»   She also thinks AIDS gets too much govt money and condoms wouldn't stop it: http://bit.ly/aP1h6D 11 hrs ago

»   Hah! New Republican tea-party candidate for Senate even more nuttier than I assumed http://bit.ly/bZ5MCQ 11 hrs ago

»   A thorough and entertaining summary of Phil Woolas in court yesterday (day 2) by @NickThornsby http://bit.ly/cPcftS 18 hrs ago

»   Why is Tony Blair out in China so much? Making money of course... http://bit.ly/a7UxeX 22 hrs ago

»   Have to admire how energised and organised Tea Party ppl are, even if they're off the scale. http://politi.co/9cI2Ss 23 hrs ago

» More updates...


  • Family

    • Earwicga
    • Liberal Conspiracy
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown



  • Technorati: graph / links

    Jeffrey Goldberg, propaganda merchant for Israel’s plan to attack Iran


    by Sunny
    13th August, 2010 at 11:33 am    

    I pointed yesterday to an article by Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, who says quite seriously that Israel wants to attack Iran over the next 12 months because ‘it has no choice‘ (he says so, so it must be true). Glenn Greenwald today points out why Goldberg is laying the ground for the neo-cons.

    1) This is Goldberg in his recent article: “In 1981, Israeli warplanes bombed the Iraqi reactor at Osirak, halting — forever, as it turned out — Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions…”.

    This is Goldberg in 2002 when he advocating invading Iraq:

    Saddam Hussein never gave up his hope of turning Iraq into a nuclear power. After the Osirak attack, he rebuilt, redoubled his efforts, and dispersed his facilities.

    I admire people who can hold and understand two opposing views but this is ridiculous. As Greenwald says: “This is what a propagandist, by definition, does: asserts any claim as fact in service of a concealed agenda without the slightest concern for whether it’s true.”

    2) And what about Goldberg’s claim that, “the imposition of devastating economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran will persuade its leaders to cease their pursuit of nuclear weapons.”

    Does Iran actually have nuclear weapons? In the wingnut community this is accepted as fact. But (I’d blogged this but completely forgotten about it), as Jonathan Schwarz points out:

    The official position of the U.S. intelligence community about this remains the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate. And it said Iran stopped pursuing nuclear weapons in 2003. Maybe it was wrong, or maybe something’s changed since then. But it is the essence of Goldberg-itude to simply ignore this and assert the opposite as unquestionable fact.

    Remember - this report came out under the Bush administration - which was trying its hardest at the time to create a drumbeat against Iran too. Is there any new evidence to contradict this? No, it’s just accepted as a given that Iran is developing nukes, even if the intelligence community says its bollocks.

    You have to admire neo-con chutzpah: they’re not only happy to u-turn when required, but happy to ignore America’s military-intelligence establishment. Maybe US national intelligence is infiltrated by Muslims? Arabists? Wet-liberals! Who knows.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Current affairs,Middle East






    65 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. sunny hundal

      Blog post:: Jeffrey Goldberg, propaganda merchant for Israel's plan to attack Iran http://bit.ly/cPfUkz


    2. smileandsubvert

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: Jeffrey Goldberg, propaganda merchant for Israel's plan to attack Iran http://bit.ly/cPfUkz


    3. earwicga

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blog Post: Jeffrey Goldberg, propaganda merchant for Israel's plan to attack Iran http://bit.ly/cPfUkz


    4. Moonbootica

      RT @earwicga: RT @sunny_hundal: Blog Post: Jeffrey Goldberg, propaganda merchant for Israel's plan to attack Iran http://bit.ly/cPfUkz


    5. House Starts Push-Back on Defense Spending Cuts North Capitol Street

      [...] Pickled Politics » Jeffrey Goldberg, propaganda merchant for … [...]




    1. platinum786 — on 13th August, 2010 at 12:12 pm  

      You know what’d be ironic. If Israel does attack and Iran responds with nuclear weapons, assuming they had them. Israel would probably nuke Iran back, but there’d be no more Israel. what a different world it’d be.

      Personally I think if anything like that was to occur Israel would respond with a scorched Earth policy and nuke as much of the middle east as it could. For Israel, above all, they look out for the survival of Israel. If Iran was anywhere near the bomb, they would not be doing any such thing.

    2. Roger — on 13th August, 2010 at 12:18 pm  

      Is there any new evidence to contradict this? No

      What an incredibly ill-informed and stupid post.

      For starters:

      http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/2010/06/28/new-iran-nuke-nie-still-not-ready.html

    3. Roger — on 13th August, 2010 at 12:37 pm  

      Here is a report from the “wingnuts” at the IAEA.

      http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2010/gov2010-28.pdf

      An excerpt:
      34. Previous reports by the Director General have detailed the outstanding issues related to possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme and the actions required of Iran necessary to resolve those issues.23 In the Director General’s last report, the Agency described a number of technical matters it needed to address with Iran.24 Since August 2008, however, Iran has declined to discuss the outstanding issues with the Agency or to provide any further information or access to locations and people necessary to address the Agency’s concerns, asserting that the allegations relating to possible military dimensions to its nuclear programme are baseless and that the information to which the Agency is referring is based on forged documents.

      35. Based on an overall analysis undertaken by the Agency of all the information available to it,25 the Agency remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities, involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile. There are indications that certain of these activities may have continued beyond 2004.

    4. Anaximanders other Sandal — on 13th August, 2010 at 1:22 pm  

      “but there’d be no more Israel. what a different world it’d be.”

      Indeed, people such as you would have to find another group of Jews to demonize and fantasize over eradicating.

      “You know what’d be ironic.”

      A Nuclear Holocaust would be “ironic”

      You didn’t really just type that did you platinum786?

      Are you a fully paid up member of the neo-socialist left or are you still being considered as a potential future member on account of your obviously tender years?

      “Personally I think if anything like that was to occur Israel would respond with a scorched Earth policy and nuke as much of the middle east as it could.”

      Or in other words (not the vile malignant socialist semantics you use) you think Israeli Jews are just dying to incinerate the middle east.

      Is that what you are saying?

      My mythical God, this site is too good to be true.

      Tell me boys, this malignant socialist is not indicative of the type of asshole that skulks around this site is he?

      Surely not?

      I couldn’t possibly be that lucky.

    5. Roger — on 13th August, 2010 at 1:33 pm  

      but there’d be no more Israel. what a different world it’d be.

      Presumably platinum786 would be happy if that happened, since for him Jews are “vermin” and “cockroaches” and their presence is an “infestation”.

      “current affairs for a progressive generation” - wa-hey!

    6. platinum786 — on 13th August, 2010 at 2:49 pm  

      The people posting at number 5 and 6 are pretty retarded. Look at you jumping the gun to label me and point fingers and call names. You might as well call the anti defamation league whilst your at it.

      Scorched Earth is a military policy that has been used time and time again. It’s never been used in a nuclear conflict but has always been implied.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth

      During the cold war there was an assumption that any nuclear exchange between the USA and the USSR would wipe out the entire world. Why do you think that is? Was the entire world split into two camps? no. The reason that is was because of scorched earth, the implied threat that if we go down, we’ll take everyone else with us.

      This implied threat is used as strategic leverage to ensure that allies and neutral countries work to ensure two warring nuclear factions, don’t press the buttons.

      What do you think prevents Arab forces from invading Israel? The IDF? This isn’t 1967 or 1973. The Arab forces are equipped with the same technologically advanced weapons as the IDF, they have greater numbers and now with the rise of Jihadi forces there are plenty of cannon fodder suicidals like Al Queda, Taliban, Hamas, Hizbollah to throw at the might of the IDF to absorb the Israeli defence.

      The only thing that prevents that is the nuclear weapons that Israel holds and the scorched earth policy that all nuclear armed nations have as an option.

      Perhaps if you read some books or articles about military strategy you would sound like the stupid cunts you are.

    7. platinum786 — on 13th August, 2010 at 2:52 pm  

      Also why do you fail to see irony in a nuclear holocaust triggered by a military attack to prevent nuclear weapons development?

      It might be tragic, but it’s still f’ing ironic.

    8. Roger — on 13th August, 2010 at 3:16 pm  

      You might as well call the anti defamation league whilst your at it.

      This is the kind of pathetic response one should expect from a racist.

      What do you think prevents Arab forces from invading Israel?

      The fact that most Arab governments have no interest whatsoever in invading Israel, not any fear of Israeli nuclear weapons.

      Indeed, the nuclear weapons they fear most are those which Iran may obtain.

    9. platinum786 — on 13th August, 2010 at 3:19 pm  

      Like they had no interest in 1973 or 1967.

      Officially KSA is at war with Israel, though they are not fighting of course. What kind of deluded world do you live in where you think arabs are quiet happy with the existence of an Israeli state? The only reasons they don’t do anything about it is, because Israel would go nuclear if it had it, and they have no response to that.

    10. platinum786 — on 13th August, 2010 at 3:23 pm  

      Oh btw, mocking the anti defamation league for it’s ludicrous attempts at labelling negativity towards the state of Israel as anti Semitic is not racist.

      Comparing your comments and the comments of the previous poster at number 5, where you try to label me anti Semitic with weak arguments and slander, to the above mentioned actions of the anti defamation league is not racist.

      Trying to label me as anti Semitic using only slander and spin on comments I’ve written due to a lack of military strategic knowledge, simply because I am Muslim, is racist.

    11. Brownie — on 13th August, 2010 at 3:24 pm  

      So because the US released an assessment 3 years ago that it believed Iran had frozen (not abandoned) its pursuit of nuclear weapons, we can ignore the independent assessment of the IAEA 6 months ago? Or something?

      I’m happy to agree that anyone who claims to know for *certain* what is happening in Iran right now is a bullshitter. Just as it was with Iraq, the issue here is not what we know for certain, but the deliberate attempts by the non-compliant regime to foster uncertainty and the perfectly logical interpretation that non-cooperation may be designed to conceal *something* they may not wish us to know about.

      If we can all agree about this - and why can’t we? - the remaining questions include what’s to be done about the continuing uncertainty? Is not knowing whether Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability something we should be concerned about, or isn’t it? If it isn’t, we may as well stop the discussion here and go back to our real lives. If it is, the next point to address is what is to be done about Iran’s continued non-compliance and how far, ultimately, we are prepaed to go to acquire the certainty that we’ve already agreed is important?

      Of those in the camp who regard certainty about Iran’s nuclear aspirations as being important, there may be a few nutters aorund who are advocating a bombing campaign starting a week on Tuesday, but they really are very few in number. There are more of us who have gone on record as saying that military force should not be ruled out altogether, albeit we’re a long way from that today. There are also many who seem to rule out the possiblity of ever using force in all circumstances, notwithstanding their prior agreement that certainty about Iran’s nuclear programs is important. Finally, there is group who steadfastly refuse to say whether they would ever countenance the use of force to secure our highly-regarded certainty, although why this should be I have no idea.

      This seems to me to be a more accurate assessment of the current breakdown of opinion over Iran than a wholly disingenuous juxtaposition of slavering, war-mongering neo-cons itching for a war and a moral majority committed to a peaceful resolution.

    12. Brownie — on 13th August, 2010 at 3:26 pm  

      Like they had no interest in 1973 or 1967.

      Were you asleep during a decade of peace accords with Egypt and Jordan?

    13. platinum786 — on 13th August, 2010 at 3:32 pm  

      I wasn’t born then. Also those peace accords were to get land back, after they had their asses handed to them.

      I agree entirely that current Arab governments won’t harm Israel, but they’re unrepresentative of the general populous.

    14. Brownie — on 13th August, 2010 at 3:40 pm  

      For Israel, above all, they look out for the survival of Israel.

      Fuck me gently, you mean as opposed the Dutch who are mostly concerned with the welfare of Ukranians?

    15. Brownie — on 13th August, 2010 at 3:50 pm  

      I agree entirely that current Arab governments won’t harm Israel

      So when you earlier asked:

      What do you think prevents Arab forces from invading Israel?

      the answer is that what prevents them is a desire not to.

      I’m never going to get those 10 minutes back, am I?

      If Israel does attack and Iran responds with nuclear weapons

      I think you can put away your wet dream as it’s a sure-fire bet that if Israel ever does attack Iran, it will be sometime before Iran has developed a weaponised nuclear capability of its own. The Israeli strategy is to preserve the existence of Israel (remember what you said about who they exclusively look out for?), rather than precipitate its own destruction.

    16. platinum786 — on 13th August, 2010 at 4:33 pm  

      You’re looking at things like an idiot. Just because the current government has no intention doesn’t mean the next one wont. Part of the fact current Arab government have no intention is the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons and they don’t. There has been an intention to take out Israel before, when they felt they were capable they tried. The populous still wants that, just because they aren’t capable doesn’t mean if they were on a better footing militarily and had a different political leadership that they wouldn’t.

      The whole purpose is to exercise the point that Israel wouldn’t attack Iran if it was a threat, Israel is only willing to attack as Iran isn’t a threat.

    17. Brownie — on 13th August, 2010 at 4:47 pm  

      The whole purpose is to exercise the point that Israel wouldn’t attack Iran if it was a threat, Israel is only willing to attack as Iran isn’t a threat.

      And I’m the one looking at this like an idiot?

      Why doesn’t Israel attack Norway which, like Iran apparently, is not a threat?

      Could it be that Norway is not a virulently anti-Semitic theocracy that is led by a looney toon ideologue who is on recrod as wanting to see Israel erased from the pages of histroy? Do you think?

      And my guess is that Israel’s desire to attack Iran correlates directly with the level of uncertainty it has with regard to Iran’s nuclear aspirations, as in, remove the uncertainty and I’m confident the desire to attack will diminish.

      Of course, we’ll only ever see that theory tested if Ahmadinejad wants it to be.

    18. Roger — on 13th August, 2010 at 5:04 pm  

      Oh btw, mocking the anti defamation league for it’s ludicrous attempts at labelling negativity towards the state of Israel as anti Semitic is not racist.

      Perhaps you could provide some examples of mere “negativity”?

      Perhaps you mean statements like (here’s one you haven’t managed to erase from the web) “kike holocaust memorial day”?

      The Arab forces are equipped with the same technologically advanced weapons as the IDF

      Coming from someone who claims to be some sort of military expert, this is very funny. Try looking up the US “qualitative military edge” policy in Middle East arms sales.

    19. Fatshakeelsuglywife — on 13th August, 2010 at 5:08 pm  

      Still hating on the Jews eh plats.

      Want the screenshot of your comments on Pakistani defence forum reposting…

      BTW Muslim isn’t a race, Jews are though, at least in the UK.

    20. organic cheeseboard — on 13th August, 2010 at 5:11 pm  

      there may be a few nutters aorund who are advocating a bombing campaign starting a week on Tuesday, but they really are very few in number.

      well, they do include John McCain… and on a much leser level, people like Daniel Pipes…

      i think the desire for an immediate bombing campaign there is greater than you’re letting on.

    21. Brownie — on 13th August, 2010 at 5:21 pm  

      Maybe so, but I’m happoy to agree they’re nutters regardless.

      I’ll settle for people engaging with me and my thoguhts rather than pretending I’m John McCain/Daniel Pipes/etc..

    22. FlyingRodent — on 13th August, 2010 at 5:32 pm  

      http://tinyurl.com/5xdg77

      While OC is at it, that’s little-known current US Secretary of defence Hillary Clinton threatening to “obliterate” a country of 70 million people there, during the last presidential primary.

      No doubt the “if it attacks Israel” conditional makes this more reasonable for some, but I’ll just observe that it isn’t every day that a major politician bases his or her electoral appeal on their enthusiasm for megadeath, given the right circumstances. I’d say “you have to wonder how this would go down if it was an Iranian politician that said it,” if I didn’t already know exactly how it would go down.

    23. joe90 — on 13th August, 2010 at 5:49 pm  

      israel would not attack iran but they would try everything possible to make others i.e USA do the job for them.

    24. Roger — on 13th August, 2010 at 5:55 pm  

      No doubt the “if it attacks Israel” conditional makes this more reasonable for some

      This is exactly what deterrence is based on, don’t you know.

      you have to wonder how this would go down if it was an Iranian politician that said it

      No you don’t. Iran has a record of blood-curdling statements. They are ignored, of course, by most “progressives”.

      make others i.e USA do the job for them

      Yes, because ‘Zionists’ control America, don’t they.

    25. joe90 — on 13th August, 2010 at 6:00 pm  

      post #24

      “zionist control america” ? you shouldn’t believe all the conspiracy theories.

    26. Roger — on 13th August, 2010 at 6:03 pm  

      Go on then. Do explain how Israel will “make” the US “do the job for them”.

    27. Brownie — on 13th August, 2010 at 6:03 pm  

      No doubt the “if it attacks Israel” conditional makes this more reasonable for some, but I’ll just observe that it isn’t every day that a major politician bases his or her electoral appeal on their enthusiasm for megadeath, given the right circumstances. I’d say “you have to wonder how this would go down if it was an Iranian politician that said it,” if I didn’t already know exactly how it would go down.

      If Ahmadinejad’s every exhortation about what Iran might do to Israel were preceded by the conditional “If Israel ever attacked Iran with nuclear weapons”, I think at least some of us would be a little less anxious. As it is, he openly celebrates his anti-Semitism, refers to Jews as dogs, hosts Holocaust denial seminars and is on record as wanting Israel to be erased from the pages of history (or something very similar). Take this with deliberate defiance of inspectors trying to discover the true intent of his nuclear apsirations, and we’ve got an altogether different context for Ahmadinejad’s own sabre-rattling, haven’t we?

      Regardless, I think any attempts to convince folk that Hillary Clinton is as scary and unstable as Ahmadinejad are doomed to failure.

    28. organic cheeseboard — on 13th August, 2010 at 6:25 pm  

      I’ll settle for people engaging with me and my thoguhts rather than pretending I’m John McCain/Daniel Pipes/etc..

      my point was that there’s not ‘a few’ people advocating this - as FR stats, their number includes Hllary Clinton, it’s not a small number of people and they’re not all ‘nutters’. there is a substantial amount of people in senior positions in both America and Israel (in fact their racist cunt of a defence minister) who are on record advocating attacking Iran in the present day, not at some unspecified future point. I’m also unwilling to dismiss these people as nutters. you rightly pillory Ahmedinejad for his beliefs and statements, but the guy is clearly a fairly smart politician who’s used the instability in the middle east to ‘good’ effect. i dislike talk of nutters and mad mullahs etc - and i think it’s intentional, in order to avoid dealing with the realities of the issues at hand.

      I’m sure there is some sort of unspecified, theoretical point at some point in the theoretical future when force might have to be used. But anyone who’s arguing up the chances of this happening, as you are, must have noticed that it’s not just a few cranks agitating for attacks in the here and now, it’s a view that’s fairly widespread in the political mainstream in the US and Israel. I’d wager that a lot of British politicians are also fairly keen, but thankfully they’re keeping schtum at the moment - I genuinely can’t see this country playing a big role in whatever were to happen in Iran.

      Just a note, but Iraq effectively meant that the coalition lost the Afghan war - or at least it was rendered unwinnable.

      This one (it wouldn’t just be a few precision strikes - in the other thread, you claim that ‘the reason for similar disproportion as was used in Gaza doesn’t exist’ in Iran, but I’m not so sure this is true - it’s not like Iran wouldn’t try to rptect its facilities) would be harder to win than Iraq, since there’d actually be an army to fight, in addition to guerillas etc. The Iranian military wouldn’t take this shit lying down. It wouldn’t be the equivalent of bombing Saddam’s nuclear facilities or the bombings of the Egyptian airforce in the 60s.

      all of which means Afghanistan would be truly lost to the Taliban. and Israel would be under attack from Gaza, Lebanon, and probably the West Bank as well.

    29. joe90 — on 13th August, 2010 at 6:26 pm  

      Post #27

      unbelievable as if the israeli state has love for it neighbors it attacks them at every opportunity.

      Are you Jeffrey Goldberg in disguise or his agent?

    30. Roger — on 13th August, 2010 at 6:47 pm  

      as FR stats, their number includes Hllary Clinton

      Whose number? Since when is a very blunt statement about deterrence a call to attack Iran?

      Still waiting for joe90 to explain how Israel will “make” the US “do the job for them”.

    31. Raff — on 13th August, 2010 at 6:59 pm  

      It is also notable that China and Russia get no mention in teh article, yet both are pretty crucial to the endgame. A pretty dramatic omission.

    32. FlyingRodent — on 13th August, 2010 at 7:26 pm  

      I think any attempts to convince folk that Hillary Clinton is as scary and unstable as Ahmadinejad are doomed to failure.

      I think you might find that the United States’ recent record of nations attacked in ultraviolent fashion on flimsy pretexts massively outstrips Iran’s. You’ll also note that, unlike Iran, the US actually has nuclear warheads and has used them in the past.

      I’ll say this again - in the past few years, the Iranians have quietly consolidated their position to their advantage, with a fair amount of belligerent, racist woofing. Meanwhile, the US, the UK and the Israelis have been barking like pissed off dobermans ripped on cocaine and vodka, spunking missiles in every direction in a series of deranged and murderous strikes across a number of countries in the region.

      This has to be said, again and again - there are regional actors in the Middle East who act like madmen who cannot be deterred, and they include Us, our allies and large numbers of terrorist groups and sectarian militias. They don’t include Iran - they talk big and act quiet, but it’s us who actually blow motherfuckers up, even if it’s at great cost to ourselves.

    33. Roger — on 13th August, 2010 at 7:53 pm  

      they talk big and act quiet

      Hilarious. Iran arms and bankrolls Hamas and Hezbollah. You know, the “madmen who cannot be deterred”.

    34. FlyingRodent — on 13th August, 2010 at 8:10 pm  

      I’m aware of that. Passing weapons or money to groups, however detestable, is “quiet”. Blowing shit up with the vague hope that evil can be bombed out of existence, on the other hand, is not quiet at all, or wise.

    35. Bill — on 13th August, 2010 at 9:02 pm  

      I think you might find that the United States’ recent record of nations attacked in ultraviolent fashion on flimsy pretexts massively outstrips Iran’s.

      Well, those attacks utilized about one thousandth of the firepower at the disposal of the US, and the “flimsy pretexts” included stopping genocide in the Balkans, preventing dictators annexing neighboring countries in the Middle East, hunting down terrorists who killed thousands in NYC, and sundry UNSC authorizations.

      So once again you seem to be caught out talking nonsense, and no doubt once again you will pretend otherwise. It’s a pity because you seem a smart fellow who’s made some sensible points but alas can’t stop himself revealing the old cloven hoof now and then.

    36. Bill — on 13th August, 2010 at 9:05 pm  

      They don’t include Iran – they talk big and act quiet.

      For those who aren’t fluent in Rodent, “acting quiet” means “supplying munitions, training and funds to Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria”.

    37. Bill — on 13th August, 2010 at 9:06 pm  

      Passing weapons or money to groups, however detestable, is “quiet”. Blowing shit up with the vague hope that evil can be bombed out of existence, on the other hand, is not quiet at all

      Being “quiet” is overrated as a virtue.

    38. Sunny — on 13th August, 2010 at 10:14 pm  

      So because the US released an assessment 3 years ago that it believed Iran had frozen (not abandoned) its pursuit of nuclear weapons, we can ignore the independent assessment of the IAEA 6 months ago? Or something?

      That IAEA report you’re referring to above merely says IRan hasn’t answered various questions.

      When was the last time the IAEA was allowed to come in and inspect Israel’s weapons, exactly? Or is it one rule for the Arabs and another for the countries you like?

      The National Intelligence estimate also said Iran hasn’t answered many questions. But their assessment still stands. The IAEA doesn’t contradict it - just says they want more data and answers.

      Nice try, but this attempt at muddying the waters won’t work.

    39. Sunny — on 13th August, 2010 at 10:14 pm  

      Being “quiet” is overrated as a virtue.

      I think you only mean that with countries you like. I highly doubt you’d like that if Iran said the same.

    40. The Common Humanist — on 13th August, 2010 at 10:33 pm  

      First of all the last thing I want is for Israel to attack Iran. Or vica versa.

      However, let us not for a moment ignore the size of the ‘war party’ in Iran, as there is in Israel, as there is in Iran. I know there is a tendancy only to look at Jerusalem on this site, Rumbold apart, as the source of all wrong in the ME but, frankly, there is a strain of thought in the IRG and Iranian Govt that is gagging for a conflict with Israel. Rightwing nutbars abound on all sides shall we say.

    41. Anaximanders other Sandal — on 13th August, 2010 at 10:35 pm  

      “israel would not attack iran but they would try everything possible to make others i.e USA do the job for them.”

      Ah yes the old national socialist meme “the Jews control the world”

      Forgive me guys I am just getting my bearings re who is who around here.

      I already have the measure of the Israeli Jew hating Flying Leftist rat rodent, His Israeli Jew hatred is well known to those of us from the non-imbecile community.

      I have already encountered a, wait for it, a non-skirt wearing, anarchist SNPer (if only, unfortunately I am not that lucky in life) mandible massaging non-socialist anti-establishment jock. (what’s more one who actually admits to liking what the Israeli Jew hating Flying Leftist rat rodent says). Fantastic, credulity feeding on credulity.

      Then there’s the Mr “Trying to label me as anti Semitic using only slander and spin on comments I’ve written due to a lack of military strategic knowledge, simply because I am Muslim, is racist.” imbecile, someone who is quite obviously a child and who has been reading too many Jihadi cartoon comics.

      “I wasn’t born then.” getaway, you don’t say.

      “The only reasons they don’t do anything about it is, because Israel would go nuclear if it had it, and they have no response to that.”

      Well pray tell Mr “I’m not a racist but everyone who disagrees with me is” muslim how come Israel didn’t nuke the combined genocidal forces of the Israeli Jew hating Arabs in 67 and 73 then?

      “The Arab forces are equipped with the same technologically advanced weapons as the IDF”

      Yeah that’s right mate, the Arab forces are really really well equipped with all the latest technology, absolutely mate, honest.

      “they have greater numbers and now with the rise of Jihadi forces there are plenty of cannon fodder suicidals like Al Queda, Taliban, Hamas, Hizbollah to throw at the might of the IDF to absorb the Israeli defence.”

      You seem to miss the elephant in the room there Mr “I’m not a racist but everyone who disagrees with me is” muslim, the “cannon fodder suicidals like Al Queda, Taliban, Hamas, Hizbollah” may be crazed Islamic maniacs but they aren’t stupid enough to attack Israel directly à la the attempted genocides of 67 and 73, there simply isn’t enough virgins to go around mate and the maniacs know it, some imam told them one friday afternoon and as you well know Islamist maniacs believe every word they are told on a friday afternoon.

      Hate to tell you this slick but the only reason the genocidal Israeli Jew maniacs of the middle east don’t attack Israel is because they know with 100% certainty (having learned it from bitter experience numerous times in the past) that the Israeli Jews would expose these Arab Islamist imperialists to the rest of the world and in all their inglorious light, yet again, as being not only impotent and weak fools but also as suffering from a severe case of Israeli Jew hatred derangement syndrome to the nth degree.

      Mahmoud Ahmadinejad obviously thinks along the same lines as you, namely that by getting nukes and firing them at Israel that will level the playing field for the 1.5 billion muslims, it’s a sort of “let’s take out a few million Jews with a nuke and that will give us a chance to finish the job the national socialists started” logic and quite frankly one would expect a “twelfth imam” believing maniac such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to believe that, but as every previous Islamist maniac has found out to his chagrin, Islamist maniacs just haven’t got what it takes to defeat the Israeli Jews and dislodge them from their ancestral land (because you may not know this but the Jews lived in what is now called the state of Israel centuries before Islam was invented), You see blowing up buses full of women and children is just about their limit

      It’s true mate, honest, it’s all in the history books, read a few if you don’t believe me.

    42. Anaximanders other Sandal — on 13th August, 2010 at 10:59 pm  

      platinum786 — on 13th August, 2010 at 2:49 pm

      “The people posting at number 5 and 6 are pretty retarded”

      I would have to disagree with your proclamation of retardation in relation to “5″ but I am in full agreement with your analysis of the originator of the “6″ comment.

      Oh wait a minute “6″ was you, how refreshingly honest of you.

    43. Brownie — on 13th August, 2010 at 11:02 pm  

      I’m aware of that. Passing weapons or money to groups, however detestable, is “quiet”.

      I must remember to tell the mother of Gilad Shalit.

      my point was that there’s not ‘a few’ people advocating this – as FR stats, their number includes Hllary Clinton

      No, no, no she doesn’t, and if you read the link FR provided you’d know this. When asked what she would do as president if Iran attacked Israel with nukes, HC said she would attack Iran in return and “obliterate” it. We can have a debate on the morality of this if you like, but to try to paint HC as an agitator for Israeli or western attacks on Iran today is utter horseshit.

      But anyone who’s arguing up the chances of this happening, as you are, must have noticed that it’s not just a few cranks agitating for attacks in the here and now, it’s a view that’s fairly widespread in the political mainstream in the US and Israel.

      Firstly, I’m not “arguing up the chances of this happening” and you can’t provide any quotes to support such a claim. Secondly, you’ve got to do rather better than steadfastly sticking to the story that *attack Iran now* is a “fairly widespread view in the US and Israel” and provide some actual evidence to back this up. I’m reading the same papers you are bub and I’m not seeing it.

      When was the last time the IAEA was allowed to come in and inspect Israel’s weapons, exactly? Or is it one rule for the Arabs and another for the countries you like?

      Why you asking me? I think you need to take it up with the UNSC and IAEA, Sunny. I have very little influence over who is and isn’t inspected.

      The National Intelligence estimate also said Iran hasn’t answered many questions. But their assessment still stands. The IAEA doesn’t contradict it – just says they want more data and answers.

      Yeah, I think the crucial thing here is no-one is in any position to contradict anything for the very simple reason that the Iranian government is making that impossible. Once again, as with Iraq, we’re having to guess. You see the problem?

      Nice try, but this attempt at muddying the waters won’t work.

      Sunny, you wrote a post citing a 3 year old National Intelligence Estimate as the final word on Iran’s nuclear capabilities and completely failed to mention the report of the IAEA barely 6 months ago that concludes:

      “Based on an overall analysis undertaken by the Agency of all the information available to it,25 the Agency remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities, involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile. There are indications that certain of these activities may have continued beyond 2004.”

      You’re not so much muddying the waters as shitting in the bath.

    44. Anaximanders other Sandal — on 13th August, 2010 at 11:31 pm  

      Correction:

      AoS comment 13th August, 2010 at 10:35 pm.

      “Hate to tell you this slick but the only reason the genocidal Israeli Jew maniacs of the middle east don’t attack Israel”

      That should read:

      “Hate to tell you this slick but the only reason the genocidal Israeli Jew Hating maniacs of the middle east don’t attack Israel”

      Thanks.

      PS, I must say guys that although it’s only been a few hours since I discovered this place I am most impressed with your moderation policy, nearly every other Leftist site I have ever visited seems to follow the strict Stalinist line of deleting all opposing points of view, but not you guys it would seem, I honestly thought that the only decent Leftist site out there was the excellent “Harry’s Place” but it would seem that you guys are hoping to follow its example of virtual intellectual courage, which I am sure you would agree is something of a rarity on the Left these days.

      Very commendable, I think I am going to like it here, I really do.

    45. Roger — on 13th August, 2010 at 11:56 pm  

      When was the last time the IAEA was allowed to come in and inspect Israel’s weapons, exactly? Or is it one rule for the Arabs and another for the countries you like?

      Oh, does Sunny too think that Iran is an “Arab country”?

      The National Intelligence estimate also said Iran hasn’t answered many questions. But their assessment still stands.

      No, it does not, if you would bother to read the news. One more time:

      In an ABC News interview Sunday, CIA Director Leon Panetta alluded to a fact that was reported by NEWSWEEK months ago: U.S. intelligence agencies have revised their widely disputed 2007 conclusion that Iran had given up its efforts to design or build a nuclear bomb

      http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/2010/06/28/new-iran-nuke-nie-still-not-ready.html

    46. Sunny — on 14th August, 2010 at 2:04 am  

      Alluded to is not the same as proof. I remember the last time the US military had “proof” too - it involved WMDs in Iraq that I’m sure they’re still looking for.

      Yeah, I think the crucial thing here is no-one is in any position to contradict anything for the very simple reason that the Iranian government is making that impossible. Once again, as with Iraq, we’re having to guess. You see the problem?

      I remember the last time this “problem” was cited. It turned out then these fuckers were speculating out of their arses for a war they wanted rather than had to go in.

      Forgive me if I’m a bit more sceptical this time around.

    47. Brownie — on 14th August, 2010 at 2:37 am  

      Forgive me if I’m a bit more sceptical this time around.

      I have no problem with scepticism. I do have a problem with those who suggest it’s not the least bit important what Iran really is doing, and/or whether we find out what it really is doing. That would seem to me to be a little reckless.

      Alluded to is not the same as proof.

      Sunny, you claimed the 2007 assessment “still stands”, Roger has provided a link that clearly shows it doesn’t. There doesn’t have to be “proof” of Iran’s intent for you to be wrong about what the current assessment of US intelligence is.

      Do you think we’re all stupid?

    48. Ben — on 14th August, 2010 at 5:22 am  

      “…When was the last time the IAEA was allowed to come in and inspect Israel’s weapons, exactly? Or is it one rule for the Arabs and another for the countries you like?…”

      The IAEA inspects countries that are signatories to the NPT as non-nuclear states. These countries receive technical and scientific assistance in the field of nuclear science from the IAEA, in return for their agreeing not to develop nukes.

      Israel is not a signatory to the NPT, and is unlikely to become a non-nuclear signatory. Israel developed nukes before the NPT was drawn up, and should sign the treaty only if it accorded a status as a nuclear state.

      The is one rule for stable democratic and responsible states such as Israel, which wants nukes to defend itself from genocidal aggression. There is another rule for maniacal, genocidal and murderous states such as Iran, which want Israel wiped off the map, and would very likely open a full scale war of extermination against Israel after it acquires nukes.

    49. douglas clark — on 14th August, 2010 at 6:14 am  

      Ben.

      How stable do you think Israel is right now?

      Just asking.

      For it seems to me that Israel does believe that Iran has a nascent nuclear capability. The truth of that is somewhat debateable.

      An all out nuclear war, based on an assumption that may well be erronious, is beyond bad. It is effing stupid.

      And we don’t yet know if Iran has any nukes. Chances are, they don’t.

      But Israel, or at least Israeli apologists, want to believe they do. So it is thus. Iran is a nuclear state, putatively, and you can bomb them back to the stone age, just because?

      This seems to me to be yet another example of letting the fiction, or more properly propoganda, run away from the truth.

      Just saying.

    50. douglas clark — on 14th August, 2010 at 7:48 am  

      My point being that we appear to have learned nothing as a consequence of Iraq, where there were no weapons of mass destruction, contrary to the neo-con line.

      We are supposed to be twice bitten by this lunacy?

      Hopefully not.

    51. Alex — on 14th August, 2010 at 7:57 am  

      “The UN nuclear assembly has called for Israel to open its nuclear facilities to UN inspection and sign up to the non-proliferation treaty.”

      -2009

      http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/09/2009918173136830771.html

      Sunny, this is off topic, but you should read this (in relation to Gove and free schools):

      http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/08/charter-schools-and-integration.html

    52. Alex — on 14th August, 2010 at 8:21 am  

      It should also be noted that the one (ex-)signatory to the NPT that actually has left nuclear weapons is North Korea. Now, NK has withdrawn from the NPT, but it is highly doubtful whether this is legal. A country can withdraw if “extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country”. Somehow, I doubt those conditions applied when NK withdrew.

      So why aren’t the neocons calling for North Korea to be invaded? Why are they so keen to see the good ol’ US of A at war in 6 Muslim countries?

    53. Alex — on 14th August, 2010 at 8:27 am  

      Presumably we should also invade ourselves?:

      http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=41299

    54. boyo — on 14th August, 2010 at 11:45 am  

      its believed Israel has around 200 warheads, so im afraid your fantasy of ‘bits’ of Iran or any other belligerant nation surviving a conflageration Plat is just that…

      Its inevitable Israel will attack just a question of when. What will follow will make 2 Int look like a day on the beach.

      The Israelis know this, as do the Iranians, but what to do? The Iranians want their nukes and they want war with Israel to shore up their own shaky regime, just like the Argies in the 80s. The only thing they dont want is nuclear war, and they know if they dont start one they wont get one. But they also know they will get a nice conventional war if they keep working toward nukes - so they win win.

      And the Iranians will get nukes in the end, although i doubt they will use them - they are too useful a bargaining chip. Dont you dupes get it - the Iranians are working toward becokming the USSR of this century.

    55. joe90 — on 14th August, 2010 at 3:12 pm  

      post #50

      i think its more about threat of war and pressure than the Americans actually attacking iran.

      With brazil and turkey involved in delivering refined uranium to iran. It throws a spanner into the works which was called the global consensus against iran.

    56. Roger — on 14th August, 2010 at 4:26 pm  

      I remember the last time the US military had “proof” too – it involved WMDs in Iraq that I’m sure they’re still looking for.

      Could the man who wrote this possibly be the same man who made a clarion call to listen to “America’s military-intelligence establishment”?

      Pathetic.

    57. FlyingRodent — on 14th August, 2010 at 5:24 pm  

      I’m willing to concede that with all the horseshit above, there may well be a pony in there somewhere. Sadly, I haven’t got the energy to check, but you have to love this, from Ben…

      genocidal aggression… maniacal, genocidal and murderous states such as Iran, which want Israel wiped off the map, and would very likely open a full scale war of extermination against Israel after it acquires nukes.

      (Sighs, prepares to repeat self) Since 2000, the UK, the US and Israel have attacked and rubbed out tens of thousands - is the figure higher? Who knows? Who cares! We’ve hardly been arsed to count! - in Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank, Pakistan, Yemen and Syria.

      The Iranian armed forces, on the other hand, are primarily an imminent threat to the population of Iran.

      Countries attacked by western armed forces: 8, depending on how you count. Bodycount: 50,000? 100,000? More?

      Countries attacked by Iran: 0. Bodycount: 0.

      From this, we are to conclude that the Iranians are a genocidal, murderous threat to Israel, certain to attack the moment they are capable. I have to say, it doesn’t follow logically.

      Possibilities ignored by commenters: That Iran may be seeking deterrent weapons against the countries that have attacked and/or occupied so many of their neighbours; that Iran could be successfully deterred; That Iran may not, in fact, be producing nuclear warheads. The argument that the Iranians are so insane that they would instantly go to defcon one and doom their population is fun, but ignores the fact that the not-exactly-rational Chairman Mao killed millions of his own people, yet refrained from launching at Russia or the USA for some reason.

      I conclude that these possibilities are ignored exactly because they would make military action inadvisable, revealing an intent to push for the most alarmist position possible. This means that both the Bombs Away! mode and the concern-trollish I’m not saying we must bomb Iran, but Aaargh genocide! version are based on bullshit and bluster in equal measure.

    58. FlyingRodent — on 14th August, 2010 at 5:33 pm  

      Further, it’s very, very noticeable indeed that the most enthusiastic producers and consumers of Israel will be destroyed! propaganda are Israel’s substantial wingnut population themselves. Jesus, look at the effect it has on brain-damaged fools like AOS upthread.

      You don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to work out why this is - were Israelis less terrified at all times, the wingnut death-grip on power would weaken, and a bunch of socialist kibbutz types might gay up the army and hippify the nation. This is why I tend to be sceptical whenever some doom-crazed fucknut of the Benny Morris genus cranks up the hysteria out of political expediency.

    59. Alex — on 15th August, 2010 at 2:09 am  

      “Countries attacked by Iran: 0″

      It should be also remembered that the last time Iran was at war, Western countries were funding both sides.

      Further, it should be pointed out that Israel has a past that involves bombing Iraqi and Syrian reactors. And anyway, why is the West so deeply involved in funding Israel’s defence if not so Israel has the capability to defend itself?

      “Possibilities ignored by commenters”

      I would say there’s another possibility they’ve ignored, namely that Iranian reluctance to cooperate with the IAEA could have a cultural explanation, like:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Uncle_Napoleon

      The number of times we’ve interfered in Iranian society and people wonder why Iran might not want Westerners in inspecting what they’re doing.

      Or perhaps this sentiment is not shared by the Iranian leaders but is being exploited by them in order to keep the masses on their side using warmed up nationalism?

      Another possibility is that Iran does want nukes, but it wants them because it listens to Beltway/Decent discourse, and sees people wanting the might of the American military launched against Iran. Maybe, just maybe, the sabre-rattling is counter-productive?

      Oh, and it should be pointed out that the chief of Mossad thinks that if Iran wants nuclear weapons, it wouldn’t be able to make them until 2014:

      http://www.haaretz.com/news/mossad-iran-will-have-nuclear-bomb-by-2014-1.278192

      Of course, we should take that with a giant pinch of salt, since we’ve been here before:

      http://original.antiwar.com/sahimi/2010/05/04/irans-ever-imminent-nukes/

      So why don’t we calm down and watch and wait a while before goose-stepping to “Barbara Ann”, hey?

    60. Insolent Minx — on 16th August, 2010 at 8:38 pm  

      That gallows bird Jeffery Goldberg is at “work” again to sell another war based on lies. Goebbels would be proud.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.