General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Neocons Hate the Iran Deal
Last edited Tue Jul 14, 2015, 07:55 PM - Edit history (1)
Why Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Neocons Hate the Iran Deal
Hint: It has nothing to do with the deal.
(Snip)
What worries these critics most is not that Iran might enrich its uranium into an A-bomb. (If that were the case, why would they so virulently oppose a deal that put off this prospect by more than a decade?) No, what worries them much more deeply is that Iran might rejoin the community of nations, possibly even as a diplomatic (and eventually trading) partner of the United States and Europe.
European leaders, especially Federica Mogherini, the EUs high representative for foreign affairs, and Philip Hammond, Great Britains finance minister, have said that the deal holds out hope for the reopening of broad relations with Iranand that is precisely these critics fear.
The fear is hardly without reason. The lifting of sanctions, which this deal will trigger in the next few years, will certainly enrich Iran. This might embolden the governments expansionist tendencies and its support of militant movements across the Middle Eastor it might moderate the countrys stance, as the population (much of it literate and pro-Western) interacts more with the rest of the world and the reigning mullahs die off. There is some basis for this hope of transformation. How long can the mullahs sustain their cries of Death to America and their claims of Western encirclementthe rationale for their oppressive domestic policieswhen the countrys president and foreign minister, clearly with the approval of the supreme leader, are shaking hands and signing deals with the Great Satans emissaries? Nonetheless, the hope is a gamble, and one cant blame Israelis for refusing to stake too much on its payoff.
(snip)
What Netanyahu and King Salman want Obama to do is to wage war against Iranor, more to the point, to fight their wars against Iran for them. That is why they so virulently oppose U.S. diplomacy with Iranbecause the more we talk with Irans leaders, the less likely we are to go to war with them. Their view is the opposite of Winston Churchills: They believe to war-war is better than to jaw-jaw.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2015/07/the_real_reason_israel_saudi_arabia_and_neocons_hate_the_iran_deal_they.html
This means more Iranian oil on the markets. Prices are already dropping.
Warpy
(111,417 posts)and wreck another country in the region to kick the support out from under some of the anti Israel Arab organizations.
Saudi Arabia is mad because they wanted the US to fight them and destroy the Shi'a infidels that posed a threat to their extremist Wahab kingdom by their very existence.
The neocons are mad because war is good business for the MIC and besides, they all feel so extra manly when there's a war going on.
All these people are good ones to disappoint, IMO.
The Neocons and the Bibi's cadre benefit from constant chaos in the region. If things settle down, there will be a new dynamic...and big changes as well as big losers.
They are indeed excellent people to disappoint.
Mosby
(16,401 posts)Iran controls Lebanon via an illegal army, they have hezbollah in syria defending that butcher assad, they have their revolutionary guard in Iraq, and are engaged in a proxy war in Yemen.
Yup, they are just dying to join the community of nations.
This author is a fucking tool.
madokie
(51,076 posts)but I don't think the author of this article is who it is
Mosby
(16,401 posts)Iran is clearly the most aggressive country in the world right now.
madokie
(51,076 posts)with the ability to comprehend what I read. If thats clever then I confess
oh yes I'm an old man and with age comes a don't give a flying fuck attitude about saying what needs to be said
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Mosby
(16,401 posts)Obviously the removal of the dictator Hussein was a mistake of epic proportions. The bush admin should have known and were told by many ME experts (including the Israelis) that the Iraqis were incapable of governing themselves.
Do you think that the US is always going to be blamed for the civil war casualties going forward? Will the deaths ever not be our fault? And if they are our fault how do we stop the civil war?
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)We will not be able to stop the civil war anytime soon.
The only actions we can take to try to improve things long term are.
1) Apologize for our actions in the world.
2) Hold accountable and prosecute our war criminals.
3) Modify our foreign policy to one of non-military intervention.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Maybe we should send Paul Bremer back there. He did a terrific job there.
On May 23, 2003, Bremer issued Order Number 2, in effect dissolving the entire former Iraqi army[43] and putting 400,000 former Iraqi soldiers out of work.[44]
The move was widely criticized for creating a large pool of armed and disgruntled youths for the insurgency. Former soldiers took to the streets in mass protests to demand back pay. Many of them threatened violence if their demands were not met.[45][46]
It was widely asserted within the White House and the CPA that the order to disband the Iraqi Army had little to no practical effect since it had "self-demobilized" in the face of the oncoming invasion force. This was a contentious claim, however, insofar as the CIA had conducted psychological operations against the Iraqis, such as dropping leaflets over the Army's positions prior to the invasion. The leaflets ordered the Iraqi Army to abandon their positions, return to their homes, and await further instructions.
Bremer was later heavily criticized for officially disbanding the former Iraqi Army.[47] Bremer, however, contends that there were no armies to disband, despite that American commanders at that time were negotiating with senior Iraqi army officers on how to use the Iraqi army for security purposes. He claimed that many soldiers simply left after the fall of Baghdad; some to protect their own families from the rampant looting. Critics claimed his extreme measures, including the firing of thousands of school teachers and removing Ba'ath party members from top government positions, helped create and worsen an atmosphere of discontent. As the insurgency grew stronger, so did the criticisms. Bremer was also in personal danger because of Iraqi perceptions of him and was henceforth heavily guarded. Attempts to assassinate him took place on numerous occasionsone of the more publicized events occurred on December 6, 2003, when his convoy was driving on the dangerous Baghdad Airport Road while returning to the fortified Green Zone. The convoy was hit by a bomb and gunfire, with the rear window of his official car blown away and as bullets flew, Bremer and his deputies ducked below their seats. No injuries or casualties were reported and news of the attack on Bremer was not released until December 19, 2003, during his visit to Basra.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bremer#Governor_of_Iraq
It was the CIA that installed Al-Maliki as dictator. There aren't any mistakes in Iraq anymore.
Mosby
(16,401 posts)I agree with you there.
Ultimately though the Shia-Sunni conflict made it impossible for a real democracy to emerge.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)I find it mysterious 5 days after he shows up the Jordan embassy was hit. This black flag terror group known for over-the-top brutality emerged in addition to Saudi Arabia sponsoring Wahabbi extremist groups in Iraq. Not to mention the atrocities committed at The Battle of Fallujah 2 sparked the Iraq civil war and the CIA installed Al-Maliki as Prime Minister who right away was brutally oppressing opposition from the start with Sunnis tortured in jails as early as 2005 liberally using the anti-terrorism laws the new country came with which allows for things such as indefinite detention.
DynCorp
One of the reports released on Wednesday found that an American company, DynCorp, appeared to act almost independently of its contracting officers at the Department of State at times, billing the United States for millions of dollars of work that was never authorized and starting other jobs before they were requested.
The findings of misconduct against the company, on a $188 million job order to build living quarters and purchase weapons and equipment for the Iraqi police as part of a training program, were serious enough that the inspector generals office began a fraud inquiry.
As a result of that audit, matters meriting investigation were uncovered, Stuart W. Bowen Jr., who is in charge of the office, said on Wednesday.
Mr. Bowen declined to give further details but said that he was also initiating a countrywide review of DynCorps work in Iraq. The company has also received major contracts to train police in Afghanistan.
Gregory Lagana, a DynCorp spokesman, said the company would investigate the reports findings. We are looking into the issues raised by the inspector general with the goal of providing as full an accounting as possible, Mr. Lagana said. We believe we acted responsibly and with all due concern for the expenditure of public funds.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/world/middleeast/01reconstruction.html?_r=2&scp=47&sq=dyncorp+international&st=nyt&
Bremer's Early Departure
Early departure
Bremer's early departure was a complete surprise. But the turnover of political power a couple of days earlier was suggested by members of the Bush Administration to thwart any plans the insurgency may have had for June 30.
U.S. intelligence sources had monitored chatter that suggested resistance elements were planning demonstrations, or outright attacks, to coincide with the time of the official handover. An early handover would preempt the plans of resistance elements.[72]
His early departure was disruptive to the smooth transition of authority, as the KPMG audit of the Development Fund for Iraq made clear. In their management notes the external auditors describe trying to meet with Bremer, and being very surprised by his early departure.
Many of Bremer's senior staff left when he did, meaning that important documents required for the completion of the audit, could not be signed by the appropriate staff members.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bremer#Early_departure
None of that money was lost, CIA has fronts everywhere particularly in the Department of Defense and with Bremer's past history suggests he likely is one himself.
Ronald Reagan appointed Bremer as Ambassador to the Netherlands in 1983, despite the fact that he did not know any Dutch, and Ambassador-at-Large for Counterterrorism and Coordinator for Counterterrorism in 1986.[2]
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Letter to L. Paul Bremer
Private sector
Bremer retired from the Foreign Service in 1989 and became managing director at Kissinger and Associates, a worldwide consulting firm founded by Henry Kissinger. A Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister, Bremer received the State Department Superior Honor Award, two Presidential Meritorious Service Awards, and the Distinguished Honor Award from the Secretary of State. Before rejoining government in 2003, he was chairman and CEO of Marsh Crisis Consulting, a risk and insurance services firm which is a subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan Companies.
He also served as a trustee on the Economic Club of New York,[3] and a board member of Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Akzo Nobel NV, the Harvard Business School Club of New York[4] and the Netherland-America Foundation. He served on the International Advisory Boards of Komatsu Corporation and Chugai Pharmaceuticals.
Bremer and 1,700 of the employees of Marsh & McLennan had offices in the World Trade Center. Bremer's office was in the North Tower. In an interview with CNN after the September 11 attacks, he stated that their office was located "above where the second aircraft hit".[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bremer#Early_departure
Democracy is achievable as long as equal & fair participation in the new government is allowed. The US had a lot to do with not allowing real democracy to emerge but it isn't like the administration didn't see it coming--they did.
Besides, there were the 2010-2014 Iraq protests which Al-Maliki brutally oppressed then came the 2014 ISIS offensive.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)By the way, FUCK NETANYAHU. It makes me happy to hear that piece of dogshit gnashing his little warmongering teeth.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)They don't control Lebanon, they fund the social programs of a legitimate political party with its own TV station that shows Sunday Mass for its Catholic allies. They get elected because people vote for them.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Mosby
(16,401 posts)If the Gazans would stop shooting rockets into Israel there would be no reason for fighting.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)How dare they try to resist.
Mosby
(16,401 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)Sheer nonsense.
Mosby
(16,401 posts)about the aggressive nature of the Iranian regime.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)And your highly subjective claim that Iran is the most aggressive nation on earth.
Mosby
(16,401 posts)You think that Israel and the US are the most destructive and aggressive countries.
Am I right?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)than Iran - Israel and the US being two, but no less importantly, Russia, China, and India.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)1. Lebanon is a multi-party democracy that includes Hezbollah, which Iran supports. Hezbollah doesn't "control" Lebanon, and neither does Iran.
2. Hezbollah is indeed supporting the Assad regime in Syria--against Sunni Islamic radicals. You going for ISIS? Because it's pretty much Assad or the jihadis.
3. Iran is indeed supporting the regime in Baghdad. So is the US. Weird, ain't it?
4. There's no evidence Iran is supplying anything more than rhetorical solidarity to the Houthis in Yemen. The nice people doing the proxy war thing there are your buddies the Saudis, who are bombing the shit out of somebody else's country.
I think we know who the tool is.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Why Assad may be helping Islamic States offensive
Al-Monitor recorded regime airstrikes against 17 rebel-held villages and towns in Aleppos northern countryside from May 31 to June 11. In contrast, IS-controlled towns in Aleppos northern countryside were spared any regime air raids.
Among the towns bombed by regime aircraft, four were part of a direct front line between the rebels and IS, among them Marea, Tlalin and Tell Qara, while 13 others formed part of a network of supply routes and staging areas for rebels on their way to fight IS, such as Tell Rifaat, Herbel and Ihras.
The intensity of the bombing that Aleppos northern countryside was subjected to, in conjunction with IS attack, seemed to further confirm that these were not regular regime strikes against areas outside of its control as shown in the map below. Whats even more important was the fact that villages that had not been targeted for a considerable period of time were now bombed by the regime in conjunction with IS attack on rebel forces in Tlalin, for example, which had not been bombed since July 2014, and Herbel, which had been spared since August 2014.
Despite the fact that IS must be benefiting from these strikes, it cannot be said that Assad and IS are allies. The regime has fought IS before, incurring heavy losses in materiel and troops in August and September of 2014, when IS attacked the Tabaqa military airport and the Shaer oil field. What then drives Assad to help IS on the battlefield?
There are two main reasons. The first is the regions importance to the rebel forces. Aleppos northern countryside is considered to be one of the largest rebel strongholds with access to Turkey, as well as the rebels' only gateway to the city of Aleppo.
On Feb. 17, the regime tried hard to isolate the northern countryside from the rest of the areas that are under rebel control to blockade the city of Aleppo by attacking the towns of Hardatneen, Retyan and al-Mallah. But, regime forces were met with stiff resistance by the rebels, who considered the battle to be a matter of life and death. As a result, 300 regime troops were killed, according to statements made to Al-Monitor by the former military commander of al-Jabha al-Shamiya (Shamiya Front), Lt. Col. Abu Bakr.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/06/syria-aleppo-regime-army-assad-support-isis-marea-tlalin.html
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Don't know that Al Nusra or any of those other guys are much better than ISIS, though.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Conservatives hate it because they nationalize oil production. I have no idea why Israel does, the most mysterious country but I imagine it is because Iran opposes their occupation.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Yeah, gee that must be it.
'Death to Israel' chanted at al-Quds day in Iran
http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/07/10/al-quds-day-rally-iran-pleitgen-pkg.cnn
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)I imagine things would be very different if not for the hypocritical double standards.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Irans Khamenei: No Cure for Barbaric Israel but Annihilation
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei took to Twitter to call for the destruction of Israel over the weekend. He first started with a string of vitriolic anti-Israel tweets that called for the destruction of the barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of Israel.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/11/09/iran_s_khamenei_israel_must_be_annihilated.html
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Annihilation is not going to happen nor should it, but what is the cure?
How do the Palestinians ever get justice and fair treatment?
roamer65
(36,748 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)perhaps it's Iran's history of financing terrorist organizations (hezbollah, hamas, islamic jihad) and the fact Iran is about to get its hands on billions of dollars. You don't have to be screaming for war to not believe Iran is an innocent little kitten with no history of wrong doing.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Wahhabi terror groups from Saudi money, no way in hell from Iran but you'd likely lack the perception to know how often Iran media is critical of Wahhabism. The US funds those groups far more than Iran does though.
Baluchi guerrillas in Iran
According to ABC news, citing U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources, U.S. officials have been encouraging and advising a Pakistani Balochi militant group named Jundullah that is responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran, reported ABC News online. The Jundullah militants "stage attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers, Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them, executing them on camera", This militant group is led by a leader, Abd el Malik Regi, sometimes known as "Regi." The U.S. provides no direct funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or "presidential finding" as well as congressional oversight. A CIA spokesperson said "the account of alleged CIA action is false".[15]
According to the Christian Science Monitor, Jundallah, or "God's Brigade", composed of predominantly Sunni Muslim Baluchis which inhabits Pakistan's gas-rich province of Baluchestan, as well as neighboring regions in Iran and Afghanistan.[16]
Regi was also claimed by Iran to be associated with al Qaida which the group denies. Hossein Ali Shahriari, the representative from Zahedan in Parliament, said the attack had been carried out by "insurgents and smugglers who are led by the world imperialism," a common reference to the United States and Britain.[17]
MEK support
The PBS documentary series "Frontline", reported, in October 2007, CIA supports Anti-Iranian organizations such as the People's Mujahedin of Iran (also known as the MEK or MKO) which has been involved in terrorist activities within Iran. Iran has demanded that the US stop supporting the MEK in exchange for stopping its support of Shiite's in Iraq.[18] The show quoted Vali Nasr, author of The Shia Revival as saying the Iranians had hoped that the fall of Saddam would destroy the MEK, which is generally unpopular in Iraq...the MEK operated in Iraq as an arm of Iraqi intelligence against Iranian operatives in Iraq, against Shi'ites and against the Kurds. And, in fact, one of the major pressures on the United States to round up the MEK and put them in a camp did not come from Iran; it came from [Iraqi President] Jalal Talabani.... And I think at a third level the Iranians look at the MEK issue as a test of U.S. goodwill...."
Richard Armitage disagreed that MEK was being supported. "Richard Armitage, U.S. deputy secretary of state, 2001-05, said... "I've heard through some interviews that in some of the discussions leading up to the invasion that Ryan Crocker had said to the Iranians that the MEK would be treated as part of Saddam's army, the implication being [it would be] on a target list, which wasn't exactly what happened after the war.
"I don't know about that specifically, but we had discussed the MEK more pointedly after the invasion. And there were some in the administration who wanted to use the Mujahideen-e Khalq as a pressure point against Iran, and I can remember the national security adviser, Dr. [Condoleezza] Rice, being very specific about it, saying no, a terrorist group is a terrorist group.
"That was exactly the point of view of the State Department as well. We wanted the U.S. military to disarm the MEK and contain them. ... And eventually we did disarm the major weapons [from] the MEK. Then we ... engaged in a broad effort to try to resettle these people, but we were very unsuccessful in getting them settled in foreign lands...."
New evidence was cited in a 2012 New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh regarding U.S. government assistance to MEK: "It was here [the Department of Energy's Nevada National Security Site] the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) conducted training, beginning in 2005, for members of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq
. Funds were covertly passed to a number of dissident organizations, for intelligence collection and, ultimately, for anti-government terrorist activities. Directly, or indirectly, the M.E.K. ended up with resources like arms and intelligence. Some American-supported covert operations continue in Iran today, according to past and present intelligence officials and military consultants."[19] In the same article, Robert Baer, a retired C.I.A. agent, is also on record as stating: "They [the U.S. government] wanted me to help the M.E.K. collect intelligence on Iran's nuclear program[.]"[19]
2008
In response to an inquiry from the Washington Post regarding a story by Seymour Hersh appearing in the July 7, 2008 issue of The New Yorker, which claims that the Bush administration undertook a greatly expanded program of covert actions inside Iran beginning the previous year,[20] agency spokesman George Little said, "The CIA does not, as a rule, comment on allegations regarding covert operations."[21] Hersh detailed US covert action plans against Iran involving CIA, DIA and Special Forces. According to Hersh, the United States is materially supporting the following groups which are performing acts of violence inside Iran:
Baluchi dissidents. Hersh writes:
The use of Baluchi elements, for example, is problematic, Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. clandestine officer who worked for nearly two decades in South Asia and the Middle East, told me. "The Baluchis are Sunni fundamentalists who hate the government in Tehran, but you can also describe them as Al Qaeda," Baer told me
Jundallah, a Sunni and Baluchi group. Hersh quotes Vali Nasr on Jundallah as stating that
"They are suspected of having links to Al Qaeda and they are also thought to be tied to the drug culture."
These two separate claims are the same. The Jundullah is a Baloch militant group from Sistan - Baluchistan. Baloch people are Sunni.
The leader of Jundallah was executed at Evin prison in Iran in 2010 after being taken off a flight from Dubai to Kyrgyzstan, where he claimed in an interview on Iranian TV he had a meeting with a "high ranking US official" at the Manas Air base (the US Military base in Kyrgyzstan).
Expatriate nationalist group People's Mujahedin of Iran
Kurdish separatist group PJAK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran#MEK_support
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)actually called islamic jihad:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Jihad_Movement_in_Palestine
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)it's about the nuclear program
nothing else.
Yeah, Israel wants a permanent sanctions regime against Iran because Iran is hostile to Israel.
But, that's Israel's problem, not ours.
lindysalsagal
(20,785 posts)How many dead bodies will make him happy?
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)SA because Iran's economy and power will improve and make them a more formidable rival in the region, Israel because they have to rely on other nations'/organizations' strict enforcement of the terms, and Iran could still be developing a nuclear weapon in 10 or 15 years. Neocons hate it because of Israel's dislike of it, but also because it will hinder that sweet, profitable war goodness that they love so much.