MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Since 1979, when the Shah of Iran finally lost his grip on power and the American CIA that controlled him was run out of Tehran, the elite power structure of our government has been engaged in one long, sustained hissy fit of belligerence, threats, instigating an illegal invasion of Iran by Iraq and supporting Iraq in every way during that period of time, embargoing and generally attempting to punish and destabilize the regime of Mullahs and nationalist Shiite religious zealots. At the same time, the US government has also dealt with this same regime when it was convenient for them, for example when the Reagan administration traded arms for hostages with them in the Iran Contra affair.
The track record of American diplomacy and other relations with Iran over these past thirty years has been, to say the least, abysmal. No one can dispute that. In almost every instance, the decisions and choices of the United States have been wrong. It is an irony of ironies that our every effort to destabilize the ruling class of the Islamic Republic has actually served to strengthen it. The failure of our strategy of bullying and cajoling is quite well known and is there for the entire world to see. It never worked. Not even once.
After all these long, long years of abject failure and of demonstrating that bullying, intimidation and threats don't work the ruling classes of the United States have apparently learned nothing whatever. The threats of war against Iran have been steady and relentless, even if sometimes in the background, since 1979. The Bush regime and its warmongering wing salivated at the thought of getting to finally go berserk on Iran and bomb the living hell out of them for their ongoing impudence. The American war industry and their cheerleading enablers in the government have been in a state of near apoplexy for years over the nuclear development program in Iran that may or may not be for nuclear weapons.
The ruling class, via both major political parties in the US, have been laying the groundwork for some kind of military assault on Iran since the moment the Ayatollah Khomeini stepped foot back on Iranian soil and the Shah fled. After the repeated and obvious failure of this strategy, many had hoped the Obama administration would make a significant departure in both posture and substantive strategy with Iran. Alas, that clearly is not going to be the case.
President Obama has demonstrated clearly that it was just as unwise to elect a Democratic President with no experience in foreign policy (though an admittedly smart man) as it was to elect a dunce Republican without any such experience. The outcomes, it appears, will not be all that different. The military industrial complex and the war industries will have their way regardless of which party is ostensibly in power.
What a disappointment it was to see Obama in self righteous tones condemning Iran for having a "secret" nuclear development plant in violation of the nonproliferation treaty and perhaps other treaties as though it were a revelation that somehow changes things. And this from a President who refuses to honor the US's own treaty obligations regarding war crimes and torture. We were treated to this appalling propaganda demonstration in order to set the table for western military aggression of some kind against Iran. This aggression could take any number of forms and depending upon circumstances it could be a measured and limited approach that would only kill tens of thousands of perfectly innocent Iranians or it could be a full aerial and missile bombing campaign launched from American bases in occupied Iraq and/or in the Persian gulf that would kill hundreds of thousands of perfectly innocent Iranians.
The public is being treated to a similar spate of war hysteria and propaganda not unlike the lies and fantasies leading up to the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq. We are being asked to believe once again that a second rate power in the middle east represents some sort of unacceptable threat to US and western interests generally if it were to acquire, at some as yet unknown date, nuclear weapons capabilities.
Now, it could well be that Iran is hell bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. It could well be that Iran might irresponsibly use such weapons against American or western interests in the region. It might even use nuclear weapons against Israel... if it ever has any. As of this time it doesn't have any such weapons. No one makes the claim that they do. But, we are to believe on zero evidence that the regime in Tehran is so crazy and so irresponsible that nuclear weapons in their hands would be totally unacceptable. We say this even as two of the most unstable and dangerous regimes on this planet now have nuclear weapons: Pakistan and North Korea.
So why is Iran the great threat instead of the two far more volatile and unstable regimes that already have these weapons? They never bother to explain this part to us because that isn't really what is driving all this. The whole schtick about what a threat Iran is, is nothing but a deception. We are simply to accept that those crazy, bearded and turbaned mullahs are insane and likely to bomb us. Oh my God! Whatever will we do if the big, bad mullahs get the bomb? The level of panic our ruling classes are trying to foment bears no relationship to reality. Who in their right mind could ever think that Iran poses an immediate threat to a nation like ours when we have tens of thousands of far more sophisticated weapons than Iran will every have. We, the public, are to be terrified at this prospect. We, the public, are to be prepared to lay down the lives of even more of our young men and women because our ruling class is still angry that Iran had and continues to have the gall to want to determine it's own destiny and to control it's own natural resources, namely oil.
I pray to God that this time, the warmongers have overplayed their hand and the public will simply refuse to support their wildly irresponsible and reckless military plans. There is simply no reason whatever to believe in what our rulers are telling us about Iran nor is there any reason to trust them to lead us through the sort of crisis they claim we are confronting.
It was clear in the lead up to the Iraq invasion that diplomacy and a myriad of options other than military invasion were being given the bums rush and nobody was allowed to discuss in a sober manner whether or not a war of aggression against Iraq was actually a sound idea and one that was bound to benefit or harm American interests.
There is an uncanny similarity between the revving up the war machine t0 illegally invade and occupy Iraq and what is now taking shape regarding Iran. We have made few, if any, serious diplomatic efforts to try and engage Iran and deescalate the tensions we have been maximizing for the past 30 years between our two countries. Now, we bring to the world the dramatic, but not terribly surprising news, that Iran had a secret nuclear facility. The manner in which this revelation was made public was a transparent propaganda exercise intended for the domestic political audiences of the G-20 and not at all intended to convey any real or substantive new "threat" being posed by Iran.
Our ruling elites have no credibility left at all with the public. If you don't think so, look at the total disconnect on the healthcare debate in Washington and the preferences of the vast majority of the American people. Or, if that isn't enough, take a look at the completely out of touch policy discussions going on in DC versus the very well established fact that the majority of our citizens oppose the war in Afghanistan and want us out of there as soon as possible. Take a look at the complete and total disgust and disapproval by the American people for what both parties did to steal from the taxpayers in order to pay off the bad debts/bets of our financial industry and banking barons. And now we are expected to trust this pack of untrustworthy swine when it comes to how much of a threat Iran poses to us and what we should do about it? It is simply mind-boggling how out of touch, arrogant and unworthy are ruling class has become.
Any military strike against Iran is not only unwise, but profoundly stupid and could be catastrophic for the United States. Chinese leaders are undoubtedly toasting the stupidity of the American rulers as they see the future being a completely open field for them once the Americans bankrupt themselves on their endless imperial wars and equally endless government subsidy for the corrupt and criminal financial industry.
It seems clear that there will be increasing calls for military aggression against Iran as a means of preempting their acquisition of nuclear weapons, even though there's no evidence that such an eventuality is at all imminent. The war drums are now beating a little louder and their tempo and volume will be increasing in coming months. The people cannot allow the powerful and the war industries to destroy the stability and prosperity that ought to be the birthright, not only of every American, but of all people everywhere. Using the military to attempt to break the Iranian regime using the cover of that regime someday, maybe, almost certainly will acquire nuclear weapons and use them against "us". Bah I say! Bah!
I am sick of having the American people manipulated by the most demonstrably incompetent ruling class that has every trod the earth! All sane people should do everything they can to make sure that no military action is taken against Iran by the US or any other nation. It will be a disaster if such a dangerous notion become policy and begins to be implemented.
We must all shout from the rooftops if necessary NO NO! NO! We will not go along with your sick, bloodthirsty plans to attack Iran and bring about even more bloodshed, heartache, destruction and death in the name of the people of the United States. Common people don't believe that malarkey and have no reason to believe it.
The approach Obama is preparing the public for would have been wrong had Bush manipulated public opinion on this question and it is perhaps even more wrong and reprehensible now that Obama is pushing this irresponsible line. There are other ways to deal with Iran that don't involve military force and that can or will be even more effective, but none of these alternatives have been given a serious try.
Iran is not our friend it is true, but that was a choice the US made over and over again. It was the choice we made in 1953 when we overthrew Iran's democratically elected, secular government in order to avenge the loss of British hegemony over Iranian oil. It is the choice we made by installing the Shah of Iran as our puppet to rule Iran. It was the choice we made over and over again as we continued to attempt to bully, cajole, threaten and intimidate Iran into complying with the wishes of the war machine. It was not the choice of the people of the Islamic Republic or their regime. We can still choose to undue the hostility our 30 year tantrum has produced.
Sure Iran has engaged in incendiary rhetoric over the years, but essentially their revolution was about self determination more than anything else. That is their right if we are to believe in our own historical positions on such matters. The legitimate desire of the Iranian people to be in command of their own destiny has been portrayed to the people of the west and American in particular as a "threat" when it simply is not true. Iran is a sovereign nation. As such the people there get to choose, by right, their own leaders. They have chosen the Islamic Republic and so we must deal with it. To continue to throw political and military temper tantrums over the assertion of the Iranian people's right to self determination is what is crazy and far crazier than what the mullahs are up to.
The US must grow up and start dealing with Iran from the basis of mutual respect instead of the mutual contempt we have been fomenting all these years. It may not be too late to avoid having the US military used to attack Iran and destabilize it. Look at the long list of benefits we earned by doing that in Iraq for God's sake! It's a disaster through and through. We cannot allow our insane ruling class to get away with more pointless killing and destruction that will not produce one positive thing on this earth.
Comments
Just say 'no' to any more unprovoked wars of aggression.
We need to return to being the promoters of peace, our traditional strength, instead of the bringers of war.
by Libertine (not verified) on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 4:31am
This is just like everything else in the U.S.
War is a for profit undertaking and thus is sanctioned by our government. No strings. No questions asked. If it makes money it is good.
We have a hybridized formulation of governance where democracy and capitalism have merged and capitalism has primacy over democracy. I think this is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.
by thepeoplechoose (not verified) on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 8:15am
So you still haven't learned to "Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb," Mr. Oleeb!
Tut tut! Tut! And...
Tut!
by Rutabaga Ridgepole (not verified) on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 12:04pm
A nuclear-armed Iran is likely without serious international pressure to stop it, and would be an enormous global threat. This is only in small part due to the possibility that an Iranian theocracy indifferent to the fate of its own people might launch a nuclear strike against Israel or some other target. To a much greater extent, it would be dangerous because Iran's Shiite regime is seen as a threat to Arab regimes in the region, and its nuclear capability would very possibly trigger a nuclear arms race in the part of the world where it would be most dangerous.
For this reason, the U.S. is legitimately alarmed about Iran's efforts - it would be irresponsible for us not to be. Nevertheless, the Administration is approaching the threat wisely, by reversing Bush Administration unilateralism in favor of a united approach involving Europe, and to the extent possible, China and Russia. In addition, Secretary of Defense Gates has clearly stated our plan to pursue the pressure through sanctions and other diplomatic means. Very wisely, a threat of force to be exerted under dire conditions would not be excluded, but it has been clearly described as something we do not wish to utilize.
Fortunately, it appears that Iran's capabilities are at least several years away from a deliverable weapon, and so there is time for our policies to succeed, provided they receive the national and international support they deserve and require.
by Fred Moolten (not verified) on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 2:01pm
Which Arab regime do you have in mind? First, they have all signed up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and would have to break out of that. Second, they would have to have the scientific and technical capability to develop nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Third, they would have to do so in the face of embargos on nuclear techology and expertise that would be enforced against them, either under the NNPT or as soon as they gave their 90-days notice to withdraw.
Saudi Arabia seems to be the only one with the money. Possibly it could buy nuclear weapons and/or technolgy from Pakistan.
Egypt seems to be the only one with the scientific and industrial base to do it on its own, but not in the face of an embargo.
Nuclear countries in the area are Israel, India, Pakistan and Turkey (through the US/NATO weapons sharing program). It is not clear that Iranian nuclear weapons built at the rate of a couple per year (and with very limited testing) would change anything.
by Merrill (not verified) on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 2:22pm
Yes, I think Saudi Arabia would be the most likely Arab candidate to pursue nuclear weaponry if Iran acquires it. What would follow, and whether other Arab states would respond individually or collectively with their own nuclear programs, or through purchase, is hard to predict. Clearly, no given scenario is a certainty, but nuclear acquisition in Middle East countries that lack nuclear capability currently is not implausible, and is something that would be hard to stop once it began. This is certainly something that would be encouraged if Iran successfully defies the international community, thereby demonstrating the toothlessness of international pressure.
I agree with your point that one or two Iranian nuclear weapons, and limited testing, would not yet constitute a severe threat, wbich is why there is still time to act. But deterrence itself doesn't happen overnight, which is why I think it prudent for multinational efforts to start now in earnest.
by Fred Moolten (not verified) on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 2:35pm
Further agreeing with you, Merrill, I would say that the Obama Administration probably sees things the same way, which is why the hyperbole denouncing their "intention" to start a war with Iran is hard to take seriously. I see no evidence they would be inclined to conduct such a war, or to sanction a war started by others.
by Fred Moolten (not verified) on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 2:41pm
I agree with you Fred, the US would not be inclined to conduct any aggressive act against Iran. It's better to have the threat of an Israeli airstrike on the apron ready to takeoff instead. Also, not only could Saudi Arabia be a potential nuke agent in the region, don't forget Jordan. They already enjoy much of our defense related war waging products. It may even be in the plans to start up a NATO-like alliance in the Middle East to keep Iran in check. Let's say Saudi Arabia, Jordan Turkey, Egypt as the key players and the rest of the smaller countries along for support services. They may even be thinking of creating it as a Middle Eastern arm of NATO to give it more European support. Everything depends on diplomacy at the moment.
by * (not verified) on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 4:13pm
AMEN
by dickday (not verified) on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 5:07pm
I'm a bit curious of Turkey's stance on a nuclear-capable Iran. They, at least last time I checked, hosting negotiations at the end of this week about such a possibility. Turkey borders Iran, used to be the most important country (empire) in the modern Arab world, but is dependent upon Iran for petroleum:
by matyra (not verified) on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 7:51pm
Besides, there is the cost of war to think about.
And I'm just thinking money, not lives or lost possibilities or other the loss of other country's goodwill or the fiasco of being at war in 3 adjacent countries....
by matyra (not verified) on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 8:21pm
Turkey already has nuclear weapons under the US/NATO weapons sharing arrangements. These are under control of US personnel in Turkey, and therefore the US asserts that this does not violate the non-proliferation treaty. However, if there is an attack on Turkey, a state of war would exist, in which case the US releases them for Turkish use.
See Nuclear sharing
by Merrill (not verified) on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 9:03pm
Two events occurred last week that immediately disappeared from discourse once President Obama talked of a secret second nuclear site in Iran.
First Israel was asked to open up its nuclear sites for inspection.
Second, and far more reprehensible was the UN report citing Israel for War Crimes in the Gaza.
The effect of Obama's shameless, sabre rattling against Iran was to deflect from those two events.
For the US and Obama to have any credibility re nuclear sites, they must take the same stand with all nations. The US and Obama must demand Israel submit to inspection by the IAEA.
And what of the Israel's War Crimes? When Libya's Ghaddafi spoke at the UN last week, some UN members (including the US) walked out because they thought a terrorist leader/nation should not have an audience. When Israel's Netanyahu spoke and tried to justify the War Crimes, there were no walk outs. Indeed the US is on record, through its UN ambassador, saying it does not accept the findings of the UN re Israel's War Crimes.
I for one believe in a world free of nuclear weapons. Iran should not get them and Israel should not have them. Open all sites to the IAEA.
War Crimes MUST be prosecuted. Israel and the Bush Administration must be prosecuted for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.
Iran is not a threat to the US. What is a threat to the US is when we as a nation turn a blind eye to War Crimes.
by letthesunshinein (not verified) on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 9:28pm
If Iran gets a nuke what would they do with it?
by JohnW1141 (not verified) on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 9:41pm
The Original Poster seems to be under the mistaken impression that poor U.S. policy choices overseas are necessarily the result of far reachign conspiracies, rather than garden variety incompetence or political pandering.
Politicians act tough on Iran because it plays in Peoria, not on K Street.
And once again the tired and inaccurate "Bush was a war criminal" nonsense appears in these pages. I wonder if anyone has actually read the Geneva Convention.
by El Presidente (not verified) on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 9:51pm
"Two events occurred last week that immediately disappeared from discourse once President Obama talked of a secret second nuclear site in Iran."
Actually there was a third. There was talk about ELIMINATING ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS FROM THE EARTH!"
Queen Noor was eloquent and sincere on MSNBC, And Obama actually said it OUT LOUD, in a speech, that if we are serious about non-proliferation, we might achieve TOTAL elimination of nuclear weapons.
The obstacles we must overcome to reach this point are staggering, because in it's essence, this concept takes the world economy off the military auction block, and stabs-through the heart of the congressional-military-industrial complex.
And that is one beast that will not die easily. As the rhetoric for non-proliferation, especially talk of a world with zero-nukes heats up, beware the cornered beast.
But consider this; if the world was united to remove every nuclear weapon from existence, then they would also be united against any rogue nation that tried to create one. There would be no question about sanctions or intervention. Zero nukes means zero nukes.
As long as we and so many other nations harbor tens of thousands of deadly warheads, it only seems like sheer hypocrisy to struggling countries, when we so desperately attempt to prevent one more of them from harnessing that Promethean nightmare.
by JEP07 (not verified) on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 9:54pm
Would they really bomb Israel? So many say that is what we are trying to prevent, but isn't that their Holy Land, too?
Just what other targets might they really be looking at?
I read a theory that they want the ability to nuke our naval warships if they cluster nearby, to prevent an Iraq-style shock-and-awe bombardment, and since they don't consider the ocean holy, that is their real motive for building a nuke..
IF not Israel, what is their target? Again, I can't see them nuking ANYTHING between Egypt and Iran, they would face the wrath of their own faithful.
by JEP07 (not verified) on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 10:01pm
far reaching conspiracies, rather than garden variety incompetence or political pandering.
EDIT for clarity
Just "garden variety political conspiracies" is all that is necessary; they are always far reaching in this global war-economy.
And you are right, "Bush WAS a war criminal" is quite inaccurate;
...until some sort of international statute of limitations runs out, Bush IS a war criminal, in some places.
No "WAS" about it. Cheney even moreso.
by JEP07 (not verified) on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 10:09pm
Thank you for that information--I learned quite a bit. But I'm still left wondering how Turkey would react to a nuclear Iran.
by matyra (not verified) on Tue, 09/29/2009 - 2:34am
It diminishes our soft power. Our ability to be a moral leader in the world is undermined which damages our best interests and destabilizes the world.
Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan, lesser since I believe we got the world's 'blessing' at the UN before that military action, has immeasurably damaged our standing in the world as has our foresaking of the rule of law when we disregarded habeus corpus also employing torture.
The damage goes so far beyond what money can measure. And attacking Iran would take us further down the unjustifiable and indefensible road we have been on since 2003. It will result in grave consequences for us over time. Among which will be more intense, extreme and numerically increasing numbers of people who want to kill Americans.
by Libertine (not verified) on Tue, 09/29/2009 - 3:07am