Noam Chomsky: Opposing Iran Nuclear Deal, Israel’s Goal Isn’t Survival — It’s Regional Dominance
3/2/2015
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has arrived in the United States as part of his bid to stop a nuclear deal with Iran during a controversial speech before the U.S. Congress on Tuesday. Dozens of Democrats are threatening to boycott the address, which was arranged by House Speaker John Boehner without consulting the White House. Netanyahus visit comes just as Iran and six world powers, including the United States, are set to resume talks in a bid to meet a March 31 deadline. "For both Prime Minister Netanyahu and the hawks in Congress, mostly Republican, the primary goal is to undermine any potential negotiation that might settle whatever issue there is with Iran," says Noam Chomsky, institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "They have a common interest in ensuring there is no regional force that can serve as any kind of deterrent to Israeli and U.S. violence, the major violence in the region." Chomsky also responds to recent revelations that in 2012 the Israeli spy agency, Mossad, contradicted Netanyahus own dire warnings about Irans ability to produce a nuclear bomb, concluding that Iran was "not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons."
Transcript
snip* AMY GOODMAN: Well, Noam, lets start with Netanyahus visit. He is set to make this unprecedented joint address to Congress, unprecedented because of the kind of rift it has demonstrated between the Republicans and the Democratic president, President Obama. Can you talk about its significance?
NOAM CHOMSKY: For both presidentPrime Minister Netanyahu and the hawks in Congress, mostly Republican, the primary goal is to undermine any potential negotiation that might settle whatever issue there is with Iran. They have a common interest in ensuring that there is no regional force that can serve as any kind of deterrent to Israeli and U.S. violence, the major violence in the region. And it isif we believe U.S. intelligencedont see any reason not totheir analysis is that if Iran is developing nuclear weapons, which they dont know, it would be part of their deterrent strategy. Now, their general strategic posture is one of deterrence. They have low military expenditures. According to U.S. intelligence, their strategic doctrine is to try to prevent an attack, up to the point where diplomacy can set in. I dont think anyone with a grey cell functioning thinks that they would ever conceivably use a nuclear weapon, or even try to. The country would be obliterated in 15 seconds. But they might provide a deterrent of sorts. And the U.S. and Israel certainly dont want to tolerate that. They are the forces that carry out regular violence and aggression in the region and dont want any impediment to that.
And for the Republicans in Congress, theres another interestnamely, to undermine anything that Obama, you know, the entity Christ, might try to do. So thats a separate issue there. The Republicans stopped being an ordinary parliamentary party some years ago. They were described, I think accurately, by Norman Ornstein, the very respected conservative political analyst, American Enterprise Institute; he said the party has become a radical insurgency which has abandoned any commitment to parliamentary democracy. And their goal for the last years has simply been to undermine anything that Obama might do, in an effort to regain power and serve their primary constituency, which is the very wealthy and the corporate sector. They try to conceal this with all sorts of other means. In doing so, theyve had toyou cant get votes that way, so theyve had to mobilize sectors of the population which have always been there but were never mobilized into an organized political force: evangelical Christians, extreme nationalists, terrified people who have to carry guns into Starbucks because somebody might be after them, and so on and so forth. Thats a big force. And inspiring fear is not very difficult in the United States. Its a long history, back to colonial times, ofas an extremely frightened society, which is an interesting story in itself. And mobilizing people in fear of them, whoever "them" happens to be, is an effective technique used over and over again. And right now, the Republicans havetheir nonpolicy has succeeded in putting them back in a position of at least congressional power. So, the attack onthis is a personal attack on Obama, and intended that way, is simply part of that general effort. But there is a common strategic concern underlying it, I think, and that is pretty much what U.S. intelligence analyzes: preventing any deterrent in the region to U.S. and Israeli actions.
AARON MATÉ: You say that nobody with a grey cell thinks that Iran would launch a strike, were it to have nuclear weapons, but yet Netanyahu repeatedly accuses Iran of planning a new genocide against the Jewish people. He said this most recently on Holocaust Remembrance Day in January, saying that the ayatollahs are planning a new holocaust against us. And thats an argument thats taken seriously here.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Its taken seriously by people who dont stop to think for a minute. But again, Iran is under extremely close surveillance. U.S. satellite surveillance knows everything thats going on in Iran. If Iran even began to load a missilethat is, to bring a missile near a weaponthe country would probably be wiped out. And whatever you think about the clerics, the Guardian Council and so on, theres no indication that theyre suicidal.
in full: http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/2/noam_chomsky_opposing_iran_nuclear_deal
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I mean I'm glad Chomsky said it (not that people who need to hear it tend to listen to the man) but it's been blindingly obvious.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)I was reading an article on him from awhile ago...the last time he was interviewed
was PBS's News Hour, in the 90's or something. He made his case for what US
policy involves, which is in a nut shell, as you know..dominance of resources (oil )
and such around the globe...among other things.
Jim evidently asked him..in so many words, this is a bad thing? LOL
It was pretty much the last time he even wanted to speak with
any msm outlet.
I wish Chomsky was now around 35 years old and there was more time for him.