would have nonoe of that so they are sqwauking and yammering about how Iran "has the knowledge" to build a nuke. For Christ's sake, any idiot with a search engine can gain the knowledge to build a nuke. That's such a bogus, bullshit piece of propaganda it is difficult to believe anyone bothers to print it or broadcast, but they do so faithfully as though Iran presents any threat at all to the US which it most certainly does not.
Attack Iran? Hell NO!
October 4, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
1849 - Since this post is very similar to your post of 1-2 days ago, I'll link to that rather than repeating my response here -
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/1849/2009/10/10-things-americans-should-kno.php
To summarize it, though, I don't think anyone is rushing to attack Iran militarily - that would be an option of last resort. On the other hand, it would be somewhat delusional to believe that their pursuit of nuclear weapons would not ultimately be a serious threat. Interestingly, the recent revelations about their nuclear program have provoked more immediate expressions of concern from the Europeans than from us, but the Obama Administration is also cognizant of the threat, and I'm confident will take steps to address it through enhanced sanctions if necessary.
October 4, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What tipped you off, Sherlock?
Fred Moolten proclaims that the Obama administration is actually "cognizant" of a threat that Iran already announced to the IAEA!
It was already reported in every newspaper in the world, chump!
But Fred Moolten has graciously taken a time out from slobbering 13 similar comments on my diary to add yet another nauseatingly obvious observation!
Right you are, you ludicrously obvious and useless chump!
October 4, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
a threat that Iran already announced to the IAEA
Actually, Iran has denied rather than announced an intention to develop nuclear weapons, and has therefore denied that its program is a threat.
The two main points I was making in my earlier comments were first, that despite Iranian denials and despite some wishful thinking in the U.S., they were purusing nuclear weapons and that such pursuit was a threat, and second, despite some handwringing among some individuals here, it is not correct to imply that the U.S. is planning to respond militarily.
Both these points address specific claims made in this and other posts, or in sites that they link to.
October 4, 2009 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, chump, you have to be right, because everything in your world is so ridiculously obvious that even a chump like you can understand it without thinking.
Are you thinking with the toupee in your ugly avatar?
"I'm Fred Moolten, and my bad rug opines..."
But meanwhile you don't even know what words like "military planning" signify, even on the most obvious level.
Of course the United States has dozens of different contingency plans for attacking Iran at any given moment, and all of them are constantly updated in response to changes in relations between the US and Iran, and changes on the ground in Iran.
Did you even spent one minute thinking about military planning, instead of just shooting of your stupid mouth?
But not everything has to be obvious, Fred, and especially not so obvious that a chump like you can understand it without even thinking.
No plans to "respond militarily?"
And if Iran suddenly made an incursion into Iraq, for example, and attacked our forces on the ground, do you "think" that everything would have to be planned from a blank sheet in the Pentagon, chump?
"But Iran would never attack Iraq, and nobody even has to think about it in advance, because..."
"It isn't obvious to me, Fred Moolten, and the ugly rug that I think with."
(And thanks again for slobbering 13 stupid comments on my diary, chump!)
October 5, 2009 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
From Glenn Greenwald's column: The sources used by The Liberal Media
October 4, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
That didn't work. Here's the link.
October 4, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
A nuclear Iran would be check mate for us and Israel in the middle east. THAT is the reason we do not want them to have it.
Pure and simple.
C
October 4, 2009 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's true we (the U.S.) don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. Neither do the Europeans, China, Russia, Israel, or the Arab states in the Middle East.
October 5, 2009 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
And of course Fred's racist stereotypes demand that every "Arab state" in the Middle East has exactly the same attitude about nuclear weapons in Iran.
And that ludicrous generalization is based on what, Fred?
Are you absolutely sure, chump, that an "Arab state" dominated by a Shia majority, like Iraq, would have exactly the same attitude about nuclear weapons in Iran as a Sunni "Arab state" like Saudi Arabia?
Or do all those "Ay-rabs" just look alike to you, you racist simpleton?
(And thanks yet again for slobbering 13 stupid comments on my diary.)
October 5, 2009 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
And of course Fred's racist stereotypes demand that every "Arab state" in the Middle East has exactly the same attitude about nuclear weapons in Iran.
And that ludicrous generalization is based on what, Fred?
Are you absolutely sure, chump, that an "Arab state" dominated by a Shia majority, like Iraq, would have exactly the same attitude about nuclear weapons in Iran as a Sunni "Arab state" like Saudi Arabia?
Or do all those "Ay-rabs" just look alike to you, you racist simpleton?
(And thanks yet again for slobbering 13 stupid comments on my diary.)
October 5, 2009 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have the impression that Rutabaga may be overdue for his annual rabies shot.
October 5, 2009 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink