Yesterday, according to an Iranian news agency, Iran's Deputy Minister and the UAE's Prime Minister met and celebrated the two countries' great relations, which they both said they were committed to expanding "in all areas":
Deputy Foreign Minister Mehdi Mostafavi and Deputy Emir and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Sheikh Mohammad ben Rashid al-Maktoum stressed Monday expansion of relations between Iran and UAE in all areas.
Mostafavi lauded al-Maktoum on his efforts in strengthening bilateral ties and invited him for a state visit to Tehran.
Mostafavi also briefed the Dubai's ruler on the Iranians positions on Iraq and Palestinians developments, and described the trend of Iran-Russia talks on Tehran resolve in acquiring peaceful nuclear technology. . . .
And Iran's Deputy Minister even arrived bearing an official greeting and invitation from the deranged, murderous, bloodthirsty Muslim Adolf Hitler:
The official started his regional tour by traveling to Qatar, where he submitted a written message from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani on Friday, inviting him to pay a visit to Tehran.
Deputy Foreign Minister Mehdi Mostafavi in a meeting with the Ruler of Abu Dhabi Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al-Nahyan on Monday submitted the written message of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to him.
None of this is really new. Our good friend, the UAE, has long had great relations with Nazi Germany Iran, and that relationship is only blossoming:
According to Al-Bayan newspaper, statistics issued by the Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Industry show that the value of the total non-oil exchanges between the UAE and Iran hit $3.3 billion last year.
Meanwhile, an official at Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DCCI) called for enhancement of bilateral relations between the two sides. In his visit with a trade delegation from the Iranian province of Mazandaran, director of public relations and events of the DCCI Sultan Majid Lootah noted, the non-oil trade between the two states has hit $3.300 billion. Also, Hamid Reza Qadi deputy chairman of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Mazandaran Province referred to the province’s good trade and commercial relations with the Emirates and said Dubai was one of Iran’s most important trade partners.
It's not only their government leaders who meet, but their business leaders frequently do as well, forging all sorts of new commercial interaction. Of course, the countries have many things in common, including their virtually identical policy towards Israel. Neither recognizes its right to exist, neither allows Israeli citizens to enter their country, and both of them boycott all Israeli companies.
If Iran were really the Ultimate Terrorist Evil, the new Nazi Germany, would one of our "most committed allies in the war on terror" maintain such friendly relations with them? For a reasonable, moderate, responsible anti-terrorist country like the UAE to maintain such a close alliance with Iran, mustn't there be some rationality and stability in the Iranian government?
And why is the UAE's extreme hostility to Israel -- to the point where it denies Israel's right to exist and bans its citizens from entering the country -- consistent with our close alliance with the UAE, but Iran's extreme hostility towards Israel (admittedly with more inflammatory rhetoric) compels us to view Iran as the new Nazi Germany?
It is clearly not in the interests of the U.S. for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, and there are an array of measures which are being pursued, and should be, to prevent that. But we can't and don't have a policy of waging war on every country that is trying to proliferate. The only way to justify a war on Iran is by trying to depict them as some great evil, and more so, a completely irrational and deranged world actor beyond the standard constraints of rationality and self-interest. But there is no evidence that they are guided in their actions by anything other than rationality and self-interest, and we need only talk to our good friends (and the Iranians' good friends) -- the UAE -- in order to know this.
Good find - I think people are going to be more doubtful this time about these claims. Americans may not pay close attention to things, but this feels way too deja-vu-ish for anyone to fall for more than once!
ReplyDeleteGlenn, Glenn, Glenn,
ReplyDeleteThese are republicans you're talking about. Think about it!
The U.S. role in the Middle East is complex enough to make your head spin. Apparently we haven't been too good at keeping track of it in the past, either, if this historical account of our role there is worth much. Al Qaeda and Saddam were our allies not too long ago....
ReplyDeleteGood find - I think people are going to be more doubtful this time about these claims.
ReplyDeleteThose that are paying attention and not watching Faux or listening to His Emanence Rush Limaugh. The 36% (+/-3) "dead enders" may be what the Republicans seek to hold on to, and such 'technicalities' as what Glenn's pointing out may not bother them as long as they are reassured. The Republicans may be seeking to avoid disaster, and shaking the sword around may well be the only tool left, no matter how pathetic ... and no matter how evil.
Cheers,
All governments are corrupt power structures that lie and murder and steal. Ethics do not exist, only Nationalism and the neverending quest for more power, at any expense. Hello, welcome to the world.
ReplyDeleteDavid Shaugnessy:
ReplyDeleteThe bulk of your post argues that Iran is not Nazi Germany. I agree.
But they are "Islamofascists" neveretheless....
There are clearly radical elements in Iran -- Islamofascists to coin a phrase....
Why bother? And just a FYI, you flatter yourself too much; I think that Rove et.al. have got you beat.
Cheers,
Old arab saying: "The enemy of my friend is my friend...no, enemy...friend....won't get fooled again!"
ReplyDeleteOh, shit.....
Arne writes: But they are "Islamofascists" neveretheless....
ReplyDeleteYes, to a large degree. Look, notions of clerical or "religious neo-fascism" exist independent of, and predate, the current semantic arguments over what to call the Taliban & etc. Clerical fascism is a somewhat controversial idea in the field of religious studies, but my sense is that it is generally accepted. It does not apply merely, or even primarily to Islam (but includes it's fascist strains), as you can read in this wiki entry about religious neofascism:
Karen Armstrong sees a potential for fascism in Christian Reconstructionism, and claims that the system of dominion envisaged by Christian Reconstructionist theologians R. J. Rushdoony and Gary North "is totalitarian. There is no room for any other view or policy, no democratic tolerance for rival parties, no individual freedom," (Armstrong, Battle for God, pp. 361-362). Berlet and Lyons have witten the movement is a "new form of clerical fascist politics,"(Right-Wing Populism in America, p. 249).
Many scholars consider Reconstructionism a quasi-fascist movement because it is explicitly opposed to religious liberty and human rights. Gary North has advocated a "Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God". Reconstructionist James B. Jordan argues that "the notion of human rights was introduced by Satan in the Garden of Eden, and the notion that men have inherent rights is simply a way of affirming original sin" [10].
Originally, this whole idea was controversial because altho typically applied by scholars only to the Xian Dominionsts/Reconstructionists, some Hindu fanatics in India & etc...some on the left (and some libertarians) began promiscuously refering to all conservative Xians as fascists. That is a misuse of the term. But in my view, it is accurate for such as Rushdoony or North.
The America those men would build would be the Taliban in English. They are neofascists, and so was the Taliban, and so are strains of Islam.
That all said, I understand why people are unhappy with the term "Islamofascist," and how it is considered to stop all rational thought at a time when rational thought is quite imperative. Nevertheless, as a purely academic matter, I do not think the word "Islamofascist" is inaccurate.
Finally, the reason I myself seldom use the term, is precisely because I realize most people are ignorant of this academic use, and they simply conclude one is trekking over from LGF and employing a mere epithet. But I still think it is a valid descriptor.
hmmmm, wonder what talking points the right-wing bedwetters will get to attack Glenn's post
ReplyDelete"Islamofascist"? a word invented to manipulate Americans into war
People need to get a grip. If NYC was destroyed today the Iranians know that we would blame them and that Iran would be incinerated. This is all about Bush-Nero's nightmare of facing a Democratic Congress after Election Day.
Excuse me Glenn please. This post is off topic but I think it is very important.
ReplyDeleteSenate Hearings on Bush. Now
I think the sun may be about to finally rise on Morning in America! This article by Carl Bernstein may have the effect, finally, of starting the whole ball rolling in a way that nothing else has done thus far.
Carl Bernstein correctly points out that, even more than a censure motion or an impeachment effort, what is now needed is a Bi-partisan Senate investigation with the broad support of both parties into the many highly troubling actions of President Bush and dozens of his key advisers during this Administration's tenure. In his article, he names almost all of the issues Glenn and his regular readers have been writing about on Unclaimed Territory.
The reason this may be the most important article written to date is not because Carl Bernstein is more intelligent, more articulate, more informed, more passionate or more patriotic than our own Glenn and some others --people like thersites, wintermute, constant, crooks and liars, justin raimondo, everyone over at anti-war, digby, dissent voice, Paul Craig Roberts, anonymous liberal, georgia, jane, cynic librarian with his incredible links---too many to name even) who have been writing such passionate and brilliant articles and performing such Herculean investigative work but because he is the right person in the right place at the right time to take this case for new "Watergate Hearings" to the American Public itself, the nation's ultimate jury.
Unlike any other person who has written so far, Carl Bernstein has the kind of name that has household recognition, an unblemished (as far as I know) reputation, and a name which was made more even more widely known when the movie "All the President's Men" came out. His investigative work led to one of the most widely known investigations in American history and helped to bring down a compromised President of the United States.
Now there is no single "Deep Throat" but there is a Freedom of Information Act, a few courageous whistleblowers and protestors, and tens of thousands of hours devoted without pay doing grunt work by bloggers and writers who have done such an incredible job of connecting the dots from the bits of information that have seeped out from one source or another.
Bob Woodward is corrupt to his bone marrow. He has discredited himself so thoroughly that he should probably be one of the people being investigated.
But Carl Bernstein, to my knowledge at least, has been mostly on the sidelines so far while this drama has been playing itself out.
He steps forth now. I view him with an open mind. His actions going forward will color my opinion of him. But this is a HUGE step he has taken because if his article gets wide exposure and discussion (which we should all help in doing imo) it could be just what is needed to get all the fence sitters back into the game and finally wake up the "television viewing" audience.
This is a very long article but it's well worth reading every word. One point he makes that addresses an issue about which we have all been troubled is that the problem is hardly limited to President Bush. Impeaching him and even having him leave office before his term is up does not get this country very far, unless Cheney and Rice and Rumsfeld and Addington and Wolfowitz and the whole crowd is exposed and discredited and sent packing as well.
Finally, if it weren't for the work of the Glenn Greenwalds in this country, I don't think things would have ever gotten to the point where Carl Bernstein would come out and written an article like this. He is writing on the back of thousands of previous articles and leaks and opinion pieces which have served to prove without question that the evidence is out there that such an investigation is now needed. Thanks to each and every one of those people whose passion and dedication to this country made them act, on behalf of all of us, as true patriots
leading the way.
Excuse me Glenn please. This post is off topic but I think it is very important.
ReplyDeleteSenate Hearings on Bush. Now
I think the sun may be about to finally rise on Morning in America! This article by Carl Bernstein may have the effect, finally, of starting the whole ball rolling in a way that nothing else has done thus far.
Carl Bernstein correctly points out that, even more than a censure motion or an impeachment effort, what is now needed is a Bi-partisan Senate investigation with the broad support of both parties into the many highly troubling actions of President Bush and dozens of his key advisers during this Administration's tenure. In his article, he names almost all of the issues Glenn and his regular readers have been writing about on Unclaimed Territory.
The reason this may be the most important article written to date is not because Carl Bernstein is more intelligent, more articulate, more informed, more passionate or more patriotic than our own Glenn and some others --people like thersites, wintermute, constant, crooks and liars, justin raimondo, everyone over at anti-war, digby, dissent voice, Paul Craig Roberts, anonymous liberal, georgia, jane, cynic librarian with his incredible links---too many to name even) who have been writing such passionate and brilliant articles and performing such Herculean investigative work but because he is the right person in the right place at the right time to take this case for new "Watergate Hearings" to the American Public itself, the nation's ultimate jury.
Unlike any other person who has written so far, Carl Bernstein has the kind of name that has household recognition, an unblemished (as far as I know) reputation, and a name which was made more even more widely known when the movie "All the President's Men" came out. His investigative work led to one of the most widely known investigations in American history and helped to bring down a compromised President of the United States.
Now there is no single "Deep Throat" but there is a Freedom of Information Act, a few courageous whistleblowers and protestors, and tens of thousands of hours devoted without pay doing grunt work by bloggers and writers who have done such an incredible job of connecting the dots from the bits of information that have seeped out from one source or another.
Bob Woodward is corrupt to his bone marrow. He has discredited himself so thoroughly that he should probably be one of the people being investigated.
But Carl Bernstein, to my knowledge at least, has been mostly on the sidelines so far while this drama has been playing itself out.
He steps forth now. I view him with an open mind. His actions going forward will color my opinion of him. But this is a HUGE step he has taken because if his article gets wide exposure and discussion (which we should all help in doing imo) it could be just what is needed to get all the fence sitters back into the game and finally wake up the "television viewing" audience.
This is a very long article but it's well worth reading every word. One point he makes that addresses an issue about which we have all been troubled is that the problem is hardly limited to President Bush. Impeaching him and even having him leave office before his term is up does not get this country very far, unless Cheney and Rice and Rumsfeld and Addington and Wolfowitz and the whole crowd is exposed and discredited and sent packing as well.
Finally, if it weren't for the work of the Glenn Greenwalds in this country, I don't think things would have ever gotten to the point where Carl Bernstein would come out and written an article like this. He is writing on the back of thousands of previous articles and leaks and opinion pieces which have served to prove without question that the evidence is out there that such an investigation is now needed. Thanks to each and every one of those people whose passion and dedication to this country made them act, on behalf of all of us, as true patriots
leading the way.
I forgot to mention the wonderful John Dean in the previous post whose writings and speakings have, to my mind, been so crucially important and helpful.
ReplyDeleteGV,
ReplyDeleteYour use of the term "bedwetter" in nearly every comment begs the question.
What is the point of Glenn's post? If the point is to demonstrate that Iran is rational, this was certainly a very convulted and not terribly persuasive piece.
ReplyDeleteA point seemingly lost in this blog is that Iran needn't use its nuke for there to be major problems. They can ramp up their aggressiveness throughout the region with impunity, fully knowning that no one will dare attack them. That would be consistent with rational behavior, and at the same time problematic.
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteIf Iran were really the Ultimate Terrorist Evil, the new Nazi Germany, would one of our "most committed allies in the war on terror" maintain such friendly relations with them? For a reasonable, moderate, responsible anti-terrorist country like the UAE to maintain such a close alliance with Iran, mustn't there be some rationality and stability in the Iranian government?
C'mon now. The UAE is a tiny country whose wealth is created through shipping trade through the Gulf. When you are a tiny country, you make nice with all the powers around you and Iran is definitely attempting to project power into the Gulf.
To extend one of your favorite analogies, the Swiss also made nice with Nazi Germany. That relationship of necessity was not a stamp of approval for Nazis.
And why is the UAE's extreme hostility to Israel -- to the point where it denies Israel's right to exist and bans its citizens from entering the country -- consistent with our close alliance with the UAE, but Iran's extreme hostility towards Israel (admittedly with more inflammatory rhetoric) compels us to view Iran as the new Nazi Germany?
You know better than this. There is a quantum difference between not having any relations with Israel and developing nukes while threatening to wipe Israel off the map. Both are distasteful, but only one threatens tens of thousands of lives.
It is clearly not in the interests of the U.S. for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, and there are an array of measures which are being pursued, and should be, to prevent that.
Agreed. There is still time for diplomacy, but its is rapidly running out. The fact that the UN just voted to appoint Iran to the to the UN Commission on Disarmament (sic) does not give me great faith in that body acting to disarm Iran.
But we can't and don't have a policy of waging war on every country that is trying to proliferate.
Agreed again. That is why you concentrate on keeping nukes out of the hands of countries threatening their neighbors and the US (Iran/NK), while making accommodations with countries like India and Pakistan which are apparently using the weapons as mutual deterrents to conventional war.
As with all foreign relations, the dividing lines are usually not clean and compromises have to be made. However, the issue does not get more clear cut than in the case of NK and Iran.
The only way to justify a war on Iran is by trying to depict them as some great evil, and more so, a completely irrational and deranged world actor beyond the standard constraints of rationality and self-interest.
Iran has been doing this all by themselves through their own public statements. DC could not make up the stuff that is coming out of the terrorist running that country.
Questionmark, see my comments above. One needn't prove that Iran is "irrational" for there to be reasons to want to deprive them of nukes, by sanctions, force or otherwise.
ReplyDeleteHypatia:
ReplyDelete... some on the left (and some libertarians) began promiscuously refering to all conservative Xians as fascists.
Fancy that. And some have started referring to a wide swath of Muslims as "Islamofascist" (or at the very least, muddying the issue and poisoning the well).
As I said in a previous thread, I prefer the more narrow and traditional definition of fascism (and in part because the "fascism" is thrown in gratuiously by the generally unsophisticated people who are using the epithet, mostly for its emotional value). But if people want to use a more general sense of fascism as beign any authoritarian, anti-democratic for of gummint (and there's plenty of those of all flavours to go around), they should most certainly use the term likewise for the Dubya maladministration.
I would note that some of the more specific charactersitics of the "classical" Mussolini fascism, such as the extreme nationalism, and the exalting of the military and militarism, etc., would seem to apply more to the Dubya maladministration, and only to a lesser extent to the authoriarian Islamic regimes. Fascism was primarily not a religiously motivated (or supported) doctrine, and that's one of the distinctions, I think, between fascism and other authoritarian fo0rms of gummint.
Cheers,
The Hidden Imam:
ReplyDeleteFine by me. The more specific you can be, the easier it is to check the labels against the actions, too.
Cheers,
hidden imam - that's a fallback argument. Right now the administration is playing the 'irrationality' card so whether or not there exists a fallback is pretty irrelevant to anything except the little world inside your head.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a fall-back argument; it's the real argument. Iranian nuclear weapons drastically changes the strategic landscape -- to our detriment.
The irrationality argument is relatively new and I think directly attributable to Ahmadinejad and his insane, genocidal remarks and religious, end-of-the-world fantasies. I'm not sure whether he's insane, or how much power he truly wields. Do any of us, really? But it seems to me that he's giving us plenty of reasons to question his sanity. Moreover, the Muslim world in general hasn't exactly given us much confidence. The cartoon episode was sickening to most Americans. I think most Americans see the Muslim world as divided between the Decent and the Savages, and that the Iranian leadership belongs to the latter group.
Goes back to the comment made by Scottie that Bush is not a "fact checker", nor apparently is anyone in his administration. You just keep offering up too much information Glenn, how's a President to make a decision? It's so much easier to make decisions based on friends of the family ties rather than letting reality get in your way.
ReplyDeleteAt Juan Cole's site, in January guest blogger William O. Beeman provided some needed historical background to the Iranian nuclear program:
ReplyDeleteThe mantra "Iran must not get nuclear weapons" has been repeated so often now that most people have come to believe that Iran has them or is getting them. Has anyone stopped to think that this only became an issue when the neoconservative agenda to "remake" the Middle East--including Iran-became actualized? The Iran nuclear crisis is truly a manufactured crisis, based on the flimsiest of evidence and reasoning. I can only hope that soberer minds rethink this position.
Arne writes: But if people want to use a more general sense of fascism as beign any authoritarian, anti-democratic for of gummint (and there's plenty of those of all flavours to go around), they should most certainly use the term likewise for the Dubya maladministration.
ReplyDeleteUh-huh. When I have to go into hiding after my co-critics have been stabbed because they railed against Bush or Xianity, when our Western authors have to go into hiding and their translators and/or editors are murdered for "blasphemy" by angry Xians, when I have to go out in public covered head to toe and chaperoned by a male relative, and when wearing make-up gets me tossed in prison, when all that sort of thing is going on here, I will agree that Bush's America has actually become fascist. In the meantime, let's consider some people who have experienced the real thing.
I think Ayaan Hirsi Ali is in a position to know fascism when she suffers from it:
Ali sees radical Islam as a reincarnation of the fascism that Europe once ignored or appeased with disastrous results.
"The lesson is, recognize it in time," she said. "Muslims are getting a lot of propaganda which is radical, which is fascist in nature. And you have these Europeans who have come through the Second World War, who know how these ideologies come about and what they can lead to … and it's like, oh my goodness, we are doing it again."
Or perhaps "Islamo-totalitarianism" would be more palatable to some of you?
MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism
After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.
We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.
The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.
Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.
We reject « cultural relativism », which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.
We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.
We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.
12 signatures
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Chahla Chafiq
Caroline Fourest
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Irshad Manji
Mehdi Mozaffari
Maryam Namazie
Taslima Nasreen
Salman Rushdie
Antoine Sfeir
Philippe Val
Ibn Warraq
Just because idiots at LGF run around shrieking about nuking all the Islamo-fascists -- which they pretty much take to mean any Muslim -- does not mean there is not now a serious threat to the liberal democracies from these clerical fascists.
The administration is pushing the line that Iran is irrational and can't be deterred.
ReplyDeleteWhen was this? Seriously, link to it. Maybe I'm missing or forgetting something.
Go ahead, make the case that a nuclear program having Iran dramatically alters the strategic balance in the world for the worse without playing the crazy card. That has yet to be done.
ReplyDeleteAre you for real? Look at recent history for a good example. Saddam attacked and annexed Kuwait. We then rolled him back. Had Saddam been nuclear armed, I highly doubt we would have attacked.
I find it interesting that when Khatami was president of Iran, his statements of relative moderation were met with scorn on the right, since the presidency is a largely ceremonial post in Iran. However, Ahmadinejad's inflammatory statements are used time and againg to show Iran's aggressive intentions.
ReplyDeletequestionmark writes: Hypatia - the presence of shrieky dissidents alone is not proof positive of fascism.
ReplyDeleteShrieky dissidents. I see. Ayaan Hirsi Ali was threatened with death via a note impaled on the body of the murdered co-producer of her film, a film criticizing how Islam treats women. The pro-gay and pro-woman sequel she is now producing is undertaken at secret locations under strict security. One of her colleauges in the Dutch parliament has had to join her in living in a "safe house" under guard.
Salman Rushdie had a bounty placed on his head for committing "blasphemy." His life has been radically altered, and several of his translators were murdered.
The Danish Cartoonists have gone into hiding, with their families. And anyone who thinks that CNN and the NYT failed to reprint those cartoons for any reason other than fear, is deeply delusional. Fear of Muslim religious fascists is controlling the speech and behavior of Westerners, and that is an enormous problem.
If this sort of thuggish intimidation were coming from Xians, I am sure that the majority complaining about the term "fascism" would be embracing it. If our artists and congresspeople had to go into hiding under guard, that's what we'd call it. (And indeed, I said the Xian right was moving toward fascism when FL Judge George Greer had to be surrounded by guards during the Schiavo hysteria -- Randall Terry has ties to the Dominionists.) They would not be glibly dismissing the victims as "shrieky dissidents."
From the hidden imam at 12:15PM:
ReplyDelete"Are you for real? Look at recent history for a good example."
Okay. Let's see the last time another nation acquiring nuclear weapons 'dramatically' altered the global strategic landscape:
(sound of winds blowing over empty land)
Your hypothetical about Saddam is, quite fankly, nonsensical and irrelevant. He didn't have nukes back in 1991 and his regime survived only because President George W H Bush was more prudent and realistic than his son has proven.
Would the US have taken action against him back then had he a nuclear bomb or three ready for use? Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know.
Try again.
hidden imam:Had Saddam been nuclear armed, I highly doubt we would have attacked.
ReplyDeleteSaddam--hypothetically had he had nukes--never would have used them, because he knew that the US would have used them. We have bigger nukes than anyone else in the world. Why do you think these people are suicidal? Do you really believe that the ruling Iranian mullahs wish that type of suicide?
As Glenn points out, these people are just as rational--maybe even moreso--than the Bushites. They have markets to secure and customers. To instigate any form of war would destroy that market and ultimately undermine their own hold on power.
Juan Cole notes that China has nukes, pratice anti-democratic persecution, impose a form of authoritarian rule, etc. Iran is no different. They're open to persuasion--if only they get the type of respect that they believe any normal human being should.
Hypatia:
ReplyDeleteUh-huh. When I have to go into hiding after my co-critics have been stabbed because they railed against Bush or Xianity, when our Western authors have to go into hiding and their translators and/or editors are murdered for "blasphemy" by angry Xians, when I have to go out in public covered head to toe and chaperoned by a male relative, and when wearing make-up gets me tossed in prison, when all that sort of thing is going on here, I will agree that Bush's America has actually become fascist.
Here you're concentrating on the religious intolerance aspect. Please read my post again. There quite a bit more to fascism (even in the more generic sense) than religious intolerance and orthodoxy/repression.
There's oligarchic control of the state and the media (don't forget, Mussolini "made the trains run on time").
But, to be honest, while we ain't there yet, don't you see the warnings on the first of your nightmare above? Doesn't the thought that birth control may become banned (de facto or de jure) worry you? How about the people that have been killed by RWers (we lost, in the OK City bombing, pretty much the same number of people per perp as in 9/11)? (FWIW, I'd point out that there's a difference between such murders by extremists and the same by the gummint, both here and there). The proliferation of "militias" or other paramilitary groups? The internments without trial, the spying, th lack of legal recourse, the failure of controls and restraints, etc. (in fact, this last represents, I think, one of the more distinctive symptoms of incipient fascism than do some of the more visible and outrageous acts commited by private individuals; it's when the gummint starts getting authoritarian and starts to exert the machinery of control -- even if currently non-lethal -- that we're sliding the wrong direction). What's the dividing line, Hypatia? When does it go over the edge to full fascism?
Cheers,
gus mentions former Iranian president Khatami. It perhaps serves some purpose to quote Khatami on dialog between civilizations:
ReplyDeleteDialogue is not easy. It is even more difficult to prepare and open up vistas upon one's inner existence to others. A belief in dialogue paves the way for vivacious hope: the hope of living in a world permeated by virtue, humility and love, and not merely by the reign of economic indices and destructive weapons. Should the spirit of dialogue prevail, humanity, culture and civilization should prevail. We should all have faith in this triumph and we should all hope that all citizens of the world will be prepared to listen to the divine call:
"So Announce the Good News to My Servants ? Those who listen to the Word, And follow The best (meaning) in it." (The Holy Koran, XXXIX:17-18)
Let us hope that enmity and oppression will end and that the clamour of love for truth, justice and human dignity will prevail. Let us hope that all human beings will sing along with Hafez of Shiraz, that divinely inspired spirit, that:
"No ineffable clamour reverberates in the grand heavenly dome more sweetly than the sound of love."
The Washington Post also quoted Khatami recently on the US need to make an enemy of Iran:
Khatami, speaking at a government conference promoting interfaith dialogue, said the West was largely responsible. Islam was being cast as the "enemy of humanity" by governments reverting to the polarized worldview that divided the planet for 50 years after World War II, he said.
The West "needs an enemy, and this time it is Islam," Khatami said. "And Islamophobia becomes a part of all policies of the great powers, of hegemonic powers.
"We are not very far from the era of the Cold War that inflicted a lot of damage on the world."
These are the irrational, savage, barbarian hordes that some in this comments arena wish us to forget and instead listen to the divinely inspired pslams to uinversal peace of Bush and his apostles.
FYI all:
ReplyDeleteMerriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
I keep reading all of these statements that we can’t let Iran obtain nuclear weapons; that we have to, if need be, use force (whatever that means) to stop them, and it just seems, to me, that this whole conversation is topsy turvy. Although I am, by no means, an expert or even particularly well-versed on the subject, it seems that each of the options I’ve heard being considered as ‘force’, both here and elsewhere, is a declaration of war – from actually invading with armed forces, through sustained bombing with conventional bombs, to the very obscene, to me, concept of actually engaging in a nuclear attack against another country and it’s citizens. It just seems this whole conversation has a touch of the surreal to it; that we are actually, seriously, considering using a nuclear bomb against another country that is in no position to threaten our survival, now or in the immediate future. Sure, we can dream up scenarios where we might suffer injury; but they’re just that – dreamed-up scenarios by people, namely you and me, that have no particular expertise on the matter. To get from there to actually declaring war, and engaging in acts that threaten to kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, is simply mind-boggling.
ReplyDeleteThere are reasons why we have entered international agreements that prohibit us from doing precisely this; attacking countries at will, just because we can, and it serves our immediate interests. For me, it’s part of the civilizing process that we, both our country and others, have undergone, that we have chosen to place these options beyond bounds. The fact that we’re now considering them is a continual reminder of how far backward this administration has taken our country and this world.
Although I find Iranian president Ahmadinejad something of a thug and a millenarian whose end-of-the-world beliefs I find uncomfortable, I think his demonization by the western press has been inexcusable. Inexcusable because it serves only one purpose: to make Iran look like a bunch of fanatical, irrational, and insane religionists bent on world domination.
ReplyDeleteThe following comments by Juan Cole explain why much of this demonization is based on purely stupid and ignorant misunderstandings. Misunderstandings that are ethically culpable in the present situation becuae they ratchet up the atmosphere of animosity that belligent Americans will exploit for their own purposes.
According to Juan Cole:
President Ahmadinejad, it should be freely admitted, has, through his lack of diplomatic skills and his maladroitness, given his enemies important propaganda tools. Unlike his predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier. He went to an anti-Zionist conference and quoted Ayatollah Khomeini, saying that the “Occupation regime” must “vanish.” This statement about Israel does not necessarily imply violence. After all, Ariel Sharon made the occupation regime in the Gaza Strip vanish. The quote was translated in the international press, however, as a wish that “Israel be wiped off the map,” and this inaccurate translation has now become a tag line for all newspaper articles written about Iran in Western newspapers.
In another speech, Ahmadinejad argued that Germans rather than Palestinians should have suffered a loss of territory for the establishment of a Jewish state, if the Germans perpetrated the Holocaust. This argument is an old one in the Middle East, but it was immediately alleged that Ahmadinejad was advocating the shipping of Israelis to Europe. That was not what he said.
It is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy. Ahmadinejad’s election is not relevant to the nuclear issue, and neither is the question of whether he is, as Liz Cheney is reported to have said, “a madman.” Iran has not behaved in a militarily aggressive way since its 1979 revolution, having invaded no other countries, unlike Iraq, Israel or the U.S. Washington has nevertheless succeeded in depicting Iran as a rogue state. [my emphases]
This astute and important clarification shows how the present administration takes advantage of the social and cultural ignorance of the press and the public. Depending on stereotypes and hatred toward Muslims, the present administartion seems to have an easy job of convincing Americans that they should once more support a war on fanatics. This mischaracterization by the administration of Iran and its people is hatefully immoral.
The fact that we’re now considering them is a continual reminder of how far backward this administration has taken our country and this world.
ReplyDeleteRead a little history.
The United States has had a first-strike nuclear policy since Hiroshima and Nakasaki. This policy has been unchanged through every administration both Democrat and Republican, and our arsenal of approximately 10,000 deliverable nuclear bombs is maintained for that explicit purpose.
Iran is well aware that we will not permit them to acquire a nuclear arsenal of their own. This is not a partisan issue in this country, as both parties agree that such an eventuality would be fatal to our interests in the region. If Iran decides to proceed with their designs despite our warnings regarding the consequences of this action, they will suffer the inevitable consequences.
This will occur whether or not the president is George Bush or someone else, so don't let your bad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome obscure the reality of this situation.
David Shaughnessy:
ReplyDeleteThe term Islamofascists perfectly suits Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and those of like mind who aim to destroy Western civilization and impose a fundamentalist Islamist theocracy on the world.
Not quite sure about the accuracy of the desire to "destroy Western civilization" (as though this is something the West has some kind of patent on, even). There are some that think that Osama's ambitions are not quite so grandiose, but feel free to serve up Osama's "We will bury you" quote (disregarding for a moment that even this Kruschev quote is said by some to be more metaphoric than an actual statement of policy).
But more importantly, Osama and al Qaeda re not nations, nor are they a gummint. Even if they did have such hegemonistic ambitions, I'd think that fascists (using the word in the loose and indefinite sense) would have to have implemented their schemes. Wouldn't Osama be a "fascist wannabe", more accurately? If we're going to look at concrete progress on the road to fascism, wouldn't Dubya be ahead in the race?
Cheers,
questionmark writes: I guess the wording is an issue for me because I see you falling in with hacks like Christopher Hitchens when you use that handpicked scare-phrasing.
ReplyDeleteWords do matter, and for reasons I've set forth, I do think some religious movements constitute clerical fascism.
Christopher Hitchens is a close friend of Salman Rushdie’s:
His 1988 book The Satanic Verses included a parody of Islam that incensed Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, who charged Rushdie with apostasy and issued a fatwa calling for his death.
For years the fatwa forced Rushdie into hiding in London. It cost him his marriage and isolated him from his young son. The book was banned in India and he was barred from his homeland. Desperate to resume normal life, Rushdie apologized to Muslims and even formally converted to Islam, a move that he later repudiated.
Some of his translators were murdered. Do read the entire interview. Victims of Islamofascism have a more clear-headed idea of what the problem is than some commenting here.
Just because the U.S. shouldn't be running around invading every Muslim country, it does not follow that our Western liberal democracies should not be addressing how to protect our own writers, artists and media from these theocrats who, in fact, are reaching out and touching us in totally unacceptable ways.
The United States has had a first-strike nuclear policy since Hiroshima and Nakasaki. This policy has been unchanged through every administration both Democrat and Republican . . ..
ReplyDeleteYou and I both know that using nuclear weapons against Iran under the current circumstances is way outside the range of acceptable use of nuclear force under the rules of engagement of any previous administration.
Iran is well aware that we will not permit them to acquire a nuclear arsenal of their own. This is not a partisan issue in this country, as both parties agree that such an eventuality would be fatal to our interests in the region. If Iran decides to proceed with their designs despite our warnings regarding the consequences of this action, they will suffer the inevitable consequences.
Each of these sentences is couched as an unambiguous statement that belies the very real, and uncertain nature of the current state of affairs. You just have to stroll through this and other threads on this blog, to see that there are many, and substantive questions that remain unanswered, and need to be addressed – what are our intentions, when push comes to shove, in responding to Iran’s efforts to acquire a nuclear aresenal? Is Iran really seeking a nuclear arsenal? What does Iran think about our intentions? How would their acquiring nuclear capability really affect our interests in the region? What are our legitimate interests in the region? Simply declaring the debate over on this questions, doesn’t make it so.
The following statement by Arms Control Wonk Jeff Lewis (quoted by Steve Clemons quoting the Nelson Report) sums up an approach to the Iran "crisis" that the neocon hysterics would do well to consider:
ReplyDelete"Moreover, talking about this as a crisis leads to hasty conclusions about what happens if Tehran "gets" the bomb -- the world will not end, though we will be less secure. Assuming that Iran masters enrichment, we have a variety of interests to protect even if Iran stockpiles a few nuclear weapons. I would rather Iran have one, than ten. I would rather Iran have fuel, but not assemble the bomb. I would rather Iran not test it nuclear weapons or master the process of miniaturization that would allow delivery by ballistic missile. Most important, I want Iran to understand that it's deterrent is only good for retaliation, not coercion; that transfer of any of its nuclear materials to terrorists would result in the elimination of the Islamic Republic and its elites; and the use of nuclear weapon would be a prelude to the historical conclusion of Persian civilization.
"My advice, not fashionable these days, is to take a page from LBJ after the Chinese nuclear test. We need to act confident that the acquisition of Iranian nuclear weapons does nothing to enhance their security and everything to further isolate and weaken them.
"But our political system tends to reward the hysterical at the expense of the calm."
The Queen is Not Amused writes:Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
ReplyDeleteMain Entry: fas·cism
Clerical fascism is a term of use -- if some controversy -- in the fields of sociology and religious studies. Dictionary definitions often are disliked by specialists, and religious studies scholars, for example, don't usually like Merrian-Webster et al.'s definition of "cult." Ditto for evolutionary biologists wrt definitions of "evolution."
Religious fascism simply is a subject of disucssion and study. And that is true far beyond the more narrow issue of "islamofascism."
Abstract of paper presented at: American Sociological Association, my emphasis:
ReplyDeleteIn interwar Europe there were three distinct forms of fascism: Italian economic corporatist fascism, German racial nationalist Nazism, and clerical fascism. Clerical fascism consisted of religiously based nationalist movements in Croatia, Romania, Slovakia, Lithuania, Hungary, and the Ukraine, among others. Analysts of neofascism are debating which contemporary extreme right social movements should be labeled as forms of clerical fascism. This paper explores the Christian Identity and Christian constructionist movements in the United States, and The Taliban in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda networks based in the Middle
East. It concludes that all are forms of clerical fascism.
Special Issue of Totalitarian Movements and Politics Religions
The term 'clerical fascism' was popularized in Italy during the 1920s, especially by opponents who sought to point to those within the Catholic Church who supported Fascism. Later, the term was broadened to encompass links between the churches and fascism elsewhere (in the case of the Nazis, the links were much stronger with Protestantism). The term 'clerical fascism' has also been applied to fascist movements which were overtly and sincerely religious - such as the Romanian Iron Guard, led by the devoutly Orthodox Corneliu Codreanu. Most historians who use the term, like Hugh Trevor-Roper, are seeking to refine typologies of different forms of fascism - especially contrasting authoritarian-conservative 'clerical fascism’ with more radical 'dynamic’ variants. ...This first part of this article seeks to probe the relationship between the churches and inter-war fascism - in particular, the question of to what extent is legitimate to talk of 'clerical fascism'?... The main focus of this article has been the growing tendency to see fascism as a form of political religion. If the approach is seen as heuristic, then it is a useful addition to our methodological toolbox.
Granted, people employing the term “Islamofascist” do not generally do so in a heuristic fashion.”
Sheikh al-Maktoum is also the majority shareholder in the UAE company that is purchasing the British defense contractor, Doncasters, which supplies parts for many US military weapons programs. Bush currently has that deal on his desk. Will he allow the good friend of Nazi Germany Iran so close to our weapons production facilities?
ReplyDeleteMerriam-Webster Online Dictionary
ReplyDeleteMain Entry: 1re·li·gious
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French religieus, from Latin religiosus, from religio
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity 2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS
Plus:
Main Entry:fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
You just can't beat the dictionary, I don't care how pompous one becomes.
You just can't beat the dictionary, I don't care how pompous one becomes.
ReplyDeleteActually, you can, and scientists have had to do it with creationists -- who employ weak or misleading definitions of "evolution" found in dictionaries -- all the time.
Sociologists, notwithstanding Mr. Webster, have long written of "clerical fascism." And you would love the phrase, if it applied only to Xian Identity, Dominionists etc.; you are balking and standing on a lay, general dictionary because you don't like this sociological term of art as it applies to some Muslims.
You and I both know that using nuclear weapons against Iran under the current circumstances is way outside the range of acceptable use of nuclear force under the rules of engagement of any previous administration.
ReplyDeleteUsing "bunker buster" low-yield devices to destroy an Iranian offensive nuclear weapons program is not at all unacceptable under the present first-use doctrine. That is precisely why those weapons were developed under the Clinton administration and why their use would be "appropriate" given the right circumstances.
Iran knows that we are serious about this, and my guess is that they are unlikely to test our resolve while Bush remains in office. I also am quite sure, no matter who is elected to office in 2008 (given the presumption that no far left Democrat has any chance of being elected), that Iran will be very reluctant to test our resolve even after Bush leaves office in January 2009.
Bart said, "The UAE is a tiny country whose wealth is created through shipping trade through the Gulf. When you are a tiny country, you make nice with all the powers around you and Iran is definitely attempting to project power into the Gulf.
ReplyDeleteTo extend one of your favorite analogies, the Swiss also made nice with Nazi Germany. That relationship of necessity was not a stamp of approval for Nazis."
Bart is smart!
Btw, this is what I mean about what drives scientists crazy when creationists jump up and down about Merriam-Webster:
ReplyDeleteMain Entry: evo•lu•tion
Pronunciation: "ev-&-'lü-sh&n also "E-v&-
Function: noun
1 : a process of change in a certain direction "there has been much discussion as to … the possible evolution of benign adenomas into invasive carcinoma —Journal of the American Medical Association"
2 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) :PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations —evo•lu•tion•ari•ly /-sh&-"ner-&-lE/ adverb —evo•lu•tion•ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective
The relevant definition for purposes of science is 2(b), so the creationists all scream: “Theory! See that, it’s just a darn theory!”
Evolution, however, is also a fact. So say virtually all evolutionary biologists; the theories involve how it happened.
But the creationists love to run around and deny that evolution is a fact, cuz after all, the dictionary says it is just a theory, so there.
hypatia: interesting discussion on fascism. i've written elsewhere that it is the ur-ideology, if you will. i have written about this in terms of recent screeds among xto-fascists about race, culture, and religion. even the pope has backed statements that support this identification of religion with these vagaries of existence.
ReplyDeletein many ways, your analysis is off-target because it neglects the universalistic nature of even the islamic extremists' goals. given the non-tribalistic nature of the koran--unlike the hebrew bible, for example--belief is not associated to one place, one race or ethnicity, or nation.
anyway, i'd argue that most of history is filled with this type of religious fascism. indeed, if you go back to the sumerian and babylonian creation myths, you'll find the close connection between religion and state. both greece and rome had religion and politics intertwined in this way. you may be aware, for example, that early christians were called atheists--because they would not sacrifice to the state gods, thereby exhibiting their irreligiosity and treason to the state.
Funny also how our close friends in Qatar are pledging money to the Hamas government.
ReplyDeleteUsing "bunker buster" low-yield devices to destroy an Iranian offensive nuclear weapons program is not at all unacceptable under the present first-use doctrine. That is precisely why those weapons were developed under the Clinton administration and why their use would be "appropriate" given the right circumstances.
ReplyDeleteIran knows that we are serious about this, and my guess is that they are unlikely to test our resolve while Bush remains in office. I also am quite sure, no matter who is elected to office in 2008 (given the presumption that no far left Democrat has any chance of being elected), that Iran will be very reluctant to test our resolve even after Bush leaves office in January 2009.
To attack Iran with our current deployment in Iraq would be foolish. The Iranians are armed to the teeth with missles that could and undoubtably would inflict serious damage to our military capabilities in the region and worldwide.
To suggest a military option to the Iran/nuke question is not only foolish it is hypocritical in the extreme. If you had a neighbor with whom you feuded would you go over to his house and kill him if you heard he was intending to buy a gun? Well, perhaps you would, but certainly no sane person would even try to justify such an act.
I somewhat agree with your gerogelo attacking Iran would be the worst mistake America could make. It would turn out be a real nightmare. Best is thatr they stay away from Iran.
ReplyDeleteWell this explains everything. I was wondering why that one guy Ahjedpajamas goes around making those inciendery statements when the rulers are said to be quite rational.
ReplyDeleteTurns out Iran is best buds with the Saudis, one of the biggest players in the oil game, and both the Saudis, the Amnerican oil interests and Iran profit greatly if the oil prices go through the roof which they are doing.
Follow the $$$$$ seems to be what it is always about in the end. This ties all these pieces together.
Why do I think the neocons and AIPEC are also long oil futures? They all keep raking it in while idiots like us spin our wheels and try to figure out the political reasons behind everything.
There aren't any. It's the financial reasons behind everything that call all the shots.
Sad thing is when the public finally wakes up and buys oil futures, they'll all get together, say they have negotiated a settlement after shorting the oil futures the day before, and we're left locked in limit down oil futuress and lose all our money.
Sure helps to have inside knowledge when trading, which is probably the real reason people go into politics.
It's thundering outside. What could explain this? There must be Gods and they must be angry hence all that noise.. Hire a few caveman hacks to produce some documents to support this thesis and you've got yourself a religion, son.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if religious people have any idea how difficult it is for secular rational people to listen to all this talk about thunder?
Can we keep it out of the discussion?
I support anyone's right to believe anthing including Son of Sam's belief that a dog told him to go around killing people but I don't support either those killings or endless discussions spanning centuries about whether the dog was the true voice of God or not.
The Administrations's conduct and the role of the media in sanctioning it are the issues here. Not what causes thunder.
All of the current estimates are that it will be years before Iran is able to produce an A-bomb. The consequences of bombing Iran, or even more foolishly trying to invade them with troops we don't have, will be felt immediately.
ReplyDeleteIran while they currently do not have the ability to make the bomb do have the capability to make our lives infinitely more difficult in Iraq where we are already in trouble. They have the ability to motivate the OPEC nations to initiate another oil embargo against us after we have engaged in yet another warrantless aggressive attack against yet another sovereign nation that has done nothing to us. We are quickly becoming the rogue nation that we accuse others of being.
And why? Because someday Iran might develop the A bomb? In reality, in spite of their current presidents outrageous statements, what are they going to do with the bomb once they have it? We have enough nukes to turn their whole country into a green glassine parking lot if they even thought about using one. Not that I am for them developing the bomb because I'm not. I'm just against any more foolish military adventures that do more harm than good. When and if the rest of the world is convinced that Iran poses a threat and is willing to join in action with us, then we should act, but not until. Europe and Iran's Arab neighbors are a lot closer to Iran and would be in much more danger than we will be. Remember the real coalition that George's father built in the first Iraq war? When we have that I will support taking action, not until.
Someone in an old thread suggested I repost some thoughts on Iran, preemptive strikes, nuclear weapons, and the like in the newer thread. Basically, I argue that the fallout from using earth-penetrating weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear program would kill millions of people (evidence here and here [for the latter, warning: long animation]), that a nuclear first strike to disable that program would be profoundly immoral, and that our belligerent foreign policy is more dangerous than Iran's. Not necessarily in that order.
ReplyDelete1
2
3