Let's Stop a US / Israeli War on Iran

[donsu]

It's More Important Than Slowing Nuclear Proliferation

http://www.counterpunch.com/


The peace movements of the entire world should be in crisis mode right now, working non-stop to prevent the U.S. and Israel from starting a war against Iran. (See the James Petras article in CounterPunch on December 24, 2005 titled Iran in the Crosshairs for the best summary of the present situation.) The reckless and unnecessary dangers arising from such a war are so obvious that one wonders why normal political forces in the two aggressor countries -- both of whom love to glorify themselves as democracies -- would not prevent such a war from happening.

But the "normal political forces" in both the U.S. and Israel have become badly distorted. Democracy has been seriously undermined in both. The cowboy-like personalities and aggressive tendencies of both countries' leaders tend to feed on each other. Domestic political difficulties and coming elections in both countries probably add to the macho inclination of the ruling elites to use force to remove any problems facing them. The glue binding these tendencies together is the ever-strengthening institutional link between defense establishments and military-industrial complexes in both countries, as well as, in the U.S, the growing power and influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) over both major political parties. The entire mix increases the probability, against all common sense, that this absurd war will actually happen.

Nothing else more dangerous to the world, to the Middle East, to the oppressed Palestinians, or to the true interests of the United States is happening today -- anywhere. Americans who do not want an eruption of a new world war, started by our own government, ought to be strongly lobbying the Bush administration and all members of Congress against supporting any military action by the U.S. and Israel against Iran. Globally, people who oppose such a war should be lobbying their own governments in similar fashion.
-snip-
------------------------------

this a long article with whys and wherefores and what should be done.

tick, tick, tick

[Tom Joad]

1. If Israel launches an attack on Iran, it will still be *our* war.

Since we bankroll their military.

[GrantDem]

5. I agree w/ You

I think that when Israel attacks Iran, because of the alleged nukes, Iran will retaliate and the U.S. will intervene. This will be the next step in the Middle East Experiment (PNAC)

[papau]

2. Iran just killed Sat TV by a very moderate fellow because the fundi's

want more control so that nothing bad is said about rule by the Fundi Religious leaders.

Not that this is an adequate excuse for war that needs to other facts on the table.

But their nuke program really does worry me.

[donsu]

3. then, how should Iran protect itself from the bushgang?

nt

[papau]

6. The larger problem is freedom within Iran - if Iran was even a little into

giving womens equal to men rights and freedom of assembly, speech, press, and religion, then their having nukes to protect against the rape by oil companies under the Flag of the US would not be a big deal (although it would still be a waste of money since no-fail cheap to run design nuke plants are not what they seem to want).

I fear fundi's - on either side.

In any case Iran has already "won" - and Bush can not reverse that win.

Iran will now be the big dog for the next 100 years that leads the mid-east, with Egypt and Saudi as followers.

Bush has destroyed our ability to prevent this outcome - and our media can not look 5 years down the road and see it coming.

[Tom Joad]

4. We should be concerned about freedom everywhere.

The nukes are a serious business as well.

I think we agree that this will not be solved by raining bombs on this country though.

Again, if the US wants to make a stand against Nukes in the Middle East, it should stop funding the nation that introduced them to the Middle East. Israel. In fact, since Israel has nukes, and has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, it is illegal under US law to fund Israeli military.

We could also start with some serious work in nonproliferation by starting a program to dismantle our nuclear weapon stockpile.

[papau]

7. Islam's 1.5 billion are threaten by 6 million Israelis-14 m Jews in world

?

As to Treaty and US Law - until Israel does a nuke test, it does not "have" nukes.

But I agree, we need serious work in nonproliferation, which should start with a US program to dismantle our nuclear weapon stockpile, and to assist Russia to dismantle theirs..

[aquart]

8. Yeah, Israel is really equipped to launch a war on a much larger nation.

What is it? Ten times its size? With population about that much bigger, too?

Kinda like a flea bite?

Because we sure don't have any resources to put to it. Not that I think that would stop Georgie, but Israel is hardly up to the task. It has a defensive army, but not nearly enough for an invasion force. But don't let facts stop your propaganda.

[Wordie]

9. Israel bombed Iraq - might they not contemplate a similar mission in Iran?

It doesn't seem so unreasonable to think they might try to bomb all the potential nuclear sites, as a preventative measure, given their past behavior.

Unreasonable to actually do it, of course.

[bemildred]

10. I agree with aquart.

Iran, unlike Iraq 20 years ago, has the means to return fire. It is in a far stronger position, in every sense, than Iraq was back then. There will be no attack on Iran without US permission and support, and if that occurs, Iran will attack our forces in Iraq, among other things.

I think he is saying that it's a bad idea, not that the IDF would not consider it. As you point out, they obviously would.

My own feeling is that if I intended to carry out such an attack, the last thing I would want to do is put the target on high-alert first, unless I was very sure there was nothing they could do to stop me. So I assume this is all propaganda and diplomatic maneuvering.

Not that it is ever a mistake to think these people will do something stupid.

[Wordie]

12. I sincerely hope you are right.

The one potential flaw in the analysis, imho, is the part where you say that Israel would not attack w/o US permission and support. I'm not so certain. Israel seems intent on pursuing those policies that the hawks believe benefit Israel (whether they really do is of course another matter). Would Israel really care about US forces being attacked by Iran in Iraq? The Israelis, being far more aware of the realities of the ME than Bush, should have also been able to predict the quagmire in which the US now finds itself enmeshed in Iraq. But before we invaded, they encouraged that war, rather than warn the US against it. The crux of the matter is whether Israel thinks it is a matter of Israeli interests to attack Iran. I'm not convinced that calculations of US support will really enter into that decision much, if the answer to that question is positive. Which of course makes the situation more precarious.

My fear is that all the hot talk will inevitably lead to another war.

[bemildred]

13. Me too.

WRT Israel, I am not saying they would not, I'm saying they would have to coordinate with the US military. We can blow their asses out of the sky, and there is no way to get to Iran without showing up on our radar, we have ongoing military operations in that area.

[Wordie]

14. Maybe this is to distract from the unpleasantries of the Occupation, too.

Another, "Look over there!" move.

[Colorado Blue]

17. Oh, give me a break please. People didn't listen in the '30's

either.

I don't know a soul who is interested in war as anything but an absolute last option.

The president of Iran has made serious threats, he is into Holocaust denial, which now Muslim Brotherhood is promoting; he and other leaders in Iran have STATED that Israel should be wiped off the map and further, that Israel's 6 million could easily be killed in a nuclear strike whereas Islam, covering a huge area of the world and numbering 1.3 BILLION people, would survive a counterstrike.

Moreover anybody discussing "unpleasantness" should be prepared to address the issue of the rocket and suicide attacks on Israel, the kidnappings and the attacks by gunmen within the P.A., and with violence not only between but within political factions.

[Wordie]

18. Hitler stuff and nuclear threat stuff initially led me to support the Iraq

war. Boy was I wrong, wasn't I?

The president has made threats; but let's not forget, so has Israel and the US. Many of the remarks you cite are in response to those threats. And let me be very clear here; I'm not supporting his remarks, merely pointing out that they are in response to our own saber-rattling, and that of Israel. Both sides should step back from this madness.

And, I personally don't think it is necessary, everytime anyone says anything negative of Israel, to get into a litany of Palestinian wrongs. My point has been all along that there are wrongs on both sides. We in this country rarely hear, however, of Israeli wrongs.

[Coastie for Truth]

20. We in this country rarely hear, however, of Israeli wrongs.

You posted

We in this country rarely hear, however, of Israeli wrongs.

You must not be reading the Progressive web sites, the Progressive blogs, and the Progressive newspapers. Come on out here to the SF Bay Area - they're distributing them all over the region.

[Colorado Blue]

25. I trust you use the term "progressive" advisedly? I see very

little that's truly progressive about the demonization of a democratic state, consisting largely of political refugees.

[Coastie for Truth]

29. I am using it in the "self identified Progressive" sense

After "International Answer's" first so-called Peace March in San Francisco, I use the term to mean those who self identify.

[Colorado Blue]

24. I NEVER supported the war in Iraq. Why? Because I felt

Saddam, though he did indeed bear a certain resemblance to Hitler in many of his actions, especially if one happened to be Kurd, and Iranian or a Shi'a, or maybe just disagreed with him, was contained. We were flying over Iraq all the time, UN inspectors were doing their jobs.

And, I have been studying the Middle East for more than 50 years and the absolutely certainty of chaos and terror breaking out made me think that we'd be opening a Pandora's box when gentler measures might do the job in the end, without the loss of life and treasure that this war has entailed.

That said I am glad Saddam Hussein is out of power. And just because the jingoists were wrong in the case of Hussein doesn't mean there are wrong about Iran. Moreover, the ISRAELI intelligence said all along that Syria now has such Iraqi WMD's as may have still existed - possible chemical and biological weapons, which Iran has certainly pursued in addition to their desire for a reactor.

Nevertheless, as I did before the Iraq war, I pray for peaceful, international diplomatic solutions to this conundrum.

I don't think that Iran's desire to look for the future, beyond petroleum, is at all irrational. It only makes sense that they would want to think about alternative fuel sources. We should ALL be thinking about alternative fuel sources. BUT - their political opinions, combined with the support of Hizbollah, make the prospect of Iran with a nuclear weapon extremely upsetting.

Finally, it is neither correct nor fair to indulge in Israel bashing without mentioning the fact that Israel doesn't exist in a vacuum, that in fact Israel is part of the Middle East and that problems endemic to the region, including those we now see in Gaza and the ongoing incidents with terrorism and rocket attacks, are intimately connected to Israeli activities - for example the conquest and continued control of the West Bank, which was undertaken to prevent the country from being rolled over in the 6 Day War. This territory continues to be under dispute because no peace treaties have been forthcoming, except with Jordan and Egypt, economic boycott and genocidal rhetoric continue, and because the PA appears to be unable or unwilling to control the violence.

The withdrawal from Gaza has merely served to bring the rocket attacks closer to the heart of Israel and they have in fact come perilously close to damaging a key power plant that serves Gaza, as well as Israel, with electrical power. Thus further withdrawals from the West Bank seem ill-advised, do they not? Therefore discussing the "unpleasantness" of the occupation without mentioning these other factors IS both misleading and unfair.

People seem to think that Israel is this huge powerful place but it isn't, it's tiny, 6 miles wide and extremely vulnerable, and therefore it is important to see it in this context and in the context of the Middle East as a whole.

[Wordie]

28. Do you really read ANY criticism of Israel as "Israel bashing"?

...it is neither correct nor fair to indulge in Israel bashing...

You see, that's where we differ. I think Israel has indeed made mistakes, and continues to make them, but I do not think that pointing out those mistakes constitutes "Israel bashing" nor do I think it is reasonable to bring in a whole lot of stuff unrelated to the topic of the thread, every time such a criticism is made.

[Colorado Blue]

30. No. I don't see all such critiques as "bashing". There is a

very open and vociferous and SELF-critical press and international pro-Israeli community which is quite frequently upset by various policies and actions of the government as well as individuals who transgress moral law and who should probably be in jail.

That is not bashing. It is open and democratic discourse and it's vital to keep an open and idealistic society on the right track - especially when war and terror have threatened to make it exclusionary, inward-turning and violent. Criticism in these cases, and by such people, is not only not "bashing" but a welcome sign of healthy debate.

However, when people repeatedly write hostile remarks, which indicate a lack of feeling both for the history, the nature of Israel and for the people of Israel as well as for American Jews, or in fact use the term "undue influence" in a conversation on a LIBERAL website and don't understand why that is upsetting, or misuse the word "Zionist" and don't understand why THAT is upsetting, then critiques of Israel can indeed be interpreted as Israel bashing rather than as constructive criticism.

It is important to distinguish between the two, and it is anything but irrelevant to do so, since the one is honest and constructive criticism of a valued fellow nation and the other is attempting to delegitimize her very existence and that of her people.

[bemildred]

21. I would be skeptical about that.

There are other things that are of that nature, but since I don't want to start a contentious sub-thread, I won't try to go into that here.

I consider this is more in the nature of school-yard bluster between Israel and Iran. You might say that both sides are afraid that the other side is not afraid of them. It's cognate with the constant stream of aggressive bluster coming from the US government now that it's position has been weakened by Iraq. The more we are entangled in that mess, the more bizarre the threats and demands get. Like a lizard on a rock trying to make himself look as big as possible. Hiz'bullah and Hamas are prone to spout all sorts of drool also, just like Israel and Iran, or like the US and the USSR back in the old days.

[Wordie]

22. Yes, you are probably right. It does serve that convenient purpose though.

Even if that's not the primary aim. The more saber-rattling and misinformation that's spread throughout the media about an Iranian nuclear threat, the less attention is paid to the occupation. ::sigh::

Again, I'm in agreement for the most part with your analysis of the situation.

btw, there is now this in LBN:
ALJAZEERA: Israel Rules Out Strike on Iran - For Now
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2011961

[Coastie for Truth]

19. I think there is serious bluffing and posturing

Real issue number 1 - denominating oil in Euros vice Dollars, and on a Bourse in Iran -- not the UK or US. Bush and the US oil companies don't like this.

Real issue number 2 - The Russians need Iranian oil. They have so screwed up their own oilfields and refineries and infrastructure. See the links in Post 15:

1)
2)
3)

Bottom line - the Russians will reprocess Iran's reactor fuel at a at a loss to keep the oil flowing to Mother Russia.

Next question - why does Iran need nuclear power with all of their oil -- , i.e., we are running out of oil - the American consumers may not know it - but the ME oil producers sure do.

[Colorado Blue]

26. Gee. Some rational insights. Think anybody will listen?

I thank you anyway:)

[Tom Joad]

11. Sort of side question here. If there is a US/Israeli war on Iran,

would any discussion of it not be allowed on the DU general discussion board, but sent to the Israel/Palestine board? Aren't we really discussing US policy here, not the Israel/Palestine conflict?
Notice how this thread cannot now be recommended.
I understand the sensitivity regarding the subject, but if we do not discuss this, organize against the possibility of war against Iran, it is far more likely to occur. (it would be very stupid to start, as some here have suggested, but i fear that as these extremist nations (US, Israel, Iran) start talking war to scare the "other side" they may find themselves feeling they need to back up their threats with action, and then it just goes out of control...

This discussion should be front and center.

A war against Iran will be far worse than the current one against Iraq.

[Coastie for Truth]

27. Where's Bush going to get the bandwidth

The National Guard - the cupboard is now bare (Katrina, Rita, Wilma showed us that)

The Reserves - that cupboard is bare too.

The Draft -

Article II - Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Volunteers - Yeah?


Equipment - The Junk Yard. Bring your own armor and flack vests.

Heck - we can't even respond to our own people in need in New Orleans (The "American Nabka") - and we're cutting student loans, medicare, medicaid, medical research.

[Coastie for Truth]

15. Counterpunch?

Check out http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5690817> especially http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5690817&mesg_id=5690847>, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5690817#5702552>, and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5690817&mesg_id=5705025> (which is facetious and sarcasm - but true)

But, seriously, before you get worked up in a manic state folks--

Top Iranian and Russian officials agreed on Thursday to hold talks on a Russian proposal aimed a resolving Tehran's nuclear standoff with the West, an Iranian diplomat close to the talks said.

The proposal, which is backed by Washington and the European Union, involves the creation of a joint Iranian-Russian company to enrich uranium in Russia.

Moscow put forward the plan in a bid to allay international concerns that Iran could manufacture highly enriched uranium on its own soil to build atomic weapons.

Iran says it only wants to enrich uranium to a low grade, suitable for use in atomic power reactors.

and

In what may herald a sharp reversal of previous statements, a senior Iranian official said Wednesday that Iran would "seriously and enthusiastically" study a Russian proposal aimed at breaking the deadlock on efforts to block Iran from enriching nuclear fuel.

The official, Javad Vaeedi, deputy head of the Supreme National Security Council, was referring to a proposal made by Russia several weeks ago under which Iranian-produced uranium gas would be processed into fuel in Russia and returned to Iran.

The circuitous route would ensure that Iran would be able to produce fuel only for nuclear power, and could not enrich the uranium into a form that could be used in weapons. It would also slow Iran's ability to obtain enrichment technology.

Last week in Vienna, Mohammad Mehdi Akhondzadeh, the leader of the delegation that has been conducting talks with British, German and French negotiators, rejected the same proposal, saying that Iran had told the Europeans to "act on the proposition that enrichment will be conducted inside" Iran, and that any other option was "unacceptable" and "an insult."

and

Iran said Thursday it needs Moscow to clarify what it called "ambiguities" in a proposal that Iran enrich uranium in Russian territory.

Iran said it was considering the European- and U.S-backed proposal, a relatively conciliatory stance after weeks of outright rejection of moving enrichment abroad.


The proposal aims to ensure that Iran cannot build nuclear weapons. Uranium enrichment can produce fuel for a nuclear reactor or material for a bomb. Under the proposal, Iran would generate fuel for its reactors in Russia.

"The Russian proposal about Iran's nuclear activities has problems and ambiguities that need to be clarified in further talks," Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, told Russian Security Council head Igor Ivanov, in a telephone conversation Thursday, state-run television reported. Larijani did not specify the problems.

His remarks may result from an attempt by Iran _ which is under intensified pressure to accept the deal _ to gain time without directly rejecting a proposal from Moscow, a longtime ally that is helping build Iran's first nuclear reactor.

I will take the New York Times and the Washington Post over Counterpunch's BILL and KATHLEEN CHRISTISON.

[Colorado Blue]

23. Amen.

[Coastie for Truth]

16. Excerpt from the Counterpunch article

"Outside the United States, it is widely understood that one of the true motives -- not the exclusive motive but a real and significant one -- behind the Bush administration's 2003 invasion of Iraq was the desire of the neocons in Washington to conquer Iraq in order to benefit Israel. Although a few of the big-name neocons (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Lewis "Scooter" Libby) have left high-visibility positions for various reasons, many remain, and it is clear that Bush himself, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice have taken as their own the main tenets of neocon beliefs."

Not exactly what James Howard Kunstler would say.